Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

The Education of Gifted Children

499

such testing by their teachers (Sacuzzo, Johnson, & Guertin,

1994).

Musical and Artistic Talent

Systematic identification of musical and artistic talent within

children is typically not done by schools. Some large urban

school districts have performing arts high schools that draw

students from a wide geographic area. Standardized tests for

both music and art do exist; more often, however, teacher

nominations, portfolios, and auditions are relied upon. As

Winner and Martino (1993) note, very musically or artisti-

cally gifted children usually stand out and are easily identi-

fied by teachers.

The early signs of musical talent include exceptional sen-

sitivity to the structure of music, including tonality, key, har-

mony, and rhythm; strong interest and delight in musical

sounds; exceptional musical memory; quick and easy learn-

ing of an instrument; and early musical generativity or the

ability to compose, transpose, and improvise (Winner &

Martino, 1993). Perfect pitch and sight reading are less con-

sistently associated with musical talent. Early signs of artistic

talent include the ability to draw realistically at an early age

and the ability to imitate the styles of other artists (Winner &

Martino). More rare is an exceptional sense of composition,

form, or color in childhood drawings. Artistically talented

adolescents often produce drawings with elaborate imaginary

settings and fantasy characters—a visual representation of a

complex story (Winner & Martino).

Predictive Validity of Identification Tools

A major question underlying the identification of gifted stu-

dents is whether these children do in fact achieve at expected

levels in adulthood. It is very difficult to answer this question

given that there is no agreed-upon definition of adult success.

However, Subotnik and Arnold (1994) summarized the result

of longitudinal studies of individuals identified as gifted

(typically based on childhood IQ). They concluded that

IQ accounted for little of the variability in adult outcomes.

Neither did grades or other kinds of school-based, academic

criteria. The fruition of childhood ability and promise is very

tenuous, and social, environmental, and psychological vari-

ables play a huge role and interact in very complex ways

(Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000). Researchers agree that beyond a

certain point, ability is less important for adult achievement

than are factors such as personality dimensions and motiva-

tion (Winner, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen,

1993).

Gifted Education and the Law

The federal government has historically, been reluctant to be-

come involved in education; that is especially true for gifted

education. Special educational services for gifted children

are not required by law as they are for children with disabili-

ties. There does exist an Office of Gifted and Talented in

Washington DC (reestablished in 1988), and federal money

currently supports a National Research Center for the Gifted

and Talented. However, the federal government’s primary

role has been in providing definitions of gifted and talented

children (Karnes & Marquart, 2000).

Currently, 48% of states in the United States have mandated

both identification and the provision of special programs for

gifted children, 17% have a mandate for identification but not

programs, and 4% have a mandate for programs but not identi-

fication (Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted,

1996, as quoted in Karnes & Marquart, 2000). Many of these

mandates (42%) were not by law, however; 6% were by

administrative rule, 3% were by state department of education

guidelines, 18% were by a combination of these, and 15% by

some other means (Karnes & Marquart). In 1996, seventy-one

percent of the states who reported in indicated that there were

funds within the state budget specifically allocated for gifted

education.

Administratively, most states have a designated state coor-

dinator of services for gifted children (94%), although many

have additional responsibilities; also, most of the state-level

coordinators are placed under the departments of special

education or curriculum (Karnes & Marquardt, 2000).

Almost all states (except five) in the United States have

state definitions of gifted and talented students, and the major-

ity use some version of the 1978 federal definition (Karnes &

Marquardt, 2000). In terms of categories of ability included in

state definitions, the focus is clearly on superior intellectual

ability. Specific academic ability was mentioned in 33 states,

creative ability in 30, visual and performing arts in 20, leader-

ship in 18, and psychomotor in 3. Almost all of the states’

definitions use the terms demonstrated and/or potential

achievement (Karnes & Marquardt). Currently, only 28 states

require that teachers have specific certifications or endorse-

ments in order to teach gifted students (Karnes & Marquart).

Instructional Issues

Ability Grouping

One of the major strategies for dealing with gifted students in

schools is ability grouping. Ability grouping as a technique to

accommodate differences in learning rate is not used only by

500

Gifted Education Programs and Procedures

educators of gifted children. In the past, schools have used

ability grouping widely, but its use tends to vary with the

broader political climate at the time (see Kulik, 1992). Ability

grouping was employed and hailed as successful after

Sputnik; recently, however, it has been viewed negatively as

another form of tracking—a major reform issue in the 1990s.

The concerns about ability grouping among educators coa-

lesce around several key issues—student achievement, teach-

ers’ expectations of students, instructional quality, racial and

social discrimination and mobility, and social cohesion

(Rogers, 1991). The concerns have to do primarily with

whether ability grouping negatively affects students who are

not in the highest group and specifically whether it lowers

their achievement (due to a generally lowering of the intellec-

tual level of the classroom when very bright students are re-

moved or lowered teacher expectations or poorer instruction),

self-esteem, or both. The main concerns about ability group-

ing often voiced by educators of the gifted but not by educa-

tors in general is whether placement with other bright students

lowers individual gifted students’ self-esteem, stresses them

with unrealistic performance demands, or affects their socia-

bility with children who are not as bright. Despite the con-

cerns, the research on ability grouping mainly addresses only

two issues—academic performance and self-esteem.

Kulik (1992) and Rogers (1991) agree that the effects of

ability grouping vary greatly depending upon the type of pro-

gram or curriculum that is given to the different groups of

learners. Kulik’s (1992) meta-analysis of studies in which

students were ability grouped but given the same curricu-

lum show that students in the lower and middle groups learn

the same amount as do students of the same ability levels who

were placed in heterogeneous classes. Students in the high

group learned slightly more than did students of the same

ability placed in heterogeneous classes—1.1 compared to

1.0 years on a grade-equivalent scale after a year of instruc-

tion. The results of meta-analyses of these types of grouping

arrangements have often been used as evidence of the inef-

fectiveness of tracking by educators (Kulik, 1992). However,

Kulik argues that these studies do not properly address the

issue of tracking because no real differentiation of curriculum

took place. These same groups of studies also revealed

slightly negative effects for self-esteem for the high-ability

students and slightly positive ones for less able students.

The results of meta-analyses of programs that involved

within- or across-grade ability groupings of children who re-

ceived different curricula showed some increased learning

for all groups (Kulik, 1992). Typically, students who were

ability grouped gained 1.2 to 1.3 years on grade equivalent

scale compared to 1.0 years for students of comparable abili-

ties in heterogeneous classes.

Meta-analysis of 23 studies that compared the achieve-

ment of gifted students placed in accelerated classes to stu-

dents with equal abilities from nonaccelerated control classes

showed that the accelerated students outperformed the

nonaccelerated ones by nearly 1 year on a grade-equivalent

scale of a standardized achievement test (Kulik, 1992). Sub-

stantial gains were also found for gifted students who were

grouped full-time for instruction in gifted programs (Rogers,

1991). Rogers’ analysis by type of accelerated gifted program

showed that there were substantial academic gains for the fol-

lowing kinds of programs: nongraded classrooms, curricu-

lum compression (compacting of the curriculum), grade

telescoping (completing 2 years of school in one), subject ac-

celeration, and early admissions to college. Also, these forms

of acceleration did not have any substantial effect on the self-

esteem of the gifted students (Rogers, 1991).

Academic gains of 4–5 months (on a grade-equivalent

scale) were also found for gifted students grouped into en-

richment classes compared to equally able students in regular

mixed-ability classes (Kulik, 1992). Rogers (1991), in a re-

view of research on ability grouping, concluded that there

were also positive gains for gifted students who were receiv-

ing enrichment in cluster groups within their classes or in

pullout programs on measures of critical thinking, general

achievement, and creativity.

Rogers (1991) interpreted the results of various meta-

analyses of ability grouping to indicate that negative changes

found for self-esteem for gifted students are very small and

appear only at the initiation of a program that involves full-

time grouping. These effects are not present for other partial

programs for gifted students, and some positive effects for

self-esteem have been found for pullout types of enrichment

programs.

Kulik (1992) concluded that the effects of grouping are

strongest for gifted students because the adjustment of the

content, curriculum, and instructional rate is more substan-

tial. Rogers (1991) agrees that ability grouping takes many

forms that are beneficial to gifted students. Despite the posi-

tive research findings regarding ability grouping for gifted

students, educators of the gifted often have to vigorously

defend their programs.

Acceleration Versus Enrichment

Acceleration and enrichment are the cornerstones of gifted ed-

ucation. These terms encompass the major educational strate-

gies used with gifted children. Acceleration is defined as

“progress through an educational program at rates faster

or ages younger than conventional” (Pressy, 1949, p. 2, quoted

in Southern, Jones, & Stanley, 1993, p. 387). Typically,

The Education of Gifted Children

501

acceleration is thought of as grade skipping, but it actually en-

compasses a large number of practices. Southern et al. list 17

accelerative practices including early entrance to any level of

schooling, self-paced instruction, grade skipping, concurrent

enrollment in two levels of schooling simultaneously, credit

by examination, extracurricular programs, and curriculum

compacting or compression of curriculum into shorter periods

of time (see also Southern and Jones, 1991, for a thorough de-

scription and analysis of accelerative practices and options).

Southern et al. note that these programmatic options vary

along at least three dimensions: the degree to which the stu-

dent is treated differently from his or her age peers (e.g., early

entrance places students outside the normal grade for their

age, whereas extracurricular programs and credit by exami-

nation involve little differentiation); the degree to which the ac-

celerative option merely represents an administrative arrange-

ment to recognize prior achievement (e.g., early admission to

any level of schooling, grade skipping) versus active interven-

tion to respond to students’ learning needs (self-paced instruc-

tion or fast-paced courses); and the age at which a student could

experience the accelerative program.

Despite its many forms, accelerative strategies are

infrequently used by schools, and many educators have neg-

ative attitudes about them based on single experiences with in-

dividuals who were grade skipped (Southern et al., 1993).

Acceleration actually involves two components—recognition

of previous knowledge levels of the students that typically

greatly exceed those of most same-aged students and a capac-

ity to acquire new material at a rate faster than that of other stu-

dents. Many accelerative strategies simply respond to the first

component, whereas fewer are designed to address the latter.

Most accelerative strategies bring content reserved for older

students down to younger ones and assume that the content is

appropriate for younger gifted students, which may or may not

be true.

Proponents of accelerative strategies list many benefits for

students, including less emphasis on needless repetition and

drill, reduction of boredom, a closer match between level of

instruction and level of achievement, increased productivity

in careers in which early contributions are important, in-

creased opportunity for academic exploration, and more

appropriate level of challenge that engenders the acquisition

of good study habits and avoidance of underachievement

(Southern et al., 1993). Opponents of acceleration give the

following as negative consequences of acceleration: acade-

mic problems stemming from gaps in content preparation;

what has been called a specious precocity due to knowledge

without appropriate experience; an undue focus on learning

the right answers and short shrift to creativity and divergent

production; social adjustment problems as a result of a

reduction of time for age-appropriate activities; rejection by

older classmates; less opportunity to acquire social skills via

interaction with same-aged peers; reduced extracurricular

opportunities such as participation in sports or athletics due

to age ineligibility; and emotional adjustment problems

due to stress and pressure to perform (Southern et al., 1993).

The research evidence regarding the efficacy of accelera-

tion for gifted students is the same research cited previously

for grouping and is overwhelmingly positive. The research re-

garding specific accelerative strategies such as early admis-

sion to elementary school is much more varied, however,

linking early admission to increased failure and retention

rates and to more frequent referrals for placement in special

education. However, Southern et al. (1993) characterize much

of this research as suffering from serious methodological

flaws. The research on early admissions to college is positive

regarding both the academic performance and emotional-

social adjustment of early entrants. Specifically, early entrants

do as well as academically or better than do other gifted stu-

dents who do not enter early, make friends easily and readily

with older, typical-aged college students, and more frequently

complete college on time, earn honors, and complete a con-

current master’s degree (Olszewski-Kubilius, 1995).

Definitions of enrichment vary, but it is typically consid-

ered to be instruction or content that extends the boundaries

of the curriculum. The assumptions behind enrichment as a

focus of gifted education are (a) that the typical school cur-

riculum leaves out a great deal of content and skill learning

that is valuable for students to acquire and (b) that it focuses

on lower level cognitive skills such as the learning of facts at

the expense of more complex cognitive abilities (Southern

et al., 1993). Practitioners attempt to provide enrichment to

gifted students in a variety of ways—increasing the breadth

of the curriculum by adding content that is not typically cov-

ered and perhaps is more abstract; adding depth by allowing

students to study a topic more deeply and more thoroughly;

adding opportunities for more real-world applications of

the content learned through projects; infusion of research op-

portunities; or a focus on learning skills such as divergent

thinking skills, heuristics, or problem-solving skills. Unlike

acceleration, enrichment tries to meet the educational needs

of gifted students by the addition of content rather than ad-

justments of pacing of instruction (Southern et al., 1993). 

Acceleration and enrichment have often been pitted against

each other as opposing educational strategies. In reality, the

distinctions between them are often very blurred. Providing

additional content via enrichment often results in a student’s

being ahead of or accelerated with respect to other students in

achievement. Often the additional content provided is content

reserved for older students. Programs that truly meet the needs

502

Gifted Education Programs and Procedures

of gifted students will be some combination of enrichment and

acceleration—adjustments to content as well as adjustments

to instructional pace. The preference for acceleration or en-

richment as an educational strategy to serve gifted children

often has to do with societal sentiments and political ideolo-

gies prevailing at the time (Southern et al., 1993).

Types of Gifted Programs: Elementary Level

Borland (1989) identified seven program formats as typical

among program options available in schools for gifted chil-

dren. These formats include special schools; a school-within-

a-school, in which a semiautonomous educational program

for gifted students exists within a school; multitracked pro-

grams, which involve grouping students by ability for each

major subject; pullout programs, which are arrangements in

which students spend most of their time within a regular

classroom and are removed for a given time period each

week for special instruction with other gifted students; re-

source room programs, in which students who are typically

grouped within heterogeneous classrooms report to a special

site on a part-time basis for instruction; and provisions within

the classroom, which may include cluster grouping, special

assignments, or some other curricular modification.

The various program options have different benefits and

disadvantages for students and teachers. Part-time programs

such as resource room and pullout programs have the advan-

tage of giving students contact with both age-mates and intel-

lectual peers in a single day. However, being pulled out of the

regular classroom for a program makes the gifted students

conspicuous, which they may not like. Part-time programs

often fall victim to providing superfluous content as adminis-

trators struggle to define the curriculum for these programs and

typically opt to not intrude on the traditional school subjects.

And, typically, the program may involve only 2–4 hours of

instruction and so are quite minimal in scope and impact. Par-

tial, pullout types of programs can be logistical and scheduling

nightmares, raise the ire of teachers whose students are being

pulled out, and are expensive because they typically require an

additional teacher (Borland, 1989).

Full-time programs—whether they involve special

schools or a school-within-a-school—give students maximal

exposure to intellectual peers and thus peer support for high

achievement. If the school specializes in a particular area

(e.g., math and science or the arts), students will have a rich

and exceptional array of challenging courses and extracurric-

ular activities from which to choose and instructors with ex-

ceptional content area expertise. Most of these programs are

highly selective, and competition to gain entrance is fierce. In

addition, after they are admitted, students can experience

unhealthy levels of stress due to competition for grades

(Borland, 1989). There is also the danger that students enter-

ing special schools may focus on a particular discipline too

early without exploring other interests and options fully

(Borland, 1989).

Programs that group students by ability for each subject

can accommodate students with exceptional ability in only

one or two areas and provide a good match between the iden-

tification criteria, subject-area achievement, and placement.

However, these programs can be difficult for teachers be-

cause the class makeup changes for each subject. They can be

scheduling nightmares, and very often a truly differentiated

curriculum is not provided to the different groups of students

(Borland, 1989).

Cox et al. (1985), in a national survey of practices in gifted

education at both the elementary and secondary levels, found

that the most frequently offered program option was the part-

time special class or pullout model (72% of districts report-

ing). This option was followed by enrichment in the regular

classroom (63%), independent study (52%), and resource

rooms (44%). However, when criteria were applied to deter-

mine whether the program was substantial (e.g., a part-time

special class had to meet for at least 4 hours a week in order

to be considered substantial), only 47% of the part-time pro-

grams, 16% of the enrichment programs, 23% of the inde-

pendent study programs, and 21% of the resource room

programs were deemed substantial.

Less frequently employed program options (28–37% of

total programs) were AP classes; continuous progress (de-

fined as allowing students to proceed through the curriculum

without age-grade distinctions for subjects); mentorships;

full-time special class; itinerant teacher; moderate accelera-

tion (defined as completion of grades K–12 in 10–13 years);

concurrent or dual enrollment (defined as enrollment in high

school and college simultaneously); and early entrance to any

schooling level. The least frequently used program options

(11% or less) were radical acceleration (i.e., completion of

grades K–12 in 11 or fewer years), fast-paced classes (i.e.,

completion of two or more courses in a discipline in an ab-

breviated time frame), special schools, and nongraded

schools (Cox et al., 1985). It is interestingly to note that the

program options with the highest percentage of substantial

programs were those less often employed by schools—early

entrance, concurrent or dual enrollment, continuous progress,

full-time special class, itinerant teacher, and special schools

(Cox et al.).

Research about the efficacy of different program models is

scant (Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell, & Goldberg (1994). Delcourt

et al. cite only 10 studies (excluding their own study)

within the last 20 years that examined academic outcomes of