Identifying students as twice exceptional is hard work. A big reason why this is the case is due to the fact that this group of students constitutes a nonlinearly separable one. In other words, percentages, thresholds, and checklists don’t cut it. These students would need a set of tests nuanced and complex enough to appropriately identify them – tests that can separate the exceptionalities and account for something like dyslexia on a verbal intelligence measure. Let’s imagine that such a test could exist, a test that can perfectly identify students with exceptionalities as gifted. Getting there would still be a tremendous challenge for academics and practitioners due to one not-so-small problem: small area estimation.
Small area estimation is a statistical term that refers to the difficulty of making accurate and meaningful decisions about a given group due to their small size. Statistically speaking, the smaller the group, the harder it becomes to make meaningful conclusions about its characteristics, regardless of the supposed “perfectness” of a test. The best way to describe this is that you need enough people in a group to have the mean/median/mode of that group tell you something useful. Three thousand students and their average test performance on the STAAR can tell you something about that group of students. The average of three students does not tell you much. This is the fundamental issue with coming up with a useful test. Even a perfectly designed assessment needs a large enough group to learn what “twice exceptionality” looks like in the real world. But for most school districts, twice exceptional students make up a small fraction of the population (i.e., a small area). In other words, educators do not encounter enough examples to interpret the patterns they see with any kind of confidence.
And so we have a paradox: even if the ideal test existed, big testing companies wouldn’t have the sample size required to calibrate it. They would not be able to norm it. School districts most certainly wouldn’t have the numbers to calibrate it to their school district. Small numbers act like an amplifier for statistical noise. Unusual patterns can look typical and typical patterns might look unusual. The fewer students you have, the harder it is to know whether a child’s profile is due to twice exceptionality or just plain old ordinary statistical variation. In practice, this statistical reality adds another layer of difficulty to an already complex identification process.
This approach does not get to the real heart of the challenge of identifying twice-exceptional students and small-area estimation. The term twice exceptional is a wide umbrella under which a variety of different combinations of differences and abilities exist. The small area becomes even smaller. The perfect test that works on identifying the mathematically gifted child with dyscalculia will probably not work on the verbally gifted child with dyslexia. That does not mean that identification of twice exceptional students is impossible. It just means that a test or checklist is likely not the best strategy to identify these students.
Academics have many terms with which to describe why identifying students as twice exceptional is difficult: non-linear decision surfaces; non-convex class separation, and (one of my favorites) non-linear discriminant structures. All these are fancy ways of saying that the traits of twice-exceptional students overlap with the traits of gifted students and those with exceptionalities. In essence, identifying a child as twice exceptional can be a bit of a Gordian knot. Understanding why it’s hard to identify these students can help parents be better advocates for their children. This small blog will give a short introduction into the quantitative reasons that identifying twice exceptional students is difficult.
One of the critical applications of modern mathematics is classification. A tremendous amount of academic brainpower went into this process. It involves being able to separate a set of objects into different groups. Sometimes this is a relatively simple task. For example, my wife and daughter use simple heuristics to determine whether they will eat a given skittle: if the skittle is red or purple, they eat it; if it’s not, it goes in the trash. Classification can also be far more complex, such as machine learning techniques like convolutional neural networks that can determine whether a given response to a Facebook post agreed or disagreed with the original post. In mathematics and machine learning, the simplest classification problems involve drawing nice, crisp boundaries: this side is Group A, and that side is Group B (e.g., red/purple here; not red/purple there).
Things become more complicated when the boundary between one group and another stops being a simple straight line. Consider a school district that uses a single test for identification. If a student scores above the test threshold, they are identified. That constitutes straight line separation.
To identify twice exceptional students, you need something called a curved boundary (and sometimes more than one curve). A twice exceptional student might be mathematically gifted but have dyscalculia that is suppressing their mathematical gifts. A test, with simple line separation, cannot disentangle the dyscalculia from the mathematical gifts or the dyslexia from the verbal abilities. Nonlinear separability rises forth.
In reality, you can’t cleanly separate the groups with a single cut score or a single rule. Rather, a school district must use a flexible boundary that twists and turns to capture how strengths and challenges interact. Most school district gifted identification procedures, however, aren’t really built with that kind of complexity in mind. They use checklists, percentiles, and thresholds. These all make the assumption that every trait pushes a student in one direction only. Obviously, twice-exceptional students violate that assumption. Their strengths can mask their disabilities, and their disabilities can mask their strengths, creating patterns that don’t match either category.
Thus do gifted education evaluation committees disagree, scores can/do look inconsistent, and a child can excel in one domain while struggling in another. From a mathematical standpoint, twice-exceptional students sit in the intersection of overlapping curves. Step one is recognizing those curves so that those students are appropriately supported.
Getting Beyond “Nothing” and “Fine” Around the Dinner Table with Depth and Complexity
By Clint Von Gundy
Merry Back to School to all who celebrate!
After a few years away, wandering in the desert of corporate consulting, I made the decision to return to the public school classroom. I will, for the first time, be teaching elementary G/T pull out, so I have been studying the sacred texts, Kindergarten Cop and Billy Maddison, in an attempt to quell some of my anxiety about this new adventure.
I also recently found out that the district I now work in will, upon request and free of charge, deliver to my new classroom a live rabbit. Not a taxidermied rabbit, or a very nice picture of a rabbit, but an actual, fully alive rabbit. No questions asked. If you want a classroom rabbit, you can have one. By the way, they will not provide food or other accommodation for this rabbit, and they will not take the rabbit back at the end of the year… but the rabbit is free. It is theoretically the job of the teacher to keep the rabbit alive (or not, I guess) and to use the rabbit as a purposeful and relevant source of learning opportunities for their students.
I am not ordering a rabbit (though I was sorely tempted). But this got me thinking about what I want my classroom to mean to the kids and also to their caregivers. I want my class to be the one that gets talked about (in a good way) during the car ride home and around the dinner table. But I also know how kids are. I could order (and eventually, through incompetence, kill) a dozen rabbits and design the most amazing lessons around them, and many of my kids probably wouldn’t utter a word about it at home even if they thought the rabbit stuff was really cool.
Let me back up. Sure, parents are glad that summer is finally over and the kids are going back to doing something ostensibly more productive with their time than staring into the middle distance and sighing about how bored they are, but the flip side of this is that seven or eight hours of their day are now a complete black box. You rightly want to know what your kids are learning, or supposedly learning, all day. And so you ask:
“How was school?”
“Fine,” they answer.
You probe, hoping for some hint of what your tax dollars provide:
“What did you learn?”
“Nothing.”
Not a single mention of an ongoing rabbit catastrophe. Or anything else for that matter.
Look, I promise you your kids are learning more than nothing, and school is likely better than fine. But, as parents, you need to learn to interrogate your kids in a more meaningful way about school. To help you do this, I’ve written some open-ended questions based on the Icons of Depth and Complexity (some of the most powerful thinking tools gifted education has ever invented). They are designed to help you reframe how you and your kids think about discussing school. If you don’t know anything about Depth and Complexity, that’s okay. You can ignore the stuff in bold and go straight to the questions.
Language of the Discipline
What is the most interesting/beautiful/funniest word you learned today? What does it mean? Can you use it in a sentence? What is its opposite (antonym)? What are its synonyms?
Details
What’s one apparently irrelevant thing you learned today that seems like it might actually be really important?
Rules
Did anyone break any rules today? Why do you think they did that? Is the rule they broke a good rule or were they justified in breaking it? What would be a fair consequence?
Patterns
Has school been more or less challenging lately? Why do you think that is? How have you adjusted?
Trends
What’s the “cool new thing” lately? Do you think it’s a good or a bad influence? What’s one cool thing you wish people knew about?
Unanswered Questions
What’s something you really wish you could learn more about in school? What is something you disagree with your teacher/peers/parents about? Why are you right? How do you know you aren’t wrong?
Ethics
Did anything happen today that you knew just wasn’t right? What did you do? How would you change it? How did you stand up for the right thing? Did anybody do something good/kind?
Big Idea
What is the most important or interesting thing you learned today? How did it change how you see the world or yourself? Conversely, what’s the dumbest thing you learned today? Was there any “knowledge for its own sake” that you enjoyed gaining?
Multiple Perpectives
What did you learn today about or from someone who is different from you?
Across the Disciplines
Can you make any connections between what you’re learning in different classes? Between school and “real life”? Is there anything you are dead certain you will absolutely never use outside of a standardized test?
Change Over Time
How was today different/better/worse from yesterday? How will it be tomorrow? What is one thing you want to accomplish tomorrow? Next week? Next month?
I hope this helps. If not, maybe suggest that your child’s teacher procure a rabbit. Or, better yet, purchase one for them and send it along with the hand sanitizer and Kleenex.
Research Title: Great expectations: The parental pursuit of optimal gifted programming.
Researchers: Celeste D. C. Sodergren, Todd Kettler, & Jessica McKamie.
Parents of gifted children often notice their kids’ exceptional talents early on. Whether it’s a knack for math, an interest in reading above their grade level, or an artistic ability that stands out, these kids can feel bored or disconnected in a typical classroom setting. This can lead to frustration, and parents start looking for ways to meet their children’s needs outside of regular school programs. Many parents notice that some public schools just don’t provide enough of a challenge for their gifted children, and they may also struggle to get the support they need from schools. As a result, they start seeking out specialized programs that can offer a more stimulating and nurturing environment for their children’s abilities.
When it comes to options, parents often turn to a variety of specialized programs. University-based programs are a popular choice. These programs can range from summer camps to after-school classes that focus on specific subjects like STEM or the arts. They give gifted students an opportunity to learn at a higher level and engage with other like-minded kids, which can be a huge relief for parents who are worried their child isn’t being challenged enough in school. Parents also look into private schools or even homeschooling, though homeschooling can be tough since it requires a lot of time and effort from parents. Weekend programs or summer camps through universities or other organizations can also be a good option, but these programs can sometimes be hard to access because of cost or location. Some parents also turn to specialized centers or private tutors to meet their child’s needs.
University-based programs come with a lot of perks. For one, they offer more challenging coursework, which can help gifted students engage more deeply with subjects they’re passionate about. Being in a university environment gives these kids a glimpse into what higher education could be like, helping them get a head start on the skills they’ll need for college. Plus, these programs usually bring together students who have similar intellectual interests, allowing gifted kids to connect with peers they might not find in regular school settings. This can help them feel less isolated and more supported socially and emotionally.
However, these programs aren’t without their downsides. One of the biggest challenges is cost. University programs, especially summer camps or weekend enrichment classes, can be expensive, making them hard for some families to afford. Access can also be a problem—there just aren’t enough programs to go around, and some families might live too far away to take advantage of these opportunities. Even if a program is available, it might not always live up to expectations. Parents may hope for certain outcomes, like academic acceleration or social development, and if those expectations aren’t met, it can lead to disappointment.
Dr. Celeste Sodergen and colleagues (2025) have conducted a study on the parental expectations from such programs. The aim of this research is to understand what parents are hoping to achieve when they seek out specialized university programs for their gifted children. What do they expect from these programs? Are their needs being met, or are there gaps that need to be addressed? This research hopes to shed some light on what works, what doesn’t, and how these programs can better serve both the children and the parents who turn to them for help.
In this qualitative study, all of the parent participants were female, with an average age of 42. Data were collected through focus groups, with each session lasting approximately 60 minutes. The parents were asked to discuss their expectations for university-based programs for gifted students, and six key themes emerged from their responses.
Challenge was a key motivator, with parents emphasizing the need for programs that would provide their children with mental stimulation and deeper engagement. They wanted their kids to be challenged with complex material, opportunities for group work, and the chance to explore subjects in more depth. Many parents expressed frustration with previous programs that lacked these elements, seeking university programs specifically for advanced challenges.
Another major theme was the importance of supports in the programs. Parents wanted instructors trained to work with gifted students, as well as environments that supported emotional and social growth. They highlighted the importance of handling perfectionism, helping students process failure, and providing a respectful and inclusive atmosphere for children from diverse backgrounds. Emotional support was also crucial, as many parents mentioned the need for help with anxiety and managing the emotional side of being academically advanced.
Parents also focused on the development of academic success skills, such as metacognition, stress management, and collaboration. They were interested in programs that would help their children develop these skills early on, to better prepare for future academic challenges and to foster overall student flourishing. Additionally, some parents hoped these programs would help their children see themselves as university-bound and offer opportunities for career exploration and making lasting connections.
In terms of student interests, parents wanted their children to have a wide variety of options in the programs, allowing them to explore different career paths and discover new areas of interest. Many parents spoke about their children’s excitement in choosing from a range of courses and activities, highlighting the importance of allowing kids to explore what truly excites them.
The theme of quality also emerged, with parents placing importance on the university’s reputation, the resources available to students, and how the programs were developed and refined over time. They wanted transparency in how these programs were structured and continuously improved, as well as a learning environment that encouraged critical thinking and meaningful discussions led by trained staff.
Finally, accessibility was a major concern. Many parents mentioned logistical issues, such as the cost of programs, proximity to their homes, and scheduling conflicts with other family responsibilities. Cost was a significant barrier for some, while others expressed frustration with the lack of local programs or the high expenses associated with distant options. Despite these challenges, parents were willing to make considerable sacrifices to provide their children with these opportunities, though they hoped for more affordable and accessible programs in the future.
These findings highlight the range of factors parents consider when seeking out enrichment programs for their gifted children. Current programs and the new programming initiatives should consider the findings of this study for robust service options for the gifted children and their parents.
Reference
Sodergren, C. D. C., Kettler, T., & McKamie, J. (2025). Great expectations: The parental pursuit of optimal gifted programming. [In Press]. Roeper Review.
Nurturing the Moral and Ethical Lives of Gifted Children
By Clint Von Gundy
In Terry Gilliam’s 1981 classic Time Bandits, David Warner plays a character named “Evil Genius.” He is a stand-in for the devil, and spends most of his time locked in a damp subterranean lair, fuming against the beauty of creation and plotting to take control of it for himself. What will he do with this newfound power? He tells us:
“If I were creating the world, I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers! Eight o’clock! Day one!”
The movie is largely forgotten; I count myself a fan and I haven’t seen it in many years, but the figure of Evil Genius sticks with me. He reminds me of a heartbreaking lyric from the song “Living a Lie” by Aimee Mann: “No one bears a grudge like a boy genius / Just past his prime / Gilding his cage / One bar at a time / For every open arm there’s a cold shoulder / Waiting to turn / People to blame / Bridges to burn”.
So, I’ve made two pop culture references in about as many paragraphs. Where am I going with this? Simply put, I’ve been looking around at the world lately and I see a lot of brilliance adrift, or, even worse, brilliance aimed in a bad direction. I have often said that gifted children are our last best hope for a better future, but they may also hold the keys to our collective sorrow. There is great peril in being (or at least believing you are) the smartest kid in the room. Giftedness, when not tempered by a commitment to justice, compassion, and the collective good, can be a blight, both for the individual and anybody who happens to cross their path. There are so many bright kids in the world who seem intent on using their abilities exclusively to prove their superiority, often at the expense of others. For many, the world and the people in it have become a thought experiment, an abstraction that can be manipulated and toyed with for personal amusement or profit without a thought for the flesh and blood consequences.
Take the example of Sam Bankman-Fried, a so-called “crypto bro” who graduated from MIT and then proceeded in short order to commit 8 billion (with a B) dollars worth of fraud. To put that in perspective, that’s enough money to run Dallas ISD (a school district serving almost 150,000 students) for four solid years. Bankman-Fried was just shy of his thirty-first birthday when he was arrested. The story of Bankman-Fried and his cohort of fellow wunderkind is too long, and frankly too bizarre, to recount further in the space I have.
We might also consider the case of Marko Elez, a 25 year-old computer engineer who resigned from Elon Musk’s DOGE after Elez’s racist tweets surfaced. Elez was subsequently rehired by DOGE, for what it’s worth. We might also ponder the deeply strange story of Ziz Lasota, the leader of an extremely online tech cult comprising people so convinced they were the only ones smart enough to avert the coming AI apocalypse that they ended up murdering six people.
What do all of these stories have in common? They are all the tales of well-educated, bright young people with a gift for computing who also seem to have completely broken, or at least badly-calibrated, moral compasses. Poke around the internet for any length of time and you’ll not find yourself poor for more examples. Budding evil geniuses are the hot new thing. And that’s a problem for everybody. The once-quaint “move fast and break things” ethos of Silicon Valley has escaped its once-insular cage and now has seemingly free rein in all corners of private and public life. The bull has entered the china shop. These attitudes and actions are not necessarily bound by traditional political categories. The ideology at play here is neither liberal nor conservative, but more akin to a tech-savvy Nietzschean (or Randian) will to power: (Intellectual) might makes right. Rules are for average people. Humility is for suckers.
So what caused this?
It’s not a new phenomenon. The history books are home to all manner of brilliant people who did bad things for the sake of money, power, or simply to expand their own minds. Faust sold his soul to Mephistopheles as a BOGO deal, after all. The young people I’ve mentioned by way of example above are simply a new generation of familiar stock characters pasted together from a schematic we can all recognize. They are people possessed of immense intelligence and aptitude who embrace radical individualism as a cardinal virtue, who would nominate themselves for the position of philosopher king or queen. I often wonder how many kids miss the real point of that classic of middle school literature, Harrison Bergeron. Kurt Vonnegut was trying to tell us that a world ruled by an Übermensch like Harrison was no more desirable than one under the authority of radical egalitarian Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General. Missing the point of Fight Club was practically a competitive sport among young men when I was in college.
The physicist Freeman Dyson warned of the seductive power of intellect many years ago when reflecting on the building of the first nuclear bombs at Los Alamos: “I have felt it myself… It is something that gives people an illusion of illimitable power, and it is, in some ways, responsible for all our troubles — this, what you might call technical arrogance, that overcomes people when they see what they can do with their minds.”
There are plenty of people who wholeheartedly believe that the problem can be fixed by intentionally reviving the humanities in our schools, that a well-balanced curriculum that honors both philosophy and physics, civics and computer science, is the solution to the problem of all this weaponized, indifferent intelligence. I really hate to tell you this, but that simply isn’t the case. There is a long tradition of beautiful music, art, literature, historiography, philosophy, and even fashion that paved the way for or went hand-in-hand with political movements that created a great deal of human suffering and environmental degradation. Mao, I remind you, was a librarian, and Goebbels had a PhD in linguistics. OverSTEMphasis in our schools isn’t the whole problem, and a turn back toward the humanities isn’t the whole solution. Yes, a solid foundation in ethics is an essential piece of a good Liberal education, but a true resurgence of Enlightenment values will not necessarily follow from reading more philosophy. Marcus Aurelius is a favorite of the tech titan set, even as I find myself doubting that all their nightstand copies of Meditations have actually been read. Technology itself is also not the problem. Technology is morally value-neutral. Another young DOGE acolyte once used his skills to decipher ancient scrolls from Vesuvius, an activity we can all probably agree is pretty cool.
As a society, we have a minor obsession with what might be called “Great Men of History” (and they are mostly men), individuals who harnessed their intellects to achieve dubiously grand results (we shot Katy Perry into space, y’all!), but who also prioritized ends over means to the tangible detriment of everyone else. The problem is not a matter of the weight we give to certain subjects in schooling, but how they are framed. I’m not sure when exactly “College and Career Readiness” (CCR) came on the scene as the driving force in how we think about the purpose of school, but I think it has done a lot of damage. The message we give to young people in classrooms is that education, at whatever level, has as its endpoint financial gain, for both you and your employer. Education has become a series of transactions for which you will be given a receipt, your diploma, approximating your economic worth to the world.
I don’t necessarily think that CCR is irredeemable on principle, but we do need to add some more Cs to the mix. There is no magic pill for Evil Genius Syndrome, but there is a kind of therapy for it, one based in an education that attaches self-examination to the accumulation of knowledge and skills. It’s also worth pointing out that this is a way forward, not a way out. We will be dealing with the consequences of our current batch of evil geniuses for the foreseeable future.
So, let’s talk about CCCCR. And let’s pose our exploration of it as a series of questions. We already know the first two Cs: College and Career.
College
What kind of education do I want to pursue after high school? What interests me? What am I good at? What kind of college do I want to go to? Do I have a specific college in mind? How will I pay for it? Do I even need to go to college?
Career
What could I see myself doing for the next thirty to forty years? What can I make money doing? What is the bar for entry to the career that interests me?
Now let’s add the other two Cs. It’s actually 3 Cs: Community/Citizenship and Contentment. Here are the questions we should be helping kids ask and answer relative to these:
Community/Citizenship
What do I owe to my fellow human beings and what do they owe to me? What about other species? What can I contribute to my community to make it a better place for both myself and others? What rights and responsibilities do I have within my community? What do I owe to people I have never and probably never will meet? What problems can I fix with the knowledge and skills that I have? How will I react to people with whom I have disagreements or conflicts? What is my place in the world and what place do I want in it?
Contentment
What brings me joy? What kind of life do I want to live? What do I stand for, and what will I stand up for? What do I want others to say about me when I am gone? What is my full potential, and how will I know when I have met it? When will I know that I have enough? How can I make who I like to think I am and who I actually am the same person?
Advocacy for public education and GT education has become more important than ever. Multiple bills have been filed that could impact Texas GT students, and as a parent or educator of GT students, your voice is needed this spring. Please read on for news and easy action steps every GT parent can take right now to make a difference.
Texas Public Schools Need More Funding
Issue #1: Raise the Basic Allotment
Texas currently spends $4,400 less per student than the national average and ranks in the lowest 10 states in per-student spending. This funding has not increased since 2019 and has not kept up with inflation.
How can Texas fix this problem? Each year, districts receive a specific per-student dollar amount from the “basic allotment” – the main source of funding for Texas public schools – to be used in educating students. The basic allotment needs to be increased by over $1,300 per student per year just to keep up with inflation, according to public education supporters, but the latest funding proposal in the Texas House of Representatives would only increase the basic allotment by $220 per student per year.
Why should GT parents worry about the basic allotment? Although districts do receive some earmarked funding for GT programs (the “GT Allotment”), the GT Allotment is not enough to fully fund programs that meet GT student needs and follow state requirements, and the TEA has directed districts to also use basic allotment funds on GT programs. Unfortunately, when overall funds are tight, districts with leaders who do not understand or value GT education may choose GT programs for funding cuts. In fact, GEFN has already heard of planned cuts affecting GT programs in multiple Texas districts. Many Texas districts have been forced to close schools due to a lack of state funding, and more closures are expected if funding does not increase. To protect both GT programs and the needs of ALL Texas students, the basic allotment must be increased by significantly more than the current proposal.
Issue #2: Increase the Texas GT Allotment
The GT Allotment is a formula that provides additional earmarked funding to educate GT-identified students. As discussed above, this amount is insufficient to fully fund the GT programs students need, but it also does not provide funding for as many students as many districts should be identifying for GT services.
Although there is no cap on the number of students that Texas districts can include in GT programs, the GT Allotment only provides earmarked funding for a maximum of 5% of each district’s total students. Over the years, concerns have been raised that this funding cap could discourage districts from identifying more than 5% of students for GT services, since some districts may be reluctant to use other funds to serve additional students. This is especially problematic since districts need to work towards ensuring that identification processes do not miss students, including using tools such as universal screening (ensuring that every child has access to the process that examines whether a child needs GT services). Making these changes and serving additional students will require funding.
The good news: bills have been filed that would help fund GT services for more students. If passed, House Bill 977 (identical Senate Bill 1613) would raise the GT Allotment funding cap from 5% to 10% of each district’s enrolled students, and would take effect on Sept. 1, 2025. This increase would help ensure that ALL students who need gifted services can receive them in every Texas district.
Issue #3: Voucher Proposal Diverts Money From Public Schools
The Texas Legislature is currently considering proposals for vouchers / ESAs, which would divert money needed by our already-underfunded public schools and send taxpayer dollars to private schools that do not have to follow the same accountability standards. Advocates for public education oppose vouchers for many reasons, including their negative impact on student achievement in other states, but vouchers may be especially problematic for GT students. Private schools do not have to follow Texas GT education laws, meaning that even if private schools purport to offer GT services, there is no state oversight. Twice-exceptional students (gifted + one or more disabilities) would be doubly disadvantaged since private schools also do not have to follow federal disability laws or accept students with disabilities.
TAKE ACTION: Contact Your State Legislators Now!
It is important for your Texas state Representative and state Senator to hear directly from you on these issues. To make an impact, reach out to your legislators by phone or through their website contact form, and ask them to:
Vote FOR increasing the GT Allotment (House Bill 977 and Senate Bill 1613), and consider co-sponsoring these two bills,
Vote FOR increasing the basic allotment to fully account for inflation (at least $1,300 increase per student),
Vote against legislation that would give tax dollars to schools that do not have to accept students with gifted needs or disability needs, and that do not have to follow laws to ensure these needs are met.
Contacting your Texas state Representative and state Senator is quick and easy! You can find their contact information here: https://wrm.capitol.texas.gov/home
At Risk: Federal Education Support, Including Disability Rights
Issue #1: Protect the Department of Education
A proposal has been discussed to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and to move enforcement of IDEA (the law that requires schools to provide Special Education services and IEPs) to another federal agency, such as Health and Human Services (HHS). Disability advocates have warned that this would harm all students in public schools, but would especially hurt students with disabilities. As parents and educators of gifted students know, many gifted students also have one or more disabilities (twice-exceptional). Multiple organizations have issued calls to protect the Department of Education, including National PTA, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, The Arc of the United States, and more. Although there is no federal requirement for gifted services, the Javits Grant Program has provided years of funding for important research on students with gifted needs, and it is also part of the Department of Education.
Issue #2: Protect Section 504 Rights and Accommodations
Gifted students with disabilities that do not require services in school but do require accommodations (possible examples: ADHD, processing disorders, or other disabilities) have the right to receive these accommodations because of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504” for short). Unfortunately, this law may now be at risk. In a lawsuit filed 9/26/24, 17 states – including Texas – have objected to part of Section 504, and their petition also asks the court to declare ALL of Section 504 unconstitutional (see Complaint, page 42, subsection (d)). If the court decides to agree with that request, people with disabilities could lose rights and protections that have been in place for 50 years.
TAKE ACTION: Contact Your U.S. Legislators Now!
To ask Congress to protect the Department of Education, you can find your U.S. Senators and Representatives here: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials
To protect Section 504, the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund has created an action alert: https://dredf.org/protect-504/
The Future Depends on You.
We are all busy parents, and it may seem easier to sit back and hope that others will take action. Unfortunately, for many of these issues, there is no one else to act. It is up to us – each parent and each teacher of a GT student – to contact our legislators and let them know that these issues matter to YOU, their constituent. When the Texas GT Allotment was temporarily lost in 2019, not enough key lawmakers had heard from their constituents about the importance of GT education funding. This means that too few GT parents and educators contacted their legislators and made their voices heard. Please do not let Texas make that same mistake again.
Please consider acting now to support Texas public schools and the needs of ALL students with unique learning needs, including our GT students. The future of current and future Texas students depends on you.
The information in this post is current to the best of our knowledge on the date of posting. Changes happen quickly during legislative sessions, however, so parents may want to follow the below organizations for news about the basic allotment, vouchers, and disability protections. Nothing in this post is intended as legal advice and this post should not be relied on as legal advice.
Why Parents and Educators Should Be Happy About a Possible TikTok Ban
By Clint Von Gundy
I don’t use TikTok. I have better things to do… like scroll Instagram. Still, TikTok finds a way to insinuate itself into my life on a near daily basis. It turns out that TikTok users crosspost between platforms and so it’s not an unusual occurrence for TikTok videos to find their way into my other feeds, which are mostly videos of cats and, for some reason, snapping turtles.
During the weird period of time between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, I found myself on the couch, flipping through Instagram reels (or whatever they’re called), when I came across a reposted TikTok that goes something like this:
A woman, who appears to be in her car (social media and operating a vehicle are a bad combination, by the way), wears a bemused look. The caption reads: “It took me nearly 50 years to realize it’s ‘Cold as Hail’ not ‘Hell…’”.
We then cut to a man who reads from what I guess is a Reddit post that informs him that “cold as Hail” is the correct idiom because hail is literally freezing and Hell is associated with flames and heat.
Both actors in this miniature drama seem as if the scales have been finally lifted from their eyes, and they step blinking into a new world, one which is not founded on lies.
There are a couple of problems with this TikTok.
First, the correct phrase is in fact “cold as Hell”. Many cultures associate their underworlds with the frigidity. In Dante’s Inferno (which I, an intellectual, have actually read), the ninth and lowest circle of Hell is actually a frozen lake, the most famous visual depiction of which is a 19th-century engraving by the French artist Gustave Doré. Lucifer, trapped waist-deep in ice, is munching on the historical traitors Cassius, Brutus, and Judas Iscariot–disloyalty was Dante’s most egregious sin.
Upon seeing this video, I got off the couch (for the first time in 48 hours) and explained all of the above to my husband, who really just wanted to get back to whatever he was doing.
Second, while the inaccuracy of the TikTok Itself may seem innocuous, it reveals a couple of troubling aspects of how society, especially its young people, interact with media. True, most people haven’t read Dante, but think of how quickly something that is untrue becomes true for consumers of (mis)information simply because it was packaged as a funny meme. When viewed through this lens, alarmism about potentially nefarious propaganda injected into our feeds by bad actors does not seem so Chicken Little-ish. The internet is simply a much more dangerous place now, especially for young people. The real danger is not physical predators so much as it is mental and psychological parasites. Misinformation used to be slow-moving – you had to wait for your conspiracy-minded uncle to forward a chain email. These days, social media, often unmonitored by parents, can put out-and-proud misogynist and accused rapist Andrew Tate in front of your impressionable child in a heartbeat. Young people are now using TikTok and other social media to self-diagnose everything from ADHD to childhood trauma. There is simply no way to turn off the firehose of bad content short of disconnecting the wi-fi and throwing all of your devices into the sea.
The tools of media literacy that I once used in my classrooms seem charmingly outdated now. I think gifted children may be especially vulnerable because their curiosity may cause them to begin experimenting with ideas that lead to antisocial thoughts and behaviors. When I taught middle school at a gifted magnet, I had to dress down all of the boys in the program because they found it “funny” to repeat a sexually offensive joke they picked up from an eighth-grader in the locker room. These were smart kids who “should have known better.” And yet, there I was, giving a thirty minute sermon on the importance of not being creepy around girls and women. The point is, even gifted students aren’t immune from bad influences.
Gifted kids may also be better at covering their tracks when they wander into questionable online spheres. Further, as a child, I am fairly certain that my desire to be the smartest person in the room sometimes led me to adopt intellectual positions that were contrary to good citizenship, and sometimes I didn’t even actually believe what I was advocating for.
Banning TikTok, by far the most popular platform among young people (and therefore the most likely to salt the earth of their growing minds) is largely a social good. But, like the Hydra, cutting off one head simply makes room for two more to grow, to say nothing of Instagram, X, Discord, Reddit, Facebook, etc. What are parents and educators to do? The answer simply cannot be the constant surveillance and censorship of our young people’s media diets. Trying to shelter them from this particular storm more or less guarantees that they will never leave the shelter.
Rather, what parents and educators need to do is redouble their efforts to foster a healthy sense of suspicion and skepticism in children. Train them to always interrogate any pronouncement from any figure claiming authority or expertise. Teach them to reason both philosophically and morally.
Here are some great questions to start with:
Why do I want to believe this is true or untrue?
How does the person trying to make me believe this is true or untrue benefit?
How can I confirm that it’s true or not? What would be convincing evidence?
What are the positive and negative consequences of this idea, and what will I do about it?
Are there flaws in the logic of what is being presented? What makes it sound reasonable even if it’s nonsense? Are my emotions being used against me?
How can I convince others of its truth or untruth, especially if believing or not believing carries potential harm?
What will I do if it’s not true, especially if I am emotionally invested in it being true?
Such an approach to knowledge may well make a child annoying to their peers, professors, and politicians, but the alternative is truly horrifying.
By the way, healthy skepticism and critical thinking are bolstered when individuals have a deep well of knowledge from which to draw, so make your kids read Dante.
Update: The status of TikTok is back up in the air since I first penned this essay, so I guess we’ll just see. In the meantime, at least have a conversation with your kid about the perils of the platform. And call your member of congress to remind them that if they support the ban, they should stand by their vote.
On Being a Father of a Gifted High-Achieving Millennial Boy
An analysis of the article “Paternal Influence on Gifted High-Achieving Millennial Males” By Thomas P. Hébert (published in Journal for the Education of the Gifted)
by Dr. Selcuk Acar PhD
Parenting gifted youth is attracting increasing attention from researchers, and some of these studies provide valuable insights and strategies for effective parenting practices. In one such recent study, Dr. Tom Hébert from the University of South Carolina focused on how fathers influence gifted, high-achieving Millennial males. He emphasized the role of fathers, noting that inadequate affection can lead to feelings of rejection and despair, and discussed the connection between paternal absence and lower self-esteem, depression, violence, and criminal behavior in males. Furthermore, he pointed to research showing the detrimental effects of failing to recognize boys’ emotional needs. Dr. Hébert extended his previous work on gifted males and explored the perceptions of gifted, high-achieving Millennial males regarding their father-son relationships.
His qualitative study, using a phenomenological interview research design, placed fathers at the core of the interview questions. It involved 10 gifted, high-achieving Millennial males. Dr. Hébert’s analysis of these interviews revealed interesting insights into how these gifted males viewed their fathers and how they were influenced by them. Six key points capture the essence of the interviews:
Father’s Work Ethic: From the perspective of high-achieving gifted students, fathers were perceived as “industrious men with strong work ethics.” This likely explains how and why these gifted students were “high-achieving.” The gifted students shared stories about their fathers, such as one who started his day at 4 a.m. to drive three hours to a job he found unpleasant, without ever complaining, or another father who broke down in front of his sons, feeling embarrassed by his transition from a $90,000 salary job to a $28,000 job in order to support his family.
Fathers as Teachers: Fathers also influenced their sons by teaching specific skills (such as car repair or cooking), imparting important life lessons on managing relationships through serious conversations, and modeling morality through actions. Additionally, fathers were often good listeners who helped facilitate their sons’ decision-making processes.
Father’s Rituals with Their Sons: Fathers were intentional in developing rituals to nurture a strong relationship with their sons. These could be simple activities like watching a Sunday football game, cooking together, or establishing bedtime routines. Such experiences, initiated by the fathers, often created lasting memories that helped maintain strong bonds over the years.
Father’s Presence and Silent Support: Gifted boys recalled how supportive their fathers were in their athletic activities, even if the fathers weren’t passionate about the sports themselves. They were also actively involved in supporting organizations such as science fairs, dedicating their time despite busy schedules. This consistent presence at sports events, games, and competitions communicated to the sons that they mattered to their fathers.
Father’s Genuine Behaviors and Strong Sense of Self: Genuine and authentic behaviors demonstrated by fathers had a significant impact on their sons. Fathers’ empathetic yet resilient stances on life’s challenges, as well as their humility in the face of others’ excessive self-promotion, fostered feelings of admiration in their gifted sons.
Father’s Respect for Son: Fathers respected their sons’ talents and showed trust and confidence in their decision-making processes. The various ways fathers expressed pride in their sons and shared this pride with others may not only be memorable but also inspiring and motivating for the sons.
Dr. Hébert noted that “fathers serve their sons as the most significant source of information regarding what it means to be successful males.” Reflecting on his findings, I would also add that fathers’ successful parenting practices can help gifted boys become better human beings.
Reference:
Hébert, T. P. (2024). Paternal Influence on Gifted High-Achieving Millennial Males. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 47(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532241258506
Regardless of how one feels about the results of the most recent election, whether rage, elation, or simple ennui, one has to admit that the American political landscape has shifted dramatically. As a nation, we are entering into truly unknown territory. Given the gravity of our current situation, many reading this may wonder about the impact a second Trump presidency and an overall shift in favor of deregulation and trimming of government services will have on gifted education. Reading the tea leaves on this is more or less impossible. President-Elect Trump speaks often about his fondness for “High-IQ” individuals, but whether this will have any impact on policy at the federal level under soon-to-be Education Secretary Linda McMahon is anyone’s guess. On top of that, given the nature of Trump’s proposed second term agenda, it may seem downright quaint to center gifted education as an advocacy priority at all.
While I am very concerned about what might happen to me and many people that I love over the next four years (or longer), I have also reaffirmed to my Northstar as an educator of gifted children: The best hope for a more peaceful, prosperous, humane, and sustainable future is an unapologetic investment in the education and support of our brightest young minds, their teachers, and their families.
This is what I believe. How do I get other people to believe it too?
What follows is a list of three lessons I’ve learned over the last twelve years advocating for gifted students.
Number 1: Gifted Education Is Actually Quite Popular
Despite the hemming and hawing of a vocal minority championing cosmetic equity, most Americans are actually in favor of better resources and funding for academically advanced students. They are especially prone to support gifted education if it is framed in terms of helping to guarantee future American prosperity and exceptionalism. This framing may be anathema to many (it is to me, quite frankly), but effective advocacy often involves message triangulation. There are ways to make arguments for gifted education that appeal to both conservatives and liberals, and the key is to always know your audience and what they value.
Number 2: Gifted Equity CAN Be Framed in Terms of Meritocracy
Gifted education has long struggled with issues of gatekeeping and discrimination, intentional or otherwise. Attempts to foster better representation of underserved groups in gifted programs and services are often met with cries of “lowering standards.” It is important to help people understand that gifted education at its best is about finding and developing talent as well as reducing the educational harm that can be done to students who are not appropriately challenged in school.
We can think of education as a series of diagnoses and prescriptions. Some interventions are good for everybody, like a healthy diet and regular exercise. But some may need other more intensive treatments, and these treatments will always be given in different doses and regimens based on individual needs. Gifted education shouldn’t be framed as an indulgence for a select few, but rather as necessary medicine to ensure (intellectual and psychological) health, much in the same way we conceptualize special education.
By the way, no one who cares about equity in gifted education is interested in lowering the bar for brain surgeons. Rather, they are interested in eliminating impediments to excellence. Gifted education that creates opportunities for ALL bright kids to demonstrate their brilliance will result not in less qualified brain surgeons but in more and more qualified brain surgeons.
Number 3: The Politics of Gifted Education Is Still Local
I think it’s a pretty safe bet to assume that Donald Trump hasn’t thought much, or at all, about gifted education. This will likely continue in his second term. It also doesn’t really matter. Securing and improving the future of gifted education will be a task at the state and district level. This has its advantages. Politicians in the statehouse and around the school board horseshoe are simply more sensitive to the needs and demands of individual constituents. I don’t think whether or not a politician supports gifted education should ever be the only reason you decide to vote for them or not, but the politician doesn’t need to know this when you call their office. Advocating for gifted education may also sometimes involve making common cause with people you differ from philosophically. This is a difficult task, to be sure, but building bridges with people over the one thing most people agree on (that they love their children and want what is best for them) may well prove to be a step toward suturing larger social wounds. It is entirely possible for Republicans and Democrats to agree that supporting gifted learners is broadly good, while still fighting about almost everything else. Gifted education might actually be about as politically neutral an issue as we are likely to get these days.
The next four years will be fraught, but you can fight for the future of gifted education while also fighting for other things you care about. Advocacy is not a zero sum game. Advocates fail when they give up hope and lose sight of the end goal they were fighting for in the first place. In the words of Robert Frost, “the best way out is through.”
As discussed in our last blog post, Texas families are fortunate to live in a state that requires both identification and servicesfor GT students. Unfortunately, not all states provide adequate funding for GT programs—if any dedicated funding is provided at all— which can lead to inconsistencies in the quality and effectiveness of GT services and identification. In states where insufficient GT funding is provided, GT programs suffer, especially when overall funding is tight.
For the past several years, parents and educators have asked us: how does Texas fund GT programs, and what must districts do to receive GT funding?
Short answers:
Texas currently provides dedicated GT program funding through the “GT Allotment” (Tex. Educ. Code § 48.109). However, the GT Allotment is not enough to fully fund GT programs that meet state requirements, follow current recommendations, and meet the needs of GT students. To maintain adequate GT services, districts must also supplement their GT program budgets with basic allotmentfunding as well as local funding. This supplementation is expected by the state.
Districts can receive GT funding if they maintain a GT program that is in compliance with Texas laws and rules for GT services. (For a detailed discussion on what this means, see our last blog post.)
Readers familiar with the GT Allotment may recall legislative changes in the past several years. Families may also wonder what happens if districts claim GT Allotment funding but aren’t actually following all applicable requirements. GEFN is here to help! Read below to learn how parents and educators can work together to ensure that districts stay in compliance and receive maximum GT funding.
Background: what is the Texas GT Allotment, and why does it exist?
In public education, funding is sometimes earmarked for specific educational needs. These allotments are designed to ensure that districts always maintain adequate staff and resources for certain programs or services. An example of a recently created allotment in Texas is the Dyslexia Allotment. A list of state allotment programs can be found on the TEA website.
In gifted education, educators nationwide have found that if dedicated funding is not set aside for GT programs, these programs are often at higher risk for budget cuts. The need for GT services is not always understood by district leaders, and in many states, including Texas, public education is severely underfunded. Districts must often weigh difficult funding decisions. Without earmarked funding, GT programs can be seen as a lower priority and can end up on the chopping block.
Hasn’t the GT Allotment changed recently?
Yes. Between 1995 and 2019, districts received additional funding for each GT-identified student—for up to 5% of the district’s total students—in the amount of the basic allotment multiplied by 0.12. (The “basic allotment” is the lump sum districts receive from the state for the general education needs of each student.) However, even then, the amount of the GT Allotment was usually not adequate to maintain state-compliant GT programs. Since districts were given the freedom to determine how much supplemental funding (if any) to use towards GT budgets, the quality of GT services varied across the state. Matters were made significantly worse in 2019 when the Texas Legislature eliminated the GT Allotment entirely. Parents successfully advocated for mitigation measures, including a penalty for districts that fell out of compliance with state GT requirements. The TEA issued guidance making it clear that districts should continue budgeting at least the amount of the former GT allotment— but for a time, earmarked GT funding was lost.
Why was the allotment eliminated? In 2018 and 2019, some opponents of GT education made the claim—inaccurately—that the 5% cap on Allotment funding also capped the number of students that could be identified for GT services, which they claimed was hurting diversity in GT programs. This was not true. Districts have always been able to determine which and how many students need GT services (there was no state cap on identification), and districts have always been free to supplement GT Allotment funding with basic allotment funds and local funds. Most importantly, improving diversity in GT programs requires measures such as universal screening (this ensures that all students can be considered for GT services), which costs money—so in order for districts to improve diversity, they actually needed more GT Allotment funding, not less. Eliminating dedicated GT funding makes it less likely that districts will choose to fund identification processes recommended by experts. Unfortunately, by the time Texas legislators held public hearings discussing the proposed elimination of the GT Allotment, bipartisan agreements about school funding had already been finalized. Parents were told by legislators that not enough legislators had heard from their constituents about GT funding.
In 2021, the GT Allotment was reinstated, but at a much lower amount. The basic allotment is now multiplied by 0.07 (instead of 0.12) to determine how much funding the district receives for each GT-identified student. Gifted education experts were not consulted on this new amount. Fortunately, TEA guidance still makes it clear that districts should continue to supplement GT budgets with both local and basic allotment funds.
Wait, so my district really should be budgeting for its GT program beyond the amount of the GT Allotment?
YES. First, districts are specifically required to supplement the GT Allotment with local funding. Section 1.4 of the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students states: “To the extent that state funding is provided for gifted/talented student education, local funding for gifted/talented education programs is used to supplement the state funding.”
More importantly, in 2019 and again in 2021, the Texas Education Agency issued guidance explicitly directing districts to supplement the GT Allotment using basic allotment funding. Current TEA guidance states: “LEAs should continue to use the basic allotment to fund G/T program services in addition to funds received under the new G/T allotment.” As a practical matter, any educator involved in GT in Texas knows that it is not possible to maintain a GT program in compliance with state requirements without supplementing GT budgets with basic allotment funds. Unfortunately, not all Texas districts acknowledge these important points, and a number of Texas district GT programs remain underfunded and under-resourced.
Should we try to increase the state GT Allotment, to strengthen GT programs?
GEFN strongly supports increasing the GT Allotment and would support legislation to accomplish this. However, GEFN also recognizes that Texas public education as a whole is facing a funding crisis. At the beginning of the 2023 legislative session, Texas had a $32.7 billion surplus, but none of these surplus funds were spent on our public schools, which were already underfunded. Texas ranks 42nd in the nation in per-student spending, spending $4,000 less than the national average on each student in our public schools.
The impact of underfunding schools is long-lasting. Districts are currently being forced to close schools and to make painful budget cuts. GEFN suggests that Texas families consider monitoring district budgets (attending school board meetings and updating other GT families is one way to do this), and if necessary, consider advocating to protect existing levels of GT funding, both at the state and district level. GEFN further urges all Texas families and educators to contact their state legislators and to insist on adequate funding for public education overall.
The battle over school vouchers is an unfortunate distraction and an obstacle to meeting the needs of Texas students. Vouchers would give tax money to schools that do not have to serve either GT students or students with disabilities, and they would siphon desperately needed resources away from our existing public schools, just as they have hurt public schools in other states with voucher programs. For these reasons and more, GEFN strongly opposes vouchers in any form. To learn more about the Texas school funding crisis, families may wish to visit Raise Your Hand Texas, Texas AFT, Texas PTA, and other organizations working to improve Texas public education for all children.
How are the GT program requirements for Texas schools related to GT funding?
Under the current Texas GT Allotment law, Tex. Educ. Code § 48.109, districts can ONLY claim GT Allotment funds if they:
have a “program for gifted and talented students,”
certify to the commissioner of education that the program complies with Texas Education Code “Subchapter D, Chapter 29,” and
use the funds “in providing programs for gifted and talented students under Subchapter D, Chapter 29, including programs sanctioned by International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement, or in developing programs for gifted and talented students.” Districts can also spend the funds on an “amount that represents the program’s share of general administrative costs.”
Tex. Educ. Code § 29.123, which is within “Subchapter D, Chapter 29,” directs the State Board of Education to establish the “state plan for the education of gifted and talented students,” which “shall be used for accountability purposes to measure the performance of districts in providing services to students identified as gifted and talented.”
In other words, if districts are not in compliance with the State Plan, they are at risk of being disqualified for receiving any GT Allotment funding under § 48.109(a).
What can parents do if their district is out of compliance with GT requirements? Our closing thoughts
Under current circumstances, taking any funding away from our public schools will result in further harm to students. However, if Texas districts do not maintain GT programs that comply with state requirements, this also hurts students. Texas GT requirements were carefully written to follow current best practices and expert recommendations, and they are designed to protect the learning needs of GT students in all populations. Texas GT services are especially critical for students in families who cannot afford or access alternatives to public schools. GT researchers have published extensively on both the short- and long-term harm that can result from ignoring the academic and social-emotional needs of GT students. Allowing GT services to further decline is not in the best interest of Texas children or of the Texas economy.
In any advocacy to improve or protect GT services, connections are crucial. GEFN advises parents to network with other local GT families, and when possible, to engage in positive advocacy as a local group. It may be effective to alert district leaders to the potential loss of GT Allotment funding if their district’s GT program remains out of compliance. Reporting a district to the state for noncompliance should be a last resort when other methods of advocacy have been attempted and have not succeeded. We strongly encourage local GT groups to explore GEFN’s advocacy resources and to find ways to collaborate with district leaders and/or board members in making improvements that both protect district funding and strengthen district programs for all students with advanced learning needs.
Every Texas student deserves a public education that allows them to learn each day and to reach their potential— including Texas GT students. It is past time for Texas to invest in its future and to support the learning needs of all students. As parents and educators, it is up to us to use our voices and to make change happen.
This resource is provided for general information purposes, does not constitute legal advice, is not intended as and should not be interpreted as legal advice, and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
Since the release of ChatGPT and Google Bard (now Gemini), it has become difficult to dismiss the news, debates, and controversies surrounding AI and its significant impact on many aspects of our lives. AI is poised to continue growing in influence as its power and areas of application expand. Gifted education is not exempt from the changes introduced by AI. In this brief commentary, I will discuss major areas in gifted education likely to be impacted by greater use of AI. Broadly speaking, I will address them in two areas: a) gifted identification, and b) instruction, programming, and development.
Gifted Identification
Gifted identification has long been questioned due to practices resulting in the underrepresentation of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students. These practices include the sole reliance on IQ tests, the gatekeeping role of teachers who may not reflect the diversity of the student body, bias in the tests used for identification, and a lack of relevance to programming and instruction. Proposed solutions to address these issues include universal screening, consideration of local norms, the use of multiple measures, and the employment of authentic and alternative assessment tools. However, these solutions also present challenges, such as the costs associated with administering the tests.
This is where AI can provide some solutions. The research we have conducted over the last several years around creativity assessment scoring has shown very promising results. Creativity tests, in general, are less prone to show bias against culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students compared to tests of intelligence or academic achievement, as they partly rely on what students know rather than what they do not know. The major challenge of creativity test scoring lies in the scoring process itself, as these tests are typically open-ended with no correct responses and no answer key. Instead, there are some scoring guidelines aimed at increasing objectivity. However, scoring these tests requires paid training to become certified and manual time and labor costs after certification. The costs of testing are proportional to the scale of testing, making universal screening/consideration a major financial challenge for schools.
We have demonstrated in our research (Acar et al., 2024; Organisciak et al., 2023) that AI can mimic human ratings and score creativity tests in an automated manner. This means that tests could be reliably scored by AI instead of humans. With the significant reduction in scoring costs enabled by AI, the total cost of universal screening/consideration efforts is becoming more manageable, particularly in the realm of creativity assessment. This exemplifies how AI can positively replace human involvement by freeing up resources for instruction and programming rather than burdening teachers with the monotonous task of test grading.
Instruction, Programming, and Development
Developments in testing have also shown potential in using AI for programming and intervention. Let’s revisit the example of creativity. In a recent study (de Chantal & Organisciak, 2023), researchers utilized automated scoring provided by AI to offer instant feedback on participants’ performance on a creativity test. With knowledge of their performance, students receive task-specific feedback to enhance their performance. This concept extends beyond testing to everyday AI-guided tutorials, where students receive feedback based on their mistakes and potential ways to strengthen their projects or assignments. Schools are already implementing computerized tutorials, but with AI, customization and individualization are becoming more prevalent.
Another significant challenge in gifted education is the effectiveness and feasibility of differentiation. While differentiation has always received attention in our gifted education textbooks and has been successfully implemented by some teachers in certain schools and districts, consideration of individual differences, interests, and needs of a diverse student body poses a serious challenge for teachers aiming for more scalable implementation. Unfortunately, many teachers lack the time and/or training to prepare differentiated instruction. AI can assist with this challenge by providing teachers with differentiated lesson plans that consider student interests, backgrounds, and readiness levels. New tools such as GPT4Teachers (https://gpt4teachers.com/#/) process teacher input to obtain lesson plans that can be adjusted based on diverse student interests, needs, and readiness. This is just the beginning, and tools specific to gifted education specialists, coordinators, and teachers may be developed in the future.
Issues with AI Use
While the work I have summarized so far is exciting and promising, the use of AI requires close attention to problems with ethical use. Regarding assessment and identification, the human judges involved in scoring the tasks, which are then used to train the AI algorithm, are critical. If these human judges are not sufficiently representative and diverse, the AI scores may reflect biases that they (or society) may hold. On the other hand, unlike teachers who evaluate and nominate students for gifted programs, AI does not know the students who generated the evaluated responses. Furthermore, bias in AI can be detected and potentially fixed, whereas doing so with teachers is an arduous task, especially when considering the increasing teacher turnover. Thus, challenges of AI use should be compared to the existing challenges without AI to have a better understanding of the extent of progress and lack thereof.
Regarding programming and differentiation, some successful uses of AI may require specific student data (such as student background information and interests) that are then utilized for differentiation. Leakage or theft of such data is always a potential concern. Schools would need to obtain parental consent before employing AI for differentiation or other purposes. While they would assure parents that they will adhere to protocols, in today’s technology landscape, there can be no guarantees regarding the protection of data confidentiality.
Conclusion
When it comes to AI and its impact, emotions vary from excitement to worry and there are good reasons for this range of emotions. The changes in education and specifically gifted education are largely inevitable yet the scope and transition process may vary. Schools are highly structured environments, and adaptation may take longer than other aspects of our lives. AI can change gifted education in many ways, but here I discussed two ways from the lens of creativity research: identification and programming, differentiation, and instruction. There are risks associated with each of these. Like in every novelty, there is ambiguity around the ramifications of AI use in gifted education and there are risks for misuses and ethical breaches, like in any technology. This is why a major consideration in AI research is ethical uses that must be mitigated by researchers as they conduct their research and expand its applications.
References
de Chantal, P.-L., & Organisciak, P. (2023). Automated feedback and creativity: On the role of metacognitive monitoring in divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000592
Acar, S.,Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Berthiaume, K. (2024). Measuring original thinking in elementary school: Development and validation of a computational psychometric approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000844
Organisciak, P., Acar, S., Dumas, D., & Berthiaume, K. (2023). Beyond semantic distance: Automated scoring of divergent thinking greatly improves with large language models. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101356
We are fortunate to live in one of the states that requires both identification and services for GT students. In Texas, all public school districts must determine which students need GT services, and districts must offer those GT services to qualifying students in grades K-12 during the school day and throughout the school year.
Texas laws and regulations outline how GT students should be identified and what GT services must include. Nearly all Texas GT requirements are listed in a document called the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (“State Plan” for short). The State Plan is approved by the State Board of Education and published by the Texas Education Agency, and it was last updated in 2019.
Unfortunately, when parents learn about the State Plan, they may also discover that their school district is not fully in compliance with its requirements. Parents sometimes approach one of our GEFN volunteers, mention a State Plan section, and explain that their district is doing something differently than what the section says. This happens even in districts that work hard to make their GT programs strong.
Then parents ask: does my school district have to follow ALL of the State Plan?
Short answer: Yes, they do.
To understand why, and to help clear up any confusion on this point, please read below!
Texas GT Compliance in a Nutshell
Texas GT requirements all stem from laws passed by the Texas Legislature. (You can find these laws in the Texas Education Code, §§ 29.121 – 29.123) Additional details for these requirements can be found in the Texas Administrative Code, which is a compilation of state agency rules. The Texas Education Agency is responsible for the interpretation of the Administrative Code rules related to education, including the rules for gifted education (19 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 89.1 – 89.5). Each of these two sources creates a broad framework for GT program requirements – like building the wooden frame of a house – and each source then points to the State Plan to flesh out the details of those requirements. To continue the house analogy: the State Plan includes everything else needed to build the house (walls, roof, plumbing, doors, windows). The frame alone doesn’t include everything you need to complete a functional house.
It is important to pause and note that every part of the GT sections of the Education Code and Administrative Code must be followed. Let’s take 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 89.3 as an example. This rule reads:
School districts shall provide an array of learning opportunities for gifted/talented students in kindergarten through Grade 12 and shall inform parents of the opportunities. Options must include:
(1) instructional and organizational patterns that enable identified students to work together as a group, to work with other students, and to work independently;
(2) a continuum of learning experiences that leads to the development of advanced-level products and performances;
(3) in-school and, when possible, out-of-school options relevant to the student’s area of strength that are available during the entire school year; and
(4) opportunities to accelerate in areas of strength.
We’ve added boldface to emphasize the use of “and,” since lists sometimes cause confusion. Even if a district’s program goes above-and-beyond with requirements (2) and (3), that district must still also follow requirements (1) and (4).** Meeting one requirement does not exempt a district from meeting other requirements; everything listed is mandatory for each district and parents must be given information about how this is happening.
** For (4), requiring “opportunities to accelerate in areas of strength,” we should note that this applies to all students identified for gifted services (“kindergarten through Grade 12”). Although many districts choose to meet this requirement by using the CBE (Credit by Examination) process for single subjects in K-12, districts are not limited to using CBE to accelerate GT-identified students in their area(s) of strength.
Reading the State Plan
The State Plan is divided into several sections, and each section includes two columns: the accountability column and the exemplary column.
Here is one way to remember what this means: if the TEA looks at whether a district is in compliance with Texas GT laws, that district will be held accountable for doing everything in the accountability column. If families are looking to move to a district that does an exemplary job with GT services, they will want to look at whether the district’s program also does what the exemplary column describes.
Let’s look at the beginning of the Curriculum and Instruction section (page 9 of the State Plan, or page 17 of the PDF) as an example.
Sections 4.1 – 4.7 are pictured here. Each section in the accountability column lists a different requirement that districts must meet in teaching GT students. The sections in the exemplary column are extra: districts that want to do the best they can for GT students should follow the exemplary column, but realistically, not all districts are able to hit all of the exemplary sections.
No matter what happens in the exemplary column, everything in the accountability column is always required. Because Tex. Educ. Code § 29.123 directs the State Board of Education to create the State Plan, which “shall be used for accountability purposes,” the State Plan is part of the state education requirements that are mandatory for all Texas districts. The only situation in which a district can be temporarily exempt from meeting accountability column requirements is when the district elects to “develop a written plan specifying actions and timelines for achieving compliance” under State Plan Section 1.11 (for obvious reasons, districts cannot rely on 1.11 to delay compliance indefinitely).
Unfortunately, some districts – even districts with GT programs that are strong in some areas – misinterpret these requirements.
It’s a Recipe, Not a Menu
In districts that are out of compliance, administrators sometimes seem to view the entire State Plan as a menu of possibilities from which they can pick and choose. They believe that if they select just a few of the accountability sections to follow – and do their best with them – they will have created a good GT program that meets state requirements. Unfortunately, they are wrong.
It may be helpful to think of the State Plan as a recipe listing all of the ingredients needed for a strong, high-quality GT program. A strong GT program meets state requirements and meets the needs of all GT students in the district. If any State Plan section is left out and not followed, the district’s GT services are incomplete, and there will be students with needs that fall through the cracks. Each requirement exists for a reason, and the recipe fails when ingredients or instructions are left out. Just as a chef works for years to train, practice, experiment, sample, and perfect a dish before publishing their recipe, the State Plan was written and updated by a committee with many decades of combined experience in education. Current research and expert recommendations were incorporated, along with input from experienced district GT Coordinators, principals, teachers, and parents. Educators may not agree with every decision made by the TEA, but if they are familiar with best practices in GT education, they can see that each section of the State Plan has been included for a good reason.
Guidance on Interpreting the State Plan
Finally, the Texas Education Agency publishes helpful guidance to assist with interpreting the language in the State Plan. This guidance can be found on the TEA website, and it includes TEA answers to some of the most frequent questions about the State Plan. Supervising a district’s GT services is not an easy or a simple job, and in some districts, a teacher or administrator who is relatively new to GT education may be assigned to this role. In very small districts, the district’s GT Coordinator may wear multiple hats and simultaneously manage other district programs. Fortunately, an educator does not have to be a seasoned GT expert to ensure that their program is in compliance. They can simply follow all State Plan accountability requirements and TEA guidance.
Unfortunately, district leaders sometimes tell GT educators and parents that this TEA guidance is just a suggestion or recommendation, rather than a requirement. That is not correct. We cannot emphasize this enough: when a government agency issues guidance that interprets laws and regulations, this guidance is not optional.
When and how does TEA guidance come into play? When a district’s programs or policies are challenged as being out of compliance, either through a state audit or triggered by a parent complaint that has been filed with the state agency, the agency’s guidance tells you how state requirements will be interpreted and applied during the investigation.
Putting aside metaphors, in plain language: districts that do not want to be found out of compliance would be wise to follow all TEA guidance. Districts with GT programs that are out of compliance can lose funding. Under state law, districts can only receive GT Allotment funding if they have GT programs “that the district certifies to the commissioner as complying with” Texas Education Code GT requirements (Tex. Educ. Code § 48.109(a)). Again, because Texas law requires the creation of the State Plan (Tex. Educ. Code § 29.123), compliance with the State Plan is part of Texas Education Code GT requirements, and is therefore required to maintain GT funding. Although the current GT Allotment is small and insufficient, every dollar counts for underfunded public schools.
When district administrators attempt to skirt or downplay GT requirements, it is not because they want to hurt kids. Not all educators have the training needed to understand GT needs, and without that understanding, GT often takes a back seat to priorities that seem more pressing. Parent groups can play an important role in helping district leaders to understand that GT needs are legitimate educational needs, that a failure to meet these needs causes measurable harm to students, and that prioritizing GT programs helps GT students in all populations, including twice-exceptional students (gifted with one or more disabilities) and GT students from low-income backgrounds. If a district leader fully understands the reasons for Texas GT requirements and still attempts to avoid following them, it might be better for the district if a different educator filled that role.
Closing thoughts
GT educators work extremely hard, and both teachers and administrators enter education because they want to help kids. It is a difficult and often thankless time to work in a public school district in Texas. As parents, we want to support educators for many reasons, and we do not want them to leave education. While it is important for districts to reach full GT compliance as quickly as possible, it may take months or even a couple of years to bring about all necessary changes. We encourage parents to work collaboratively with districts whenever possible, to provide positive support for improvements, and to work with parent groups to advocate for the best possible education for GT students in all populations.
p.s. Watch our blog for an upcoming post with more details on the GT Allotment!
This resource is provided for general information purposes, does not constitute legal advice, is not intended as and should not be interpreted as legal advice, and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
Every Texas school district has a school board, and each school board is made up of elected Trustees who volunteer their time (unpaid) to make significant decisions for school districts. School boards must vote on issues like purchasing district property, contracts, bonds, the district budget, local school tax rates, and policies that guide the district Superintendent and administration. School boards are also responsible for hiring the Superintendent and for hearing grievances filed against the district.
School boards also play an important role in the quality of Texas GT programs! Several requirements in the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students apply directly to Trustees. These include Sections 2.1, 2.7, 2.8, 2.14, 3.7, 3.9, 6.1 (board responsibility for approving policies on GT identification, transfer, furlough, exit from services, credit by examination, early graduation, and dual and concurrent enrollment), along with Section 6.8 (evaluation of GT services). Trustees are also tasked with “ensur[ing] program accountability” based on the State Plan (5.10) and must complete training. To meet “exemplary” under the State Plan, school boards must review GT policies at least once every three years (2.1.1) and are encouraged to “pursue professional development” on the State Plan (5.10.1). Yet despite this involvement in GT programs, the role of school boards can still be a mystery to parents who don’t know a Trustee personally.
Fortunately for students, a number of Texas districts have dedicated Trustees who care deeply about GT education. We are grateful for the opportunity to interview a few current and former Trustees and to learn more about their roles and recommendations for GT families. Each of these individuals has worked tirelessly for Texas students, and GEFN is grateful for their gift of their time and talent!
Thank you very much for your work for your school district! Can we ask what inspired you to run for school board and to volunteer as a Trustee?
Karen Clardy: I was an employee of Richardson ISD for 26 years. When I retired, I decided to run for the school board. I felt my experience and knowledge in education would be an asset. I believe that the relationships that I built over the years with the community, teachers, and staff made me approachable.
Angie Hanan: I am now in my second term. I ran for the school board because I believe that soliciting and using authentic and meaningful feedback from students, staff and parents to help improve the district is needed. I knew my expertise as a career educator would help the board ensure that programs are evaluated adequately and that the results of the evaluations were used to drive improvement. Finally, my overarching goal for running was to make sure every student receives a relevant, meaningful and appropriately challenging learning experience.
Tracy Fisher: After co-founding the Coppell Gifted Association, I began regularly attending monthly school board meetings to better understand the role of board members and their impact. Very few people attended board meetings after the recognition portion at the beginning of meetings, so I got to know all of the members. I never planned on running for the board, but after six years of meetings, I decided my viewpoint could help our community and was elected to four terms.
Can you share with families a little bit about who you represent, and how you view the responsibility of your role as Trustee, especially regarding your vision and support for strong GT programs and services?
Karen Clardy: My priority was to the students of our district to ensure that all students have programs to help them grow. My next priority was our teachers and staff. I felt strongly that they needed to have the tools they needed to teach our students. Parents play an important role in the success of GT programs by sharing with the administration and board if their child’s growth and needs are not being met. Not all GT students are the same, they have different needs, and identifying those needs is critical. I believe our GT program in our district has come a long way in the past 5 years. I give our parents the credit for those changes by making the board aware of the weaknesses in our GT program. There is still much work to be done.
Angie Hanan: The school district I’ve been elected to serve is the 6th largest district in Texas with just over 80,000 students and almost 12,000 employees. Our population is about 42% at-risk, 18% Bilingual/ESL, 11% Special Education, and 6% gifted and talented. The ethnic diversity of the district is approximately 28% African American, 27% Hispanic, 15% White and 26% Asian. My responsibility is to represent every child in every program on every campus. Knowing policy and what the Texas State plan says districts are expected to do is important in advocating for the district. My vision is to provide more acceleration programming for GT and for highly capable learners. That vision has not yet come to fruition, but I believe one day it will. I am also advocating for optional testing for students (approved by parents) that has a ceiling at least 2 grade levels above a student’s grade level. Our assessment system in my district is not designed to determine if students are functioning above grade level. Above level testing would also help determine if students should be placed in advanced math as now required by state mandate if they score in the top 40 percent on the fifth grade STAAR.
Tracy Fisher: Trustees aren’t “representatives” per se, but I strongly advocated for all kids. My prior experience serving on the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented board, attending GT educator and parent conferences, and reading many books helped develop my capacity for advocacy. Our district evaluated our programs against the State Plan for the Gifted to improve our services. I realized through all this that gifted strategies help ALL kids. So, I often speak about gifted education truly being the R&D of schooling. That helped others listen and respond in meaningful ways. Strong superintendent leadership and understanding are also critical. Having served with three different superintendents, one understood gifted education. Most educators don’t receive in-depth training in giftedness in school; as a school board member, hiring the right leader and building capacity is essential.
As Trustee, do/did you want to be in contact with GT parents in your district? If so, what kinds of things would you want to hear about from parents, and what would be the best way for parents to get in contact with you?
Karen Clardy: Absolutely! As a trustee, it is imperative to be available to parents to voice their concerns. When I meet with parents, it gives me an invaluable opportunity to give them direction regarding the next steps to take and to also make me aware of a possible issue. I would always follow up with our Superintendent after meeting with a parent and then follow up with the parent.
Angie Hanan: Many parents are hesitant to reach out to a board member for fear of retaliation against their child. I want parents to know this fear should never, ever deter them from connecting with the teacher, principal, other staff or board members. I want to hear from constituents and my personal cell phone is listed on the district’s public facing website along with my district email. I’d love to hear what positive things are happening for their children. I invite any parent or student to contact me with concerns or ideas for improvement as well.
Tracy Fisher: Of course! As a trustee, I attended GT Parent meetings and was always available to parents in the district. I attended our district’s annual “State of Gifted Education” parent meeting to stay up with service changes after my kids had graduated. I was open to hearing any questions. Parents need to build capacity as well and need to advocate for their children. No child is alike; parenting is hard work.
We know that not all Trustees are knowledgeable about GT education. Are there positive ways that GT parents could advocate to increase local school board knowledge about best practices in GT programs? How could parents go about increasing board interest in the quality of their GT program?
Karen Clardy: Most trustees have a huge learning curve when they take office. They are bombarded with facts and figures that are overwhelming. Did you know that Trustees are required to log in more professional development hours than any other elected official in Texas? The most effective way to become knowledgeable about any program is to be immersed in the program. In other words, arrange for some school visits and “show” the board “GT”. Show them “the awesome” and show them the “needs improvement”. Provide a nice lunch. I promise you they will remember and take a personal interest. It’s not about the numbers, it’s about the success and growth in the classroom.
Angie Hanan: Historically, the number of board members who advocate for GT are few and far between. Unfortunately, we are in a political climate right now where some board members are not open to understanding the needs of highly capable learners and the gifted student. Inviting board members to see Texas Performance Standard Projects and providing board members with positive experiences that a gifted child has encountered in the classroom to meet their needs would be the best way to advocate for the program. When a child is not receiving differentiated learning opportunities and the campus is unwilling to work with your child, find out which board member is likely to help you advocate for your child’s needs.
Tracy Fisher: I strongly advocate for local GT parent groups. These organizations build capacity in parents, educators, and school board members.
Host a candidate introduction at a highly attended GT parent/student event in early March (after filing has closed). The candidates would watch the program, introduce themselves, and submit answers to a few questions in writing, which the organization emails to its membership and posts on its website after the meeting. Everyone learns.
Speak in an open forum – hand out research findings. Share great stories or products created. (Involve kids.)
Ask school board members to attend your meetings or gift them a scholarship to a GT conference.
If parents believe that their district is not in compliance with state GT requirements, and if they feel they have exhausted appeals—if they have already spoken with the campus principal, the district GT Coordinator, and other administrators—can they appeal their concern to the district’s school board? Do you have recommendations (both “dos” and “don’ts”) for parents who find themselves in this situation?
Karen Clardy: If parents feel that they have hit a wall after going up the ladder then as a trustee, I would want to be contacted. We are all in this together and we need to work together to solve the problem. The “how” to approach a trustee is important. Do reach out by email to the President of the Board, and give a brief overview of the issue. Be careful not to be accusatory but instead approach it as needing guidance from them on the next steps. Many times I met with parents. Most trustees will say they will look into the issue for them before commenting. Be sure and ask them to follow up with you and try to get a timeframe when they will call you back. A word of appreciation for our service goes a long way. Emily is a perfect example of how to communicate with the administration as a parent!
Angie Hanan: If a parent has gone through the proper channels (teacher, principal, GT leadership) and is not satisfied with actions to improve GT programming, certainly reaching out to the school board is an option; however, I would recommend going to the staff member who is over curriculum and instruction (or teaching and learning) before reaching out to the board. If I could recommend one thing to parents, it would be to document what is or isn’t happening for your child by keeping a factual record. For example, if you know your elementary child is receiving work that is not rigorous or meaningful, keep examples of what your child is being asked to do. If work isn’t coming home, ask to see graded work. If your child isn’t receiving opportunities for small group reading instruction, document that information. To be a good advocate for your child or the program, you need to be able to articulate exactly the outcomes you believe are appropriate for you child or the GT programming on your campus. Finally, know your district’s GT policy (EHBB local), your district’s GT procedures, and the State Plan for the Gifted.
Tracy Fisher: Each district is unique. Advocacy is hard work, and you need to find the right ear to guide you. Working with your campus GT specialist or classroom teacher is the most impactful. As a GT parent, you must stay on top of your child’s learning differences and encourage and supplement their journey. They are gifted 24-7, not just the 6 hours they spend in class.
What challenge(s) do you think public schools are currently facing that parents of GT students should be most concerned about and can help with?
Karen Clardy: Funding is always a problem and so is finding teachers who know how to teach GT students. I believe that ALL students need to grow and I feel that sometimes GT students are left out of that equation. Parent assistance in contacting and informing our state officials about GT and funding needs is essential. They will want to know why it is so important, and why they need a special program. You all know the answer!
Angie Hanan: While I believe funding is a problem, I believe limited access to GT programming for the typically underserved student continues to be a huge problem. Providing multiple and varied learning and enrichment opportunities inside the classroom and outside the classroom to help students discover their gifts and talents can help bridge this divide (in addition to the use of local norms during identification for GT services).
Tracy Fisher: Funding is purposefully an ongoing concern. Our state leaders have been trying to privatize our public schools for 25 years. Between recapture expansion, tax rate increase limits, recent homestead exemption increases, and lack of inflation adjustments, the state has made board work difficult and increased deficit budgets. When budgets are tight, it isn’t easy to support anything but the basics of education. Parent engagement with academic competitions can help. Parents can help fund speakers/training through fundraisers and scholarships for teachers. Parents can be substitutes while teachers participate in local GT professional development.
We know that serving as a trustee is an enormous (and sometimes thankless) job, and your work is incredibly important. Are there some ways that GT parents can get involved in supporting district Trustees in positive ways?
Karen Clardy: It always meant so much to me when a parent came up to the podium during a board meeting and said something positive. Parent support of our district legislative initiatives is very helpful.
Angie Hanan: Addressing the board at a regularly scheduled meeting is always meaningful to Trustees whether you are sharing a positive or negative concern. As a GT advocate, volunteer on your child’s campus or on district committees or with your local GT advocacy group. Being involved helps you make connections with other parents. Parents who are positively involved help trustees do their job of promoting student success.
Tracy Fisher: There are many ways to get involved – participate in district committees, attend board meetings, send thank you notes, or help during campaign season. Reach out for coffee. January is School Board Appreciation Month every year. Send cards to your good board members – unfortunately, that’s not always every board member these days. Advocate for your child, teachers, district, and board members. Run for school board if it makes sense for you and your family.
GEFN wishes to thank each featured Trustee for taking the time to share their advice and experiences with families! We also want to encourage families to be proactive in building relationships with these important leaders. Trustees can also be partners in advocating for GT education in many ways, including setting the vision for strong GT programs, establishing goals, and encouraging innovative solutions. Families do not need to wait until problems arise to contact Trustees—they are working for students throughout the year. Please join us in thanking them for what they do!
About our featured trustees:
Karen Clardy served as Trustee in Richardson ISD from 2017 to 2021, including service as Board President.
Angie Hanan has served as Trustee in Fort Bend ISD since 2021.
Tracy Fisher served as Trustee in Coppell ISD from 2012-2022, including service as Board President.
Parents sometimes contact us and ask: after my family moves to a new school district, will my child continue to receive GT services?
The answer depends on the decisions and policies of the new school district, but we can provide you with information to help you understand the process.
How Students Qualify for GT Services in Texas: Varies from District to District
Texas school districts have the freedom to decide what their gifted education programs look like. GT programs do have to follow Texas laws and regulations, including the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students, which set out some basic standards – for example, all districts must offer GT services to students in grades K-12 in the four core subjects (English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies), among other requirements.
Districts also have the freedom to decide which of their students need and will receive GT services (often called “identifying for services”), within certain parameters. When making these decisions, districts must:
Make sure that any forms families must complete are “in a language and form that the families understand, or a translator or interpreter is provided to the extent possible” (State Plan 2.3);
Assess students “in languages they understand or with nonverbal assessments” (State Plan 2.19);
Include data from “multiple sources for each area of giftedness served by the district” (State Plan 2.17);
Collect data from “three (3) or more measures” to make a decision, and in grades 1-12, include both “qualitative” data (data not represented by numbers, such as interviews or observations) and “quantitative data” (data represented by numbers) (State Plan 2.22);
Make sure the “assessment process allows for student exceptionalities to the extent possible” (State Plan 2.17) (this can include the needs of students with disabilities);
Allow all students to be considered for GT services “at least once per school year” (State Plan 2.15); and
Allow “parents, students, and educators to appeal placement decisions in a timely manner and to present new data, if appropriate” (State Plan 2.13).
Districts can choose which sources of information they will use in gathering data for decisions, and they can decide how to interpret data. This means that neighboring school districts may give students different tests, or if they use the same test, each district might decide to look for a different score when determining which students need that district’s services.
Why Isn’t There Consistency Statewide?
That is a great question! There is a valid argument that students should be able to expect to continue receiving GT services when they move districts within the same state, especially since all Texas districts follow the same state laws. Since gifted education programs can look very different in different Texas districts, however, and since districts are supposed to base the identification process on the actual services they offer, Texas gives districts flexibility in deciding which students need those services. An FAQ from the National Association of Gifted Children shares details on the types of services districts may choose to offer. Districts should choose the type of services they offer based on the needs of the students in their local schools.
How Are Transfer Students Handled?
Districts must follow a few rules in considering transfer students for GT services:
Transfer students must be “properly assessed and appropriately placed” in GT services following “notification of enrollment” (State Plan 2.8), and
The student’s former district must provide the new district with “the student’s assessment data” (State Plan 2.9).
Since identification for Texas GT services is specific to each district, the new district’s policy determines whether a student receives GT services in the new district. In some cases, when a student was identified for GT services in the former district, the new district’s policy may allow the student to continue GT services in the new district without gathering new data. In other cases, students are reassessed using the new district’s usual process.
What If My Child Doesn’t Qualify Now?
If your child received GT services previously and if they are not identified in their new district, parents have the same appeal and annual reassessment options as families that have already been living in the district. GEFN also strongly encourages families to look outside of school for enrichment and support for their children, in addition to advocating for their children’s needs in school.
ALL families of students with advanced learning needs are welcome to become GEFN members, regardless of GT identification in school! Our organization works to remove barriers and to make information and resources available to all families, regardless of socioeconomic status. You are your child’s best advocate, and we are here for you. We hope you’ll join us.
This resource is provided for general information purposes, does not constitute legal advice, is not intended as and should not be interpreted as legal advice, and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
Over the past decade, in the field of gifted education, significant time and resources have been devoted to publicizing the benefits of academic acceleration. Overall, research strongly supports both the short- and long-term benefits of acceleration for students who demonstrate readiness and who meet certain criteria.
But what happens when problems develop later on, either months or years after an acceleration placement? For example, if a child has difficulty adjusting to a new campus, if the school can’t resolve a scheduling issue, or if the school “runs out” of advanced courses in an accelerated subject, where should parents turn? Are there recommendations for preventing and solving issues that can sometimes arise for a younger child attending classes with older students, either full time or for a single subject?
No educational setting is perfect for children with ability needs that are different from the majority of their peers, but when acceleration is the solution chosen for a better academic fit, experts do recommend several practices for maintaining the long term success of these placements. GEFN hopes that families, teachers, and administrators will find this post helpful, and we hope that all adults involved in placements will work to ensure that these pathways remain navigable for the full educational journey of every accelerated student.
What do experts say about monitoring acceleration placements?
Experts recommend that schools monitor acceleration placements for months and even years after the placement. Monitoring provides opportunities to address smaller issues before they become larger problems, ensuring that acceleration remains successful. What should this monitoring look like?
Academic Acceleration Guidance issued by the Michigan Department of Education states that when an acceleration placement is made, “[a]n agreement for regular communication between the designated staff member and parent/legal guardian should be agreed upon within the written acceleration plan.” This can include “[a] multi-year plan with opportunity for yearly review and re-evaluation as deemed necessary by the acceleration committee.”
“An acceleration policy should provide guidance for issues in the long term, which include, but are not limited to: providing guidance throughout K-12 to make sure that students will be allowed to maintain their accelerated standing…”
“Does the policy specify the creation and long-term record-keeping of a ‘Written Acceleration Plan’?”
“Receiving teachers should help identify likely peers for the student, and counselors should provide support in study skills and social coping, when necessary.”
Short-term issues should be addressed, “indicating who is responsible for monitoring the acceleration, including academic and social-emotional aspects…”
In exploring considerations for accelerated twice-exceptional students (gifted with one or more disabilities), researchers at the University of Iowa note that “[o]nce accelerated, it is important to remember that learning pace and style will be as individualized as twice-exceptional students themselves….Recognizing and planning for these individual differences is crucial to creating a welcoming classroom where challenge is offered regardless of learning style or pace” (Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg, 2015).
Mentorship is often emphasized in recommendations for highly gifted students, who are likely to need one or more forms of acceleration. One researcher states that “[e]ach [highly gifted] child must be assigned an academic advisor whose chief role is to provide a sounding board and to be an advocator, encourager, and expediter of changes in curriculum, program, and extracurricular opportunities” (Jackson, 2011).
To mitigate the impact of social separation from age-peers, researchers state that “[s]upport services in counseling in academic adjustment should be provided” (Southern & Jones, 2015).
Just as students with IEPs or 504 Plans need annual monitoring of services and accommodations that change what a student learns or how the student accesses learning, it makes sense that students would need continued monitoring when their physical age (and potentially, social and emotional development) will continue to be different from all or most of the other students in their classrooms. It would never be expected (and would not follow federal law) for educators to put an IEP or 504 Plan in place and to never check back with the student and parents to see if any adjustments are needed. In fact, in summarizing research on academic acceleration, experts have noted that “[t]he few problems that have been experienced with acceleration have stemmed from inadequate planning and insufficient preparation on the part of educators or parents” (Assouline et al., 2015) – and part of this essential planning involves a plan to monitor placements.
If we know that continued monitoring can make acceleration successful, what should parents expect that to look like?
Who should monitor acceleration placements?
The individual(s) responsible for monitoring acceleration placements should receive training that enables them to understand the needs of gifted learners. For several reasons, Texas districts will wish to assign this role to an administrator responsible for gifted/talented services or to school counselors.
Coordinators responsible for gifted/talented services may be most likely to have experience with the complex needs of gifted and twice-exceptional students; the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students requires that districts assign an individual “who has thirty (30) hours of professional learning in gifted/talented education and annual six (6) hour professional learning updates” to “coordinate district level services for gifted/talented students in grades K–12” (State Plan Section 3.10, 2019). Although teachers who deliver gifted/talented services have this same training, a teacher’s workload is often already overwhelming, and it can be difficult for teachers to keep track of students once they have moved on to the next grade level.
As of 2019, the State Plan now requires that school counselors receive some gifted/talented training, so counselors may be able to assume the role of monitoring placements, as well. The new requirement reads: “Counselors who work with gifted/talented students are required to complete a minimum of six (6) hours of professional development that includes nature and needs of gifted/talented students, service options for gifted/talented students, and social emotional learning” (State Plan Section 5.9, 2019). Additionally, state law requires that counselors develop programming specifically for gifted students. Texas Education Code §33.006(b)(1)(c) states that school counselors must “participate in planning, implementing, and evaluating a comprehensive developmental guidance program to serve all students and to address the special needs of students… who are gifted and talented, with emphasis on identifying and serving gifted and talented students who are educationally disadvantaged.” Annual monitoring of all acceleration placements could be added as part of this programming.
What kinds of issues should be expected?
Acceleration Policy Guidance includes a checklist of considerations to include when creating acceleration policies. Families often find that the acceleration pathways of their students can be influenced by multitude of factors, including student interests, student physical characteristics, campus training and awareness regarding gifted characteristics and needs, campus awareness regarding academic acceleration, the size and resources of a school or district, the beliefs and experiences of individual teachers and administrators, additional student exceptionalities (disabilities), and whether a school environment fosters inclusiveness and acceptance. To prevent common issues that arise, Policy Guidance (Lupkowski-Shoplik & Assouline, 2018) suggests asking whether an acceleration policy addresses these needs:
Is the student accelerated in a single subject, such as math? Recommendations: “Clarify transportation issues for students who need to travel between buildings” and “Identify options for students who may run out of advanced content within their building in the future”
Might the student be interested in academic competitions? Recommendation: “Specify whether students may participate in academic competitions and with age-mates or grade-peers”
Will the student be taking courses outside of school that prepare them for higher level courses during the school year? Recommendation: “Provide[ ] a process for determining placement for students who have completed advanced work outside of school”
Twice-exceptional students require additional considerations, as well, and it is even possible that disabilities (such as learning or attention disorders) can be diagnosed years after an acceleration placement has been made. Experts note that “[i]t is very likely that a twice-exceptional student who enters an accelerated math class may still require, for example, assistance with executive functioning skills. Even though the student understands and can successfully complete advanced algebraic equations, he may still forget to turn in work by the deadline, complete all the problems assignment, or finish the test questions in the time allotted. Therefore, accommodations likely will still be needed, especially to foster self-efficacy and avoid embarrassment, criticism, or lowered self-esteem” (Foley-Nicpon & Cederberg, 2015).
Researchers have noted the importance of ability grouping for gifted-identified students, including both academic and social-emotional benefits, but without active monitoring, these needs may not be prioritized for accelerated students. Gifted students need ability grouping in order to find peers with similar needs and interests, and it seems only logical that accelerated students with more extreme ability needs can experience an even greater need for this grouping. Yet in the years following an acceleration placement, without specific planning and monitoring, the adults assisting students in selecting courses – or the adults finalizing a student’s schedule and class sections – may not be aware of the increased importance of this grouping.
Special situation: cohort acceleration
In some schools, students are accelerated as part of a cohort (for example, in a “school within a school” program for the highly gifted), and monitoring is likely to look different for these students. Issues can still arise, but many problems can be resolved more easily for a group. Students within an accelerated cohort who belong to additional special populations (twice-exceptional; racially, culturally, linguistically, or economically diverse; low socioeconomic status; LGBTQ+; highly gifted with acceleration needs beyond the cohort) continue to face unique challenges, however, and they will continue to require individualized planning and support from both educators and parents.
What can parents do?
Based on the research and the experiences of students in our Texas communities, we suggest that parents consider asking some of the following questions when reviewing acceleration policies and/or when attending meetings regarding acceleration.
Does my district’s acceleration policy include details on how monitoring of placements will occur? Who will be responsible for monitoring placements, how frequently will monitoring occur, and what indicators will be monitored (i.e., grades, student satisfaction, parent satisfaction, attendance, behavior)?
Can my district’s policy (or my child’s acceleration plan) be updated to include regular check-ins with each accelerated student and their family? Which campus or district staff member(s) will be responsible for checking in with students and families, and how frequently (i.e., once each semester, once each year)?
Does my district’s policy include provisions for subject acceleration transportation between campuses? Do these provisions include considerations or accommodations for socioeconomic diversity and for student exceptionalities (disabilities)?
Does my district’s acceleration policy comply with State Plan requirements (i.e., “services are available during the school day,” and “opportunities are provided to accelerate in areas of student strengths”) (State Plan sections 3.1, 4.5) as well as state and federal education laws (i.e., access to minimum state-required weekly “physical activity” minutes, equal access for students with disabilities, etc.)?
Does my district’s policy provide high school students with access to college coursework in areas of student strengths, both within and outside of the district?
How will counselors, administrators, and teachers in my district monitor my accelerated child’s social-emotional growth and ensure that intervention is provided if they experience challenges as a younger student?
Are resources or supports available to help my younger student adjust to the study skills and organization expectations needed in advanced courses taken earlier than the student’s age-peers?
Are resources or supports available to assist my child with social and emotional needs during transition years (first year in acceleration placement, or first year at a secondary campus or different campus)?
If scheduling arrangements will need to be made for annual subject acceleration placements, who will communicate these arrangements to parents and ensure that they are finalized in sufficient time before school begins?
If problems arise with my child’s acceleration placement or scheduling, who should parents contact? If problems remain, what is the appeals process for resolving issues?
If a student has an IEP or a 504 Plan, how will the staff involved in ARD or 504 meetings be informed or trained about the student’s needs as a gifted student with an acceleration placement?
Can my district provide guidance or referrals for grade-skipped students who may wish to consider a gap year between high school and college?
Planning for future acceleration access
Experts continue to recommend academic acceleration as a highly successful intervention for gifted students who meet certain criteria, but problems can arise in any school setting. To ensure that acceleration placements remain successful – and that academic acceleration does not fall out of favor with schools, for the benefit of future students – it is essential for districts to plan ahead and to work to promptly solve issues when they arise.
As long as Texas public schools remain critically underfunded, families will need to advocate continuously for the needs of students with learning differences, including acceleration needs. To ensure equity of access to services, gifted/talented program coordinators should strongly consider assigning one or more staff members to undertake an advocacy role, as well, and provide active assistance and regular check-ins for students whose families may be overwhelmed, less knowledgeable about acceleration, or otherwise unable to provide academic advocacy and support.
GEFN encourages all families of gifted learners to connect in our online support group and to advocate as necessary for the needs of their own students, and we hope that this resource has helped. When parents advocate for the needs of their own child, their school and their district learn how to meet the needs of future students with similar needs. When acceleration succeeds, and when students do well in placements, educators can be more willing to see and consider advanced learning needs in future students. We also encourage administrators and teachers to help spread the word. It takes hard work and careful planning to make an acceleration placement. Let’s all make sure that each placement has the intended outcome and that every student is able to succeed.
References
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., and Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (Eds.) (2015). A nation empowered: evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Volume 1, Chapter 1, pp. 1-6). University of Iowa.
Foley-Nicpon, M., & Cederberg, C. (2015). Acceleration with twice-exceptional students. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, and A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Volume 2, pp. 189-198).University of Iowa.
Jackson, P. S. (2011). Integral practice and radical programming with highly gifted learners. In J. A. Castellano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education: understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds (pp. 125-151). Waco: Prufrock Press.
Southern, W. T. & Jones, E. D. (2015). Types of acceleration: dimensions and issues. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, and A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Volume 2, pp. 9-18).University of Iowa.
Emily Villamar-Robbins is a founding board member of the Gifted Education Family Network, and she is passionate about equitable access to education, including gifted education programs and interventions. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and UT Austin, and she holds a Graduate Academic Certificate in Gifted and Talented Education from UNT.
This resource is provided for general information purposes, does not constitute legal advice, isnot intended as and should not be interpreted as legal advice, and does not establish anattorney-client relationship.
How To: Fix Gifted Identification in Your Texas District!
High-quality gifted education services include opportunities for acceleration, grouping with other GT students, learning with depth and complexity, and affective support, all shown by research as important in enabling gifted students to reach their full potential. For decades, however, inequitable identification practices have resulted in the nationwide underrepresentation of certain populations of students in gifted services, especially gifted Black and Hispanic students.
The most serious problem in Texas GT education is the failure of many GT programs to identify and include all students who need services. Gifted education researchers have identified several changes that can improve equity in identification, but too many districts have yet to implement these solutions.
This is not just a problem for the students missing needed services; this should concern each family and each educator involved in gifted education. The Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students requires that the population of each district’s gifted/talented program is “closely reflective” of the population of the total district and/or campus (Section 2.25). When districts fail to identify and serve all students with above-level potential, our districts, economy, and society lose out – and more importantly, children are limited and harmed by our refusal to fix our education system.
As a parent or caregiver, what can YOU do to start to improve GT identification in your district? For answers, please read below for interviews with a gifted education expert at Texas A&M University and two district GT Coordinators here in Texas.
What the Research Says:
Karen Rambo-Hernandez, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor,
Texas A&M University
Professional Advisor to the
Gifted Education Family Network
A nationally recognized expert in the field of gifted education, Dr. Karen Rambo-Hernandez is known for her research, published work, and presentations on equitable identification practices. We are thrilled to be able to share her wisdom with GEFN families and supporters.
GEFN: Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and for your work in this field! For parents who are ready to make an impact: what are the most important changes their districts should make immediately in order to improve equity in their gifted identification processes?
Dr. Rambo-Hernandez: Oh, good question. Before I talk about the most important changes I want to quickly bring up the idea of identifying for “what.” Identification should happen after we know how we are going to serve the kids— that way we can align identification procedures with the planned services. We sometimes get too caught up in the identification process and forget why we identify. We identify students so we can serve them. So, let’s flip the script. Let’s first determine what services we plan to offer—and lean into the context of the district to make some of these determinations. For example, I grew up in Baytown, Texas, where there is a huge refinery— that needs a steady stream of talented technicians. So, that school district might want to focus on developing STEM talent. Then when you are ready to identify students, choose assessments that are aligned to the services and then apply universal screening and local norms in the identification process. These two pieces will improve equity in identification.
For universal screening, districts should use something that is already given. Schools regularly use standardized assessments to track student achievement, so use those. Don’t add another assessment, and don’t use something locally created (because validating those is quite involved). Then use the scores on that assessment to identify which students will be automatically referred for testing for gifted education services. For example, if your gifted program has the capacity to serve 10 students in a grade level, then the students with scores in the top 30 might be automatically referred.
I think that it is important to set a lower bar for the universal screening than you expect to use for the identification phase (and take the suite of uniqueness that a kid brings with them).
For local norms, use the school’s context to determine who is most likely to benefit from gifted services. For example, a student who is performing at the 90th percentile (based on national standards) and is in a school with an average achievement at the 80th percentile— that student is likely having their academic needs met by the enacted curriculum at that school. But drop that same 90th percentile student into a school with an average achievement at the 30th percentile, the student is unlikely to have their academic needs met. One way to think about this is to remove cut-scores and employ a “number of seats” approach. If the school has the capacity to serve 15 students at each grade level, then the top 15 students should receive access regardless of a cut score.
GEFN: Can you share why it is so essential for districts to implement universal screening for gifted services? What happens when districts rely solely on parent or teacher referrals for screening?
Dr. Rambo-Hernandez: Generally speaking, families differ in their comfort level navigating the school system. Some families are incredibly well-networked, comfortable navigating the education system, and know how to leverage systems to advocate for their student’s needs effectively. These families are typically from more privileged backgrounds—and are the ones who nominate their kids for gifted programs. These are the parents who are watching for the nomination announcements, who know how to advocate for their children, and are more comfortable navigating the school system. These are awesome things! Other parents are less comfortable navigating the education system. To make gifted services dependent on family’s comfort level navigating the system will systematically leave out students. This is simply unfair. To further complicate matters, teachers are well-meaning (believe me- I’m a big fan of teachers- I was one!), but like the rest of us they are susceptible to unconscious biases. Let’s not let that muddy the waters. All children need to have equal opportunities to be identified— and nomination advantages kids from more privileged backgrounds over others.
GEFN: In one of your articles about local norms, you draw a comparison between local norms in gifted education and the way athletic or musical talent is typically supported in schools. Can you help our readers understand how those identification practices are similar?
Dr. Rambo-Hernandez: Ah, I love this analogy! Let’s take an athletic example. If a school wants to field a basketball team, they take the best athletes they have— they don’t set arbitrary cut offs (e.g., you have to run a mile in less than 6 minutes). They decide how many kids they need for the team (5 to play and 5 on the bench), and the best 10 basketball players make the team. Cut-offs just don’t exist. Schools vary in the talent present (and that even varies within a school over time). Schools take the basketball talent they have present in the school and develop it. It should be the same way with gifted services— take the top talent present at the school and develop it. Serve as many as the school can. I’ve heard schools say they don’t have any gifted students. That’s simply not true. We need to move the focus away from cut offs and toward serving talented kids.
GEFN: In the same article, you mention one of the objections raised to making these changes– the complaint that using local norms expands gifted programs to include students beyond those traditionally considered to be “truly” gifted– and some proposed solutions. Can you share some examples of how districts that are expanding services can continue to fully meet the needs of already-identified gifted students, through acceleration or differentiated gifted services?
Dr. Rambo-Hernandez: Can I start by saying I don’t like the term “gifted student”? It makes it seem like we are running around trying to find students who are inherently different from average students. Giftedness, talent, and ability run on a continuum. Let’s find the kids who would most benefit from gifted services— those who are least likely to have their academic needs met by the enacted curriculum and instruction in each school. Those services provided should be challenging and stretching.
Okay, now that I’ve got that out of my system (I’m smiling by the way), once you know which kids are going to be served, the academic needs of those kids are likely to be quite dissimilar (and will range by campus). For example, some of my work has shown that anywhere from 10-40% of kids start the academic year above grade level (the estimate ranges based on the subject, grade-level, and assessment referenced). For example, using NWEA MAP data for mathematics, about 14% of kids have already mastered 5th grade mathematics before the year starts- and of that 14%, 2% need 6th grade content, 5% need 7th grade content, 4% need eighth grade content, and 2% are ready for high school material (the numbers don’t add up because of rounding in case you checked). But let that sink in. If we identified all of those students as needing advanced academic services, the services would need to span at least 4 grade levels to adequately meet their academic needs. So, rather than expect a pull-out program to be able to serve all of the students, let’s leverage the classes that already exist— let’s use subject acceleration (or grade acceleration if the student is advanced across the board) to address their academic needs.
GEFN: When these improvements are proposed, what other objections should we expect district leaders and/or local GT families to raise? What advice would you give to advocates as they work to address these objections and to convince district leaders to follow current research recommendations?
Dr. Rambo-Hernandez: Ah, buses. One of the things you’ll need to figure out if you’re going to move toward implementing subject acceleration is transportation. Sometimes campuses are close together (so kids can walk) – that makes it easier. Also, there is a common misconception that students who are accelerated are more likely to have social problems. This just doesn’t play out in the research. Generally, there are no differences observed in the social-emotional well-being of students who accelerated when compared to similar ability students who did not accelerate, but there are huge gains academically for those who accelerated. Also, going back to my research that shows large proportions of students are already above grade level, if we actually paid attention to those numbers, a large proportion of students would accelerate. Then, the accelerated students would be with many others their age, which makes the social-emotional argument moot.
GEFN: As gifted equity advocates work to raise awareness about this issue, are there some key points they should share with other GT parents and with district leaders? Why should every parent or caregiver of an identified GT student in Texas care about the problem of underrepresentation in local gifted programs?
Dr. Rambo-Hernandez: Well, if I can be blunt, if the kids receiving gifted education services don’t look close to a cross-section of the kids in the school, then gifted education programs are going to go away. So, if you want your kid to continue to have services, you need to care about the problem of underrepresentation. Gifted education has a proverbial black eye— that we are addressing but haven’t solved— historically, students from underrepresented backgrounds have been, well, underrepresented in gifted education. Also, parents should care because it is the right thing to do. Racism is real. Do what you can to address it. Use gifted education as a way to address racism— not to perpetuate it. Further, gifted education should be part of a suite of services provided to meet the needs of all students. There are kids in every school who need more. Let’s use gifted services to help meet those needs.
Making the Changes:
Raine Maggio, M.S.
Past Gifted and Advanced
Academics Coordinator,
Current Director of Enrichment,
Round Rock ISD
Monica Simonds, M.Ed.
Director, Advanced Learning
Programs and Services,
Richardson ISD
Several districts in Texas have successfully taken steps to improve GT identification practices, and two suburban districts in particular have recently received recognition for their changes. We are grateful to be able to speak with Ms. Raine Maggio and Ms. Monica Simonds about their successes.
GEFN: Thank you for your work to improve equity in gifted services! Can you please share a little about the improvements you made to gifted identification processes in your district? How long did it take for key district decision-makers to decide to support your changes?
Ms. Simonds: I began in this position in the summer of 2010 spending the first year or so learning about current practices and analyzing data. The changes we made came in three main transitions. The first occurred when we expanded designated gifted services into secondary grades. Once we had GT-sheltered services and/or courses in all grade levels, we focused on elementary identification practices. Data indicated that our population of students identified for gifted services was not reflective of the district as a whole even though there had been efforts in place that predated my joining the team. We implemented Multiple Pathways to identification that incorporated universal screening at second and sixth grades along with several levels of norming based on age (national norms), experience (Emerging Bilingual, Economically Disadvantaged, or both), and environment (campus). Now that we have those pieces in place, the final time of innovation is upon us as we move into a season of programming evaluation both for evaluation and service design.
It is imperative that students identified for services receive the appropriate instructional interventions and we continue to build on our current tiered services. We identify students first for services in general that include Total School Cluster Grouping with a GT-trained teacher, an Advanced Learning Teacher (“ALT”) providing needed support, and the ALT providing professional learning to the classroom teachers. Some students need more instructional challenge and the ALT pulls them out for two hours a week. Finally, some students need far more than can be provided in a classroom so they are sheltered at a central campus for full-time gifted instruction.
Once we had identified the need and the research-based approaches to addressing the identification issues, we were fortunate that district senior leadership was in place to support our innovations.
Ms. Maggio: We took one year to form a committee of principals, counselors, and gifted specialists to gather information about current practices and suggestions for new systems. Based on those recommendations, the following year we updated our assessments to online administration which allowed us more flexibility in our ability to to make accommodations. We make every attempt to allow testing accommodations that are written in IEPs and 504 plans. This helped us to better identify students in our twice exceptional population. We also implemented the use of local norms in our processes. Being a large school district, we divided our population into 3 groups based on similar numbers of students receiving free and reduced lunch. After giving a universal screener to all 2nd grade students, we used that data to create local norms for each of those 3 groups comparing students of the same age, experience, and environment together. Additionally, we created three pathways to identification to allow campus committees to include additional quantitative and qualitative data for consideration when needed. Lastly, we removed achievement testing as part of identification in the early grades in order to not only identify students performing remarkably high, but also those with the POTENTIAL of performing remarkably high. This allowed us to make a tiered service model to encourage talent development.
GEFN: Which underrepresented student populations in your district have benefited most from these changes? Do you have plans or hopes for future improvements to GT identification in your district?
Ms. Simonds: First, Emerging Bilingual and Economically Disadvantaged student groups as a whole are being identified at double, triple, or more the rate that they were previously identified. Now that we have emerged from the complications with testing students created by extreme absences and higher than usual mobility rates, we will review the identification data for each campus and use it to guide next steps. At this point, the next pathway to identification that we may add is to move the district-level Emerging Bilingual and Economically Disadvantaged student groups to the campus level where there is a large enough grouping of students to do so with reliability.
Ms. Maggio: The changes in our identification allowed us to identify many more students at Title 1 schools. Prior to the changes, there were 13 elementary schools (out of 34) who identified less than 5% of their population, within 3 years the number of Title 1 schools below 5% identified was 4.
As far as hopes for improvement, I’m personally no longer in the position to oversee gifted services in my district, but I’m certain that the district will continue to improve those processes.
GEFN: What obstacles did you face in making changes to follow current recommendations in gifted identification, and how did you and your district work through those obstacles?
Ms. Simonds: It was tempting to try to do it all at one time. However, it’s important to phase in any innovations to avoid implementation fatigue in the organization. We were fortunate that the only obstacle is time to implement any change, to ensure services are effective, and to provide professional learning for classroom teachers. Ultimately, competing priorities are our biggest obstacle, most of which are not from any one entity and are not intended to be obstacles. An example is the state-mandated in-school tutoring that can impede on our services or take planning time away from decision makers. However, ultimately, we have worked through any challenges with teamwork and a continued focus on the four questions of the Professional Learning Community of which number four is “what will you do when a student has already learned” what you are teaching.
Ms. Maggio: A major obstacle in the beginning was going from all paper pencil testing to 100% online testing. Each assessment was delivered in a different system and training everyone on multiple systems all at one time was definitely a challenge. There was a huge learning curve, but once we got through one cycle the commitment was well worth it.
We also had to train all the members of the campus screening and placement committees to look at data in a new way to make sure processes were being followed across the district. We now have an online training so that any new member can get training as needed.
GEFN: Have you received any criticism about these improvements from local families or educators, and if so, how have you helped them to understand the “why” behind following current recommendations?
Ms. Maggio: The biggest obstacle was probably helping staff and parents understand local norms. Since there are different target scores at different schools that took some education for people to understand. We changed the focus from “your child is gifted” to “your child shows a need for gifted services.” By showing people the goal in the state plan for the gifted, we were able to show how identification should be about outliers who are identified by comparing students of the same age, experience, and environment.
Ms. Simonds: In the beginning, some of our families shared concerns about moving from our students in grades four through six getting a full day of gifted pullout services to pullout being only two hours a week. It was difficult for them to imagine the classroom teacher taking on the responsibility of differentiating for the high-ability learners. However, that differentiation should have been or was occurring already so we emphasized the ALT (Advanced Learning Teacher) providing support. It’s a work in progress as we have new teachers who come to our district without a gifted background. Our ALTs have adjusted their schedules to prioritize being in the PLC meetings to support the planning for all learners and we have remained steadfast in our journey to being a Depth and Complexity district requiring all elementary and any secondary advanced course instructors to complete their GT update with choice of Depth and Complexity, job-embedded learning.
GEFN: What advice would you give to families who would like to support similar changes, and who are ready to approach GT educators, administrators, and school board members with their requests?
Ms. Maggio: One, go into the conversation willing to be a part of the solution that is for a greater good and not just an isolated situation for your child. Two, acknowledge that change takes time and offer some resources if the district does not have knowledge of these practices. Dr. Scott Peters offers an excellent resource for those exploring equity in identification. You can find it here. https://sites.google.com/uww.edu/peterss/gifted-identification-resources?authuser=0
Ms. Simonds: Three things immediately come to mind. The first is to learn about the district priorities and the data that went into determining what those were. Include learning about the gifted identification data. Marry that with what the state is mandating, and possibly not funding, that the district is trying to address.** Ensure you have a good understanding of school finance. It’s complicated and it changes every two years. Second, learn about what the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted and Talented Students provides as mandates for compliance. Finally, get involved. Join district committees or focus groups to learn about what is currently in place or being planned and look for ways to connect that to the changes you are seeking. Watching board meetings is a great way to do all of this.
An overarching theme should be that the educators and board in your school or district love your children and want to do the best for them. Positive presupposition goes a long way to build a collaborative relationship.
Finally, don’t hesitate to reach out to others to be your thought partner. We are all in this together.
The Gifted Education Family Network wishes to extend sincere thanks to Dr. Rambo-Hernandez, Ms. Maggio, and Ms. Simonds for taking the time to share their insight with GEFN members. We encourage our members to visit our discussion group to engage in conversations about how we can work together to improve equity and diversity in the GT services needed by advanced Texas students in all populations.
** Editor’s note: in recent years, changes in earmarked state GT funding have caused confusion for Texas districts. GT advocates must advocate for sufficient local funding and must also ensure that district leaders understand their responsibility to fund GT programs that follow state regulatory requirements.
Further Reading
Preprint, shared with author permission: Local Norms for Gifted and Talented Student Identification: Everything you Need to Know (2021).
Preprint, shared with author permission: Who gets identified? The Consequences of Variability in Teacher Ratings and Combination Rules for Determining Eligibility for Gifted Services for Young Children (accepted for publication, 2023). Journal for the Education of the Gifted. https://osf.io/n25jd/
A&M Blog: Why Are Some Students Forgotten in Gifted Education?
Content is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute and should not be relied on as legal advice. Viewpoints expressed through interviews are those of individual interviewees and not necessarily held by or endorsed by GEFN.
Copyright 2023 Gifted Education Family Network, interview and formatting by Emily Villamar-Robbins.
In November 2021, the Gifted Education Family Network partnered with the Minority Achievement, Creativity, and High-Ability Center (MACH-III) for an incredible panel discussion on parent advocacy for gifted and high-ability Black males. Panelists included Dr. Fred Bonner at Prairie View A&M University in Texas, Dr. Tarek C. Grantham and Tony Collins II at the University of Georgia, Syrell Grier at the University of Virginia, and Thelron Pleas and Marques Dexter at the University of Georgia.
Dr. Grantham introduced background and research on the urgency of advocacy for high-ability Black male students, and each panelist shared their lived experiences as Black scholars who have overcome significant obstacles to achieve their potential. Parents in the audience had an opportunity to ask questions about supporting their own children, and Dr. Grantham addressed how parents new to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) can work to improve inclusion in their local GT groups and GT programs. He discussed the importance of Frasier’s Four As — Access, Assessment, Accommodation, and Attitude — and he emphasized the importance of Attitude and an anti-racist mindset in beginning the work needed to improve equity in GT programs.
As GT parents, we believe at GEFN that it is our responsibility to extend our support and inclusion to the needs of ALL students with advanced learning potential, including – and especially – students in populations that have been underrepresented in GT programs. For this and many other reasons, it is important for ALL families of GT students in Texas to become upstanders in the work for GT equity. Panelist Dr. Tarek Grantham explains this need in “Parent Advocacy for Black Males in Gifted and Advanced Programs,” a chapter he co-authored in Building on Resilience: Models and Frameworks of Black Male Success Across the P-20 Pipeline (2014):
“To reverse underrepresentation among Black male students in gifted and advanced programs, the role of upstander parents as advocates is critical. Black male underachievement and underenrollment in gifted and advanced programs is an education crisis. A critical goal of advocacy for the needs of gifted Black males is to hold schools accountable for administering gifted program policies and services that promote excellence and equity… When upstander parents challenge bystander teachers to become upstander educators and take an active role in the educational trajectory of Black males in gifted and advanced programs, everyone wins.”
We are grateful to the MACH-III Center, to Dr. Grantham, and to each panelist for making the video of this important event available to our members! We invite GEFN families to share this link with parents and educators in their districts, and we encourage families to engage in discussion about the topics raised.
This event was based on the chapter co-authored by Dr. Grantham in Building on Resilience: Models and Frameworks of Black Male Success Across the P-20 Pipeline, edited by Dr. Fred Bonner. We encourage families to consider purchasing the book or checking it out from their library (local or interlibrary loan). The MACH-III Center has generously offered to donate a limited number of books for parents unable to purchase a copy (need-based) who would like one — if you are a GEFN member and are interested in one of these, please contact us.
As a GT parent, how can you become part of the solution?
Follow the MACH-III Center on social media for announcements about new events, publications, and resources
Join our GEFN discussion forum to exchange ideas with GT parents statewide on effective advocacy in your district (GEFN membership required; for free membership, sign up here)
Insight Into a Bright Mind: A Neuroscientist’s Personal Stories of Unique Thinking
Our next blog post explores expert insight on the needs and characteristics of twice-exceptional students and adults. “Twice exceptional” is a term used to describe gifted individuals with one or more disabilities. The term is sometimes used to describe individuals with disabilities who have any high-ability area of strength.
Dear Gifted Education Family Network subscriber,
Thank you for spending the next hour going on a journey with Dr. Nicole Tetreault.
This book brings readers on a journey through Dr. Tetreault’s realization that she is a twice-exceptional individual, the neuroscience of our biology and interactions with our surroundings, giftedness, and characteristics of neurodiversity. One big reveal in her book is that about 20% of students are considered neurodiverse – which means that 1 in every 5 children in the classroom is neurodiverse.
From the Interviewer: Dr. Tetreault and I had a wonderful organic conversation around parenting, education, and her personal experiences as a twice-exceptional individual. As a parent of a twice-exceptional child, having a conversation with Dr. Tetreault provided me – and hopefully you, our viewers – with a window to the inner experiences of a twice-exceptional individual through time. Our conversation begins with the question around labels and ends with Dr. Tetreault sharing her top 5 actionable tips that all families, regardless of economic ability, can implement and begin to use to better nurture our children. I hope that you will be inspired to read her book, watch the other talks Dr. Tetreault has been giving around the country, or visit her webpage. Enjoy! — Yours Truly, Dr. Lin Lim
Edited Video Transcript
Dr. Lim: Welcome, Dr. Nicole Tetreault, my fellow colleague at Bridges Graduate School of Cognitive Diversity in Education. We’re here today to talk about your book, “Insight Into a Bright Mind,” and to share your wisdom — gained through your journey as a twice-exceptional adult — with the Gifted Education Family Network, a Texas nonprofit started by parents to bring information and resources to families. One of our missions is to support gifted [programs] in public education, as that is often the only option for some families.
Your book is full of a wide range of information — from brain science, poetry, letters, personal stories, both yours and other families, to discussions on different neurotypes. It’s been very difficult to select what to talk about with you today. I’m interested in the use of metaphors and language to convey ideas, so this interview is focused around that aspect of your work.
To begin, I would love to hear about your perspective of the use of terms such as neurodiversity, neuro individuality, gifted, talented, intelligence, twice exceptional, and so on. Walk us through your thoughts and feelings about such labels and terms and make a case as to what terms we should use to create a common understanding between families, schools, researchers, and policymakers.
Dr. Tetreault: Well, can I just say I really am delighted to be here with my fellow colleague here today, and all of the work that you do. I think it’s so beautiful that even the mission of your organization is to offer education for families in public schools, because that is only the option for so many.
I think part of the mission of writing this book is an alignment with how we get collective consciousness where we can focus on the work of Dr. Baum and the strength-based education model that really holds true [with our neurology]. And so part of that mission is to think about how can we – not me – collectively rethink the labels that we’ve been identifying ourselves and children with, and how can we shift our awareness, to really shift us into a more positive light, where these kids and adults are able to grow up and experience their true essence.
I think that when you bring up public school education, there’s really a challenge. Teachers are faced with having a classroom full of kids. Especially if you’re in a standard classroom you’re going to have 20% of the kids, that is one in five kids, who’s going to be neurodiverse. When you think about that, and you break it down even more, when you think about the term neurodiversity, what we know in brain science is each of us has our own very unique brain map. So it’s not that that the wiring is a subtype of a subgroup of people – that helps for understanding a broader view, to offer in services and offer types of supports and also really build the strengths – but when you really think about it with science, it’s so much illuminating, even when it comes down to it, that really each of us has a unique way of processing and interpreting the world.
Dr. Lim: People need to be aware when you’re talking about groups in general. It’s still an umbrella term, you know, even for twice exceptional students; there are subtypes, and within subtypes, everyone is still so different. And I think that’s something for people to keep in mind. That what may be true for one person may not work for the other, and I think that speaks to what brain science is showing – an alignment with the general kind of philosophy that we really need to cater [to] and be considerate of individual differences in general, overall, not just for gifted outliers. Perhaps taking that bigger viewpoint might be helpful in terms of framing policies and giving us a big picture of where we should go.
A lot of things start from assumptions. If you have a different assumption, or you buy or choose to buy into a different assumption, then the behaviors could be so different, like what you wrote in your book. You talked about the butterfly effect, how you had experienced it on your own. You know, I believe that was in English writing class.
Could you explain that a little bit? I think it’s important for people to know, little behaviors and small things we could do. Sometimes we feel overwhelmed – like how are we going to change this whole education.
Dr. Tetreault: I think that really when it comes back to – when you’re bringing up the butterfly effect, and when we think about it – is to look at the individual. And I think, to take out any sort of bias, as much as you can take out the cultural biases, take out the biases of gender, take out the biases of gender identification, take out the biases of gifted or not gifted, special ed, and really reframe.
A lot [of] what I talked about in my book prior to that butterfly effect is the experience that I had growing up, really being misunderstood, a female being awkward, being really different than my peers. I was in a school where I was actually the only Caucasian girl. And, you know, having blonde hair was very strange. And at the same time, there was this bias that I couldn’t do math or I couldn’t be certain things.
And so really, elementary school was challenging for me, not due to the fact that people were bad. It was just a misunderstanding of what I brought to the table. The way the butterfly effect happened for me, and the way that I talked about it is – you know that famous experiment, a butterfly flaps its wings a distance away, and you could have a hurricane or tornado happening across the country or across the world. At that moment for me, [with my] being dyslexic, I didn’t read very much. I avoided reading. Reading wasn’t something pleasurable to me, and it wasn’t until I was in high school that I read Maya Angelou’s, “ I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” and I read it from start to end, start to end.
It was the first time I fell in love with literature, and it was a viewpoint so different than anything I’ve ever been exposed to. I started – and I had always been a kid who loved writing poetry. I loved words, I loved the sound, and being dyslexic, you know, phonetics is strange. You make up your own spelling. I had this teacher [who] wanted us to write about a very first kind of memory, and mine was a first kiss. I remember I wrote about it, and I had all these details based on what I learned from Maya Angelou’s writing – [to] kind of go into the body to describe it, really in detail. She read it out to the class, and it was the first time ever in my life – and I was in ninth grade – that my work was actually highlighted. There were so many times I was overlooked and overlooked. It had such a profound effect, where I realized, okay, this is something I could do later on maybe. It gave me that sense of hope that maybe I’m actually good at school, where I thought I was such a bad student my whole life.
When a teacher sees the potential, [when] they see that goodness, they see that seed, they help that child plant that seed and teach them that it’s going to grow. It really makes a big difference in their life. It goes back to the strength-based model; this teacher found strength and really supported it.
Dr. Lim: And the strengths could come from not just teachers, but any one person could be that spark for another person. So I think that’s a very powerful and uplifting message – that even when things are dire, and you feel like, “how do we get out of this,” it just takes that one person, right? Your story attests to the butterfly effect, how that one person was put you on this journey, and look where you are now.
So, jumping a little bit, kind of more removed – I really enjoyed your series of personal letters that you put in between each chapter. What was your inspiration to decide to include this after each chapter? You take a break, you’re in a completely different setup – what was your inspiration to do it this way?
Dr. Tetreault: Well, it was an experiment. You know, it’s so interesting. I’m glad you mentioned that, because I actually had a first editor that told me it didn’t work. I had to make the choice that our relationship [wasn’t] going to work because I need[ed] someone to help me find the way that I think is going to work. The book in itself is an experiment that you bring out about language, in the sense that I played with a lot of different forms, with the intention to break what it is to write about science, to break what it is to write about giftedness, to break what it is to include poems and personal narrative. It’s an experiment. A lot of my inspiration came from the work of Lidia Yuknavitch, who wrote “The Chronology of Water,” where she plays with a lot of different forms. She was one of my teachers early on, saying, “as long as you really stick with a form, your reader will trust you.” So, I had to trust that the form I was doing was going to work.
The inspiration for that [form] was originally an exercise that I loved to play with when I teach expressive writing. It is a letter to your future self, called Futureme.org, where you could type in a letter to yourself a year from now, and then see what you said in it. When I started out, I was going to only have one letter at the end and it was just going to be, “today’s your birthday.” My husband actually mentioned, “why don’t you experiment and try to write one per chapter, and see if that would work.” I had a bunch of them, and I was going to mesh them all together, and then I kind of divided them up to match the chapter with the experience. I wanted there to be that conversation of “I see you, you’re not alone.” I think so often individuals feel alone in their experience. I really wanted to offer a place where they could land on the page in an emotional sense, and then dive into the piece about the science. For me, science and poetry are very closely related, almost like spiritual experiences of prayer, where I feel that they have healing intrinsic aspects to them. And so I just wanted to offer those in that form to the reader.
Dr. Lim: I really liked that, because stereotypically, as we’re talking about all the different labels, when people think about science, it is supposed to be dry. When you think of the word “science,” in general, the imagery and the emotions that it brings up for a lot of people are so different from the way you’re doing it in your book. Putting the more lyrical content in between the chapters is not a distraction – it actually pulls everything in more closely. That is how I experienced your book, and I thought it was very interesting. Recently, I’m really interested in the use of language, imagery, and metaphors to convey ideas and to change minds. Your book was really interesting to me from that point of view. A lot of the things you said, for example, tell us a little bit about the “secret side doors.” I love that language – you could have said the same thing using different words. The really interesting part about your book is that it is more relatable. I can imagine what side doors are – secret – it’s something hidden. Explain your secret side door. Viewers who haven’t read your book would love to know.
Dr. Tetreault: When I talk about the secret side doors, it’s these unconventional paths that 2e individuals experience because of their unique biology and physiology, unique processing, and unique experiences. Sometimes behaviors get misunderstood because they are new, novel. The same thing happens when I think about experiences and the side doors that I had to do through [my] education. I didn’t have a standard canonical path. I went to high school, and my mother was diagnosed with Parkinson’s. My grandmother had moved in with us and had cancer. There was a shift where I decided to not go away to college right away, and I went to a junior college, and actually worked in a lab at Caltech. That was my first introduction to this world of the laboratory, testing it out. Then I went on to UC Davis and I really fell in love with neuroscience even more. I didn’t have that standard trajectory because after college I got married, had a baby, and then went to graduate school. I had a one-year-old in graduate school.
When people ask, “how old are your kids” – I have one son, he’s 17 – they think I have a three-year-old or four-year-old. I had [my son] while I was in graduate school. Right when I was applying for graduate school, because I have a visual processing difference and I’m dyslexic, I had to really study and I had to get a tutor to help me with the verbal reasoning on the GRE. I had a six-month-old and I was studying for the GRE, and I applied to graduate school and actually didn’t get in the first time around. I had gotten into UCLA, and my dream was really to go to Caltech, yet at the same time I wanted to study Parkinson’s (UCLA). And I went and I studied Parkinson’s (at UCLA). After doing that for two years, it was a bit heavy because my mom had that same disease, and I decided to transition to autism – and I got into Caltech. It was my dream come true. Spence [my son] was three and on campus with me. It was a really unconventional path. Right after I finished graduate school, my mother passed away three months later. I was in this position where I had a couple of postdocs and I had one specific job that I turned down. I said to myself, I think I’m really meant to write. I think I’m meant to translate, because there was this big gap when my mother was suffering from Parkinson’s and what I knew was going on in a laboratory. I saw – that’s where my heart wanted to go. So, all these years I thought I wanted to study human brain tissue and Parkinson’s, and I transitioned out! What I’m saying about the side doors is that I tried, and did many different things along the way, and it wasn’t really a standard way, how things are done – and it’s funny, because I walked away from academia and now I’m back at Bridges (Graduate School) with you. I thought that part (academia) is over. I’m a writer now, and it’s like – no I’m not. You know, life shifts and it changes and it builds. And so I think it’s just you never know where you’re going to land. With these gifted and 2e kids, there’s so much that they have to offer, and it may not be the way that you know. You may have a kid who wants to go to art school, or wants to go to Harvard, or doesn’t want to go to college and wants to program all day, and they end up heading to Mozilla. I think we create these structures, that you have to go this certain path to be this certain way, and I definitely thought that. I realized I didn’t get to where I was by any standard normal path.
Dr. Lim: So would you say that perhaps the first step on this journey to understand yourself can be self-awareness? How does one go on this journey, because sometimes you wake up, you’re like – whoa what happened – [and] you’ll find yourself somewhere. I think in your case, you bring a unique perspective because you’re telling us your journey as a neuro individual. How did you finally realize you are dyslexic? You talked about your sensitivity to light. If you had the migraines at a younger age, at what point [was] the tipping point? Let us walk with you in your shoes as that person journaling along. I understand that when [you were in college] you found out you were dyslexic, but I think your light sensitivity and migraines you experienced a lot earlier. What was going on at that time, what were you thinking?
Dr. Tetreault: I think there are a couple of things. I was the youngest of five kids, so I was either with a bunch of my siblings or completely alone. And I think that the way that I naturally processed, if things were too bright or too much, is I would retreat, and I would be by myself. I didn’t know that I was naturally self-regulating, if that makes sense. I grew up in a household where there were TVs on in all different rooms and that was just like a nightmare to me, so I would just go to my room and close the door, and have it be really quiet. One thing that my parents gave me was the ability to be autonomous in some ways and figure it out. As a kid, I obviously didn’t understand that other people didn’t experience [sensitivity] the same as I [did]. I thought that this is what everyone else experienced and it’s no big deal. It wasn’t until I was working in the laboratory that I started to notice how dysregulating fluorescent lights were and developed a deep awareness. In my house, I could shut lights off, at school I always sat by a door. I might have tuned out and had been staring out off into space or I was super highly aroused and I would blurt out answers. I think I [went] from one extreme to the other at a very young age, where I would tune out to a point or be totally overstimulated. At the time, no one knew what was going on. There were maybe thirty-five other kids in the class and they wanted us in our rows and to kind of be quiet. At the same time, I think I learned to endure without naming and speaking about it. It’s sort of like when you’re running a marathon, you may be getting a black toe but you may not know it until the end of the race and you pull off your shoe and you’re like, “oh yeah, my toe was banging quite a bit, and I got a black toe.” I was enduring. I do remember as a kid being highly distracted every time a garbage truck came by. The noise was just so loud, sirens were very loud, and I did not think I could just stop the noise. Now I have the awareness and I just cover my ears and I don’t care if it looks a little strange, you know. It’s loud, it hurts.
Dr. Lim: My son is the same way. It’s actually amazing if you think about it – kids are actually naturally very self-regulating. I think the discrepancy comes because we don’t understand what they’re doing or why, and perhaps they don’t either. My son doesn’t do it often, but he seems to be more sensitive to bass sounds. We happened to be somewhere where the bass was loud, and he just covered his ears in a concert, [and] we’re like, “you can’t do that.” Later on, when we had a conversation and took the time to figure out “why” versus “you shouldn’t do that because it’s not appropriate,” we realized looking back [that] he was naturally self-regulating without consciously being aware, and removed himself from the stimulation. I do see the effect when you’re in public school because it’s so loud, so many people. We were in a public school – it’s considered “small” – he was very very dysregulated by the time he got home. He needed a lot of downtime, he could not even speak when he came home. I wanted to do the motherly thing, such as, “hey, how was your day?” and he [couldn’t] even talk for a few hours. He had to go to his room and close the door. Initially, I felt offended and hurt wondering, “why is he doing that?” when I just want[ed] to see how [his] day was. It was much later (years) when we were able to talk about it, he said that he just needed downtime. If I gave him that space, he would – then when he’s ready – come back down and reconnect. But if I pushed it, it actually got worse because I didn’t understand (what was going on). I love your story. Instead of rushing to act, when we see something, perhaps pause, especially when we feel like we need to act immediately (and be reflective versus reactive). I think your parents gave you that grace to let you be, instead of [asking], “why aren’t you with the family.” I think that’s something for parents to think about and consider, instead of reacting to the situation – whether we think it’s right or wrong, appropriate or not, maybe try to find out from the child’s point of view, “why were you doing that?” Sometimes they don’t even know.
Dr. Tetreault: I love that you’re bringing that up about your son, because even really simple things – like we pressure our kids when we’re around family and there is the bigger family. I feel like I can always remember the stories when my son was tiny and I asked him to “do that thing you did” and he said “no, I’m not doing it.” I would pressure him, “but it was so cute, do it!” and my son [said], “no, I’m not doing it” – they have a mind of their own. They’re not our little circus acts. Sometimes we may force our kids, “you need to hug everybody, you need to kiss everybody,” and it may not feel right for them. Even a “simple” thing (hugging) – I’m not into hugging, and sometimes my son was very huggy, and other times he really wanted the space. My son is now 17, and when I hug him, I ask. Sometimes he doesn’t want that affection, so I ask, “can I give you a hug? Can you receive it?” If I’m going there (hugging) and expecting him to take my affection, and if his body’s not in it, that is not going to feel good to either of us. Usually when I say, “can I get a hug or may I give you a hug?” he may want to embrace. Other times, he says, “in a minute, give me a minute.”
Dr. Lim: I think that’s a conversation to have that seems important. We do that (ask for permission) with adults, we generally ask for permission to be close, but we tend to forget that with kids. We just take it for granted that they should accept it. I think what you’re saying is that it is a great idea to just ask so they can be prepared, or assess if their body is ready for that. This communication piece that you brought up – let’s bring it back to your elementary teacher, Mrs. R and the story about coloring all the pages of your phonics book in order to pass the class. What was interesting to me about that particular story was that I wondered if you’d be more willing to comply if she had told you that punctuality, task completion, and following directions were the important things in her class – meaning, that communication piece. It is not about phonics, really – she wanted everybody to learn to listen to instructions. It makes me wonder – if you [had] heard that if she had communicated that with you, would you have felt differently?
Dr. Tetreault: I mean, it’s a really interesting question. I think that when you offer a person what your expectations are, they could either meet your expectation, they could deny your expectation, or they may not understand your expectation. For me, in that case, the expectation wasn’t clear, so I didn’t totally understand her motivation. Had it been readjusted where it was about task completion, showing that I can follow instructions – that I valued the process of coloring rather than it being, “bad kid. You didn’t do this” – maybe it would have been. At the same time, I kind of got from my mom that there are going to be things you’re going to have to do in life, that you may or may not love, and it’s part of the expectation. My mom gave me that piece, whether or not I fully learned it at the time, or still have yet to learn it. Sometimes I still think, “Oh, why are we doing that?”
Dr. Lim: I wonder about that too, just because that’s the case now – why do we have to do all the busy work for? This sort of sounds like a larger philosophical question. It’s almost like all of us have taken for granted that somehow we have to suffer through busy work in order to get the things we really want to do. Can we not think that there could be a better way?
Dr. Tetreault: Why can’t we subtract out the busy work and offer a kid a chance to creatively think? When you think about it from a biology and a brain standpoint, when the brain is doing a repetitive action over and over, there’s less activity because it’s not novel. When you’re allowing a kid or an adult to be in sort of their imagination or creative flow, we know that it’s brimming with activity. So I do wonder and I do think that even when we consider standardized tests and things, what are we actually testing? We’re testing that a child meets a standard for a specific skill. We’re not necessarily testing how bright that child is. A lot of what I talked about with executive functioning in relation to standardized testing, that is a little more in alignment (with that standardized testing is assessing) than a child actually being creative. In standardized testing, you’re also testing whether or not a child could follow directions – you know, that’s another executive function.
Dr. Lim: Or sit for three hours, to fill in the little bubbles or whatever it is now!
Dr. Tetreault: If you are twice-exceptional and you are getting accommodations, then you’re getting six hours, and this kid is missing recess with their peers. Educators in the system have such a challenge to show competence, but I think maybe we could do something a little bit different. I find it really inspiring that for college admissions now, standardized tests are really not the only benchmark, which I think is really important. If people have the money and the resources, they could increase the standardized test scores 200 to 300 points. What does that say about kids who are struggling in low socioeconomic status, where getting food on their tables is their or their parents’ main concern? They are not going to be getting those resources. I definitely don’t have the answer, but I think that there needs to be a collective reboot. I love the way Bridges (Graduate School) is tailoring, where the kids really thrive in their natural strengths, and you see the success. You see them eventually getting into college and you see them find that side door. When they’re going in that path, it is actually not a side door anymore, it’s a front door where they’ve been given the opportunity to flow with their natural abilities.
Dr. Lim: There is this video that we watched in one of [the Bridges Graduate School] classes called “the animal schoolhouse.” All the different animals in the forest had to all take standardized classes like flying, climbing, riding, or something like that. You see the poor duck for example, who might be really good at swimming but can’t run or climb that well. When you watch that video, people understand that (standardized classes) do not make sense. If you think about it, that’s exactly what is going on (in education). For some students, they naturally have certain strength in certain areas, but not all across the board – and you know everyone’s different. That is why the kind of language in visuals and metaphors have been really interesting to me recently. We should do a lot of these writings in a way that links the imagery people understand and the emotions that come with that imagery. That might possibly be an additional way to connect educators, families and researchers to find a common language. It just seems like we are all speaking in a different language. Take translation of neuroscience into application or other realms – the language you’re using is so specific to neuroscience, so we can’t relate to each other to create a common understanding.
When you were younger, you had a large vocabulary, but you couldn’t really spell and you [were] going to get points taken off if you [couldn’t] spell them correctly. You substituted them for an easy word so you [didn’t] lose points. With technology increasingly now being available, at school and at younger ages, what do you envision technology’s role might be regarding the need to spell? With changing technology, how does that impact groups that were disadvantaged before – that may benefit more than certain groups? It’s sort of like the technology piece seems to be one of the butterfly effects thrown in.
Dr. Tetreault: I think it’s incredible, and I think that technology can make such a difference in communication and production. Even for kids that are on the autism spectrum, often they may have challenges with verbal expression but technology can provide a bridge for them to be able to communicate. I think that it’s definitely something that is a positive feature. I don’t know if I wrote this in my book, but my son was highly verbal and he has dysgraphia, and he would get to the test and write, “the book was good,” while all the way driving to school he was telling me for 45 minutes nonstop how the book was great. Of course his name was not on the paper but the teacher knew it was his. The next week we put him onto typing, and he was able to write a paragraph in a flash. I absolutely think it (technology) is a side door, an opening. When I was in college, I had this thing called an AC speller, you still had to hand write for exams.
I would be in my test and one of my accommodations included using the ACE to type in the word, and then it would translate it for me because I couldn’t spell the word, but it actually made quite a difference. Even in my exams in college, I was able to have access to language that I just didn’t readily have the spelling. My dyslexia was really particular, specific to “I” before “E” and double consonants. Having that [technology accommodation] was such a weight off my shoulders. I was able to really focus on the material and the content and focus on my ideas and focus on playing with ideas and playing with language. So, absolutely, I think it’s a foundational bridge for children and adults. Voice to text is another technology bridge as typing may not even be that accessible for some kids. Dictation software can be fabulous and be relieving as well.
Dr. Lim: One of the things that a lot of families struggle with, when they have a diagnosis – what and when do they tell their child? They worry that would have a negative impact on their child. College is another big transition area where families wonder whether they should let the school know about their child. What are your thoughts on that? I’m sure there aren’t any easy answers, but that seems to be something families struggle with. Initially, depending on the age of the child, they’re like – well, when should I tell them – we’re not – that timing between when the parents found out and when the child should know. And then the next big thing is going off to college – should they let the school know ahead of time or not? How does that impact your child? As somebody that has gone through it, can you speak to parents about those worries that they have?
Dr. Tetreault: To be honest, the sooner a child knows, the sooner they become empowered to advocate for themselves. Through nurture and compassion, parents can say, “these are your superpowers. You have such an amazing unique brain, where you’ve got these strengths – and at the same time, we have some areas where [we say], why not get a little support if you’re having a challenge.” If this is going to alleviate any sort of suffering a child would have, I would absolutely advocate for it because of a lot of misunderstandings that happen in the classroom, especially with 2e kids. [It] is what I call the gifted disconnect – where, “you’re so bright, and you do well in these areas, but why do you get a C or D here? What’s wrong with you?” The child can really internalize these messages and can have low self-esteem, struggle with things like perfectionism, imposter syndrome, and mental health considerations. They struggle with anxiety because they may not understand that they think differently and that they need support. So, absolutely. I think communicating to the child, so they can be advocates for themselves – and at the same time I also think that it would even help at the playground and with friends. If you have a child who has a different communication style and ADHD, when they’re with their friends, they can say, “hold on one second. Can you resay that, because my attention shifted and I was watching the bird.” This allows the friends to respond, and pulls away from the stigma – versus in the past, we go off, self regulate or deal with ourselves without fully knowing. This is a piece of a child’s identity. It is not their whole identity, but I think understanding the intricacies within helps them better identify and communicate with others.
Then the second part of your question, in terms of college – 1,000% allow the college to know, because it could make all the difference. You have to remember that these kids can be coming from a classroom of 12. They could go to a small college and be in classrooms of 15, or they could end up at a really big university where they could have 300 people in their classroom and they could get lost in the sea of kids. At the same time, if they’re taking a test and their [normal accommodations] were saved, perhaps they have a note taker or they get books on tape, or audiobooks – and [if] those accommodations aren’t made, it could be a shock to their system, where all of a sudden they could be experiencing challenges. They could be failing out because they’re not having the proper support in place. So, by all means, bring those in. And let parents know [that] when I was identified in college, it made the difference for me – where I was getting, Bs and Cs in classes all the way to getting As. Once I got the support, once I got the ability to figure out that I needed to rewrite my notes a certain way, and did those kinds of things, it made all the difference.
Dr. Lim: Sounds like parents have to balance between short term worries that if they disclose certain things during the application, their child may not get into the college versus the long term success of their child after they get into college. What might happen when they are not getting the accommodations they need after they have gotten into college? Considerations between short term and long term goals can perhaps help individual families handle their individual situations.
Dr. Tetreault: If the child is applying to a school where accommodations are not a part of the built-in process, it may not be the right school for the child. It may be the child’s dream school, but it may not offer the right kind of support the child needs.
Dr. Lim:This means in the long run, they may not be successful. When you look at the long run, families can minimize heartaches and unnecessary detours along the way.
Dr. Tetreault: You want a child to land in a place where they’re gonna thrive, not where they’re struggling to survive, and to recognize that they may have challenges along the way. Just because you put all these things in place, it doesn’t mean that they’re not going to have difficulty. Parents can teach them ways to have self-compassion for their way of processing and compassion for their experience. It is really important to also know they’re not alone. One in five are neurodiverse.
Dr. Lim: You might think you’re the only one out there, but it really isn’t the case. You also talked about educators and teachers as guides. That’s very different imagery. That’s a great way, if people buy into that – it leads to very different types of teaching and ways of teaching. Can you talk a little bit about that? You talk about teaching in a very kind of dynamic way versus the way people traditionally think about teaching – such as, I have this method I went to school and learned, and this is how I’m going to teach it.
Dr. Tetreault: There is a lot of pressure on teachers. The biggest gift a teacher [gives to] a child and a family is to help them identify their magic – to say, “you brought this into the class today. That’s you. That’s your essence.” A teacher can help guide that child through their strengths. I think teaching is a dynamic process, and I think any educator would tell you that it’s a synergistic relationship. The student also teaches the teacher how to think about things, how to grow. Sometimes that student is going to ask a teacher a question that they don’t know the answer to. For example, in my own experience, when I lecture and give talks, often when people ask me questions and I don’t fully know the answer, it informs me that this is an area that we need to investigate together, and it really ends up being a point of interest and spark for me as I hadn’t thought about it this way. When a teacher comes to it in [that] sense – like, we’re in this together, as a guide – there’s sort of humility, rather than, “I’m going to teach you X, Y, and Z, and you’re going to spit it back out.” It’s a much more dynamic and synergistic relationship.
Dr. Lim: It sounds like it’s a collaboration – you’re on this journey together. In your writings, there is a lot of imagery about journeying together, or to be in somebody’s shoes to accompany that person. Last but not least, for families that have to stay in public school and they have no other choice, please pick the top five things that would be very useful for families with limited resources, so they could just run with it.
Dr. Tetreault: For families that are in the public school system, the first thing is to find a space of communication and open dialogue with the teacher and the child and the family. So often in the education system, parents and educators are “otherized.” The teacher thinks, “this kid is a pain in my rear end,” and the parent thinks, “my child is not,” and they’re not seeing that the child is suffering – and at the same time, the child is causing suffering for the teacher. I think first and foremost, [prioritize] working to nurture the relationships with the teacher and the community.
The second thing is to find what the child loves and help guide the child to do the things that they love. The more that they’re doing the things that they love, they’re in flow. They get the positive reward, they get that dopamine, and they get that motivation. Another thing is that they get those social connections from engaging in the thing they love. A child may love robotics, and they may have a 16-year-old in the group, and the child is maybe 10. That 16-year-old and 10-year-old could really get along happily because they’re talking about robotics or Legos, or, you know, anatomy of horses, if they like animals – to diversify.
The third thing is for parents to step back about their expectations for their child. The parent is the guide for the child just as the child is the guide for the parent. Our job as parents is to help the child see what they have to give to the world, not what we expect them to do.
The fourth thing is to identify the source of the differences in their learning. We often talk about these bad behaviors the children experience. If we can identify the origin of where that behavior is coming from, it is most often from fear, anxiety, or a pattern of suffering. If we could tend and nurture that suffering, we can help the child move through that rather than continually adding fuel to the fire.
The final thing is to really spend time with your kids without electronics. Go outside, be in nature. Parks are free, greenery is free. We know [that] nature naturally calms the nervous system, and it could be really healing for some of these children who have high levels of overstimulation. Just being in nature can be such a healing force, it brings out that spaciousness.
Dr. Lim: Thank you for sharing that! I wanted to just share a personal story about the last part about spending time in nature. My son has pretty severe dysgraphia, [and] he also has dyspraxia, which is not knowing where he is in space. One time we were near the Gardens of the Gods [in Colorado], and we were there for a camp with other families. [We were] at this place for two hours, it was all just nature, no reception – and he started writing spontaneously! He is the child that speaks with great creativity, he could tell you wonderful stories verbally, nothing is ever written. He just started spontaneously to write, there was no reason or rhyme to write, and he was never a writer as far as I could tell. He started spontaneously writing, and it was about two pages. He used a pen, [and] it was legible, which was shocking! I asked him “why did you do that? I was really curious. He said, “I just felt like it!” There is nothing scientific about it, but sometimes you wonder, and he has asked about going back there. That is the only place we’ve been to that he has enjoyed that he kept asking to go back, which makes me wonder what maybe interacting with him there was like, as he was like a different person. In that moment, when you’re there to witness that sight, when you see how different your child is under different circumstances, it really opens your eyes. I wonder what was going on there for my son to be like that. How can I find and replicate that where I’m seeing that side of him? What you said reminded me of this story.
Thank you very much, Dr. Tetreault. We had a wonderful, honest, heart-to-heart conversation about humanity, parenting, and what it means to grow up as a neurodiverse individual. Hope you all enjoy this recording – and here’s her book right here. Our conversation today centered on human beings, while Dr. Tetreault’s book goes into more detail on the neuroscience of things. Her book is full of tips and insights for various neuro-diverse brain wiring, and we recommend it for parents of twice-exceptional students.
About the interviewer: Dr. Lin Lim is an Associate Dean at Bridges Graduate school of Cognitive Diversity in Education (BGS). She holds a Ph.D. in psychology from Boston University, an Academic Graduate Certificate in twice-exceptional education (BGS), and an Academic Graduate Certificate in Mind, Brain and Education from Johns Hopkins University Graduate School of Education. Dr. Lim is a founding board member of the Gifted Education Family Network and a member of the SENG board of directors.
Keep in contact with our GEFN community – become a member (free!) and receive our e-newsletter! Sign up here.
Social, Emotional, and Psychosocial Development of Gifted and Talented Individuals
Dr. Anne Rinn is a Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of North Texas, where she also serves as Director of the Office for Giftedness, Talent Development, and Creativity. She has authored more than 50 publications related to the social and emotional development of gifted individuals and the psychosocial skills necessary for the development of talent. She is currently coeditor of the Journal of Advanced Academics, holds leadership positions in the National Association for Gifted Children and the American Educational Research Association, and she serves as a professional advisor to the Gifted Education Family Network. Her latest book, Social, Emotional, and Psychosocial Development of Gifted and Talented Individuals (2020), is an essential addition to professional learning libraries for K-12 educators and for professionals who work with children. We are thrilled to share our discussion with Dr. Rinn about this topic.
Q: Please tell us a little bit about the book. What do you cover and who is the intended audience?
In this book, I explored what is known about social and emotional development with a particular emphasis on how it relates to gifted and talented individuals, using existing theory and research as a basis. The book then moves into an examination of specific psychosocial skills that contribute to the development of talent. Topics include developmental theory, personality, perfectionism, sensitivity and intensity, self-beliefs, motivation, and counseling, among others. By providing both a background on the social and emotional development of gifted individuals and a discussion of specific psychosocial skills that are necessary for talent development, this book provides a thorough look at all components of affective development and growth from a variety of lenses. As such, the book is intended for both researchers and practitioners, as well as parents of gifted children.
Q: Your book opens with an exploration of the cognitive differences of gifted children. Can you share why it is important for educators and professionals concerned with social and emotional development and wellness to also learn about and understand these cognitive differences?
Most theories in the field of psychology about cognitive, social, and emotional development are based on typically developing populations. And, most developmental milestones and trajectories happen similarly among typically developing individuals. However, intellectually gifted children can experience accelerated cognitive development. Gifted children experience the same developmental milestones and trajectories as typically developing individuals, but there are no theories to explain if or how advanced or accelerated cognitive or intellectual ability affects social and emotional development. Cognitive development is a precursor to social and emotional development, and most components of development happen along a similar age-based trajectory. We do not have any evidence to suggest social and emotional development is accelerated like cognitive development in intellectually gifted children, but questions remain about if and how an accelerated cognitive developmental trajectory can impact the social and emotional developmental trajectory among intellectually gifted children. Many call this “asynchronous development” in the field of gifted education.
It is vital that practitioners and parents have an understanding of cognitive, social, and emotional development and how development might (or might not) look different for intellectually gifted children. A lack of understanding or awareness could lead to inadequate or inappropriate educational opportunities for gifted children, decreased social and emotional well-being among gifted children, and, in some cases, misdiagnosis of gifted children.
Q: The discussion of ethnic-racial identity among high-ability individuals seems especially important for everyone concerned about diversity in GT programs. Why should educators learn about intersectionality and respond to the challenges faced by gifted learners from diverse backgrounds?
Simply put, intersectionality is an approach to the way we measure and understand multiple categories of identity, difference, and inequality (e.g., gender, race, disability). For example, suppose I wanted to examine the social experiences of boys and girls in middle school. It would be far more illustrative to examine multiple categories rather than just focus on one. So, instead of just boys versus girls, I would look at, for example, the experiences of boys with a disability, boys without a disability, girls with a disability, and girls without a disability. I could take that further and add in race or socioeconomic status… boys with a disability who are from high socioeconomic status backgrounds, boys with a disability who are from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, etc. The point is that the more we consider about a person and try to understand their “multiple categories”, the better we will be able to meet their needs.
Q: I would love to talk about the section on the Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect. It seems so important for both parents and educators to understand the points you cited, including the positive outcomes of ability grouping and the longitudinal effect of placing gifted students in specific classrooms or programs. We know that schools sometimes resist ability grouping, and that some schools even intentionally spread gifted students across different classrooms rather than follow requirements and recommendations to group them together. Could you elaborate on the importance of ability grouping? What are the social and emotional implications of ability grouping?
The Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect describes a phenomenon by which students experience a slight decrease in self-concept upon moving into a class or program consisting of equally or more able students. For some students, transitioning from being the top student in their class or program to one of many top students can bring on a feeling of doubt about one’s abilities. However, the Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect does not occur for all students and if it does, it is typically short-lived. And, the benefits of a “big pond” far outweigh any brief feelings of doubt, which can also be worked through with a parent, teacher, or mentor.
Most research indicates that ability grouping fosters positive intellectual, academic, social, and emotional outcomes for gifted and talented students. For example, gifted adolescents often gain access to like-minded peers through advanced course enrollment (e.g., honors, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate), thus fostering both their intellectual and social/emotional development. Research has shown that highly able adolescents taking advanced coursework have larger networks of friends and more engaged friends than equally able adolescents who are not enrolled in advanced coursework. Advanced course enrollment is just one example; students talented in music, visual and performing arts, and leadership, for example, can experience similar positive social and emotional outcomes in groups of like-minded peers in organizations like band, choir, theater, and JROTC.
Q: While GT parents and educators understand the importance of robust GT programs and services, particularly for special populations, not all school administrators understand that need. When considering the psychosocial interventions and cognitive differences explored in your book, what advice would you give to parents or parent groups who wish to ensure that their districts understand the importance of maintaining strong GT staffing and services?
There are a number of valuable resources and organizations available for parents and parent groups looking to advocate for gifted students and gifted services. The Gifted Education Family Network, of course, is a fantastic place to start (https://giftededucationfamilynetwork.org/). Here you will meet like-minded parents and find a wealth of resources. Similarly, the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (https://www.txgifted.org/) and the National Association for Gifted Children (http://www.nagc.org/) have parent strands and plenty of resources on advocacy (e.g., see Advocate for Gifted Children, http://www.nagc.org/get-involved/advocate-gifted-children).
GT parent groups serve so many purposes and I recommend emphasizing teacher training as one purpose of a GT parent group. I’ve seen GT parent groups send teachers to conferences and training opportunities (e.g., funding teachers to attend training for their six-hour updates on gifted education*), purchase relevant books for GT teachers and coordinators, and hold mini-conferences for parents and teachers to attend together, for example. GT parent groups can affect change, for sure.
The Gifted Education Family Network enthusiastically recommends Dr. Rinn’s book for use by educators, parents, and professionals who work with the gifted. The book may be purchased on Amazon or the Prufrock Press website, or parents may be able to borrow the book through a local library or interlibrary loan.
Emily Villamar-Robbins, J.D. holds a Graduate Academic Certificate in Gifted and Talented Education and has served in multiple volunteer roles for gifted education at the local and state level. She serves as a member of the Texas Education Commissioner’s Advisory Council on the Education of Gifted Students.
For help discussing racism and bias with gifted children, please see “Discussing Racism with Gifted Children” from the September issue of Parenting for High Potential, a publication of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). Article linked below and shared with permission from NAGC. Many thanks to NAGC and the authors for making this important resource available to families.
During this challenging time, we are thrilled to interview Dr. Davis on her latest book and on challenges advocates must address in order to achieve equity and excellence in gifted education. Read below to learn what parents should know about challenges facing gifted children of color, steps that can improve equity and access, and the importance of strengthening gifted programs for all students who need these services.
What should GT advocates know about the impact of poverty on gifted students of color, and how can they support these students in their districts?
Gifted students of color and those who live in poverty are underserved in school programs for high ability/gifted students nationwide. According to research, there are countless numbers of students from culturally diverse backgrounds who are missing out on services because of biased identification practices, teachers who don’t recognize and believe in the high intelligence creativity of these students, and lack of funding to fully support comprehensive program changes needed to ensure equity and access for all students with high potential. Schools can do more to support these students by changing their identification practices, providing cultural competency training for teachers, and ensuring that school leaders are culturally competent, as well. All school districts that have equity, diversity and inclusion as part of their strategic plans should also be sure that gifted programs are examined and redesigned to ensure equity.
When you talk about equity, diversity, and inclusion, there has to be policy that includes gifted plans, plans for high ability students, [or] advanced learner plans. I have seen many school districts’ strategic plans that don’t mention anything about high ability and gifted students. If there is nothing written into policy about equity in gifted programs at the district level, leaders are really not compelled or inclined to do anything. They will overlook these kids continuously and they will move on to other priorities, other needs that the district may have.
The information on twice-exceptional African-American students in your book Gifted Children of Color Around the World and in your chapter in Scott Barry Kaufmann’s book is incredibly important. How can GT advocates support improved awareness of twice- and thrice-exceptional students, and specifically, implementation of recommendations in your book?
First and most important is educator training on the traits of gifted learners who may also have other exceptionalities, and integration of this training with cultural competency training. Generally, 2E programs address the needs of students in the majority population. Black students with the same traits (gifted and having learning disabilities or other exceptionalities) are served based on the areas needing support, and their gifts are totally dismissed. Look among your exceptional populations students who receive[] SPED services to determine if there are students who may also qualify for gifted services. Teachers must be re-trained to see students of color [as] capable of high intelligence, not always [to view them] as deficient in skills, troublemakers, loud, too busy… twice exceptional services must expand to locate and serve Black students as well as White students.
What policy changes should GT advocates ask states and districts to make to better support students of color?
[Ask for] policy changes in identification protocols, ensuring that all services are demographically representative… Black students, Latino students, Native American students are underrepresented in gifted programs. Policy changes in teacher preparation should also be considered. Mak[e] sure that all preservice programs include coursework in Special Populations of Gifted students and Culturally Responsive pedagogies. Additionally, policy changes to increase parent/family engagement are also recommended. In teacher prep programs, all states have mandatory courses, and that’s how they determine whether the teacher prep programs are certified… If we look at those mandatory courses and include pedagogies, that would be something that all state programs can do. If that doesn’t happen and we know it’s not happening, then we can be sure local training covers these types of courses. There are grad programs, masters programs that don’t have any idea how to address the needs of gifted students in general, but certainly not how to deal with the needs of special populations, those understandings are critical.
An additional change I would recommend is that all school districts increase their parent and family engagement response. How are we engaging parents? How are we working collaboratively with parents? Do parents in these special populations groups feel like gifted programs belong to them? These are some of the kinds of things I teach about when I conduct full workshops. We talk about the sense that some populations do not feel gifted education belongs to them, and that’s simply because of the way we’ve operated… There will be parents even after their children have been identified who will say, “I didn’t know much about this before.” …There’s a sense that gifted programs are owned by other populations, and the populations that are underserved don’t feel that same sense of ownership. But we can change that. We can correct that. Locally, we can change that with policy, but we can also change that with action, with practice.
How can advocates help educators learn to work more effectively with students of color?
Advocates are parents, community members, other stakeholders – these groups should create forums, councils, and be demographically representative and invite school personnel to THEIR table to discuss and plan for change in gifted programs to make them more accessible.
Advocates are groups like your own… these groups, your groups, can create forums. You can ensure that they are demographically representative, and then you can invite school personnel to your table. It’s always about being invited to the table, being part of the table. If you don’t have a seat, you are on the table… as advocate groups, you can actually have your own table and then invite school personnel to the table. Their response to your invitation will say a lot about what their interest is, how willing they are to collaborate, to be partners, and to change conditions in gifted programs to make them more accessible. We just simply have to decide that we are going to be able to do this. It may happen differently district to district, but one of the things we can do is to have forums and councils and bring other people in from the school… you invite people to your table, and have these deep and difficult conversations about changing policy.
In addition to learning from your books, do you have recommendations for ways that GT parent groups can become more inclusive of families of color?
Invit[e] faith based leadership, community organizations, Fraternities/Sororities, [and] other existing community support groups to join them at regularly scheduled meetings held throughout the community. Increasing the sense of belonging is very important.
These other community groups have conversations on their own about these gifted programs that schools have that don’t have anything to do with their kids. Their kids aren’t being served, and many times they set up their own enrichment programs, Saturday morning programs… I have been engaged over the last few years with a number of these groups who are doing excellent work that looks just like gifted programs but they are not being held in the school district… you won’t get their constituency voice at the table unless you reach out to them. Reach out to community organizations, existing organizations. Find parents in the community, in your schools, who are part of these organizations.
Advocates for GT have seen a concerning trend of attempts to eliminate funding for gifted programs. What advice do you have for parents working to protect and improve funding and requirements for gifted programs across the country, both at the local and state level?
This trend across the country is really dangerous, I think –– very alarming, very concerning. When these things happen, and when we eliminate funding for gifted programs, those who suffer the most are the most vulnerable.
Your arguments to maintain funding MUST include a position of equity and access that will ensure that all populations, all communities, all families’ needs are met or will be met by gifted/advanced learner programs. You must be more invitational in your own behavior. Voices must be those of a wider variety of community members: Black, Hispanic, Low income, Immigrant, any other populations that have been left out of the discussions in the past MUST BE HEARD. Our goal for gifted/advanced learner programs is total inclusion and access for all. Giftedness has no boundaries. It is not synonymous with affluence. Gifted children originate from all communities. Everything that you do should demonstrate your belief in these core principles.
Most of their arguments have to do with the fact that gifted programs… are not meeting the needs of a wide population. You have got to be smart enough, and genuine enough… to [say]: all communities have gifted students, and we want to meet the needs of those students. You must be more invitational in your own behavior, and not promote exclusion, elitism, and segregationist behaviors. I’ve seen too much of that already… given the fact that we’re already suffering under this pandemic, the most vulnerable populations are suffering more under this pandemic, community groups like your own must be more invitational, you must be more inclusive. Voices must be those from a wider community of community members… You have to reach out, and you have to reach deep sometimes. You have to discard, and recognize first of all, your own biases, your own microaggressions that have kept people from being a part of this conversation.
Not to suggest that all children are gifted – I’m not saying that. I never will say that. What I’m saying is that in all communities there are gifted children. Giftedness has no boundaries. It is not synonymous with affluence. Just because parents and their children have means does not mean that all of their kids are gifted. Gifted children originate from all communities. I have been around the world with this message. There are other communities from different countries around the world who are having the same issues that we are having, and their message is that gifted children originate from all communities. Our responsibility is to go to all communities and find these gifted minds, bring them in for enrichment, for acceleration, bring them in and train and provide the challenge they need so they can help move our societies forward… we have a responsibility for them if we want them to help society. We are missing out on a lot of intelligence, a lot of creativity… so many of these kids have the answers [to] the problems that plague us as a society everywhere.
[If] the school districts who say they want to remove funding and programs win, [then] the children who are gifted and high ability and who have less means…will suffer the most. We can’t allow that to happen. Publicly funded programs should be available to the public[, and] students from all demographics should benefit. We have an obligation to ensure that gifted programs are inclusive and designed to equitably be available to students from all racial and income groups. Our children are counting on us!
The Gifted Education Family Network wishes to thank Dr. Davis immensely for her time and for her lifetime of incredible work in the field of gifted education.
We are excited to recommend Dr. Davis for onsite and virtual parent workshops, private consultation, professional learning workshops, keynote presentations, and evaluation of programs, including consultation services to address equity in gifted education. Please visit drjoylawsondavis.com to learn about her services.
The Gifted Education Family Network also recommends these books by Dr. Davis for both parents and educators, available for purchase:
Photo credit and all rights to content in Gifted Children of Color Around the World and Bright, Talented & Black: a Guide for Families of African American Gifted Learners reserved by Joy Lawson Davis, Ed.D.
Emily Villamar-Robbins, J.D. holds a Graduate Academic Certificate in Gifted and Talented Education and has served in multiple volunteer roles for gifted education at the local and state level. She serves as a member of the Texas Education Commissioner’s Advisory Council on the Education of Gifted Students.
Commissioner Mike Morath, Texas Commissioner of Education Deputy Commissioner Matthew Montano, Special Populations Niloy Gangopadhyay, Director of Special Populations Monica Brewer, Statewide Coordinator, Gifted/Talented Education
COVID-19 Support Texas Education Agency 1701 N. Congress Avenue Austin, Texas, 78701
Dear Commissioner Morath,
As representatives of families with children who require Gifted and Talented services across the state of Texas, we are writing with concerns regarding the Agency’s guidance for the 2020-2021 school year. To ensure that districts maintain necessary, state-mandated G/T services, and to ensure districts do not overlook preparation for these services in any plans or platforms, it is essential that the TEA include Gifted and Talented Education in Agency planning and in 2020-2021 overview guidance.
We respect and appreciate the work of the TEA’s Statewide Coordinator of Gifted/Talented Education and the Commissioner’s Advisory Council on the Education of Gifted/Talented Students. The 2019 updates to the State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students were necessary and important. We acknowledge the challenges facing all of public education during the COVID-19 pandemic, including challenges facing the TEA.
Because districts must prioritize TEA guidance responding to COVID-19, it is critical to include the needs of all populations. The importance of Gifted and Talented Education in maintaining student engagement and equitable access to continued learning cannot be overstated during the current crisis. For this reason, it is problematic that G/T was not included with other special populations in the Asynchronous Plan Rubric and in other guidance documents. We have learned from the experiences of families in multiple districts that clear requirements are imperative to ensure districts maintain the services and staff needed for compliance and for student learning.
While G/T services must be adapted, they remain essential and can be provided without burden during COVID-19. School district leadership and instructional staff will benefit from the TEA communicating and clarifying the following points, some of which will require revisions or supplements to previously issued TEA guidance:
The State Plan remains in effect, and all sections can be met in all instructional models
Update pertinent information in the April 14, 2020 TEA Gifted/Talented Guidance document to reflect G/T expectations for 2020-2021 school year (online and face to face)
Update the TEA Asynchronous Plan Rubric to include Gifted and Talented services
Clarify that access to appropriately challenging resources and assignments during virtual learning is a part of the learning expectation for G/T students, not an additional expectation to be fulfilled after completing other required assignments.
Gifted learners at all levels in schools across Texas are a special population whose social, emotional, and academic needs must be recognized to ensure they are engaged and successful. Moreso now than ever, we risk G/T students becoming disenfranchised from public education if they are not provided with the research-supported learning experiences outlined in the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students. We support public education and want to ensure G/T students are able to thrive educationally, even during the unprecedented times we are facing. For these reasons, we ask that the Texas Education Agency continue to include and prioritize Gifted and Talented Education students in all levels of future LEA guidance.
Thank you for your work for all students, including gifted learners. We are eager to serve as a resource for Texas G/T parents and districts. We hope to collaborate with the TEA in the future.
Sincerely,
Sabrina James, Chair Gifted Education Family Network
With some certainty emerging about the “look” of Texas public schools next year, gifted education leaders must review current practices, adapt our models, and ensure that each of our students learns something new every day.
“Most parents have heard of ‘skipping grades.’ They may not know, however, that research recommendations can help educators and parents determine whether a grade skip – also called full grade acceleration – may be in a student’s best interest. What does research tell us about this practice, and how does this research address myths and concerns about acceleration?”
The Gifted Education Family Network and Gifted Unlimited, LLC are excited to announce the release of a free parent resource on full grade acceleration.
Free and available for download, this publication summarizes research on acceleration, offers sources and links for further reading, and includes concerns specific to Texas public school students.
The Gifted Education Family Network wishes to thank Gifted Unlimited, LLC for its partnership in creating this resource for parents!
Sources and links for further reading are included. Get the PDF now.
Gifted Education Family Network 