Honors classes in secondary schools are designed to provide advanced learning opportunities for both identified gifted students and high-potential students. They also serve as a bridge to AP/IB classes or other advanced coursework. Beyond preparing students for future courses, honors classes can play a role in talent development by supporting students in engaging in disciplinary thinking and progressing towards expertise in specific domains. Distinguishing between honors and standards courses is essential for district leaders, curriculum specialists, and teachers to design differentiated advanced learning experiences. Without a structured framework, the rigor and expectations for honors courses may vary significantly, limiting the effectiveness and value of honors classes. This article introduces the 4C Honors framework that includes advanced content, complexity, critical and creative reasoning, and context/transfer with student inquiry driving all components. The article includes considerations for intentional program design, implementation, and evaluation of secondary honors courses.
CohenJ. W. (1966). The superior student in American higher education. McGraw-Hill.
3.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. https://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Deceived/ND_v2.pdf
4.
Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. (2021). High-leverage practices for students with disabilities. https://highleveragepractices.org/
5.
EckertR. D.RobinsJ. H. (2017). Designing services and programs for high-ability learners: A guidebook for gifted education (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
FeldhusenJ. F.KoloffM. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage enrichment model at the elementary level. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126–152). Creative Learning Press.
8.
FeldhusenJ. F.RobinsonA. (1986). The Purdue secondary model for gifted and talented youth. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 153–179). Creative Learning Press.
GallagherS. A.GallagherJ. J. (2013). Using problem-based learning to explore unseen academic potential. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1), 112–131. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1322
11.
HattieJ.FisherD.FreyN. (2017). Visible learning for mathematics: What works best to optimize student learning. Corwin.
12.
HessK. (2018). A local assessment toolkit to promote deeper learning: Transforming research into practice. Corwin.
13.
HirschlN.SmithC. M. (2023). Advanced placement gatekeeping and racialized tracking. Sociology of Education, 96(3), 190–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407231161334
14.
KaplanS. N. (2009). The Grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillenK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 235–249). Creative Learning Press.
15.
KaplanS. N. (2017). Differentiating with depth and complexity. In Hertberg-DavisH. L.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 258–267). Taylor & Francis.
16.
KennedyM. J.HirschS. E.RodgersW. J.BruceA. C.LloydJ. W. (2021). High-leverage practices: Teaching students with disabilities effective instructional strategies. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(3), 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920964189
17.
KettlerT. (2016). Curriculum design in an era of ubiquitous information and technology. In KettlerT. (Ed.), Modern curriculum for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 3–21). Prufrock Press.
18.
KettlerT.LambK. N.MulletD. R. (2018). Developing creativity in the classroom: Learning and innovation for 21st-century schools. Prufrock Press.
19.
KettlerT.PuryearJ. S. (2016). Research experiences for high school students: A curriculum for expertise and authentic practice. In KettlerT. (Ed.), Modern curriculum for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 189–204). Prufrock Press.
RenzulliJ. S.LeppeinJ. L.HaysT. S. (2000). The multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Prufrock Press.
29.
StambaughT.MofieldE. (2022). A teachers guide to curriculum design for gifted and advanced learners: Advanced content models for differentiating curriculum. Routledge.
30.
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
31.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Sciences in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
TomlinsonC. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
35.
TomlinsonC. A.KaplanS. N.RenzulliJ. S.PurcellJ. H.LeppeinJ. H.BurnsD. E. (2009). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability. Corwin.
36.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628603000404
VanTassel-BaskaJ.HubbardG. F. (2019, November). A study of teacher use of differentiation practices in classrooms for gifted learners [Conference presentation handout]. NAGC 65th Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
39.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.HubbardG. F.RobbinsJ. I. (2020). Differentiation of instruction for gifted learners: Collated evaluative studies of teacher classroom practices. Roeper Review, 42(3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1765919
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
42.
WebbN. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education(Research Monograph Number 6). National Institute for Science Education: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Council of Chief State School Officers.
43.
WeberC. L.MofieldE. L. (2023). Considerations for professional learning supporting teachers of the gifted in pedagogical content knowledge. Gifted Child Today, 46(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221149258
44.
WeberC. L.MofieldE. L. (2024). LEAP guidebook for curriculum design for teachers of gifted and high-potential students. National Association for Gifted Children.
