tempo - texas association for the gifted & talented › files › tempo › 2005 ›...

• TAGTAdministratorsAwarenessCertification• TheRolesofTestingandMeasurementinGiftedEducation• AheadoftheGame:AChild’sTriumph• AConstitutionalPosition:HispanicGiftedStudents• WhattheResearchSays…• 2005LegacyBookAwardFinalists

AnnualConferenceIssue

TEMPOTexas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Member, National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

Fall2005•VolumeXXV,Issue4

2 Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


�Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


TEMPOFall 2005 • Volume XXV, Issue 4

TEMPOEdITORDr. Jennifer L. Jolly

PRESIdEnTBobbie Wedgeworth

PRESIdEnT-ELECTRaymond F. “Rick” Peters

FIRSTVICE-PRESIdEnTSheri Plybon

SECOndVICE-PRESIdEnTPatti Staples

THIRdVICE-PRESIdEnTJoanna Baleson

SECRETARy/TREASuRERDr. Keith Yost

IMMEdIATEPAST-PRESIdEnTJudy Bridges

EXECuTIVEdIRECTORDianne Hughes

The Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT) is a nonprofit organization of parents and professionals promoting appropriate education for gifted and talented students in the state of Texas.

TAGT Tempo is the official journal of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented. It is published four times a year in January, April, July, and October. The subscription is a benefit for TAGT members. Annual dues are $35–$55.

Material appearing in Tempo may be reprinted unless otherwise noted. When copying an article please cite Tempo and TAGT as the source. We appreciate copies of publications containing Tempo reprints.

TAGT does not sell its membership list to advertisers or other parties. However, membership names and addresses are made available for approved research requests. If you do not wish your name to be made available for G/T-related research, please write to TAGT at the address below.

Address correspondence concerning the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (including subscription questions) to TAGT, 406 East 11th Street, Suite 310, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617. Call TAGT at 512/ 499-8248, FAX 512/499-8264.

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED: Please notify TAGT if you are moving or if your mailing address has changed. TAGT publications are sent via third-class mail and are not forwarded by the Post Office. Be sure to renew your membership. You will not receive TAGT publications or mailings after your membership expiration date.

OpiniOns expressed by individual authOrs dO nOt necessarily represent Official pOsitiOns Of taGt.

FromthePresident Bobbie Wedgeworth

Executivedirector’supdate Dianne Hughes

TAGTAdministratorAwarenessCertificate:AnOnlineAlternative

Christina T. Dearman and Michael F. Sayler

TheRolesofTestingandMeasurementinGiftedEducation

Herold Poelzer

AheadoftheGame:AChild’sTriumph

Darby MacKaron

2005LegacyBookAwardFinalists

AConstitutionalPosition:HispanicGiftedStudents

Ana Maria Perez-Gabriel, Rafael Lara-Alecio, and Beverly J. Irby

WhatdoestheResearchSayAbouttheBrainandGiftedEducation?

Susan K. Johnsen and Alexandra Shiu

FromtheEditor Jennifer L. Jolly

5

6

8

10

14

16

20

26

��

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented 28th Annual Professional Development Conference

for Educators and Parents

Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center San Antonio, Texas

November 2-5, 2005

Marvel of the Mind

Pre-Conference Institutes on important topical issues 300+ breakout sessions, featuring many nationally-known presentersCutting-edge strategies and research for challenging today’s gifted youth Exciting keynote speakers *Dr. Carol Tomlinson, former Virginia Teacher of the Year, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Virginia *Jason Dorsey, gifted young entrepreneur, author, and speaker The Legacy Book™ Awards, honoring the best in gifted education literature175+ exhibit booths featuring gifted educational products and books Family Day on Saturday with special sessions for parents and children

Online registration, hotel reservations, and information are available at

www.txgifted.org



5Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


Ahead of her time! That’s what I now believe about a young teacher colleague of mine in the late 1970s who believed, based on research she had done, that she and her husband could enrich their unborn child’s mind by reading aloud every night during her pregnancy.

After their daughter Natalie was born, I was invited to their home to see her. As I walked through the front door of their home, I was amazed to see more than one new addition to their living room.

Large printed signs marked larger pieces in the previously immaculate room: door, table, chair, fireplace, television, rug, window, etc. Smaller signs were taped to decorative smaller ac-cessories: lamp, book, vase, plant, candle, picture, etc. In addition to that, the signs were printed not only in English, but also in Spanish.

This was the first time I had directly observed a parental attempt to purposefully stimulate the mind of a child through a multisensory, bilingual approach, both pre- and postnatal. It made a big impression on me, and I watched Natalie’s intellectual development with great interest. She became a very early pre-school reader, and began taking piano and ballet lessons.

At the time my family moved away, 6-year-old Natalie was a brilliant conversationalist and an outstanding academic, music, and ballet student. Her 2-year-old brother was following the same mind stimulation regimen as his sister before him.

The human mind possesses unlimited potential for learning and creativity. Ninety-five percent of what we know about the capabilities of the human brain has been learned in the last 30 years.

In a recent statistical study of IQ published in the journal, Nature, Bernard Devlin concluded that genes account for ap-proximately 48% of IQ. Fifty-two percent is a function of prenatal care, environment, and education.

The phenomenon of the mind is marvelous beyond belief. Did you know that your brain: • is unique? Of the 6 billion people alive today, and the more

than 90 billion people who have lived, there has never been, unless you have an identical twin, another like you.

• is more flexible and multifunctional than any supercom-puter?

• can learn seven facts per second, with unlimited memory capability?

• is not just in your head? According to neuroscientist Dr. Candace Pert, “ . . . intelligence is located not only in your brain, but in cells distributed throughout the body . . .”

• is capable of making a virtually unlimited number of synaptic connections or potential patterns of thought?

• will improve with age if you use it properly?

• only uses, on the average, 1% of its total potential?No man or woman who ever lived has fully explored the ca-

pabilities of the mind. Leonardo Da Vinci is considered by many to be the greatest genius who every lived, exploring his mind and environment in much greater depth than any other individual. When he spoke of the marvel of the human mind, he mused: “The knowledge of all things is possible.”

I invite you to truly appreciate and cultivate the marvel of your mind and that of your children. You can begin by attending the 28th TAGT Annual Professional Development Conference for Educators and Parents November 2–5 entitled “Marvel of the Mind” at the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center in San Antonio. Ours is the largest conference of its kind in the nation. Special Family Day sessions are planned for November 5. Find out more in this conference issue of Tempo, or go to http://www.txgifted.org to obtain registration information.

COnTRIBuTInGAuTHORS

frOm the presidentby Bobbie Wedgeworth

TAGTAdministratorsAwarenessCertificate:AnOnlineAlternative

Christina T. Dearman, M. Ed., is a doctoral student and coordinator for the Office of Gifted Education in the Department of Technology and Cognition at the University of North Texas. Her re-search interests include curriculum strategies for the gifted learner, professional development for educa-tors of the gifted, and distance education.

Michael Sayler, Ph.D., is director of gifted education at the University of North Texas (UNT). He is an associate professor in the Department of Technology and Cognition and is Associate Dean for the College of Education. He serves on the placement committee for the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science (TAMS) at UNT. Dr. Sayler has served in leadership positions for many national and state gifted education groups.

TheRolesofTestingandMeasurementinGiftedEducationG. Herold Poelzer, Ph.D., is an associate pro-

fessor in the Department of Educational Psychology and coordinator of the Gifted Education Program at the University of Texas–Pan American. He has been active in the field of gifted education for 25 years as a teacher, a coordinator, and professor. His current research interest is directed toward developing valid methods and instruments for screening and identify-ing gifted minority students. He can be reached at [email protected].

AheadoftheGame:AChild’sTriumphDarby MacKaron, M.S., is principal of John J.

Ciavarra Elementary School in Devine, TX, and a trainer in strategies to promote English language acquisition. As a former ESL teacher and graduate of Schreiner

University, she has written a series of articles reflecting on her experiences with second language learners. She can be reached at [email protected].

AConstitutionalPosition:HispanicGiftedStudentsAna Maria Perez Gabriel, Ph.D., is assistant

professor of bilingual education at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin. She has an interdisci-plinary professional background, with a Master of Comparative Jurisprudence from the University of Texas at Austin, a M.S. in criminal justice from Texas A&M International University, and a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction from Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. She received a law degree from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Her research focuses on equity issues related to gifted/talented Hispanic Limited English Proficient students from the constitutional law and the international law paradigms. She can be reached at [email protected].

Rafael Lara-Alecio, Ph.D., is professor and director of the bilingual programs in the Department of Educational Psychology at the College of Education and Human Development at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. His research is focused on program assessment/evaluation and methodologies for Hispanic/Latino students and their parents. He has codeveloped the Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument and has published in the field of bilingual gifted education. He can be reached at [email protected].

Beverly J. Irby, Ph.D., is professor and chair of the Department of Education Leadership and Counseling at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, TX. Her research focuses on social justice issues related to bilingual and English as a second language teachers and administra-

tors within the school context. She has codevel-oped the Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument and has published in the field of bilingual gifted education. She can be reached at [email protected].

WhattheResearchSaysAbouttheBrainandGiftedEducationSusan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is a professor in the

Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She directs the Ph.D. program and pro-grams related to gifted and talented education. She is past-president of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented. She has written over 100 articles, monographs, technical reports, and books related to gifted education. She is a frequent presenter at international, national, and state conferences. She is editor of Gifted Child Today and serves on the editorial boards of Gifted Child Quarterly and Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. She is the author of Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide and coauthor of the Independent Study Program and three tests that are used in identify-ing gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-3), and Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES-2). She can be reached at [email protected].

Alexandra Shiu, M.S., received degrees in economics from Baylor University. Currently, she is a doctoral student and a graduate assistant in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. Her research interests include behavior theory, gifted minority students from lower SES backgrounds, and social capital. She can be reached at [email protected].

WHEN: February 10-11, 2006WHERE: Red Lion’s Hotel, Austin WHO WILL BE THERE:

Friday, February 10, 2006—Mary Beth Tinker of Tinker vs. Des Moines Saturday, February 11, 2006—Dr. John P. Kiminski,

Department of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison Registration Fee: $60; Register at the LFEI website, www.texaslre.org

STATE BAR OF TEXAS

LAW-RELATED EDUCATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE



executive directOr’s updateby Dianne Hughes

excel, v.—to be superior to; surpass; outdo

exceptional, adj.—uncommon; extraordinary

excellence, n.—condition of excelling; exceptionally good, superb

It is interesting that from the root of ac-tion, movement toward a qualified condition occurs with these three words.

These are words that I have valued over the years, but they also are words that have been overused to the point of becoming ab-stractions when establishing distinguishable goals. With that thought in mind, how should I convey a (my) vision to you?

When I was interviewed for the position of Executive Director, I was asked to express my vision for the organization. While it is natural for a chief staff officer to have a vision about his or her role and the goals he or she wants to accomplish, those goals may be modi-fied after actual time on the job. Consequently, I am more comfortable focusing on an organi-zational vision that encompasses the collective work of all stakeholders purposely grounded in the common self-interest that brings us all together as an “association.”

Personal or organizational visions must be rooted in the core values of those who for-mulate them in order to come to fulfillment. As an organization, if our collective values are vague or lack consensus, our efforts to fulfill a common vision may be impotent.

I am keenly reminded of this during the aftermath of the devastation of hurricane Katrina. In the midst of the destruction of the dreams of so many of our fellow Americans, there are pictures of a culture that is not grounded in a legacy of practiced, common values. We cannot assume that we share a common vision as a nation, people, or asso-ciation if there is no consensus as to the values that ground us for that vision.

I believe my role at TAGT is to fortify a solid foundation on which the collective vision of TAGT members, leadership, and staff may excel. Working together, we strive for excel-lence as TAGT develops programs, services,

and support of those who directly nurture the gifts and talents of Texas youth, whether par-ents, educators, or other interested individuals. Since its inception, TAGT has channeled its resources on the recognition and provision of educational opportunity for young people with exceptional capability; this includes gaining support for professional educators qualified for assuming such a challenging task.

As part of my vision, I recognize TAGT’s value as an advocate that should be the state’s premier resource for:• articulating the tools necessary for recog-

nizing gifted and talented young people and for identifying the structures and programs necessary to nurture the devel-opment of those gifts,

• synthesizing the best practices of success-ful educators of the gifted into curricula for training educators,

• providing tools to parents for develop-ing advocacy and support skills for their gifted and talented youth,

• expanding opportunities for underserved geographic locations and populations, and

• promoting mandatory certification for those who teach in gifted programs.TAGT has been actively involved in these

pursuits, and building on them toward the next qualitative level is important in our efforts to be the premier resource for G/T advocacy.

Often, in organizations as large as TAGT, the connection to members in a meaningful way can become obscured. As a result, it is es-sential to know and understand TAGT mem-bers in order to effectively address their needs and to earn their loyalty. This will allow for the building of diverse leadership and the fostering of a commitment to TAGT programs.

To provide better demographic informa-tion on our members, additional questions have been placed on the member application and renewal forms. We will use surveys, evalu-ations, direct dialogue, e-mail, and “smoke signals” if needed to solicit your involvement. I welcome your input and feedback regarding programs and services that could make a dif-ference in your work performance and profes-

sional development.In the fast-paced, electronically distract-

ing world in which we function, TAGT must be prepared to respond to and effectively manage change within the environments in which it ex-ists, whether political, economic, social, intel-lectual, or philosophical. The manner in which TAGT manages change will define it, as well as demonstrate the values that lie at its heart.

A clear understanding of TAGT’s values is essential for developing a clear and consis-tent identity for the entities with which TAGT interacts and seeks to influence. Although members may be passionate about G/T issues, the public at large and the business commu-nity specifically has little understanding of the purpose and role of TAGT. We are working on a plan for strengthening TAGT’s image and recognition that includes marketing, public/media relations, and fundraising. The goal is to distinguish TAGT for its G/T leadership both within and outside the education community to foster significant partnerships for the future with businesses and corporations.

Growing and deepening TAGT’s influ-ence calls us to be transparent and to lead by example. Leadership is active and, in turn, calls us to give of the resources available to us in the demonstration of our values. In that regard, we must personally commit to funding the growth of scholarships, research, and special projects in support of gifted and talented youth and educators.

While I have touched on the broader terms of a vision, the work in accomplishing the vision is implemented at the most rudi-mentary level in the allocation and manage-ment of resources. This is neither glamorous nor intellectually provocative. The quest for excellence is through disciplined processes and much practice. I bring to you a creative and ex-perienced perspective of organizational man-agement, but the most valuable asset I bring is a systematic and disciplined perseverance. To excel, we must be ready for the challenges and we must be well prepared to meet them.

�

�Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

AnnualConferenceIssueAnnualConferenceIssue


TAGTAdministratorAwarenessCertificate:AnOnlineAlternative

By Christina T. Dearman and Michael F. Sayler

Well-designed, well-presented, and systemic long-term staff development is essential to create and enhance success-ful programs for the gifted. Such training leads to appropriate identification, effective teaching, and better motivation of students towards school (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Reis & Westberg, 1994; Tomlinson, 1995). Appropriate staff development involves training for teachers, administrators, coun-selors, and any others involved with gifted programs. Administrators play a key role in successful gifted programs, but often have little systematic training in the understand-ing of gifted students or appropriate pro-gramming options for the various kinds of giftedness or talents.

An administrator’s awareness of the needs of the gifted population assists his or her understanding of the characteristics of giftedness manifested by the students in his or her school. Training allows administrators to understand and address any unmet needs of the gifted students in their school in light of current services provided. Decision mak-ing and developing sound policies based on empiric research is also aided through pro-fessional development.

To advance the necessary training of ad-ministrators in Texas, TAGT established its TAGT Administrator Awareness Certificate in 2001. This certificate encourages systemic quality professional development geared to the needs of administrators of programs as-sociated with gifted and talented students. Administrators include those individuals in a school or system that have leadership or guidance roles that are not instructional such as coordinators of gifted programs, principals, superintendents, or counselors. Individuals earn the TAGT Administrator Awareness Certificate through completion of a specifically designed sequence of train-ing topics. Training includes three hours of information on what gifted and talented students are like and how their characteris-tics affect and drive their related educational and psychological needs. They spend six hours learning about the various program options and designs for the gifted and why different arrangements make sense in dif-ferent schools. The training also includes three hours of information on specific legal and policy issues related to the gifted and talented. Finally, administrators apply six hours to self-selected topics related to gifted and talented education that best address the personal needs and interests of each admin-istrator.

Currently, there are a variety of quality opportunities for local, service center, or university-based teacher development and training, but few opportunities for admin-istrator training. Even when such training exists, it is often hard for administrators to commit to the time and travel needed to participate.

The Office of Gifted Education at the University of North Texas (UNT) has a long and successful history of online training of teachers in gifted education with over 1,000 participants from Texas, across the United States, and around the world who have taken at least one online class since 1999. The Office of Gifted Education at the University of North Texas and TAGT are developing a series of online staff-develop-ment training opportunities for administra-tors. Accessibility, convenience, and learner control are advantages cited for Web-based learning (Singh & Pan, 2004). Online educa-tion affords administrators great flexibility, allowing them to work around their profes-sional and personal schedules. Because the sessions are online, participants can choose to complete an entire one-hour session in one sitting or divide the session into shorter segments. Online education meets the need of those administrators living far from a local university or service center or whose local universities do not offer the desired courses (Knapczyk, Rodes, Marche, & Chapman, 1994; Land, 2002).

The first session of the new adminis-trator training provides an overview of the courses, provides guidance on how to take an online course, and allows the student to experience being a successful online learner. The next sessions address the initial six hours of administrator certification training:

Class 1: Characteristics of the Gifted

Class 2: Law and Policy in Gifted Education

Class 3: Theories and Models in Gifted Education

Class 4: Identification and Assessment in Gifted Education

Class 5: Program Options and Designs in Gifted Education

Class 6: Professional Staffing for Gifted Programming

Each of the six training sessions is ap-proximately an hour in length with a simple to use and interesting formatted reading and multimedia design. Lessons provide clear, concise, and current information and re-

search on giftedness and talent. Participants see and hear administrators, teachers, stu-dents, and others who share their expertise, experiences, and insights on topics such as potential problems and solutions related to scheduling gifted programs and students.

Courses on the remaining topics in the TAGT Administrator Awareness Certificate are under development so that administra-tors wanting to earn the TAGT certificate can complete it through the online sessions. Participants may also combine the online sessions with other TAGT-approved staff development opportunities, including many sessions offered at the annual TAGT confer-ence.

Individuals interested in exploring the online options for administrator training are encouraged to attend the session describing the UNT program at the fall 2005 TAGT conference. Additional information on the program is available online at http://www.coe.unt.edu/gifted/Admin.htm.

References

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 3, 115–123.

Knapczyk, D., Rodes, P., Marche, T., & Chapman, C. (1994). Improving staff de-velopment in rural communities using distance education and communication technology. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 13(20), 19–24.

Land, D. L. (2002, February). Experiencing the online environment. United States Distance Learning Journal 16(2). Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/ar-ticle05.html

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L. (1994). The im-pact of staff development on teachers’ ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 3, 127–135.

Sigh, P. & Pan, W. (2004). Online educa-tion: Lessons for administrators and instructors. College Student Journal, 2, 302–306.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differ-entiate instruction in middle school: One school’s journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77–78

11Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented10


Is it possible to imagine a time in the history of humanity in which tests did not exist in one form or another? I think not. Humans have always compared themselves to others, in physical stature, physical appearance, mental and physi-cal skills, leadership, loyalty, and the like, and in earlier times, the comparison was done primarily through the observation of performance. Performance tests are still used today, but now much comparison is done through the use of objectively scored tests. This article examines tests and mea-surement from the perspective of history, definitions, and uses in the screening and selection processes relevant to the educa-tion of the gifted.

Recorded history reveals that, as early as 2700 B.C., the Egyptians had developed a relatively complex method of measure-ment to build pyramids, and biblical ac-counts of Noah’s building of the Ark also indicate the use of measurement (Sax, 1980). In 2200 B.C., the Chinese employed formal testing methods to aid in choosing government officials, and by the 16th cen-tury either oral or written examinations were used in European universities. By the ninetenth century, formal examinations were administered in America by the Civil Service and institutions of learning. Also in America, Joseph Mayer Rice adminis-tered standardized tests in spelling and arithmetic in the late nineteenth century

(Popham, 2000). Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, Alfred Binet had developed a test to measure the educa-bility of street children in France (Clark, 2002). Binet’s scale led to Terman’s devel-opment of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale for individuals and the Army Alpha and Beta Tests for testing large numbers of individuals in World War I (Popham, 2000). Tests of almost anything imagin-able are now available in some format. Of particular interest to educators of gifted children in Texas and across the nation are those tests and measurements used in the screening and selection of children for gifted education programs.

Testing Terminology

It is important to understand the terminology used in the selection and screening process. Popham (2000) uses the terms educational assessment, mea-surement, and testing interchangeably, pointing out that each of these processes involves making inferences about stu-dents’ responses to artificially created or naturally occurring situations. Others, however, make finer distinctions. Salvia and Yesseldyke (1981), for example, view assessment (in a broad sense) as a process of observing student performance in light of the individual’s attributes and back-ground, and in light of the environment in which the performance was carried out.

Measurement, on the other hand is more narrowly defined. Although one can describe a phenomenon or observe the difference in attributes of persons, objects, or events (Hopkins, 1998), it be-comes measurement only when a number is assigned to the attributes, based on some rule (Sax, 1980). Winer, Brown, and Michels (1991) and Nunnally and Berstein (1994) include assigning either labels (clas-sifying) or numbers to attributes in their definitions of measurement. Measurement helps to prevent ambiguity in the percep-tion of distance.

In contrast to measurement, which quantifies attributes, “a test may be de-fined as a task or series of tasks used to obtain systematic observations presumed to be representative of educational or psychological traits or attributes” (Sax, 1980, p. 13). Depending on the purpose, tests can be norm-referenced or criterion referenced, objective or subjective, group or individual, power (untimed) or speeded (timed), performance or paper-and-pen-cil, teacher-made or standardized, or some combination of these classifications; for example, a standardized, norm-refer-enced, individual, power, paper and pencil (e.g. California Achievement Test and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills ). In addition, norms, reliability, validity, standard error of measurement, and standard error of difference are concepts associated with the use of tests.

The importance of being familiar with these concepts in testing and measurement is illustrated in the following example of the identification of gifted children. The procedure usually begins with a screening

process that employs less refined methods and instruments, such as teacher nomina-tions, behavioral rating scales, or group cognitive ability tests, to select a tentative pool from which children are selected for the gifted program using more refined instruments and a selection committee. The aim of the identification procedure is effectiveness and efficiency, where effec-tiveness refers to the percentage of gifted children within the group of children that were selected in the screening procedure (Borland, 1989; Clark, 2002; Pegnato & Birch, 1959).

The Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted and Talented Students (1996) states that a minimum of three criteria be used in the identification process, and that qualitative, as well as quantitative measures be used. This means that some combination of nominations, rating scales, portfolios, teacher’s grades, standardized achievement tests, and cognitive ability tests will be used.

Some schools use nominations for initial screening before any further test-ing is done to see if students qualify for a gifted program. Since this is a qualitative measure, one needs to examine the ef-fectiveness of this procedure. Recall that Binet in the early 20th century developed a quantitative measure to determine the educability of street children because the Ministry of Education in France was concerned that subjective measures would miss some of the children because of teacher bias (Clark, 2002). Pegnato and Birch (1959) found that teachers could identify 25% of those children who were classified as gifted on the basis of the indi-vidual Stanford-Binet IQ score. In Texas, a 30-clock-hour training period followed by 6-hour annual updates has been part of the training for teachers of the gifted chil-dren for nearly a decade. Although train-ing endeavors have improved teachers’ ability to more accurately identify gifted children subjectively through nomination, would the identification be more effective by use of an objectively scored instrument along with the subjective measure?

Cornforth (2002) conducted a study of elementary students in a West Texas school to see whether using an objective measure along with a subjective measure in the screening phase would increase the number of children who qualified for the further testing that occurs during the

identification phase. She compared the number of students identified for further testing using a nonverbal test of intel-ligence, the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM), with the number identi-fied using teacher and parent nomination. The participants were 105 fourth and fifth graders (49 boys, 56 girls; 63 fourth graders, 42 fifth graders). This sample represented 45% of approximately 240 students. It was a convenience sample in that only the students who received per-mission from their parents to participate were tested. Ethnically, 82 of the students were Hispanic, 18 Caucasian, 3 African American, and 2 Asian. In addition, 10 were from bilingual classrooms and 95 from monolingual classrooms.

The students were tested individually with no time restrictions (power test), in the regular classroom setting. Instructions were given in English for the monolingual classes and in English and Spanish in the bilingual classes. Scoring at the 95th per-centile on the SPM was the criterion used to qualify for further testing. Thirty-four of the 105 students qualified. Of these 34, 22 (13 fourth graders and 9 fifth graders) had never been nominated, and the re-maining 12 were already in the program for gifted. Of the 10 bilingual students, 7 qualified for further testing; none had ever been nominated by either teachers or parents. Cornforth (2002) concluded that only using nominations of students by parents and teachers in the screening pro-cess is a questionable method of screening and suggests that an objective measure be used as well. Further, she questioned why no bilingual students were nominated.

In addition to the student testing, 24 classroom teachers (K–5), who were responsible for screen students, com-pleted questionnaires. The return rate of questionnaires was 66%. Ninety percent of teachers were female, and 10% were male. Sixty percent were Hispanic, 35% Caucasian, and 5% other. Several teach-ers had been recognized for excellence in teaching. Seventy-five percent, or 18 of the 24 teachers, believed that an objective measure along with teacher and parent nominations would enhance the effective-ness and accuracy of screening; however, 5 teachers said they only wanted screening through parent and teacher nominations.

Cornforth’s (2002) study suggests that an objective measure, as well as a subjec-

The Roles of

By G. Herold Poelzer

Testing and Measurementin Gifted Education



1�Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


tive measure should be used in the initial screening procedure; however, a new study could extend this one by answering the following questions: What number of candidates are selected by nomination alone? By SPM alone? By both nomina-tion and SPM? That is, how well do these two methods correlate? And how many students in each of the previous catego-ries are eventually selected for the gifted program?

Subjective and Objective Measures

Screening by using both subjective and objective measures increases the prob-ability of including the gifted from among those who are underachieving, have lim-ited English proficiency, or have learning disabilities. Objective measures such as a group cognitive ability test or standard-ized achievement test may well detect the gifted who are underachieving, especially if they have not been detected subjectively by, for example, observing the ability to solve complex problems or by observing high levels of performance in projects of interest. Conforth’s (2002) study also showed that a nonverbal test of cognitive ability, in this case the SPM, is able to de-tect the gifted with limited English profi-ciency, and gifted students with learning disabilities can be identified by noting a discrepancy between the performance and verbal scores on an IQ test or by the increase in full IQ after the distractability subscale has been removed from scoring (Bireley, Languis, & Williamson, 1992; Conforth). Of course, gifted students with learning disabilities can also be discovered by observing that they perform better when given complex problems than when given simple problems (Bireley, 1995), that their oral communication is superior to their written communication or reading comprehension, or that they score poorly on timed (speeded) tests but well on un-timed (power) tests.

Thus, the use of both subjective and objective measures can increase the ef-fectiveness and efficiency of identifying gifted children through the screening and selection process, but each measure has its strengths and limitations.

For example, in using a subjective measure like portfolios, Popham (1999) points out that although the strength of

portfolio assessment is that it is more rep-resentative of what a student can actually do, evaluating a portfolio is prone to sev-eral weaknesses, particularly teacher bias. Teacher bias influences scoring of such measures: one teacher may be an “easy” grader while another, a “hard” grader, and a third, a “middle of the road” grader (avoiding high or low scoring). A further bias is the “halo effect” in which students who are favored by the teacher receive higher scores than those who are not. In summary, the reliability of the scoring is brought into question. Whether a student meets the criterion score depends to a large extent on who does the scoring. To counter these issues, scoring rubrics that consist of several criteria along with a scale for each criterion to increase reliability are recommended.

Subjective measures are not the only concern; objective measures have their strengths and limitations, as well. Consider, for example, norm-referenced tests, tests that are appropriate for mea-suring individual differences. Because their reference point is the mean score for the norming group, any individual score can be located by determining the number of standard deviations above or below the mean (this is an advantage over rating scales, which have arbitrary inter-vals). Nonetheless, when using the test, it is important to know who the members of the norming group are, because the group of students being assessed must be rep-resented in that norming group to make a meaningful comparison. For example, to see where a Hispanic student stands relative to national norms, the national norming sample must contain Hispanics from regions throughout the country. Local norms can be developed to compare individual scores relative to the mean of the local norming group.

One of the major concerns in the screening and selection processes is that the tests that one uses to measure attributes, psychological or otherwise, be valid. Is the test measuring what it is supposed to measure? Feldhusen, Asher, and Hoover (1984) note that there is little evidence of validity and reliability for subjective measures, such as locally developed rating scales, and that few published rating scales have adequate evidence of validity and reliability. When

using standardized tests such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (achievement) or the Cognitive Ability Test (aptitude), the test’s technical manual should be consulted for information regarding the norming group, test validity, and test reliability.

Validity and reliability are essential to selecting appropriate tests as a whole, and understanding the concept of stan-dard error of measurement (SEM) is paramount in interpreting individual test scores. Briefly, if it were possible for an in-dividual to retake a test an infinite number of times, the scores would arrange them-selves in the shape of the familiar bell-shaped curve commonly referred to as the normal distribution. The average of these scores is accepted as the true score, and the standard deviation of these scores is called the standard error of measurement. In practice, an individual’s true score is not known, but what is known is that there is a 68% chance that the boundary defined by one SEM above and below the observed score contains the true score. For example, suppose that the observed score of an in-dividual taking a group IQ test were 125 and the SEM were 9. In this case, there is a 68% chance that the true score lies somewhere between 134 and 116 (125 plus or minus 9). Now suppose, further, that this individual were being screened for the gifted program and that the cutoff score in the screening process were 130 on this particular test. Taking into account the SEM, this student’s true score may well reach or even exceed the cutoff score. So, eliminating this student from further test-ing on the basis of this test score alone is indefensible.

Summary

In summary, assessment, measure-ment, and tests are part of our lives and can be useful tools if used wisely. Becoming aware of and making decisions in light of the strengths and limitations of subjective and objective measures enhances the ef-fectiveness and efficiency of the screening and selecting process used in the educa-tion of the gifted. It is recommended that both subjective and objective measures be used in the screening, as well as in the se-lection process. Subjective measures often identify those students who do poorly on objective measures, while objective mea-sures find those students who are missed

due to teacher bias. To increase the effec-tiveness and efficiency of the screening and selecting processes ensure that one member of the screening committee is well versed in testing and measurement.

References

Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and imple-menting programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bireley, M. (1995). Crossover children: A sourcebook for helping children who are gifted and learning disabled (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: The Council of Exceptional Children.

Bireley, M., Languis, M., & Williamson, T. (1992). Psychological uniqueness: A new perspective on the learning disabled/gifted child. Roeper Review, 15, 101–107.

Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Cornforth, P. (2002). The effectiveness of teacher nomination as screening for identification of gifted and talented students. Unpublished manuscript, The University of Texas, Pan American.

Feldhusen, J. F., Asher, J. W., & Hoover, S. M. (1984). Problems in the identifica-tion of giftedness, talent, or ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 149–151.

Hopkins, K. D. (1998). Educational and psychological measurement and evalu-ation (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300-304.

Popham, W. J. (1999). Classroom assess-ment: What teachers need to know (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Popham, W. J. (2000). Modern educational measurement: Practical guidelines for educational leaders (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Salvia, J., & Yesseldyke, J. E. (1981). Assessment in special and remedial education (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sax, G. (1980). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Texas Education Agency, Division of Advanced Academic Services (1996). Texas state Plan for the education of gifted/talented students. Austin, TX: Author.

Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principals in ex-perimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ahead of the GameBy Darby MacKaron

I have the best job in the world—I teach young students who are learning English as their second language. Each day these children remind me that true joy comes from celebrating small successes. Their victories range from learning the pronunciation of a single letter to mak-ing a schoolwide presentation in English, and they readily share their glory with me. For some of these students, develop-ing fluency in a second language seems relatively simple. For most, however, the task can be daunting, and students may struggle for years before they speak or read with confidence. This was the case with Jaime.

Jaime was a serious, second grade child who had experienced the harsh realities of public education. School, as he knew it, was a place with standards. Teachers had expectations, and if you did not meet those expectations, you failed. Jaime’s aging, Spanish-speaking parents could not provide the academic support he needed; after repeating first grade, he had not learned to read, but he had learned that he was an 8-year-old failure. Fortunately for Jaime, all was not lost—he was about to meet someone who knew how to fix failures. Her name was Mrs. Dean, and she would be his second grade teacher.

Mrs. Dean was beginning her 26th year of teaching primary-age students. Her petite frame and quiet manner sometimes concealed her powerful teaching ability. Under her care, hundreds of students be-came expert readers and began to write stories of their own. She made games out of telling time and adding three-digit numbers, and students would write detailed descriptions of difficult math processes. But, even more importantly, students in Mrs. Dean’s class developed a sense of identity. Being truly fascinated by the personalities of her students, she encouraged them to think sophisticated thoughts that were beyond their years. Each student was important to her—years after they left her classroom, she could re-member where they sat, who their friends were, and what year they graduated from high school. Fortunately for Jaime, he was about to enter her “hall of fame.”

I met Jaime just shortly after he joined Mrs. Dean’s class. He and four of

his classmates studied with me each af-ternoon through an English as a Second Language pullout program. Jaime was a beautiful child who laughed and told jokes as we walked down the hallway to my room each day, and his eyes glistened as he told stories about his parents and their weekend trips to the zoo or the movies. During instruction and classroom discus-sions, Jaime participated with ease, until he began any type of independent prac-tice. Then his hand seemed to be frozen to his pencil. His face grew serious, and he would not write a single word without asking me how to spell it. Each day he asked me, “Am I doing good?”

My response was always the same, “Jaime, you’re doing a great job!” But some-how, he never seemed convinced. Finally, I asked him why he was so worried, and his response was heartbreaking.

“Mrs. MacKaron, I cannot fail. You know, I failed first grade, and I prom-ised my father I would not fail again. I promised him!” Quietly, I sat down by Jaime and helped him finish the story he was writing. When it was time to leave, I hugged him and promised him that he would not fail, but I knew it would take more than a hug to convince him.

That afternoon, I began a plan for his success: I would organize my instructional units according to the concepts students would be learning the following 6-weeks in Mrs. Dean’s class. This gave her English language learners an opportunity to de-velop background knowledge in a subject before she introduced it to the rest of the class—these ESL children became her class “experts.” By the time we reached mid-term, Jaime had developed an in-terest in words like photosynthesis and chlorophyll. Mrs. Dean and I encouraged him to share poems and chants with first grade students, and he brought stories of his success to my class each day.

As the weeks progressed, Jaime’s in-terest in the world around him began to blossom. He began to abandon his inhi-bitions, and signs of giftedness began to emerge. When I introduced new topics, he would suggest that we write a song about it. During journal time, he used the language patterns from familiar books to write his own stories. After he checked out his “limit” in the library, he would ask to borrow nonfiction readers from my classroom library.

When we returned from the semester

break, our students studied weather, and by this time, Jaime had become a leader. Now, he focused on demonstrations show-ing how clouds form, he and his buddies developed a set of movements to illustrate the water cycle, and the group made spe-cial posters to share with their classmates. After watching a video describing the formation of tornadoes, Jaime described a make-believe trip he was going to take inside a funnel cloud. He began reading lengthy books about storms, and made oral presentations to our ESL class. Mrs. Dean was about to introduce her weather unit, and Jaime was ready.

One afternoon, as I posted chil-dren’s work in the hallway, I felt someone tugging on my dress. It was Jaime, beam-ing with pride. As I bent down to greet him, he said, “Mrs. MacKaron, I’ve got it!”

“That’s great, Jaime!” I responded, “You’ve got it?”

“That’s right, Mrs. MacKaron, I’ve got it! You know, those weather words—the ones we learned about the water cycle—precipitation and evapora-tion and condensation and the others about the clouds. You remember—the ones we learned about the water cycle!”

“Yes!” I did know. “We are studying about the water

cycle in Mrs. Dean’s class now, and when she said those words, I knew what they were! I know about the weather—I’ve got it! Mrs. MacKaron, I’m ahead of the game!”

With those words, Jaime hugged me, turned, and ran back to Mrs. Dean’s class. Through tears, I watched him race along, thankful that he was right. Jaime was on a winning team—failure had be-come a thing of the past, and he was truly ahead of the game.

AnnualConferenceIssue AnnualConferenceIssue

I have the best job in the world—I teach young students who are learning English as their second language. Each day these children remind me that true joy comes from celebrat-ing small successes. Their victories range from learning the pronunciation of a single letter to making a schoolwide presentation in English, and they readily share their glory with me. For some of these students, developing fluency in a second language seems relatively simple. For most, however, the task can be daunting, and students may struggle for years before they speak or read with confidence. This was the case with Jaime.

Jaime was a serious, second grade child who had experienced the harsh realities of public education. School, as he knew it, was a place with standards. Teachers had expecta-tions, and if you did not meet those expecta-tions, you failed. Jaime’s aging, Spanish-speak-ing parents could not provide the academic support he needed; after repeating first grade, he had not learned to read, but he had learned that he was an 8-year-old failure. Fortunately for Jaime, all was not lost—he was about to meet someone who knew how to fix failures. Her name was Mrs. Dean, and she would be his second grade teacher.

Mrs. Dean was beginning her 26th year of teaching primary-age students. Her petite frame and quiet manner sometimes concealed her powerful teaching ability. Under her care, hundreds of students became expert readers and began to write stories of their own. She made games out of telling time and adding three-digit numbers, and students would write detailed descriptions of difficult math pro-cesses. But, even more importantly, students in Mrs. Dean’s class developed a sense of iden-tity. Being truly fascinated by the personalities of her students, she encouraged them to think sophisticated thoughts that were beyond their years. Each student was important to her—years after they left her classroom, she could remember where they sat, who their friends were, and what year they graduated from high school. Fortunately for Jaime, he was about to enter her “hall of fame.”

I met Jaime just shortly after he joined Mrs. Dean’s class. He and four of his class-mates studied with me each afternoon through an English as a Second Language pullout pro-gram. Jaime was a beautiful child who laughed and told jokes as we walked down the hallway to my room each day, and his eyes glistened as he told stories about his parents and their weekend trips to the zoo or the movies. During instruction and classroom discussions, Jaime participated with ease, until he began any type of independent practice. Then his hand seemed to be frozen to his pencil. His face grew serious, and he would not write a single word without asking me how to spell it. Each day he asked me, “Am I doing good?”

My response was always the same, “Jaime, you’re doing a great job!” But somehow, he never seemed convinced. Finally, I asked him why he was so worried, and his response was heartbreaking.

“Mrs. MacKaron, I cannot fail. You know, I failed first grade, and I promised my father I would not fail again. I promised him!” Quietly, I sat down by Jaime and helped him finish the story he was writing. When it was time to leave, I hugged him and promised him that he would not fail, but I knew it would take more than a hug to convince him.

That afternoon, I began a plan for his suc-cess: I would organize my instructional units according to the concepts students would be learning the following 6-weeks in Mrs. Dean’s class. This gave her English language learners an opportunity to develop background knowl-edge in a subject before she introduced it to the rest of the class—these ESL children became her class “experts.” By the time we reached mid-term, Jaime had developed an interest in words like photosynthesis and chlorophyll. Mrs. Dean and I encouraged him to share po-ems and chants with first grade students, and he brought stories of his success to my class each day.

As the weeks progressed, Jaime’s interest in the world around him began to blossom. He began to abandon his inhibitions, and signs of giftedness began to emerge. When I introduced

new topics, he would suggest that we write a song about it. During journal time, he used the language patterns from familiar books to write his own stories. After he checked out his “limit” in the library, he would ask to borrow nonfic-tion readers from my classroom library.

When we returned from the semester break, our students studied weather, and by this time, Jaime had become a leader. Now, he focused on demonstrations showing how clouds form, he and his buddies developed a set of movements to illustrate the water cycle, and the group made special posters to share with their classmates. After watching a video describing the formation of tornadoes, Jaime described a make-believe trip he was going to take inside a funnel cloud. He began reading lengthy books about storms, and made oral presentations to our ESL class. Mrs. Dean was about to introduce her weather unit, and Jaime was ready.

One afternoon, as I posted children’s work in the hallway, I felt someone tugging on my dress. It was Jaime, beaming with pride. As I bent down to greet him, he said, “Mrs. MacKaron, I’ve got it!”

“That’s great, Jaime!” I responded, “You’ve got it?”

“That’s right, Mrs. MacKaron, I’ve got it! You know, those weather words—the ones we learned about the water cycle—precipitation and evaporation and condensation and the others about the clouds. You remember—the ones we learned about the water cycle!”

“Yes!” I did know.“We are studying about the water cycle in

Mrs. Dean’s class now, and when she said those words, I knew what they were! I know about the weather—I’ve got it! Mrs. MacKaron, I’m ahead of the game!”

With those words, Jaime hugged me, turned, and ran back to Mrs. Dean’s class. Through tears, I watched him race along, thankful that he was right. Jaime was on a win-ning team—failure had become a thing of the past, and he was truly ahead of the game.

Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented 15

Ahead of the Game: A Child’s TriumphBy Darby MacKaron

Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented14





2005LegacyBookAwardFinalists

Genius Denied by Jan and Bob Davidson with Laura Vanderkam

Genius Denied (ISBN 0743254600) is an incisive diagnosis of a quiet crisis in our educational system. An impassioned call for reform, it is also a practical guidebook for parents and teachers that offers proven suggestions for making schools more responsive to the needs of gifted students, so we can all reap the rewards of their creativity in the decades to come.

With increasing global competition for talent and capital, our nation’s need for intelligent, creative people in all fields has never been greater. But for many of our most brilliant youngsters, school is a purgatory of boredom, behavioral problems, and lost opportunities. The Davidsons, founders of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, have worked with hundreds of highly gifted students over the past five years. In Genius Denied demolishing many of the common myths about gifted children, they document the extent of the damage with vivid stories of real children, parents, and schools. They provide a handbook for parents and teachers who recognize the problem but don’t know what to do about it. They outline specific steps that students, parents, educators, and policy makers can take to make the system work - or to work around the system - in order to identify gifted students and help them achieve their potential. For more information contact: Davidson Institute for Talent Development, 9665 Gateway Dr., Ste. B, Reno, NV 89521; (775) 852-3483; http://www.ditd.org.

Isabel and the Hungry Coyote by Keith Polette

A little girl on her way to Grandma’s house. A basket of goodies. A lurking scoundrel. Sound familiar? Yes, but this time, the Chihuahua Desert of the American southwest is the setting for a spiced-up retelling of the classic Little Red Riding Hood story. Spunky Isabel outwits the cunning coyote with self-reliance and daring. Fiery tamales and chili sauce are the villain’s downfall.

Illustrator Esther Szegedy uses the grainy texture of the desert sand to great advantage as her rough pencil sketches turn into picturesque pastels. Her deft use of water-soluble pastel crayons (Caran d’Ache®) on recycled paper bring the vivid purple, lush fuchsia and tranquil turquoise of the desert landscape into stunning focus and often into the comic arena. A fractured fairy tale of a crafty coyote and a clever little niña.

Isabel and the Hungry Coyote (ISBN 0-972497-30-7) also includes English text with intermittent Spanish words. For more information contact: Raven Tree Press, 200 S. Washington St., Ste. 306, Green Bay, WI 54301; (877) 256-0579; http://www.raventreepress.com.

Different Minds: Gifted Children with AD/HD, Asperger Syndrome, and Other Learning Deficits by Deirdre V. Lovecky

Through recognizing the different levels and kinds of giftedness, this book provides an insight into the challenges and benefits specific to gifted children with attention difficulties. Explaining why certain children are gifted and how gifted-ness is manifested, each chapter on a specific topic addresses the relevance for children with AD/HD and Asperger Syndrome. Lovecky guides parents and professionals through methods of diagnosis and advises on how best to nurture individual needs, positive behavior and relationships at home and at school.

Lovecky explores concepts such as asynchrony and the effects of such ‘uneven’ development on children, using case studies to illustrate emotional, intellectual, creative and social development. She also highlights the inadequate measures currently in place to assist parents and teachers and goes on to clearly define what is required to un-derstand and help these children so that their needs can be met more positively in the future. Different Minds (ISBN

1-85302-964-5), with its wealth of practical and background information, is essential reading for all those who live or work with gifted children with atten-tion difficulties. For more information contact: Jessica Kingsley Press, 400 Market St., Ste. 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106; (215) 922-1161; http://www.jkp.com.





Differentiation: Simplified, Realistic, and Effective by Bertie Kingore

Teachers want to differentiate. They certainly view it as important to their students, but they continue to experience frustration at the vastness of the task. Therefore, the focus of Differentiation: Simplified, Realistic, and Effective (ISBN 0-9716233-3-3) is to simplify the implementation of curriculum compacting, flexible grouping, learning centers (teacher- and student-developed), open-ended tasks, preassessment, product options, research and independent study, thinking and inquiry, students as producers, students’ self-assessments, and tiered instruction. Over 50 reproducible figures, specific aids, and examples are included to simplify the planning and preparation process of differentiated instruction. For more information contact: Professional Associates Publishing, PO Box 28056, Austin, TX 78755, (866) 335-1460; http://www.professionalas-sociatespublishing.com.

Becoming An Achiever Revised Expanded Edition by Carolyn Coil

The motivational student workbook explores six steps to achievement and success. Topics include building self confi-dence, goal setting, motivation, organizations skills, study skills, and learning to deal with “the system.” Becoming An Achiever (ISBN 1-931334-57-9) is appropriate for individual student use or as a classroom/guidance class text. For more information con-tact: Pieces of Learning, 1990 Market Rd., Marion, IL 62959; (800) 729-5137; http://www.piecesof learning.com.

Standards-Based Activities and Assessments for the Differentiated Classroom by Carolyn Coil

This teacher resource contains 49 content topics, all their completed sample activities, and criteria for assessing all the ac-tivities, in addition to planning strategies for differentiated in-struction. Content includes history, math, science, and language arts. Strategies include Tic-Tac-Toe Student Choice Activities, Individual Lesson Plans™ (ILPs), and Tiered Lessons. Bloom’s Taxonomy, the Multiple Intelligences, Learning Styles, and Learning Modalities are presented in the ILPs. Additionally, 30 Product Criteria Cards are provided (ISBN 1-931334-28-5). For more information contact: Pieces of Learning, 1990 Market Rd., Marion, IL 62959; (800) 729-5137; http://www.piecesof learning.com.

Gifted or Goof Off? Fact & Fiction of the Famous by Nancy Polette; Caricatures by John Steele

What do the life stories of these famous people tell us about persistence, perseverance, resolve, determination, achievement, accomplishment, victory, and success? Enjoy the humor of the caricatures – writers, entertainers, musicians, sports figures, inventors, scientists, presidents, and military and world leaders

and discover how life experiences influenced their successes. The “Gallery” of famous people is suitable for motivational bulletin boards (ISBN 1-931334-23-4); For more information contact: Pieces of Learning, 1990 Market Rd., Marion, IL 62959; (800) 729-5137; http://www.piecesof learning.com.

Grandparents’ Guide to Gifted Children by James T. Webb, Janet L. Gore, Frances A. Karnes, & A. Stephen McDaniel

Grandparents, with their greater life experience, will often realize, even before the parents, that a child is gifted, and that the child will need additional emotional and intellectual sustenance. Grandparents’ Guide to Gifted Children (ISBN 0-910707-65-0) includes early signs of giftedness, special needs of gifted children, areas of concern, unique roles of grandparents, building a bond with a grandchild, maximizing grandparent-ing, education plans, when a grandparent is the parent, and leaving a personal legacy. For more information contact: Great Potential Press, PO Box 5057, Scottsdale, AZ 85261; (877) 954-4200; http://www.giftedbooks.com.

Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults: ADD, Bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, Depression, and Other Disorders by James T. Webb, Edward R. Amend, Nadia Webb, Jean Goerss, Paul Beljan, & F. Rich Olenchak

Our brightest, most creative children and adults are often being misdiagnosed with behavioral and emotional disorders such as ADHD, Oppositional-Defiant Disorder, Bipolar, OCD, or Asperger’s. Many receive unneeded medication and inappropriate counseling as a result. Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults (ISBN 0-910707-64-2) includes characteristics of gifted children and adults, diagnoses most commonly given to gifted children and adults, traits of diagnoses incorrectly given to gifted children and adults, guidelines to avoid mislabeling gifted children, parent-child relationship prob-lems, issues for gifted adults, and advice for selecting a counselor or health care professional. For more information contact: Great Potential Press, PO Box 5057, Scottsdale, AZ 85261; (877) 954-4200; http://www.giftedbooks.com.


In today’s globalized and competi-tive economy there is a need identify and nurture gifted students and among these, Hispanic G/T LEP students should not be left out through underidentification and underservice. As Bernal (2000) noted, twenty-first century socioeconomic re-quirements “would force the United States to find and educate appropriately all of its most able learners” (p. 159).

The underrepresentation of gifted and talented (G/T) students among minority populations in the United States has been addressed as an equal protection under the law issue (Brown, 1995, 1997; Passow, 1986). This legal issue can be further pursued in Texas. During 2000–2001, Texas had a significant Hispanic student population, 40.6% (Texas Education Agency, 2001a) but a disproportionately low participation of Hispanics in G/T programs. Among the 1,646,508, 40.6% (Texas Education Agency, 2001a ) of the total student popu-lation, Hispanic students counted state-wide in the 2000–2001 academic year, only 91,896, or 5.5%, were being served in G/T programs as compared to 1,706,989 White students counted, or 42.0% of the total student population participating of whom 198,384, or 11.6%, students were in G/T programs, and of 108,422 Asian stu-dent count, 2.7% of the student population of whom 17,385, or 16.0%, students were in G/T programs (Texas Education Agency, Fall 2001; Texas Education Agency, 2001a). This discrepancy is more severe in the case of Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) students who numbered 507, 262 in the year 1997–98 (Macías, 2000) and 570,453 though 509,885 enrolled in the year 2000–2001 (Texas Education Agency, 2001a). Irby and Lara-Alecio (2002) found that in 1997 in 11 school districts in Texas, Hispanic LEP students in G/T programs ranged from 0.1% to 1.65%.

Hispanics have historically been underrepresented in G/T programs. In Texas, a state with a significant concen-tration of Hispanics, Hispanic students in G/T programs numbered 68,104, 1.7 % of 3,828,975 - the total student popula-tion in the year 1996–1997. Even as re-cently as 2000–2001, Hispanic students in gifted programs totaled 91,896 (Texas Education Agency, Enrollment in Texas Public Schools 2001–2002)—just 2.2% of 4,059,619—the total student population in 2000–2001 (Texas Education Agency,

Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented 21Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented20

AConstitutionalPosition:HispanicGiftedStudents

By Ana Maria Perez-Gabriel, Rafael Lara-Alecio, and Beverly J. Irby





2001) as compared to 8.4% of the state student population in G/T programs. The underrepresentation may be more severe (Castellano, 2002) for LEP students be-cause the literature rarely refers to them. Castellano alleged that when the topic of exclusion from G/T programs is consid-ered, ethnic minorities are referred to but rarely is there a citation to LEP students.

Equal Protection Under the Law

This underrepresentation merits revisiting the U.S. Constitutional para-digm of the Equal Protection Under the Law Clause, refocusing the issue through federal case law and its progeny related to equal educational opportunity for LEP students. Case law and its progeny are fur-ther grounded in two federal civil rights laws that establish the legal framework for serving LEP students: the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974). In addition, litigation can further ground a case bas-ing its allegations on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002. Particularly useful is arguing the applica-tion of the mandated Title III Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students (2002), whose Part A English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act specifically sets forth as a purpose to hold state educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools accountable not only for increas-ing LEP students’ English proficiency, but also their knowledge of core academic content (§ 3102 [8]).

Court Decisions

Presently, education is not enumer-ated in the U.S Constitution as a right. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that education “is not within the limited category of rights rec-ognized by this Court as guaranteed by the Constitution” (p. 29). The Court fur-ther decided that “It is not the province of the United States Supreme Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal pro-tection of the laws,” (p. 37) and that such

function is legislative and not judicial. With this statement, the highest Court hints that if education is ever to become a constitutional right it must be through legislative action. Justice Powell deliv-ered the opinion for the Court joined by Justices Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Rehnquist. Justices Brennan, Marshall, Douglas, and White rendered strong arguments in their dissenting opinions. Justice Brennan disagreed with what he called “the Court’s rather distressing assertion” (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973, p. 1312) that a right may be held fundamental for purposes of equal protection of the laws only when it is explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and that any classification affecting education must be subjected to strict judicial scru-tiny. However, the dissenting opinions in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez might well become the ma-jority vote in the future, given their strong arguments. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Douglas, regretted the position of the majority, which deviated from the U.S. historical commitment to equality of educational opportunity and admitted a system that deprives children of the op-portunity to reach their full potential. The latter argument might well be applied to G/T Hispanic students who are LEP and who are not being identified by the edu-cational system.

A lack of identification of Hispanic G/T LEP students, currently exists, which is tantamount to their exclusion from G/T programs;therefore, they are deprived of equal educational opportunity. This posi-tion is based on Texas law. Equal educa-tional opportunity played a major role in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Castañeda v. Pickard (1981). Plaintiffs in Castañeda legally challenged the school district’s programs under § 1703(f) of the Equal Education Opportunity Act (EEOA) (1974), which prohibits an educational agency from failing to take “appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs” (p. 1008). The Court further construed the follow-ing sections:

The general declaration of policy con-tained in § 1701 and § 1702 of the EEOA expresses Congress’ intent that the Act specify certain guarantees of equal oppor-

tunity and identify remedies for violations of these guarantees pursuant to its own powers under the fourteenth amendment without modifying or diminishing the au-thority of the courts to enforce the provi-sions of that amendment (p. 1008).

The foregoing holding is the law for the Fifth Circuit, and binding in Texas, as well as Mississippi and Louisiana.

However, presently there is no federal policy on gifted education. Hence, there is the need for a legal reform nationwide, specifically, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing education as a right of all children. Federal legislation on gifted education as a corollary to the Constitutional amendment would serve to litigate successfully the underrepre-sentation of Hispanic G/T LEP students in G/T programs.

Writing on educational policy and gifted linguistically diverse students, Irby and Lara-Alecio (2002) suggested that (a) there is a lack of a definitive policy that mandates services for the gifted linguisti-cally diverse, (b) these students become isolated as a result of unclear policies, and (c) there is a lack of clearly written policies in the area of certification of teachers who are both bilingual and gifted certified. Irby and Lara-Alecio’s (2002) conclusions sig-nal the consequences of a lack of federal legislation on gifted education, and most importantly, those conclusions point to the overriding issue of equal protection of the laws for a minority, the Hispanic G/T LEP students.

The literature is replete with infor-mation on the identification and educa-tion of G/T students in general, but it is scarce concerning Hispanic G/T LEP students in particular. Bernal (1974), Bernal and Reyna (1974), Carrasquillo (2000), Castellano (1998), Gonzalez and Riojas-Clark (1999), Irby and Lara-Alecio (1996), Lara-Alecio and Irby (2000), Lara-Alecio and Irby (1997), Lopez (2000), and Lozano-Rodríguez and Castellano (1999) are some of the few researchers who have specifically addressed the underrepresen-tation of Hispanic G/T LEP students in gifted programs.

Brown (1995, 1997) analyzed the underrepresentation of minorities in gifted programs as a constitutional is-sue. However, Brown’s approach did

not address heuristically the problem of Hispanic G/T LEP students to allow a better understanding of the local situa-tion in Texas. Furthermore, Brown (1995) did not address Texas Hispanic G/T LEP student population in the context of its U.S. Constitutional implications as to the rights of equal protection under the law. In Lau v. Nichols (1974) the Supreme Court decided that “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teach-ers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful educa-tion” (p. 566).

Presently, education is left to the state legislatures. Taking as a given that education is under local control, Adickes (2001) argued that “what protection of the laws a state will provide is left up to its legislature” (p. 65). This article presents the argument that even though educa-tion is a province of the states, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any limitation that the states might have in treating Hispanic G/T LEP students. This superseding effect on state legislation is grounded in the Supremacy Clause in the second paragraph of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which estab-lishes:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding (U. S. Constitution. art. VI, cl. 2).

In the Constitutional hierar-chy of laws, Texas legislation ruling the education of Hispanic G/T LEP students shall be bound by the supreme Law of the Land. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Castañeda v. Pickard (1981), a Texas case, that the responsibility of the federal court is threefold: (a) examine the evidence concerning the soundness of the educational theory or principles upon which the challenged program is based; (b) whether the programs and practices actually used by a school system are reasonably calculated to implement ef-fectively the educational theory adopted

by the school; and (c) the court’s inquiry must go into the appropriateness of the system’s actions.

We conclude in this study that identi-fying and serving Hispanic G/T LEP stu-dents is a conditio sine qua non of the dem-ocratic ideal advanced by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Legal heuristics directs Castañeda as advancing that the soundness of a theory would be an issue of evidence from expert opinions. We can assume that to support the defense of Hispanic LEP students in G/T programs educators will render expert testimony on how such students are being missed by G/T programs. Such failure in the educational system wrongs the very essence of liberty in a democratic society. The historic underrepresentation of Hispanic G/T LEP is tantamount to a denial of equality in education without which liberty cannot thrive. The Equal Protection Under the Law Clause finds its fulfillment in educationally serving all students, Hispanic G/T LEP students in-cluded. Otherwise, the proclaimed tenets of justice for all, Equal Protection Under The Law, and equity will soon become a mere questio de nomine.

References

Adickes, R. (2001). The United States Constitution and citizens’ rights. The interpretation and mis-interpreta-tion of the American Contract for Governance. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

Bernal, E. M. (2000). The quintessential features of gifted education as seen from a multicultural perspective. In G. B. Esquivel & J. C. Houtz (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness in cultur-ally diverse students (pp. 159–191). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Bernal, E. M., & Reyna, J. (1974). Analysis of giftedness in Mexican American children and design of a prototype identification instrument. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED090743)

Bernal, E. M. (1974). Gifted Mexican-American children: An ethnoscientific perspective. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED091411)

Brown, C. N. (1997). Gifted identification as a constitutional issue. Roeper Review, 19, 157–160.

Brown, C. N. (1995). The underrepresenta-tion of minority group children among those students identified for gifted and talented programs as an issue under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dissertation Abstracts International, AI-A56/11, 4348.

Carrasquillo, A. R. (2000). The culturally and linguistically diverse school population in the United States. In G. B. Esquivel & J. C. Houtz (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness in culturally diverse students (pp. 3–28). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d., 989 (S.D. Tex.1981), (5th Cir. 1981), aff’d, 781 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1986).

Castellano, J. A. (2002). Gifted educa-tion program options: Connections to English-language learners. In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Díaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguisti-cally diverse students (pp. 117–132). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Castellano, J. A. (1998). Identifying and assessing bilingual Hispanic students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423104).

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office (1965).

Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (July 1997). The 1994 and 1996 state of the states’ gifted and talented education reports. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES).

English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002). Title III Part A (2002).


Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. 20 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (1995).

Gonzalez, V. & Riojas-Clark, E. (1999). Folkloric and historical views of giftedness in language-minority chil-dren. In V. Gonzalez (Ed.), Language and cognitive development in second language learning: Educational implications for children and adults (pp. 1–18). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Irby, B. J. & Lara-Alecio, R. (2002). Educational policy and gifted/tal-ented, linguistically diverse students. In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Díaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Giftedness and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students (pp. 265–281). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Irby, B. J. & Lara-Alecio, R. (1996). Attributes of Hispanic gifted bilingual students as perceived by bilingual edu-cators in Texas. NYSABE Journal, 11, 119–142.

Kelsen, H. (1967, trans.). Pure theory of law. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Lara-Alecio, R., & Irby, B. J. (2000). Culturally/linguistically diverse gifted students. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (pp. 507–510). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lara-Alecio, R., & Irby, B. J. (1997). Identification of Hispanic, bilingual, gifted students. Tempo, 12(2), 20–25.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

López, E. C. (2000). Identifying gifted and creative linguistically and culturally diverse children. In G. B. Esquivel & J. C. Houtz (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness in culturally diverse stu-dents (pp. 83–101). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Lozano-Rodriguez, J. R., & Castellano, J. A. (1999). Assessing LEP migrant students for special education (Report No. EDO-RC-98-10). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425892)

Macías, R. F. (2000). Summary report of the survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services, 1997–98. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

No Child Left Behind Act (2001), Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.

Passow, A. H. (1986). Educational pro-grams for minority/disadvantaged gifted students. Paper prepared for pre-sentation in the Distinguished Lecture Series of the San Diego Unified School District, CA, February 6, 1986. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED268190)

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973).

Scalia, A. (1997). A matter of interpre-tation: Federal courts and the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Texas Education Agency. (2002). Count of Hispanic LEP gifted students for selected districts. Austin, TX: PEIMS Ad Hoc Reporting.

Texas Education Agency (2002a). 2000–2001: Number of Hispanic/LEP students for selected districts. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. Enrollment in Texas public schools 2001–02. Enrollment for instructional programs and special populations by ethnic-ity, Texas public schools, 2000–01. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/enroll-ment_2001-02.pdf

Continued on page 32

Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented24 Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented 25

WhatdoestheResearch

SayAbout

theBrainand

bySusanK.JohnsenandAlexandraShiu

Within the last decade, numerous books and conferences have been devoted to brain-based learning, brain-compatible learning, brain-based education, right and left brain learning, and other brain-related topics. When we recently searched the Web using the terms brain and learning, we found over 610 links. What research does support the relationship between the brain, learning, and gifted education? What is speculation and what is science?

This review examined articles that were published during the last 10 years in Gifted Education International, Gifted Child Quarterly, The Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, and Roeper Review. Because this examination found only 3 articles in these gifted journals, we also searched academic databases (e.g., Academic Search Premier [27 citations], Education Abstracts [5 citations], ERIC [83 citations], and Psych Info [137 cita-tions]) using the key words of brain and gifted. To be included, the purpose of the article needed to focus primarily on gifted students, brain research, and have K–12 educational implications. Articles were excluded if they did not appear in peer-reviewed journals, were descriptions of programs with no empirical support, or were postmortem studies. These selec-tion criteria identified 20 articles. Only 7 of the articles were based on empirical research methods. The majority were re-views of the literature or opinions about the relationship between cognitive neu-roscience (brain research) and cognitive psychology.

Of the 7 experimental studies, all used EEG alpha activity as a measure-ment instrument and examined the simi-larities and differences between gifted and average middle school and college students (Alexander, O’Boyle, & Benbow, 1996); between gifted and average college students during relaxation, problem solv-ing, and forming more abstract schemata (Jaušovec, 1996, 1997, 1998); between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average college students (Jaušovec, 2000); between precocious and average-ability male and female adolescents (O’Boyle, Benbow, & Alexander, 1995); and between math-ematically gifted adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students (Singh

& O’Boyle, 2004). These researchers re-ported that (a) gifted adolescents’ brain activity matches more closely college-age students’ brain activity as compared to av-erage students; (b) gifted college students showed less mental effort while solving problems than average college students; (c) intelligent and gifted individuals showed less mental activities and more cooperation between brain areas when solving closed problems as compared with average and creative individuals; (d) cre-ative and gifted individuals showed less mental activity when solving problems than intelligent and average participants; and (e) mathematically gifted male stu-dents exhibit enhanced right-hemisphere involvement and superior coordination between the hemispheres as compared to average-ability students.

Reviewing these experimental and other laboratory studies, some of these researchers concluded that (a) there are sensitive periods of learning that occur through adolescence, (b) synaptic growth occurs beginning in infancy and is fol-lowed by synaptic elimination, (c) brain maturation is a key determinant in the timing of cognitive development, (d) the brain operates in a coordinated fashion and does not operate in two separate hemispheres, (e) human synaptic densi-ties are not related to an enriched envi-ronment nor predictive of those in later life, (f) children process information differently than adults, (g) males process information differently than females, and (h) increased mylenization is linked to improved cognitive processing (Hall, 2005; Hansen & Monk, 2002; O’Boyle & Gill, 1998; Winner, 2000). Some of these researchers base their conclusions on dif-ferences that are revealed through a single task (e.g., males are superior to females at mentally rotating objects).

While in its infancy, some of these authors believe that cognitive neurosci-ence may be able to assist in early diag-nosis of special education needs, identify children whose brain responses occur at a more advanced state of maturity, com-pare effects of different kinds of educa-tion, and increase the understanding of individual differences in learning (Davis, 2004; Goswami, 2004; Henderson & Ebner, 1997). Several authors even make

a leap from these experimental studies to the classroom, recommending interdisci-plinary curricula, multisensory activities, concrete to abstract sequences, stimulat-ing environments, self-paced learning experiences, and classroom interventions that involve both hemispheres of the brain (Clark, 2001; O’Boyle & Gill, 1998; Sabatella, 1999).

Davis (2004) criticizes this leap by ar-guing that brain science cannot have the authority about learning that some seek to give it. Other researchers also argue that neuoscience does not provide enough evidence to infer skills and environments that promote synapse formation or how synaptic change affects learning (Bruer, 1997; Davis, 2004; Mayer, 1998; Stanovich, 1998). Bruer concludes,

[educators] should be wary of claims that neuroscience has much to tell us about education, particularly if those claims derive from the neuroscience and educa-tion argument . . . [that] attempts to link learning, particularly early childhood learning, with what neuroscience has discov-ered about neural development and synaptic change. . . . If we are looking for a basic science to help guide educational practice and policy, cognitive psychology is a much better bet (p. 15).

Mayer (1998) agrees, “knowing how the brain works is not the same as know-ing the best way to help students learn. Research is needed that informs both practice and theory” (p. 395). He suggests that more empirical research is needed to measure physiological correlates of aca-demic cognition, to analyze brain activity for the components of academic cogni-tion, and examine brain differences for people with known differences in cogni-tive processing while they are undertak-ing academic tasks.

Alexander, J. E., O’Boyle, M. W., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Developmentally advanced EEG alpha power in gifted male and female adolescents. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 23, 25–31.

GiftedEducation





This study investigated the question of whether the gifted adolescents’ brain activity differs from their average-ability peers. If so, does the gifted adolescents’ brain activity resemble that of college-age students? The gifted and average groups included 7th and 8th graders who were paid $5 for their participation. The gifted group was selected on the basis of SAT math and verbal performance as part of the Iowa State University program for gifted and talented youths. The college students were recruited from an under-graduate psychology class and rewarded with extra course credit. The college group’s mean age was 20.2. All three groups included 15 male and 15 female right-handed participants. After measur-ing baseline EEG, results indicated that gifted adolescents do more closely match the college-age students’ brain activity as compared with the average students. The findings suggest that gifted adolescents have developmentally advanced levels of brain organization or use of brain re-sources.

Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4–16.

This article addressed what Bruer calls the three-part neuroscience and education relationship: (a) starting in infancy, synaptic growth occurs that connects neurons in the brain and is fol-lowed by synaptic elimination, (b) there are experience-dependent critical periods in sensory and motor development, and (c) enriched environments (in rats) pro-mote new synapse formation. In examin-ing these relationships, Bruer first argues that knowledge of the synaptogenesis process has come from research primar-ily on monkeys and cats. Brain growth is a complex process with different types of neurons in the same region of the brain gaining and losing synapses at differing rates of speed. Human synapse growth occurs early in the visual cortex, but the frontal cortex synapse formation does not stabilize until mid- to late adolescence, dispelling a critical period of 0 to 3 years of age. Even the best measurements of

synapses per neuron give only approxima-tions as to what is truly happening in the brain. Synaptogenesis explains the initial emergence of skills and capabilities but not the changes of refinement of these skills and/or new learning after periods of rapid synapse formation and pruning stop. Second, while neuroscientists now know that critical periods for different functions such as vision and language generally coincide with synaptogenesis, these critical periods are now interpreted to be subtle or perhaps gradual changes in the plasticity of the brain. The dura-tion of each of three phases within a criti-cal period of the system depends on the specific function. Neuroscience does not provide educators with specific answers to what types of enrichments should be provided within learning environments. Third, neuroscience evidence does not support the claim that enriched environ-ments leading to synapse formation is a critical period phenomenon. Research on developing rats show that even adult rat brains form new synapses in response to new and varied experiences. This evi-

dence supports the plasticity of the brain and the ability to learn from experience throughout a lifetime. Not enough infor-mation is available to infer what skills and which environments will promote synapse formation. Because not enough evidence exists about how synaptic change affects learning, Bruer recommends research from cognitive psychology to understand observed behavior and to design better in-structional tools. While cognitive neuro-science can allow for a better understand-ing of the role that neural structures play in cognition, educators need to remain wary of brain-based educational policy.

Byrnes, J. P., & Fox, N. A. (1998). The educational relevance of research in cognitive neuroscience. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 297–342. The authors regard neuroscientific

findings as being “a provocative part of the total pattern of findings that have emerged from a variety of research meth-ods in cognitive science” (p. 32). Cognitive neuroscience has provided tools in which to develop models of student learning or motivation in areas including math, read-ing, memory, developmental processes, and attention. The authors contend that (a) theories of learning and motivation are only as useful as they are accurate; (b) theories should be consistent with knowl-edge of the brain, not only the behavior of experimental subjects; (c) educational psychologists should continue to use the jargon in the field of psychology but find translations for neuroscientific terms; (d) educational psychologists should uncover the elementary functions that make up higher-order academic skills to facilitate the emergence of accurate theories; and (e) the research supports that the brain is very complex and does not fit parsimoni-ous views of conception.

Clark, B. (2001). Some principles of brain research for challenging gifted learn-ers. Gifted Education International, 16, 4–10. This descriptive article provided rec-

ommendations for educators and parents of gifted students in light of brain re-search findings. Some recommendations included using (a) integrated interdisci-plinary curricula to stimulate dendritic branching, (b) multisensory activities

that engage all areas of the brain for op-timal retention, (c) sequenced concrete to abstract activities to stimulate the neural cell and produce a more powerful biochemical content for effective brain functioning, (d) a stimulating learning environment so that the flow of energy between glial cells becomes stronger and more frequent, and (e) self-paced learning experiences to increase synaptic exchange efficiency. Clark emphasized the impor-tance of keeping the brain challenged via differentiated curricula in order for high levels of intelligence to be actualized.

Davis, A. (2004). The credentials of brain-based learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38, 21–36.

The author discusses the current fashion for brain-based learning, in which value-laden claims about learning are grounded in neurophysiology. He ar-gues that brain science cannot have the authority about learning that some seek to give it. He discusses whether the claim that brain science is relevant to learning involves a category mistake. The contri-bution of brain science to the nature of learning is limited in principle. Brain science does possibly have potential to il-luminate specific learning disabilities.

Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 1–14.

Goswami emphasized the importance of using neuroscience to supplement edu-cational objectives. “Some popular beliefs about what brain science can actually deliver to education are quite unrealistic. Although current brain science technolo-gies offer exciting opportunities to educa-tionists, they complement rather than re-place traditional methods of educational enquiry” (p. 2). Cognitive neuroscience can possibly assist in the following ways: (a) early diagnosis of special educational needs, (b) the comparison of the effects of different kinds of educational input on learning, and (c) an increased understand-ing of individual differences in learning.

Hall, J. (2005). Neuroscience and educa-tion. Education Journal, 84, 27–29.

Hall provided a brief overview of brain-based learning and the currently

known implications. First, neuroscien-tists have “shied away” from referring to critical periods of development and are now calling them sensitive periods. These sensitive periods of learning are not only during early childhood and are not as critical as once believed. Second, research has not supported the lateraliza-tion of the two brain hemispheres. Third, Hall pointed out that there is no evidence of a link between a human’s enriched environment and synaptic densities nor is there support of relating synaptic den-sities in early life with those in later life. Hall wrote that the results of enriched environments only support the plasticity of the brain throughout one’s life.

Hansen, L., & Monk, M. (2002). Brain development, structuring and learn-ing of science education: Where are we now? A review of some recent research. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 343–356.

This article provided an overview of recent brain research and summarized the findings: (a) brain maturation occured at a later age than expected; (b) some evidence pointed to periods of rapid brain growth suggesting that brain maturation was a key determinant in the timing of cogni-tive development; (c) at the preoperational and operational levels, children processed stimuli differently and there were dif-ferences between adults and children; (d) some evidence pointed to a “second wave” of overproduction of synaptic con-nections that were influenced by experi-ence; (e) some evidence pointed to gender differences in the brain; and (f) increased mylenization was linked with improved cognitive processing. Hansen and Monk warned that the knowledge base that neu-roscience has provided is too weak right now for educational policymakers to use.

Henderson, L. M., & Ebner, F. F. (1997). The biological basis for early intervention with gifted children. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3&4), 59–80. This article provided an overview of

imaging technologies and brain develop-ment starting from conception. Imaging technologies include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomog-raphy (PET), and electroencephalograph (EEG). “Imaging technologies document





differences in the brains of gifted adults and adolescents compared to typically developing persons” (p. 59). The author hypothesized that the EEG may one day be able to identify children whose brain responses occur at a more advanced state of maturity. The authors suggested that the critical period of 1–3 years may come earlier for gifted children. If these differ-ences have their roots in the rate of early development, then early intervention for gifted children is important.

Jaušovec, N. (1996). Differences in EEG alpha activity related to giftedness. Intelligence, 23, 159–173.

This article investigated differences in EEG alpha activity between gifted and average individuals (aged 17–19 years). In the first experiment, EEG during 2 relax-ation phases (eyes closed and eyes open) was recorded. Gifted subjects showed higher EEG alpha power only while rest-ing with eyes open. In Experiment 2, sub-jects solved two problems that were di-vided into phases of problem solving and preparing for problem solving. Significant differences were obtained only for the problem-solving stages. Gifted subjects showed higher alpha power (less mental effort) while solving the two problems. Experiment 3 investigated whether the lower mental activity displayed by gifted subjects was related to their ability to form more abstract schemata. For that purpose, EEG was recorded while subjects memorized lists of words and pictures that either allowed, or did not allow, for classification into more abstract catego-ries. For both types of lists, gifted subjects displayed higher alpha power. The results confirm the hypothesis that the higher EEG alpha power during information processing displayed by gifted individu-als may derive from the nonuse of many brain areas not required for the problem at hand (PsycINFOR Database Record).

Jaušovec, N. (1997). Differences in EEG alpha activity between gifted and non-identified individuals: Insights into problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 26–32.

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in electroencepha-lography (EEG) alpha activity between

gifted and nonidentified Slovenian stu-dents while solving problems. The gifted sample included 3 men and 14 women with WISC scores of 130 or above. The nonidentified sample also included 3 men and 14 women. All participants were be-tween 18 and 19 years old and were right-handed. The measures included an asym-metry index in hemispheric activity and the overall difference between a relaxed mental state and when solving four dif-ferent problems. An analysis of variance for repeated measures showed that when relaxed, gifted students showed greater activation in the left hemisphere as com-pared with nonidentified students. When exploring the problem, gifted students showed greater overall hemispheric activ-ity. When involved in the actual problem solving, gifted students had lower levels of activation, which may indicate the ability to structure and reduce the complexity of problems as compared to the nonidenti-fied students.

Jaušovec, N. (1998). Are gifted individuals less chaotic thinkers? Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 253–267.

The author investigated differences in EEG between 41 gifted and 44 average subjects in resting conditions and while solving different tasks. Subjects solved tasks representing processing speed, working memory, arithmetic operations, and proportional, deductive, and induc-tive reasoning. In resting conditions no significant differences between gifted and average subjects were observed. Gifted subjects during problem solving displayed less mental activity than did av-erage subjects. The differences were most pronounced over the frontal brain areas for the tasks involving working memory and arithmetic operations. Gifted sub-jects showed lower entropy, indicating less complex neural mass activity when solving tasks involving arithmetic op-erations and deductive reasoning. The results suggest that gifted individuals in comparison with average ones, more effi-ciently activated task-relevant brain areas (from PsycINFO Database Record).

Jaušovec, N. (2000). Differences in cogni-tive processes between gifted, intelli-gent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study. Intelligence, 28, 213–237.

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in brain activity among four different groups of young adults while solving problems. For the first experiment, the sample was com-prised of 49 right-handed student teach-ers enrolled in a psychology course. The WAIS and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) were used in order to separate the sample into four groups. There were 11 subjects in the gifted group (highly intelligent and highly creative), 11 subjects in the creative group (average intelligence and highly creative), 15 intelligent subjects (highly intelligent and average creativity), and 12 average subjects (average intelligence and average creativity). In the first experiment, sub-jects were instructed to solve problems with different complexity levels while electroencephalographic (EEG) activity was recorded through an ECI Electro-cap (Blom & Anneveldt, 1982). Vertical eye movements were also recorded via electrodes placed above and below the left eye. In the second experiment, the sample was comprised of 48 right-handed student teachers enrolled in a psychology course. There were 11 gifted subjects, 11 creative subjects, 12 intelligent subjects, and 14 average subjects. These subjects solved four creative problems that dealt with both convergent thinking, as well as divergent thinking. EEG activity was recorded in the same way as in the first experiment. The researchers used two General Linear Models for repeated mea-sures and ANOVA to find that intelligent and gifted individuals showed less mental activity and more cooperation between brain areas when solving closed problems as compared with the average and creative individuals. Also, creative and gifted in-dividuals showed less mental activity as compared with intelligent and average participants when solving creative prob-lems. Less mental activity was related to higher intelligence and/or higher creativ-ity, suggesting greater neural efficiency. Also, the neurological results suggested that intelligence and creativity are differ-ent abilities.

Mayer, R. E. (1998). Does the brain have a place in educational psychology? Educational Psychology Review, 10, 389–396.

Mayer affirmed that cognitive neu-roscientific findings are important for educational psychology. However, “the current influence of cognitive neurosci-ence on educational psychology seems to be negligible” (p. 391). He warned of the pitfalls of incorporating brain research in overly simplistic ways as was done with “right-brained” and “left-brained” people in the past. Mayer called for more empirical research to prove that informa-tion from brain research cannot be ac-quired via other methods and suggested (a) measuring physiological correlates of academic cognition, (b) analyzing brain activity for the components of academic cognition, and (c) examining brain differ-ences for people with known differences in cognitive processing while they are un-dertaking academic tasks. Mayer pointed out that “knowing how the brain works is not the same as knowing the best way to help students learn. Research is needed that informs both practice and theory” (p. 395).

O’Boyle, M. W., & Gill, H. S. (1998). On the relevance of research findings in cognitive neuroscience to educational practice. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 397–409.

O’Boyle and Gill supported the im-portance of cognitive psychology in the field of educational practice and provided an overview of findings for both brain dif-ferences between gifted and average stu-dents and differences between the sexes. Gifted students seem to show enhanced brain activation in the right cerebral hemisphere as compared with average students (e.g., gifted individuals were ac-curate with either ear in syllable discrimi-nation; selected more leftside smile/right-side face composites). The authors suggest that classroom interventions involving both hemispheres of the brain during the acquisition of any cognitive skill would benefit gifted students more than accel-eration. They also reported that men and women use different parts of the brain to complete the same verbal tasks. The male brain processes capacities more distinctly localized to the left or right hemispheres; the female brain is more bilateral and pro-cesses across the two hemispheres (e.g., EEG recordings were taken as males and females rotated circles, circles to arcs, and circles to rotated arcs conditions). O’Boyle

and Gill placed the burden on educational policymakers to determining how to im-plement these findings into educational practice. The authors reminded that no matter how interesting brain differences may be, “the fact is that they are not al-ways clearly and easily translatable into educational interventions” but neverthe-less important (p. 407).

O’Boyle, M. W., Benbow, C. P., & Alexander, J. E. (1995). Sex differ-ences, hemispheric laterality, and associated brain activity in the in-tellectually gifted. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 415–443.

Studies reviewed suggest that en-hanced development of the right cere-bral hemisphere may be associated with extreme intellectual giftedness. Also presented are data from EEG recordings of brain activity taken from 41 precocious and 37 average-ability male and female adolescents (aged 12–14 years) while they performed word-processing and chimeric face tasks. Results suggest that enhanced right-hemisphere involvement during basic information processing, as well as superior coordination and allocation of cortical resources within and between the hemispheres, are unique character-istics of the gifted brain. The evidence is especially compelling for precocious male adolescents as gifted and average-ability females tend to exhibit a somewhat more bilateral and diffuse state of functional brain organization (from PsycINFO Database Record).

Sabatella, M. L. P. (1999). Intelligence and giftedness: Changes in the struc-ture of the brain. Gifted Education International, 13, 226–237.

This article provided an overview of brain research of gifted individuals. Previous research stated that neuroglial and auxiliary cell production, increased dendritic branching and more efficient synaptic connections all provide a more efficient and effective neurological sys-tem. Appropriate stimulation causes biochemical enrichment that enhances complex thinking. Gifted individuals had more activity in the prefrontal cor-tex, allowing for insightful thinking and future planning. Sabatella asserted that

the expression of intelligence is an inter-action between genetics and the environ-ment. Therefore, stimulation and suitable learning experiences are needed in order for gifted individuals to reach their neu-rological potential.

Singh, H., & O’Boyle, M. W. (2004). Interhemispheric interaction during global-local processing in mathemati-cally gifted adolescents, average-abil-ity youth, and college students. Neuropsychology, 18, 371–377. This study examined the interaction

of the two hemispheres of the brain and investigated differences among math-ematically gifted adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students. The mathematically gifted group consisted of 18 students whose mean SAT math score was 620 and mean age was 13.7. The 18 average ability youth group had a mean age of 13.1 and did not report tak-ing advanced math classes or the SAT math exam. The 24 college students had a mean age of 20.3 and were selected from Iowa State University’s psychology department participant pool. All subjects were males and right-handed as assessed by a modified version of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 1973). The gifted and average groups were paid $7.50, while the college students earned extra course credit for their participation. Micro Experimental Laboratory software program (Schneider, 1988) was used to present the stimuli (pairs of hierarchi-cal letters), control exposure times, and collect participant responses. After 10 practice trials, hierarchical letters were presented one over the other for 160 ms to either the left or right visual field of the subjects, then one hierarchical letter was presented in both visual fields simul-taneously. Participants were to report whether the two figures matched or not. Using mean reaction times, the research-ers reported that the left and right brain hemispheres of the mathematically gifted youth are better at coordinating and pro-cessing information as compared with the other groups in this study.

�0 Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


�1Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


Stanovich, K. E. (1998). Cognitive neu-roscience and educational psychol-ogy: What season is it? Educational Psychology Review, 10, 419–426.

Stanovich agreed with Byrnes and Fox (1998) in that cognitive neuroscience can provide a way to “provide a check on vagueness” in theories of psychology, but questioned whether neurological and psy-chological terms are equivalent enough in terms of empirical specificity. He felt that the case for cognitive neuroscience being used for scientific reduction in education at the present moment is not a strong one.

Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 159– 169.

The author critiqued these issues:

giftedness is a product of training and practice; gifted children and savants had enhanced right-hemisphere development, concomitant language-related difficul-ties, and autoimmune disorders; gifted children were more intrinsically driven than average children; gifted children had particular social and emotional difficul-ties that set them apart form others; and uneven cognitive profiles of gifted chil-dren. In terms of brain development and differences, Winner reported that indirect evidence indicated that gifted children and savants had atypical brain organiza-tion. “Giftedness in mathematics, visual arts, and music is associated with superior visual-spatial abilities, and children with mathematical gifts show enhanced brain activity in their right hemisphere when asked to recognize faces, a task known to involve the right hemisphere,” and were

disproportionately non-right-handed (p. 161). She summarized other research by reporting that mathematically and musically gifted individuals had a more bilateral, symmetrical brain organization, that giftedness in spatial areas such as art, inventing, and music is accompanied by a disproportionate incidence of language-related learning disorders. Finally, Winner added that youths with very high IQs had an increased incidence of autoimmune problems. She concluded that “gifted children, child prodigies, and savants are not made from scratch but are born with unusual brains that enable rapid learning in a particular domain” (p. 161).

Texas Education Agency (2001a). Academic Excellence Indicator System, State Performance Report, 2000–2001. Retrieved January 30, 2002, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2001/state.html

Texas Education Agency (2001b). Texas public school statistics. Retrieved January 30, 2002, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/pocked/2001/panel3.html

Texas Education Agency (Fall 2001). Gifted students by ethnicity. Counts and percents. State totals. 1996–97 through 2000–2001, Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) Data. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (2000). 2000 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Report. Retrieved January 30, 2002, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2000/state.html

Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (2002). Language instruction for Limited English Proficient and immigrant students. Pub. L. 107-110 Part A.

Tribe, L. H. (1988). American constitutional law (2nd ed.). Mineola, NY: The Foundation Press.



frOm the editOrJennifer L. Jolly

“Piling up knowledge is as bad as pil-

ing up money. You have to begin some-

time to kick around what you know.”

Robert Frost

Forums to share knowledge and

ideas are import to every field in order

for progress to occur. Tempo is one such

forum for those in Texas gifted education,

including parents, classroom teachers, ad-

ministrators, and university professionals,

to engage in an exchange of ideas. In this

issue online professional development for

administrators, the constitutionality of

education as an equal opportunity for all

children, a teacher’s account of a student’s

triumph, an exploration of testing and

measurement in gifted education, and a

review of the literature on brain research

and gifted education represent a diverse

and rich resource from which we have to

draw in Texas gifted education.

The Texas Association for the Gifted

and Talented annual conference is yet

another forum for the exchange of ideas.

Through presentations, face-to-face meet-

ings, and informal networking the inter-

change of knowledge, strategies, ideas, and

research can be shared by those immersed

in the work of gifted education. The con-

ference is a reflection of the current issues

facing those in gifted education today.

In the twenty eight years since TAGT’s

first annual conference, the face of gifted

education has changed immensely. In

1977 the Texas Legislature passed the first

legislation in regards to gifted education.

Following on the heels of this legislation

in 1979, state funds were made available

to serve gifted students. However, services

were optional. In 1987, ten years after the

initial legislation, the Texas Legislature

mandated that gifted students were to be

identified and served across all grade lev-

els. The Texas State Plan for the education

of Gifted/Talented Students was adopted

in 1990, followed nearly a decade later

by adoption of the Texas Performance

Standards Project for Gifted and Talented

Students. One piece still missing is the re-

quirement for teachers of gifted students

to be certified by the state with a special-

ized supplemental certificate in gifted

education.

The changes mentioned above are

due in part to catalysts, such as TAGT

and its membership, working to advocate

for gifted students throughout the state. I

encourage everyone to attend this year’s

conference in San Antonio, as it is only

after we “kick around what [we] know”

can Texas gifted education maintain its

voice and value at a national level and to

the general education audience at-large.

AConstitutionalPositionContinued


Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented ��



�5Fall 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented Membership Application

See www.txgifted.org for additional informationName_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Mailing Address________________________________________City________________________________State____________Zip__________________Business/School District_________________________________ School________________________________________________ESC Region_________Telephone (home) ________ / ____________ (work) ________ / _____________ Fax __________ / _______________Email address:_________________________________________________

PLEASE CHECK ONE: THAT BEST APPLIES: Teacher Administrator/Coordinator Business/Community Member Counselor Parent School Board Member Student

______ BASIC MEMBER $35 BENEFITS: • TAGT Newsletter (online) • Perodic Email Updates • Reduced Fees at All Conferences______ FULL MEMBER $55RECEIVES BASIC BENEFITS, PLUS: • Tempo Quarterly Journal • Access to Members-only Section of Web site • Insights Annual Directory of Scholarships and Awards (available online or mailed upon request) • TAGT Pin with Annual Conference Attendance______ SCHOOL MEMBER $100 RECEIVES FULL BENEFITS, PLUS: • Two additional copies of Tempo and Insights, • Electronic overview Presentation of TAGT Scholarships and Awards (School must designate a primary contact person as the member to receive these benefits on behalf of the institution)______ BUSINESS MEMBER $100 RECEIVES FULL BENEFITS, PLUS: • Web link Posted to TAGT Web site • Preferential Marketing Opportunities throughout the Year_____ LIFETIME $400 (individuals only)RECEIVES FULL MEMBER BENEFITSFOR LIFE!

in addition to your regular Membership, you are invited to join a TaGT division for a small additional fee.______ G/T Coordinators Division $10 ______ Dual Language Multicultural Division $10 ______ Research Division $10 BENEFITS: •Networking Opportunities Bi-annual Newsletters • Division Membership Directory

DOLLARS FOR SCHOLARS: Make a tax-deductible contribution to the TAGT Scholarship Program!___Friend ($5-24) ____Patron ($25-99) ____Benefactor ($100 or more)

TEXAS LEGACY ENDOWMENT: Support gifted learning needs for years to come!____Tutor ($50-99) ____Mentor ($100-499) ____Scholar ($500-999) ____Master ($1,000-4,999) ____Professor ($5,000-9,999) ____Savant ($10,000+) ____Other Amount ($_____________)

PARENT AFFILIATE GROUP MEMBERSHIP: ______Please contact me with more information on this group.

$_________ TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED Check/money Order #______________ *No purchase orders accepted. No refunds*

Signature:__________________________________________________________ *By applying for membership, you hereby authorize TAGT to inform you periodically via fax, email, or mail of news, updates, or other notices related to gifted education that TAGT dems pertinent to its Mission. Card Card Payments: Visa Master Card Discover American ExpressCard Number _______________________________________________________________________________________ Exp. Date __________________Card Holder Name ____________________________________________________________ Signature _________________________________________Cardholder Address ___________________________________________________________ City ______________________ State _______ Zip________

Return form and dues to: Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented, P. O. Box 200338, Houston, TX 77216-0338.

Tempo welcomes manuscripts from educators, parents, and other advocates of gifted education. Tempo is a juried publication, and manuscripts are evaluated by members of the editorial board and/or other reviewers.

Please keep the following in mind when submitting manuscripts:1. Manuscripts should be 5–12 pages on

an upcoming topic. 2. References should follow the APA style

as outlined in the fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.

3. Submit two copies of your typed, 12 pt. font, double-spaced manuscript. Use a 1 ½" margin on all sides. One copy of the manuscript must be submitted electronically to the editor.

4. In addition to a title page, a cover page must be attached that includes the author’s name, title, school and program affiliation, home and work address, e-mail address, phone numbers, and fax number.

5. Place tables, figures, illustrations, and photographs on separate pages. Illustrations must be in black ink on white paper. Photographs must be glossy prints, either black and white or color, or transparencies. Each should have a title.

6. Authors of accepted manuscripts must transfer copyright to Tempo, which holds copyright to all articles and reviews.

GuidelinesforArticleSubmissions Special Pre-Conference Institutes at TAGT’s Annual Professional Development Conference

for Educators and Parents

Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center San Antonio, Texas

Wednesday, November 2, 2005

Jason Dorsey, Improving Student Achievement by Developing School CultureLed by Jason Dorsey, with special appearances by former UT football coach Fred Akers, Dan Akers, Brad Duggan, and Denise Villa, this institute will demonstrate how to create change in your school. This session is for superintendents, principals, administrators, and other school leaders.

Fred Akers Brad Duggan Jason Dorsey Denise Villa Dan Akers

Our Diversity, Our Treasure: Connecting Worlds/Mundos UnidosLearn how a Dual Language Immersion Magnet Program helps identify gifted students from underrepresented groups and promotes academic excellence for all students. Recipients of a Javits Grant for research with this model program, these presenters from El Paso ISD include gifted specialists and a school principal.

Hands-On Science Secrets: How to Be An Amazing G/T Teacher Master science teacher and showman Steve Spangler leads an exciting hands-on session for science teachers, classroom teachers, and anyone who loves science, grades K-8. Participants receive a kit of science materials and an extensive handout full of activities and resources.

Tiered Instruction: Research and Practice Dr. Bertie Kingore, one of TAGT’s most popular presenters and an expert on curriculum differentiation, designed a practical system for providing challenging learning experiences at the many levels that students are individually capable of working. Find out how to implement this system at this practical and lively institute.

Visit www.txgifted.org for online registration, hotel reservations, and general information.

upcomingIssues:

Winter 2005-2006Advocacy for the Gifted: Education and Legal IssuesDeadline: November 1, 2005

Spring 2006Service/Delivery Models for Gifted ServicesDeadline: February 1, 2006

Jennifer L. Jolly, Ph.D., Tempo EditorTAGT406 E. 11th St, Suite 310Austin, TX [email protected]

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented406 East 11th Street, Suite 310Austin, Texas 78701-2617

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDAustin, Texas

Permit No. 941

President Bobbie Wedgeworth (281) 578-2710 4003 Sand Terrace Katy, TX 77450 [email protected]

President-Elect Raymond F. “Rick” Peters (817) 283-3739 Lockheed Martin 2104 Shady Brook Dr. Bedford, TX 76201 [email protected]

First Vice-President Sheri Plybon (972) 758-1384 2205 Parkhaven Dr. Plano, TX 75075 [email protected]

Second Vice-President Patti Staples (903) 737-7543 Paris ISD 1920 Clarksville Street Paris, TX 75460 [email protected]

Third Vice-President Joanna Baleson (281) 474-7904 C.P.I. Inc. P. O. Box 792 Seabrook, TX 77586 [email protected]

Secretary/Treasurer Dr. Keith Yost (713) 864-9544 2670 Shady Acres Landing Houston, TX 77008 [email protected]

Immediate Past President Judy Bridges (432) 689-1420 Midland ISD/Carver Center 1300 E. Wall Midland, TX 79701 [email protected]

Executive Director Dianne Hughes (512) 499-8248 TAGT 406 East 11th St., Suite 310 Austin, TX 78701-2617 [email protected]

I Patricia Rendon (956) 984-6237 Region I ESC 1900 West Schunior Edinburg, TX 78541 [email protected]

II Kathyron Humes (361) 362-6000, ext. 223 A.C. Jones High School 1902 N. Adams Beeville, TX 78102 [email protected]

III Alexandra Schoenemann (361) 293-3001 Yoakum ISD P.O. Box 797 Yoakum, TX 77995 [email protected]

IV Dr. Laura Mackay (281) 332-2259 Clear Creek ISD 2136 Lakewind Lane League City, TX 77573 [email protected]

V Maribeth Morris (409) 923-5418 ESC Region 5 2295 Delaware Beaumont, TX 77703 [email protected]

VI Linda Ward (936) 588-0509 Montgomery ISD 1404 Woodhaven Dr. Montgomery, TX 77316 [email protected]

VII Joe Stokes (903) 984-7347 Sabine ISD 2801 Chandler St. Kilgore, TX 75662 [email protected]

VIII Sandra Strom (903) 737-7400 Paris ISD 2400 Jefferson Rd. Paris, TX 75460 [email protected]

IX Chesta Owens (940) 696-1411 Wichita Falls ISD 4102 Ruskin Wichita Falls, TX 76309 [email protected]

X Ann Studdard (469) 633-6839 Frisco ISD 7159 Hickory Frisco, TX 75034 [email protected]

XI Robert Thompson (817)428-2269 TXU Electric 1020 Timber View Dr. Bedford, TX 76021-3330 [email protected]

XII Dr. Janis Fall (254) 501-2625 Killeen ISD 902 Rev. RA Abercrombie Dr. Killeen, TX 76543 [email protected]

XIII Michelle Swain (512) 464-5023 Round Rock ISD 1311 Round Rock Ave. Round Rock, TX 78681 [email protected]

XIV Dr. Cecelia Boswell (254) 893-2628 P. O. Box 316 De Leon, TX 76444 [email protected]

XV Mary Jane McKinney (325) 896-2479 Grammardog.com P.O. Box 299 Christoval, TX 76935 [email protected]

XVI Paula Coleman (806) 274-2014 Borger ISD 14 Adobe Creek Trail Borger, TX 79007 [email protected]

XVII Claire King (806) 766-2088 Lubbock ISD 7508 Albany Lubbock, TX 79424 [email protected]

XVIII Lynn Lynch (432) 561-4349 ESC 18 2811 LaForce Blvd Midland, TX 79711 [email protected]

XIX Sheryl Maxsom (915) 434-0548 Ysleta ISD 9600 Sims Dr. El Paso, TX 79925 [email protected]

XX Jose Laguna (210) 637-5684 7703 Rohrdanz Live Oak, TX 78233 [email protected]

Editorial BoardTempo Editor Dr. Jennifer L. Jolly (512) 300-2220 ext. 202 TAGT 406 East 11th St., Suite 310 Austin, TX 78701-2617 [email protected]

Editorial Board Members Karen Fitzgerald (713) 365-4820 Spring Branch ISD 10670 Hammerly Houston, TX 77043 [email protected] Tina Forester (936) 931-2182 Windswept Ranch, TWHBEA 13227 FM 362 Waller, TX 77484 [email protected]

Dr. Joyce E. Kyle Miller (972)613-7591 2600 Motley Drive Mesquite, Texas 75150 [email protected]

Dr. Gail Ryser 4906 Strass Dr. Austin, TX 78731 [email protected]

Dr. Mary Seay (830) 792-7266 Schreiner University 2100 Memorial Blvd. Kerrville, TX 78028 [email protected]

Terrie W. Turner (806) 935-4031 Dumas ISD PO Box 715 Dumas, TX 79029 [email protected]

texas assOciatiOn fOr the Gifted and talented2005 executive bOard

tempo - texas association for the gifted & talented › files › tempo › 2005 ›...

Documents