Abstract
This column presents the 2019 NAGC Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards and its applications to the field of gifted education. It describes the revision process and the differences between the 2010 NAGC Programming Standards and this revision. These differences include the incorporation of new research, evidence, and best practices; alignments with other national professional standards; and an emphasis on shared terminology across various fields, simplified language, and streamlined outcomes and evidence-based practices.
Keywords
“The PK–12 Standards . . . grounded in theory, research, and practice paradigms . . . provide an important base for all educational efforts on behalf of gifted learners at all stages of development.”
Gifted and talented education provides programming and services for students performing at advanced levels and for those with the potential to do so. Programming and services include identification processes as well as the delivery of differentiated curriculum and instruction. As students with gifts and talents should receive services throughout the day and in all environments based on their abilities, needs, and interests, the word “programming” rather than the word “program,” which might connote a one-dimensional approach, is used. The 2019 NAGC Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards (Professional Standards Committee, 2019) provide a structure for defining important benchmarks for student outcomes and for using evidence-based practices that are the most effective for students with gifts and talents. The standards are often used as a basis for policies, rules, and procedures that are essential for providing systematic programming and services to gifted learners. They also help define the comprehensiveness necessary in designing and developing options for gifted learners at the local level. Because the PK–12 Standards are grounded in theory, research, and practice paradigms, they provide an important base for all educational efforts on behalf of gifted learners at all stages of development. The uses fall into six categories:
Assessing, evaluating, and improving local policies, rules, and procedures
Planning curriculum
Providing professional learning
Advocating
Developing, improving, and evaluating state standards
Approving gifted plans and programs and monitor for compliance with state regulations
How Were the Standards Developed?
The first standards for the field were developed in the late 1990s. In 2010, the standards went through a significant revision with the new standards enthusiastically welcomed by the field. The 2019 iteration of the standards retain the structure of the 2010 document but reflect changes in the field with new research, practices, and modifications to the conceptions of giftedness. The NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children) Professional Standards Committee was tasked with updating the standards to reflect this new information. The guiding principles behind both sets of standards are the following:
Giftedness is dynamic and is constantly developing; therefore, students are defined as those with gifts and talents rather than those with stable traits.
Giftedness is found among students from a variety of backgrounds; therefore, a deliberate effort was made to ensure that diversity was included across all standards. Diversity is defined as understanding and valuing the range and variety of characteristics and beliefs of individuals who demonstrate a wide range of characteristics. It includes race, ethnicity, culture, language, age, (dis)abilities, family status/composition, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious and spiritual values, geographic location, and country of origin (Council for Exceptional Children, 2019).
Standards should focus on student outcomes rather than educator practices. The number of practices used or how they are used is not as important as whether or not the practice is effective with students. Consequently, the workgroup decided to continue the approach adopted in 2010 and not identify acceptable versus exemplary standards. Such a distinction would be too difficult to support with the research.
Because all educators are responsible for the education of students with gifts and talents, educators were broadly defined as administrators, teachers, counselors, and other instructional support staff from a variety of professional backgrounds (e.g., general education, special education, and gifted education).
Students with gifts and talents should receive services throughout the day and in all environments based on their abilities, needs, and interests. Therefore, the Workgroup decided to continue to use the word “programming” rather than the word “program,” which might connote a one-dimensional approach (e.g., a once-a-week type of program option) not directly connected to students’ identified interests, strengths, and needs.
In 2017, the Professional Standards Committee was tasked with revising the standards to incorporate new research, reflect updated practices and conceptions of giftedness, and focus renewed attention to issues of equity and inclusion. The principles underlying the work of the committee generally remained the same (giftedness is dynamic, equity and inclusion are priorities), and much of the core terminology remains in use (programming, educators as an inclusive term, etc.), which serves to unify the 2010 and 2019 documents. Figure 1 highlights the revision process the committee used.
Revision process for 2019 NAGC Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards.
How Are These Standards Different From the 2010 Programming Standards?
The key differences between the 2010 Gifted Programming Standards and the 2019 NAGC Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards center on the following areas:
The revised programming standards incorporate new research, evidence, and best practices. While the NAGC Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards were developed to reflect the best research and practice at the time, the field has continued to evolve. The revised standards have support from research, literature, and practice-based studies for each of the evidence-based practices from both within and outside of gifted education.
The revised programming standards continue to be aligned to both the NAGC-CEC teacher preparation standards and advanced standards, and now include elements from the Standards for Professional Learning and the ISTE Standards (International Society for Technology in Education), as well as recommendations from Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL; social emotional learning), the Bill of Rights for Gifted Students of Color, and the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Top 20 Principles from Psychology for PreK–12 Teaching and Learning. The revised programming standards continue to adhere closely to the language in the NAGC-CEC teacher standards and integrate them within the evidence-based practices. The revised programming standards also include student outcomes and evidence-based practices that reflect best practices in related fields, including technology, learning environments, psychosocial skill development, and diversity.
The revised programming standards emphasize shared terminology across various fields, simplified language, and streamlined outcomes and evidence-based practices. The revised standards stress the importance of connections and collaborations across fields and addressing the needs of all students (Professional Standards Committee, 2019).
In terms of the title of each standard, only Standard 6, Professional Learning, has changed in the 2019 version. This change reflects the ongoing commitment to teacher “learning” versus a “one-shot” dosage or exposure to new knowledge and skills. Figure 2 highlights the titles and this shift in language and concept.
Title of the six Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards.
The following questions will guide the usage and application of the 2019 NAGC Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards (Professional Standards Committee, 2019).
How Are the Standards Supported by Research and Current Effective Practices?
The field of gifted education has continued to evolve since the 2010 standards were written and the original standards were developed in 1998. The 2019 Programming Standards continue to include only evidence-based practices that support the corresponding student outcomes. As in 2010, this support falls into three categories: (a) research-based, (b) practice-based, and (c) literature-based. Research-based studies provide the most compelling evidence and are peer-reviewed, use qualitative or quantitative methodologies to address questions of cause and effect, and have been independently replicated and found to be effective. Practice-based strategies are practices that have been used widely with success, so there is a professional assumption that the practice is effective. Practice-based studies also include strategies that classroom teachers use and validate through some degree of action research. Literature-based studies are those that are based on theories or philosophical reasoning. (Visit the NAGC website (http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12) for standards, resources, and research support.)
My School/District Doesn’t Have a Formal Gifted Education Program, Although We Do Offer Services in Several Grades to Advanced Students. How Can We Use These Standards? My School/District’s Gifted Education Program Is Just Being Launched. How Do You Recommend We Get Started With These Standards?
The early stages of program planning and development are ideal times to study and use the 2019 Programming Standards (see Figure 3). Before you get too far along in a journey that, without careful planning, may not serve gifted and talented students well or, in the worst-case scenario, may actually diminish support for gifted education in your school or district, use the 2019 Programming Standards to conduct an internal analysis of the comprehensiveness and defensibility of your plans/program at this point in time. If a school does not have gifted education programming or is just getting started, the standards will help document the need for the program and/or justify the case for a particular programming approach. As the program grows, the standards will help identify program strengths and weaknesses, focus on potential trouble spots, determine new directions or new components, or provide support to maintain current programs and services. Schools may continue to use the standards as a roadmap for evaluation or to set goals and plan strategically for meeting those goals.
Guidance for using the NAGC Pre-K to Grade 12 Programming Standards.
How Can My School/District Use These Standards for Program Evaluation Purposes?
The student outcomes and evidence-based practices in the programming standards serve as criteria on which to collect data to make informed judgments about the quality and effectiveness of their programming for learners with gifts and talents. Once the data are in hand, school leaders may establish benchmarks or set goals and timelines to ensure that they are on track to achieving the desired student outcomes. In 2015, the NAGC Professional Standards Committee developed the Self-Assess Your P–12 Practice or Program Using the NAGC Gifted Programming Standards (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015) that outlines a six-step process for assessing practice and gifted education programming that are framed by four guiding questions. The four guiding questions are specific to each student outcome outlined in the standards. They are:
To what degree do I address this student outcome?
To what degree have current practices improved this student outcome?
How high of a priority do I place on meeting this standard element?
Is support readily available in my district?
The guide, developed by a workgroup from the NAGC Professional Standards Committee, provides a self-study checklist and supporting materials based on the PK–12 Standards to assist gifted program coordinators and teachers of the gifted in assessing programmatic and professional learning needs to realize effective classroom practice and programs for gifted learners. The self-study guide is intended for two audiences: (a) the gifted education teacher, whose focus is on student outcomes, and (b) the gifted program coordinator, whose responsibilities include not only addressing student outcomes throughout the school district but also providing resources and support to teachers so that they are able to implement best practices in gifted education. Teachers and program coordinators can assess the degree to which they engage in evidence-based practices that positively affect student outcomes. Figure 4 outlines the six-step process that can be used for program evaluation purposes.
Six-step process outlines in Self-Assess Your P–12 Practice or Program Using the NAGC Gifted Programming Standards (NAGC, 2015).
The Self-Assess Your P–12 Practice or Program Using the NAGC Gifted Programming Standards booklet is currently undergoing revision to reflect updates and revisions to the 2019 iteration of the standards.
How Do We Know That the Student Outcomes Are Being Met?
The task of assessing the standards’ student outcomes becomes a major part of program design and development annually through the use of appropriate and varied measures. In general, recommendations include the use of above-level and adaptive measures to assess the achievement level of gifted students. To assess deeper and more complex learning behaviors, more tailored performance-based or product-based instruments should be employed. To assess critical and creative thinking, the use of tests that focus on these higher skills would be recommended. Finally, if one wants to assess affective behavioral change, the use of products (i.e., journals, written essays, talent development plans) examined over time in a pre–post or portfolio model may be most desirable. Assessing gifted student learning also requires matching the desired outcome to the student’s knowledge and skills and level of interest. Exams like Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) are carefully crafted performance-based assessments that tap into advanced learning in traditional and free response modes. They may be used as models for thinking about appropriate approaches at earlier stages of development in a gifted program as would other examples of performance-based assessments.
What Resources Does NAGC Have and Will Be Developed to Assist in Implementing the 2019 Programming Standards?
In addition to the upcoming revised edition of the Self-Assess Your P–12 Practice or Program Using the NAGC Gifted Programming Standards booklet, the development of additional resources and support materials to accompany the 2019 Programming Standards will begin in 2020. Based on feedback from stakeholders, the committee aims to develop digital materials and tip sheets that offer examples of evidence-based practices. Furthermore, the NAGC website contains the glossary of terms used with the 2019 Programming Standards that may be useful (see http://www.nagc.org/programming-standards-glossary-terms).
The NAGC website also contains information and links to references for many of the strategies recommended in the 2010 and 2019 Programming Standards. The online bookstore includes publications that address special populations of gifted students, best practices in gifted education, designing services in PK–12, and assessments of gifted learners, among other key topics.
In Conclusion
The revised standards offer classroom teachers, gifted program coordinators, and administrators alike the opportunity to reflect upon their practices and provide improved programming and services for students performing at advanced levels and means of identifying potential. Standards are not static and should reflect continuous learning and new knowledge grounded in theory, research, and practice paradigms. As conceptions of giftedness continue to evolve, so will the programming standards to best meet the needs of gifted learners at all stages of development.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Bios
Alicia Cotabish, EdD, is an associate professor of teaching and learning at the University of Central Arkansas.
Debbie Dailey, EdD, is an associate professor and the coordinator for the Gifted and Talented Program at the University of Central Arkansas.
Susan Corwith, PhD, is an associate director of the Center for Talent Development (CTD) at Northwestern University.
Susan Johnsen, PhD, is professor Emerita of the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She has written three tests for identifying gifted students and more than 300 publications related to gifted education.
Chin-Wen Lee, PhD, is a student affairs director at Taoyuan American School (TYAS), Taiwan.
Keri Guilbault, EdD, is an assistant professor of gifted education at Johns Hopkins University.