This study investigated the educational provision for mathematically gifted students offered in primary (elementary) schools in England (United Kingdom) just before the abandonment of the government’s Gifted and Talented (G&T) program. Through a questionnaire within five Educational Authorities and four in-depth case studies in different primary schools that were implementing provision for their most able mathematicians, the study, despite some positive results, found a number of problems relating to the effectiveness and defensibility of the offered provision. This article presents those problems and the identified links between them, the lack of support from gifted theory and research, the lack of support from specialists, and the abandonment of the G&T initiative and makes recommendations that could have sustained and increased the effectiveness of both the schools’ provision and the government’s initiative.
BasseyM. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
2.
BorlandJ. H. (1996). Gifted education and the threat of irrelevance. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 129–147.
3.
BorlandJ. H. (2013). Problematizing gifted education. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 69–80). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BoyesL. C. (2004). Accelerated learning: A literature survey. Bradford, UK: Unit for Educational Research & Evaluation, University of Bradford.
5.
BrightonC. M.HertbergH. L.MoonT. R.TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
6.
CaseyK. M. A.ShoreB. M. (2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227–230. doi:10.1080/02783190009554043
7.
CaseyR. (1999). A key concepts model for teaching and learning mathematics. Mathematics in School, 28(3), 13–14.
8.
CoxJ.DanielN.BostonB. O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin: University of Texas Press.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Department for Education and Employment. (1999). Excellence in cities. London, England: Author.
11.
DimitriadisC. (2011). Developing mathematical ability in primary school through a “pull-out” programme: A case study. Education 3-13, 39, 467–482.
12.
Eurydice. (2006, June). Specific educational measures to promote all forms of giftedness at school in Europe (Working document). Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice European Unit.
13.
EyreD. (2001). An effective primary school for the gifted and talented. In EyreD.McClureL. (Eds.), Curriculum provision for the gifted and talented in the primary school: English, maths, science and ICT (pp. 1–27). London, England: National Association for Able Children in Education/David Fulton
14.
FreemanJ. (2001). Mentoring gifted pupils. Educating Able Children, 5(1), 6–12.
15.
FreemanJ.RaffanJ.WarwickI. (2010). Worldwide provision to develop gifts and talents: An international survey. Reading, UK: CfBT Education Trust.
16.
GagnéF. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112.
17.
GagnéF. (2008). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Montréal, Québec, Canada: Author.
18.
GagnéF. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development and Excellence, 3(1), 3–22.
19.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
20.
GardnerH. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In GiffordB. R.O’ConnorM. C. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 77–120). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21.
GardnerH. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.
22.
GardnerH. (2006). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
23.
GentryM.OwenS. V. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224–243. doi:10.1177/001698629904300402
24.
GrassingerR.PorathM.ZieglerA. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21(1), 27–46. doi:10.1080/13598139.2010.488087
25.
Hertberg-DavisH. L.CallahanC. M. (2013). Introduction. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
House of Commons. (2010). The gifted and talented programme: Oral and written evidence (Children, School and Families Select Committee, ed.) London, England: The Stationary Office.
27.
KarolyiC.Ramos-FordV.GardnerH. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 100–112). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
28.
KoshyV. (2001). Teaching mathematics to able children. London, England: David Fulton.
29.
KoshyV.ErnestP.CaseyR. (2009). Mathematically gifted and talented learners: Theory and practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40, 213–228.
30.
KoshyV.Pinheiro-TorresC.Portman-SmithC. (2012). The landscape of gifted and talented education in England and Wales: How are teachers implementing policy?Research Papers in Education, 27, 167–186. doi:10.1080/02671522.2010.509514
31.
KrutetskiiV. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (TellerJ., Trans.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.
33.
LubinskiD.WebbR. M.MorelockM. J.BenbowC. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729.
34.
MuratoriM. C.StanleyJ. C.NgL.NgJ.GrossM. U. M.TaoT.TaoB. (2006). Insights from SMPY’s greatest former child prodigies: Drs. Terence (“Terry”) Tao and Lenhard (“Lenny”) Ng reflect on their talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 307–324.
35.
PassowA. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. In KaplanS. N. & National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented (Eds.), Curriculum for the Gifted/Talented: Selected Proceedings of the First National Conference on Curriculum for the Gifted and Talented (pp. 4–20). Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools.
36.
PfeifferS. I.JarosewichT. (2007). The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form: An analysis of the standardization sample based on age, gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 39–50. doi:10.1177/0016986206296658
37.
PleissM. K.FeldhusenJ. F. (1995). Mentors, role models, and heroes in the lives of gifted children. Educational Psychologist, 30, 159–169. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3003_6
38.
PluckerJ. A. (2015, May). Advanced academic performance: Exploring country-level differences in the pursuit of educational excellence (Policy Brief, No. 7). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
39.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80, 390–406. doi:10.1177/0014402914527244
40.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (1982). A case for a broadened conception of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 619–620.
41.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.
42.
RenzulliJ. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3–54.
43.
RenzulliJ. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159. doi:10.1177/0016986212444901
44.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
45.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 7–20.
46.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H.WhiteA. J.CallahanC. M.HartmanR. K.WestbergK. W.. . . Systma ReedR. E. (2010). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
SheffieldL. J. (1999). Serving the needs of the mathematically promising. In SheffieldL. J. (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 43–55). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
49.
SheffieldL. J. (2003). Extending the challenge in mathematics: Developing mathematical promise in K–8 students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
50.
StanleyJ. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 216–222.
51.
Steenbergen-HuS.MoonS. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39–53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155
52.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SternbergR. J. (2003). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14, 109–137.
54.
SternbergR. J. (2010). WICS: A new model for school psychology. School Psychology International, 31, 599–616.
55.
SternbergR. J.FerrariM.ClinkenbeardP.GrigorenkoE. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129–137. doi:10.1177/001698629604000303
56.
TannenbaumA. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY: Macmillan.
57.
TannenbaumA. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
58.
TomlinsonC. A.KaplanS. N.RenzulliJ. S.PurcellJ. H.LeppienJ. H.BurnsD. E.ImbeauM. B. (2009). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge advanced learners (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
59.
TreffingerD. J. (1998). From gifted education to programming for talent development. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 752–755.
60.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted learners. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
61.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X.EvansB. L. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 218–231. doi:10.1177/0016986207302717
62.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.WoodS. (2010). The Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM). Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 345–357. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.006
63.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
64.
WestbergK. L.DaoustM. E. (2004). The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
65.
ZieglerA.PhillipsonS. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30.
