User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 25 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Ablard, K. (1997). Self-perceptions and needs as a function of type of academic ability and gender. Roeper Review, 20, 100–115. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Wilson Select Plus Full Text Database.
  • Betts, G. (1988). Guest editorial. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 242.
  • Brody, L. (1998). The talent searches: A catalyst for change in higher education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 124–133. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Academic Search Premier Database.
  • Casey, K., & Shore, B. (2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227–230. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Academic Search Premier Database.
  • Chan, D. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23, 197+. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Academic Search Premier Database.
  • Clark, B. (1988). Growing up gifted (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
  • Cross, T. (1997). Psychological and social aspects of educating gifted students. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 180–200. Retrieved September 10, 2001, from Wilson Select Plus Full Text Database.
  • Dearden, R. (1961). Needs in education. In P. Hirst & R. Peters (Eds.), Education and the development of reason (pp. 50–64). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Farrell, D. (1989). Suicide among gifted students. Roeper Review, 11, 134–139.
  • Feldhusen, J. (1982). Myth: Gifted education means having a program! Meeting the needs of gifted students through differentiated programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 37–41.
  • Feldhusen, J. (1995). Talent development: The new direction in gifted education. Roeper Review, 18, 92. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Academic Search Premier Database.
  • Feldhusen, J. (1998). Programs for the gifted few or talent development for the many? Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 735–738. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Wilson Select Plus Full Text Database.
  • Fitzgerald, R. (1977). The ambiguity and rhetoric of needs. In R. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Human needs and politics (pp. 195–212). Rushcutters Bay, NSW, Australia: Pergamon.
  • Flew, A. (1977). Wants or needs, choices or commands. In R. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Human needs and politics (pp. 213–227). Rushcutters Bay, NSW, Australia: Pergamon.
  • Ford, D., & Harris, J. (2000). A framework for infusing multicultural curriculum into gifted education. Roeper Review, 23, 4–10. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from ERIC/Wilson Select Plus Database.
  • Ford, M. (1989). Students’ perceptions of affective issues impacting the social emotional development and school performance of gifted/talented youngsters. Roeper Review, 11, 131–139.
  • Galbraith, J. (1985). The eight great gripes of gifted kids: Responding to special needs. Roeper Review, 8, 15–18.
  • Gust, K. (1997, May/June). Is the literature on social and emotional needs empirically based? Gifted Child Today, 20(3), 12–13. Retrieved February 15, 2002, from Wilson Select Plus Full Text Database.
  • Howley, C., Howley, A., & Pendarvis, E. (1995). Out of our minds: Anti-intellectualism and talent development in American schooling. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Kaplan, L. (1983). Mistakes gifted young people too often make. Roeper Review, 6, 73– 77.
  • Karnes, F., & McGinnis J. (1996). Self-actualization and locus of control with academically talented adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 369–372.
  • Klein, A. (2000). Fitting the school to the child: The mission of Leta Stetter Hollingworth, founder of gifted education. Roeper Review, 23, 97–103. Retrieved July 18, 2001, from Wilson Select Plus Full Text Database.
  • Laycock, F. (1979). Gifted children. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
  • Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  • Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
  • Morelock, M., & Morrison, K. (1999). Differentiating “developmentally appropriate”: The multidimensional curriculum model for young gifted children. Roeper Review, 21, 195–200. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Academic Search Premier Database.
  • Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Laubscher, L. (1996). The impact of a college counseling program on economically disadvantaged gifted students and their subsequent college adjustment. Roeper Review, 18, 202–208. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Academic Search Premier Database.
  • Renzulli, J. (1998). A rising tide lifts all ships. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 104–111. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Academic Search Premier Database.
  • Renzulli, J. (1999).What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3–54. Retrieved July 18, 2001, from Wilson Select Plus Full Text Database.
  • Renzulli, J., & Purcell, J. (1996). Gifted education: A look around and a look ahead. Roeper Review, 18, 173–178. Retrieved July 19, 2001, from Masterfile Full Text Database.
  • Richert, E. (1991). Rampant problems and promising practices in identification. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 81–96). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Roeper, A. (1991). Educating children for life: The modern learning community. Monroe, NY: Trillium.
  • Roeper, A. (1995). Selected writings and speeches. Minneapolis MN: Free Spirit.
  • Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Silverman, L. (1987). Applying knowledge about social development to the counseling process. In T. Buescher (Ed.), Understanding gifted and talented adolescents (pp. 40–44). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Center for Talent Development.
  • Silverman, L. (Ed.). (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love.
  • Tannenbaum, A. (1998). Programs for the gifted: To be or not to be. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 3+. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Wilson Select Plus Full Text Database.
  • Treffinger, D. (1998). From gifted education to programming for talent development. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 752–755, Retrieved August 23, 2001, from Wilson Select Plus Full Text Database.
  • Webb, J., Meckstroth, B., & Tolan, S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child. Columbus: Ohio Publishing.
  • Winebrenner, S. (2000). Gifted students need an education, too. Educational Leadership, 58, 52–56. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from ERIC/Wilson Select Plus Database.
  • Woodhead, M. (1987). The needs of children: Is there any value in the concept? Oxford Review of Education, 13, 129–139.
  • Wright, P., & Leroux, J. (1997). The self-concept of gifted adolescents in a congregated program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 83–94.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 25
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2002



Justifying Gifted Education: A Critique of Needs Claims and a Proposal

Barry Grant

References to needs, special needs, counseling needs, differential educational needs, and the like are common in gifted education publications. These phrases may be the primary or only justification for counseling practices and special education services for the gifted. This essay critically examines the features and assumptions of needs claims, one type of justification for special services for the gifted, and argues that they rest on unstated theories and unavowed moral values, define a paternalistic relationship between teachers and gifted students, and, most significantly, encourage the impression that gifted students deserve things that other students do not. Proposals for more adequate forms of justification that make explicit and defend the moral, theoretical, and empirical bases of advocacy claims are offered.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.