Welcome Guest
 

Abstract

Reference
X

  • Delcourt, M. B., & Evans, K. (1994). Qualitative extensions of the learning outcomes study. Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 019).
  • Dettmer, P. (1991). Gifted program advocacy: Overhauling bandwagons to build support. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 165–171.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., Haeger, W. W., & Pellegrino, S. (1989). A model training program in gifted education for school administrators. Roeper Review, 11, 209–214.
  • Landrum, M. S., & Callahan, C. M. (2001, Winter/Spring). Staff development. Professional Speaking, 3–6.
  • Robinson, A., & Moon, S. (2003a). A national study of local and state advocacy in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 8–25.
  • Robinson, A., & Moon, S. (2003b). Advocating for talented youth: Lessons learned from the national study of local and state advocacy in gifted education. Parenting for High Potential, 8–13.
  • VanTassel-Baska. (1995). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18, 98–102.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
  • Volume 26
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Fall 2003



Collaborating and Advocating With Administrators: The Arkansas Gifted Education Administrators’ Story

Ann Robinson

Imagine this scene. During a stormy February, more than 800 gifted educators met in Hot Springs, AR, at the annual conference of the state gifted association. The attendees were primarily gifted and talented facilitators and classroom teachers, with a sprinkling of parents. Suddenly, a call came in from Little Rock, the state capitol. That morning, a legislator introduced a bill into a committee to change the state definition of giftedness and to prescribe the kinds of programming options possible to districts. The implications of the proposed legislation were significant. School programs, which had been vetted previously by the courts in a desegregation case, were likely to require modification, thus opening the door for years of additional court hearings. Massive changes in the state’s program approval standards would be necessary—particularly at risk were the inclusive identification standards. There was a possibility that the curriculum would be prescribed and evaluated by grade-level achievement tests.



ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.