No child left behind: Gifted children and school counselors.

Marcia Gentry, Ph.D., isassociate professor ofeducational studies andassociate director of theGifted EducationResource Institute,Purdue University, WestLafayette, IN. E-mail:ingentry@purduc.eduThe author gratefullyacknowledges ChristineMcusfir her carefulreading of'this article.N® G AltC$BoCasA gifted-education researcher discusses the potentialeffects of'No Child Left Behind on gifted children andadolescents as well as implications for those who counselsuch children in public schools. With the primarypurpose ofstimulating thought, discussion, and action,she addresses the marginalization of gifted and otherat-risk children in the current educational climateand provides recommendations for school counselors./!fter working in education for 20 years as ateacher, coordinator, and professor, I attendedmy very first parent-teacher conference as a parent.My daughter attended kindergarten, and I waseager to learn about her performance in school. Herteacher had taught kindergarten for more than 20years and had a magical way of making her class of22 five-year-olds feel comfortable and happy. Whenit came time for our conference, I pulled the primary-sizedchair up to the primary-sized desk andsat across from the woman who was my daughter'sfirst teacher. She calmly explained that my daughterwas doing just fine in school, and then proceeded toreport how my daughter had performed, based onthe state standards identified for kindergarteners.She told me that my daughter could count to 10 andthat by the end of the year, according to the standards,she would be able to count to 100. I quietlyasked if she had ever asked my daughter to count to100 and was told, "No, that standard isn't expecteduntil spring." She went on to explain that I hadnothing to worry about because my daughter hadmet all the standards. In other words, the teacherwas communicating that she had done her job.Never mind that my daughter had impressive mathematicalskills prior to kindergarten. The teacher hadnot checked out her existing skills or knowledge.Her job was to address the standards as dictated bythe No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001).In fact, my daughter could count, add, subtract,and explain fractions and negative numbers amongother benchmarks that did not exist in the state standardsfor kindergarteners. She asked me one day,"Would it be a tragedy if a person spent an entire dayon the planet and didn't learn anything new?" I hadto agree. As a second grader she continues to askwhen she will be given some hard work. However, Iwonder how many more years she will still want hardwork.In my daughter's new school, all of the studentswho scored poorly on the state test were encouragedto enroll in a 6-week course that met every daybefore school prior to the fall testing. This courseconcentrated on preparing the students for the statetest. Her school is touted to be a high-quality, blueribbonschool, yet all curricular information senthome to parents emphasizes that everything done inschool relates to the overarching state standards andto what is tested on a vearly basis.In another school that I visited, the principal hada consultant work with her staff for 2 days on"Strategies for Increasing Your School's TestScores." This consultant explained to a group ofconcerned inner-city teachers that they need notworry about the students who scored in the bottomquartile or about the students who scored in the topquartile, because the students in the middle had thepower to improve the most. She encouraged theteachers to give these "middle" students the mostattention if they wanted to improve their scores. Ineffect, the district and administration used taxpayerdollars to give the teachers permission not only toleave behind the lowest- scoring children, but also toignore the highest-scoring students.These examples provide little hope for studentswho may need extended, accelerated, or enrichedcurricula, or for the teachers who might be willing toprovide such modifications for their students. NCLB(2001) is, in effect, creating a climate of controlledlearning and sending a message to administrators,teachers, students, and parents that the school's jobinvolves teaching to the standards-nothing moreand nothing less. When students meet the standards,the schools have met their obligation to "educate."I begin with these examples because, in the wakeof NCLB (2001), students across the country incountless districts and classrooms experience the10:1 OCTOBER 2006 I ASCA 73

same quiet marginalization of their prior knowledge,and consequently of their future potential, as thestandards have become the educational target. Infact, Johnson (2005) recently described a new law inTexas that rewards students who have shown proficiencyon the state test with 2 weeks off from school(during the school year) while teachers concentrateon preparing the other students for the test.In the following sections, I will address the effectsof NCLB (2001) on educational practice and thesubsequent marginalizing effect of these practices onthe education of gifted children. For each issueraised, I will recommend actions that school counselors,as leaders and advocates, can take to helpschool districts meet the needs of students alreadyidentified as gifted and, equally important, studentswho, with appropriate educational opportunities,might emerge as gifted. Because NCLB mandatestesting in major subject areas for students and usingtest results to determine if groups of students, teachers,and schools perform at proficient levels, schoolshave placed major emphases on testing, preparingfor the tests, and aligning curricula, programs,course offerings, and support services with the tests.These efforts may be detrimental to overall educationalprocesses, not only for high-performing students,but also for students from at-risk groups forwhom NCLB purports to deliver quality educationalopportunities (Gentry, in press). Most of theseidentified effects relate directly to the emphasis ontesting and accountability resulting from NCLB.EFFECT #1: FOCUS ON ONLY WHAT ISTESTEDA focus on only content tested leads to curricularreduction and an emphasis on test preparation, withtest performance itself seen as the educational outcome.This focus on content raises the question ofwhether the tests accurately and fairly measure whatthey purport to measure: student achievement.Curricular ReductionUnder NCLB (2001), districts must show adequateyearly progress on state assessments, which havebeen aligned with state standards. As a result, areasnot assessed by the high-stakes tests have been eliminatedby many districts-for example, electives,music, art, elementary science and social studies, foreignlanguage, gifted programs, and even elementaryrecess (Amrein & Berliner, 2002: Clarke et al.,2002; Kohn, 2000; Popham, 2001). All students,especially those from impoverished backgrounds,benefit from an enriched schooling experience.However, NCLB requirements push the focus awayfrom enrichment and toward preparing for requiredassessments. As curricular and programming optionsnarrow, and as schools define learning more andmore narrowly, fewer and fewer students fit theschools (Eisner, 2001; Moon, Callahan, &Tomlinson, 2003). Moon et al. found that studentsfrom impoverished backgrounds were unlikely to beexposed to challenging curricula and instructionalmethods and suggested that the focus on testingrestricts educational opportunities for those most inneed. Rather than reaching more students, educatorsreach fewer students under NCLB.What Can School Counselors Do?With enhancing student achievement and accomplishmentas a primary goal of school counseling(Educational Trust, n.d.), counselors can advocatefor educating the whole child and for offering a richvariety of educational experiences (including electivesat the secondary level, the arts, and elementarysubjects such as science and history, in addition toreading and math) to develop gifts and talents in adiverse body of students. School counselors can helpadministrators and teachers understand the need forrecess and exercise to promote cognition and learning(Hillman & Buck, 2004) and the need foradvanced programs for gifted students (U.S.Department of Education, 1993). For some children,electives, instruction differentiated to meettheir needs, or special programs may be their onlyavenue to feeling success and satisfaction in school.Time Spent Preparing for TestsWith high-stakes tests, educators spend more timepreparing for tests, with consequent detrimentaleffects on student learning, including decreasedgraduation rates, increased dropout rates, lowerscores on other nationally and internationally comparativetests of learning, and increased studentexpulsion and retention (Amrein & Berliner, 2002;Clarke et al., 2002; Moon et al., 2003; Pedulla et al.,2003). Preparing for tests is neither interesting normeaningful outside of the current school climate, yettoo many children and educators spend countlesseducational hours doing just that. In fact, in stateswith high-stakes graduation exams, overall academicachievement, as measured by ACT, SAT, andAdvanced Placement scores, declined (Amrein &Berliner). Amrein and Berliner attributed thesedeclines to too much time spent teaching to thestate-required test and too little time on more substantivelearning. Such declines make entrance totop colleges and universities less likely, as universitiesdo not consider how well students perform on nonstandardizedstate assessments. Gallagher (2004)pointed out that schools need gifted students' hightest scores to bolster the overall averages, and, withcurrent emphasis on inclusion, if average and belowaveragestudents are doing test-taking exercises,74 A5CA I PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

then so are the gifted students. Time spent preparingfor tests takes time away from more meaningful,contextual learning.What Can School Counselors Do?School counselors can advocate against special "testpreparationworkshops" in favor of enriched learningexperiences that engage students and help themgenerate excitement about coming to school.Students' greater investment in school likely willtranslate into better attendance, greater ability tofocus, and enhanced learning, all likely to ultimatelyaffect test scores. By considering their charge ofdelivering learning opportunities that address academic,career, and personal and social development,school counselors can be instrumental in ensuringthat these important issues are not eclipsed by preparationfor assessments. They can advocate for thematic,interdisciplinary teaching rather than instructionof isolated skills. They can track performance onnational comparative measures such as collegeentrance exams and Advanced Placement exams andraise questions if these scores begin to decline. Theycan intervene with students who choose to dropout, learn what aspects of school did not benefitthem, and advocate for changes to better meet theirneeds. As an advocate for quality instruction, schoolcounselors can help their teacher colleagues have thecourage to teach important content in a manner thatengages and reaches students.Test Results Become the Target of EducationBy focusing on what is tested, educators have a cleartarget. However, if the target becomes the only end,then for students who already know the content orwho learn it rapidly, school becomes a series ofunchallenging exercises. For them and for other studentsas well, school becomes an uninspiring testpreparationmill. Sadly, this narrow means-to-endorientation leaves little room for what Eisner (2001)called "the development of intellectual dispositions• . . whe,re risk taking, exploration, uncertainty andspeculation arc what it's about . . . curiosity andinterest in engaging and challenging ideas" (p. 369).Yet under NCLB (2001), schools across the countryhave placed test scores as their indicator of qualityand have focused their business of schooling on thetest-score target.High test scores are not necessarily indicative ofquality schools (Popham, 2001) and are correlatedwith socioeconomic status and other variables overwhich schools have little control (Barton, 2003;Kohn, 2001). In fact, quality schools reflect muchmore than high test scores. A recent national studyfor the National Center on Educational Statisticsidentified 13 quality-school indicators from recentresearch related to student learning, including theskills, assignments, and experiences of teachers; classsize; use of technology; curriculum content andinstructional pedagogy; and school leadership goalsand learning environment-and none of the indicatorsincluded test scores (Mayer, Mullens, & Moore,2000).What Can School Counselors Do?Working with staff and students to assess school climateand affective variables could help to inform theschool about factors that contribute to qualityschool experiences for students. The "right" environmentis one that is conducive to learning, and ifthe sole focus of the assessment is a test, which by itsvery nature fails to account for the environment,then it follows that both areas of excellence andareas needing improvement may be overlooked.School counselors might encourage others to reportareas of achievement that reach beyond the testscores. For example, in what projects are studentsand teachers engaged? Are there opportunities forservice learning, mentorships, and apprenticeships,and are these opportunities integrated into academicplanning with individual students? What activitiesare students involved in to develop leadership, creativity,and problem solving, and what are the effectsof these activities on student engagement, learning,and school satisfaction?Tests of Questionable ValidityMany of the tests in use by states to measure adequateyearly progress under NCLB (2001) yieldscores of dubious validity (Popham, 2001; Smith &Fey, 2000), which correlate with socioeconomic statusand shallow thinking (Kohn, 2000). Such scoresmay simply predict other test scores while having littleto do with measuring actual student achievement(Popham). When the stakes are high, according toNichols and Berliner (2005), the meaning of thescores becomes questionable at best and uninterpretableat worst. These issues illuminate the dangerof placing too much emphasis on limited, highstakesmeasures of "achievement." Such emphasiscan serve to undermine quality schooling (Popham),leaving gifted and other students locked into a systemthat cares more about test scores than actualstudent learning.What Can School Counselors Do?Because school counselors may be involved in theselection and reporting, and often in the interpretation,of cognitive, aptitude, and achievement tests,they might want to determine and share what validityand reliability evidence exists for the NCLB(2001) measures. In some instances, states use criterionassessments that have had little or no psychometricwork on their validity and reliability. SchoolNo Child LeftBehind is, in effect,creating a climateof controlledlearning andsending a messagethat the school's jobinvolves teaching tothe standardsnothingmore andnothing less.10:1 OCTOBER 2006 I ASCA 75

unfair comparisons of unequal groups as well asmask individual student differences. The focus onmeasurable standards and proficiencies for all studentshas led to the erosion of challenge for giftedstudents.Same Standards for AllInherent in NCLB (2001) is the assumption thatmore students can perform at higher levels, and thisis certainly true. In practice, however, this assumptionhas been interpreted to mean that all studentswill become proficient using the same grade-levelstandards, whether they are ready or whether theyalready know it. This one-size expectation fails toaccount for individual differences on variables linkedto performance over which schools exert little control,such as socioeconomic status, environmentalexperiences, aptitude, school readiness, and homeenvironment (Barton, 2003; Kohn, 2000; Ohanian,1999; Popham, 2001).Further, it has been well documented that studentsfrom poverty suffer from "summer loss" inachievement, whereas their middle-class counterpartsgain during the summer months (Bracey,2002; Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2000).Children vary in their learning rates, their aptitudes,their backgrounds, and their experiences. To expectsameness defies the ability of educators to nurturechildren as unique individuals. Some students needmore and others need less (Vygotsky, 1962), and allneed to believe that they can do what they are beingasked to do (Bandura, 1997). Responsiveness toindividual differences requires measures that alloweducators to see students as individuals.With one-size-fits-all standards, and under theauspices of NCLB (2001), no one is being asked toshow growth of individual students. Instead, educatorsare being asked to show group comparisons and"adequate yearly progress" for various groups ofchildren. With this approach, individual studentsbecome lost, and the environment created is notconducive to enhancing the achievement of giftedstudents or the achievement of students who havepotential for high academic achievement in specificcontent areas. NCLB has created an environment inwhich school administrators have no incentive toconcentrate on educating gifted children or developingtalents of individual children. It will take yearsbefore we know the actual effects of this legislation,but early studies and observations are not encouraging(e.g., Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Moon et al.,2003; Nichols & Berliner, 2005).What Can School Counselors Do?The most important role that a school counselormight play is as an advocate for individual studentlearninggains. Educators can and should be heldresponsible for ascertaining where individual studentsbegin and how much progress they make duringtheir school experience. The use of gain scoresfor individual students can do much to alleviate theinclination to compare only group scores. Accordingto ASCA (2005), appropriate tasks for a schoolcounselor are interpreting student records as well asinterpreting cognitive, aptitude, and achievementtests. School counselors could actually begin a trendthat keeps the focus on individual students' gains,rather than on group-to-group comparative scores.Changing testing from fall to spring, or testing inthe fall and again in the spring, and using a measurewithout a ceiling would help to facilitate understandingof individual gains.Lack of ChallengeNeihart (2002) discussed the importance of appropriatechallenge for children. Challenge is difficult toexperience in a system that promotes grade-levelstandards and group assessment of these standards.According to Neihart, appropriate challenge inschool can alleviate many other social and emotionalconcerns for gifted children. Without challenge,gifted children do not learn to struggle, to persevere,to work hard, and to attribute their success tohard work, among other important lessons thatcome with meeting a challenge. NCLB (2001) failsto encourage educators to provide appropriate levelsof challenge for these students. Such a system placesgifted students at serious risk of underachievement,in terms of realizing their potential. The societalimplications of undereducating and underdevelopingtalented youth in our educational system aresobering. It will be these youth who will solve, or failto solve, important problems in the future(Davidson, Davidson, & Vanderkam, 2004). A society'svalue and ability to contribute to globalhumanity rest with its youth and with its ability toprepare its youth for productive citizenry.What Can School Counselors Do?School counselors might consider interventions forstudents who experience boredom due to unchallengingcurricular opportunities. For example, aschool counselor might assist in the implementationof preassessment and the development of otheroptions for students who already know or who canlearn the curriculum in content areas quickly. Is itpossible for students to test out of a class in whichthey already know the content, or is seat timerequired for credit? A school counselor could promotedialogue about such an important concern andinfluence policy. School counselors also be mightinstrumental in encouraging their teaching colleaguesto consider the importance of challenge fortheir students by providing information concerning78 ASCA I PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

the social and emotional benefits of experiencingappropriate levels of challenge in school. Finally,concerning challenge, school counselors can helpindividual students and small groups of students tounderstand the need to embrace challenge anddevelop strategies for self-advocacy as they seekappropriate challenges in school.EFFECT #4: CHEATING AND THEMESSAGE TO STUDENTSMany instances of cheating by educators in responseto high-stakes testing have been noted in the media.Popham (2001, p. 22) called this "test-pressuredcheating," and Nichols and Berliner (2005) notedthat higher stakes mean that the meaning of thescores becomes increasingly questionable. Countlessaccounts of cheating have been reported, probablythe most egregious surrounding the scandals inTexas (CBS News, 2004; Dobbs, 2003; Haney,2000; Schemo, 2003), but all reflect the intensepressure put on educators, and thus on students, toproduce results on NCLB tests. Furthermore, in themany schools where blatant cheating does not exist,more subtle forms of corrupt test preparation canexist (Clarke et al., 2002; Nichols & Berliner, 2005).Troubling is the message that cheating sends to thestudents: that the end justifies the means. Whenadults cheat or engage students in inappropriate testpreparation exercises to create a testing advantage,they suggest to their students that high scores areworth compromising values. That message reflects alack of integrity in the very people who shouldmodel integrity, honesty, and ethics.Like their teachers and administrators, studentsface increasing pressure to increase performance onthe tests. The risk exists that children will judge thattheir worth is based on their test scores. In addition,as educators emphasize the importance of the testing,student anxiety increases (Jones et al., 1999).For a student who does not perform well on testsand who is placed into remedial or test preparationclasses, self-image can become a problem, efficacycan wane, and achievement can decrease. Testsbecome more important than learning when learningis reduced to a series of exercises in which studentslearn content and then select the rightanswers on an accountability assessment-regardlessof probable public perceptions, the "learning"can be reduced to test scores. The message becomes"You are what you score," a sad message for thestudent who does not score well. There are inherentdangers when, due to the pressure from NCLB(2001), educators become preoccupied withpreparing students for the test rather than educatingthem for productive lives.Gifted children often are more attuned to complexissues related to justice and fairness than theirage peers are (Neihart, 2002) and thus may find itdifficult to reconcile a teacher's "helping" them witha test in the case of corrupt test-preparation practices.They may more readily pay attention to andstruggle with a news story concerning educatorswho cheat in the enterprise of state testing. Theyalso may feel more responsibility to score well andexperience more disappointment and guilt whenthey do not score well. This may be especially trueof those students who have learning disabilities,which coexist with intellectual giftedness. Whenthey then face less challenge and more rote preparation,underachievement may result (Patrick et al.,2006).What Can School Counselors Do?As school counselors work with teachers on guidancecurriculum lessons or advisor-advisee programs(ASCA, 2005) and with students on personal andsocial issues, they can address integrity and ethicsand can help students focus more on learning thanon test results. School counselors can help othersunderstand how high-stakes messages to studentsand emphasis on tests can be detrimental to students'sense of learning, progress, and efficacy(Eisner, 2001). School counselors can take the leadin helping others understand individual gain scores.Finally, they can assist students and colleagues withputting high-stakes accountability concerns into perspectiveby focusing on what education can do tohelp students be and become productive citizens inour democracy.SUMMARYThese are troubled times in education, and evenmore troubled times in gifted education, with thenarrow focus brought to education by NCLB(2001). Gifted children exist in all of our schools, asalso do students of untapped and unrecognizedpotential. Yet, under NCLB, despite its intention to"leave no child behind," more and more childrenare marginalized in a bare-bones educational system.Services to gifted children have been cut, and funds,in contrast, have been allocated to remediate students.Students drop out at alarming rates in a systemthat focuses not on their possibilities but ontheir weaknesses. When poorly performing studentsleave schools, administrators, under great pressureto report improved test scores, may actually berelieved because the absence of low-performing studentshelps the bottom-line average test score.Then, with fear of being labeled failing, educatorsunderreport or de-emphasize these dropouts, andmore and more children for whom the legislationwas intended are not only left behind, but areStudents' greaterinvestment inschool likely willtranslate intobetter attendance,greater ability tofocus, and enhancedlearning, all likelyto ultimately affecttest scores.10:1 OCTOBER 2006 I ASCA 79

The most importantrole that a schoolcounselor mightplay is as anadvocate forindividual studentlearninggains.pushed out of the system, which no longer has anythingleft to offer them.The first step to solving a problem is recognizingthe problem. The vignettes with which I began thisarticle are real examples of the effects of NCLB(2001). There are many more such examples incountless schools across the country as educatorsstruggle to find meaningful focus in the chaos of thelargest federal education initiative ever. Interventionfor individual students and quality education foridentified gifted, at-risk, and underidentified giftedand at-risk students begins with one educator andone child at a time. It seems that school counselorsare in a unique position not only to work with children,but also to bring to the table conversationsconcerning some of the issues raised herein. IReferencesAmerican School Counselor Association. (2005). TheASCAnational model: A framework for school counseling programs(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). An analysis of some unintendedand negative consequences of high-stakes testing.Tempe: Arizona State University, Educational PolicyStudies Laboratory. (EPSL No. 0211-125-EPRU)Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: W.H. Freeman.Barton, P. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York:Ballantine.Borders, D. L., & Drury, S. M. (1992). Comprehensive schoolcounseling programs: A review for policymakers andpractitioners. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70,487-498.Bracey, G. (2002, January 16). What they did on vacation: It'snot the schools that are failing. The Washington Post, p.A19.CBS News. (2004, January 7). The Texas miracle. RetrievedJanuary 23, 2004, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/6011/printable591676.shtmlClarke, M., Shore, A., Rhoades, K., Abrams, L., Maio, J., & Li, J.(2002). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programson teaching and learning: Findings from interviewswith educators in low-, medium-, and high-stakes states.Boston: Boston College, National Board on EducationalTesting and Public Policy.Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, U. M. (2004).A nationdeceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students.Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. BlankInternational Center for Gifted Education and TalentDevelopment.Davidson, J., Davidson, B., & Vanderkam, L. (2004). Geniusdenied: How to stop wasting our brightest young minds.Riverside, NJ: Simon & Schuster.Dobbs, M. (2003, November 8). Education "miracle" has a mathproblem. The Washington Post, p. Al.Educational Trust. (n.d.). Transforming school counseling.Retrieved January 13,2006, from http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Transforming+School+Counseling/mainEisner, E. (2001).What does it mean to say a school is doingwell? Phi Delta Kappan, 82,367-372.Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. EducationalLeadership, 61(3), 6-10.Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (2000). Summerlearning and home environment. In R. D. Kahlenberg(Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as anengine for social mobility (pp. 9-30). New York: CenturyFoundation Press.Gallagher, J.J. (2004). No Child Left Behind and gifted education.Roeper Review, 26,121-123.Gentry, M. (in press). No Child Left Behind: Neglecting excellence.Roeper Review.Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). My class activities: Technicalmanual. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Golden, D. (2004, December 29). Initiative to leave no childbehind leaves out gifted. The Wall Street Journal, p. Al.Haney, W. (2000).The myth of the Texas miracle in education.Education Analysis Policy Archives, 8(41). RetrievedNovember 10, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41Hillman, C., & Buck, S. (2004, October). Physical fitness and cognitivefunction in healthy preadolescent children. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Society forPsychophysiological Research, Santa Fe, NM.Hunt, J. B., & Carroll, T. G. (2003). No dream denied:A pledge toAmerica's children. Washington, DC: National Commissionon Teaching and America's Future.Johnson, S. (2005). Furlough from school? Gifted Child Today,28, 5.Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., &Davis, M. (1 999).The impact of high-stakes testing onteachers and students in North Carolina. Phi DeltaKappan, 81, 109-203.Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raisingthe scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the tests: A practical guide to rescuingour schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 349-357.Mayer, D. R, Mullens, J. E., & Moore, M.T. (2000). Monitoringschool quality:An indicators report. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics.MoonT. R., Callahan, C. M., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Effects ofstate testing programs on elementary schools with highconcentrations of student poverty-good news or badnews? Current Issues in Education, 6(8). RetrievedNovember 10, 2005, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number8/National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). State of thestates 2004-2005. Washington, DC: Author.Neihart, M. (2002). Risk and resilience in gifted children: A conceptualframework. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M.Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotionaldevelopment of gifted children (pp. 113-122). Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.Neill, M. (2003). Leaving children behind: How No Child LeftBehind will fail our children. Phi Delta Kappan, 85,225-228.Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). The inevitable corruption ofindicators and educators through high-stakes testing.Tempe: Arizona State University, Educational PolicyStudies Laboratory. (EPSL No. 0503-101 -EPRU)No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.Retrieved January 13,2006, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/Ohanian, S. (1999). One size fits few: The folly of educationalstandards. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.80 ASCA I PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

Patrick, H., Gentry, M., & Owen, S.V. (2006). Motivation and giftedadolescents. In F. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbookof secondary gifted education (pp. 165-195). Waco,TX: Prufrock Press.Pedulla, J., Abrams, L., Madaus, G., Russell, M., Ramon, M., &Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testingprograms on teaching and learning: Findings from anational survey of teachers. Boston: Boston College,National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing:An educator's callto action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development. MansfieldCenter, CT: Creative Learning Press.Schemo, D.J. (2003, July 26). Education secretary defendsschool system he once led. The New York Times. RetrievedJanuary 23,2004, from http://www.pipeline.com/-rgibson/paigeonhouston.htmlSmith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000).Validity and accountability in highstakestesting.Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 334-344.Tomlinson, C. A. (2002, November 6). Proficiency is not enough.Education Week, 22, 36-68.U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: Thecase for developing America's talent. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement.Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Whiston, S., & Sexton,T. (1998). A review of school counselingoutcome research: Implications for practice.Journal ofCounseling and Development, 76, 412-426.Earn CEUs for reading this article.Visit www.schoolcounselor.org, andclick on Professional School Counselingto learn how.10:1 OCTOBER 2006 I ASCA 81

COPYRIGHT INFORMATIONTITLE: No Child Left Behind: Gifted Children and SchoolCounselorsSOURCE: Professional School Counseling 10 no1 O 2006PAGE(S): 73-81WN: 0627405985014The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.