Society is becoming increasingly mobile, which impacts all facets of the educational experience, including gifted education. Military students attend several different schools in their educational careers, and inconsistent criteria and identification practices among states and school districts result in a fluid gifted label for many of these students. While some aspects of school mobility are highlighted in existing research, limited attention has been paid to school mobility within gifted education. This research works to address this gap by exploring the impact of losing the gifted label on children of military members, whose relocations frequently require mobility across state and district boundaries, utilizing a unique framework, Foucault’s technologies of self. Research findings explore student perspectives on the impact of their own effort or hard work on their ability to retain the gifted label and serve as a launching point from which to explore the issue of school mobility in gifted education.
BorlandJ. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In SternbergR.DavidsonJ. (Eds), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.002
2.
BorlandJ. H. (2020). The trouble with conceptions of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.AmbroseD. (Eds), Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 37–49). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_3
3.
BradshawC.SudhinarasetM.MmariK.BlumR. (2010). School transitions among military adolescents: A qualitative study of stress and coping. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 84–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087792
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215
6.
ColeR. (2016). Supporting students in military families during times of transition. Professional School Counseling, 20(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-20.1.36
7.
ColemanL.MickoK.CrossT. (2015). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students' voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607322
8.
CornellD.GrossbergI. (1989). Parent use of the term "gifted" correlates with family environment and child adjustment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328901200305
9.
DanielE.Meza-CuadraM. J.RoyM.SahachartsiriB.SnyderM. (2017). The challenges of supporting highly mobile, military-connected children in school transitions. Center for Public Research and Leadership.
10.
DixsonD. D.PetersS. J.MakelM. C.JollyJ. L.MatthewsM. S.MillerE. M.Rambo-HernandezK. E.RinnA. N.RobinsJ. H.WilsonH. E. (2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(4), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978057
11.
FoucaultM. (1988). Technologies of self. In MartinL.GutmanH.HuttonP. (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). The University of Massachusetts Press.
12.
JosselsonR. (2013). Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: A relational approach. Guilford Publications.
13.
LemertE. M. (2012). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. Literary Licensing, LLC.
14.
MatthewsM.RitchotteJ.JollyJ. (2014). What's wrong with giftedness? Parents' perceptions of the gifted label. International studies in sociology of education, 24(4), 372–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2014.990225
15.
McBeeM. T.MatthewsM. S.PetersS. J.McCoachD. B. (2014). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Taylor & Francis.
16.
MeadowsB.NeumannJ. W. (2017). What does it mean to assess gifted students' perceptions of giftedness labels?Interchange, 48(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-016-9281-y
17.
MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Wiley.
18.
MeyerM. S. (2022). Helping military-connected gifted students navigate non-promotional school transitions. In ChandlerK. L.CastellanoJ. A. (Eds.), Identifying and serving diverse gifted learners: Meeting the needs of special populations in gifted education (pp. 9–25). Routledge.
RavitchD. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. Simon & Schuster.
22.
RenzulliJ. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
23.
RinnA. N.MunR. U.HodgesJ. (2020). 2018–2019 State of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://www.nagc.org/2018-2019-state-states-gifted-education
24.
RistR. (2011). On understanding the processes of schooling: The contributions of labeling theory. In CoughlanR.SadovnikA. R. (Eds), Sociology of education: A critical reader (pp. 71–82). Routledge.
ShoenbergerN.HeckertA.HeckertD. (2015). Labeling, social learning, and positive deviance: A look at high achieving students. Deviant Behavior, 36(6), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.944066
27.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Publications.
28.
WelshR. O. (2017). School hopscotch: A comprehensive review of K–12 student mobility in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672068
