The Effects of the Elimination of Gifted and Talented Programs On Participating Students and Their Parents

Abstract

Interviews were conducted with 19 parents of students identified and served by a gifted program eliminated in 1990 to determine the effects of the elimipation of the program on participants. To triangulate the findings of the interviews, mail surveys were sent to 49 additional parents of students who were also served and identified by the program. Results indicated that parents perceived that their children were experiencing a decline in energy, curiosity, and intrinsic motivation to achieve at high levels and were beginning to disengage from the traditional curriculum. interviewed parents also reported that the process of program elimination resulted in so much divisiveness that more than half of them had considered altemative educational avenues for their chiIdren's remaining years in school.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bogdan, R.C. , & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualititative research for educa tion. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brown. B.B. (1990. November). School. culture, social politics. and the academic motivation of U.S. students. Paper presented at a conterence on student motivation sponsored by the Office of Educational Improvement. Arlington. VA.

Feldhusen, J.F. (1989). Why the public schools will continuc to neglect the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 12(61), 55-59.

Glaser, B.G. , & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

Goelz, J.P. , & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press.

Kelly, D. (1991, October 23). Programs for the gifted: Equitable or elitist? USA Today. p. 18.

Lincoln. Y.S. , & Guba. E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

MacKinnon. D.W. (1960). The highly effective individual. Teachers College Record. 61. 376 378.

Martinson. R.A. (1972). An analysis of problems and priorities: Advocate survey and statistical sources. In S P. Marlnnd. Education of the gifted and talented: Background papers . (Vol. 2. pp. 121 136). Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office.

10.

Miles, M.B. , & Huberman. A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

11.

Oden. M. ( 1983). A 40-year follow-up of giftedness: Fulfillment and unfulfillment. In R. S. Albert (Ed.). Genius and eminence (pp. 203-212). Oxford; Pergamon.

12.

Piechowski. M.M. , Silverman, L.K. . Cunningham, K. , & Falk. E. (1982). March). A comparison of intellectuallv gifted and artists on five dimensions of mental functioning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting . New York. NY.

13.

Purcell, J.H. (1992). Programs in states without a mandate: An "endan gered species"? Roeper Review, 15(2), 93 95.

14.

Purcell, J.H. (1993). A study of the status of programs for high-ability students in twenty states and the factors that contribute to their retention and elimination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Connecticut. Storrs. CT.

15.

Radin. C.A. (1991. September). Gifted students face test of indifference . The Boston Globe. pp. 1, 14.

16.

Reis, S.M. , & Purcell, J.H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers in the curriculum compacting process . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2). 147-170.

17.

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

18.

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

19.

Starko. A.J. (1990). Life and death of a gifted program: Lessons not yet learned. Roeper Review. 13(1), 33 38.

20.

Westberg. K.L. , Archambault. F.X. , Dobyns, S.M. , & Salvin, T. (1993). The classroom practices observations study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 16(2), 120-146.