THE UPDATE FALL, 2013

PAGE 1
E!ective Program Models
for Gi"ed Students #om Underserved Populations
Edited by
Cheryll Adams and Kimberley Chandler
The following text is from the introduction of E!ective Program Practices for Underserved Gi"ed Students, A CEC#
TAG Educational Resource. It is used with permission from Prufrock Press, Inc.
Introduction
This publication provides coordinators, teachers,
administrators, parents, and other interested parties with information
about e"ective program models for underserved gifted students. In
this book, we identify eight successful programs that have been
designed to use with low#income, high#ability students. Each chapter
includes an introduction and brief overview of the model, how
students are identied for the program, which talents are valued, the
goals of the project, a description of the model, di$cult issues and
how they are addressed, important contributions of the program,
research ndings, how the program is sustained, and contact
information.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 2
Continued $om page 1
Two entries focus specically on primary#aged students: Young Scholars and Project Clarion.
Young Scholars is a model for nding and nurturing potential in diverse populations of young students; it
started in one large district and has been replicated in various sites across the country. Project Clarion
was a Javits demonstration project that focused on developing and nurturing science talent in primary
students. An interesting connection is that the curriculum units developed in Project Clarion are
frequently used as a component of some Young Scholars programs.
Project Athena and Project M
3
%Mentoring Mathematical Minds&

were Javits demonstration
projects that were developed to nurture students in the upper elementary grades. Project Athena was a
language arts program that used curriculum originally designed specically for gifted students in a
heterogeneous, Title I setting in which there were often no identied students. Project products
included novel study guides to give teachers additional options and a program for sca"olding reading
comprehension. Project M
3
was also a program that generated curriculum products, but with an
emphasis on identifying and nurturing math talent.
The chapters on Project Nexus, the Next Generation Venture Fund, Project EXCITE, and the
TEAK Fellowship describe programs that provide support in various ways and in di"ering degrees for
secondary students. Although the Project Nexus program and Project EXCITE were funded through
public monies, the Next Generation Venture Fund and the TEAK fellowship were dependent on private
and corporate sponsorships.
By including models and programs that span the grade levels, focus on di"erent content areas,
and represent a variety of funding schemes, it is hoped that the reader will be able to understand the
diverse options that have been implemented e"ectively in nding and nurturing students from
underrepresented populations. Although it may not be possible to replicate a given program exactly in
ones own district, the detailed description and the inclusion of contact information should give an
administrator a starting point for developing a program tailored to his or her context.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 3
From the President...
Youi TAu Boaiu came to Bowling uieen, Kentucky, to conuuct business foi oui
oiganization Septembei 6 anu 7. Fifteen of the 17 membeis met to uiscuss issues anu
make plans foi The Association foi the uifteu. 0n Fiiuay, they paiticipateu in the Fall TAu
Institute with the theme "Celebiating Biveisity Among uifteu Chiluien."
0ne TAu initiative is to launch a new online jouinal. }ennifei }olly anu Claiie Bughes will
be co-euitois of !"#$%&'( *+"$&#, -.+/,#0&.'1 .2 3&20"4 *0/4"'01 (!*-3*). This jouinal is
intenueu to fill a niche that ties in with TAu's focus on uiveisity, a focus that is long
stanuing.
The gatheiing of TAu boaiu membeis pioviueu the oppoitunity to cieate a uozen
poucasts that have been auueu to the TAu website as a membei benefit. Two of the
poucasts have been placeu on the main website while otheis aie available to TAu
membeis on the website.
Chiluien anu young people with gifts neeu youi auvocacy. They neeu foi you to speak out
on behalf of laws anu policies that auuiess theii neeus, neeus ielateu to theii stiengths
iathei than ueficiencies. Because the neeus of gifteu chiluien come fiom theii stiengths,
they may not look "neeuy," so youi auvocacy will be veiy impoitant to ieceiving
appiopiiate seivices.
Plan to come to the TAu Symposium at the CEC Confeience in Philauelphia on Apiil 9. The
theme will be timely - The Common Coie Stanuaius anu uifteu Chiluien. Then plan to
stay foi the confeience as theie will be many inteiesting sessions.
Let's woik togethei uuiing the 2u1S-2u14 school yeai to stiengthen TAu as an
oiganization. Keep up with TAu at the website (www.cectag.oig), on Facebook, anu by
ieauing the !53 6+4#0".
Sinceiely,
}ulia Link Robeits
TAu Piesiuent
From the Editor...
Dear TAG Members,
This newsletter is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Laurence J.
Coleman. Please see pages 4 and 5 for a tribute to him written by
past CEC#TAG President Susan Johnsen.
Best regards,
Kimberley L. Chandler
TAG Newsletter Editor
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 4
In Memory
of
Laurence (Larry) Joseph Coleman
(1941-2013)
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 5
By
Susan K. Johnsen
I have been most fortunate to have grown up in a time when I could
do things that I value.
Larry Coleman !2005, p. 131"
The secret of gi"ed education is that you put teachers who want to be there
with kids who want to be there and then something magical happens.
Larry Coleman !in Cross, 2005&
On September 5, 2013, we lost one of our dear friends and past TAG Board member, Laurence %Larry&
Coleman. He died unexpectedly of an apparent sudden cardiac arrest while hiking with his wife, Betty, at
Panther Creek State Park, Morristown, Tennessee.
Larry was born in Bronx, New York, December 18, 1941, to Ruth %Siebald& and Alexander Coleman. His
interest in gifted education began when he worked in a summer camp with kids who went to specialized
high schools in New York. He received a bachelor's degree in history and a minor in education from the
State University of New York at Albany in 1963, a master's degree in special education from Southern
Connecticut State University in 1965, and a doctorate in gifted and special education from Kent State
University in 1975. His rst faculty position was at the University of Tennessee#Knoxville. In the 2001
academic year, he moved to the University of Toledo to start an innovative program to prepare teachers
of the gifted. He retired from that position in 2011 and returned to Knoxville, Tennessee. Besides his
wife, Betty, he leaves behind his children, Erin %Danny& Lester, Alexandra "Ali," Angela "Angie" %Tommy&
Cupp; granddaughter, Kori Cupp; brother, Gregory "Greg" %Edwina& Trentham, and their son, Ben
Burland; brother and sister#in#law, Robert "Bob" %Barbara& Daggett, and several cousins, nephews, and
their families.
Larrys contributions as a scholar and a teacher were numerous, and he set many standards for the eld
of gifted education. He was a highly skilled and talented qualitative researcher whose studies ranged
from how teachers think while teaching, action research and practical inquiry, educational models, how
gifted children experience the stigma of being gifted, how the educational setting e"ects the
development of talent in children, and how children forgo other activities to pursue their passion for
learning. He delved deeply into each of these topics because he strongly believed that you needed to
study giftedness in the context of its development. For his book, Nurturing Talent in High School: Life in the
Fast Lane, he lived in the dormitory at a special residential public high school for academically talented
and gifted adolescents to explore the e"ect of that environment on the students identity and status. He
was particularly interested in inductive theories that were grounded in the behavior of gifted persons
and how these theories and paradigms shape our thinking. He frequently wrote with his former student,
friend, and colleague, Tracy Cross. For his scholarly work, he received the 2000 Distinguished Scholar
Award of the National Association for Gifted Children, the 2001 Best Paper of the Year for Gi"ed Child
Quarterly, and the 2004 Outstanding Leadership and Service Award from The Association for the Gifted
of the Council for Exceptional Children.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 6
Continued $om page 5
He viewed himself, rst and foremost, as a teacher. As he mentioned in one of his bios, I am a teacher
who became a professor. Both enable me to be a perpetual student %Coleman, 2005, p. 13&. He was
especially proud of developing an innovative teacher preparation program based on the model of
teaching as a talent and building the Summer Institute for Gifted Children in 1980, which has been
continued by its former students, and is now located in Warren Wilson College in North Carolina. More
recently, he was involved in a ve#year Javits grant, Accelerating Achievement in Math and Science in
Urban Schools %AAMSUS&, which provided after#school educational programs for economically
disadvantaged students with potential in math and science.
He was a mentor to many of us. When he was editor of the Journal for the Education of the Gi"ed, he
viewed his role as raising the level of scholarship in the eld, which meant encouraging young people
who are coming up in our eld and encouraging established people to conduct studies or write on topics
they wouldnt ordinarily think about writing about %Henshon, 2009, p. 56&. I remember clearly how he
provided Gail Ryser and me with our rst opportunity to guest edit a special issue on Javits Projects
focusing on e"ective classroom instructional practices. I know that many of us have experienced his
encouragement and support.
He treasured honesty and his relationships with his friends and colleagues. Each of us looked forward to
those Larry moments at conventions and meetings where we would sit together at dinner or much
later, share our philosophical and political viewpoints, our hopes for developing a better future, and
funny stories about ourselves. Of course, Larry also shared his recent peace marches. In all cases, he
always o"ered respectful insights and wisdom.
We will all miss him deeply. No national gifted education meeting will ever be the same without him##
his smile, his laughter, his deep and abiding interest in each of us, and, of course, his dry sense of humor.
Peace, Larry.
References:
Coleman, L. %2005&. Nurturing talent in high school: Life in the fast lane. NY: Teachers College Press.
Cross, T. L. %2005&. Moving the discussion from pathology to context: An interview with Laurence J.
Coleman. Roeper Review, 28, 5#8.
Henshon, S. E. %2009&. An interview with Laurence J. Coleman. Gi"ed Child Today, 32%1&, 55#58.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 7
!"#$%& ()*&+
By Claire E. Hughes
Double Mindsets
I am not a psychologist. I am a teacher of teachers, a parent and a voracious reader. That being said, Ive
been reading a lot by psychologists recently. Dr. Marty Seligman, former President of the American
Psychological Association, has been instrumental in the concept of positive psychology, in which we
look not at what people cant do, but at what people can do. A quote that caught my ear in one of his
TED Talks was that health is more than the absence of illness; you cant dene one by the lack of the
other'they are separate constructs. In his book, Flourish, Seligman %2012& describes how psychology
previously focused on relieving misery, and as a result would##at best##alleviate some of the problems, but
also create a personality shift towards depression %p.1&. In contrast, a person who is ourishing is
moving towards well#being'not happiness as a singular emotional state, but a condition of multiple,
ongoing choices that interact together. These choices, according to Seligman, are: positive emotions,
engagement, positive relationships, meaning, and accomplishments.
I was struck at the relationship between positive psychology and traditional psychology in the
educational e"orts for a twice#exceptional child. In an earlier column, I described the Janusian aspect
of 2e children##that from one view, a characteristic is negative, yet from another, its a positive aspect.
%For example# Blurts out/ highly verbal&. They are two sides of the same coin, and yet approached very
di"erently. Special education tends to have a negative view %identify areas of weakness, remediate them
until they are no longer an issue& while gifted education takes the opposite approach %identify areas of
strength and grow them&. These di"ering viewpoints can lead to quite the struggle in an educational
setting. Focusing on his strengths is a great idea, said one teacher I worked with. But I sti% have to bring up his
reading scores.
Because I am, ultimately, a teacher of teachers and not a theoretician, I have been in search of a means
of concretely describing to teachers what focusing on strengths while remediating di$culties might look
like. There are the classics:

Use their area of interest to link to content, such as dinosaurs. They can add dinosaurs! Teach
place value through eons! Teach phonics through dinosaur names! %Good luck with that one&
The problem is that dinosaurs is used as a means of increasing engagement. Always helpful, but
ultimately, the content is a vehicle, not the learning itself. Children fascinated by dinosaurs may
learn that their passion is being harnessed to something negative and they can lose interest in
both things. They have to see that there is new learning to be had through a connection of
concepts, not just themes.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 8
Continued $om page 7

Use their abilities to help with their disability. Often, 2e children have specic abilities and global
areas of challenge##use their powers to help them solve their own problems. I worked with a
highly gifted child who had autism to memorize hundreds of scripts: When someone says _____,
you say ________. Her ability to memorize was used to help her nd the words that were so often
missing because of her autism. People rarely recognized that she had autism because she had so
many scripts at her disposal!

Use multiple modes of learning. The Universal Design for Learning %UDL& framework states that
there are multiple ways of representing knowledge, multiple ways to express knowledge and
multiple ways to engage students through challenging them. This process allows for many paths
to the same objective and creates the concept of choice. For more, see www.cast.org. Variety helps
keep attention and allows twice#exceptional children time and multiple methods for processing.
Activities such as Tic#Tac#Toe or a menu approach allows twice#exceptional children a way to
approach learning in their most e"ective manner.
The challenge with these approaches is that they are trying to overcome challenges by using strengths,
and it is di$cult to look in both directions at the same time. The strengths arent being developed, but
become a foundation upon which to grow weaker areas. If you are not continually growing, you are
adrift.
Ive nally found a means of looking at both areas from the same direction. In her work, Carol Dweck
has identied Mindsets as a powerful way of looking at growth. Based on neurological growth and
practice e"ects, Dweck gave a test to two groups of similarly#performing, high#achieving students. The
rst group were told how smart they were and how easy the test was for them. The second group were
told how hard they worked and what wonderfully e"ective strategies they used. Both groups were then
given another, more di$cult, test. The group who had been praised for their e"orts did signicantly
better than the group who were told how smart they were. Kids who were told how smart they were
became unwilling to risk that self#concept when work became challenging. Dwecks work has gotten a
lot of attention. Recently, the Gates Foundation has endorsed it as a way to restructure educational
feedback to students through an emphasis on growth#modeled assessments.
Her work, and other studies by Angela Duckworth, has found that when students are given di"erent
feedback, there are di"erent results. There are a number of researchers who are looking at the roles that
innate brain di"erences play in the di"erential e"ects and how mindsets can or cannot be taught. But we
do know that these noncognitive factors play as much, if not more so, of a role in achievement as genes
and innate ability play %Crocker & Park, 2012; Tough, 2013&. Persistence pays o". Feedback that
emphasizes practice and growth, and perceives errors as learning and challenges, rather than mistakes,
results in greater growth. Mistakes, and learning from them, result in greater growth of neurological
connections. The emphasis is on growth, not remediation. Growth in all areas.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 9
Continued $om page 8
Growth by itself is not enough, however. Altering students' beliefs about the nature of intelligence may
not help much, if they do not also alter their general view of the purpose of schooling. "A glib way of
putting it is to say, 'Get over yourself,'" Crocker says. "If you want to stop acting in self#defeating ways,
then think about how your schoolwork will help people outside of yourself %Crocker & Park, 2012, p.
39&. In other words, telling kids that they should work for good grades because good grades are good is
going to backre. Telling students that their learning new skills will help their families might help create
need for e"ort.
One of the biggest implications is to reframe strengths and weaknesses because those are xed
components. There is only growth and strategies that achieve growth. A strength then becomes the use
of an e"ective strategy, while a weakness is the search for a strategy that is yet to be tried. I dont want
to be simplistic about this##this is not merely a motivational issue. This has to do, at its root, with
neurological formations. Some children have strong connections, while others have to form them. But in
both cases, if there is no practice, there is no strengthening of the neurological bond. Im reminded of
the quote by Thomas Edison, where he said, I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
So, what can teachers and parents do, instead of trying to balance two opposing forces? There are several
possible actions:
Realize that lazy means that students are too invested in the outcome and not the results from
their work##the grades, not the results of the grades. Emphasize the results from e"ort.
Emphasize the contribution# how their learning positively a"ects others.
Emphasize the connection to larger goals. Again, Im reminded of a quote by Edison, Being busy
does not always mean real work. The object of a% work is production or accomplishment and to either of these
ends there must be forethought, system, planning, inte%igence, and honest purpose, as we% as perspiration.
Seeming to do is not doing. In other words, what is the purpose of the grades beyond the grade
itself?
Teach that they can change the outcomes by trying one more way. Using the principles of UDL,
there is more than one way to a solution.
Show them the changes in their outcomes. They have to see the growth themselves.
Celebrate the learning process# mistakes are necessary. The brain must see mistakes in order to
operate more e"ectively. At the very heart of it, learning %and teaching& IS brain rewiring.
In Mindset thinking, twice#exceptional children are not blessed with giftedness nor cursed with a
disability. They have unusual neurological wiring in that some pathways are very e$cient and others are
much less e$cient. That means that our job as teachers and as parents is to keep the emphasis on
growth##growth in all areas. This emphasis on growth brings the focus back to themselves as a
ourishing, singular human being, rather than a collection of mismatched labels. And according to
Seligman, growth, when connected to relationships, and an emphasis on the positive, leads to happiness.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 10
Continued $om page 9
References:
Crocker, J. & Park, L. E. %2012&. Contingencies of self#worth. In M.R. Leary & J.P. Tangney %Eds&.
Handbook of self and identity. Pp. 309#326. New York: Guilford Press.
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P., Tsukayama, E. %2012&. What No Child Le" Behind leaves behind: The roles of
IQ and self#control in predicting standardized achievement test scores and report card grades.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104&2', 439#451.
Duckworth, A. L., Weir, D., Tsukayama, E., & Kwok, D. %2012&. Who does well in life? Conscientious
adults excel in both objective and subjective success. Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual
Di!erences, 3&356', 1#8.Dweck, C. S. %2006&. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. %2011&. Academic tenacity. White paper prepared for the
Gates Foundation. Seattle, WA.
Lopez, S. J. & Louis, M.C. %2009&. The principles of strengths#based education. Journal of Co%ege and
Character, 10%4&, ISSN %Online& 1940#1639, DOI:10.2202/1940#1639.1041
Seligman, M. %2012&. Flourish. New York: Free Press
Tough, P. %2013&. How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. New York: Mariner
Books.
Recent Litigation Related to Gifted Education:
McFadden v. Board of Education for I$inois School District U%46
McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46 is a recent court decision that
illustrates some of the complexities associated with identification and programming in gifted education. In one
component of the preliminary ruling in this case, the judge determined that the way in which an Illinois district
gifted program is organized for Latino students transitioning from Spanish to English-only settings is
discriminatory.
In considering the implications of this case, CEC-TAG would like to take a proactive approach to assist
gifted education program coordinators as they develop identification protocols and program plans. Please
contact TAG President Julia Roberts with your ideas at julia.roberts@wku.edu. The ideas for protocols and
plans will be included on the TAG website and in a future issue of The Update.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 11
The CEC#TAG Diversity Award
Equity for Under#represented
Minority Students
This national award is designed to honor the work of an outstanding teacher who responded to our national call to action. In
2010, The Council for Exceptional Childrens Talented and Gifted Division provided guidance for educators and
families of gifted students to embrace excellence and equity. Scholars and practitioners joined forces and issued a national
call to action about Diversity and Developing Gifts and Talents that derived from the pervasive under-representation of specific
groups in gifted and talented programs.
With all children and youth, expressions of potential differ as a result of family background and experiences with
social institutions. As we continue to implement traditional educational policies and practices, we ignore these
differences and contribute to the inequities. Our schools must reflect societys changing values about excellence
and the needs of its people. Ideas of capability are neither static nor value-free, but change as society evolves.
The U.S. Census Bureau projects rapidly increasing percentages of Hispanic, Asian American, African American,
Native American, and multiracial citizens. Other changes in how Americans live their lives, such as lifestyle, family
structure, or use of technology, accompany our changing population. We must move toward ensuring equitable
outcomes for all children and youth in educational programs (CEC-TAG, 2010, p. 3).
This award honors teacher excellence and activism that exemplifies CEC-TAGs efforts to move education to a new level of
understanding and to a new level of innovative possibilities for service delivery for under-represented groups of gifted
and talented students.
Purpose: The purpose of this national award is to recognize a teacher who has: (1) demonstrated a commitment to enhancing
excellence and equity for under-represented gifted student populations, (2) infused culturally responsive classroom or
program innovations that meet the needs of students who are under-represented in gifted and advanced programs, and (3)
provided leadership to advance the NAGC/CEC teacher standards and positions on diversity.
Eligibility: Applicant must be:

a full-time teacher working with gifted and talented students in a regular or advanced class;

working in a Title I school with a significant population of historically under-represented groups of students
(namely African American, Hispanic, or Native/Indigenous Americans).
Award: Recipient:

will receive CEC conference registration

will be reimbursed travel funds to attend the CEC conference (up to $300)

will receive 1 year membership benefits in CEC-TAG;

is required to participate for 1 year as an at-large member of the Parent, Community, and Diversity
Committee, helping to disseminate information about CEC-TAG within recipients home-state.
To Apply: All of the following materials must be received by Friday, January 31, 2014, by 5:00 pm. in order to receive
full consideration for the award.

Cover sheet: Provide personal and school background information. Research student enrollment
information and enter data.

Letter of application: highlighting the three purposes of the award. Applicants should review the criteria for the
award to guide the development of his/her letter. Use Microsoft Word to generate application letter, using the
following parameters: not to exceed 3 single-spaced pages, Times, 12 point font, 1 inch margins.

Rsum: Not to exceed three pages.

Three letters of support: One letter from an administrator who has supervised or observed your work to promote
excellence and equity for under-represented groups. One letter from a colleague or parent who has observed or
benefited from your leadership around diversity and equity issues. One letter from a student who can attest to
the impact of your contribution to outcomes associated with his/her experiences.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 12
The CEC#TAG Diversity Award
Equity for Under#represented
Minority Students
Applications will be reviewed by a panel of CEC-TAG members according to the following criteria.
A. Commitment to Excellence and Equity for Under-represented Gifted Students. (20 points)
Guiding Question: In what ways has the teachers commitment to excellence and equity benefited under-represented groups of gifted and
talented students?
Evidence: The applicant provided:
two or more clear examples demonstrating how the teacher has consistently engaged in efforts to impact students from
under-represented groups of students;
ongoing direct and/or indirect advocacy that sustained growth or enhanced outcomes among under-represented
groups of students in gifted and talented programs.
B. Culturally Responsive Classroom or Program Innovations. (15 points)
Guiding Question: In what ways has the teachers efforts demonstrated an innovative level of cultural responsiveness
in the classroom or program?
Evidence: The applicant clearly provided evidence of effective efforts:
to infuse culturally responsive principles and practices that resulted in increasing diversity and developing gifts and talents
in advanced classes and programs. For example, the teachers work explains how he/she was effective in finding
giftedness in under-represented groups of students and/or to ensuring equitable curriculum and learning environments.
C. Leadership Potential to Promote NAGC/CEC Teacher Standards, Excellence, and Equity. (10 points)
Guiding Question: In what ways has the teacher demonstrated strong potential to advance the NAGC/CEC standards and
to promote best practices for excellence and equity for all students?
Evidence: The applicant clearly explained how his/her work exemplified:
two evidenced-based practices from the NAGC/CEC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards;
one of the Diversity Focused NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted Education;
effectiveness in helping to inform or prepare educators and/or families to engage best practices in gifted education for
under-represented groups.
D. Letters of Support (15 points)
Guiding Question: Does the teacher demonstrate effort to address excellence and equity that are strongly recognized by
individuals within his/her school community?
Evidence: The application provided strong letters of support for his/her work surrounding under-representation and equity by:
an administrator
a colleague or parent
a student
Parent, Community, and Diversity Committee Co-Chairs:
Fred A. Bonner II, Ed.D. Tarek C. Grantham, Ph.D.
Samuel DeWitt Proctor Chair in Education Associate Professor
Rutgers University, GSE Gifted & Creative Education
10 Seminary Place Department of Educational Psychology.
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 The University of Georgia
fred.bonner@gse.rutgers.edu 325M Aderhold Hall
(732) 932-7496 Athens, GA 30602
grantham@uga.edu 706-542-4110
Donna Y Ford, Ph.D.
Professor, Dept. of Special Education &
Dept. of Teaching and Learning (secondary appt.) Peabody College of
Education
One Magnolia Circle Bldg. (Room 315A) 230 Appleton
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 13
The CEC#TAG Diversity Award
Equity for Under#represented
Minority Students
Application Cover Sheet
The purpose of this national award is to recognize a teacher who has: (1) demonstrated a commitment to
enhancing excellence and equity for under-represented gifted student populations, (2) infused culturally
responsive classroom or program innovations that meet the needs of students who are under-represented in
gifted and advanced programs, and (3) provided leadership to advance the NAGC/CEC teacher
standards and positions on diversity.
Deadline: Friday, January 31, 2014 by 5:00 pm. Email Application materials to Dr. Tarek Grantham
grantham@uga.edu
I. Teacher Information
First Name:
Last Name:
Gender (Type X): ( ) M ( ) F ( ) M ( ) F Race / Ethnicity: Race / Ethnicity:
Language/s Spoken: Language/s Spoken:
# & Name of Gifted
Education Conferences
Attended:
# & Name of Gifted
Education Conferences
Attended:
E-mail Address: E-mail Address:
Alternate E-mail Address Alternate E-mail Address
Cell Phone Number: Cell Phone Number:
Alternate Phone Number: Alternate Phone Number:
Subject/s Taught: Subject/s Taught:
Grade Level: Grade Level:
# Years Teaching: # Years Teaching: # Yrs. in Gifted Program # Yrs. in Gifted Program
II. School Information
School District:
School Name:
School Address:
City:
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 14
The CEC#TAG Diversity Award
Equity for Under#represented
Minority Students
III. School District and School Gifted Program Enrollment Information
Race/Ethnicity % in School District Overall % in Your Gifted Program
American Indian
Asian / Pacific Islander
Black / African American
Hispanic / Latino
White
Other
Total School Enrollment: Grade Levels Served:
% on Free/Reduced Lunch: Year Data Retrieved:
IV. Application Award Verification
By signing below, I verify that I:

work in a Title I School and my Principal has approved my participation in the CEC Conference if I am
awarded.

will participate on the Parent, Community and Diversity Committee as an at-large member to assist with
dissemination of information.
_________________________ _______________ _________________________ _______________
Teachers Signature Date Principals Signature Date
Note: Typed electronic signature is acceptable.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 15
Five Reasons Gifted Education Advocates Must Take Their Message to Congress
By Kim Hymes, CECs Director of Policy and Advocacy
While good news coming from Washington, DC seems to be rare, recent policy victories for gifted
education advocates must keep our community energized to see these proposals over the nish line. Here
are ve reasons why we need a loud, collective voice:
1.& Its been a tough few years. In 2011, Congress voted to eliminate all funding for the sole federal
investment that supported gifted learners, the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students
Education Act. Since that time, there has been no federal support for gifted education.
2.& Federal budget cuts endanger local gifted education programs. As the Federal investment
in education decreases, cash#strapped state and local governments have been spread thin. Due to
sequestration, over )2 billion was cut from the U.S. Department of Education resulting in less
federal support for key education programs such as Title I and special education. When local
budgets tighten, gifted education programs are in danger.
3.& Education policy can no longer ignore high#ability students. High#ability students *
particularly from underrepresented backgrounds * deserve Federal education policy that recognizes
their needs. High#ability students require unique services and supports provided by knowledgeable
educators. Unfortunately, current federal education policy largely ignores high#ability students.
4.& Funding and policies for high#ability students cleared legislative hurdles but need to get
to the nish line. Over the last few months, gifted education advocates were successful in getting
key provisions from the TALENT Act %S. 512/H.R. 2338& into the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act passed by the Senate Education Committee. Under this bill, teachers
could receive gifted education training and students from underrepresented backgrounds would
have greater opportunities to access gifted education.
And, the Senate is proposing to resurrect the Javits program by investing )15 million, double the
funding it last received in 2010! But, there is still a long legislative road ahead before these bills can
become law.
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 16
,"-)&./ 0&1$&2 3-.)45.)"* 6*+.2#-.)"*+
7"2 /"#2 ,389 :"#2*5%+ ;*%)*& <,:;= 3--"#*.
!"# #%#&'()*+& ,#(-+)* ). '"# /)0(*1% .)( '"# 230&1'+)* ). '"# 4+.'#3 5/246 +- 1,1+%17%# '"()08" 9:42 /)0(*1%- ;*%+*#
59/;6< !) 1&'+,1'# =)0( 1&&)0*' >%#1-# .)%%)? '"#-# -'#>-@
A< 4) ') '"# 9:42 /)0(*1%- ;*%+*# -+'#@ !""#$%&&'()*(+,$-.+#/0,1'2&1.*&-1"*3-"+&0-$*1<
B< C"#(# +' -1=- D:&'+,1'# E)0( ;*%+*# 907-&(+>'+)*@F #*'#( =)0( G#H7#( IJ '"#* -#%#&' !"# :--)&+1'+)* .)(
'"# 4+.'#3KL2L 5!:4KL2L6 .()H '"# 9)&+#'= 3()> 3)?* H#*0 1*3 &%+&M D907H+'<F
N< ;* '"# DI*-'(0&'+)*-F >18# 7# -0(# ') &"#&M =)0( >#(-)*1% 31'1< 2*'#( 1 0-#(*1H# 1*3 >1--?)(3 1*3
&%+&M -07H+' ') &)*O+(H 1&'+,1'+)*< J) *)' &%+&M '"# /)0(*1% !+'%# %+*M 0*'+% '"# &)*O+(H1'+)* >()&#-- +-
&)H>%#'#<
P< ;*&# &)H>%#'#Q (#'0(* ') '"# #%#&'()*+& /)0(*1% ")H#>18# 1*3 -#%#&' '"# /)0(*1% &),#( .)( 1&&#-- ') '"#
&0((#*' +--0# )( &%+&M DL0((#*' I--0#<F
R< !) -#%#&' 1* +--0# .()H '"# 1(&"+,# &%+&M D:%% I--0#-F<
S< !) -#1(&" .)( 1('+&%#- #+'"#( &%+&M D9#1(&" '"+- T)0(*1%F )( 0-# '"# D:3,1*&# /)0(*1% 9#1(&"F<
!"# 0-#(*1H# 1*3 >1--?)(3 =)0 &(#1'# =)0 ?+%% 0-# ?"#* (#'0(*+*8 ') '"# -+'# !""#%&&4+.,$-.+#/0,1'2&< I. =)0
.)(8#' =)0( 0-#(*1H# )( >1--?)(3 8) ') '"# D907-&(+7#F '17 1*3 %))M .)( '"# %+*M DC"1' ') 3) +. =)0 .)(8#' =)0( U-#(
V1H# 1*3W)( X1--?)(3F 0*3#( DG1*18+*8 =)0( 907-&(+>'+)* ') /)0(*1% .)( '"# 230&1'+)* ). '"# 4+.'#3F ?"+&" ?+%%
'1M# =)0 ') '"# .)%%)?+*8 %+*M !""#%&&'()*(+,$-.+#/0,1'2&1.*&5+1(-2+#67< E)0 ?+%% 7# 1-M#3 ') >(),+3# -)H#
+*.)(H1'+)* 17)0' =)0(-#%.< U>)* &)*O+(H1'+)* ). '"# +*.)(H1'+)* =)0( 0-#(*1H# 1*3W)( >1--?)(3 ?+%% 7# #H1+%#3
') =)0<
I. =)0 (#Y0+(# .0('"#( 1--+-'1*&#Q >%#1-# &)*'1&' =)0( 9)&+#'=Z- G#H7#( 9#(,+&#- J#>'< )( &)*'1&' 9:42 3+(#&'%= 1'
$'1*+"82+20+59$-.+#/0,1'2,
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 17
Fall TAG Institute:
Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 18
Fall TAG Institute:
Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children
THE UPDATE FALL, 2013
PAGE 19
Common Core
State Standards and
Gifted Education
What does the Common Core mean for gifted students?
Join experts in the field of gifted education to learn more about the Common Core State
Standards. Practical examples will be provided to illustrate how the CCSS can be
differentiated to meet the learning needs of gifted students.
April 9, 2014
8:30 am 3:00 pm
Philadelphia Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA
For more information email Dr. Jennifer Jolly: jjolly@lsu.edu