Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Marland Report included many correct observations about gifted education. Some findings, for example, were based on Project Talent, a large‐scale population representative longitudinal study of the US high school population. This paper uses the intersection of cognitive aptitudes and gifted education as a framework and synthesizes studies using prospective longitudinal data from numerous sources. Additional retrospective data on US high achievers are reviewed, as are longitudinal findings from other countries. All these sources will be used to reevaluate a selected set of claims made in the Marland Report. Specifically, we explore (a) the definition and understanding of gifted students; (b) the identification of and longitudinal research on gifted students; and (c) we briefly discuss the context of the Marland Report in the wider history of education policy and reform in the US, including how to best support talented students using information from the field of education policy.

Keywords

gifted education policy longitudinal research population representative samples cognitive aptitudes education reform

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achter

J. A.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Eftekhari-Sanjani

(1999). Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10‐year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 777–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.777

Ackerman

C. M.

(2009). The essential elements of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and how they are connected. Roeper Review, 31(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190902737657

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

Vantassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(2015). A nation empowered. Belin-Blank Center.

Assouline

S. G.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911433946

Benbow

C. P.

Stanley

J. C.

(1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high‐potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 249–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.249

Berner

A. R.

(2017). Pluralism and American public education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Bernstein

B. O.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2019). Psychological constellations assessed at age 13 predict distinct forms of eminence 35 years later. Psychological Science, 30(3), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618822524

Bernstein

B. O.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2020). Academic acceleration in gifted youth and fruitless concerns regarding psychological well‐being: A 35‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 830–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000500

Brown

M. I.

Wai

Chabris

C. F.

(2021). Can you ever be too smart for your own good? Comparing linear and nonlinear effects of cognitive ability on life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1337–1359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964122

10.

Card

Giuliano

(2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low‐income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113

11.

Carroll

J. B.

(1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.

12.

Ceci

S. J.

(1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.703

13.

Clarenbach

(2007). All gifted is local. School Administrator, 64, 16–22. https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=7230.

14.

Clynes

(2016). How to raise a genius: Lessons from a 45-year study of super-smart children. Nature News & Comment. https://www.nature.com/news/how-to-raise-a-genius-lessons-from-a-45-year-study-of-super-smart-children-1.20537

15.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M. U. M.

(2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Belin Blank Center.

16.

Dabrowski

(1964). Positive disintegration. Little & Brown.

17.

Damian

R. I.

Shanahan

Trautwein

Roberts

B. W.

(2014). Can personality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status attainment in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000024

18.

Deary

I. J.

(2020). Intelligence: A very short introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

19.

Deary

I. J.

Strand

Smith

Fermandes

(2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001

20.

Diperna

(2021). Parenting and polling in education’s new normal. The Hill. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/532934-parenting-and-polling-in-educations-new-normal

21.

Dolbear

K. E.

(1912). Precocious children. The Pedagogical Seminary, 19(4), 461–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/08919402.1912.10532832

22.

Dynarski

S. M.

(2018). ACT/SAT for all: A cheap, effective way to narrow income gaps in college. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/act-sat-for-all-a-cheap-effective-way-to-narrow-income-gaps-in-college/

23.

Fergusson

(June/July, 2019). The curse of genius. The Economist 1843 Magazine. https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-curse-of-genius

24.

Ferriman-Robertson

Smeets

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410391442

25.

Francis

Hawes

D. J.

Abbott

(2016). Intellectual giftedness and psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779

26.

Gallagher

J. J.

(2002). Society’s role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

27.

Greene

J. P.

McShane

M. Q.

(2018). Failure up close: What happens, why it happens, and what we can learn from it. Rowman & Littlefield.

28.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high‐achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175

29.

Haier

R. J.

(2016). The neuroscience of intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

30.

Hair

N. L.

Hanson

J. L.

Wolfe

B. L.

Pollak

S. D.

(2015). Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(9), 822–829. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475

31.

Henderson

M. B.

Houston

Peterson

P. E.

Shakeel

M. D.

West

M. R.

(2020). Amid pandemic, support soars for online learning, parent poll shows: Results from the 2020 Education Next Survey of Public Opinion. Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/amid-pandemic-support-soars-online-learning-parent-poll-shows-2020-education-next-survey-public-opinion/

32.

Hertzog

N. B.

Chung

R. U.

(2014). Outcomes for students on a fast track to college: Early college entrance programs at the University of Washington. Roeper Review, 37(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.976324

33.

Hertzog

N. B

Chung

R. U

(2015). Outcomes for students on a fast track to college: Early college entrance programs at the University of Washington. Roeper Review, 37(1), 39–49.

34.

Hollingworth

L. S.

(1931). The child of very superior intelligence as a special problem in social adjustment. Mental Hygiene, 15, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271623014900314

35.

Jolly

J. L.

Robins

J. H.

(2016). After the Marland Report: Four decades of progress? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640937

36.

Judd

C. H.

(1933). Education. In Recent social trends in the United States: Report of the President’s research committee on social trends. McGraw-Hill.

37.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2013a). Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Psychological Science, 24(5), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457784

38.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2013b). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1831–1836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613478615

39.

Lakin

J. M.

Wai

(2020). Spatially gifted, academically inconvenienced: Spatially talented students experience less academic engagement and more behavioral issues than other talented students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 1015–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12343

40.

Lohman

D. F.

(1993). Teaching and testing to develop fluid abilities. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022007012

41.

Lohman

D. F.

(1994). Spatially gifted, verbally inconvenienced. In Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Ambroson

D. L.

(Eds.), Talent development (Vol. 2, pp. 251–264). Ohio Psychology Press.

42.

Lohman

D. F.

(2005). Identifying academically talented minority students. The National Research Center on the gifted and talented. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505376.pdf

43.

Lubinski

(2016). From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 900–944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476

44.

Lubinski

Benbow

C.P.

(2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.137

45.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman? Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447

46.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Kell

H. J.

(2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2217–2232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551371

47.

Makel

M. C.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Putallaz

Benbow

C. P.

(2016). When lightning strikes twice: Profoundly gifted, profoundly accomplished. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616644735

48.

Marland

S. P.

Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of education. US Government Printing Office.

49.

Martin

L. T.

Burns

R. M.

Schonlau

(2010). Mental disorders among gifted and nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209352684

50.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Miller

E. M.

(2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256

51.

Mendaglio

Tillier

(2006). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(1), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320603000104

52.

Mofield

E. L.

Peters

M. P.

(2015). The relationship between perfectionism and overexcitabilities in gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 405–427. 10.1177/0162353215607324

53.

Moon

S. M.

(2009). Myth 15: High‐ability students don’t face problems and challenges. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 274–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346943

54.

National Association for Gifted Children Definition Task Force . (2019). Key considerations in identifying and supporting gifted and talented learners. NAGC. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/NAGC%20Gifted%20Definition%20Task%20Force%20Report%20 (accessed 3 2019)

55.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns for creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18(11), 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x

56.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2013). When less is more: Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM accomplishments among mathematically precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029481

57.

Peters

S. J.

Makel

M. C.

Rambo-Hernandez

(2021). Local norms for gifted and talented student identification: Everything you need to know. Gifted Child Today, 44(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520985181

58.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2017). Should millions of students take a gap year? Large numbers of students start the school year above grade level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701834

59.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446

60.

Preckel

Baudson

T. G.

Krolak-Schwerdt

Glock

(2015). Gifted and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1160–1184. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215596413

61.

Ritchie

S. J.

Tucker-Drob

E. M.

(2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta‐analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253

62.

Roberts

B. W.

Kuncel

Shiner

R. L.

Caspi

Goldberg

L. R.

(2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socio‐economic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

63.

Robinson

(2020). An administrators’ association partnership translates to gifted education advocacy. Gifted Child Today, 44(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520963632

64.

Robson

(2019). The intelligence trap: Why smart people do stupid things and how to make wiser decisions. W. W. Norton & Company.

65.

Shea

D. L.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.604

66.

Singer

J. D.

(2019). Reshaping the arc of quantitative educational research: It’s time to broaden our paradigm. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), 570–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1658835

67.

Snow

R. E.

(1996). Aptitude development and education. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(3-4), 536–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.3-4.536

68.

Stavrova

Ehlebracht

(2019). The cynical genius illusion: Exploring and debunking lay beliefs about cynicism and competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218783195

69.

Steenbergen-Hu

Makel

M. C.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K‐12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second‐order meta‐analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417

70.

Stevens

(2020). The academic support index: A tool for contextualizing student data. In Worrell

F. C.

Hughes

T. L.

Dixson

D. D.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of applied school psychology (pp. 138–154). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235532.009

71.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

72.

Terman

L. M.

(1904). A preliminary study in the psychology and pedagogy of leadership. The Pedagogical Seminary, 11(4), 413–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/08919402.1904.10534107

73.

Terman

L. M.

(1922). Intelligence tests and school reorganization. World Book Co.

74.

Terman

L. M.

(1925). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.

75.

Tetzlaff

Schmiedek

Brod

(2020). Developing personalized education: A dynamic framework. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 863–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09570-w

76.

The Brookings Institution . (2018). Evidence-based policy: How is it faring in the Trump era? The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/events/evidence-based-policy-how-is-it-faring-in-the-trump-era/

77.

Tieso

C. L.

(2007). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and their parents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986206296657

78.

Tran

Wai

McKenzie

Mills

J. N.

Seaton

(2020). What can we learn about improving gifted identification by studying how accurate the process is in Arkansas? Arkansas Education Report. Office for Education Policy, University of Arkansas, Vol. 18(2), pp. 1–31.

79.

Tyack

D. B.

Cuban

(1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Harvard University Press.

80.

Uttal

D. H.

Meadow

N. G.

Elizabeth

Hand

L. L.

Alden

A. R.

Christopher

Newcombe

N. S.

(2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta‐analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446

81.

VanTassel-Baska

(2018). American policy in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 41(2), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517753020

82.

Vuyk

M. A.

Krieshok

T. S.

Kerr

B. A.

(2016). Openness to experience rather than overexcitabilities: Call it like it is. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 192–211. 10.1177/0016986216645407

83.

Wai

(2014). Experts are born, then made: Combining prospective and retrospective longitudinal data shows that cognitive ability matters. Intelligence, 45(1), 74–80. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.08.009

84.

Wai

Allen

(2019). What boosts talent development? Examining predictors of academic growth in secondary school among academically advanced youth across 21 years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219869042

85.

Wai

Benbow

C. P.

(2021). Educational interventions on behalf of the gifted: Do they have lasting links with development? In Van Tassel-Baska

(Ed.), Talent development in gifted education: Theory, research, and practice. Taylor & Francis.

86.

Wai

Brown

M. I.

Chabris

C. F.

(2018). Using standardized test scores to include general cognitive ability in education research and policy. Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030037

87.

Wai

Lakin

J. M.

(2020). Finding the missing Einsteins: Expanding the breadth of cognitive and noncognitive measures used in academic services. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 63, 101920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101920

88.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484

89.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127

90.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454

91.

Wai

Worrell

F. C.

(2015). Helping disadvantaged and spatially talented students fulfill their potential: Related and neglected national resources. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215621310

92.

Wai

Zhang

(2019). The most revealing screen: Standardized tests have their problems, but they remain the best way of assessing students’ academic merits. City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/standardized-tests

93.

Winkler

Voight

(2016). Giftedness and overexcitability: Investigating the relationship using meta‐analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216657588

94.

Wolf

(Ed.). (2019). School choice: Separating fact from fiction. Routledge.

95.

Wraw

Deary

I. J.

Der

Gale

C. R.

(2016). Intelligence in youth and mental health at age 50. Intelligence, 58, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.06.005

96.

Wraw

Deary

I. J.

Gale

C. R.

Der

(2015). Intelligence in youth and health at age 50. Intelligence, 53, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.001

97.

Yoder

(1894). The study of the boyhood of great men. The Pedagogical Seminary, 3(1), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08919402.1894.10534800

What Longitudinal Research and Large-Scale Population Representative Studies Can Tell Us About Gifted Students and Education Policy 50 Years After the Marland Report

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References