Howard_Statement of Effective Programming and

Curriculum_PORTFOLIO
Defining giftedness for identification purposes is exceptionally difficult, as is
evident from everything we read and discussed in this course. Part of what
must drive that definition, as backward as it seems, is the programming and
curricular options each school district possesses: financially and
developmentally. Effective programming and curricula is relative and totally
contingent upon said resources. With that said, I will do my best to express
my ideas in terms of being realistically effective.
As mentioned in my statement of intelligence and giftedness, the tag has
to fit the options available to offer identified students in each district (which,
by the way, totally helps me understand why the label of gifted does not
transfer from district to district). School systems with greater resources are
naturally going to be able to expand their reach for gifted program options.
So, realistically identifying universally- effective program options for
gifted learners must encompass a basic level of support. Mainly, schools
must offer a manner of grouping students within each building, or methods
of clustering. While it would be ideal to have clusters based on more
specific individual strengths, such as a gifted art-cluster, a gifted math-based
cluster, and a gifted language-based cluster, I feel that the realistic answer
for effective programming is simply creating gifted clusters. This will allow
like-minded gifted learners to feed off of and support one another on their
academic quests.
Larger districts with more resources, such as our own, must look to expand
the identification process of gifted students by selecting new pockets of
giftedness, such as dance and art, to offer programming options, whether as
a full-time or part-time service. The academic benefits in fostering the gifts
of students in these areas are evident, so continuously looking to expand the
identification of new pockets must be considered. For example, our
districts effectiveness in programming would only increase if we extended
our gifted reach into Career and Technology identification, or athletic
identification, once program specifics can be taken from theory and into
practice.
Similarly, part of effective program options for gifted learners must involve
teacher training, which in turn will offer more effective curriculum
options. In order for gifted students to receive any effective curricular
options in practice, teachers must first be thoroughly trained to understand
not only how to get the best out of this population, but also why we have to
do things differently to achieve those gains and meet all student needs. This
is still a work in progress, even in progressive, resource-rich districts such as
our own. Gifted students must not only be allowed to explore higher levels

of thinking and application of general objectives, but must be actively

facilitated in doing so. If teachers fall under the old myth of gifted students
will be just fine on their own, we are neglecting their access to appropriate
curriculum according to their needs.
Understanding the necessity for extending higher-order thinking skills
connected to the general curriculum, as well as releasing responsibility for
student-centered learning, rather than teacher-centered instruction will take
a paradigm shift in the minds of most educators. Personalized learning is
paramount in linking gifted characteristics to curriculum and program
options. Hertberg-Davis and Callahan (2012) offer a comprehensive list of
criteria for effective gifted curricula, of which I strongly agree. In summary,
gifted students require the teacher to take on the role of facilitator in
student-centered exploring of a more in-depth study of the major ideas and
themes of the general curriculum. It also serves to mention that effective
curriculum and programming for gifted students may not be appropriate for
non-gifted students. This is a difficult pill to swallow for many teachers, and
not understanding why will serve as a regular roadblock for teachers AND
students.
Basic principles to which we should adhere in designing curriculum,
instruction, and programs for highly-able learners in our schools
must be developed collectively. Again, universal training of not only how to
deliver curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of all students, but also
training on why must be the first step. Allowing study of what makes this
population of students unique will go a long way in all parties participating in
creating curriculum that will meet their needs. Finding a balance point
between strategies that work across gifted groups and opportunity for
student individualization must be considered throughout curricular design.
Once established, the torch bearers of higher-level and applicable curriculum
and instruction become the teachers. With effective pre-assessing,
differentiated and compacted instruction, as well as facilitation of
individualized ownership in learning and a constant connection to the world
around us, teachers can deliver an appropriate and complete gifted program
and curriculum.

References
Hertberg-Davis, H.L. & Callahan, C.M. (2012). Defensible Curriculum for Gifted
Students- An Introduction. In C.M. Callahan and H.L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.),

Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives (Kindle

version). Retrieved from Amazon.com.