# data[].attributes.headline
Curriculum Differentiation for Gifted and Talented Students Webinar

# data[].attributes.subject
Curriculum Differentiation for Gifted and Talented Students Webinar

# data[].attributes.body
The webinar focuses on adapting and differentiating the regular curriculum to meet the needs of gifted students. A variety of strategies are discussed, including curriculum compacting and the use of enrichment. Strategies for identifying strength areas, assessing prior mastery, keeping records, and planning appropriate alternative activities using technology are presented.

The webinar was presented by renowned gifted education specialists Joseph Renzulli, Sally Reis and Barbara Swicord.

# data[].attributes.headline
Development of Gifted Behavior | Dr. Joseph Renzulli – Gifted Education Strategies

# data[].attributes.subject
Development of Gifted Behavior | Dr. Joseph Renzulli – Gifted Education Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Development of Gifted Behavior | Dr. Joseph Renzulli – Gifted Education Strategies

# data[].attributes.headline
Able, Gifted and Talented Learners - Webinar

# data[].attributes.subject
Able, Gifted and Talented Learners - Webinar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Able, Gifted and Talented Learners - Webinar

# data[].attributes.headline
Interview professor Joseph Renzulli  May 13, 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Interview professor Joseph Renzulli  May 13, 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
Recorded Professional Learning Webinar Videos from the Renzulli Center

# data[].attributes.subject
Recorded Professional Learning Webinar Videos from the Renzulli Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recorded Professional Learning Webinar Videos from the Renzulli Center | Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Register for a Future Professional Learning WebinarHelping Your 2E Child (Sally Reis and Susan Baum) (originally broadcast January 21, 2021) Helping Your 2E Child (Click image to view the PDF version of the PowerPoint presentation) Doing SEM Virtually (Joseph Renzulli, Sally Reis, and Laur ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Webinar: What is ‘Removing the Mask: Identifying and Serving Gifted Students from Poverty?’

# data[].attributes.subject
Webinar: What is ‘Removing the Mask: Identifying and Serving Gifted Students from Poverty?’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Webinar: What is ‘Removing the Mask: Identifying and Serving Gifted Students from Poverty?’

# data[].attributes.headline
PCS Gifted and Talented Identification Webinar

# data[].attributes.subject
PCS Gifted and Talented Identification Webinar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PCS Gifted and Talented Identification Webinar

# data[].attributes.headline
Meeting student learning diversity in the classroom: Removing barriers to learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Meeting student learning diversity in the classroom: Removing barriers to learning

# data[].attributes.headline
Learning diversity and inclusion in IB programmes: Removing barriers to learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Learning diversity and inclusion in IB programmes: Removing barriers to learning

# data[].attributes.headline
Mashrek Timeline for Gifted and Talented Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Mashrek Timeline for Gifted and Talented Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While some commonalities exist across giftedness, one size does not fit all. Gifted learners exhibit different characteristics, traits, and ways to express their giftedness. Various issues must be considered for identification:

Giftedness is dynamic, not static. Identification needs to occur over time, with multiple opportunities to exhibit gifts. One test at a specific point in time should not dictate whether someone is identified as gifted. Read NAGC's position statement, "The Role of Assessments in Identifying Gifted Individuals."

Giftedness is represented through all racial, ethnic, income levels, and exceptionality groups. Underrepresentation is widely spread. It's estimated that African American, Hispanic American, and Native American students are underrepresented by at least 50% in programs for the gifted.¹ Learn more about identification in diverse gifted populations and read NAGC's position statement, "Identifying and Serving Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students."

Giftedness may be exhibited within a specific interest or category-and even a specific interest within that category. Professionals must seek ways to gather examples across various domains and contexts. See "Multiple Identification Procedures" below.

Early identification in school improves the likelihood that gifts will be developed into talents.

Identification Process

Typically, identification policies and procedures are determined at the district level. Because no two gifted children are alike is important to collect information on both the child's performance and potential through a combination of objective (quanitifiably measured) and subjective (personally observed) identification instruments in order to identify gifted and talented students.

Districts typically follow a systematic, multi-phased process for identifiying gifted students to find students who need services beyond the general education program: 1) Nomination or identification phase; 2) Screening or selection phase; 3) Placement phase. In the nomination and screening phase, various identification tools should be used to eliminate bias.

Sample Identification Instruments ²

Tests & Assessments. Individual intelligence and achievement tests are often used to assess giftedness.

However, relying on IQ or performance results alone may overlook certain gifted populations.

Nominations: Self, Peer, Teacher, Administrator, Parent. Nominations help cast a wide net for identifying as many students as possible who might qualify for gifted services. Often, gifted characteristic checklists, inventory, and nomination forms are completed by students, parents, teachers, and administrators to provide an informal perspective.

Student Cumulative Records. Grades, state and standardized tests are sometimes used as data points during the gifted identification process.

Teacher Observations & Ratings: Learning & Motivation Scales. Teachers may make observations and use rating scales or checklists for students who exhibit a certain trait or characteristic during instruction. Sample rating scales include Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (Renzulli & Smith, 1977), Purdue Academic Rating Scales (PARS), Whitmore or Rimm Underachievement Scales, and Cultural Characteristics Scales.

Portfolios & Performances. Portfolios or work that is collected over time should include student reflections of their products and/or performances. Portfolios may be developed for both academic (language arts, math) and creative (speech, arts, music) pursuits.

Student Educational Profiles. While many forms may be used to identify gifted children, an academic or artistic case study approach can offer a more comprehensive process. Case studies may include data, observations, and growth demonstrated in various settings.

1 U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. (2014). Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot (College and Career Readiness) 2 Purcell, J. & Eckert, R. (2006). Designing services and programs for high-ability learners. National Association for Gifted Children: Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While some commonalities exist across giftedness, one size does not fit all. Gifted learners exhibit different characteristics, traits, and ways to express their giftedness. Various issues must be considered for identification: Giftedness is dynamic, not static. Identification needs to occur over time, with multiple opportunities to exhibit gifts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Netherbrook Policy for the gifted and talented

# data[].attributes.subject
Netherbrook Policy for the gifted and talented

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why is the concept of gifted controversial?

Gifted is one of a number of issues in education that cause the blood to stir. For some, 'gifted' is an elitist concept that beggars definition; others do not see what all the fuss is about because a gifted child will always do well, won't they?

And while many people might assume it's a blessing having a gifted child, the reality is that rapidly grasping what others cannot can lead to boredom, frustration and inappropriate behaviour. In all these cases there are challenges for parents, teachers and the child, who sees conforming to the norm as a major peer requirement.

Gifted or talented?

In England, the Department for Education (DfE) distinguishes between gifted learners and talented children:

Gifted learners are those who have particular academic abilities;

Talented learners are those who have particular abilities in the creative arts (such as music, art and design, drama, dance) or PE.

Some schools (and parents) prefer the term 'more able' or 'high ability' children because they see these terms as being less elitist and more inclusive, but the term 'gifted' is very much part of the official language.

Is my child gifted?

A gifted child quite likely:

Has a wide vocabulary, talked early.

Asks lots of perceptive, insightful questions and learns more quickly than others.

Has a very retentive memory. Some may have a photographic memory; though it is the ability to use and apply what they learn that marks out the gifted child.

Is extremely curious and can concentrate for long periods on subjects of interest; may get bored and fidgety when not intellectually challenged.

Has a wide general knowledge and is curious about, and interested in, the world.

Enjoys problem-solving, often missing out the intermediate stages in an argument and making original connections.

Has an unusual and vivid imagination.

Learned to read at an early age.

Shows strong feelings and opinions; may have an odd sense of humour.

Sets high standards and is a perfectionist but loses interest when asked to do more of the same.

Parents are the best placed people to observe whether their pre-school offspring are developing skills and talents significantly in advance of their years and peers.

Generally, the identification process does not rely on IQ or test scores alone, but contains a portfolio of evidence from different sources including teachers and parents.

Gifted toddlers

Parents may encounter problems at toddler group, playgroup or pre-school nursery because staff do not recognise that the child can easily do the things the other children are enjoying attempting and so is quickly bored and becomes a problem. This is best managed by parents and staff discussing how to to include extension tasks for the most able children.

What to expect from school

All schools should have a written policy on how their most able are managed. The policy should be openly available on request; school inspectors expect to see evidence showing that the policy is working. The policy should include how children are identified and what measures are put in place to stretch and challenge them at every stage of their school career. It should have the full support of the staff, the governors and parents and be widely available to all. In fact, each of these groups should ideally have been involved in the policy-making.

Every school should also have a dedicated teacher, often known as the gifted and talented co-ordinator or leading teacher, to oversee how this policy is implemented. This person should also drive the gifted agenda, encourage best practice among all teachers and ensure the children are stimulated and stretched, perhaps via a special enrichment programme. Some schools have an 'individual needs' department responsible for both the most able and those who are struggling.

It is very easy to destroy the self-confidence of any child, particularly when they are talented, gifted and able. Their experiences with their teachers, their peers and their parents are crucial, and it is always important to look for the indicators which suggest that a difficult, unhappy or bored child has hidden talents.
Problems facing a gifted child

Success does not equal popularity. Gifted children often get a poor deal because we live in a culture that finds celebrating success very difficult.

Gifted children are often misdiagnosed, bullied or disaffected.

It's possible to be gifted and have special needs; many have a learning difficulty (dyslexia, dysgraphia, auditory retention problems etc or a disorder such as Asperger's) which compounds their problems.

Their intellect is more advanced than their social and emotional development.

Because their thought processes are different from their peers, they find it hard to mix and make friends..

They may find work in the classroom painstakingly slow but must keep their head down as they don't want to seem arrogant and precocious.

Fast workers are often told to 'do more more of the same', but repetition is anathema to a brain that picks up ideas quickly.

Boredom may set in if teachers do not understand how a gifted child thinks and works. This may lead to the child resorting to switching off (daydreaming), avoiding school (by, among other things, imaginary ailments) or disruptiveness (which may take the form of clowning or truculence).

No wonder young gifted children find their world very confusing at times.

Do gifted children have special needs?

Giftedness or high ability does not legally fall in the category of special educational needs (SEN), so there are no additional resources available for a child assessed as highly able. Parents need to work in partnership with the school, the class teacher and the head in a non-confrontational way to solve any problems.

If the child has developed behavioural difficulties, their parents may want to have them assessed. If they are willing to pay for a private assessment , it is best to keep the school informed and agree what will happen as a result of the findings. Even if the school is not willing to cooperate, an assessment will provide the parents with additional information about their child's intellectual ability and potential which can help them plan the best way forward..

If their abilities are not recognised and encouraged early, there is a risk that the child will become withdrawn, or will merge into the crowd, or will develop a disruptive pattern of behaviour. These may all result in their ability going undetected for many years. It is often when schools undertake a formal assessment on the basis of poor behaviour that the truth is revealed - the child is a high ability low performer.

Providing the learning for gifted children

Highly able children need challenging learning experiences at school and home.

Evening, weekend and holiday time activities which include children of a wide age range can help to ground the child's emotional and social development.

Teachers in primary schools are used to managing groups of children of widely different abilities and to planning individual extension or enrichment activities. Where the curriculum allows it, the child can work with other staff or older classes on agreed activities, always remembering that what can happen easily one year may be difficult the next.

There is more scope for differentiation and ability setting in secondary schools, but highly able children still need to have extension activities built into each lesson, depending on the individual school's resources.

Should a gifted child be educated with older children?

For some parents the easy solution would appear to be to accelerate the child one or two years. This strategy works well for some children but is not a panacea: older children can be hostile to a younger child joining their peer group; the child may have the academic but not the social skills to copy; and many secondary schools are unwilling to admit children out of their proper year group.

With special thanks for additional information to Dr Stephen Tommis former Director of Potential Plus UK, a charity supporting children with high learning potential and their families (previously known as National Association for Gifted Children).

www.potentialplusuk.org
amazingchildren@potentialplusuk.org
Tel: 01908 646433

What do you want for your child? State school or fee-paying? Day or boarding school? Single sex or co-education? It helps to have a game plan, even if you change it at a later date. What do you want from the school? Undoubtedly you want to find a great school, one that's ideal for your child, with great teaching and possibly good facilities to match.

A handful of schools literally demand that you apply for a place as soon as your child is born, which means it's never too early to start planning your child's education. In fact, it's a process that can start even before you've conceived - and that goes for all parents, wherever they want their offspring to go to school. From embryo to 18, read on to find out how to survive the education highway. Our lively look at education planning for children of all ages and their parents aims to guide you through the schooling stages in both the independent...

Normal primary school admissions are at 3+ into the nursery or 4+ into the reception class. Some are divided into infant and junior schools, the latter starting at 7 years. Most secondary schools start at 11. For a normal application, you will need to apply - with a local address - by around mid-January for primary schools and the end of October of the year before entry for secondary schools.

If you think your child would benefit from a boarding school education, but are put off by the high fees and consequent limited social mix of a typical independent boarding school, you may find that a state boarding school is the answer. Read more... State grammar schools Counties such as Kent or Buckinghamshire are 'selective authorities' and most families will have at least one grammar school close to where they live. Elsewhere, for example in Reading or Kingston-on-Thames, there are just one or two grammar schools and competition for places at these is ferocious. Grammar schools are located in 36...

School catchment area frenzy is gripping the nation as anxious parents lie, cheat, and even change their religion to get their offspring into the right school. And as the cost of living continues to soar and many independent school fees remain out of reach for the majority, there's no sign of the trend slowing down, with hordes of parents willing to do almost anything to get their children into the state school of their choice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gifted is one of a number of issues in education that cause the blood to stir. For some, 'gifted' is an elitist concept that beggars definition; others do not see what all the fuss is about because a gifted child will always do well, won't they?

# data[].attributes.headline
Melba Copland Secondary School Policy for Gifted students

# data[].attributes.subject
Melba Copland Secondary School Policy for Gifted students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Assessing gifted children is similar to and different from assessing other types of children. Though areas to be assessed are similar for all, for gifted children, the assessment techniques and tests require special characteristics. While most professionals are trained to assess many kinds of children, few are specifically trained to assess in this particular area. The general perception is that these youngsters, with abilities and strengths in many areas, have no special needs, educational or otherwise, that merit serious clinical attention. For this reason, it is important that parents who suspect that their child may be gifted search for a professional with experience in working with this population. Knowledge about these practices can help parents with this search.

Testing versus assessment.
These two activities are frequently discussed together and criticized together, when, in fact, they are quite different. As a psychologist, I have done both and will continue to do both for very different reasons. Testing, or the individual administration of a standardized test, means presenting test items according to very specific pre-set directions and following an exact verbal script. The results are usually reported as numbers. This is a limited activity and the information that it provides is similarly limited. Assessment, on the other hand, includes standardized test administration but goes well beyond it. Good test administration should be the same from person to person; that is, it should be independent of personal experience and personal viewpoints. Assessment, especially clinical assessment, is highly dependent upon training, theoretical orientation, personal experience, research knowledge and clinical experience. In good test administration, the person administering the test should not have a major impact on the test results; in assessment, the person doing the assessment does have a major impact on the final result. For these reasons, assessing children is part science and part art. The science part is straightforward and largely concerns testing. The art part is difficult to describe, difficult to teach and essential.

Age of child.
All tests and assessments vary with the age of the child, as we expect that children will do different things at different ages. In general, we chose to use an instrument that has been standardized with children of a specific age without regard to their ability levels. Yet, gifted children will accomplish a variety of things earlier than other children or will accomplish them at a higher level than their age peers will. Assessment must adapt to this reality. There are two basic strategies for making this adaptation; the easiest is to use a test standardized for older children (this is the out of level testing that is used in the talent searches). For example, most children do not read before entering school, and therefore most assessments of preschool children do not routinely include reading. Some gifted preschool children do read early, and an adequate assessment of them should include measures of reading. One way to accomplish this is to give an above age or grade level of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. A second strategy is to informally look for behaviors and skills that usually appear in older children. For example, an informal strategy for reading assessment is to take an inventory of the books that the child has read in the 6 months prior to the assessment. The most important step is not to make assumptions about the child's level of accomplishment based upon age or upon grade, but rather select test materials that will permit a young child to demonstrate high level skills in a variety of areas.

Parent information.
Each child, gifted or not, has his or her own history. When a child is tested, for example, in the admission process for private schools or selective programs, parent information is often not collected. In assessment, however, the first step is to interview the parents to obtain the child's history in the areas of general development, education, health, social interactions and family interactions. As a parent, you should be wary of any professional who plans to evaluate a child without taking a developmental history.

The careful collection of information from parents, via report forms, checklists and most importantly direct interviewing, becomes the foundation upon which the individual nature of the assessment is built. Parents, speaking to a professional for the first time, should feel free to say that they think that their child may be gifted. They should then hear a question like-"Why do you think that your child may be gifted? What does your child do that suggests this?" thus opening the door for a frank and complete history of the child's development and behavior. As with any interview technique, the value of the information obtained depends upon the skill of the interviewer and upon the biases of the interviewer. Several remarkable studies have had a particular impact on my thinking about the developmental pathways of gifted children and I want to direct your attention to those studies (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).

Intellectual ability.
In the academic world, there are debates about the meaning and the value of intelligence tests in general; at parent and school meetings, I have been asked many questions about intelligence tests and the meanings of different score patterns. After working with hundreds of children, my own view of the value of intelligence tests is this: when I administer an individual intelligence test, I gain necessary but not sufficient information about an individual child. Among the most commonly used tests for assessing the gifted are the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III), the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition (SB:IV) and, yes, the Stanford-Binet: Form L-M (SB:LM). I use all three at different times. For gifted children, I have frequently observed that a score on one intelligence test cannot be converted to a score on another intelligence by means of any formula. These tests provide information that is not interchangeable and the scores that they generate are not interchangeable.

If I think that a gifted child may have a learning disability, I use the WISC-III based upon my clinical experience and because there is a body of useful research on this application (6). If I am interested in a school age child's high-level math reasoning or visual-spatial reasoning, I use the SB: IV as I have had numerous experiences with young elementary school children who demonstrate skill in subtests normally reserved for older children, especially the subtests of number series, equation building, paper folding and matrices. However, both the WISC-III and the SB: IV have a serious general limitation due to their low ceiling. The tests were designed to be most useful for children who are close to average and are less useful for children who are far from average (e.g. retarded or gifted). In fact, the original creator of the Weschler tests, David Weschler stated that "My scales are meant for people who score between 70 and 130. They are clinical tests." When reminded that his tests were commonly used by psychologists for such children, he said, of the psychologists, "Then that is their misfortune. It's not what I tell them to do, and it's not what a good clinician ought to do. They should know better."(7, p xiv).

One word about the SB:LM is in order. Many people mistakenly believe that the publication of the SB:IV meant that the SB: LM should not and could not be used. That is not true. There are serious and well documented reasons for continuing to use this test (3,8). I especially like the SB: LM for its very high level verbal reasoning items, which, in my experience, tap an ability to think, verbally and mathematically, in a complex way. However, there is a serious limitation in using this test, namely, the reluctance of school personnel to accept the test results. Several years ago, there was a lively debate about the relative merits of the SB: LM and the SB: IV in the identification of gifted children, with some favoring the use of the SB: IV (8) and others the use of the SB: LM (9). Putting the issue to the clinical test, by administering both tests to the same children, I have found that with the SB: IV, it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to distinguish between highly and exceptionally intellectually gifted children. To put it simply, if I want to know whether or not an individual child fits the characteristics of an exceptionally gifted child, as presented by Dr. Mirica Gross (3) in her extensive research, then I must administer the SB: LM. The Riverside Publishing Company reports plans to incorporate some of the best features of the SB: LM into the formation of a new test, the Stanford-Binet: Fifth Edition. However, it will be years until that new test is ready, and has proven to be useful for gifted students.

Educational ability.
One of the clear ways in which gifted children differ from other children is in the ease and speed with which they master academic skills. The more extreme the child is in intellectual ability, the more likely it is that the child will not fit in well with a standard curriculum. For that reason, I find that it is critical to evaluate the child's abilities to decode words, comprehend printed passages, understand math processes, complete math calculations, produce legible print or script and to write varied types of material. Gifted children, in the early school years, vary widely in the degree to which these skills are developed. Of the children I have seen, highly and exceptionally gifted children, often, but not always, have some school skills that are much more advanced than the skills of more moderately gifted children. These children, in turn, have some skills that are much more advanced than the skills of average children.

To convincingly document extreme skill development in any of these areas, it is essential to use an individual educational assessment that has a very high ceiling as schools often do not possess or obtain this information. This occurs for several reasons: first, many schools do not routinely test all their elementary children until they reach a pre-established grade, which can be as late as 3rd or 4th grade, and, second, the types of standardized, normed, group-administered tests that are given in schools to classrooms of children often have such low ceilings that they cannot distinguish well among the children in the top 3 to 5 percentiles.

Individual assessment can be adapted to document the differening academic levels of children in the top 3 percentiles on standardized tests. The talent searches, which are available for 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th graders are very important tools in documenting highly developed math and verbal aptitude. For elementary children in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades, a good assessment practice is the use of individual tests that go up to a 12th grade level of difficulty. By using such tests, there is no pre-conceived ceiling that is imposed on a child by the nature of the test construction. There are several individually administered academic tests with high ceilings, for example, the Woodcock-Johnson and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. I prefer the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement for early elementary gifted students, as it includes what, I feel, is a more realistic assessment of reading. In the KTEA, the child is required to read and demonstrate comprehension of printed paragraphs. In many other tests, the child's reading comprehension skill is measured by merely filling in a missing word in a sentence. In my experience this less demanding task, the cloze procedure, can lead to inflated and inaccurate scores of reading comprehension.

Other abilities.
Gifted children often possess abilities in areas that are well outside the realm of standardized tests; they may possess talents in music, art, creative writing, scientific thinking and group leadership, to name only a few. Using these abilities, the children may complete activities or undertake projects that no one their age may have imagined or attempted. In order to understand these qualities and to begin to appreciate the importance of these activities in the lives of these children, I have had to be creative in my assessment strategies. Certainly, portfolios of art and writing are useful, as are videotapes of performances and activities. Constructions of all types have made an appearance in my office; some of them can be captured with a Polaroid camera. Children's efforts in these areas often represent hours of committed labor and may indicate unusual and emerging life interests. As these activities are often undertaken outside of school, parent information about these projects is vital. It is often equally important to brainstorm with parents about the ways they can encourage and support their children in these activities. There is no simple, standardized, normed method for accomplishing this; consequently, this is not a testing activity but it is an essential assessment activity.

The role of intuition.
This topic, which could also be called clinical judgment, is perhaps, the single most important one, in discussing the assessment of children and the one that is the most difficult to describe. To a substantial extent it is based upon reading the non-verbal communication from the child. This aspect of the communication includes many factors: the child's body position, body movements, use of gestures, eye glances, tone of voice, intonation and various approach and avoidance behaviors. Reading the non-verbal communication is a complex process and one that provides vital information about the child. The more children I evaluate, the more I depend upon this aspect of assessment. While it is important throughout the entire process, I am most aware of it during the first minutes after meeting a child. Mostly, it resembles a sensation of waiting, of alert waiting for the child. At those moments, I try to set aside all I have heard or read about the child and simply respond to what occurs. To do this successfully, I have to concentrate fully and I often respond in ways that I have not preplanned. To a great extent, I depend upon the initial impressions, feelings and ideas that occur to me in the moments after I meet the child.

Children chose to bring in photographs, trophies, books, stuffed toys, construction projects, art or other projects; responding enthusiastically is easy and welcome. Other children, sometimes the ones who bring in nothing, make it plain that they would rather be anywhere else in the world. At times, I find myself saying almost before I say hello, "You look like you'd rather be anywhere but here." Children are usually grateful for the acceptance it implies. Other children, painfully shy, look like they wish they could just disappear. Sitting down in the waiting room, chatting with their parents, inviting their parents into the testing room allows the child to minimize the interaction with me. With my attention directed toward their parents, they feel less pressure to interact and they will often ease themselves into the conversation, as they are able. For children who are quiet or hesitant to speak, allowing periods of silence and offering non-verbal toys (origami, puzzles, markers and paper) helps ease the transition into the assessment process. Other children need to have a brief introductory session and then return, later, to a now somewhat familiar place for longer, more focused assessment sessions. While some of these variations can be anticipated in advance by discussions with parents, others are, essentially, spontaneous.

The most useful preparatory technique is to tell the parents to help the child select something important or well loved to bring to the session. Allowing them to choose gives them an initial sense that their needs and opinions will be valued and it provides an immediate and engaging topic for conversation. Also importantly, this activity gives the child some small area of control over a process that will be largely outside of his or her control. Finally, it communicates the message that, at least part of, the assessment will be about what they like and value.

My subjective experiences.
I have found that assessing gifted children, is a qualitatively different experience than the assessment of other types of children. First of all, it takes 1 ½ to 2 times longer to administer high ceiling tests to gifted children than to average children. The more extreme the ability of the child, the longer the session. The reasons for this are straightforward. Gifted children generally answer more questions correctly, produce more elaborated answers, ask more detailed questions and become more deeply engaged in testing than do other children. For all these reasons, it can take along time to reach a test ceiling or the end of a subtest. The tendency of gifted children to be more positive and engaged during the testing means that they are more difficult to disengage and that they are more reluctant to leave at the end. Breaks and stopping points must, more often, be imposed on gifted children. Also, the interpersonal dynamics in the testing sessions are more complex. I often have the sensation that I am being closely observed and that the nuances of what I say and do are being noted. In short, I find that I need to be particularly focused, alert and engaged when I am assessing gifted children. I also need to offer more explanations for why I do what I do. Experience has taught me that if I do not offer explanations, the children will invent their own, sometime quite incorrect explanations, of what I am doing or thinking.

Summing up.
All assessment processes involve providing information to parents and often to teachers. In the case of gifted children, I find that their parents ask more questions, expect more fully developed answers and appreciate references to relatively complex reading material. Teachers and parents alike often have to cope with feelings of uncertainty about how best to respond to the child's needs, and questions of best educational practices are constantly raised. Teachers and parents are often appreciative of straightforward information on practices like subject matter acceleration, grade skipping, radical acceleration and home schooling. Frequently, there is an urgently felt need to solve educational problems of fit and there is a great need for information on a variety of successful techniques. Obtaining and sharing this information is an important part of the assessment process. In many fascinating ways, the growth of the Internet has given parents quick access to each other and to information of varying quality. The resourcefulness and persistence of parents constantly impresses me as they seek appropriate adaptations for their children in the schools. My role, at that stage, is to provide links between the parent, the school and the body of knowledge about promising educational practices. In this regard, materials supplied by the ERIC system (10) and the work of the National Research Center on the Gifted and the Talented (11) has been invaluable and I encourage parents to obtain materials from both sources. It is my opinion that no assessment is complete until some meaningful changes have taken place in the daily life of the child, however, it is often the parents who must see to it that those changes take place.
References
1. Bloom, B. S. (1985) Developing Talent In Young People. New York: Ballantine Books.

2. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K. & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early Developmental Aspects: The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York: Plenum Press.

3. Gross, M. U. M., (1993) Exceptionally Gifted Children. London: Routledge.

4. Hart, B. & Risley, T. D. (1995) Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.

5. Roedell, W. C., Jackson, N. E. and Robinson, H. B. (1980) Gifted Young Children. New York: Teachers College Press.

6. Fox., L. H., Brody, L. & Tobin, D. (1983) Learning-Disabled Gifted Children: Identification and Programming. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

7. Kaufman, A. (1994) Intelligent Testing with the WISC-III. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

8. Robinson, N. (1992) Which Binet for the Brightest? Stanford-Binet IV, Of Course! Time Marches On! Roeper Review, 151, 32-34

9. Silverman, L. & Kearney, K (1992) Don't Throw Away the Old Binet. Roeper Review, 1591, 32- 34.

10. The ERIC documents on gifted children can be obtained at: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, The Council for Exceptional Children, 1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589.

11. The Product list from NRCGT can be obtained by contacting the Dissemination Coordinator, University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 362 Fairfield Rd., U-7 Storrs, CT 06269-2007.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing Gifted Children | Davidson Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Assessing gifted children is similar to and different from assessing other types of children. Though areas to be assessed are similar for all, for gifted children, the assessment techniques and tests require special characteristics. While most professionals are trained to assess many kinds of children, few are specifically trained to assess in this particular area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tests should be aligned within the characteristics of gifted and talented students within a specific domain area. The variety of characteristics within the federal definition-intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, and specific academic fields-require more than one assessment to identify. Quantitative instruments such as those listed below use scores to describe the student's performance in relation to others or the degree to which a student possesses a particular characteristic in relation to a standard level of performance.

Achievement Tests

Achievement tests determine what the students already have learned and if they are more advanced than their grade level peers. They may be academic specific (i.e. Math or Language Arts) or standardized tests (such as SATs, ITBS, SRA, and MATs). These assessments should not have a ceiling so students are able to show all of what they know. Tests specifically designed for the gifted population include Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students or Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary Students (SAGES).

Ability Tests

Intelligence quotient (IQ) or cognitive abilities test scores are also used to identify gifted and talented students. While these tests provide information for the intellectual domain, these tests are not as helpful in identifying someone with creative, leadership, or other abilities. Typical ability tests include:
Individual
Nonverbal tests, such as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test or the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, may be more effective for students from culturally and linguistically different or low-income backgrounds to eliminate barriers.
Group

CogAT

Otis-Lennon

Hemmon-Nelson

Ravens Progressive Matrices

Matrix Analogies Test

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tests are common assessment tools for identification, but should not serve as the sole source of identification. Tests often exclude underserved gifted students who are English Language Learners (ELLs), disabled, or from minority or low-income backgrounds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Barbara Probst.

When people think of a twice-exceptional child, they usually think of someone who's gifted and learning-disabled. The "second exceptionality" is typically an educational issue like dyslexia, or sometimes a physiological issue like sensory integration dysfunction. In other cases, however, a child's second condition is said to be emotional, social, or behavioral. These are the children described as hard-to-manage, badly behaved, or just plain odd - despite, or perhaps because of, their high intelligence. They may even receive psychiatric diagnoses like Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), Asperger Syndrome, or Bipolar Disorder. But do these difficulties merit psychiatric diagnoses? Are they disorders, or are they misunderstood and mismanaged aspects of giftedness? Perhaps your child does have a serious emotional disorder; if that's so, then minimizing the problem may prevent him from receiving much-needed help. On the other hand, perhaps your child's differentness has been pathologized - that is, turned into a disease; in that case, he may suffer unnecessary damage in the effort to fix what isn't really broken. As a caring and concerned parent, how can you tell which it is? How can you distinguish difference from disorder, especially in gifted youngsters?

To explore that question, we'll examine aspects of giftedness such as Dabrowski's five overexcitabilities; explore how traits of temperament, as they manifest in gifted children, can lead to social and emotional difficulties; deconstruct some common diagnoses to see how difference is turned into disorder; and suggest strategies to reduce emotional overload and bring problems to a sub-threshold or manageable level.

Dabrowski's Overexcitabilities

Kazimierz Dabrowski, a Polish psychologist and psychiatrist writing in the 1960s, developed a theory he believed could explain the intensity, sensitivity, and unusual behavior of gifted individuals. He identified five overexcitabilities - heightened responsiveness to specific kinds of stimuli - that he felt characterized gifted children and influenced their behavior. Though not widely known, his theory is worth examining because it can shed light on how giftedness interacts with, or is transformed into, disorder. These overexcitabilities follow.

1. Psychomotor. In Dabrowski's model, this is more than just an abundance of large-muscle physical activity. A child might not race from room to room or jump on furniture, but express psychomotor excitability by rapid speech, nervous habits, restlessness, and difficulty quieting his mind in order to sleep. Like every excitability, this isn't necessarily something negative; it can also be the source of a child's boundless energy and stamina. Often, however, a gifted child with psychomotor overexcitability is mislabeled with AD/HD.

2. Sensual. Heightened sensitivity to sound, light, touch, texture, or smell can also be viewed in two ways: as a difficulty (the excessive sensitivity associated with Sensory Integration Dysfunction) or as the capacity for esthetic appreciation. In a supportive context, a child with sensual overexcitability may find a life of passion and artistic engagement. In an environment lacking sufficient stimulation or, conversely, with too much competing stimulation, the same child may become anxious, irritable, withdrawn, or even explosive. The mismatch between temperament and environment is the source of the difficulty - not an inherent defect in the child.

3. Emotional. Once again, this overexcitability can be easily misunderstood. The emotional instability of a child with intense highs and lows may be seen as evidence of immaturity, bad upbringing, or even a serious mood disorder - but it might be none of these. In particular, adults need to be very cautious before assuming that emotional swings represent a psychiatric condition like Bipolar Disorder. With emotional overexcitability, there's a greater responsiveness to actual stimuli (including thoughts and memories); even if the responses seem excessive, they're responses. With a condition like Bipolar Disorder, on the other hand, the emotional swings follow their own rhythm and aren't always connected to objective events.

4. Imaginational. This overexcitability is characterized by vivid dreams, creativity, love of fantasy, and inventiveness. Here, too, traits that might seem indicative of AD/HD or even a delusional disorder (requiring treatment) can also be seen as talents (requiring expression). Gifted children who become lost in a fantasy world or insist on peculiar interpretations may become poets, artists, or inventors. If outlets for expression are denied, however, they may develop problems like anger or depression.

5. Intellectual. Dabrowski's fifth category is the one most typically associated with giftedness - an insatiable appetite for questioning, discovery, finding answers, and solving puzzles. Such children can seem annoying or arrogant, and their stubborn individuality can be misperceived as defiance toward authority or indifference to social context. They may be caricatured as "little professors" or, if their intellectual drive is focused on a narrow or esoteric subject, labeled with Asperger Syndrome.

While Dabrowski's theory of overexcitability hasn't been subjected to rigorous study, it does present an intriguing approach and raises important questions about the origin of emotional disorders in gifted children. Identification of the specific overexcitability at the root of a child's behavior can be a productive first step.

Another useful framework for understanding the behavior of gifted children is temperament. Temperamental traits are found in everyone, of course, but can manifest in particular ways in gifted individuals. If these traits are misinterpreted (e.g., if a highly idealistic child is rebuked for being "critical"), two kinds of problems can result. First, the child may receive pejorative labels because adults assume that the behavior reflects an anti-social motive or even a pathological origin; and second, other problems like anger, withdrawal, or low self-worth can result. After all, who wouldn't become upset in the face of chronic misunderstanding, frustration, criticism, and isolation?

Traits of temperament that may contribute to emotional or behavioral problems include:

How these "Traits" Become "Problems"

No trait is inherently difficult; but in combination and through interaction with elements of the environment (other people, timetables, sensory features), traits can lead to behavioral problems, including:

Difficulty with peer relations. Idealism, a heightened awareness of hypocrisy, unusual interests, and asynchronous development (when a child is mature in some areas, such as intellectual reasoning, but immature in others) can cause difficulty making and keeping friends. Unusual sensitivity can make a child vulnerable to perceived rejection; she may feel betrayed by a peer who plays with her today and with someone else tomorrow, referring to both as "friends." In other cases, gifted children who like to organize others or insist on rigid adherence to rules can have trouble with the give-and-take of social relationships. Unable to find the deep friendships she envisions, a child may invent imaginary friends or make do with stuffed animals, pets, or characters from video games.

Like all children, gifted children do want friends and may thus be caught between two contradictory desires: the desire for affiliation (belonging, connectedness) and the desire for integrity (being true to oneself). The experience of contradiction in itself can cause stress and lead to feelings of wariness and isolation; and it can be further compounded when a child's tempo is different from his peers'. Gifted children often have extreme tempos, either exceptionally slow (needing time to ponder) or exceptionally fast (arriving at connections and conclusions long before their companions).

Difficulty making decisions. Gifted children, particularly if they're divergent thinkers, may see so many sides of an issue, so many what-if's and possible outcomes, that they become overwhelmed. Unable to manage the richness that floods their minds, unable to bear the contradictions and sense of loss about all the roads not taken, they're unable to act. A child who can't pick a dessert because she's acutely aware of all the desserts she won't be getting if she chooses apple pie - and who tantrums when adults urge her to hurry - may be seen as demanding and spoiled when her behavior is actually due to cognitive overload.

Excessive self-criticism. Perfectionism and high standards can lead to self-criticism when gifted children berate themselves for falling short of their ideal. Frustration may be coupled with resentment about high performance expectations imposed by others. Angry and aggressive reactions may be directed at themselves, at adults whom they blame, or at scapegoats like younger siblings.

Avoidance of risk-taking. Intolerance for imperfection can cause children to avoid activities if they aren't sure they can perform to their own standard. Just as gifted children may see myriad possibilities and become paralyzed by mental overload, they may also see myriad potential problems and become paralyzed by anxiety. Fear of failure - unwillingness to take risks - can lead to feelings of unworthiness, defensiveness, and underachievement.

How these "Problems" Become Symptoms and Diagnoses

There are three ways to view so-called "disorders" like hyperactivity, anxiety, or depression. First, we can think of them as neurobiological conditions, hardwired into brain structure or genetics and, therefore, just as primary as height or skin color. From that point of view, they can't be prevented, though they can be managed more or less well; a gifted child might thus receive a dual diagnosis such as gifted and AD/HD.

We can also think of them as secondary conditions that develop as a result of continual stress. In that case, they're still real but not necessarily biochemical, and the idea of dual diagnosis holds.

Then there's a third possibility - that these aren't disorders at all but misinterpretations of traits that only seem problematic because of context or value system. From that perspective, it's a matter of misdiagnosis. For parents of twice-exceptional children, the questions are: which is it, and how can we know?

Clearly there are children with true psychiatric conditions. Children who hurt themselves, exhibit dramatic change in eating or sleeping, or talk about suicide need immediate professional help. But in many cases psychiatric diagnoses are given to behaviors that stem from unusual intensity, sensitivity, or eccentricity and aren't pathological at all. We need to de-construct some of the common diagnoses to see how misdiagnosis can occur.

Strategies to Reverse Direction

Instead of turning every difficulty into a diagnosis, we need to go in reverse and reclaim normalcy as a spectrum condition. To do that in a way that's more than semantic, we need to learn how to reduce a child's distress or frustration to a manageable (sub-threshold) level of difference. Here are some ways to do that.

Modify the environment to reduce the overall stress level. Children need to operate at a level of stress that's below what they can reasonably tolerate. Without a "margin of tolerance," there's no room for a child to absorb and cope with the additional stress that will inevitably occur; and something is bound to happen to tip an excitable 2e child into the melt-down zone. The parents' job is to increase that margin by eliminating unnecessary obstacles and stressors. We need to think broadly and creatively about elements of context that may matter for a particular child and about which we're willing to be flexible. Included might be sensory elements, demands about time (tempo, duration, and schedules), and conceptions of space. Some children do much better in large open spaces and feel boxed-in when the space is too small; others need the containment and coziness of small spaces in order to feel grounded.

Use language that normalizes and emphasizes common human struggles. Help your child isolate and normalize her area of difficulty. "You're the kind of person who ... hates to be interrupted, likes things to stay the same, needs time to figure out where to start." That tells her she isn't the only one who's ever felt this way or struggled with these issues. Where possible, reframe "problems" into neutral traits. "Picky" can become "You definitely know what you like." "Stubborn" can become "You're not a quitter." "Impulsive" can become "You aren't afraid to try something new."

Show that you "get it." Don't try to convince your child that he doesn't feel what he feels. You may be right that someone's failure to keep a promise isn't the end of the world, but telling your child it's "not a big deal" doesn't help him calm down - it just proves you don't understand. If your child insists that you don't understand, you probably don't. Sometimes parents and children are talking about two different subjects - your child wants you to acknowledge what might have happened, while you keep insisting that it didn't. He knows his sister didn't actually break his Lego castle, but he wants his concern to be taken seriously.

Help your child externalize what is occupying him internally. Activities like drawing, recording an audiotape, or writing a letter to the editor can help your child give form to intense feelings. Externalizing can also help him organize the ideas that are flooding his mind. If, for instance, you want your child to select a toy for his birthday but he can't handle the flood of too many possibilities, help him create a grid or matrix to organize the choices according to whatever dimension seems important to him - novelty, popularity, durability. If he's pressured to select a gift without having worked through all the pros and cons to his own satisfaction, reaction is inevitable: he'll reject the toy and then you'll get angry at his ingratitude.

Practice ahead of time. Once the meltdown has started, it's too late. If your perfectionist child has rejected the vanilla ice cream cone because it has a smear of chocolate, your chance of convincing her that it's okay is much greater if you've talked ahead of time about the 5 percent rule in statistics. (Statisticians are only concerned with arriving at 95 percent probability, because you can never account for every potential case.) You can remind your child that a cone counts as vanilla as long as the chocolate smear is less than or equal to 5 percent - but you can't pull that idea out of a hat once she's in the midst of a meltdown. It has to be a principle that's already in her repertoire, not something she thinks you've invented to trick her out of her misery.

Without minimizing true disorders requiring professional treatment, it's important to step back and ask whether your child's behavior might originate in something other than a psychiatric condition. We've examined a few possibilities, from Dabrowski's overexcitabilities to traits of temperament. It's only fair, after all, to consider non-pathological explanation along with pathological ones! This can bring new hope because the odds are that your child's difficulty comes from the intersection of internal (temperament and giftedness) and external factors (components of the environment), rather than from a neurobiological disease.

________________________________________________________ Barbara Probst, MSW, LCSW, is a clinical social worker specializing in helping families whose "different" children have somehow become "difficult" children - often because their sensitivity, intensity, or giftedness is mistaken for a "disorder." In addition to running parent support groups and working with individuals and families, she also teaches at Fordham University's Graduate School of Social Service, gives presentations throughout the country, and is the mother of two adolescents. She is currently completing a book slated for publication in early 2008.

By Barbara Probst.

When people think of a twice-exceptional child, they usually think of someone who's gifted and learning-disabled. The "second exceptionality" is typically an educational issue like dyslexia, or sometimes a physiological issue like sensory integration dysfunction. In other cases, however, a child's second condition is said to be emotional, social, or behavioral. These are the children described as hard-to-manage, badly behaved, or just plain odd - despite, or perhaps because of, their high intelligence. They may even receive psychiatric diagnoses like Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), Asperger Syndrome, or Bipolar Disorder. But do these difficulties merit psychiatric diagnoses? Are they disorders, or are they misunderstood and mismanaged aspects of giftedness? Perhaps your child does have a serious emotional disorder; if that's so, then minimizing the problem may prevent him from receiving much-needed help. On the other hand, perhaps your child's differentness has been pathologized - that is, turned into a disease; in that case, he may suffer unnecessary damage in the effort to fix what isn't really broken. As a caring and concerned parent, how can you tell which it is? How can you distinguish difference from disorder, especially in gifted youngsters?

To explore that question, we'll examine aspects of giftedness such as Dabrowski's five overexcitabilities; explore how traits of temperament, as they manifest in gifted children, can lead to social and emotional difficulties; deconstruct some common diagnoses to see how difference is turned into disorder; and suggest strategies to reduce emotional overload and bring problems to a sub-threshold or manageable level.

Dabrowski's Overexcitabilities

Kazimierz Dabrowski, a Polish psychologist and psychiatrist writing in the 1960s, developed a theory he believed could explain the intensity, sensitivity, and unusual behavior of gifted individuals. He identified five overexcitabilities - heightened responsiveness to specific kinds of stimuli - that he felt characterized gifted children and influenced their behavior. Though not widely known, his theory is worth examining because it can shed light on how giftedness interacts with, or is transformed into, disorder. These overexcitabilities follow.

1. Psychomotor. In Dabrowski's model, this is more than just an abundance of large-muscle physical activity. A child might not race from room to room or jump on furniture, but express psychomotor excitability by rapid speech, nervous habits, restlessness, and difficulty quieting his mind in order to sleep. Like every excitability, this isn't necessarily something negative; it can also be the source of a child's boundless energy and stamina. Often, however, a gifted child with psychomotor overexcitability is mislabeled with AD/HD.

2. Sensual. Heightened sensitivity to sound, light, touch, texture, or smell can also be viewed in two ways: as a difficulty (the excessive sensitivity associated with Sensory Integration Dysfunction) or as the capacity for esthetic appreciation. In a supportive context, a child with sensual overexcitability may find a life of passion and artistic engagement. In an environment lacking sufficient stimulation or, conversely, with too much competing stimulation, the same child may become anxious, irritable, withdrawn, or even explosive. The mismatch between temperament and environment is the source of the difficulty - not an inherent defect in the child.

3. Emotional. Once again, this overexcitability can be easily misunderstood. The emotional instability of a child with intense highs and lows may be seen as evidence of immaturity, bad upbringing, or even a serious mood disorder - but it might be none of these. In particular, adults need to be very cautious before assuming that emotional swings represent a psychiatric condition like Bipolar Disorder. With emotional overexcitability, there's a greater responsiveness to actual stimuli (including thoughts and memories); even if the responses seem excessive, they're responses. With a condition like Bipolar Disorder, on the other hand, the emotional swings follow their own rhythm and aren't always connected to objective events.

4. Imaginational. This overexcitability is characterized by vivid dreams, creativity, love of fantasy, and inventiveness. Here, too, traits that might seem indicative of AD/HD or even a delusional disorder (requiring treatment) can also be seen as talents (requiring expression). Gifted children who become lost in a fantasy world or insist on peculiar interpretations may become poets, artists, or inventors. If outlets for expression are denied, however, they may develop problems like anger or depression.

5. Intellectual. Dabrowski's fifth category is the one most typically associated with giftedness - an insatiable appetite for questioning, discovery, finding answers, and solving puzzles. Such children can seem annoying or arrogant, and their stubborn individuality can be misperceived as defiance toward authority or indifference to social context. They may be caricatured as "little professors" or, if their intellectual drive is focused on a narrow or esoteric subject, labeled with Asperger Syndrome.

While Dabrowski's theory of overexcitability hasn't been subjected to rigorous study, it does present an intriguing approach and raises important questions about the origin of emotional disorders in gifted children. Identification of the specific overexcitability at the root of a child's behavior can be a productive first step.

Another useful framework for understanding the behavior of gifted children is temperament. Temperamental traits are found in everyone, of course, but can manifest in particular ways in gifted individuals. If these traits are misinterpreted (e.g., if a highly idealistic child is rebuked for being "critical"), two kinds of problems can result. First, the child may receive pejorative labels because adults assume that the behavior reflects an anti-social motive or even a pathological origin; and second, other problems like anger, withdrawal, or low self-worth can result. After all, who wouldn't become upset in the face of chronic misunderstanding, frustration, criticism, and isolation?

Traits of temperament that may contribute to emotional or behavioral problems include:

How these "Traits" Become "Problems"

No trait is inherently difficult; but in combination and through interaction with elements of the environment (other people, timetables, sensory features), traits can lead to behavioral problems, including:

Difficulty with peer relations. Idealism, a heightened awareness of hypocrisy, unusual interests, and asynchronous development (when a child is mature in some areas, such as intellectual reasoning, but immature in others) can cause difficulty making and keeping friends. Unusual sensitivity can make a child vulnerable to perceived rejection; she may feel betrayed by a peer who plays with her today and with someone else tomorrow, referring to both as "friends." In other cases, gifted children who like to organize others or insist on rigid adherence to rules can have trouble with the give-and-take of social relationships. Unable to find the deep friendships she envisions, a child may invent imaginary friends or make do with stuffed animals, pets, or characters from video games.

Like all children, gifted children do want friends and may thus be caught between two contradictory desires: the desire for affiliation (belonging, connectedness) and the desire for integrity (being true to oneself). The experience of contradiction in itself can cause stress and lead to feelings of wariness and isolation; and it can be further compounded when a child's tempo is different from his peers'. Gifted children often have extreme tempos, either exceptionally slow (needing time to ponder) or exceptionally fast (arriving at connections and conclusions long before their companions).

Difficulty making decisions. Gifted children, particularly if they're divergent thinkers, may see so many sides of an issue, so many what-if's and possible outcomes, that they become overwhelmed. Unable to manage the richness that floods their minds, unable to bear the contradictions and sense of loss about all the roads not taken, they're unable to act. A child who can't pick a dessert because she's acutely aware of all the desserts she won't be getting if she chooses apple pie - and who tantrums when adults urge her to hurry - may be seen as demanding and spoiled when her behavior is actually due to cognitive overload.

Excessive self-criticism. Perfectionism and high standards can lead to self-criticism when gifted children berate themselves for falling short of their ideal. Frustration may be coupled with resentment about high performance expectations imposed by others. Angry and aggressive reactions may be directed at themselves, at adults whom they blame, or at scapegoats like younger siblings.

Avoidance of risk-taking. Intolerance for imperfection can cause children to avoid activities if they aren't sure they can perform to their own standard. Just as gifted children may see myriad possibilities and become paralyzed by mental overload, they may also see myriad potential problems and become paralyzed by anxiety. Fear of failure - unwillingness to take risks - can lead to feelings of unworthiness, defensiveness, and underachievement.

How these "Problems" Become Symptoms and Diagnoses

There are three ways to view so-called "disorders" like hyperactivity, anxiety, or depression. First, we can think of them as neurobiological conditions, hardwired into brain structure or genetics and, therefore, just as primary as height or skin color. From that point of view, they can't be prevented, though they can be managed more or less well; a gifted child might thus receive a dual diagnosis such as gifted and AD/HD.

We can also think of them as secondary conditions that develop as a result of continual stress. In that case, they're still real but not necessarily biochemical, and the idea of dual diagnosis holds.

Then there's a third possibility - that these aren't disorders at all but misinterpretations of traits that only seem problematic because of context or value system. From that perspective, it's a matter of misdiagnosis. For parents of twice-exceptional children, the questions are: which is it, and how can we know?

Clearly there are children with true psychiatric conditions. Children who hurt themselves, exhibit dramatic change in eating or sleeping, or talk about suicide need immediate professional help. But in many cases psychiatric diagnoses are given to behaviors that stem from unusual intensity, sensitivity, or eccentricity and aren't pathological at all. We need to de-construct some of the common diagnoses to see how misdiagnosis can occur.

Strategies to Reverse Direction

Instead of turning every difficulty into a diagnosis, we need to go in reverse and reclaim normalcy as a spectrum condition. To do that in a way that's more than semantic, we need to learn how to reduce a child's distress or frustration to a manageable (sub-threshold) level of difference. Here are some ways to do that.

Modify the environment to reduce the overall stress level. Children need to operate at a level of stress that's below what they can reasonably tolerate. Without a "margin of tolerance," there's no room for a child to absorb and cope with the additional stress that will inevitably occur; and something is bound to happen to tip an excitable 2e child into the melt-down zone. The parents' job is to increase that margin by eliminating unnecessary obstacles and stressors. We need to think broadly and creatively about elements of context that may matter for a particular child and about which we're willing to be flexible. Included might be sensory elements, demands about time (tempo, duration, and schedules), and conceptions of space. Some children do much better in large open spaces and feel boxed-in when the space is too small; others need the containment and coziness of small spaces in order to feel grounded.

Use language that normalizes and emphasizes common human struggles. Help your child isolate and normalize her area of difficulty. "You're the kind of person who ... hates to be interrupted, likes things to stay the same, needs time to figure out where to start." That tells her she isn't the only one who's ever felt this way or struggled with these issues. Where possible, reframe "problems" into neutral traits. "Picky" can become "You definitely know what you like." "Stubborn" can become "You're not a quitter." "Impulsive" can become "You aren't afraid to try something new."

Show that you "get it." Don't try to convince your child that he doesn't feel what he feels. You may be right that someone's failure to keep a promise isn't the end of the world, but telling your child it's "not a big deal" doesn't help him calm down - it just proves you don't understand. If your child insists that you don't understand, you probably don't. Sometimes parents and children are talking about two different subjects - your child wants you to acknowledge what might have happened, while you keep insisting that it didn't. He knows his sister didn't actually break his Lego castle, but he wants his concern to be taken seriously.

Help your child externalize what is occupying him internally. Activities like drawing, recording an audiotape, or writing a letter to the editor can help your child give form to intense feelings. Externalizing can also help him organize the ideas that are flooding his mind. If, for instance, you want your child to select a toy for his birthday but he can't handle the flood of too many possibilities, help him create a grid or matrix to organize the choices according to whatever dimension seems important to him - novelty, popularity, durability. If he's pressured to select a gift without having worked through all the pros and cons to his own satisfaction, reaction is inevitable: he'll reject the toy and then you'll get angry at his ingratitude.

Practice ahead of time. Once the meltdown has started, it's too late. If your perfectionist child has rejected the vanilla ice cream cone because it has a smear of chocolate, your chance of convincing her that it's okay is much greater if you've talked ahead of time about the 5 percent rule in statistics. (Statisticians are only concerned with arriving at 95 percent probability, because you can never account for every potential case.) You can remind your child that a cone counts as vanilla as long as the chocolate smear is less than or equal to 5 percent - but you can't pull that idea out of a hat once she's in the midst of a meltdown. It has to be a principle that's already in her repertoire, not something she thinks you've invented to trick her out of her misery.

Without minimizing true disorders requiring professional treatment, it's important to step back and ask whether your child's behavior might originate in something other than a psychiatric condition. We've examined a few possibilities, from Dabrowski's overexcitabilities to traits of temperament. It's only fair, after all, to consider non-pathological explanation along with pathological ones! This can bring new hope because the odds are that your child's difficulty comes from the intersection of internal (temperament and giftedness) and external factors (components of the environment), rather than from a neurobiological disease.

________________________________________________________ Barbara Probst, MSW, LCSW, is a clinical social worker specializing in helping families whose "different" children have somehow become "difficult" children - often because their sensitivity, intensity, or giftedness is mistaken for a "disorder." In addition to running parent support groups and working with individuals and families, she also teaches at Fordham University's Graduate School of Social Service, gives presentations throughout the country, and is the mother of two adolescents. She is currently completing a book slated for publication in early 2008.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Your Child's Exceptionality is Emotional: Looking Beyond Psychiatric Diagnosis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Barbara Probst. When people think of a twice-exceptional child, they usually think of someone who's gifted and learning-disabled. The "second exceptionality" is typically an educational issue like dyslexia, or sometimes a physiological issue like sensory integration dysfunction. In other cases, however, a child's second condition is said to be emotional, social, or behavioral.

# data[].attributes.headline
Psychological and Social Aspects of Educating Gifted Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Psychological and Social Aspects of Educating Gifted Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
(PDF) Psychological and Social Aspects of Educating Gifted Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article discusses salient components of the research base on the psychological and social aspects of educating gifted students in three areas: the psychological and social needs of gifted students, school-based issues common to gifted students, and the social coping strategies gifted students employ in school settings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Who are the Twice - Exceptional students

# data[].attributes.subject
Who are the Twice - Exceptional students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What's not often well-known or well-understood is that students who are gifted may also have a special need or disability- just as students with disabilities may also be gifted. The term "twice-exceptional," also referred to as "2e," is used to describe gifted children who, have the characteristics of gifted students with the potential for high achievement and give evidence of one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria. These disabilities may include specific learning disabilities (SpLD), speech and language disorders, emotional/behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, autism spectrum, or other impairments such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

Like other gifted learners, 2e students are highly knowledgeable and talented in at least one particular domain. However, their giftedness is often overshadowed by their disabilities, or these students may be able to mask or hide their learning deficits by using their talents to compensate. Sometimes a twice-exceptional child's special education needs are overlooked until adolescence or later, or are never identified throughout his or her life.

Twice-exceptional children often find difficulty in the school environment, where organization, participation, and long-term planning play a role. They can be highly creative, verbal, imaginative, curious, with strong problem-solving ability, and a wide range of interests or a single, all-consuming expertise. However, at school, they may have difficulty keeping up with course rigor, volume, and demands--resulting in inconsistent academic performance, frustration, difficulties with written expression, and labels such as lazy, unmotivated, and underachiever. All this may hinder their excitement for school and be detrimental to their self-efficacy, self-confidence, and motivation.

How does twice-exceptionality look at school and at home?

What the Teacher Might See

What the Parent Might See

I wish there was an answer for what is going on with one of my students this year. "Jim" is a bright, highly motivated 10-year-old who enjoys the STEM problems we cover in class. He's a walking encyclopedia on the planet Mars and recent missions; he's even designed his own plans for a new Mars rover. Despite this, Jim is extremely quiet and withdrawn, does not seem to have any friends, and rarely looks me in the eye when I try to talk with him about Mars or other subjects.

What can parents do to help?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What's not often well-known or well-understood is that students who are gifted may also have a special need or disability- just as students with disabilities may also be gifted.

# data[].attributes.headline
الابداع والتفكير الابداعي

# data[].attributes.subject
الابداع والتفكير الابداعي

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
- Reproduced from: Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 23(1), 3-54.

Joseph S. Renzulli, Director
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut

This author provides reflections on the 25 years of his work, focusing on the evolutions of models designed to help identify and meet the needs of gifted and talented students. The cited models include the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, the Enrichment Triad Model, and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Summaries focus on the rationale supporting each model, including practical applications of the model in various school situations and underlying research. Also included are insights related to potential modifications and future development of the models.
The principal goal of education is to create men and women who are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done.
-Jean Piaget-

Introduction
It is always a challenge to reflect upon one's work from a perspective of more than two decades of intense involvement, especially if your reflections will be the subject of analysis by others who have also thought long and hard about the identification and development of human potential. One of the conditions for accepting this challenge of a presentation-and-critique format was that the persons whose commentary follows be asked to review the major theoretical papers that describe my thoughts about how we should identify and develop high levels of potential in young people. I made this request because I didn't want to repeat large amounts of what has been written elsewhere, but rather point out how and why my theories evolved, how the theories led to practical applications that have gained popularity in the field, and how research has helped point the way toward modifications in theory and practice. I also invite interested readers to share their reactions with me and to offer suggestions for possible research that might lead to modifications in the three major phases of my work discussed below.

My approach will be to put forward three main sets of ideas that formed the rationale for my work over the past 25 years, discuss how this rationale has led to practical applications, to analyze some of things I would change or about which I have had second thoughts, and finally, to consider some areas where I might like to make additions to the major models. ¹ Because I believe that, in the final analysis, all ideas must be subjected to rigorous research in real world settings, I have also summarized in this article major research studies that have been carried out in schools and classrooms that have used my work.

Although I was asked by the editor of this journal to reflect on my "theoretical contributions," I have also taken the liberty of including some commentary about practical contributions. Most theorists leave practical applications to others; however, one of the characteristics of my work is that it has proceeded simultaneously along both theoretical and practical lines. For better or worse, I have never been content with developing theoretical concepts without devoting equal or even greater attention to creating instruments, procedures, staff development strategies, or instructional materials for implementing the various concepts. This approach has both advantages and disadvantages! An eye toward implementation allows for theory testing in practical settings and the opportunity to generate research data which can lend credence to the theory and/or point out directions where additional work needs to be done. One of the things I am proudest about is that over the years my colleagues and I have taken the time to conduct research studies about various aspects of the models I have developed. These studies have been summarized in a couple of places (Renzulli, 1988a, Renzulli & Reis, 1994), and I invite interested readers to examine this research.

A second advantage of pursuing practical as well as theoretical contributions is it allows me to get into touch with the sights, sounds, and smells of real schools and classrooms and the practical and political challenges of people working in them. Theory in an applied field doesn't have much value if it is not compatible with practical realities such as how schools work, teachers' ways of knowing, and the practices which can reasonably be expected to endure beyond the support usually accorded to pilot or experimental studies. In fact, the evolution of my work over the years leading to the present Schoolwide Enrichment Model is a direct result of these realities, for it is from direct experience that my ideas have taken new directions. A third advantage of a theory-into-practice approach is it has afforded me the opportunity to collaborate with exceptionally talented practitioners and other researchers, many of whom have authored or co-authored research studies, assessment and evaluation instruments, and materials for teachers and students. The contributions of these persons have helped expand both the theoretical and practical dimensions of our work.

The negative side of a combined theoretical/practical approach is the vulnerability of partially or poorly implemented practices. In most cases, it is the implementation rather than the idea which is the object of scrutiny. When I visit classrooms, for example, in which every student has produced cookie cutter copies of the same project, and they claim that these projects are examples of what I have defined as Type III Enrichment (i.e., Individual and Small Group Investigations of Real Problems), it reminds me of the quote about the shadow that falls between the idea and the reality. Nevertheless, even negative experiences have value. Mainly, they point out that the originator of the idea has not engineered the proper conditions for implementation, or communicated effectively with practitioners, or overestimated what works in the real world, or all of the above!

In the sections that follow, I will report on three major phases of my work. The first two phases, the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness and the Enrichment Triad Model, were developed simultaneously, and are meant to be interactive. Also interrelated with this phase is a procedure for regular curriculum modification called Curriculum Compacting. Since the Three Ring Conception is a rationale for identification practices, and the Triad deals with programming issues, I thought it best to discuss them separately. The third phase, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, was jointly developed with my colleague, Sally M. Reis. In some ways, I think that this model has the most interesting rationale of all!

Phase 1: The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness

The Road Less Traveled, Circa the Late 1960s and Early 1970s
In the late 1960s, when I first began my journey on the road to giftedland, I never dreamed: (1) that my work would become popular enough to warrant a special issue of this (or any other) journal, and (2) that it would become the basis for a good deal of controversy in the field. In the years since I originally published the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977), and the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli, 1978) a wide variety of reactions have appeared in the literature and on the professional conference circuit. These reactions have ranged from a highly positive article entitled "Renzulli Is Right," (Busse & Mansfield, 1980) to a scathing criticism that branded my work as "a national disease in gifted education" (Jellen, 1983). And this work seems to have generated enough controversy to cause some authors and speakers, regardless of the topic they are addressing, to weave into their work what Treffinger (1987) referred to as "cheap shots" about the ideas I have set forth.

To be certain, I was fully aware that the Triad Model and the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness challenged the traditional orthodoxy that dominated the field at that time, but I never thought that state directors of gifted programs would prohibit me from speaking or consulting with school districts in their states, or that the editors of professional journals in the field would reject my articles because, as one person put it, "I disagree philosophically with your ideas." It is interesting to note that my article on the Three Ring Conception of giftedness (Renzulli, 1978), which has been listed by the Social Science Citation Index as the most widely cited publication in the field, only found acceptance in a journal outside the field of education for the gifted.

To understand the discrepancy regarding the popularity of my work in more recent years versus the early resistance to it, it is necessary to turn back the calendar and revisit the climate of the field in the late sixties and early seventies. This was a time period prior to the landmark theories of Robert Sternberg and Howard Gardner, and before the publication of influential research on talent development by Benjamin Bloom, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Robert Albert, Dean Simonton, and others. Although some people were beginning to question the predominance of the single criterion, IQ score cut-off approach to the identification of students for special programs, state guidelines and regulations that were in existence or being enacted at that time still harkened back to the work of Lewis Terman and the belief that a certain level of traditionally measured intelligence was synonymous with giftedness. The only controversy within this very conservative conception of giftedness was how high to set the cut-off scores! Some people argued that it should be the top 1 percent, which was Terman's definition, ² and others argued for a three or five percent criterion. Regardless of the cut-off level, however, there was no mistaking the absolutist belief that a person was either gifted or not gifted; and chances were that they would retain their respective designations despite evidence to the contrary, especially if that evidence was based on information other than test scores.

It is easy to understand the wide acceptance of the cut-off score approach if we also examine historically (1) the ways in which designated students were commonly served in the early days of the movement, and (2) the emergence of state guidelines and especially state funding formulas. Most programs separated identified students into full-time special classes or part-time resource room arrangements for pre-selected students. Typical school-based programs consisted mainly of accelerated content or conglomerations of unconnected enrichment activities, frequently based on individual teachers' favored topics and units of study, or trendy thinking skill activities that claimed to be based on Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The advent of state funding, almost always based on a "body count" approach to reimbursement, placed additional pressure on schools to come up with tidy lists of exactly who qualified according to state imposed guidelines.

The Purpose of Identification and Special Programs

The Why Question
When I came on the scene in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a number of observations helped shape what eventually became the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness and the Enrichment Triad Model. The first observation had to do with the purpose of special programs. Implicit in any effort to define and identify a targeted group is the assumption that we will make special services available that capitalize on the characteristics that brought certain young people to our attention in the first place. In other words, the why question supersedes the who and how questions.

The literature on the gifted and talented indicated that there are two generally accepted purposes for providing special education for high potential youth. The first purpose is to provide young people with opportunities for maximum cognitive growth and self-fulfillment through the development and expression of one or a combination of performance areas where superior potential may be present. The second purpose is to increase society's reservoir of persons who will help to solve the problems of contemporary civilization by becoming producers of knowledge and art rather than mere consumers of existing information. This second purpose, sometimes referred to as the "cure-for-cancer argument," was especially useful in gaining legislative and financial support. Most people would agree that the two goals are mutually supportive of one another. In other words, the productive and creative work of scientists, authors, artists, and leaders in all walks of life provide benefits to society and also result in feelings of accomplishment, self-fulfillment, and a positive attitude about one's self. And these characteristics are, in turn, important contributors to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), the belief that one is capable of subsequent and usually more advanced expressions of creative productivity.

Two Types of Giftedness
Keeping the interaction of the two purposes of gifted education in mind, it is safe to conclude that special services and supplementary expenditures of public funds should be geared primarily toward increasing society's supply of potentially creative and productive adults. This conclusion has important implications for both the who and how questions, but most importantly, it led me to propose the difference between two types of giftedness-lesson learning or "schoolhouse" giftedness on one hand, and creative productive giftedness on the other.

Schoolhouse giftedness is the kind most easily measured by standardized ability tests, and therefore the type most conveniently used for selecting students for special programs. The competencies young people display on cognitive ability tests are exactly the kinds of abilities most valued in traditional school learning situations, especially those situations that focus on analytic skills rather that creative or practical skills. Research has shown a high correlation between schoolhouse giftedness and the likelihood of getting high grades in school. Research has also shown that superior lesson learning and test taking remain stable over time. These results should lead us to some very obvious conclusions about schoolhouse giftedness: it exists in varying degrees; it can easily be identified through standardized and informal assessment techniques; and we should therefore do everything in our power to make appropriate modifications for students who have the ability to cover regular curricular material at advanced rates and levels of understanding than their age peers. These conclusions led me to develop one aspect of our programming model known as Curriculum Compacting (Renzulli, Smith, & Reis, 1982). Research on Curriculum Compacting (Reis, et al., 1992) has shown that, with as little as three hours of systematic training, teachers can eliminate up to fifty percent of regular curricular material for high achieving students without causing any declines in standardized achievement test scores.

Although schoolhouse giftedness is valued and accommodated in our work, mainly through curriculum modification and replacement techniques, a major focus of the work has been on the second type of giftedness, which I have termed creative productive giftedness. Creative productive giftedness describes those aspects of human activity and involvement where a premium is placed on the development of original ideas, products, artistic expressions, and areas of knowledge that are purposefully designed to have an impact on one or more target audiences. Learning situations that are designed to promote creative productive giftedness emphasize the use and application of knowledge and thinking processes in an integrated, inductive, and real-problem oriented manner. The role of the student is transformed from that of a learner of prescribed lessons and consumer of information to one in which he or she uses the modus operandi of the first-hand inquirer. I have written in some detail about this transformed role of the learner (Renzulli, 1982a), and will only say at this point that it serves as the main rationale for the Type III dimension of the Enrichment Triad Model (discussed later in this article).

The idea for creative productive giftedness and the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness came from the broad range of research I reviewed on the nature of human abilities (Renzulli, 1978, 1982b, 1986) as well as numerous case studies about people of unusual accomplishment (both young people and adults) who would not have been identified or served in special programs if we relied solely on cognitive ability test scores. These observations also led me to another conclusion about the temporal and situational nature of creative productive giftedness, and especially the creativity and task commitment components of the Three Ring Conception. Whereas lesson learning giftedness, which is mainly accounted for in the above average ability circle of the Three Ring Conception, tends to remain stable over time, persons do not always display maximum creativity or task commitment. Highly creative and productive people have peaks and valleys of high level output. Some persons have commented that the valleys are as necessary as the peaks, because they allow for reflection, regeneration, and the accumulation of input for subsequent endeavors.

Similarly, creative productive giftedness tends to be contextual or domain specific. While there certainly have been a small number of "Renaissance" men and women who have gained recognition for work in several fields, the overwhelming number of persons who have been recognized for their outstanding accomplishments have almost always achieved in a single field or domain.

The temporal and situational nature of creative productive giftedness has resulted in some misunderstanding and criticism about the Three Ring Conception (Kontos, et al., 1983; Jellen, 1983, 1985; and Jarrell & Borland, 1990), and some efforts on my part to address of this phenomenon (Renzulli & Owen, 1983; Renzulli, 1985; Renzulli, 1988; Renzulli, 1990). A good deal of the misunderstanding and related controversy lies in the difficulty of defining a complex concept without creating a semantic atrocity or dwelling on banal arguments like the difference in meaning between such words as "gifted" and "talented." In my early writing on the topic an attempt was made to clarify the concept by adding a figural representation in the form of three intersecting circles. This Venn diagram was intended to convey figurally the dynamic properties of the concept, i.e., those properties pertaining to motion, interaction, continuous change and energy rather than a fixed or static state. But my best efforts at both semantic and figural communication have, nevertheless, resulted in interpretations that clearly were not intended.

Consider, for example, a comment by Tannenbaum (1986), in which he states: "Renzulli does not specify that giftedness requires the interplay of all three attributes in his model" (p. 31). It was for this very reason (i.e., interaction) that I chose to present the model figurally in the form of three overlapping rings. The primary purpose of a Venn diagram is to portray this type of interactive relationship.

The issue of performance versus potential is probably the aspect of my work on the conception of giftedness that is most frequently discussed in the literature. As an example, let us consider a discussion of the Three Ring Conception in a popular book for parents by Webb, Meckstroth & Tolan (1982). But first, allow me to highlight an important phrase from the original definition (1978, p. 261): "Gifted and talented children are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance" [bold type not in the original, but perhaps it should have been]. My intention was to convey the message that all three clusters need not be manifested by candidates for special services; but rather that they be identified as capable of developing these characteristics. Webb et al. seem to have overlooked or chosen to ignore the words that have been highlighted above, because in their book they state:

Another way of stating the Renzulli model is that superior ability, itself, is not enough-there must be high motivation to use that ability, and it must be expressed in creative ways, or to an unusual degree. Because it insists on the clear expression of giftedness, use of the Renzulli model overlooks many gifted children who, for a variety of reasons, are unwilling to demonstrate their talents in the ways being measured (p. 49).

Similar statements can be found in the textbook literature (Davis & Rimm, 1985, p. 12; Gallagher, 1985, p. 8; Maker, 1982, p. 232), and there is a general tendency to conclude that the Three Ring Conception fails to take account of "gifted underachievers." Thus, for example, Gagne (1985) states: "The factor that makes Renzulli's model inapplicable to underachievers is the presence of motivation as an essential component of giftedness" (p. 105), and Davis and Rimm (1985) state: "This model excludes underachievers" (p. 16). Similar statements focus on creativity. For example VanTassel-Baska (1998) comments, "...witness Renzulli's definition of giftedness, which excludes those children who do not display evidence of creativity" (p. 384).

Since, to my knowledge, none of the above commentators did any research on students or programs using the Triad Model or the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, I am left with the uneasy feeling that their conjecture is more journalistic than scientific. In point of fact, one of the few intervention studies in the research literature that shows highly favorable results for underachieving gifted students (Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert, 1995) is a study that selected participants based on the Three Ring Conception and used the Enrichment Triad as a direct means for counteracting underachievement.

The major reason for the interpretations discussed above undoubtedly lies in the type of research that led me to the conclusions that are summarized in the research rationale for the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli, 1978, 1986). Since this research dealt mainly with factors that contributed to the development of creative and productive behavior in adults, an obvious but not necessarily valid conclusion on the parts of some writers is that these same traits should be required of children in order to gain admission to programs for the gifted. It is, therefore, only a short leap in logic to the kinds of statements quoted above, and the belief that young people, regardless of ability, will be overlooked if they do not display task commitment or creativity. Clearly, this is not what I intended, but to understand the rationale and the practical implications (for identification) of the Three Ring Conception, we must examine another major concept underlying the model. This concept is the important distinction between two types of information that allow us to examine and estimate human potential.

Status and Action Information
Status information consists of test scores, previous grades or accomplishments, teacher ratings, and anything else we can "put down on paper" beforehand that tells us something about a person's traits and potentials. Status information is undoubtedly the best way for identifying students with high levels of schoolhouse giftedness, and it can also be used to identify a talent pool of above average ability students. But the temporal and contextual nature of creativity and task commitment require that we look for these behaviors within situations where such behaviors are displayed and hopefully encouraged. Action information, which has been described in detail elsewhere (Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981), can best be defined as the type of dynamic interactions that take place when a person becomes extremely interested in or excited about a particular topic, area of study, issue, idea, or event that takes place within the school or the nonschool environment. These interactions occur when students come into contact with or are influenced by persons, concepts, or particular pieces of knowledge. ³ They create the proverbial "Ahas" that may become triggers for subsequent involvement. It is for this reason that I included Type I Enrichment (General Exploratory Experiences) and Type II Enrichment (Group Training Activities) in the Triad Model. The influence of the interaction may be relatively limited, or it may have a highly positive and extremely motivating effect on certain individuals. If the influence is strong enough and positive enough to promote further exploration and follow-up on the part of an individual or group of students with a common interest, then we may say that a dynamic interaction has taken place.

To translate the above concepts (including the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness), into practice, my colleagues Sally Reis and Linda Smith and I developed the Revolving Door Identification Model (RDIM, Renzulli, Smith, & Reis, 1981). The essence of this model is to provide a "talent pool" of above average ability students with a broad variety of general enrichment experiences (Types I and II in the Enrichment Triad Model), and use the ways in which students respond to these experiences to determine who and in which areas of study students should "revolve" into Type III enrichment opportunities. In addition to the general enrichment provided in special program situations, we also trained classroom teachers to use a form called the Action Information Message so that they could serve as referral agents whenever students reacted in highly positive ways to regular classroom experiences.

Although this approach to identification and programming departs significantly from traditional practices, its effectiveness has been documented by a series of research studies and field tests in schools with widely varying socioeconomic levels and program organizational patterns. Using a population of 1,162 students in grades one through six in eleven school districts, Reis and Renzulli (1982) examined several variables related to the effectiveness of Triad/RDIM. The talent pools in each school were designated (but not divided) into two groups. Group A consisted of students who scored in the top 5% on standardized tests of intelligence and achievement. Group B consisted of students who scored between 10 to 15 percentile points below the top 5% and/or who were rated highly by teachers using the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (Renzulli, et al. 1976). Both groups participated equally in all program activities, and they were not aware of their group designations.

An instrument entitled the Student Product Assessment Form (SPAF, Reis & Renzulli, 1982) was used to compare the quality of products emanating from each group. This instrument provides individual ratings for eight specific characteristics of product quality and seven factors related to overall product quality. The validity and reliability of SPAF were established through a year-long series of studies that yielded reliability coefficients as high as 0.98. A double blind method of product coding was used so that judges did not know group membership (i.e., Group A or B) when evaluating individual products. A two-way analysis of variance indicated there were no significant differences between Group A and Group B with respect to the quality of students' products. These findings verify the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness underlying Triad/RDIM, clearly support the effectiveness of a model that focuses on creative productivity, and justify the inclusion of students in somewhat larger proportions than the traditional top 5% approach.

Questionnaires and interviews were used to examine several other factors related to overall program effectiveness. The data indicated that feelings about the Triad/RDIM program-gathered from classroom teachers, administrators, students in the Talent Pools, and their parents-were generally positive. Many classroom teachers reported that their high level of involvement in the program had favorably influenced their teaching practices. Parents whose children had been placed previously in traditional programs for the gifted did not differ in their opinions about the program from parents whose children had been identified as gifted under the expanded Three Ring Conception criteria. And resource teachers-many of whom had been involved previously in traditional programs for the gifted-overwhelmingly preferred the expanded talent pool approach to traditional reliance on test scores alone. In fact, several resource teachers in the experimental study said that they would resign or request transfers to regular classrooms if their school systems reverted to traditional identification practices.

Additional research (Delisle & Renzulli, 1982) examined academic self-concept and locus of control. This study established the importance of nonintellective factors in creative production and verified earlier research related to the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness. Using a step-wise multiple regression technique to study the correlates of creative production, Gubbins (1982) found that above average ability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for high level productivity. The roles of task commitment and time commitment and the importance of student interests were verified. Several factors related to improved productivity were identified. A study of student, parent, and classroom teachers' attitudes toward Triad/RDIM (Delisle, Reis, & Gubbins, 1981) revealed support for this approach and a high degree of cooperation among all persons involved in the implementation of this type of program. These studies also showed that a more flexible approach to identification helped to minimize attitudes of elitism, and promoted a "radiation of excellence" (Ward, 1961) throughout the buildings in which the model was implemented. A detailed technical report (Renzulli, 1988) describing studies dealing with all aspects of the Triad/RDIM system is available from the Bureau of Educational Research at the University of Connecticut.

The research summarized above and experiences growing out of widespread use of Triad/RDIM lead to a number of conclusions. First, although the model provides special services to larger numbers of students than do traditional programs for the gifted, the greater involvement of classroom teachers (especially through Curriculum Compacting) and the rotation of students in and out of Type III enrichment activities actually increases, rather than decreases, the level of services to identified students. Second, special programs that have traditionally been restricted to students who score in the top 5% on standardized tests can effectively serve other high potential students, if we (1) take action information into account when identifying candidates for service, and (2) use the action information when making decisions about individual student's types of program activity. By doing so, we also minimize concerns about elitism and help to do away with the you-have-it or you-don't-have-it approach to giftedness.

Third, programs for the gifted that rely on traditional identification procedures may not be serving the wrong students, but they are certainly excluding large numbers of well above average pupils who, given the opportunity, resources, and encouragement are capable of producing equally good products. High levels of productivity can only occur when above average ability interacts with other factors such as task commitment and creativity. It is these other factors that enable students to create products of exceptional quality. Finally, the flexibility that characterizes the Triad/Revolving Door Model can help to insure more appropriate identification of potentially creative/productive students, and more appropriate programs to meet their individual needs. In a larger context, it also provides an alternative to the traditional approaches that have been the subject of so much criticism by anti-grouping advocates and persons concerned about the underrepresentation of minorities and low SES students in special programs.

Phase I: Regrets...I've Had a Few
In the original work on the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, I figurally embedded the three rings in a hounds tooth background. ⁴ The interactive, two-toned background represented personality and environmental influences that contributed to the manifestation of the three rings. Although I listed several factors in each category, I regret that more time wasn't spent examining the research underlying these personality and environmental influences. Such an investigation could have led to another ring that might reflect a cluster of affective traits not unlike Gardner's (1983) inter- and intrapersonal intelligences or Goleman's (1995) emotional intelligence. When I review the work of researchers such as Albert (1975), Albert and Runco (1986), Simonton (1978) and Sternberg (1984, 1985), to name just a few, I realize that we are dealing with an almost infinite number of interactions in the making of giftedness.

I was aware of this extended complexity, but being a pragmatic as well as theoretical person, I felt the need to concentrate on building practical identification and programming procedures. We certainly need more research that deals with the traits that contribute to both schoolhouse and creative productive giftedness, the interaction between the two, and perhaps even more importantly, that elusive and inexplicable "thing" which is left over in human productivity after everything else has been explained! But we also need to explore new research paradigms that focus on the intensive study of young people at work in demanding learning situations that place a premium on creative productivity. I have written about the dimensions that such research might take elsewhere (Renzulli, 1992). Suffice it to say at this time, I believe the intensive study of young people at work holds the highest promise for adding major new dimensions to the Three Ring Conception. At this point in time, I am confident enough with the three rings to go ahead in more practical directions, and leave further contributions to trait theory to others.

Phase 2: The Enrichment Triad Model

A Little More Historical Background
Gifted education emerged in a big way in the United States in the late 1960s, mainly as a result of Sputnik and the very influential Marland Report (1972), which became a rallying point for interested educators and policy makers. As the movement grew in size and influence, the gifted education community engaged in an almost desperate quest to establish an identity that would show how gifted education differed from general education. Indeed, the term "qualitative differentiation" emerged as one of the field's major and longest lasting catch phrases. This quest for identity continues to this day, as it should, and I still hold firmly to the challenge set forth in the preface of the original book on Triad:

There are, quite obviously, many different ideas about what is necessary to achieve qualitative differentiation. What is equally obvious is that before the concept can take on any true meaning, a great in-house dialogue will have to take place, and advocates of special programs will have to become as confident about practices that they support as they are about practices that they are against. (Renzulli, 1977, p. ii)

It was about this time that I began work on a programming model that paralleled the conclusions reached from work on the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, and especially the distinction I made between schoolhouse and creative productive giftedness. This second major focus of my work, The Enrichment Triad Model, also emerged from my own research on the evaluation of programs for the gifted, and from observations of educational practices that were used in programs for the gifted in the 1960s and 1970s. These observations included reflections on my own experience in starting a gifted program in the post-Sputnik era. My doctoral dissertation dealt with program evaluation (Renzulli, 1966); and as part of that work, I had the opportunity to visit and to examine from an evaluative perspective numerous programs for gifted and talented students.

The two types of pedagogical (as opposed to organizational) practices that characterized the field before Triad were (1) advanced or accelerated content and (2) a conglomeration of process-oriented enrichment activities based on the thinking skills models of Bloom (1956) and Guilford (1967). Sometimes included in this second category were affective domain activities based on the work of writers such as Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) and Kohlberg and Mayer (1972). Although I believed, and still believe, that both of these approaches play an important role in the development of potential in young people, I also had serious reservations about whether or not they could serve as a defensible rationale for qualitatively differentiated programs. I will discuss these two categories of practice in reverse order.

The Process-Oriented Activities. The first reservation, which was put forth in my early writing on Triad, was about the conglomeration of kits, games, puzzles and disjointed enrichment activities that were usually found in resource rooms and pull-out programs. Although these process-oriented activities were both enjoyable and challenging, I raised two questions about their potential to serve as a rationale for qualitative differentiation. Granted, the gifted community was the first group of educators to "discover" the process models and to implement practical applications of them into special program experiences. I argued, however, that these experiences were appropriate for all students. I further argued that they should be blended into general education because they represent a form of cognitive development that has higher transfer value than the traditional content based curriculum. The fact that general education did not make much use of the process models at that time was not a sufficient rationale for arguing that they were only good for the gifted. When I recommended their use for all students, I was severely criticized by the gifted education establishment, which viewed me as someone who was "giving away the family jewels!" In this case, history has been on my side. The major thrust in general education over the past two decades has been a momentous investment in the development of thinking skills for all students.

My second reservation about the process models has to do with the ways in which they typically are taught. Since this reservation is the same as my concern about the accelerated content approach, I will cover this topic in the section that follows. I want to emphasize at this point that I am not criticizing the pedagogy of the process models, but rather arguing that they cannot serve as a rationale for qualitative differentiation because they represent the same pedagogy as that which is predominant in general education.

The Accelerated Content Approach. The accelerated content approach usually consisted of providing identified students with above-grade-level material or additional "challenge activities" that were tacked on to regular curricular units (the problems or challenge questions starred at the bottom of the page). The accelerated curriculum approach also included specially designed curricular units that were prepared by teachers or teams of teachers and subject area specialists (Renzulli & Nearine, 1968).

Although the accelerated content or advanced curricular unit approaches certainly have value in advancing what I have described above as lesson-learning giftedness, I view them as examples of quan titative rather than qualitative differentiation. In order to understand what is meant by quantitative differentiation, I need to draw a comparison between this approach and regular curricular experiences, which are the mainstay of general education. Before elaborating on this difference, however, I need to say a few words about Type III Enrichment (Individual and Small Group Investigations of Real Problems). I have attempted to define real problems elsewhere, and pointed out in that article (Renzulli, 1982b) why I believe Type III Enrichment is a bona fide rationale for the development of creative productive giftedness. The core argument in this rationale is derived from the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, and the belief that qualitatively different learning experiences should approximate the modus operandi of creative and productive individuals. This modus operandi obviously includes acquisition of advanced content (you can't be creative with an empty brain), but it is only those persons who go beyond the acquisition of present knowledge who society eventually designates as gifted artists, scientists, authors or inventors [Note: I prefer to use the g-word as an adjective]. In other words, if we want to produce more of these kinds of persons, then we should look to the make-up of individuals and the styles of their work that resulted in notable accomplishment.

Although I am not against lesson learning giftedness or the roles that advanced content and process play in the development of both kinds of giftedness, I do argue for a different kind of pedagogy for producing creative productive giftedness. This pedagogy, which is summarized in the following section, is for better or worse, what I consider to be the major contribution of my work to the field.

The Learning Theory Rationale for Type III Enrichment

Two Model Learning Theory
More books, articles, and papers have been written about the process of learning than perhaps any other topic in education and psychology. And when we add the vast amount of material that has been written about models of teaching and theories of instruction, the sheer volume of literature is nothing short of mind boggling! It is not my intention to review this multitudinous literature as background for the discussion on Type III Enrichment that follows, nor will I argue about the number of unique theories that actually exist, or the advantages and disadvantages of various paradigms for guiding the learning process. I will argue, however, that in spite of all that has been written, every theory of teaching, learning, and instruction can be classified into one of two general models. There are, obviously, occasions when a particular approach transcends both models; however, for purposes of clarifying the main features of Type III Enrichment, I will treat the two main models as polar opposites. Both models of learning and teaching are valuable in the overall process of schooling, and a well-balanced school program must make use of both of these general approaches to learning and teaching.

Although many names have been used to describe the two models that will be discussed, I will simply refer to them by their classical names, the deductive model and the inductive model. The Deductive Model is the one with which most educators are familiar and the one that has guided the overwhelming majority of what takes place in classrooms and other places where formal learning is pursued. Simply stated, the deductive model is the one in which the goal of learning is to place into students' repertoires the content and skills that are almost always delivered through the use of prescribed, presented lessons with predetermined pathways for arriving at what students typically perceive as being the right answer. Lists of behavioral objectives and standards based approaches to curriculum are applied examples of the deductive model.

The Inductive Model, on the other hand, represents the kinds of learning that take place outside of formal learning or traditional classroom situations, but that can be integrated into school learning with the proper engineering. A good way to understand the difference between these two types of learning is to compare how learning takes place in a typical classroom with how someone might learn new material or skills in real world situations. Classrooms are characterized by relatively fixed time schedules, segmented subjects or topics, predetermined sets of information and activity, tests and grades to determine progress, and a pattern of organization that is largely driven by the need to acquire and assimilate information and skills imposed by curriculum guides, lists of standards or behavioral objectives or, indirectly, by statewide testing programs. The major assumption in the deductive model is that current learning will have transfer value for some future problem, course, occupational pursuit, or life activity.

Contrast this type of learning with the more natural chain of events that take place in inductive situations such as a research laboratory, business office, or film studio. The goal in these situations is to produce a product or service. All resources, information, schedules, and sequences of events are directed toward this goal, and evaluation (rather than grading) is a function of the quality of the product or service as viewed through the eyes of a client or consumer. Everything that results in learning in a research laboratory, for example, is for present use, and, therefore, looking up new information, conducting an experiment, analyzing results, or preparing a report is focused primarily on product delivery rather than some amorphous future situation. Even the amount of time devoted to a particular project cannot be determined in advance because the nature of the problem and the unknown obstacles that might be encountered as the problem unfolds prevent us from prescribing rigid schedules.

Qualitative Differentiation
Type III Enrichment is essentially an inductive approach to learning; and as such, I argue that it is qualitatively different from most learning experiences provided in most school situations. My argument is not an indictment of deductive learning. Indeed, high levels of creative productivity require large amounts of knowledge and the use of process skills that are almost universally taught through deductive methods. Rather, my argument simply is we need to achieve balance between the two major approaches.

I have elaborated on two model learning theory and the differences between deductive and inductive learning elsewhere (Renzulli, 1982b, 1994, pp. 197-232). A good way to summarize these differences is to examine the major features of each model on a continuum that portrays the teacher's role, the curriculum, classroom organization and management, and the resultant role of the student (see Figure 1). There is, obviously, a middle ground for each continuum, and I do not believe that all learning should favor the right side of each continuum presented in Figure 1. Some learning situations are undoubtedly more efficient when carried out in structured settings, and even drill and worksheets have value in accomplishing certain goals of basic skill learning. But because I believe that schools are first and foremost places for talent development, there are times within the overall process of schooling when we can and should make a conscious commitment to apply Type III learning strategies to selected aspects of schooling.

Click on the figure to see it as a PDF file. Figure 1. The dimensions of two-model learning theory. ( )

Key Features Underlying Type III Enrichment
Type III Enrichment is based on the ideas of a small number of philosophers, theorists, and researchers. ⁵ The work of these persons, coupled with the research and program development activities of my colleagues and myself, has given rise to the approach to learning that I call Type III Enrichment. Underlying this approach are a number of key features that characterize this type of enrichment.

1. Uniqueness of the Learner. Each learner is unique, and therefore, Type III learning experiences must be engineered in ways that take into account the abilities, interests, and learning styles of the individual. Learning styles include preferences for various instructional techniques, learning environment preferences, thinking style preferences, and expression style preferences. (Note: Over the years my colleagues and I have developed and collected a broad array of instruments to assess interests and various stylistic preferences. Summaries of these instruments can be found in Renzulli, 1994.)

2. The Role of Enjoyment. Learning is more effective when students enjoy what they are doing, and, therefore, Type III experiences should be constructed and assessed with as much concern for enjoyment as for cognitive growth goals.

3. Personalization of Learning. Learning is more meaningful and enjoyable when content (i.e., knowledge) and process (i.e., thinking skills, methods of inquiry) are learned within the context of a real and present problem. Attention should therefore be given to opportunities for personalizing student choice in problem selection, the relevance of the problem for individuals or groups, and strategies for assisting students in personalizing problems they might choose to study. Some formal instruction may be used in Type III Enrichment, but a major goal of this approach is to enhance students' development of and affection for investigative strategies.

4. Methodological Resources. The use of authentic methods of professional investigators, even when used at a junior level or in connection with investigations that are replications of already conducted work, are nevertheless the sine qua non of creative productive (as opposed to lesson learning) giftedness. Therefore, the major role of the teacher in Type III Enrichment is to assist young people in locating, understanding, and using methodological resources. Included in this role is the essential process of helping young people find and focus authentic problems. This role may require obtaining advice and/or direct involvement from persons with specialized knowledge or talent.

5. Focus on Products and Services. Creative and productive individuals almost always pursue their work because they hope to have an impact on a particular audience. It is, in fact, this expectation that I believe brings energy, task commitment, and even passion to their work. I view the development of products in Type III learning contexts to be "the assembly plants of mind." Everything that one has learned, from basic skills to advanced levels of information, cognitive processing, and even interpersonal and intrapersonal skills "comes together" in the development of a product or service that the producer hopes will inform, persuade, entertain, or cause others to believe or behave differently. It is interesting to note that when I first wrote about the important role products played in qualitative differentiation, other writers accused me of "exploiting" gifted students. I am pleased to report that many other writers in the field have now included a product dimension to their work.

By way of summary, the ultimate goal of Type III Enrichment and the key features which underlie it is to replace dependence and passive learning with independence and engaged learning. Although all but the most conservative educators will agree with these key features, much controversy exists about how these (or similar) features may be applied in everyday school situations. A danger also exists that these key features might be viewed as yet another idealized list of glittering generalities that cannot easily be manifested in schools that are overwhelmed by the deductive model of learning and the standards based and test-driven curriculum. Developing a school program based on this approach to learning is not an easy task. Over the years, however, we have achieved a fair amount of success by gaining faculty, administrative, and parental consensus on a small number of easy-to-understand concepts and related services, and by providing resources and training related to each concept and service delivery procedure. On a personal note, I am especially proud of our annual summer Confratute Program, which over the past 20 years has trained thousands of educators from around the world in practical ways to apply this pedagogy. When I open my mail and see yet another example of an outstanding product by a young person, I feel that my efforts, and those of my colleagues, have been worthwhile!

Phase II: Regrets...I've Had a Few
I have been asked on several occasions where affective development or social and emotional development fit into the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness and the Enrichment Triad Model. These aspects of overall development are obviously very important, although I must admit that my writing has not focused on them, nor have I joined the coterie of speakers who argue that social and emotional development should be "the heart and soul" of the gifted student movement. I do believe, however, that my work has dealt with non-cognitive development in two ways. The Type II dimension of the Triad model is a recommended vehicle for providing young people with process activities that deal with important issues such as self-concept, interpersonal relations, and the development of feelings, attitudes, and values. At the same time, however, I believe that "canned" affective activities do not have as much potential for developing real affect as do experiences that cause young people to become personally involved in something that is affectively as well as substantively meaningful to them. In this regard, Type III Enrichment is a more important vehicle for promoting genuine affect and helping young people to explore dimensions of their social and emotional development.

Thus, for example, we noted remarkable changes in attitude and commitment toward disabled persons when a group of middle school students developed a personal library of original, large print stories for a partially sighted schoolmate. In another Type III investigation, a fifth grade boy developed an original computer program to study the time, location, and frequency of arrests associated with drunk driving in his community. His work resulted in increased police patrols in high incidence locations and a subsequent decline in drunk driving incidents. He also started the first local chapter of Students Against Driving Drunk. A group of elementary students conducted a comprehensive study of the benefits of, and procedures for composting household garbage. They prepared manuals for distribution to local citizens and mounted a vigorous public awareness campaign. Their work was so successful that a grant was obtained to purchase a commercial composting unit for their school, and now all cafeteria waste is recycled by students to produce enriched soil.

These examples point out what I believe to be the most important part of the Three Ring Conception and the Triad model-that is, encouraging talented young people to apply their abilities, creativity, and task commitment to solve personally meaningful problems they encounter in their schools and communities. It has long been my belief that the encouragement of these kinds of involvement will result in the development of values that focus on using one's gifts and talents to improve our world. These types of involvement also provide opportunities for real cooperativeness (as opposed to assigned cooperative activities), a better understanding of one's ability to make a difference, and the opportunity to experience and deal with real feelings.

A number of people have suggested that the Enrichment Triad Model has potential applications beyond those for which it was originally intended. One of these suggestions (by Donald Treffinger) led to a discussion of the model as a paradigm for creative productivity (Renzulli, 1993). Others have suggested that it has applications as a curriculum development model. We have, in fact, described a plan for using Triad as a curricular organization plan within secondary subject matter classes (Reis & Renzulli, 1985), and I have incorporated many of the principles underlying Triad in a curriculum theory entitled The Multiple Menu Model for Developing Differentiated Curriculum (Renzulli, 1988b). More recently, a book by Margaret Beecher (1995) has used the Triad model as a guide for developing curricular activities across all grade levels and subject matter areas. These initiatives notwithstanding, I regret that further thought and research were not devoted to the full ramifications of a complete curriculum development strategy based on the Triad model.

I have taken a rather uncommon approach toward the coverage of regular curricular material and the development of special curricular units for high achieving students. The reasons for this attitude are threefold. First, forces that are far more powerful than the gifted community have (and probably always will) determine the content of the regular curriculum. For this reason, I have simply argued for curricular modification (e.g., Compacting) and other forms of differentiation according to individual rates and levels of performance, and the replacement of already mastered material with enrichment and/or acceleration activities. This approach does not solve the problem of an unchallenging curriculum, but does offer a form of "damage control" so far as rapid learners are concerned. Second, accelerated content, either in the form of above-grade-level material or specially developed units "for the gifted," almost always follows the didactic pedagogy (i.e., prescribed, presented instruction) that dominates general education. This is frequently true even in cases where unusual or exotic topics of study are selected, where the focus is on broad themes or interdisciplinary topics, or when the writers of such materials claim to challenge the higher mental processes. Third, the developers of special units have not reported research in refereed journals that verifies the benefits for identified students only. Their claims are based mainly on an appeal to face validity, a concept that has generally been abandoned by modern theorists and researchers. Without more rigorous research, we are still left with the haunting question: Why don't we use these units with all students?

Another regret related to Triad is, that despite my best efforts, persons using the model frequently focus on the individual cells rather than the interconnections that are portrayed by the arrows in the diagram. Each type of enrichment is intended to serve as leverage for the other types. All in all, however, I still stand solidly behind Triad, and believe that when used in combination with compacting and various acceleration options, it is a viable plan for developing both schoolhouse and creative productive giftedness.

The last regret related to Triad is more nearly a challenge to myself-or any interested persons who might like to take on what could prove to be a very valuable endeavor. It was my hope when I developed Triad and trained teachers in the use of the model that they would become proficient in locating Type II Enrichment materials, and integrating them with various topics in the regular curriculum. Demands on teachers' time, however, have largely prevented this kind of undertaking. Nevertheless, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of excellent Type II enrichment materials available from dozens of publishers and non-commercial sources. Although these materials do not have a strong research base, it would be worthwhile to gather systematically information about user satisfaction based on the opinions of practitioner experts (i.e., classroom teachers who have used the materials, and who have some background in enrichment learning and teaching). If I had the time and resources I would love to examine the quality of these materials, and perhaps even do some controlled research on those that are widely used. But gathering and evaluating materials is only half the job! If we expect them to be used in more than a haphazard manner, someone will need to examine which junctures within the regular curriculum these materials can provide the most relevant extensions and enrichment. This project would, in effect, provide the field with an integrated scope and sequence framework of process related materials.

Phase 3: The Schoolwide Enrichment Model

Special programs for the gifted reached their zenith in the U. S. in the early 1980s. But another force began to emerge in general education as the result of a federal report entitled A Nation At Risk (1983) that was to have an extremely unfavorable impact on the gifted education movement. This force was the powerful equity-in-education movement and a host of related school reform initiatives that sought to improve what was viewed as a declining education system. The inability of the education establishment to make any significant improvements in schooling for at-risk students, even after decades of federal and state expenditures in the billions of dollars, caused educational leaders and policy makers to seek nothing short of desperate solutions for school improvement. ⁶ One of these solutions was the elimination of grouping; and part and parcel of this thrust was doing away with special programs for the gifted. Political correctness fanned the flames of criticism about elitism, favoritism, disproportionate allocations of resources, the severe under representation of minorities, and the "condition of separateness" that often existed between special and regular programs. Many gifted programs were eliminated or severely curtailed, funding in some states was decreased or withdrawn altogether, and leadership personnel in many state departments of education were dismissed. This criticism, not all of which was unjustified, opened the door for the first time to what Feldman (1992) called a true paradigm shift in the ways in which we view identification and programming for gifted and talented students. As a leading liberal in the field, this paradigm shift gave my work an opportunity for consideration that clearly did not exist under a conservative dominated field.

In the mid 1980s, Sally Reis and I began experimenting with the feasibility of a plan that would incorporate the development of talents in all students. Our work in several school districts led us to understand that when excellent gifted programs were in place, benefits were clearly demonstrated for other students as well. We believed that a broad based approach to differentiation (i.e., not just for "the gifted"), and respect for the abilities, interests, and learning styles of all students, would: (1) guard against charges of elitism and undemocratic practice, (2) provide a flexible vehicle for developing the talents of students who might otherwise go unrecognized, and (3) allow us to continue to serve our highest achieving students. In other words, a consistent democratic philosophy of education for all students legitimizes differentiation for all students.

These beliefs led to the development of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM, Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997), which will be described in the sections that follow. The direction we would take in this new work grew out of a number of concerns and experiences gained from our research on the Triad/Revolving Door Model. As indicated in the section above on Triad, I always believed that general enrichment (i.e., Types I and II) was good for all students, so long as it was viewed as an invitation or stepping stone to higher levels of follow-up, and if we provided the opportunities, resources, and encouragement for such follow-up.

We found in our research that when enrichment was viewed as a schoolwide goal and responsibility, a number of good things started to happen for all of the major participants (identified students, non-identified students, special program teachers, and regular classroom teachers). First and foremost, the "us-and-them" barriers started to disappear between both identified and non-identified students, and between regular and special program teachers. Classroom teachers were more willing to carry out Curriculum Compacting for their highest achieving students. This service, in and of itself, dramatically increased the amount of differentiation for high achieving students. Classroom teachers also became more skillful at spotting high levels of interest and submitting Action Information Messages ⁷ to resource teachers, and the majority of classroom teachers participated more eagerly in planning and carrying out Types I and II Enrichment. Many of these teachers, who had previously felt "left out" and even insulted because identified students went to "the gifted teacher," now felt that their strengths and contributions were recognized, and that they had a part to play in developing high levels of student performance.

Resource teachers' attitudes also changed. Rather than feeling isolated, and sometimes even alienated from other teachers, they began to feel more like members of a team with a common talent development mission. They experienced satisfaction as a result of sharing some of their general enrichment know-how with classroom teachers, and they were able to concentrate their efforts with targeted students on Type III Enrichment. This concentration gave the resource teachers stronger feelings of specialization, especially in view of the fact that so much of their previous focus on thinking skills was now being assimilated into the regular curriculum. Changes in attitude were also observed among identified and non-identified students; however, these impressions from informal observation now pointed to the need for some systematic research. Before summarizing this research, a brief overview of the model will be presented.

A Bird's Eye View of The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM)
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) is a detailed blueprint for total school improvement that is flexible enough to allow each school to develop its own unique program based on local resources, student populations, school leadership dynamics, and faculty strengths and creativity. Although this research-supported model is based on highly successful practices that had their origins in special programs for gifted and talented students, its major goal is to promote both challenging and enjoyable "high-end learning" across the full range of school types, levels, and demographic differences. The model is not intended to replace or minimize existing services to high achieving students. Rather, its purpose is to integrate these services into "a-rising-tide-lifts-all-ships" approach to school improvement, and to expand the role of enrichment specialists by having these persons infuse specific practices for high-end learning into the total school program. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model provides educators with the means to:

Develop the talent potentials of young people by systematically assessing their strengths; providing enrichment opportunities, resources, and services to develop the strengths; and using a flexible approach to curricular differentiation and the use of school time.

Improve the academic performance of all students in all areas of the regular curriculum and to blend standard curriculum activities with meaningful enrichment learning.

Promote continuous, reflective, growth-oriented professionalism of school personnel to such an extent that many faculty members emerge as leaders in curriculum and staff development, program planning, etc.

Create a learning community that honors ethnic, gender, and cultural diversity, and promotes mutual respect, democratic principles, and the preservation of the Earth's resources.

Implement a collaborative school culture that includes appropriate decision-making opportunities for students, parents, teachers, and administrators.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model consists of three interacting dimensions (see Figure 2). Two dimensions, called the organizational components and the service delivery components, are brought to bear on a third dimension, which represents various school structures such as the regular curriculum, a variety of enrichment situations, and a continuum of services that ranges from enrichment in the regular classroom to special projects, internship opportunities, various grouping arrangements (including special classes and special schools), and a broad array of out-of-school enrichment opportunities. ⁸ The organizational components are resources used to support program development such as staff training materials, an enrichment materials data base, procedures for staff teaming and interaction, and vehicles for promoting parent and community involvement. These components are cross referenced with the following three service delivery components, which are direct services to students and form the centerpiece of the model.

Click on the figure to see it as a PDF file. Figure 2. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model. ( )

The Total Talent Portfolio (TTP)
The Total Talent Portfolio is a component of the model that is used for gathering and recording information systematically about students' abilities, interests, and learning styles preferences. Best-case samples of students' work as well as information resulting from interest and learning styles assessment scales, and expression styles preference scales (Kettle, Renzulli, & Rizza, 1998) are reviewed and analyzed cooperatively by students and teachers in order to make meaningful decisions about necessary curricular modifications and enrichment opportunities that capitalize on students' strengths and interests. The major dimensions of the portfolio and the specific items that guide data gathering within each dimension are presented in Figure 3. The major purposes of the Total Talent Portfolio are:

To collect several different types of information that portray a student's strength areas, and to regularly update this information.

To classify this information into the general categories of abilities, interests, and learning styles and related markers of successful learning such as organizational skills, content area preferences, personal and social skills, preferences for creative productivity, and learning-how-to-learn skills.

To periodically review and analyze the information in order to make purposeful decisions about providing opportunities for enrichment experiences in the regular curriculum, the enrichment clusters, and the continuum of special services.

To negotiate various acceleration and enrichment learning options and opportunities between teacher and student through participation in a shared decision making process.

To use the information as a vehicle for educational, personal, and career counseling and for communicating with parents about the school's talent development opportunities and their child's involvement in them.

Click on the figure to see it as a PDF file. Figure 3. The dimensions of the Total Talent Portfolio. ( )

Our experience has shown that students achieve autonomy and ownership of the TTP by assuming major responsibility in the selection of items to be included, maintaining and regularly updating the portfolio, and setting personal goals by making decisions about items that they would like to include in the portfolio. Although the teacher should serve as a guide in the portfolio review process, the ultimate goal is to create autonomy in students by turning control for the management of the portfolio over to them.

Curriculum Modification Techniques
The second service delivery component of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model consists of a series of techniques that are designed to: (1) assess each student's mastery level of regular curricular material, (2) adjust the pace and level of required material to accommodate variations in learning, and (3) provide enrichment and acceleration alternatives for students who have, or can, easily master regular material at a more rapid pace. The first curriculum modification procedure is carried out for individuals-and for small groups of students working at approximately the same level-through a systematic process called Curriculum Compacting. This three-step process consists of defining the goals and outcomes of a particular unit of study; determining and documenting which students have already mastered most or all of a specified set of learning outcomes (or which students are capable of mastery at an accelerated pace); and providing replacement activities that are pursued during the time gained by compacting the regular curriculum. These options include content acceleration, self-selected individual or group research projects, peer teaching, and a variety of out-of-class or non-school activities. Research on Curriculum Compacting has shown that this process can easily be learned and implemented by teachers at all levels and that students using this process benefit academically.

A second procedure for making adjustments in regular curriculum on a more widespread basis is the examination of textbooks and workbooks in order to determine which parts can be economized upon through the "surgical" removal of excessive practice material. Based on the belief that "less is better" when it comes to promoting greater depth in learning, this process also includes replacement activities in the form of direct teaching of thinking skills and curriculum development options for high-end learning based on the Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli, 1988b). This model for curriculum differentiation focuses on using representative concepts, themes, patterns, organizing structures, and investigative methodologies to capture the essence of a topic both within traditional domains of knowledge and in interdisciplinary studies. In-depth learning also requires increasingly complex information that moves up the hierarchy of knowledge: from facts to principles, generalizations, and theories. These skills, plus the use of advanced-level knowledge, form the cognitive structures and problem-solving strategies that endure long after students have forgotten the factual material that is the focus of so much traditional learning. The surgical removal of repetitive practice material provides the time for the types of experiences described in the section that follows.

Enrichment Learning and Teaching
Enrichment learning and teaching is a systematic set of strategies designed to promote active engagement in learning on the parts of both teachers and students. In a certain sense, the approach strives to do everything the opposite from traditional, didactic teaching, and it draws upon both the rationale and the methodology of Type III Enrichment.

Although enrichment learning and teaching can be used in all school structures (e.g., regular curriculum, special groupings, internships), we have found that creating a special "place" in the schedule is the best way to guarantee that every student will have an opportunity to participate in this different approach to learning. This special place is called enrichment clusters, and the major pedagogical method used in the clusters is an inductive approach to learning based on the Enrichment Triad Model. Our experience has shown that implementing these clusters provides immediate visibility to the schoolwide improvement process and a remarkable amount of enthusiasm on the parts of students, teachers, and parents. The clusters have also served another important purpose for highly able and motivated students, especially in those schools that have minimized or eliminated grouping, and in schools that have moved from pull-out models to consulting teacher models. This purpose can best be described as performance-based identification followed by supplementary services. We have had numerous examples of students who got started on a project in a cluster, and then went on to do a long and very intensive follow up study under the direction or a resource teacher, a mentor from the community, or an interested member of the general school faculty. I sometimes refer to this arrangement as a "spin-out" rather than pull-out approach. That is, interest and momentum are gained in a cluster, after which the student spins out to a more advanced and focused learning situation.

Enrichment clusters are non-graded groups of students who share common interests, and who come together to pursue these interests during specially designated time blocks usually consisting of one-half day per week. There is one "golden rule" for enrichment clusters: Everything students do in the cluster is directed toward producing a product or delivering a service for a real-world audience. This rule forces the issue of learning only relevant content and using only authentic processes within the context of student-selected product or service development activities. All teachers (including music, art, physical education, etc.) are involved in facilitating the clusters, and numerous schools using this vehicle have also involved parents and other community resource persons. Adult involvement in any particular cluster should be based on the same type of interest assessment that is used for students in selecting clusters of choice. ⁹

Like extracurricular activities and programs such as 4-H and Junior Achievement, the clusters meet at designated times and operate on the assumption that students and teachers (or community resource people) want to be there. The clusters place a premium on the development of higher-order thinking skills and the creative and productive application of these skills to real-world situations. Common goals make real cooperativeness a necessity, and divisions of labor within the clusters allow for differentiated levels of expertise and involvement, varying levels of challenge, and opportunities for different types of leadership to emerge on the parts of students. This type of learning environment is highly supportive of individual differences and, therefore, promotes the development of self-concept, self-efficacy, and positive feelings that result from being a member of a goal oriented team. To put it another way: Every child is special if we create conditions in which that child can be a specialist within a specialized group.

Enrichment clusters revolve around major disciplines, interdisciplinary themes, or cross-disciplinary topics. A theatrical/television production group, for example, might include actors, writers, technical specialists, and costume designers. Clearly, the clusters deal with how-to knowledge, authentic problem solving strategies, and interpersonal relations that are typically used in studios, laboratories, businesses, and other places where work is directed toward producing a product or service. Instead of lesson plans or unit plans, three key questions guide the type of learning that is the goal of enrichment clusters:

What do people with an interest in this area-for example, film making-do?

What knowledge, materials, and other resources do we need to authentically complete activities in this area?

In what ways can we use the product or service to have an impact on intended audience?

Clusters are offered for an extended time block-usually one-half day per week-and they sometimes continue over several semesters (or even years) if interest remains high and there is a continuous escalation of student engagement and product quality. Students enter a cluster based on interests and other information gleaned from the Total Talent Portfolio. Students who develop a high degree of expertise in a particular area are sometimes asked to serve as an assistant or a facilitator of their own cluster (usually with younger students). Clusters also serve as vehicles for identifying which students might want to revolve into an intensive Type III Enrichment situation that is carried out under the direction of a resource teacher or another adult mentor from within or outside the school.

Research on the Schoolwide Enrichment Model
Over the years, we have conducted a wide variety of research studies to examine the effectiveness of various components of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1994). These studies generally fall into the following categories: the effects of SEM as perceived by teachers, administrators, parents and students; the creativity and the quality of student products, the effects of staff development on students' creative productivity; personal and social development and social acceptability of students in SEM programs; the effects of SEM participation on underachievers, learning disabled students, and vocational/technical school students; the effects of SEM on self-efficacy and learning styles; and the effects of enrichment clusters on a broad range of student, teacher, and school improvement variables. The details of this research are beyond the scope of this paper, however, an appendix to this article includes the references, populations studied, and the major findings of each study. Studies related to the Revolving Door Identification Model and Curriculum Compacting have been cited earlier in this article.

Because the SEM is the newest aspect of our work, and because each school is encouraged to implement the model in ways that respect local beliefs, resources, demographics, state guidelines, and local politics, we will continue to conduct new research on the model in the future. This research will undoubtedly result in modifications to both the theory underlying the model and to the practical procedures necessary for implementing the model. When it comes to the most theoretically sound and fundamentally feasible ways to develop the potentials of young people, our work is never complete!

The Relationship Between Gifted Programs and Providing High-End Learning Opportunities For All Students
The overall mission of the SEM is to escalate the level and quality of learning experiences for any and all students capable of manifesting high levels of performance in any and all areas of the curriculum. This plan is not intended to replace existing services to students who are identified as gifted according to various state or local criteria. Rather, the model should be viewed as an umbrella under which many different types of enrichment and acceleration services are made available to targeted groups of students as well as all students within a given school, grade level, or classroom. The center piece of the model is the development of differentiated learning experiences that take into consideration each student's abilities, interests, and learning styles. As part of this mission, the model provides guidance for the development of challenging and appropriate educational opportunities for all young people, regardless of differences in demographic and economic backgrounds or differences in the rates, styles, and levels at which they learn.

I believe that true equity can only be achieved when we acknowledge individual differences in the students we serve, and when we recognize that high achieving students have as much right to accommodations in their schooling as do students who are experiencing learning difficulties. I also believe that equity is not the product of identical learning experiences for all students. Rather, it is the product of a broad range of differentiated experiences that are delivered through a diversified continuum of services. In the SEM, this continuum ranges from general enrichment for all students, to highly specialized grouping arrangements, advanced courses, supplementary programs in and out of school, and even special schools and summer programs on college campuses. These specified activities take place within regular classrooms on an individual or small group basis, in grouping arrangements that are purposefully formed because of advanced achievement levels, high levels of interest in particular subjects or problems, or strong motivation to pursue the development of a common product or service. Advanced opportunities can also take place outside the school in special internship or mentorship situations, in magnet schools or special theme high schools, at cultural institutions, in summer programs or programs offered by colleges or universities, or anywhere else where highly capable and motivated youth can gain knowledge and experience that are not ordinarily available in the regular school program. And once again, it is important to point out that a major substructure of the model is that all regular curricular material should be subject to modification according to the learning rates and learning styles of individual students.

The SEM is based on the broadened conception of giftedness discussed above. This definition focuses on the many kinds of aptitudes, talents, and potentials for advanced learning and creative productivity that exist in all school populations. The goal is not to certify some students as "gifted" and others as "non-gifted," but rather to provide every student with the opportunities, resources, and encouragement necessary to achieve his or her maximum potential. In the SEM, the "language" of the model is that of labeling the services, not the student. Examples of labeled services are: a special mini-course for all fourth graders in how to access the Internet, an advanced placement course in chemistry, a multi-age cluster group in mathematics for high achieving students, a special enrichment cluster for all students interested in film making, assigned time in a resource room to work on a research project, and curriculum compacting for students who have already mastered the material to be covered in an upcoming unit of study.

Young people display or have the potential to display their individuality and uniqueness in many ways. Some students learn at faster rates and higher levels of comprehension than others. Sometimes this learning may be in one or two content areas, and in other cases it may be across the entire curriculum. Similarly, some students are more creative or artistic than others, and still others may demonstrate potentials for excellence in leadership, organizational skills, or interpersonal relations.

A total talent development model should give special consideration to schools that serve young people who may be at risk because of limited English proficiency, economically limited circumstances, or because they attend poor quality schools. I believe it is in these schools and among these student populations that extraordinary, indeed heroic, efforts should be made to identify and cultivate the high level talents of young people, talents that historically have gone unrecognized and underdeveloped.

Finally, I want to emphasize that if this model is to be effective it must have task specific personnel. Resource teachers are crucial for providing the face-to-face services to identified students, and for infusing a broad array of enrichment services into the general education program. Without such personnel, the best intentions will quickly melt away into the frequently amorphous and sometimes unwieldy mass of general education.

Phase III: Concerns and Concluding Thoughts
My concern about the Schoolwide Enrichment Model is more nearly a fear than a regret. The SEM is intended to be an umbrella under which a broad array of challenging and enjoyable enrichment practices can be made available to all students who vary in abilities, interests, and learning styles. Equity for all means that we must respect all three of these differences, and that we must be committed enough and clever enough to find ways to respect them. I would be extremely disappointed if someone said, "We don't have a gifted program because we use Schoolwide Enrichment." Our intention in developing the SEM was never to replace special programs. Rather it is our hope that by applying good learning principles to all students, we will diffuse traditional criticisms of gifted programs and make schools places where scholarship and creativity, and enthusiasm for learning are honored and respected.

Our highest achieving students will fare far better in an atmosphere where all learners and teachers place a premium on these attributes, and they will in turn contribute to a radiation of excellence that is the hallmark of a good school. If we expect services to our most able students to transcend the on-again/off-again history which has characterized the gifted student movement, advocates must once and for all realize that the best and most enduring programs can only prosper in generally good schools. A rising tide lifts all ships. As an advocate of special services for gifted programs, I realized years ago that I am morally and educationally responsible to devote whatever contributions I might make to the difficult-but not impossible-task of insuring the best possible education for each and every student that comes through the schoolhouse door. The gifted education community has played a pioneering role in developing some of the best strategies available for challenging the abilities of bright young people. The larger, and I believe more noble challenge before us is to examine the extent to which our small but dedicated field can have a major impact on general education.

Finally, when all is said and done, I believe that my work is nothing more than organized common sense. Although it is frequently referred to as a "theory" of gifted education, I have tried to make all of my work as practical as possible. The best theories are of little value in an applied field of knowledge if they do not make sense by providing specific strategies and guidance to practitioners, the persons we hope will use them in the best interests of young people. In rethinking the many different things I have done over the past quarter century, it occurred to me that the theoretical aspects were certainly challenging, but it was the practical aspects that made it fun.
References
Albert, R. S. (1975). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. American psychologist, 30, 140-151.

Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1986). The achievement of eminence: A model based on a longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332-357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Baum, S. (1985). Learning disabled students with superior cognitive abilities: A validation study of descriptive behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Baum, S. (1988). An enrichment program for gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 226-230.

Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hébert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224-235.

Beecher, M. (1995). Developing the gifts and talents of all students in the regular classroom. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David Mackay.

Burns, D. E. (1987). The effects of group training activities on student's creative productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Busse, T. V., & Mansfield, R. S. (1980). Renzulli is right. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 132.

Cooper, C. (1983). Administrator's attitudes towards gifted programs based on the enrichment triad/revolving door identification model: Case studies in decision making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Delcourt, M. A. B. (1988). Characteristics related to high levels of creative/productive behavior in secondary school students: A multi-case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Delisle, J. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (1982). The revolving door identification and programming model: Correlates of creative production. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 89-95.

Delisle, J. R., Reis, S. M., & Gubbins, E. J. (1981). The revolving door identification model and programming model. Exceptional Children, 48, 152-156.

Emerick, L. (1988). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students' perceptions of factors relating to the reversal of the academic underachievement pattern. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Feldman, D. H. (1992). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education? In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 89-94). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Feldhusen, J. F. (Ed.). (1985). Toward excellence in gifted education. Denver, CO: Love.

Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.

Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Gubbins, J. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Heal, M. M. (1989). Student perceptions of labeling the gifted: A comparative case study analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16(1), 22-28.

Houston, J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Thesaurus of ERIC descriptors. Phoenix, AZ: Onyx.

Imbeau, M. B. (1991). Teachers' attitudes toward curriculum compacting: A comparison of different inservice strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Jarrell, R. H., & Borland, J. H. (1990). The research base for Renzulli's three ring conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 288-308.

Jellen, H. G. (1983, November). Renzulli-itis: A national disease in gifted education. Paper presented at the Illinois State Conference on the Gifted, Peoria, IL.

Jellen, H. G. (1985). Renzulli's enrichment scheme for the gifted: Educational accommodation of the gifted in the American context. Gifted Education International, 3(1), 12-17.

Karafelis, P. (1986). The effects of the tri-art drama curriculum on the reading comprehension of students with varying levels of cognitive ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Kettle, K. E., Renzulli, J. S., & Rizza, M. G. (1998). Exploring student preferences for product development: My way...An expression style instrument. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 49-60.

Krathwohl D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 2: Affective domain. New York, NY: David McKay.

Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Education Review, 42, 449-496.

Kontos, S., Carter, K. R., Ormrod, J. E., & Cooney, J. B. (1983). Reversing the revolving door: A strict interpretation of Renzulli's definition of giftedness. Roeper Review, 6, 35-38.

Maker, J. (1982). Teaching models in education of the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative of educational reform. Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Newman, J. L. (1991). The effects of the talents unlimited model on students' creative productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Olenchak, F. R. (1988). The schoolwide enrichment model in the elementary schools: Astudy of implementation stages and effects on educational excellence. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Technical report on research studies relating to the revolving door identification model (2nd ed., pp. 201-247). Storrs: University of Connecticut, Bureau of Educational Research.

Olenchak, F. R. (1990). School change through gifted education: Effects on elementary students' attitudes toward learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 66-78.

Olenchak, F. R. (1991). Assessing program effects for gifted/learning disabled students. In R. Swassing & A. Robinson (Eds.), NAGC 1991 Research briefs (pp. 86-89). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Olenchak, F. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (1989). The effectiveness of the schoolwide enrichment model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 36-46.

Reis, S. M. (1981). An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the revolving door identification model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1982). A research report on the revolving door identification model: A case for the broadened conception of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 619-620.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1985). The secondary level enrichment triad model: Excellence without elitism. NASSP Bulletin, 69(482), 31-38.

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T. P., Purcell, J. H., ... Plucker, J. A. (1992). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Reis, S. M., Gentry, M., & Park, S. (1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students (Research Monograph 95118). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-130.

Renzulli, J. S. (1967). The evaluation of programs of differential education for the gifted. University of Virginia Education Review, 5, 45-48.

Renzulli, J. S. (1975). A guidebook for evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: N/S-LTI-G/T.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.

Renzulli, J. S. (1982a). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Copernicus: We regret to inform you... Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 11-14.

Renzulli, J. S. (1982b). What makes a problem real: Stalking the illusive meaning of qualitative differences in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 147-156.

Renzulli, J. S. (1984). The triad/revolving door system: A research based approach to identifying and programming for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 163-171.

Renzulli, J. S. (1985). A bull's eye on my back: The perils and pitfalls of trying to bring about educational change. Gifted Education International, 3(1), 18-23.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (1988a). Technical report on research studies related to the revolving door identification model. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Bureau of Educational Research.

Renzulli, J. S. (1988b). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 298-309.

Renzulli, J. S. (1990). Torturing data until they confess: An analysis of the three ring conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 309-331.

Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity in young people. In F. J. Monks, W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future: Social and personality development of gifted children. Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 51-72). Assen/Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Nearine, R. (1968). A curriculum development project for academically gifted students. Accent on Talent (NEA), 2, 9-12.

Renzulli, J. S., & Owen, S. V. (1983). The revolving door identification model: If it ain't busted don't fix it, if you don't understand it don't nix it. Roeper Review, 6, 39-41.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 26-35.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1993). Developing creative productivity through the enrichment triad model. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 70-99). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 7-20.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. H. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., & Reis, S. M. (1982). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted students. Elementary School Journal, 82, 185-194.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., & Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Schack, G. D. (1986). Creative productivity and self-efficacy in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Schack, G. D., Starko, A. J., & Burns, D. E. (1991). Self efficacy and creative productivity: Three studies of above average ability children. Journal of Research in Education, 1(1), 44-52.

Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach to mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 352-390). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Seidel, J. V., Kjolseth, R., & Seymour, E. (1988). The ethnograph: A program for the computer-assisted analysis of text-based data [Computer program]. Littleton, CO: Qualis Research Associates.

Simonton, D. K. (1978). History and the eminent person. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 187-195.

Skaught, B. J. (1987). The social acceptability of talent pool students in an elementary school using the schoolwide enrichment model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Smith, H. W. (1975). Triangulation: The necessity of multimethod approaches. In W. H. Smith (Ed.), Strategies of social research: The methodological imagination (pp. 271-292). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Starko, A. J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self efficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Stednitz, U. (1985). The influence of educational enrichment on the self-efficacy of young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a triarchic theory of human intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 269-316.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86-93.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21-52). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, L, A. (1992). The effects of the secondary enrichment triad model and a career counseling component on the career development of vocational-technical school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Torrance, E. P. (1965). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.

Treffinger, D. J. (1987). [Review of the book Critical issues in gifted education. Maker, C. J. (Ed.)]. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 324-331.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners. Denver, CO: Love.

Ward, V. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Columbus. OH: Merrill.

Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Publishing Company.

1. The work reported herein was supported under the Javits Act program (Grant #R206R50001) as administered by the Office of Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the positions of the Office of Research and Improvement or the U. S. Department of Education.
2. Referenced in Renzulli, 1978, p. 180.
3. In a certain sense, what I described as "action information" is not unlike the currently popular concept called performance based assessment, although action information is for proactive decision making rather than evaluation purposes.
4. I first used a checker board design, but switched to a hounds tooth background because it seemed to be more representative of the interaction between personality and environment.
5. These persons include: William James, John Dewey, Alfred North Whitehead, Maria Montessori, Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, Philip Phenix, Virgil Ward, E. Paul Torrance, and Albert Bandura. The influences of these persons have been described elsewhere (Renzulli, 1994).
6. In most cases, the myriad of school reform proposals had no basis in research, and in many cases they were blatant examples of political correctness. For an analysis of the impact of the reform movement and what we called "the quiet crisis in gifted education," see Renzulli & Reis, 1991.
7. An Action Information Message is a form that is used to document and refer a student for additional services in areas of advance ability, high levels of interest, or unusual expressions of creativity.
8. For a detailed description of the continuum of special services see Renzulli, 1994, pp. 76-80.
9. An instrument for assessing teacher interests for facilitating enrichment clusters can be found in Reis, Gentry, & Park (1995).
Appendix A
Research Related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Model
P, E
n=236 teachers
n=1,698 students

Kettle, Renzulli, & Rizza, 1997

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is This Thing Called Giftedness, and How Do We Develop It? A Twenty-Five Year Perspective | Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reproduced from: Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the E ...

# data[].attributes.headline
How to identify, understand and teach gifted children

# data[].attributes.subject
How to identify, understand and teach gifted children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The beginning of the 2019 school year will be a time of planning and crystal-gazing. Teachers will plan their instructional agenda in a general way. Students will think about another year at school. Parents will reflect on how their children might progress this year.

One group of students who will probably attract less attention are the gifted learners. These students have a capacity for talent, creativity and innovative ideas. They could be our future Einsteins.

They will do this only if we support them to learn in an appropriate way. And yet, there is less likely to be explicit planning and provision throughout 2019 to support these students. They're more likely to be overlooked or even ignored.

Giftedness in the media

You may have noticed the recent interest in gifted learning and education in the media. Child Genius on SBS provided a glimpse of what the brains of some young students can do.

We can only marvel at their ability to store large amounts of information in memory, spell words correctly they'd probably not heard before and unscramble complex anagrams.

The Insight program on SBS, provided another perspective.

Students identified as gifted explained how they learned and their experiences with formal education. Most accounts pointed to a clear mismatch between how they preferred to learn and how they were taught.

Twice exceptional

The students on the Insight program showed the flipsides of the gifted education story. While some gifted students show high academic success - the academically gifted students, others show lower academic success - the " twice exceptional " students.

Many of the most creative people this world has known are twice exceptional. This includes scientists such as Einstein, artists such as Van Gogh, authors such as Agatha Christie and politicians such as Winston Churchill.

Read more: Intellectually gifted students often have learning disabilities

Their achievements are one reason we're interested in gifted learning. They have the potential to contribute significantly to our world and change how we live. They're innovators. They give us the big ideas, possibilities and options. We describe their achievements, discoveries and creations as "talent".

These talented outcomes are not random, lucky or accidental. Instead, they come from particular ways of knowing their world and thinking about it. A talented footballer sees moves and possibilities their opponents don't see. They think, plan, and act differently. What they do is more than what the coach has trained them to do.

Understanding gifted learning

One way of understanding gifted learning is to unpack how people respond to new information. Let me first share two anecdotes.

A year three class was learning about beetles. We turned over a rock and saw slater beetles scurrying away. I asked:

Has anyone thought of something I haven't mentioned?

Marcus, a student in the class, asked:

How many toes does a slater have?

I asked:

Why do you ask that?

Marcus replied:

They are only this long and they're going very fast. My mini aths coach said that if I wanted to go faster I had to press back with my big toes. They must have pretty big toes to go so quick.

from www.shutterstock.com

He continued with possibilities about how they might breathe and use energy. Marcus' teacher reported that he often asked "quirky", unexpected questions and had a much broader general knowledge than his peers. She had not considered the possibility he might be gifted.

Mike was solving year 12 calculus problems when he was six. He has never attended regular school but was home-schooled by his parents, who were not interested in maths. He learned about quadratic and cubic polynomials from the Khan Academy. I asked him if it was possible to draw polynomials of x to the power of 7 or 8. He did this without hesitation, noting he had never been taught to do this.

Gifted students learn in a more advanced way

People learn by converting information to knowledge. They may then elaborate, restructure or reorganise it in various ways. Giftedness is the capacity to learn in more advanced ways.

First, these students learn faster. In a given period they learn more than their regular learning peers. They form a more elaborate and differentiated knowledge of a topic. This helps them interpret more information at a time.

Second, these students are more likely to draw conclusions from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements. They stimulate parts of their knowledge that were not mentioned in the information presented to them and add these inferences to their understanding.

Read more: Should gifted students go to a separate school?

This is called " fluid analogising" or "far transfer". It involves combining knowledge from the two sources into an interpretation that has the characteristics of an intuitive theory about the information. This is supported by a range of affective and social factors, including high self-efficacy and intrinsic goal setting, motivation and will-power.

Their theories extend the teaching. They're intuitive in that they're personal and include possibilities or options the student has not yet tested. Parts of the theory may be incorrect. When given the opportunity to reflect on or field-test them, the student can validate their new knowledge, modify it or reject it.

Marcus and Mike from the earlier anecdotes engaged in these processes. So did Einstein, Churchill, Van Gogh and Christie.

Verbally gifted

A gifted learning profile manifests in multiple ways. Much of the information we're exposed to is made up of concepts that are linked and sequenced around a topic or theme. It's formed using agreed conventions. It may be a written narrative, a painting, a conversation or football match. Some students exposed to part of a text infer its topic and subsequent ideas - their intuitive theory about it.

These are the verbally gifted students. In the classroom they infer the direction of the teaching and give the impression of being ahead of it. This is what Mike did when he extended his knowledge beyond what the information taught him. Most of the tasks used in the Child Genius program assessed this. The children used what they knew about spelling patterns to spell unfamiliar words and to unscramble complex anagrams.

Visual-spatially gifted

Other students think about the teaching information in time and space. They use imagery and infer intuitive theories that are more lateral or creative. In the classroom their interpretations are often unexpected and may question the teaching. These are the non-verbally gifted or visual-spatially gifted students.

They frequently do not learn academic or social conventions well and are often twice exceptional. They're more likely to challenge conventional thinking. Marcus did this when he visualised the slaters with large "beetle toes".

What we can learn from gifted students

Educators and policy makers can learn from the student voice in the recent media programs. Some of the students on Insight told us their classrooms don't provide the most appropriate opportunities for them to show what they know or to learn.

The twice exceptional students in the Insight program noted teachers had a limited capacity to recognise and identify the multiple ways students can be gifted. They reminded us some gifted profiles, but not the twice-exceptional profile, are prioritised in regular education.

These students thrive and excel when they have the opportunity to show their advanced interpretations initially in formats they can manage, for example, in visual and physical ways. They can then learn to use more conventional ways such as writing.

Multi-modal forms of communication are important for them. Examples include drawing pictures of their interpretations, acting out their understanding and building models to represent their understanding. The use of diagrams by the the famous physicist Richard Feynman is an example of this.

For students like Mike, adequate formal educational provision simply does not exist. With the development of information communication technology, it would be hoped that in the future adaptive and creative curricula and teaching practices could be developed for those students whose learning trajectories are far from the regular.

As a consequence, we have high levels of disengagement from regular education by some gifted students in the middle to senior secondary years. High ability Australian students under-achieve in both NAPLAN and international testing.

The problem with IQ

Identification using IQ is problematic for some gifted profiles. Some IQ tests assess a narrow band of culturally valued knowledge. They frequently do not assess general learning capacity.

As well, teachers are usually not qualified to interpret IQ assessments. The parents in the Insight program mentioned both the difficulty in having their children identified as gifted and the high costs IQ tests incurred. In Australia, these assessments can cost up to A$475.

An obvious alternative is to equip teachers and schools to identify and assess students' learning in the classroom for indications of gifted learning and thinking in its multiple forms. To do this, assessment tasks need to assess the quality, maturity and sophistication of the students' thinking and learning strategies, their capacity to enhance knowledge, and also what students actually know or believe is possible about a topic or an issue.

Read more: Show us your smarts: a very brief history of intelligence testing

Classroom assessments usually don't assess this. They are designed to test how well students have learned the teaching, not what additional knowledge the students have added to it.

Gifted students benefit from open-ended tasks that permit them to show what they know about a topic or issue. Such tasks include complex problem solving activities or challenges and open-ended assignments. We are now developing tools to assess the quality and sophistication of gifted students' knowledge and understanding.

Tips for teachers and parents

Over the course of 2019, teachers can look for evidence of gifted learning by encouraging their students to share their intuitive theories about a topic and by completing open-ended tasks in which they extend or apply what they have learned. This can include more complex problem solving.

During reading comprehension, for example, teachers can plan tasks that require higher-level thinking, including analysis, evaluation and synthesis. Teachers need to assess and evaluate students' learning in terms of the extent to which they elaborate on the teaching information.

Parents are often the first to notice their child learns more rapidly, remembers more, does things in more advanced ways or learns differently from their peers. Most educators have heard a parent say: "I think my child is gifted." And sometimes the parent is correct.

Parents can use modern technology to record specific instances of high performance by their children, and share these with their child's teachers. The mobile phone and iPad provide a good opportunity for video-recording a child's questions during story time, their interpretations of unfamiliar contexts such as a visit to a museum, drawings or inventions the child produces and how they do this, and ways in which they solve problems in their everyday lives. These records can provide useful evidence later for educators and other professionals.

Read more: Explainer: what is differentiation and why is it poorly understood?

Parents also have a key role to play in helping their child understand what it means to learn differently from one's peers, to value their interpretations and achievements and how they can interact socially with peers who may operate differently.

It is students' intuitive theories about information that lead to creative, talented outcomes and innovative products. If an education system is to foster creativity and innovation, teachers need to recognise and value these theories and help these students convert them into a talent. Teachers can respond to gifted knowing and learning in its multiple forms if they know what it looks like in the classroom and have appropriate tools to identify it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to identify, understand and teach gifted children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The beginning of the 2019 school year will be a time of planning and crystal-gazing. Teachers will plan their instructional agenda in a general way. Students will think about another year at school. Parents will reflect on how their children might progress this year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Common Characteristics of Gifted Youth, by Dr. Dan Peters, Summit Center

# data[].attributes.subject
Common Characteristics of Gifted Youth, by Dr. Dan Peters, Summit Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common Characteristics of Gifted Youth, by Dr. Dan Peters, Summit Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Gifted youth come in all shapes and sizes." Dr. Dan Peters of the Summit Center reviews some common characteristics of gifted children and teens. Parents and educators may find this helpful in understanding and working with gifted children. Clipped from "The Characteristics of Gifted Learners," a DVD available from www.summitcenter.us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Students Who Are Both Gifted and Learning Disabled Often Get Overlooked in a Traditional Classroom Environment.

Twice-exceptional students, also referred to as 2e children, are often characterized as highly intelligent students who struggle in school due to a learning disability, ADHD or sensory integration disorder. These gifted children often fly under the radar, and many parents and teachers fail to recognize their potential. Learning how to identify twice-exceptional students helps parents and teachers find ways for these children to flourish and make the most of their intellectual gifts.

Types of Twice-Exceptional Children

Many experts group twice-gifted students into three distinct categories :

1. Students who excel but later show signs of disability

2. Students with diagnosed disabilities who show exceptional gifts in some areas

3. Highly intelligent students who seem average because they have disabilities

Children who fall into the third category are often overlooked because learning disabilities like ADHD can hide their abilities.

Identifying Twice-Exceptional Children

Identifying twice-exceptional children is rarely a straightforward process . All children have their own gifts, but they also have their own struggles. The high number of combinations makes it difficult to pinpoint a single way to identify gifted children with disabilities.

Twice-exceptional children are often identified when they show promise in one or two areas. ADHD may make it difficult for a child to answer math and reading questions, but that child may excel when it comes to solving real-world problems like figuring out puzzles or finding creative solutions.

Educators may also identify twice-exceptional students by recognizing a decline in performance. A child may do very well in class before succumbing to difficulties created by a learning disability. If the child's performance begins to slip, teachers should take a closer look to determine whether an outside influence is contributing to lower grades. Declining performance can also come from poor eyesight, hearing and other physical problems.

Common Strengths of Twice-Exceptional Children

Twice-exceptional children usually display several of the following strengths :

Creativity

Sophisticated sense of humor

Wide range of interests

Advanced ideas

Excellent vocabulary

Special talents that consume their attentions

Children who have these skills, but perform poorly at school, are often twice exceptional.

Common Challenges Faced by Twice-Exceptional Children

Twice-exceptional students also tend to face two or more of the following challenges:

Frustration

Argumentative personalities

Poor written expression

Sensitivity to criticism

Poor organizational skills

Poor study habits

Stubbornness

Difficulty in social situations

A child who has some of these traits combined with the above strengths probably has a sophisticated intellect that gets overlooked because of problems with behavior or expression.

It's important to remember that twice-exceptional children often have extraordinary talents. It's also important to remember that they face difficulties that could mask those talents. Educators and parents who suspect that certain children's educational needs are not being met may need to explore several strategies before discovering an approach that lets them reach their full potential.

Help for Twice Exceptional Children

At Brain Balance Achievement Centers, we recognize that children with significant struggles in some areas will also likely excel in others due to an imbalance and miscommunication between the two hemispheres of the brain. Contact us to learn more about how we construct a comprehensive, personal plan that addresses your child's challenges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twice-exceptional students, also referred to as 2e children, are often characterized as highly intelligent students who struggle in school due to a learning disability, ADHD or sensory integration disorder. These gifted children often fly under the radar, and many parents and teachers fail to recognize their potential.

# data[].attributes.headline
To understand the Twice Exceptional more

# data[].attributes.subject
To understand the Twice Exceptional more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some children are highly gifted in areas such as math, writing or music. Then there are those with challenges that affect learning: They could have ADHD, dyslexia or dyscalculia, or perhaps they're autistic or have sensory processing issues. But there are also kids who fit both categories. They're called twice-exceptional, or 2e, which means that they have exceptional ability and disability. They are gifted in some way but they also face learning or developmental challenges.

Children who are both gifted and challenged can be tough to understand. Gifted kids can use their strengths to compensate for the special need, and in the process mask their learning problems. Or the special needs can mask the giftedness. In some cases, neither the disability nor the giftedness is recognized.

Once 2e kids are identified, it can still be difficult to get the supports these children need in school. If they're in a gifted program, they may be floundering in a certain area. If they're placed in a special-ed program, it may not challenge them, and they may be frustrated and restless. In either case, anxiety, depression, a lack of self-esteem and emotional dysregulation can result, leading to behavior problems.

Why 2e kids are overlooked

One reason twice-exceptional kids are in danger of slipping through the cracks is that their schools are set up to help kids meet grade-level academic skills, and they may be on grade level, despite their challenges.

"Let's take bright kids who have a reading disability," says Adam S. Zamora, PsyD, a neuropsychologist at the Child Mind Institute. "When they're reading, there are words that they don't know how to decode but they use inferential reasoning and their overall cognitive capacity to kind of figure out what the missing word might be. These kids might go under the radar."

They may eventually be diagnosed with a learning disability if they hit a wall when they reach later grades and expectations rise, or they may never receive the diagnosis and support they need.

Then there's the case of a 2e child who may have issues that overshadow his giftedness.

This was the case at first with Jenn Choi 's son, Logan, now 14. His special needs (ADHD and then dyslexia) were identified after he was asked to leave his first preschool for his "behaviors," which included not being able to sit in circle time.

But it wasn't until Logan was turning 5 and had his first neuropsychological assessment that his parents realized his potential, when he scored in a very superior range in visual-spatial thinking, including perception, analysis and synthesis. This can translate into excellence in math, science and engineering.

"It was a big surprise to us that he was really smart," Choi says. And it wasn't until first grade, when he attended an afterschool program at the Quad Mahattan, created for twice-exceptional kids, that she learned the term. Choi now offers a listserve for 2e parents in New York City.

Emotional and behavioral issues

Not having both talents and disability identified can have emotional and behavioral consequences for children.

"They know that they're capable of more and yet something is holding them back, and they can't really figure out why," says Laura Phillips, PsyD, a neuropsychologist at the Child Mind Institute."That's why you often see a lot of frustration and anxiety and even behavioral dysregulation in a lot of these kids."

They may come off as lazy because they're clearly bright but performing poorly in some areas. They may get a lot of criticism from parents and teachers: "You're just not trying on this math!" Their self-esteem suffers and they may experience depression.

Or they seem oppositional to teachers and parents. "Frustrated by their difficulties, they act out in infinite ways, and they get mischaracterized or misunderstood as being oppositional," Dr. Phillips says.

Giftedness can lead to misdiagnosis

Children who are gifted may have behaviors that look like ADHD or autism.

"One of the things we know about gifted children almost universally is that they are intense," says psychologist James T. Webb, who specializes in them. "If they're into dinosaurs, they eat, drink, live dinosaurs. If they're into math and factors, they love it. If they're into power struggles or sibling rivalry, it's equally as intense."

This intensity can make sitting in a regular classroom very frustrating. "The research indicates that for most gifted children, from one fourth to one half the regular classroom time is spent waiting for others to catch up," Webb notes. "If you're sitting there and your mind is intensely churning, you're likely to be seen as being off task, fidgety, interrupting others, classic behaviors that would be ADHD-like."

It's also easy to misdiagnose gifted kids as being on the autism spectrum. There's that intensity in interests. Also, "gifted children as a group just seem to be quirkier than other kids," Dr. Webb says.

Gifted kids can also be oversensitive to stimuli, making them avoid bright lights, noise and crowds. The combination of over-excitability and intellectual advancement can make them a bad match for their noisy and boisterous peers. "They just don't play well with others," he says. "They try to structure their world in a rigid way. They have difficulty with being redirected to new tasks. All of these are behaviors are ones you often see on the spectrum."

Of course a child can also be 2e - both gifted and have ADHD or autism.

How to identify 2e children

First, Dr. Webb emphasizes, parents and teachers need to be familiar with the concept of twice exceptionality. "One of the big myths about gifted children is that they will be equally gifted in all areas, or very close to that," he says.

"There really is no universally agreed upon definition of 'gifted' - even with respect to general intellectual ability," Dr. Phillips says, "as giftedness in its truest definition is not limited to intellectual potential, but instead can refer to extraordinary capabilities in creative thinking, specific academic areas, psychomotor functioning, or visual/performing arts." She says she and most school placement decisions use a Standard Score in IQ testing of 130 as the cut-off for gifted intelligence, which would place the child in the top 2 percent of the population.

Experts suggest that when a teacher sees a child who does just okay in some areas, but in one or two areas is a prodigy - or does exceptionally well in all areas except one, where she is lagging - the child should be referred for testing.

The optimal way to pick up on twice exceptionality is through a neuropsychological evaluation.

"Neuropsych evaluations are really the best way to understand a student's full profile of cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses, and to individualize a curriculum, which really is what these kids need," Dr. Phillips explains. "They might be three grade levels ahead in math, but they might need extra support in reading."

The challenge of educating the 2e child

According to a survey spearheaded by Choi of 503 parents with 2e kids, 254 of whom attend New York City public schools, their biggest challenge is being forced to choose between cultivating the child's intellectual ability and helping with their special-education needs; they are not usually offered at the same time.

One way to try to get the individualized teaching 2e kids need is by being placed in an Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT) class, with one general-education teacher and one special-needs teacher. But if 2e kids are performing at grade level, it can make it difficult to persuade schools that they should provide remediation or accommodations through an Individualized Education Program or a 504 Plan.

Choi says the survey showed parents are told that children in a gifted and talented program can't have an IEP, which is not true. The survey also showed that only 5 percent of the 2e kids had a gifted and talented placement in an ICT classroom.

Should kids be moved to older classrooms for the subjects where they excel? Dr. Phillips says it can be tricky because they don't have the maturity level to handle the homework and social demands. In some cases, parents may opt for private schools, with smaller classes and/or curriculum tailored to a particular student's strengths and weaknesses.

Instead of placing kids in older classes, Dr. Phillips recommends that parents provide a lot of enrichment outside school. One such resource: the Davidson Institute, including its Davidson Young Scholars Program for 2e students. Also, some museums provide weekend programming for gifted students.

How support can help

Getting support can help twice-exceptional children reach their full potential, both in terms of academics and on the emotional front.

When 2e kids are identified and supported, Dr. Zamora says, they can do better in school and have higher self-esteem. "If parents are well informed about what's going on with the kid, if the teachers really understand that this is a bright kid who just has these one or two areas of weakness, it can affect the way the teachers talk to the kid, the way they teach the kid," he says.

Another way to help 2e kids, adds Dr. Phillips, is to let them know it will get easier. "When I work with any sort of learning disability, I tell parents the years from kindergarten through 12 th grade are going to be the hardest years in their kids' lives" because they are required to take all the core subjects. But when they head off to college, they can select the courses in their areas of strength. "After that, they can choose careers that are suited to their strengths again and really shine there as well."

As for Logan, he attended three private schools between kindergarten and the middle of seventh grade, partially for behavioral issues but also because the curriculum wasn't challenging enough for him. Eventually he settled into a gifted and talented program in a public school, which has been a better fit. This month, he started at a competitive public high school Even with the changes, Choi says she feels all of Logan's needs haven't been met. She says his gifts put him on an engineering path, something that won't be addressed in school. Instead, she says, "We are going to have to figure it out as we go along."

What are twice exceptional, or 2e, students?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Twice-Exceptional Kids: Both Gifted and Challenged - Child Mind Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twice-exceptional, or 2e kids have exceptional ability but also disability. They may have ADHD, autism, dyslexia, or another learning disorder. And they have a unique set of issues that need addressing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Webinar " Behavior Rating Scales as a Tool for More Equitable Identification of Gifted and Talented Children "

# data[].attributes.subject
Webinar " Behavior Rating Scales as a Tool for More Equitable Identification of Gifted and Talented Children "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Behavior Rating Scales as a Tool for More Equitable Identification of Gifted and Talented Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using teacher and parent behavior rating scales offers one strategy to identify students who exhibit gifted abilities. These scales also help identify gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are labeled ELL, or who are twice-exceptional. How can you use behavior rating scales as part of your school/district's gifted identification system? Where do you even start? This webinar covers how scales--like the HOPE Teacher Rating Scale, SRBCSS, SIGS, and UTAGS--can be a valuable part of your identification procedures and in achieving equity in gifted programming.

# data[].attributes.headline
Questions for our guest Dr. Hani Akasheh

# data[].attributes.subject
Questions for our guest Dr. Hani Akasheh

# data[].attributes.body
Rima Kassem
1.  Is giftedness genetically inherited?
2.  What is an effective way to improve motivation in a gifted student who excels in math but doesn't like t do it?

3. Why is it important to train our teachers on the importance of understanding the neuroscience behind learning and development?

4. How are metacognition and learning connected?

5. Since neuroscience has the potential to improve teaching, do you recommend to educate gifted students on the fact-based information about the brain?

# data[].attributes.body
Emotions and emotional development: gifted and talented children

# data[].attributes.body
THE SCHOOLWIDE ENRICHMENT MODEL: A FOCUS ON STUDENT STRENGTHS & INTERESTS Sally M. Reis & Joseph S. Renzulli

# data[].attributes.body
•Read carefully the case.

•Identify the characteristics of Karim.

•List the challenges

•List the strategies that were used with Karim

•Suggest other strategies can help enhance Karim’s learning.

•How does Karim’s abilities differ from other average students?

•                                  Time: 15 minutes

•Note:  Work to be documented on the Padlet Page

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ashmoleprimary.org/attachments/download.asp?file=15&type=pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.westwardschool.co.uk/Parents/Able-Gifted-Talented-Policy/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AIMS

At Westward School we are committed to providing a secure and stimulating environment for all our pupils.We value excellence, recognise achievement and celebrate the success and effort of all our children, encouraging strong role models. Our excellent teaching and learning aims to maximise opportunities and develop the children's confidence so they can challenge themselves and take risks. We believe in treating pupils as individuals, providing an education that is suited to their particular needs and abilities. This is especially relevant with children identified as able, gifted or talented, regardless of their gender or background.

To ensure these pupils reach their full potential, it is important to adopt and implement appropriate policies and practices to fulfill their educational and social needs. Their specific talents and skills need to be nurtured by providing them with either the opportunities to work at high cognitive levels in academic areas or a chance to aspire for creative or physical excellence, whilst still ensuring the holistic needs of the child are met in order to provide a well rounded education. We believe a strong, gifted and talented programme is vital to support the ethos of Westward as it promotes increased performance across the board, lifting the aspirations of pupils, teachers and support staff.

DEFINITIONS

The DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) defines able, gifted and talented learners as:

Those children and young people with one or more abilities developed to a level significantly ahead of their year group (or with potential to develop those abilities).

They can be identified in any year and amount to 7-10% of the school population.

Able learners are defined as those who have abilities in one or more subjects in the statutory school curriculum, other than art and design, music and PE. They have the capacity for, or demonstrate, high levels of performance in an academic area. This also includes children who are leaders or role models and who display outstanding leadership and/or social skills.

Gifted children are defined as those with an innate ability, who present a natural, outstanding aptitude or competence for exceptional performance.

A talented pupil is one who demonstrates high levels of achievement with a specific ability in a non-academic area, including art, music, sport or the performing arts.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GIFTED & TALENTED

The identification of gifted and talented pupils is a process in which the whole teaching and support staff participate, as well as parents, carers and the children themselves. The process starts as soon as children enter Westward and is reviewed constantly. Before identifying any child as gifted or talented in any area, we aim to ensure that all children have had the opportunity to learn and succeed in this area. This makes the identification process fairer. A register of able, gifted and talented children is kept by the Headteacher (See appendix 1) but talents and abilities emerge at different times due to developmental issues and, as new opportunities arise, therefore, inclusion in the cohort is not permanent. If it is perceived by parties that inclusion is no longer beneficial, pupils may be moved off, either temporarily or permanently.

Identification must also be based on ability, not on achievement. Some children can "underachieve" for a variety of reasons such as:

Peer pressure

Behaviour problems

Special educational needs

Reluctant learners

All staff need to be aware of this and look for "hidden talents". Both qualitative and quantitative information can be used for identification purposes.

It is worth remembering that gifted and talented pupils can be:

Good all-rounders

High achievers in one area

Of a high ability but with low motivation

Of good verbal skills but with low writing skills

Very able but with poor social skills

Keen to 'disguise' their skills.

PROVISION FOR THE GIFTED & TALENTED

At Westward the main focus is to improve the provision for able pupils in day-to-day teaching and learning. There are three basic ways of meeting the needs of gifted and talented pupils; accelerated, enrichment and extension.

Accelerated consists of enabling pupils to access work which would typically be for older pupils. This can occur through moving pupils up a year group or through simply giving them work which would usually be given to older pupils. At Westward we focus on enrichment and extension as the two main strategies for meeting the needs of gifted and talented pupils but we would also use acceleration in exceptional cases.

Enrichment consists of broadening a pupil's education. This can consist of enabling a pupil to study aspects of a topic that there would not normally be time to study or it can consist of adding extra subjects to the curriculum.

Extension occurs when pupils are encouraged to develop more sophisticated thinking and reasoning skills.

Opportunities for extension and enrichment are built into all our schemes of work across all curriculum areas.

TYPES OF PROVISION

CLASS PROVISION

All classrooms include a challenge corner with activities to promote auditory, visual and kinesthetic learning

Teachers have high expectations

Teaching is personalised, pacy and challenging

Tasks are designed to take account of levels of existing knowledge, skills and understanding and are differentiated appropriately

There are planned extension opportunities or open-ended tasks that promote higher order thinking skills

A variety of grouping is used effectively, e.g., setting, mixed ability, etc.

There is access to higher level tests for assessment

Enrichment of learning

SCHOOL BASED PROVISION: VARYING ACCORDING TO SUBJECT AREA & COVERED USING A VARIETY OF METHODS

Shared celebration of children's achievements

School clubs including sports, arts, music

Specialist teachers

Enrichment opportunities including specialist days

Intervention groups

Opportunities to learn a variety of musical instruments

Opportunities for performance

Workshops with other schools

OUT OF SCHOOL PROVISION

To access summer schools/Saturday challenges where appropriate

To help children find support, training and clubs for more diverse talents

Opportunities to enter national schemes/competitions

Ensure close secondary liaison

PROCESS FOR REVIEW & DEVELOPMENT

The able, gifted and talented leader, with the support and active participation of the whole staff, is responsible for:

Updating and reviewing the information record of children on the gifted and talented register and monitor their progress

Ensuring liaison with parents where necessary

Reviewing the policy

Monitoring provision

Identification of any suitable mentors for pupils

Provision of any necessary resources

Keeping up to date with information to do with the AGT and feeding back to the staff

Developing links with agencies or organisations that support AGT

Consulting with the Proprietors, Senior Management Team and staff.

Policy updated :January 2017

Appendix 1
ABLE, GIFTED & TALENTED REGISTER
YEAR GROUP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
independent co-educational school for children aged 4 to 11+

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Westward School - Able, Gifted & Talented Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Independent Co-Educational School for children aged 4 to 11+

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5660/urlt/k12giftedlearners.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.moberly.k12.mo.us/Forms/SpecialServices/MSD%20Gifted%20Program%20Guide%20FINAL%20DRAFT%205-25-16.pdf