This article overviews existing approaches to the evaluation of programs for gifted youth in the U.S., against a backdrop of issues germane to program evaluation and ability and intelligence testing. The author's review of selected literature on gifted program evaluation reveals that the definitions, implementations and consequence evaluations of “gifted programs” are highly diverse. This diversity does not necessarily address the varying educational wants and needs of the heterogeneous society of the U.S. Instead, it appears to be the unplanned, disorganized and sporadic offering typical of under-funded and theoretically weak public programming. The overall national picture that a combination of these programs provides is one of little central planning, low social priority, and scanty conceptual organization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddisonLinda, et al., Developing Leadership Potential in Gifted Children and Youth (Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Exceptional and Gifted Children, 1987).
2.
BakerJoan W.BennerSusan M., “Project to Mainstream Gifted Handicapped Students into Selected Models for the Executive High Schools Internships Program: Evaluation Report” (Washington, D.C.: Office of Education (DHEW), August 1, 1978).
3.
BrowneAngelaWildavskyAaron, “Implementation as Exploration (1983)” in PressmanJeffrey L.AaronWildausky (Editors) Implementation Third Edition (Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1984).
4.
CallahanCarolyn M., et al., “Evaluating a Local Gifted Program: a LEA/University Cooperative Effort,” Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Boston, MA: April, 1980).
5.
DeutschRobinWolleatPatricia L., “Dispelling the Forced-Choice Myth,” Elementary School Guidance and Counseling Vol. 16, No. 2 (Dec. 1981) pp. 112–120.
6.
DunbarDonald A.SalazarIrene M., “An Evaluation of the Gifted Program at Mellon Junior High School” A Paper Presented at the 70'th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA) April 16–20, 1986.
7.
EhrlichVirginia Z., The Astar Program for Gifted Children: Pre-Kindergarten Through Grade Three (Brooklyn, N.Y.: New York City Board of Education, Oct. 1978).
8.
EvansEllisMarkenDan, “Multiple Outcome Assessment of Special Class Placement for Gifted Students: A Comparative Study. (Washington, D.C.: EDRS Research Report (143)), 1982.
9.
FeldhusenJ.F., “Policies and Procedures for the Development of Defensible Programs for the Gifted,” in MakerC. June (Editor), Critical Issues in Gifted Education, (Rockville, Md.: Aspen Publications, 1986).
10.
GrayWilliam A.MarilynneE., Utilizing Preservice Teachers as Mentors to Provide Experiences for Gifted/Talented ESL Pupils, (Vancouver British Columbia: Educational Research Institute, 1982).
11.
HarmonDavid J., Fast Paced Mathematics Project Final Evaluation Report (Charleston, W. Va., Kanawka County Schools, Department of Research and Evaluation, 1981).
HealyC., “Creating a Gifted Ghetto from the Principle of ‘No Policy’,” in MakerC. June (Editor), Critical Issues in Gifted Education, (Rockville, Md.: Aspen Publications, 1986).
14.
GardnerHoward, “Assessing Intelligences: A Comment on ‘Testing Intelligence Without I.Q. Tests’,” Phi Delta Kappan, June 1984, pp. 699–700.
15.
GardnerHoward, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (New York: Basic Books, 1983).
16.
GoldhinerMartin, R., Comprehensive Evaluation of an Advanced Academic Program for Elementary School Students, Practicing Report, (Florida: Nova University, January 1985).
17.
GoldhinerMartin, R., Evaluation of the 1983–84 Academic Excellence Program (Miami, Florida: Office of Educational Accountability and Dade County Public Schools, September 1984).
18.
KarnesMerle, B., et. al., “Short Term Effects of Early Programming for the Young Gifted Child,” Exceptional Children, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Oct. 1983) pp. 103–109.
19.
MarlandS., Education of the Gifted and Talented. Report to Congress. Section 582 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972).
20.
McleanJames E.ChissomBrad S., Talents Unlimited Program: Summary of Research Findings for 1979–80. (Washington, D.C.Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1980).
21.
MillerArden, et. al., Gifted and Talented Program Evaluation: A Multiattribute Utility Approach. Evaluation Report for Elliot County School Corporation, Morgan County School Corporation and Rowan County School Corporation, (Frankfort, Kentucky: Kentucky State Department of Education, 30 December, 1985).
22.
MillerEugene, “Evaluation of a Science/Mathematics Gifted Education Program for Junior High School Students,” Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (Chicago, Illinois, March 3-April 4, 1985.
23.
MorraFrankJr.HillsRichard, “Evaluation of the Alexandria, Virginia Program for Talented Elementary Students, 1974–1977” Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association (Toronto, Canada: March 30, 1978).
24.
NathanAichard, Social Science in Government: Uses and Misuses (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1988).
25.
PeronneA.MaleR.A., The Developmental Education and Guidance of Talented Learners (Rockville, Md.: Aspen Systems Corporation, 1981).
26.
RobertsonDonald A., John Rennie High School Alternative Learning Program (Pointe Claire, Quebec: John Rennie High School, 1984) monograph.
27.
SanderlinOwenita, Teaching Gifted Children (New York: A.S. Barnes and Co., 1973).
28.
SiglerJoan M. “An Evaluation of Trade Offs as a Program for the Gifted,” Special Education in Canada Vol. 58, No. 2 (Winter 1984), pp. 59–62.
29.
SiskD., Creative Teaching of the Gifted (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1987).
30.
SkoreRima (Editor) Project KANPE: E.S.E.A. Title VII Final Evaluation Report, 1980–1981, (Washington, D.C.: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority language Affairs (EO), 1981).
31.
SternbergRobert, “Testing Intelligence Without I.Q. Tests,” Phi Delta Kappan, June 1984, pp. 694–698.
32.
StufflebeamDaniel L.WebsterWilliam J., “An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation,” Educational Evaluation and Policy AnalysisMay-June 1980, pp. 5–20.
33.
WildeWarren D.SillitoMelvin T., Educating the Gifted: Evaluation Components (Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Department of Education, October 1986).
34.
Yonkers City School District, BRIDGE: Business Relating to Industry to Develop Gifted Education—A Career Education Project for the Gifted and Talented: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Office of Career Education (CDHEW/DE), October 31, 1979)
