An exploratory qualitative case study of 10 government secondary schools (Grades 7–12) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, was conducted to investigate the extent to which the revised NSW gifted and talented policy (2004) has contributed to gifted program quality and scope. Findings from the qualitative analysis of in-depth interview data with principals (n = 10), gifted coordinators (n = 11), and teachers (n = 37) showed the following themes: (a) schools with a documented gifted policy were more likely to provide more substantially for their gifted students; (b) selective (all gifted) schools and schools with selective classes were more likely to provide distinctive gifted programs in line with state policy; (c) principals with a policy to follow were more likely to provide adequate resource support and professional development for teachers in the school; and (d) the desire of principals to meet policy mandate does not always equate to having the means to do so.
AdamsC. M. (2006). Articulating gifted education program goals. In PurcellJ. H.EckertR. D. (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability learners (pp. 62–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
2.
BakerB. D. (2001). Measuring the outcomes of state policies for gifted education: An equity analysis of Texas school districts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 4–15. doi:10.1177/001698620104500102
3.
BakerB. D.Friedman-NimzR. (2004). State policies and equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 39–64. doi:10.3102/01623737026001039
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BazeleyP. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London, England: Sage.
6.
BrownE.AveryL. D.VanTassel-BaskaJ. L.WorleyB. B.IIStambaughT. (2006). Legislation and policies: Effects on the gifted. Roeper Review, 29, 11–23. doi:10.1080/02783190609554379
7.
CaldwellB. J.HarrisJ. (2008). Why not the best schools?Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
8.
CliftR.VealM. L.HollandP.JohnsonM.McCarthyJ. (1995). Collaborative leadership and shared decision making: Teachers, principals and university professors. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). The education of gifted children: A Senate report to Australian parliament. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
10.
CooperC. R. (2000). Gifted and talented education. In TonnsenS. (Ed.), What principals should know about (pp. 27–50). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
11.
CornishL. (2010). Multiage classes—What’s in a name?Journal of Multiage Education, 4(2), 7–11.
12.
DelcourtM. A. B.LoydB. H.CornellD. G.GoldbergM. C. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes (RM94108). University of Connecticut, Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
13.
Department of Education and Training. (2004). Policy and implementation strategies for the education of gifted and talented students. Sydney, Australia: State of NSW, Department of Education and Training.
14.
DinhamS. (2007). How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student success, and school renewal. Australian Journal of Education, 51, 263–275. doi:10.1177/000494410705100304
15.
FardellR.GeakeJ. G. (2003). Vertical semester organisation in a rural secondary school as a vehicle for acceleration of gifted students. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 12(1), 16–30.
16.
ForsterJ. (1992). Reporting research for teachers: Policy and practice in educating gifted children. Unicorn, 18(2), 46–54.
17.
ForsterJ. (2005). Policy and practice: A twenty year retrospective on gifted education in the Australian state of New South Wales. Gifted Education International, 19, 182–196.
18.
FullanM. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London, England: Falmer Press.
19.
GranthamT. C.FordD. Y. (1998). Principal instructional leadership can reverse the under-representation of black students in gifted education. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 82(595), 101–109. doi:10.1177/019263659808259512
20.
HargreavesA.FinkD. (2000). The three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 30–34.
21.
Hill-AndersonB. G. (2008). A K-12 gifted program evaluation and the evaluator-district-university gifted program evaluation model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St Louis University, MO.
22.
HuntI.MerrotsyP. (2010). Adding value and value adding: The concept of “value added” in partially and fully selective schools. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 19(2), 37–48.
23.
KnightA. W. (2006). A comparative analysis of the curricular and programmatic features for gifted and talented students from two policy perspectives: England and California (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
24.
LandrumM. S.CallahanC. M.ShakleeB. D. (Eds.). (2001). Aiming for excellence: Annotations to the NAGC pre-K-grade 12 gifted program standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
LassigC. J. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 32–42.
27.
LeithwoodK.SteinbachR.JantziD. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 94–119. doi:10.1177/0013161X02381005
28.
LeithwoodK.SunJ. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 387–423. doi:10.1177/0013161X11436268
29.
LewisJ. D.CruzieroP. A.HallC. A. (2007). Impact of two elementary school principals’ leadership on gifted education in their buildings. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 56–62.
30.
LittleJ.McLauglinM. W. (Eds.). (1993). Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
LouisK. S.TooleJ.HargreavesA. (1999). Rethinking school improvement. In MurphyJ.LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 251–276). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32.
MartinJ. A. (1982). The attitudes of principals in southeastern Pennsylvania towards programs of education for intellectually gifted students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
33.
McGarveyB.MarriottS.MorganV.AbbottL. (1997). Planning for differentiation: The experience of teachers in Northern Ireland primary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 351–363. doi:10.1080/002202797184080
34.
McGoughD. J. (2003). Leaders as learners: An inquiry into the formation and transformation of principals’ professional perspectives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 449–471. doi:10.3102/01623737025004449
35.
MehanH.DatnowA.HubbardL. (2003). Why educational reforms sustain or fail: Lessons for educational leaders. In DaviesB.West-BurnhamJ. (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management (pp. 460–477). London, England: Pearson Education.
36.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
MilliganJ.NealG.SingletonJ. (2012). Administrators of special and gifted education: Preparing them for the challenge. Education, 133, 171–180.
PassowA. H.RudnitskiR. A. (1994, April). Transforming policy to enhance educational services for the gifted. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
40.
PaulK. A. (2010). A national study of state policy for fostering gifted program evaluation: Content analysis and recommendations for policy development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
41.
RoeperA. (1986). Participatory vs. hierarchical models for administrators: The role of the principal. Roeper Review, 9, 4–10. doi:10.1080/02783198609552993
42.
RogersK. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382–396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324
43.
RowleyJ. L. (2008). Teaching strategies to facilitate learning for gifted and talented students. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 17(2), 36–42.
44.
ScheerensJ.BoskerR. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New York, NY: Elsevier.
45.
SchneiderJ. (2006). Effects of a legislated mandate: The comprehensive school improvement process and middle-level gifted and talented programming. Roeper Review, 28, 224–231. doi:10.1080/02783190609554368
46.
SlavinR. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336. doi:10.3102/00346543057003293
47.
SlavinR. E. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93, 535–552. doi:10.1086/461739
48.
StarkoA. J. (1990). Life and death of a gifted program. Roeper Review, 13, 33–38. doi:10.1080/02783199009553301
49.
SternbergR. J. (2000). Making school reform work: A “mineralogical” theory of school modifiability. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
50.
StringfieldS.DatnowA. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring designs in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 30, 269–276.
51.
SwansonJ. D. (2007). Policy and practice: A case study of gifted education policy implementation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 131–164.
52.
TaylorC. A. (1987). The role of the principal in the implementation of a gifted program in a school. Gifted International, 4(2), 68–77.
53.
TaylorV. L. (1984). Are you a gifted principal? Check list. Gifted Child Today, 7(1), 16–18. doi:10.1177/107621758400700106
54.
TomlinsonC.TomchinE. M.CallahanC. M. (1994, April). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of and responses to the differential needs of gifted students in their classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
55.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. L. (2000). Curriculum policy development for secondary gifted programs: A prescription for reform coherence. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 84(615), 14–29. doi:10.1177/019263650008461503
56.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. L.StambaughT. (2010). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 211–217. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
57.
WassonD. (2009, August). Large cohort testing: How we can use assessment data to effect school and system improvement?Paper presented at the 14th Australian Council for Educational Research Conference, Perth, Australia.
58.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.Jr. (1997). A multi-site case study of successful classroom practices for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 42–51. doi:10.1177/001698629704100106
59.
YoungsP.KingM. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643–670. doi:10.1177/0013161X02239642
