From the authors' perspective, Renzulli's definition, whether misinterpreted to require a composite of traits—more interesting than the interpretation Renzulli iterates—or used as Renzulli intended, to justify more inclusive programs, relies on a dubious rationale for gifted education: to select and nurture society's finest problem solvers. His emphasis on enrichment militates against systematic accelerated study in academics and the arts. Taken together, Renzulli's definition and intervention constitute a politically conservative, product-oriented approach to education that is more likely to reinforce social inequities of the current political economy than to equalize educational opportunity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerM. (1982). The Paidea proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Macmillan.
2.
BloomB. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In BloomB. (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 507–49. New York: Ballantine Books.
3.
ConantJ. (1959). The American high school today: A first report to citizens. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
DirksJ.QuarfothJ. (1981). Selecting children for gifted classes: Choosing for breadth vs. choosing for depth. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 437–449.
5.
FriedkinN.NecocheaJ. (1988). School system size and performance: A contingency perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 237–249.
6.
GuilfordJ. P. (1959). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
GuilfordJ. P. (1967). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469–479.
8.
HowleyC.HowleyA.PendarvisE. (1995). Out of our minds: Anti-intellectualism and talent development in American Schooling. New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
KatzM. (1968). The irony of early school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
MarlandS. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
11.
MeierD. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.
12.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
13.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
15.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
16.
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.
17.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1998). Talent development through curriculum differentiation. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 595, 61–74.
18.
StanleyJ. (1976, September). Brilliant youth: Improving the quality and speed of their education. Paper presented to the 84th Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 536).
19.
WiggintonE. (1985). Sometimes a shining moment. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
