There has been a cry of alarm about the need for a new generation of thinkers, innovators, linguists, and creative problem solvers to meet the demands of the 21st century global economy and our national security needs. Thus far, the response to the clarion call has been underwhelming. The nation has not yet committed itself to changing K-12 education in a way that would put more students—from every population and sector of society—on the path to high levels of talent. Research has already provided some important data and successful programs and services are available to replicate. In 2012, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) convened a summit of scholars, practitioners, and policy experts to share information about school-based and supplemental programs that are achieving academic success with these learners. Experts identified numerous factors considered central to their program’s success as well as the barriers, primarily in schools, to student achievement. Based on the summit presentations and discussion, we suggest six broad areas that were common threads across the programs, and across research, that can be a roadmap for others seeking to increase the numbers of low-income and racially, ethnically, and linguistically different students who are identified as gifted and achieve at high levels.
AaronsonJ.JuarezL. (2012). Growth mindsets in the laboratory and the real world. In SubotnikR. F.RobinsonA.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 19-36). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
2.
CastellanoJ. A.FrazierA. D. (Eds.). (2011). Special populations in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
DuckworthA. L.KirbyT. A.TsukayamaE.BersteinH.EricssonK. A. (2011). Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the National Spelling Bee. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 174-181.
8.
DweckC. S. (2012). Mindsets and malleable minds: Implications for giftedness and talent. In SubotnikR. F.RobinsonA.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 7-18). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
9.
EcclesJ. S. (2006). A motivational perspective on school achievement: Taking responsibility for learning, teaching, and supporting. In SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), Optimizing student success with the other three Rs: Reasoning, resilience and responsibility (pp. 199-224). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
10.
Education Trust. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling of achievement for low-income students and students of color. Washington, DC: Author.
11.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
FarkasS.DuffettS. (2008). Findings from a national teacher survey. In High-achieving students in the era of NCLB (pp. 49-71). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
14.
FarringtonC. A.RoderickM.AllensworthE.NagaokaJ.KeyesT. S.JohnsonD. W.BeechumN. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
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.
17.
GoodC. (2012). Reformulating the talent equation: Implications for gifted students’ sense of belonging and achievement. In SubotnikR. F.RobinsonA.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 37-54). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
18.
GrahamS. (2009). Giftedness in adolescence: African American gifted youth and their challenges from a motivational perspective. In HorowitzF. D.SubotnikR. F.MatthewsD. J. (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the life span (pp. 109-129). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19.
JacobK.Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. Pub. L. No. 107–110, Title V, Part D, Subpart 6 (2002).
20.
LeeS.-Y.Olszewski-KubiliusP.PeternelG. (2009). Follow-up with students after six years of their participation in Project EXCITE. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 137-156.
21.
MillerL. S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the United States at all levels of the education system. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
22.
National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). National summit on low-income high-ability students. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/nationalsummit.aspx
Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. (n.d.). Project M2: Mentoring Young Mathematicians and Project M3: Mentoring Mathematical Minds. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/
25.
NeumeisterK. S.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. D.DixonF. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479-499.
26.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110 (2002).
27.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.ClarenbachJ. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
28.
PluckerJ. S.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K-12 education. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
29.
ReardonS. (2008). Growth in the black-white achievement gap during elementary school among initially high and low scoring students. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice, Stanford University.
30.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B.LittleC. A.MullerL. M.KaniskanR. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 462-501.
31.
StambaughT.ChandlerK. L. (2012). Effective curriculum for underserved gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
32.
SteeleC. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi and other clues to how stereotypes affect us. New York, NY: Norton.
33.
StonehillR. M.LittleP. M.RossS. M.NeergaardL.HarrisonL.FordJ.. . . DonnerJ. (2009). Enhancing school reform through expanded learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
34.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrackenB.FengA.BrownE. (2009). A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in Title I classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 7-37.
37.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X.EvansB. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks. A three year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 218-231.
