When once the child has learned that four and two are six, a thousand repetitions will give him no new information, and it is a waste of time to keep him employed in that manner.
—J. M. Greenwood, Principals of Education Practically Applied, 1888
This is a quote we use in our district to introduce curriculum compacting to teachers who are new to working with gifted learners. There is so much truth in these words, yet two things really stand out to me as I read them. One, the singular pronoun use comes off as exclusive. After all, a thousand repetitions will give neither him nor her new information, but the second thing one should notice is the date that Greenwood wrote these words: 1888. So why are we using content written with somewhat restrictive word choice more than 100 years later? Simply put, because the message still needs to be heard. One of the biggest challenges that teachers face is having the responsibility of teaching so many varying levels of abilities in a single classroom. For gifted students to grow in their intellect, educators must differentiate content, process, and product options to ensure that students are thinking critically and applying problem-solving skills. Yet, research studies indicate that instructional adjustments are not often made for advanced learners (Moon et al., 1995; Reis et al., 2004; Westberg et al., 1993).
Vanderbilt University psychology professor David Lubinski pointed out that “intellectually talented kids ‘don’t [often] get the attention of policymakers’” (as cited in Chen, 2014, para. 2). He noted that these same kids have the potential to grow into future innovators and problem solvers. If educators continue to ignore the academic needs and promise of the nation’s most capable minds, they are impairing possible solutions for global issues, such as climate change, cures for medical conditions, increasing demands on our limited resources, and so much more. In an effort to combat stagnation among our brightest students, our district decided to learn more about how we could better serve our gifted and high-ability learners, particularly in our elementary schools.
How MaC-GT Came to Be
Our very large district in San Antonio does much more than required by law to support our advanced students; however, we believe in continuous improvement. In spring 2016, we sent surveys to every third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade gifted student and parent in hopes of learning how we could improve our G/T services. We had recently restructured our middle school G/T program to focus more on student choice and independent research. We felt like we had a strong elementary pull-out program, but we wanted to hear from our stakeholders. After reading through thousands of responses, one message stood out from the rest: Our G/T students (and their parents) wanted more G/T programming. Our survey results revealed that our students wanted more G/T because their pull-out program (which they attended just one half-day per week) was the one place they felt like they could be themselves. In their general education classrooms, students noted that they sometimes felt “weird” and/or “isolated.” Many reported that they did not feel like they were learning at their own level or being challenged academically in the general education setting, as they were often asked to complete lower level or basic assignments and to help others complete their work when they finished tasks quickly. Around this same time, the concept of “bright flight” was starting to take shape as more charter schools were opening in our area, some of them actually targeting our most capable students. As we watched our district resident numbers in charter schools trend upward, we knew it was time to do better for our advanced students.
In our quest for learning how best to meet the needs of gifted learners, we found that many experts in the field of gifted education are proponents of cluster grouping. Dr. Marcia Gentry (2014) defined cluster grouping as “the placement of several high-achieving, high-ability, or gifted students in a regular classroom with other students and a teacher who has received training (and)or has the desire to differentiate curriculum and instruction for these ‘target’ students” (p. 12). In addition to providing an academic network through which these students can collaborate on an intellectual level, perhaps even more important are the social connections made with like-minded peers. The value of these relationships should not be underestimated. Emma Seppala (2012) cited several studies indicating that social connection is vital to living a healthy life. Statistics show that lack of social connection is connected to anxiety and depression, and can be more detrimental to health than obesity, smoking, and high blood pressure (Seppala, 2012). Yet, when we collected class composition data for our district, we found we were dividing our gifted learners equally among all classes. Figure 1 was a typical class composition for our district in the 2016–2017 school year.
This model may have provided each class with academic leaders, but in many instances, it was not yielding the social networks that our gifted students needed in order to develop balanced and healthy lives and to have appropriate academic experiences. We discovered that the practice of trying to ensure that every teacher has at least one gifted learner in his or her class had been going on for a number of years. We realized that, although this may appear fair to teachers, this model may not have been in the best interest of our most important stakeholders, our students. Further, amid our research, we came across a study by Brulles et al., (2010). Although the study concluded that cluster grouping (which includes a teacher training component) is an effective way to meet the needs of gifted learners, it also noted that students who are gifted in the area of mathematics often do not reach their full potential when placed in heterogeneous classrooms. This is especially alarming considering that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects more than 5 million new STEM jobs by the year 2024, with a 2019 report showing growth particularly in mathematical science occupations (as cited in Baron, 2019, para. 7). According to Baron (2019), studies consistently indicate a mass shortage of professionals in STEM industries will occur without nurturing the potential of our most talented minds. As we continued to examine our programming models, we considered that once our students get to middle school, they are given options to pursue advanced math courses, naturally placing them among like-minded individuals, but these opportunities were not available at the elementary level. After analyzing the survey results and research on best practices to meet the needs of gifted students, the idea of Math and Clustering With GT students (MaC-GT) was born!
Cluster Class Composition
During the 2017–2018 school year, we piloted cluster grouping at five of our elementary campuses. We designed our own version of a model class composition chart based upon the work of Dina Brulles and Susan Winebrenner in The Cluster Grouping Handbook (2019). The key difference in our cluster model when compared to the class composition chart found in the handbook is that we include not only G/T students, but also high-ability math students not identified as gifted and talented in our MaC-GT classrooms. Essentially, we added a “high math” column to Brulles and Winebrenner’s existing chart. (See Figure 2).
Our cluster model aims to reduce the degree to which teachers are expected to differentiate instruction in order to meet the needs of every student. In our classrooms with more below- and far-below-average students, there are no gifted or high math students. Teachers are still expected to offer appropriately challenging tasks to high-average learners in the class, but the extent to which the variety of options a teacher must design is less than it would be if all ability levels were present. It is worth noting that research finds that new academic leaders tend to arise in classrooms when the highest ability students are removed (Gentry, 1999; Gentry & Owen, 1999). On the flip side, MaC-GT teachers are expected to provide challenging learning opportunities for our gifted and advanced math students. Although there are still students who will need extra support in these classrooms, there should not be students who require so much attention from the teacher that he or she never has the opportunity to design and offer higher level learning experiences for students who are able and ready for more.
Teacher Training Essentials
One of Gentry’s (2014) nonnegotiables for a successful cluster model is that the teachers must differentiate instruction for high-achieving students. Teacher training is an essential component of our MaC-GT model. We are fortunate that our district has supported the initiative to educate teachers not only in strategies that are likely to develop higher levels of critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills, but also in becoming familiar with the social-emotional needs commonly found among gifted individuals. First-year MaC-GT teachers attend 3 full days of training, while teachers in their second year of implementing this model attend 2 days of training. We also require that all MaC-GT teachers get the state-mandated 6 hours of Identification and Assessment of Gifted Learners and 6 hours of Needs and Nature of Gifted Learners, as outlined in the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (Texas Education Agency, 2019). Each of our sessions is designed to target instructional strategies that have proven to be best practices in gifted education, along with information regarding ways those strategies can be applied to math. We also ensure each training piece has a social-emotional component so that teachers are better equipped to handle some of the common issues that arise when working with gifted students.
Logistics of scheduling training sessions can be challenging as we move forward with implementing MaC-GT. We added eight MaC-GT campuses in the 2018–2019 school year, and 18 more in the 2019–2020 school year. All new MaC-GT teachers are encouraged to attend the initial training in the summer prior to their first day with their cluster grouped class. One of the modifications made in our training model as we have grown is to offer each session multiple times. In addition, we have added a training of trainers model for a few of the sessions. Campus G/T specialists and math leaders attend sessions with district trainers who review the content and provide materials and resources for the delivery that is intended to take place at each of their respective campuses. In addition to saving money on substitute teachers, each campus has the flexibility to design delivery options best suited for their faculty. In designing this training option, we were also mindful of the fact that our students are more likely to experience engaging, high-level instruction when their teachers are present, so we minimize the number of school days we pull teachers off campus for training. The final session for each of the first 2 years is held in a “live” format so we can come together to share our successes in a celebratory manner. We also try to periodically bring in trusted outside experts and leaders in the field of gifted education. Since the inception of MaC-GT, our teachers have had the opportunity to hear from Ian Byrd, Lisa Van Gemert, and Laurie Westphal. (Westphal is the author of Differentiating Instruction With Menus book series, one of the resources we use in our training sessions.)
District training facilitators include representatives from the G/T and math departments. These educators work together to design relevant and engaging content that yields higher order thinking and creative, productive tasks. Following the training sessions, these district professionals schedule campus visits with each MaC-GT campus. The goal of these visits is to show support for teachers who may be trying some of these strategies for the first time. We provide a list of what we are hoping to see in these classrooms, including higher order questioning and extended thought processing time, as well as documentation of implementation of G/T strategies through student work samples and resources being utilized and displayed around the classrooms and hallways. Conversations with students and teachers also elicit evidence as to the fidelity of our training practices being carried out in our MaC-GT classrooms.
The Data
It has been rewarding to observe our data as they support the research upon which we founded our MaC-GT model. We have observed evidence that cluster grouping works for gifted students. It is worth noting that although we are reporting gains in STAAR data, perhaps the most significant impact for these students is not their increased growth measures, but rather the social connections they are making and the evidence that their teachers are working to better understand the unique cognitive and social-emotional needs commonly found among our gifted population. In addition, we have found that this model offers benefits to all students in the MaC-GT classrooms, including those not identified as gifted. Further, we continue to examine student performance in other classes to ensure we are not sacrificing achievement of some students in order to advance those in our MaC-GT students. Thus far, the results support continued expansion of this model, and plans are underway for districtwide implementation at all 80 of our elementary schools over the next 3 years.
Figure 3 displays the performance of students at our MaC-GT campuses on the 2019 STAAR test. The graph compares STAAR testing performance of the same group of students in fourth grade (prior to clustering) to their STAAR testing performance in fifth grade (when they were placed in a cluster class). Note that prior to MaC-GT, 26% of our gifted students experienced limited growth on the fourth-grade STAAR test, compared to just 4% once the same kids were clustered in fifth grade. Further, the majority of them didn’t just attain expected growth, but accelerated growth.
Another data point that supports that we are advancing our most capable learners through the new cluster grouping model is the level of mastery among our gifted students (see Figure 4). Prior to clustering, just more than half (54%) scored at the master’s level on the fourth-grade STAAR test, as compared to 83% in fifth grade after being in a MaC-GT classroom, a 29% increase in the number of students achieving at the master’s level. Although it is generally common for fifth-grade students to score higher on the STAAR test than they did as fourth graders, when we compared our MaC-GT campus scores to comparable campuses (based on demographics, including socioeconomic populations), cluster grouped campuses outperformed their counterparts at non-cluster grouped campuses by 8%.
It has been especially exciting to see that all students in our MaC-GT classrooms are making gains, including those not identified as gifted. Figure 5 shows the mastery level of this group of students. Although 22% more students achieved master’s level after being clustered, we only have to look at comparable campus data to truly recognize how impactful that is, as only 9% more of students at an equivalent non-cluster grouped campus reached that same mastery level.
These scores indicate significant gains on the accelerated growth measure (see Figure 6). This same group of students went from 18% achieving accelerated growth on the fourth-grade STAAR test to 46% on the fifth-grade STAAR test. In other words, 28% more students attained accelerated growth following a year in a MaC-GT classroom. Once again, that is especially impressive when we look at the 11% increase at comparable campuses.
In conclusion, our data support that MaC-GT program is working for all kids. Although I did not share graphs from our non-MaC-GT classes, the results show growth in those classes as well. We encourage our cluster teachers to take what they learn at our district training sessions back to their respective campuses and to share the strategies and resources with their team members. In that way, we feel that instruction is lifted for all of our students. We are a large district, and we continue to face challenges as we move forward to bring MaC-GT to all of our elementary campuses. However, we believe we are doing what is best for all kids. We are grateful to be part of a district that will not accept our most capable students sitting idly waiting for others to catch up. We are proud to be taking big steps to offer engaging, challenging learning experiences that maximize the learning potential of our gifted students and others as well. We are confident that we are empowering future problem solvers who are sure to be true gamechangers in making our world safer, healthier, and even more innovative than the one we know today.
References
Baron, K. (2019). Serving the math whiz kids. Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/serving-math-whiz-kids-private-enrichment-programs-step-up-meet-need
Brulles, D., Saunders, R., & Cohn, S. J. (2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(2), 327–350.
Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2019). The cluster grouping handbook: How to challenge gifted students and improve achievement for all (Rev. ed.). Free Spirit.
Chen, I. (2014). By not challenging gifted kids, what do we risk losing? MindShift. https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/35054/what-do-we-risk-losing-by-not-challenging-gifted-kids
Gentry, M. (1999). Promoting student achievement and exemplary classroom practices through cluster grouping: A research-based alternative to heterogeneous elementary classrooms (RM 99138). University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Gentry, M. (with K. A. Paul, J. McIntosh, C. M. Fugate, & E. Jen). (2014). Total school cluster grouping and differentiation: A comprehensive, research-based plan for raising student achievement and improving teacher practices (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.
Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(4), 224–243.
Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers (RM 95124). University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Briggs, C. J., Schreiber, F. J., Richards, S., Jacobs, J. K., Eckert, R., Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 315–338.
Seppala, E. (2012). Connect to thrive: Social connection improves health, well-being & longevity [Web log post]. https://emmaseppala.com/connect-to-thrive-social-connection-improves-health-well-being-longevity
Texas Education Agency. (2019). Texas state plan for the education of gifted/talented students. https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Approved%20Final%20Draft%20of%20Texas%20State%20Plan%202019.pdf
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 120–146.
Kimberly Stewart has worked in gifted education for more than 20 years. She was an elementary G/T specialist for 18 years and has served her district in the role of instructional support for gifted programs at all levels since 2015. Her primary tasks include supporting district G/T specialists in program implementation, as well as leading professional development on an array of topics pertaining to gifted education.
