literature review

12 sources- peer review articles 9-10 pages(cybersec-financial industry)
attached example

Cyber SecurityLiterature Review

Exerptfrom Gifted Learners in the Education Accountability Era by DeAnna R. Miller

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This study sought to describe both the amount of and type of accommodated instruction that gifted students receive in their classrooms in a four-school district consortium in rural Kentucky. As a descriptive qualitative case study, this study sought to describe the education of gifted students in the educational Accountability Era based on the perspective of the teachers drawing from these teachers’ lived teaching experiences in meeting the needs of gifted learners in their classrooms. In this four-school district consortium, if the evidence provided by this study is not deemed acceptable by the teachers and administrators in meeting the needs of gifted learners, then this study served as a platform to initiate change in the gifted education opportunities in regular, mixed ability classrooms. The researcher aimed to provide a precise description of gifted learners’ education in order for teachers and administrators to have criteria on which to base changes in their gifted education program. This study describes the educational accommodations being provided to gifted learners from the perceptions of teachers.

Documentation

A review of literature was completed in order to determine what is currently known about the relationship between the NCLB, the Waiver, gifted education and teacher perceptions. The majority of resources for the review of the literature were found using ProQuest, Ebsco Host, Gale Academic OneFile, Northcentral University Library and Google Scholar research databases. Gifted education program standards and teacher perceptions were researched in order to gain understanding on the impact of educational laws and gifted education, No Child Left Behind, the No Child Left Behind Flexibility Waiver, gifted student and high achieving student assessment. Various phrases and terminology appeared in the initial research such as “differentiated instruction”; “truly left behind”; “consequences for gifted education”; “state determined proficiency levels”; “teacher perceptions”; “NCLB Waiver”; and “bringing all students to proficiency”. These phrases were used to determine the themes of this brief review of literature. Teacher perceptions of gifted education in the classroom were included in the literature review in order to review the research previously conducted on this topic due to the importance of teacher perception in this study.

Table 1

Research Databases Used for Review of Literature

Search Engine

Number of Resources Obtained

Ebsco Host

2

0

Gale Academic OneFile

17

Google Scholar

26

NorthCentral University Library

4

ProQuest

101

Brief Historical Overview of the No Child Left Behind Act

Americans can pride themselves on the idea of equality and this is especially true in an education system which offers equal opportunity for all students (Aske et al., 2013). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed in 1965 in an effort to provide equality in education throughout the United States and has been reauthorized on a five year basis since its inception (Husband & Hunt, 2015; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). This law called for both an elementary and secondary education for all children. The law required funding to schools for teacher training, programs and materials for education. With the subsequent enactment of the No Child Left Behind improvements in student achievement was expected. The NCLB Act was finally enacted as a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Brighton et al., 2015; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). The NCLB Act brought about radical changes that the education field had not seen with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Aske et al., 2013; Ravitch, 2011; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). The NCLB Act required all states to not only define a level of proficiency for state mandated achievement tests but also required states to implement a plan that would bring all students to that proficiency level (Aske et al., 2013; Husband & Hunt, 2015). Schools were required to notify parents if the classroom teacher was not deemed “highly qualified” by the state (Croft et al., 2016). This was requirement was not present in the previous Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The NCLB Act was the dawning of the Accountability Era that currently drives schools in the United States.

When the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was signed into law in January 2002, bipartisan support saw this federal legislation as a pathway to improving the American education system. NCLB introduced America to accountability in a way that had not previously been seen (Ravitch, 2011). The law called for accountability through a variety of means: improved assessment scores, an enhanced focus on reading and math, and an urgent call for all students to reach the proficient achievement level on assessments with the level of proficiency to be determined by individual states. The Act had a commendable intention of closing the achievement gap between the lower scoring students and the higher scoring students (Brighton et al., 2015; Jhang, 2011; McNeal, 2012; Samuel & Suh, 2012). American educators cautiously accepted the challenge to improve education based on these mandated changes.

NCLB called for all schools to make annual improvements for all students on a continual basis until 100% of the student population scored at the proficient level (Husband & Hunt, 2015; McNeal, 2012; Samuel & Suh, 2012). The NCLB Act demanded proficiency levels of achievement to be met by all students on state accountability tests regardless of a student’s ability level or diagnosed disabilities (Aske et al., 2013; Jhang, 2011; Ravitch, 2011; Samuel & Suh, 2012). The proficiency level of each school would be determined by student scores on an annual assessment. K-12 Schools were charged with showing an increase each year over the previous year’s assessment scores (Hargrove, 2013; McNeal, 2012; Samuel & Suh, 2012; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). This increase was expected to be continued until all students scored at the proficient level.

The NCLB Act did not set a level of proficiency but instead required all states to determine proficiency levels for their schools (McNeal, 2012; Samuel & Suh, 2012). In Kentucky, achievement levels were changed to measure as Distinguished (90% or higher), Proficient (70-89%), Apprentice (60-69%) and Novice (below 60%). This meant that with NCLB, the goal was to move all students’ scores in all tested areas to the 70% or higher (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015). America’s educational accountability basis turned from curriculum to testing (Hargrove, 2013; Ravitch, 2011). This was a rigorous goal for all schools, but especially for schools with a high number of at-risk students.

The NCLB Act enforced school accountability with several measures that was new to education (Husband & Hunt, 2015, U.S. Department of Education, 2015, Popham, 2013). In 2002, K-12 schools were required to only employ “highly qualified” teachers order to bring high quality instruction into American classrooms through faculty members (Gishey, 2013). These highly qualified teachers were required to use instructional strategies and materials that had shown research-based success. The result of this process resulted in a commercialized promotion of brands. A teacher gained the status of “highly qualified” by earning a state awarded certification as a teacher, passing the teaching exam, such as the PRAXIS, chosen by the state teacher certification organization or have a college degree with a major in the subject area that they are teaching (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Until this new requirement brought on by the NCLB Act, teachers were considered as qualified educators by earning the certification requirements in the state in which they were employed (Gishey, 2013). The NCLB Act’s intention of the “highly qualified” teacher status in the legislation was for schools to have quality teachers, which when coupled with research based teaching strategies and materials, would improve student achievement and therefore close the gap between struggling students and high achieving students (Buchanan, 2015; Gishey, 2013). The new term of “highly qualified” did not sit well with teachers who felt that they were highly qualified upon earning a teaching certificate (Croft et al., 2016).

Most studies agreed, at the time of implementation and even now as the evidence of the NCLB Act is criticized, that the NCLB legislation was arguably the most significant educational legislation to surface in the last forty years (Croft et al., 2016; Dee & Jacob, 2010; Husband & Hunt, 2015). Unintended results in gifted education and also other education groups quickly surfaced due to the NCLB Act (Husband & Hunt, 2015). The No Child Left Behind Act was intended to raise education standards by holding all schools responsible for the performance of every student (Jhang, 2011; McNeal, 2013; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012); however, Husband and Hunt (2015), Pinder, (2013), and Samuel and Suh (2012) have all suggested that it could have held back students with rigid measures. As the regulations for the NCLB Act were implemented, Pinder (2013) found that teachers saw their attention being focused on students who were close to achieving the proficient level but even more on the lower level students who had a very small chance of ever achieving proficiency on assessments. Because of the perceived punitive character of this federal law, educators struggled to meet their testing targets (Husband & Hunt, 2015; Pinder, 2013; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). As they focused their time and attention to meeting the proficient achievement level for all students, many schools had reduced instructional time for the arts, history, sciences, civics, foreign languages, physical education, literature, and geography. The instructional time was devoted to preparing students for the state tests in basic skills (Husband & Hunt, 2015; Ravitch, 2011). Dee et al. (2010) completed a study that linked an improvement in math scores for fourth grade students to the No Child Left Behind Act. Supporters of NCLB took this opportunity to spread the good news.

Unlike any other educational legislation to date, NCLB started out with a goal. The Act mandated that all of America’s students be proficient in reading and math by the year 2014 (Husband & Hunt, 2015; McNeal, 2013; Ravitch, 2011). Any school not meeting this rigorous goal —one never reached by any nation in the world — faced a series of sanctions imposed by the NCLB Act. As 2014 drew closer, tens of thousands of schools were determined as failures, thousands of educators were fired, and schools that were once the anchors of their communities were closed due to the sanctions enforced by the NCLB Act (Black, 2015; Husband & Hunt, 2015; McNeal, 2013; Ravitch, 2011). Ravitch (2011) declared that the once promising NCLB was turning into a timetable for the destruction of public education. Changes had to be made to ensure the success of American education (Ravitch, 2011).

States put much effort into the plans prepared to implement the rigorous demands of the NCLB Act and waited for approval or a request for amendments from the United States Department of Education. On June 10, 2003, Kentucky was granted conditional approval by the United States Department of Education of Kentucky’s state plan for implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act’s requirements. To date Kentucky has selected and implemented goals that were shared with those of the NCLB Act including high expectations for all students; rigorous student performance standards tied to annual assessments in grades 3-8; multiple assessments tied to the core content; school accountability; student and school performance information to parents in the form of school report cards; and, a goal of proficiency in 12 years by the year 2014 (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). Kentucky’s plan for meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) did not mention gifted education and did not propose changing gifted education throughout the state in order to promote gifted learners (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that drives special education, which is the educational umbrella that gifted education falls under, does not mention gifted education in the legislation (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

Two studies completed by the Thomas D. Fordham Institute on high-achieving students in the era of the No Child Left Behind Act brought about much discussion between the original NCLB Act and gifted education. The authors of the first study examined achievement trends for high-achieving students that were found to be stagnant (Loveless et al., 2008). The second study reported on teachers’ views of how schools serving high-achieving students in the era of NCLB (see Teacher Perceptions of Gifted Education section of Literature Review.) Loveless et al. (2008) reported that scores from students in the bottom ten percent of achievement have made continuous progress in the content areas of reading and math on fourth grade assessments and in the content area of mathematics on eighth grade assessments between 2000 and 2007 but this was not found true for students at the upper ten percentile. Students at the top 10% of achievement made minimal gains in those seven years (Loveless et al., 2008). The trend of large achievement growth for struggling students and minimal, if any, achievement growth for high ability students has been the pattern since the introduction of accountability programs with the NCLB Act affecting the largest number of schools because of the federal mandate brought on by the enactment of this law (Bui et al., 2012; Loveless et al., 2008; Olszewski-Kubilius et al, 2015).

Many supporters of gifted education blamed the lack of focus on this particular group of students on the federal legislation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Stephens and Riggsbee (2007), Husband and Hunt (2015), and Samardzija and Peterson (2015) provided studies which argued that gifted students lose their passion for education as they become bored waiting for opportunities to be challenged in the classroom while the educational focus is placed on the lower level learners due to the NCLB Act. The present study, Gifted Education in the Accountability Era, provided qualitative data showing the quantity and types of challenging opportunities provided to gifted students in a rural public educational setting.

Not everyone interested in public education projects negative feelings about the NCLB Act. Despite growing grumbles about NCLB, high-stakes testing intensified once President Obama took office (Au & Gourd, 2013). The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, issued a report that reviews the progress made under the NCLB Act (Zimmer, et al., 2007). The Rand Corporation recommended for change in the NCLB Act but gave examples of how this federal legislation was producing positive results. Recommendations included promoting more uniform academic standards to eliminate inconsistency across states such as the adoption of the National Common Core Standards, promoting more uniform teacher qualification requirements so that states will set high standards for teachers, and setting more appropriate student improvement targets that incorporate growth (“Exploring Ideas in Gifted Education,” 2011). Ravitch (2013) found evidence contrary to this. Ravitch (2013) argued that achievement gaps had unexpectedly increased since the implementation of an accountability system which was based primarily on test scores. Ravitch (2013) described the treatment of gap category children as punitive rather than equally inclusive by the Accountability Era.

Despite the negativity that NCLB drew, this legislation changed education to expose large achievement gaps between sub-groups based on gender, race and income in comparison to the general student population. Low achieving student sub-groups were recognized as being underserved and the national called for improvement (Nelson-Royes, 2013; Spellings, 2014). Although the NCLB Act was not implemented with absolute effectiveness, the attention on education was now drawn nationwide (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The NCLB Act was scheduled to be reauthorized in 2007, but that did not happen (Howell, 2015). The NCLB Act hung in the air for 2 years until President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that included a stimulus program for education. Out of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act came the competitive Race to the Top funding for schools (Croft et al., 2016). The reauthorization of NCLB fell out of focus as educators competed for billions of dollars in Race to the Top money but the requirements of the NCLB Act still lingered over schools causing the stress of accountability for administrators, teachers, students and parents to remain (Howell, 2015). Now that important issues had been discovered during NCLB, it was time to make improvements to the law that was driving education in the United States.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Waiver

With every year that passed without a reauthorization of NCLB, frustration grew among educators tied to the requirements still in place by the 2002 law (Black, 2015; Howell, 2015; Husband & Hunt, 2015). In February 2012, Kentucky was one of ten states that received approval from the U.S. Department of Education for a Waiver that excused the state from the requirements of the NCLB Act (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015; Rodriguez, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act flexibility, more commonly known as the NCLB Waiver, called for detailed plans from the applying state. The Waiver had to include plans to not only reduce achievement gaps between student sub-groups but close the existing gaps (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The Waiver had to include a plan to increase the quality of instruction that would be provided to all students and increase achievement outcomes for all students (Black, 2015; Husband & Hunt, 2015, Pinder, 2013). The Waiver held on to the American dream of equality for all as the plan was required to demonstrate how the state would increase equity in all schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

Not only did the Waiver call for more rigor in areas of improvement already addressed in the NCLB Act, it called for a new area of improvement with the introduction of highly qualified teachers. Teachers felt the pressure that they experienced with the NCLB Act continue as the Waiver required that teachers would not only be evaluated by their supervisor but also in their effectiveness (Black, 2015; Pinder, 2013; Popham, 2013). The Waiver introduced the use of state-mandated test results for teacher evaluation and to determine schools to be successful (Au & Gourd, 2013; Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Popham, 2013). The accountability of teachers became tied to the achievement of their students’ performance on a standardized test (Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Popham, 2013). Teacher accountability would allow the public to point fingers at successful teachers and non-successful teachers based on their effectiveness at increasing student performance (Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016). According to Dr. Terry Holliday, Commissioner of Education for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky’s Waiver included even more rigorous requirements that would prove successful in closing the achievement gap and preparing all students for a college education or career (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). In 2014, Kentucky received an extension of their original waiver (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015; Rodriguez, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Kentucky reached for the reputation of being an educational leader a second time despite the rigorous demands of the Waiver.

With the demands of the Waiver, K-12 education became a system that evaluates student achievement results rather than a system that considers the equal interests of all students (Aske et al., 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2012; Wiggan, 2014). Teachers felt pressure to put student test scores in their frontline of focus due to the test scores of students being reflective in teacher evaluations under the NCLB Waiver (Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Pinder, 2013; Popham, 2013). Brighton et al. (2015) found that teachers did not always feel comfortable with the changes to the evaluation system due to causes outside of the school system that often affect student achievement such as poverty and student disabilities. Teacher unions voiced displeasure with the changes in the Waiver (Prescher & Werle, 2014). The unions were especially displeased with the decisions affecting teacher evaluation (Prescher & Werle, 2014). Public opinion of education was not improved by the Waiver but instead questioned more frequently.

The Future of the Accountability Era

On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed the bipartisan supported bill titled Every Student Succeeds Act into law in order to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The Every Student Succeeds Act will be enacted during the 2017-2018 school year. This legislation will bring about many welcome changes to the NCLB era. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, individual states will be allowed to choose their own achievement goals and interventions for accountability improvements. Decisions on what content areas students will be tested in, what grade level high school students are test in and how to improve any areas of concern will be made at the state level. States will experience a sense of accountability freedom as long as four predetermined goals are included in the state’s accountability plan (Klein, 2015). Three of these four goals will ensure that accountability is here to stay.

The first requirement for a state’s accountability plan was that at least one goal focused on students scoring proficiency on the accountability test. The test will be chosen at the state level. All students in grades three through eight must be tested in the content areas of mathematics and reading annually and at least one time in high school. ESSA will require schools and districts to report on sub-groups of students as they did during NCLB (Klein, 2015).

Teachers are hesitant to not conform to the drive to increase test scores. To do so can result in low evaluations and put the teacher at risk of losing his job (Black, 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Mintrop, 2012; Pinder, 2013). The NCLB Act called for schools that failed to meet annual goals on a persistent schedule undergo sanction options. One of the sanctions required the school to release faculty members and administrators that were deemed responsible for the school’s continuous failure (McNeal, 2012). Although tenured faculty members normally are assured employment, the NCLB Act did not take tenure into consideration when corrections for school failure had to be made.

Both supporters and critics alike can agree that accountability demands quickly bring changes in education (Mintrop, 2012). Accountability is on the forefront of topics when education is discussed. Henderson, Peterson, and West (2016) found that using accountability data to score teachers’ performances is the largest issue discussed when the Accountability Era was considered by Congress in 2015. Spellings (2014) argued that successful schools with high student achievement growth depend on the accountability demands of mandated assessments. Yet the public does not seem to agree with this practice. Henderson et al. (2016) reported that based on recent surveys the public’s support of teachers has declined in recent years. Schools, school district and states are continuously striving to make gains in accountability scores. Even as the NCLB Act became a thing of the past, the Accountability Era that was created by this legislation lingers. My study, Gifted Education in the Accountability Era, provided qualitative data of teachers’ perspectives about how the stress of accountability influences the quantity and types of best practice opportunities that they provide for gifted students in their classrooms.

Gifted Students’ Characteristics and Needs

Although there are between three to five million gifted students in the United States, identification procedures of gifted students vary from state to state and even from school district to school district (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015). The development of gifted education programs occurred in the 1920s and identification of a gifted student was determined by using the score from an intelligence test, such as the Stanford-Binet IQ test (Missett & McCormick, 2014; National Association for Gifted Children, 2015; Seedorf, 2014). Many states and individual school districts now use a Norm Referenced Test score as only a portion of the evidence gathered to identify a student as gifted / talented. There seems to be two different views on the identification of gifted students: one group who thinks that giftedness is solely intellectual and therefore should be identified with an IQ test score and another group that thinks that giftedness should include talents such as leadership and creativity in addition to intelligence and this status should be identified with a variety of evidence that adequately indicated the talent (Esquierdo & Arreguin-Anderson, 2012; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). Schmitt and Goebel suggested that a mixture of identification methods be used to appropriately identify gifted students in order to prevent a gifted learner from being overlooked by use of a single method. Each state has the authority to consider whatever means of identification that is determined to be sufficient.

There is a federal definition of gifted students that is currently located in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It defines gifted as

students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

Gifted students are viewed as the students who require accommodated educational services beyond the normal education due to their high academic ability in order for them to realize their full potential and most students are identified as gifted or talented at the elementary school level (Colangelo & Wood (A), 2015). Often when these gifted students who were identified in elementary school enter middle and high school, teachers do not see gifted traits in these students and question their identification.

Regardless of the manner in which students were identified as gifted, teachers tend to notice specific characteristics that are common among these high ability students. The most common characteristic of gifted children is their advanced cognitive ability (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Preckel & Vock, 2012). Gifted students benefit from being challenged and motivated through their school work. The challenge of an activity drives the interest of many gifted students and motivates them to persevere (Repinc & Juznic, 2013). Research has found that motivation in students is an important factor in increasing their academic talents (Ahmad, Badusah, Mansor, & Karim, 2014). Gifted students deem work that is not a challenge to them to be busy work. Gifted students view busy work as a waste of time (Cooper, 2012). When gifted students do not feel challenged by instruction or educational content, they often feel like it is not worth their time to participate. Some gifted students feel that even if they do not know the material that they can manage their way through it without much effort if the content is not challenging for them. Students who felt that they are valuable to the class and that they are believed in are more likely to be a motivated learner (Ford, 2015; Mammadov & Topçu, 2014). Students were successful when they embrace challenges and could foresee how the challenge would benefit them in the future (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2015). This was a good example of the importance for a teacher to know and inspire her students on an individual basis. Teachers must know the academic ability of each student in order to accomplish this task.

When gifted students do not perform throughout the school year at the level at which they performed on achievement assessments for the purpose of gifted identification, they are sometimes referred to as an underachieving student (Ritchotte et al., 2015). Some gifted students who are underachievers not only have problems with motivation but also with their social status. Common characteristics of underachieving gifted students are being a perfectionist, being over active or being socially isolated from peers (Cooper, 2012). Male students often show more signs of underachievement than female students. This onset of underachievement frequently occurs around the age of puberty. These students do not have a diminished level of intelligence but instead lose the drive to excel in school activities (Cooper, 2012). An underachieving student can be very frustrating for the teacher. The teacher can see the student’s potential yet cannot seem to bring that potential out so that the student shows performance at a high level.

Although gifted learners are above average in intelligence they still have some problems occasionally. These problems are different from those of average students and are related to their gifted traits (Colangelo & Wood, 2015). Some gifted students feel like it is not acceptable among their peers to be smart and so they intentionally disassociate themselves from their educational path in order to fit in with their peers (Wellisch & Brown, 2012). Other adolescent gifted students indicate that they feel comfortable with the gifted status (Snyder eet al., 2013). Signs of underachievement for gifted students can be difficult to detect. This is partly because a gifted student might be performing well below his ability level yet still scoring satisfactory on grade level assignments and assessments. Malyska et al. (2014) reported that ten percent of gifted and talented students are underachieving students. The student’s ability level might actually be far above the mastery level of achievement for the current grade level standards that drives the instruction provided to the student (Ritchotte et al., 2015). The gifted student who scores As in the seventh grade might actually have the academic ability to score As on eighth or ninth grade material.

Gifted students benefit from being challenged and motivated through their school work (Repinc & Juznic, 2013). It has been suggested that perhaps the reason for underachievement among gifted students is due, in part, to the lack of challenge presented in their classroom instruction. Gifted children can become easily bored and loose interest in their education, or in some instances, become behavioral problems for teachers when their minds are not challenged (Dial, 2011; Periathiruvadi & Rinn, 2013; Stephen & Riggsbee, 2007). One characteristic of underachieving gifted students is hyperactivity, which often results in behavioral consequences at school. Gifted males are more likely to face social problems with peers during their high school year and this has been linked to underachievement and disinterest in education (Cooper, 2012). Student interest is an important aspect of education and effects many avenues of the students’ educational experience.

Middle school is often where gifted students tend to show signs of underachievement. There are several thoughts on why this might be. Some believe that content material becomes more difficult and often gifted students do not learn the study skills necessary to master challenging material since elementary school content was not difficult for them to master. Others lean toward the opposite end of the spectrum and believe that boredom in class now becomes a problem for preadolescents due to their age and shift in interests (Dial, 2011). Teachers should attempt to help the underachieving gifted student find a particular interest or learning style that works best for the student (Cooper, 2012). Teachers and counselors should guide instruction toward this direction in order to help the student meet his ability.

When students are given the opportunity to be challenged at their individual learning levels and their individual interests are acknowledged, they become motivated to excel (Latz & Adams, 2011; Robinson, 2011). In the Accountability Era this is not a focus due to the demands of increase in student achievement and a lesser focus on equal interests of all students (Aske et al., 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2012; Wiggan, 2014). Programs specially designed for gifted students and various strategies used in the normal classroom setting can encourage gifted students to stay motivated and intrigued with their learning (Brown et al., 2015; Willems & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). Programs such as project based learning can not only motivate the gifted learner but also provide a means for educators to identify gifted learners (McBee, 2015).

The Kentucky GT Coordinator handbook written by the State Advisory Council for Gifted and Talented Education and the Kentucky Department of Education lists several characteristics of gifted students that should be addressed for optimal growth in the student (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015). Gifted students may display one or more of these characteristics but will unlikely show all of them. The characteristics include that gifted students demonstrate advanced ability in reasoning and problem solving, are persistent with curiosity and therefore will often times ask many questions, have multiple interests, are well spoken and can capture their ideas well in writing, have great interest and ability in reading, learn at an accelerated rate compared to peers, have advanced creativity, have the ability to maintain concentration for extended periods of time, set high expectations for themselves and can often be viewed as perfectionists, are very observant, and have an adult-like sense of humor (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015).

The National Association for Gifted Children developed six educational standards for teaching gifted learners that can be used to better meet the needs of gifted learners. The standards address the areas of learning and development, assessment, curriculum planning and instruction delivery, learning environments, gifted programming, and professional development for teachers (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015). Practices associated with standard one, learning and development, include allowing gifted students to explore and identify their interests and strengths. This allows the gifted learner to identify and practice their individual gifts and talents. Teachers of gifted students should create activities that address the individual student’s learning level. These activities should also include cultural consideration and student interests. Teachers are encouraged to group students with others who share similar interests and learning abilities so that students can have interaction with like-minded peers. Learning interventions should be provided to gifted students in order to address needs and promote adequate growth although the student may already be advanced above the other students in the class. Underachieving students are given special attention to address in order to perform at their ability level as determined by assessments. Student choice is provided frequently so that the gifted student feels in control of their education (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015). Inquiry-based instruction has proven to be a successful differentiation strategy used with gifted students. When gifted students are questioned it provides them the opportunity to use higher-order thinking skills (VanTassel-Baska, 2014).

The assessment standard gives examples of activities including pre and post testing for students in order to assess needs and measure growth. Assessments should be used that do not include bias. Frequent assessments that reveal needs and interests of students will allow for greater differentiation in a gifted student’s education. The curriculum and instruction standard promotes the teacher using all state and local required standards combined with higher-order thinking, problem-solving and metacognition models in order to challenge gifted students. The learning environment standard encourages a safe and welcoming environment that features learning as the focus of the class. Teachers should be aware that sensitivity with gifted learners is important as well as accommodating the student’s individual learning needs (Siegle, 2015). The professional development and programming standards encourage extensive training for all teachers who will instruct gifted learners that includes instruction on the educational programming that has been selected for use among the gifted learners in the district (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015). Great responsibility is placed upon leadership of the school to ensure that gifted services are designed and provided in a manner that meets the needs of gifted learners and, perhaps more importantly, to design and plan training for their teachers on how to teach gifted learners in their classroom. Without a leader who both understood and supported gifted education came the likelihood that a quality gifted program would be absent in the school (Milligan et al., 2012).

With the focus of the NCLB Act on bringing all students up to proficiency, some feel that the focus of the classroom teacher will now rest with lower achieving students more than ever. This could create large achievement gaps within the gifted student population. Although gifted students might continue to achieve at merely a proficient level, this might actually be well below their ability. The importance of academically challenging gifted students has become so important that texts are being published to teach educators strategies to challenge these bright students in the classroom. Supporters of gifted education are focusing their attention on meeting the needs of this group of students that some are suggesting are truly being left behind (Shayshon et al., 2014; Stephens & Riggsbee, 2007).

Education Options for Gifted Learners

There are many practices for educators to use with gifted students in order to challenge gifted students to reach their full learning potential. There are four standard models of gifted education services including pull-out classes, honor classes, self-contained programs and cluster grouping models. However, with proper professional development, teachers can learn many ways to serve gifted students (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). Cooper (2012) reported that instructional strategies that gifted students most benefit from include both the opportunity to participate and to be a passive learner. Gifted students enjoy transitioning between learning strategies. Gifted students also benefit from knowing why they are learning specific information. Describing the nature of the lesson and how it fits into the curriculum and preparation for advanced learning is valuable to the gifted learner. It helps the gifted student to justify why they should devote time and effort to the task (Cooper, 2012). Teachers want to learn how to best serve their students but the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that teachers are appropriately trained to serve all students lies with the school and district administration (Long et al., 2015; Milligan et al., 2012).

A low cost option for serving gifted students is the gifted cluster grouping model. This model has received much support from research and researchers to address the need of gifted learners (Colangelo et al., 2013; Missett et al., 2014). This model can be introduced with simply placing students with similar learning abilities in the same classroom. Many of the students in a high ability classroom may be identified as a gifted learner but other high ability students may not have the gifted identification but are still able to learn at an advanced level (Gentry & Fugate, 2013; Missett et al., 2014). Brulles et al. (2012) found this service option beneficial to gifted learners. The cluster grouping model allows a classroom teacher to teach at a deeper level and move through standards at a faster pace than when students with lower academic abilities are in the classroom due to a lesser need for reviewing and re-teaching of content (Gentry, 2014; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). Gentry and Fugate (2013) recommended that ability level grouping be used as a fluid option so that students can move in and out of an ability group as needed. This is not always an ideal situation for administrators as they assign students to classrooms based on performance based evidence at the beginning of the school year.

Differentiation of curriculum and instruction is one of the most important accommodations made for gifted learners (Brighton et al., 2015; Johnston, 2011; Kershen, 2015). Gentry and Fugate (2013) called differentiation of curriculum the greatest accommodation for gifted learners based upon individualizing instruction. Brighton et al. (2015) reported on the importance of differentiation based on Tomlinson’s definition of the educational term. Differentiation is meeting the learning needs of students based on the academic ability and interests of each individual student (Brighton et al., 2015). However, teachers in today’s classrooms do not take the time to differentiate their instruction to meet the specific learning needs of the gifted student (Jolly & Makel, 2010; Young & Balli, 2014). One particular study found that high-ability students only receive differentiated instruction in 16% of their core classes (Latz et al., 2009). Differentiation is a key component to gifted education yet a lack of differentiated instruction plagues America’s general education and gifted education classrooms due to mandates of the Waiver drawing teachers’ focus to the level of Proficiency (Cross, 2011; Klimis & VanTassel-Baska, 2013; Long et al., 2015; Walker & VanderPloeg, 2015). Shayson (2014) found that although teachers reported that they believe differentiation of instruction is important to gifted learners, differentiation was rarely used in class. When teachers did differentiate instruction for the gifted learner it was used so mildly that it was ineffective.

Shayson et al. (2014) reported that some teachers felt like differentiating instruction for gifted learners was the duty of the gifted teacher and relied on the gifted teachers to meet the needs of gifted students. Some teachers were simply unware and not trained to recognize that students who consistently score well in their class are not just good students but may be advanced enough to need different materials and activities (Shayson, 2014). Other teachers realized the need of differentiation for gifted learners but did not know how to accomplish this task (Shayson, 2014). Kershen (2015) advised that differentiation should be used in a purposeful manner. Differentiation should be strategically used to motivate and encourage students so that the students develop a desire for lifelong learning (Brighton et al., 2015; Kershen, 2015, Tomlinson, 2014). Differentiation experts Sisk (2009) and Tomlinson (2014) agreed that appropriate differentiation for students can only come from the teacher’s knowledge of her students’ learning needs, learning styles, strengths, weaknesses and interests. Once the teacher knows the educational outline of the student, she can then create individualized accommodations to the normal instruction that will nurture the specific needs of each gifted learner (Brighton et al., 2015; Kershen, 2015; Sisk, 2009; Tomlinson, 2014). Kershen (2015) referred to the work of Sisk and Kaplan when describing best practices for differentiation strategies. It is recommended that in order for appropriate differentiation to occur teachers should consider the students that they are teaching, the content that they are teaching and the pedagogy that will be used to teach the content. Best practice for differentiation includes ability grouping even within a high ability classroom, frequent formative assessment to ensure that students are not at a proficient or mastery level of materials before they are presented in class and learning targets should be explained to the gifted learner so that they will value the educational experience of the instructional challenge (Brighton & Wiley, 2015; Kerschen, 2015; Sisk, 2009). K-12 school administrators must be trained in recognizing differentiation techniques when the observe teachers in the classroom. Administrators should provide professional development for their teachers and require implementation of differentiation techniques (Long et al., 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2013a).

A popular service option for gifted education is the pull out option. There are several ways in which the pull out option can be implemented. Some of the options of pull out programs include students pulled out of the general classroom for a short period of time daily or weekly and taught by a certified gifted teacher, students pulled out of the mainstream classroom in order to be placed in a high ability classroom or students pulled out of the heterogeneous school in order to attend a gifted school. The main idea of the service option is to remove the gifted learner from a mixed ability situation and place them in a setting with high ability peers and high level instruction (Gubbins, 2015). This allows gifted students to feel inclusive. This is often not the case in the general classroom (Coleman et al., 2015).

Gubbins and Renzulli (2014) described many benefits of pull-out services for gifted students. Students are challenged in the pull-out settings and they study and debate with peers of similar intellect (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). Gifted students in pull-out options have the opportunity to form social relationships with peers that share similar characteristics. This can ease the social awkwardness that some gifted students’ experience (Catsambis & Buttaro, 2012). Another benefit of pull-out options is that the pull-out teacher is usually certified in gifted education. At the least the pull-out instructor has normally received extensive professional development in instructing gifted students (Bögels, 2014; Gubbins, 2015). Gubbins (2015) described the most important aspect of a pull-out program to be high level, differentiated instruction with specific learner goals. It is advised that if this is not in place in the pull-out program then removing students from the regular, heterogeneous classroom is not validated (Gubbins, 2015). Gubbins reported that students indicated that after participating in a pull-out program based on the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) they experienced confidence in searching for their interests and that they future educational plans were highly influenced by the pull-out program activities. The students attributed their future career choice decisions to participation in the pull-out program (Gubbins, 2015).

Further research on the characteristics of gifted students by Flint and Ritchotte (2012) suggested that programs targeting students at bottom levels displace the much greater need of motivation to accelerate by students. The authors suggest that gifted students perform best when exposed to higher order thinking activities and when they are challenged (Flint & Richotte, 2012; Ford, 2015). When teachers are not focused on their gifted learners, the extra efforts and tasks of differentiating the instruction and assignments in order to challenge the gifted learners can be forgotten or pushed aside. As funding for gifted education decreases, a void is created in having a faculty advocate for the gifted students (Abramson, 2011; Swan et al., 2015). These findings contradict the foundation of NCLB that suggests that proficiency is the ceiling that students should aspire to reach. The task of challenging the gifted students is often left up to the regular classroom teacher when reductions are made in the area of gifted education. This leaves the regular classroom teacher with the daunting task of raising the scores of the struggling students who are not scoring proficient on the Yearly Adequate Progress tests and raising the level of difficulty for the gifted students in the room (Flint & Ritchotte, 2012).

Providing the instructional strategies that are necessary to motivate and challenge gifted learners becomes difficult when gifted education sees cuts in funding. Gifted education has experienced cuts across the nation as the stakes continue to rise for schools to meet Yearly Adequate Progress as called for in the No Child Left Behind Act and the Waiver. Often times when budget cuts are necessary programs like gifted education are first in line to be cut from the curriculum (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2012; “News Briefs,” 2012). There is a wide range in the educational services provided to students across the United States. Some states both require and fund gifted education while other states provide no funding for gifted education. In 2013, 11 states did not have any mandates for gifted education (Jolly, 2014).

The lack of teacher training in the area of gifted education could play a part in educators not realizing that the gifted programs in place may not be adequate for gifted students (Long et al., 2015). Some administrators believe that if a gifted program is in place that the needs of gifted students are being met regardless of the quality of the program. Administrators must focus their attention on many different types of programs and issues in a school building. Gifted education is normally a program that does not demand attention from administration because it is a quite problem in the school and because of this often goes overlooked (Long et al., 2015). In Maine’s Maranacook Area School District Regional School Unit No. 38, Superintendent Abramson took the initiative to replace a full time gifted education teacher with a part time gifted education teacher. Abramson (2011) stated that “G/T staff would be available to all eligible students and would, as available, provide “enrichment” services to staff and students” even with the cut of a full time gifted teacher. The needs of gifted learners are put on the back burner when cut backs are called for in the budget.

Ryser and Rambo-Hernandez (2014) found that high ability learners have not shown significant growth under the NCLB Act and suggested that this could be due to the fact that gifted students normally do not show improvement and growth on assessments in general. This is due to several reasons. One reason for lack of growth for gifted students is that the gifted student makes an exceptionally high score on the initial assessment (McCoach et al., 2013). Ryser and Rambo-Hernandez (2014) referred to this instance as a student making an extreme score. An extreme score is any score that is at least two standard deviations above the mean or around 98% (Ryser & Rambo-Hernandez, 2014). When a student initially scores in this high percentile range there is not much room left for improvement. Instead the student is more likely to score closer to the mean score on subsequent assessments. This is referred to as a regression to the mean score (Ryser & Rambo-Hernandez, 2014). It is human nature to return to the average score.

Another problem that plagues gifted students when they are assessed is the achievement tests are designed for the average student at a designated grade level (McCoach et al., 2013; Ryser & Rambo-Hernandez, 2014). Occasionally gifted students are academically advanced beyond the grade level that they are chronologically placed in (Ritchotte et al., 2015). When this gifted student takes this achievement test and makes a perfect or near perfect score there is no room for improvement. A ceiling is placed on that student’s scoring potential (McCoach et al., 2013, Richotte et al., 2015; Ryser & Rambo-Hernandez, 2014). This ceiling effect also takes place within the curriculum and classroom instruction when differentiation is absent. McCoach et al. (2013) recommended that advanced level assessments and curriculum be used with gifted student to combat this problem. Although differentiating the assessments and curriculum can be time consuming for teachers, the gifted learner greatly benefits (McCoach et al., 2013, Richotte et al., 2015; Ryser & Rambo-Hernandez, 2014).

Professional development in the area of gifted education is needed for general classroom teachers in all schools. With the number of gifted students in the United States ranging between three and five million, there is likely to be a gifted learner in most general education classrooms (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015). The National Association for Gifted Children’s standards for gifted education call for professional development in the area of gifted education but currently no state laws require annual training in gifted education for professional development hours (National Association for Gifted Children, 2015). The Commonwealth of Kentucky currently requires all certified classroom teachers to complete four days or 24 hours of professional development for each educational year; however, there is no requirement that gifted education training be included with the required 24 hours (Kentucky Department of Education, 2015).

Teacher Perceptions of Gifted Education in the Classroom

An important question that the researcher aimed to explore is how teachers feel about their ability to provide adequate accommodations to their high ability students that encouraged their advancement while also focusing on content that would raise test scores and improve the achievement of low achieving students who are all in the same classroom. Teachers must make decisions on how to instruct their students in a way that produce better test scores and meet the testing achievement goals in order to meet accountability goals set by the state. This places stress on teachers to prepare their students to meet the accountability goal and to receive a favorable evaluation for themselves (Battley-Fabre, 2011; Johnsen, 2013). A high level of confidence is necessary in order for a teacher to command a classroom of students.

Teachers in today’s classrooms find it difficult to take the time to differentiate their instruction to meet the specific learning needs of the gifted student (Jolly & Makel, 2010; Siegle, 2015; Young & Balli, 2014). One particular study found that high-ability students only receive differentiated instruction in 16% of their core classes (Latz et al., 2009). Duffett et al. (2008) found that 63 percent of teachers stated that they provide most of their classroom attention to low ability learners. If gifted learners are neither receiving a differentiated curriculum nor attention from the teacher, one would assume that they are receiving inadequate educational options to meet their unique learning needs (Colangelo et al., 2013; Jolly & Makel, 2010; Young & Balli, 2014). For the teacher who strives to enable all of her students, this situation can become very stressful.

Due to the reporting of shortfalls in education over the past decade, public opinion of teachers is not favorable (Croft et al., 2016; Henderson et al., 2016). A recent poll conducted by Education Next revealed that public opinion is not favorable for increases in teacher pay and survey participants indicated that they are not willing to have a higher tax rate to fund teacher pay increases (Henderson et al., 2016). Media and the public in general tend to point fingers at the one thing that they associate with education, which is the classroom teacher (Croft et al., 2016; Henderson et al., 2016). Classroom teachers are responsible for implementing the educational programs that administrators and governing legislation determine to be in the best interest of students.

Teacher Perceptions of Gifted Students

Teachers may feel excited about having high ability students in their classrooms. They are likely to foresee wonderful student work and advanced education discussion among these students in the classroom. Teachers are often surprised and disappointed when the gifted students do not perform as expected, or worse, present behavioral problems that disrupt learning in the classroom for all students. Malyska et al. (2014) found that teachers expected their gifted students to be active participants in class, pleasant and have standards for learning; however, there is no evidence that high intelligence ensures success in school. This type of experience may cause teachers to form stereotypes of gifted learners. In the future these stereotypes may cause teachers to look for weaknesses in gifted students instead of focusing on the strengths of gifted students (Baudson & Preckel, 2013). The stereotypes of gifted students brings attention to the perceived “odd” tendencies that some gifted students display and can increase the noticeable differences between gifted students and their peers (Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). Baudson and Preckel (2013) reported that when teachers are not taught about the many unique characteristics of gifted learners this is likely to result in the teachers falsely stereotyping gifted students. A prejudice is likely to develop when teachers stereotype gifted students, whether intentionally or unintentionally (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). Gifted students have long been stereotyped as being smart and “nerdy.” Teachers that do not have experience with gifted students are likely to assume that their gifted students will fall into this stereotype and be antisocial (Colangelo & Wood (B), 2015; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). It comes as a surprise when the gifted student is verbally outgoing and even challenging to the teacher.

Some teachers have indicated feelings of negativity towards gifted students (Doll, 2013; O’Connor, 2012; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). Doll (2013) found that teachers perceived some gifted students as trying to “out-smart” them in class with probing questions and disagreement with teachers to indicate that teachers have low knowledge. This can be a double-edged sword as the success of gifted students is affected by their teacher’s feelings and treatment toward them (Jones & Hébert, 2012; O’Connor, 2012; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015; Shayshon et al., 2014). Schmitt and Goebel (2015) found that gifted students believe that the classroom teacher is the most important element in a course. Teachers’ perceptions of gifted students impact opportunities offered to students in the classroom as well as affecting the students’ performance based on how the students feel that their teachers view them (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Jones & Hébert, 2012). The negative feelings of the teacher can unintentionally produce underachievement results in the gifted student.

Teacher Perceptions on Teaching Gifted Students

Teachers normally believe in their ability to teach the average student; however, there is a great difference in the average student and the gifted student (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Colangelo & Wood, 2015; Preckel & Vock, 2012). Many classroom teachers have not been adequately trained to meet the needs of gifted learners when they begin their careers (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015; van der Meulen et al., 2014). This lack of teacher preparation for teaching gifted students in the regular classroom results in the distinct learning needs of gifted students going unrecognized and unmet (Siegle, 2015). Teachers that have not been trained in educating gifted students may believe that if a gifted student participates in a gifted program that their learning needs are being met (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015; Siegle, 2015). This is often not the case and needs of students go unmet. This lack of appropriate training in the area of gifted education could play a part in educators not realizing that the gifted programs in place may not be adequate for gifted students (Long et al., 2015; Siegle, 2015).

Consequently when teachers are trained on the characteristics and learning needs of gifted students they are more likely to accommodate their instruction in order to meet the needs of these students (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Schmitt & Goebel, 2015). Malyska et al. (2014) found that when teachers perceive intelligence as being an innate quality, they view their role as becoming the developer of a classroom that offers opportunities for students to display and strengthen their intelligence. The teacher of pull-out service option class or a high ability classroom would have more time to focus on differentiated lessons and opportunities that promote student creativity. However, in a classroom that is filled to state regulated cap size teachers are responsible for differentiating instruction to a wide range of diverse learning abilities (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Shayson et al., 2014). The differentiation of instruction is not limited to gifted students but spans a wide range of learning abilities for which the teacher is expected to notice and address.

Teachers felt that they are much more capable of teaching gifted students when the number of students in the class is smaller (Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Shayson et al., 2014). This allowed for time to differentiate based on students’ individual needs. When the number of students in a class is close to capsize, the teacher felt that there is not adequate time to appropriately meet the needs of gifted learners (Shayson et al., 2014). Teachers have a difficult time deciding if they are competent to teach gifted children because gifted students are difficult to describe since there is not a precise description of the gifted student. Giftedness varies in level and description with each child (Colangelo & Wood, 2015).

A large portion of America’s gifted students attend rural schools; however, there is little known about the services provided to rural gifted students (Azano et al., 2014; Swan et al., 2015). Very little is known about the teachers of gifted students in rural schools due to the lack of research conducted in rural settings (Azano et al., 2014). Plucker (2013) described educational services for the rural gifted student as insufficient based on untrained staff and a lack of funding, among other problems. Plucker’s research indicated that rural teachers of gifted students felt like they did not have enough time to spend with their gifted students and had to skim over content in which these students could have excelled. The teachers in Plucker’s (2013) study found it difficult to follow the curriculum as intended due to the lack of time with students and being stretched so thinly. This could be partly due to limited funding for rural schools due to low student enrollment (Azano et al., 2014; Economic Research Service, 2012; Swan, et al., 2015). Teachers felt that their decisions concerning instruction were influenced by the lack of programs for gifted students such as technology and collaboration. This is a characteristic that is often unique to rural gifted education programs due to the lack of funding and low student numbers (Azano et al., 2014). The lack of funding in rural schools across the United States prohibits many programs and limits opportunities for students. The Economic Research Service (2012) determined inadequate funding a cause for great concern.

Teachers’ perception of their ability to teach gifted students has not been extensively researched but Plucker (2013) found that teachers do not feel confident in teaching gifted learners due to their focus on low achieving students. The teachers indicated that known differentiation techniques for gifted students were viewed with suspicion by administrators and fellow teachers (Plucker, 2013). Due to this distrust of accommodation options for gifted students by teachers and administrators, research based successful differentiation options and instructional methods may be avoided (Rambo & McCoach, 2012; Siegle et al., 2013). Veteran teachers can be vocal if they are displeased or suspicious about methods that they deem unbeneficial. Siegle et al. (2013) reported on a survey completed by Jones and Southern which found that acceleration service options for gifted students were less likely to occur in rural school settings due to negative perceptions of the service option by teachers. Siegle et al. (2013) also provided contradicting evidence that gave evidence of positive attitudes coming from teachers who had been provided information about the acceleration service options and research findings addressing benefits and concerns for students who participated in the acceleration service option. Teachers are concerned, to some level, about the student as a whole child and not just academics. Teachers in a study by Siegle et al. (2013) said that their main concern for accelerating students through grade-skipping or any advancement other than chronological age placement of students was that the students would be at risk of being socially isolated. The teachers also feared that students who were advanced based on performance would have gaps in their knowledge even though the students possessed higher academic intelligence than their peers. If students were advanced beyond their grade level according to age there would inevitably be content that the student would not be exposed to in a formal manner. Parents agreed with teachers that advancing students seemed to be pushing the students through their years as a child and toward adulthood (Siegle et al., 2013).

Brighton et al. (2015) found that some teachers thought that differentiating instruction meant that the students were grouped by academic ability. The students in these ability groups then continued on with the same work as the rest of the students in the classroom. Some of the teachers in Brighton, et al.’s study considered that activity as a differentiated lesson. This type of differentiation is a novice level of the strategy and could become frustrating for both the students if the instruction for the group is not challenging and for the teacher if students do not show expected progress (Brighton, et al., 2015; Kershen, 2015; Long et al., 2015; National Association of Gifted Education, 2015). Other teachers in this study increased the level of instruction for the high ability groups but complained that they hated the extra work that they had to do in order to provide different instruction for students that had already mastered the material that the rest of the class was ready to begin (Brighton, et al., 2015). When the teachers that are supporting the differentiation for gifted students become fatigued chances are likely that the enrichment opportunities will wane.

Differentiation is a vital best practice strategy for meeting the needs of gifted students. In order for differentiation to be properly implemented, the school administration must require it of teachers and provide professional development so that teachers understand the concept and implementation of differentiation in the classroom. Teachers need the opportunity to practice differentiated instruction with gifted learners. The perceptions of teachers should be recognized in order for change to occur (Shayshon et al., 2014). If this opportunity is not available, the new ideas will not likely be used (Snyder, 2012).

Battley-Fabre (2011) found that teachers felt like they did not appropriately meet the required amount of time needed to teach the curriculum to students in an effort to concentrate on areas that were tested. The change in their instructional deliverance was due to state required test scores. Only ten percent of teachers in this study used classroom projects as an instructional method, which is a “best practice” for gifted students to use student-choice and differentiated learning options (Battley-Fabre, 2011). Leiken and Stanger (2011) found that when teachers thought that they were adequately differentiating instruction for gifted learners the actual differentiation was very small and inadequate for gifted students. It is obvious that gifted learners need accommodations to be successful learners and that is of utmost importance since gifted learners have the potential to become highly successful adults (Milligan et al., 2012; Siegle, 2015; VanTassel-Baska (2013b). There is a great need for teachers to perceive gifted education as an important program and utilize the needed strategies during instruction in order for gifted students to meet their academic potential.

Although there has been some research conducted regarding types of gifted programs, best practices for the instruction of gifted students, and the results of NCLB, Waivers and accountability programs, research on how often these best instructional practices are used in the classrooms is lacking (Husband & Hunt, 2015; Long et al., 2015; Strauss, 2015). Lacking at a greater degree is research of teacher perception on gifted education (Azano et al., 2014; Doll, 2013). The current research project addressed this gap by providing a description of what type of instruction and differentiation gifted students are receiving in the accountability focused education era from the perspective of the teachers. Although much research is conducted annually on education; very little is based upon the perspective of teachers (Seidman, 2013). This study addressed the area of greatest discrepancy in gifted education research by providing research based upon the perspectives of classroom teachers.

The idea of accountability feeding profit for publishing companies is a point of contention among teachers across the nation. There is a feeling of resentment that the reputation of the teaching profession is being criticized and intervention publishers are profiting as schools purchase materials that promise to increase student test scores. When scores do improve the credit goes to the intervention product and not the implementation of the product by the teacher (Au, 2016).

Teachers feel that all students are over tested. Instead of better preparing the students for the all-important end of the year standardized test, teachers found frequent testing to be unbeneficial (Pinder, 2013). The teachers in Pinder’s (2013) study felt that over testing of students takes away instruction time and students do not learn what they should but instead learn to regurgitate materials on assessments. Larsen, Butler, and Roediger, (2013) found that repeated testing improved long-term retention. The practice of repeated testing for retention purposes is deemed test enhanced learning. The instructional strategy of test enhanced learning was found to significantly enhance a student’s ability to transfer the knowledge to other situations and content (Larsen, et al., 2013). Pinder (2013) found that teachers felt pressure to teach strictly for improved test scores. Teachers felt like they were to only teach tested content material and in some instances follow a district developed regimen of instruction (Au, 2016; Pinder, 2013). This is often the case when a school spends a large amount of money on ready-to-teach, scripted programs or receives funding for a school wide grant based on a published learning program. Teachers in this situation sometimes realize that the program, such as a reading or math improvement program, is beneath the learning level of the high ability students in the classroom but feel strapped to the program because of the purchase of the program or the requirements of a grant that they have received to implement the program (Brighton et al., 2015). Teachers felt that the pressure associated with accountability will be present for many years to come. Teachers predict that their effectiveness will be judged by test scores for the next two decades (Pinder, 2013). The education of gifted students was effected by the NCLB Act (Brighton et al., 2015; Croft et al., 2016; Hargrove, 2013; Mintrop, 2012; Morrow, 2011; Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenback, 2014; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). This bipartisan Act left teachers feeling that they did not have adequate time to prepare enriching lessons for gifted learners (Howell, 2015; Johnsen, 2013; Scot et al., 2009). This in turn created a profession of teachers feeling trapped by the Accountability Era.

Summary

The Accountability Era of education began with the implementation of the NCLB Act in 2002. Each educational law passed since the inception of the NCLB Act has held accountability in the forefront of requirements for K-12 schools. There are many researchers who have presented studies with evidence that shows faults with the accountability program in regards to high achieving students (Bui et al., 2012; Croft et al., 2016; Duffett et al., 2008; Husband & Hunt, 2015; Loveless et al., 2008; Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). There are some supporters of the accountability model to ensure student growth (Spellings, 2014). More research is needed to determine if best practice service options are being provided to gifted students in rural schools and how teachers perceive the educational services to gifted students in order for change to begin in classrooms (Azano, 2014; Azano et al., 2014; Pinder, 2013; Plucker, 2013). Azano (2014) determined that gifted education programs in rural educational settings present problems for teachers that are not experienced in urban educational settings. Problems such as limited funding, limited resources and limited time due to a smaller faculty make delivering sufficient educational services to students a challenge for rural teachers. Azano (2014) described a desperate need for research studies in rural school settings since a large majority of American students attend rural schools.

References

Abramson, R. (2011). Budget reduction letter.

Retrieved from

http://www.maranacook.org/raa1104%20parents%20ltr%20on%20budget%202 .

Ahmad, M., Badusah, J., Mansor, A. Z., & Karim, A. A. (2014). The discovery of the traits of gifted and talented students in ICT. International Education Studies, 7(13), 92-101. doi:10.5539/ies.v7n13p92

Anyan, F. (2013). The influence of power shifts in data collection and analysis stages: A

focus on qualitative research interview. The Qualitative Report, 18(18), 1-9.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1505321395?accountid=2818

0

Aske, D. R., Connolly, L. S., & Corman, R. R. (2013). Accessibility or accountability?

The rhetoric and reality of no child left behind. Journal Of Economics & Economic Education Research, 14(3), 107-118.

Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39-62.

doi: 10.1177/0895904815614916

Au, W., & Gourd, K. (2013). Asinine assessment: Why high-stakes testing is bad for everyone, including english teachers. English Journal, 103(1), 14-19. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1442776578?accountid=28180

Azano, A. P. (2014). Gifted rural students. In J. Plucker & C. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 297-304). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Azano, A. P., Callahan, C. M., Missett, T. C., & Brunner, M. (2014). Understanding the

experiences of gifted education teachers and fidelity of implementation in rural schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(2), 88-100. doi:10.1177/1932202X14524405

Battley-Fabre, M. (2011). A study examining teachers’ perception of state high stakes

standardized testing programs: Their effects on teacher preparation, performance and instruction (Order No. 1494142). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (880573000). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/880573000?accountid=28180

Baudson, T., & Preckel, F. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the

gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 37-46. doi:10.1037/spq0000011

Black, D. W. (2015). Federalizing education by waiver? Vanderbilt Law Review, 68(3), 607-680. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1683498394?accountid=28180

Brighton, C. M. & Wiley, K. (2015). Analyzing pull-out programs: A framework for planning. In C. M. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 188-198). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brighton, C. M., Moon, T. R., & L Huang, F.,H. (2015, 09). Advanced readers in reading first classrooms: Who was really “left behind”? considerations for the field of

gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 257-293.

doi:10.1177/0162353215592501

Brown, K. B., PhD., Hughes, A. J., M.Ed, Crowder, I. G., PhD., & Brown, P. M., PhD. (2015). Hunting for treasures through learning: Using geocaching to motivate young adolescent learners. Gifted Child Today, 38(2), 95-102.

doi:10.1177/1076217514568558

Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2012). Clustered for success. Educational Leadership, 69(5), 41-45.

Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2011). The schoolwide cluster grouping model: Restructuring gifted education services for the 21st century. Gifted Child Today, 34(4), 35-46. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1022707462?accountid=28180

Brulles, D., Peters, S. J., & Saunders, R. (2012). Schoolwide mathematics achievement within

the gifted cluster grouping model. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(3), 200-216.

Buchanan, R. (2015). Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers

and Teaching, 21(6), 700-719. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044329

Bui, S., Imberman, S., & Craig, S. (2012). Poor results for high achievers. Education Next, 12(1) Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1237826558?accountid=28180

Cassady, J. C., Speirs Neumeister, K.L., Adams, C. M., Cross, T. L., & al, e. (2004). The

differentiated classroom observation scale. Roeper Review, 26(3), 139-146. doi:10.1080/02783190409554259

Catsambis, S., & Buttaro, A. (2012). Revisiting “kindergarten as academic boot camp”: A

nationwide study of ability grouping and psycho-social development. Social

Psychology of Education : An International Journal, 15(4), 483-515.

doi:10.1007/s11218-012-9196-0

Chorba, K. (2011). A review of qualitative research: Studying how things work. The

Qualitative Report, 16(4), 1136-1140. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/877886014?accountid=28180

Chowdhury, M. F. (2015). Coding, sorting and sifting of qualitative data analysis: Debates and discussion. Quality and Quantity, 49(3), 1135-1143. doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0039-2

Colangelo, N., & Wood, S. M. (A) (2015). Counseling the gifted: past, present, and future directions. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(2), 133+. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00189.x

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Marron, M. A. (2013). Evidence trumps beliefs: Academic acceleration is an effective intervention for high-ability students. In C. M. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 164-175). New York, NY: Routledge.

Colangelo, N., & Wood, S. M. (B) (2015). Introduction to the special section: counseling the gifted individual. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(2), 131+. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00188.x

Coleman, L. J. (2014, 03). The invisible world of professional practical knowledge of a teacher of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 18-29. doi:10.1177/0162353214521490

Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015, 12). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 358-376. doi:10.1177/0162353215607322

Cooper, M. E., EdS. (2012). Everything I ever wanted to learn about teaching, I learned from gifted boys. Gifted Child Today, 35(3), 171-178. doi:10.1177/1076217512445991

Cozby, P., & Bates, S. (2012). Methods in behavioral research (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research,(4th Ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Croft, S. J., Roberts, M. A., & Stenhouse, V. L. (2016). The perfect storm of education reform: high-stakes testing and teacher evaluation. Social Justice, 42(1), 70+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA436982445&v=2.1&u=pres1571&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=9fa425a9f2977172c6965a1d29ce8870

Cross, T. L., PhD. (2011). Beliefs of supporters of gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 24-25. doi: 10.1177/107621751103400108

Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2010). Evaluating NCLB. Education Next, 10(3), 54-61.

Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Dee, T. S., Jacob, B. A., Hoxby, C. M., & Ladd, H. F. (2010). The impact of no child left

behind on students, teachers, and Schools/Comments and discussion. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 149-207. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/859360413?accountid=28180

Derthick, M., & Rotherham, A. (2012). Obama’s NCLB waivers: Are they necessary or illegal? Education Next, 12(2) Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1237823824?accountid=28180

Dial, M. F. (2011). The impact of classroom instructional practices in math on achievement or underachievement for academically gifted and talented students (Order No. 3461793). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; ProQuest Education Journals. (881712276). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/881712276?accountid=28180

Doll, M. M. (2013). Teacher perceptions of overexcitabilities in secondary gifted students: Implications for practice in gifted education (Order No. 3572649). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1433912014). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1433912014?accountid=28180

Duffet, A., Farkas, S. & Loveless, T. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of NCLB. Washington, D.C.: Thomas D. Fordham Institute.

Economic Research Service. (2012). Rural America at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.ers. usda.gov/publications/eb-economic-brief/eb21.aspx

Esquierdo, J. J., & Arreguín-Anderson, M. (2012, 03). The “invisible” gifted and talented

bilingual students: A current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 35-47. doi:10.1177/0162353211432041

Exploring ideas in gifted education. Wntr 2011 v34 i1 p50(1). Gifted Child

Today, 34, 1. p.50(1). Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale:http://find.galegroup.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=pres1571

Finn, C. A. (2012, September 18). Young, gifted and neglected. New York Times, p. A29.

Flint, L. J., & Ritchotte, J. A. (2012). A commentary on “differentiating low performance

of the gifted learner: Achieving, underachieving, and selective consuming students”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 168-175. doi:10.1177/1932202X11434641

Ford, D. Y., PhD. (2011). Closing the achievement gap: Gifted education must join the

battle. Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 31-34. doi:10.1177/107621751103400110

Ford, D. Y., PhD. (2015). Culturally responsive gifted classrooms for culturally different

students: A focus on invitational learning. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 67-69.

doi:10.1177/1076217514556697

Fuchs, H. M. (2011). Enriching curriculum for all students. Roeper Review, 33(3), 209-

2

10.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/879425650?accountid=28180

Gentry, M. (2014). Cluster grouping. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical

issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 109-

117). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Gentry, M., & Fugate, C. M. (2013). Cluster grouping programs and the total school

cluster grouping model. In C. M. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.),

Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 212-225). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gishey, R. L. (2013). A qualitative study of urban elementary school teachers’ perceptions of accountability in their practice (Order No. 3605655). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1491381146). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1491381146?accountid=28180

Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.

California: Sociology Press.

Gonzalez, R. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2013). Educational tug-of-war: Internal and external accountability of principals in varied contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 383-406. doi:10.1108/09578231311311528

Gubbins, (2015). Cognitive and affective outcomes of pull-out programs: Knowns and unknowns. In C. M. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 176-187). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2014). Contributions to the impact of the javits act by the national research center on the gifted and the talented. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(4), 422-444. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1627082760?accountid=28180

Hancock, D., & Algozzine, R. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for

beginning researchers (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargrove, K., PhD. (2013). From the classroom: “exam schools”-are they the solution for gifted students? Gifted Child Today, 36(1), 68-70. doi:10.1177/1076217512465286

Henderson, M. B., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2016). The 2015 EdNext poll on

school reform. Education Next, 16(1) Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1736897513?accountid=2818

0

House, J. (2013). NCLB Waivers: Good News and Bad News. T.H.E. Journal, 40(2), 8-

10.

Howell, W. G. (2015). Results of president obama’s race to the top. Education Next,

15(4) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1709240688?accountid=28180

Hughes, H., & Bruce, C. S. (2013). International students’ experiences of informed learning: A pedagogical case study. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 8(2), 106-119. doi:10.5172/ijpl.2013.8.2.106

Husband, T., & Hunt, C. (2015). A review of the empirical literature on no

child left behind from 2001 to 2010. Planning and Changing, 46(1), 212-254.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1719448939?accountid=28180

Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical

review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative

Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9. doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.23606

Johnsen, S. K., PhD. (2013). National challenges in providing services to gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 36(1), 5-6, doi:10.1177/1076217512468415

Johnston, D. (2011). Three changes for education. ELS 760 Process of Change. Retrieved

13.04.13 from: http:// meetdebjohnston.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Educational-changes

Jolly, J. L., PhD. (2014). Building gifted education: One state at a time. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 258-260. doi:10.1177/1076217514544031

Jolly, J. L., & Makel, M. C. (2010). NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: The inadvertent costs for high-achieving and gifted students. Childhood Education, 87(1), 35-40. doi:10.1080/00094056.2010.10521436

Jolly, J. L., & Matthews, M. S. (2012, 09). A critique of the literature on parenting gifted

learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 259-290.

doi:10.1177/0162353212451703

Jones, J. K., M.Ed, & Hébert, T. P., PhD. (2012). Engaging diverse gifted learners in U.S. history classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 252-261. doi:10.1177/1076217512455476

Kamarulzaman, M. H., Azman, H., & Zahidi, A. M. (2015). Differentiation practices among the English teachers at PERMATA pintar national gifted and talented center. Asian Social Science, 11(9), 346-351. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1679874717?accountid=28180

Kentucky Association for Gifted Education. (2015). Retrieved from

Home

.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2011). No Child Left Behind reports.

Retrieved from http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+and+Reporting+/Reports/No+Child+Left+Behind+Reports/.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2015). Gifted and talented handbook. Retrieved from http://education.ky.gov/specialed/GT/Documents/GT%20Handbook .

Kershen, J. E. L. (2015). Teaching, giftedness, and differentiation: A reflection. English Journal,

105(1), 69-74.

Kettler, T., Russell, J., & Puryear, J. S. (2015). Inequitable access to gifted education:

Variance in funding and staffing based on locale and contextual school variables.

Journal For The Education Of The Gifted, 38(2), 99-117.

doi:10.1177/0162353215578277

Klein, A. (2015, November 30). ESEA reauthorization: The every student succeeds act

explained. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-

12/2015/11/esea_reauthorization_the_every.html?intc=highsearch

Klimis, J., M.A., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2013). Designing self-contained middle schools for the gifted: A journey in program development. Gifted Child Today, 36(3), 172-178. doi:10.1177/1076217513486647

Lantz, B. (2013). The large sample size fallacy. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27(2), 487-492. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01052.x

Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2013). Comparative effects of test-enhanced learning and self-explanation on long-term retention. Medical Education, 47(7), 674-682 9p. doi:10.1111/medu.12141

Latz, A. O., & Adams, C. M. (2011, 09). Critical differentiation and the twice oppressed: Social class and giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 773-789. doi:10.1177/0162353211417339

Latz, A. O., Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31(1), 27-39. doi:10.1080/02783190802527356

Long, L. C., Barnett, K., & Rogers, K. B. (2015, 06). Exploring the relationship between

principal, policy, and gifted program scope and quality. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 118-140. doi:10.1177/0162353215578279

Loveless, T., Kamarck, E., Dews, F., Brainard, M. T., Robinson, J., Knowles, J. & Mann, R. W. (2008, June 18). High-achieving students in the era of no child left behind. Reports. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2008/06/18-nclb-loveless

.

Malyska, A., Stanczak, M., & Piotrowski, P. (2014). Teachers about gifted students—

survey in polish schools. European Scientific Journal, 10(10), 175+. Retrieved

from

http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA368957028&v

=

2.1&u=pres1571&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=9ec5b14f512ae2c7356e680aa2e

10980

Mammadov, S., & Topçu, A. (2014, 09). The role of E-mentoring in mathematically gifted students’ academic life: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 220-244. doi:10.1177/0162353214540824

Mason, N. (2011). Great ideas: Using service-learning & differentiation instruction to help your students succeed. Childhood Education, 87(4), 295-296. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/866565281?accountid=28180

McBee, M. T. (2015). Javits updates. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(3), 246-250.

doi:10.1177/1932202X15591099

McCoach, D. B., Rambo, K. E., & Welsh, M. (2013). Assessing the growth of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 56-67. doi:10.1177/0016986212463873

McNeal, L. I. (2012). Teacher unions and no child left behind reconstitution: the calm

before the storm. Journal Of School Leadership, 22(6), 1109-1129.

Meng, J., Zhao, T., & Chattouphonexay, A. (2012). Teacher questions in a content-based

classroom for EFL young learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,

2(12), 2603-2610. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.12.2603-2610

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milligan, J., Neal, G., & Singleton, J. (2012). Administrators of special and gifted education: preparing them for the challenge. Education, 133(1), 171+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA302463842&v=2.1&u=pres1571&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=f6b8dac4b77c74ed6f1652554f6d6c6c

Mintrop, H. (2012). Bridging accountability obligations, professional values and (perceived) student needs with integrity. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 695-726. doi:10.1108/09578231211249871

Missett, T. C., & McCormick, K. M. (2014). Conceptions of giftedness. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 143-158). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Azano, A. P. (2014, 09).

Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative

assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 245-268. doi:10.1177/0162353214541326

Morrow, R. (2011). Are gifted children victims of No Child Left Behind? Retrieved

from

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110820/A_OPINION03/108200331

.

Mosley, J. I., Boscardin, M. L., & Wells, C. S. (2014). Perceptions of Principal Attributes

in an Era of Accountability. Journal Of School Leadership, 24(6), 1038-1072.

Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

National Association for Gifted Children (A). (2015). Retrieved from

https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-gifted-education.

National Association for Gifted Children (B). (2015). Gifted education standards. Retrieved from

http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/K-12%20programming%20standards

.

Nelson-Royes, A. M. (2013, Summer). Tutors can improve students’ reading skills.

Reading Improvement, 50(2), 48+. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA336281003&v

=

2.1&u=pres1571&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=cf1e5d3be8bcee70c1c9288df969

d069

NEW PRODUCTS. (2015). Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 146-147.

doi:10.1177/1076217515588036.

NEWS BRIEFS. (2012). Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 231-235. doi:10.1177/1076217512455493

O’Brien, T.V., & Roberson, T. J. (2012). Not quite “deja vu all over again”: No child left

behind meets effective schools research. The Educational Forum, 76(3), 356-371. doi:10.1080/00131725.2012.682200.

O’Connor, J. (2012). Is it good to be gifted? The social construction of the gifted child.

Children & Society, 26, 293-303. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00341.x

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J., J.D. (2014). Closing the opportunity gap: Program factors contributing to academic success in culturally different youth. Gifted Child Today, 37(2), 102-110. doi:10.1177/1076217514520630

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Conceptualizations of

giftedness and the development of talent: implications for counselors. Journal of

Counseling and Development, 93(2), 143+. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00190.x

Periathiruvadi, S., & Rinn, A. N. (2013). Technology in gifted education: A review of

best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 153-169. doi:10.1080/15391523.2012.10782601

Petrilli, M. & Skull, J. (2015). American achievement in international perspective. Washington, DC: The Thomas B Fordham Institute.

Pinder, P. (2013). Exploring and understanding Maryland’s math and science teachers’

perspectives on NCLB and increase testing: Employing a phenomenological inquiry approach. Education, 133(3), 298-302.

Plucker, J. A. (2013). Students from rural environments. In C. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 301-314). New York, NY: Routledge.

Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education: Status of the Field and Considerations for the Future. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390-406. doi:10.1177/0014402914527244

Popham, W. J. (2013). Tough teacher evaluation and formative assessment: Oil and water? Voices from the Middle, 21(2), 10-14. Retrieved from

https://secure.ncte.org/store/2013-december-voices-from-the-middle-v21-2

Preckel, F., & Vock, M. (2012). Giftedness: Foundations, identification, and education.

Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Prescher, T., & Werle, S. (2014). Comprehensive and sustainable? U.S. education reform from a neo-institutional perspective. Tertium Comparationis, 20(1), 81-110. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1538277887?accountid=28180

Rambo, K. E., & McCoach, D. (2012). Teacher attitudes toward subject-specific acceleration: Instrument development and validation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 129-152. doi:10.1177/0162353212440591

Rambo-Hernandez, K., & Warne, R. T. (2015). Measuring the outliers: An introduction to out-of-level testing with high-achieving students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 199-207. doi:10.1177/0040059915569359

Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. United States: Basic Books.

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Reilly, R. C. (2013). Found poems, member checking and crises of representation. The

Qualitative Report, 18(15), 1-18. Retrieved from

http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol18/iss15/2

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. United States: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (Eds.). (2008). Enriching curriculum for all students (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Repinc, U., & Juznic, P. (2013). Guided inquiry projects: Enrichment for gifted pupils. School Libraries Worldwide, 19(1), 114-127. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1338076211?accountid=28180

Resch, C. (2014). National policies and strategies for the support of the gifted and talented in austria. CEPS Journal : Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(3), 9-30. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1564427809?accountid=28180

Ritchotte, J., PhD., Rubenstein, L., PhD., & Murry, F., PhD. (2015). Reversing the

underachievement of gifted middle school students: Lessons from another field. Gifted Child Today, 38(2), 103-113. doi:10.1177/1076217514568559

Robinson, N (Feb 2011). Dai, David Yun. The nature and nurture of giftedness: a

new framework for understanding gifted education. CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, 48, 6. p.1138(1). Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Academic OneFile via Gale:http://find.galegroup.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=pres1571

Rodriguez, N. (2014). Kentucky esea waiver extension approved. Retrieved from

www.education.ky.gov.

Rollins, M. R., & Cross, T. L. (2014, 12). Assessing the psychological changes of gifted students attending a residential high school with an outcome measurement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 337-354. doi:10.1177/0162353214552562

Rueder Neves, P., Salim, N., Cristine Ferreira Soares, G., & Maria Rosa Gualda, D. (2013). Experiences of women in a pregnant group: a descriptive study. Online Brazilian Journal Of Nursing, 12(4), 862-841. doi:10.5935/1676-4285.20134143

Rush, L. S., & Scherff, L. (2012). NCLB 10 years later. English Education, 44(2), 91-101. Retrieved from

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EE/0442-jan2012/EE0442Opening2

Ryser, G. R., PhD., & Rambo-Hernandez, K. (2014). Using growth models to measure school performance: Implications for gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 17-23. doi:10.1177/1076217513509617

Samardzija, N., & Peterson, J. S. (2015, 09). Learning and classroom preferences of gifted eighth graders: A qualitative study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 233-256. doi:10.1177/0162353215592498

Samuel, F. A., & Suh, B. (2012). Teacher candidates reconcile the child and the curriculum with no child left behind. The Educational Forum, 76(3), 372-382. doi:10.1080/00131725.2012.682201

Schmitt, C., & Goebel, V. (2015, 12). Experiences of high-ability high school students: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 428-446. doi:10.1177/0162353215607325

Schwandt, T. (2015). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry (Fourth ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Scot, T., Callahan, C. M., & Urquhart, J. (2009). Paint-by-number teachers ad cookie-cutter students. The unintended effects of high-stakes testing on the education of gifted students. Roeper Review, 31, 40-52. doi:10.108/02783190802527364

Seedorf, S., EdD. (2014). Response to intervention: Teachers’ needs for implementation in gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 247-257. doi:10.1177/1076217514544029

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Social Psychology of Education. 2015. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/11218.

Shank, G. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Shayshon, B., Gal, H., Tesler, B., & Ko, E.-S. (2014). Teaching mathematically talented

students: a cross-cultural study about their teachers’ views. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 87(3), 409+. doi:10.1007/s10649-014-9568-9

Siegle, D. (2015, 03). Dr. james gallagher’s concern for gifted learners beyond academics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 58-63. doi:10.1177/0162353214565554

Siegle, D., Wilson, H. E., & Little, C. A. (2013). A sample of gifted and talented educators’ attitudes about academic acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 27-51. doi:10.1177/1932202X12472491

Sisk, D. (2009). Myth 13: The regular classroom teacher can “go it alone”. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 269-271. doi:10.1177/0016986209346939

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method, and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Snyder, C. (2012). Finding the “royal road” to learning to teach: Listening to novice teacher voices in order to improve the effectiveness of teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(4), 33-53. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23479651

Snyder, K. E., Barger, M. M., Wormington, S. V., Schwartz-Bloom, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Identification as gifted and implicit beliefs about intelligence: An examination of potential moderators. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(4), 242-258. doi:10.1177/1932202X13507971

Social Psychology of Education. 2015. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/11218.

Spellings, M. (2014). Assessments are vital for healthy schools. Education Next, 14(1).

Retrieved from

Assessments Are Vital for Healthy Schools

Stephens, K. & Riggsbee, J. (2007). The children neglected by no child left

behind. Retrieved on May 8, 2010 from http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/02/gifted_oped.html.

Strauss, V. (2015, February 13). No Child Left Behind’s test-based policies failed. Will Congress keep them anyway? The Washington Post. Retrieved December 4, 2015, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/13/no-child-left-behinds-test-based-policies-failed-will-congress-keep-them-anyway/

Summers, J. (2014). Nation’s report card shows stagnant scores for reading, math. The Two-Way. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/05/06/310181788/nations-report-card-shows-stagnant-scores-for-reading-math

Swan, B., Coulombe-Quach, X., Huang, A., Godek, J., Becker, D., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students: Case study of a virtual learning lab in a rural middle school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(4), 294-319. doi:10.1177/1932202X15603366

Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Successful implementation of differentiated reading conferences: Case

studies of Schoolwide Enrichment Model-Reading classrooms. ProQuest.

Tavakolian, H., & Howell, N. (2012). The Impact of No Child Left Behind Act. Franklin

Business & Law Journal, (1), 70-77.

Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.

American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748

Thompson, M. C. (2011). The cluster grouping handbook: How to challenge gifted students and improve achievement for all. Roeper Review, 33(3), 208-209. doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.580504

Tomlinson, Carol Ann. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria: ASCD, 2014.

U. S. Department of Education. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/esea.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405 8p. doi:10.1111/nhs.12048

van der Meulen, R.,T., van der Bruggen, C.,O., Spilt, J. L., Verouden, J., Berkhout, M., &

Bögels, S.,M. (2014). The pullout program day a week school for gifted children: Effects on social-emotional and academic functioning. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43(3), 287-314. doi:10.1007/s10566-013-9239-5

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). A case for common core state standards: Gifted curriculum 3.0. Gifted Child Today, 35(3), 222-223. doi:10.1177/1076217512445990

VanTassel-Baska, J.(A). (2013). Curriculum issues: Curriculum, instruction, and assessment for the gifted: A problem-based learning scenario. Gifted Child Today, 36(1), 71-75. doi:1076217512465289

VanTassel-Baska, J. (B). (2013, 03). The world of cross-cultural research: Insights for gifted

education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 6-18. doi:10.1177/0162353212471451

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2014). Curriculum issues: Artful inquiry: The use of questions in working with the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 48-50. doi:10.1177/1076217513509621

(Dan)Walker, L.D., & VanderPloeg, M. K. (2015). Surveying graduates of a self-contained high school gifted program: A tool for evaluation, development, and strategic planning. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 160-176. doi:10.1177/1076217515583741

Warne, R. T. (2011). Psychometric impacts of above-level testing (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station.

Webber, S. (2010). Understanding the delivery and impact of gifted education in america:

A phenomenological study (Order No. 3424333). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Northcentral University; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; ProQuest Education Journals. (756267914). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/756267914?accountid=28180

Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2012). An integrated identification and intervention model for

intellectually gifted children. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 145-167. doi:10.1177/1932202X12438877

Wiggan, G. (2014). Student achievement for whom? high-performing and still ‘playing the game,’ the meaning of school achievement among high achieving african american students. The Urban Review, 46(3), 476-492. doi:10.1007/s11256-014-0300-y

Willems, P. P., & Gonzalez-DeHass, A. (2012). School-community partnerships: Using

authentic contexts to academically motivate students. School Community Journal, 22(2), 9-30. Retrieved from

http://www.adi.org/journal/2012fw/WillemsDeHassFall2012

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications

Young, M. H., EdD., & Balli, S. J., PhD. (2014). Gifted and talented education (GATE): Student and parent perspectives. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 235-246. doi:10.1177/1076217514544030

Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Razquin, P., Booker, K., Lockwood, J.R., Vernez, G., Birman, B.F., Garet,

M.S., and O’Day, J. (2007). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind

Act: Volume I – Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student

Achievement. U.S. Department of Education. Available at

http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2007/RAND_RP1265 .

Topic	Distinguished	Proficient	Apprentice	Novice
Articles	Information is gathered from multiple, research-based article sources. Multiple opinions on the research topic are reviewed. 10-15 articles are included.	Information is gathered from multiple, research-based article sources. 10 articles are included.	Information is gathered from multiple sources. 5-8 articles are included.	Information is gathered from a single source.
Topic	Well organized, demonstrates logical sequencing and structure. Thought process flows for reader comprehension. Details about article selection are present including search engines, search terms and inclusion criteria.	Well organized but demonstrates illogical sequencing and a lack of structure and flow. Details about article selection are present.	Ideas are stated but there is no train of thought flow	Lacks structure and organization of thoughts
Introduction	A descriptive introduction leads the reader into the research literature review and the purpose of the review is stated and rationalizes the need for the review. Main discussion points are identified. Research question is identified.	An introduction leads the reader into the research literature review and the purpose of the review is stated and rationalizes the need for the review. Research question is identified.	An introduction leads the reader into the research literature review	An inadequate introduction is present.
Background, History, Conclusion	Detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Evidence is proposed from different views on the research topic. Writer’s view is clearly expressed.	Detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Evidence is proposed from different views on the research topic.	Conclusions are reached from the evidence offered.	Conclusions are not reached from the evidence offered.
Details	Anthropomorphism is avoided, Post graduate level writing is used to guide reader through ideas and information, 10-15 peer-reviewed sources are used, 7-10 pages are written. Post graduate level sentences and paragraphs are used and there are no grammatical errors present. Correct APA citations are used.	Anthropomorphism is mostly avoided. 10 peer-reviewed sources are used. 7 pages are written. Post graduate level sentences and paragraphs are used and there are no grammatical errors present. Mostly correct APA citations are used.	Anthropomorphism is not avoided. 8 peer-reviewed sources are used. 5-6 pages are written.	Less than 8 resources are used. Less than 5 pages are written.

Literature Review Rubric

CYBERSECURITY IN FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES 1

CYBERSECURITY IN FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES 10

Cybersecurity in Financial Industries

Sai Balaji Yamsani

University of the Cumberland’s

Introduction

Cybersecurity, also known as computer security, refers to IT security in organizations that protect the computer system from attacks and theft of the hardware and software information from untrusted sources. Cybersecurity encompasses the protection of physical access to the system’s hardware and security against harms that may arise from network access and data and code injections. Other malpractices that might put the computer system at risk are the intentional or accidental malpractices by the operator mat may bring about the diversion from security procedure rendering the network vulnerable. According to Elnagdy, et al, (2016), through the application of Cybersecurity in an organization, information and services are protected from unauthorized access, which may bring changes or distraction to the system’s overall performance. Proper Cybersecurity within an organization will ensure confidentiality, integrity, and in-time availability of credible data. There are several ways in which the organization can improve its Cybersecurity, which involves the use of antivirus software to protect the system against malware, the use of firewalls that can prevent hacking, and using technological solutions that can protect personal data in the organizations, such as using passwords and biometric systems such as fingerprints.

Why is Cybersecurity so critical?

In the modern world, economic, social, and political activities depend on computer networks and information technology to simplify complex problems. This has come with many challenges since cyber-attacks have also increased with hackers coming up with more sophisticated ways of conducting their attacks. Basing on the statistics that were collected by the Symantec cybercrime report published in April 2012, the cybersecurity attacks cost a loss of US$114 billion each year. A lot of time is also lost by organizations in handling cybersecurity issues; his time was quantified to approximately US$385 billion, (Gai, et al, 2017).

Over the years, cybersecurity victims have increased, with the hackers now shifting their attention to financial industries. According to the research conducted by Symantec in 24 countries, out of 20000 people were interviewed, 64% of them were found to be victims of cyber-attack. In every second, based on the survey, an averagely of 14 men are victims of cyber-attacks every second, which amounts to over one million attacks every day. The increased cases of cyber-attacks can be attributed to the fact that it is more convenient and less risky than physical attacks. The anonymity nature of the internet makes it hard for the culprits to be identified or caught. More so, the attacks can take place regardless of the distance or geographical locations. The increased number of cyber-attacks brings about the need to enhance Cybersecurity to enhance data’s credibility and integrity and secure critical data from falling into unauthorized hands. There is a need for financial institutions to upgrade their system to prevent massive losses from the attacks.

Key Weapon

Many experts who deal in Cybersecurity believe that malware is the key weapon used by hackers to carry out cyber-attacks and malicious breaches. Malware can be described as a large group of attacks that can be uploaded on the system without the operator’s knowledge, which can lead to compromising the design for the benefit of the attacker. According to Gao, et al, (2020), there are several categories of malware, which includes spyware, Trojan horse, viruses, and worms. There are several ways malware can be uploaded onto the computer system, which provides for opening an infected file, infection from other machines, or access to a corrupted website. The virus can also be loaded onto a USB and uploaded into the system corrupting files and data or granting unauthorized person entry into the system.

Premier Defense Strategy against Malware

The best strategy for protecting an organization’s data on the computer system is the perimeter defense strategy that covers everything inside the network from access by unauthorized individuals rather than the process that protects individual assets. This strategy involves using firewalls and the installation of antivirus, which serves as a primary defense that ensures that there is no malware penetration. Through that, all the incoming traffics is intercepted and examined to ensure there is no malware penetration into the system, (Huang & Li, 2018)

Cyber-security and Financial Sector

In the recent past, financial sectors have become a center of attention for hackers who conduct malicious acts and leads to massive losses. Due to the advancement of technology, it has become easier for hackers to infiltrate security systems in financial institutions using more sophisticated means that cannot be easily realized. This makes it necessary for financial institutions to upgrade their systems.

In many cases of cyber-attacks on banking and financial sectors, it was realized that the attack required minimum technical skills whereby some of the attacks were carried out by individuals with no or less computer knowledge, there is a need for financial sectors to safeguard their network, which has many users. The persons responsible for data entry into the system are also required to receive adequate technical training to detect Data that is corrupted before it is fed into the system. A lack of acceptable procedures and policies govern the system, making it possible for individuals with malicious intentions to exploit these avenues since most of the designs are not technically complicated. In such a case, individuals with evil intentions exploit non-technical vulnerabilities in the organization’s rules and policies. Such attacks are carried out by individuals with little or low technical expertise.

· In all the reported cases of cyber-attacks in the financial sectors, 87% was an inside job where there was an application of a simple comment to carry out the incidence. According to Kosutic & Pigni, (2020), Of all the cases, only 9% of the required technical knowledge of network security to carry out the incident. After the incident, it is always discovered that there wasn’t an initial scan of the system to identify the vulnerabilities, making it easy to carry the attack.

· In the studied cases, it was discovered that 70% 0f the, the insiders exploited or tried to use the vulnerabilities present in the system applications, procedures, or processes. To carry out the attack. In cases, 61 % of them showed that the insiders exploited the vulnerability characteristics present in designing the software, hardware, and network.

· 78% of the cases studied showed that insiders carried out the incident with authorization and active computer accounts in the financial sector by the attack time. Out of the 78%, 43 percent of the incidents had the insiders using their usernames and passwords to carry out the experience.

Recent Trends in Finance Industry

In financial sectors, cybercrime’s is the most reported threat. Other money-related industries and the supply of the national foundations that deal with money also report the same cases. Financial departments in earning institutions like colleges and universities also experience the same sort of attacks. The way these economic sectors react to cyber-attacks to a larger extend determines the magnitude of a country’s security and strengths. The digitation of the financial and banking industries has rendered them more vulnerable to attacks since the hackers are able to conduct their acts from any given location, (McSweeney, 2018). 

    The financial sectors, especially those with multiple branches in different regions, are at more risk of attacks since they operate their transactions through the internet, which can be intercepted and altered if not well secured. There are new advancements in payment methods such as the use of PayPal, apple wallet, the service of m-pesa, among others, online banking, and critical database, making it an easy target for hackers to conduct their activities and obtain maximum benefits from them.

In recent years, the largest 50 banking websites have been accessed illegally by unauthorized users, leading to a loss of over than $1 billion. The financial sectors need to address the broad range of cyber threats, which include the use of malware o render the system vulnerable, phishing that uses electronic communication to trick people into revealing corrupted data, and the use of DOS- denial of service attack that makes the procedure inaccessible to unauthorized individuals.

Due to the large number of individuals who access the system and the large volume of data stored in the financial sectors, it makes it easy to conduct an attack since the avenues that an individual can exploit to carry out the attack are broadened. In 2015, it was reported that there was an increase in cyber-attacks in the financial sectors by 40%, with 21 million cases of cyber-attacks reported in the same year on the financial sectors across the globe. Forty-five million BOT attack was also reported in the same year. From the third quarter to the fourth quarter of the year, the BOT attacks were reported to have multiplied ten times, (Ossamah, 2020)

Why is the financial sector vulnerable to cyber-security breaches?

Due to the complex nature of financial institutions, there is a need to employ different security techniques and structures in each sector and sub-sector. The use of various organization techniques tends to be useful since it caters to all kinds of potential attacks. However, multiple approaches can also render the system security vulnerable since some methods might be conflicting, creating loopholes to be exploited. The use of mobile banking and online lending together with other modernized techniques of banking that have been brought about due to the advancement of technology are the main targets of attacks since they have weak security infrastructure that can easily be hacked, the high speed of transaction cycle that is brought by online lending to give out loans as compared the traditional money lending methods gave made it more comfortable for attacks since to facilitate the high number of transactions with the high speed it requires less security infrastructure. The vulnerability created by a single lender can diversify to the individuals taking the loans since the system is inter-connected. The exposure can also expose other larger institutions that are linked in terms of transactions, (Lau, et al, 2018)

Other financial; institutions that are involved in e-commerce makes it easy for them to be hacked between the year 2016 and 2017; the volume of mobile transactions was estimated to have increased by 20%, and it is estimated to increase due to the advancement and adoption of mobile phone devices as well as the increase in online many lending sectors. Due to the adoption of technology in many institutions and collaboration to enable e-commerce, businesses need to develop multiple-layer firewalls that can allow the company to detect malware and prevent access into the system. Device spoofing and a mobile bot can be used to enhance security.

New Trends in Cyber-Security breaching

In the modern world, cybercrime is the second most reported crime in the world in PWC’s Global Economic Crime Survey. Financial institutions were discovered to be the main targets of the attack. Cybercriminals have devised new ways of attack, breach, threat patterns such as phishing, spear-phishing, and social engineering due to technological advancement. Credential theft attack is another avenue that is exploited by cybercriminals in the financial sectors. Since the beginning of COVID-19 and its spread worldwide, there is a need for economic sectors to change their modes of transactions from paper to digital transactions. According to Lewallen, (2020), there was a rapid change in their operations; simultaneously, a cybercriminal moved swiftly to take advantage of the enormous scope to conduct their attack. Due to the rapid growth in financial institutions’ operations, there were no adequate security measures to make their systems vulnerable. The aggression has further moved to smaller businesses.

Ruinous and problematic malware assaults prod multiparty and cross-area was focusing on. Danger bunches utilizing ransomware are focusing on numerous connected gatherings without a moment’s delay worldwide. On August 16, 2019, above 20 elements in Texas, United States, detailed ransomware assaults, provoking a planned state and government reaction to a multi-jurisdictional network protection occasion that was the first of its kind.37 Testing the versatility of the influenced elements, this multiparty assault is a bellwether demonstrating the probability of extra simultaneous, troublesome assaults. A proactive cyber defense plan that joins multiparty assault reenactments with industry and cross-industry companions could enable monetary organizations to be more ready to confront this danger, (Moorer, 2018).

What Financial Organizations need to do?

There is a need for financial organizations to develop solutions that can detect its systems and vendors’ vulnerabilities. There are several ways that financial institutions can improve their security. First, there is a need to secure data that is coming in and out of their system. Due to the increase in mobile banking, there is also an increase in the volume of data handled by the organization. There is a need to classify each data to mitigate the risks. Data can be classified based on type, sensitivity, or value. A financial institution’s other measure needs to take is monitoring third party risk by conducting assessment on the vendor. The organization will be able to identify the gaps that would otherwise lead to losses. This will enable the organization to take the necessary measures to mitigate the risks. The third measure a financial organization can take is to leverage cybersecurity data. The organization can use this data to understand the past events of cyber-attacks and predict the future by taking all the necessary measures to prevent the attacks. By having insight into the security data, it will be easier to identify vulnerabilities in the network, facilitating the institution to stay ahead of the threat, (Szabó, 2018)

For financial institutions to effectively ensure against dangers, they should have the option to ceaselessly survey and screen their security act just as the cybersecurity of their sellers. With Security Scorecard’s money related administrations arrangements, associations can adopt a proactive strategy to network safety. Our extensive network safety arrangements assist you with increasing an outside considering your IT framework so you can without much of a stretch distinguish digital dangers and organize danger alleviation. To improve danger recognition, offer online protection information abilities that can be utilized to remediate weaknesses before they are abused, (Zhang, et al, 2020).

Conclusion

As I have discussed above, it is possible that one can say that there is a lot to be done in financial needs to be sure that there are essential cleanliness and hygiene. A perfect example is security for SSL. And this is important in enhancing the general system as well as practices security as well as consistency in patching. There may be an increased cyber-attack hazard when all these issues have not been made so that they can be able to hold security measures. However, there is still a future for companies’ financial increment. For example, Swift is in the mission of enhancing digital security and instructing banks and their management on proficient methods at keeping a very safe system. OCC about the security measures has set up third-party merchants. The SEC’s chairperson has declared cybercrime as the most dangerous danger squeezing into a financial company worldwide, enduring the summit held up in Reuters Financial Regulation Summit in May. The security pose should be investigated to focus on cybercrimes and security of data to boost the organization’s financial aspect. Comment by DeAnna: No pronouns in scholarly writing

References

Elnagdy, S. A., Qiu, M., & Gai, K. (2016, June). Cyber incident classifications using ontology-based knowledge representation for cybersecurity insurance in financial industry. In 2016 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing (CSCloud) (pp. 301-306). IEEE.

Gai, K., Qiu, M., & Hassan, H. (2017). Secure cyber incident analytics framework using Monte Carlo simulations for financial cybersecurity insurance in cloud computing. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 29(7), e3856.

Gao, L., Calderon, T. G., & Tang, F. (2020). Public companies’ cybersecurity risk disclosures. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 38, 100468.

Huang, H., & Li, T. S. (2018). A centralised cybersecurity strategy for Taiwan. Journal of Cyber Policy, 3(3), 344-362.

Kosutic, D., & Pigni, F. (2020). Cybersecurity: investing for competitive outcomes. Journal of Business Strategy.

McSweeney, K. (2018). Motivating Cybersecurity Compliance in Critical Infrastructure Industries: A Grounded Theory Study (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).

Ossamah, A. (2020, June). Blockchain as a solution to Drone Cybersecurity. In 2020 IEEE 6th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) (pp. 1-9). IEEE.

Lau, N., Pastel, R., Chapman, M. R., Minarik, J., Petit, J., & Hale, D. (2018, September). Human Factors in Cybersecurity–Perspectives from Industries. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 139-143). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Lewallen, J. (2020). Emerging technologies and problem definition uncertainty: The case of cybersecurity. Regulation & Governance.

Moorer, W. L. (2018). WYNN AND OTHERS CAN LEARN FROM WYNDHAM: EFFECTS OF FTC v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORP. ON CASINO OPERATORS’CYBERSECURITY POLICIES AND LOYALTY PROGRAMS. Gaming Law Review, 22(1), 3-11.

Szabó, Z. (2018, September). Cybersecurity issues in industrial control systems. In 2018 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics (SISY) (pp. 000231-000234). IEEE.

Zhang, L., Xie, Y., Zheng, Y., Xue, W., Zheng, X., & Xu, X. (2020). The challenges and countermeasures of blockchain in finance and economics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(4), 691-698.