volume xxv, issue 3 tempo · identification of the gifted african american learner: an alternative...

• Placement Information Data: Unraveling the Mystery• Identifying Gifted African American Learners• The Relationship Between NCLB, TAKS, and the Gifted Learner • From a Parent’s Perspective• What the Research Says . . .

Testing and Measurement

TEMPOTexas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Member, National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

Volume XXV, Issue 3

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


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

for Educators and Parents

“Marvel of the Mind”Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center

San Antonio, Texas November 2-5, 2005

• Pre-Conference Institutes on important topical issues• 300+ breakout sessions, featuring many nationally-known presenters• Cutting-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 literature• 175+ 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

3Summer 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


TEMPOSummer 2005 • Volume XXV, Issue 3

TEMPO EDITORDr. Jennifer L. Jolly

PRESIDENTBobbie Wedgeworth

PRESIDENT-ELECTRaymond F. “Rick” Peters

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENTSheri Plybon

SECOND VICE-PRESIDENTPatti Staples

ThIRD VICE-PRESIDENTJoanna Baleson

SECRETARy/TREASURERDr. Keith Yost

IMMEDIATE PAST-PRESIDENTJudy Bridges

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORDianne 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.

From the President Bobbie Wedgeworth

Executive Director’s Update Tracy Weinberg

Placement Information Data: Unraveling the Mystery Gail R. Ryser

Identification of the Gifted African American Learner:

An Alternative Framework Joyce E. Kyle Miller

The Relationship Between NCLB, TAKS, and the Gifted Learner

Phil MacKaron

Book Reviews

A Gift From One Parent to Another Jeanine McGregor

What Does the Research Say About Tests and Measurement?

Susan K. Johnsen

From the Editor Jennifer L. Jolly

5

6

7

1�

17

19

�1

��

�9

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

for Educators and Parents

“Marvel of the Mind”Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center

San Antonio, Texas November 2-5, 2005

• Pre-Conference Institutes on important topical issues• 300+ breakout sessions, featuring many nationally-known presenters• Cutting-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 literature• 175+ 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



CONTRIBUTING AUThORSPlacement Information Data: Unraveling the Mystery

Gail R. Ryser, Ph.D., is an educational and statistical consultant. She is a member of the Professional Advisor Committee at PRO-ED Publishing Company and teaches at The University of Texas. She has written numer-ous peer reviewed articles, books, and tests, including Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS) and Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS). She resides in Austin, TX.

Identification of the Gifted African American Learner: An Alternative Framework

Dr. Joyce E. Kyle Miller, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Secondary and Higher Education at Texas A & M University–Commerce. She is based at the Texas A & M Metroplex Center in Mesquite. Dr. Miller has taught English and Spanish in various public schools in Texas and has been a faculty mem-ber at Texas A & M University–Commerce since receiving her doctorate from the University of North Texas. Dr. Miller devel-oped the gifted education program at A & M– Commerce and teaches the courses leading to the endorsement in gifted. She serves as ad-visor to graduate students pursuing master’s

and doctoral degrees in secondary and higher education. In addition, Dr. Miller directs the ACT-SO (Academic, Cultural, Technological, Scientific Olympics) program and the TAMU–Commerce Saturday workshops for gifted and talented middle school and high school students. Her research interests include gifted education, the gifted African American student, and differentiated curriculum and instruction.

The Relationship Between NCLB, TAKS, and the Gifted Learner

Phil MacKaron, M.A., an English depart-ment chair and writing curriculum coordinator for Ingram ISD, has over 19 years experience in education. He has a Texas principal certifi-cation and over 100 hours gifted and talented training and AP instruction. He has a strong concern for the needs of gifted and talented students and the challenge teachers face at-tempting to incorporate an enriched and chal-lenging curriculum in the face of standardized and TAKS centered curriculum.

A Gift From One Parent to AnotherJeanine McGregor is a parent, author,

teacher, and educational consultant. She will be presenting at the TAGT Conference

on November 5, 2005. She can be reached at [email protected].

What Does the Research Say About Tests and Measurement?

Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She directs the Ph.D. program and programs related to gifted and talented education. She is past-president of the Texas Association for the 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 iden-tifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-3), and Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES-2).

The ™

( ®) assesses your students’

verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning abilities.

Linking assessment results to instruction is easy with

the extensive support materials available

at www.cogat.com.

Early Identification

Early Intervention

Early Improvement

Excellent Gifted and Talented Screening Test www.cogat.com

MICHAEL WARDEast Texas & Tarrant CountyAssessment Consultant800.323.9540 ext. [email protected]

AL ESPARZASouthwest Texas & El Paso CountySenior Assessment Consultant800.323.9540 ext. [email protected]

EDDIE ORUMSoutheast Texas & Dallas CountySenior Assessment Consultant800.323.9540 ext. [email protected]

SCOTT DITTNERNorth & Panhandle TexasSenior Assessment Consultant800.323.9540 ext. [email protected]

measures cognitive processes linked to success in school

✦

✦

✦



frOm the presidentby Bobbie Wedgeworth

“how can my child be identified gifted in one district and not

in another?” This is an excellent question, asked by hundreds of parents in Texas every school year. The answer lies in each school district’s autonomy to establish a gifted program based on the requirements and guidance in The Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (Texas Education Agency, 1996). According to Section 29.123 of the Texas Education Code, this plan forms the basis of program accountability for state mandated services for gifted/talented students.

Probably the least understood aspect of gifted programming is how students are identified. Though many states mandate programs for gifted children, definitions of giftedness vary from state to state. One state offers a very simple one: “Any student who scores at or above the 97th percentile on a nationally normed test is considered gifted.” In Texas, we see a much broader definition in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 29. Educational Programs, Subchapter D. Education Programs for Gifted and Talented Students:

29.121 Definition In this subchapter, “gifted and talented

students” means a child or youth who performs or shows the potential for performing at a remarkable high level of accomplishment when compared to others of the same age, experience, or environment and who:• exhibits high performance capa-

bility in an intellectual, creative, or artistic area;

• possesses an unusual capacity for leadership; or

• excels in a specific academic field.

Now, all a district has to do is find these students. But how?

The answer lies in testing and assess-ment. In general, districts are looking for the top 3–5% of the population, though most districts serve more than 5%.

Assessment is the process of student evaluation to determine his or her need for service. The Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students re-quires that, “Instruments and procedures used to assess students for program service measure diverse abilities and intelligences and provide students an opportunity to demonstrate their talents and strengths.” Obviously, informed and thoughtful deci-sions regarding the selection of appropri-ate instruments and procedures play a vital role in this process. Texas school districts are autonomous in deciding which of the areas of giftedness they’ll serve, and which tests and other measures they’ll employ to assess and identify students for program placement.

As you can see, it’s not a “one-size-fits- all” proposition across the state. Should the state of Texas adopt a uniform system of serving gifted children and a standard state-wide assessment plan? This solution could solve a lot of problems, but would it create even bigger ones?

Districts have varying student populations, resources (both human and material), funding, facilities, learning configurations, learning and teaching philosophies, belief systems, etc. Is it best to require that every district conform to a specific measurement and testing program for assessment? Would it work in every district in Texas, both large and small (and everything in between)? The resounding answer to that question from superintendents and school boards across the state, as well as the Texas Education Agency and the Legislature, is “NO!”

The autonomy of each of the state’s 1,037 school districts ensures each one the freedom to “tailor-make” gifted programs, including student assessment plans that will work well with all the variances that make each district unique.

Section 1 of The Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students deals with testing, measurement, and student assessment. Other pertinent

and frequently asked questions from par-ents about identification of students can be answered with compliance indicators from this section.

Q: Why do parents have to complete some sort of checklist or questionnaire in regard to G/T screening?

A: Districts must collect measures from multiple sources, like students, par-ents, and teachers.

Q: Why does my child have to take a standardized test to be identified? Can’t you just look at grades?

A: Districts must use a minimum of three criteria that include qualitative (nonstandardized measures like check-lists, interviews, student products, perfor-mances, etc.) and quantitative (standard-ized test) measures for assessment in the areas of intellectual and specific academic fields, grades 1–12.

Q: How can I nominate my child for the gifted program? English is not our primary language, so won’t she be at a distinct disadvantage?

A: Students are assessed in languages they understand or with nonverbal based tests. Districts must assure that all popu-lations of the district have access to as-sessment, and, if identified, offered gifted program service.

Q: Gifted program? What gifted pro-gram?

A: Districts must have written policies on all aspects of K–12 gifted student iden-tification approved by the district board of trustees and disseminate them to all parents.

Q: Once my child has been identified Continued on page 28.

6 Summer 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


executive directOr’s updateby Tracy Weinberg

As noted in my previous col-umn, 2005 promises

to be a year full of change and growth at TAGT; that change has begun with the naming of TAGT’s new Executive Director, Dianne Hughes. She comes with a wealth of experience managing and lobbying for large organizations such as the American Payroll Association, the Texas Mortgage Bankers Association, and the Texas Bankers Association. I be-lieve it is important for TAGT to explore partnerships and alliances with groups outside the educational community who value educational excellence. With Ms. Hughes’ experience, perhaps this will be-gin in earnest.

This issue of Tempo focuses on a highly important topic, measurement and testing. The continuing challenge in Texas remains identifying and serving all gifted children; finding suitable ways to locate those students from traditionally underrepresented populations remains daunting, but some promising ideas are emerging. The work of TAGT Past-Presidents Dr. Susan Johnsen and Dr. Paul Slocumb provides some good start-ing points. The research on dual language immersion programs being done with a Javits Grant received by El Paso ISD provides more possibilities, as does the Advanced Placement® Spanish Language Middle School Program developed by the Texas Education Agency. These last two will be featured prominently at the TAGT Annual Conference this fall.

It is crucial for educators across the state to ensure that opportunities for growth and challenge exist for all students. However, gifted students too often have languished while accountability measures designed for grade level performance have become the primary focus of education.

TAGT supports accountability, but it should be a means for appropriate educa-tional planning, and not the end itself.

When measurement and testing is mentioned, one usually thinks only of students. But, this philosophy of neglect for gifted students is amply reflected in the work of the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), which oversees the testing and certification of teachers, including the area of gifted and talented. The mission of the SBEC is to “ensure the highest level of educator preparation and practice to achieve student excellence.” They have utterly failed to do so with re-gards to gifted students.

At its most recent meeting, the SBEC Board affirmed that gifted students do not require certified teachers in the area of gifted education. Gifted education re-mains the only area in which a specialized supplemental certificate is not required for any teacher who works with gifted students from kindergarten through 12th grade. Imagine a special education or bilingual student never being taught by a certified teacher in all their years of school. Ironically, our most “highly qualified” students do not require “highly qualified” teachers.

Much time and money has been spent over the last 10 years developing profes-sional standards and the teacher certi-fication test in gifted education. Gifted students have been singled out as the only population not worthy of specialized expertise from any of its teachers. TAGT believes all students, including the gifted, should have the opportunity to be taught by highly qualified, certified teachers.

In the months ahead, TAGT must rethink how it can make this idea more palatable to the many groups that have op-posed teacher certification being required

for teachers who serve gifted students. TAGT understands that school districts need some flexibility in order to make staffing decisions; but, we also believe there is a place for trained specialists who are knowledgeable about gifted students’ specialized needs.

And now on to cheerier news! I in-vite all of you to come to San Antonio for our upcoming Annual Professional Development Conference for Educators and Parents, November 2–5, 2005. There will be, as always, hundreds of breakout sessions, an exhibit hall full of new prod-ucts and materials, student presentations and performances, and more. The four preconference institutes should bring in new attendees, while continuing to provide food for thought for experi-enced participants. Superintendents and school leaders will be attracted by a full day on “Improving Student Achievement by Developing School Culture.” TAGT stresses the importance of equity is-sues with “Our Diversity, Our Treasure: Connecting Worlds/Mundos Unidos,” presented by the Javits Grant recipients from El Paso ISD previously mentioned. Classroom teachers and coordinators will appreciate “Hands-On Science Secrets: How to Be an Amazing G/T Teacher” and “Tiered Instruction: Research and Practice.”

A new event at the conference planned for Saturday, November 5, is Family Day, featuring activity sessions for the whole family, including drama, science, robotics, art, and more. There will be a special reg-istration fee for up to two adults and four children. Be sure to visit www.txgifted.org for registration, hotel reservations, and all the latest information. See you in San Antonio! u



Placement Information

Data:Unraveling

the Mystery

by Gail R. RyserIdentifying students for gifted and talented programs can be challenging. Committees of professionals make decisions based on their interpretations of qualitative and quanti-tative information gathered from teach-ers, parents, and other relevant sources. If professionals lack understanding of the

meaning of the information on placement forms, decisions can be flawed. In this article, I define common terms and explain concepts that professionals should understand in order to prop-erly interpret information from placement forms. Terms defined in this article include qualitative and quantitative measures and criterion-referenced and norm-referenced tests.

Qualitative and Quantitative MeasuresThe terms quantitative and qualitative measures are used

in the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (Texas Education Agency, 1996). One guideline in the plan is that both qualitative and quantitative measures must be



used to assess giftedness in the areas of intellectual and specific academic fields. Quantitative information uses numbers to describe, while qualitative informa-tion uses words to describe a student’s strengths (Ryser, 2004). Qualitative measures generally are more dynamic and simulate performance in the real world to a greater extent than quantita-tive measures. Sometimes, examiners use qualitative results in quantitative ways. For example, if a professional evaluates a student’s portfolio on a 1 to 5 scale and then only provides a single score on the placement form, the committee loses the rich description one can glean from the portfolio. This qualitative information should be included in the decision-mak-ing process.

When interpreting the information gathered from quantitative measures, committee members will want to know if the score came from a criterion-ref-erenced or norm-referenced measure. Additionally, if the score came from a norm-referenced measure, committee members will want to know the type of score reported along with its metric and standard error of measurement.

Criterion-Referenced and Norm-Referenced Measures

Criterion-referenced measures com-pare an individual’s performance to a content or external criterion (Gronlund, 1998). Most often criterion-referenced measures compare an individual score to a level of mastery in an academic area, such as mathematics. An example of a criterion-referenced measure is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Mastery levels on criterion-ref-erenced measures are usually set at an average level and are not recommended for identifying gifted students. If they are used, the committee must remember that the score reflects mastery in comparison to a criterion, not compared to other indi-viduals who took the test. If the criterion is a set of standards in an academic area, the committee will need to know at what level the standards are set in order to interpret the results. If the standards are set at the average or below level, the information ob-tained will not provide good information about the student’s strengths.

Norm-referenced measures compare an individual’s performance to the norma-tive sample of individuals who also took the test (Gronlund, 1998). Commonly used norm-referenced measures include achievement, aptitude, and intelligence tests. When using norm-referenced mea-sures for placement in gifted programs, the committee will need to be able to interpret different types of scores and know how to use the standard error of measurement. Common scores that can be derived from a norm-referenced measure are raw scores, grade equivalent scores, percentile ranks, and standard scores.

Raw ScoresRaw scores represent the total num-

ber of points a student earns on a test. Raw scores are not useful for interpreta-tion because two raw scores are not com-parable. For example, a raw score of 35 would be excellent if there were 36 total points on the test and poor if there were 75 points on the test.

Grade EquivalentsGrade equivalents are used frequently

to report performance of students on stan-dardized achievement tests. While grade equivalents have an appeal to educators and parents, caution must be taken in their interpretation. One common error is the belief that a grade 2 student scoring at a 5.6 grade level has achieved all the skills and concepts of an average student in the middle of grade 5. The manner in which grade equivalents are calculated illus-trates why this is an erroneous assump-tion. To calculate grade equivalents, one tests large numbers of students in several grade levels. Next, average raw scores at each grade level are calculated, graphed, and the points of the graph are connected. Interpolation is used to calculate scores at intervals within grade levels and extrapo-lation is used to calculate scores outside the range of grades of students who were tested. This process assumes learning is linear and progresses to the same degree across a span of time.

Another common error is the belief that one can compare grade equivalents from two different tests. But, grade equiv-alents are not comparable, even when the tests are measuring the same domain. Tests use different norm samples and it is doubtful that both norm samples would

have the same average score at all grade levels. In addition, one test may have more items covering a particular skill. These differences in content emphasis will affect how students score and thus affect grade equivalents.

Percentile RanksA percentile rank indicates a stu-

dent’s relative position in the normative sample (Campbell, 1994). A student with a score at the 65th percentile rank has a score better than 65% of the students who took the test. Percentile ranks are easy to interpret and explain to parents. When interpreting percentile ranks, it is important to remember that percentile units are not equal in size. In other words, the difference between the 40th and 50th percentile ranks is much smaller than the difference between the 80th and 90th percentile ranks. This is especially critical when interpreting scores for placement in gifted programs. On a test that does not have enough difficult items a student’s percentile rank might change from the 95th percentile rank to the 87th percen-tile rank simply by missing one additional item. In addition, if a test is not difficult enough, two students scoring at the 99th percentile rank may have different levels of knowledge and expertise in the content area being measured.

Standard ScoresA standard score expresses the dis-

tance between a raw score and the mean in terms of standard deviations units (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Most tests nor-malize standard scores when developing norms. The familiar bell shaped curve is actually a graph of the relative numbers or proportions of people found to have a given score, where the abscissa (x-axis) is the score and the ordinate (y-axis) is the relative number of people. The following example will help illustrate these con-cepts.

Consider the height of women who are 20-years-old. Suppose it is known that the average, or mean, height for women in this age group is about 5 ft, 4.5 in., with a standard deviation of 2.5 in. The standard deviation can be considered to be a mathematically special type of average of the amount by which people in the population deviate from the mean or average score. Another way to think



Figure 1. The normal distribution

of it is as a measure of the spread of the scores in the population. If a researcher sampled 100 twenty-year-old women and measured each of their heights, she would find that most of the women’s heights are at or around the average of 5 ft, 4.5 in. Of course, some of them would be taller and some would be shorter. Suppose our re-searcher subtracted and added 2.5 in. from the mean height to obtain the heights that are one standard deviation below and above the mean. She would obtain a range of 5 ft, 2 in. to 5 ft, 7 in. Because height is considered to be normally distributed, statistical theory allows us to assume she would find about 68% or 68 of the women sampled to have heights that fall in this range. If she subtracted and added 5 in. (two standard deviations) from the mean height, the range would be 4 ft, 11.5 in. to 5 ft, 9.5 in. Again, because height is nor-mally distributed, the theory allows us to assume that she would find that about 95% or 95 of the women sampled would have heights in this range. The farther away the height is from the mean, the fewer females our researcher would find who had that particular height. In fact, heights of 6 ft, 1 in. would occur very sel-dom. Heights three standard deviations away from the mean encompass 99.7% of all heights in the population. Figure 1 il-lustrates the normal distribution and the areas encompassed by one, two, and three standard deviations using women’s height as our example.

A commonly used standard score is IQ (intelligent quotient), which was used by Wechsler (1939) for interpretation of scores on his intelligence scale. To inter-pret this or any standard score the ex-aminer needs to know the mean and the standard deviation of the standard score distribution. On the deviation IQ scale, the norm group has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Subtracting and adding one standard deviation from the mean yields a range of 85 to 115. Using our knowledge of the normal distribution, we know that 68% of students scored in this range. For placement in programs for stu-dents who are gifted, the committee wants to identify above average performance and is only interested in scores that fall above the mean. Because the mean divides the normal distribution in two symmetrical areas, 50% of scores would fall above and 50% of scores would fall below the mean.

Therefore 16% of students will score at or better than 115 on a test that uses the deviation IQ scale. A score two standard deviations above the mean is 130 and only about 2.5% of individuals score this high.

All normalized standard scores can be interpreted in this manner. Figure 2 shows the relationship of various standard scores to percentile ranks, provides their distance from the mean, and indicates the percent of individuals who score in certain standard score ranges.

Standard Error of MeasurementThe standard error of measurement

(SEM) is a reflection of the error con-tained in all test scores and can be used to construct a confidence interval around an individual’s observed standard score (Crocker & Algina, 1986). All people are assumed to have what is called a true score on tests. The true score is a theoretical statistical value that can be thought of as the average score that would be obtained if the person was tested an infinite num-ber of times with no memory of previous tests. The confidence interval formed around the observed score using the SEM is the range within the individual’s true score can be expected to fall with a given level of statistical confidence. For example, suppose that a student scores a 128 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (Wechsler, 2004). If the SEM is 3, the committee would add and subtract one SEM from the observed score of 128 to obtain the 68% confidence level, which in this case

is 125–131. If the committee uses as one criterion for placement in programs for gifted students a 130 on an individual intelligence test, using one SEM would allow this student to meet the criterion. It is important to consider the SEM because any single observed score may be a poor estimate of the individual’s true score. Sometimes a test manual does not report the standard error of measurement. In this case, the following formula may be used to estimate it:

SEM = SD √1–rwhere SD=the standard deviation of

the standard score distribution andr=the internal consistency reliability

of the test.Having knowledge of the SEM aids in

quick interpretation of test scores because it allows a professional to quickly assess the precision of a test score by simply es-timating the range that spans from one SEM below the mean to one SEM above the mean. This is roughly the 68% confi-dence interval for the score.

Case StudyThe following case study will illus-

trate how committees can make sound decisions about the information found on placement forms. Shaundra is a 9-year-old girl who is being considered for placement in a program for academically talented students in mathematics. Her teacher, counselor, and school psychologist have gathered both qualitative and quantitative information about her and provided it to the committee (see Table 1).



In our example, qualitative informa-tion includes a portfolio score and a par-ent observation checklist. The committee has set as the criterion for qualitative in-dicators the majority of items present. The committee reviews the portfolio using eight indicators and lists the indicators that are present, in this case three of the eight. The parent observation checklist consisted of 10 items that parents rate on a 1 to 3 scale, with 1 = rarely or never and 3 = almost always. The committee lists the items that are scored almost always, in this case 7 of the 10. Based on this infor-

mation, the committee circled “No” under “Criterion Met” for the portfolio and “Yes” under for the checklist. There is room for additional qualitative information and Shaundra’s teacher and counselor have included anecdotal support.

Quantitative information consists of an individual intelligence test, the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales–Fifth Edition (SB5; Roid, 2004); a test designed to identify mathematical talent, the Test of Mathematical Ability for Gifted Students (TOMAGS; Ryser & Johnsen, 1998); and a supplementary test to assess

creative thinking abilities, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1998). All three of these mea-sures have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The committee has set the criterion for quantitative measures at two standard deviations above the mean, which for these three tests is a score of 130 or above. The committee examines scores on the Full Scale IQ, Verbal IQ, and Nonverbal IQ from the SB5 and considers the criterion met if any one of the three is 130 or above. They also subtract and add one SEM to provide a better estimate

Table 1.Partial Placement Form for Shaundra

Qualitative Criterion Met

Portfolio Indicators Yes No 1. Advanced level work.2. Knowledge of mathematical vocabulary and notation.3. Generalizes mathematical knowledge.

Parent Observation Checklist Yes No1. Able to organize data easily.2. Curious about numeric information. 3. Enjoys solving difficult math problems.4. Challenges self in math.5. Likes to play number games.6. Checks answers to math problems. 7. Wants to complete math homework before other homework.

Additional Qualitative Information:

Teacher: Shaundra tries to figure out the answer to math problems before anybody else. However, she is not as motivated in language arts and classes that require reading and can become oppositional when required to complete work in those areas. This shows up in other areas and the teacher has some reservation because of Shaundra’s lack of maturity.

Counselor: Shaundra did not always choose products to include in her portfolio that would highlight her mathematical tal-ent.

Quantitative Criterion Met

Stanford Binet Intelligence Test–Fifth Edition Yes NoFull Scale IQ 128 (125–131 with SEM) Verbal IQ 123 (120–126 with SEM)Nonverbal IQ 134 (131–137 with SEM)

Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted StudentsAbility Score 136 (132–140 with SEM) Yes No

Additional Quantitative Information:

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking overall score 117



of the student’s true score. In this case, Shaundra has two of the three IQ scores higher than 130, when the SEM is taken in to consideration: the Full Scale IQ and Nonverbal IQ. Therefore, the committee has circled “Yes” under “Criterion Met.” The TOMAGS yields one overall score and Shaundra’s standard score of 136 meets the criterion of two standard deviations above the mean. Shaundra recently took the TTCT and obtained a standard score of 117. This score is included as additional information.

Based on the information found on the placement form, the committee decides to place Shaundra in the gifted mathematics program. Her mathematical talent is evident in her TOMAGS score and her parent observation checklist. Her SB5 Full Scale IQ places her in the superior range. Not surprisingly, her Nonverbal IQ was higher than her Verbal IQ score, espe-cially when the committee considered the teacher’s anecdotal support. The coun-selor helped the students put together their portfolios and explained that she felt Shaundra did not always include products

that illustrated her mathematical talent. This is important since this is the one cri-terion that Shaundra did not meet. The addition of the TTCT provided evidence that Shaundra is above average in figural creativity. This is positive since the gifted mathematics program has as one goal to develop students’ creativity by presenting novel mathematical problems.

ReferencesAnastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997).

Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Campbell, J. (1994). Interpreting scores from standardized tests. Clearing House, 67(6), 314–316.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical & modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gronlund, N. E. (1998). Assessment of stu-dent achievement (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Roid, G. (2004). Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales–Fifth Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Ryser, G. R. (2004). Qualitative and quan-titative approaches to assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (pp. 23–40). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Ryser, G. R., & Johnsen, S. K. (1998). Test of Mathematical Ability for Gifted Students. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

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

Torrance, E. P. (1998). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking norms-technical manual figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.

Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc. u

Figure 2. Height with SEM


An Alternative Framework

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



An Alternative Framework

by Joyce E. Kyle Miller

Identification of the gifted African American learner remains a concern among educators in gifted edu-cation. While progress has been made in the identi-

fication of minority gifted students, much remains to be accomplished. Today, schools are faced with the reality of a large percentage of Anglo teachers and administra-tors making decisions regarding the referral, placement, and instruction of minority learners (Cushner, McClellan, & Safford, 2003). The representation of African American



learners in programs for the gifted re-mains disproportionate and inadequate. Experts in the field agree that equal rep-resentation of potential academic gift-edness is present in all groups within our society (Borland, 1994; Kitano & Kirby, 1986). Students whose families’ socioeconomic status places them in the top quartile of the population are easier to identify than those students from families in the bottom quartile.

Educators ask, “What tests are effec-tive in identifying gifted African American students?” The answer often leads to a short-term solution uncovering a hand-ful of African American students who can be added to gifted programs. The most productive solution is systemic, complex, long range, ongoing, and must involve the total school environment (Ford, 2005). A learning environment that acknowledges the culture and learning differences of the African American learner provides fertile ground for the growth and development of gifts and talents. A comprehensive ap-proach to the identification of the African American gifted learner involves looking at giftedness and how it may be mani-fested when impacted by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. In this article, I offer a school-wide framework for the identification of gifted African American students, who have not been identified by application of traditional identification procedures.

Component One: Multicultural Responsive Curriculum and Instruction

A multicultural response to curricu-lum and instruction that is based on gifted principles can serve as a magnet for the culturally different gifted student. A mul-ticultural responsive approach (Benson-Hale, 1990) to what is taught and how con-tent is taught conveys to the student the message that “You are welcome here, and all of your differences are welcome here. Come on in and I will take what you bring and build on it and help you learn what is needed to succeed in life.” Learners come to know that they don’t have to assimilate or leave their culture behind, but they do need to prepare to learn other ways of act-ing, thinking, and behaving. Students can learn essential knowledge and skills, and they can become producers of knowledge without being alienated from their own language and culture. This school-wide culturally responsive approach to the cur-

riculum may necessitate leadership by the district curriculum director and gifted coordinator. The effort is challenging, but the end result is that African American parents and students will gravitate toward gifted programs that offer a taste of home, a reflection of who they are throughout the school’s curriculum.

All people are in search of a taste of home. When I taught English/Language Arts many years ago, my students pre-sented book reports each 6 weeks. I would take my students to the library and they would check out the book of their choice. African American students often could not find books that were relevant to their culture. School library collections should also be multiculturally responsive.

An example of this concept is seen whenever one walks into a room of strang-ers. The room is surveyed quickly to find someone with whom a connection can be made. A young person who walks into a room of obviously senior adults checks to see if he or she is in the right place. Upon finding that he or she is in the right room, this young person looks to find someone who offers that required “taste of home.” Meeting this criterion often determines how the experience will be evaluated. Students in our schools are the same way. Revealing the cultural background of a mathematician, scientist, author, or composer of piece of music being stud-ied helps the students make connections and identify with the information to be learned. This concept is true for people in general and specifically for African American students who often have to look long and hard before encountering themselves in the school’s curriculum. Culturally competent educators are sen-sitive to this need and work to provide a “taste of home” for all of their students.

In a culturally sensitive learning envi-ronment, African American gifted learn-ers will feel safe to emerge and become who they really are. The end result is that gifted African American students will not feel that they are being asked to change and act “white” (Delpit, 1995; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986) in order to be a part of the gifted program.

Component Two: Professional Development

The second phase of this compre-hensive identification model is profes-sional development. Educators (counsel-

ors, teachers, administrators) must be trained to “see” gifted characteristics as they emerge in the context of the African American culture. No one group of learn-ers subscribe to the same set of learning preferences. Within the African American culture, there are individual learning pref-erences as in any other group; teachers must, therefore, use different approaches in teaching individual learners. As char-acteristics of the gifted African American student are used as examples in helping teachers develop some understanding of how giftedness may appear in the culture of the African American student, teach-ers must be reminded that not all African American students will exhibit the same characteristics.

The early work of Paul Torrance (1977) revealed that African American gifted learners have strengths and “cre-ative positives.” Torrance outlined the following creative positives of African American children:• ability to express feelings, to impro-

vise;• articulate in role playing;• possess artistic, musical, dramatic

ability;• expressive speech;• fluency and flexibility in non-verbal

media;• skills in group learning and problem

solving;• responsive to the concrete and kines-

thetic;• expressive in body language;• originality in brainstorming;• problem centered;• emotionally responsive;• quick warm up (quick flow of ideas);

and• sense of humor.

A review of gifted characteristics from the literature reveals that gifted students have keen observations, verbal proficiency, large vocabularies, facility of expression, questioning abilities, curiosity, skepticism, power of concentration, long attention span, and diversity of interests and abilities.

The minority gifted learner may manifest keen observation skills by quickly detecting racist attitudes and practices and feelings of school alien-ation at an early age. Minority gifted stu-dents may have large non-school-related vocabularies. The ease of speaking in stan-dard English may be hindered by thinking in the language of their culture. African




Testing and MeasurementAmerican gifted learners are often questioning, curious, and skeptical; however, this behavior may be described as asking “the wrong” questions by the teacher who lacks cultural awareness. African American gifted learners may have strong concentration skills and may express displea-sure at having to stop an activity. They have global intellec-tual abilities and may neglect school work because of other interests that may or may not be related to school (Ford, 2005; Ford, Harris, & Schuerger, 1993). These characteris-tics are offered not as stereotypes, but as examples of how gifted characteristics may be manifested by gifted African American students. A discussion of these characteristics should become a part of professional development, and they should be listed as examples on nomination checklists.

The professional development component must also include training teachers in how to teach academic content in a culturally responsive way. Training is needed in how to build on the strengths of the African American student to help facilitate new understandings. Teachers should provide students options that include projects and assignments that address themes, issues, problems, and trends in the African American community. Permit the use of writings authored by or about African Americans as comparison pieces with traditional literary selections. Historical, experimental, and descriptive research projects and assignments can address real problems in African American life and culture. Students can be invited to draw on different perspectives from the African American community and encouraged to use peri-odicals and publications whose readership is predominately African American. A comparative approach to the teach-ing of academic content can reap benefits for all students. Even in those cases where teachers may lack knowledge of the information or issues, teachers should raise questions that would motivate African American students to seek out the facts or issues and bring them into the classroom for examination and investigation. In addition to exploring the teaching of academic content in a cultural context, profes-sional development should also address those affective life skills that are vital to both academic success and to living successful lives. Perry, Steele, and Hilliard (2003) refer to these teachings as “counterhegemonic,” while Sternberg and Grigorenko (2000) describe these techniques as “successful intelligence.”

Professional development for gifted coordinators, counselors, and administrators should include informa-tion addressing the nature and needs of the gifted African American student. Strategies for evaluating the cultural re-sponsiveness of the total school environment, working with African American parents, involving parents as leaders in the school, and strategies for reaching and informing the community and parents should be specifically emphasized. Training for counselors should also address multicultural counseling strategies.

Component Three: Parent-Community InvolvementThe third phase of the African American identifica-

tion model is parent-community involvement. School personnel must inform parents and the community by using nontraditional outreach strategies such as (a) dis-

seminating information through the churches, clubs, organizations, sororities, fraternities, and recreation centers frequented by the African American community; (b) identifying key individuals who can serve as school-community liaisons; (c) communicating with the leadership of key community adult and youth groups by volunteering to make pre-sentations regarding the programs, options, and services available for gifted African American students; (d) increasing the effectiveness of the school district-wide mailing of letters by placing emphasis on the design and layout of the information; (e) avoiding long, narrative letters with small font; (f) organizing parent meetings with primary consideration given to the schedules of the parents; and (g) seeking to develop ways to meaningfully involve parents in decision making regarding the gifted program.

Educators charged with the identification of gifted students are aware of the shortcomings and limitations of placement decisions based only on test scores. However, circumstances are such that today “the predictor of performance has become more important than the performance itself” (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000, p. 31). Refuse to permit the results of a standardized test alone to rule your professional judgment. One of the most powerful sources of identification is human observation by the trained gifted/talented professional. If your heart and head tell you that the student is potentially gifted, look further, deeper, and longer to support your observations and intuition.

Classroom teachers should listen to classroom responses that may appear to be off-target. Try to see the point the student is mak-ing by helping the student elaborate on their ideas. Look for indicators of above-average performance reflecting untapped potential. Direct observation of student behavior is potentially the richest source of



information. Look for traits like creativity, perseverance, and problem solving. John Goodlad (1984) urged educators to think about what a child can do rather than only about what the child cannot do. Ask, “What is this child ready to do or can do, now, with little instruction?” Identify a potentially gifted African American child by observing and documenting those ob-servations. Teachers should maintain over time a list of observed gifted behaviors and notable moments. Student portfolios can be an additional source of information about the student. Use the preponderance of evidence to support your advocacy for a closer look at the student by the identifica-tion committee. An approach such as this requires time and effort. However, educa-tors interested in diversifying their school’s gifted population will find the time spent invaluable to the student and the school’s program. As a team of teachers who has had gifted and talented training observe the same student over time, powerful ob-servations and conclusions can be made.

The process of identifying African American gifted learners may involve interviews with the child and his or her parent. An interview that allows parents to tell a teacher about their child can be particularly helpful when coupled with a teacher’s or team of teachers’ observations. For example, interview the child for insight into the child’s creativity, perseverance, self-determination, and problem-solving abilities.

SummaryAs gifted African American students

are identified and placement decisions are made, consider ways to maintain a cultur-ally responsive learning environment and build in safety nets and support systems. Avoid creating a “sink or swim” situation for the student. A welcoming environment can be created by means of a culturally in-clusive curriculum. Schools using a mul-ticultural approach to the curriculum will find this easy to accomplish and the effort will not be viewed by the students as ad-ditive (Banks & Banks, 2001). School-wide mentoring becomes a viable approach to creating a support system for gifted African American students. The use of differenti-ated instruction is particularly effective by providing students with opportunities to see their strengths. Schools wanting to make progress toward identifying and re-

taining gifted African American students in gifted/talented education programs will make the effort, and find the time. The real work of identification of the hard to iden-tify is not easy and will not happen over-night, but progress toward the goal is well worth the effort. School leadership that responds to our society’s cultural diversity will surpass the superficial approaches that have resulted in the status quo of the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic demographics that have characterized gifted and talented programs.

ReferencesBanks, J. A., and Banks, C. A. M. (2001).

Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Benson-Hale, J. (1990). Visions for chil-dren: Educating Black children in the context of their culture. Going to school: The African American experi-ence. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Borland, J. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically dis-advantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164–171.

Cushner, K., McClellan, A., & Safford, P. (2003). Human diversity in education: An integrative approach. New York: McGraw Hill.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. New York: New York Press.

Ford, D. (2005). Cultural blindness: A model of culture with implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 27(2), 97–103.

Ford, D., Harris, J., & Schuerger, J. M. (1993). Racial identity development among gifted Black students: Counseling issues and concerns. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 409–417.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black stu-dents’ school success: Coping with the “burden of acting white.” Urban Review 18(3). 176–206.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kitano, M., & Kirby, D. (1986). Gifted edu-cation: A comprehensive view. Boston: Little & Brown.

Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, A. G. (2003). Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African-American students. Boston: Beacon Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Professional Development.

Torrance, E. P. (1977). Discovery and nur-turance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, VA: Council on Exceptional Children. u

“Integrating New Concepts for the Gifted and Talented K-12”

Deborah G. Mallett, Ed.M., CEOEducational Consultant, TAGT-Approved Training

1365 Candlestick Circle Beaumont, TX 77706Phone: 409.861.3998 Fax: 409.861.1820

E-mail: [email protected]

www.mallett-and-company.com

30-Hour GT Training § Differentiated Curriculum § Questioning StrategiesParent Seminars § Instructional Strategies § Six-Hour Updates

Identi cation Assessment § Social-Emotional Issues § Lesson PlanningAdministrator Training § Program Development § Learning Styles § TEKS

Underachievers § Stress Management for the Gifted

§§



Texas administrators have been using the phrase “raising the bar” to characterize the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), which has replaced the “mini-mum” standard TAAS test in response to the standards included in the federally mandated No Child Left Behind (NCLB). With several “TAKSing” years under their belts, it seems apparent that our children finally have an educational goal to run toward, and educators now have a higher standard or focus. So, why are advocates for gifted and talented students voicing reservations?

Carol Ann Tomlinson, former presi-dent of the National Association for Gifted Children, voices concern over the NCLB’s focus on proficiency standards that do not challenge the gifted and talented learner.

Tomlinson states, “The ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act fails to balance equity and excellence. How much more promising the No Child Left Behind Act would be if it genuinely ensured that no child would be left behind in terms of developing his or her possibilities—if it unreservedly supported both equity and excellence” (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 38).

Tests similar to the TAKS have a central goal of skill proficiency—in some grades, such as third grade and fifth grades, students in Texas must pass the test to be promoted, while exit level tests are required for graduation. The TAKS is correlated to state curriculum objectives or Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Three words are shared in both acronyms: Texas, knowledge, and skills. But, the controversy centers on two other

words in the TAKS/TEKS acronyms: “essential” and “assessment”—these are the key issues that impact the gifted and talented student.

One concern for the educator of the gifted and talented is essentials vs. excel-lence—what Tomlinson describes as “bal-ancing twin commitments,” equity and excellence (Tomlinson, 2002). Debate over proficiency vs. excellence is not limited to educators. In a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled “Brain Drain,” journalist Daniel Golden observed that laws like NCLB “may be leaving behind some of the strongest [students in order to] raise the proportion of proficient students [and] narrow the achievement gap” (Golden, 2003, p. 1A). Golden adds that priorities in programs and curriculum are changing to reflect the priorities of NCLB, “To abide

The Relationship Bewteen NCLB, TAKS, and the Gifted Learner

by Phil MacKaron



by the law, schools are shifting resources away from programs that help their most gifted students” (Golden, p. 1A).

Lack of funding also impacts this debate. According to Tomlinson, NCLB mandates in-service training on “differ-ent learning styles, special learning needs & instructional strategies to teach gifted and high performing students” (NCLB, ¶4). This equates to $11.2 million a year for research and state grants for approxi-mately three million gifted and talented students—hardly enough to cover the cost of the state mandated gifted and talented programs (Golden, 2003).

A second issue haunting educators of the gifted and talented with relation to NCLB is assessment. Central to assessment is identification. NCLB defines gifted and talented students as “Children or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities” (NCLB, ¶2). In terms of identification and assessment, gifted and talented students are both an enigma and a challenge—gifted and tal-ented students are often best identified when applying conventional measures like IQ tests with additional qualitative data such as portfolios and parent and teacher checklists. Typical characteristics shared by gifted and talented students include creativity, intrinsic motivation, disinterest in conventional approaches, and antisocial behavior, characteristics that are not typically tested through stan-dardized testing. However, assessment is only a part of the complexity of serving the gifted and talented. Other issues such as curriculum and motivation create the real challenges in educating the gifted and talented student.

With the thrust of NCLB to create a measurable level of proficiency, states like Texas have designed assessments similar to the TAKS to reflect the federal mandate—the proficiency “line” to which students will run. Likewise, educators, in response to the state assessment, prepare students by teaching essentials, that is, basic knowledge and skills objectives like the TEKS. Emphasis on TAKS preparation such as test-taking strategies, periodic benchmark tests, and practice TAKS test-ing will take time from standard instruc-

tion, possibly causing teachers to sacrifice other curriculum that enriches all stu-dents beyond the “proficient” standard.

Granted, essential skills are important, but something is missing if educators only work toward the essentials.

If, in fact, the federal and state man-dates intend that “all children” will be advancing through the new initiatives, then the question still remains whether or not the motivation and curriculum of gifted and talented students is being addressed, or as Tomlinson states, “[should NCLB] raise ceilings of performance as fervently as we raise floors?” (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 38). Is “proficiency” a line to race toward or a “ceiling” that curtails educational momentum, especially in the gifted and talented student? While test scores seem to be going up, seemingly proving that we are moving in the direction of proficiency, the actual curriculum may be experienc-ing a shift that could impact the gifted and talented learners.

Student motivation is equally impor-tant when considering federal and state standards and the gifted and talented student. The gifted and talented student may view the TAKS test with indiffer-ence. Concerning the motivational rami-fications of curriculum choices, the gifted and talented child is characterized as “a divergent thinker,” who is often labeled as a “troublemaker” (Bondi & Wiles, 1989). Such a student is often reluctant to “buy in”

to standardized goals or objectives. Gifted and talented students are not typical, and it is not unusual for a gifted and talented student to show reluctance to participate when confronted with a task that does not spark his or her interest. Therefore, state testing like TAKS may receive tepid responses from them. Class activities like TAKS preparation and fact drills, while necessary for the nonproficient student, may result in boredom and disinterest from the gifted and talented student.

The federal and state response to the need for proficiency is definitely a goal worth pursuing. Most educators agree that TAKS is better aligned to the TEKS and has a higher standard than TAAS, but the standard needs to be stretched to pro-mote higher goals for all students, not just the “nonproficient.” To comply with NCLB mandates that all students show progress in proficiency, Texas educational admin-istrators have been phasing in state and locally developed alternative assessments (SDAA and LDAA), testing standards for special education students. In light of the state’s efforts to accommodate all students who are below proficiency levels, would it seem unreasonable to expect equal atten-tion for those students who are neither challenged nor motivated by a minimum standard? Likewise, federal funding could support not only proficiency, but also further development of programs that encourage excellence. For now, over-emphasis on the nonproficient students, preparation for state proficiency tests, and limited funding de-emphasize the “excel-lence” goal of education, compromising gifted and talented programs, curriculum, and most importantly the students.

References

Bondi, J., & Wiles, J. (1989). Curriculum development: A guide to practice. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

Golden, D. (2003, December 29). Brain drain: Initiative to leave no child behind leaves out gifted. Wall Street Journal, p.1A, 6A.

NCLB. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/ landing.jhtml

Tomlinson, C. (2002). Proficiency is not enough. Education Week, 22, 36–38.

If, in fact, the federal and state mandates intend that “all chil-dren” will be advanc-ing through the new initiatives, then the

question still remains whether or not the

motivation and cur-riculum of gifted and talented students is being addressed . . .



Book ReviewsCradles of Eminence (2nd ed.) (ISBN 0-910707-57-X) is a revision of

the 1962 classic by Victor and Mildred Goertzel, which studied the child-hoods of 400 eminent men and women. The 2nd edition, updated by Ted Goertzel and Ariel Hansen, includes 300 additional biographical sketches of eminent persons who emerged during the later half of the 20th century. Book chapters such as “Homes That Respect Learning and Achievement,” “Opinionated Parents,” “Troubled Homes,” and “Early Agonies” recognize similar life experiences of the eminent. The chapters also provide insight into the early lives and development of these gifted individuals. This pub-lication is not only fascinating, but can also be used as a bibliotherapy tool when working with the gifted. For more information contact: Great Potential Press, PO Box 5057, Scottsdale, AZ 85261; (877) 954-4200; http://www.giftedbooks.com.

In his book, Barefoot Irreverence: A Collection of Writings on Gifted Children (ISBN 1-882664-79-5), author James DeLisle offers himself as a willing soldier on the side of children. The reader will find no crunched numbers, achievement statistics, or quantitative surveys in this collection of essays. However, as the author puts it, “what I lack in statistical precision I make up for in observational abilities” (p. 2). Fans of DeLisle’s columns, articles, and essays in such publications as Education Week and Teacher Magazine will find this book an absolute goldmine. The author covers a wide range of topics, subdivided into 11 thought-provoking sections such as “So, you want to be the parent of a gifted child?” and “Testing! One . . . Two . . . Three! Testing!” Delisle mixes in-your-face, hard-hitting com-mentary with Robert Fulghum-esque wit and compassion. This is the “All I Ever Wanted to Know . . .” book for the field of gifted education.

Barefoot Irreverence is a must for any educator or parent who is pas-sionate about helping children reach their potential. It is thought-provok-ing both introspectively and inspirationally. For more information, con-tact Prufrock Press Inc., PO Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714; (800) 998-2208; http://www.prufrock.com. Reviewed by William Schatte

Deciding which instructional strategies to use challenges teachers daily. Students in each classroom are unique and one of a kind. It is un-heard of to see two children comprehend, learn, and approach learning the same way. Gayle G. Gregory and Carolyn Chapman’s Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn’t Fit All (ISBN 0-761945-51-2), gives the reader a variety of activities to use in the classroom that promote success for all. The book does an excellent job of providing various instruc-tional strategies and planning activities used to ensure the classroom is a learning environment equipped to teach an array of learners. Strategies provided include grouping activities, types of assessments, classroom organization, and planning sheets to guide the differentiation process. For more information contact, Corwin Press, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320; (800) 818-7243; http://www.corwinpress.com. Reviewed by Shalane Simms

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


character in Janet McDonald’s Brother Hood (ISBN 0-374309-95-7). Nathaniel’s parents know that he is well-adjusted, but are concerned about his leaving familiar surroundings for Fletcher, “a school for rich white kids,” who may be racist. Nathaniel lives in two different worlds; he has learned to live in the culture of his friends at Fletcher, and the culture of Harlem.

Throughout the many experiences Nathaniel has, he is able to maintain respect for others, while maintaining ties with his Harlem friends, family, and friends at Fletcher. Nate finds that he doesn’t have to become someone other than himself in order to succeed and achieve his dream of going to college. It really is all about Brother Hood. For more information contact: Farrar, Staus, & Giroux, 19 Union Square West, New York, NY 10003; (212) 741-6900; http://www. fsgbooks.com. Reviewed by Joyce E. Kyle Miller u

Books for Children The Man Who Went to the Far Side of the Moon: The

Story of Apollo 11 Astronaut Michael Collins (ISBN 0-8118-4007-7) by Bea Uusma Schyffert combines actual notes, pictures, and diagrams from Michael Collins’ trip to the moon. The book details Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong’s preparation for their historical flight. The combination of factual information and personal narratives from the astronauts makes this more than just another book about space. The colorful pictures and information capture the imagination of any young reader. For more information contact: Chronicle Books, 85 Second Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (800) 722-6657; http://www.chroniclekids.com.

Nathaniel Whitely, a 16-year-old gifted teen who was identified in 7th grade for Columbia University’s Student Outreach and Recruitment (SOAR) initiative is the main

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


It doesn’t take a high IQ to know that we can learn from each other. One’s experiences and mistakes can guide

other parents. My journey, as a parent of a gifted

child, began with trying to shepherd my son through the educational maze. The obstacles for him began very early. Looking back, I wish that someone had told me about the hills and valleys. I wish that I had been better informed. And I wish…. Well, what’s done is gone. We have made it this far. We survived and learned from our tribulations and successes. It has been a memorable journey.

Stuart, age 21, is now at the University of Texas majoring in aerospace engineer-ing. He is happy and productive and enjoys most of his classes. Competitive by nature, he loves to learn, and making top grades is important to him. His future looks bright!

Stuart has been my teacher, and his path has been my parental workout. What I have learned from him I wish to share with you so that your journey as a parent of a gifted child might be smoother.1. Fight for your child. When the sys-

tem says no, find another way. When Stuart decided that he wanted to ap-ply for the Texas Academy of Math and Science at the University of North Texas at Denton, his local high school would not allow him to take the needed advanced science courses out of order, even though we had re-ceived recommendations to do so by university advisors. Working through the chain of command, we were given four “no’s” before one positive think-ing school board member took up our cause. The administration reluctantly met our request. Because of Stuart’s courage to pursue and our persever-ance, Stuart changed the system, al-lowing other students from then on to have the same opportunity he had been so grudgingly given.

2. Find a mentor for your child. I was lucky. A past president of TAGT met Stuart when he was young. The sup-port she gave him by just being avail-able was tremendously reassuring to him. When he was away from home, he wrote her more often than me! Knowing your child has someone of quality to turn to when you are un-available is comforting.

3. Reinforce good social responsibil-ity. Gifted students, through no fault of their own, are often pushed into a category of a minority of one. Their interests and passions often make them feel out of step with other stu-dents. They sometimes withdraw into their intellectual comfort zone. But, a gifted child also needs heart. When Stuart (an avid book collector) came home from school and told me that he had given one of his prized books to an underprivileged student who had admired it, my heart warmed imme-diately. He knew I was proud of what he had done. Intellect without com-passion is like a silver tea set without any tea inside.

4. Provide the option for faith devel-opment. Teenagers, whether gifted or not, sometimes withdraw from parental values and often close the doors to communication. Having a re-source of unconditional love through an active religious faith allows any-one to recognize and accept human limitations and establish a sense of purpose. When Stuart lost a gifted friend to suicide, the whole commu-nity was confused. Explanations are never good enough. His belief system gave him some kind of inner strength. Spiritual growth, along with physical and mental, is vital for a well-adjusted individual.

5. Recognize the importance of errors/mistakes/interruptions. Through our problems, we find opportunities. Stuart had to put his college studies on hold when surgery was necessary. I thought that depression would set in, but Stuart sought employment while waiting for the next semester to begin. He secured a job at a fast-food restaurant in a limited English speaking section of the city. Realizing how discrimination and prejudice can swing both ways, I was ready to address questions and problems that might arise. But, Stuart took the situ-ation and built on it. He became the honored “gringo” at the restaurant and seriously studied Spanish to better understand and communicate with his coworkers. Working for minimum wage and observing others trying to exist on that amount were life lessons

I could have never arranged for him. He arranged that one for himself.

6. Become informed about all options. You never know what path your child’s interests and abilities might lead to. The Duke Talent Search at 7th grade led to a correspondence course in advanced mathematics from Texas Tech University, which prepared Stuart for The Texas Academy of Math and Science at UNT–Denton. This opened the door to summer work at NASA at age 16.

7. Take your child with you to the Parent/Student Day at the Texas Association of Gifted and Talented Conference. This year it is sched-uled for Saturday, November 5th at the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, San Antonio, Texas. Finding occasions to grow together are the jewels of parenthood. For more information, contact TAGT at 512-499-8264. You might also consider going to the special parent confer-ence, which TAGT holds during the spring.

8. Laugh with your child. These are the best memories.These ideas are written to try to help

other parents. If you and your child have had an experience, problem, or success that could help another, consider writing an article, or speaking to other parents. It will be a gift from one parent to another.

Further Information:

Walker, S. Y. (1991). The survival guide for gifted kids. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Omartian, S. (1995). The power of a praying parent. Eugene, OR: Harvest House.

Texas Academy of Math and Science. P.O. Box 305309, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203; Dean of Students: Dr. Richard Sinclair; (940) 565-3971; http://www.tams.unt.edu

Texas Tech University Guided Study. P.O. Box 42191, Lubbock, TX 79409-2191; (800) MY-COURSE; http://www.dce.ttu.edu

Duke University Talent Identification Program, Box 90780, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0780; (919) 668-9100; http://www.tip.duke.edu u

A Gift From One Parent to Another by Jeanine McGregor

What Doesthe Research

Say About

Tests andMeasurement?

bySusan K. Johnsen

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


What Doesthe Research

Say About

Tests andMeasurement?

Tests are objective and standard-ized measures of a sample of be-havior (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).

In gifted education, professionals use tests to identify and place gifted students in specific programs, to assess students’ strengths and weaknesses in planning in-struction, and to evaluate the curriculum, instruction, and overall program. Tests are most effective when they are used ac-cording to the authors’ recommendations and have adequate technical qualities. Technical qualities relate to the sample (Who was tested when it was normed?), the test’s reliability (How consistently does it measure what it’s supposed to measure? How stable is it over time?), and the test’s validity (How well does it measure what it’s supposed to?). However, not all tests are technically adequate. For that reason, test users need to know how to evaluate tests so that they are useful and do not harm students.

This review examines articles that were published during the last 10 years in Gifted Child Quarterly, The Journal for the Education of the Gifted, and Roeper Review. To be included, the purpose of the article focused primarily on the technical qualities of specific tests or their develop-ment. Articles were excluded if the authors used international samples, developed as-sessments that were not intended for stu-dents in grades K–12, or simply described identification procedures. These selection criteria identified 37 articles. Overall, the articles used empirical methods, with only eight based on interpretations or reviews of the literature.

Specific tests that were reviewed mea-sured areas that are in the state’s definition of gifted and talented students: creativity (Cropley, 2000), leadership (Edmunds, 1998; Oakland, Falkenberg, & Oakland, 1996), math (Shermis, Fulkerson, & Banta, 1996), science (Adams & Callahan, 1995), the performing arts (Oreck, Owen, & Baum, 2003), or intelligence (Fishkin, Kampsnider, & Pack, 1996; Lohman, 2005; Masten, Morse, & Wenglar, 1995; Mills & Tissot, 1995; Naglieri & Ford, 2003; Plucker, 2000; Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, 1996; Pyryt, 2000; Spangler & Sabatino, 1995; Sternberg & Clinkenbeard, 1995; Van Tassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002). Others examined related

to psychological areas such as emotional intelligence (Mayer, Perkins, Caruso, & Salovey, 2001; Pfeiffer, 2001), overexcit-abilities (Bouchard, 2004; Piechowski & Miller, 1995), and thinking styles (Dai & Feldhusen, 1999), while others examined classroom-related areas such as stu-dent problem solving (Reid, Romanoff, Algozzine, & Udall, 2000; Sarouphim, 1999a, 1999b, 2000), learning behaviors (Worrell & Schafer, 2004), fantasy (Dunn, Corn, & Morelock, 2004), classroom activities (Gentry & Gable, 2001), port-folios (Johnsen & Ryser, 1997; Shaklee & Viechnicki, 1995), or student interests (Kettle, Renzulli, & Rizza, 1998).

For the most part, authors reported that the instruments were consistent or reliable in measuring the characteris-tics or traits with a few exceptions. For example, the DISCOVER instrument’s problem solving tasks, which measure multiple intelligences, do not relate to one another as expected (Sarouphim, 2000). The ElemenOE, which measures overexcitabilities, has two scales (sen-sual and imaginational) whose internal consistency reliability were unacceptable (Bouchard, 2004). On the other hand, Piechowski and Miller (1995) reported adequate interobserver agreements and test-retest results on the overexcitabilities questionnaire and interview, an alterna-tive test to assess overexcitabilities.

In examining validity, the authors conducted factor analyses, examined differences between groups, and ana-lyzed the test’s relationships to other tests. Factor analysis is used to identify how many traits or areas are measured by the test. For example, if the test au-thors hypothesize that a test measures more than one intelligence such as with multiple intelligences, then a factor analysis would confirm if some items relate to one another, but do not relate to others—independent factors. Authors reported one (Edmunds, 1998; Shermis, Fulkerson, & Banta, 1996) to 11 factors (Kettle, Renzulli, & Rizza, 1998) in their tests. The factors appeared to relate to the theory underlying the test, with a few ex-ceptions. Some authors found fewer fac-tors than the authors proposed: Dai and Feldhusen (1999) discovered only three factors in the Thinking Styles Inventory;

Edmunds (1998), only one factor with the Leadership Skills Inventory; and only one (Pyryt, 2000) or two factors (Plucker, 2000; Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, 1996) with a multiple intelligences-based performance assessment. In studying an older version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Masten, Morse and Wenglar (1995) also reported different sets of factors that appear for different ethnic groups, in this case, MexicanAmerican children.

In terms of discriminating among gifted students, academically able stu-dents, and nonidentified students, the researchers reported promising results. A number of studies showed that the test discriminated between gifted and nonidentified gifted students and might be used in the identification process (Glascoe, 1996; Johnsen & Ryser, 1997; Mantzicopoulos, 2000; Oreck, Owen, & Baum, 2003; Van Tassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002). Some of these tests ap-peared to identify more students (Glascoe, 1996; Oreck, Owen, & Baum, 2003; Reid, Romanoff, Algozzine, & Udall, 2000; Van Tassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002). The tests also discriminated between groups that had different characteristics or traits. Gifted and talented students had more legislative, liberal, and judicial thinking styles (Dai & Feldhusen, 1999), were better at science (Adams & Callahan, 1995), better at math (Shermis, Fulkerson, & Banta, 1996), performed better in the arts (Oreck, Owen, & Baum, 2003) and were more likely to have overexcitability in the intellectual area, but not other ar-eas (Bouchard, 2004). In addition, writers were more likely to have better child-hood memories or imaginings than the computer science, chemistry, and math groups (Dunn, Corn, & Morelock, 2004).

Gifted students also performed dif-ferently on the same test. For example, Fishkin, Kampsnider, and Pack (1996) found that gifted students had a greater subtest scatter on the WISC-III than the normal sample. Researchers also found that minority groups performed differ-ently on different tests (Mills & Tissot, 1995), with Hispanic students being un-deridentified. On the other hand, Naglieri and Ford (2003) suggested that there were no significant difference in intelligence



scores among three different ethnic groups on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Lohman (2005) challenged this claim and questioned the representativeness of the Naglieri sample and the need for multiple assessments when identifying gifted stu-dents. Ethnicity does appear to be a factor in teachers’ nominations, with Anglos re-ceiving higher ratings than Hispanics on the Renzulli Scales for Rating Behavior Characteristics of Superior Students (Plata & Masten, 1998).

To support the validity of the instru-ments, researchers also examined the tests’ relationships to a variety of other tests and performances. Intelligence tests related to other intelligence tests and achievement (Mantzicopoulos, 2000). The Leadership Skills Inventory related to past leadership behavior and actual leadership behavior (Edmunds, 1998). A global thinking style was related to ver-bal scores on the SAT (Dai & Feldhusen, 1999). Creativity tests that measured di-vergent thinking as opposed to other cre-ative behaviors were more likely to relate to one another and other tasks (Cropley, 2000). On the other hand, the Raven was not as highly related to school grades as other measures of achievement (Mills & Tissot, 1995) and was not related to the DISCOVER storytelling and storywriting tasks that measure multiple intelligences (Sarouphim, 1999a, 1999b).

Some of the tests predicted future performance. Portfolios predicted math and reading performance and future per-formance in a gifted program 4 years later (Johnsen & Ryser, 1997). A placement test in math predicted middle school talent development success (Shermis, Fulkerson, & Banta, 1996) and The Learning Behavior Scale predicted teacher-assigned grades (Worrell & Schaefer, 2004). On the other hand, the relationship between creativity tests and future performance in real life is lower (Cropley, 2000).

For those interested in designing al-ternative assessments, Van Tassel-Baska, Johnson, and Avery (2002) offer a process for developing performance tasks. They provide a step-by-step guide for identify-ing tasks, designing rubrics, and estab-lishing criterion levels of performance.

In conclusion, it is important that pro-fessionals be aware of test design and the technical qualities important in selecting test instruments. As Anastasi and Urbina

(1997) suggest: “Psychological tests are tools. To reap the benefits that tests can provide, one must keep this essential fact in mind. Any tool can be an instrument of good or harm, depending on how it is used” (p. 2).

Adams, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). The reliability and validity of a per-formance task for evaluating science process skills. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 14–20.

The authors evaluated the reliability of The Diet Cola Test and its validity for identifying gifted students. They tested 180 students in grades 4 through 8 in six states. The authors concluded that the data did not support its use in identifying students, but was suited for assessing sci-ence process skills as part of an instruc-tional program or evaluation.

Bouchard, L. L. (2004). An instrument for the measure of Dabrowskian overex-citabilities to identify gifted elemen-tary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 339–350.

The ElemenOE instrument discussed in this article was designed to assess overexcitability, which refers to innate “supersensitivity to stimuli in any of five different areas: psychomotor, sensual, imaginational, intellectual, and emo-tional” (p. 340). Using teacher ratings of 324 gifted and nonidentified students, the author examined the data to determine factor structure and differences between the two groups. While factors were sup-ported, the intellectual and psychomotor overexcitability scores discriminated between the two groups, with identified gifted rated higher on the intellectual overexcitability and nonidentified stu-dents rated higher on the psychomotor overexcitability. The reliability of the sensual and imaginational scales were unsatisfactory.

Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and mea-suring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23, 72–79.

In this article, Cropley reviews a va-riety of methods for assessing creativity: tests, biographical inventories, checklists of behavioral or personal characteristics,

and motivation and attitude inventories. The author suggests that these assess-ments conceptualize creativity in a variety of ways (products, processes, and personal factors). For the most part, reliabilities are adequate. In the case of validity, the high-est correlations among assessments are those that measure divergent thinking, which is a more cognitive task. The tests’ ability to predict future performance in real life is lower (around .50) since the tasks do not resemble real-life creative be-havior. Among tests of creative thinking, Cropley recommends the Test of Creative Thinking (Divergent Production) because it encompasses both thinking and person-ality.

Dai, D. Y., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1999). A validation study of the thinking styles inventory: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 21, 302–307.

This study examined the internal and external validity of the Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI) based on Sternberg’s theory of self-government. The research-ers tested 96 adolescent students who were in a summer residential program using the TSI and the Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory. The authors found the TSI scales intercorrelated with only three factors. No consistent pattern of relationships was found between intellec-tual style and personality trait measures. Verbal scores on the SAT were related to the global style on the TSI. They also found that gifted students may be more legislative, liberal, and judicial than aver-age students. The authors conclude that the nature and relationships of thinking styles among gifted students is inconclu-sive, but might be used as a heuristic tool by educators and parents to raise self-awareness among gifted students.

Dunn, L. W., Corn, A. L., & Morelock, M. J. (2004). The relationship between scores on the ICMIC and selected talent domains: An investigation with gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 133–142.

Using the Inventory of Childhood Memories and Imaginings: Children’s Form (ICMIC), researchers examined performance differences among gifted



students who chose story writing, com-puter science, chemistry, or math in a summer program. They found that the writers’ groups had a higher mean num-ber of positive responses to the ICMIC than the other three groups. The authors conclude that students with writing as their main talent area “have a greater level of fantasy-prone characteristics and may be capable of using them in their writing” (p. 141).

Edmunds, A. L. (1998). Content, concur-rent, and construct validity of the Leadership Skills Inventory. Roeper Review, 20, 281–284.

Using a sample of 90 academically gifted Grade 12 students from an urban magnet high school, the author found that the Leadership Skills Inventory related to past leadership behavior and related to actual leadership behavior, but contained only one factor of leadership.

Fishkin, A. S., Kampsnider, J. J., & Pack, L. (1996). Exploring the WISC-III as a measure of giftedness. Roeper Review, 18, 226–231.

This study found that subtest scatter of WISC-III scores occurred with greater frequency in a gifted sample of 21 girls and 21 boys in West Virginia than for subjects in a normal sample. The gifted sample performed better on the Similarities and Comprehension subtests.

Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). From the student’s perspective—My Class Activities: An instrument for use in research and evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 322–343.

In this study, the authors examined the validity of the instrument, My Class Activities, which contains 31 items and as-sesses four dimensions identified through the literature: Interest, Challenge, Choice, and Enjoyment. They administered the school surveys to 61 classrooms, receiv-ing a 100% return rate. They found that internal consistency reliabilities were ad-equate (.71–.91) for each of the four scales and that there were four identified factors although Challenge and Choice appeared to be more discriminating than Interest and Enjoyment.

Glascoe, F. P. (1996). Can the BRIGANCE Screens detect children who are gifted and academically talented? Roeper Review, 19, 20–24.

A total of 408 children from four geographic regions were administered the BRIGANCE, the Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised, the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery, the Child Development Inventory, and Teacher Ratings. The author found that the BRIGANCE and teacher ratings identified 82% of the gifted children.

Johnsen, S. K., & Ryser, G. R. (1997). The validity of portfolios in predicting performance in a gifted program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 253–267.

This study examined the degree to which samples collected in product port-folios from 216 kindergarten through sec-ond grade students were able to predict their successful performance in a gifted program 4 years later. Students whose portfolio scores were in the top quarter performed significantly better on math and reading achievement subtests. These results provide some validity for the use of portfolios when identifying gifted stu-dents.

Kettle, K. E., Renzulli, J. S., & Rizza, M. G. (1998). Products of mind: Exploring student preferences for product development using My Way . . . An Expression Style Instrument. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 48–57.

The authors present a survey that is designed to assess students’ interests in creating a variety of products. The pilot study included 45 districts, representing 24 states. Internal consistency for the scales ranged from .72 to .95. Using fac-tor analysis, the authors also identified 11 factors. The remainder of the article focuses on ways of using the instrument in a Schoolwide Enrichment Model.

Lohman, D. F. (2005). Review of Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test identify equal proportions of high-scoring White, Black, and Hispanic students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 19–28.

In this article, Lohman refutes Naglieri and Ford’s results in their 2003 article. Lohman suggests that the selected population may not be representative of the NNAT norm group, particularly ur-ban school districts whose students tend to score poorly on ability and achievement tests.

Lohman, D. F. (2005). The role of non-verbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111–138.

Lohman argues that many students who have high levels of ability would be excluded from gifted programs if only nonverbal ability tests were used during the identification process. He further ar-gues that verbal and quantitative reason-ing ability, which are similar across ethnic groups, are more likely to predict future academic performance than nonverbal reasoning scores. He concludes that (a) academic giftedness should be defined by evidence of academic accomplishment, (b) all abilities should be measured, (c) with young children reasoning measures should be used, (d) nonverbal measures should be used with other measures, (e) identification tests may be helpful for pro-viding useful information for all students, (f) professionals need to learn how to use correlation tables, (g) discriminations need to be made between students with current accomplishment and those who show promise, (h) different cutoff scores need to be used, and (i) professionals need to understand the differences between means and correlations.

Mantzicopoulos, P. Y. (2000). Can the Brigance K&1 Screen detect cogni-tive/academic giftedness when used with preschoolers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? Roeper Review, 22, 185–191.

The purpose of this study was to examine the ability of the Brigance K&1 to identify Head Start children for pos-sible cognitive/academic giftedness. The authors tested 134 children using the Brigance, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Teachers’ Ratings of Academic Competence Scale, and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Using a cut off score of 93 on the Brigance, the au-



thors found that the Brigance accurately predicted performance on the K-ABC.

Masten, W. G., Morse, D. T., & Wenglar, K. E. (1995). Factor structure of the WISC-R for Mexican-American students referred for intellectually gifted assessment. Roeper Review, 18, 130–131.

School psychologists administered the WISC-R to 68 Mexican American students who were referred for evaluation for an intellectually gifted program. They found that the factor structure was differ-ent for this sample of students.

Mayer, J. D., Perkins, D. M., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2001). Emotional intelligence and giftedness. Roeper Review, 23, 131–137.

This study focused on the relation-ship between emotional intelligence as measured by the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale and general intelli-gence as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Scale. Eleven students ranging in age from 13 to 17 years were tested with these two instruments. The sample had a mean score of 117 on the PPVT. After analyzing the participants’ response as to question about how they had handled a difficult social encounter, the authors concluded that students with higher emotional intelligence were better able to identify their own and others’ emotions in situations, use that information to guide their actions, and resist peer pressure.

Mills, C. J., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from under-represented populations: Is us-ing the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209–217.

A sample of 347 low income minority students from New York state were admin-istered the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) along with a more tradi-tional measure of academic aptitude (The School and College Ability Test; SCAT). They found that a higher proportion of minority children scored at a high level on the APM than on the SCAT, however, dif-ferences among ethnic groups were found with Hispanic students being underidenti-

fied. In addition, the SCAT was more as-sociated with school grades and measures of achievement than the APM.

Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155–160.

This study examined the effective-ness of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) in identifying gifted Black and Hispanic students in comparison to White students. The sample included 20,270 children from the NNAT stan-dardization sample tested during the fall of 1995 (p. 157). The authors report that there were no significant differences in intelligence scores among the three dif-ferent ethnic groups and that minority children perform similarly on this non-verbal measure of ability.

Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s par-ticipation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 29–36.

Naglieri and Ford refute Lohman by suggesting that their samples were not representative, but were similar in compo-sition. They conclude, “a general measure of ability that is not laden with verbal and quantitative knowledge is an appropriate way . . . to measure general ability . . . for children who come to school with limited language or educational skills” (p. 35).

Oakland, T., Falkenberg, B. A., & Oakland, C. (1996). Assessment of leadership in children, youth, and adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 138–146.

The authors presented four con-cepts or theories that are presented in the literature: leadership as power and influence; leadership as skillful manage-ment of behavior; leadership as personal qualities and traits; leadership as an in-teraction between personal qualities and environmental resources and needs. They reviewed the psychometric properties of seven leadership measures. They con-cluded that significant deficiencies existed in the assessment of leadership among

children and youth. Only the Leadership Skills Index (Karnes & Chauvin, 1985) was designed to measure leadership in children and youth. The authors recom-mend that those interested in identifying gifted children for programs take the best existing measures and supplement them by developing additional assessment pro-cedures.

Oreck, B. A., Owen, S. V., & Baum, S. M. (2003). Validity, reliability, and equity issues in an observational talent as-sessment process in the performing arts. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 62–94.

This article examines the develop-ment of the Talent Assessment Process in Dance, Music, and Theater (D/M/T TAP) to identify potential performing arts talent in diverse populations. After a review of validity issues with current instruments, the authors describe the elements of valid performance assessments: authentic arts experiences, flexible grouping, skillful facilitation, and easy scoring. Assessing a sample of 767 elementary students with the D/M/T TAP procedure, the authors reported technically adequate validity and reliability studies. They conclude that the assessment also accurately represent the demographics of the school, including students in bilingual and special educa-tion classrooms.

Piechowski, M. M., & Miller, N. B. (1995).

Assessing developmental potential in gifted children: A comparison of methods. Roeper Review, 17, 176–180.

This study examined alternative means of assessing overexcitabilities (OE): ques-tionnaire and interview. The researchers tested 46 youngsters, ages 9–14, recruited from a summer program for gifted and talented children. Both the interview and questionnaire were scored independently. Disagreements were resolved by arriving at a consensus. The mean correlation for pairs of raters before consensus was .72. Test-re-test results were .65. Most of the subjects voiced preference for the interview and required help in writing their responses to the questionnaire. There were no gender differences and no differences between the interview and the questionnaire. Older children did have higher OE scores.

�6 Summer 2005 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


Pfeiffer, S. I. (2001). Emotional intelli-gence: Popular but elusive construct. Roeper Review, 23, 138–142.

The author discusses measurement and conceptual issues related to the emo-tional intelligence (EI) construct. The author reports that EI lacks any sound, objective measures of EI and are primarily based on self-report instruments that lack norms or a standardization group. In ad-dition, Pfeiffer suggests that the concept lacks precision and is defined by broad abilities such as empathy, optimism, as-sertiveness, and delay of gratification. The author concludes that these broad abilities might be viewed as components of one’s personality and not another type of intel-ligence.

Plata, M., & Masten, W. (1998). Teacher ratings of Hispanic and Anglo stu-dents on a behavior rating scale. Roeper Review, 21, 139–144.

This study examined 12 teachers’ nomination rates of Hispanic and Anglo students to gifted and talented programs using the Scales for Rating Behavior Characteristics of Superior Students. Results indicated that ethnicity was a factor in teachers’ nomination rate with Anglos receiving higher ratings across all scales. Hispanic females were nominated fewer times than any other group.

Plucker, J. A. (2000). Flip sides of the same coin or marching to the beat of differ-ent drummers? A response to Pyryt. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 193–195.

Plucker responds to Pyryt by sug-gesting that different extraction meth-ods, rotation methods, and forms of data analyzed may result in similar factors, but not identical. Plucker argues that the MI-based performance assessments still support the presence of at least two constructs: mathematical-linguistic and spatial.

Plucker, J. A., Callahan, C. M., & Tomchin, E. M. (1996). Wherefore art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessments for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and low-income students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81–92.

The authors evaluated an assess-ment instrument based on the MI theory, the Multiple Intelligences Assessment Technique. They found that the internal consistency reliability fell within an ac-ceptable range for each of the subscales (.72 to .87). The results from the factor analysis, however, revealed only two subscales that were consistent with the hypothesized factors of verbal and math-ematical. Other validity issues were raised by the inconsistent results across schools, across ethnic groups, and in the subscales’ relationships with achievement tests. The authors conclude that much work remains before the instrument can be used in high-stakes testing such as identification.

Pyryt, M. C. (2000). Finding “g”: Easy viewing through higher order factor analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 190–192.

This study reanalyzed data using higher order factor analysis to show that “g,” general intelligence, was the under-lying factor on 13 indicators of four of Gardner’s multiple intelligences.

Reid, C., Romanoff, B., Algozzine, B., &

Udall, A. (2000). An evaluation of alternative screening procedures. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 378–396.

The authors examined the validity of a problem-solving assessment (PSA) in identifying students for gifted education programs. A sample of 1,100 second-grade students was assessed with eight different problem-solving tasks. The authors com-pared the number of students who were identified using these tasks and the Matrix Analogies Test (MAT). They reported that more than twice as many students were identified using PSA compared to the MAT with a similar distribution for boys and girls. They concluded that the PSA provides more opportunities for a wider range of students to participate in gifted programs.

Sarouphim, K. M. (1999a). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 244–251.

This article presents the DISCOVER process, which is based on the general framework of Gardner’s theory of mul-tiple intelligences and Maker’s definition of giftedness. The DISCOVER procedure consists of five activities that incorporates linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spa-tial intelligences. The author reports an interobserver reliability of .81 with per-centage of agreements ranging from 75 to 100% and a range of intercorrelations with the Raven from .09 to .58. The author con-cludes that further research is needed on the effective use of DISCOVER and other performance-based assessments.

Sarouphim, K. M. (1999b). DISCOVER: Concurrent validity, gender differ-ences, and identification of minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 130–138.

The author examined the concurrent validity of the DISCOVER instrument by examining its relationship to the Raven. After testing 257 kindergarten, second, fourth, and fifth grade Navajo Indians and Mexican Americans in Arizona, they reported mixed results. The relationships between Raven scores and the DISCOVER assessment were high for Pablo, tangrams, and math activities, but low for storytell-ing and storywriting. No gender differ-ences were found across grade levels. The performance-based instrument identified 24% of the participants.

Sarouphim, K. M. (2000). Internal struc-ture of DISCOVER: A performance-based assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 156–170.

The author reviews the internal structure of DISCOVER, an instrument grounded in multiple intelligences theory. After testing 257 kindergarten, second, fourth, and fifth grade Navajo Indians and Mexican Americans in Arizona, the author reported low and nonsignificant correlations among the problem-solving tasks with the exception of Storytelling and Storywriting across all grade levels. While Tangrams and Math were related at some grade levels as expected, they were not related at others. The author concludes that many issues need to be addressed before the DISCOVER assess-ment is used on a wider scale.



Shaklee, B. D., & Viechnicki, K. J. (1995). A qualitative approach to portfolios: The early assessment for exceptional potential model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 156–170.

This article describes the development of the Early Assessment for Exceptional Potential portfolio model using the crite-ria for the assessment of trustworthiness of qualitative research. To triangulate data and ensure internal validity, anec-dotal records, observations, videos, home survey, products, and nominations were used. Teachers were also trained in using the portfolio system. The authors found that teachers’ attitudes changed toward exceptional potential.

Shermis, M. D., Fulkerson, J., & Banta, T. W. (1996). Computerized adaptive math tests for elementary talent de-velopment selection. Roeper Review, 19, 91–95.

The purpose of this study was to examine the use of a computerized math test in placing fifth grade elementary school children in a middle school math-ematics talent development program. The designed instrument had an internal consistency reliability of .76 and also dem-onstrated good construct validity (e.g., sixth graders who were already placed in the middle school talent development classes scored significantly higher). The test performed slightly better than previ-ous math grades, teacher ratings, and the CTBS (Math) in predicting middle school talent development success. The authors conclude that this adaptive test may be an effective alternative to more expensive standardized procedures.

Spangler, R. S., & Sabatino, D. A. (1995). Temporal stability of gifted children’s intelligence. Roeper Review, 17, 207–210.

The WISC-R was administered to 66 children who were initially 8 years old and then at 36- and 72-month intervals. They found that the subtest and full-scale scores were relatively stable. The only subtest score that varied significantly was information.

Sternberg, R. J., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1995). The triarchic model applied to identi-fying, teaching, and assessing gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 255–260.

The authors discuss the triarchic model, an assessment to measure the model, and how the assessment results relate to instruction. They provide some concurrent validity data for the assess-ment and conclude by discussing activi-ties that relate to the three types of intel-ligence: analytic, creative, and practical.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110–123.

This article describes the process for developing performance tasks. Initially, the literature was reviewed to identify prototypes. Using these prototypes, tasks were designed that met a core set of cri-teria that were judged by a professional steering committee. In implementing the tasks, students performed corollary tasks before completing the assessment. Rubrics and exemplars were then created for each of the tasks. The tasks were field-tested with more than 4,000 students at primary and intermediate grades. Using these data, rubrics were revised and criterion levels of performance were established. Ultimately the researchers reported .80 in reliability at the domain level and .90 interrater reliability. The authors found that the instrument was able to identify more students who were missed using statewide cutoffs on traditional ability and achievement measures.

Worrell, F. C., & Schaefer, B. A. (2004). Reliability and validity of Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS) scores with academically talented students: A comparative perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 287-308.

This study examined the technical qualities of the Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS) with a sample of students who at-tended a summer program for academi-cally talented youth. The LBS has four subscales that relate to effective learn-

ing: competence motivation, attitude toward learning, attention/persistence, and strategy/flexibility. Using the LBS, the teachers rated each student during the last week of the 6-week program. The authors found that the LBS found no dif-ferences between academically talented and gifted students in the normative sample. The LBS did predict teacher-as-signed grades more than previous GPA, standardized test scores, and SES. When comparing the LBS to other teacher rat-ing scales, the authors reported that the LBS had (a) less internal consistency, (b) stronger evidence in terms of stability, (c) stronger support for multiple factors, and (d) stronger criterion-related validity for the explained constructs such as intelli-gence and achievement. The authors con-clude that the LBS needs to be examined in regular and GT classrooms in public school settings and that other teacher rat-ing scales need to establish the construct validity of the instruments’ scores.

Reference:Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997).

Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. u



Continued from page 5. for gifted services in my district, he is re-quired to be served through graduation. Once gifted, always gifted, right?

A: Districts have written policies including provisions for furloughs, reas-sessment, and exiting of students from program services.

Q: If my child is not identified after completing the screening process, there is nothing I can do, right?

A: Districts must have written poli-cies for appeals of program placement and for exit from the program.

Though testing and measurement are part of a complex assessment process, they are necessary to assist districts in finding students who need the intervention that a gifted program is designed to provide. Districts are looking for a “match” be-tween the student and the program. The assessment and testing component is the critical piece of this “match-making” pro-cess. Only after the “match” is made can these programs be expected to meet the needs of identified gifted students. u



frOm the editOrJennifer L. Jolly

A student’s entrance to various programs, classes, and eventually college or universities rests in part

with the outcome of a test score. TAKS, SAT, ACT, PSAT, ITBS, CoGAT, TONI-3, NNAT, AP, Pre-AP, and TPRI represent a sample of the veritable alphabet soup of tests that Texas school children are sub-jected to each year. America’s love affair of classifying and sorting students whether it be by age and/or ability developed dur-ing the very establishment of systematic schooling in the United States. A natural consequence of the sorting and sifting of students eventually led to the inextricable tie between intelligence tests and gifted education.

This relationship might best be ex-plained by Lewis M. Terman’s pioneering role in both intelligence testing and gifted education. He helped to usher in the sci-ence of testing with the development of the Standford-Binet Scale for Measuring Intelligence. The ferrying of the original Binet-Simon across the Atlantic from France changed the face of American schooling forever (Jolly, 2004). Terman recognized the practicality that such a test could bring education: “Intelligence tests have demonstrated the greatest extent and frequency of individual differences in the mental ability of unselected children . . . common sense tells us how necessary it is to take such differences into account in the framing of curricula and methods, in the classification of children, and in their education and vocational choice” (Cited in Chapman, 1988, p. 89).

Terman’s Standford-Binet Scale for Measuring Intelligence (1916) eventually became the gold standard in terms of

mental tests for identifying gifted students who were qualitatively superior to their school peers, thus requiring differentiated educational practices (Terman, 1922). The intelligence quotient (IQ) was consid-ered the final litmus test in identifying gifted students. Over the past century the definition of giftedness evolved to include elements such as leadership and creativ-ity. Terman and his contemporary Leta S. Hollingworth also recognized these additional factors of giftedness but felt that these abilities could not be measured adequately (Jolly, 2004). Hollingworth (1939), stated, “Educational psychology works constantly to find ways to identify these additional elements. It will be a long time before we advance to a point where we can measure these as well as we can now measure intelligence” (p. 580). Consequently, instruments to measure these additional abilities exist today, but experts still struggle with ill defined con-structs and poor psychometric properties (Jolly & Hall, 2004).

Early efforts within the field of gifted education concentrated on the use intel-ligence tests to “identify exceptional chil-dren, and measure the amount of the ex-ceptionality” (Hollingworth, 1990, p. 110). Their legacy is still prevalent in today’s identification procedures. Only within the last two decades have multiple measures to identify gifted students come into the mainstream. However, intelligence mea-sures are so embedded in the lexicon of identification that many school districts and researchers who identify experimen-tal samples prefer intelligence measures to determine giftedness (Tannenbaum, 2000).

References

Chapman, P. D. (1988). Schools as sorters: Lewis M. Terman, applied psychol-ogy, and the intelligence testing move-ment, 1890–1930. New York: New York University Press.

Hollingworth, H. L. (1990). Leta Stetter Hollingworth: A biography. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1939). What we know about the early selection of and training of leaders. Teachers College Record, 40, 575–592.

Jolly, J. L. (2004). A conceptual his-tory of gifted education: 1910–1940. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Jolly, J. L., & Hall, J. R. (2004). Technical information regarding assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (pp. 51–105). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Elseiver Science Ltd.

Terman, L. M. (1922). A new approach to the study of genius. Psychological Review, 29, 310–318. u



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.

Guidelines for Article SubmissionsUpcoming Issues:

Fall 2005Conference Issue“Marvel of the Mind”Deadline: September 1, 2005

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]



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

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

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

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

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

Special Pre-Conference Institutes for Educators and School Leadersat TAGT’s Annual Professional Development Conference for Educators and Parents

Wednesday, November 2, 2005Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, San Antonio, Texas

Dan Akers Fred AkersJason DorseyBrad Duggan Denise Villa

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) 365-5720 10670 Hammerly Houston, TX 77043 [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 V 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 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

volume xxv, issue 3 tempo · identification of the gifted african american learner: an alternative...

Documents