Dr victoria giffi hagerstown md

Education of thE GiftEd and talEntEd

Sylvia B. Rimm Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and the Family

Achievement Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Del Siegle University of Connecticut

Gary A. Davis University of Wisconsin

S e v e n t h E d i t i o n

330 Hudson Street, NY, NY 10013

Director and Portfolio Manager: Kevin M. Davis Content Producer: Janelle Rogers Portfolio Management Assistant: Anne McAlpine Executive Field Marketing Manager: Krista Clark Executive Product Marketing Manager: Christopher Barry Procurement Specialist: Carol Melville Cover Designer: Carie Keller, Cenveo Publisher Services Cover Art: Getty Images Printer/Binder: RR Donnelley/Owensville Cover Printer: Phoenix Color/Hagerstown Full-Service Project Management/Composition: Rakhshinda Chishty/iEnergizer Aptara®, Ltd. Cover Printer: Lehigh-Phoenix Color Corp. Text Font: Minion

Every effort has been made to provide accurate and current Internet information in this book. However, the Internet and information posted on it are constantly changing, so it is inevitable that some of the Internet addresses listed in this textbook will change.

Copyright © 2018, 2011, 2004, by Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, 501 Boylston Street, Suite 900, Boston, MA, 02116, fax: (617) 671-2290, email: permissionsus@ pearson.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Rimm, Sylvia B., 1935- author. | Siegle, Del, author. | Davis, Gary A., 1938- author. Title: Education of the gifted and talented / Sylvia B. Rimm, Del Siegle, Gary A. Davis. Description: Seventh edition. | Boston : Pearson, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016057606 | ISBN 9780133827101 | ISBN 0133827100 Subjects: LCSH: Gifted children—Education—United States. Classification: LCC LC3993.9 .D38 2018 | DDC 371.95—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016057606

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN-13: 978-0-13-382710-1 ISBN-10: 0-13-382710-0

https://lccn.loc.gov/2016057606
To Buck, Ilonna, Joe, Miriam, Benjamin and Avi

David, Janet, Dan, and Rachel

Eric, Allison, Hannah, and Isaac, and

Sara, Alan, Sam, and Davida

To Betsy, Jessica, and Del

To Chelsea, Nathan, Tegan, and Neil

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

These are the goals of educational programs for gifted and talented students, and these are the purposes of this book. Gifted and talented students have special needs and special issues. They also have special, sometimes immense, talent to lend to society. We owe it to them to help cultivate their abilities. We owe it to society to help prepare tomorrow’s leaders and professional talent. Such students are a tremen- dous natural resource, one that must not be squandered.

New to this editioN

The seventh edition of Education of the Gifted and Tal- ented continues the tradition of engaging readers in the mission of educating and inspiring gifted children. How- ever, this seventh edition has many major updates, and approximately 30% of the content is new:

●● Learning outcomes have been added to set advance organizers for every chapter. These will assist stu- dents in targeting main issues for study.

●● Although directions and definitions for gifted educa- tion have always been in flux, three new important directions by leaders in the field have been added to Chapter 1.

●● New issues and research for identification of under- served groups are addressed in both Chapters 3 and 13.

●● Many districts are leveraging Response to Interven- tion (RtI) to provide services for gifted students (see Chapter 6). Push-in programs are also gaining popularity. Technology is also playing a more important role in meeting the educational needs of gifted students.

●● New models are surfacing to provide services to gifted students. The Advanced Academic Program Development Model focuses on a system for align- ing the identification process to the academic ser- vices that gifted students need (see Chapter 7). The CLEAR Model combines elements from Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, and Reis’s work to create units that allow students to explore authentic, unanswered questions in meaningful ways.

●● Our understanding of creativity as big-c and little-c is expanded to include mini-c and pro-c as we exam- ine how creativity manifests itself differently across time and within individuals’ lives (see Chapter 9). Synectics methods can be used in the classroom to enhance students’ creative thinking as well as to help students understand content at a deeper level.

●● Gifted educators accustomed to Bloom’s taxonomy will enjoy aligning their questioning and learning activ- ities to Marzano and Kendall’s new thinking taxonomy based on a hierarchy of complexity (see Chapter 10).

●● Chapter 14, formerly called the “Cultural Undera- chievement of Gifted Females,” has been the most revised chapter in every edition, and this seventh edi- tion is no exception. Even the title has changed—to “Gifted Girls. Gifted Boys”—and the chapter now includes specific issues related to gifted boys as well as fully updated data and recommendations for gifted girls.

●● The latest results of research about underserved gifted children, provided by the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (funded by the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Student Education Act [P.L. 100-297]) is included in Chapter 13.

To provide programs to help meet the psychological, social, educational, and career needs of gifted and talented students.

To help students become capable of intelligent choices, independent learning, problem solv- ing, and self-initiated action.

To strengthen skills and abilities in problem solving, creative thinking, communication, independent study, and research.

To reinforce individual interests.

To bring capable and motivated students together for support and intellectual stimulation.

To maximize learning and individual development—while minimizing boredom, confusion, and frustration.

In sum, to help gifted students realize their potential and their contributions to self and society.

v

vi Preface

●● Important new specific communications from the National Office for Special Education provided reas- suring reminders that the discrepancy concept can continue to be used for qualifying gifted students for special education programs based on learning disa- bilities (see Chapter 15).

●● Counseling gifted children to find their passions has become an omnipresent fashion. Even the media has joined in. Chapter 17 reminds counselors to encour- age interests and engagement instead of passions, which can sometimes become unrealistically high expectations for adolescents.

●● Speirs, Neumeister, and Burney propose a new four- step model for conducting an internal evaluation. Their evaluation process is governed by an evalua- tion committee (see Chapter 18).

CyCliC Nature of Gifted eduCatioN

The aftermath of the launching of the Russian satellite Sputnik initiated huge excitement about cultivating gifted children’s minds. Although there was an amazing new interest in talent development, it was brief. That interest was rekindled in the mid-1970s, at which time enthusiasm for accommodating the education needs of gifted and tal- ented children truly began its climb to higher levels, with greater public awareness than ever before. Federal state- ments, definitions, and funds appeared. States passed leg- islation that formalized the existence and needs of gifted students and often provided funds for state directors, teachers, and programs. Cities and districts hired gifted- program directors and teacher-coordinators who designed and implemented identification, acceleration, and enrich- ment plans. In many schools and classrooms where help from the outside did not appear, enthusiastic teachers planned challenging and beneficial projects and activities for gifted students in their classes.

Although progress continued in the mid-1980s, the gifted movement was pressured by society to also step backward. As we describe in Chapter 1, the problem was a reborn commitment to equity—helping troubled students become more average. Some school districts trashed their gifted programs along with tracking and grouping plans. Although efforts to promote equity and efforts to support high-ability students in order to encourage excellence are not necessarily incompatible, many educators perceived gifted programs as unfair to average students and conse- quently pitched the baby with the bathwater.

A second and smaller backward step was the coop- erative learning style of teaching. Cooperative learning groups certainly supply academic and social benefits for most children, but often not for gifted ones. Whereas gifted

students benefit from opportunities for collaboration, they need advanced academic work; challenging independent projects that develop creativity, thinking skills, and habits of independent work; and grouping with gifted peers to accommodate their education and social needs. They should not be required to work at a too-slow pace or to serve only as teachers to others in the group.

A third factor that always takes its toll for gifted pro- grams is simply the economy. When the going gets tough, gifted programs—viewed by critics as elitist luxuries for “students who don’t need help” or even “welfare for the rich”—are among the first to be cut.

Although damage continues, gifted education is resilient. In many schools and districts, it is healthier than ever. At least four events have aided the survival and even growth of gifted education. First, some schools and dis- tricts, for the most part, ignored the reform movement and steamed ahead with differentiated instruction for gifted students. Research shows that such resilience is most likely to exist if two disarmingly simple features are present: enthusiastic teachers and administrators and/or state legis- lation that requires gifted services.

Second, grouping based on ability or achievement remains alive and well at all education levels (Kulik, 2003). Special classes in high school (e.g., AP and honors classes) and grouping in the elementary school (especially for math and reading) continue in nearly every individual school. Attendance at community colleges and local uni- versities for high school students has expanded.

Third is the move toward improving education for all students—including high-ability ones. This move is partly a response to the reform movement and can come under the talent development banner. For example, differ- entiated curriculum and high-level activities such as think- ing skills and creativity are brought into the regular classroom, and strategies for identifying gifted students are becoming more flexible. Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model (described in Chapter 7) exemplifies this trend.

A fourth, twofold dramatic change emerged after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Although funneling money toward national defense caused funding for gifted education to be in short supply, there has been greater recognition of the need for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) inno- vation to support national security since 2001. Expansion of foreign-language learning has also been prioritized in order to promote understanding of the cultures and goals of both allied nations and groups that might do us harm. The cycling continues as we experience a déjà vu of the post-Sputnik times mentioned earlier, but it has also moved forward. Today’s education of the gifted and talented

Preface vii

places much greater emphasis on creativity, innovation, and the applications of significant research findings related to successful gifted education.

our appreCiatioN

The authors wish to thank Marie Cookson, Melissa Lampe, and Barb Gregory, editorial assistants to Sylvia Rimm, for their ever-helpful organizational and editorial contribu- tions. We would like to thank Ashley Carpenter, Susan Dulong Langley, and Maggie Haberlein for their assistance with the references; Susan Dulong Langley for her assis- tance compiling the learning objectives for each chapter; the Pearson Education staff, including Janelle Rogers, Program Manager, Teacher Education and Workforce

Readiness, and Kevin Davis, Director of Editorial and Portfolio Manager; and the Aptara team, including Pat Walsh, Supervisory Project Manager, Erica Gordon, Project Manager, Rights and Permissions, and Rakhshinda Chishty, Full-Service Project Manager. A special thank you goes to Julie Scardiglia for her kind and patient assis- tance with permissions and changes. Also, we appreciate Marianne L’Abbate’s careful editing during the production stage. The authors also wish to extend their appreciation to the many families with gifted children who supplied real- life examples, as well as to teachers of the gifted who con- tributed their continuing experiences. Finally, we are indebted and appreciative to our own families for their encouragement, support, and experiences that helped enrich our text.

This page intentionally left blank

Brief contents

Preface v

chapter 1 Gifted Education: Matching Instruction with Needs 1 chapter 2 Characteristics of Gifted Students 23 chapter 3 Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 40 chapter 4 Program Planning 70 chapter 5 Acceleration 93 chapter 6 Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 114 chapter 7 Curriculum Models 140 chapter 8 Creativity I: The Creative Person, Creative Process, and Creative

Dramatics 161 chapter 9 Creativity II: Teaching for Creative Growth 175 chapter 10 Teaching Thinking Skills 195 chapter 11 Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 218 chapter 12 Underachievement: Identification and Reversal 232 chapter 13 Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage: The Invisible Gifted 260 chapter 14 Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 287 chapter 15 Gifted Children with Disabilities 306 chapter 16 Parenting the Gifted Child 326 chapter 17 Understanding and Counseling Gifted Students 347 chapter 18 Program Evaluation 372

References 391 Name Index 441 Subject Index 450

ix

This page intentionally left blank

contents

preface v

Chapter 1 Gifted education: Matching instruction with needs 1 History of Giftedness and Gifted Education 3 Contemporary History of Gifted Education 4 National Center for Research on Gifted Education 9 Definitions of Giftedness 11 Explanations and Interpretations of Giftedness and Intelligence 13

Summary 21

Chapter 2 characteristics of Gifted students 23 The Terman Studies 23 Traits of Intellectually Gifted Children 26 Affective Characteristics 27 Characteristics of the Creatively Gifted 30 Characteristics of Historically Eminent Persons 31 Characteristics of Teachers of the Gifted 36

Summary 38

Chapter 3 identifying Gifted and talented students 40 Thoughts and Issues in Identification 41 National Report on Identification 44 Identification Methods 44 Assessment of Gardner’s Eight Intelligences 54 Triarchic Abilities Test 54 A Multidimensional Culture-Fair Assessment Strategy 55 Talent Pool Identification Plan: Renzulli 55 Identifying Gifted Preschoolers 56 Identifying Gifted Secondary Students 56 Recommendations from the National Report on Identification and NRC/GT 58 Considering the Goals of Identification 61

Summary 61    •    Appendix 3.1: NAGC Position Statement 63    •    Appendix 3.2: Spanish Edition of Rimm’s (1976) GIFT Creativity Inventory 64    •    Appendix 3.3: Teacher Nomination Form 65    •    Appendix 3.4: Teacher Nomination Form 66    •    Appendix 3.5: Student Product Assessment Form 67    •    Appendix 3.6: Rubrics for Verbal and Problem- Solving Tasks 68    •    Appendix 3.7: Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students 69

Chapter 4 Program Planning 70 Main Components of Program Planning 71 Program Planning: Sixteen Areas 73 The View from the School Board 85

xi

xii Contents

Perspectives of Other Teachers 86 Curriculum Considerations 88 Legal Issues in Gifted Education 88

Summary 90    •    Appendix 4.1: Ideas for Statements of Philosophy, Rationale, and Objectives 91    •    Appendix 4.2: National Standards for Preparation of Teachers of the Gifted 92

Chapter 5 acceleration 93 Acceleration versus Enrichment 95 A Nation Deceived and a Nation Empowered—Definitive Research on Acceleration 96 Types of Acceleration 98 Grade Skipping 102 Subject Skipping and Acceleration 104 Early Admission to Middle or Senior High School 105 Credit by Examination 105 College Courses in High School 105 Advanced Placement 106 Distance Learning 106 Telescoped Programs 106 Early Admission to College 107 Residential High Schools 107 International Baccalaureate Programs 108 Talent Search Programs 109

Summary 111    •    Appendix 5.1: College Board Offices 112    •    Appendix 5.2: Talent Search and Elementary Talent Search Programs 112

Chapter 6 Grouping, Differentiation, and enrichment 114 Grouping Options: Bringing Gifted Students Together 115 Differentiation 121 Enrichment 125 Independent Study, Research, and Art Projects 126 Learning Centers 128 Field Trips 128 Saturday Programs 128 Summer Programs 129 Mentors and Mentorships 130 Junior Great Books 131 Competitions 132 Technology and the Gifted 134 Comments on Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 136

Summary 136    •    Appendix 6.1: Places That Publish Student Work 138

Chapter 7 curriculum Models 140 Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Renzulli and Reis 141 Autonomous Learner Model: Betts 146

Contents xiii

Advanced Academic Program Development Model: Peters, Matthews, McBee, and McCoach 147 Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model: Feldhusen et al. 148 Parallel Curriculum Model: Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Purcell, Leppien, and Burns 150 Multiple Menu Model: Renzulli 152 Integrated Curriculum Model: VanTassel-Baska 154 Mentoring Mathematical Minds Model: Gavin et al. 155 The Grid: Constructing Differentiated Curriculum for the Gifted: Kaplan 156 CLEAR Model: Callahan et al. 157 Comment 159

Summary 159

Chapter 8 creativity i: the creative Person, creative Process, and creative Dramatics 161 Theories of Creativity 161 Levels of Creativity 163 Creative Persons 164 Creative Abilities 166 The Creative Process 167 The Creative Process as a Change in Perception 170 Creative Dramatics 170

Summary 173

Chapter 9 creativity ii: teaching for creative Growth 175 Can Creativity Be Taught? 175 Goals of Creativity Training 176 Creativity Consciousness, Creative Attitudes, and Creative Personality Traits 176 Understanding the Topic of Creativity 178 Strengthening Creative Abilities 180 Personal Creative Thinking Techniques 182 Standard Creative Thinking Techniques 184 Involving Students in Creative Activities 191 Creative Teaching and Learning 192

Summary 193

Chapter 10 teaching thinking skills 195 Issues 196 Indirect Teaching, Direct Teaching, and Metacognition 197 Types of Thinking Skills 199 Critical Thinking 201 Models, Programs, and Exercises for Teaching Thinking Skills 202 Philosophy for Children: Lipman 208 Talents Unlimited 209 Instrumental Enrichment: Feuerstein 209 Critical Thinking Books and Technology 211

Involving Parents as Partners in Teaching Thinking Skills 214 Obstacles to Effective Thinking 215 Selecting Thinking-Skills Exercises and Materials 215

Summary 216

Chapter 11 Leadership, affective Learning, and character education 218 Leadership 219 Leadership Definitions: Traits, Characteristics, and Skills 219 Leadership Training 220 Affective Learning 223 Self-Concept 223 Moral Development: The Kohlberg Model 225 Materials and Strategies for Encouraging Affective Growth 228 The Humanistic Teacher 229

Summary 230

Chapter 12 Underachievement: identification and reversal 232 Definition and Identification of Underachievement 233 Characteristics of Underachieving Gifted Children 237 Etiologies of Underachievement 243 Family Etiology 243 School Etiology 248 Reversal of Underachievement 252

Summary 258

Chapter 13 cultural Diversity and economic Disadvantage: the invisible Gifted 260 Legislation 261 Special Needs 262 Factors Related to Success for Disadvantaged Youth 264 Identification 266 Programming for Gifted Students Who are Culturally Different 273 Gifted Programming in Rural Areas 282

Summary 284

Chapter 14 Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 287 Gifted Girls 287 Historical Background 288 Present Status of Women 289 Gifted Boys 293 Sex Differences or Gender Differences 293 Mathematics Abilities 296 Differences in Expectations, Achievement Orientation, and Aspirations 299 Reversing Gender-Based Underachievement 303

Summary 304

xiv Contents

Chapter 15 Gifted children with Disabilities 306 Needs of Gifted Students with Disabilities 306 Identification 310 Critical Ingredients of Programs for Gifted Children with Disabilities 317 Reducing Communication Limitations 318 Self-Concept Development 319 High-Level Abstract Thinking Skills 322 Parenting Children with Disabilities 323

Summary 324

Chapter 16 Parenting the Gifted child 326 Parenting by Positive Expectations 326 Some Special Parenting Concerns 327 Preschool Children 336 Nontraditional Parenting 339 Parent Support Groups and Advocacy 342 Teaching Teens Self-Advocacy 344 Parents as Teachers—Home Schooling Gifted Children 344

Summary 345    •    Appendix 16.1: National Gifted and Talented Educational Organizations 346

Chapter 17 Understanding and counseling Gifted students 347 Historical Background 349 Personal and Social Issues 349 Perfectionism 353 Emotional Sensitivity and Overexcitability 355 Gifted and Gay 357 Gifted and Overweight 358 Depression and Suicide 360 Career Guidance and Counseling 361 Strategies for Counseling Gifted Students 363 Stress Management 365 Developing a Counseling Program for Gifted Students 367 Comment 369

Summary 369    •    Appendix 17.1: Recommended Reading for Counselors, Administrators, and Teachers 371

Chapter 18 Program evaluation 372 Why Must Programs Be Evaluated? 372 Evaluation Design: Begin at the Beginning 373 Evaluation Models 373 Complexity of Evaluation and Audience: A Hierarchy 377 Instrument Selection 379 Test Construction 380

Contents xv

Daily Logs 383 Indicators 383 Student Self-Evaluations 383 Performance Contracting 383 Commitment to Evaluation 384

Summary 384    •    Appendix 18.1: Example of a Structured Observation Form 385    •    Appendix 18.2: Example of a Classroom Observation Form 386    •    Appendix 18.3: Administrator Survey 389

References 391

Name Index 441

Subject Index 450

xvi Contents

1

1 Gifted Education Matching Instruction with Needs

Learning OutcOmes

1. Summarize the evolution of giftedness and gifted education from ancient through modern times.

2. Analyze how key individuals, ideas, and events shaped the contemporary history of gifted education.

3. Assess the importance of the National Center for Research on Gifted Education.

4. Recommend a defensible definition of giftedness.

5. Compare and contrast the range of explanations and interpretations of giftedness and intelligence.

C H A P T E R

T ens of thousands of gifted and talented children and adolescents continue to sit in their classrooms—their abilities unrecognized, their needs unmet. Some are bored, patiently waiting for peers to learn skills and concepts that they had mastered one or two years earlier. Some find school intolerable, feigning illness or

creating other excuses to avoid the trivia. Many develop poor study habits from the slow pace and lack of chal- lenge. Some feel pressured to hide their keen talents and skills from uninterested and unsympathetic peers. Some give up on school entirely, dropping out as soon as they are legally able. Some educators have called it a “quiet crisis” (Renzulli & Park, 2002).

Other gifted students tolerate school but satisfy their intellectual, creative, and artistic needs outside the for- mal system. The lucky ones have parents who sponsor their dance or music lessons, microscopes, telescopes, computers, art supplies, and frequent trips to libraries and museums. The less fortunate ones make do as best they can, silently paying a price for a predicament they may not understand and that others choose to ignore. That price is lost academic growth; lost creative potential; and, sometimes, lost enthusiasm for educational success, eventual professional achievement, and substantial contributions to society.

Some educators—and many parents of nongifted students—are not swayed by the proposition that unrecog- nized and unsupported talent is wasted talent. A common reaction is, “Those kids will make it on their own,” or “Give the extra help to kids who really need it!” The argument is that providing special services for highly able or talented students is “elitist”—giving to the haves and ignoring the have-nots—and therefore unfair and undemo- cratic. Other criticisms refer to the costs of additional teachers and other resources and to the idea that pullout programs or special classes remove good role models from the regular classroom. Many teachers feel that students should adjust to the curriculum rather than the other way around (Coleman & Cross, 2000).

Naming the problem “sounds of silence,” Sternberg (1996) itemized dismal ways in which society reacts to the needs of the gifted. Specifically, federal funding is almost absent. Few laws protect the rights of the gifted, in contrast with many laws protecting children with special needs. Gifted programs tend to be the last

2 Chapter 1

installed and the first axed. Disgruntled parents register their gifted children in private schools, but most can’t afford them.

Some see gifted programs as “welfare for the rich.” Average children are the majority, and their parents prefer not to support other parents’ “pointy-headed” bright chil- dren. Besides, don’t gifted children possess great potential without special support? Some critics of gifted programs believe that gifted students are inherently selfish and that parents of the gifted at PTA meetings are “the loudest and least deserving.”

Gifted children are indeed our most valuable natural resource. We must recognize multiple forms of giftedness. We must recognize alternative learning styles, thinking styles, and patterns of abilities and coordinate instruction with these characteristics in mind. Programs need to be expanded and evaluated. Everyone—parents, teachers, administrators, and others—must be educated about the needs of our gifted children.

Currently, some criticisms of gifted education include a strong spark of conscience-rending truth. In fact, White, middle-income, and Asian students tend to be over- represented in gifted and talented (G/T) programs, whereas African American, Hispanic, and low-income students are underrepresented. The problem is drawing strong attention to identification strategies, with a move toward multiple and culturally fair identification criteria (Chapter 3); to broadened conceptions of intelligence and giftedness (later in this chapter); and even to G/T program evaluation (Chapter 18) in the sense of assessing effects on students not in the program, other teachers, administrators, and the larger community (Borland, 2003).

Our love-hate relationship with gifted education has been noted by Gallagher (1997, 2003), Colangelo and Davis (2003), and others. We admire and applaud the indi- vidual who rises from a humble background to high educa- tional and career success. At the same time, as a nation, we are committed to equality.

The educational pendulum swings back and forth between strong concern for excellence and a zeal for equity, that is, between helping bright and creative students develop their capabilities and realize their potential contri- butions to society, and helping below-average and troubled students reach minimum academic standards. Although interest in the gifted has mushroomed worldwide since the mid-1970s, the pendulum swung forcefully back to equity during the final years of the 20th century and the first years of the 21st century. Programs for the gifted were being terminated because they were not “politically correct,” because of budget cutting, because of the lack of support- ive teachers and administrators, and because gifted education was not mandated by the particular state.

The Philanthropy Roundtable has made efforts toward attracting “Wise Givers” to contribute toward educating gifted children (Smarick, 2013), yet few funders target our most talented students.

In particular, the antitracking/antiability grouping movement, the No Child Left Behind legislation, the incon- sistent funding of the Javits Act, and the recent economic struggles in education have inflicted damage on G/T pro- grams and on gifted children themselves. On the other hand, the science-technology-engineering-mathematics (STEM) legislation, including the America Competes Act, holds hope for a small upswing of the pendulum, as do grant awards for critical foreign-language instruction and the refunding of the Javits Act. America’s need to compete around the globe has sometimes in the past fueled educa- tional initiatives favorable to gifted education.

Of course, America and the world need both equity and excellence. Many students need special help. The rights of slower learners, students with physical or psycho- logical disabilities, and students with language and cultural differences are vehemently defended, and they should be. However, a good argument can be made that gifted stu- dents also have rights and that these rights are often ignored. Just as with other exceptional students, students with gifts and talents also deserve an education commen- surate with their capabilities. It is unfair to them to ignore, or worse, to prevent the development of their special skills and abilities and to depress their educational aspirations and eventual career achievements. Our democratic system promises each person—regardless of racial, cultural, or economic background and regardless of sex or condition that is disabling—the opportunity to develop as an indi- vidual as far as that person’s talents and motivation permit. This guarantee seems to promise that opportunities and training will be provided to help gifted and talented stu- dents realize their innate potential.

To those who argue that gifted students will “make it on their own,” sensible replies are that (a) every child should have the right to learn something new every day, (b) they should not be held back and required to succeed in spite of a frustrating educational system, and (c) some do not make it on their own. Rimm (2008b), for example, cited research showing that 10% to 20% of high school dropouts are in the tested gifted range. Almost invariably, gifted dropouts are underachievers—talented students who are unguided, uncounseled, and unchallenged (Renzulli & Park, 2002; Rimm, 2008b; Whitmore, 1980). The widely cited A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) reported that “over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested abil- ity with comparable achievement in school.” Percentages of underachievers vary; research on underachievement is

Gifted Education 3

complex. Gifted underachievers may no longer appear to be or test as gifted.

Gifted students themselves are not the only ones who benefit from specific programs that recognize and cultivate their talents: Teachers involved with gifted students learn to stimulate creative, artistic, and scientific thinking and to help students understand themselves, develop good self- concepts, and value education and career accomplish- ments. In short, teachers of the gifted become better teachers, and their skills benefit “regular” students as well. Society also reaps a profit. Today’s gifted and talented stu- dents will become tomorrow’s political leaders, medical researchers, artists, writers, innovative engineers, and busi- ness entrepreneurs. Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend a proposal that this essential talent be left to fend for itself— if it can—instead of being valued, identified, and culti- vated. U.S. schools lag far behind other nations in tests of science and math achievement (Mervis, 2007). The only way our country will reach its potential is if every child, including the gifted and talented child, has an opportunity to reach his or her potential. Tomorrow’s promise is in today’s schools, and it must not be ignored.

History of Giftedness and Gifted education

Giftedness over the centuries

Whether a person is judged “gifted” depends on the values of the culture. General academic skills or talents in more specific aesthetic, scientific, economic, or athletic areas have not always been judged as desirable “gifts.”

In ancient Sparta, for example, military skills were so exclusively valued that all boys, beginning at age 7, received schooling and training in the arts of combat and warfare. Babies with physical defects, or who other- wise were of questionable value, were f lung off a cliff (Meyer, 1965).

In Athens, social position and gender determined opportunities. Upper-class free Greeks sent their boys to private schools that taught reading, writing, arithmetic, history, literature, the arts, and physical fitness. Sophists were hired to teach young men mathematics, logic, rheto- ric, politics, grammar, general culture, and disputation. Apparently, only Plato’s Academy charged no fees and selected both young men and women on the basis of intel- ligence and physical stamina, not social class.

Roman education emphasized architecture, engi- neering, law, and administration. Both boys and girls attended first-level (elementary) schools, and some girls attended second-level (grammar) schools, but higher edu- cation was restricted to boys. Rome valued mother and

family, however, and some gifted women emerged who greatly affected Roman society, most notably Cornelia, Roman matron and mother of statesmen Gaius and Tibe- rius Gracchus.

Early China, beginning with the Tang Dynasty in a.d. 618, valued gifted children and youth, sending child prodigies to the imperial court, where their gifts were both recognized and cultivated. Chinese leaders anticipated several principles of modern G/T education. They accepted a multiple-talent concept of giftedness, valuing literary ability, leadership, imagination, and originality, and intellectual and perceptual abilities such as reading speed, memory, reasoning, and perceptual sensitivity (Tsuin-chen, 1961). They also recognized (a) apparently precocious youth who grow up to be average adults; (b) seemingly average youth whose gifts emerge later; and (c) true child prodigies, whose gifts and talents are apparent throughout their lives. An important point, attributed to Confucius about 500 b.c., is that the Chinese recognized that education should be available to all children, but all children should be educated differently according to their abilities.

In Japan, birth again determined opportunities. Dur- ing the Tokugawa Society period, 1604–1868 (Anderson, 1975), Samurai children received training in Confucian classics, martial arts, history, composition, calligraphy, moral values, and etiquette. Commoners, conveniently, were taught loyalty, obedience, humility, and diligence. A few scholars established private academies for intellectually gifted children, both Samurai and common.

Aesthetics inf luenced Renaissance Europe, which valued and produced remarkable art, architecture, and lit- erature. Strong governments sought out and rewarded the creatively gifted, for example, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Boccaccio, Bernini, and Dante.

Giftedness in the united states

At first in the United States, concern for the education of gifted and talented children was not great. Some gifted youth were accommodated in the sense that attendance at secondary school and college was based both on academic achievement and the ability to pay the fees (Newland, 1976).

With compulsory attendance laws, schooling became available to all, but special services for gifted children were sparse (Abraham, 1976; Greenlaw & McIntosh, 1988; Heck, 1953; Witty, 1967, 1971). A few bright spots were as follows:

●● In 1870, St. Louis, Missouri, initiated tracking, which allowed some students to accelerate through the first eight grades in fewer than eight years.

4 Chapter 1

contemporary History of Gifted education

Recent history underlying today’s strong interest in gifted education begins with capsule stories of the contributions of Francis Galton, Alfred Binet, Lewis Terman, and Leta Hollingworth, followed by the impact of Russia’s Sputnik, a look at the gifted movement in America and worldwide, and at gifted education in the 21st century.

Hereditary Genius: sir francis Galton

The English scientist Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911), a younger cousin of Charles Darwin, is credited with the ear- liest significant research and writing devoted to intelli- gence testing. Galton believed that intelligence was related to the keenness of one’s senses—for example, vision, audi- tion, smell, touch, and reaction time. Therefore, his efforts to measure intelligence involved tests such as those of vis- ual and auditory acuity, tactile sensitivity, and reaction time. Impressed by cousin Charles’s Origin of the Species, Galton reasoned that evolution would favor persons with keen senses—persons who could more easily detect food sources or sense approaching danger. Therefore, he con- cluded that one’s sensory ability—that is, intelligence—is due to natural selection and heredity. The hereditary basis of intelligence seemed to be confirmed by his observa- tions—reported in his most famous book, Hereditary Genius (Galton, 1869)—that distinguished persons seemed to come from succeeding generations of distinguished families. Galton initially overlooked the fact that members of distinguished, aristocratic families also traditionally inherit a superior environment, wealth, privilege, and opportunity—incidentals that make it easier to become distinguished.

Galton’s emphasis on the high heritability of intelli- gence is shared by many intelligence researchers (e.g., Gottfredson, 1997a, 2003; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1969; Jensen & Miele, 2002; Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001).

roots of modern intelligence tests: alfred Binet

Modern intelligence tests have their roots in France in the 1890s. Alfred Binet, aided by T. Simon, was hired by gov- ernment officials in Paris to devise a test to identify which (dull) children would not benefit from regular classes and therefore should be placed in special classes to receive spe- cial training. Even then, someone had perceptively noticed that teachers’ judgments of student ability sometimes were biased by traits such as docility, neatness, and social skills. Some children were placed in schools for the mentally

●● In 1884, Woburn, Massachusetts, created the “ Double Tillage Plan,” a form of grade-skipping in which bright children attended the first semester of first grade, then switched directly into the second semes- ter of second grade.

●● In 1886, schools in Elizabeth, New Jersey, began a multiple-tracking system that permitted gifted learn- ers to progress at a faster pace.

●● In 1891, Cambridge, Massachusetts, schools devel- oped a double-track plan; also, special tutors taught students capable of even more highly accelerated work.

●● Around 1900 some “rapid progress” classes appeared that telescoped three years of schoolwork into two.

●● In 1901, Worcester, Massachusetts, opened the first special school for gifted children.

●● In 1916, opportunity classes (special classes) were created for gifted children in Los Angeles, Califor- nia, and Cincinnati, Ohio.

●● By about 1920, approximately two-thirds of all larger cities had created some type of program for gifted students; for example, special classes were begun in 1919 in Urbana, Illinois, and in 1922, in Manhattan, New York, and Cleveland, Ohio.

In the 1920s and into the 1930s, interest in gifted education dwindled, apparently for two good reasons. Dean Worcester referred to the 1920s as “the age of the common man” and “the age of mediocrity,” a time when “the idea was to have everybody just as near alike as they could be” (Getzels, 1977, pp. 263–264). Administrators had no interest in helping any student achieve beyond the standard; the focus was on equity. The second reason was the Great Depression, which reduced most people’s con- cern to mere survival. Providing special opportunities for gifted children was low on the totem pole.

Giftedness in europe

In contrast with the United States, tracking and ability grouping (streaming) have not been as contentious in Europe (Passow, 1997). On the surface, not much was said about “the gifted.” However, the structure of the European national school systems was openly geared to identifying and educating the most intellectually able. Ability group- ing, particularly, has been a traditional way to identify able learners and channel their education.

In England, as distinct from the rest of Europe, the strong class consciousness that has pervaded British soci- ety, which includes resentment of inherited (unearned) wealth and titles, led to an egalitarian reluctance to spend scarce educational funds to help gifted students, who seemed already advantaged. Not until the late 1990s did gifted education gain momentum in England (Gross, 2003).

Gifted Education 5

By 1928, he added another 528. Of the 1,528, there were 856 boys and 672 girls. The average age was 12 years. All gifted and most comparison children were from major California cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda. They had been initially identified by teachers as highly intelligent. Tests, questionnaires, and interviews in at least nine major contacts (field studies or mailings) in 1922, 1927–1928, 1936, 1939–1940, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, and 1972 traced their physical, psycho- logical, social, and professional development for half a century (e.g., Oden, 1968). The earliest research involved parents, teachers, medical records, and even anthropomet- ric (head) measurements. Terman died in 1956, but his work was continued by others, including Anne H. Barbee, Melita Oden, Pauline S. Sears, and Robert R. Sears.

Regarding his subject sample, in comparison with the general populations of the California urban centers at the time, there were twice as many children of Jewish descent than would be expected, but fewer children of African American or Hispanic American parents. Chinese American children were not sampled at all because they attended special Asian schools at the time. Note also that the effects of heredity versus environment were hopelessly tangled in Terman’s subjects. Most parents of these bright children generally were better educated and had higher- status occupations, and so their children grew up in advan- taged circumstances.

Terman’s high-IQ children—called “Termites” in gifted-education circles—were superior in virtually every quality examined. As we will see in Chapter 2, they not only were better students, but they also were psychologi- cally, socially, and even physically healthier than the aver- age. Terman observed that the myth of brilliant students being weak, unattractive, or emotionally unstable was simply not true as a predominant trend.

Some other noteworthy conclusions related to the Terman studies are the following:

●● While in elementary and secondary school, those who were allowed to accelerate according to their intellectual potential were more successful. Those not permitted to accelerate developed poor work habits that sometimes wrecked their college careers.

●● Differences between the most and least successful gifted men indicated that family values and parents’ education were major factors. For example, 50% of the parents of Terman’s “most productive” group were college graduates, but only 15% of the parents of the “least productive” group had college degrees.

●● On the downside, and with the benefit of hindsight, restricting the identification of “genius” or “gifted- ness” to high IQ scores is severely limiting; artistic

challenged because they were too quiet; were too aggres- sive; or had problems with speech, hearing, or vision. A direct test of intelligence was badly needed.

Binet tried a number of tests that failed. It seemed that normal students and dull students were not particu- larly different in (a) hand-squeezing strength, (b) hand speed in moving 50 cm (almost 20 inches), (c) the amount of pressure on the forehead that causes pain, (d) detecting differences in hand-held weights, or (e) reaction time to sounds or in naming colors. When he measured the ability to pay attention, memory, judgment, reasoning, and com- prehension, he began to obtain results. The tests would separate children judged by teachers to differ in intelli- gence (Binet & Simon, 1905a, 1905b). Binet’s goal was initially to identify those with sufficient intelligence to benefit from schooling.