Gifted Education Practices in New York and California - Research Paper Example

Gifted Education in New York and California College: Gifted Education in New York and California The way a identifies and promotes Gifted Students is an important development aspect of the government. Gifted or Talented students are those learners who show exceeding learning abilities that above the average student. While some countries have come up with strategies to identify such students and to provide them with the opportunity to develop their gifts, it is clear that some states have failed promote Gifted education within the learning environment. Poor procedures of Gift and Talent identification result to lose of special talents that can be tapped for the development of the country. There is enough evidence that many states such as New York have failed their Gifted students by abandoning their special needs. On the other hand, other countries States such as California have devised strategies to provide gifted education although they still have underexploited the talents. On this ground, there is need for States to take more consideration of Gifted students, work along with their parents and support their special needs. A comparison of how New York and California handles Gifted Education will illuminate on the various strengths and weakness of Gifted education programs. The definition of Gifted students has always been a subject of controversy. Evidently, different States provide different definition for Gifted students. The New York State defines Gifted Pupils as those who show evidence of high performance capabilities and exception potential in area such as general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude and outstanding ability in visual and performing arts. They also recognize that such pupils need special programs that are designed different from those of regular students. On the other hand, California defines Gifted students who show exceeding intellectual, creative, specific academic, leadership, high achievement, visual arts talent abilities. Those who show such abilities are enrolled in Gifted and Talented Education (GATE). Unlike New York, California the State Board of Education approves the criterion for selection of Gifted Students within different districts (Walcott, 2014). Notably, different states provide different definition of Gifted Students, which influences the way they handle these students. There is a concession that talented students are students with exceedingly high performance and who show evidence of specialization in different areas. Secondly, such students have special needs that need to be tendered if such talents are to mature and become rewarding for their bearers. California is one of States that have a well-developed education program for Gifted and Talented students. The GATE program enrolls students from grade three to grade twelve as soon as such talents are identified within each district. The purpose of the program is to provide high end quality education, acceleration and special curriculums for students with potentials for high performance. The districts in California identify special gifts at the elementary level and put them in different classes depending on the gifts that they possess. Such students are required to actively participate in academic completion such as decathlons, honor society robotics and Math, Engineering and Science programs. However, the state does not provide special learning for Special students at the high school level. Differentiated learning within GATE programs has two main purposes (Fremont, 2015). First, the program seeks to promote students that show exceeding performance within the ordinary learning environment. Secondly, the program promotes high level specialization of students as an opportunity to make them the best within the area of expertise. For instance, those who have special arithmetic talents are engaged in Math, Engineering and Science (MESA) programs to help them develop these talents. Therefore, California has paid attention to provision of special needs for their Gifted and Talented pupils through the GATE program. Gifted and Talented (G&T) programs in New York provide special needs for students with special abilities in all areas. The state has city wide and district G&T programs that admit different types of students. The city wide programs are meant for students who attain above the 97% percentile mark and accept students from all over New York. On the other hand, the district G&T programs admit students from within the district who have attained between 90 and 97 percentile mark. The G&T education programs provide special curriculum designs that promote accelerated learning and rigorous training for the students. Students who enter the program must undergo both verbal and non-verbal tests to ensure that there is fairness in the selection process. However, New York has come under sharp criticism for its inability to accommodate all students with Gifts or talents within their programs (Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams & Philippaerts, 2008). Budget limitations have prevented these special students to acquire a position within these programs. As result, many students have been denied entry into these programs. Evidently, there has been a big challenge for many students who intend to enter into these programs but cannot even after passing the program test. Denying such students the opportunity to exploit their Talents is evidence of neglection and failure of commitment in appraising Gifts and Talents in New York. The identification of Gifted and Talented students is crucial for the development of special student needs within the learning environment. While many states have different programs to cater for the needs of gifted students, it is clear that the identification process is flawed. The different definition of Gifted students underpins the inefficiency in the identification of Gifted and Talented Students (Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams & Philippaerts, 2008). In California, Gifted and Talented pupils are students that show high performance in both academic and non-academic areas. Therefore, the program differentiates between talents and Gifts and seeks to promote them differently. Contrary, New York City is more concerned with academic performance as shown in the measurement of Giftedness using the percentile range. Failure to identify talents within the learning environment results to ignorance of Gifted Students who have chances to do well in outside class activities. On this note, the New York identification process is discriminative and this explains why their programs have captured a small percentage of the population. In California, the GATE eligibility criteria comprises of different test to create equality in the identification process. The California Standard Test and Naglieri Non-Verbal Ability Test are used to test the students’ abilities. Students must score above four points to automatically qualify for the programs (Fremont, 2015). Those who fail such test are subjected to a combination of tests in which they have to score above the minimum expectations. The use of these procedures ensures that the identification process is fair and every learner has the opportunity to enroll in the program. In New York State, the Non-Verbal Assessment (NNAT) and Verbal (OLSAT) procedures are used to identify different talents within the student population. The NNAT procedures require students to use their problem solving skills to answer various questions (Walcott, 2014). On the other hand, the verbal test requires students to use language to test their thinking, memory, and understanding skills. From this perspective, California and New York administer similar exams, verbal and non-verbal, while identifying talents within students. The use of standard test procedures is crucial in ensuring that all students have an equal opportunity to enter into Gifted Education programs. However, it is evident there is no absolute test that can provide the best results while identifying talents. For instance, students who have special Talents in acting may be denied a chance when they fail such tests. Therefore, failure to consider the inefficiency of such approaches in measuring certain aspects results to weaknesses in the identification process. Besides the tools that are used for assessing students, it is clear that identification process requires an integrative approach if special talents have to be identified. Before teachers consider students as eligible for tests, they have to unveil the potential of students. Notably, New York is keen to engage parents by printing notices when the assessments are ongoing. This creates awareness to ensure that all students with special gifts take the assessment and hence has a fair chance to be enrolled into the programs. On the other hand, California works along with parents to identify gifted children right from their homes. For instance, GATE has created a program for creating awareness on how parents can identify special gifts in the children (Worrell, 2000). This is one of the elements that New York has ignored while identifying talents within the community. While it is crucial to inform parents to submit their children for assessment, it is more crucial to help them on strategies to identify students who are eligible for assessment. Unlike in California where there is a big proportion of students enrolled in this program, New York has low population within their Gifted Education Programs because they have failed to engage parents in the identification on special students. On this ground, California’s ability to work with parents in identifying Gifted Students has given the system an upper hand compared to the New York identification process. From a critical point of view, both the New York and California system have ignore the economic gap while identifying Gifted Pupils eligible for their programs. Evidently, children from poor families have lower chances of exhibiting their gifts. Unlike well-up families that provide the right conditions for talent identification, poor families have fewer opportunities to help their children to manifest their special talents. For instance, a well-up family will have an advocate for their students or even someone to identify their children’s talent while this is unavailable for poor children. Therefore, a large proportion of students from rich families are taken into these programs while those from poor families are neglected. Minority groups such as Black Americans, Africans, and Latinos are rarely represented with the gifted education systems (Worrell, 2000). For instance, in California Hispanics and Latinos contribute to 1% of the Gifted student population, which is an under representation. In New York, about 20% of students who drop out of school are Gifted children from poor families. Therefore, failure to consider economic disparities while identifying such individuals is a weakness in both New York and California. The budget allocation towards identification of Gifts and Talents influences the efficiency of these systems. Evidently, California strength emanates from its ability to allocate enough finances to the system to ensure that there are enough amenities, resources, and capacity for the needs of such students. This explains why the California Gifted student population is growing each year and greater achievements are realized each year. There are fewer cases of lack of professionals due to presence of enough funds to train the teachers. On the hand, New York has consistently constrained their Gifted Education budget which has limited their potential to identify important gifts and talents within the community (Walcott, 2014). Resultantly, many students who are eligible for the program cannot be identified. Besides, those who apply for the tests may fail to be assessed when the programs are full or the process is halted. In other cases, those who pass the test are rejected on the ground that the systems are full and cannot accommodate more students. From this angle, the New York government has failed the Gifted Education system by reducing their budgetary allocation, which has resulted in wastage of untapped talents within the society. From a close observation, there is evidence that the identification of Gifted student is an issue that has become a challenge for many countries. Both New York and California programs face a big challenge in tapping available talent and providing avenue for its development. Therefore, there is need for the states to adopt a more comprehensive identification process to ensure that talent is not wasted. One important issue would be to address the economic gaps by creating equal opportunities for children from poor families. More resources should be allocated to poor families to give them an opportunity to manifest their talents. Besides, it is crucial for the systems to support an integrative process in talent identification. The parents and learning institutions should work hand in hand in identifying high performance potential among students, which will facilitate the identification process. The Gifted Education systems must inform the parents, who are unknowledgeable, on the need to provide opportunities for their children to develop their talents and Gifts. Working together will ensure that every gifted student is identified (Gagné, 2004). Lastly, it is crucial that the New York State increase its budgetary allocation for Gift identification to ensure that the systems are efficient enough to reach for all populations. The efficiency in identification process will ensure that such Gifted and Talented students contribute adequately to economic development across the world. In conclusion, Gifts and Talent identification has been faced a wide range of challenges in different countries. In New York State, there is evidence that discrimination is rampant and the constrained budgets make the situation work. While the California Gifted Education system has a stable budget allocation, there is evidence that the system has ignored economic disparities that has denied children from minority groups from participating in the systems. The definition of Gift and Talents in New York seem to ignore the non-academic aspects and hence lead to marginalization of such students. Therefore, there is need for the states to identify their weaknesses in the implementation of Gift and Talent programs and to find ways to promote the system. Through an integrative approach, the children, teachers, parents and the systems can come together to ensure effectiveness in Gift and Talent identification and hence help this population to realize their potential in economic development. References Fremont, (2015). Gifted and Talented Education. Retrieved from :< http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/Page/237#GATE> Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory 1. High ability studies, 15(2), 119-147. Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, A. M., & Philippaerts, R. M. (2008). Talent identification and development programmes in sport. Sports Medicine, 38(9), 703-714. Walcott, D., (2014). Gifted and Talented Programs. Ney York Department of Education. Retrieved from :< http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5111E7FE-6E32-41B5-ACAF-00397C48D03B/0/GTAssessmentFAQ.pdf > Worrell, F. C. (2000). Why Are There So Few African Americans In Gifted Education Programs? Surmounting All Odds: Education, Opportu, 423. Read More