|
|
Home
|
National Standards for Teachers of Gifted and Talented Students |
|
|
|
By Susan Johnsen, Ph.D. and Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Ed.D.
Gifted program standards are a necessary feature of ensuring that the highly able learners in our society are adequately identified and nurtured in the context of school settings. In order for talent search and programming to occur systematically and to ensure equity, it is essential that teachers are educated in the relevant theory, research, pedagogy, and management techniques essential to developing and sustaining classroom-based opportunities for these students to learn (VanTassel-Baska, 2006).
The Development Process
The process used in developing this new set of initial standards for
teachers of gifted and talented students included a variety of
stakeholders and followed the validation procedures outlined by the
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and approved by the National
Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE) in 2001 (CEC,
2003, p. 146). Using these procedures, the National Association for
Gifted Children (NAGC) and CEC, TAG Division (CEC-TAG) have been
involved in the development of the NCATE initial standards over the
past three years. This combined group, also known as the Work Set
Group, solicited recommendations for standards from a variety of
stakeholders that included higher education faculty, teachers, P-12
administrators, and state department consultants in gifted education.
After the standards were approved by the NAGC and CEC-TAG Boards in
October and November of 2004, the Work Set Group compiled
literature/theory-based, research-based, and practice-based research
for each of the knowledge and skills standards. Following this
research, CEC’s Knowledge and Skills Committee examined the standards
in January, 2006. The CEC then disseminated a national survey, which
was compiled, analyzed, and ultimately reviewed and approved by CEC’s
Professional Standards and Practice Committee. After approval by NCATE,
which occured this fall, these initial standards will now provide a
framework for course development within universities or alternative
preparation programs designed for individuals who need an entry-level
certificate in gifted education. They may also be used in designing
professional development activities and evaluating teacher performance
in public or private school settings.
The Standards
The 10 content standards are the same as those of the CEC, as the
specialized professional association governing the NCATE process. They
include:
1. Foundations,
2. Development and Characteristics of Learners,
3. Individual Learning Differences,
4. Instructional Strategies,
5. Learning Environments and Social Interactions,
6. Language and Communication,
7. Instructional Planning, Assessment,
8. Professional and Ethical Practice, and
9. Collaboration. (VanTassel-Baska, 2006)
Research supported each of the 10 overarching standards, the 32
knowledge standards, and the 37 skill standards. Three types of
research were used in revalidating the standards:
literature/theory-based, research-based, and practice-based. Literature
and theory-based research included knowledge and skills derived from
sources such as position papers, policy analyses, and descriptive
reviews of the literature. Research-based studies included
peer-reviewed articles that used rigorous research methodologies to
address questions of cause and effect and that have been independently
replicated and found to be effective. Practice-based research included
lighthouse studies, professional wisdom, and emerging practices that
arose from teachers’ classroom experiences and are validated through
some degree of action research (all definitions are from the
Professional Standards and Practice Committee of the Council for
Exceptional Children).
Standard 1 details a knowledge-based foundation component that traces
the theoretical, historical, and research-based constructs central to
understanding individual differences and their manifestation in
policies at all levels of the educational enterprise. This component
also emphasizes key issues and societal and economic factors that
impact the development of intellectual talent.
Standards 2 and 3 emphasize how gifted learners are different from
other learners in respect to characteristics, developmental
trajectories, and idiosyncratic ways of learning. Attention is given to
the added differences that accrue due to cultural background, poverty,
and learning problems that sometimes accompany giftedness.
Standards 4 and 7 focus on instructional strategies and instructional
planning, respectively. Standard 4 emphasizes the pedagogical
approaches that have been found effective in working with gifted
learners, including those from diverse backgrounds. It also stresses
the importance of using appropriate management strategies including
assistive technology that respond to exceptional student learning
needs. Standard 7 focuses on the products necessary to differentiate
curriculum appropriately for gifted learners including learning plans,
units, and scope and sequence documents. Emphasis is also placed on
differentiation features that can be matched to different domains and
student differences.
Standards 5, 6, and 10 emphasize the nature of learning environments
for the gifted that provide optimal contexts for learning personal,
social, and intellectual skills, the development of oral and written
language and communication skills at appropriate levels of advancement,
using appropriate technologies. Moreover, the collaboration standard
focuses on the multiple types of collaboration necessary in developing
programs for these learners from families, to school personnel, to
various community groups.
Standard 8 explicates the knowledge and skills essential for both
identification of gifted learners, including the use of multiple
methods for finding underrepresented populations, as well as the
knowledge and skills needed to assess learning in programs.
Finally, Standard 9 focuses on professional and ethical practice in
relating to students and other individual stakeholders in the gifted
education enterprise and challenges teachers to strive for continuous
improvement through professional development and reflection on practice.
Impact for North Carolina
What do these new standards mean for gifted educators in North
Carolina? First and most importantly, educators across the nation agree
that teachers in gifted education must adhere to standards similar to
teachers in other fields (Johnsen, 2006). North Carolina recognizes
this needed expertise by requiring an add-on license of 12 semester
hours (180 hours) of graduate study or the equivalent beyond licensure
in an academic content area or grade level (North Carolina Department
of Public Instruction, 2006). Many of the North Carolina standards
already address the 10 content standards, which are aligned with the 10
Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium’s (INTASC)
Core Principles; however, professionals may want to consider a more
careful alignment by examining specific knowledge and skills sets
within each standard.
Second, the standards, which are based on solid research, legitimize
gifted education as a recognized field of study not only at the
university level but also among our colleagues
in other fields in public and private school settings (Johnsen, 2006).
Third, with 26 of the standards overtly addressing diversity, the
standards reinforce the notion that diversity exists in our society and
in each individual’s expression of gifts and talents (Johnsen, 2006).
Given the continuing and significant underrepresentation of specific
groups receiving educational services for the gifted and talented, it
was critical that the standards stress the preparation of teachers who
support the learning of all gifted students and not privilege some
groups over others (CEC-TAG, 2001).
Fourth, these standards can act as a guide for professional development
and evaluation. For example, districts might develop a standards-based
assessment of teachers of the gifted and talented and then collaborate
with a university in developing a series of modules, workshops, or
courses that might address each of the standards. The district would
then train assessors in observing and analyzing the standards-related
skills to determine if teachers were implementing the knowledge and
skills in their classrooms. Observations could then be used as the
basis for professional development and/or for evaluations.
Last but not least, these standards have the potential of raising the
quality of services provided to gifted students and their families
(Johnsen, 2006). In her multivariate analysis, Darling- Hammond (2000)
reported that in all cases, teachers with full certification status are
“by far the most important determinant of student achievement” (p. 30).
We know that teachers with limited training do not differentiate
instruction for high-ability learners (Archambault, Westberg, Brown,
Hallmark, Zhang, & Emmons, 1993; Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002;
Starko & Schack, 1989; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin,
1993). On the other hand, teachers who are prepared in gifted education
lecture less, emphasize higher level thinking, and conduct more
discussions (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994). Students are therefore the
ultimate beneficiaries of
high standards for teachers. We must advocate for high quality teachers
of gifted and talented by disseminating and using these new national
standards.
References
Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W.,
Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with
gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 16, 103-119.
Council for Exceptional Children (2003). What every special educator
must know: ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators (5th
ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Council for Exceptional Children, Association for the Gifted (2001,
April). Diversity and developing gifts and talents: A national action
plan. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved September 22, 2006, from
www.cectag.org.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A
review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives,
8(1). Retrieved October 15, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.
Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining
perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship
between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted
students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 145-155.
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and
untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38,
115-121.
Johnsen, S. (2004). National standards for teachers of gifted and
talented students: Becoming involved. Gifted Child Today, 27(3), 5.
Johnsen, S. (2006). New national standards for teachers of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today, 29
National Association for Gifted Children (2005). 2004-2005 State of the
states: A report by the National Association for Gifted Children and
the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. Washington,
DC: Author.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2006). Retrieved
September 22, 2006 from www.dpi.state.nc.us/ec/exceptionality/gifted.
Starko, A. J., & Shack, G. D. (1989). Perceived need, teacher
efficacy, and teaching strategies for the gifted and talented. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 33, 118-122.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006, October). Brief introduction to the program
standards. Report to the Specialty Area Studies Board, National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyins, S. M., & Salvin, T.
J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.
Note: This article was adapted from Johnsen, S. K. (2006). New national
standards for teachers of gifted and talented students. Tempo, 26(3),
24-31.
Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of
Educational Psychology at Baylor University. Joyce VanTassel-Baska,
Ed.D., is the Jody and Layton Smith Professor of Education and
Executive Director of the Center for Gifted Education at the College of
William and Mary.
|
|
|
NEWS YOU CAN USE! Click to read for the latest NCAGT Bulletin.
Click to download our recent
NCAGT Powerpoint presentation.