Parents and schools often notice the need for addressing advanced mathematical performance in elementary students. Many gifted programs do not offer differentiated or accelerated mathematics as part of their elementary school options. In this report, the efforts of one school system to identify and serve the needs of highly mathematically able elementary students are reported. The process involved a multiple pilot program with increasing levels of involvement across the district over a 3-year period. Initially, a small group of students were allowed modest acceleration at one school. After each of the first 2 years, the identification and acceleration practices were refined. In the 3rd year, the program option was offered to students across the entire district.
BenbowC. P. (2012). Identifying and nurturing future innovators in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: A review of findings from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 16-25.
4.
BrodyL. E.StanleyJ. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally: Using the MVT:D4 model to develop their talents. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
CosseyR. (1999). Are California’s math standards up to the challenge?Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 441-443.
6.
DarkV. J.BenbowC. P. (1991). Differential enhancement of working memory with mathematical versus verbal precocity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 48-60.
7.
DiezmannC. M.WattersJ. J. (2003). The importance of challenging tasks for mathematically gifted students. Gifted and Talented International, 17, 76-84.
8.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J. (2009). The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188-202.
9.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.DeSotoM. C. (2004). Strategy choices in simple and complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for children with mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 121-151.
10.
Hertberg-DavisH. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251-253.
11.
LeeS.-Y.Olszewski-KubilusP.PeternelG. (2010). The efficacy of academic acceleration for gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 189-208.
12.
MillerR.MillsC.TangherliniA. (1995). The Appalachia model mathematics program for gifted students. Roeper Review, 18, 138-141.
13.
PhillipsonS. N.CallinghamR. (2009). Understanding mathematical giftedness: Integrating self, action repertoires and the environment. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 671-698). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
14.
RenzulliJ. (2004). Identification of students for gifted and talented programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
15.
RobinsonA.ShoreB. M.EnersenD. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
16.
SaylerM. F. (1995). Mentoring students who are highly talented in mathematics. Tempo, 15, 5-7.
17.
SaylerM. F. (2002). Mathematics for the young Gifted: Making sure our elementary GT options add up. Tempo, 22, 3-4, 9-12.
18.
SheffieldL. J. (Ed.). (1999). Developing mathematically promising students. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19.
SouthernW. T.JonesE. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 5-12). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
20.
StanleyJ. C. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 36-42.
21.
StanleyJ. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 216-222.
22.
StanleyJ. C. (2005). A quiet revolution finding boys and girls who reason exceptionally well intellectually and helping them get the supplemental educational opportunities they need. High Ability Studies, 16, 5-14.
23.
StanleyJ. C.BenbowC. P. (1983). SMPY’s first decade: Ten years of posing problems and solving them. Journal of Special Education, 17, 11-25.
24.
SwansonH. L. (2006). Cognitive processes that underlie mathematical precociousness in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 239-264.
25.
TiesoC. L. (2002). The effects of grouping and curricular practices on intermediate students’ math achievement (RM02154). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
26.
UsiskinZ. (1987). Why elementary algebra can, should, and must be an eighth-grade course for average students. Mathematics Teachers, 80, 428-438.
27.
YsseldykeJ.TardrewS.BettsJ.ThillT.HanniganE. (2004). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 293-319.
