School district administrators must address structural racism and inequitable access to advanced learning opportunities in their school districts. District administrators in one large district in the northwestern part of the United States sought research-based advice by asking the authors to provide the answer to the “million-dollar” question, “What is the most effective and equitable way to deliver services to advanced learners?” This paper shares the response provided to the school district and discusses the complexity of the question. Based on a systematic literature review of best practices in the field of gifted education, we share our findings in three categories: (1) administrative structures, (2) pedagogy of gifted education, and (3) social and emotional considerations for advanced learners. We conclude by offering recommendations drawn from this review to develop a holistic view of programming and serving all students with advanced academic needs.
ArchambaultF. X.Jr.WestbergK. L.BrownS. W.HallmarkB. W.EmmonsC. L.ZhangW. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (RM93102). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
3.
AssoulineS.ColangeloVan Tassel-BaskaN. J.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (Eds.), (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Belin-Blank Center.
4.
AssoulineS.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2018). Acceleration: Practical applications and policy implications. In RobertsJ. L.InmanT. F.RobinsJ. H. (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 237–253). Prufrock Press.
5.
Author (2014). Omitted for double-blind review.
6.
BarberC.WassonJ. W. (2015). A comparison of adolescents’ friendship networks by advanced coursework participation status. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214559639
7.
BarronB.Darling-HammondL. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Jossey-Bass.
8.
BateJ.ClarkD.RileyT. (2012). Gifted kids curriculum: What do the students say?Kairaranga, 13(1), 23–28.
BelfiB.GoosM.De FraineB.Van DammeJ. (2012). The effect of class composition by gender and ability on secondary school students' school well-being and academic self-concept: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 7(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.002
11.
BicknellB. (2014). Parental roles in the education of mathematically gifted and talented children. Gifted Child Today, 37(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513497576
BruderC.BlessingL.WandkeH. (2014). Adaptive training interfaces for less-experienced, elderly users of electronic devices. Behavior & Information Technology, 33(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2013.833649
14.
CallahanC. M.DicksonR. K. (2014). Mentors and mentorships. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 413–426). Prufrock Press.
15.
CarbonaroW.GamoranA. (2002). The production of achievement inequality in high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 801–827. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039004801
16.
ClasenD. R.ClasenR. E. (2003). Mentoring the gifted and talented. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 254–267). Allyn & Bacon.
17.
ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
18.
CrossT. L.AndersenL.MammadovS. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. In AssoulineS.ColangeloJ.Van Tassel-BaskaJ.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.), Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students (pp. 31–43). Belin-Blank Center.
19.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
20.
EvansM. (2018). Professional development. In RobertsJ. L.InmanT. F.RobinsJ. H. (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 415–434). Prufrock Press.
21.
FengA. X.VanTassel-BaskaJ.QueckC.BaiW.O'NeillB. (2005). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students' learning using the integrated curriculum model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William and mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27, 78–83.
22.
FoustR. C.Hertberg-DavisH.CallahanC. M. (2009). Students' perceptions of the social/emotional participation in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs (RM09238). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
23.
GentryM.MacDougallJ. (2009). Total school cluster grouping: Model, research, and practice. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillenS. K.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (2nd ed., pp. 211–234). Creative Learning Press.
24.
GrubbsK.HertzogN. (2017). Hi-Cap program model: A holistic approach. Seattle, WA: Robinson Center for Young Scholars.
25.
HébertT. B. (2018). Designing the learning environment for gifted students. In RobertsJ. L.InmanT. F.RobinsJ. H. (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 193–197). Prufrock Press.
26.
HerrmannJ. R.SchmidtI.KesselsU.PreckelF. (2016). Big fish in big ponds: Contrast and assimilation effects on math and verbal self-concepts of students in within-school gifted tracks. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12100
27.
Hertberg-DavisH. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346927
28.
HertzogN. (2017). Designing the learning context in school for talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 219–228.
29.
HertzogN.ChungR. U. (2015). Outcomes for students on a fast track to college: Early college entrance programs at University of Washington. Roeper Review, 37(1), 39–49.
30.
HertzogN.LambC.MammadovS. (2021). Parent perspectives on sending their children to college early. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(4), 399–434.
31.
InmanT. F.RobertsJ. L. (2018). Introduction to gifted education. In RobertsJ. L.InmanT. F.RobinsJ. H. (Eds.), Differentiation (pp. 253–277). Prufrock Press.
32.
LeshR.ZawojewskiJ. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In LesterF. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Information Age Publishing.
LittleC.FengA.VanTassel-BaskaJ.RogersK.AveryL. (2007). A study of curriculum effectiveness in social studies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 72–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302722
35.
LubinskiD. (2004). Long term effects of educational acceleration. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS.GrossM. (Eds.), A Nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 23–37). Belin & Blank Center.
36.
MammadovS.TopcuA. (2014). The role of e-mentoring in mathematically gifted students’ academic life: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 220–244.
37.
ManningS.StanfordB. P.ReevesS. (2010). Valuing the advanced learners: Differentiating up. The Clearing House, 83(4), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098651003774851
38.
MarshH. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280–295.
39.
MarshH. W.HauK. T. (2003). Big fish little pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26 country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58(5), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.5.364
40.
MatthewsG.LinJ.ZeidnerM.RobertsR. D. (2018). Emotional intelligence and giftedness. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 585–600). The American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-038
41.
MiguelA. M. S.KimM. M. (2015). Successful Latina scientists and engineers: Their lived mentoring experiences and career development. Journal of Career Development, 42(1), 133–148.
42.
ModaniN.NagarS.ShannigrahiS.GuptaR.DeyK.GoyalS.NanavatiA. (2014). Like-minded communities: Bringing the familiarity and similarity together. World Wide Web, 17(5), 899–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-013-0261-1
43.
MoellerB.ReitzesT. (2011). Integrating technology with student centered learning. Education Development Center.
44.
MussweilerT. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.472
NeihartM. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306319
47.
NeihartM.PfeifferS. I.CrossT. L. (Eds.), (2015). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.
48.
NeihartM.YeoL. S. (2018). Psychological issues unique to the gifted student. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 497–510). The American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-032
49.
NugentS. (2005). Social and emotional teaching strategies. Prufrock Press.
50.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR.WorrellF. C. (2015). Conceptualizations of giftedness and the development of talent: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00190.x
51.
ParkK.CaineV.WimmerR. (2014). The experiences of advanced placement and international baccalaureate diploma program participants: A systematic review of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x14532258
52.
PetersS. J. (2016). The bright versus gifted comparison: A distraction from what matters. Gifted Child Today, 39(2), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516628917
53.
PetersonJ. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 280–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346946
54.
PetersonJ. S. (2016). Affective curriculum: Proactively addressing the challenges of growing up. In StephensK. R.KarnesF. A. (Eds.), Introduction to curriculum design in gifted education (pp. 307–330). Prufrock Press.
55.
PetersonJ. S.LorimerM. R. (2011). Student response to a small-group affective curriculum in a school for gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211412770
56.
PluckerJ. A.RobinsonN. M.GreensponT. S.FeldhusenJ. F.McCoachD. B.SubotnikR. F. (2004). It’s not how the pond makes you feel, but rather how high you can jump. American Psychologist, 59(4), 268–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.4.268
57.
PurcellJ.RenzulliMcCoachJ. B.SpottiswoodeH. (2002, December). The magic of mentorship. Parenting for High Potential, 22–26.
58.
ReeveJ.RyanR.DeciE. L.JangH. (2008). Understanding and promoting autonomous self-regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 223–244). Erlbaum.
59.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2022). The schoolwide enrichment model: A talent development approach resulting in opportunities, resources, and encouragement for all students. In NybergJ. L.ManzoneJ. A. (Eds.), Creating equitable services for the gifted: Protocols for identification, implementation, and evaluation (pp. 39–57). IGI Global.
60.
RileyT. L. (2005). Teaching gifted and talented students in regular classroom. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 577–615). Prufrock Press.
61.
RinnA. (2018). Social and emotional considerations for gifted students. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 440–460). The American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-029
62.
RobinsonA. (2008). Teacher characteristics. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 669–680). Prufrock Press.
63.
RobinsonA.ShoreB. M.EnersenD. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Prufrock Press.
64.
RogersK. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324
65.
RogersK. B. (2015). The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In AssoulineS.ColangeloN.Van Tassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (pp. 19–31). Belin-Blank Center.
66.
SeatonM.MarshH.CravenR. G. (2009). Earning its place as a pan-human theory: Universality of the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE) across 41 culturally and economically diverse countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013838
67.
SeatonM.MarshH. W.DumasF.HuguetP.MonteilJ.-M.RégnerI.BlantonL.BuunkA. P.GibbonsF. X.KuyperH.SulsJ.WheelerL. (2008). In search of the big fish: Investigating the coexistence of the big-fish-little-pond effect with the positive effects of upward comparisons. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(Pt 1), 73–103. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X202309
68.
ShechtmanZ.SilektorA. (2012). Social competencies and difficulties of gifted children compared to nongifted peers. Roeper Review, 34(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.627555
SiegleD.AmspaughC. M.MitchellM. S. (2017). Learning from and learning with technology. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (3rd ed., pp. 437–460). Prufrock Press.
71.
SousaD.TomlinsonC. A. (2018). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom (2nd Ed.). ACSD.
72.
Steenbergen-HuS.MakelM. C.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
The U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom (responding to the needs of all learners). ASCD.
77.
TomlinsonC. A.BrightonC.HertbergH.CallahanC. M.MoonT.BrimijoinK.ConoverT.ReynoldsT. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203
78.
TomlinsonC. A.KaplanS. N.RenzulliJ. S.PurcellJ.LeppienJ.BurnsD. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Corwin Press.
79.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2009). Affective curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.CrossT. L.OlenchakF. R. (Eds.), Social-emotional curriculum with gifted and talented students (pp. 113–132). Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrackenB. (2008). Project athena evaluation report. The College of William & Mary Center for Gifted Education.
82.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. (2007). Towards best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306323
VanTassel-BaskaJ.ZuoL.AveryL. D.LittleC. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600104
WaiJ. (2015). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In AssoulineS.ColangeloN.Van Tassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (pp. 73–85). Belin-Blank Center.
88.
WatsonW.Sealey-RuizY.JacksonI. (2016). Daring to care: The role of culturally relevant care in mentoring Black and Latino male high school students. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 19(5), 980–1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.911169
89.
WestbergK. L.DaoustM. E. (2003). The results of the replication of the Classroom Practices Survey replication in two states. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter. Retrieved fromhttp://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/fall032
90.
WolfeP. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practices. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
