Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education: A Survey of Current Research on Giftedness and Talent Development

Chapter 1

ACADEMIC ACCELERATION

¹

Susan G. Assouline, Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik, & Nicholas Colangelo

Academic acceleration comprises a range of challenging and advanced educational interventions designed to match the academic and social-emotional needs of high-ability students. Advanced students might move up an entire grade (whole-grade acceleration) or move ahead of their age-mates in one or more subjects (content acceleration). Conceptually simplistic, implementation of certain types of acceleration, such as whole-grade acceleration, remains relatively infrequent (Wells et al., 2009). Not providing appropriate challenges for highly able students (Peters et al., 2017) is especially concerning because lack of intervention defies the robust research supporting acceleration (Assouline et al., 2015; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016; Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011), thereby ignoring best practice.

The reasons for choosing not to accelerate high-ability students who are ready for advanced content include myths about social-emotional developmental and unfounded excuses (Assouline et al., 2015; Colangelo et al., 2004) often related to school-based educational reforms and policy (see https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/SER/index.html for a comprehensive discussion of education reform). However, the 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaced the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, included—for the first time—provisions that support gifted and talented education for high-ability students (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.). Nevertheless, consistent application of policy that fully addresses the needs of high-ability students lags, and bright students are underserved in today’s schools. Educators of high-ability students must preserve a foundational educational premise concerning educational equity; all students, including high-ability students, need opportunities to develop their abilities to the maximum (Benbow & Stanley, 1996).

For much of the 20th century, gifted education programs in schools focused on identifying a percentage of students who met the gifted child paradigm, those students earning high scores on IQ tests. However, other paradigms (Dai & Chen, 2013) in gifted education highlight the fact that additional students might benefit from gifted or advanced programming; for example, in the talent development paradigm, the focus is on students who have strengths in specific domains, such as math, language arts, or science. In a curriculum-differentiation paradigm, educators aim to determine students’ unmet educational needs and match them with appropriate curriculum and instruction (Borland, 2009; Dai & Chen, 2013). Under the latter two paradigms, acceleration provides an appropriate match for students who demonstrate high aptitude and achievement in specific subject areas and a readiness to learn more in those areas.

KEY TERMS USED IN THE RESEARCH ON ACADEMIC ACCELERATION

Academic Acceleration

Academic acceleration is an educational intervention that moves high-ability students through an educational program at a rate faster or at an age younger than typical (Pressey, 1949). The implementation of acceleration practices helps match the level, complexity, and pace of the curriculum with students’ intellectual and academic abilities. As the definition indicates, the term acceleration is used to refer both to acceleration as a service delivery model (in which students receive services at a younger-than-expected age) and as a curriculum model (in which students receive curricular material at a faster pace; Schiever & Maker, 2003; Southern & Jones, 2015).

The two broad categories of acceleration are content-based and grade-based (Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., 2018; Rogers, 2004; Southern & Jones, 2015). The primary distinguishing feature between content-based and grade-based acceleration is whether the accelerative intervention shortens the number of years that a student spends in the K–12 system. Content-based acceleration includes single-subject acceleration, curriculum compacting, dual enrollment, credit by examination, Advanced Placement programs, and Talent Search programs. Grade-based acceleration strategies typically shorten the number of years a student spends in the K–12 system (Rogers, 2015; Southern & Jones, 2015) and include skipping a grade, early entrance to kindergarten or first grade, grade telescoping, and early entrance to college.

Effect Size

An effect size is the standardized difference between two means obtained through experimental or quasi-experimental research. It is frequently used as a way of standardizing research findings across a large number of studies in order to understand the impact of an educational intervention measured by a body of research (Glass et al., 1981). An effect size of 0.0 to 0.20 is often termed negligible or small, an effect size of 0.50 is considered medium, and an effect size of 0.80 or greater is considered large (Coe, 2002). Additionally, effect sizes are sometimes interpreted in terms of months in the school year. For example, an effect size of 0.30 would indicate that the group receiving the intervention (the accelerated students) gained about 3 additional months compared to the control group.

Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis synthesizes the results of a group of experimental or quasi-experimental studies on the same problem (Gall et al., 2006) and permits conclusions about the magnitude of the effect of an intervention through the effect size metric. In research on academic acceleration, accelerated students are often compared to nonaccelerated students in the same grade or to students matched on ability and age but who are not accelerated in school.

Talent Development

The term talent development, in regard to individuals with high ability, originates in Julian Stanley’s Talent Search model (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2012; Stanley, 1996). The subsequent publication of Bloom’s (1985) Developing Talent in Young People added support to the concept, and the Subotnik et al. (2011) monograph on talent development launched the concept into the mainstream of gifted education. As such, talent development is distinct from gifted education in that it is domain specific. The Talent Search model, from which the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) was established, uses above-level testing to discover middle school students with very high aptitude in mathematics. Above-level testing is an important aspect of determining readiness for additional challenge in an academic domain for two main reasons. First, above-level testing removes the ceiling that is a component of grade-level achievement tests; second, above-level testing allows for a comparison with students who are learning more advanced content.

MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DEFENSIBLE CONCLUSIONS

Research on types of acceleration includes studies of Talent Search program participants (Lubinski et al., 2001, 2006; Wai, 2015), retrospective and prospective longitudinal studies (Subotnik & Arnold, 1993, 1994; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991), instrument evaluations (Assouline et al., 2004; Lipscomb, 2003), and meta-analyses (Kulik, 2004; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 2004, 2015). Meta-analyses yield some of the strongest evidence for the effectiveness of acceleration (Kulik, 2004; Rogers, 2015).

As a structure for considering the large body of research on academic acceleration, we summarized the findings related to five research questions:

1. Given the broad context of gifted education and the variety of interventions available, how does the intervention of academic acceleration impact the educational, social-emotional, and psychological characteristics of high-ability students?

2. What are the long-term consequences of academic acceleration?

3. What are the unique concerns for acceleration for twice-exceptional students?

4. Are there special considerations about acceleration for underrepresented students?

5. What are the most important factors when making acceleration decisions?

How Does Academic Acceleration Impact High-Ability Students?

In practice, gifted education programs, especially in elementary schools, have focused on the pull-out model (Callahan et al., 2017) of programming and have largely avoided academic acceleration as an option (Assouline et al., 2015; Colangelo et al., 2004). Educators have concentrated on identifying students who fit into the program rather than discovering students’ needs and how they might be met by altering curricula or programs (Borland, 2009). To a certain extent, this has fostered a schism between gifted education programs and other ways of serving high-ability students, including one or more forms of acceleration.

Acceleration and Enrichment. It is unfortunate that a false dichotomy between the interventions known as acceleration and enrichment (Schiever & Maker, 2003) has characterized the field of gifted education, when the question for educators should be how much of each approach will benefit each student (e.g., the question of educational dose, as discussed by Wai et al., 2010). The goal of enrichment programs is to add depth and breadth to the regular curriculum through resource rooms, special interest clubs, Saturday classes, summer programs, etc. Enrichment programs do not necessarily strive to move a student through the curriculum more quickly or provide access to accelerated curriculum. The more closely enrichment matches a student’s interests and talents, the more enrichment approaches acceleration (see Stanley, 1979). In contrast to identifying students for an enrichment program that is already in place, acceleration as an intervention focuses on the student and their needs.

Acceleration and Differentiation. Some schools adopt differentiation as an approach to serving the needs of all students. The program goals of differentiation respond to the range of academic ability in a classroom by offering multiple avenues for learning. Differentiation, as I [Carol Tomlinson] envision it, does not seek to label and segregate students, but rather to serve them effectively in heterogeneous classrooms that are responsive to their varied needs (Wu, 2013, p. 127). However, the range of individual differences and academic needs may be too great for one teacher to accommodate, and the academic needs of all students may exceed the teacher’s ability to prepare accelerated content.

Although the principle of differentiation is consistent with the goals of gifted education (Borland, 2009), Hertberg-Davis (2009) noted varied reasons for why differentiation can fail to fulfill the needs of gifted students, including:

lack of sustained teacher training in the specific philosophy and methods of differentiation, underlying beliefs prevalent in our school culture that gifted students do fine without any adaptations to curriculum, lack of general education teacher training in the needs and nature of gifted students, and the difficulty of differentiating instruction without a great depth of content knowledge. (p. 252)

The Impact of Academic Acceleration on Educational, Social-Emotional, and Psychological Characteristics. Despite the consistency of the research supporting the effectiveness of acceleration across academic, psychological, and social-emotional domains (Rogers, 2015), school officials routinely avoid it. A major concern about acceleration is the impact on the student’s social-emotional development. Some people are swayed by hearing about the very rare, yet highly publicized, cases of maladjusted accelerated students (e.g., the case of William Sidis, reported in Montour, 1977), while overlooking the many representative samples of positive short-term and long-term benefits (e.g., McClarty, 2015; Rogers, 2015).

Numerous studies investigating this topic have reported very small effect sizes for social-emotional or psychological factors, suggesting that the impact is small to slightly positive. Table 1.1 reveals the overall positive effect for grade-based and subject-based acceleration when considering academic, social-emotional, and psychological factors.

TABLE 1.1

Summary Effect Sizes by Category of Acceleration and School Level

Note. From The Academic, Socialization, and Psychological Effects of Acceleration: Research Synthesis, by K. B. Rogers, in A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students (Vol. 2, p. 28), by S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, and A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), 2015, The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Copyright 2015 by The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Reprinted with permission.

Within these positive research findings, two forms of grade-based acceleration merit special consideration: early entrance to kindergarten or first grade and early entrance to college (Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., 2018). Allowing children who demonstrate academic and social readiness for school to enter school early gives them an opportunity to experience a better match between what they are learning in school and what they are ready to learn. The future for early entrants to kindergarten is optimistic because they adjust well academically and socially (Gagné & Gagnier, 2004; Robinson, 2004). Robinson (2004) reported positive, but not statistically significant, effects for socialization and affect, indicating that early entrants fit in with their older peers.

Also, the evidence regarding the social-emotional adjustment of early college entrants is generally positive (Shepard et al., 2009), although it is not uniform (Robinson, 2004). Early college entrants generally are satisfied they left high school early (Muratori, 2007; Robinson, 2004), and they are successful in college, particularly those who entered early through a structured program that provides social support for the transition to college life and academic demands (Brody & Muratori, 2015; Muratori, 2007).

What Are the Long-Term Consequences of Academic Acceleration?

The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) offers the most consistent evidence of the positive impact of acceleration on academically talented students. Founded at Johns Hopkins University by Professor Julian Stanley in the early 1970s (Stanley, 1996) and now located at Vanderbilt University, the SMPY has followed thousands of academically talented students for more than 40 years. Students reveal generally favorable responses about their experiences with acceleration (Lubinski et al., 2001). Academically talented SMPY students benefitted from accelerative opportunities, had few regrets about their acceleration, and demonstrated exceptional achievements over time (Wai, 2015). Additionally, SMPY students who had skipped a grade showed a large advantage compared to similarly talented students who had not accelerated; this finding was still valid 30 or 40 years after the acceleration occurred (Park et al., 2013). Many students in the SMPY studies indicated that they wished they had accelerated more, not less. Over the longer term, accelerated students attain advanced degrees, produce scholarly works, and contribute professionally at rates well above societal baselines (Lubinski et al., 2001, 2006).

Wai (2015) summarized a number of SMPY studies and generated similar conclusions; specifically that acceleration creates a positive impact on students’ educational trajectory and career accomplishments, even decades after the acceleration occurred. Accelerated students achieved greater educational and occupational success and were satisfied with the impact of their choices on their lives (Wai, 2015). He concluded, The evidence clearly supports allowing students who desire to be accelerated to do so, and does not support holding them back (p. 82).

McClarty (2015) reported on longitudinal findings related to acceleration using data reported in the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. This dataset contains a sample of students representative of the U.S. population and includes students who graduated from high school in 1992. Accelerated students who had entered kindergarten early or skipped at least one year of school were matched to nonaccelerated students based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, and eighth-grade achievement test scores. Outcome measures were based on follow-up interviews in 2000 and included occupational prestige, annual income, and job satisfaction. Similar to previously cited findings, McClarty found that accelerated students held more prestigious jobs and had higher incomes. Accelerated students were also more satisfied with their jobs compared to nonaccelerated students.

Lubinski (2004) reported that adults who were accelerated in middle and high school recalled their precollege experience more positively than intellectual peers who were not accelerated. Students who were accelerated did not regret their acceleration, and a small percentage wished they had been accelerated more (Lubinski, 2004). The positive recollections about acceleration from adults are good indicators that the long-term social effects of acceleration are beneficial to the individual. What happens if the intervention is to not accelerate students who are academically ready for acceleration? The students reported that a slow-paced curriculum led to boredom and discontent.

What Are the Unique Considerations for Acceleration for Twice-Exceptional Students?

Students who are twice-exceptional are identified as gifted and diagnosed with a disability in one or more areas (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Foley- Nicpon et al., 2011; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Reis et al., 2014). Reis et al.’s (2014) watershed article offered an operational definition of twice-exceptionality that unblocked the impasse toward identification and provisions of services experienced by twice-exceptional learners. Most significantly, the Reis et al. publication backed the recommendations made by many twice-exceptional researchers over the past 30 years, that is, that identification of twice-exceptional students requires comprehensive assessment in both the areas of giftedness and disabilities, as one does not preclude the other (p. 222). The domains most commonly addressed in the twice-exceptional literature (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Reis et al., 2014) include high ability with a specific learning disability (SLD), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). A comprehensive discussion about twice-exceptionality is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, with respect to academic acceleration, twice-exceptional students require educational programming that addresses both their area of strength and their area of weakness.

In an evaluation of acceleration practices among a small clinical sample of twice-exceptional students, Foley-Nicpon and Cederberg (2015) found that implementing acceleration varied according to disability among high-ability students. Twice-exceptional students with ASD were more likely to experience acceleration than twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD. For an extensive discussion of twice-exceptionality, see Foley-Nicpon et al., Chapter 37 in this volume.

Are There Special Considerations About Acceleration for Underrepresented Students?

When considering the significance of underrepresentation, for the individual as well as society, the issues are vast and complex, thus precluding a comprehensive discussion (see Plucker et al., 2013, and Plucker & Peters, 2016, for comprehensive treatments of the topic). Nevertheless, consideration of academic acceleration as a model for the individual may also serve to ameliorate the broad issue of underrepresentation/lack of diversity in gifted programs. Plucker et al. (2017) tackled the fundamental issues related to underrepresentation and excellence gaps, operationally defined by differences in educational outcomes for specific groups of students due to demographic characteristics, and posited six interventions, of which two are directly related to academic acceleration.

The first recommended intervention related to acceleration—providing and facilitating realistic opportunities—has significant policy implications that could support academic acceleration within the school setting. In particular, access to advanced opportunities in schools is fundamental to developing the academic talents of high-ability students. Academic acceleration, in one or more of the various forms such as Advanced Placement, is one way to ensure that underrepresented students are not excluded from the advanced opportunities that families with financial resources may access (e.g., summer programs, online coursework). In addition to access to advanced opportunities, Plucker et al. (2017) advocated for ability grouping, which is also a form of acceleration (Southern & Jones, 2015). Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) found that despite the negative connotations often associated with ability grouping (Gamoran, 1992) as an intervention, ability grouping was effective with respect to increasing achievement among students from underrepresented minority groups.

What Are the Important Factors When Making Acceleration Decisions?

Pressey’s (1949) definition of academic acceleration as an educational intervention that moves high-ability students through an educational program at a rate faster or at an age younger than typical sets forth the essential factors when deciding about acceleration as an intervention. First, the primary stakeholders (i.e., the student, parents, and educators) need validation of the student’s high ability. The best way to determine a student’s level of cognitive ability is through an individually administered intelligence test (Sattler, 2008), such as the age-appropriate Wechsler tests. Because a psychologist must administer an individual intelligence test, it may be difficult to access this service; therefore, use of a well-validated group-administered test such as the Cognitive Abilities Tests (CogAT; Lohman, 2009, 2011, 2012) can provide the necessary information about the student’s cognitive ability.

Following the validation of high ability, all stakeholders need assurance that the student has surpassed the regular curriculum. This is best determined through an achievement test, which can be administered individually or in a group. Finally, given that the student is expected to be successful with an educational program designed for older students, a measure of aptitude in the accelerated grade or subject is critical. This can be determined through above-level testing. Lupkowski-Shoplik et al. (2015) provided an extensive discussion of grade-based acceleration.

The flip side to grade acceleration is grade retention. Light (1986) established a protocol for making decisions about holding students back a grade. The similarity between Light’s protocol and factors identified by Feldhusen (1992) as critical when determining the appropriateness of acceleration provided a striking comparison to the developers of the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS; Assouline et al., 2009). Beyond the essentials related to ability, achievement, and aptitude, Assouline et al. (2009) recognized the need to understand more about the student’s development as well as about the school’s climate related to academic acceleration.

Lipscomb’s (2003) validation study of the IAS (Assouline et al., 2004) proved especially helpful in understanding the role of factors beyond academic factors with respect to recommending acceleration. In particular, the school climate regarding acceleration as well as the student’s interpersonal skills correlated most highly with a recommendation for grade-skipping in Lipscomb’s sample of accelerated students.

Emotions tend to run high when making educational decisions, which is why the use of a tool such as the IAS (Assouline et al., 2009) is helpful to all stakeholders. A structured tool supports an objective discussion about a subjective decision, ensures that all critical factors are considered during the process, and guarantees that one person does not act as a gatekeeper for acceleration decisions. Rather, a team makes the decision based on objective data gathered during the decision-making process (Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., 2015).

DEFENSIBLE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

This discussion of the literature reaffirms that acceleration is an empirically effective intervention for high-ability students, with positive academic, social, and psychological short-term and long-term outcomes. For some students, acceleration in one or more of the various forms is the intervention of choice, with other service options, such as enrichment and differentiation, as supplemental considerations to sustain challenge. Key considerations include acknowledgement that access to acceleration is an issue of equity and fairness. Beyond that, there are validated reliable assessment tools to help educators understand the unique needs of twice-exceptional students relevant to academic acceleration. The fundamental question is not whether a high-ability student should be accelerated, but how many and what types of acceleration opportunities will be of benefit to students who, by virtue of their high ability, are ready for academic challenges well before their grade or age peers.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

Much of the support for academic acceleration comes from longitudinal studies or investigations with large datasets. Although informative with respect to general support of the intervention, research on the broad topic of acceleration is lacking in several areas. First and foremost, investigations with large datasets or longitudinal investigations are quasi-experimental, and the conclusions are inferential, meaning that one cannot conclusively state that the intervention is causal. Only a randomized control study, considered to be a truly experimental study, can allow the researcher to conclude that the impact is due to the intervention. Sampling procedures are also difficult, which makes it challenging to create general conclusions about the intervention.

Other limitations include the difficulty in determining prevalence of the various forms of the intervention. Large datasets allow for an examination based upon various parameters (e.g., age at time of entry to school); however, the large datasets are often several years old, and estimating current prevalence is difficult.

Needed research on the topic of acceleration includes: gathering more information about the procedures for implementation, such as timing for acceleration; which types of acceleration are most effective in specific situations or with specific groups of students; the characteristics of the acceleration experience that maximize the opportunity for student success; and what happens when an acceleration decision is reversed. Investigations could include teacher training about three areas that are also areas for further research: (1) training about screening for the need for acceleration, (2) training on the process for deciding about acceleration, and (3) training on monitoring and following up with students who have been accelerated. Embedded in each of these areas is the need for research on teachers’ understanding of the testing process, especially related to above-level testing, and how to use results from group and individualized testing to make informed decisions. Finally, research is needed on the methods that can be used to inform educators and administrators about the relevance of the intervention for high-ability students.

NEW DIRECTIONS

Five questions framed our discussion of the research about academic acceleration. There are two remaining areas that represent critical new directions. As alluded to in the previous section, we need considerably more research about professional learning. This research should likely extend to colleges and universities that prepare future teachers. A Nation Deceived (Colangelo et al., 2004) and A Nation Empowered (Assouline et al., 2015) include discussion about the challenges with having colleges or schools of education address the needs of gifted students, including the role of acceleration in supporting high-ability students.

Finally, states that have developed policies around academic acceleration are still relatively rare (VanTassel-Baska, 2015). Understanding the impact of policy on the implementation of the various forms of acceleration would support the professional learning of educators who are already in the classroom as well as those who are preservice. Evaluating the impact of educational policy on the prevalence and success of acceleration decisions and implementation connects research and best practice.

Throughout this chapter, we have explored a variety of issues related to an educational culture that is still not fully supportive of acceleration as an appropriate intervention for high-ability students. One question remains: If such a long history of research shows the effectiveness of most types of ability grouping and acceleration, the question of why it is not more universally implemented looms large for educators, parents, and policy makers (Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016, p. 891).

RESOURCES

Acceleration Institute at the Belin-Blank Center. (n.d.). http://www.accelerationinstitute.org

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., & Forstadt, L. (2009). Iowa acceleration scale: A guide for whole-grade acceleration K–8 (3rd ed.). Gifted Unlimited.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (Eds.). (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (Eds.). (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2011). Developing math talent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elementary and middle school (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Behrens, W. A., & Assouline, S. G. (2018). Developing academic acceleration policies: Whole grade, early entrance and single subject. National Association for Gifted Children.

Author’s Note. The University of Iowa Belin-Blank Center is currently developing new tools for assisting educators and families with making decisions about grade-skipping, early entrance to kindergarten, subject acceleration, and early entrance to college. Visit http://www.accelerationinstitute.org for more information.

REFERENCES

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Ihrig, D., Forstadt, L., & Lipscomb, J. (2004). Iowa Acceleration Scale: Validation studies. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 167–172). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, J., & Forstadt, L. (2009). Iowa acceleration scale: A guide for whole-grade acceleration K–8 (3rd ed.). Gifted Unlimited.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (Eds.). (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911433946

Assouline, S. G., & Whiteman, C. S. (2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post–IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 380–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.616576

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How equity can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 249–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.249

Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. Ballantine Books.

Borland, J. H. (2009). Gifted education without gifted programs or gifted students: An anti-model. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 105–118). Prufrock Press.

Brody, L. E., & Muratori, M. C. (2015). Early entrance to college: Academic, social, and emotional considerations. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 153–168). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215

Coe, R. (2002, September 12–14). It’s the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Exeter, UK. https://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020

Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). Early admission and grade advancement for young gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621759201500210

Foley-Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210382575

Foley-Nicpon, M., & Assouline, S. G. (2020). High ability students with coexisting disabilities: Implications for school psychological practice. Psychology in the Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22342

Foley-Nicpon, M., & Cederberg, C. (2015). Acceleration practices with twice-exceptional students. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 189–198). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Gagné, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). The socio-affective and academic impact of early entrance to school. Roeper Review, 26(3), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554258

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Pearson.

Gamoran, A. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leadership, 50(2), 11–17.

Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. SAGE.

Gross, M. U. M. (1998). Fishing for the facts: A response to Marsh and Craven, 1997. Australian Journal of Gifted Education, 7(1), 10–23.

Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346927

Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600204

Light, H. W. (1986). Light’s retention scale manual. Academic Therapy.

Lipscomb, J. M. (2003). A validity study of the Iowa Acceleration Scale [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Iowa.

Lohman, D. F. (2009). Identifying academically talented students: Some general principles, two specific procedures. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 971–997). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_49

Lohman, D. F. (2011). Introducing CogAT Form 7. Cognitively Speaking, 7, 1–9.

Lohman, D. F. (2012). Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 7: Research and development guide. Riverside.

Lubinski, D. (2004). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 23–38). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17(3), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01685.x

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718

Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Assouline, S. G., & Colangelo, N. (2015). Whole-grade acceleration: Grade-skipping and early entrance to kindergarten or first grade. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 53–72). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Behrens, W. A., & Assouline, S. G. (2018). Developing academic acceleration policies: Whole grade, early entrance, and single subject. National Association for Gifted Children.

McClarty, K. L. (2015). Life in the fast lane: Effects of early grade acceleration on high school and college outcomes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214559595

Montour, K. (1977). William James Sidis, the broken twig. American Psychologist, 32(4), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.4.265

Muratori, M. C. (2007). Early entrance to college: A guide to success. Prufrock Press.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Gifted education provisions in final version of ESEA–the Every Student Succeeds Act. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Advocacy/ESSA%20-%20GT%20provisions.pdf

No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 (2001). https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ110/PLAW-107publ110.pdf

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(1), 176–198.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701834

Plucker, J., Hardesty, J., & Burroughs, N. (2013). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. University of Connecticut, Center for Education Policy Analysis.

Plucker, J. A, & Peters, S. J. (2016). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Harvard Education Press.

Plucker, J. A., Peters, S. J., & Schmalensee, S. (2017). Reducing excellence gaps: A research-based model. Gifted Child Today, 40(4), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517723949

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems. Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research.

Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534976

Robinson, N. M. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 59–68). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Rogers, K. B. (2004). The academic effects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 47–58). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Rogers, K. B. (2015). The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 19–29). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations and applications (6th ed.).

Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New direction in enrichment and acceleration. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 163–173). Allyn & Bacon.

Shepard, S. J., Foley-Nicpon, M., & Doobay, A. F. (2009). Early entrance to college and self-concept: Comparisons across the first semester of enrollment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902100103

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2015). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 9–18). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Stanley, J. C. (1979). Identifying and nurturing the intellectually gifted. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 172–180). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stanley, J. C. (1996). In the beginning: The study of mathematically precocious youth. In C. P. Benbow & D. J. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 225–235). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417

Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210383155

Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (Eds.). (1993). Longitudinal studies in gifted education [Special issue]. Roeper Review, 15(3).

Subotnik, R. F, & Arnold, K. D. (1994). Longitudinal study of giftedness and talent. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Ablex.

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.528

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). The role of acceleration in policy development in gifted education. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 43–51). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Wai, J. (2015). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 73–83). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454

Wells, R., Lohman, D., & Marron, M. (2009). What factors are associated with grade acceleration? An analysis and comparison of two U.S. databases. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(2), 248–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902000203

Wu, E. H. (2013). The path leading to differentiation: An interview with Carol Tomlinson. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X13483472

1 This chapter is a substantially updated version of Acceleration: The Fair and Equitable Intervention for Highly Able Students, by S. G. Assouline, M. Marron, and N. Colangelo, in Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education (2nd ed., pp. 15–28), by J. A. Plucker and C. M. Callahan (Eds.), 2014, Prufrock Press. A significant component to this updated version includes research findings presented by Assouline et al., 2015.

Chapter 2

ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP

Keri M. Guilbault & Lauri B. Kirsch

Leadership matters. For any successful organization, including a district or school, leadership is a key element for driving deliberate and conscious transformation. Lasting change does not come from policies alone; rather, it emerges from inspiring and activating individuals at all levels within the organization according to a common vision and mission, recognizing that sustainable change does not happen quickly, easily, or haphazardly.

Although research in gifted education has identified effective practices for equitable identification and quality gifted programming, within many districts and schools much of the administrative attention focuses on managing responsibilities associated with struggling students and closing the opportunity gap. Our goal is to provide insight into the research on the role of leaders in driving positive change to achieve both equity and excellence in gifted programming.

KEY TERMS USED IN THE RESEARCH ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP

Gifted Education

Studies on administrative leadership in gifted education include references to those who manage or oversee gifted education programs and services. These are defined as specialized programs developed for students identified as gifted and talented.

Gifted Education Coordinator

Gifted education coordinator is a frequently used term in the literature referring to an administrative leader at the district level charged with developing, implementing, and evaluating the gifted program within the district.

Leadership

Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively; it is the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives (Yukl, 2013).

School/District Administrators

School and district personnel, including principals, assistant principals, superintendents, and central administrative staff, are charged with providing instructional leadership and developing, implementing, and evaluating district and school systems and policies.

KEY IDEAS ON LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE

There is no single agreed-upon definition of leadership, and any definition of leadership is arbitrary and subjective. Operational definitions of leadership in the literature depend on the purpose of the researcher, with most researchers evaluating leadership effectiveness in terms of the consequences of the leader’s actions for stakeholders associated with the organization being examined. Gifted education program administration requires the collective efforts of multiple stakeholder groups, including educators, advocates, researchers, policymakers, and parents. These groups are similar to the stakeholder groups that are the focus of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2019).

PRACTICES OF EXEMPLARY LEADERS OUTLINED IN THE LITERATURE OF LEADERSHIP IN GENERAL

Kouzes and Posner (2017) identified five practices and 10 commitments common to personal-best leadership experiences and found that successful organizational leaders model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. For people to willingly follow a leader, they must believe that the leader is honest, forward looking, competent, and inspiring.

Commitment to a mission of integrity is a key attribute of each of the practices of exemplary leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Kouzes and Posner (2017) affirmed that people expect leaders to have a sense of direction and concern for the future of the organization and to inspire others to optimal performance, and that leaders must clearly communicate through their words, demeanor, and actions that achieving the mission is possible. Leaders of successful organizations are visionaries who are able to point to destinations that are so desirable and credible that people will passionately join the cause in making it happen (Bennis & Nanus, 2003). In an effective organization in which people are empowered, there is an alignment of the leader’s vision with implementation strategies (Schein, 1996). A leader is committed to the mission and is able to stay focused and wait until the time is right.

The Change Process

Kotter (2012), in his work as the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership at Harvard Business School, developed a roadmap for guiding varied organizations through complex change. Although each organization is unique and the application of Kotter’s 8-Step Process for Leading Change may look different in different contexts, the core elements of the change process apply across all organizations (Kotter, 2012). The 8-Step Process for Leading Change around a big opportunity includes the following:

1. Create a sense of urgency.

2. Build a guiding coalition.

3. Form a strategic vision and initiatives.

4. Enlist a volunteer army.

5. Enable action by removing barriers.

6. Generate short-term wins.

7. Sustain acceleration.

8. Institute change.

Sustaining change requires that leaders focus their energies beyond the attainment of short-term effectiveness, compliance with external mandates, or blind adherence to regulation. Rather, sustained change depends upon the pursuit of the greater good (Reeves, 2009).

Effective School Leadership and Change

From a meta-analysis of principal leadership that included an examination of 69 studies involving 2,802 schools, approximately 1.4 million students, and 14,000 teachers, Marzano et al. (2005) identified 21 responsibilities of the school administrator:

•monitoring/evaluating;

•culture;

•ideas/beliefs;

•knowledge of curriculum, assessment, and instruction;

•involvement in curriculum and instruction;

•focus;

•order;

•affirmation and intellectual stimulation (tied in rank order);

•communication;

•input;

•relationships;

•optimizer;

•flexibility;

•resources;

•contingent rewards;

•situational rewards;

•outreach;

•visibility;

•discipline; and

•change agent.

Study findings indicated that all 21 responsibilities are important for managing the daily life of school change to varying degrees of importance as indicated by the rank order above. Further, Marzano et al. (2005) defined leadership for first-order incremental change versus second-order deep change. Study results indicated that second-order leadership was related to seven of the 21 responsibilities, including: (1) knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (2) being a driving force or optimizer; (3) intellectual stimulation; (4) acting as a change agent; (5) monitoring/evaluating; (6) flexibility; and (7) ideals/beliefs (Marzano et al., 2005).

Leadership and Gifted Education

With uneven gifted education policies across states and between districts, school leaders and district administrators are the primary impetus for enactment of evidence-based practices within schools and classrooms. Because the quality of gifted programs and services is determined at the local level, it is essential that district and school administrators commit to excellence in gifted education practices.

Peters and Brulles (2017) asserted that school districts should have a formalized gifted plan, defined as proactive thoughtfully derived systems, procedures, and policies regarding how a school or school district will assure that the needs of advanced learners are met (p. 2). Further, Peters and Brulles (2017) specified the components of a district gifted education plan including:

•statement of commitment,

•philosophy and purpose,

•mission statements,

•definitions and descriptions,

•gifted identification process,

•programming,

•staffing,

•professional development and preparation,

•curriculum and instruction,

•addressing social and emotional needs,

•program evaluation,

•parent collaboration and community involvement, and

•budget.

When viewed through the lens of administrative leadership and change, the responsibilities included in administering a gifted plan appear to require gifted administrators to deal with both first-order (management) and second-order leadership (deep change; Marzano et al., 2005).

Reeves (2009) suggested that effective school leaders focus on key factors that they can directly influence, including teacher assignment, professional development, opportunities for collaboration, and allocation of time within the school day. In parallel recommendations, Standard 6: Professional Learning of the NAGC (2019) Gifted Programming Standards endorses assigning teachers who have developed expertise in gifted education to provide services to students participating in gifted education programs and recommends professional learning in gifted education for all educators (central office administrators, principals, general educators, special educators, educators of the gifted, instructional and curriculum specialists, counselors, psychologists, and other support personnel) so that they may collaboratively work to identify and support the needs of high-ability students.

Peters and Brulles (2017) emphasized the importance of a school board-approved gifted education plan for all districts. A gifted plan provides guidance to school and district leaders who are responsible for implementing the plan within the district and schools. Kirsch (in Peters & Brulles, 2017), in describing the development and successful implementation of a best practices gifted education plan in an immense countywide district with more than 220,000 students, suggested: True change occurs at the intersection of the will, skill, resources, and environment of the organization. The role of the leader is to mobilize the organization to bring together the necessary elements to create change (p. 177).

MAJOR QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN THE RESEARCH ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP

Although there is a substantive body of literature on the various gifted program components and activities under the responsibility of administrators, including identification, program evaluation, professional learning, curriculum and instruction, policy, and advocacy, research specific to administrative leadership in gifted education is sparse. A growing body of dissertation research in recent years has examined the challenges, roles, and attitudes of educational leaders related to gifted education.

This chapter provides a summary of peer-reviewed studies focused on administrative leadership and literature reviews on gifted education policy that provide guidance to district and school leaders responsible for programs for students with gifts and talents. Major questions examined in the literature since 2013 that focus on administrative leadership in gifted education include:

1. How does policy impact the practices of administrators relative to gifted education?

2. How do administrators impact the status of diversity and equity in gifted programming?

3. How do economic factors impact gifted administrators relative to the provision of gifted programming?

4. What does the research say about professional learning in gifted education and administrators?

DEFENSIBLE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Research on administrative leadership in gifted education primarily includes case studies and surveys of elementary principals, district administrators, and superintendents. Most studies are limited to a specific district or state, making generalization difficult. Callahan et al. (2017) examined the status of district gifted education practices across the nation. Several opinion articles focused on gifted education policy emphasized the need for investing in the development of talented youth as an economic and social resource to ensure global competitiveness and called for policy research to expediate the development of sound policies and provisions of professional training (Gallagher, 2015; Plucker & Peters, 2018; Plucker et al., 2017; Subotnik et al., 2017). Few sound conclusions about the qualities, characteristics, and skills specific to effective gifted administrators can be drawn from the extant research.

How Does Policy Impact the Practices of Administrators Relative to Gifted Education?

Superintendents, school principals, and district coordinators are charged with ensuring the achievement of all students while juggling the challenges of compliance with accountability measures, data-driven decision making, revised standards, evolving curriculum, limited funding, and meager policies guiding gifted education. Long et al. (2015) concluded that schools with documented policies provided for gifted learners in more substantial ways and that principals directly influenced the scope of gifted programming in the school. They surmised that having a policy increased the likelihood that a principal would provide resources for gifted programming and professional learning for educators; yet they listed a lack of program funding as a barrier to compliance with gifted policy mandates.

Callahan et al. (2017) surveyed 1,566 district gifted administrators to explore the translation of state gifted policy into local practices, including identification, staffing and educator qualifications, service delivery models, curriculum and instruction, professional learning, program evaluation, and funding. They concluded that most districts lacked a clear set of program goals, did not provide a continuum of services, did not use curriculum designed specifically for gifted students, and did not provide systematic professional learning opportunities for teachers who serve gifted students. Their results further indicated that gifted students from poverty were the least likely to be identified as gifted, teacher and parent nominations were widely used as part of the identification process, and universal screening was limited primarily to the elementary grades. The authors emphasized the need for written policies and procedures to guide district leaders.

Swanson and Lord (2013) investigated the impact of state policy on practices within local school systems over time. Study findings emphasized the importance of school leaders in translating policy to practice, monitoring policies, and making data-driven decisions. The researchers stated that data-driven decision making was especially important for program evaluation to ensure the return on investment of gifted services as it correlates to student achievement. Recommendations were made for state policy development in four areas: identification, personnel preparation, program curriculum, and program management and evaluation. Lessons gleaned from this study support the call for administrative leaders to advocate for state policies to ensure that the needs of gifted learners are addressed.

How Do Administrators Impact the Status of Diversity and Equity in Gifted Programming?

With the trend toward increased ethnic diversity along with an increasing percentage of students living in poverty among those attending U.S. public schools (de Brey et al., 2019; Morrell, 2017), district and school administrators are increasingly accountable for placing equity at the forefront in the development and implementation of policies and practices, including those impacting gifted education.

Although the racial and ethnic diversity of public school students has increased, there has been little change to the demographic composition of K–12 teachers and administrators (de Brey et al., 2019). Having a teacher of the same race or ethnicity may have a positive impact on achievement for minority students and may increase the chances of African American and Hispanic students being identified for gifted programs (Bryan & Ford, 2014; Grissom & Redding, 2016; Grissom et al., 2017; Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2016). Grissom et al. (2017) found that schools with larger numbers of Black teachers or a Black principal were more likely to have a greater percentage of Black students identified as gifted. They found a similar result for Hispanic students but cautioned that the methods used in their regression model do not warrant causal conclusions. More research is needed to investigate these effects. If they hold up to further scrutiny, the importance of recruitment and retention of gifted teachers, gifted coordinators, and administrators who represent the diversity of the student population will increase.

Addressing barriers to gifted identification and services is a critical issue for leaders of gifted education programs as the diversity in public schools is often not mirrored in the student groups identified as gifted (Siegle et al., 2016; Worrell, 2014). In a study of historically underrepresented groups in gifted programs, Siegle et al. (2015) found that after controlling for achievement, White students not receiving free or reduced lunch were 3.5 times more likely to be identified as gifted than equally achieving Black students who were not eligible for free and reduced lunch and 15.5 times more likely to be identified than Latino English language learners eligible for free and reduced lunch. Additional studies have examined possible causes of underrepresentation and the impact of state policies on improving identification among these groups of students (Hamilton et al., 2018; McBee et al., 2016; Peters et al., 2019) and suggest inadequate screening processes, including a lack of universal screening procedures, as contributors to underrepresentation. Siegle et al. (2016) proposed a model of identification and talent development that may assist school and district leaders in addressing the problem of underrepresentation.

How Do Economic Factors Impact Gifted Administrators Relative to the Provision of Gifted Programming?

In a study of the effects of institutional and individual poverty on gifted identification, Hamilton et al. (2018) found that even when controlling for prior achievement in reading and mathematics, students from poverty were less likely to be identified for gifted services. Additionally, school poverty predicted the percentage of students identified as gifted within a school, and students from families living in poverty attending a high-poverty school were less likely to be classified as gifted (Hamilton et al., 2018). Limited resources in high-poverty schools were associated with opportunity to be involved in programs for gifted students and student achievement.

In an examination of district-level differences in funding and staffing for gifted education across 1,029 Texas school districts, Kettler et al. (2015) concluded that rural school districts allocated fewer resources to support gifted education, including funding and staffing, with school size and locale as strong predictors of funding variance. They noted that the impact of local decisions on the funding and implementation of gifted programs suggested the need for stronger district policies and state funding for gifted programs to ensure equitable resource allocation and equal access.

Because the availability and allocation of funding clearly impacts gifted identification and program services, school and district administrators must be aware of the impact of poverty and ensure the allocation of resources, particularly to high-poverty and rural schools. Research on strategies to close excellence gaps (Plucker & Peters, 2018) suggested cost-neutral identification and service options, including front-loading, flexible ability grouping, and the use of local norms.

What Does the Research Say About Professional Learning in Gifted Education and Administrators?

Currently, no state requires training or coursework in gifted education in administrative leadership programs, and few states require specific coursework in gifted education in teacher training programs (NAGC & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 2015; Plucker et al., 2015). The federal Higher Education Opportunity Act, passed in 2008, requires teacher training programs to include instruction on how to meet the needs of advanced learners; however, with little oversight and reporting, there has been a lack of compliance (Plucker & Peters, 2018). Plucker and Peters (2018) suggested that state leaders use the existing law as an opportunity to strengthen teacher preparation programs.

Two recent studies investigated the impact of professional learning on administrators. Robinson et al. (2014) focused on building statewide capacity of gifted and talented coordinators to conduct program evaluations. Ninety-nine local district gifted and talented coordinators were provided intense multiple-day institutes over a 2-year period, during which they were trained in skills needed to conduct program evaluations. Results indicated positive gains in practitioner knowledge.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

More research is needed on what qualities make an effective administrative leader of gifted education programs, best practices for effective leader training, and how leaders impact gifted identification, programs, and services. The dissertation research attempts to address some of these questions, but more empirical research is needed to draw defensible conclusions. In addition, successful programs that provide evidence of student learning gains, positive affective outcomes, more equitable student identification, adequate funding and educator preparation, and district and community stakeholder support should be studied to provide documentation of effects and case studies as models. Research on the effects of teacher training in gifted education and differentiated instruction has provided mixed results on educator practices in the classroom (Dixon et al., 2014; Peters & Jolly, 2018). Similar studies should be conducted with school principals and other administrative leaders to determine effective means to increase their knowledge and efficacy. Additional research is also needed to guide administrative leaders in best practices for professional learning experiences for their faculty.

Other limitations to the studies included in this chapter are the lack of diversity among participants and the case design using only a few districts, schools, or states, making generalization more difficult. What works in one state may not easily work in another where there is a different political, geographic, or economic landscape. Finally, most of the principals surveyed in the recent studies were elementary principals. More information is needed on the unique needs and challenges of secondary school administrators.

One area in which administrative leaders can turn for guidance and federal support, but where empirical research does not yet exist, is in the provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Passed by the United Stated Congress in 2015, State Education Agencies were required to directly address the inclusion of gifted education under Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction (Section 2101(d)(2)(J)). Leaders must be familiar with their state’s ESSA plan and know how to leverage Title II funds to support professional learning for gifted education.

REFERENCES

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). HarperCollins.

Bryan, N., & Ford, D. Y. (2014). Recruiting and retaining black male teachers in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 37(3), 156–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514530116

Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215

de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A., Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status