UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

School of environment, education and development

International Perspectives on Equity and Inclusion (EDUC70322)

2nd Semester 2014-15

‘Giftedness and Iclusion’

MA Educational Leadership

Student ID: 9604941

Tutor: Dr Susie Miles

Submission date: 18/05/2015

Words:
Full Inclusion and giftedness

Full inclusion is a phrase commonly used in education circles to refer to a

philosophical way of educating children with disabilities (physical, mental, social

ect.). This reflective model requires that disabled children should be taught in

ordinary classrooms for most, if not all, of the school day (Shanker 1994, Wolak,

York, and Corbin, 1992). Proponents of full inclusion for disabled children

acknowledge the right to education of every person as enshrined in Article 26 of the

1948 Declaration of Human Rights. They assert that an inclusion is the inalienable

right of all disabled children irrespectively of their impairment or prevailing situation.

As this on-going movement progresses, the bureaucratic strategies emanating from

this philosophical stance and the existence of a broader assortment of learners and

instructors in the classroom will impact all children in full inclusion learning

institutions. Nevertheless, strict appliance of this ideology could result in untested or

even disadvantageous repercussions for many types of learners.

It is paradox when an ideological setting that emphasizes full inclusion in an ordinary

classroom for students with serious disabilities, yet eminently ‘gifted and talented’

children, continue to be precluded in several aspects. In the United States of

America, gifted learning practices languishes due to twofold impediments, the

inadequate legitimate definition of giftedness and the lack of a Confederate decree

for the procurement services and legal support to schools (Kearney 1996). Other

remarkably gifted-talented students attend ordinary classrooms, yet rather than

engaging in applicable collegiate league and having equivalent favourable

circumstances to struggle, they allocate most of their time at school to teaching

others in group cooperative learning activities or reviewing subjects from a particular

module of training that they grasped a long time ago by themselves (Robinson 1990,
U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Additionally, a large number of juvenile

‘prodigies’, children with exceptionally high Intelligence Quotients (IQ), or those with

outstanding distinctive abilities in the arts, end up home-schooling for a

supplementary training of their learning courses, as a result of contemporary

education institutions, both private and public, not meeting their educational needs

(Feldman 1979). The truth is that the inclusion comprises shifts in ideology,

curriculum, tutoring approach, and fundamental changes in organisation and

pedagogical structure.

The following statement presents a justification to the consonance of inclusive

learning and the discriminative curriculum for gifted students. Stainback and

Stainback (1990) described an inclusive learning organization as one that:

‘educates all students in the mainstream… providing them with appropriate educational
programs that are challenging yet geared to their capabilities and needs as well as any
support and assistance they and /or their teachers may need to be successful in the
mainstream. But an inclusive school also goes beyond this. An inclusive school is a place
where everyone belongs, is accepted supports, and is supported by his or her peers and
other members of the school community in the course of having his or her education needs
met’ (p 3).

The question emerged from the aforementioned philosophical stance is who are

these ‘gifted and talented’ children? A broad summarisation of this complex definition

will be presented below.

Gifted children: Who are they?

There are innumerable definitions of being labelled as gifted. Nonetheless there is no

upon-agreed, ubiquitous description, the complexity in getting a single research-

based definition that includes the assorted talents and exceptional traits that are
projected in literature articles and research (Sternberg and Davidson, 2005) inhibits

that intricacy of describing with confidence who is gifted-talented and who is not. In

defining this diverse category of children, several educators are striving to give a

comprehensive definition under the ‘gifted and talented’ label.

A few decades ago, the conception of giftedness was more restricted. Psychological

theories based on findings of Lewis Terman’s research, assimilated giftedness with

exceptional IQ scores (Terman, 1925). Exceedingly and profoundly gifted youngsters

are frequently described as those who grade beyond the third or fourth standard

deviation on Intelligence Quotient tests (Webb, Meckstroth and Tolan 1982), or who

are assumed as prodigies in a particular sphere. There are also several youngsters

categorised above 170 IQ (Stanford-Binet) than the conventional bell curve

anticipates (Kearney 1996, figure 1).

Figure 1. Gauss’ IQ distribution curve of a population as a whole

Source: Google
Although these tests have been revised through years and as a result their scales,

the same percentage of population (2%) emerges with scores above 140 (Silverman

and Kearney 1992).

The most common quoted definition that appears in numerous articles for ‘gifted and

talented’ is the one that has been presented by the U.S Department of Education in

1972:

‘Talented and gifted youngsters are those determined by professionally competent

individuals who by the trait of exceptional capabilities, have the ability of tremendous

achievements. These are kids that need extricated learning curricula and/or assistance

above that granted by the ordinary school curriculum so that they can appreciate their input

to community and self.’ (p 2).

It is noteworthy that in the United States, from 1990 to this time, twenty-one states

have revised the definition adopted for talented and gifted learners. With the need on

defining ‘gifted and talented’ people that are not adequately represented in the

available descriptions, including minorities and people with disabilities, there is a

requirement for new descriptions in the perspective to make room for better precision

in the integration of learners associated with this group. Intelligently gifted

youngsters are inferred to be those who possess outstanding capabilities or

exceptional abilities of learning and problem resolving (Whitmore 1986, Gagne 1991)

to enable them prosper academically while ingeniously talented youngsters exhibit

authentic and lateral thought. Both groups frequently strive to incorporate into a

traditional teaching, which doesn’t leave any space for individualised learning (as

asserted in broadly acknowledged description of gifted and talented students of the

United States Office of Education 1978).

Scholarly research on gifted students shows a remarkable variety of this

amalgamated category of children (Neilhert et al. 2001) and underlines the

educational system deficiency that most of them do not achieve their potential and

often conduce to under-performance (Renzulli 2006, Sternberg and Davidson 2005).

However, lately the description of talent and giftedness has evolved to cover more

aspects including the interaction of morals and culture on the advancement of gifts

and talents (Sternberg and Davidson 2005). Recent investigation on the various

aspects of comprehension of giftedness varies from broad, expansive depictions to

more focused descriptions of giftedness recognised by particular forces, outputs or

capabilities inside specific domains (Sternberg and Davidson 2005). This compilation

of research studies, carried out in recent years leads to a wider–based

conceptualisation of giftedness that amalgamates non-academic attainments and

intellectual potentials, like self-esteem evaluation, motivation, imagination and

creativity (Sternberg and Davidson 2005). From this brief examination on this

controversial subject, one can easily deduce that the social parameter has a great

impact on the conceptualisation about giftedness. Being gifted does not necessarily

guarantee an easy road to success, on the following section are presented social

and learning barriers as have been examined by several researchers.

Social and learning barriers

The National Commission Investigation for Outstanding Performance in Education

shows that in the United States 50% of ‘gifted and talented’ pupils with recorded

intellectual abilities are not necessarily the ‘high-achievers’ when at the same time a

noteworthy percentage leave the school (10 – 20% of those who drop out of school
associated with this category, 4.5% of secondary education dropouts are gifted).

Many writers label this experience as ‘quite crisis' (Kaskaloglu 2003).

Learning institutions are not systemized in ways favourable to how these children

learn and school policies most times unjustly restrain these children from taking part

in adequate learning opportunities. Therefore the mandatory attendance at a

conventional school is a challenge both for school and family alike (Gross 1993,

Tolan, 1992). Mainly due to the so-called ‘developmental-asynchrony’, social

adaptation is frequently hard, particularly in childhood and juvenile period

(Hollingworth 1942, Morelock 1992). Emotional, spiritual, moral, and existential

concerns are endorsements and remain that way all through their lives (Hollingworth,

1942, Silverman 1989). Burks, Jensen and Terman (1930) pointed out that ‘The child

of 180 IQ has one of the most severe problems of social adjustment that any human

being is ever called upon to meet.’ (p 265).

Society’s mental outlook towards these children is bound to be deceitful,

unfavourable or vindictive (Feldman 1982; Grost, 1970; Hollingworth 1942; Robinson

1990; Tolan 1985, 1992; Terman 1925; U.S. Department of Education, 1993;

Wallace, 1986; Wiener, 1953; Witty 1936). These mental outlooks are conspicuous

both in schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1993) and in the media. For a gifted

child who frequently needs assorted sets of coequals (Roedell 1984, Silverman

1989), will the classmates curb their social and intellectual development instead of

extending it? Philosophical analysis and empirical investigations of these issues still

are in a preliminary stage, which are far from declaring any conclusive findings.

Moreover, learning institutions’ curricula of these children are torn between

expenditure planning and the present philosophical agitations in education which

insists on diversity. The final outcome is that as learning systems emphasize such an

approach as full inclusion for disabled learners, composite categorization of gifted-

talented students have lesser and lesser favourable opportunities in schools to

mingle with academic peers, in contradiction to the notion of their intellectual and

social advancements from their co-existence and cooperation (White 1990,

Robinson 1990).

Notably, Conn (1992) referred to the immense research conducted on children with

impairments and disabilities to come up with principles for full inclusion classrooms,

similarly, policies for inclusion of exceptionally gifted and talented children must draw

from accredited research respectively. This inquiry base proposes the following

principles: Intellectual accessibility, Respect for intellectual diversity, End of arbitrary

age discrimination, Use of classroom management and teaching strategies which do

not exploit highly gifted children, Adapt peers settings to meet personal social and

academic needs.

Finally, it is important to examine the basis on which the groups are composed. What

is the core value of education; is it the social change or the personal advancement of

the learner? Even though these objectives are compatible, a candid assessment of

foremost concerns in education would help in making choices regarding

categorization. There are some evidences that illustrate the deficiency in

performance examination scores of learners from the upper-level classes who are

placed in a heterogeneous group (Rees, Brewer, and Argys, 1995). Such evidence is

useful to those in charge of making choices regarding using inclusion for the gifted

youngsters to carry out an honest costs/benefits analysis and to be categorical with

regard to the potential intellectual disadvantages of such choices to the brightest

students. As a matter of fact, there are evidences that students’ personal

requirements can also be met with competent tutoring. Relevant surveys and

investigations carried by the National Research Centre on the talented and gifted

(Westberg et al. 1993) suggests that this is not taken into consideration. Probably,

personalised preparation, guidance, and specialised instruction to an expansive

array of abilities are certainly substantial obstacles for a teacher to overcome.

Educational approach for the ‘gifted and talented’ learners in Europe, and the

case of Greece

Most countries in Western Europe embrace the advancement of educating these

students in the school framework (figure 2). This concept is supported by the

agreement of Salamanca. Nevertheless, ‘educating the gifted and talented' program

postulates expertise in training, tutor readiness and indeed the requisite support for

managing the project effectively.

Figure 2. School and non-school based educational measures for gifted/talented

youngsters, 2005/2006.
Source: Eurydice 2006, (p 14).

In 1994 the European Council embraced a significantly important decision which

addressed to all Member States of the European Union and among other things,

ratified:

 Vote and to implement laws that promote support for the children.

 Promote research projects to explore in depth the nature and behaviour of

gifted children, and the reasons that cause poor performance in school.

 Provide additional training, support programs for both students and teachers

 Provide the appropriate way for the adaptation of gifted children in the new

educational climate that seeks to establish (integration of complimentary –

reinforcing courses in the wider educational system).

 Take the necessary measures to avoid stigmatizing any student because of

his charismatic nature, seeking the constructive use of such a gift and not the

negative consequences challenge for the student himself.

 Lastly, the betterment of equally productive mutual effort (via boards, lectures,

and collaborations network) amid instructors, psychologists and all associated

disciplines, with the object of prosperous attainment of such an intervention

(UNESCO 1994).

The designation ‘gifted and talented' children have been broadly acknowledged by

the international scientific alliance in later years, although perhaps not entirely

accepted.
Before Greece became part of the European Union, in 1979 the new constitution

signalled that all Greeks have a right to attend public learning institutions of all levels

of education. The government argues and includes in legislation eminent learners

and learners who require attention and exceptional care, concerning their capabilities

(1975, Article 16; 4). The foremost legislation (1143) of Special Education was

recognized by the political class and citizenry in 1981. In the review of the law in

1985 (1566/85), the act plainly acknowledged the personality of every learner and

the exigency for personalised allowance adapted to the individual's generic potential

and artistry as well as for particular talents and interests.

Moreover, to add the aspect of a concerted social living surrounding, an assortment

of musical and civil occurrences must be arranged. This statute dealt with both

primary and secondary education. Notwithstanding, the major objective of the

Education of Special Needs continuing to be devoted entirely to disabled students.

The inauguration of special schools and special classes, the advancement and

exertion of intellectual policies and professional training is seldom if ever, related to

gifted students and their unique learning needs. Gifted learning has remained an

undiscovered subject. On 29/10/2003, the Greek legislature passed a vote to alter

the Statute 2817/2000, Article 1, paragraph to be: ‘Special education provision may

be offered to those individuals who have special mental abilities and talents’

(European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs 2006,

p 19).

There are no clear provisions for the intellectually gifted learners in Greek schools.

Unambiguous provisions for talented pupils in extra-curricular activities are in

existence, albeit primarily in specialized learning centres. The absence of provisions

for academically gifted learners is concurrent with the predicament of establishing

giftedness concise definition. Additionally education for the gifted is not an area

covered in basic mandatory studies for teachers, also there is no option for any form

of advanced training available on the subject of giftedness and formal networks for

the purpose of sharing experiences between tutors or even among schools do not

exist.

Consequently the current setting in Greece in regard to the education of the gifted is

seemingly marked by an inadequacy of standardised provision and psychological

support. Ultimately, the greatest impediment of this setting is the paucity of

acknowledgement by Greek's ministry of education and other formal institutions of

the need for exclusive provisions for the gifted students. Nevertheless, the gifted

learners' families and instructors are steadily appreciating the need for intellectual

assistance and rewarding of the gifted. A general scientific consensus converge

towards more awareness and acknowledgement of the concept of devising and

enforcing academic curricula for the gifted.

Apart from the few secondary institutions that provide some sort of customised

training in the gifted field, in 2012 Evaggelos Katsioulis, a Greek psychiatrist an

involved associate and a founder of some of the High IQ communities, set up the

first non-governmental organization, academy for Gifted Children, the A.A.A.A GR

(Awareness, Academy of Ability, Assessment) (Protothema 2012). The main goals of

this organisation are, sharing information with the public, assessment, education,

work orientation and entertainment of the gifted young and individuals of high

intelligence potentials, in addition to the psychological evaluation and support of

people of any age.

Conclusion

The central factor that has informed educational policy for the talented and gifted

students in Greece and around the world is the common perception that these

students will succeed in whatever they decide to pursue. Consequently, educators

give more attention to those learners that they think will require their assistance. This

approach is erroneous because gifted students just like learners with impairments

and disabilities who have special intellectual requirements, deserve to be supported

and guided for them to advance the exceptional abilities they possess. Notably, the

assistance that should be offered to gifted students would not be beneficial to this

group only, bit it would also help the other students (Field 2009, Gavin et al. 2007,

Gentry and Owen 1999, Gubins et al. 2007, Rogers 1991, Tieso 2002, as cited in

Reis, S. and Renzulli, J. 2009). Globally it has been observed that schools that have

a supportive policy for gifted and talented learners tend to be efficient in realising

their objectives for all their students, as aptly said Renzulli (1998) depicting this

phenomenon with the short but comprehensive statement, “A rising tide lifts all

ships.” (p 1).

There should not be acrimony between the proponents of full inclusion and

advocates of special structured education for learners identified as gifted and

talented. The vision for these two factions is compatible because ideally they would

both converge in a situation where learning institutions appreciate learners for who

they are, and appropriately address their learning requirements. However, the

decision to envisage new leadership theories, models and doctrines in school

organisation and pedagogical practices that include and meet the needs of all

students would lead to a full inclusive classroom designed to accommodate the

requirements of all students. An analysis of the prevailing structure with a view to

identifying the areas that need to rectify in regard to the education of gifted learners,

can be used as a yardstick for failed structures instead of excuses for grouping

learners and offering better quality partially. This approach can lead to an inclusive

and more democratic educational system where the common goal ought to be the

intellectual prosperity for all learners.

REFERENCES

Bloom, B. (Ed.) (1985) Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.

Burks, B. S., Jensen, D. W., and Terman, L. M. (1930) Genetic studies of genius,

vol. 3: The promise of youth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Conn, M. (1992) How four communities tackle mainstreaming. The School

Administrator. 49 (2), 22-24.

Council of Europe recommendation 1248 (1994) on education for gifted children.

Available at: http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?

Link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta94/erec1248.htm, (Accessed: 12 May 2015).

European Commission/Directorate-General for Education and Culture/Working

Document/Eurydice (2006) Specific Educational Measures to Promote all forms of

giftedness at school in Europe. Available

at:http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/Specific_measures_giftedness_EN.

pdf, (Accessed: 12 May 2015).

Feldman, D. H. (1979) The mysterious case of extreme giftedness. In A. H.

Passow(Eds.), The gifted and the talented: Their education and development. (pp.

335-351).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gagne, F. (1991) Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N.

Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.
Gross, M. U. M. (1993) Exceptionally gifted children. London and New York:

Routledge.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1942) Children above 180 IQ (Stanford-Binet): Origin

anddevelopment. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company.

Kaskaloglu, E. (2003) Gifted Students Who Drop Out—Who and Why: A Meta-

Analytical Review of the Literature. Proceedings of the Hawaii International

Conference on Education.

Kearney, K. (1996) Highly gifted children in full inclusion classrooms. ERIC. 12 (4),

2-11.

Morelock, M. J. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding Our Gifted.

4 (3), 1, 11-15.

Neihart, M. et al. (2001) The social and emotional development of gifted children.

What do we know? Waco TX: Prufrock Press.

Protothema (2012) The first Academy for Giftedness in Greece. Available at:

http://www.protothema.gr/health-and-life/article/240775/h-proth-akadhmia-sthn-

ellada-gia-xarismatika-paidia/ , (Accessed: 10 May 2015).

Rees, D.I., Brewer, D.L., Argys, L.M. (1995) How should we measure the effect of

ability grouping on student performance? Economics of Education Review. 19(1), 17-

20.

Renzulli, J. S. (1998) A rising tide lifts all ships: Developing the gifts and talents of all

students. Phi Delta Kappan. 80, 1-15.

Renzulli, J.S. (2006) Swimming up-stream in a small river: Changing conceptions

and practices about the development of giftedness. In M.A. Constas and R.J.

Sternberg (Eds.) Translating theory and research into educational practice:

Developments in content domains, large-scale reform, and intellectual capacity (p

223-253). Mahway NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Robinson, A. (1990) Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative

learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14 (3), 9-27.

Roedell, W. C. (1984) Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review. 6(3),

127-130.

Shanker, A. (1994) Where we stand on the rush to inclusion. Speech given at AFT

Conference on Full Inclusion, Sheraton Washington Hotel Washington, DC January

14, 1994.

Silverman, L. K. (1989) The highly gifted. In J. Feldhusen,K. Seeley, and

J.VanTassel-Baska (Eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted (p 71-83). Denver CO:

Love Publishing.

Silverman, L. K. and Kearney, K. (1992) The case for the Stanford-Binet L-M as

asupplemental test. Roeper Review. 15 (1), 34-37.

Stainback, W. and Stainback, S. (1990) Support Networks for Inclusive Schooling:

Interdependent Integrated Education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Sternberg, R.J. and Davidson, J.E. (2005) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.).

Boston MA: Cambridge University Press.

Terman, L. M. (1925) Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tolan, S. S. (1992) Parents vs. theorists: Dealing with the exceptionally gifted.

Roeper Review. 15(1), 14-18.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement

(1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington,

D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Commission of Education (1972) Education of the Gifted and Talented: Report

to the Congress of the United States. Washington DC: US Government Printing

office.

United Nations Educational/Scientific and Cultural Organization/Ministry of Education

and Science (1994) The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special

needs education, world conference on special needs education: access and quality.

Spain: UNESCO.

Webb, J. T.,Meckstroth, E. A., and Tolan, S. S. (1982) Guiding the gifted

child.Columbus OH: Ohio Psychology Publishing Company.

Westberg, K. et al. (1993) An observational study of instructional and curricular

practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs CT:

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented: The University of

Connecticut.

White, W. L. (1990) Interviews with Child I, Child J, and Child L. Roeper Review.

12(3), 222-227.
Whitmore, J.R. (1986) Giftedness conflict and under achievement. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Wolak, M., York, J., and Corbin, N. (1992) Building new capacities to overcome

tradition-bound practices. The School Administrator. 49 (2), 26-28.