This article calls for a new paradigm of professionalism in the field of gifted education. The definition of professionalism varies, and yet the need for a common vision of professionalism in the field is necessary to strengthen gifted education in the future. The authors delineate a framework for sustaining professionalism within the field and ask for commitment from the field’s stakeholders to long-range planning, fidelity with flexibility, and a collaborative infrastructure.
AndersonG. L.HerrK. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities?Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12-21.
2.
ColemanM. R.Shah-ColtraneS. (2010). U-STARS~PLUS science & literature connections. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
3.
ColemanM. R.Shah-ColtraneS. (2011). U-STARS~PLUS professional development kit. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
4.
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and National Association for Gifted Children. (2009). STATE of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2008-2009. Washington, DC: NAGC.
5.
CruessR. L.CruessS. R.JohnstonS. E. (1999). Renewing professionalism: An opportunity for medicine. Academic Medicine, 74, 878-884.
6.
DetrichR. (1999). Increasing treatment fidelity by matching interventions to contextual variables within the educational setting. School of Psychology Review, 28, 608-620.
7.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaséK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida National Implementation Research Network, Gainesville.
8.
GallagherJ. J. (1994). Policy design for diversity. In BryantD. M.GrahamM. A. (Eds.), Implementing early intervention: From research to effective practice (p. 347). New York, NY: Guilford.
9.
GallagherJ. J. (2006). Driving change in special education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
10.
GoldhaberD.HannawayJ. (2009). Creating a new teaching profession. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
11.
HegartyS. (2000). Teaching as a knowledge-based activity. Oxford Review of Education, 26, 451-465.
12.
HiebertJ.GallimoreR.StiglerJ. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one?Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
13.
KincheloeJ. L. (2004). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex epistemology. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31, 49-66.
LabareeD. F. (1992). Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: A genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 123-155.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). 2010 pre-k-grade 12 gifted programming standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=546
SwickH. M. (2000). Toward a normative definition of medical professionalism. Academic Medicine, 75, 612-616.
20.
TalbertJ. E.McLaughlinM. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102, 123-153.
21.
TrohanisP. (2001). Design considerations for state TA systems. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System.
22.
WestbergK.BurnsD.GubbinsJ.ReisS.ParkS.MaxfieldL. (1998). Professional development practices in gifted education. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
