California must better support its advanced learners
America's most populous state does not mandate that schools identify gifted learners or that educators receive training on how to teach them.
Editor’s note: This week, Advance features a guest article by Victoria McDougald, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s Chief of Staff. The other elements of the newsletter were compiled by Brandon Wright, Advance’s regular writer and editor. The article was also published by EdSource.
When my son entered kindergarten at our local public school last fall, I never expected I’d have to become an ambassador and advocate for giftedness and gifted education. He has always been an eager, rapid learner—intensely curious and a social butterfly—so we expected his first year of elementary school to be one of mostly excitement, fun and joy.
Although our public school is well-known in the area for its strong gifted and talented education program, it isn’t available to students until third grade, missing the critical first years of schooling that lay the groundwork for all the learning and growth that follow. Yet research is clear that gifted children need additional challenges—outside the school’s standard curriculum—to stay engaged. They have high potential and high ability and often require services not provided by regular school programs.
Without an appropriately engaging, rigorous, and expanded curriculum, gifted children risk becoming bored, frustrated, or angry, and they may begin to disengage, misbehave, or act out at home or at school. Under-challenged gifted children are also denied a critical opportunity to face adversity—learn how to cope with mistakes, failure and disappointment—and develop other critical behavioral regulation skills that all young children should learn.
When I began asking questions, the adults I spoke to in my district were quick to offer myriad reasons for delaying the start of gifted programs until mid-elementary years (we don’t want to “rush” a child’s development, it’s difficult to test children in early elementary, there are so few of these children in a given grade that they just aren’t a priority in terms of resources, etc.).
But I wondered: Like my son, weren’t most gifted third graders already gifted when they were in kindergarten? Gifted children are present in all grade levels and in all types of populations. Children don’t wave a magic wand and become “gifted” halfway through elementary school. Why do we wait until the second or third grade to meet their needs? Why don’t we begin gifted services earlier? And if the problem is the lack of testing with which to identify gifted students, why don’t we start testing earlier? Districts are required to start identifying students with disabilities at age three; surely they could look for gifted students by age five.
Frustrated, I began to research California’s gifted policies (or as I soon discovered, their lack thereof).
While California has some state program standards and guidelines for gifted education, unlike almost all other states, it does not have a state definition of “gifted” written anywhere in law. As outlined in a 2020–21 report by the National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, California also does not have a state law or rule that mandates the identification of gifted children or that requires gifted teacher training (this is all left to the discretion of local school districts and public charter school networks). The state does not provide dedicated funding to support gifted education, doesn’t track how many students are identified as gifted and talented in California, and does not have specified minutes of gifted and talented services required by rule or law. Nor is professional learning for administrators on the nature and needs of gifted students required by the state. I could go on. All of this means that programs—when available at all—vary widely in content and quality; there isn’t even a low bar that needs to be met.
Gifted education has likely become even less of a priority for schools due to the Covid-19 pandemic, despite the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress scores showing large declines in reading and math at all levels. Yes, gifted children comprise a small subset of total enrollment, but their academic needs should be as much a priority as those of any other child. Gifted children are children first, and gifted second. All children deserve a challenging education that meets their academic and social and emotional needs.
Nor should the burden of advocacy fall on individual parents, many of whom aren’t education experts and who, like me, are already exhausted and overwhelmed by the many challenges of raising wonderful, spirited, intense gifted children. Equally overwhelmed, hardworking early elementary teachers and counselors also deserve more support and training so they’re equipped to identify and serve these students within school walls.
It’s long past time for California to fix its woeful laws and policies for gifted education. The state can and should do so much more to require the identification of gifted children, specify the services that should be provided to them, monitor the number of students participating and how they fare, and require gifted teacher training.
The state’s youngest minds simply deserve more, and they deserve it today.
QUOTE OF NOTE
“[University of New South Wales Associate Professor Jae] Jung said one of the biggest myths about gifted students was that they were going to achieve regardless of input, but he said there was an ‘epidemic of underachievement among gifted students.’”
— Nicole Precel, Sydney Morning Herald, “‘They could be finding the cure for cancer’: Why Australia is failing our high achievers,” April 14, 2023
THREE STUDIES TO STUDY
“Determining Accessibility and Availability of Gifted Information on School District Websites,” by Rebecca Johnson and Jaret Hodges, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, April 6, 2023
“Accessibility to gifted programs is related to processes by which students are screened for eligibility and have knowledge of options for participation. Accessibility via websites is related to usability for all users, including those with limited technology or connectivity. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate accessibility and availability of information regarding gifted education for parents of gifted students from historically marginalized student populations. We conducted a content analysis of Florida’s 74 district websites to determine accessibility and availability of gifted information. We found a disparity between accessibility based on number of clicks and availability based on embeddedness of information, although quantity of clicks was not necessarily correlated with the availability of information. Our findings led to practical implications and actionable items for educational institutions to address the potential impact of accessibility to gifted identification/program participation for students from underrepresented populations.”
“The factors explaining reading success of academically gifted readers through the ecological model,” by Mehmet Hilmi Sağlam, Talha Göktentürk, and C. Owen Lo, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, April 12, 2023
“This study aims to discover the best appropriate model to explain reading success of academically gifted students through the ecological model. Three models (i.e., Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3) were created by using three layers of the ecological model to investigate the ecological background of reading success. In line with the literature, seven explanatory factors were examined among the items in the student questionnaire of PISA 2018.... The findings indicated that there is a complex background for reading. All factors (i.e., perception of difficulties, perception of competence in reading, enjoyment of reading, teacher support, teacher feedback, value of school and disciplinary climate in the classroom) have a significant effect on reading. According to the results, Model 3 has the best model fit indices among other models. This model, having more complexity and interaction among latent variables, was found as the most comprehensive and appropriate model due to being coherent with the ecological model.”
“Attitudes and Self-Efficacy of Preservice Teachers Toward Teaching Gifted and Talented Students,” by Maxwell Peprah Opoku, William Nketsia, Michael Amponteng, Wisdom Kwadwo Mprah, and Emmanuel Opoku Kumi, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, March 21, 2023
“Teacher training is fundamental to the success of gifted and talented education (GATE). Unfortunately, in sub-Saharan Africa, which is still in the early stages of practicing inclusive education, knowledge about GATE is limited because preservice teacher training programs have yet to prioritize this subject area. The aim of this exploratory study was to examine the attitudes and self-efficacy of 304 preservice teachers regarding GATE at three education colleges in Ghana. Using Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior as a framework, the results show a positive association between attitude and self-efficacy, with the latter emerging as a significant predictor of the former. Other background variables—such as gender, knowledge of inclusive education policy, specialization, and level of study—provide insights into the attitudes and self-efficacy of preservice teachers. Also discussed is the need for teacher training institutions to introduce training courses and develop culturally responsive policies, guidelines, and strategies for GATE.”
WRITING WORTH READING
“Technical high schools need to be accelerated” —The Herald (Zimbabwe), Jack Welch, April 19, 2023
“Payson [Arizona] gifted students getting ‘bare minimum’” —Payson Roundup, Peter Aleshire, April 18, 2023
“Emirates National Schools launches scholarship program for high-achieving and gifted students” —Zawya, Amjad Saleh, April 17, 2023
“‘They could be finding the cure for cancer’: Why Australia is failing our high achievers” —Sydney Morning Herald, Nicole Precel, April 14, 2023
“5 signs your kid is ‘highly gifted,’ according to neuroscience experts—‘they’re not always well-behaved’” —CNBC, Megan Cannella, April 15, 2023
“How to teach gifted kids in 7,000 easy steps” —We Are Teachers, Kelly Treleaven, April 13, 2023
“Rethinking the goals of high school rigor: Three experts weigh in on the AP program and College Board” —Brookings, Suneal Kolluri, Stephanie Owen, and Jack Schneider Tuesday, April 11, 2023
“A week before students decide, Philadelphia’s selective high schools have hundreds of vacant seats” —Chalkbeat Philadelphia, Dale Mezzacappa, April 6, 2023
“Study: Gifted education too often excludes English learners, students with disabilities” —Chalkbeat Colorado, Yesenia Robles, April 6, 2023
California must better support its advanced learners
MA does not have laws either for giftedness and the burden to enforce accountability for learning differences is on the caregivers, as well. Hoping the latter is better in CA. “Nor should the burden of advocacy fall on individual parents, many of whom aren’t education experts and who, like me, are already exhausted and overwhelmed by the many challenges of ...” = the reason for Dyslexia Now What.
I'm in CA. I don't think we have a policy on gifted education. When my kids were in school, it was occasionally offered by a volunteer parent and consisted of robotics at lunch time. However, my son loved it! Unfortunately, they told me they were not equipped to handle his autism, and put him in a special education class the following year. I see this all the time in my school district. Once a child is diagnosed, they put them in a special program, despite their abilities, or in my son's case, an actual placement in the gifted program. I fought hard for my son, but once he was in Special Ed, his behavior worsened. He endured remedial classes until he finally dropped out and took the GED test for high school equivalency.