Children who have experienced the divorce of their parents may well comprise an underserved population in special programs for gifted students. Statistics gathered in the early part of this century may have conditioned educators to generalize that, in spite of social changes, most gifted children live in intact, middle to upper-middle class families. The purpose of this article is to present a review of the literature on characteristics of the families of gifted children, especially the marital status of the biological parents, to infer some possible connections with literature on teacher expectations and to teacher and peer perceptions of children of divorce. Ultimately, we urge educators to a) reject the stereotypical image of the families of gifted children, and b) do further research to update data bases and inferences concerning the families of gifted children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertR. (1978). Observations and suggestions regarding giftedness, familial influence, and the achievement of eminence. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (2), 210–211.
2.
ArentR. (1988). The gifted child in family turmoil. Littleton, CO: Arent and Associates.
3.
BallD., NewmanJ., & ScheurenW. (1984). Teachers' generalized expectations of children of divorce. Psychological Reports, 54 (2), 347–353.
4.
BarbeW. (1956). A study of the family background of the gifted. Journal of Educational Psychology, 47 (5), 302–309.
5.
BernalE. (1981). Identifying minority gifted: Special problems and procedures. Austin, TX: Southwest Education Development Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 090 743)
6.
BloomB. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In BloomB., (ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 507–549). New York: Ballantine Books.
7.
Bureau of the Census (1990). Summary of population and housing characteristics, West Virginia. (U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census Publication No. 1990 CPH-1-50). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
8.
BurksB., JensenD., & TermanL. (1930). The promise of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted children. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
ColangeloN. & DettmanD. (1983). A review of research on parents and families of gifted children. Exceptional Children, 50 (1), 20–27.
10.
Defining Issues Test. (1979). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
11.
De LeonJ. (1983). Cognitive style differences and the underrepresentation of Mexican Americans in programs for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6, 167–177.
12.
DeVaulS. & DavisJ. (1988). Whole family: Whole child. Broken family. Paper presented at the conference of the West Virginia Association for Gifted and Talented, Parkersburg, WV, September 30. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305–776)
13.
FalkC. (1987a). Children's perceptions of divorce's effects on school now and in the future. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children's Topical Conference on the Future of Special Education (Orlando, FL, November 15–17, 1987). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 253)
14.
— —. (1987b). Children's perceptions of the effects of divorce on school life. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (95th, New York, NY, August 28–September 1, 1987). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 290 087)
15.
— —. (1987c). Gifted children's perception of divorce. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11 (1), 29–43.
16.
FrasierM. (1989). Poor and minority students can be gifted, tooEducational Leadership, 46 (6), 16–18.
17.
GelbrichJ. & HareE. (1989). The effects of single parenthood on school achievement in a gifted population. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33 (3), 115–17.
18.
GoddardH. (1928). School training of gifted children. Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: World Book Company.
19.
GrothN. (1975). Mothers of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19 (3), 217–226.
20.
GuidubaldiJ., CleminshawH., PerryJ., & McLaughlinC. (1983). The impact of parental divorce on children: Report of the nationwide NASP study. School Psychology Review, 12, 300–323.
21.
GuttmanJ., GevaN., & GefenS. (1988). Teachers' and school children's stereotypic perception of “The child of divorce”. American Educational Research Journal, 25 (4), 555–569.
22.
HarperG., & SilvestroJ. (1982). Use of videocassette parent interviews in teaching developmental psychology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the APA, Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 226 267)
23.
HetheringtonE., CoxM., & CoxR. (1978). The aftermath of divorce. In StevensJ.Jr. & MathewsM. (eds.), Mother/child father/ child relationships (pp. 149–176). National Association for the Education of Young Children.
24.
HetheringtonE., CoxM., & CoxR. (1982). The effects of divorce on parents and children. In LambM. (ed.), Non-traditional families (pp. 233–288). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Historical statistics of the United States: Colonial times to 1970 (Part 1). (1975) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
26.
HollingworthL. (1942). Children above 180 IQ (S-B). Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company.
27.
HughesH. & ConverseH. (1962). Characteristics of the gifted: A case for a sequel to Terman's study. Exceptional Children, 29 (4), 179–183.
28.
KellyJ. (1988). Longer-term adjustment in children of divorce: Converging findings and implications for practice. Journal of Family Psychology, 2 (2), 119–140.
29.
KerrB. (1991). A handbook for counseling the gifted and talented. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.
30.
McKenzieJ. (1986). The influence of identification practices, races and SES on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30 (2), 93–95.
31.
MyersR. & PaceT. (1986). Counseling gifted and talented students: Historical perspectives and contemporary issues. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 548–551.
32.
OlszewskiP., KuliekeM., & BuescherT. (1987). The influence of the family environment on the development of talent: A literature review, Journal of Education for the Gifted, 11 (1); 6–28.
33.
PlowmanP. (1977). What can be done for rural gifted and talented children and youth. In BlanningJ. (ed.), Ideas for urban/rural gifted/talented: Case histories and program plans (pp. 71–87). Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute for the Gifted.
34.
RichertE. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (4), 149–154.
35.
RichertE., AlvinoJ., & McDonnelR. (1982). The national report on identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South.
36.
RogersJ. (1991). Gifted children and divorce: A review of the Literature. Unpublished manuscript. University of Arizona, Dept. of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Tucson, Arizona.
37.
SantrockJ., & TracyR. (1978). Effects of children's family structure status on the development of stereotypes by teachers, Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (5), 754–757.
38.
SheldonP. (1954, February). The families of highly gifted children. Marriage and Family Living, 59–67.
39.
TermanL. (1925). Genetic studies of genius, Volume I: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (1989). Profiles of precocity: A three-year study of talented adolescents. In Van Tassel-BaskaJ. & Olszewski-KubiliusP., Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 29–39). New York: Teachers College Press.
41.
— —. (1989). The role of the family in the success of disadvantaged gifted learners. In Van Tassel-BaskaJ. and Olszewski-KubiliusP., Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 60–80). New York: Teachers College Press.
42.
WhitmoreJ. (1987). Conceptualizing the issue of underserved populations of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10 (3), 141–153.
