Welcome Guest
 

Abstract

Reference
X

  • Borland, J. H. (1996). Gifted education and the threat of irrelevance. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 129–147.
  • Callahan, C. M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 148–163.
  • Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195–200.
  • Parnes, S. J. (1977). CPSI: The general system. Journal of Creative Behavior, 11(1), 1–11.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. P. (1983). Intellectually talented students: The key is curricular flexibility. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom. (pp. 251–289). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (1987). The gifted movement: Forward or on a Treadmill. West Lafayette, IN: Gifted Education Resource Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315 949).
  • Treffinger, D. J. (1982). Gifted students, regular classrooms: Sixty ingredients for a better blend. Elementary School Journal, 82, 267–273.
  • Williams, F. E. (1979). Assessing creativity across Williams’ “cube” model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 748–756.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
  • Volume 12
  •  Issue 3
  • Publication Date: Spring 2001



Stronger Together Than Apart: Building Better Models Through Collaboration and Interconnection

Catherine M. Brighton

To plan gifted education in the 21st century, one must first consider the relatively brief history of the field. Until the 1957 Sputnik launch and the resulting fear that Americans were not globally competitive, there were limited opportunities for bright children. Competition with the Soviets greatly influenced the increase in formal programs for gifted learners (Tannenbaum, 1987). The rise of these programs, comprised mostly of acceleration for bright students in the areas of mathematics, sciences, and technology, began a trend in each state toward legislative mandates to benefit gifted students. Emphasis on gifted education waned in the 1960s, perhaps due to the cultural shift towards desegregated schools, retreatist responses to the Vietnam war, and the cultural devaluation of science (Tannenbaum). The 1970s brought the National/State Leadership Training Institute (N/S LTI) principles of differentiation for gifted and talented students that shifted the collective thinking beyond curriculum as “more” and “faster” to qualitatively different programs for gifted learners incorporating global themes, authentic problems, and requirements for complex thinking. The recommendations from this innovative team served as a springboard for many of the program models developed since that time.



ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.