November 2011 Archives

A couple weeks ago when I was reporting from the national gifted education conference, I mentioned the release of NAGC's biannual "State of the Nation in Gifted Education" report. At the time, details from the report weren't yet available online, but they are now, so I wanted to direct you to some links as well as highlight for you some additional points from the report that I find most intriguing.

Every other year, the National Association for Gifted Children surveys U.S. states (and territories) seeking information and data regarding the identification of and provision of services for gifted children in that state. For the 2010-2011 report, 44 states and one territory responded to the questionnaire about gifted policies, programs, services, and other practices.

The following are data points from the report that caught my interest:

* Thirty-one of the responding states have a mandate related to gifted and talented education, some requiring identification, some requiring services, and some requiring both.

* Fourteen states have no mandate to identify or provide services for gifted learners, and five of the states that do have mandates do not provide funding for those services.

* Fourteen states reported that the number of students in the state who are identified as gifted and talented is information not collected or not available.

* Only twenty-nine of the responding states report advanced proficiency indicators on district report cards or state accountability reporting forms. But shouldn't that be relevant information for an innovative nation to want to know about its schools in all states?

* While seven states have policies permitting early entrance to Kindergarten, ten states specifically do not allow early entrance. Another twenty-four states leave the decision to local districts.

* Decisions and policies regarding whether a student may be dually enrolled in middle and high school are made at the local level in most states. While ten states directly allow this kind of dual enrollment, eight states specifically prohibit middle/high school dual enrollment. Seventeen states allow high school credit to be earned in these situations, and one state specifically prohibits a middle school student taking high school courses to earn high school credit for that work.

* Fourteen states fund a virtual high school. (I imagine this number will continue to grow as technology becomes a more and more viable delivery option for schools and students.)

* Only six states require pre-service training for regular classroom teachers on characteristics and needs of gifted students. Yet it is in the regular classroom where gifted learners are expected to have the bulk of their learning needs met.

* In thirty-six states, regular classroom teachers are never required to receive training about the gifted learners who are inevitably in their classrooms.

* Twenty-one states require teachers who work specifically with gifted learners to have a
certificate or endorsement in gifted education. That means that more than half of the states do not expect teachers whose sole focus is the gifted learner to even know something about those students.

* A sizable majority of responding states said pre-service training in gifted education for future teachers (34) and professional development for general education teachers in instructional strategies for gifted learners (40) were areas in need of attention, along with the need for funding for these ventures (34).

* Twelve states cited a national focus on bringing underperforming students to proficiency as resulting in limited challenge for students who had met or surpassed that target already.

* Thirteen states indicated that gifted and talented education programs, services, or staffing had been reduced and/or that less money was being spent on those educational features as a result of national education law focusing on a bar of proficiency.

* Among the states that do provide some funding for gifted education, reported state funding per identified gifted student ranged from less than $8 to more than $2,500. (And this amount, obviously, would be $0 in other states.)

You can access a summary of the report at this link on NAGC's website. This four-page summary in PDF format would be a concise version of the data to distribute to stakeholders in your district.

An extensive overview citing many additional data points is available at this link.

A summary of the findings featuring a multitude of graphs and other visuals is available at this link. Two in particular that I found interesting were this one showing what states found to be most in need of attention regarding gifted learners:

and this one showing the level of training teachers in each state receive (or are never provided!) about gifted learners:

A news release, titled "Nation's Infrastructure to Support Gifted Students is Crumbling, Survey Finds," can be accessed here. It's in a nice format for sharing with stakeholders in your school or district.

And a flash drive containing a complete picture of the survey and its entirety of results is available for sale in the NAGC bookstore.

Posted by Tamara Fisher at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Well, I've now had beignet, jambalaya, and gumbo, in addition to the fried alligator. Quite a unique place, this New Orleans! :o)

I began Day 4 in a session by Miraca Gross about grouping practices and their impact on gifted learners. As she discussed in her presentation, since we know that gifted learners
* learn at a much faster pace
* retain more in a more efficient way
* have a higher mental age (think in ways more like children who are older)
* and have a greater ability to connect ideas and manipulate information,
then TRULY responding to their learning characteristics means providing them with curriculum that is
* paced faster
* pitched at a higher level
* and is more complex and abstract
than the curriculum provided for average learners. If it is too slow, too easy, and too simple, gifted learners (and I would add high potential learners who haven't been discovered yet) are robbed of the opportunity to show what they are truly capable of and to learn at the levels to which they can be stretched. I loved this quote from her: "A simplistic curriculum acts as an imposed camouflage on gifted learners." Followed by, "We have to start acknowledging the range of achievement in the mixed ability classroom and the amount of unnecessary revision [repetition] imposed on the bright and gifted students." And I practically cheered at this humdinger: "How do we justify an educational system that ignores competence and achievement, and utilizes chronological age as the primary, or only, factor in student placement?"

She went on to cover the advantages and disadvantages (all overcomeable, IMHO) [yes, I know that's not really a word ;o)] of various grouping practices where gifted learners have time together with intellectual peers (such as cluster grouping, subject acceleration, self-contained classrooms, pull-out, etc.). Among the advantages, she highlighted:
* higher levels of social and academic peer support
* increased opportunity for gifted learners to work within their zone of proximal development
* increased likelihood of encountering a curriculum that is differentiated to meet their learning needs

The mini keynote that I attended today was "Bullying of and by Gifted Children and Teens" with Jean Sunde Peterson, Tom Hebert, Dan Peters, and Michelle Haj-Broussard. Many children, unfortunately, experience bullying in its various forms, including gifted youth. The presenters pointed out some factors that impact the susceptibility of gifted children to bullying, such as the fact that many gifted children are so different and quirky, some of them aren't aware of (or don't care about) the social consequences of being outside the social norm, their keen sense of justice can prevent them from backing off of or ignoring what they perceive as injustices, and their heightened sensitivities can magnify the effect of bullying on them.

Among the "what to do" suggestions given for the helping adults in the lives of children experiencing bullying were the following (and these certainly are good advice for helping a child of any ability level who is being bullied):
* Make sure they have experiences where they feel liked and valued
* Provide a consistent presence in the child's life
* Offer them strategies and tools for dealing with bullying
* Assist them in their quest to find purpose and meaning in life
* Focus on their strengths
* Validate their input
* Consider a new environment
* "Help them focus on the marathon of life"

You might like to read this summary of some of the research on bullying and gifted children that was referenced in the presentation.

In the afternoon, I was part of a packed room that thoroughly enjoyed the humor and mathematical insights of the internationally well-loved Rachel McAnallen, a.k.a. Ms. Math (or now, Dr. Ms. Math, as she recently earned her PhD in Gifted Education at the age of 75! You can read her dissertation on math anxiety in elementary teachers here.) I've seen her present many times, but had never seen her do a session on fractions, so I was curious what her angle on that would be. She talked about teaching children "fractioneze," or the language of fractions. Here she demonstrates a way to teach accurate language for parts of a group, the beginnings of developing the concept of parts of a whole:

"One out of four is on wheels." "One out of four is black." "Two out of four have four legs." "Zero out of four are red." "Four out of four are not red." I encourage you to check out her thorough description of the whole lesson and process! She has it written so you can apply/adapt it to any grade level.

You can access other descriptions of her additional strategies for teaching fractions on her website. You can also access many of her other insightful, conceptual strategies for all grade levels there, too.

Well, I'm off to begin Day 5, followed by a long flight home. I hope to cover the rest of Days 3 and 4 later.

Posted by Tamara Fisher at 6:13 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's really only Day 3? It feels like Day 7!

I began today in a mini-keynote titled "Critical Questions in Talent Developement: Answered Through 40 Years of Longitudinal Research by Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY)," presented by Camilla Benbow and David Lubinski, both of Vanderbilt University. I loved the questions that were part of the description of this session in the program book, among them:

* "Who among talent search participants become eminent and creative as adults?"
* "Do educational interventions in adolescence boost adult creativity and professional accomplishment?"
* "Can we enhance the likelihood that true excellence will emerge?"

The 40 years of data that they analyzed included 5,000+ gifted youth in five different cohorts, many of them somehow connected to one of the Talent Search programs (at Johns Hopkins, Duke, and Northwestern). These are programs where (usually 7th grade-ish) students take the SAT or some other radically-off-level test and score at the highest levels, thereby qualifying themselves to attend the summer programs of intense immersion in advanced academic content hosted by these universities. Among their findings of the longitudinal data on these students are the following:

* The higher their age 12 or 13 SAT performance, the further their post high school accomplishments, even with all other important factors constant (motivation, support, others).
* In comparing grade-skippers with those of about equal ability who weren't grade-skipped (and were also comparable on about a dozen other variables), the grade-skippers were far more likely to get doctorates, be published, and achieve other markers of advanced "success." Additionally, they led overall more productive lives (i.e. they had access to more years of adulthood to be productive and contributing citizens).
* Those who entered STEM fields had greater spatial ability scores relative to their verbal ability scores (on their 7th grade Talent Search test), whereas those in all other future careers (except those earning 4-year business degrees) had greater verbal scores relative to their spatial scores.
* Kids with a higher "dose" of intervention opportunities became more successful and higher achievers than comparable kids with a less intense (or "low") "dose." Interventions really do make a difference for these advanced learners! The Talent Search students in the study (once identified and given the intense, highly-advanced summer coursework), didn't have to "wait to grow." They didn't have to wait until high school to take Algebra II or Calculus. They were ready to learn it, and got to do so in a very intense summer while also interacting with other similar kids who were also ready for the same material.

I'm serving as a mentor for one of the Javits-Frasier Scholars this week. The Javits-Frasier Teacher Scholarship Fund is available to teachers from Title I schools who are attending NAGC for the first time. Consider applying for next year (Denver, November 15-18, 2012); or, if you want to support the program, consider making a donation to the fund. Here are this year's Javits-Frasier Scholars:

Do you tweet? You can follow the goings-on via @nagcconvention!

I took a little time to wander the Exhibit Hall today and found the ALEKS booth. I have very recently begun to learn about ALEKS, so stopped to learn even more. It's even more incredible than I had thought! ALEKS is a fully-online (web-based), adaptive option for learning mathematics. After the student takes an initial (again - adaptive) assessment, the system provides the student with access to the content and problems he has just shown he is ready to learn and solve. The system includes handy pie charts (viewable to student, teacher, and parent) that show how much of the content the student has mastered (dark colors) and how much is yet to be mastered (light colors). Here is one example:

(ALEKS is a registered trademark of ALEKS Corporation.)

When solving a problem, there is an "Explain" button which pops up an explanation of how that problem works. If the explanation doesn't make sense, the student can click the "Another Explanation" button and have it explained in another way. There's even a "I haven't learned this yet" button on the initial assessment.

There is a worksheet option, too. The problems can all be done online, but they can also be printed for those who can't access the internet at home to do their work. When a student clicks to download a worksheet (at school, in this case), the answer key is immediately emailed to the teacher!

Obviously some outside instruction, particularly tasks involving manipulatives, would be needed (and more teacher-based), but for certain, somewhat sizeable, portions of math learning, this systems looks like it could fill a lot of opportunities for advanced learners ready to move on.

The "Review" tab allows the student to be re-assessed about every five hours or 20 topics. If any mastery has been lost since previously showing mastery, that portion is added back into the child's "pie" of material to be learned.

Yes, it is all correlated to mathematics standards: those of all 50 states (plus the Canadian territories), and the Common Core. "Textbook Integration" is also offered. You can tell the system that your classroom is using a particular math text and the system will adjust the problems given (and vocabulary used) to correlate with the material the students are encountering in their math texts.

Teachers can access and analyze individual student reports on their progress toward mastery of the standards, how much work they have done within ALEKS, and what they are ready to learn next. (Whole-class data of this type is available for the teacher to analyze, too.) Students ready to learn a particular topic could be grouped together for that instruction. Students who are far ahead can work at their quick pace and move on when ready to do so. It's real-time ready-to-learn learning.

And it's reasonably priced, ranging from $20 per student for one month of access, to $40 per student for 12 months of access. The fee gains the student access to the system, not access to a single course. So for those who might complete the available coursework for a class sooner than the "window," they can accelerate ahead at their own pace without having to pay additional funds. You can also try a free trial, good for up to 100 students for up to 3 months (assuming the students average 3 hours of work within the system per week.)

ALEKS could be used to supplement your current curriculum, or could be used to provide quality above-grade-level content to a student who has advanced beyond what the teacher or district can adequately provide. It could also be used for additional practice for students struggling more with mathematics.

I'm fried! I'll have to post the rest of today later.

Posted by Tamara Fisher at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Oh, where to even begin...! These days are long and intense and so full of information! As much as I will write here tonight, it will only be the tip of the iceberg.

The morning began with a "State of the Nation" message from NAGC Executive Director Nancy Green and NAGC President Paula Olszewski-Kubilius (one of these days I will learn how to spell her name rather than just copy/pasting it from the NAGC website...!) The "State of the Nation" report is a biannual survey of states that seeks information about their policies, programs, funding, and personnel for gifted education. The federal government doesn't perform this task, so NAGC's survey is the only national data collection of this type of information about the "state" of gifted education in America. (I would like to post a link to it for you, but currently their website is still showing the last biannual report.) Forty-three of the fifty states responded to the survey. The four over-arching conclusions from the survey are:
* Lack of accountability for schools and districts to reach these students, even when mandates are in place.
* Limited support for these students (with WIDE disparities in types and availability of services)
* Teachers are unprepared to meet the needs of these students (for example, only 6 states require training about gifted students for pre-service teachers)
* A patchwork collection of services (meaning in most places it is left up to the district, which often means in practice that little to nothing is happening)

Random tidbits revealed by the survey:
* In 36 states, teachers are never required to get ANY training about gifted learners.
* For those who teach gifted learners, in 24 states there is no requirement for special credentials or certification. In those states, you technically don't have to know ANYTHING about these unique students and yet you could still be hired to teach them. (It is apparently elsewhere as it is in Montana - they're happy if you're breathing and willing to fill the position for a year before, as many do, transitioning into a "regular" position.) (Do we hire basketball coaches who don't know anything about basketball? Do we hire Special Education teachers who don't know anything about learners who struggle? Do we hire science teachers with no special training in science education? Good grief.)
* The amount of funding that states provide for gifted education ranges from $0 (somewhat common) to a very rare $300 million.
* Ten states specifically DO NOT ALLOW early entrance to Kindergarten for children who would qualify for and need that option. (And only 7 states specifically DO allow it - meaning it's left up to the schools everywhere else, which leaves the option's availability open to misinformed misperceptions.)
* In more than half of our states, teachers working specifically with gifted learners are not required to seek or receive annual professional development about gifted learners. (But don't you want your doctor receiving annual training in her area of specialty?)

It's all a bit depressing, but as Paula said this morning, "We don't have the luxury of being discouraged. The kids need us to be alarmed, not discouraged." So what do we do to improve the state of our nation for our gifted learners? Share this information. Utilize the tools in the Advocacy Toolkit. Join NAGC's Legislative Action Network. Talk with stakeholders about the importance of casting a wide identification net across a K-12 open window. Create school climates that celebrate academic excellence.

(At some point, the PowerPoint for the presentation will be available here.)

For the half-day "Gifted Education Applications in the Classroom" sessions this morning and this afternoon, I was scheduled into two on Response to Intervention. The first was by George Betts and Robin Carey. Among my many take-aways from this session were the following questions, thoughts, ideas:
* What does the child need, and how can we give it to him when he needs it?
* How does the child respond to the intervention? And how do we then respond to her response?
* Implementing learner-based curriculum and instruction (it's about what the student needs and is ready for, not what the teacher wants to do).
* This book was highly recommended by someone sitting at the same table as me: "The NEW RtI: Response to Intelligence"
* And my biggest A-HA from the morning was regarding the Core or Level I tier. (In Colorado, where George and Robin are from, they call it the Universal Level.) For our struggling learners, Level I is where we find out what they can't do - and then provide the intervention to help them learn it. For our gifted learners, here's an additional way to think of that level: It's where we find out what they ALREADY know/can do - and then provide the intervention to help them move beyond that.

(At some point, the PowerPoint for this presentation will be posted here.)

Over lunch, I enjoyed chatting with Lauri Kirsch from Florida and Ken Dickson, the gentle giant, from Maryland, plus I met Jaime Castellano from the Navajo Reservation in Arizona and we shared stories about our experiences working with gifted Native youth. That's a big part of what coming to this convention is all about for me - getting to meet and interact with so many interesting people who do what I do elsewhere. Whether formally or informally, there's always so much to learn from one another :o)

The afternoon session on RTI that I attended was presented by Stuart Omdal, Daphne Pereles, and Lois Baldwin. Here are my summary points:
* Quotes from Daphne: "It [RTI] is about building a responsive system." "We don't trust that when we say 'all' we mean 'all.'" When implementing RTI - "You're never done. It's a continuous improvement process." And RTI "is about changing our broken education system." (here! here!)
* The six-legged table of principles for RTI implementation: 1) All students can and have the right to learn. 2) Early Intervention - for gifted learners - is key to reaching/catching them BEFORE they start to underachieve. 3) Tiered Interventions - a multi-tiered system of supports. It's interventions and services in tiers, not kids in tiers. 4) Use of Data should guide what we do for kids. 5) Collaboration creates shared ownership for student success. 6) Family Partnerships - "You get in the mud together."

My biggest A-HA from this session came to me when they were talking about the problem with the former special education "discrepancy model" for identification for services because it was a "wait to fail" model (i.e. some kids had to slip far enough for a discrepancy to appear before identification/services/interventions could be tried on that learner). Now with RTI, EARLY INTERVENTION means we can try these supports early on and see how the learner responds. Well, that got me thinking. With the (former) delayed identification and delayed intervention special education model, kids had to (essentially) "fail" first before they could get what they needed as learners. They had to wait to GROW. And that's exactly what happens in gifted education when we delay the identification process and subsequent interventions (and that's what they are - interventions) until (typically) 3rd grade. We're making the kids "wait to GROW." And I don't think that's right, either!

At the end of this session, Karen Rogers from the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota announced that UST is the first university to offer graduate certification specifically in "Twice Exceptional Education." It will be an online, 18-credit, 6-course program designed to "prepare educators to identify, provide services for, and develop/administer programs for children with dual exceptionalities." Interested? I imagine many of you are ;o) Visit this link to learn more and to apply!

Here's a link to Colorado's RTI page.

The PowerPoint for this session will at some point be posted here.

Next came the BIG MOMENT.... the opening keynote with Bill Nye the Science Guy! The scene totally cracked me up: A giant room packed with 3,000 teachers, all with their cell phones and digital cameras whipped out to capture whatever they could of the science guy to take back and show their students. (At least, that's why I was doing it, and I imagine it's why nearly everyone else was, too. I promised my students I would get as much video as I could of his speech, for as long as my 16 GB SD card had space and my battery had life.) At one point, I had to wonder, what other group of ADULTS besides teachers would get this excited about a kids' geek science TV star?! The whole room was thoroughly star-struck. The most hilarious moment (and there were many!) came at the very end when he finished and the room of a few thousand teachers gave him an instantaneous standing ovation. He was so stunned that he whipped out HIS cell phone camera to take a picture of US!

He told us fascinating stories about his dad (who had a sundial obsession and apparently - if I understood correctly - invented the sandial) and his mom (who was a codebreaker for the military during WWII); he encouraged us to nurture curiosity in our students and to make sure they ponder BIG questions like, "Are we alone in the universe?" and "Where did we come from?"; and he got me thinking when he referenced that ol' saying about how the bumblebee defies the laws of aerodynamics. He said his A-HA moment when pondering that was that "the problem is not the bee, it's the theory." (ie. It's the theory that doesn't fit, not the bee.) The bee is our students. The problem is not the gifted child who defies the "laws" of education, it's the other way around: the laws and theories don't (always) fit the child.

Honestly, I'm sure I could've had many more take-aways for you on this keynote, but I was 100% in the moment and my hands were busy videoing rather than taking notes. My students will be excited to learn I got some great video clips, though!

At the opening of the Exhibit Hall, I took a picture for you of the new handbook that I mentioned last night which is a guide for implementation of the new gifted education standards:

The evening concluded with an awards ceremony for many distinguished and inspiring individuals. Here are a few:

And the ceremony included some phenomenal student talent, including this choir (click to listen):

[Never mind... I couldn't figure out how to upload a video file. Suffice to say, the Caddo Magnet High School A Cappella Vocal Band was superb!]

Some of you asked me today (after reading that I had tried alligator for dinner last night) what sort of exotic cuisine I was going to try this evening. Well, ...

No adventurous opportunities presented themselves, and after the awards ceremony concluded, there were only a few hours left in the day and I needed to get writing... Perhaps tomorrow. Check back for a report on Day 3!

Posted by Tamara Fisher at 2:03 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

And it's that time of year again! :o)

The national gifted education conference kicked off today here in New Orleans with a day of "Gifted Education Essentials" sessions, including a full-group session this morning with Susan Johnsen offering a wealth of information and insights on the still-relatively-new Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. Newest this year in that regard is an extensive handbook created by NAGC as an in-depth guide to assist schools and districts in their implementation of the standards. (It's so new, as a matter of fact, that I can't find it listed on their website yet in order to offer you a link. When I find it, I'll pass it on.) Time was also provided this morning for us to discuss and share how we are already using/implementing the standards, plus any obstacles we're encountering in that regard. On one hand, it's good to hear one is not alone in these situations. On the other hand, it's sad to learn we're all dealing with the same challenges in our schools, districts, and states.

The afternoon session that I scheduled into today was "Understanding & Addressing the Needs of Young Gifted Children," presented by Richard Cash, Director of Gifted & Talented Services for the Bloomington, MN, school district. You can check out his full PowerPoint yourself at this link. Among the many, many things he talked about today regarding young gifted learners were the following:
* The importance of self-regulation in school for all kids, and in particular for gifted kids because in order to develop their giftedness and potential they will need to learn/know how to self-regulate the less-comfortable aspects of pursuit that don't go as swimmingly well as all the "easy" stuff does for them.
* Brain research is showing biological neural differences in the brains of gifted children, including a pre-frontal cortex that is a more efficient neural processor and has more activity as compared to the brains of their same-age average peers. To those of us in the field, this makes sense because we've all had a parent of a gifted child say to us, "My child can't/won't sleep" - and we know that it's because the kid can't get his brain to turn off. Apparently there is also research showing their brains have a greater number of neural cells, which means more synaptic connections and therefore expanded potential for higher-level thinking. (Geake & Dodson, 2005)
* One benefit of early identification and receipt of gifted services for the young gifted is early time together with intellectual peers - which quickens the timeframe in which these children get over the "big fish in a little pond" sense of themselves and realize, rather, that there are other highly intelligent kids out there, too (they're not alone), and that some of them are smarter than they are. (Much healthier to learn all this at a young age than it is when older!)
* Another benefit of early identification and receipt of gifted services for the young gifted is development of coping skills. Without gifted programming, and without those interactions with intellectual peers who can challenge them, they are far less likely to learn in a regular setting the toolbox of skills that will help them deal with challenges, frustration, and struggle. (Again - Much healthier to learn those coping skills at a young age by confronting those challenges early on than it is when older!) (This assists with the development of self-regulation.)
* The importance of academic rigor EARLY to prevent misdiagnosis of ADHD, ADD, EBD, etc. Some kids will exhibit those type of behaviors when the problem is actually an inappropriate curriculum, not an underlying disorder. When EARLY rigor is provided, they are far less likely to express their lack of stimulation by exhibiting those ADHD/ADD/EBD-like behaviors.
And these gems:
* "It's an opportunity gap, not an achievement gap."
* "These children have a barrel's worth of space but are only getting a cup's worth of fill."
* A resource mentioned by another attendee in this session: "Learning to Be a Durable Person," activities to develop social and emotional understanding in K-5 gifted learners. (Published by Prufrock Press.)

The afternoon was topped off by a "Leadership and Life Lessons from the Field" panel session featuring Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Karen Rogers, Julia Link Roberts, Tom Hébert, and George Betts (and moderated by Del Siegle).

(I wish I had a little more control over the spacing and formatting when I upload images here. Sorry for the funky spacing. I know it doesn't make sense.)
Moderator Del Siegle takes a moment to indulge his other interest, photography.
I loved Del's questions for the panel and it was a thoroughly enjoyable couple hours to hear each of them reflect on their various and extensive experiences in (gifted) education.

Most of the panelists referred to an experience early in their teaching careers where they found themselves thinking, "Who ARE these kids? I want to learn more about them."

Julia: Broaden your influence. Each of us must take our passion for gifted education beyond the walls of our own classrooms and schools. That may be where our influence begins, but at some point we must move beyond that in order to have any hope of bigger change for these students.

Between questions 2 and 3, the session took a fascinating turn along the lines of Newton's quotation, "If I have seen farther, it has been by standing on the shoulders of giants." George reflected on all those who had helped him get a start in the field (relaying a funny story involving John Feldhusen), and commented that in regards to leadership he now finds himself thinking, "What can I do for those who come after me? Allow opportunities for them to find their own path." Karen offered suggestions of six categories of leaders in the field of gifted education. (Forgive me, I didn't get all the names she put into each category written down...)
* The Great Thinkers (Tannenbaum, Passow, V. Ward)
* The Great Doers (Renzulli, Reis, Feldhusen)
* The Great Researchers (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, Torrance, Stanley, Lohman)
* The Great Writers (Gallagher, van Tassel-Baska, Gross)
* The Great Communicators (Delisle, Silverman, Kaufmann, Rimm)
* The Subtle Generators (N. Robinson, Kaplan, Siegle)
And I found myself reflecting on all the incredible shoulders I've been blessed to stand on in this field (Jann, Del, Joe, Sally, Sally, Susan, Tom, Bonnie, Marcia, Karen, Karen, George, Bertie, Rachel, Jim, Scott, Felicia, Julia, Maureen, Pat, ... thank you...)

George: It starts with unconditional positive regard.

Question #5 was skipped because they all had essentially covered it ("who influenced you"). I wasn't quick enough on my trigger.

Julia: Be strategic in your advocacy.
Tom: Be sure to secure your mask before assisting others. (i.e. Take care of yourself in order to be of benefit to the kids.)
George: Nothing - Each lesson learned along the way has simply been a part of the journey.

Most of the panelists talked about having "passed it on" to their students (K-12 and post-secondary) in various forms.

I neglected to write their responses to this question down, but I do remember that Del said his most recent books have been "Clifford the Big Red Dog" ones. ;o)

This was an interesting one, with responses reflecting their varied perspectives and experiences. Their insights on this question ranged from "absorbed into general education" to "becoming more differentiated in self-contained models" to "imagine how advancing technology will continue to bring changes that will educationally benefit these learners" to "we need to make sure we stay a part of the conversation and communicate why these learners need unique services."

George: I think I can, I think I can.
Karen: Be your own best you.
Julia: Define your goal and articulate it well.
Joyce: Find a mentor.

I concluded my day by having something for dinner that I'd never eaten before: fried alligator! (Somewhere out west my parents and sister are gasping...!)

Most of these are not menu items we have in Montana!

Check back tomorrow for a report on Day 2!

Posted by Tamara Fisher at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend