A CALL TO REFRAME GIFTED EDUCATION AS MAXIMIZING LEARNING

Author(s): Dante D. Dixson, Scott J. Peters, Matthew C. Makel, Jennifer L. Jolly, Michael
S. Matthews, Erin M. Miller, Karen E. Rambo-Hernandez, Anne N. Rinn, Jennifer H.
Robins and Hope E. Wilson
Source: The Phi Delta Kappan , December 2020/January 2021, Vol. 102, No. 4 (December
2020/January 2021), pp. 22-25
Published by: Phi Delta Kappa International

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26977210

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26977210?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Phi Delta Kappa International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Phi Delta Kappan

This content downloaded from

74.215.223.3 on Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:08:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FINDING AND DEVELOPING TALENTED YOUTH

A CALL TO REFRAME
GIFTED EDUCATION AS
MAXIMIZING LEARNING
If all students are not learning and developing,
then school has failed its mission.
By Dante D. Dixson, Scott J. Peters, Matthew C. Makel,
Jennifer L. Jolly, Michael S. Matthews, Erin M. Miller,
Karen E. Rambo-Hernandez, Anne N. Rinn,
Jennifer H. Robins, & Hope E. Wilson

T
he goal of gifted and talented services is to
challenge students who would otherwise go
underchallenged and undereducated in school.
Unfortunately, gifted education programs often use
narrow and restrictive criteria to decide who can participate.
As a result, they tend to focus on a tiny and homogeneous
group of students, shutting out many others who would
benefit from the supports and services they offer (Card &
Giuliano, 2015).
Moreover, gifted programs often provide services that have
little connection to the specific learning needs of students.
Rather than tailoring their instruction to individual students,
they provide generalized and haphazard curricula built upon
the common misconception that children who are exceptional
in one area must be exceptional across all areas. Given this
lack of connection between services and student needs, it is
no surprise that an analysis of nationally representative data
showed that, although the impact of gifted programming on
achievement varies from school to school, the average effect is
negligible (Adelson, McCoach, & Gavin, 2012). (See Plucker &
Callahan, this issue, for a review of the research on effective,
domain-specific programs and services.)

DANTE D. DIXSON (dixsond2@msu.edu) is an assistant professor of school and educational psychology at Michigan
State University, East Lansing. SCOTT J. PETERS is a professor of assessment and research methodology at the University
of Wisconsin-Whitewater. MATTHEW C. MAKEL is the director of research and evaluation for Duke University’s Talent
Identification Program, Durham, NC. JENNIFER L. JOLLY is a professor in gifted education and director of the Gifted Education
Talent Development Office at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. MICHAEL S. MATTHEWS is professor and graduate
program director at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. ERIN M. MILLER is an associate professor of psychology at
Bridgewater College, Bridgewater, VA. KAREN E. RAMBO-HERNANDEZ is an associate professor in the College of Education
and Human Development at Texas A&M University, College Station. ANNE N. RINN is a professor of educational psychology
and director of the Office for Giftedness, Talent Development, and Creativity at the University of North Texas, Denton. JENNIFER
H. ROBINS is the director of the Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development and a clinical assistant professor in the
Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University, Waco, TX. HOPE E. WILSON is an associate professor and director
of the graduate program in the Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Department at the University of North Florida, Jacksonville.

22 Kappan December 2020/January 2021

This content downloaded from

74.215.223.3 on Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:08:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Figure 1.
Mathematics achievement distribution in the
average American grade 5 classroom
4.4% 3.1%
7th grade 8th grade
1.2% 1.8%
6th grade High school
23.9%
5th Grade
32.7%
3rd Grade
32.9%
4th Grade
Source: Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M.C., Peters, S.J., & Plucker,
J.A. (2020). Researchers estimate that students coming back
after COVID-19 closures may have greater variance in academic
skills. Portland, OR: NWEA. Used with permission
Put simply, many gifted programs are far more exclusive
than they need to be and should adopt a more inclusive per-
spective that serves more students. We recognize that this is a
difficult task. Inequities are — and always have been — perva-
sive in American public education, with students of different
races, ethnicities, and economic backgrounds receiving dif-
ferent levels and quality of support (Plucker & Peters, 2016;
Worrell & Dixson, 2018). But fostering advanced achieve-
ment and equity need not be mutually exclusive.
Complicating matters further is the existence of individ-
ual differences among students in their mastery of content
and the speed at which they learn (Deary, 2012; von Hippel,
Workman, & Downey, 2018). Many school systems con-
tinue to reflect the assumptions of the industrial age, when
standardization was paramount (Rose, 2012). Today, the
“typical” American 5th-grade classroom includes students
whose instructional needs span at least seven grade levels
(see Figure 1). In a recent study, Scott Peters and colleagues
(2017) found that 20-49% of all students were already
achieving above their current grade level in reading at the
beginning of the school year, and 14-37% already performed
above their current grade level in mathematics. In short, mil-
lions of children are ill-served by a standardized curriculum
that assigns learning objectives based on chronological age.
To meet students’ needs, schools have to become much more
flexible, responsive to individual differences, and willing
to provide opportunities for self-directed learning (Marope,
2014). Students vary, and schools must offer varied services
to meet them where they are.
This content downloaded from
74.215.223.3 on Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:08:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Toward a new model
We propose a model of gifted education that is proactive and
locally focused on students’ present needs in specific domains.
First, teachers and school staff must act as talent scouts,
proactively identifying students who are underchallenged.
That is, they should make it a priority to assess every student
and then review the data to find those who are performing at
a higher level than the material they are being taught.
Second, gifted services must be local. To be most effec-
tive, education should be situated in the local community,
taking into account the local culture, resources, and val-
ues. To identify students who might benefit from a greater
level of challenge, educators should assess where students
stand relative to other students within their school. It isn’t
relevant where they rank among the top students in the
country. Rather, the question is whether students are having
their learning maximized in the regular classroom or if a
more intensive intervention is needed (see Peters, Carter,
& Plucker, this issue, for more on this topic). Judgments as
to which students are well-served by existing grade-level
instruction should reflect the school environment and
available resources. This will look different from school to
school. Just as art and athletic programs differ depending
on the size and characteristics of the community, so should
academic programming.
Third, services must depend on students’ present needs.
Our model de-emphasizes the labeling of students as gifted.
Instead, we focus on identifying students for temporary
advanced academic interventions. Students might require
a greater challenge in a particular subject this year, in this
school, but not next year or at another school. Our goal is to
alleviate instructional mismatch, not to diagnose students
who have the trait of giftedness.
Lastly, gifted academic services must be domain specific.
There are some children with exceptionally high ability
across all domains, and they should be educated appropri-
ately. However, many more students are underchallenged in
just one or two specific content areas. For example, a stu-
dent might be an average performer in English and history
but have exceptional mathematical ability. Another might
struggle in mathematics but read books that are far above
grade level. Schools often limit their gifted services to the few
students who test at a high level in every subject, but if they
focus on developing talents in specific subject areas, schools
will identify many more students who would benefit from
more challenging instruction.
Systematic assessment
Addressing the needs of a wide range of learners has been
the focus of many educational interventions. For example,
Response to Intervention (RtI) was designed to provide
timely identification of students for special education ser-
vices (rather than waiting for them to fail before offering
them support; Fuchs et al., 2003). In an RtI system, the school
monitors all students in the general education classroom and,
Kappan V102 N4 23
FINDING AND DEVELOPING TALENTED YOUTH | REFRAME GIFTED EDUCATION

if a student is found to be struggling in a particular area, disproportionately underchallenged (Peters et al., 2019). If
provides them with a targeted intervention right away, before schools identify talent more systematically and start as early
they fall any further behind. Although RtI is often assumed as kindergarten (to spot talented children who weren’t fortu-
to serve children identified as having disabilities, it’s actu- nate enough to have rich preschool learning opportunities),
ally more flexible than that: RtI can provide appropriate and schools can diversify the population of students who receive
timely supports and services to any student who needs them appropriate challenges (Plucker & Peters, 2016).
(Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010), includ-
ing students who need more advanced Dimensions of service
learning opportunities. We propose that A number of empirically supported ser-
The traditional model of gifted edu- vices — including acceleration, flexible
cation uses assessments to create a schools assess grouping, differentiation, enrichment,
single snapshot of each student (and and more — are available to address
some states even require the use of student progress the academic needs of advanced learn-
general standardized tests to deter- ers (see Plucker & Callahan, this issue).
mine placement in a gifted program;
regularly in all However, each model has its own aims
Rinn et al., 2020). In contrast, we and limitations, and schools must
propose that schools assess student
academic subjects carefully evaluate which services work
progress regularly in all academic
subjects to identify any student who
to identify any best for their students. To some degree,
which service to provide depends on
isn’t being sufficiently challenged in
a particular class (Braden, 2003), and
student who isn’t the level, specificity, and amount (or
dose) of service that will maximize
to do so quickly, without waiting for
them to become disengaged. Further,
being sufficiently each student’s learning.
Level refers to both the difficulty of
those students should be reassessed challenged. the content and the pace of learning.
periodically, to see whether they are Even within gifted programs, some
progressing at the expected pace, students need more challenging mate-
faster, or slower (Dixson et al., 2020). Assessments should be rial, or to move through material more quickly than others.
research-based, directly aligned with the given subject mat- Level varies from school to school. Thus, if a student moves to
ter, and used formatively. This means that many high-quality a different school, they may need a different level of service
tests can serve this purpose — anything from a standardized — if the new school offers more advanced instruction, then
algebra placement test to the SAT (Dixson & Worrell, 2016; the student may no longer need gifted services; if regular
Furr, 2017). instruction at the new school is too easy, then the student
may need gifted services for the first time.
Appropriate and equitable services Specificity allows students to receive gifted services within
Identifying students’ specific academic needs only adds some subject areas even if they do not require them in others
value if schools actually do something with that information, (Makel et al., 2016). Because there is no federal mandate for
providing each student with an appropriate course of study gifted education, there is little consistency in what services
that offers the right level of challenge. Because learners schools offer. Typically, schools focus on providing gifted ser-
— including gifted learners — are diverse, no single instruc- vices in mathematics, reading, and science, but these need
tional model will serve everyone. not be the sole domains offered. Just as schools offer multiple
Further, educators should keep in mind that to provide an sports and a variety of classes and clubs in the arts, they can
equitable education, they don’t have to teach all students the offer a range of advanced academic opportunities.
same content the same way on the same day, any more than The amount of services refers to how frequently and for
providing equitable medical care means writing the same how long students receive advanced learning opportunities.
prescription for every patient. Rather, equity in education As with medications, academic services should be offered
requires that every student receives appropriately challeng- in a high enough dose to have an effect (Wai et al., 2010). A
ing and culturally relevant instruction that helps them fulfill once-a-week 30-minute class may be sufficient for a small
their academic potential. Students have a range of starting handful of students, but most are likely to require higher
points, rates of learning, and interest levels, and schools must doses to maximize their learning.
be willing to adapt to them, rather than expecting students to Regardless of what service is provided, it’s important to
adapt to whatever services their schools happen to provide. measure a program’s success to determine whether and how
At the same time, it is not equitable to provide different to make changes. These metrics should be based on the
instruction to students whose learning needs are equivalent. goals of the program and need not be confined to improved
Sadly, such exclusion has occurred under the banner of gifted standardized test scores. A variety of other assessment tools
education, leaving Black, Latinx, and low-income students — including student portfolios, student self-assessments, and

24 Kappan December 2020/January 2021

This content downloaded from

74.215.223.3 on Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:08:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
teacher evaluations — can give educators an idea of the suc-
cess of their efforts, but also come with their own limitations.
Steps to implementation
Implementing gifted education to maximize learning
requires all stakeholders — including teachers, administra-
tors, policy makers, parents, and students themselves — to
rethink old assumptions about what it means to be gifted,
how to identify and serve students who need gifted program-
ming, what those programs are supposed to accomplish, and
how to measure their success. Unless changes are made in
each of these areas, efforts to maximize learning will be
piecemeal and of limited effectiveness.
Historically, many schools have failed to provide advanced
opportunities for most students who need them. However,
past failures need not predict the future. Schools can help all
students meet their potential, but only if they commit to tak-
ing proactive steps to seek out students who need greater
challenge right now, in a specific subject area, because they are
performing ahead of the instruction their school provides.
References
Adelson J.L., McCoach D.B., & Gavin M.K. (2012). Examining the effects
of gifted programming in mathematics and reading using the ECLS-K.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 56 (1), 25–39.
Braden, J.P. (2003). Psychological assessment in school settings. In I.B.
Weiner, J.R. Graham, & J.A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol.
10, pp. 261–290). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Card, D. & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increase the
representation of low income and minority students in gifted
education? (Working paper 21519). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Deary, I.J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 453–482.
Dixson, D.D., Olszewski‐Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R.F., & Worrell, F.C. (2020).
Developing academic talent as a practicing school psychologist: From
potential to expertise. Psychology in the Schools.
Dixson, D.D. & Worrell, F.C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment
in the classroom. Theory Into Practice, 55 (2), 153–159.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Stecker, P.M. (2010). The “blurring” of special
education in a new continuum of general education placements and
services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-
to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning
disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18,
157–171.
This content downloaded from
74.215.223.3 on Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:08:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Furr, R.M. (2017). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Makel, M.C., Kell, H.J., Lubinski, D., Putallaz, M., & Benbow, C.P.
(2016). When lightning strikes twice: Profoundly gifted, profoundly
accomplished. Psychological Science, 27 (7), 1004–1018.
Marope, P.T.M. (2014). Learning and competences for the 21st century.
PROSPECTS, 44 (4), 483-486.
Peters, S.J., Carter, J., & Plucker, J.A. (2020). Rethinking how we identify
“gifted” students. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 8-13.
Peters S.J., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M.C., Matthews, M.S., & Plucker
J.A. (2017). Should millions of students take a gap year? Large numbers
of students start the school year above grade level. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 61 (3), 229-238.
Peters, S.J., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M.C., Matthews, M.S., & Plucker,
J.A. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in
gifted education. AERA Open, 5 (2).
Plucker, J.A. & Callahan, C.M. (2020). The evidence base for advanced
learning programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 14-21.
Plucker, J.A. & Peters, S.J. (2016). Excellence gaps in education:
Expanding opportunities for talented students. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Rinn, A.N., Mun, R.U., & Hodges, J. (2020, July). 2018-2019 State of the
states in gifted education. Washington, DC: National Association for
Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the
Gifted.
Rose, J. (2012, May 9). How to break free of our 19th-century factory-
model education system. The Atlantic.
von Hippel, P.T., Workman, J., & Downey, D.B. (2018). Inequality in reading
and math skills forms mainly before Kindergarten: A replication, and
partial correction, of “Are Schools the Great Equalizer?” Sociology of
Education, 91 (4), 323–357.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C.P., & Steiger, J.H. (2010). Accomplishment
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its
relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 102 (4), 860–871.
Worrell, F.C. & Dixson, D.D. (2018). Recruiting and retaining
underrepresented gifted students. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of
giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best
practices (2nd ed., pp. 209–226). New York, NY: Springer Publishing
Company.
Kappan V102 N4 25