​THE INS AND OUTS OF THE GIFTED PROGRAMS: ONE AND THE SAME?
By

Stephanie A. Milanese, B.S.
Faculté de Droit et de Science Politique- Université de Montpellier

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Political Science
to the office of Graduate and Extended Studies of
East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania

December 14, 2019

SIGNATURE/APPROVAL PAGE
The signed approval page for this thesis was intentionally removed from the online copy by an
authorized administrator at Kemp Library.
The final approved signature page for this thesis is on file with the Office of Graduate and
Extended Studies. Please contact Theses@esu.edu with any questions.

ABSTRACT

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master
of Arts in Political Science to the office of Graduate and Extended Studies of East
Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania.
Student’s Name: Stephanie A. Milanese
Title: The Ins and Outs of the Gifted Programs: One and the Same?
Date of Graduation: December 14, 2019
Thesis Chair: Adam McGlynn, Ph.D.
Thesis Member: Ko Mishima, Ph.D.
Thesis Member: Cynthia Hamill, Ph.D.
Abstract
The tech gurus and Nobel Prize winners of the 21st century are not former gifted
students, yet they overachieved against the odds. This study addresses this anomaly and
examines the effectiveness of gifted programs from the end point, when gifted students
are in their professional careers or fields of study rather than its source, when they are
waiting to be identified. With this new perspective of analysis, an online survey was
conducted in Delaware Valley and Greater Nanticoke school districts. The goal was to
evaluate the long-term impact of gifted programs in terms of their needs and purposes.
Thirty-one respondents shared their experiences (n=31). Findings show evidence of
satisfaction while indicating a negative long-term impact. This contradiction reveals a
new need; work ethic in instructional methods of teaching. The emergence of an ethical
capital opens the door to a 21st century educational system.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….....vii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………..viii
Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………...1

II.

LITERATURE REVIEW…………………….……………….…………………..4

Introduction………………………………………………………………………..4
The Process of Enrollment………………………………………………………...5
The Assessment of Professional Outcomes……………………………………….9
The Need for Effectiveness………………………………………………………12
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….15
III.

METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………....16
A Quantitative Research Design…………………………………………………16
Data Collection: Online Survey………………………………………………….17
Data Analysis: Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………....20

IV.

RESULTS………………………………………………………………………..23
Quantitative Data: Frequencies and Graphs.…………………………………….23
Qualitative Data: One Open Ended Question……………………………………28

V.

DISCUSSION……....…………………………………………………………....29
Implications……………....……………………………………………………...29

v

Limitations…………………………………………………….………….……...32
VI.

CONCLUSION……………………………………………….…….……………34

APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL……………………………………………….………36
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM AND SURVEY…….………...……...37
APPENDIX C: QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES…….…..…....……46
REFERENCES………………………………………………………….….…………….49

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.1 Gifted Student or Parent…………………...…………………………………….…...23
1.2 Comparing Means for Years of Enrollment……………………………………….....24
1.3 Total Satisfaction-Gifted Students and Parents………………...…………………….25
1.4 Total Impact on Career Choice-Gifted Students and Parents………………….……..26

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1 Total Satisfaction-Gifted Students and Parents……………….………..……..……..27
2.2 Total Impact on Career Choice-Gifted Students and Parents………………………..27

viii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In 2017, a senator argued “But .03 cents on every dollar spent on education for a
program with little impact is simply too much to ask. Tell me what has gifted education
ever given to general education” (Danielan, 2017). He was considering whether or not to
vote for a $20 million funding toward the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Program;
the only federal program supplementing state and local institutions through research for
the nation’s 3.2 million gifted students. Does this factor alone account for the
ineffectiveness of gifted programs?
Over the past centuries from Binet’s concept of mental age to Spearman’s concept
of general intelligence and to Welcher's intelligence scales, measuring intelligence has
raised controversy. These multiple metrics might promise academic achievement but they
do not guarantee professional success, which brings forth this research question: do
students’ enrollment in gifted programs translate into professional careers or fields of
study that value their needs and fulfill their purposes?

1

Over the recent years, a paradigm shift has occurred with effectiveness at its
epicenter. Gifted programs that once were the core agents that helped create a better
society, are now useful tools in the hands of society. The pressure to pin the label gifted
on a college application in a culture of intense competition has set new challenges. With a
decentralized system that delegates responsibilities to other entities and with a scholarly
field that resists any attempt to meet their needs, gifted students are left on their own,
vulnerable, and secluded.
Today, the lack ​of contributions on this subject (Robertson et.al, 2011) do not
undermine its significance since it affects future generations. E​xplaining why an
increasing number of not gifted students over-achieve against the odds mean erasing
assumptions. Most scholars presume that analyzing the effectiveness of gifted programs
means focusing on the identification criteria. The purpose of this study is to examine the
shift in the effectiveness of gifted programs from its end point, when gifted students look
back at their experiences, rather than its source, when gifted students are awaiting to be
identified. With this new perspective, the focus is now primarily on former gifted
students that are 18 years old or older or their parents. The key objective is to highlight
the strengths and weaknesses of gifted programs by having a retrospective outlook.
Two school districts, Delaware Valley and Greater Nanticoke, agreed to promote the
online survey on their websites and social media accounts for two weeks. Adopting a
quantitative research design helped gather specific data for an in breath and in depth
understanding of the effectiveness of gifted programs.

2

The following chapter reviews the literature by summarizing and assessing the
findings of previous scholars. The third chapter explains the rationale for adopting a
quantitative research design and the process of gathering data. The fourth chapter
describes the results with tables and figures. The fifth chapter discusses the implications
while enunciating some limitations. The last chapter presents the contributions of this
research.

3

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
According to the Nobel Foundation database, the U.S. leads the world in Nobel
nominations (4922) and Prizes (336). In 2018, six Americans won the Nobel prizes in the
field of economics, physiology, chemistry, and science, yet none of them were qualified
as exceptionally gifted. Only 13 high school gifted students, from the prestigious
Westinghouse Science Talent Search won Nobel prizes since its foundation in 1942.
Why?
The concept of giftedness is multidimensional, and its application fosters the
problem of identification. Giftedness incites different theoretical frameworks among
scholars, such as Gagné’s differentiated model, which distinguishes giftedness and talent,
and Renzulli’s three ring conceptions, which are above average ability, creativity, and
task commitment (Gagné, 1995; Renzulli, 2003). Giftedness also comes with a variety of
definitions that differ from the federal government, the school districts, and the states.
The U.S Department of Education has modified the definition of giftedness several times

4

since the Marland Report of 1972. Today, the reauthorized Every Student Succeeds Act
reads that “students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability
in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific
academic fields and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school
in order to fully develop those capabilities” (ESSA, 2015). The lack of a universal
definition, federal mandate, and direct funding create diverse i​dentification policies not
only among states but also within the school districts of a state. Multiple or specific
identification criteria varies among school systems. Therefore, a child can be identified as
gifted in one school district yet not meet the criteria in another. The Davidson Institute
database provides an extensive and detailed information categorizing the types of support
gifted programs receive in each state, which can range from fully mandated and funded to
having no mandate nor funding (Davidson Institute, 2018). The complex and intricate
phenomenon of gifted programming calls for a literature review, that will explain the
process of enrollment based on two approaches that are proficiency rates and differential
learning rates and then assesses the outcomes based on each approach. Lastly, it will
show the need for effectiveness since both methods still share similar challenges while
offering different possibilities, that can act as stimuli for new policies.
The Process of Enrollment
The traditional measure of intelligence, Standford-Binet, which is an adaptation of
the Binet-Simon intelligence scale originated in France, determines the enrollment in
gifted programs that is based on proficiency rates. Lewis Terman, the pioneer of “the

5

measurement of intelligence” in the United States, has utilized cognitive ability
assessment tests to launch the longest and oldest longitudinal study of gifted students
(Terman, 1925). This 95-year comprehensive analysis of gifted or “termites” attempts to
uncover causal connections between Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and life achievement.
Intelligence Quotients are scores on intelligence tests that can vary from 90 to 110, with
100 as the median score, and above 130 considered as exceptional, and below 70 prone to
mental retardation. Sir Francis Galton (1869), the father of empirical psychology, was the
first to introduce the concept of general mental ability. Spearman labeled it the g factor
“which is responsible for overall performance on mental ability tests” and developed a
statistical technique to extract the common g factor, which he refers to as “mental
energy” (Stearman, 1904). Jensen followed Spearman’s footsteps confirming his
hypothesis; the g factor is valid, reliable, and influenced by heredity rather than by social
environment. He concludes that assessment tests are culturally unbiased, therefore the g
factor is a practical predictive power of life achievement (Jensen, 1980). Most researchers
accept the evidence of a positive correlation between IQ and real-world outcomes.
Divergence among scholars emerged regarding the strength of the relationship.
Proponents concur that IQ is the main predictor of occupational outcomes (Gottfredson,
2003). Critics argue that IQ is not as significant as other variables such as parental
socio-economic status (Strenze, 2007). The predictive validity of IQ tests is contested.
This could partially explain what the U.S. Department of Education (1993) called “the
quiet crisis” in gifted education.​ Gifted programs that give prevalence to tests
preparations, remediation, and strict curriculum are of disservice to gifted students who
6

fail to ​feel challenged thus dropping out. Poor teacher training and lack of counseling
contribute to this phenomenon of underachievement (Reis & Renzulli, 2010). The
concept of giftedness when narrowed down to proficiency rates generates an “intellectual
capital” that lack challenges, whereas broadened to differential learning rates creates a
“social capital” that rise to the challenges (Renzulli, 2012). Giftedness is no longer
limited to general intelligence (g) with its standardized tests.
The n​ew approach measuring intelligence is based on aptitudes, what the student
is capable of learning, rather than achievements, what the student has learned previously.
The enrollment process comes with a series of school evaluations. David Welscher, an
American psychologist developed the Wechsler Intelligence Scale (WISC) in 1955. The
most recent version, WISC 5, is administered in public schools for children between the
ages of 6 and 16 years old and provides, not only a full-scale IQ score, but also scores for
5 specific domains of cognition.
In less than 100 years, a shift has occurred in the selection procedure with greater
emphasis on specific abilities and individual differences, which account for different
educational needs. The concept of individuality in gifted students is multidimensional,
but their multipotentiality is contested. School counselors often endorse the concept of
multipotentiality, which is the ability of gifted students to excel in more than one field, to
justify gifted students’ poor decision making in career choices. However, empirical
findings show that multipotentiality is not the core issue, but that traditional methods of
vocational assessment are inappropriate tools (Lubinski, 1996; Achter et al., 2016).
Intelligence is no longer measured as a single entity. An array of scholars recognized that
7

everyone ​possesses multiple intelligence. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences
identified eight of them; musical, spatial, logical-mathematical, linguistic, bodily
kinesthetic, intrapersonal and naturalist ( Bornstein & Gardner, 1986). Sternberg
emphasized the importance of practical intelligence; the ability to respond effectively to
difficult situations, and developed measures of tacit knowledge, that are independent
from intelligence tests scores (Sternberg, 1985). Goleman introduced the concept of
emotional intelligence, with empathy as the main attribute for effective leadership
(Cherniss & Goleman, 2001). Albercht asserts that social intelligence is the ability to get
along with others while winning their cooperation. In this era of technology, social
competence is a need that comes with a set of five competencies; situation awareness,
presence, authenticity, clarity, and empathy (Albercht, 2006).
Today our educational system mostly applies math and verbal Scholastic Aptitude
Test assessment (SAT) and too often neglects the use of Differential Aptitude tests to
measure spatial reasoning. A study of intellectually precocious youth shows that the
ability to mentally manipulate 2d and 3d objects helps to determine gifted students’
future accomplishments (Lubinski et al., 2006). Nonetheless, gifted education recognizes
the importance of differentiation and domain specific abilities. But how do they apply
these concepts in the area of curriculum? Through acceleration, which is a form of
intervention that helps gifted students feel challenged in school. Implementing
acceleration is the pathway where the nation stops being “deceived” about its presumed
negative impacts, such as lack of socialization, and starts being “empowered” by its great
results, such as STEM based curriculum ( Science, Technology, Engineering and
8

Mathematics) (Colangelo et al., 2004; Assouline et al., 2015). The advantages of STEMs
programs in public education are numerous since they help students enter the workforce,
develop the necessary skills for their career choices and goals, and promote equal
opportunity between males and females. Even though some disadvantages exist, such as
promoting an elite class, the benefits still outweigh the costs (White, 2014). For most
scholars “the focus here is on giftedness as a developmental process” (Subtonik et al.,
2011). In this study the focus here is on gifted programs as an incremental progress.
How much of an impact the two different approaches have on real world
successes? An assessment of the outcomes based either on proficiency rates, and
differential learning rates will offer some clarification.
The Assessment of Professional Outcomes
When talent identification is based on proficiency rates, the goal is achievement.
It is a short-term desirable outcome. Gottfredson distinguishes between proximal or
short-term outcomes, which are related to on the job performance, and distal cumulative
outcomes, which are associated with levels of occupations. The g factor plays an
influential role in the hierarchy of occupations. The more prestigious and complex the
profession, the higher the range of IQ (Gottfredson, 2002). Consequently, achievement
tests serve their purpose as measuring tools assessing students’ performance, determining
ways to enhance curriculum, and allocating funds. However, undesirable outcomes
surface in the long term. The tentacles of accountability reach the teachers and the school
administrators, who must answer to the students test scores. A recent study shows
evidence of a correlation between increased spending in low income school districts and
9

students performance ( Lafortune et al., 2018). Conversely, another study concludes that
there is “not a statistically significant correlation” between the Colorado district funding
level and standardized test scores (Izard, 2016). The debate is still out about the influence
of school funding on achievement tests. It is undeniable that test-based accountability
increases the amount of pressure in the educational system, bringing with it a set of
challenges. The constant focus on accountability system with the achievement tests is
detrimental to the principle of equity, which states that all students have equal
educational opportunities. The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, federal education policy,
attempts to close the achievement gap between low income minority students and higher
achieving and less disadvantaged students. Many studies have shown the negative impact
of performance driven accountability on educational equity, except for Texas; an outlier
(Lee & Wong, 2004). The switch, from a performance-based approach to
“eminence-focused gifted education”, is a move forward, where equity takes a stand
(Grantham, 2012).
When differential learning rates prevail in the educational system, the goal is
eminence or excellence. ​Differentiation is defined ​as “a matter of presenting the same
task in different ways and at different levels, so that all students can approach it in their
own ways" (Irujo, 2004). ​Indeed, differentiation takes many forms, such as advanced
placement, the international baccalaureate program, grade skipping, curriculum
compacting etc... The outcomes are deemed desirable in the long term. Implementing
different teaching and learning strategies promote self-efficacy and improve motivation

10

among students. The Fullerton Longitudinal Study, a four-decade investigation of
motivational giftedness from childhood through adolescence, shows that the development
of intrinsic motivation influences life course outcomes. Stimulating motivation at school
and at home will improve its continuity throughout adulthood (Gottfried et al., 2006).
Other studies have shown that differentiation not only benefits high achieving students
who find themselves more challenged with differentiated curriculum instruction, but also
provides students with disabilities the opportunity to learn through targeted instructions
(Tieso, 2005; Mc Quarrie et al., 2008). The equitable access to curriculum is a
non-negligible factor. The variety of instructions shows the importance of curriculum
choice and the flexible nature of differentiation. But the complexity of differentiated
curriculum, which requires modification of the regular curriculum by constant adjustment
process, exposes deficiencies in its implementation (Lunsford, 2017). Teachers, that are
grouping students who share similar abilities, express some concerns about the
practicality of differentiation. Can too much differentiation become counterproductive?
This study agrees that acceleration is necessary but points out that, when gifted students
transition into their professional careers, restraint is mandatory. The habit of acceleration
in the academy could backfire in their vocational careers where restraint is preferred.
Therefore, to avoid crashes when merging into the highway of occupations, it is deemed
cautious to slow down and ease into the profession where teamwork is more valued than
stardom. Acceleration and restraint are seen as opposite forces but they do share a point
of convergence in this instance. What are the short-term undesirable outcomes of
differential learning rates? It starts in the classroom. Teachers bear the burden of
11

multitasking by teaching and managing various groups at different levels in a limited
time which makes differentiation less efficient. A few alternatives exist such as training
teachers but it is time consuming. Attracting and recruiting more teachers is also difficult
because of low salaries. Differentiation is synonym of change and is often met with
resistance. However, when adaptation sinks in, differentiation can bring great results.
Implementing differentiated instruction requires teachers to change their
behaviors and attitudes, while acknowledging the everyday school problems, like
absenteeism, classroom sizes and workload (Brighton et al., 2005). Evidence shows that
the benefits of individualized talented programs outweigh the costs (Booij et al., 2016).
Hope is on the horizon with the Every Student Succeed Act (ESSA) that recently gave
more authority to the states to implement improved systems of accountability measures
and the opportunity to design plans based on performance. But to be truly effective more
needs to be done.
The Need for Effectiveness
Both approaches share similar challenges, such as equity. The lack of equity or
the “under representations of the socio economically and ethically disadvantaged students
in gifted education has its sources of unfair identification practices” (Gagné, 2011). A
recurrent issue that is not only specific to gifted education but that also expands to other
fields. Gagne claims that the meritocratic system based on past performance is the answer
to inequity. Benbow argues that excellence and equity can coexist when individual
differences are part of the equation (Benbow & Stanley, 1996) Indeed, it is crucial to

12

avoid the amalgam between equality of access and equality of results, which could be
detrimental to the effectiveness of gifted programs.
Both approaches come with different possibilities, where proficiencies and
individual student growth can join forces rather than stand alone in their uniqueness.
Proficiency rates are a valuable concept for teachers, as they set common standards and
minimum expectation for students’ performance, whereas growth targets encompass all
learning levels and acknowledge how teachers impact students learning. School districts
are responsible to choose which approach best fit their local needs. The American
Institute of Research emphasizes the need for growth that helps set meaningful goals for
students and teachers alike (Lackhan-Haché & Castro, 2015). Outcomes differ depending
on schools' policies, which also reflect different perspectives. Can a new perspective
emerge from this literature review? Changing perspective means gifted students are not
perceived through the lens of the development of their potential which is an under
realized ability (Subtonik, 2003). They are examined according to their capacities,
meaning the ability to accomplish a goal based on something that exists and is
recognized. The goal is for gifted children to realize their full capacities. Such a scope of
study justifies evaluating the effectiveness of gifted programs at the point of impact,
professional careers or fields of study, rather than at its source, enrollment.
What are ​professional careers​ or ​fields of study?​ A profession is defined as a paid
occupation that is “service oriented” and requires education and training. A career
encompasses an individual work’s life and is “growth oriented” (Surbhi, 2018). The
former is more specific to what one does for a living, whereas the latter is broader and
13

linked to a person's decisions and personality traits. Gifted students have noble
professions but seem to encounter difficulties in their career decisions and development.
According to the Oxford dictionary (n.d.) a field of study is defined as “a branch of
knowledge”. Gifted students faced similar challenges when selecting a field of study in a
college or university.
Do professional careers or fields of study ​value their needs? G
​ ifted students have
intellectual, social, self-directional, and emotional needs that gifted programs strive to
meet (Neihart, 2002; Halsted, 2009). As grown-ups, they answer to different stakeholders
like corporations which either do not value gifted students’ needs or prioritize their own.
The nature of the organization is a determinant factor when evaluating the needs of the
gifted. A pioneer work on leadership presents four needs of an organization: body, heart,
mind, and spirit, which means survival, relationships, growth and development, integrity
and contribution (Covey, 2008). The goal is to match the needs of the organization with
the needs of the gifted.
Do the professional careers or fields of study ​fulfill their purposes​? MerriamWebster Dictionary (n.d.) defines to fulfill as to make whole. Purpose originates from the
Old French “proposer” meaning proposal or a proposition. Goal originates from the
Middle English meaning limit or boundary. A goal is precise, directional, and limited in
time whereas a purpose is conditional and not limited in time. A purpose is an inner
motivation and a goal is the action required for it to happen. Both are intertwined. It is
difficult to achieve a goal if it is not aligned to one’s purpose. The literature review is
loquacious on goals but silent on purposes. According to the NAGC, gifted programs
14

provide curriculum goals “to ensure that student’s learning needs are met”, “promote
critical thinking and reasoning abilities.” An emphasis on goals and how to reach them
through school funding and equal opportunities come at the cost of “values education.”
Implementing strategies that promote ethical behavior or character education is
fundamental for the livelihood of gifted programs. Character education is defined as
“teaching children basic human values including honesty, kindness, generosity, courage ,
freedom, equality and respect” (Berkowitz, 2005). The capacity of gifted students to act
not only intellectually, socially but also ethically would assure the true effectiveness of
gifted programs.
Conclusion
This literature review is organized chronologically and also grouped into two
specific themes. The primary goal is to show the evolution from one approach
(proficiency rates) to another (differential learning rates). The ultimate goal is to
highlight the benefits and costs of each approach which calls for the need for
effectiveness. Recurrent names surged when reading scholarly works; Renzulli, Lubinski,
and Subtonik. It indicates a lack of research and a hunger for novel ideas. It also explains
why this study offers a new perspective and attempts to forge a new path in evaluating
gifted programs. Having effective gifted programs not only requires curriculum goals but
also specific strategies where purposes are addressed. Gifted students’ main interests
should be aligned with their career goals rather than society goals determining their
interests. Addressing this issue means choosing a specific method of analysis. The next
chapter presents the underlying reasons for a quantitative methodology.
15

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
To reiterate the purpose of this research, which is to examine the long-term
impact of gifted programs on the professional careers or fields of study of former gifted
students, is to help the reader understand the rationale of the methodology used. First, this
chapter provides an explanation for selecting a quantitative research design. Second, it
shows how the data were collected, and third how they were analyzed.
A Quantitative Research Design
The researcher did not choose a qualitative methodology and arrived at this
conclusion by the process of elimination. The techniques of investigation for a qualitative
methodology have many flaws. They are invasive, costly, and time consuming. Indeed,
conducting interviews or content analysis of documents come with a series of challenges
not suited for this academic research. Moreover, the subjective nature of qualitative data
opens a pandora box of interpretations that minimize the accuracy of the results
(Rahman,2017). Interviews not only introduce implicit bias from the interviewer but also

16

is conducive of bias from the interviewee who can manipulate the information. Scientific
rigour is paramount in this study and numeric data are best fitted to evaluate the long
term impact of gifted programs. Even though the researcher opted for one qualitative
question, it had the advantage to provide detailed information and attempt to achieve a
balance in the formulation of the research design. The goal is not to annihilate one
method for another but to select specific elements that are appropriate for this research.
Also, most scholars choose a quantitative research design when analyzing gifted
education. A study reports that out of 697 articles, 234 or 33.6% were quantitative, 99 or
14.2% were qualitative and 36 or 5.2% were mixed methods. The same article shows that
descriptive statistics are the norm when summarizing and interpreting quantitative data in
this particular field (Warne et al., 2012). This thesis will follow this tradition by using
descriptive statistics and applying a quantitative methodology. Indeed, numeric data
provides objective and accurate results that serve the purpose of this study.
Data Collection: Online Survey
The researcher created an online survey, which was the preferred instrument for
this study, and used SurveyMonkey for the design. This cloud based software program
offered a list of pre-selected options known as multiple choice questions. For the sake of
reliability, the researcher opted for a five-point Likert scale or rating scale which has the
advantage to increase the response rates while reducing the “level of frustration” of the
respondents (Babakus & Mangold, 1992). In this case, it brings clarity by determining the
scope and direction of the impact of gifted programs and allows for comparisons by
gathering the opinions of former gifted students and their parents.
17

For the sake of validity and accuracy, this survey gives respondents an answer
option or a comment field for every question. The goal is to avoid any bias in the results.
This added feature gives a greater degree of nuance, therefore a greater detail of data
analysis. Anonymity is another element of rigour. Survey Monkey provided the settings
to collect anonymous data. No identifiable data were collected, consequently it was
impossible to link any individual to their survey responses. If this study would have
conducted interviews instead of an online survey, anonymity of the respondents would
have been difficult to maintain, which validates the choice of an online survey design.
The online survey is a versatile tool since respondents can take the survey
wherever and whenever it is convenient for them. It can also reach specific groups. In this
instance, the targeted population are male or female gifted students that are 18 years old
or older or their parents. They are the appropriate units of analysis since they can provide
valuable and accurate information about the long-term impact that gifted programs had or
have on their professional careers or fields of study. The aforementioned characteristics
of inclusion criteria suggest that anyone under the age of 18 years old or students that are
not gifted will be immediately disqualified. Most importantly, prior to recruiting any
potential respondents, the East Stroudsburg University Institutional Review Board (IRB)
for the Protection of Human Rights reviewed and approved this research (See Appendix
A). The IRB verified that this study did not include any obvious risks or discomforts and
that it did safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of the respondents. Additionally, all
information collected in this study was for the sole purpose of writing this thesis and
remained anonymous. Prior to taking the survey, an electronic consent form asked online
18

respondents if they were 18 years old or older and if they agreed to participate in this
study. These 2 required questions determined the eligibility criteria. Also, respondents
did not receive any compensation. Overall, this research met the ethical guidelines of
East Stroudsburg University (ESU) and gathered all the required signatures.
Specifically, the purpose of this survey was to collect data about the opinions and
experiences of former gifted students or their parents. Two school districts, Delaware
Valley School District and Greater Nanticoke School District, each signed permission
letters for conducting the online survey. There were no other alternative to gather
information without seeking first their consent. They were able to choose between three
methods of recruitment; either by including a surveylink in their email distribution list or
posting it on their social media accounts or on their official websites. Delaware Valley
School District posted the survey link on its official website and on social media
accounts; Twitter and Facebook. Greater Nanticoke School District posted the survey link
on its official website. Both school districts included the following message: “Former
gifted students or parents of former gifted students, please take 5 minutes to complete this
survey research. Your feedback is important. Thank you!” None of the schools chose to
include the survey in their email distribution list.
The survey was launched on October 25 and remained open until November 8. It
was accessible for two weeks with 24 questions in all. Two were required; one for the
electronic consent form and one for the eligibility criteria. Respondents were given the
option to exit the survey at any time during this process if they wished to do so. After
having answered two required questions, each respondent, either former gifted students
19

or their parents, were assigned 11 questions that had the same content but only differed if
the subject was addressed directly (Do you?) or indirectly ( Does you gifted child?). The
informed consent and the survey were designed with the respondents in mind and with an
emphasis on clarity and efficiency (See Appendix C).
Former gifted students or their parents had 10 multiple choice questions and one
comment field. This last open ended question not only allowed the respondents to express
their opinions but also enhanced the quality of the survey. It gave the opportunity to find
common themes and discover new areas of research that would have been missed
otherwise. All the questions assess the effectiveness of gifted programs in several
categories: level of satisfaction, values, purposes, years of enrollment, and impact.
Data Analysis: Descriptive Statistics
This study conducted a statistical analysis. The results of this survey were
analyzed to examine the impact of gifted programs on the professional careers or fields of
study of gifted students but also to highlight if gifted programs implemented strategies
that addressed their needs and purposes in the long run.
Descriptive statistics comes with many advantages that fit this particular study.
First, it gives a clear statistical explanation of the data. It not only reports the measures of
central tendency (the mean, median, mode), and dispersion (standard deviation) but it
also allows for the generation of frequency tables and graphs. Second, it reaches a wider
audience. Organizing and summarizing the data in a simple and clear manner provides a
deeper understanding about the effectiveness of gifted programs and encourages a

20

widespread dissemination of a subject so often ignored. These benefits outweigh the
costs, such as the inability to draw inferences due to the small sample size.
Accurate results come with data preparation. The researcher checked for any
missing data before conducting the analysis. Fifty-six respondents answered the survey
but, due to incomplete answers, thirty-one respondents were included in the analysis. The
total sample size was 31 (n=31). This dataset was exported to an SPSS data file
(Statistical Package for Social Science Version 26 ) and security was enforced during the
transfer​. ​The responses were then dichotomized between former gifted students and
parents of former gifted students.​ By applying the SurveyMonkey feature skip logic,
some answers were left blank because they were not applicable. Therefore, they were
recoded and omitted from any analysis. This study used a 5 point Likert scale and most
variables were ordinal and a few were nominal such as “Identity” (gifted students or
parents of gifted students). With a low response rate, computing 2 variables to create a
new one was necessary since many variables were highly correlated and only differed in
their wording (Students Years of Enrollment + Parents Reporting Years of Enrollment =
Total Years of Enrollment) .
Lastly, the qualitative question was not exported to SPSS. Twenty six answers
were grouped and analyzed manually (See Appendix C). Common themes and patterns
emerged and categories were built from inductive reasoning. In a nutshell, this chapter
explained the reasons for adopting a quantitative methodology, then described the online
survey and data collection, and finally showed the benefits for conducting a descriptive

21

analysis. The following chapter will expose the major results that correspond to the issue
of the effectiveness of gifted programs.

22

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Quantitative Data: Frequencies and Graphs

Table 1.1 provides information about the number of former gifted students and
parents of former gifted students that participated in the survey. The total sample size is
31 or n= 31. The majority of respondents were parents (67.7%) compared to gifted
students (32.2%)

23

Table 1.2 shows how many years on average former gifted students or gifted
children were enrolled in gifted programs. Former gifted students were enrolled in gifted
programs for 6.70 years (mean= 6.70) with a standard deviation of + 2.66 years or - 2.66
years away from the mean. Former gifted children were enrolled for 6.68 years
(mean=6.68) with a standard deviation of + 2.076 years or - 2.076 away from the mean.
The standard deviation for gifted students years of enrollment is slightly greater than the
one for gifted children. On average former gifted students and gifted children stayed
enrolled in gifted programs between 4 to 9 years. The variance indicates that the data
collected for “Years of Enrollment” are more dispersed for gifted students 7.122 than
gifted children 4.310. Indeed, a larger number of parents (21) participated in the survey
compared to a smaller number of former gifted students (10).

24

Table 1.3 presents the number of observations to the following question: “How
would you rate your experience in gifted programs?” The responses of former gifted
students and parents were combined into one. A new variable was created “Total
Satisfaction-Gifted Students and Parents” for better statistical analysis. More respondents
were very satisfied (32.3%) compared to the ones (9.7%) who were very dissatisfied.
Please note that neither satisfied or dissatisfied (19.4%) received the same amount of
responses as satisfied and dissatisfied (19.4%).

25

Table 1.4 presents the number of observations to the following question: “How
much of an impact did gifted programs have in your choice of career or field of study?”
As previously explained, the responses of former gifted students and parents were
grouped into one and a new variable was created called : “Total Impact on Career
Choice-Gifted Students and Parents”. The majority of respondents reported that gifted
programs were not so impactful (32.1%) and not at all impactful (32.1%) corresponding
to a total of (64.2%). A minority of respondents considered gifted programs somehow
impactful (25%) and extremely impactful (10.7%) consisting of a total of (36.4%). Note
three missing values (8, 59, and 66) that were not included in the analysis.

26

27

The two bar graphs (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) illustrate the two questions
aforementioned. The x axis represents the different rating scales from very satisfied to
very dissatisfied for figure 2.1, and from not at all impactful to extremely impactful for
figure 2.2. The y axis in both figures show the percentages of respondents.
Qualitative Data: One Open Ended Question

The open ended question was: “Add your comments about the positive or
negative aspects of gifted programs in public schools.” Out of 31 responses, there were
20 comments and 6 extra answers regarding other sections of the survey (See Appendix
C). A total of 26 answers were synthesized and organized. After conducting a textual
analysis, data were grouped into three themes; positive impact, negative impact, and from
positive to negative impact.
Nine comments indicated the positive aspects of gifted programs. Terms such as
“amazing”,”enjoyed”,“ benefited most”, “a bonus”, and “influential” highlighted the
advantages of gifted programs.
Nine comments exposed the negative aspects of gifted programs. Terms such as;
“useless”, “the programs should be dismantled”, “boring” and “a waste of time” showed
the drawbacks of gifted programs.
Eight comments revealed a downward trend where gifted programs once
perceived as positive in the early years of education were then viewed as negative in high
schools​. For example; “The gifted program in elementary was positive……. Middle
school was just ok and high school did not exist…”. The next chapter will discuss the
implications of these results.
28

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

Implications
Table 1.1 shows that parents predominantly participated in this survey (n =21)
compared to former gifted students (n=10). Therefore, caution is exercised when
interpreting the results as to not alter their validity. For this reason, two variables labeled
years of enrollment of former gifted students and former gifted children were grouped
into one. Comparing the two means show the similarities of the two groups (See Table
1.2). Both responded that enrollment in gifted programs lasted between four to nine
years. Creating a new variable strengthens the validity of the results and gives a better
description when conducting a statistical analysis. In this instance, statistical efficiency is
improved since the sample size is now larger (n=31) (Donilcar et al., 2016).
The two new variables (Total Satisfaction and Total Impact on Career Choice)
display surprising results when put in contrast (See Figures 2.1 and 2.2). In the first new
variable, most of the respondents are very satisfied (32.1%) and satisfied (19.4%) with
gifted programs. These results corroborate the findings of previous studies. In a 1994 a

29

longitudinal study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, Lubinski and Benbow show
evidence of a high level of satisfaction of former gifted students. Similarly, another study
reveals that gifted students have a strong satisfaction with gifted programs (Matthews and
Kitchen, 2007). Since the majority of respondents stayed enrolled in gifted programs for
more than 5 years (See Table 1.2), it would be reasonable to deduct that they enjoyed
participating in the activities or they would have dropped out.
Conversely, in the second new variable (Total Impact on Career Choice) the
majority of respondents view gifted programs as not so impactful (32.1%) or not at all
(32.1%). These results (Table 1.4) appear in contradiction with the ones aforementioned
where former gifted students report having a high level of satisfaction (Table 1.3). Only
one qualitative article has addressed the impact of gifted programs and find that positive
outcomes are tainted with concerns of elitism and stigma (Hertzog, 2003). The lack of
comparison with previous scholarly articles does not undervalue this study but rather
points out to the need for more exploratory research. It shows a gap in a particular section
that has not yet been addressed. This thesis hopes to set a trend for more statistical
analysis. Future studies should assess the impact of gifted programs and test the
relationship between satisfaction and long-term impact. The following hypothesis could
serve as a threshold: as the level of satisfaction increases, the long-term impact on gifted
programs decreases. In this instance, operationalizing the term satisfaction would
determine the validity of the results. However, the last question in the survey provides
some insights.

30

Three categories have been created for the qualitative question: “Add your
comments about the negative and positive impact of gifted programs?” The numbers of
comments in each category are practically the same and not one category is significantly
greater than the other. “Negative Impact” has 9 comments, “Positive Impact” also has 9
comments and “From Positive to Negative” has 8 comments. The results are
inconclusive. The new category (From Positive to Negative) presents interesting
commentaries. Some recurring statements suggest that an emphasis is placed on younger
gifted students enrolled in elementary schools and that a disinterest is visible for older
gifted students in high schools. For example, “The middle school program was good and
got us involved. Once I got to high school, it felt pointless.” or “Our teachers were very
influential. . . Just wish they had continue the program in high school.” Six of the
respondents expressed the same idea and highlighted the need for gifted programs in
secondary schools as a complement or substitute to Advanced Placement (AP) classes: “ .
. . high school did not exist due to vast amount spent in AP and honors classes.” A few
studies show evidence of a correlation between taking AP classes and college success
rate (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2009). However, in 2007, a public high school in
Scarsdale, NY, dropped the curriculum and 11 years later eight private schools followed
suit in Washington, D.C. (Jaschik, 2018)​.​ Is it time to debunk the myth of AP for new
and improved gifted programs implementing effective curriculum? According to a former
gifted student: “My best experience was a half day pull out in elementary school with an
emphasis on project-based learning.” Engaging in challenging activities and in depth
investigations can also be formulated at the high school level.
31

In summary, the positive comments reflect the benefits of gifted programs in
elementary schools and the negative comments show the deficiencies of gifted programs
in high schools. More importantly, gifted students’ performance is linked to teachers’
preferred methods of instruction; a relevant factor when assessing the impact of gifted
programs. An example of a negative influence: “Gifted actually failed to teach me about
hard work because the teachers would always just inflate our egos…”. An example of a
positive influence: “He benefited most from the leader who tapped into each child’s
individual special talents.”
Teachers that also demonstrate work ethic are the panacea for effective gifted
programs. A few respondents have expressed the need for work ethic: “The best
programs connected me to peers while encouraging a growth mindset and work ethic
which was difficult to cultivate in the typical classroom where all work was exceedingly
easy” or “. . . I wish I was better taught how to work hard in school. . .”
This study suggests that the effectiveness of gifted programs resides not only in
the implementation of specific curriculum that enhances project-based learning but
mostly lies in the hands of teachers and their methods of instruction that incorporate work
ethic. ​Further research should examine the relationship between teachers instructional
methods and their long-term impact on gifted programs.
Limitations
This study has a few limitations. The first one is the small sample size since it was
conducted in only two school districts. The lack of generalization and the lack of
responses of former gifted students compared to their parents can weaken the validity of
32

the results. Reaching special populations such as former gifted students is a difficult task
that most researchers have to face. The second limitation is the online survey tool.
Comments from the internet are generally strong and represent the extremes which can
skew the results. Also, former gifted students or parents that did not have access to the
internet or did not have social media accounts were excluded from this study. Voluntary
response bias is one of the shortcomings when conducting an online survey on a website
or on social media (Visser et. al, 2000).

33

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Key findings show that former gifted students or their parents are satisfied with
gifted programs even though they do not find them impactful. In the introduction, a
senator denounced the “little impact” that gifted programs have. Should this mean
dismantling any research or encouraging more? This study favors the latter since it
contributes to the literature by offering a new perspective of analysis and by highlighting
the influence of teachers and the need for work ethic in education.
Time is of the essence. The 19th century has seen the rise of an “intellectual
capital” and the 20th century has developed a “social capital” (Renzulli, 2012). This
thesis suggests that the 21st century should establish an ethical capital where hard work,
patience, perseverance, and teamwork are the essential tools in producing the game
changers of society. Asking relevant research questions is necessary when the goal is to
implement effective instructional methods and curricula. The main objective is not to
offer vague solutions but to dig deeper into the issue of effectiveness. Understanding a

34

problem in its entirety dissolves it, while proposing ambiguous answers tend to prolong it
(Krishnamurti, 2000). The true effectiveness of gifted programs can only be found in
accurate research questions. The following two take a step in that direction: “Which
specific curriculum in high schools has a positive or negative impact on the careers or
academic fields of former gifted students?” and “How much of an impact do teachers
have on gifted students when incorporating work ethic in their methods of instruction?”
Analyzing the hearts and minds of former gifted students is not enough without inquiring
into their spirits. Building a bridge between ethical and critical thinking would create a
new generation of gifted students.

35

APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL

36

APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM AND SURVEY

! " #
" $ #%&
% ' ()
!
! *
!
+)
% ! )
% ,
- ./(( ./((
./(( ./((
%
)
0


!

, %
% % ' *12(345(
*33/
!
67 8 9 :67;
, %
, % 67< %
*12(533(444= '








37





!"
!"

38

#

"$

% "
! "
&
'
( ) *

+' "$
,



#"

#

-"

+



. "

( ) *

.' "$
/

1

0

/


( ) *

-' " $
% "



/



0 "
( ) *

39

2 ' " " $
% "



/



0 "
( ) *

' " " " $
% " "

"

/"

"

0 " "
( ) *

3 ' " $
% "
/



( ) *

40

4 ! $
! " 5



& 6! " 6&" %
7 6% " 6,0
68 06& "
& 61 0
' 60
% 60 0
97" 69
: 7 6:
7 6!
( ) *

5 "" " "
$
5
5
5 "
5 "

( ) *

7 ; " " " " <
" " $
% " "
/"
0 " "
"
"

41

# 7 ""

"

42

$

+

"$

% "
! "
&
'
( ) *

. ' "$
,



#"

#

-"

+



. "

( ) *

- ' < "$
/

1

0

/


( ) *

2 ' "
$
% "



/



0 "
( ) *

43

' "
" $
% "



/



0 "
( ) *

3' " " " <
$
% " "

"

/"

"

0 " "
( ) *

4 ! $
! " 5



& 6! " 6&" %
7 6% " 6,0
68 06& "
& 61 0
' 60
% 60 0
97" 69
: 7 6:
7 6!
( ) *

44

5 "" "
<" $
5
5
5 "
5 "

( ) *

' " < $
% "
/



( ) *

# 7 ; " " "
" < " " $
% " "
/"
0 " "
"
"

+ 7 ""

"

45

$

APPENDIX C: QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

Questions #13 and #24 and 6 Extra comments:
Question #13: Gifted Students
1. If they are a challenging to a students course work then they can be beneficial. My
program seemed like a waste of time.
2. Gifted has pushed me to do harder in every area of my life and a family I couldn't
replace.
3. The middle school program was good and got us involved. Once I got to high school,
it felt pointless
Question #24: Parents
1. programs need full enrichment... not just activities- need a deeper engagement in
various subjects... not one-note teachers need to keep behavior expectations separate
from academic expectations-- not lump them together
2.
3. Too much emphasis is placed on the student with a IEP and not a GIEP. As teachers
we accommodate for an IEP but not GIEP enough.
4. The gifted program varied depending on who the leader was. He benefited most from
the leader who tapped into each child's individual special talents. Also, the info on
general life skills abilities such as being able to interact well with the general public was
a bonus for the exceptionally bright students as most were lacking in that area.
5. Daughters program was run in the library by the librarian (not gifted certified). And,
they pulled her out of math to attend. Useless...
6. If the student is exposed to a real gifted program that is taken seriously then I
suppose it could be of some use.
7. Gifted students were treated as "special" and were not held to the same standards of
life and responsibility as other students. I think the program should be dismantled.
8. My daughter found the program boring and stop attending after approximately 1 year
9 The gifted programs gave my children opportunities to explore subjects not covered in
regular classes.

46

10. I have no comment.
11. Gifted teacher was amazing!
12. My child's gifted program ended when she entered high school. She was also not
really interested in what they did in middle school. The program was not motivating
enough.
13. I think gifted programs can be a huge asset however not the one at DV. My
daughter should have been placed as gifted much earlier. It was a very haphazard once a
weekprogram. I don’t feel she got much out of it. Once she got to HS the program was
to basically advise he to take honors and AP classes which she would have done anyway
as a matter of course.
14. My son was in 3rd grade and I feel the biggest positive aspect he took away from
the gifted program is facing all fears and getting out of your comfort zone. That has
followed him all the days of his life.
15. Same as before
16. I am the parent of three gifted students. The elementary program was great. The
program in the middle school was truly wonderful for the older two. By the time the
youngest was in middle school it had moved to a complete independent study program
on any subject of the child’s choosing. In our experience, not helpful in any way.
17. The Gifted Program gave us leverage since it is a legal status, but its
implementation as perfunctory and CYA.
18. One is an Intelligence Office with the DOD, One is in Derivatives and one is a
Math/Economics major at USNA.
19. My son enjoyed participating in our school’s gifted program
20. The gifted program varied depending on who the leader was. He benefited most
from the leader who tapped into each child's individual special talent

Six Extra Comments:
1. Our teachers were very influential. And we study a broad range of topics to give a full
experience. Just wish they would have continued the program in high school.
2. I believe that my daughters' classroom teachers had more influence on her academic
and life successes

47

3. Gifted actually failed to teach me about hard work because the teachers would always
just inflate our egos and tell us we were naturally smart and never had to try yet as a
senior in high school I wish I was better taught how to work hard in school because the
teachers telling us we were naturally smart now make me not want to try or study in any
of my classes even though desired resulted now require hard work
4. I joined the gifted program in 8th grade and attended the meetings. Once I got into
high school I was still in gifted program but we never actually had programs to attend.
5. He was told he could do anything he wanted with his gifts and didn’t have to
follow the norm.
6. I was part of gifted programs in multiple states, and they varied considerably in their
scope & implementation. My best experience was a half day pull out program in
elementary school with an emphasis on project-based learning. “Enrichment” type
programs focused on special occasions like a one day observation at a career placement
or special events had no discernible impact for me. The best programs connected me to
peers while encouraging a growth mindset and work ethic which was difficult to
cultivate in the typical classroom where all work was exceedingly easy.

48

REFERENCES
Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Multipotentiality among the
intellectually gifted: "It was never there and already it’s vanishing."​Journal of
Counseling Psychology​ , ​43​ (1), 65–76. doi: 10.1037//0022-0167.43.1.65
Albrecht, K. (2006). Social Intelligence. ​Leadership Excellence​ , ​23​ (11), 17-18.
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015).
A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest
students. ​Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for
Gifted Education and Talent Development​ .
Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale to Hospital
Services: An Empirical Investigation. H
​ ealth services research​ , ​26​ (6), 767.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in Equity: How "Equity" Can Lead to
Inequity For High-Potential Students. P
​ sychology, Public Policy, and Law​ , ​2​ (2), 249.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). What Works in Character Education: A
Research-Driven Guide for Educators. W
​ ashington, DC: Character Education
Partnership​ .
Booij, A. S., Haan, F., & Plug, E. (2016). Enriching Students Pays Off: Evidence From
An Individualized Gifted and Talented Program in Secondary Education.
Bornstein, M. H., & Gardner, H. (1986). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. ​Journal of Aesthetic Education​ , ​20​ (2), 120. doi: 10.2307/3332707
Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (2001). The Emotionally Intelligence Workplace. ​How to
select for measure and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups and
organizations san Francisco: Jossey-Bass​ .
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. (2004). A Nation Deceived: How
Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students. The Templeton National Report on
Acceleration. Volume 2. ​Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for
Gifted Education and Talent Development (NJ1)​ .
Covey, S. R. (2013). ​The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness​ . Simon and
Schuster.

49

Davidson Institute Database. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2019, from
http://www.davidsongifted.org/search-database/entrytype/3.
Danielian, J. (2017, February 4). Teacher's Corner: What has Gifted Education ever
done for us? Retreived from
https://www.nagc.org/blogteachers-corner-what-has-gifted-education-ever-done-us
DeSilver, D. (2017, February 15). U.S. Academic Achievement Lags that of many
Other Countries. Retrieved October 16, 2019, from
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-mathscie nce/.
Dolnicar, S., Grün, B., & Leisch, F. (2016). Increasing Sample Size Compensates for
Data Problems in Segmentation Studies. J​ ournal of Business Research​ , ​69​ (2), 992-999.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2019, from
https://www.ed.gov/essa.
Galton, F. (1869). ​Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences​ (Vol.
27). Macmillan.
Gagné, F. (1995). From Giftedness to Talent: A Developmental Model and its Impact
on the Language of the Field. ​Roeper review​ , ​18​ (2), 103-111.
Gagné, F. (2011). Academic Talent Development and the Equity Issue in Gifted
Education. ​Talent Development & Excellence​ , ​3​ (1).
Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). g, Jobs and Life. ​The Scientific Study of General Intelligence​ ,
293–342. doi: 10.1016/b978-008043793-4/50053-2
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (2006). The Fullerton Longitudinal
Study: A long-Term Investigation of Intellectual and Motivational Giftedness. J​ ournal
for the Education of the Gifted​ , ​29​ (4), 430-450.
Grantham, T. C. (2012). Eminence-focused Gifted Education: Concerns about forward
movement void of an equity vision. ​Gifted Child Quarterly​ , ​56​ (4), 215-220.
Halsted, J. W. (2009). ​Some of my best friends are books: Guiding gifted readers from
preschool to high school​ (pp.50-52). Great Potential Press, Inc..

50

Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of Gifted Programs from the Students' Perspectives. ​
Gifted Child Quarterly​ , ​47​ (2), 131-143.
Irujo, S. (2004). Differentiated instruction: We Can No Longer Just Aim Down the
Middle. E
​ LL Outlook​ .
Izard, R. (2016). Counting the Cash Again. ​National Center for Education Statistics​ , ​39​
, 18.
Jaschik, Scott. “Eight Private High Schools in Washington Area Are Dropping out of
AP Program.” ​Eight Private High Schools in Washington Area Are Dropping out of AP
Program​ ,
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/06/19/eight-private-high-schoolswashington -area-are-dropping-out-ap-program.
Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, M. K. (2009). The Link Between Advanced Placement
Experience and Early College Success. ​Southern Economic Journal​ , 873-891​.
Lachlan-Haché, L., & Castro, M. (2015). Proficiency or Growth? An Exploration of
Two Approaches for Writing Student Learning Targets. ​American Institutes for
Research​ .
Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2018). School Finance Reform and
the Distribution of Student Achievement. ​American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics​ , ​10​ (2), 1-26.
Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The Impact of Accountability on Racial and
Socioeconomic Equity: Considering Both School Resources and Achievement
Outcomes. American educational research journal​ , ​41​ (4), 797-832.
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.
Lubinski, D. (2016). From Terman to today: A Century of Findings on Intellectual
Precocity. ​Review of Educational Research, 86​ (4), 900-944
Lunsford, K. J. (2017). Challenges to Implementing Differentiated Instruction in
Middle School Classrooms with Mixed Skill Levels.

51

McGuinness, Tara, et al. (2019). “The New Practice of Public Problem Solving (SSIR).”
Stanford Social Innovation Review: Informing and Inspiring Leaders of Social Change​,
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_new_practice_of_public_problem_solving.
McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., & Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). ​Differentiated Instruction
Provincial research Review​. Edmonton: Alberta Initiative for School Improvement.
Neihart, M. (2002). Risk and Resilience in Gifted Children: A Conceptual Framework.
The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know,​ 113-122.
Rahman, M. S. (2017). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language" Testing and Assessment" Research:
A Literature Review. ​Journal of Education and Learning​, ​6​(1), 102-112.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is There Still a Need for Gifted Education? An
Examination of Current Research. ​Learning and individual differences​, ​20​(4), 308-317.
Renzulli, J. S. (2003). The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness: Its Implications for
Understanding the Nature of Innovation. ​The International Handbook on Innovation​,
79–96. doi: 10.1016/b978-008044198-6/50007-3
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the Role of Gifted Education and Talent
Development for the 21st Century. ​Gifted Child Quarterly​, ​56​(3), 150–159. doi:
10.1177/0016986212444901
Robertson, S. G., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Taylor, N. (2011). Serving the Gifted: A National
Survey of School Psychologists. ​Psychology in the Schools​, ​48​(8), 786-799.
Spearman, C. (1904). "General Intelligence," Objectively Determined and Measured. ​The
American Journal of Psychology​, ​15​(2), 201–293. doi: 10.2307/1412107
Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and Socioeconomic Success: A Meta-Analytic Review of
Longitudinal Research. ​Intelligence​, ​35​(5), 401–426. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004
Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A Developmental View of Giftedness: From Being to Doing.
Roeper Review​, ​26​(1), 14-15.
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​(1), 3-54.

52

Surbhi, S. (n.d.). Know the Differences & Comparisons. Retrieved October 18, 2019,
from https://keydifferences.com/.
Terman, L. M. (1925). The Mental Growth of the Child; A Psychological Outline of
Normal Development from Birth to the Sixth Year, Including a System of Developmental
Diagnosis. ​Science​, ​61​(1582), 445–446. doi: 10.1126/science.61.1582.445-a
Tieso, C. (2005). The Effects of Grouping Practices and Curricular Adjustments on
Achievement. ​Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29​(1), 60–89.
US Department of Education (1993). National Excellence: A Case for Developing
America’s Talent. Washington, DC: Author.
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000). Survey research.
Warne, R. T., Lazo, M., Ramos, T., & Ritter, N. (2012). Statistical Methods Used in
Gifted Education Journals, 2006-2010. ​Gifted Child Quarterly​, ​56​(3), 134-149.
White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM Education and Why is it Important. ​Florida
Association of Teacher Educators Journal​, ​1​(14), 1-9.

53