This article describes Project Breakthrough, federally funded as a demonstration through the Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act. Project staff worked for 3 years with three elementary schools in South Carolina to train teachers in the use of language arts and science curriculum developed by the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary. Teachers implemented the William and Mary units and several of the teaching models used in the units with all students. Goals included (a) improved performance of low-, average-, and high-achieving students in mathematics, science, and language arts; and (b) identification of more low-income gifted students. The article reports on the nature of the project, its implementation, and the results that point to changes in teachers’ perceptions of students’ abilities and of improved student achievement.

College of Charleston, has taught in and coordinated gifted programs and has directed two federal demonstration projects designed to improve services for gifted students in high-poverty South Carolina schools.

This article links research and practice through discussion of policy's conceptual aspects illustrated through real-world examples. Gifted education policy essentials, identification, curriculum and services, personnel preparation, and program management, assessment, and evaluation are described. Examples from studies of one state help the reader to understand the power of policy. Leadership and monitoring of current policies, keeping abreast of developments in the field, and ascertaining through data that gifted programs are having the desired impacts are fundamental. Readers are encouraged to use guiding questions as they think through gifted education policy in their own districts or states, with the goal of continuous improvement in services and opportunities for gifted and talented students.Harnessing is most often associated with tools that allow for the control or utilization of an animal; a process for letting the animal know who is in charge. Educational policy, its development, implementation, and revision, is rarely considered in terms of how it might be harnessed. In fact, the convoluted governance of education (federal, state, local) and the myriad stakeholders (elected officials, district and school administrators, community members, parents, business leaders) create what Epstein (2004) calls a tangled web that defies pointing a finger at any level or stakeholder as truly being in charge.

This study examined the academic and affective profiles of gifted students who were classified under the five prototypes of low-income White students, low-income African American students, low-income other minority students, high nonverbal and low verbal students, and twice-exceptional students. A total of 37 vignettes were developed and analyzed based on interviews with selected students, their teachers, and parents. Within and cross-prototype themes were derived. Both cognitive and affective impacts were found, suggesting the power of gifted program membership on enhancing self-confidence and building higher level skills of communication and thinking. All groups interviewed appeared to think that the gifted program had been good for the students in the study, providing challenge at the cognitive level and self-confidence at the affective level. Differences that emerged through the analysis of stakeholder perspectives suggested that students were the least aware of learning problems, but more aware than their parents or teachers of the affective and social issues affecting them. Parents seemed most attuned to their child's heightened self-esteem as a result of identification and program participation. Teachers seemed very aware of learning problems displayed by the child, typically related to perceived motivation, organization, and social skills.

No abstract