A gifted-education researcher discusses the potential effects of No Child Left
Behind on gifted children and adolescents as well as implications for those who
counsel such children in public schools. With the primary purpose of stimulating
thought, discussion, and action, she addresses the marginalization of gifted and
other at-risk children in the current educational climate and provides
recommendations for school counselors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American School Counselor
Association. (2005). The ASCA national model:
A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA:
Author.
2.
AmreinA.L., &
BerlinerD.C. (2002). An
analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes
testing.Tempe: Arizona State University,
Educational Policy Studies Laboratory. (EPSL No.
0211-125-EPRU)
BartonP. (2003). Parsing
the achievement gap.Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
5.
BloomB. (1985). Developing
talent in young people.New York:
Ballantine.
6.
BordersD. L., &
DruryS. M. (1992).
Comprehensive school counseling programs: A review for
policymakers and practitioners. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 70,
487–498.
7.
BraceyG. (2002, January 16). What
they did on vacation: It's not the schools that are failing. The
Washington Post, p. A19.
ClarkeM.ShoreA.RhoadesK.AbramsL.MaioJ., & LiJ. (2002). Perceived
effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning:
Findings from interviews with educators in low-, medium-, and high-stakes
states.Boston: Boston College, National
Board on Educational Testing and Public
Policy.
10.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G., &
GrossU. M. (2004). A
nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest
students.Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin &
Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent
Development.
11.
DavidsonJ.DavidsonB., &
VanderkamL. (2004). Genius
denied: How to stop wasting our brightest young minds.Riverside, NJ: Simon &
Schuster.
12.
DobbsM. (2003, November 8).
Education “miracle” has a math problem.
The Washington Post, p. A1.
EisnerE. (2001).
What does it mean to say a school is doing
well?Phi Delta Kappan, 82,
367–372.
15.
ElmoreR. F. (2003).
A plea for strong practice.
Educational Leadership,
61(3),
6–10.
16.
EntwisleD. R.AlexanderK. L., &
OlsonL. S. (2000). Summer learning
and home environment. In KahlenbergR. D. (Ed.), A notion at risk:
Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility (pp.
9–30). New
York: Century Foundation
Press.
17.
GallagherJ. J. (2004).
No Child Left Behind and gifted education.
Roeper Review, 26,
121–123.
18.
GentryM. (in press). No Child
Left Behind: Neglecting excellence. Roeper
Review.
19.
GentryM., & GableR. K. (2001). My
class activities: Technical manual.Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
20.
GoldenD. (2004, December 29).
Initiative to leave no child behind leaves out
gifted. The Wall Street Journal, p.
A1.
21.
HaneyW. (2000). The
myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education
Analysis Policy Archives, 8(41).
Retrieved November10, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41
22.
HillmanC., & BuckS. (2004, October).
Physical fitness and cognitive function in healthy preadolescent
children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Psychophysiological Research, Santa Fe, NM.
23.
HuntJ. B., &
CarrollT. G. (2003).
No dream denied: A pledge to America's
children. Washington, DC:
National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future.
24.
JohnsonS. (2005).
Furlough from school?Gifted Child Today, 28,
5.
25.
JonesM. G.JonesB. D.HardinB.ChapmanL.YarbroughT., & DavisM. (1999). The
impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North
Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan,
81, 109–203.
26.
KohnA. (2000). The case
against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the
schools.Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
27.
KohnA. (2001).
Fighting the tests: A practical guide to rescuing our
schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
82, 349–357.
28.
MayerD. P.MullensJ. E., &
MooreM. T. (2000).
Monitoring school quality: An indicators report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
29.
MoonT. R.CallahanC. M., &
TomlinsonC. A. (2003).
Effects of state testing programs on elementary schools with
high concentrations of student poverty—good news or bad
news?Current Issues in Education,
6(8). Retrieved November 10, 2005, from
http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number8/
30.
National Association for Gifted
Children. (2005). State of the states
2004–2005. Washington, DC:
Author.
31.
NeihartM. (2002).
Risk and resilience in gifted children: A conceptual
framework. In NeihartM., ReisS.M., RobinsonN.M., & MoonS. M. (Eds.), The social and
emotional development of gifted children (pp.
113–122). Waco,
TX: Prufrock
Press.
32.
NeillM. (2003).
Leaving children behind: How No Child Left Behind will fail
our children. Phi Delta Kappan,
85, 225–228.
33.
NicholsS. L., &
BerlinerD. C. (2005). The
inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes
testing.Tempe: Arizona State University,
Educational Policy Studies Laboratory. (EPSL No.
0503-101-EPRU)
OhanianS. (1999). One size
fits few: The folly of educational standards.Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
36.
PatrickH.GentryM., & OwenS. V. (2006). Motivation and
gifted adolescents. In DixonF. & MoonS. M. (Eds.), The handbook of
secondary gifted education (pp.
165–195). Waco,
TX: Prufrock
Press.
37.
PedullaJ.AbramsL.MadausG.RussellM.RamonM., & MiaoJ. (2003). Perceived
effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning:
Findings from a national survey of teachers.Boston: Boston College, National
Board on Educational Testing and Public
Policy.
38.
PophamW. J. (2001). The
truth about testing: An educator's call to action.Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
39.
RenzulliJ. S. (1994). Schools
for talent development.Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
SmithM. L., & FeyP. (2000).
Validity and accountability in high-stakes
testing. Journal of Teacher Education,
51, 334–344.
42.
TomlinsonC. A. (2002, November 6).
Proficiency is not enough. Education
Week, 22,
36–68.
43.
U.S. Department of
Education. (1993). National excellence: The
case for developing America's talent.Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
44.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought
and language.Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
45.
WhistonS., & SextonT. (1998). A
review of school counseling outcome research: Implications for
practice. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 76,
412–426.
