# data[].attributes.headline
Talent Pool Support & Enrichment Activities 

# data[].attributes.subject
Talent Pool Support & Enrichment Activities 

# data[].attributes.body
example letter to parents

# data[].attributes.body
The identification process for specific academic aptitude referred students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ID- Process Gifted Identification Specific Academic Aptitude.docx (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2eNews.com provides high-level content supporting the understanding of twice-exceptional (2e) education and cognitive diversity.

# data[].attributes.body
12 Brain Rules:  a multimedia project.

# data[].attributes.body
See something here that looks like what you are looking for to support a GT or any student?  Let Heidi know, she can give you access.

# data[].attributes.headline
DI Padlet of Resources from 8/16/19 CCSD Training

# data[].attributes.subject
DI Padlet of Resources from 8/16/19 CCSD Training

# data[].attributes.headline
October 2019 Gifted Coordinator's Padlet 

# data[].attributes.subject
October 2019 Gifted Coordinator's Padlet 

# data[].attributes.body
Check out this padlet made by Platte Cayon's Gifted Coordinator. Tons of great information for upperclassmen.

# data[].attributes.body
Rationale and Overview of the SAGES-2

# data[].attributes.headline
Academic Challenge Groups Annual Focus Goal 

# data[].attributes.subject
Academic Challenge Groups Annual Focus Goal 

# data[].attributes.body
This year the academic challenge groups will focus on growth and achievement in Math.

# data[].attributes.body
The Dimension of Depth and Complexity Icons.
The Dimension of Depth and Complexity.
The Icons below are a visual framework that teachers can use with all students to build a deeper understanding of complex content by having them develop their higher order thinking and questioning skills through the use of the  dimensions of depth and complexity.
Ever thought about why technology changes over time, what the technology trends are, or about the unanswered questions you have about technology, or about ethics in technology? This is just one of a myriad of conversations that can come from a depth and complexity driven lesson.  When we engage in content using different lenses, our thinking and understanding becomes deeper and more complex.   Would you like to know more? Let Mrs. Lupiancci know.

# data[].attributes.headline
Talent Pool Support & Enrichment Activities 

# data[].attributes.subject
Talent Pool Support & Enrichment Activities 

# data[].attributes.body
example letter to parents

# data[].attributes.body
Gifted students need rigorous and challenging instruction in order to continue to grow.

# data[].attributes.body
The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.  Critical and Creative Thinking: The Joy of Learning!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Children do not develop their thinking skills by memorizing the products of adults' thinking. Children develop these thinking skills by manipulating ideas, critically examining them, and trying to combine them in new ways. Data become meaningful only when individuals perform certain mental operations on those data." (Taba, 1971, pp. 240-241)

We recognize the need for gifted learners to develop and practice higher-order critical and creative thinking skills that go beyond fundamental acquisition of information. Gifted students need to be involved with analysis, evaluation, and creative synthesis of data and information, asking new questions and generating innovative ideas, solutions, and products because of their advanced cognitive development, preference for complexity, questioning of the status quo, idealism, and need for social action. This is particularly true of the creatively gifted learner who must find relevance and opportunities for creative synthesis and expression in order to truly engage in the learning process. We also know that, in order to develop these critical and creative thinking skills as thinking habits, students must engage in these kinds of thinking activities frequently, in meaningful, appropriate contexts.

To what extent is this happening? Are gifted students being given opportunities for exploring ideas and developing skills of critical analysis, evaluation, and creativity in classrooms today? Not so much, according to a study reported in Newsweek (2010) by Bronson and Merryman. The findings of this study indicate a significant decline of creativity among American students in recent decades, which the authors describe as a "creativity crisis." They attribute this decline to overemphasis on standardization in curriculum, instruction, and assessment in American schools-with emphasis on acquisition of information, facts and details, and finding "the right answer" rather than critical analysis and evaluation of content or creative exploration of ideas and innovative thinking. The answer to this crisis, they say, is teaching critical and creative thinking skills in context of content instruction.

Critical and creative thinking strategies are not merely "fun" or "cute" activities to be pulled out at the end of the week or semester, or after the state tests are over for the year in order to fill time and entertain students. They are ways of deeply engaging and interacting with ideas and concepts in meaningful context, building meaning and understanding through multiple processing of ideas and information in increasingly sophisticated levels of thinking, adding depth and complexity to the content being learned, and finding personal relevance in the learning process. In order to teach any skill or content effectively, we must first have a clear understanding of the nature and purpose of the skills and/or content to be taught. Employing critical and creative thinking strategies without first understanding what is involved in these skills and processes or without connecting these thinking skills to appropriate content is likely to result in missing the point and wasting time. Students may have fun playing around with such activities, but may not actually address content in a meaningful, purposeful way, nor actually engage in the higher order thinking intended.

Critical thinking involves analysis and evaluation rather than merely accepting ideas or information: understanding of relationships, similarities, and differences; looking for patterns; classifying and categorizing; understanding cause/effect; seeing trends and big ideas; predicting outcomes; considering multiple perspectives; making judgments; and questioning and reasoning. Creative thinking requires all of these critical thinking skills and goes beyond, generating something new and useful in a particular context: generating innovative ideas, products, and solutions; expressing ideas in innovative ways; and communicating ideas, solutions, or products to an appropriate audience. These, of course, are the higher order thinking skills of Bloom; these are the thinking skills necessary for meaningful learning in all disciplines.

How can we manage all this within the constraints of assessment-driven standardized curriculum and instruction? How can we truly engage even our most creative and advanced thinkers in analytical thinking, making informed judgments and evaluation based on critical analysis, and the creation of innovative ideas, perspectives, and products that actually solve problems? How can we encourage students to express unique and original points of view and communicate with audiences in valid and defensible ways to increase truly meaningful, personally relevant learning? The answer is that we must incorporate effective critical and creative thinking strategies appropriately into content instruction. When thinking skills are taught in relevant content, students practice higher order thinking skills to the point of developing creative thinking habits, while at the same time playing with ideas and processing content information in multiple ways. They find personal meaning and relevance in the learning. They experience the joy of learning!

APPLYING TABA'S STRATEGIES FOR CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

One sequence of critical and creative thinking activities that incorporates some of Taba's strategies for concept development can be effectively applied to many different content topics and purposes. This sequence of activities involves students in playfully generating and examining data in a variety of ways, requiring both divergent thinking (fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality) and convergent thinking (evaluation, providing justification for choices, drawing conclusions based on evidence presented). The activities can be adapted for almost any content at various levels of complexity: literary or historical events or characters, contemporary or historic issues or problems (literature, social studies); concepts or operations, inventions or discoveries (math or science); or almost any other content that is a focus of study.

Basically, the activities involve generating or gathering data. This means that students are evaluating and prioritizing data, analyzing and organizing that data into data sets and naming the sets, generating questions, drawing conclusions based on data analysis and evaluation, and communicating the results. In general, the process includes these steps and thinking processes:

Step One: Data Generation/Data Gathering. Knowing, understanding information or data

Step Two: Ranking. Evaluating, prioritizing, justifying, defending data choices

Step Three: Grouping, Labeling, Regrouping, Subsuming, Re-labeling. Categorizing, analyzing, synthesizing data

Step Four: Asking Questions. Knowing, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, synthesizing information and ideas

Step Five: Drawing Conclusions. Knowing, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, synthesizing data and ideas

Step Six: Communicating Results. Creating an appropriate format or product to share the results or express major ideas to an audience

Depending on the complexity of the concepts and/or data to be used as a basis for the activities, all of these steps could be used in a single lesson, or the sequence could be broken into several subsequent lessons over time, with more time for reflection, sharing, and elaborating on first thoughts with more complex ideas and more time for creative incubation as the content demands.

Consider how this sequence of critical and creative thinking activities might be applied with math content in a study of percents. This idea was suggested by one of my graduate students, a middle school math teacher, to encourage students to play with the concepts related to understanding and using percents while developing recognition and understanding of many of the ways in which percentages are used in everyday life and how this affects them personally.

Step One: Listing (Individual Brainstorming)

Begin by having students quickly list as many situations as they can think of in which percents may be used in real life. This step could be a short timed activity, perhaps 3 minutes, with no talking or sharing allowed during this step. Set a goal based on the time allowed (eight listed items in 3 minutes, for example). Keeping the time short for this initial listing of data keeps students on task. When time is called, ask for a show of hands for students who achieved the goal that was set, and then tell students that from this point on, they are encouraged to add to their original list if they think of any new ideas or if they hear any good ideas they hadn't thought of. The more data students have to work with on the topic, the better. Unique or original ideas that fit are especially valued as they reflect flexibility in thinking.

Step Two: Ranking and Prioritizing

Next, tell students to consider the items on their list and, without any discussion or sharing, to rank them in order of most significant to least significant (they may determine "significance"). They must be prepared to explain and justify their top two or three choices. Allow a few minutes for this ranking process. When students have completed ranking at least through their top three items, have students volunteer to share their top one or two items and explain their reasons for those choices. To stimulate discussion based on the reasons they provide, and to add to the playfulness of the activity, this could be put in the form of a game (Top That!) in which a student offers a number one item from her list and explains the reasoning for the choice, and then other students take turns trying to "top that" with their own choices, with emphasis on their reasoning for their decisions. Anticipate some lively discussions at this stage, which is a good thing as students defend their reasoning and hear others' points of view. Again, encourage students to add anything that they hear and like to their own lists (fluency, flexibility). Remind students that unique or original ideas are particularly valued, but all items offered must actually fit the parameters that were set for the database.

Step Three: Grouping and Labeling

Students are now told to group the items on their list according to whatever criteria they choose. They are then to create an appropriate label for each group they create that encompasses all of the items in that group according to the criteria they have determined for their sets. These groups and labels will then be shared, discussed, and evaluated by the whole class, as other students consider the appropriateness of sets formed and comprehensiveness of labels. Sharing and discussing different ways of grouping their ideas and evaluating the appropriateness of their labels expands flexibility in thinking, while expanding everyone's understanding and realization of how often they encounter percents in their own world and in what contexts they might occur. This step might be an activity for which the teacher would choose to allow additional time for display and review of individual groupings and their labels, perhaps a gallery walk so that students can share and consider the ideas of their peers. Grouping is, of course, creating categories based on analysis of similarities or differences - critical thinking skills that are inherent in every discipline. Observing, discussing, and critiquing various ways in which students have chosen to create and label these data sets offers opportunities to expand the flexible thinking of all students.

Students might then be asked to try to find ways in which they can subsume one or more of their groups within another group. This increases the analytical thinking involved, requiring students to process the same ideas again in multiple ways, to look at that data from multiple perspectives to find new, hierarchical relationships, and to synthesize new labels as appropriate. A discussion of the various ways in which the data were grouped and the appropriateness or uniqueness of the labels given helps students think more analytically and flexibly about their own ideas as well (fluency, flexibility, and elaboration).

Step Four: Asking Questions

Students are encouraged to generate as many questions as they can about percents, with emphasis on why, how, why not, when, what if, etc. questions that require higher order thinking. Asking such questions elicits critical analysis and evaluation or creative synthesis thinking and provides teachable moments to clarify misinformation and misunderstandings. As with the previous step, this could be a simple class activity or could be expanded over time with students encouraged to add their questions to a growing list on the wall or board. As before, particular value is given to unique or original questions that go beyond the simple or obvious (elaboration, flexibility, and originality). Asking good questions is a critical and creative thinking skill requiring all levels of Bloom and requires both modeling and practice; questions generated by students are likely to show what they know or need to learn or want to understand about the topic.

To make the "game" more interesting, try presenting an answer (e.g., .25) and allow students to generate as many possible questions or computations as they can for that answer (fluency, flexibility, elaboration). Any reasonable question that fits the answer is acceptable, but again, unique or original questions that encourage divergent thinking are most valued. If points are awarded as in a game, all correct questions might receive 1 point, but unique questions are worth 3 points. Unique could be determined by the criterion that "no one else thought of that" or "we agree as a group, that question is unique."

Step Five: Drawing Conclusions

Students are asked to consider what conclusions they might reasonably draw about the topic of percents based on the discussions and activities to this point. This process of drawing conclusions and developing generalizations requires synthesis of ideas and concepts, the highest level of Bloom (create). Any reasonable conclusion that can be supported by the student based on evidence to this point or original reasoning may be accepted as valid.

Step Six: Communicating Results

As a further creative elaboration, encourage students to express their conclusions and supporting evidence in an original product or appropriate format of their choosing. They may consider a concrete or metaphorical expression to communicate their ideas. For example, they may create cartoons, drawings, scenarios or dramatizations, speeches, rap, rhyme, or song. Or they may develop presentations using technology, art, or whatever form of creative expression the student finds personally interesting or most appropriate to communicate their generalizations and ideas to an audience.

Through this series of activities, students conclude that knowing and understanding percents and how to compute and compare them and use them is useful, personally relevant, and significant in their lives. Students have been engaged in higher order analysis, evaluation, and synthesis in the learning process, and they have had fun playing with the data and concepts in multiple ways.

The same sequence of activities could be applied to almost any content in any discipline and modified for any grade level. Playing with information, ideas, or data sets in these ways involves students in processing information in multiple ways. It allows for a reexamination of the data and their own understanding, analyzing, and evaluating and justifying their choices and ideas. They are observing and thinking about how others view the same information from different perspectives, and they can raise new questions and elaborate on their own original ideas. Even though the curriculum content determines parameters for the initial data-gathering or listing, encouragement of unique or original ideas throughout the series of activities encourages divergent thinking within those parameters.

A CREATIVE WRITING STRATEGY: CAUSE/EFFECT AND PROBLEM/SOLUTION

Another strategy, often used in creative writing to examine narrative structure and sequence of plot development, could also be adapted to enhance critical and creative thinking about concepts in many content areas with a particular focus on cause/ effect and problem/solution relationships. Engaging in this strategy in a variety of appropriate contexts can be useful in developing skills for creative problem solving.

The process is simple. One student writes an opening line from a story she would like to read at the top of a page, folds it down, and hands the page to another student. That student then writes the closing line of a story he would like to read at the bottom of that same page. The two students then work together to fill in the plot points necessary to develop the story from the opening line to the closing line. This creative writing activity engages students in developing narrative structure, cause/effect, and problem/solution; predicting reasonable outcomes; and using elaborative thinking as well as divergent, convergent, and higher order thinking skills.

This strategy could be adapted to science, social studies, math, music, and art. Student One could be asked to write an event from the past, a historical situation or problem (social studies, science); number, number equation, musical line, or figural drawing (math, music art) at the top of the page and fold it down. Student Two could then write a contemporary event, situation, issue (social studies, science); another problem, number, equation, musical line, or figural drawing (math, music or art) at the bottom of the page. Then the two students could work out the cause-effect, problem-solution steps, and make the connections necessary to go from the first statement to the final statement.

As a further extension in analyzing and developing ideas constructed in this activity, students might be asked to create a graph or chart to illustrate the plot curve, cause/effect, problem/solution sequence, or connections within the relationships they have constructed. This could be a visual graph or three-dimensional structure, a dramatic performance, or a musical or artistic representation- as long as it represents the sequential or developmental cause/effect relationships involved. Collaboration as well as critical and creative thinking at the highest levels of Bloom are involved throughout these activities.

OTHER STRATEGIES TO EXPLORE

Strategies such as the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 2003), SCAMPER (Eberle, 1977), or Six Thinking Hats (de Bono, 1999) encourage flexibility and elaboration as students consider issues or concepts from multiple points of view. These thinking strategies are familiar to many gifted teachers, but are rarely applied in contexts by content teachers. Students can employ the problem-finding step of the CPS model by asking themselves "In What Ways Might We . . .?" to help identify potential problems within larger issues, listing as many ideas as they can relative to the situation and then evaluating those ideas to determine a problem they might pursue. SCAMPER ( Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify/Magnify/Minify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Reverse/ Reorder/Rearrange) is a useful tool for encouraging flexible thinking, as students examine and analyze situations or issues and generate innovative ideas and solutions. In small groups or as a class, students might try on de Bono's Six Thinking Hats as they examine potential issues from multiple perspectives: gathering and examining facts and evaluating sources and objectivity of facts (White Hat); considering possible emotions involved (Red Hat); considering possible benefits (Yellow Hat), as well as possible negatives (Black Hat) related to the issue; generating creative ideas, even far-out wild and crazy ideas (Green Hat); before finally considering possible solutions and developing a plan of implementation (Blue Hat). In each of these strategies, students consider issues and possibilities from multiple points of view, discussing, analyzing, and processing data and information in multiple ways to move from vague, broadly-conceived issues into more clearly-defined problem statements, potentially leading to useful, creative solutions.

PRESENTING THE FINDINGS

In all of these critical and creative thinking strategies, students gather data or information related to issues that they find to be significant or personally meaningful. Students are encouraged to evaluate sources of data and to consider bias and objectivity or accuracy of information-critical thinking skills particularly necessary in today's world. By analyzing and categorizing data, they can begin to sort through relevant and irrelevant information pertinent to a problem that they might effectively address. By considering multiple perspectives related to the problem, brainstorming, and sharing multiple possible solutions, students can think more fluently and flexibly and then begin to choose among alternative possibilities and propose a likely course of action. All of these processes involve higher order thinking skills of analysis, evaluation, and creative synthesis at every step. Students learn to ask good questions, considering relationships such as cause/effect, make reasonable predictions, draw conclusions, generate innovative ideas and products, and support and defend decisions and choices.

Students should also consider an appropriate audience for presentation of their proposed solutions. How will they communicate the problem they have identified, the pertinent data they have found, and ideas for possible solutions to the target audience? Presentation of an identified problem within a larger issue accompanied by relevant supporting data and a considered approach to a potential solution is an important leadership skill that crosses all disciplines, particularly critical in contemporary times.

When these kinds of critical and creative thinking strategies are practiced frequently in purposeful content instruction, content learning is enhanced, not only in terms of more meaningful development of concepts, but also in terms of skills required for reading, writing, speaking, listening, research, and presentation. Thinking skills of cause/effect, predicting reasonable outcomes, analysis of data and multiple points of view, evaluation, making judgments, and creative synthesis can be developed through frequent opportunities to explore and express opinions and ideas in a receptive, collaborative critical and creative thinking learning environment. Not only are students given opportunity to develop these higher order thinking skills through these kinds of practices, but they also develop leadership skills of teamwork and collaboration and presentation skills in speaking, writing, and use of technology for authentic purposes.

Critical and creative thinking strategies should not be merely an afterthought to instruction. Critical and creative thinking are the ways in which real learning occurs. When strategies for critical and creative thinking are tied to appropriate content learning objectives, content learning becomes more meaningful, more challenging and interesting, and therefore, more engaging. By engaging students frequently with a variety of critical and creative thinking strategies applied to appropriate curriculum content, we encourage students to think more divergently and meaningfully about content. We also enhance skills of analytical and evaluative thinking and creative problem solving. This implies a classroom atmosphere of inquiry, discovery, and acceptance of expression of new ideas and exploring questions. In this atmosphere, gifted learners are better prepared for authentic problem-finding and developing innovative solutions and products, and for communication of those results and ideas to appropriate audiences: the Joy of Learning!
Benny Hickerson, Ph.D., a former TAGT President (1998) and TAGT board member, is an adjunct professor of gifted education at Southern Methodist University. She is also a presenter and speaker for G/T staff development and serves as a consultant in gifted education in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area. Dr. Hickerson has been a K-12 G/T district administrator, a campus administrator, and a classroom teacher in both public and private schools, including having taught at every grade level K-12. She has also taught both undergraduate and graduate levels in college, in both reading and gifted education. She can be contacted at blhjrh@aol.com or bhickers@smu.edu.
The appearance of any information in the Davidson Institute's Database does not imply an endorsement by, or any affiliation with, the Davidson Institute. All information presented is for informational purposes only and is solely the opinion of and the responsibility of the author. Although reasonable effort is made to present accurate information, the Davidson Institute makes no guarantees of any kind, including as to accuracy or completeness. Use of such information is at the sole risk of the reader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Critical and Creative Thinking: The Joy of Learning!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Children do not develop their thinking skills by memorizing the products of adults' thinking. Children develop these thinking skills by manipulating ideas, critically examining them, and trying to combine them in new ways. Data become meaningful only when individuals perform certain mental operations on those data." (Taba, 1971, pp.

# data[].attributes.body
Please see the attachment for the gifted evaluation process and timeline.

# data[].attributes.body
Gifted Education Referral Packet for Teachers. Please make a copy and complete the packet. Please include as much detail as possible. Items left blank may result in the referral being returned to the referring teacher, in order for additional referral information/ data/ evidence can be collected and submitted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet Google Drive - One place for all your files

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google Drive is a free way to keep your files backed up and easy to reach from any phone, tablet, or computer. Start with 15GB of Google storage - free.

# data[].attributes.body
The Colorado state definition and description of an advanced learning plan.

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching for High Potential article from May 2017.

# data[].attributes.body
referral to ID

# data[].attributes.body
The identification process for visual arts talented referred students.

# data[].attributes.body
The identification process for specific academic aptitude referred students.

# data[].attributes.body
The Cognitive Abilities Test is given to all Second Graders annually as a screening tool as a first step in potentially identifying gifted learners within the student population,.

# data[].attributes.body
The identification process for general intellectual ability referred students.

# data[].attributes.body
The CDE ALP development guidance document.

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is CAGT's belief that all humans have an inherent right to develop their full potential. The Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented fosters an understanding of all gifted children and their exceptional needs, and advocates for appropriate education and affective support through partnerships with educators, families, students, administrators, legislators, and the general public. Learn more >>

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is CAGT's belief that all humans have an inherent right to develop their full potential. The Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented fosters an understanding of all gifted children and their exceptional needs, and advocates for appropriate education and affective support through partnerships with educators, families, students, administrators, legislators, and the general public.

# data[].attributes.body
The identification process for students referred in the area of music.

# data[].attributes.headline
Common Characteristics of Gifted Individuals

# data[].attributes.subject
Common Characteristics of Gifted Individuals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Association for Gifted Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NAGC website has transitioned to a new platform, so the page you are attempting to reach is no longer available at this location. Please visit www.nagc.org and use the home page Search feature to perhaps find the content you seek. We apologize for any inconvenience.

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative units may blend the two systems into one at the secondary level. This could potentially save duplication of efforts and time. The requirements of both the ALP and ICAP must be met through the singular portfolio system where data is collected and goals are established and monitored. * Note: Districts may choose to retain separate ALP and ICAP systems for students and parent/guardian, and their teachers.

# data[].attributes.body
The Autonomous Learner Model for Developing Potential by George T. Betts

# data[].attributes.body
Curriculum Compacting: A Systematic Procedure for Modifying the Curriculum for Above Average Ability Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sally M. Reis
Joseph S. Renzulli
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
University of Connecticut

As the dialogue about better ways to restructure our schools goes on, students still come to school each morning, and teachers still face the challenge of providing equitably for a broad array of differences in student abilities, interests, and learning styles. When we examine these student differences in juxtaposition to extensive differences in content, teaching styles, and teachers' personal traits, it is easy to realize that all teaching activities require a multitude of adjustments to accommodate the diversity of learning situations that can be found in any classroom. Just as teachers have experienced the frustration and the challenge of adjusting the curriculum for students who experience difficulty in learning, frustration also exists when we realize that for some students, a good deal of the material that is being taught has already been mastered, or could easily be mastered in a fraction of the time that may be required by other students. Discomfort inevitably develops for both teachers and students in these situations. Most teachers want to accommodate the special learning strengths of their above-average ability students, but are hampered by time constraints and the lack of a systematic approach for substituting more challenging work for regular classroom assignments. And students who are academically years ahead of their classmates often become frustrated because they are held accountable for daily requirements that are repetitious and unnecessary, and that often lead to boredom, underdeveloped study skills, and disenchantment with school in general.

Curriculum Compacting ¹ is an instructional technique that is specifically designed to make appropriate curricular adjustments for students in any curricular area and at any grade level. Essentially, the procedure involves (1) defining the goals and outcomes of a particular unit or segment of instruction, (2) determining and documenting which students have already mastered most or all of a specified set of learning outcomes, and (3) providing replacement strategies for material already mastered through the use of instructional options that enable a more challenging and productive use of the student's time. Curriculum Compacting might best be thought of as organized common sense, because it simply recommends the natural pattern that teachers ordinarily would follow if they were individualizing instruction for each student. The specific steps for carrying out Curriculum Compacting in both basic skill and content areas will be described below.

One reason that so many average and above average students demonstrate mastery of the curriculum is because contemporary textbooks have been "dumbed down," a phrase used in 1984 by Terrel Bell, former secretary of education. Chall and Conard (1991) concur with Bell's assessment, documenting a trend of decreasing difficulty in the most widely used textbooks over a thirty-year period from 1945-1975. "On the whole, the later the copyright dates of the textbooks for the same grade, the easier they were, as measured by indices of readability level, maturity level, difficulty of questions and extent of illustration" (p. 2). Kirst (1982) also believes that textbooks have dropped by two grade levels in difficulty over the last 10-15 years. Most recently, Philip G. Altbach (1991), noted scholar and author on textbooks in America, suggests that textbooks, as evaluated across a spectrum of assessment measures, have declined in rigor.

Textbooks are a central part of any educational system. They help define the curriculum and can either significantly help or hinder the teacher. The "excellence movement" has directed its attention to textbooks in the past few years. American textbooks, according to the critics, are boring and designed for the lowest common denominator. They have been "dumbed down" so that content is diluted and "readability" is stressed. Textbooks have evolved over the past several decades into "products" often assembled by committees in response to external pressures rather than a coherent approach to education. Most important to many of the critics, textbooks do not provide the knowledge base for American schools in a period of reform, renewal and improvement. (p. 2)

Researchers have discussed the particular problems encountered by high ability students when textbooks are "dumbed down" because of readability formulas or the politics of textbook adoption. Bernstein (1985) summarizes the particular problem that current textbooks pose for high achieving students, "Even if there were good rules of thumb about the touchy subject of textbook adoption, the issue becomes moot when a school district buys only one textbook, usually at 'grade level,' for all students in a subject or grade. Such a purchasing policy pressures adoption committees to buy books that the least-able students can read. As a result, the needs of more advanced students are sacrificed" (p. 465). Chall and Conard (1991) also cite particular difficulties for the above-average student with regard to less difficult textbooks.

Another group not adequately served was those who read about two grades or more above the norm. Their reading textbooks, especially, provided little or no challenge, since they were matched to students' grade placement, not their reading levels. Many students were aware of this and said, in their interviews, that they preferred harder books because they learned harder words and ideas from them. Since harder reading textbooks are readily available, one may ask why they were not used with the more able readers, as were the easier reading textbooks for the less able readers. This practice of using grade-level reading textbooks for those who read two or more grades above the norms has changed little through the years, although it has been repeatedly questioned (see Chall, 1967, 1983). It would appear that, for various administrative reasons, that teachers do not use a reading textbook above the student's grade placement. The reason most often mentioned is really a question: If the third-grade teacher uses fourth grade books, what is the fourth-grade teacher going to do? (p. 111)

Further, Chall and Conard stress the importance of the match between a learner's abilities and the difficulty of the instructional task, stating that the optimal match should be slightly above the learner's current level of functioning. When the match is optimal, learning is enhanced. However, "if the match is not optimal [i.e., the match is below or above the child's level of understanding/knowledge], learning is less efficient and development may be halted" (p. 19). It is clear that the current trend of selecting textbooks which the majority of students can read is a problem for high ability students.

Recent findings by Usiskin (1987) and Flanders (1987) indicate that not only have textbooks decreased in difficulty, but also that they incorporate a large percentage of repetition to facilitate learning. Usiskin argues that even average eighth grade students should study algebra since only 25% of the pages in typical seventh and eighth grade mathematics texts contain new content. Flanders corroborated this finding by investigating the mathematics textbook series of three popular publishers. Students in grades 2-5 who used these math textbooks encountered approximately 40 to 65% new content over the course of the school year which equates to new material two to three days a week. By eighth grade, the amount of new content had dropped to 30% which translates to encountering new material once every one and one half days a week. Flanders (1987) suggests that these estimates are conservative because days for review and testing were not included in his analysis, and concludes, "There should be little wonder why good students get bored: they do the same thing year after year" (p. 22).

In light of the findings by recent researchers, a mismatch seems to exist between the difficulty of textbooks, the repetition of curricular material in these texts, and the needs of our high ability learners. These students spend much of their time in school practicing skills and learning content they already know. All of these factors may be causing our most capable children to learn less and proceed haltingly in their development, thereby creating or encouraging their underachievement. Many of these bright students learn at an early age that if they do their best in school, they will be rewarded with endless more pages of the same kind of practice materials.

Three treatment groups which received escalating levels of staff development were used to examine the most efficient but effective method for training teachers to modify curriculum. Teachers from a fourth set of classrooms served as a control group and therefore received no training. All treatment group teachers received videotape training and a book about the compacting process. Teachers in Treatment Group 2 also received approximately two hours of group compacting simulations conducted by an experienced trainer. The simulations developed by Starko (1986) have been a standard resource in this type of training. Treatment Group 3 received the same training as Group 2, but also had an additional 6 to 10 hours of peer coaching throughout the year, as suggested by Joyce and Showers (1983). Teachers in the control group continued normal teaching practices which did not include the use of Curriculum Compacting.

Treatment and control group teachers were asked to target one or two candidates in their classrooms for Curriculum Compacting, using a set of criteria outlined in the material provided by the research team. All targeted students in treatment and control groups were tested before and after treatment with out-of-level Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). Next-grade-level tests were used to compensate for the "topping out" effect that is frequently encountered when measuring the achievement of high ability students.

Although space does not permit a detailed presentation of the descriptive and nonparametric statistical procedures that were used to analyze data from this study, a summary of important findings will be described, and the interested reader is invited to consult a comprehensive technical report that is available from The NRC/GT (Reis, et. al, 1992).

Additional findings are based on an examination of the efficiency and effectiveness of the compacting process and the various training paradigms provided to the three treatment groups. Ninety-five percent of the teachers in the study were able to identify high ability students in their classrooms, and to document individual student strengths. Eighty percent of the teachers were able to document the curriculum that high ability students had yet to master, list appropriate instructional strategies for students to demonstrate mastery, and document an appropriate mastery standard. The most frequently compacted subject was mathematics, followed by reading, language arts, science, and social studies.

Replacement strategies consisted of three categories of activities for students: enrichment, acceleration, and other, which included activities such as peer tutoring, cooperative learning, correcting papers, and other teacher assistance tasks. Ninety-five percent of teachers used enrichment as a replacement strategy and 18% also used acceleration. Many more teachers indicated they would have elected to use acceleration more frequently, but were prevented from doing so because of district policies that prohibit students from working in textbooks beyond their present grade level. Although the majority of replacement strategies reflected student interests, needs, and preferences, replacement strategies often did not reflect the types of advanced content that would be appropriate for high ability students. This finding indicates that additional staff development is necessary, especially as it relates to appropriately challenging replacement strategies. This finding was confirmed through anecdotal records, which indicated that teachers would like more access to consultant assistance from enrichment or gifted education specialists, and more training and assistance in locating and using appropriate enrichment materials.

Teachers in Treatment Group 3 used significantly more replacement strategies than did teachers in Groups 1 and 2. A significant difference in favor of Group 3 was also found with regard to the overall quality of curriculum compacting. A very encouraging finding was that a majority of teachers in all treatment groups said they would like to continue to compact curriculum (beyond the duration of the research study), and that they would like to gain more skills in using the compacting process and the broader range of materials that could be used for replacement activities.

How to Use the Compacting Process
Defining Goals and Outcomes. The first of three phases of the compacting process consists of defining the goals and outcomes of a given unit or segment of instruction. This information is readily available in most subjects because specific goals and outcomes usually can be found in teachers' manuals, curriculum guides, scope-and-sequence charts, and some of the new curricular frameworks that are emerging in connection with outcome based education models. Teachers should examine these objectives to determine which objectives represent the acquisition of new content or thinking skills as opposed to reviews or practice of material that has previously been taught. The scope and sequence charts prepared by publishers, or a simple comparison of the table of contents of a basal series will provide a quick overview of new versus repeated material. A major goal of this phase of the compacting process is to help teachers make individual programming decisions; a larger professional development goal is to help teachers be better analysts of the material they are teaching and better consumers of textbooks and prescribed curricular material.

Identifying Candidates for Compacting. The second phase of Curriculum Compacting is identifying students who have already mastered the objectives or outcomes of a unit or segment of instruction that is about to be taught. This first step of this phase consists of estimating which students have the potential to master new material at a faster than normal pace. Knowing one's students is, of course, the best way to begin the assessment process. Scores on previous tests, completed assignments, and classroom participation are the best ways of identifying highly likely candidates for compacting. Standardized achievement tests can serve as a good general screen for this step because they allow us to list the names of all students who are scoring one or more years above grade level in particular subject areas.

Being a candidate for compacting does not necessarily mean that a student knows the material under consideration. Therefore, the second step of identifying candidates consists of finding or developing appropriate tests or other assessment techniques that can be used to evaluate specific learning outcomes. Unit pretests, or end-of-unit tests that can be administered as pretests are ready made for this task, especially when it comes to the assessment of basic skills. An analysis of pretest results enables the teacher to document proficiency in specific skills, and to select instructional activities or practice material necessary to bring the student up to a high level on any skill that may need some additional reinforcement.

The process is slightly modified for compacting content areas that are not as easily assessed as basic skills, and for students who have not mastered the material, but are judged to be candidates for more rapid coverage. First, students should have a thorough understanding of the goals and procedures of compacting, including the nature of the replacement process. A given segment of material should be discussed with the student (e.g., a unit that includes a series of chapters in a social studies text), and the procedures for verifying mastery at a high level should be specified. These procedures might consist of answering questions based on the chapters, writing an essay, or taking the standard end-of-unit test. The amount of time for completion of the unit should be specified, and procedures such as periodic progress reports or log entries for teacher review should be agreed upon. And, of course, an examination of potential acceleration and/or enrichment replacement activities should be a part of this discussion.

Another alternative is to assess or pretest all students in a class when a new unit or topic is introduced. Although this may seem like more work for the teacher, it provides the opportunity for all students to demonstrate their strengths or previous mastery in a given area. Using a matrix of learning objectives, teachers can fill in test results and establish small, flexible, and temporary groups for skill instruction and replacement activities.

Providing Acceleration and Enrichment Options. The final phase of the compacting process can be one of the most exciting aspects of teaching because it is based on cooperative decision making and creativity on the parts of both teachers and students. Efforts can be made to gather enrichment materials from classroom teachers, librarians, media specialists, and content area or gifted education specialists. These materials may include self-directed learning activities, instructional materials that focus on particular thinking skills, and a variety of individual and group project oriented activities that are designed to promote hands on research and investigative skills. The time made available through compacting provides opportunities for exciting learning experiences such as small group, special topic seminars that might be directed by students or community resource persons, community based apprenticeships or opportunities to work with a mentor, peer tutoring situations, involvement in community service activities, and opportunities to rotate through a series of self-selected mini-courses.

Decisions about which replacement activities to use are always guided by factors such as time, space, and the availability of resource persons and materials. Although practical concerns must be considered, the ultimate criteria for replacement activities should be the degree to which they increase academic challenge and the extent to which they meet individual needs. Great care should be taken to select activities and experiences that represent individual strengths and interests rather than the assignment of more-of-the-same worksheets or randomly selected kits, games, and puzzles! This aspect of the compacting process should also be viewed as a creative opportunity for an entire faculty to work cooperatively to organize and institute a broad array of enrichment experiences. A favorite mini-course that a faculty member has always wanted to teach, or serving as a mentor to one or two students who are extremely invested in a teacher's beloved topic are just a few of the ways that replacement activities can add excitement to the teachers' part in this process as well as the obvious benefits for students. We have also observed another interesting occurrence that has resulted from the availability of Curriculum Compacting. When some previously bright but underachieving students realized that they could both economize on regularly assigned material and "earn time" to pursue self-selected interests, their motivation to complete regular assignments increased. As one student put it, "Everyone understands a good deal!"

The best way to get an overview of the curriculum compacting process is to examine an actual example of how the management form that guides this process is used. A completed example of this form, entitled "The Compactor," is presented in Figure 1. The form is both an organizational and record keeping tool. Teachers should fill out one form per student, or one form for a group of students with similar curricular strengths. Completed Compactors should be kept in students' academic files, and updated on a regular basis. The form can also be used for small groups of students who are working at approximately the same level (e.g., a reading or math group). The Compactor is divided into three sections:

Click on the figure to see it as a PDF file. Figure 1. The compactor. ( )

The first column should include information on learning objectives and student strengths in those areas. Teachers should list the objectives for a particular unit of study, followed by data on students' proficiency in those objectives, including test scores, behavioral profiles and past academic records.

In the second column, teachers should detail the pretest vehicles they select, along with test results. The pretest instruments can be formal measures, such as pencil and paper tests, or informal measures, such as performance assessments based on observations of class participation and written assignments.
Specificity is extremely important. Recording an overall score of 85% on ten objectives, for example, sheds little light on what portion of the material can be compacted, since students might show limited mastery of some objectives and high levels of mastery on others.

Column three is used to record information about acceleration or enrichment options. In determining these options, teachers must be fully aware of students' individual interests and learning styles. We have used two instruments to help us make decisions about replacement activities that place major emphasis on student preferences. The Interest-A-Lyzer and the Learning Styles Inventory (Renzulli & Smith, 1979) provide profiles of general categories of student interests, and the types of learning activities that students would like to use in pursuing these interests.

Eileen usually took part in language arts lessons one or two days a week. The balance of the time she spent with alternative projects, some of which she selected. This strategy spared Eileen up to six or eight hours a week with language arts skills that were simply beneath her level. She joined the class instruction only when her pretests indicated she had not fully acquired the skills or to take part in a discussion that her teacher thought she would enjoy. In the time saved through compacting, Eileen engaged in a number of enrichment activities. First, she spent as many as five hours a week in a resource room for high ability students. This time was usually scheduled during her language arts class, benefiting both Eileen and her teacher, since he didn't have to search for all of the enrichment options himself. The best part of the process for Eileen was she didn't have make-up regular classroom assignments because she was not missing essential work.

Eileen also visited a regional science center with other students who had expressed a high interest and aptitude for science. Science was a second strength area for Eileen, and based on the results of her Interest-A-Lyzer, famous women was a special interest. Working closely with her teacher, Eileen choose seven biographies of noted women, most of whom had made contributions in scientific areas. All of the books were extremely challenging and locally available. Three were on an adult level, but Eileen had no trouble reading them. Eileen's Compactor, which covered an entire semester, was updated in January. Her teacher remarked that compacting her curriculum had actually saved him time-time he would have spent correcting papers needlessly assigned! The value of compacting for Eileen also convinced him that he should continue the process. The Compactor was also used as a vehicle for explaining to Eileen's parents how specific modifications were being made to accommodate her advanced language arts achievement level and her interest in science. A copy of the Compactor was also passed on to Eileen's sixth grade teacher, and a conference between the fifth and sixth grade teachers and the resource teacher helped to insure continuity in dealing with Eileen's special needs.

The many changes that are taking place in our schools require all educators to examine a broad range of techniques for providing equitably for all students. Curriculum Compacting is one such process. It is not tied to a specific content area or grade level, nor is it aligned with a particular approach to school or curricular reform. Rather, the process is adaptable to any school configuration or curricular framework, and it is flexible enough to be used within the context of rapidly changing approaches to general education. The research study described above, and practical experience gained through several years of field testing and refining the compacting process have demonstrated that many positive benefits can result from this process for both students and teachers. ²

Altbach, P. G., Kelly, G. P., Petrie, H. G., & Weis, L. (1991). Textbooks in American society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bernstein, H. T. (1985). The new politics of textbook adoption. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(7), 463-466.

Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Chall, J. S., & Conard, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier or harder textbooks. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Flanders, J. R. (1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is new? Arithmetic Teacher, 35,18-23.

Joyce, R. B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research in training. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Kirst, M. W. (1982). How to improve schools without spending more money. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(1), 6-8.

Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

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

Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1979). A guidebook for developing individualized educational programs for gifted and talented students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Starko, A. J. (1986). It's about time: Inservice strategies for curriculum compacting. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1988). Pretesting: Minimize time spent on skill work for intermediate readers. The Reading Teacher, 42(2), 100-103.

Usiskin, Z. (1987). Why elementary algebra can, should, and must be an eighth-grade course for average students. Mathematics Teacher, 80, 428-438.

¹ Research for this article was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R00001) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. This article, therefore, does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the Government, and no endorsement should be inferred.

² Persons interested in obtaining information about training in Curriculum Compacting should contact the senior author at The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 2131 Hillside Road, Unit 3007, The University of Connecticut, Storrs CT 06269-3007.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Curriculum Compacting: A Systematic Procedure for Modifying the Curriculum for Above Average Ability Students | Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article may be copied and distributed without permission. Electronic reproduction is not permitted. Sally M. Reis Joseph S. Renzulli The National Res ...

# data[].attributes.headline
A Practical System for Identifying Gifted and Talented Students

# data[].attributes.subject
A Practical System for Identifying Gifted and Talented Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Joseph S. Renzulli, Director
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
University of Connecticut

This article presents the three-ring conception of giftedness. A detailed process is presented illustrating how students can be effectively screened for gifted and talented programs through the three-ring conception approach.

Key words: screening for gifted programs, gifted, talented, identification process

The system for identifying gifted and talented students described in this article is based on a broad range of research that has accumulated over the years on the characteristics of creative and productive individuals (Renzutli, 1986). Essentially, this research tells us that highly productive people are characterized by three interlocking clusters of ability, these clusters being above average (though not necessarily superior) ability, task commitment, and creativity. A graphic representation of this conception is presented in Figure 1. The following description of behavioral manifestations of each cluster is a summary of the major concepts and conclusions emanating from the work of theorists and researchers who have examined these concepts:
Well Above Average Ability
General ability
Specific Ability Task Commitment Creativity
Figure 1. What makes giftedness?

As is always the case with lists of traits such as the above, there is an overlap among individual items, and an interaction between and among the general categories and the specific traits. It is important to point out that all the traits need not be present in any given individual or situation to produce a display of gifted behaviors. It is for this reason that the three ring conception of giftedness emphasizes the interaction among the clusters rather than any single cluster. It should also be emphasized that the above average ability cluster is a constant in the identification system described below. In other words, the well above average ability group represents the target population and the starting point for the identification process. and it will be students in this category that are selected through the use of test score and non-test criteria. Task commitment and creativity, on the other hand, are viewed as developmental goals of the special program. By providing above average ability students with appropriate experiences, the programming model (Renzulli. 1977) for which this identification system was designed serves the purpose of promoting creativity and task commitment, and in "bringing the rings together" to promote the development of gifted behaviors.

In the sections that follow, I will outline the specific steps of an identification system that is designed to translate the three-ring conception of giftedness into a practical set of procedures for selecting students for special programs. The focal point of this identification system is a Talent Pool of students that will serve as the major (but not the only) target group for participation in a wide variety of supplementary services. The goals of this identification system, as it relates to the three-ring conception of giftedness are threefold:

1. To develop creativity and/or task commitment in Talent Pool students and other students who may come to our attention through alternate means of identification.

2. To provide learning experiences and support systems that promote the interaction of creativity, task commitment, and above average ability (i.e., bring the "rings" together)

3. To provide opportunities, resources, and encouragement for the development and application of gifted behaviors.

Before listing the steps involved in this identification system, three important considerations will be discussed. First, Talent Pools will vary in any given school depending upon the general nature of the total student body. In school with unusually large numbers of high ability students, it is conceivable that Talent Pools will extend beyond the 15 percent level that is ordinarily recommended in schools that reflect the achievement profiles of the general population. Even in schools where achievement levels are below national norms, there still exists an upper level group of students who need services above and beyond those which are provided for the majority of the school population. Some of our most successful programs have been in inner-city schools that serve disadvantaged and bilingual youth; and even though these schools were below national norms, a Talent Pool of approximately 15 percent of higher ability students needing supplementary services was still identified. Talent Pool size is also a function of the availability of resources (both human and material). and the extent to which the general faculty is willing (a) to make modifications in the regular curriculum for above average ability students, (b) to participate in various kinds of enrichment and mentoring activities, and (c) to work cooperatively with any and all personnel who may have special program assignments.

Since teacher nomination plays an important role in this identification system, a second consideration is the extent of orientation and training that teachers have had about both the program and procedures for nominating students. In this regard, we recommend the use of a training activity that is designed to orient teachers to the behavioral characteristics of superior students (Renzulli & Reis, pp. 203-2 10).

A third consideration is, of course. the type of program for which students are being identified. The identification system that follows is based on models that combine both enrichment and acceleration, whether or not they are carried out in self-contained or pull-out programs. Regardless of the type of organizational model used, it is also recommended that a strong component of curriculum compacting (Renzulli, Smith, & Reis, 1982) be a part of the services offered Talent Pool students.

For purpose of demonstration, the example that follows will be based oil the formation of a 15 percent Talent Pool. Larger or smaller Talent Pools can be formed by simply adjusting the figures used in this example.

Step 1: Test Score Nominations
If we were using nothing but test scores to identify a 15 percent Talent Pool, the task would be ever so simple! Any child who scores above the 85th percentile (using local norms) would be a candidate. In this identification system, however, we have made a commitment to "leave some room" in the Talent Pool for students whose potentials may not be reflected in standardized tests. Therefore, we will begin by dividing our Talent Pool in half (see Figure 2), and we will place all students who score at or above the 92nd percentile (again, using local norms) in the Talent Pool. This approach guarantees that all traditionally bright youngsters will automatically be selected, and they will account for approximately 50 percent of our Talent Pool. This process guarantees admission to bright underachievers.

Figure 2. The Renzulli identification system

Any regularly administered standardized test (e.g., intelligence, achievement, aptitude) can be used for this purpose, however, we recommend that admission to the Talent Pool be granted on the basis of any single test or subtest score. This approach will enable students who are high in verbal or non-verbal ability (but not necessarily both) to gain admission, as well as students who may excel in one aptitude (e.g., spatial, mechanical). Programs that focus on special areas such as the arts, leadership, and athletics should use non-test criteria as major indicators of above ability in a particular talent area. In a similar fashion, whenever test scores are not available, or we have some question as to their validity, the non-test criteria recommended in the following steps should be used. This approach (i.e., the elimination or minimization of Step 1) is especially important when considering primary age students, disadvantaged populations, or culturally different groups.

Step 2: Teacher Nominations
The teacher should be informed about all students who have gained entrance through test score nominations so that they will not have to engage in needless paperwork for students who have already been admitted. Step 2 allows teachers to nominate students who display characteristics that are not easily determined by tests (e.g., high levels of creativity, task commitment, unusual interest, talents. or special areas of superior performance of potential). With the exception of teachers who are over nominators or under nominators, nominations from teachers who have received training in this process are accepted into the Talent Pool on an equal value with test score nominations. That is, we do not refer to students nominated by test scores as the "truly gifted," and the students nominated by teachers as the moderately or potentially gifted. Nor do we make any distinctions in the opportunities, resources, or services provided, other than the normal individualization that should be a part of any program that attempts to meet unique needs and potentials. Thus, for example, if a student gains entrance on the basis of teacher nomination because he or she has shown advanced potential for creative writing, we would not expect this student to compete on an equal basis in mathematics With a student who scored at or above the 92nd percentile on a math test. Nor should we arrange program experiences that Would place the student with talents in creative writing in an advanced math cluster group. Special programs should first and foremost respect and reflect the individual characteristics that brought students to our attention in the first place.

A teacher nomination form and rating scales (Renzulli, et al., 1976) are used for this procedure. The rating scales are not used to eliminate students with lower ratings. Instead, the scales are used to provide a composite profile of the nominated students. In cases of teachers who are over nominators, a request is made that they rank order their nominations for review by a schoolwide committee. Procedures for dealing with under-nominators or non-nominators will be described in Step 4.

Step 3: Alternate Pathways
Whereas all schools using this identification system make use of test score and teacher nominations, alternate pathways are considered to be local options, and are pursued in varying degrees by individual school districts. Decisions about which alternative pathways might be used should be made by a local planning committee, and some consideration should be given to variations in grade level. For example, self-nomination is more appropriate for students who may be considering advanced classes at the secondary level.

Alternate pathways generally consist of parent nominations, peer nominations, tests of creativity, self-nominations, product evaluations and virtually any other procedure that might lead to initial consideration by a screening committee. The major difference between alternate pathways on one hand, and test score and teacher nomination on the other, is that alternate pathways are not automatic. In other words, students nominated through one or more alternate pathways will be reviewed by a screening committee, after which a selection decision will be made. In most cases the screening committee carries out a case study that includes examination of all previous school records, interviews with students, teachers, and parents, and the administration of individual assessments that may be recommended by the committee. In some cases, students that are recommended on the basis of one or more alternate pathways are placed in the program on a trial basis.

Step 4: Special Nominations (Safety Valve No. 1)
Special nominations represent the first of two "safety valves" in this identification system. This procedure involves circulating a list of all students who have been nominated through one of the procedures in Steps 1 through 3 to all teachers within the school, and in previous schools if students have matriculated from another building. This procedure allows previous year teachers to nominate students who have not been recommended by their present teacher, and it also allows resource teachers to make recommendations based on their own previous experience with students who have already been in the Talent Pool, or students they may have encountered as part of enrichment experiences that might have been offered in regular classrooms. This step allows for a final review of the total school population, and is designed to circumvent the opinions of present year teachers who may not have an appreciation for the abilities, style, or even the personality of a particular student. One last "sweep" through the population also helps to pick up students that may have "turned-off" to school or developed patterns of underachievement as a result of personal or family problems. This step also helps to overcome the general biases of an under nominator or a non-nominator. As with the case of alternate pathways, special nominations are not automatic. Rather, a case study is carried out and the final decision rests with the screening committee.

Step 5: Notification and Orientation of Parents
A letter of notification and a comprehensive description of the program is forwarded to the parents of all Talent Pool students indicating that their youngster has been placed in the Talent Pool for the year. The letter does not indicate that a child has been certified as "gifted," but rather explains the nature of the program and extends an invitation to parents for an orientation meeting. At this meeting a description of the three-ring conception of giftedness is provided, as well as an explanation of all program policies, procedures, and activities. Parents are informed about how admission to the Talent Pool is determined, that it is carried out on an annual basis, and that additions to Talent Pool membership might take place during the year as a result of evaluations of student participation and progress. Parents are also invited to make individual appointments whenever they feel that additional information about the program in general, or their own child, is required. A similar orientation session is provided for students, with emphasis once again being placed on the services and activities being provided. Students are not told that they are "the gifted," but through a discussion of the three-ring conception and the procedures for developing general and specific potentials, they come to understand that the development of gifted behaviors is a program goal as well as part of their own responsibility.

Step 6: Action Information Nominations (Safety Valve No. 2)
In spite of our best efforts, this system will occasionally overlook students, who, for one reason or another, are not selected for Talent Pool membership. To help overcome this problem, orientation related to spotting unusually favorable "turn-ons" in the regular curriculum is provided for all teachers. In programs following the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1983), we also provide a wide variety of in-class enrichment experiences that might result in recommendations for special services. This process is facilitated through the use of a teacher training activity and an instrument called an Action Information Message (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, pp. 41-42, 398-403).

Action information can best be defined as the dynamic interactions that occur when a student becomes extremely interested in or excited about a particular topic, area of study, issue, idea or event that takes place in school or the nonschool environment. It is derived from the concept of performance based assessment, and it serves as the second safety valve in this identification system. The transmission of an action information message does not mean that a student will automatically revolve into advanced level services, however, it serves as the basis for a careful review of the situation to determine if such services are warranted. Action information messages are also used within Talent Pool settings (i.e., pull-out groups, advanced classes, cluster groups) to make determinations about the pursuit of individual or small group investigations (Type III Enrichment in the Triad Model).

DISCUSSION
In most identification systems that follow the traditional screening-plus-selection approach, the "throw aways" have invariably been those students who qualified for screening on the basis of nontest criteria. Thus, for example, a teacher nomination is only used as a ticket to take an individual or group ability test, but in most cases the test score is always the deciding factor. The many and various "good things" that led to nominations by teachers are totally ignored when it comes to the final (selection) decision, and the multiple criteria game ends up being a smoke screen for the same old test based approach.

The implementation of the identification system described above has helped to overcome this problem as well as a wide array of other problems traditionally associated with selecting students for special programs. Generally, students, parents, teachers, and administrators have expressed high degrees of satisfaction with this approach (Renzulli, 1988), and the reason for this satisfaction is plainly evident. By "picking up" that layer of students below the top few percentile levels usually selected for special programs, and by leaving some room in the program for students to gain entrance on the basis of nontest criteria, we have eliminated the justifiable criticisms of those persons who know that these students are in need of special opportunities, resources, and encouragement. The research underlying the three-ring conception of giftedness clearly tells us that such an approach is justified in terms of what we know about human potential. And by eliminating the endless number of "headaches" traditionally associated with identification, we have gained an unprecedented amount of support from teachers and administrators, many of whom, formerly resented the very existence of special programs.

The Achilles Heel of Change
Even modest changes in the status quo inevitably raise concerns and questions on the parts of practitioners who might be affected by the proposed changes. One of the most frequently asked questions about the changes in identification procedures described above is: "How will this approach 'square' with state guidelines?" Before answering this question, I would like to point out that I have not expressed dissatisfaction with the restrictiveness of identification guidelines. The research cited above, and the contributions of leaders in the field such as Bloom (1985), Gardner (1983), Guilford (1977), Sternberg (1983). Treffinger (1982), and Torrance (1979) clearly point the need for a reexamination of the regulations under which most programs are forced to operate. This research is so supportive of a more flexible approach to identification that the rationale for change no longer needs to be argued. Guidelines should be our servants, not our masters. but if we are to gain more control over our own destiny, we must take concrete steps to bring existing guidelines into title with present day theory and research.

Fortunately, change is in the wind, and a bold new breed of leadership in gifted education is emerging in many state departments of education. These persons have been willing to reexamine present guidelines, and even in the absence of immediate changes, they have allowed for much more flexibility in the interpretation of existing regulations. Proposals that only a few years ago were being rejected because they did not meet strict cut-off score requirements. are now being accepted and even encouraged.

The Achilles Heel of change is not guidelines, but apathy. If we believe that more flexibility is desirable, we must mobilize professional personnel who have a stake in serving high potential youth. Principals, teachers, superintendents and pupil personnel specialists should be recruited for organized statewide efforts directed toward guidelines that are more responsive to contemporary research. Carefully selected research based documents should be brought to the attention of state boards of education and the education committee of the legislatures. Every effort should be made to develop reimbursement formulas that are based on total district enrollment rather than the number of students identified. It has been this "body count" approach that has forced schools to treat giftedness as an absolute State of being rather than a developmental concept, and the result has been the most rigid kinds of test score identification procedures. By getting rid of the body count approach to identification, we will allow districts greater flexibility in the types of identification and programming models they might want to consider (including test-based approaches), and we will provide greater equity for districts that serve disadvantaged and culturally diverse populations.

To be certain, there will be a little less tidiness in the identification process, but the trade off for tidiness and administrative expediency will result in many more flexible approaches to both identifying and serving young people with great potential. From a research perspective, new data will be yielded, and thus, new dialogue and controversy will emerge. This is indeed how science goes on forever, how new ideas and insights are realized, and how a field of study continues to improve and to revitalize itself.
References
Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

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

Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (1988). Technical report of research studies related to the enrichment triad/revolving door model (3rd Ed.). Storrs: University of Connecticut, Teaching the Talented (TTT) Program.

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., Smith. L. H., & Reis, S. M. (1982, January). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted students. Elementary School Journal, 194-195.

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.

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

Torrance. E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Treffinger, D. J. (1982). Demythologizing gifted education: An editorial essay. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 3-8.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Practical System for Identifying Gifted and Talented Students | Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Joseph S. Renzulli, Director The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented University of Connecticut This article presents the three-ring conception of giftedness. A detailed process is presented illustrating how students can be effectively screened for gifted and talented programs thr ...

# data[].attributes.body
18 Types of Acceleration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eighteen types of acceleration are identified in The Templeton National Report on Acceleration, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004.) The following are some of the types of acceleration to consider. These acceleration practices fall within two main categories as delineated below.

The member districts of the Mt. Evans BOCES have policies to guide the implementation of acceleration procedures. The following links will take you to the acceleration policy of the districts:
Clear Creek Acceleration Policy Gilpin Acceleration Policy
Platte Canyon SD #1: Policy 550 Article 5 http://www.edline.net/files/_LPBFA_/f9fe95a82fc4a5cb3745a49013852ec4/550_Class_Size_Placements_12.14.15.pdf

For more information please contact:
Rebecca Odegard-Siegele, M.S, Ed.S.
Assistant Director of Gifted and Special Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eighteen types of acceleration are identified in The Templeton National Report on Acceleration, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004.) The following are some of the types of acceleration to consider. These acceleration practices fall within two main categories as delineated below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Edutopia is a free source of information, inspiration, and practical strategies for learning and teaching in preK-12 education. We are published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.

# data[].attributes.headline
THE SCHOOLWIDE ENRICHMENT MODEL: AFOCUS ON STUDENT STRENGTHS &INTERESTSSally M. Reis & Joseph S. Renzulli 

# data[].attributes.subject
THE SCHOOLWIDE ENRICHMENT MODEL: AFOCUS ON STUDENT STRENGTHS &INTERESTSSally M. Reis & Joseph S. Renzulli 

# data[].attributes.headline
NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards

# data[].attributes.headline
Differences Between Bright  and Gifted Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Differences Between Bright  and Gifted Learners

# data[].attributes.headline
Helping Gifted Students with Stress Management

# data[].attributes.subject
Helping Gifted Students with Stress Management

# data[].attributes.body
National Association for Gifted Children

# data[].attributes.headline
The Total Talent Portfolio: A Plan for Identifying and Developing Gifts and Talents

# data[].attributes.subject
The Total Talent Portfolio: A Plan for Identifying and Developing Gifts and Talents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Joseph S. Renzulli, Director
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
University of Connecticut

Every learner has strengths or potential strengths that can be used as a foundation for effective learning and creative productivity. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) (Reis & Renzulli, 1985) capitalizes on these strengths by offering students options to realize their own potential. Through service delivery components like Curriculum Compacting and Enrichment Clusters, students are insured of being exposed to high level and challenging learning experiences. A third component, the Total Talent Portfolio¹ (TTP) serves as the framework by which all the other elements of the model can be organized.

A model for total talent development requires that we give equal attention to interests and learning styles as well as to the cognitive abilities that have been used traditionally for educational decision making. The Total Talent Portfolio is a vehicle for gathering and recording information systematically about students' abilities, interests, and learning styles. The major dimensions of the portfolio and the specific items that guide data gathering within each dimension are presented in Figure 1. Students should 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.

Click on the figure to see it as a PDF file. Figure 1. The dimensions of the Total Talent Portfolio. ( )

The major purposes of the Total Talent Portfolio are:

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

Status Information
The first set of information recorded in the TTP deals with student assets in the areas of abilities, interests, and learning styles commonly called status information. Status information is anything we know or can record about a student prior to the instructional process that tells us something about learner characteristics. Examples of status information are test scores, course grades, teacher ratings of various learning behaviors, and formal and informal assessments of interests and learning styles.

Abilities
Abilities, or maximum performance indicators, as traditionally defined in the psychometric literature, deal with competencies that represent the highest level of performance a student has attained in a particular area of aptitude or scholastic achievement. Assessment on this dimension of school performance has traditionally been evaluated by tests or course grades. The first column of Figure 1 includes these conventional assessments, but it also includes a number of additional procedures by which maximum performance can be examined. These procedures may not be as reliable and objective as traditional tests, but they do have the advantage of letting us know how students perform on more complex tasks and on tasks that require the application of knowledge to assigned or self-selected learning activities.

The merits of formal testing versus alternative forms of assessment have been debated extensively in the literature, and it is not our purpose here to reexamine this debate or to argue for one approach or the other. We believe that any and all sources of information are valuable if they will improve our understanding of potential for future performance and if they provide direction for enhancing future performance. We do argue, however, that alternative forms of assessment are equal in value to formal tests, and a Total Talent Portfolio that does not include alternate assessment information will seriously limit the purposes of this component of the SEM. Teacher-made assessments provide information about knowledge acquisition, the mastery of basic skills, and, in some cases, problem-solving strategies. This information is valuable for determining general levels of proficiency, but the most valuable kind of teacher-made assessments, so far as the purposes of the Total Talent Portfolio are concerned, are those that elicit open-ended or extended responses. Responses of this type enable teachers to gain insight into complex student abilities such as: constructing convincing arguments, using expressive written or oral language, generating relevant hypotheses, applying creative solutions to complex problems, and demonstrating deep levels of understanding. Open-ended responses also provide excellent opportunities for students to demonstrate artistic and scientific creativity, and to display advanced abilities such as analysis, generalization, and evaluation.

The grades students have received in previously completed courses can also provide information about particular strength areas. When grades reflect both performance on teacher-made assessments and other accomplishments in less structured situations, they provide a more comprehensive picture of student abilities than can be derived from test scores alone. The advantages and disadvantages of course grades are well documented in the literature on tests and measurements, and all teachers have had experiences related to the grading process and the usefulness of grades. The value of course grades in the Total Talent Portfolio is similar to standardized and teacher-made assessments in that they all provide a quick overview of general area strengths that may be capitalized upon when making decisions about possible modifications in the regular curriculum, enrichment cluster placement, or access to special opportunities that are available in the continuum of special services.

Recent developments in the field of educational evaluation have provided large amounts of the know-how necessary to assist teachers in evaluating student products. These developments have benefited from techniques originally developed for special types of evaluation situations such as writing contests, science fairs, artistic competitions, and the holistic scoring and primary-trait scoring of written material. In most cases, earlier techniques were associated with academic or artistic competitions, and they frequently depended on expert opinion from specialists within subject matter domains. The more recent developments in performance assessment have attempted to organize analytic procedures into checklists and rating scales that teachers can use to determine the presence or absence of key indicators of product quality.

Interests
If there is a "keystone" in the overall structure of the SEM, it is students' interests.

Building educational experiences around student interests is probably one of the single most effective ways to guarantee that enrichment practices will be introduced into a school. In numerous evaluation studies of SEM programs, student comments about most favored practices almost always dealt with greater freedom for selecting at least a part of the work they pursued. A planned strategy for helping students examine their present and potential interests is based on a group of instruments called the Interest-A-Lyzer (Renzulli, 1977; 1996). The Interest-A-Lyzer family of instruments is available in three levels, Primary (K-3), Elementary (3-6), and Secondary (7-12), as well as in the area of art.

The main purpose of the Interest-A-Lyzer is to "open up" communication both within the student and between students and teachers. It also is designed to facilitate discussion between groups of students with similar interests who are attempting to identify areas in which they might like to pursue advanced level studies. The Interest-A-Lyzer is not the type of instrument which yields a numerical score, but rather, is designed in a way that allows for pattern analysis. The major patterns or factors that might emerge from the instrument are as follows:

1. Performing Arts

2. Creative Writing and Journalism

3. Mathematics

4. Business Management

5. Athletics

6. History

7. Social Action

8. Fine Arts and Crafts

9. Science

10. Technology

It is important to keep in mind that (a) the above factors represent general fields or families of interest and (b) numerous ways exist in which an individual may be interested in any particular field. Thus, identifying general patterns is only the first step in interest analysis. General interests must be refined and focused so that students eventually will identify specific problems within a general field or a combination of fields.

Instructional Styles Preferences
The third column of Figure 1 lists a broad range of instructional techniques that are familiar to most teachers. In some cases, these instructional techniques or styles can also be found in the literature under the title of "learning styles." Although several definitions of instructional styles can be found in the educational and psychological literature (Smith, 1976), the definition we recommend focuses on (1) the specific and identifiable techniques for organizing learning for individuals or for groups of varying size, and (2) the degree of structure inherent in any instructional technique. Our definition and related descriptions of instructional style alternatives have been adopted in an attempt to remove some of the mystery that surrounds the notion of learning styles. By focusing on instructional practices familiar to most teachers, we overcome the drawback of working with a "psychological middleman" that requires teachers to second-guess how certain psychological concepts (e.g., abstract-random learner) might be used in a learning situation. While alternative conceptions have value with respect to stimulating follow-up research that could eventually affect educational practice, our concern is for a theoretically sound, yet practical, approach that has direct and immediate implications for classroom practice.

One of the approaches we have used to gain information about student preferences for instructional techniques is an instrument entitled, The Learning Styles Inventory (Renzulli & Smith, 1978). This research-based instrument was developed to guide teachers in planning learning experiences that take into account the style preferences of students within their classrooms. The Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) is not a test in the traditional sense of the term, but an instrument that seeks to identify the ways in which individual young people would like to pursue various types of educational experiences. Every effort should be made to avoid "stamping" a child with a learning style in the manner that some children have been labeled according to intelligence level or disability.

Learning Environmental Preferences
Environmental preferences have not been investigated to the same extent as preferences for instructional style; however, a small body of research and a large measure of common sense suggest that the social and physical aspects of the environment affect various kinds of school performance. Amabile (1983) reviewed research dealing with social and environmental factors that influence creativity in school-age learners. The social contexts within which people operate reflect their preferences for closeness and interaction with others. When one is given freedom of choice, the extent to which she or he pursues group affiliation is almost always an indicator of social style preferences. Some students thrive in small or large peer group situations, others prefer to work with a single partner, and still others prefer to work alone or with an adult. Environmental preferences, like the instructional preferences discussed above, may vary as a function of the material being taught, the nature of the task to be accomplished, and the social relationships that exist within any given group of students. Most modern classrooms provide variations in the learning environment, but these variations are usually offered to students on a one-choice-at-a-time basis. In other words, a teacher may alternate among organizational arrangements such as individual seatwork, cooperative learning groups, and sustained silent reading; however, students are usually not given a choice outside the organizational arrangement selected by the teacher. Although a predominant organizational arrangement may be necessary for purposes of efficiency and classroom control, we recommend that some attention be given to modification or "waivers" when it is clear that some students will benefit from a variation in the learning environment.

Thinking Styles Preferences
The fifth dimension of the Total Talent Portfolio provides information about the ways in which learners prefer to use their abilities and aptitudes. Thinking styles preferences might best be viewed as the bridge between abilities and personality; and as such, information about this dimension of the learner provides direction about the ways in which students like to address problems. Sternberg (1988) uses the three branches of the U.S. Government as a metaphor for the theory of mental self-government. The legislative function of mind is concerned with creating, formulating, and planning. Persons with a legislative style like to create their own rules and ways of doing things, and they prefer less structured problems and constructive, planning-based activities such as writing original works, building things, and designing new projects or enterprises. People with this style enter occupations such as creative writing, science, art, investment banking, policy making, and architecture. The executive function is concerned with carrying out or implementing plans or ideas initiated by others. Persons with an executive style prefer to follow rules, figure out ways to get things done, and they like pre-structured problems and working within existing structures. The executive style may be the preferred learning style among lawyers, builders, surgeons, policemen, managers, and administrators. The judicial function involves monitoring problems and passing judgment over ideas or products. Persons with a judicial style like to evaluate rules, procedures, and existing structures, they like to write critiques, give opinions, and judge people and their work. This style is found in occupations such as judge, critic, systems analyst, admissions officer, and quality control specialist (Sternberg, 1988).

Sternberg and Wagner (1991) have developed and carried out research studies on an instrument entitled, Mental Self-Government Thinking Styles Inventory. This 128-item, Likert scale questionnaire yields factor scores for each of the following 13 subscales: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Global, Local, Progressive, Conservative, Hierarchical, Monarchical, Oligarchic, Anarchic, Internal, and External.

Expression Style Preferences
The final category in the Total Talent Portfolio deals with the ways in which people prefer to express themselves. Most classroom activities depend on written and oral expression; special subject areas such as art and physical education are based on expression styles inherent in their respective disciplines. A knowledge of expression style preferences can help teachers expand the range of learning options for individuals and small groups by "legitimizing" a broader variety of the ways in which students express themselves. Some styles of expression are more participative and leadership-oriented than product-oriented. Organizational, management, and service activities such as starting a club or business, serving as a project or team leader, or participating in community service activities should be explored as alternatives to the traditional written or oral formats that characterize most formal learning activities. These alternatives are especially valuable for students with limited English proficiency, or students who have had difficulty with standard writing or formal speaking skills. A knowledge of the ways in which young people prefer to express themselves can be a valuable tool for organizing cooperative learning and project groups. By varying responsibilities along the lines of expression styles, a functional rather than random division of labor is established, and more students have an opportunity to contribute in unique strength areas.

A new instrument entitled My Work: An Expression Styles Inventory (Renzulli & Kettle, in press) has been developed to help teachers and students identify preferences for products. Research is being conducted on the secondary version of the instrument which is designed to yield the following 10 categories: Written, Oral, Artistic, Computer Technology, Audio/Visual Technology, Commercial, Service, Dramatization, Manipulative, and Musical.

Action Information
Action information consists of annotated recordings of events that take place within the instructional process. Action information, by definition, cannot be recorded beforehand because it is designed to document the ways in which students react to various learning experiences as well as other experiences that take place outside the formal learning environment.

A key issue regarding the use of the Total Talent Portfolio and relevant follow-up activities is the creation of learning experiences that will encourage the development of strong interests.

The best way to capitalize on student performance, after all, is to (1) provide opportunities for participation in a broad range of activities within and across interest areas, (2) observe and document performance, satisfaction, and enthusiasm, and (3) make decisions about subsequent activities that will capitalize on positive reactions to previous experiences. The TTP, therefore can be used to document strength assessment activities, and regularly scheduled meetings with staff members, parents, and students are used to make decisions about appropriate follow-up, needed resources, and the development of future performance assessment situations.

Action information also consists of annotated work samples of completed assignments and other performance-based observations and assessments. These annotations can be both informal notes and more structured analyses of student work such as the type that results from our formative evaluation instrument entitled The Student Product Assessment Form (Reis, 1981). This research-based instrument provides students with feedback on specific dimensions of product quality. No matter what format the feedback takes, its function is to help the student evaluate her/his own work. Selection of items to be put into the portfolio is done by the student her/himself, therefore, analysis and evaluation are important process skills to be reinforced with students. Some teachers have even developed rating sheets to be completed by students and handed in with the project. The use of rubrics has become an integral part of some teachers grading criterion while allowing students the opportunity to learn how to learn and to understand exactly what standards are being set for them.

Using the Total Talent Portfolio
The main purpose of the portfolio is to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible about each student's strengths in the areas of abilities, interests, and styles. We suggest using check-off sheets based on the categories in Figure 1. as a basis for the portfolio. Research in schools using the TTP has shown that this system is best facilitated when teams of teachers make the decision as to what information is most relevant for inclusion on the check off sheets. The check off sheets or portfolio folder can easily be customized for each school's use.

Student work, selected by teachers and students, should be placed in the portfolio, and examples of particular strengths within a work sample should be marked and annotated with attached notes or marginal comments by the teacher and student. It is recommended that portfolios be reviewed by teams of teachers periodically and that the portfolios also serve as focal points for meetings with parents. The cover sheet of the portfolio should include summary notations about particular accomplishments within each of the school structures upon which the SEM is targeted. The portfolio should "travel" with a students from year to year, and should serve as the basis for briefing subsequent year teachers about individual student strengths and accomplishments.

In order for the Total Talent Portfolio to achieve maximum effectiveness, it is necessary to avoid three pitfalls that have characterized other systems for gathering and recording information about student performance. These pitfalls are: (a) the escalation of needless paperwork, (b) the tendency to look at discrete items in student records, and (c) the focus on deficiencies that characterizes so much of school record keeping.

The Total Talent Portfolio is not a reiteration of the cumulative folder, it is the specific information about student strengths that lie hidden within test scores and course grades. It contains tangible pieces of information about a student that completes a 3-dimensional picture of that student. It forces the reader to focus on the positive, individual strengths of that student in order to gain a better understanding of how to help her/him learn. Above all, the Total Talent Portfolio is a place where teachers, students, and parents can share ideas to make the most of the educational experience.

Focus on Strengths
The unique feature of the Total Talent Portfolio is its focus on strengths and "high-end learning" behaviors. A tradition exists in education that has caused us to use student records mainly for spotting deficiencies. Our adherence to the medical (i.e., diagnostic-prescriptive) model has almost always been pointed in the negative direction: "Find out what's wrong with them and fix them up!" Total talent assessment emphasizes the identification of the most positive aspects of each student's learning behaviors. Documentation based on the categories in Figure 1 should be carried out by inserting in the portfolio any and all information that calls attention to strong interests, preferred styles of learning, and high levels of motivation, creativity and leadership as well as the academic strengths that can be used as stepping stones to more advanced learning activities.

Portfolios of any type are only as valuable as the use to which they are put. Portfolios as exemplars of performance-based assessment are receiving a great deal of attention in the professional literature; they are being considered as supplements to or replacements for traditional evaluation procedures such as standardized tests. Although the information gathered in a Total Talent Portfolio can be used for program evaluation purposes, the primary use of the portfolio within the context of the SEM is to make educational programming decisions for individual students or for small groups of students who share common abilities, interests or learning styles. Through a process that might best be described as "portfolio engineering," examples of positive performance are accumulated on a continuing basis, and regularly scheduled reviews are used to make decisions about subsequent talent development activities. These decisions may relate to guidance regarding the selection of enrichment clusters, within-class special projects, curriculum compacting, or individual learning opportunities that are a part of the continuum of special services. Portfolio engineering also involves conducting conferences among groups of teachers and specialists, meeting with parents, and conveying information about student strengths to subsequent-year teachers, college admission officers, and prospective employers. The "theme" of the Total Talent Portfolio might best be summarized in the form of two questions: What are the very best things we know and can record about a student? What are the very best things we can do to capitalize on this information?

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 3-6. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 7-12. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Purcell, J. H., & Renzulli, J. S. (1998). Total talent portfolio: A systematic plan to identify and nurture gifts and talents. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

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. (1985 ). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Interest-A-Lyzer. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1996). The Interest-A-Lyzer family of instruments: A manual for teachers. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Kettle, K. (in press). My work: An expression style inventory. Unpublished manuscript.

Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). The Learning Style Inventory: A measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Smith, L. H. (1976). Learning styles: Measurement and educational significance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197-224.

Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1991). Mental self-government thinking styles inventory. New Haven, CT: Authors.

¹This article is a summary of a manual for developing and using information based on student's abilities, interests, and learning styles. The manual is entitled the Total talent portfolio: A systematic plan to identify and nurture gifts and talents (Purcell, & Renzulli, 1998).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Total Talent Portfolio: A Plan for Identifying and Developing Gifts and Talents | Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article may be copied and distributed without permission. Electronic reproduction is not permitted. Joseph S. Renzulli, Director The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented University of Connecticut Every learner has strengths or potential strengths that can be used as a found ...

# data[].attributes.headline
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model Executive Summary

# data[].attributes.subject
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model Executive Summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis
University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA

Enrichment programs for gifted and talented students have been the true laboratories of the world's schools because they have presented ideal opportunities for testing new ideas and experimenting with potential solutions to long-standing educational problems. Programs for high potential students have been an especially fertile place for experimentation because such programs are not usually encumbered by prescribed curriculum guides or traditional methods of instruction. It was within the context of these programs that the thinking skills movement first took hold in American education, and the pioneering work of notable theorists such As Benjamin Bloom, Howard Gardner, and Robert Sternberg first gained the attention of the education community. Other developments that had their origins in special programs are currently being examined for general practice. These developments include: a focus on concept rather than skill learning, the use of interdisciplinary curriculum and theme-based studies, student portfolios, performance assessment, cross-grade grouping, alternative scheduling patterns, and perhaps most important, opportunities for students to exchange traditional roles as lesson-learners and doers-of-exercises for more challenging and demanding roles that require hands-on learning, first-hand investigations, and the application of knowledge and thinking skills to complex problems.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model¹ (SEM) is a detailed blueprint for total school improvement that allows each school the flexibility to allow each school to develop its own unique programs based on local resources, student demographics, and school dynamics as well as faculty strengths and creativity. Although this research-based model is based on highly successful practices that originated in special programs for the gifted and talented students, its major goal is to promote both challenging and enjoyable high-end learning across a wide range of school types, levels and demographic differences. The idea is to create a repertoire of services that can be integrated in such a way to create "a rising tide lifts all ships" approach. This approach allows schools to develop a collaborative school culture that takes advantage of resources and appropriate decision-making opportunities to create meaningful, high-level and potentially creative opportunities for students to develop their talents. SEM suggests that educators should examine ways to make schools more inviting, friendly, and enjoyable places that encourage the full development of the learner instead of seeing students as a repository for information that will be assessed with the next round of standardized tests. Not only has this model been successful in addressing the problem of students who have been under-challenged but it also provides additional important learning paths for students who find success in more traditional learning environments.

The present reform initiatives in general education have created a more receptive atmosphere for enrichment approaches that challenge all students, and accordingly, the Enrichment Triad Model has evolved over the last 20 years based on the previous experiences and current changes in general education. The evolution of the Enrichment Triad Model will be described in this chapter as well as the newest adaptation of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model including a description of the school structures upon which the model is targeted and the three service delivery components.

The original Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1976) was developed in the mid-1970s and initially implemented by school districts primarily in Connecticut in the United States. The model, which was originally field tested in several districts, proved to be quite popular and requests from all over the United States for visitations to schools using the model and for information about how to implement the model increased. A book about the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) was published, and more and more districts began asking for help in implementing this approach. It was at this point that a clear need was established for research about the effectiveness of the model and for practical procedures that could provide technical assistance for interested educators to help develop programs in their schools. We had become fascinated by the various kinds of programs being developed by different types of teachers. In some programs, for example, teachers consistently elicited high levels of creative productivity in students while others had few students who engaged. in this type of work. In some districts, many enrichment opportunities were regularly offered to students not formally identified for the program, while in other districts only identified 'gifted' students had access to enrichment experiences. We wondered how we could replicate the success of one teacher or one district in implementing the model. For example, if one teacher consistently produced high levels of creative productivity in students, how could we capture that technology and replicate it in other teachers? And if certain resources proved to be consequential in promoting desirable results, how could we make these resources available to larger numbers of teachers and students?

In the more than two decades since the Enrichment Triad Model has been used as the basis for many educational programs for gifted and talented students, an unusually large number of examples of creative productivity have occurred on the parts of young people whose educational experiences have been guided by this programming approach. Perhaps, like others involved in the development of theories and generalizations, we did not fully understand at the onset of our work the full implications of the model for encouraging and developing creative . productivity in young people. These implications relate most directly to teacher training, resource procurement and management, product evaluation, and other theoretical concerns (e.g. motivation, task commitment, self-efficacy) that probably would have gone unexamined, undeveloped, and unrefined without the favorable results that were reported to us by early implementers of the model. We became increasingly interested in how and why the model was working and how we could further expand the theoretical rationale underlying our work, and the population to which services could be provided. Thus, several years of conceptual analysis, practical experience, and an examination of the work of other theorists, has brought us to the point of tying together the material in this chapter, which represents approximately twenty years of field testing, research, evolution and dissemination.

In this chapter, an overview of the conception of giftedness upon which this model is based is presented, and a description of the original Enrichment Triad Model is provided as is a chronology of how the model has expanded and changed. Research about the model is presented as is a brief summary of research dealing with selected studies about student creative productivity. In the final section, new directions for the model are presented along with suggestions for future directions for research on creative productivity.
A Broadened Conception of Giftedness
The field of gifted education, like any other specialized area of study, represents a spectrum of ideologies that exists along a continuum ranging from conservative to liberal points of view. Conservative and liberal are not used here in their political connotations, but rather according to the degree of restrictiveness that is used in determining who is eligible for special programs and services.

Restrictiveness can be expressed in two ways; first, a definition can limit the number of specific performance areas that are considered in determining eligibility for special services. A conservative definition, for example, might limit eligibility to academic performance only, and exclude other areas such as music, art, drama, leadership, public speaking, social service, creative writing or skills in interpersonal relations. Second, a definition can limit the degree or level of excellence that one must attain by establishing extremely high cutoff points.

Although liberal definitions have the obvious advantage of expanding the conception of giftedness, they also open up two theoretical concerns by introducing: (1) a values issue (How do we operationally define broader conceptions of giftedness?) and (2) the age-old problem of subjectivity in measurement. In recent years the values issue has been largely resolved. Very few educators cling tenaciously to a 'straight IQ' or purely academic definition of giftedness. 'Multiple talent' and 'multiple criteria' are almost the bywords of the present-day gifted education movement, and most people have little difficulty in, accepting a definition that includes most areas of human activity which are manifested in socially useful forms of expression.

The problem of subjectivity in measurement is not as easily resolved. As the definition of giftedness is extended beyond those abilities that are clearly reflected in tests of intelligence, achievement, and academic aptitude, it becomes necessary to put less emphasis on precise estimates of performance and potential and more emphasis on the opinions of qualified persons in making decisions about admission to special programs. The crux of the issue boils down to a simple and yet very important question: How much of a trade-off are we willing to make on the objective to subjective continuum in order to allow recognition of a broader spectrum of human abilities? If some degree of subjectivity cannot be tolerated, then our definitions of giftedness and the resulting programs will logically be limited to abilities that can be measured only by objective tests.

It is generally accepted that intelligence is not a unitary concept, but rather there are many kinds of intelligence and therefore single definitions cannot be used to explain this multifaceted phenomenon (Neisser, 1979). The confusion and inconclusiveness about present theories of intelligence has led Sternberg (1984) and others to develop new models for explaining this complicated concept. Sternberg's 'triarchic' theory of human intelligence consists of three subtheories: a contextual subtheory, which relates intelligence to the external world of the individual; a two-facet experiential subtheory, which relates intelligence to both the external and internal worlds of the individual; and a componential subtheory, which relates intelligence to the internal world of the individual. Gardner (1983) proposed seven distinctive types of intelligent behavior which he called linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and the recently added naturalist intelligence.

In view of these recent works and numerous earlier cautions about the dangers of trying to describe intelligence through the use of single scores, it seems safe to conclude that this practice has been and always will be questionable. At the very least, attributes of intelligent behavior must be considered within the context of cultural and situational factors. Indeed, some of the most recent examinations have concluded that "[t]he concept of intelligence cannot be explicitly defined, not only because of the nature of intelligence but also because of the nature of concepts" (Neisser, 1979, p. 179).

There is no ideal way to measure intelligence and therefore we must avoid the typical practice of believing that if we know a person's IQ score, we also know his or her intelligence. Even Terman warned against total reliance on tests: "We must guard against defining intelligence solely in terms of ability to pass the tests of a given intelligence scale" (as cited in Thorndike, 1921, p. 131). E. L. Thorndike echoed Terman's concern by stating "to assume that we have measured some general power which resides in [the person being tested] and determines his ability in every variety of intellectual task in its entirety is to fly directly in the face of all that is known about the organization of the intellect" (Thorndike, 1921, p. 126).

The reason we have cited these concerns about the historical difficulty of defining and measuring intelligence is to highlight the even larger problem of isolating a unitary definition of giftedness. At the very least, we will always have several conceptions (and therefore definitions) of giftedness. To help in this analysis, we will begin by examining two broad categories of giftedness that have been dealt with in the research literature: 'schoolhouse giftedness' and 'creative-productive giftedness'. Before describing each type, we want to emphasize that:

1. Both types are important.

2. There is usually an interaction between the two types.

3. Special programs should make appropriate provisions for encouraging both types of giftedness as well as the numerous occasions when the two types interact with each other.

Schoolhouse giftedness might also be called test-taking or lesson-learning giftedness. It is the kind most easily measured by IQ or other cognitive ability tests, and for this reason it is also the type most often used for selecting students for entrance into special programs. The abilities people display on IQ and aptitude tests are exactly the kinds of abilities most valued in traditional school learning situations. In other words, the tasks required in ability tests are similar in nature to tasks that teachers require in most lesson-learning situations. A large body of research tells us that students who score high on IQ tests are also likely to get high grades in school, and that these test-taking and lesson-learning abilities generally remain stable over time. The results of this research should lead us to some very obvious conclusions about schoolhouse giftedness: it exists in varying degrees, it can be identified through standardized 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. Curriculum compacting (Renzulli, Smith, & Reis, 1982; Reis, Burns, & Renzulli, 1992) is a procedure used for modifying standard curricular content to accommodate advanced learners. Other acceleration techniques should represent essential parts of every school program that strives to respect the individual differences that are clearly evident from classroom performance and/or scores yielded by cognitive ability tests.
Creative-Productive Giftedness
If scores on IQ tests and other measures of cognitive ability only account for a limited proportion of the common variance with school grades, we can be equally certain that these measures do not tell the whole story when it comes to making predictions about creative-productive giftedness. Before defending this assertion with some research findings, we briefly review what is meant by this second type of giftedness, the important role that it should play in programming, and, therefore, the reasons we should attempt to assess it in our identification procedures-even if such assessment causes us to look below the top 3 to 5% on the normal curve of IQ scores.

Creative-productive giftedness. describes those aspects of human activity and involvement in which a premium is placed on the development of original material and products 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 information (content) and thinking skills (process) in an integrated, inductive, and real-problem oriented manner. The role of the student is transformed from that of a learner of prescribed lessons to one in which she or he uses the modus operandi of a firsthand inquirer. This approach is quite different from the development of lesson-learning giftedness, which tends to emphasize deductive learning, structured training in the development of thinking processes, and the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information. In other words, creative-productive giftedness is simply putting one's abilities to work on problems and areas of study that have personal relevance to the student and that can be escalated to appropriately challenging levels of investigative activity. The roles that both students and teachers should play in the pursuit of these problems have been described elsewhere (Renzulli, 1977, 1982), and have been embraced in general education under a variety of concepts such as constructivist theory, authentic learning, discovery learning, problem based learning, and performance assessment.

Why is creative-productive giftedness important enough for us to question the "tidy" and relatively easy approach that has traditionally been used to select students on the basis of test scores? Why do some people want to rock the boat by challenging a conception of giftedness that can be numerically defined by simply giving a test? The answers to these questions are simple and yet very compelling. A review of the research literature (Renzulli, 1986) tells us that there is much more to identifying human potential than the abilities revealed on traditional tests of intelligence, aptitude, and achievement. Furthermore, history tells us it has been the creative and productive people of the world, the producers rather than consumers of knowledge, the reconstructionists of thought in all areas of human endeavor, who have become recognized as "truly gifted" individuals. History does not remember persons who merely scored well on IQ tests or those who learned their lessons well. The definition of giftedness (See Fig. 1) which characterizes creative productive giftedness and serves as part of the rationale for the Enrichment Triad Model is the three-ring conception of giftedness (Renzulli, 1978, 1986), in which giftedness: . . . consists of an interaction among three basic clusters being above average general ability, high levels of creativity. Gifted and talented capable of developing this composite set of potentially valuable area of human performance or capable of developing an interaction among these require a variety of educational opportunities and services those not normally through regular instructional programming. (1978, p. 6)

We have advocated that gifted behaviors can be developed through systematic enrichment opportunities described in the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977, 1978, 1988b).
An Overview of the Enrichment Triad Model
The Enrichment Triad Model was designed to encourage creative productivity on the part of young people by exposing them to various topics, areas of interest, and fields of study, and to further train them to apply advanced content, process-training skills, and methodology training to self-selected areas of interest. Accordingly, three types of enrichment are included in the Triad Model (see Fig. 2).

Type I enrichment is designed to expose students to a wide variety of disciplines, topics, occupations, hobbies, persons, places, and events that would not ordinarily be covered in the regular curriculum. In schools - that use this model, an enrichment team consisting of parents, teachers, and students often organizes and plans Type I experiences by contacting speakers, arranging minicourses, demonstrations, or performances, or by ordering and distributing films, slides, videotapes, or other print or non-print media.

Type II enrichment consists of materials and methods designed to promote the development of thinking and feeling processes. Some Type II training is general, and is usually carried out both in classrooms and in enrichment programs. Training activities include the development of. (1) creative thinking and problem solving, critical thinking, and affective processes; (2) a wide variety of specific learning how-to-learn skills; (3) skills in the appropriate use of advanced-level reference materials; and (4) written, oral, and visual communication skills. Other Type II enrichment is specific, as it cannot be planned in advance and usually involves advanced methodological instruction in an interest area selected by the student. For example, students who become interested in botany after a Type I experience might pursue additional training in this area by doing advanced reading in botany; compiling, planning and carrying out plant experiments; and seeking more advanced methods training if they want to go further.

Type III enrichment involves students who become interested in pursuing a self-selected area and are willing to commit the time necessary for advanced content acquisition and process training in which they assume the role of a first-hand inquirer. The goals of Type III enrichment include:

providing opportunities for applying interests, knowledge, creative ideas and task commitment to a self-selected problem or area of study,

acquiring advanced level understanding of the knowledge (content) and methodology (process) that are used within particular disciplines, artistic areas of expression and interdisciplinary studies,

developing authentic products that are primarily directed toward bringing about a desired impact upon a specified audience,

developing self-directed learning skills in the areas of planning, organization, resource utilization, time management, decision making and self-evaluation,

developing task commitment, self-confidence, and feelings of creative accomplishment.

The Revolving Door Identification Model
As our experience with Triad Programs grew, our concern about who was being identified to participate in these programs also grew. We became increasingly concerned about students who were not able to participate in enrichment programs because they did not score in the top 1-3% of the population in achievement or intelligence tests.

Research conducted by Torrance (1962, 1974) had demonstrated that students who were rated highly on creativity measures do well in school and on achievement tests but are often not selected for gifted programs because their scores are often. below the cutoff for admission. Some of our own research (Reis, 1981) indicated that when a broader population of students (15-20% of the general population called the 'talent pool') were able to participate in Types I and II enrichment experiences, they produced equally good Type III products as the traditional 'gifted' students (the top 3-5%). This research produced the rationale for the Revolving Door Identification Model (RDIM) (Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981) in which a talent pool of students receives regular enrichment experiences and the opportunity to 'revolve into' Type III creative productive experiences. In RDIM, we recommend that students be selected for participation in the talent pool on the basis of multiple criteria that include indices of creativity, because we believe that one of the major purposes of gifted education is to develop creative thinking and creative productivity in students. Once identified and placed in the talent pool through the use of test scores, teacher, parent, or self-nomination, and examples of creative potential or productivity, students are observed in classrooms and enrichment experiences for signs of advanced interests, creativity, or task commitment. We have called this part of the process ,action information' and have found it to be an instrumental part of the identification process in assessing students' interest and motivation to become involved in Type III creative productivity. Further support for expanding identification procedures through the use of these approaches has recently been offered by Kirschenbaum. (1983) and Kirschenbaum. and Siegle (1993) who demonstrated that students who are rated or test high on measures of creativity tend to do well in school and on measures of achievement. The development of the RDIM led to the need for a guide dealing with how all of the components of the previous Triad and the new RDIM could be implemented and the resulting work was entitled The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997).
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM)
In the SEM, a talent pool of 15-20% of above average ability/high potential students is identified through a variety of measures including: achievement tests, teacher nominations, assessment of potential for creativity and task commitment, as well as alternative pathways of entrance (self-nomination, parent nomination, etc.). High achievement test and IQ test scores .automatically include a. student in the talent pool, enabling those students who are underachieving in their academic school work to be included.

Once students are identified for the talent pool, they are eligible for several kinds of services; first, interest and learning styles assessments are used with talent pool students. Informal and formal methods are used to create or identify students' interests and to encourage students to further develop and pursue these interests in various ways. Learning style preferences which are assessed include: projects, independent study, teaching games, simulations, peer teaching, programmed instruction, lecture, drill and recitation, and discussion. Second, curriculum compacting is provided to all eligible students for whom the regular curriculum is modified by eliminating portions of previously mastered content. This elimination or streamlining of curriculum, enables above average students to avoid repetition of previously mastered work and guarantees mastery while simultaneously finding time for more appropriately challenging activities (Reis, Burns, & Renzulli, 1992; Renzulli, Smith, & Reis, 1982). A form, entitled The Compactor (Renzulli & Smith, 1978), is used to document which content areas have been compacted and what alternative work has been substituted. Third, the Enrichment Triad Model, offers three types of enrichment experiences. Type I, II, and III Enrichment are offered to all students; however, Type III enrichment is usually more appropriate for students with higher levels of ability, interest, and task commitment.

Separate studies on the SEM demonstrated its effectiveness in schools with widely differing socioeconomic levels and program organization patterns (Olenchak, 1988; Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989). The SEM has been implemented in several hundred school districts across the country (Burns, 1998) and interest in this approach continues to grow.
Newest Directions for the Schoolwide Enrichment Model
The present reform initiatives in general education have created a more receptive atmosphere for more flexible approaches that challenge all students, and accordingly, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) has been expanded to address three major goals that we believe will accommodate the needs of gifted students, and at the same time, provide challenging learning experiences for all students. These goals are:

To maintain and expand a continuum of special services that will challenge students with demonstrated superior performance or the potential for superior performance in any and all aspects of the school and extracurricular program.

To infuse into the general education program a broad range of activities for high-end learning that will: (a) challenge all students to perform at advanced levels, and (b) that will allow teachers to determine which students should be given extended opportunities, resources, and encouragement in particular areas where superior interest and performance are demonstrated.

To preserve and protect the positions of gifted education specialists and any other specialized personnel necessary for carrying out the first two goals.

A graphic representation of the newest adaptation of the model is presented in Figure 3.

The Regular Curriculum
The regular curriculum consists of everything that is a part of the predetermined goals, schedules, learning outcomes, and delivery systems of the school. The regular curriculum might be traditional, innovative, or in the process of transition, but its predominant feature is that authoritative forces (i.e. policy makers, school councils, textbook adoption committees, state regulators) have determined that the regular curriculum should be the 'centerpiece' of student learning. Application of the SEM influences the regular curriculum in three ways. First, the challenge level of required material is differentiated through processes such as curriculum compacting and textbook content modification procedures. Second, systematic content intensification procedures should be used to replace eliminated content with selected, in-depth learning experiences. Third, types of enrichment recommended in the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) are integrated selectively into regular curriculum activities. Although our goal in the SEM is to influence rather than replace the regular curriculum, application of certain SEM components and related staff development activities has resulted in substantial changes in both the content and instructional processes of the entire regular curriculum.

The Enrichment Clusters
The enrichment clusters, one component of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, are non-graded groups of students who share common interests, and who come together during specially designated time blocks during school to work with an adult who shares their interests and who has some degree of advanced knowledge and expertise in the area. The enrichment clusters usually meet for a block of time weekly during a semester. All students complete an interest inventory developed to assess their interests, and an enrichment team of parents and teachers tally all of the major families of interests. Adults from the faculty, staff, parents, and community are recruited to facilitate enrichment clusters based on these interests, such as creative writing, drawing, sculpting, archeology and other areas. Training is provided to the facilitators who agree to offer the clusters, and a brochure is developed and sent to all parents and students that discusses student interests and select choices of enrichment clusters. A title and description that appeared in a brochure of clusters in a school using the SEM follows:

Invention Convention
Are you an inventive thinker? Would you like to be? Brainstorm a problem, try to identify many solutions, and design an invention to solve the problem, as an inventor might give birth to a real invention. Create your invention individually or with a partner under the guidance of Bob Erikson and his students, who work at the Connecticut Science Fair. You may share your final product at the Young Inventors' Fair on March 25th, a statewide daylong celebration of creativity.

Students select their top three choices for the clusters and scheduling is completed to place all children into their first, or in some cases, second choice. Like extracurricular activities and programs such as 4-H and Junior Achievement, the main rationale for participation in one or more clusters is that students and teachers want to be there. All teachers (including music, art, physical education, etc.) are involved in teaching the clusters; and their involvement in any particular cluster is based on the same type of interest assessment that is used for students in selecting clusters of choice.

The model for learning used with enrichment clusters is based on an inductive approach to solving real-world problems through the development of authentic products and services. Unlike traditional, didactic modes of teaching, this approach, known as enrichment learning and teaching (described fully in a later section), uses the Enrichment Triad Model to create a learning situation that involves the use of methodology, develops higher order thinking skills, and authentically applies these skills in creative and productive situations. Enrichment clusters promote cooperativeness within the context of real-world problem solving, and they also provide superlative opportunities for promoting self-concept. "A major assumption underlying the use of enrichment clusters is that every child is special if we create conditions in which that child can be a specialist within a specialty group" (Renzulli, 1994, p. 70).

Enrichment clusters are organized around various characteristics of differentiated programming for gifted students on which the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzufli, 1977) was originally based, including the use of major disciplines, interdisciplinary themes, or cross-disciplinary topics (e.g. a theatrical/television production group that includes actors, writers, technical specialists, costume designers). The clusters are modeled after the ways in which knowledge utilization, thinking skills, and interpersonal relations take place in the real world. Thus, all work is directed toward the production of a product or service. No lesson plans or unit plans are created in advance by the cluster facilitator; rather, direction is provided by three key questions addressed in the cluster by the facilitator and the students:

1. What do people with an interest in this area (e.g. film making) do?

2. What knowledge, materials, and other resources do they need to do it in an excellent and authentic way?

3. In what ways can the product or service be used to have an impact on an intended audience?

Enrichment clusters incorporate the use of advanced content, providing students with information about particular fields of knowledge, such as the structure of a field as well as the basic principles and the functional concepts in a field (Ward, 1960). Ward defined functional concepts as the intellectual instruments or tools with which a subject specialist works, such as the vocabulary of a field and the vehicles by which persons within the field communicate with one another. The methodology used within a field is also considered advanced content by Renzulli (1988a), involving the use of knowledge of the structures and tools of fields, as well as knowledge about the methodology of particular fields. This knowledge about the methodologies of fields exists both for the sake of increased knowledge acquisition, and also for the utility of that know-how as applied to the development of products, even when such products are considered advanced in a relative sense (i.e. age, grade, and background considerations).

The enrichment clusters are not intended to be the total program for talent development in a school, or to replace existing programs for talented youth. Rather, they are one vehicle for stimulating interests and developing talent potentials across the entire school population. They are also vehicles for staff development in that they provide teachers an opportunity to participate in enrichment teaching, and subsequently to analyze and compare this type of teaching with traditional methods of instruction. In this regard the model promotes a spill-over effect by encouraging teachers to become better talent scouts and talent developers, and to apply enrichment techniques to regular classroom situations.

The Continuum of Special Services
A broad range of special services is the third school structure targeted by the model; a diagram representing these services is presented in Fig. 4. Although the enrichment clusters and the SEM-based modifications of the regular curriculum provide a broad range of services to meet individual needs, a program for total talent development still requires supplementary services that challenge young people who are capable of working at the highest levels of their special interest and ability areas. These services, which cannot ordinarily be provided in enrichment clusters or the regular curriculum, typically include: individual or small group counseling, direct assistance in facilitating advanced level work, arranging for mentorships with faculty members or community persons, and making other types of connections between students, their families, and out-of-school persons, resources, and agencies.

Direct assistance also involves setting up and promoting student, faculty and parental involvement in special programs such as Future Problem Solving, Odyssey of the Mind, the Model United Nations program, and state and national essay, mathematics, art, and history contests. Another type of direct assistance consists of arranging out-of-school involvement for individual students in summer programs, on-campus courses, special schools, theatrical groups, scientific expeditions, and apprenticeships at places where advanced level learning opportunities are available. Provision of these services is one of the responsibilities of the schoolwide enrichment teaching specialist or an enrichment team of teachers and parents who work together to provide options for advanced learning. A schoolwide enrichment teaching specialist in Barrington, Rhode Island, estimates she spends two days a week in a resource capacity to the faculties of two schools, and three days providing direct services to students.
Service Delivery Components
The Total Talent Portfolio
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model targets specific learning characteristics that can serve as a basis for talent development. Our approach to targeting learning characteristics uses both traditional and performance-based assessment to compile information about three dimensions of the learner-abilities, interests, and learning styles. This information, which focuses on strengths rather than deficits, is compiled in a management form called the 'Total Talent Portfolio' (see Fig. 5) which is used to make decisions about talent development opportunities in regular classes, enrichment clusters, and in the continuum of special services. The major purposes of the Total Talent Portfolio are:

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

2. 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.

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

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

5. 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.

This expanded approach to identifying talent potentials is essential if we are to make genuine efforts to include more under-represented students in a plan for total talent development. This approach is also consistent with the more flexible conception of developing gifts and talents that has been a cornerstone of our work and our concerns for promoting more equity in special programs.

Curriculum Modification Techniques
The second service delivery component of the SEM is a series of curriculum modification techniques designed to: (1) adjust levels of required learning so that all students are challenged, (2) increase the number of in-depth learning experiences, and (3) introduce various types of enrichment into regular curricular experiences. The procedures that are used to carry out curriculum modification are curriculum compacting, textbook analysis and surgical removal of repetitious material from textbooks, and a planned approach for introducing greater depth into regular curricular material. Due to space restrictions, curriculum compacting is described in depth here and other modification techniques are described in detail in other publications (see, for example, RenzuIli, 1994; Reis et al., 1993).

How to Use the Compacting Process
Defining goals and outcomes. The first of three phases of the compacting process consists of defining the goals and outcomes of a given unit or segment of instruction. This information is readily available in most subjects because specific goals and outcomes can usually be found in teachers' manuals, curriculum guides, scope-and-sequence charts, and some of the new curricular frameworks that are emerging in connection with outcome based education models. Teachers should examine these objectives to determine which represent the acquisition of new content or thinking skills as opposed to reviews or practice of material that has previously been taught. The scope and sequence charts prepared by publishers, or a simple comparison of the table of contents of a basal series will provide a quick overview of new vs. repeated material. A major goal of this phase of the compacting process is to help teachers make individual programming decisions; a larger professional development goal is to help teachers be better analysts of the material they are teaching and better consumers of textbooks and prescribed curricular material.

Identifying students for compacting. The second phase of curriculum compacting is identifying students who have already mastered the objectives or outcomes of a unit or segment of instruction that is about to be taught. This first step of this phase consists of estimating which students have the potential to master new material at a faster than normal pace; knowing one's students is, of course, the best way to begin the assessment process. Scores on previous tests, completed assignments, and classroom participation are the best ways of identifying highly likely candidates for compacting. Standardized achievement tests can serve as a good general screen for this step because they allow us to list the names of all students who are scoring one or more years above grade level in particular subject areas.

Being a candidate for compacting does not necessarily mean that a student knows the material under consideration. Therefore, the second step of identifying candidates consists of finding or developing appropriate tests or other assessment techniques that can be used to evaluate specific learning outcomes. Unit pretests, or end-of-unit tests that can be administered as pretests are readymade for this task, especially when it comes to the assessment of basic skills. An analysis of pretest results enables the teacher to document proficiency in specific skiffs, and to select instructional activities or practice material necessary to bring the student up to a high level on any skill that may need some additional reinforcement.

The process is slightly modified for compacting content areas that are not as easily assessed as basic skills, and for students who have not mastered the material, but are judged to be candidates for more rapid coverage. First, students should have a thorough understanding of the goals and procedures of compacting, including the nature of the replacement process. A given segment of material should be discussed with the student (e.g. a unit that includes a series of chapters in a social studies text), and the procedures for verifying mastery at a high level should be specified. These procedures might consist of answering questions based on the chapters, writing an essay, or taking the standard end-of-unit test. The amount of time for completion of the unit should be specified, and procedures such as periodic progress reports or log entries for teacher review should be agreed upon. Of course, an examination of potential acceleration and/or enrichment replacement activities should be a part of this discussion.

Another alternative is to assess or pretest all students in a class when a new unit or topic is introduced; although this may seem like more work for the teacher, it provides the opportunity for all students to demonstrate their strengths or previous mastery in a given area. Using a matrix of learning objectives, teachers can fill in test results and establish small, flexible, and temporary groups for skill instruction and replacement activities.

Providing acceleration and enrichment options. The final phase of the compacting process can be one of the most exciting aspects of teaching because it is based on cooperative decision making and creativity on the parts of both teachers and students. Efforts can be made to gather enrichment materials from classroom teachers, librarians, media specialists, and content area or gifted education specialists. These materials may include self-directed learning activities, instructional materials that focus on particular thinking skills, and a variety of individual and group project oriented activities that are designed to promote hands-on research and investigative skills. The time made available through compacting provides opportunities for exciting learning experiences such as small group, special topic seminars that might be directed by students or community resource persons, community based apprenticeships or opportunities to work with a mentor, peer tutoring situations, involvement in community service activities, and opportunities to rotate through a series of self-selected mini-courses. The time saved through curriculum compacting can be used by the teacher to provide a variety of enrichment or acceleration opportunities for the student.

Enrichment strategies might include a variety of Type I, II, or III or a number of options included on the continuum of services. Acceleration might include the use of material from the next unit or chapter, the use of the next chronological grade level textbook or the completion of even more advanced work. Alternative activities should reflect an appropriate level of challenge and rigor that is commensurate with the student's abilities and interests.

Decisions about which replacement activities to use are always guided by factors such as time, space, and the availability of resource persons and materials. Although practical concerns must be considered, the ultimate criteria for replacement activities should be the degree to which they increase academic challenge and the extent to which they meet individual needs. Great care should be taken to select activities and experiences that represent individual strengths and interests rather than the assignment of more-of-the-same worksheets or randomly selected kits, games, and puzzles! This aspect of the compacting process should also be viewed as a creative opportunity for an entire faculty to work cooperatively to organize and institute a broad array of enrichment experiences. A favorite mini-course that a faculty member has always wanted to teach, or serving as a mentor to one or two students who are extremely invested in a teacher's beloved topic are just a few of the ways that replacement activities can add excitement to the teachers' part in this process as well as the obvious benefits for students. We have also observed another interesting occurrence that has resulted from the availability of curriculum compacting. When some previously bright but underachieving students realized that they could both economize on regularly assigned material and 'earn time' to pursue self-selected interests, their motivation to complete regular assignments increased; as one student put it, "Everyone understands a good deal!"

The best way to get an overview of the curriculum compacting process is to examine an actual example of how the management form that guides this process is used. This form, 'The Compactor', presented in Fig. 6, serves as both an organizational and record keeping tool. Teachers should fill out one form per student, or one form for a group of students with similar curricular strengths. Completed Compactors should be kept in students' academic files, and updated on a regular basis. The form can also be used for small groups of students who are working at approximately the same level (e.g. a reading or math group). The Compactor is divided into three sections:

The first column should include information on learning objectives and student strengths in those areas. Teachers should list the objectives for a particular unit of study, followed by data on students' proficiency in those objectives, including test scores, behavioral profiles and past academic records.

In the second column, teachers should detail the pretest vehicles they select, along with test results. The pretest instruments can be formal measures, such as pencil and paper tests, or informal measures, such as performance assessments based on observations of class participation and written assignments.

Specificity is extremely important; recording an overall score of 85% on ten objectives, for example, sheds little light on what portion of the material can be compacted, since students might show limited mastery of some objectives and high levels of mastery on others.

Column three is used to record information about acceleration or enrichment options; in determining these options, teachers must be fully aware of. students' individual interests and learning styles. We should never replace compacted regular curriculum work with harder, more advanced material that is solely determined by the teacher; instead, students interests should be taken, into account. If for example, a student loves working on science fair projects, that option may be used to replace material that has been compacted from the regular curriculum. We should also be careful to help monitor the challenge level of the material that is being substituted. We want students to understand the nature of effort and challenge and we should ensure that students are not simply replacing the compacted material with basic reading or work that is not advanced.
Rosa: A Case Study in Curriculum Compacting
Rosa is a fifth grader in a self-contained heterogeneous classroom; her school is located in a lower socio-economic urban school district. While Rosa's reading and language scores range between four or five years above grade level, most of her 29 classmates are reading one to two years below grade. level. This presented Rosa's teacher with a common problem: what was the best way to instruct Rosa? He agreed to compact her curriculum. Taking the easiest approach possible, he administered all of the appropriate unit tests for the grade level in the Basal Language Arts program, and excused Rosa from completing the activities and worksheets in the units where she showed proficiency (80% and above). When Rosa missed one or two questions, the teacher checked for trends in those items and provided instruction and practice materials to ensure concept mastery.

Rosa usually took part in language arts lessons one or two days a week; the balance of the time she spent with alternative projects, some of which she selected. This strategy spared Rosa up to six or eight hours a week with language arts skills that were simply beneath her level. She joined the class instruction only when her pretests indicated she had not fully acquired the skills or to take part in a discussion that her teacher thought she would enjoy. In the time saved through compacting, Rosa engaged in a number of enrichment activities. First, she spent as many as five hours a week in a resource room for high ability students. This time was usually scheduled during her language arts class, benefiting both Rosa and her teacher, since he didn't have to search for all of the enrichment options himself. The best part of the process for Rosa was she didn't have make-up regular classroom assignments because she was not missing essential work.

Rosa also visited a regional science center with other students who had expressed a high interest and aptitude for science. Science was a second strength area for Rosa, and based on the results of her Interest-A-Lyzer, a decision was made for Rosa to proceed with a science fair project on growing plants under various conditions. Rosa's Compactor, which covered an entire semester, was updated in January. Her teacher remarked that compacting her curriculum had actually saved him time-time he would have spent correcting papers needlessly assigned! The value of compacting for Rosa convinced him that he should continue the process. The Compactor was also used as a vehicle for explaining to Rosa's parents how specific modifications were being made to accommodate her advanced language arts achievement level and her interest in science. A copy of The Compactor was also passed on to Rosa's sixth grade teacher, and a conference between the fifth and sixth grade teachers and the resource teacher helped to ensure continuity in dealing with Rosa's special needs.

The many changes that are taking place in our schools require all educators to examine a broad range of techniques for providing equitably for all students. Curriculum compacting is one such process. It is not tied to a specific content area or grade level, nor is it aligned with a particular approach to school or curricular reform. Rather, the process is adaptable to any school configuration or curricular framework, and it is flexible enough to be used within the context of rapidly changing approaches to general education. The research study described above, and practical experience gained through several years of field testing and refining the compacting process have demonstrated that many positive benefits can result from this process for both students and teachers.

Enrichment Learning and Teaching
The third service delivery component of the SEM, which is based on the Enrichment Triad Model, is enrichment learning and teaching which has roots in the ideas of a small but influential number of philosophers, theorists, and researchers such as Jean Piaget (1975), Jerome Bruner (1960, 1966), and John Dewey (1913, 1916). The work of these theorists coupled with our own research and program development activities, has given rise to the concept we call enrichment learning and teaching. The best way to define this concept is in terms of the following four principles:

1. Each learner is unique, and therefore, all learning experiences must be examined in ways that take into account the abilities, interests, and learning styles of the individual.

2. Learning is more effective when students enjoy what they are doing, and therefore, learning experiences should be constructed and assessed with as much concern for enjoyment as for other goals.

3. 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; and therefore, attention should be given to opportunities to personalize student choice in problem selection, the relevance of the problem for individual students at the time the problem is being addressed, and authentic strategies for addressing the problem.

4. Some formal instruction may be used in enrichment learning and teaching, but a major goal of this approach to learning is to enhance knowledge and thinking skill acquisition that is gained through formal instruction with applications of knowledge and skills that result from students' own construction of meaning (Renzulli, 1994, p. 204).

The ultimate goal of learning that is guided by these principles is to replace dependent and passive learning with independence and engaged learning. Although all but the most conservative educators will agree with these principles, much controversy exists about how these (or similar) principles might be applied in everyday school situations. A danger also exists that these principles might be viewed as yet another idealized list of glittering generalities that cannot be manifested easily in schools that are entrenched in the deductive model of learning; developing a school program based on these principles is not an easy task. Over the years, however, we have achieved 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. Numerous research studies and field tests in schools with widely varying demographics have been carried out (Renzulli & Reis, 1994). These studies and field tests provided opportunities for the development of large amounts of practical know-how that are readily available for schools that would like to implement the SEM. They also have shown that the SEM can be implemented in a wide variety of settings and used with various populations of students including high ability students with learning disabilities and high ability students who underachieve in school.

Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burns, D. E. (1998). SEM network directory. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1977). Diagnosing learning styles: Avoiding malpractice suits against school systems. Phi Delta Kappan, 58, 418-420.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

James, W. (1885). On the functions of cognition. Mind, 10, 27-44.

Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1983). Let's cut out the cut-off score in the identification of the gifted. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 5, 6-10.

Kirschenbaum, R. J. & Siegle, D. (1993, April). Predicting creative performance in an enrichment program. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Gifted Underachieving Students 6th Annual Conference, Portland, OR.

Neisser, U. (1979). The concept of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), Human Intelligence (pp. 179-189). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Olenchak, F. R. (1988). The schoolwide enrichment model in the elementary schools: A study 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., & Renzulli, J. S. (1989). The effectiveness of the schoolwide enrichment model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 44-57.

Piaget, J. (1975). The development of thought: Equilibration on of cognitive structures. New York, NY: Viking.

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., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T. P., Plucker, J. A., ... Smist, J. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? the curriculum compacting study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Renzulli, J. S. (1976). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 303-326.

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, 26 1.

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

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

Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (1988b). Technical report of research studies related to the enrichment triad/revolving door model (3rd ed.). Storrs: University of Connecticut, Teaching The Talented Program.

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

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. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 2-14.

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. (1978). The compactor. 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. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 185-194.

Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a triarchic theory of human intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 269-287.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Three facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity (pp. 125-147). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Thinking styles: Keys to understanding student performance. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 366-371.

Thorndike, E. L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 124-127.

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Norms-Technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Ward, V. S. (1960). Systematic intensification and extensification of the school curriculum. Exceptional Children, 28, 67-71,77.

¹Research for this chapter was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R00001) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. This report, therefore, does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the Government, and no official, endorsement should be inferred.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model Executive Summary | Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article may be reproduced and distributed without permission. Electronic reproduction is not permitted. Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA Introduction Enrichment programs for gifted and talented students have been the true laboratorie ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Executive Functioning Skills and Gifted Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Executive Functioning Skills and Gifted Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nurturing Wisdom's Executive Functioning Articles | Nurturing Wisdom Tutoring

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nurturing Wisdom's executive functioning articles address a variety of topics from organization to building routines to time management!

# data[].attributes.body
Educational Advocacy for Gifted Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Educational Advocacy for Gifted Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article by Julia Osborn is the third in a series of three articles on the processes parents go through in raising an exceptionally gifted child. This article, based upon a study of 12 exceptionally gifted students, discusses the experiences of these parents in advocating for appropriate school placement for their children.

# data[].attributes.body
Mt. Evans BOCES

# data[].attributes.headline
Best Practices for Identifying Gifted Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Best Practices for Identifying Gifted Students

# data[].attributes.headline
4 Ways to Support Gifted Children with Anxiety

# data[].attributes.subject
4 Ways to Support Gifted Children with Anxiety

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We often associate anxiety with giftedness but whether there is a causal relationship is not definitive. Because gifted children experience the world intensely, they may show a heightened level of behaviors that are associated with anxiety. Children who are acutely aware of the world around them may develop anxiety over worrying about global and local problems, perfectionism in themselves, and general fears regarding situations out of their control.

A 2009 study from Hungary's Semmelweis University found an association between high academic performance, creativity, and the T/T genotype, a gene that's been linked to an increased risk of psychosis - all of which may help to explain why we often associate anxiety and stress with gifted children. Anxiety affects about 18% of Americans, according to the National Institutes of Mental Health. Certainly, the care of mental health professional should be sought if anxiety issues are a concern at school or home. But, as parents and educators, we can be aware of behaviors that suggest anxiety is a problem and be aware of ways we can assist in reducing anxiety.

Here are just a few of the common ways that anxiety in gifted children might manifest:

Tension

Irritability

Separation from peers

Health complaints, seemingly to avoid situations or tasks

Changes in temperament or attitude

Unprompted or inappropriate outbursts, tantrums or withdrawal

Insomnia or excessive sleeping

Lack of enthusiasm or carelessness

Inability to concentrate, fidgeting and other "hyper" behavior

Persistent worrying

If your student is dealing with anxiety or stress, consider contacting a professional, and be aware of these potentially supportive suggestions:

1. Teach coping and relaxation skills such as deep breathing, muscle tension and relaxation, and practice techniques for overcoming fears.

2. Encourage positive social interactions by role playing social situations, teaching positive affirmations, and preparing students ahead of time for anticipated events and presentations.

3. Stimulate creativity to help students find tools for feeling successful, self-expressive, and stress-free. Encourage exploration in creative arts fields, teaching the skills of creative problem solving, modeling creative thinking and engaging in imaginative activities, and deferring judgment of the students' ideas and products.

4. As we do here at SIG, emphasize the dual importance of emotional well-being as well as cognitive excellence. Express feelings; engage in explorative extracurricular activities without pressure, and accept and love our children for just being themselves.

This post gives a very quick overview of a potentially complex and serious topic. Those adults experiencing intense levels of anxious behavior in children are encouraged to delve more deeply into this important topic or to seek the expertise of a mental health professional. If you have additional ideas you'd like to share with our readers, we encourage you to do so!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Ways to Support Gifted Children with Anxiety

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We often associate anxiety with giftedness but whether there is a causal relationship is not definitive. Because gifted children experience the world intensely, they may show a heightened level of behaviors that are associated with anxiety.

# 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.body
The identification process for students referred in the area of leadership

# data[].attributes.body
The identification process for students referred in the area of performing arts/ drama.

# data[].attributes.body
The identification process for students referred in the creativity/productive thinking area.

# data[].attributes.body
The identification process for students referred for talent in the psychomotor area.