Placement of Students Who are Gifted

Abstract 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.

[1]  Jeanne H. Purcell,et al.  Curriculum Compacting and Achievement Test Scores: What Does the Research Say? , 1998 .

[2]  J. Vantassel-Baska,et al.  Comprehensive Curriculum For Gifted Learners , 1993 .

[3]  L. Aiken,et al.  Intellectual Talent: Research and Development , 1976 .

[4]  Sally M. Reis,et al.  An Analysis of Content Elimination and Strategies Used by Elementary Classroom Teachers in the Curriculum Compacting Process , 1993 .

[5]  J. Renzulli,et al.  Curriculum Compacting: An Essential Strategy for Working with Gifted Students , 1982, The Elementary School Journal.

[6]  Sandhrapvakesh R. Naidu,et al.  An Analysis of Selected Descriptive and Experimental Studies on Program Model Designs for Gifted Students for Potential use in Rural School Districts of Developing Countries , 1995 .

[7]  M. Phillips,et al.  History and Educational Policymaking , 2000 .

[8]  Thomas R. Guskey,et al.  Evaluating professional development , 1999 .

[9]  Carol Ann Tomlinson,et al.  Quality Curriculum and Instruction for Highly Able Students , 2005 .

[10]  Matthew C. Makel,et al.  Changing the pond, not the fish: Following high-ability students across different educational environments , 2012 .

[11]  Marcia A. B. Delcourt.  Creative Productivity Among Secondary School Students: Combining Energy, Interest, and Imagination , 1993 .

[12]  J. Stanley,et al.  INEQUITY IN EQUITY: How "Equity" Can Lead to Inequity for High-Potential Students , 1996 .

[13]  P. Olszewski-Kubilius.  Special Schools and Other Options for Gifted STEM Students , 2009 .

[14]  Linda E. Brody,et al.  Young college students: Assessing factors that contribute to success. , 1991 .

[15]  Douane Macdonald,et al.  Teacher Attrition: A Review of Literature. , 1999 .

[16]  D. Ford.  Reversing Underachievement Among Gifted Black Students: Promising Practices and Programs (EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE GIFTED SERIES) , 1996 .

[17]  James A. Kulik,et al.  Meta-analytic Findings on Grouping Programs , 1992 .

[18]  Geoffrey D. Borman,et al.  The Long-Term Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Success for All , 2002 .

[19]  C. Ramey,et al.  Early intervention and early experience. , 1998, The American psychologist.

[20]  Joyce VanTassel-Baska,et al.  Toward Best Practice , 2007 .

[21]  K. Weissler,et al.  Impact of an Enrichment Program on Intelligence, by Sex, Among Low SES Population in Israel* , 2001 .

[22]  A. Duffett,et al.  High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB. , 2008 .

[23]  Joyce VanTassel-Baska,et al.  Effective Curriculum and Instructional Models for Talented Students , 1986 .

[24]  William G. Durden,et al.  Cooperative Learning and Ability Grouping: An Issue of Choice , 1992 .

[25]  J. Feldhusen.  Synthesis of Research on Gifted Youth. , 1989 .

[26]  Bruce M. Shore,et al.  Best Practices in Gifted Education: An Evidence-Based Guide , 2006 .

[27]  Herbert W. Marsh,et al.  Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect , 2010 .

[28]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Talented Teenagers: The Roots of Success and Failure , 1993 .

[29]  C. Ramey,et al.  Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: a follow-up study of children from low-income families. , 1994, Child development.

[30]  D. Ford.  Recruiting & Retaining Culturally Different Students in Gifted Education , 2013 .

[31]  Linda J. Emerick.  Academic Underachievement Among the Gifted: Students' Perceptions of Factors that Reverse the Pattern , 1992 .

[32]  C. Benbow,et al.  Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: a longitudinal study , 1990 .

[33]  Karen B. Rogers,et al.  Lessons Learned About Educating the Gifted and Talented , 2007 .

[34]  S. Owen,et al.  An Investigation of the Effects of Total School Flexible Cluster Grouping on Identification, Achievement, and Classroom Practices , 1999 .

[35]  J. Stanley,et al.  Mathematical Talent: Discovery, Description, and Development (MT:D3) , 1975 .

[36]  J. Renzulli.  The Positive Side of Pull-Out Programs , 1987 .

[37]  Sharon J. Lynch.  Fast-Paced High School Science for the Academically Talented: A Six-Year Perspective , 1992 .

[38]  Lauren A. Sosniak,et al.  Developing Talent in Young People , 1985 .

[39]  Laurence J. Coleman,et al.  Being Gifted in School: An Introduction to Development, Guidance, and Teaching (2nd Edition) , 2005 .

[40]  James H. Borland.  Rethinking gifted education , 2003 .

[41]  M. Swiatek.  A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth , 1993 .

[42]  D. Lubinski,et al.  Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth After 35 Years: Uncovering Antecedents for the Development of Math-Science Expertise , 2006, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[43]  J. W. Asher,et al.  Meta-Analyses and Review of Research on Pull-Out Programs in Gifted Education , 1991 .

[44]  S. Baum.  An Enrichment Program for Gifted Learning Disabled Students , 1988 .

[45]  Camilla Persson Benbow,et al.  Opening Doors for the Gifted. , 1983 .

[46]  The Effects of the Elimination of Gifted and Talented Programs On Participating Students and Their Parents , 1993 .

[47]  Curriculum and the creative process: Contributions in memory of A. Harry Passow , 1998 .

[48]  D. Lubinski,et al.  Optimal Development of Talent: Respond Educationally to Individual Differences in Personality , 1995 .

[49]  P. Olszewski-Kubilius,et al.  Parent perceptions of the effects of the Saturday enrichment program on gifted students’ talent development , 2004 .

[50]  D. Lubinski,et al.  Ability Differences Among People Who Have Commensurate Degrees Matter for Scientific Creativity , 2008, Psychological science.

[51]  Jan B. Hansen,et al.  Comparison of Trained and Untrained Teachers of Gifted Students , 1994 .

[52]  Linda D. Avery,et al.  A five‐state analysis of gifted education policies , 2006 .

[53]  Mary S. Landrum.  Resource Consultation and Collaboration in Gifted Education. , 2001 .

[54]  Sandra P. Horn,et al.  Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation , 1997 .