{"id":5976,"date":"2014-05-02T18:02:04","date_gmt":"2014-05-02T22:02:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/?p=5976"},"modified":"2014-05-03T19:37:18","modified_gmt":"2014-05-03T23:37:18","slug":"from-88-to-the-new-millennium-the-of-gifted-and-talented-programs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/commons.trincoll.edu\/edreform\/2014\/05\/from-88-to-the-new-millennium-the-of-gifted-and-talented-programs\/","title":{"rendered":"From \u201888 to the New Millennium: The Rise and Decline of Gifted and Talented Programs"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201c<\/em>The term gifted and talented student means children and youths who give evidence of higher performance capability in such areas as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools in order to develop such capabilities fully.<\/em>\u201d (nagc.org)<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em>Gifted and talented programs have been a part of the American public system since the 19th century. It was once such an important piece of public education that the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Act was passed in 1988 to monitor, preserve and improve the integrity of G&T programs. However despite this act, gifted and talented programing is declining and nonexistent in some states across the nation.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What has happened to G&T programs since 1988? In the early 1990s, it was seen as an imperative aspect of the future of\u00a0 public education. However, due to a combination of confusion about how to define, identify and manage giftedness, lack of funding and program mandates, the proposed vision for enriching G&T programs never fully came to fruition. In large school districts like New York City, this confusion in identification\/the lack of funding has resulted in a decline in enrollment and a lack of diversity in the program. As the nation continues to strive to strengthen all public schools as a whole rather than focusing on the top performers, the antithesis of the Jacob Javits Act is occurring. G&T programming is becoming an afterthought and talented children are being left behind.<\/p>\n

The Ebb & Flow of\u00a0 G & T Programming Post-Jacob Javits<\/strong><\/p>\n

The 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk<\/em> (ANAR) revealed that public education in the United States was failing talented American children. \u00a0A Nation At Risk<\/em> was an assessment of the American public education system that was conducted by the National Commission on Education under President Ronald Reagan\u2019s administration. It used data from various standardized exams like the Standardized Aptitude Test (SATs) and surveys to make a poignant statement. The report was very blunt and simple to read and it outlined ways that the country could improve public education. As one of the world\u2019s superpowers, American children were not performing on the same level as their international counterparts and standardized test performance was dismal (NCEE 1983). For the first time in American history, the report revealed that this generation of students \u201cwill not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents\u201d (NCEE, 12).A Nation at Risk pointed out that there was a lack of \u00a0\u201cspecialists in education for gifted and talented\u201d despite the abundance of regular teachers (NCEE, 20). \u00a0Furthermore \u201c over half the population of gifted students does not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school\u201d (NCEE, 11). With the use of such disparaging language, the nation needed to make a change in the quality of the public school education \u2013 especially for gifted students.A Nation at Risk also<\/i> states that \u201cover half the population of gifted students do not match the tested ability with comparable achievement in school\u201d\u00a0 and that \u201cgifted students may need a curriculum enriched and accelerated beyond the needs of other students of high ability (8, 24).<\/p>\n

After ANAR, a period of gifted education reform was in place. Three years before the passage of the Jacob Javits Act (in 1985), Carter and Hamilton asserted that schools in the 1980s saw gifted programs as \u201ceducational frills\u201d (14). When budget cuts were put into place, many gifted and talented programs were the first to go. Carter and Hamilton explain that \u201c those recommending the elimination of gifted programs typically believe the gifted can reach their potential without special help\u201d (14). Additionally, there was a fear that \u201cintellectualism may lead to elitism\u201d (Russo,730.)However, these assertions were refuted with the information provided by ANAR. If the America failed to foster the intellectual advancement of its brightest students, it would quickly fall behind other industrialized nations. Advocates of gifted education asserted that these bright students were \u201ca wasted resource\u201d if they were not challenged with tailor-made programs. Carter and Hamilton accurately predicted that school boards would not simply fund gifted programs because it is a \u201cgood idea\u201d. Instead, \u201cthe decision to fund or not to fund will depend more and more on program effectiveness, as measured by student outcomes\u201d (Carter and Hamilton,14).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As a result, the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Act was passed in 1988 as a component of the Elementary and Secondary Act (nagc.org). Under this legislation, the Javits Act was supposed to change the standard of gifted education. According to the National Association for Gifted Children\u2019s website,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe purpose of the Act is to orchestrate a coordinated program of scientifically based research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities that build and enhance the ability of elementary and secondary schools to meet the special educational needs of gifted and talented students. \u201c (nagc.org).<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Act intended to use the research from the newly instated National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC\/GT) to improve the identification process of students who are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. More often than not, poor\/minority students were not included in programs due to the entry criteria. Through the money that would be awarded to the program annually by congress, the Javits program would be able to support different state programs that would improve G&T education.<\/p>\n

In 1993, a follow-up to ANAR entitled National Excellence: A Case for Developing America\u2019s Talent\u00a0 <\/i>was released under Richard Riley (the new secretary of education). Even though this was 5 years after the passage of the Jacob Javits Act, the quality of gifted programs across in nation still had major issues. \u00a0In the Forward of National Excellence<\/i>, Riley calls this the \u201cquiet crisis\u201d (1). Although the American public was successfully made aware of the needs of G&T students and there was an increase in the amount of programs, some problems still remained. In comparison to other countries, American students were still being outperformed \u201cat all levels\u201d (National Excellence,1). The report also asserted that although there were some strong gifted and talented programs in the country, they were \u201climited in scope and substance\u201d and most gifted students were not receiving the attention they needed (National Excellence,4). Special accommodations were not being created to offer gifted students a more rigorous education. Instead of focusing on academic \u201cexcellence\u201d, there was too much focus placed on \u201cadequacy\u201d (National Excellence,4). Furthermore, the only available national survey at the time showed that a mere “2 cents out of every $100 spent on K-12 education in 1990\u201d supported gifted students. Once again, due to the lack of a nation-wide mandate to identify and provide services to gifted students, some states failed to provide a significant amount of funding for the existing programs. \u00a0For example as shown in Chart 1,<\/p>\n

\"Chart<\/a>
Chart 1<\/strong> G and T Program Mandates Map of the United States, 1996
(Source: Josten)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

in 1996 New York provided $14.3 million to G&T programs. In Florida (a state with a similar amount of inhabitants), $146.9 million was provided (Jost, 268). \u00a0Consequently, the quality and scope of the programs in these states could be on completely different levels. The $9 million budget of the Jacob Javits program was only used for research and demonstration grants at this time, and was not nearly enough to support or mitigate the disparities across the nation (nagc.org).<\/p>\n

In addition, the talents of disadvantaged and minority students were going \u201cunnoticed\u201d and they received \u201cfewer advanced educational opportunities\u201d (National Excellence, 3). Students of color and those with lower socioeconomic statuses were less likely to be a part of the existing G&T programs.This was due to the wide array of identification methods. The term gifted was seen as controversial and all states are not mandated to identify gifted students. The states that have chosen to at least identify students can use any method of their choice (aptitude assessments, teacher recommendations, performance assessments, behavioral checklists etc.) (Brown et.al,9). More often than not, the states use aptitude assessments for identification. These exams may be biased and unable to identify all aspects of giftedness (Brown et. al). Therefore, social stratification can be perpetuated since students of color and lower socioeconomic backgrounds may not perform as well on these exams as their white\/more affluent counterparts. Also, Local Education Agencies are not mandated to follow their state\u2019s definition of giftedness so the definition may vary and exclude some students\u00a0 \u00a0(nagc.org).\u00a0 Nevertheless, some strides in G & T programs were made within five years after this report was published. In 1998, the NAGC created official guidelines for Pre-K – 12 Grade students (nagc.org). The diversity of the existing programs, however, would continue to be disappointing.<\/p>\n

By the new millennium, G&T programs began to decrease due to budget cuts, issues with identification methods, and the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB was passed in 2002 under the administration of former President George W. Bush. American public school students were still not performing at high or proficient levels on national exams. NCLB mandated that all states would have to demonstrate that their students were performing at grade level through stat-administered exams.Otherwise, they would be restructured or shut down if they continually showed no improvement annually over a span of 6 years\u00a0 (today.duke.edu). As a result of NCLB, many schools turned the focus to low-performing students and began to use funding to support them rather than the high-achieving gifted students. According to Stephens and Rigabee,<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a result (of NCLB), schools are unintentionally guided to focus on remediation rather than on acceleration and enrichment. National budget figures since 1988 reveal that less than one percent of federal education dollars have been devoted to gifted and talented education.\u201d (today.duke.edu).<\/p>\n

The act also revised the Jacob Javits to allow the program to give some funds to statewide grants for G &T programs (nagc.org). In 2002, Jacob Javits received $11.25 million (a $3.75 million increase from 2001). Five years later, it was decreased to $9.25 million. Although the scope of the act increased, funds for the program would continue to decrease. Although the Jacob Javits program was not created to fund all programs across the country, the variance in allocations shows instability. Therefore, research projects and grants for programming were hindered.<\/p>\n

By 2007, very little changed and the picture of G&T programs continued to be bleak. A report conducted by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) revealed that only 11 out of 29 states that mandated the identification of gifted students \u201cprovided funds to school systems to specifically support the gifted\u201d (today.duke.edu). The report also showed that 14 states spent \u201cless that $500,000 per year on gifted education, with eight states expending $0\u201d (duke.today.edu). Today, G & T programs still face the same issues 24 years later. According to the National Society for the Gifted and Talented website (NSGT) , \u201cAn emphasis on raising test scores for under-performing children, the elimination of gifted programs and classes in schools, and an overall tendency in our society to be ambivalent about high academic and artistic performance are undermining the development of children with great potential.\u201d (nsgt.org). The NSGT website also points out that out of 3 million gifted students in grades K-12 in the United States, \u201conly perhaps a quarter have been identified and receive support\u201d (nsgt.org). Furthermore out of this small group (see Image 1), \u00bc of gifted students across the nation are Hispanic or African American, while \u00be of them are White or Asian (cec.org).<\/p>\n

\"Image<\/a>
Image 1:<\/strong> Gifted Education: National Overview\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (Source: cec.org)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Jacob Javits program was created in part to help identify\u00a0 and serve students who are\u00a0 \u201cdisabled, economically disadvantaged and English language learners\u201d and to assist G&T programs who request funds (Bainbridge, giftedkids.about.com.)\u00a0 Despite this fact, the Jacob Javits program was defunded completely under President Obama between 2011 and 2013 due to significant budget cuts and the downturn of the economy (Bainbridge, giftedkids.about.com). The administration decided that states would still support G &T\u00a0 programs without the additional funds.<\/p>\n

Some parents of gifted students are becoming so frustrated with the lack of programs at neighborhood public schools and they looked for alternatives\u00a0 (Rogers, 2002). In some cases, some parents \u201chave sued school districts to get assistance through the court system\u2026\u201d (Rogers, xvi). However, Rogers goes on to explain that while the court \u201ccan be helpful in those states that mandate gifted educational services\u201d, it was not as useful in states that do not have mandates for gifted students (xvi).\u00a0In the most recent voluntary survey conducted by NAGC for the 2012-2013 school year, the following information was gathered (nagc.org):<\/p>\n