Search results

The historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger (1999), once wrote that “a basic theme of American history has been the movement, uneven but steady, from exclusion to inclusion” – a movement “fueled by ideals” (p. 173). He might well have been talking about the United States’ public education system where it has become evident that segments of its pupil population have been overlooked or neglected. The good news is that there have been some efforts to ameliorate this problem. However, despite these efforts, there continues to be lingering problems for culturally and linguistically diverse students with gifts and talents. In this chapter, we address how to maximize the success potential of these students.

The various levels of research support undergirding effective practices are outlined. Evidence supporting specific programming, service delivery models, and curricular interventions, and a subset of research-based classroom strategies for talented learners is reviewed. Trends and innovations for effective practices in the future are suggested.

Societal interest in individuals with high aptitudes, gifts, talents, and extraordinary abilities dates back thousands of years, perhaps as early as 3000 BC. For example, “as early as Biblical times, prophets and learned men were extolled for their wisdom and leadership. Plato likewise accorded positions of supremacy to certain individuals based on their superior endowment of intelligence. Even in the Dark and Middle Ages, generally considered inhibitory of talent and innovation, some members of society were ennobled for their intellectual and religious acumen” (Kaufmann, Castellanos, & Rotatori, 1986, p. 232). Some societies identified children with promise and potential and provided them with special education (Freeman, 1979). This was the case with the Emperor Charlemagne who in 800 AD requested that the state provide and pay for such education for children from the common masses (Schwenn, 1985).

Gifted education suffers from the lack of a legal definition of giftedness and federal mandate for the provision of services in schools, and also from a lack of any federal funding to provide services. These lead to a situation characterized by extreme inconsistency in provision of educational services across locations, sometimes even within the same school district. We offer a historical perspective on these issues and a view of the current status of gifted education services, followed by discussion of relevant legal issues in this context.

Providing specialized services to a specific population requires assessment and identification procedures to avoid providing services to those who are ineligible to receive them as well as ensuring that eligible individuals are provided the services intended for them. Education of the gifted is such a specialized service, and so, assessment procedures are necessary for this population. Special educational programs are not an entitlement for individuals who are gifted as they are for individuals with disabilities. Consequently, operational definitions and procedures vary widely across states and even across school divisions within states. Therefore, the present paper summarizes characteristics that are considered to be early markers of giftedness and discusses some of the ways that they can be assessed. Problems in assessment (e.g., ceiling effects on norm-referenced measures, and difficulties in assessing creative aspects of performance) are also discussed. In the absence of consistent definitions and formal measures that are able to tap aspects of the definition with reliability and validity, assessment and identification of individuals who are gifted is likely to remain an impressionistic task in which individuals are compared to poorly defined prototypes of what it means to be gifted.

Inclusion is meant to address the needs of all students in the classroom including those who are identified as gifted and talented. Unfortunately, this population is often excluded from funding and differentiated support. This chapter addresses the disparities of definitions and legislation for gifted students. Common characteristics including strengths and concerns of the students and gifted education in general will also be discussed. Teachers must learn to effectively implement differentiated instruction as well as choose appropriate curricular models and instructional strategies to make their classroom truly inclusive of all learners. Pull-out, push-in, self-contained setting, cluster grouping, and enrichment programs have all been found to be effective service models for gifted students. Within the environment strategies such as independent study, learning stations, tiered lessons, and problem-based learning can further individualize student learning. Final recommendations on the future of gifted education will be addressed.

Placing gifted and talented students together organizationally is not a substitute for appropriate services. The placement or program model fundamentally serves as a vehicle to group or organize students together but programming, in practice, sometimes referred to as a service delivery model, is not the same thing as service. Placement is a management strategy. It must be coupled with curriculum and instructional modifications in order for substantial and positive academic and social–emotional effects to occur for gifted and talented students. Specifically, the program placement model is only as good as the curriculum and instructional models provided within that placement. This chapter provides descriptions and research evidence of the macro program models used for serving gifted students and more commonly used program placement models for grouping gifted students together within the traditional school day and beyond. Non-negotiable components and future directions are also discussed within the context of placement.

Technology offers great potential to gifted, talented, and creative (GCT) students, including students who are twice exceptional (i.e., students who are GCT as well as identified with a disability). However, little research exists regarding the use and evidence-base base of technologies for these populations. This chapter presents technology to support students who are GCT as well as students identified as twice exceptional, including assistive technology to support students in content area instruction. Although, an evidence-base is needed for using technology in education for GCT and twice-exceptional students, existing research supports using the Internet and Web 2.0 technologies with these students.

Some students with documented learning needs (e.g., learning disabilities, physical challenges) receive strong support through the legislation, funding, and accountability systems associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973). However, in the absence of supportive federal policy, other students with documented learning needs (e.g., high cognitive ability) experience varying levels of support due to differences in state and local policies, funding, and accountability requirements. These differences are due in large part to misconceptions about students with advanced learning needs (e.g., that they can meet grade-level standards without intervention) and equity concerns (e.g., students with the greatest perceived needs should be served first). Special education has a long history of alleviating educational mismatches by preparing students for challenging learning opportunities, providing classroom support structures, and monitoring educational placements through a system of regular evaluation and adjustment. Students served in gifted and talented education can benefit from these same asset-based, sociocultural approaches. However, efforts to support students with advanced learning needs are more likely to be consistently and successfully applied if they are backed by changes to existing policies, funding, and accountability systems.