Many districts view their Gifted and Talented programs as a bragging point, much like a shiny, expensive piece of jewelry or a fine garment. Yes, schools can honestly say they have special services for high academic performers, but too often, these titles belay a gap between real gifted education and the design of the actual services in practice.

Better Principal Preparation

At the ground level of policy making, and more importantly, policy enforcement, is the building principal. He or she not only plays an important role structuring how a gifted program is integrated into the core classes, especially in elementary and middle schools, but serves as the authority for implementing best practices in this specialized field. Unfortunately, many states require no more than a cursory exposure to gifted education as a prerequisite for certification as an administrator, and it is through this gap that myths, not research, can shape a bad G/T program.

It can be said that a majority of those seeking principal credentials do so while pursuing an online master degree or some blended program with a heavy online component. What may be missing, but easily remedied, is the chance for these degree programs to heavily expose graduate students to the broad consensus of research findings that refute the many myths about this field of education. Getting practicing teachers to escape the local bonds of misinformation is a big first step for immersing would-be principals in the time-tested best practices for gifted-ed.

Valid Identification

Probably no utterance by senior administrators is more cringe-worthy to a trained gifted intervention specialist than the words, “all students are gifted in some area.” Words have true meanings and the appropriate application of the word “gifted” in education is at complete odds with the idea that everyone is somehow gifted at something. This doesn’t mean that all students don’t have pronounced strengths, but it does mean that “gifted” refers to a measurable, nationally normed ability as identified by one or more valid instruments.

If your district doesn’t have an identification process that uses such instruments to identify 95th percentile – nationwide – of students in specific domains, make changing this bad practice a top priority. It may result in some upset families who’ve prided themselves for always having their children in the TAG Program, but as an administrator, if you can’t stand up for a valid selection process, then why are you in that position?

Respect the Trained

Not only are gifted education courses scarce for administrators, but they tend to be equally lacking in initial teacher preparation curriculum. In mixed-ability classrooms, the majority case for most districts, collaboration and cooperation are critical for the successful, consistent delivery of gifted instruction. Unfortunately, in such cases, best practices tend to fall victim to the lowest common denominator of gifted research among teachers. Arguably the single most important role a building principal can play is to set the gifted practices bar high for all teachers, regardless of their devotion to myths they “know” about gifted students.

Finally, as a principal, or a teacher or aspiring educator, advocate for curriculum and staff development that fosters strong, research-based training of best gifted practices. Talk to the education departments at those colleges and universities within your district’s influence. Avail yourself to online learning about this discipline, and then, when you become that building principal, be that true educational leader that accepts nothing less than valid identification and delivery models for your own school’s program.

About the Author: Lindsey Paho is a professional writer and former teacher of gifted students. She writes frequently about technology in education and advocates for gifted education programs.