An August 8 meeting of a task force to study the provision and funding of special education focused on how the state can improve programs for gifted and talented students.
The task force was originally created by a 2021 law to study the state’s provision of special education services, but another bill passed by the legislature during the most recent session expanded its scope to include the “provision of students identified as gifted and talented.”
Task force members heard a presentation from Del Siegle, the director of the Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development at the University of Connecticut (UCONN) and E. Jean Gubbins, a professor of educational psychology at UCONN.
Siegle discussed Connecticut’s statute on the identification of gifted and talented students, which requires local or regional boards of education to notify parents or guardians of students identified as gifted. The statute also requires local and regional school boards to adopt a policy for equitable identification of gifted and talented students.
However, as Siegle noted, the statute does not require school boards to provide any educational services to students once identified.
Siegle identified several failures in the provision of services to gifted and talented students that the National Center for Research on Gifted Education, headquartered at UCONN and which Siegle directs, has identified by studying several other states.
The first of these issues involves underrepresented groups, which do not see gifted students identified at the same rates. According to Siegle’s presentation, white and Asian students are approximately two times more likely to be recognized as gifted, while other groups of students, including Blacks, Hispanics, and students who receive free or reduced price lunches or who are learning English as a second language are less likely to be recognized.
Another issue Siegle identified is that gifted services are not equally distributed across schools within districts. Siegle stated that there can be as much as three times the amount of variance within districts as between districts.
Siegle also noted that gifted and talented students are identified using cognitive measures, achievement measures, and teacher ratings and raised two issues related to these metrics. First, Siegle noted that some combination of the three metrics produce better identification equity than others, but no combination of them completely addresses equity. Second, Siegle noted that whether a student gets into a gifted program can sometimes depend on a teacher’s identification and there is variability in teacher ratings that is not accounted for by student achievement or cognitive scores.
Andrew Feinstein, the chair of the task force, questioned whether these outcomes are a result of certain districts having scarce resources and prioritizing spending other than gifted and talented programs.
Siegle noted that is often the case and is an issue related to requirements that states identify and serve gifted student populations. According to Siegle, states may not identify those populations in order to avoid providing services to them.
Siegle also identified three policies he considered crucial to developing talent in gifted students. The first of these involved whole grade and subject specific acceleration of gifted students. Whole grade acceleration would mean students are moved up a grade level based on their cognitive scores and math and reading achievement scores. Subject specific acceleration would see students receive advanced instruction in specific subjects. Siegle noted this is a low-cost strategy because it does not require additional resources.
Siegle also identified increased depth and complexity of instruction in classrooms, addressing subjects like creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving, and opportunities for authentic learning based on student interest and with real world connections as key policies.
Siegle and Gubbins will develop specific policy recommendations for the task force to consider as part of its final report, due to the legislature no later than January 1, 2024.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
