No child left behind: Gifted children and school counselors.

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