In this study, a team of researchers conducted multiple observations in 12 third- and seventh-grade reading classrooms in both urban and suburban school districts over a 9-month period. These observations focused on whether talented readers received differentiated reading curriculum and/or instructional strategies. Talented readers were defined as students reading at least two grades above their chronological grade placement who also had advanced language skills and advanced processing capabilities in reading. Results indicated that talented readers received some differentiated reading instruction in 3 of the 12 classrooms. In the other nine classrooms, no challenging reading material or advanced instruction was provided for these students during regular classroom reading instruction. Appropriately challenging books were seldom made available for talented students in their classrooms, and they were rarely provided with more challenging work. Different patterns did emerge across districts. For example, the three classroom teachers who did provide some level of differentiation all taught in suburban schools.

No abstract

Although the relationships between family income and student identification for gifted programming are well documented, less is known about how school and district wealth are related to student identification. To examine the effects of institutional and individual poverty on student identification, we conducted a series of three-level regression models. Students of poverty are generally less likely to be identified for gifted services, even after controlling for prior math and reading achievement. Furthermore, school poverty predicts the percentage of gifted students identified in a school. Within districts, even after controlling for reading and math scores, the poorer schools in a district have lower identification rates. Whereas students of poverty are generally less likely to be identified for gifted services, poor students in poor schools are even less likely to be identified as gifted.

Its better to have imprecise answers to the right questions than precise answers to the wrong questions.-Donald CampbellProcedures for identifying gifted and talented students are probably the most discussed and written about topic in our field. For the better part of the previous century, test scores dominated the identification process. Even with the advent of new theories of intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1983;Sternberg, 1985) and broadened conceptions of giftedness (e.g., Gagné, 1999;Renzulli, 1978Renzulli, , 1988Simonton, 1997), actual practices specified in state and district guidelines continue to be dominated by cognitive ability test scores. Recognition of the need for a broader base of identification criteria has progressed from theoretical and research-based advances to generally accepted recommendations included in standard textbooks in the field (

Gifted students' learning gains result from complex, advanced, and meaningful content provided by a knowledgeable teacher through high-quality curriculum and instruction at an appropriate pace with scaffolding and feedback. These elements exert influence that increases with dosage and within structures that facilitate student engagement in rigorous experiences, including interactions with one another. Talent development is a two-part process. First, educators and parents must provide opportunities for talent to surface, and then they must recognize the talent and provide educational opportunities that engage the emerging talent and move it to exceptional levels. Unfortunately, a variety of barriers exist that limit underserved students' participation in this process. We discuss these barriers within a proposed model of talent development. Keywords academic achievement, underrepresentation, at risk, identification of gifted children, cultural differences Gifted and talented programs and services aim to promote, enhance, and extend the talents and abilities of students. Prior to such interventions, students' potential talents

The present qualitative study was conducted in response to federal initiatives aimed at increasing the number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) schools in the United States; and to better understand STEM high school administrators', teachers', and students' perceptions of the characteristics of the curricular and instructional strategies and practices representative of their schools. Six STEM high schools with diverse organizational models were purposively selected to represent varied geographical regions, socioeconomic and ethnic groups, and levels of entrance criteria. During 2-day site visits at each school, administrators, teachers, and students were interviewed. Three themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) a common vision of a challenging and engaging learning environment, (b) a focus on applying curricular and instructional strategies and practices to real-world problems, and (c) an appreciation for academic and affective support in the challenging learning environment. Interested stakeholders might discover strategies and practices to support their respective missions.

Grounded in the Achievement Orientation Model, this qualitative case study examines participation in enrichment and environmental perceptions of gifted secondary school students. Participants included 10 gifted secondary school students, their parents, and their classroom teacher. Data included student, parent, and teacher responses in semistructured interviews, short answer surveys, and student work. Findings indicated a relationship between participation in enrichment and environmental perceptions. Student participants benefited from a teacher trained in gifted education who nurtured both affective and cognitive development, homogeneous grouping with like-minded peers, involved parents, and relationships with project mentors. These findings have implications for designing learning environments that effectively support the special needs of gifted secondary school learners.

Though qualitative research has become more prevalent in practice over the last 30 years, there is still considerable uncertainty among researchers regarding how to ensure inter-rater consistency when teams are tasked with coding qualitative data. In this article, we offer an explanation of a methodology that our qualitative team used to achieve systematic coding of our dataset in a way that preserved the contextual, subjective nature of the data, lent itself to the deductive and inductive creation of a layered codebook, and ensured consistent application of the codebook to varied types of data. This methodology prepared us to draw logical and substantiated conclusions during subsequent analyses; hence, the process serves as a welcome addition to the literature on consistently coding qualitative data in a manner that honors its defining characteristics.