Using the National Gifted Education Standards for Pre-KGrade 12 Professional Development

Copyright ©2017, National Association for Gifted Children and The Association for the Gifted, Council for Exceptional Children

Edited by Katy McDowall

Cover and layout design by Raquel Trevino

ISBN-13: 978-1-61821-586-4

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

At the time of this book’s publication, all facts and figures cited are the most current available. All telephone numbers, addresses, and websites URLs are accurate and active. All publications, organizations, websites, and other resources exist as described in the book, and all have been verified. The authors and Prufrock Press Inc. make no warranty or guarantee concerning the information and materials given out by organizations or content found at websites, and we are not responsible for any changes that occur after this book’s publication. If you find an error, please contact Prufrock Press Inc.

Prufrock Press Inc.

P.O. Box 8813

Waco, TX 76714-8813

Phone: (800) 998-2208

Fax: (800) 240-0333

http://www.prufrock.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

In 2008, Dr. James Gallagher noted the significance of the first edition of this work, Using the National Gifted Education Standards for PreK–12 Professional Development, in guiding those who provide services to gifted students. The second edition may prove to be even more pivotal to the growing and evolving field of gifted education, shifting the focus to student outcomes as a result of quality services. This publication provides timely insight and recommendations, coming on the heels of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which requires that districts address the learning needs of gifted students and allows federal Title II professional development funds to be used for that purpose.

Original authors are joined by new voices in this edition, as they explore how to improve student and teacher outcomes by creating and implementing needs-based professional development plans aligned with the standards. Whether a program is new or well-established, this book serves as a valuable resource, providing a blueprint to educators charged with the development of teachers relative to improving services to gifted students.

As a district program director, I note several salient and actionable concepts. By emphasizing the importance of expanding partnerships to include nontraditional sources, schools can team up with technology and business entities to improve teacher training quality and sustainability. Through collaboration with other school and community stakeholders, gifted education can gain a seat at the table to infuse gifted standards and practice into district systems, creating a unified voice to support student success. Beginning with the end in mind by focusing on outcomes and assessment allows districts to utilize tools, such as the various scales in Appendix B, to ensure a common vision exists and evidence of success is measured. As districts become increasingly diverse, perhaps the most immediately usable ideas are the models and activities that provide flexible options to match the distinct needs of students, teachers, and districts.

Practitioners in the field will benefit greatly by utilizing the research and ideas inherent in this second edition to initiate or rejuvenate their general and gifted teacher preparation efforts and provide continuous improvement to ensure that all of our advanced learners are appropriately challenged.

Michelle Swain, M.Ed.

Director of Gifted and Advanced Academic Services

Round Rock (TX) Independent School District

State Representative, NAGC Board of Directors

INTRODUCTION

This guide is for Pre-K–grade 12 program leaders in gifted education and district personnel who are responsible for planning and implementing professional development activities for teachers at all levels of schooling. The purpose of the guide is to share the new professional standards for teachers of students with gifts and talents and how those standards might be used in determining professional development plans in gifted and general education.

In the first chapter, Johnsen, VanTassel-Baska, and Clarenbach provide an overview of teacher preparation and program standards in gifted education. Tracing the importance and history of the standards, they show the purposes and interrelationships among the initial and advanced gifted education teacher preparation standards, the knowledge and skills standards in gifted education for all teachers, the gifted education programming standards, and other important standards in teacher preparation. They conclude with examples that incorporate research-based features of professional development.

In the second chapter, Cotabish, Dailey, and Jackson specify ways of developing partnerships among Pre-K–12 institutions, universities and other education preparation providers, and the larger community. They identify goals for these partnerships and related features that improve teacher quality. Using specific examples, they describe partnership activities that promote Pre-K–12 gifted students’ learning.

Hughes suggests in the third chapter that teachers must often contend with as many as 10 different sets of standards in developing curriculum and instructional strategies for inclusive classrooms. She suggests that gifted education specialists can collaborate more effectively when they identify the needs of diverse learners, identify the needs of professionals, establish commonality of purposes, and create clear collaborative networks.

In Chapter 4, Shaunessy-Dedrick, Mursky, and Cotabish show how to address the teacher preparation standards through the lens of student outcomes. Providing practical examples, they describe how a variety of educators such as classroom teachers, gifted and special education specialists, psychologists and counselors, and administrators can contribute to the success of these outcomes. They also provide specific suggestions for professional learning experiences.

Using the Learning Forward standards for professional development in Chapter 5, Chandler shows how professional development in gifted education might be improved through five delivery models: individually guided professional development, observation and assessment, involvement in a development or improvement process, training, and inquiry. She concludes by identifying crucial steps for those individuals involved in planning professional learning in gifted education.

In Chapter 6, Troxclair, Shaunessy-Dedrick, and Mursky provide evidence for successful standards-based professional development approaches in gifted education related to the implementation of cluster grouping and instructional strategies in core content areas. Specific approaches include peer reflections, distance learning communities, lesson study, and communities of learning.

Troxclair and Lee describe ways to assess professional development activities in Chapter 7. They relate the teacher preparation standards to specific classroom observation instruments included in Appendix B and then provide examples showing how these assessments might be used in providing evidence for desired teacher and student outcomes.

In Chapter 8, VanTassel-Baska and Johnsen provide research-based principles to effect change in the real world of education. They suggest strong leadership and dynamic views of professional development must be operative and effective for full implementation of change in gifted programs to occur. Finally, they suggest specific ways that the stages and outcomes of change might be evaluated.

The final chapter offers challenges in implementing the standards and promises for better meeting the needs of all gifted students, including those from diverse backgrounds. Johnsen and VanTassel-Baska provide ways to link with university partners, incorporate promising teaching and learning technologies, and provide leadership in improving outcomes for gifted and talented learners.

Finally, a rich set of appendices provides research for the NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted Education, classroom observation instruments, a needs assessment, sample professional development plans, sample concept maps to assess teachers’ knowledge of gifted education, and sample innovation configuration maps.

Our hope is that those responsible for coordinating professional learning opportunities will find this book helpful, especially as districts that receive federal professional development funds work to implement the new requirements related to gifted and talented students. As readers may know, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015), which replaced No Child Left Behind, requires districts to provide professional development to address the learning needs of gifted and talented students. This new obligation requires consideration of how to best match the content of the professional learning regarding gifted students with the audience (general education teachers, school leaders, school psychologists, and other professionals) and also to establish qualifications criteria for presenters. We would urge that the professional learning content is aligned to the national gifted education standards presented here.

Susan K. Johnsen and Jane Clarenbach

CHAPTER 1

NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE PREPARATION OF TEACHERS OF GIFTED STUDENTS IN PRE-K–GRADE 12 SCHOOLS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO QUALITY PROGRAMMING

SUSAN K. JOHNSEN, JOYCE VANTASSEL-BASKA, AND JANE CLARENBACH

This chapter shares the new professional standards for teachers of students with gifts and talents and how those standards might be used in determining professional development plans in gifted education. The chapter includes the importance of teacher preparation standards, the history of their development, their alignment with other standards, and implications for Pre-K–12 educators.

Importance of Standards

According to the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC; 2013), standards serve three major functions: They provide a common vision, set a level of performance, and provide a way of assessing performance. The 2013 NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted Education address these functions by identifying the essential knowledge and skills that gifted education teachers need to acquire to be effective in teaching gifted and talented students (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2013a). The standards have been systematically developed using theory, disciplined inquiry, empirical research, and practical evidence of effectiveness (CEC, 2010). Educator preparation institutions and school districts can use these standards in designing courses and coherent teacher preparation programs, establishing benchmarks to measure candidate progress. Pre-K–12 schools can use the standards as an assessment tool for identifying important characteristics of gifted educators, establishing meaningful outcomes, guiding professional development activities, and providing the necessary supports and opportunities for meeting the standards.

Because the standards are built on a sound base of research literature, they define the distinct knowledge and skills needed by teachers in gifted education, which are different from those in other fields. In this way, they build the legitimacy of gifted education and the importance that the field places on serving all students with gifts and talents, particularly those from underserved populations (see Appendix A).

The standards can also provide consistency across states, universities, and schools involved in teacher preparation, development, and licensure because gifted education is not federally mandated. They provide a structure for developing policies, rules, and procedures. In this way, policymakers can focus attention on the key components of gifted education programs and services, and schools are able to evaluate their programs and set benchmarks for improvement. This consistency helps in placing qualified teachers in gifted education classrooms and increases the probability that gifted learners will receive a challenging curriculum.

Moreover, using the standards can enhance advocacy efforts at the local program level and even new legislation at the state and national levels. Educators, families, and other stakeholders can point to the knowledge and skills necessary for preparing teachers who will ultimately raise the quality of services to gifted students and their families.

The History of National Standards for Preparation of Gifted Education Teachers

In her overview of the history of teacher preparation standards, Kitano (2008) reported that setting standards could be traced back to at least 1922 when the 12 members of the International Council for the Education of Exceptional Children (now the Council for Exceptional Children) declared that establishing special education standards was its fundamental aim (CEC, 2009). Following the establishment of CEC, the American Association of Teachers Colleges was organized to develop standards and accreditation procedures to ensure that graduates of accredited programs could teach (Kraft, 2001). In 1954, an affiliation of professional and public organizations established the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) as a nonprofit, nongovernmental accrediting body. In 1997, the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) was also founded to improve academic degree programs for professional educators. Both NCATE and TEAC were involved in accrediting colleges and university teacher preparation programs nationally. These two organizations merged to form the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), which subsequently developed national accreditation standards for educator preparation providers. The five standards address (a) content and pedagogical knowledge; (b) clinical partnerships and practice; (c) candidate quality, recruitment, and selectivity; (d) program impact; and (e) provider quality assurance and continuous improvement (CAEP, 2015). To be accredited with national recognition, a college or university must not only meet these five standards but also meet the standards for specialty licensure area programs provided by the institution. One of the specialty licensure areas includes programs in gifted and talented education.

Interest in teacher preparation standards in gifted education can be traced to the early 1980s when NAGC offered Professional Training Institutes, where university faculty and practitioners discussed professional development issues and training guidelines (Robinson & Kolloff, 2006). By 1995, NAGC’s Professional Development Division approved a position paper on standards for graduate programs in gifted education, which was published in Gifted Child Quarterly (Parker, 1996). In 1998, NAGC developed and adopted the Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards to assist school districts in designing and evaluating programs for gifted learners (Landrum, Callahan, & Shaklee, 2001).

Meanwhile, CEC and NCATE formed a partnership in 1976 for approving teacher preparation programs. The Association for the Gifted (TAG), a division of CEC, established standards in 1989 for the professional development of teachers including coursework for initial teacher preparation as well as program design, assessment for identification, and curriculum design for K–12 schools serving gifted learners (Kitano, 2008; CEC, 2009). That same year, CEC adopted a common core set of standards with separate specialty sets for various exceptionality areas (e.g., gifted, learning disabilities, emotional and behavior disorders), all of which undergo periodic revisions (CEC, 2013).

NAGC’s affiliation with NCATE in 2002 paved the way for their collaboration with CEC-TAG on revising the teacher preparation standards. After a series of symposia, work sessions, and review-and-comment activities, the 2006 Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted and Talented Education were adopted by NAGC and CEC-TAG in 2004 and by NCATE in 2006. These standards, which are used to review teacher preparation programs and confer national recognition status, represented a consensus of two major professional organizations and a comprehensive range of constituents. CEC’s 10 common core standards and 77 knowledge and skill statements were adapted for the field of gifted education describing what novice teachers of gifted and talented students should know and be able to do.

In 2004, NCATE’s Specialty Area Studies Board (SASB) recommended that Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs; i.e., CEC, NAGC) reduce the number of standards to seven and the number of elements to 28. For the gifted education standards, this realignment needed to occur by fall 2013, when the revised standards would be submitted. Concurrently, InTASC developed Model Core Teaching Standards, which were released in 2011. Guided by the SASB 2004 guidelines and the 2011 InTASC standards, NAGC and CEC-TAG initiated a revision process. During the realignment process, a wide range of stakeholders and experts was consulted during numerous meetings and conference calls over a 2-year period. Each meeting offered the opportunity to provide input, typically asking participants to comment on the most recent draft of the standards or to add to a list of research support for each standards area (CEC-TAG, 2013). The revisions to the 2006 teacher preparation standards were approved by CAEP in 2013.

NAGC-CEC Initial Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted Education

Although content differences between the 2006 and 2013 standards were not substantial, the standards were reduced from 10 to seven, elements were reduced from 77 to 28, narratives were rewritten, standards were aligned to the InTASC standards (see Table 1.1), and research was updated (see NAGC, 2013; CEC-TAG, 2013). The resulting standards included: learner development and individual learning differences, learning environments, curricular content knowledge, assessment, instructional planning and strategies, professional learning and ethical practice, and collaboration (NAGC-CEC, 2013a). The standards, elements, and narratives are included below. (A glossary of important terms may be found in Figure 1.1.)

Table 1.1

Comparison of 2013 NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted and Talented Education to the InTASC Standards

Figure 1.1. Glossary of important terms in the Teacher Preparation Standards.

Acceleration: Acceleration practices may include grade-based acceleration that shorten the number of years an individual is in the Pre-K–12 system and/or subject-based acceleration that bring advanced content and skills earlier than expected for age or grade level (Rogers, 2002).

Bias: Bias may occur not only within quantitative assessments that do not have technical adequacy but also from barriers within identification procedures such as low teacher expectations, exclusive definitions, and a focus on deficits rather than strengths (Ford, 1998; Ryser, 2011).

Differentiated assessment: The practice of varying assessment in such a way that it reflects differentiation in the curriculum and/or the instruction. Differentiated assessment implies that as students experience differences in their learning, they should experience differences in their assessment. For example, students with gifts and talents may require off-level/above-grade-level tests to accurately assess their level of ability or achievement.

Differentiated curriculum: Adaptation of content, process, and concepts to meet a higher level of expectation appropriate for advanced learners. Curriculum can be differentiated through acceleration, complexity, depth, challenge, and creativity (VanTassel-Baska & Wood, 2008).

Differentiated instruction: Multiple ways to structure a lesson so that each student is challenged at an appropriate level. Differentiated instruction may include features such as learner centeredness; planned assignments and lessons based on preassessment; and flexible grouping, materials, resources, and pacing (Tomlinson & Hockett, 2008).

Diversity: Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area (Matthews & Shaunessy, 2008; NCATE, 2010)

Technical adequacy: This term refers to the psychometric properties of an assessment instrument. Instruments with technical adequacy demonstrate validity for the identified purpose, reliability in providing consistent results, and minimize bias, and have been normed on a population matching the census data (Johnsen, 2008).

Standard 1: Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences

Beginning gifted education professionals understand the variations in learning and development in cognitive and affective areas between and among individuals with gifts and talents and apply this understanding to provide meaningful and challenging learning experiences for individuals with exceptionalities.

Historically, gifted education professionals have placed the learning needs of the individual at the center of gifted education instruction. Gifted education professionals have altered instructional practices to optimize learning for individuals with gifts and talents. Development of expertise begins with a thorough understanding of and respect for similarities and differences in all areas of human growth and development. Like all educators, beginning gifted education professionals first respect individuals with gifts and talents within the context of human development and individual learning differences. Not only do beginning gifted education professionals understand advanced developmental milestones of individuals with gifts and talents from early childhood through adolescence, but they also understand how exceptionalities can interact with development and learning, and create developmentally appropriate learning environments to provide relevant, meaningful, and challenging learning experiences for individuals with gifts and talents.

Beginning gifted education professionals understand the variation in characteristics between and among individuals with and without gifts and talents. They know exceptionalities can interact with multiple domains of human development to influence an individual’s learning in school, community, and throughout life. Moreover, they understand that the beliefs, traditions, and values across and within cultures can influence relationships among and between students, their families, and the school community. Furthermore, these experiences of individuals with exceptionalities can influence the individual’s ability to learn, interact socially, and live as fulfilled contributing members of the community. Educators of the gifted understand the phenomenon of underachievement and how it manifests itself in males and females. They understand techniques for reversing underachievement.

Beginning gifted education professionals are active and resourceful in seeking to understand how the primary language, culture, family, and areas of disability interact with the gifts and talents to influence the individual’s academic and social abilities, attitudes, values, interests, and career and post-secondary options. These learning differences and their interactions provide the foundation upon which beginning gifted education professionals differentiate instruction to provide developmentally meaningful and challenging learning for individuals with exceptionalities.

Standard 2: Learning Environments

Beginning gifted education professionals create safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive learning environments so that individuals with gifts and talents become effective learners and develop social and emotional well-being.

Like all educators, beginning gifted education professionals develop safe, inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments for