See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317053278

Gifted Education in Preschool: Perceived Barriers and Benefits of Program

Development

Article  in  Journal of Research in Childhood Education · May 2017

DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2017.1319443

CITATIONS READS

5 1,561

3 authors:

Todd Kettler Mattie Elizabeth Oveross

Baylor University University of North Texas
72 PUBLICATIONS   822 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

James Bishop
University of North Texas
9 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Implicit Theories of Creativity in Children's Literature View project

Critical Thinking Pedagogy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Todd Kettler on 20 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Research in Childhood Education

ISSN: 0256-8543 (Print) 2150-2641 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

Gifted Education in Preschool: Perceived Barriers

and Benefits of Program Development

Todd Kettler, Mattie E. Oveross & James C. Bishop

To cite this article: Todd Kettler, Mattie E. Oveross & James C. Bishop (2017): Gifted Education
in Preschool: Perceived Barriers and Benefits of Program Development, Journal of Research in
Childhood Education

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1319443

Published online: 16 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrc20

Download by: [47.187.96.154] Date: 16 May 2017, At: 09:45

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1319443

Gifted Education in Preschool: Perceived Barriers and Benefits of

Program Development
Todd Kettler, Mattie E. Oveross, and James C. Bishop
University of North Texas, Denton, Texas

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Substantial evidence supports the benefits of quality preschool education Received 2 June 2015
for children of all levels and backgrounds. However, early childhood gifted Accepted 24 March 2016
education services rarely exist in preschool centers. This study included 263 KEYWORDS
preschool centers representing geographic diversity in a southern state in Early childhood; gifted;
the United States. Narrative data were collected centering on two issues: pre-kindergarten education;
the barriers to implementation of gifted education services and the poten- preschool
tial benefits related to the implementation of gifted education services in
preschool centers. Qualitative analyses included constant comparative ana-
lyses for data reduction to support thematic inferences. Participants
described barriers related to human and capital resources, challenges of
implementing gifted education services, and the lack of information about
gifted education in preschool settings. Participants articulated benefits in
two general categories: educational/developmental and business/market-
ing. There was some evidence that a small portion of participants were
opposed to the implementation of gifted education, but most participants
indicated a desire for more responsive education services. This study may
help gifted education advocates understand the needs of preschool centers
seeking to broaden their services to support cognitive development of
young children who are gifted from diverse backgrounds.

Empirical studies have validated the benefits associated with children attending quality preschool
programs (Barnett, 1995; Ramey et al., 2000). Specifically, quality preschool experiences have been
associated with cognitive and achievement outcomes (Barnett, 1995), as well as long-term social and
career outcomes (Zigler, Taussig, & Black, 1992). Moreover, the academic benefits of preschool may
be even more important for students from economically disadvantaged families (Reynolds, 1994;
Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2001; Schechter & Bye, 2007). Regardless of students’
backgrounds or circumstances, participation in preschool programs improves academic achievement
(Barnett, Brown, & Shore, 2004).
Three meta-analyses published in the last 15 years have characterized the effects of preschool
participation. Gorey (2001) examined 35 studies published between 1990 and 2000 and found
positive effects (effect size [ES] = .7) for intelligence and academic achievement based on academic
program interventions in preschool. Similarly, Westhues, Nelson, and MacLeod (2003) examined 34
studies published between 1970 and 2000 and reported a moderately large effect (ES = .44) for early
childhood interventions; furthermore, more intensive interventions tended to have larger effects.
More recently, Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, and Barnett (2010) analyzed 123 studies involving early
childhood interventions. In the studies involving treatment and control contrasts, they estimated
mean effects of preschool interventions in three domains: cognitive (ES = .23), school (ES = .14), and
social (ES = .16).

CONTACT Todd Kettler todd.kettler@unt.edu Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of
North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311335, Denton, TX 76203.
© 2017 Association for Childhood Education International
2 T. KETTLER ET AL.

Developing all children’s cognitive skills is a goal of preschool education (Currie, 2001), yet
preschoolers who are gifted have long been underserved by the preschool system in the United States
(Foster, 1993; Smutny, 1999). A recent study found that 95% of preschool centers had no formal
policies or practices for recognizing or making learning accommodations for young children
demonstrating advanced cognitive development (Branson, Oveross, Salman, & Kettler, 2015). In
that same study, preschool centers reported they had little understanding of giftedness in early
childhood and were unaware of advocacy by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC;
2006) to recognize and provide gifted education services in early childhood.

Benefits of gifted education in preschool

Existing research suggests a number of benefits may be associated with gifted education in
preschool (Sankar-DeLeeuw, 1999). School readiness, a goal shared by researchers, parents, and
teachers alike, is one benefit of gifted education in preschool (Gormley, Phillips, & Gayer, 2008).
Henderson and Ebner (1997) suggested that early childhood is a critical time for neurological
development and intelligence. Accurate assessment of a preschooler’s abilities can lead to the
development of an educational program that best matches a child’s learning ability and stimu-
lates his or her development (Mills, 1992). Such an enriching learning environment for pre-
schoolers who are gifted may make a difference in the emergence and future development of
their academic talents (Damiani, 1997). This is especially true of children who come from
disadvantaged backgrounds (Gallagher, 2007; Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994).
Karnes and Johnson (1987) suggested that students in gifted preschool programs can develop the
ability to persist at tasks, a willingness to take risks, higher-level thinking processes, the ability to
engage in creative thinking, and the flexibility to work independently or in groups. Early
intervention also may address gifted underachievement before it has a chance to develop. For
instance, early interventions may help children understand their academic talents and provide
them a good foundation for future learning. Moreover, early interventions may afford them the
necessary degree of challenge at a developmentally critical time (Cukierkorn, Karnes, Manning,
Houston, & Besnoy, 2007; Whitmore, 1986).
Psychosocial development is another benefit of gifted education in preschool. For parents and
educators, early intervention can lead to a better understanding of their children and students
who are gifted, which should benefit all (Walsh, Hodge, Bowes, & Kemp, 2010). Mills (1992)
suggested that gifted classrooms provide young children who are gifted the opportunity to
interact with an appropriate peer group—other children who are of similar intellectual ability
and chronological age. Mills also suggested that gifted education in preschool facilitates con-
fidence and self-esteem building, a positive attitude toward learning, and diminished feelings of
frustration, alienation, and depression. Additionally, gifted enrichment opportunities in pre-
school also may enhance character development, via a more active and engaging curriculum
(Berkowitz & Hoppe, 2009). With a sense of community and a well-developed character, it is
hoped that these children who are gifted may one day use their gifts and talents toward the
betterment of society (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004).

Challenges to gifted education in preschool

In addition to the benefits of gifted education in preschool, the literature identifies a number of
factors that inhibit the development of preschool services for children who are gifted. First,
screening and identification is a fundamental challenge. The challenge begins with disagreement
in defining giftedness (Walsh et al., 2010), which has historically presented a problem for the
whole of gifted education, and preschool is no different. The use of standardized testing as a
measure of a child’s ability in preschool gifted program placement is also not without con-
troversy, given the unreliability of early childhood scores (Hodge & Kemp, 2000; Robinson,
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 3

2000). Young children have more difficulty sustaining the required attention for standardized
testing, can be easily distracted, may not understand the importance of the testing, and may
simply vary greatly from day to day (Neisworth, 1993).
Second, program development and evaluation can be difficult to execute and maintain. Knowing
the interests of preschoolers who are gifted and providing activities and materials that expand their
interests are key to their enrichment (Foster, 1993; Mooij, 2013). Hanninen (1998) also suggests that
the enrichment of preschoolers who are gifted should encourage higher-order thinking through the
use of open-ended questions, advanced vocabulary, deductive reasoning, and creative thinking. To
ensure that an effective program for preschoolers who are gifted is developed and maintained, the
supervisor of the program should have some training in gifted education (Koopmans-Dayton &
Feldhusen, 1987). Additionally, when evaluating the performance of the program and its students,
the program director ought to establish a record system to monitor interventions and performances
(Hanninen, 1998). This represents its own special challenge, as traditional methods of program
evaluation, such as pre- and posttesting and grading, often provide little additional insight beyond
what was initially observed about the students (Mathews & Burns, 1992; Walsh, Kemp, Hodge, &
Bowes, 2012).
Third, and perhaps the biggest challenge to program development and maintenance, is the lack of
public funding available for developing preschool gifted programs (Chamberlin, Buchanan, &
Vercimak, 2007). This presents a challenge to staffing and training as, for a gifted preschool program
to be successful, there must be a staff of competent teachers who are trained to work with children
who are gifted (Barclay & Benelli, 1994). In addition to the pedagogical considerations of leading
preschoolers who are gifted, the teachers also must have a working knowledge of developmentally
appropriate assessment practices (Cukierkorn et al., 2007). To ensure that these requirements are
met, preschool teachers may require ongoing professional development to support their prepared-
ness to work with children who are gifted (Bondarchuk & Dovgan, 2013).
Fourth, to address the needs of preschoolers who are gifted, a program must overcome the
oppositional perspectives of its own teachers and administrators. A common belief among
educators (who have not received training in gifted education) is the idea that students who
are gifted, by virtue of their giftedness, do not need special services—that they are already ahead
of the educational curve and will flourish regardless (Chamberlin, 2005). In contrast, another
widely held belief, equally erroneous, is that a child’s giftedness is only temporary, and that the
child will inevitably regress to the mean in due time (Koshy & Robinson, 2006). Last, there is a
concern among some educators that children who are gifted can be more difficult in the class-
room. Sankar-DeLeeuw’s (1997) survey of teachers suggested that they found preschoolers who
are gifted to be emotionally immature, discordant in their development, socially awkward, and
accompanied by parents who are pushy.
The accumulated effect of these factors makes providing gifted education services to preschoolers
a challenging task. These factors suggest there may be a lack of resources and a lack of will to provide
preschoolers who are gifted with the best possible enrichment opportunities.
Given the obstacles or barriers to implementing gifted education programs in preschool settings,
it should not be surprising that such programs remain rare and perhaps limited to centers serving
children with higher socioeconomic status. Karnes and Johnson (1991) found only 18 gifted
education preschool programs in the United States in 1982; a decade later, Stile and And (1993)
identified 51 gifted education preschool programs in the United States. Most recently, the Branson
et al. (2015) study estimated gifted services to be in 5% of preschools.
The purpose of the present study was to better understand the perspective of preschool centers
related to the possibility of gifted education services. We explored the potential barriers and benefits
associated with more formal approaches for providing gifted education. There is evidence to support
the cognitive and social benefits for providing these services, and the benefits may be most important
for students from groups typically under-represented in gifted education (Gottfried et al., 1994).
4 T. KETTLER ET AL.

However, programs to this end are rare at best. Gathering data from preschool centers not currently
offering formalized gifted education services, we asked the following research questions:

(1) What barriers are associated with developing gifted education services in preschool centers?
(2) What are the perceived benefits of developing gifted education services in preschool?

Method
Participants
Participants were 263 privately owned preschool centers in a southern state. They were recruited
based on the public list of licensed child care providers hosted by the state Department of Family and
Protective Services. Recruiting emails (N = 2,976) were sent to all the licensed child care centers in 25
counties in the state. Counties were selected using a stratified procedure to yield diversity of region
and population density: five large urban-center counties, five suburban counties adjacent to large
urban-center counties, five independent town counties with remotely located small cities, and 10
rural counties geographically distributed around the state. From the recruiting emails, 334 preschool
centers responded, yielding an initial response rate of 11%. Of the 334 respondents, 263 agreed to
participate in the study (79%). Directions for participation in the study required that either a center
director or assistant director who had adequate knowledge of center operations respond to the data
collection protocol.
Participants identified which type of child care best describes their preschool center; type
options were based upon the classifications of the Emory University Work Life Resource Center
(2009) (see Table 1). Eighty-six percent (n = 226) of the centers reported that the staff had received
no training related to giftedness in early childhood. Sixty-two percent (n = 163) of participants
indicated that services for gifted students were something they would like to improve at their
preschool centers.

Data collection protocol

The Preschool Gifted Education Survey was a researcher-developed tool for gathering data related to
gifted education services for students age 3 to 5 years. The instrument included selected response
items on which preschool centers provided basic demographic data and information about policies
and staff training related to gifted education services. Using an open-ended, online response
protocol, participants provided narrative data in response to the following questions: (1) What are
barriers to implementing more formalized approaches to gifted education at your preschool center at
this time? (2) If your preschool center were to adopt an approach to identifying and developing the
skills of gifted students, what might be some of the benefits? Participants were encouraged to answer
fully and describe with detail.

Table 1. Types of preschool centers participating.a

Type of preschool N %
General child care center 105 40
Preschool education programs 97 37
Accredited Montessori preschool 19 7
In-home preschool 13 5
Other 29 11
Total 263 100
a
Based upon the classifications of the Emory University Work Life Resource Center (2009).
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 5

Data analysis
We conducted thematic analyses, using modified constant comparative analysis techniques (CCA) of
data reduction (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This approach allowed us to generate emic constructs and
descriptions representing the participants’ perspectives of the barriers and benefits associated with
preschool gifted education. CCA developed as an analysis technique within the grounded theory
tradition, and recent qualitative analyses have employed CCA outside the scope of grounded theory
(Fram, 2013; O’Connor, Netting, & Thomas, 2008). The modified approach to CCA maintains the
data reduction processes of a coding paradigm for thematic inference (Corbin, 1998), without the
explicit purpose of theory development.
The total text of the narrative responses included 11,340 words. The first two authors individually
generated substantive codes for the narrative responses describing the greatest barriers and benefits
associated with preschool gifted education. The coding process began with calibration techniques
during which the first five responses were coded together to develop a common understanding of the
process and terminology. Then both researchers individually coded the next 20 responses followed
by a recalibration discussion. Minor differences in interpretation and terminology were resolved, and
the remaining responses were coded. Ultimately, 263 preschool centers provide responses to at least
one of the two open-ended questions. These responses were substantively coded by researchers and
validated for intercoder agreement. On 327 of the responses (76.9%), the codes were either matching
or synonymous (e.g., money/finances). Where the coded text was in disagreement, we discussed the
rationale for those codes within the context and came to consensus. After the initial substantive
coding, we reread all 425 open-ended responses (207 regarding barriers and 218 regarding benefits)
to confirm accuracy and thoroughness of the codes, and a final list of 37 substantive codes was
confirmed. Substantive codes were then clumped by conceptual similarity to generate six theoretical
clusters, three related to barriers and three related to benefits (see Tables 2 & 3). To generate
informative themes, we interpreted the six theoretical clusters in relation to the questions regarding

Table 2. Substantive codes within theoretical clusters associated with barriers to gifted education.
Resources Difficulty of implementation Lack of information
Money (57) Identification (16) Lack of knowledge about
Staff training (55) Parents think their child is gifted (9) gifted education (21)
Resources (23) Group dynamics (8) No barriers (20)
Finding qualified staff (22) Inflexible curriculum (5) Want guidance (6)
Time (19) Lack of policies and procedures (4)
Training opportunities (10) Social/emotional development (2)
Additional staff (9)
Space (8)
Staff salaries (5)
Note. Numbers in parentheses indicate how many times each substantive code appeared in the analyses.

Table 3. Substantive codes within theoretical clusters associated with benefits of gifted education.
Educational/developmental benefits Business/marketing benefits No benefits/opposition
Meeting needs of gifted children (58) Marketing (33) Unsure of any benefits (6)
Transition to elementary (37) Teacher development (24) No benefits (5)
Develop potential (23) Appealing to parents (16) Opposed to gifted
Challenge gifted children (22) Recruiting (15) education (3)
Benefit other children (18)
Helping parents (17)
Fewer discipline issues (15)
Better education (11)
Improve curriculum (10)
Individualization (9)
Boredom (8)
Social and emotional needs (6)
Note. Numbers in parentheses indicate how many times each substantive code appeared in the analyses.
6 T. KETTLER ET AL.

Table 4. Themes associated with barriers and benefits of preschool gifted education
Categories Themes
Barriers Human resource management is a barrier to implementing more formalized approaches to
gifted education.
Lack of capital resources is a barrier to implementing more formalized approaches to gifted
education.
Appropriately identifying gifted children is a barrier to implementing more formalized
approaches to gifted education.
Inflexible routines of daily practices are barriers to implementing more formalized approaches
to gifted education.
Lack of information and direction is a barrier to implementing more formalized approaches to
gifted education.

Benefits Adopting gifted education services would provide educational and developmental benefits to
gifted/advanced children.
Adopting gifted education services would provide benefits to all children as well as parents
and teachers.
Adopting gifted education services would have long-term benefits as children transition to
elementary school and beyond.
Adopting gifted education services would develop teachers’ diverse skills and competencies.
Adopting gifted education services would allow preschool centers to expand marketing to
families interested in such programs.
Some preschool centers identified no benefits associated with adopting gifted education
services.

barriers and benefits associated with developing gifted education services in preschool. In the final
comparative act, 11 thematic statements were developed (see Table 4) and compared to the entirety
of the responses to complete the analytic induction process (Berg, 2004). In the Results section, the
11 themes are presented and supported by textual extractions.

Results
Barriers to adopting gifted education services
Two hundred and seven of the 263 total preschool center participants provided narrative responses
to the open-ended question regarding barriers to adopting gifted education services. We system-
atically coded and verified the narrative text. Our data reduction process yielded three general
categories of responses: resources, difficulty of implementation, and lack of information (see
Table 2). After reaching saturation in the CCA, we generated five thematic statements representative
of the responses from the preschool centers. The themes are described and validated below.

Human resource management is a barrier to implementing more formalized approaches to

gifted education
Some participants expressed barriers related to finding, paying, and training staff at their center.
According to the participants, current untrained and unqualified staff may not be capable or willing
to provide gifted education services.
Lack of available staff who are trained in gifted education is a barrier to providing gifted
education services. Participants believed that specialized teachers were necessary to implement gifted
education services or identify students who are gifted. One participant explained, “The main barriers
are finding qualified teachers who are familiar with the aspects of recognizing gifted and talented
student” (survey response, December 2, 2014). Participants expressed a potential gap between what
the center could afford to pay teachers, and the amount for which trained teachers would be willing
to work. One wrote, “I believe that the staff would expect to make more money than what they
currently do” (survey response, November 5, 2014), and another expressed this barrier as “finding
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 7

qualified educators willing to work at the rate of pay offered in childcare” (survey response,
November 5, 2014).
Availability and cost of staff training in the area of gifted education was a perceived barrier for
preschool centers. Participants believed staff training to be an integral part of providing gifted
education services. One participant explained, “My teachers would need to be trained to identify
and serve gifted children. Most of them have an education degree but have not been formally trained
in this capacity” (survey response, November 12, 2014). Another wrote:
I believe that we would need professional development (training and resources) to implement more formalized
approaches to gifted education. Teacher training would be essential and augmenting that training with
additional resources to implement what we are learning would be invaluable. (survey response, November
18, 2014)

The lack of local gifted education trainings available to the center staff was a concern. One
participant said, “To date, I have not come across any trainings for gifted preschool education”
(survey response, December 2, 2014); another described this barrier as “not enough training in this
program” (survey response, November 11, 2014). Even if centers were willing and financially able to
support gifted education services, lack of training resources would remain a barrier to providing
gifted education services to their children.

Lack of capital resources is a barrier to implementing more formalized approaches to gifted

education
Resources such as money, space, time, and materials were expressed as a recurring barrier by
participants. These obstacles separate the potential goals of the center and the realistic functions.
Money was the resource most mentioned by participants. Preschool centers reported needing money
for training, programming, and general implementation of gifted education services. One participant
explained, “Financial burden would be my first concern” (survey response, November 4, 2014), and
another stated, “The only barrier would be cost” (survey response, November 11, 2014). Participants
assumed providing gifted education services would be a costly expense to the center. Concerns about
money were often coupled with the belief in a formalized approach to gifted education. A participant
wrote, “Funding is crucial to formalize gifted education” (survey response, November 12, 2014).
Generally, preschool centers believed the addition of gifted education services may be financially
unreachable. A participant captured this theme when she said, “Finances. Our center is small, and
the additional cost of developing an approach to gifted education would place an undue burden on
our ability to remain in operation” (survey response, November 6, 2014).
Many participants described lack of time as a barrier to providing gifted education services.
Preschool centers expressed concern that other activities would limit the amount of time possible to
provide gifted education services. One preschool center explained, “Once again, time is the biggest
restraint. We have to spend a lot of time feeding, transitioning, napping pre-K children” (survey
response, November 4, 2014). Other perceived time barriers related to the amount of time needed for
professional development and administrative tasks. One participant described the barrier as “time to
provide training to our preschool teachers when the state already requires a tremendous amount of
training” (survey response, November 11, 2014). Another described the barriers as “time to write up
formal policies” (survey response, November 18, 2014).
Space and other resources were perceived barriers to providing gifted education. Participants
assumed that adding gifted education services would require additional classrooms. One wrote,
“Staffing, training, and physical space to implement another dedicated classroom to the gifted
preschool population” (survey response, November 12, 2014). Another participant noted, “In my
case, it’s lack of space to create a classroom for gifted kids” (survey response, November 18, 2014).
Acquiring resources such as materials and curriculum was also a barrier expressed by the preschool
centers. One participant listed barriers as, “resources for the program—curriculum and materials”
(survey response, November 4, 2014), and another listed, “educational toys, computers that will
8 T. KETTLER ET AL.

challenge the child” as materials that cannot be obtained due to current barriers. Participants
believed that without these resources, gifted education services could not be implemented at their
preschool center. One center director simply explained, “We are limited by lack of resources” (survey
response, December 2, 2014).

Appropriately identifying children who are gifted is a barrier to implementing more formalized
approaches to gifted education
Identifying children who are gifted and balancing the side effects of identification were perceived
barriers for preschool centers. Participants expressed concern over their lack of knowledge pertain-
ing to identification processes. One participant described this barrier as, “knowing who is gifted and
how would we determine that” (survey response, November 12, 2014). Some participants addressed
the issue of identification procedures with questions such as, “If observing a child, how do you know
what makes the child gifted/talented? (survey response, December 2, 2014) or, “Testing of 3–5 year
olds? Grouping/labeling 3–5 year olds?” (survey response, November 18, 2014). Participants seemed
to assume formalized testing would be a part of providing gifted education services. Some partici-
pants noted this barrier as, “having access to reliable screening tools for identifying gifted children”
(survey response, November 12, 2014) or, “We do not have any extra staff that would be able to test”
(survey response, November 12, 2014).
Participants expressed concern over their relationships with parents when identifying children
who are gifted. Some preschool centers were afraid of the backlash from parents if they were to begin
identifying children as gifted and talented. According to the participants, many parents view their
child as gifted and would find it unfair if the center thought otherwise. One participant said, “Parents
all think their child is so smart. I don’t want to be the one to tell them their child is not gifted”
(survey response, November 12, 2014). One participant explained, “I could also see it being an issue
with parents. Why isn’t my child gifted, and the fairness issues that go along with that” (survey
response, November 18, 2014).

Inflexible routines of daily practices are barriers to implementing more formalized approaches to
gifted education
Inflexible routines, such as current groupings of students, current instruction practices, and current
policies and procedures, were perceived barriers. Some participants believed providing gifted educa-
tion services would alter the routines and interactions of children who are gifted with other children
in the preschool setting. The belief that gifted education services would require a pull-out program
was expressed as a barrier in some of the responses. Some participants mentioned “isolating
children” (survey response, November 6, 2014) and “the ability to pull children from their respective
classrooms” (survey response, December 2, 2014) when discussing barriers to providing gifted
education services. Other participants were concerned about the ability of students who are gifted
to mesh well in the group environment. One participant explained, “We can supplement cognitively
gifted children’s learning within our current classrooms, but this task is difficult if the child struggles
with being part of the group environment” (survey response, November 4, 2014).
Participants also described addressing all developmental domains while providing gifted educa-
tion services as a potential barrier. One participant explained, “I have also found that many gifted
children are lacking in another area, usually social” (survey response, November 11, 2014). The
current curriculum provided by centers can limit the flexibility of services that can be provided and
areas that can be addressed. One participant described the barrier as, “Everyone being on the same
curriculum” (survey response, November 25, 2014). Another explained a limitation of curriculum
inflexibility as, “Getting approval from the corporate office” (survey response, November 4, 2014).
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 9

Lack of information and direction is a barrier to implementing more formalized approaches to

gifted education
Participants expressed a lack of knowledge about gifted education. For instance, one center director
described the barrier as, “The lack of information that’s available to myself and my staff” (survey
response, November 18, 2014); another participant said she is “unfamiliar with what is available to
private early childhood education centers” (survey response, December 3, 2014). Other participants
revealed limited knowledge of preschool gifted education indirectly through their statements. For
instance, one participant said, “My question to you is why would you want to single out children and
segregate them from their peers at such an early age?” (survey response, December 3, 2014) even
though the survey questions made no mention of segregating gifted students. Another participant
explained, “Most of our students are educationally gifted. We do not single them out in any way”
(survey response, December 2, 2014).
Some participants expressed a desire to obtain more information. When asked about barriers, one
participant answered, “Other than the normal logistics, we are ready and wanting to bring this to our
students” (survey response, November 4, 2014). Several participants responded that there were no
barriers, and a few indicated that they want more information on gifted education options. For
instance, when asked about barriers, one participant responded, “None, we are a new facility. We
would definitely love to learn more” (survey response, November 7, 2014).

Benefits of adopting gifted education services

We asked participating preschool centers to describe possible benefits of adopting a more formal
approach to gifted education services. Two hundred and eighteen of the 263 total preschool center
participants provided narrative responses to the open-ended question related to potential benefits.
Using constant comparative techniques, we systematically coded and verified the narrative texts. Our
data reduction process yielded three thematic clusters of the responses: educational/developmental
benefits, business and marketing benefits, and no benefits or opposition to the idea (see Table 3).
After reaching saturation in the CCA, we generated thematic statements representative of the
responses from the preschool centers. The themes are described and validated below.

Adopting gifted education services would provide educational and developmental benefits to
gifted/advanced children
The most common benefit discussed by participants was educational and developmental impact on
those students recognized as gifted or potentially gifted. This theme included responses related to
meeting the needs of children who are gifted and challenging children who are gifted in the
preschool learning environment. Participants consistently expressed commitment to appropriate
development of each child, including those who may be gifted or advanced. One participant stated,
“It would benefit the children and help them get the foundation they need to continue to be
successful in school” (survey response, November 11, 2014). Another participant said, “I think it
would be beneficial to the children who are gifted to provide them with ways to challenge themselves
and grow” (survey response, November 4, 2014).
Participants’ responses indicated that learning and development needs for students who are gifted
and advanced were not currently being met by their existing educational programs. A participant
said, “It would greatly improve the development of many kids we have. I do have a number of kids
that are gifted but cannot provide them with the skills they need to continue to improve” (survey
response, December 3, 2014). Another participant stated, “Some children need the added stimulation
and challenges that a gifted program could provide” (survey response, December 2, 2014).
Participants described educational benefits as providing challenges to those children who need it.
Comments indicated that challenging the children who are gifted was desirable, but existing
programs were not challenging to those demonstrating advanced cognitive development. One
participant said, “Children could be challenged above and beyond the normal curriculum” (survey
10 T. KETTLER ET AL.

response, November 10, 2014). Another participant stated the main benefit of offering a gifted
preschool program was “being able to fully challenge and provide gifted kids with an outstanding
experience” (survey response, November 5, 2014). Referring to children who are gifted or advanced,
another indicated, “We want to encourage these children to problem solve and take on challenges
developing critical thinking foundations” (survey response, December 2, 2014).
Participants responded that developing and implementing gifted education services would
improve the curriculum. These comments indicated a need to provide a curriculum that is more
responsive to all learners, including those demonstrating advanced cognitive development compared
to their peer group. One participant described a benefit of adding gifted education as, “A more
diverse curriculum to meet the needs of all students—a better enrichment program” (survey
response, November 4, 2014). Another specifically mentioned curriculum benefits associated with
providing gifted education: “The benefits would include a more well-rounded curriculum that meets
the needs of all learners” (survey response, November 5, 2014).
Consistent with increasing challenge and improving the curriculum, participants indicated that
providing gifted education services in the preschool center would increase their capacity to indivi-
dualize instruction to better meet the needs of the children. As one participant said, “More children
would have their individual learning needs met” (survey response, November 18, 2014). Another
stated, “We would be able to meet children where they are. Education and instruction would be
more targeted” (survey response, November 12, 2014). One participant said that adding gifted
education services is consistent with their approach to preschool education: “It would fall along
the lines of our teaching philosophy that focuses on the individual child” (survey response,
November 6, 2014).
Another interesting validation of this theme was the recurring idea that providing gifted educa-
tion services would reduce boredom in preschool children. “This would definitely help those that
were gifted and keep them from being bored with education” (survey response, November 5, 2014).
Another participant said, “One benefit would be in exercising of their brain to its highest potential at
an early age when they are most impressionable, thereby fostering a love for learning and possibly
limiting boredom” (survey response, December 6, 2014).

Adopting gifted education services would provide benefits to all children as well as parents and
teachers
This theme suggests that the benefits of adding gifted education services would extend beyond just
the children who are gifted. Several participants indicated that adding a more formal approach to
gifted education would lead to fewer discipline problems. This projected benefit may reflect a belief
that the students who are gifted were contributing to discipline problems, and their behavior could
be associated with boredom or lack of challenge in existing learning program. Thus, we might say
that the preschool center in general, or the teachers specifically, might benefit through reduction of
discipline issues. One participant said, “I believe the behaviors of gifted children would improve if
they were identified and challenged” (survey response, November 4, 2014). Another stated, “I believe
we have had some gifted children in the past. If we could have provided specialized instruction for
them, the behavior issues we experienced would have been greatly reduced” (survey response,
November 12, 2014). This idea that preschool centers better meet the learning needs of gifted
children and “possibly eliminate some behavior problems” (survey response, November 5, 2014) is
evidence of a benefit reaching beyond just the children themselves who are gifted.
Similarly, participants indicated that the other children (those not identified as gifted) would
benefit from the addition of gifted program services in preschool centers. For instance, the gifted
education services would “advance the thinking and problem solving of all” (survey response,
November 6, 2014) and “raise the bar for other students” (survey response, November 7, 2014).
One participant stated, “I feel that it would benefit all of the children to add a program that would
identify and develop the skills of gifted children” (survey response, November 11, 2014), and another
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 11

stated, “I think some of the skills would transfer to other students in our program and benefit all
students” (survey response, November 12, 2014).
Participants recognized that providing a gifted education program would be beneficial to parents.
This benefit may be understood in two ways. First, parents benefit because they are better able to
understand the abilities and potential of the children who are gifted. For example, one participant
stated that the preschool center would “be able to communicate clearly with the parents [to give]
more information about their child’s abilities” (survey response, November 18, 2014). Another
participant indicated that adding gifted education services would “provide additional opportunities
to partner with our parents in providing an excellent beginning for their child’s formal education”
(survey response, November 5, 2014). Second, the prospective benefits to parents may be particularly
important in cases where parents have little understanding of giftedness or have fewer resources
available to seek gifted education opportunities. A participant described this benefit as, “To give
hope to parents that do not know how to go about identifying their children’s gifts” (survey
response, November 18, 2014). Another said, “We would be able to help the children and parents
that need this help and don’t have the monetary resources to get this help” (survey response,
November 4, 2014).

Adopting gifted education services would have long-term benefits as children transition to
elementary school and beyond
Several responses reflect the belief that providing gifted education services would build a solid
educational foundation that prepares children who are gifted and advanced for school readiness.
Participants indicated they were seeking to help children transition from preschool to primary
school learning environments. One participant indicated that providing gifted services would “help
them get the foundation they need to continue to be successful in school” (survey response,
November 11, 2014). Another said that if they were to add gifted education, “We could bring
children farther in their educational experience and be well-prepared for elementary school where
their talents could be explored more in depth” (survey response, November 4, 2014).
Another variant on this theme is the potential to help students transition into gifted programs
either in traditional elementary schools, competitive private schools, or magnet schools for students
who are gifted. One participant said gifted preschool education would provide “better opportunities
for the children to be accepted and feed into GT, magnet, or private schools” (survey response,
November 13, 2014). Similarly, a participant said, “The children would be better prepared to test into
a gifted program for 1st through 8th grade” (survey response, November 18, 2014). This perceived
benefit would help gifted students be more competitive in the transition to elementary school;
furthermore, participants believed that adding a gifted education program would build a foundation
for future learning. Some participants expressed hope that one benefit might be increased commu-
nication between the preschools and the elementary schools, specifically related to sharing informa-
tion about gifted students’ capacity for advanced work. “In the future, it might be possible to pave
the way as the child enters the public school system or private school with the child already
identified and in the need of specific programs and services” (survey response, December 2, 2014).
This theme also included perceptions that gifted education in preschool has the capacity to
develop latent ability in children. “By identifying and developing the skills of gifted children at an
early age, we would be far more successful in providing appropriate curriculum to nurture and
facilitate both their development and their love of learning” (survey response, November 18, 2014).
The participants indicated that a distinct benefit of offering a gifted education program would be to
help children develop to their fullest potential. This type of program would “give children an
opportunity to reach their untapped potential” (survey response, December 3, 2014) or enhance
“motivation to make each child reach or achieve their highest potential” (survey response, November
25, 2014).
12 T. KETTLER ET AL.

Adopting gifted education services would develop teachers’ diverse skills and competencies
Participants frequently indicated that lack of trained teachers would be a barrier to implementing
gifted education in preschool centers; however, they also listed development of teachers’ skills as a
benefit. For instance, one participant stated, “I think our teachers could benefit from learning more
about creating an environment that is more stimulating. It would provide our teachers with a chance
to learn new skills and it could benefit some or all of the children” (survey response, November 4,
2014). Responses suggested that teachers need more training in designing learning activities, and
gifted education training and services would be a way to meet that faculty development need.
Participants said that adding gifted education services would benefit the center because teachers
and directors both would “be more knowledgeable and equipped to deal with gifted children”
(survey response, November 24, 2014). The perceived benefit to the teachers was not only regarding
children who are gifted. Participants indicated that the training associated with adding gifted
education services would help teachers work more effectively with all children.

Adopting gifted education services would allow preschool centers to expand marketing to
families interested in such programs
Participants stated that adopting gifted education services would set their preschool center apart
from others, and the distinction would be great for marketing and attracting more students. One
participant said it would be a “selling point for parents” (survey response, November 12, 2014).
Others remarked that adding gifted education services would “place us in a unique position” (survey
response, November 6, 2014) or “set us apart from other preschools in our community” (survey
response, November 5, 2014). Responses related to the marketing benefits indicated a business-like
approach to gifted education. Some participants did not discuss benefits related to the children at all
but rather focused on how adding gifted education services might make their center more attractive
and ultimately more profitable. One participant stated, “We could attract more families, charge
higher tuition” (survey response, November 18, 2014).
Similar to the benefit of marketing was the benefit of recruiting. Although these were separate
codes initially in the data analyses, they were grouped together as they capture the same concept of
bringing more children or more children who are talented into the preschool center. One participant
stated, “We would be able to enroll gifted children in our area” (survey response, November 12,
2014). Another participant stated, “It could attract parents who have gifted children to our program”
(survey response, November 20, 2014).
A third facet to this theme was the idea that expanding to include gifted education services would
be appealing to parents. This may include parents who have already chosen the center, as well as
those who may choose the center because of the gifted education services. Several participants
indicated that, “The parents would love this” (survey response, November 12, 2014) or “My parents
would be delighted if the children received the extra skills” (survey response, November 18, 2014).
Some participants acknowledged that parents are committed to finding the best preschool for their
children because they believe that early experiences are important to child development and the
transition to elementary school. One stated, “Parents in this area are focused on finding a preschool
that will provide their child with the best chance to get a head start to starting school” (survey
response, November 11, 2014).

Some preschool centers identified no benefits associated with adopting gifted education services
Some participants simply responded that they perceived no benefits for adopting gifted education
services. Others indicated that they were unsure of any benefits. One specifically stated:
I am not sure there are any benefits at this age. A good preschool program should be designed to meet all the
needs of the children. I see a gifted program for preschool as another label parents can brag about. (survey
response, November 11, 2014)
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 13

A few participants not only found no benefits but also actually expressed opposition to gifted
education services in preschool. One said, “Meeting the needs of the children is always first and
foremost but someone would have to convince me that this is age and developmentally appropriate
first” (survey response, November 4, 2014). Another participant only imagined adopting gifted
services as a burden on teachers and children, “I see more work for the children and teachers.
Why can’t kids be kids anymore? Why can’t they just dig in the dirt, run outside, and have fun?”
(survey response, November 12, 2014). Another participant expressed opposition that similarly
points to limited understanding of gifted education services, “We are an inclusive preschool, so we
would not adopt an approach that benefits one type of child” (survey response, November 13, 2014).
Another thread in the data was the perception that gifted education was a low priority. One
participant said, “The public and private schools in our area do not have gifted education for any
child under the 3rd grade. Our children would leave our center and enter the next level of education
setting only to be bored” (survey response, November 4, 2014). Other participants indicated that
they did not think they have any children who are gifted at their center, and the time and
commitment to establish gifted education services would not be a wise investment. Some partici-
pants said that they would have to convince parents that gifted education was important to justify
adding those services at the preschool center. Some participants suggested that gifted education was
too low a priority to justify asking the teachers to change their practice. One participant described
this as “unwillingness of the staff to go beyond their main job description” (survey response,
December 2, 2014), and another described it as a lack of “staff willingness to do it” (survey response,
December 3, 2014).

Discussion
Convincing evidence supports the academic as well as nonacademic benefits of quality preschool
education for all children. Early educational experiences foster cognitive development and develop
competent approaches to learning. Similarly, gifted education programs involving acceleration of
learning have documented effects with children displaying advanced abilities and cognitive devel-
opment (McClarty, 2015; Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2013). Studies involving young children who
are gifted who have participated in targeted preschool instruction validate the extension of academic
benefits to this group of students (Gross, 1999; Stainthorp & Hughes, 2004). Perhaps most impor-
tant, at a time when students who are low income and minority are persistently under-represented in
gifted education programs in elementary school, preschool gifted services show remarkable promise
for identifying children who are gifted from these groups (Scott & Delgado, 2005). However, gifted
education services for children who are gifted/advanced in preschool settings are rare at best.
Estimates suggest maybe 5% of preschool programs have any specialized services for students who
are gifted, and those that do may be primarily serving students who are upper middle class in
majority cultures (Hertzog, 2014).
This study sought a better understanding of why preschool centers rarely offer gifted education
services for children who are precocious. Using a qualitative design, we simply asked preschool
centers to describe the barriers that prevent them from offering gifted education services and the
possible benefits that would be associated with a decision to begin offering such services. Most
prominent among their responses were concerns about availability of resources, human and fiscal.
Preschool center directors perceived that adding gifted education services may require additional
money, time, space, and instructional resources. Human resources were also a prominent barrier as
it is difficult to find high-quality staff, given typical low wages paid to preschool teachers. Staff
training would likely be necessary, requiring the availability of money and time. Perceived barriers
also included the difficulty of implementing gifted education services. Preschools were concerned
about how to accurately identify children who are gifted. Moreover, they expressed concern regard-
ing fairness and disagreement with parents based on which children are or are not identified for the
gifted education services. There was evidence that centers were either concerned about grouping or
14 T. KETTLER ET AL.

opposed to grouping children who are gifted for targeted interventions, and some preschools
described their curriculum as uniform for all students rather than flexible based on particular
student needs.
We also found that one of the most prominent barriers was simply a lack of information
about what gifted education services might look like in preschool settings. A significant number
of participants indicated that they had not encountered any information sources promoting
gifted education in preschool settings. It is possible that with the lack of quality information,
preschool centers make decisions about gifted education based on preconceived ideas of what
that means. These preconceived ideas are likely based on incomplete information and limited
experiences with gifted education. In other words, some perceived barriers are based on outdated
perceptions of gifted education that are inconsistent with current recommended practices
(NAGC, 2006).
Several participants indicated they perceived no barriers at all and were eager to find more
information on how to develop more response interventions based on student needs. Advocates for
children who are gifted may find this to be a positive indication and an opportunity for development
of clear and concise guidelines for developing policies and practices to provide services for young
children who are gifted. However, data also indicated that other preschool centers held oppositional
views toward gifted education. Such views are not limited to preschool settings (Delisle, 2014), and
the rationale supporting the opposition may be held with deep conviction. Advocates for gifted
education ought to focus on providing quality information about not only how to establish gifted
services, but also why preschools ought to establish gifted services (Cukierkorn et al., 2007).
When the preschool centers described the potential benefits of offering gifted education services,
their responses tended to fall into two distinct categories of benefits: educational or business. The
perceived educational benefits were related to improved curriculum, instruction, and individualiza-
tion better adapted to children’s unique needs. The business benefits were focused on marketing,
recruiting, and appealing to parents (customers). These divergent responses may be indicative of
privatized preschool centers. Although many preschool center directors think of themselves as early
childhood educators, many also think of themselves as small business owners wanting to improve
their services to attract more customers or command higher prices for their services.

Implications for preschool gifted education

Advocates for children who are gifted recommend appropriate and responsive learning environments in
preschool centers (NAGC, 2006). These responsive learning environments acknowledge individual
differences as a starting point for targeted learning activities. They also recommend ongoing formal
and informal assessment to guide developmentally appropriate practices. Few studies have taken
preschool centers as the unit of analysis to better understand policies and practices in early childhood
education, especially as it is related to provisions for children who are gifted. From this study, advocates
for gifted education in preschool settings may improve their support in several ways.
First, preschool center directors have a general lack of knowledge about how to establish policies
and procedures for gifted education. Gifted education professionals may seek ways to provide
practice-oriented guidance directed toward preschool centers. Specifically, information is needed
on recognizing giftedness in early childhood, differentiating learning tasks based on student readi-
ness, and ongoing monitoring toward advanced learning targets. Second, preschool center directors
may hold misunderstandings about costs, arrangements, and resources necessary for providing gifted
education services. Many services could be implemented with no additional costs, staff, or space; yet
those were prominently mentioned in the discussions of barriers. Third, preschool center directors
seem very interested in more training on how to understand giftedness and provide support for the
development of advanced learning. Gifted education professionals may seek ways to provide free
resources to preschool centers that can be used in professional learning formats. In response to the
prevalent concern regarding the costs of gifted education, solutions may include leveraging
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 15

technology and local experts to assist in training sessions. Finally, the preschool centers accurately
described numerous benefits of establishing gifted education services. Gifted education professionals
may want to focus on those benefits as a point of advocacy to help build consensus toward action.
The benefits of quality preschool education are evident, and much of the advocacy for universal
preschool opportunities has focused on building foundations for young children at risk of school
struggles. It seems reasonable and possible that quality preschool interventions could target learners at
all levels, from struggling to advanced. Although rarely overtly stated, there may be an implied belief that
children who are gifted will make it on their own and need less attention in the learning environments.
On the contrary, evidence supports the benefits of targeted interventions and learning modifications to
challenge advanced learners to acquire accelerated skills. Perhaps most important, these benefits may be
most pronounced in young students who are gifted who have typically been underrepresented in school
gifted programs. Although students from advantaged backgrounds may acquire advanced skills through
outside opportunities and enriched home environments, advanced experiences in preschool centers may
be the only chance for students who are economically disadvantaged with gifted potential.

Limitations of the study

This study is limited by the self-select nature of recruitment. As with many email surveys, the
number of participants who actually provided responses was smaller than the number who were
initially contacted. It is possible that the preschool center staff that agreed to participate are more
passionate about their views toward preschool gifted education than those who did not respond. To
minimize the self-selection bias, all preschool centers in the stratified selection of counties received
an initial email as well as two follow-up emails.
An additional limitation of the study involves limited understanding of gifted education in preschool
settings. Based on the responses received, preschool centers vary in their conception of gifted education
and their experiences with gifted education. Thus, how participants described barriers and benefits of
gifted education was to some degree related to their preconceived ideas of what preschool gifted
education might include. Moreover, if they have never attempted to implement gifted education services,
their responses related to barriers and benefits were mostly based on preconceptions rather than
experience. Subsequent studies on this topic might seek responses based on the actual experiences of
those preschool centers attempting to develop and implement gifted education services.

Opportunities for subsequent research

Although enough empirical evidence exists to support three meta-analyses on the effects of prekinder-
garten education, almost none of that research has addressed the potential learning trajectories of
students who enter preschool centers with advanced cognitive development and exceptional academic
potential. Well-designed studies are needed to explore the academic effects of modified learning activities
for children who are gifted or advanced. Another area deserving more understanding is the teacher
proficiencies needed to effectively work with students who are gifted in preschool centers. The need for
teacher training and more qualified staff was prevalent in these results. What professional learning
models can be effectively job embedded for preschool teachers? What types of support do those teachers
need to begin and sustain differentiated learning in preschool settings? The results of this study indicated
a general lack of understanding of gifted education and how it might fit into preschool settings. Critical
case studies documenting how some preschool centers have taken on the task of providing responsive
learning environments for students who are gifted might be very helpful for those preschool educators
looking to expand their scope of services to include gifted education.
Evidence suggests that preschool education has positive effects on early childhood development,
and additional evidence indicates that targeted interventions for children who are gifted are similarly
beneficial. This study clarifies some of the perceived barriers and benefits related to providing
specialized services for young children demonstrating advanced cognitive development.
16 T. KETTLER ET AL.

References
Barclay, K., & Benelli, C. (1994). Are labels determining practice? Programming for preschool gifted children.
Childhood Education, 70(3), 133–136. doi:10.1080/00094056.1994.10521013
Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. Future Child,
5, 25–50. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602366 doi:10.2307/1602366
Barnett, W. S., Brown, K., & Shore, R. (2004). The universal vs. targeted debate: Should the United States have preschool
for all? (NIEER Policy Brief, Issue 6). New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berkowitz, M. B., & Hoppe, M. A. (2009). Character education and gifted children. High Ability Studies, 20(2), 131–
142. doi:10.1080/13598130903358493
Bondarchuk, O., & Dovgan, N. (2013). Development of psychological readiness to work with gifted children for
preschool institution teachers. Social Welfare Interdisciplinary Approach, 3(1), 56–65. Retrieved from http://www.
su.lt/bylos/mokslo_leidiniai/Social_Welfare/3013_3_1/bondarchuk%20_dovgan.pdf
Branson, K., Oveross, M. E., Salman, R. C., & Kettler, T. (2015, February). Giftedness in early childhood: Beliefs and
practices in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Southwest Educational
Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions
on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112, 579–620.
Chamberlin, S. A. (2005). Secondary mathematics for high-ability students. In F. Dixon, & S. Moon (Eds.), The
handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 145–163). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Chamberlin, S. A., Buchanan, M., & Vercimak, D. (2007). Serving twice-exceptional preschoolers: Blending gifted
education and early childhood special education practices in assessment and program planning. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 30, 372–394. doi:10.1177/016235320703000305
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest
students. Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent
Development.
Corbin, J. (1998). Alternative interpretations: Valid or not? Theory & Psychology, 8(1), 121–128.
Cukierkorn, J. R., Karnes, F. A., Manning, S. J., Houston, H., & Besnoy, K. (2007). Serving the preschool gifted child:
Programming and resources. Roeper Review, 29, 271–276. doi:10.1080/02783190709554422
Currie, J. (2001). Early childhood education programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 213–238. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/212088691?accountid=7113 doi:10.1257/jep.15.2.213
Damiani, V. B. (1997). Young gifted children in research and practice. Gifted Child Today, 20(3), 18–23. doi:10.1177/
107621759702000307
Delisle, J. R. (2014). Dumbing down America: The war on our nation’s brightest young minds. Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Emory University Work Life Resource Center. (2009). Types of child care. Retrieved from http://www.worklife.emory.
edu/childcare/roomtoroom/types.html
Foster, S. M. (1993). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented preschoolers. Children Today, 22(3), 28–30. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2071/ehost/detail/detail?sid=6d296c7f-6985-4505-ace7-f91aa07e11f4%40ses
sionmgr111&vid=17&hid=120&bdata=JnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#db=tfh&AN=9402227782
Fram, S. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18
(1), 1–24.
Gallagher, J. J. (2007). Acccording to Jim: Another opportunity-preschool education. Roeper Review, 29, 231.
doi:10.1080/02783190709554416
Glaser, P. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL:
Aldine Publishing.
Gorey, K. M. (2001). Early childhood education: A meta-analytic affirmation of the short- and long-term benefits of
educational opportunity. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 9–30. doi:10.1521.scpq.16.1.9.19163
Gormley, W. T., Phillips, D., & Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programs can boost school readiness. Science, 320, 1723–
1724. doi:10.1126/science.1156019
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects. The
Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Small poppies: Highly gifted children in the early years. Roeper Review, 21, 207–214.
doi:10.1080/02783199909553963
Hanninen, G. E. (1998). Designing a preschool program for the gifted and talented. In J. F. Smutny (Ed.), The young
gifted child: Potential and promise, an anthology (pp. 445–461). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Henderson, L. M., & Ebner, F. F. (1997). The biological basis for early intervention with gifted children. Peabody
Journal of Education, 72(3/4), 59–80. doi:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681866
Hertzog, N. B. (2014). Early childhood education. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices
in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 211–222). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 17

Hodge, K. A., & Kemp, C. R. (2000). Exploring the nature of giftedness in preschool children. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 24, 46–73. doi:10.1177/016235320002400103
Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1987). An imperative: Programming for the young gifted/talented. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 10, 195–214.
Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1991). The preschool/primary gifted child. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14,
267–283. doi:10.1177/016235329101400307
Koopmans-Dayton, J. D., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1987). A resource guide for parents of gifted preschoolers. Gifted Child
Today, 10(6), 2–7. doi:10.1177/107621758701000601
Koshy, V. V., & Robinson, N. M. (2006). Too long neglected: Gifted young children. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 14(2), 113–126. doi:10.1080/13502930285209951
Mathews, F. N., & Burns, J. M. (1992). A parent evaluation of a public preschool gifted program. Roeper Review, 15,
69–72. doi:10.1080/02783199209553466
McClarty, K. L. (2015). Life in the fast lane: Effects of early grades acceleration on high school and college outcomes.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 3–13. doi:10.1177/0016986214559595
Mills, C. J. (1992). Academically talented children: The case for early identification and nurturance. Pediatrics, 89(1),
156–157. Retrieved from https://libproxy.library.unt.edu:9443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=pbh&AN=4747933&scope=site
Mooij, T. (2013). Designing instruction and learning for cognitively gifted pupils in preschool and primary school.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17, 597–613. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.696727
National Association for Gifted Children. (2006). Creating contexts for individualized learning in early childhood
education: Early childhood position statement. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/
default/files/Position%20Statement/Early%20Childhood%20Position%20Statement.pdf
Neisworth, J. T. (1993). Assessment. In Division of Early Childhood (Ed.), DEC recommended practices: Indicators of
quality in programs for infants and young children with special needs and their families (pp. 11–16). Pittsburgh, PA:
Division of Early Childhood, Council for Exceptional Children.
O’Connor, M. K., Netting, F. E., & Thomas, M. L. (2008). Grounded theory: Managing the challenge for those facing
institutional review board oversight. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 28–45.
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). When less is more: Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM
productivity among mathematically precocious adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 176–198.
doi:10.1037/a0029481
Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L. (2000). Persistent effects
of early childhood education on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 2–14.
Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2d01b525-bafb-46f9-be49-172ba176940c
%40sessionmgr198&vid=3&hid=111 doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0401_1
Reynolds, A. J. (1994). Effects of a preschool plus follow-on intervention for children at risk. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 787–804. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.787
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood
intervention on educational attainment and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public
school. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2339–2346. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/dtk0017/
Downloads/JOC01444.pdf doi:10.1001/jama.285.18.2339
Robinson, N. M. (2000). Giftedness in very young children: How seriously should it be taken? In R. C. Friedman & B.
M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 7–26). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (1997). Gifted preschoolers: Surveys of characteristics perceived by parents and teachers. In J.
Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks (Eds.), Maximizing potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride: Proceedings of the
11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children,(pp. 399–414). Hong Kong, China: University of Hong
Kong Press.
Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (1999). Gifted preschoolers: Parent and teacher views on identification, early admission and
programming. Roeper Review, 21, 174–179. doi:10.1080/02783199909553957
Schechter, C., & Bye, B. (2007). Preliminary evidence for the impact of mixed-income preschools on low-income
children’s language growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 137–146. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.11.005
Scott, M. S., & Delgado, C. F. (2005). Identifying cognitively gifted minority students in preschool. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 46, 278–290. doi:10.1177/001698620504900302
Smutny, J. F. (1999). A special focus on young gifted children. Roeper Review, 21, 172–173. doi:10.1080/
02783199909553956
Stainthorp, R., & Hughes, D. (2004). An illustrative case study of precocious reading ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48,
107–120. doi:10.1177/001698620404800204
Stile, S. W., & And, O. (1993). Early intervention with gifted children: A national survey. Journal of Early Intervention,
17(1), 30–35. doi:10.1177/105381519301700104
18 T. KETTLER ET AL.

Walsh, R. L., Kemp, C. R., Hodge, K. A., & Bowes, J. M. (2012). Searching for evidence-based practice: A review of the
research on educational interventions for intellectually gifted children in the early childhood years. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 35(2), 103–128. doi:10.1177/0162353212440610
Walsh, R. R., Hodge, K., Bowes, J., & Kemp, C. (2010). Same age, different page: Overcoming the barriers to catering
for young gifted children in prior-to-school settings. International Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 43–58.
doi:10.1007/s13158-010-0004-8
Westhues, A., Nelson, G., & MacLeod, J. (2003). The long-term impact of preschool prevention programs: Looking to
the future. Prevention & Treatment, 6. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.636r
Whitmore, J. R. (1986). Preventing severe underachievement and developing achievement motivation. In J. R.
Whitmore (Ed.), Intellectual giftedness in young children: Recognition and development (pp. 119–133). New York,
NY: Haworth Press.
Zigler, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention: A promising preventative for juvenile
delinquency. American Psychologist, 47, 997–1006. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.997

View publication stats