The Talent Search model, founded at Johns Hopkins University by Dr. Julian C. Stanley, is fundamentally an above-level testing program. This simplistic description belies the enduring impact that the Talent Search model has had on the lives of hundreds of thousands of gifted students as well as their parents and teachers. In this article, we compare the Talent Search model to school-based models of gifted education. The comparisons are both broad and narrow. Broad contrasts are made in the discussion of the historical impetus, whereas specific differences are presented in the discussion of numbers of students served and costs. Bridging the Talent Search model and K-12 gifted education models is addressed. Assessment information from Talent Search above-level testing offers valuable information for parents and teachers and recommendations for advocacy are presented. Finally, we highlight major findings from Talent Search research emphasizing that Talent Search research has made a significant contribution to our understanding of gifted and talented students. We conclude with a strong endorsement to recognize the founder of the Talent Search model, Julian C. Stanley, by referring to the impact of the Talent Search model as the Julian Stanley Effect.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.IhrigD.ForstadtL. (2006). Attributional choices for academic success and failure by intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 283-294.
2.
AssoulineS. G.LupkowskiA. E. (1992). Extending the talent search model: The potential of the SSAT-Q for identification of mathematically talented elementary students. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.AmbrosonD. (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings of the Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 223-232). New York, NY: Trillium Press.
3.
AssoulineS.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2011). Developing math talent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elementary and middle school (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
4.
BartkovichK. G.MezynskiK. (1981). Fast-paced precalculus mathematics for talented junior-high students: Two recent SMPY programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 73-78.
5.
BenbowC. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169-232.
6.
BenbowC. P. (1991). Mathematically talented children: Can acceleration meet their educational needs. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (pp. 154-165). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
7.
BenbowC. P. (1992). Academic achievement in mathematics and science of students between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability?Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 51-61.
8.
BenbowC. P.LubinskiD. (2006). Julian C. Stanley Jr. 1918-2005). American Psychologist, 61, 251-252.
9.
BenbowC. P.StanleyJ. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How equity can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 249-292.
10.
BrodyL. E.BenbowC. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 105-110.
11.
BrodyL. E.MillsC. J. (2005). Talent search research: What have we learned?High Ability Studies, 16(1), 97-111.
12.
Center for Talent Development. (2010). Planning and resource guide for EXPLORE test takers: Coordinator’s version. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University School of Education & Social Policy.
13.
CohnS. J. (1991). Talent searches. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (pp. 166-177). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
15.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.Lu (1994). Using EXPLORE as an above-level instrument in the search for elementary student talent. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.AmbrosonD. A. (Eds). Talent development: Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 281-298). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
16.
ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (2003). Introduction and overview. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 3-10). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
CsikszentmihalyiM.RathundeK.WhalenS. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
EbmeierH.SchmulbachS. (1989). An examination of the selection practices used in the talent search program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 134-140.
19.
GeorgeW. C. (1979). The talent search concept: An identification strategy for the intellectually gifted. Journal of Special Education, 13, 221-237.
20.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A.OberleyK. R.BrayG. B.NaylorR. J.. . . QuallsA. L. (2003). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
21.
KolitchE. R.BrodyL. E. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 78-85.
22.
LeeS.-Y.MatthewsM. S.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2008). A national picture of talent search and talent search educational programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 55-69.
23.
LeeS.-Y.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2005). Investigation of high school credit and placement for summer coursework taken outside of local schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 37-50.
24.
LohmanD. F.HagenE. P. (2001). Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
25.
LubinskiD. (2004). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U.M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2) (pp. 23-37). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
26.
LubinskiD.WebbR. M.MorelockM. J.BenbowC. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718-729.
27.
Lupkowski-ShoplikA. E. (2010). Program models: Matching the program to the abilities, needs, and interests of mathematically talented students. In SaulM.AssoulineS.SheffieldL. J. (Eds.), The peak in the middle: Developing mathematically gifted students in the middle grades (pp. 29-50). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
28.
Lupkowski-ShoplikA. E.AssoulineS. G. (1993). Identifying mathematically talented elementary students: Using the lower level of the SSAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 118-123.
29.
Lupkowski-ShoplikA.BenbowC. P.AssoulineS. G.BrodyL. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (3rd. ed., pp. 204-218). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
30.
Lupkowski-ShoplikA.SwiatekM. A. (1999). Elementary Student Talent Searches: Establishing appropriate guidelines for qualifying test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 265-272.
31.
McNabbT. (2003). Motivational issues: Potential to performance. In ColangeloN.DavisG.A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 417-423). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
32.
MillsC. J.AblardK. E.LynchS. J. (1992). Academically talented students’ preparation for advanced-level coursework after an individually paced precalculus class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 3-17.
33.
MillsC. J.BarnettL. B. (1992). The use of the Secondary School Admission Test (SSAT) to identify academically talented elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 155-159.
34.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010, November). Pre-K—grade 12 gifted programming standards. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2004). Talent searches and accelerated programming for gifted students. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp.69-76). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
36.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.KuliekeM. J.WillisG. B.KrasneyN. (1989). An analysis of the validity of SAT entrance scores for accelerated classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 37-54.
37.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS.-Y. (2005). How schools use talent search scores for gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 27, 233-240.
38.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS.-Y. (2011). Gender and other group differences in performance on off-level tests: Changes in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 54-73.
39.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2009). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and interests. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillanK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (2nd ed.). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
40.
RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillanK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (2009). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (2nd ed.). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
41.
RotigelJ. V.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (1999). Using talent searches to identify and meet the educational needs of mathematically talented youngsters. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 330-337.
42.
StanleyJ. C. (1990). Leta Hollingworth’s contributions to above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12, 166-171.
43.
StanleyJ. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 216-222.
44.
StanleyJ. C. (2005). A quiet revolution: Finding boys and girls who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally and helping them get the supplemental educational opportunities they need. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 5-14.
45.
StanleyJ. C.BenbowC. P. (1981). Using the SAT to find intellectually talented seventh graders. College Board Review, 122, 2-7 & 26-27.
46.
StanleyJ. C.BenbowC. P. (1986). Youths who reason extremely well mathematically. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 362-387). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
StanleyJ. C.BrodyL. E. (1989). Comment about Ebmeier and Schmulbach’s “An examination of the selection practices used in the talent search program.”Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 142-143.
48.
StanleyJ. C.KeatingD. P.FoxL. (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
SubotnikR. F.BrodyL. E.SheffieldL.AssoulineS. (2010, November). A talent development perspective on educating mathematically gifted students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Atlanta, GA.
50.
SwiatekM. A. (2007). The talent search model past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 320-329.
51.
SwiatekM. A.BenbowC. P. (1991). A ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528-538.
52.
SwiatekM. A.BenbowC. P. (1992). Nonacademic correlates of satisfaction with accelerative programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 699-723.
53.
SwiatekM. A.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2005). An evaluation of the elementary student talent search by families and schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 247-259.
54.
WoodS. (2010). Best practices in counseling the gifted in schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 42-58.
