University of St.


level of
Gifted and

Amy Oliver
Amy Oliver


Scene 1: A fourth-grade classroom with 28 students. The desks are set in groups

of four and six to promote collaboration. The teacher steps up to the front of the room

and asks for attention to start a new unit in Social Studies on map reading. As the

teacher is instructing the students on how to complete the assignment one of the

students, Johnny, starts to look around. The teacher uses proximity to get Johnny

focused again then goes back to helping other students. Johnny works for a moment

then goes back to looking around or pulls out his book from home to read. The teacher

calmly tells Johnny to put his book away and get back to work. Johnny responds with “I

am bored” or “I know this already.” The teacher tries to get Johnny back on track, but

since she knows he can do it she does not spend much time working with him because

she has other learners that need her help with what to do. Eventually, Johnny is put into

a Pull-Out program where he goes to a separate classroom with a teacher who

specializes in teaching accelerated learners, but this is only 6 hours out of a week’s worth

of instruction. Johnny still feels as if he does not belong in the classroom and wishes the

pull out program took more time per week, so that does not even keep his interest.

Johnny’s mother cannot figure a way to get her son engaged in school. The

administration at his school tells her to be patient, and that things will work out, but she

is worried that Johnny will begin to dislike coming to school and lost his interest in

learning. Johnny’s mother does not want her son to be like other gifted and talented

(GT) students who do not finish high school. She checks into other GT programs, but

she does not know which is best for her son.

Amy Oliver

Johnny’s mother talks to another gifted student’s mother she knows from church.

Sally goes to school in another district that employs grade skipping. Sally’s mom likes

the program because her daughter moved to a grade level that matches her knowledge

level. What Sally’s mother does not like is that Sally does not interact with children her

age and feels left out sometimes by the older children. So, Sally’s intellectual needs are

being met but her social needs are not. Sally’s mother feels that there must be a better

way to teacher her child at the intellectual level she needs while learning social cues

from her age level.


The purpose of the study is to determine which enrichment program parents of

gifted and talented students think is working for their child. Students who are engaged

in learning are more apt to continue their career in education up to and beyond high

school graduation. The students who are not interested in the learning process will often

drop out of high school because of the relationship between the school, the teacher, and

the student is not strong. If the GT student does not feel like the education system

values them, then they will see attendance and the learning environment as not

important. (Zabloski, 2010)

In the scenario at the top our student, Johnny, is bored. He already knows the

presented content, but he is not engaged in the learning because it is not motivating

enough for him. Johnny is a gifted learner, but the lessons given are not sufficient to

keep him involved in the teaching. The teacher may not know how to differentiate the

experience to include the accelerated and gifted learners or just doesn’t have the time.

Amy Oliver

GT students may be the ones that score at the highest level on the standardized tests,

but they are also the ones that can fall through the cracks. Students that are not engaged

by their teachers may grow bored and stop following the curriculum. These students do

not want more work or to teach other students who need the help. These students want

to be challenged.

Some districts have the Pull-Out program where the students are moved to a

specialized classroom for a few hours each week. The fraction of the instructional week

that students spend with the gifted teacher in the pull-out program is not enough to

keep these accelerated students interested in learning. Johnny’s school district is one

that has this type of program. The gifted students spend most of their instructional time

in the classroom with the inclusion teacher then spend a few hours with the gifted

teacher. This means that much of the time Johnny relies on the inclusion teacher to

differentiate the lesson to match his skill set. The benefits of this program are a good

working relationship between the inclusion teacher and the specialized teacher

increases the intellectual learning of the students. (Yang and Gentry, 2012)

Grade skipping is another enrichment program that school districts may use.

Grade skipping allows the student to move up to the grade level that they are at

intellectually but may not be the best place for learning social cues that are so important

for a learner. Along with this type of learning, there are districts that have content level

skipping as their enrichment program. (Gurwell, 2016) In this kind of program, the

students are tested at the beginning of the year then placed in higher subject level

classes. These students still spend much of their time in their age level classroom but

Amy Oliver

will move to a different grade level class to get their instruction of an individual subject.

This allows the student to increase his understanding of the subject while still learning

basic social cues at their current age level. (Gurwell, 2016)

GT students range in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age. Yoon and Gentry

point out in the Gifted Child Quarterly, white and Asian students are overrepresented

since 1978 (Yoon & Gentry, 2009). They go on to mention that all ethnicities have

students who qualify for the gifted program, but the most are white and Asian. The age

level can start as young as kindergarten but the focus for this study would concentrate

on the intermediate level. GT students are found for the most part in a heterogeneous

classroom because most public schools only pull out students to work for short times

(Kennedy, 1995). These students each learn in their way like the on-level and adaptive


The classroom is where the students get most of their content. They need their

teacher to direct the content to them. Due to many factors, this just is not always

possible. Most teachers do not plan enough to engage their accelerated students. A

national survey of classroom teachers found that they made only minor modifications to

meet the needs of GT students. (Archambault et al., 1993)” (Kennedy, 1995).

As Johnny’s mother found out there are different enrichment programs; each has

their challenges. What should Johnny’s mother do? What is best for her child? Only

Johnny’s mother can answer that but who is asking the parents who know their children


Amy Oliver


Which method of instruction works best in the eyes of the people who know the

student the best, the parents? Are pull out programs the best way to enrich GT

students? What differentiation works best for students in this demographic?


Johnny’s mother did her informal research study by talking to the other parents.

She found that students react differently to each method of instruction. It seems that the

type of instructional method that helps one gifted and talented student is not the same

for a different gifted and talented student. Learning styles are unique to students. Some

learn best visually or logically; some learn best by skipping a grade or going to a

specialized gifted classroom. How can we, as educators, find the right method of

enrichment for the GT students so that they are continually engaged in the learning



 Underserved means not to give sufficient or enough services. (
 Gifted: Federal definition as of 2004 deems GT students as those “who give evidence

of high performance capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or

leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who require services or

activities not ordinarily provided by the school I order to fully develop such

capabilities.” (P.L. 100-297)” (Jolly, 2005).

Amy Oliver

 Accelerated learning is about having the student skip grades or those students who

take a pre-test determining they know the content. Those students who test out in a

pre-test would move on to more challenging content. (Rakow, 2012)
 Heterogeneous classroom refers to many types of learners in one classroom.
 Engagement means to attract and keep the attention of the students.
 Advocacy means to support a position.
 Pull out method refers to a gifted and talented program in which the gifted students

go to a different classroom where the gifted teacher will have lessons for them. (Yang

and Gentry, 2012)
 Inclusion means that the gifted and talented learner gets a differentiated lesson plan

from the classroom teacher.
 Push in method refers to when the specialized teacher comes into the regular

classroom and works with your child as the class is working on a subject. (Yang and

Gentry, 2012)
 Grade skipping means that the child has either skipped a complete grade level or is

going to another classroom for instruction on a subject. The classroom is at a higher-

grade level. (Gurwell, 2016)

Amy Oliver


Should gifted students be instructed in an inclusion environment or as part of

Pull-out program? Maybe the best program is one of content or Grade Skipping. This

question has been asked for decades. There are many areas of the problem that need to

be discussed to determine which is best. Determining the best course of action for the

GT students is important. Educators cannot decide if teachers can differentiate for their

gifted students as well as differentiating for the adaptive minds or if the gifted students

should be accelerated from one grade level to another? There is much to think about

when it comes to what is best for the talented student.


What is a gifted student? Joseph S. Renzulli dedicates an entire paper on the

discussion of the definitions. Strict definitions state that gifted students can be

identified by IQ scores started as early as 1926 with L.M. Terman in his work called

Genius studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children.

Layering on top of IQ to determine which students are gifted, Renzulli discusses how

“Gifted behaviors consist of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic

clusters of human traits – above-average ability, high levels of task commitment, and

high levels of creativity. (Renzulli & Reis, 1997, p. 8)

Many students who are in the 99th percentile of test scores are seen as not

needing any added interaction from the teacher because those students already

Amy Oliver

understand the content. These students are called gifted. The problem with this is that

students who do not get that interaction of a teacher engaging them will not show

progress in their yearly reports. The progress is what is important to the learning

process as opposed to the level of understanding. Gifted students that don’t progress

often end up giving up on school and leaving it early. (Rakow, 2012)

Students that don’t feel engaged in the learning process can get bored with school

and feel like they do not belong. Too little engagement across the years of schooling will

cause students to dislike going to school and possibly consider dropping out. Nichole

Gurwell, Instructional Coach at Tonganoxie Elementary School, explained that she saw

this first hand with her child. Before her daughter was granted acceptance into the gifted

program, she was in the beginning stages of hating school. Mrs. Gurwell acknowledged

that in her capacity as Instructional Coach she has encountered gifted students that are

not being engaged enough and were growing a level of discomfort at school that could

lead to the students dropping out. (Gurwell, 2016)

A study on dropout rates found that students who are not engaged in the

classroom will lose interest and then eventually drop out of school. (Nowicki, Duke et

al., 2004) Those are the students that desire an instructor that understands their needs

so that their attention is grabbed. A 2014 study by Katie McClarty showed that the

dropout rate is “…between 18 percent and 24 percent of gifted students … Even when

gifted students stay in school, many of them underachieve – that is their actual

achievement is far below their expected achievement.” (McClarty, 2014, para. 2)

Imagine this visual; there are 100 students in a school. Ten of them are shown to be

Amy Oliver

gifted. If 18 percent of them drop out, that is 1.8 students who will drop out. That

sounds small until you realize that that is almost two students out of 10 who will not

make it through school. McClarty also mentions that many of those who do graduate

will not achieve their best. So, of those other eight students in our hypothetical grouping

of gifted students, many will not reach their potential. It is unclear the percentage that

makes up the underachieving many but with only 8 to work with even allowing one

gifted student to miss their potential is indeed unfortunate. All students should be

educated so that they reach their full potential.

A parent of two gifted children in the article, Serving Gifted Through Inclusion:

A Parent’s Perspective, states that she worries about inclusion because the teachers did

not have the knowledge and training that they should have to engage the gifted children.

(Martin & Brodsky, 1996) On the other side of this coin is the teacher’s perspective. In

an article in the Roemer Review, Lisa Benson, a Middle School Teacher, claims that

inclusion puts undue pressure on the heterogeneous classroom teachers. They are

already overworked and trying to plan something for all the learner levels to do just

more work than the teachers have time. It is hard to say if the inclusion method or

pulling students out for focused instruction is the best. (Benson & Brodsky, 1996)

Should we also address the question of should the gifted students be enriched

within their grade level or allowed to skip full grades? Lulu Stedman gives her advice in

her book called Education of Gifted Children. Stedman says that to allow the students to

skip grade levels when they have shown that they have mastered the content would

provide them a disservice. Those students should still be allowed to mature with their

Amy Oliver

classmates. These gifted students still have much in common with their peers including

physical and social skills so they should continue growing up with their grade level

mates. (Stedman, 1924)

Inclusion in the heterogeneous classroom works best as some studies have shown

when the gifted students are grouped with those of similar ability. Using pre-

assessments to group students makes a lot more sense than grouping simply by age.

(Cramond & Brodskey, 1996; Rakow, 2012) The classroom teacher needs to provide

differentiation for all exceptional students in the classroom. This often does not happen

because some inclusion teachers do not like dealing with the gifted student, does not

have time, may not have the resources, or just doesn’t know how to engage these

students. (Kennedy, 1995) With a “lack of sufficient subject matter knowledge” of the

heterogeneous classroom teacher, gifted students are often left with nothing to engage

them says Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Tamra Stambaugh in their article, Challenges

and Possibilities for Serving Gifted Learners in the Regular Classroom. On top of that,

they have noted that classroom management skills for differentiating for the gifted

learner as the primary cause for the lack of differentiation. The delicate balance between

giving an assignment that will engage all the levels of learners and having those students

become bored and act out in class is an ever-present challenge to what the teacher must

plan. (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005)

A rarely used method for educating gifted students is called Grade Skipping. This

means that the students take a test that shows if they perform with a high enough score

on a pre-test then there is no reason for the student to have to stay at their grade level.

Amy Oliver

There are a couple of ways for a student skip a grade. The obvious way is to move a

student from one grade level to a higher grade. An alternate way to have students skip

grades is by having the student accelerate in a subject. For example, a learner who gets a

high enough percentage right on a pre-test in math will be moved from their grade level

math class to a higher-grade level class. The benefits of this way of handling gifted

students are that the student is still with their classmates but can learn the upper-level

knowledge. (Vanderkam & Whitmire, 2009)

The drawbacks to Grade Skipping is that some students mentioned that their

maturity and sociability were affected. One student, Andrew Fowler, who is 17,

mentioned that he was worried the first year that he leveled up to a different grade.

Fowler said that by the end of the year he did not notice the change and skipped other

grades throughout his school career. In opposition to Fowler is Angela Carr, 34. Carr

was admitted to kindergarten at the age of 4 years. She advanced several grades and was

very young when she attended high school. Carr was adversely affected because she was

not mature enough to be at that level socially. She began to drink with her elder

classmates. It just depends on the student how many grade levels, if at all, should be

skipped. Their social and emotional growth is as important as their intellectual growth.

(Cloud, Badowski et al., 2004)

A modern method of educating gifted students is the Push-In and Pull-Out

method is used in many schools for students who are exceptional, meaning gifted

learners or adaptive learners. The special education teacher either works in the

classroom with the heterogeneous teacher or pulls the exceptional students out of the

Amy Oliver

classroom to work in a specialized room. These special education teachers can spend a

few hours each week with these exceptional students. As Susan Rakow says, “…gifted

students are gifted all day long.” (Rakow, 2012, p. 38) Gifted students are viewed in a

different way than their adaptive counterparts. Also, teachers who like and are

concerned about their gifted students will work harder for them. This is opposite of

those teachers who are not as worried about their gifted students because they feel that

those students do not need as much time. (Geffen, 1997) There are those that call this

method weak because the gifted students only get so much attention. (Winner, 1996)

There are many ways to educate the gifted students. Some are low in cost like

grouping the students by the ability within the inclusion classroom. Technology allows

for educational methods to grow and change rapidly. Students will soon be able to take

advantage of the one to one ratio for ipads or laptops that most districts will have. Since

each student would have their technological device, they will have access to more

information that could be used in a differentiated assignment that addresses their level

of ability. Working with students at a higher level can also be utilized with gifted

students. Working with a higher-level teacher, the inclusion teacher can have gifted

students partner with a higher-grade level student on a project allowing the gifted

student to learn at an advanced pace. (Danico, 2015)

The research is not conclusive regarding this topic. There are several methods

that students and parents can be involved in so that they can reach the top of their

learning abilities. Grade skipping and content skipping are similar, but they often leave

the student behind emotionally and socially. Inclusion is a great method so that the gap

Amy Oliver

between student learning and sociability is closed but the drawback is that inclusion

teachers are often unable to create lessons that allow them to do their best. The Pull-Out

method and Push-In method are also similar. The Pull Out and Push In methods permit

the student to be able to stay in the inclusion classroom with their grade level while they

have a specialized teacher who differentiates the lessons for them. The detriment to both

methods is that these specialized teachers only meet with their students for a few hours

each week. The rest of the learning time is spent without the level of differentiation that

these students need. These methods have their benefits, and all have drawbacks. Which

do parents think is best for their child?

Amy Oliver


The purpose of this study is to find out which GT method parents prefer. Gifted

and Talented students are often left behind when it comes to lesson creation. Some

teachers believe that since these GT students already understand the content that they

do not need to be engaged like their on-level and adaptive counterparts. The problem is

that these students are being left behind. Whether it is due to lack of desire to try to

create a lesson with engaging differentiation or if there is a lack of knowledge, the fact is

that many GT students do not meet their yearly progress targets.


Which enrichment program do parents/guardians of gifted and talented students

prefer? Are Pull Out programs the best way to enrich GT students? What differentiation

works best for students in this demographic? These questions are worth investigating in

the hopes of discovering the best way to serve the GT community and create the leaders

of tomorrow.

The research method used is quantitative research, a structured inquiry method,

is the research method that will be used. This study is quantitative because all the

answers are given as choices except for the comment section at the bottom which may or

may not be filled out by the participants. The survey will be completely online including

the informed consent. All the information given will be anonymous because the

informed consent is online and no names are requested. (Hendricks, 2013)

Amy Oliver

The study members will be chosen randomly from a large pool by sending out

cover letters to GT parents of the districts that approve the study. The ages of the

parents will range between 18 years and 65 years old. Their children will be between 5

years and 11 years old. The criteria for participation will be that their student is currently

enrolled in a Gifted and Talented program. There will be approximately 30 parents in

the survey community. The socio-economic status and ethnicity will vary as gifted and

talented students come from a wide range of areas. The reason for a survey of the

parents of the gifted and talented students is because they are the consumer. The

parents are the ones that are making the decisions for their student, so they are the

people who are seeing if the programs have been working. The parents are the ones who

see the yearly progress which is the point of enriching the students’ learning.

By coordinating with Gifted and Talented teachers around the area, a letter will

be sent home with the students for their parents or caretakers. The parents and

guardians will receive the letter describing the study and that the information will be

used for a Master’s research project only. The letter will advise what the study is about,

and that confidentiality is ensured. The letter will give an email address that the parents

can follow to take the survey. On the first page of the website, there will be a brief

description of the survey. On the bottom of the page, the parents will be advised that by

clicking the button that says “I agree” that they are giving consent for their responses to

Amy Oliver

be used in the study. The participants will be told that they may leave the study at any


The survey will have a few demographic questions for them to answer then there

will be descriptions of each program: Pull-Out program, Push-In program, Grade

Skipping, and Inclusion. After the description, there will be six more questions for the

parent to fill out before hitting the submit button.

I will store the data collected in a file folder on my laptop. Since there are no

names on informed consent letters, there will be no problem with confidentiality. Once

the study is over, the data will be deleted and then be recycled off the laptop.

The questions that the parent/guardians will be answering include:

1. What is your child’s gender?
2. What is your child’s age?
3. What is your child’s first language?
4. Which method of instruction is your child currently in?
5. If your child has been involved in another method of instruction, what was it?
6. How many years has your child been in the Gifted and Talented Programs?

(Including this year)
7. How satisfied are you with your child’s progress in their current Gifted and

Talented program?
8. How satisfied is your child with their progress in the current Gifted and Talented

9. Thank you for filling out this brief survey. Your responses are confidential and

appreciated. Any comments, questions, or concerns are welcome. If you would

like a response, please leave an email address.

Amy Oliver

Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Findings
Gifted and Talented students are often not challenged in school due to limitations

of time in the school day and limitations of the staff. Parents are in the best position to

determine if the GT program is successful for their student. This study was devised to

discover GT method do parents prefer. Some teachers believe that since these GT

students already understand the content that they do not need to be engaged like their

on-level and adaptive counterparts. GT students often do not meet their yearly progress

targets which means they are not being served completely by their schools.


This is a quantitative study. The basis of this study is to find out what type of GT

program works best from the viewpoint of the parents of the GT students. Since parents

are busy, the study was designed to be quick and easy to fill out.


The request for participation went out to several school districts. One responded

no thank you and one responded yes. The rest of the districts did not respond. To gain

more responses, the questionnaire was sent out to a couple parents of past GT students

known through Carolyn Doolittle, Ph.D.

Amy Oliver


Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 represent demographics. Of the nine respondents, six

GT students were described as male and three as female. The age ranges of the students

in the study were seven years old to 11 years old. The study found no respondents had

students ages five years old and six years old. All respondents said that English is their

first language.

Gender of Gifted & Talented Student








Male Female


Amy Oliver

Age of Gifted & Talented Student






5 years old 6 years old 7 years old 8 years old
9 years old 10 years old 11 years old


First Language of Gifted & Talented Students

English Spanish Vietnamese Chinese Other


Amy Oliver

The next section had to do with which type of GT program the respondents’

students were involved in and how long the students have been involved in GT

instruction. Each method was defined in the survey so that the respondents knew what

was being asked. Figure 4-4 shows the results. Three said that the method of instruction

for their students was inclusion. Four respondents said that their students were

involved in pull out programs at their school. One respondent reported that their

student was in a push in program. One respondent stated that their student was

involved in grade skipping.

The next question asked which method of instruction their students had been in

previously. One respondent stated that previously their student had been involved in an

inclusion program. Three respondents said that their students had been involved in pull

out programs. Three respondents said that their students had been involved in grade

skipping. No respondent mentioned that their student had previously been involved in a

push in program. See Figure 4-5

Three respondents stated that their students had been involved in GT instruction

for three years. One respondent said that their student had been involved for two years.

Two respondents said that their students had been involved in GT instruction for three

years. There were no entries for four, five, or six years, but there were three respondents

who said that their students had been involved for seven years. See Figure 4-6.

Amy Oliver

Method of Instruction Gifted & Talented Student is currently in






Inclusion Pull Out Program Push In Program Grade Skipping


Method of instruction Gifted & Talented Student was in previously





Inclusion Pull Out Program Push In Program Grade Skipping


Amy Oliver

Years involved in Gifted & Talented Programs
(Including this year)





1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 7 years


The final section dealt with satisfaction level of the GT program. Not every parent

responded. On Figure 4-7, the graph shows there was one dissatisfaction response and

one satisfaction response. On the other hand, when it came to how the students felt all

respondents answered. One student noted being neutral about their satisfaction level.

Four stated they were satisfied and the last four noted that they were very satisfied with

their GT program.

Amy Oliver

How satisfied are you with your child's progress in their current Gifted & Talented program?
How satisfied is your child with their progress in their Gifted & Talented program?





Parent satisfaction Student satisfaction

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral
Satisfied Very Satisfied

A comment section was included and received one response. The respondent stated that,

“Jeff entered the gifted ed program at age 7. Completed it as a 12 th grader. Did not

receive pull-out services passed 8th grade. Modifications made in high school focused on

access to University courses.”

Amy Oliver

Chapter 5 Study Findings

The purpose of this study was to discover the satisfaction level of the parents of

Gifted and Talented students. These are the people who know their students best.

Because they are our consumers, these are the people who know if the program is

working. Through the parents, GT students, we could find out if the program they are in

is working or if we need to devise a new method.

A request was sent out to school districts around the Kansas City area asking to

send out a request for participation in the study. One district said no, one district said

yes, and the rest of the districts did not respond. Because of the low number of

respondents, Carolyn Doolittle, Ph.D. sent out the survey website to parents of Gifted

and Talented students that she knows.

The website that the parents were directed to first explained the purpose of the

study and how the information would be used. This website advised that respondents

have the right to stop answering at any time and that all information will be completely

private. The reason this type of survey was used is because it could be anonymous, easy

to use, and quick to finish. The respondents are known to be busy so the survey was

created to be take up as little time as possible.

Amy Oliver

Major Findings

The demographic questions of the study showed that there were more parents of

boys in GT programs that answered than girls. The ages of the students ranged from 7

years old to 11 years old. There were no respondents with students aged 5 years old or 6

years old. All respondents said that English was the first language of the home.

Most respondents stated that the current program their student is enrolled in is a

pull-out program with four entries. Three entries said that their students were involved

in an inclusion program. Push in program and grade skipping had one respondent each

claiming it as their students’ current program. When asked what program their student

previously had, three respondents said their student had been involved in a pull-out

program and three said their student had been involved in a grade skipping program.

One respondent states that their student had been in an inclusion program. No one

claimed to be previously involved in a push in program.

Three respondents said that their student had been involved in the GT program

for three years. One respondent said that their student had been in the program for two

years and two respondents said it was three years. The longest option of seven years in a

GT program was claimed by the final three respondents.

The satisfaction levels came next, first asking how satisfied the parents of the GT

students were. There were only two responses. One was satisfied and one was

dissatisfied. The satisfaction levels for the students spanned from one neutral reply, four

who were satisfied, and four who were very satisfied.

Amy Oliver

The difficulty with which I obtained my nine responses tells me that there is not a

lot of concern for this subset of students. Of the responses I did receive, I believe that

the programs are doing what they are designed to do. Nearly every respondent was

satisfied with the GT program their students are in. Only one parent responded

negatively about their satisfaction with their student’s GT program. Unfortunately, that

one parent consists of half of the data of parental satisfaction.

I believe that it is unfortunate that no more than nine people responded. There is

a lot of help spent on adaptive special education programs as well as gifted and talented

programs, but more care seems to be given to those who are falling behind due to their

learning disabilities.

Which GT program works the best as determined by the parents? Are pull-out

programs dominant in the world of GT programs? The results are inconclusive. The pool

of respondents is not large enough to make that determination.


I believe that a follow up to this study should be done. An in-school survey of GT

students would be beneficial to discover their satisfaction level with their current

program. In addition, this follow up study should ask questions about what changes the

respondents would like to see.

Amy Oliver

Benson, L., & Brodsky, R. (1996). Serving gifted students through inclusion: A teacher's
perspective. Roeper Review, 19(1), A-2.
Cloud, J., Badowski, C., Rubiner, B., & Scully, S. (2004). SAVING THE SMART
KIDS. Time, 164(13), 56-61.
Cramond, B., & Brodsky, R. (1996). Serving gifted students through inclusion in the
heterogeneously grouped classroom. Roeper Review, 19(1), A-1.
DeNISCO, A. (2015). How Schools Maximize Gifted Talent. Education Digest, 81(3), 42-
Geffen, L. (1997). Recent doctoral dissertation research on gifted. Roeper Review, 20(1),
Gurwell, N. (2016, March 24). Field Experience [Personal Interview].
Hendricks, C. (2013). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach, 3rd edition.
Jolly, J. (2005). Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions in the Field of Gifted
Education, Gifted Child Today, 38-44.
Kennedy, D. M. (1995). Plain talk about creating a gifted-friendly classroom. Roeper
Review, 17(4), 232.
Martin, C., & Brodsky, R. (1996). Serving gifted students through inclusion: A parent's
perspective. Roeper Review, 19(1), A-3.
Matthews, M. S., PhD. (2008, February 19). What About Gifted Students Who Drop
Out? Retrieved March 27, 2016, from
McClarty, K. (2014, March 17). “They’ll be Fine” – Educational Opportunities for Gifted
Learners. Retrieved March 27, 2016 from
Nowicki Jr., S., Duke, M. P., Sisney, S., Stricker, B., & Tyler, M. A. (2004). Reducing the
Drop-Out Rates of At-Risk High School Students: The Effective Learning Program
(ELP). Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 130(3), 225-239.
Rakow, S. (2012). Helping Gifted Learners SOAR. Educational Leadership, 69(5), 34-
Renzulli, J.S. & Reis, S.M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for
education excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning.

Amy Oliver

Renzulli, Joseph S. (2002). Emerging Conceptions of Giftedness: Building a Bridge to
the New Century, Exceptionality, 10:2, 67-75.
So Yoon, Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and Ethnic Representation in Gifted
Programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121-136.
Stedman, Lulu M. (1924). Education of gifted children.
Tirri, K. (2010). Motivation and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 77-80.
Vanderkam, L., & Whitmire, R. (2009). What Ever Happened to Grade
Skipping? Education Week, 28(37), 36-30.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and Possibilities for Serving
Gifted Learners in the Regular Classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211-217.
Winner, E. (1996, October 16). The miseducation of our gifted children. Education
Week. p. 44.
Yang, Y., Gentry, M., & Choi, Y. O. (2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of the regular
classes and pull-out programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23,
Zabloski, James (2010). Gifted Dropouts: A Phenomenological Study (Doctoral

Amy Oliver