Texas GT Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Survey: Supporting Advocacy Efforts

Although Texas mandates services for gifted students in kindergarten through grade 12, minorities and students from low-income backgrounds continue to be underrepresented in programs, resulting in declining performance among high achievers and greater disparities among groups of gifted students (Johnsen, 2015). Unfortunately, these results in the state of Texas mirror those at the national level. At the national level, high-ability students from lower income backgrounds are much less likely to achieve academic excellence than their peers from more affluent backgrounds (i.e., excellence gaps; Plucker, Giancola, Healey, Arndt, & Wang, 2015). Even more distressing is that students in the top 10th percentile have not shown progress over the last decade (Loveless, Farkas, & Duffett, 2008).

National research studies suggest these possible influences on the lack of progress of gifted and talented (GT) students: high-stakes testing, tightly aligned curriculum, an absence of accountability for gifted education programs, scarce resources, teacher beliefs and a limited understanding of gifted students, and misaligned program services for gifted and talented students (Callahan, Moon, & Oh, 2014; Education Trust, 2013; Gentry, 2006; Missett, Brunner, Callahan, Moon, & Azano, 2014; Moon, 2009; Moon & Brighton, 2008; Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010; Plucker, Hardesty, & Burroughs, 2013; Rakow, 2008; Siegle, Wilson, & Little, 2013; Xiang, Dahlin, Cronin, Theaker, & Durant, 2011). For example, in 1993, national funding allocated to developing gifted students was insignificant; only 2 cents out of every $100 spent on education was directed to supporting gifted education. In 2007, this amount slightly increased to 3 cents for every $100 spent on education (Callahan et al., 2014). Because of this minimal funding and these excellence gaps, researchers suggest that all teachers—gifted and general education—need to use best practices when developing the talents of gifted students. If students are not challenged, they do not develop, and more importantly, they do not learn to develop a work ethic (Reis, 2014).

To examine gifted education practices in Texas, the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented, in collaboration with Baylor University, conducted an online survey to identify teacher beliefs about gifted education, current gifted education practices, factors that influence practices, and possible student learning outcomes. Results from the survey will be used to (a) improve services to gifted and talented students, (b) plan future professional development opportunities, (c) organize advocacy efforts, and (d) identify state policies and future educational goals in Texas.

Research Background

To develop the survey, we examined research related to best practices, teacher beliefs, obstacles to implementing best practices, and student outcomes.

Best Practices

The classroom practices were selected from the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2010) Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards and the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (TEA, 2009). These practices are evidence-based and grounded in theory, research, and practice paradigms (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2010) and were used as the basis for the teacher belief statements (see Table 1).

Service delivery models and grouping. The Texas State Plan (TEA, 2009) requires an array of challenging learning experiences (3.1C) where GT students are ensured opportunities to work together as a group (2.2C). Although grouping and specialized courses are important for gifted students’ progress, the curriculum and instruction need to be tailored to the individual student for the greatest effects (Kulik & Kulik, 1982). One of the most prevalent myths is that gifted students are a homogeneous group with the same learning needs (Callahan et al., 2014; Reis & Renzulli, 2009). This is simply not the case. “Educational equity does not mean educational sameness. Equity respects individual differences in readiness to learn and recognizes the value of each student” because “the cornerstone of education is the flexibility to recognize the needs of the individual child” (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004, pp. 2, 9). According to the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG) and the National Association for Gifted Children’s (2013) national report, the most frequently cited elementary school gifted programming model includes homogeneously grouped gifted students (64%) and weekly 1- to 4-hour pullout programs (52%). Advanced Placement (AP) was the principal model for 91% of high school respondents. Although it is unclear from the CSDPG and NAGC report the specific number of Texas school districts that use a particular delivery model, Texas reported using the general education classroom followed by cluster classroom model at the elementary level and AP classes followed by International Baccalaureate at the secondary level (CSDPG & NAGC, 2013, p. 184).

Assessment. Another best practice for both gifted and general education teachers is the use of formative, ongoing, and summative assessments of student performance (Johnsen, 2014). Assessing students provides the information needed to personalize the curriculum for the student and identify areas of interest. Above-level tests and nontraditional measures such as performances and products are also necessary to identify the gaps in knowledge and skills of gifted students (Johnsen, 2014). For example, the Texas State Plan (2009) encourages the use of the Texas Performance Standards Project (3.2C) for evaluating students’ independent research projects. Teachers should use assessment data to determine student readiness for coursework, forming flexible groups, and curriculum differentiation (Kaplan, 2014; Moon, 2009).

Differentiation. Johnsen (2014) identified these research-based differentiation practices:

• accelerating students within the classroom and across grade levels,
• pacing according to individual rates of learning,
• integrating creativity through open-ended activities,
• adding depth and complexity to lessons,
• formulating interdisciplinary connections,
• identifying themes and broad-based concepts,
• using higher order questions,
• assigning student research in areas of interest, and
• participating in extracurricular mentorships, competitions, online courses, and Saturday and summer programs.

NAGC has developed national resources with examples for differentiating math, science, and English language arts curriculum for gifted and talented students (Adams, Cotabish, & Ricci, 2014; Hughes-Lynch, Kettler, Shaunessy-Dedrick, & VanTassel-Baska, 2014; Johnsen, Ryser, & Assouline, 2014; Johnsen & Sheffield, 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2013).

Acceleration. Acceleration is defined as an instructional intervention based on “progress through an educational program at rates faster or at ages younger than conventional” (Pressey, 1949, p. 2). Colangelo et al. (2004) presented a comprehensive review of acceleration in their classic publication, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students, and its most recent publication, A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back American’s Brightest Students (Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2015). These reports identified 18 types of acceleration, including continuous progress, self-paced instruction, early entrance to school, curriculum compacting, AP, and grade skipping (Southern & Jones, 2004). Meta-analytic studies have been conducted (Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1992) showing acceleration’s positive effects on gifted and talented students’ achievement and attitudes toward school.
Collaboration with others. Mentoring has been shown as critical to gifted students’ affective, social, and career development (Casey, 2000). In their review of the literature, Pleiss and Feldhusen (1995) suggested that mentoring experiences should begin early and be carried on throughout the school years. As students mature, the duration of the mentoring experience should lengthen. Mentoring relationships should be “structured to include both exposure to the knowledge base and operations in the field and opportunities to examine and experience the attitudes, values, work styles, and motivation of the mentor” (Pleiss & Feldhusen, 1995, p. 167). Mentors appear to be particularly critical for students who are underachievers regardless of age, environment, and socioeconomic background (Hébert & Olenchak, 2000).

Parents also play a crucial role in the development of their child’s gifts and talents (Bloom, 1985). Gifts and talents are usually recognized, developed, and supported by collaboration among teachers, parents, and mentors (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011). Knowledgeable parents can advocate for their child at school, find the best teachers and coaches to develop their child’s talents, establish a culture of thinking in their home, and mediate the transformation of competencies into expertise (Jeffrey, 2007; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). Therefore, it is essential that teachers communicate with families regarding their gifted child’s strengths and needs.

Teacher Beliefs

Even if teachers are aware of researched-based practices in gifted education, they may not incorporate them into their daily classroom routines. One reason for this lack of implementation might be the incongruence between professional presuppositions/beliefs and the teaching strategy. Teachers begin their teaching career with preconceived beliefs based on observation, personal experience, and field experience (Goree, 2011). These beliefs result, at least in part, from “observing people who taught them and using this information to draw inferences about what good teaching looks like and what makes it work” (Hammerness et al., 2005, p. 367). However, exploring the beliefs of a teacher is essential because “unexplored entering beliefs may be responsible for the perpetuation of antiquated and ineffective teaching practices” (Pajares, 1992, p. 328) or serious misconceptions about instruction (Hammerness et al., 2005).

Barriers

Teachers may also not implement researched-based practices because of a variety of barriers that relate to personal, school, administrative, and/or district challenges.

Lack of confidence. One personal barrier to implementation of best practice strategies is a lack of confidence related to one’s skills for a particular task. Bandura (1986) referred to one’s belief regarding his or her ability to execute a task as self-efficacy, and he argued that this belief is the most significant predictor of behavior. If this is accurate, then teachers’ instructional choices may be related to their confidence in executing that task (Pajares, 1992).

Teacher knowledge and skills. Another personal barrier may be that gifted education teachers are not aware of the characteristics, needs, and research-based instructional best practices. CSDPG and NAGC (2013) reported that a majority of general education teachers had not received any gifted education training as part of their undergraduate program or professional development. Texas law does not require that gifted education be included in teacher preparation programs and requires only 30 clock hours of training for teachers to be qualified to provide instruction to gifted learners, which is less time than one college course (Johnsen, 2014). This time may not be sufficient to learn the practices needed to manage a more individualized classroom and to differentiate the curriculum.

Resources. To be able to implement differentiated practices, teachers need resources—above-level curriculum, pre/post and ongoing assessments, student record systems, enrichment materials, and materials that can be used independently (e.g., self-correcting and self-directing). Oftentimes, teachers have only the curriculum for their grade level or course and do not have a bank of curricular resources that they might use to personalize their instruction for individual gifted and talented students. They also need human resources—support from individuals who are knowledgeable about gifted education and can model research-based strategies. In addition, they need time to adapt and modify the available resources for each student.

Administrator support. Leadership is critical to the implementation of gifted education programs and services (Hertberg-Davis & Brighton, 2006). The principal needs not only to have the knowledge and skills about gifted education and its importance but also to provide time, support, and human and material resources so that the teacher can implement best practices.
District curriculum and policies. Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, and Pierce (2009) found that teachers may not differentiate because not using mandated curriculum might result in lower student test scores. Some schools require that each grade level or course use the same curriculum with stringent pacing guides and monitoring. These policies limit the ability of the teacher to provide for students who may have needs for above-level curriculum and faster pacing.

Student Outcomes

Student outcomes were identified for each of the NAGC programming standards (2010): learning and development, assessment, curriculum planning, gifted programming, and professional development (Johnsen, 2012). These outcomes were identified from research-based, practice-based, or literature-based studies (CEC, 2010) and used on the TAGT/Baylor survey (see Table 2).

All of this background literature (i.e., best practices, teacher beliefs, obstacles, and student outcomes) was used in the design of the research method and survey and in interpreting the results.

Method

This research examined teachers’ beliefs regarding the efficacy of instructional practices such as ability grouping, use of assessments, curriculum differentiation, acceleration, and collaboration with others. Specifically, the research questions were:

• What percentage of teachers of gifted students believe in research-based gifted education practices?
• How often do teachers of gifted students implement these research-based gifted education practices? If implemented, what are perceived student outcomes for each practice? If not implemented, what are the educator-perceived barriers to implementation?

Instrument

The survey examined whether or not teachers believed in the efficacy of specific practices with gifted students and the extent to which these practices were implemented in their classrooms. If teachers indicated a frequent use of each practice, then they were asked to indicate perceived student outcomes resulting from this practice. If they indicated a belief in the practice but did not frequently apply the practice, they indicated barriers to implementation (see Figure 1). Prior to implementation, the survey was reviewed by TAGT staff and piloted by 15 educators serving gifted students.

Procedure

After receiving permission from Baylor’s Institutional Review Board, TAGT sent an e-mail to present and past members with an invitation to participate in an online survey in September 2015. TAGT also included information about the survey in their September and October monthly newsletters. In addition, gifted education coordinators were sent an invitation that they could forward to teachers in their district. The survey was included as a link in the e-mail. Participants had an option of responding or not responding to each of the questions on the survey. An additional reminder was sent in October 2015. The survey was closed on November 20, 2015.

Respondent Characteristics

More than 500 educators of gifted children provided responses from public schools (98%) and private schools (2%). Almost three quarters (74%) of respondents had been teaching for more than 10 years, and (49%) had more than 10 years teaching gifted students. Only 18% reported fewer than 3 years experience teaching gifted children. A majority of respondents (71%) provided instruction to elementary-aged children. Gifted program models included pullout (47%), gifted-only classes (33%), general education (33%), pre-AP or AP courses (17%), and cluster classrooms (16%). Forty percent of teachers indicated that less than 15% of their classroom was comprised of gifted students; 43% had classrooms comprised of 76% or more gifted students. Overall, most of the responding teachers (86%) had, at a minimum, obtained their 30 clock hours in gifted education, and 80% of teachers indicated they had earned their annual update. Over 37% had obtained gifted supplemental certification on their Texas teaching certificate. Almost half had taken courses in gifted education; 28% had at least one graduate-level course in gifted education, and 13% held a master’s degree with a specialization in gifted education.

Results

The results were organized around educator beliefs about practices, implementation of practices, barriers, and student outcomes.

Beliefs About Practices

In examining the responses to the online TAGT/Baylor survey, 90% or more of the respondents believed in these practices:

• working and communicating with parents (99%),
• deeper and more complex curriculum (99%),
• ability grouping (98%),
• creating products matched to interests and abilities (98%),
• flexible pacing (98%),
• above-level work (97%),
• above-grade-level content based on progress (97%),
• independent research projects geared to interest (96%),
• mentoring or tutoring in talent area (95%), and
• different learning experiences than typical students (91%).

Although they still strongly believed in the following practices, respondents’ support was somewhat less for these practices compared to the previous 10 practices: rubrics to assess products and performances (89%), above-level assessments (87%), and placement in higher grade levels within area of talent (84%).

Implementation of Practices

The implementation of the practices did not necessarily follow the beliefs in the practices (see Table 3). For example, although 95% of the respondents believed in mentoring or tutoring, 70% rarely or never implemented the practice. Similarly, almost two thirds of the respondents rarely or never placed students in higher grade levels based on their talent area although 84% believed in the practice. More surprisingly was that almost one third or less never or rarely implemented above-level assessment (40%), worked with parents (36%), allowed students to conduct independent research (33%), or accelerated into above-level content (29%).

On the other hand, 78% of respondents implemented ability grouping, and 71% provided deeper and more complex curriculum on a weekly basis. Other practices that the majority of the respondents implemented weekly included different learning experiences (65%), above-level work (65%), and flexible pacing (52%).

Benefits of Implementation

For each of the practices that respondents implemented, they were able to identify how the practices benefited the students from an array of choices that included both academic and social-emotional benefits.

In the social-emotional area, listed benefits included developing leadership skills, strengthening peer relationships, learning persistence in solving problems, becoming more confident in their abilities, increasing interest or passion, learning how to access resources, becoming more aware of strengths and needs through self-assessment, providing clear feedback to peers, strengthening a relationship with the mentor, and advocating for themselves.

Academic benefits included scoring higher on benchmark, STAAR, or posttests versus pretests; learning new knowledge; performing better on the TPSP product; developing a clear understanding of the components of the project; becoming more engaged in learning or in independent research; demonstrating higher level thinking or asking higher level questions; creating products of a higher quality; covering curriculum at a faster pace or advancing to above-level content; covering the subject with more depth and complexity; participating in competitive events; experiencing more learning activities in their area of interest; and sharing their progress with their parents/guardians. Besides the menu of alternatives, respondents were also able to add their own benefits. Respondents made 157 comments and added these additional benefits for these specific practices:

• Ability grouping: Gifted students developed confidence, compassion, group belonging, social skills, and enjoyment of learning; felt respected; and developed emotionally.
• Above-level assessment: Gifted students gained confidence; became aware of their own abilities and potential; took ownership of their learning; and were able to move beyond grade-level material.
• Above-level work: Gifted students became more inquisitive and collaborative in problem-solving approaches; developed enjoyment of learning and a growth mindset; learned patience in pursuing harder work; gained a sense of empowerment; increased scholarly behaviors; and increased performance on AP and STAAR tests.
• Accelerate in above-level content: Gifted students “loved” school; were happier learning at own rate; and had higher motivation and fewer behavior problems.
• Accelerate in higher grade levels by subject: Gifted students had more opportunities for challenge, and became more self-confident.
• Depth and complexity: Gifted students had opportunities to “dig into topics” both inside and outside of school; were engaged in richer educational experiences; made connections in other subjects; improved writing and AP scores; increased self-esteem; learned how to think outside the box; and embraced a growth mindset.
• Different experiences than peers: Gifted students believed that they could achieve and became more comfortable with the gifted label; developed more creative projects and technology skills; and increased global perspectives.
• Flexible pacing: Gifted students increased motivation and research skills and were more content so were less distracting to others
• Independent research: Gifted students developed enjoyment of learning, maturity, self-awareness, and time management and increased presentation and technology skills.
• Mentoring: Gifted students became more self-aware and collaborative; developed relationships with mentors; and acquired new skills not taught in school.
• Product or performance matched to interest: Gifted students improved creativity; enjoyed learning and sharing their work with peers and family; had a higher level of satisfaction; improved their sense of well-being; and increased confidence and willingness to take risks.
• Rubrics: Use of rubrics created clear expectations for students and parents; involved students in developing outcomes; increased student autonomy, reflection, and reduced anxiety; and encouraged more creativity.
• Work and collaborate with parents: Parents knew their gifted child’s abilities and needs better and were able to support their child’s needs inside and outside of school.

Barriers to Implementation

If respondents did not implement a practice but believed in it, they were also able to add comments regarding barriers to implementation. Teachers identified barriers that might have prevented their implementing a practice from an array of factors such as confidence in my ability; resources; nonsupport by the teachers at my campus or campus administrators; district policy and practices; or the district curriculum. Besides this set, respondents were also able to add their own barriers. Teachers authored 321 comments, almost twice as many as had been made regarding additional results. Two practices alone, independent research (n = 62) and acceleration of grade by subject (n = 55), accounted for more than 36% of the comments.

Their comments are summarized below:

• Ability grouping: Too few gifted students were identified or recognized as gifted; teacher’s class was too heterogeneous; (used heterogeneous grouping because) teacher needed GT to guide the weaker students.
• Above-level assessments: Gifted program did not use assessments because not required or too little time in gifted program; teacher needed time for students to create instead of assessing; teacher needed to slow down to make sure students did well on STAAR test; and team teachers didn’t allow.
• Above-level work: Teacher needed time to prepare above-level materials; enrichment was provided in GT program only.
• Accelerate in above-level content: Teachers needed time to develop above-level materials, limited time in GT program didn’t allow acceleration, school did not support practice, students not motivated, and parents needed to provide transportation to another school.
• Accelerate in higher grade levels: School system did not support or it just does not happen, acceleration is limited because of scheduling of classes, grade was at the highest level in the school and the school was not close to secondary schools, parents needed to provide transportation, students needed to test out of all content to be accelerated, gifted students needed to graded similarly to other students, and no students needed this acceleration and if they did, it would be provided in the GT program.
• Depth and complexity: Too many students were in the classroom, classroom was too heterogeneous, teacher needed time to develop assignments, and students needed more knowledge of the domain.
• Different experiences than peers: Teacher needed resources and time, district needed personnel, too costly for the district, teacher had no knowledge, and no incentives to teacher.
• Flexible pacing: Teacher needed resources and time, teacher needed to prepare for tests, school schedule and/or a set curriculum didn’t allow, teacher needed to work with other students more than GT, and GT were not self-motivated to work at own pace.
• Independent research: Teacher did not have enough time to implement because too much curriculum to cover in the general or GT program, GT teacher had too little time for independent research in GT program, independent research was only required once or twice a year or once for each 6-week period, teacher did not have resources—limited technology or personnel, students do not ask for independent research, and independent research is not appropriate for age group.
• Mentoring: The program is not available, limited time with the students, teacher needed time to establish relationships with mentors, teacher viewed it as more beneficial at the secondary than the elementary level, mentoring might be provided by GT program or parents, and struggling students receive tutoring.
• Products or performance matched to interest: Time in GT program was too limited to develop products or performances, curriculum requirements or preparation for AP testing limited products or performance, products and performances were only in the GT program, and students were not successful with challenge.
• Rubrics: Did not have time to create rubric; rubrics were used for bigger projects only; not enough time in GT program to use rubrics; rubrics did not apply to the lesson, the domain, or AP class; rubric was too leading or limited creativity; only grades were used; and rubric created pressure for another grade.
• Work and collaborate with parents: Teacher needed to help struggling students or needed time to develop relationships with parents, students were working on independence, and parents work or do not care.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of this survey indicate strong positive beliefs among Texas practitioners in gifted education about each of the 13 evidence-based practices. Although at least 84% believed in each of the practices, a smaller percentage were involved in implementing them. Implementation of practices weekly ranged from a high of 78% for ability grouping to a low of 15% for mentoring. More than one third of the respondents never or rarely used these five practices: mentoring, placement in higher grades, above-level assessments, working with parents, and independent research. From the provided options, the most frequently chosen barriers across all of the practices were lack of resources and district curriculum. The reoccurring themes cited under the qualitative section were time, followed by human and material resources, standardized curriculum, and limited system support at the campus and/or district levels. Some comments also indicated a lack of understanding of the practice itself or a misinterpretation of the belief (e.g., “I usually try to have one of them as a guide for my weaker student groups”; “I am a self-contained GT pullout so do not have assessments to administer”; “A rubric implies structure and guidelines—opposite traits of creativity”; “independent research is allowed after we’re assured they are exceeding the basic curriculum”; “all my students are GT” so they do the same activities).

Given these results of the TAGT/Baylor survey, we would like to make the following recommendations: (a) improvement in services to gifted and talented students, (b) future professional development with school districts and at the TAGT conferences, (c) advocacy efforts, and (d) state policies and future educational goals in Texas.

Improvement of Services

Time is needed for services to gifted and talented students. Not only is more time needed for services specifically designed to meet the needs of gifted and talented students but these services also need to be delivered in general education classes. From the survey, it appears that within most elementary general education classrooms, students receive the same curriculum and only receive specialized curriculum in the GT program, which meets once a week.

Personalized services for gifted and talented students. These services need to be tailored to the talents and abilities of each gifted student—not a general program for all students identified as gifted. As an example, one of the respondents mentioned that the GT program had required units to study, which left little time for independent research based on student interest.

Acceleration. Acceleration, which is widely supported by empirical research over the past 30 years, is implemented by fewer than half of the respondents. Schools need to examine their acceleration practices so that students can accelerate in a domain related to their talent area either within the classroom or across grade levels. Services need to be comprehensive and continuous spanning all K–12 grades.

Flexible curriculum. Curriculum in schools need to be used as frameworks or guides so that teachers are able to modify the content and pace for gifted and advanced learners. Related to acceleration, teachers need to have the freedom to create learning progressions for gifted students, which may be different from general education students.

Resources. Alternative assessments that are above level and have sufficient ceiling need to be provided to teachers so that they are able to determine what a gifted student knows and does not know within a domain. Rubrics also need to be developed to assess products and performances beyond those provided by the TPSP. Above-level materials, technology, and other material resources need to be provided to teachers to assist in differentiating the curriculum in general and gifted education classrooms.
Array of services. Schools need to develop an array of services for gifted and advanced students from curricular adaptations in the general education classroom to pullout programs based on students’ talents, specialized curriculum in AP and other advanced classes, dual credit and university classes, extracurricular activities, competitions, and mentorships.

Research. Research needs to be conducted on effects of different practices that tend to support or inhibit gifted and talented programs (e.g., amount of time spent in gifted program services, research embedded in the basic curriculum, differentiated curriculum using specific strategies such as depth and complexity, differentiated assessments, use of rubrics, implementation of TPSP, acceleration).

Professional Development

Design and/or use of assessments and rubrics. Practitioners need to learn how to design differentiated assessments for GT and other students in their classroom. These assessments can then be used as preassessments, within the teaching/learning process, and/or summatively to determine the effectiveness of instruction. Some professional development needs to focus on the differences between forms of assessments and grades.

Managing different groups and individual students in the classroom. Practitioners need to learn how to manage large and small groups and individual gifted students in homogeneous and heterogeneous settings.
Adapting and modifying learning experiences. Professional development is needed to show teachers at all grade levels how to embed research within the basic curriculum and allow advanced students to pursue their interests. Teachers also need to learn how to teach and guide students during the research process.

Partnerships in professional development. TAGT, schools, and universities need to partner in offering quality, research-based professional development in gifted education for teachers, administrators, and parents.

Advocacy

Programs and services. Stakeholders need to advocate for an array of programs and differentiated services for gifted and advanced students.

Educators’ professional development. Teachers who teach gifted and talented students need to meet state requirements and receive ongoing professional development from individuals who have knowledge and skills in gifted education. They need to receive support and resources from their school districts in order to implement quality programs. Administrators need to also meet state requirements and be aware of the effectiveness of acceleration practices.

Assessments. Assessments need to be differentiated for gifted students and data disaggregated to determine if gifted and talented students are showing growth commensurate with their abilities.

Policies

Assessment. Encourage policymakers to examine the effects of standardized assessments on gifted and talented students and create an accountability system that challenges all students. This will require the disaggregation of data related to those students identified as gifted and talented.

Resources. Encourage policymakers to invest more human and material resources in programs and services for gifted and talented students from PK–16.

Incentives. Provide incentives for schools that have more students performing at the highest levels of achievement instead of capping financial support to the top 5%.

Teacher preparation. Encourage policymakers to revisit the minimum requirements for teacher preparation in gifted education and make these requirements commensurate with those in other special education fields.

We hope that the results from the survey and these recommendations will provide opportunities for discussion among stakeholders in gifted education and initiate more advocacy efforts on behalf of gifted education teachers, administrators, gifted and talented students, and their parents.

References

Adams, C. M., Cotabish, A., & Ricci, M. C. (2014). Using the Next Generation Science Standards with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

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

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bloom, B. J. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Casey, K. M. A. (2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227–231.

Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2014). National surveys of gifted programs: Executive summary 2014. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Curry School of Education, National Research Center on the gifted and Talented. Retrieved from http://nagc.org.442elmp01.blackmesh.com/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014%20Survey%20of%20GT%20programs%20Exec%20Summ.pdf

Council for Exceptional Children. (2010). Validation study resource manual. Arlington, VA: Author.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/nd_v1.pdf

Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, & National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). 2012–2013 State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Education Trust. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling of achievement for low income students and students of color. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/dc/resources/publications?page=1

Gentry, M. (2006). No Child Left Behind: Neglecting excellence. Roeper Review, 29, 24–27.

Goree, K. K. (2011). An exploratory study of the factors that influence pre-service teachers’ instructional practices with diverse students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baylor University, Waco, TX.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hébert, T. P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2000). Mentors for gifted underachieving males: Developing potential and realizing promise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 196–207.

Hertberg-Davis, H. L., & Brighton, C. M. (2006). Support and sabotage: Principal’s influence on middle school teachers’ responses to differentiation. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 90–102.

Hughes-Lynch, C. E., Kettler, T., Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2014). A teacher’s guide to using the Common Core State Standards with gifted and advanced learners in the English Language Arts. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Jeffrey, T. (2007). Creating a culture of thinking and dialogue at home. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 21–25. doi:10.4219/gct-2007-487

Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.). (2012). NAGC pre-K–Grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Johnsen, S. K. (2014). Focusing on challenges that influence gifted education programs. Tempo, 35(2), 6–15.

Johnsen, S. K. (2015, April). Focusing on challenges that influence gifted education programs. Keynote presentation at the annual leadership meeting of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented, Austin, TX.

Johnsen, S. K., Ryser, G. R., & Assouline, S. (2014). The practitioner’s guide for using the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Johnsen, S. K., & Sheffield, L. J. (Eds.). (2013). Using the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Kaplan, S. N. (2014). Emphasizing the uncommon about the common core state standards. Gifted Child Today, 37, 126–127.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415–428.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.

Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31, 27–39.

Loveless, T., Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Azano, A. P. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 245–268.

Moon, T. R. (2009). Myth 16: High-stakes tests are synonymous with rigor and difficulty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 277–279.

Moon, T. R., & Brighton, C. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447–480.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC pre-K–grade 12 gifted programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC: Author.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Pleiss, M. K., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Mentors, role models, and heroes in the lives of gifted children. Educational Psychologist, 30, 159–169.

Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010, February). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Bloomington: Indiana University, School of Education, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.

Plucker, J., Giancola, J., Healey, G., Arndt, D., & Wang, C. (2015). Equal talents, unequal opportunities. Washington, DC: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.

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

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems (Ohio State University Studies, Bureau of Educational Research Monograph No. 31). Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.

Rakow, S. R. (2008). Standards-based vs. standards-embedded curriculum: Not just semantics! Gifted Child Today, 31(1) 43–49.

Reis, S. M. (2014). Major turning points in gifted education in the 20th century. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/general/faculty/reis/Major_Turning_Points.html

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 233–235.

Siegle, D., Wilson, H. E., & Little, C. A. (2013). A sample of gifted and talented educators’ attitudes about academic acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24, 27–51.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Volume II, pp. 5–17). Iowa City: University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/nd_v1.pdf

Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 343–357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

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, 3–54.

Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas state plan for the education of gifted and talented students. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6420

VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (2013). Using the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Xiang, Y., Dahlin, M., Cronin, J., Theaker, R., & Durant, S. (2011, September). Do high flyers maintain their altitude? Performance trends of top students. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://edexcellence.net/publications/high-flyers.html

Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University in Waco, TX, where she directed the Ph.D. program and programs related to gifted and talented education. She is editor of Gifted Child Today and coauthor of Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide and more than 250 articles, monographs, technical reports, and other books related to gifted education. She has written three tests used in identifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4) and Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary and Middle School Students (SAGES-2). She is past president of The Association for the Gifted (TAG) and past president of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT). She has received awards for her work in the field of education, including NAGC’s President’s Award, CEC’s Leadership Award, TAG’s Leadership Award, TAGT’s President’s Award, TAGT’s Advocacy Award, and Baylor University’s Investigator Award, Teaching Award, and Contributions to the Academic Community. She may be reached at Department of Educational Psychology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97301, Waco, TX 76798, USA or Susan_Johnsen@baylor.edu.

Corina R. Kaul, M.A., received her B.S. degree from the University of Oregon and her master’s degree from Baylor University and is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University where she is specializing in gifted education. Her current research interests focus on the long-term effects of summer enrichment programs on low-income students and addressing affective needs of gifted learners. She may be reached at Corina_Kaul@baylor.edu.