New Jersey Association for Gifted Children

POSITION PAPER
PROGRAMMING FOR GIFTED STUDENTS

The New Jersey Association for Gifted Children (NJAGC) develops position statements dealing with
issues and practices that have an impact on the education of gifted and talented students in New Jersey.
Position papers represent the official convictions of the organization. All position statements approved by the
NJAGC Board of Trustees are consistent with the organizations belief that education in a democracy must
respect the uniqueness of all individuals, the broad range of cultural diversity present in our society, and the
similarities and differences in learning characteristics in all students. We believe that the best way to achieve
these objectives is through individualized educational opportunities, resources, and encouragement on an
instructional level commensurate with the abilities of each gifted student.
NJAGC makes the following recommendations in the area of providing programs for gifted and
talented students. These recommendations are based on the most recent and available research.
1. INSTRUCTION The programming of instruction should match the identified
needs of students and may take many forms. The entire school program must accommodate the specialized
learning and cognition needs of these students. There are many curriculum models to help the educator
design an appropriate curriculum framework for their programs. Some of these models include:

The Integrative Education Model (Clark, 1986)

The CoRT Thinking Model (DeBono, 1986)

The Model for Content Modification (Gallagher, 1985)

Model of Encouraging Creative Learning (Treffinger,1986)

The Stanley Model of Talent Identification and Development (Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974)

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1997)

The Betts Autonomous Learner Model (Betts, 1986)

Gardners Multiple Intelligences Model (Gardner, 1983)

The Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model for Elementary Gifted Learners (PACE) and the
Purdue Secondary Model for Gifted and Talented Youth (Feldhusen & Robinson-Wyman, 1986)

The Kaplan Grid (Kaplan, 1986)

The Maker Matrix (Maker, 1982)

The Meeker Structure of Intellect Model (Meeker, 1969)

The Schlichter Model for Talents Unlimited Inc. and Talents Unlimited to the Secondary Power
(TU) (Schlichter, 1986)

Sternbergs Triarchic Componential Model (Sternberg, 1981)

Suchmans Inquiry Development Model (Suchman, 1975)

VanTassel-Baska Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM) (VanTassel-Baska, 1986)

Williams Model for Implementing Cognitive- Affective Behaviors in the Classroom

(Williams, 1970)

Once curriculum has a framework for modifications, programs can be implemented

for school-wide, within class, and out of class program frameworks.

Whole school programs for differentiation include:

a.
Continuous Progress Curriculum
b.
Fast-Paced classes
c.
Early Admission
d.
Multi-aged grouping
All of these whole school programs must accommodate depth, such as research projects or special interest
groups.
Within-classroom accommodations that respond to the varying needs of gifted
students include:
e.
Curriculum Compacting (Renzulli and Smith, 1979)
f.
Self-instructional programs
g.
Learning packets or learning contracts
h.
Advanced materials
The following in-classroom accommodations provide opportunities for depth
i.
High-level, open-ended, and divergent questioning techniques, including essential questions
j.
Independent studies
k.
Skill grouping
l.
Learning centers
m. Use of commercial products such as Junior Great Books and Philosophy for Children (Lipman, Sharp,
and Oscanyan, 1984)
This final section of in-classroom accommodations is directed at individualized
learning needs:
n.
Guest lectures
o.
Interest groups
p.
Interest Centers
Out-of-school programs adding to the flexible needs of gifted students include:
q.
Mentors
r.
Advanced seminars
s.
National Programs, such as Future Problem Solving, Odyssey of the Mind, Destination
Imagination, National History Day, Math Olympiad, and Science Olympiad
2. PROGRAM STRUCTURE The programming prototypes should be flexible in order to respond to the
varying needs, abilities and interests of students. There are many program prototypes available to assist
educators in making appropriate decisions about programs and their setup. These options include:
a. Enrichment in the classroom
b. Consultant-teacher programs
c. Resource room/ Pullout
classes
d. Interest classes
e. Community mentor programs
f. Independent studies
g. Special classes

h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.

Special schools
Magnet schools
Summer programs
Acceleration
Advanced placement
Early college entrance
Dual enrollment in college
and high school

2.GROUPING: Grouping is a very important consideration in accomplishing the

recommendations listed above. Research definitively supports the use of ability grouping in
accommodating the needs of gifted students (Kulik, 1993). Such grouping (not tracking) is flexible
and ever changing according to the curriculum concepts employed, the students interests, and the
objectives for the groupings. Grouping for academic objectives should be based on ability;
grouping for social objectives should be naturally forming. Students should spend some part of each
day in groups with their intellectual peers.

References
Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in
mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 430-431.
Betts, G.T. (1986). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. In J.S.
Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 2756). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Betts, G. T., & Knapp, J. (1980). Autonomous learning and the gifted: A secondary
model. In A. Arnold (Ed.), Secondary programs for the gifted (pp. 29-36).
Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.
Borland, J. H. (2003). Rethinking gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Burruss, J. D. (1997, April). Walking the talk: Implementation decisions made by teachers. Chicago:
American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Clark, B. (1986) Optimizing Learning: The integrative education model in the
classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
DeBono, E. (1986). CoRT thinking teachers notes. New York: Pergamon Press.
Delisle, J. & Lewis, B. A. (2003). The survival guide for teachers of gifted kids.
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Feldhusen, J.F., & Kolloff, M.B. (1986). The Purdue Three-Stage Model for Gifted
Education. In J.S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted
and talented (pp. 126-152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Feldhusen, J.F. & Robinson-Wyman, A. (1986). The Purdue Secondary Model for
Gifted Education. In J.S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the
gifted and talented (pp. 153-179). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Gallagher, J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Guilford, J. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Minneapolis,
MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Kaplan, S. (1986). The Kaplan grid. In J.S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for
developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 153-179). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
Kaplan, S., Kaplan, J., Madsen, S., & Taylor, B. (1973). Change for children. Pacific
Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods and materials for teaching the
gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Keating, D. P. (Ed.). (1976). Intellectual talent: Research and development. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kulik, J. (1993). Meta analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly,
36, 73-77.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyan, F. (1984). Philosophical inquiry. New York:
University Press of America.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Meeker, M. (1969). The structure of the intellect: Its interpretation and uses. Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
Parke, B. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Renzulli, J. (Ed.). (1988). Technical report of research studies related to the revolving
door identification model. Storrs, CT: Bureau of Educational Research, The University of
Connecticut.
Renzulli, J. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible
programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: New Directions
or developing high-end learning. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (2nd ed., pp. 136-154). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Renzulli, J., Reis, S., & Smith, L. (1981). The revolving door identification model.
Mansfield Center, CN: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J., & Smith, L. (1979). A guidebook for developing individualized educational programs for
gifted and talented students. Mansfield Center, CN: Creative
Learning Press.
Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in
mainstream and gifted programs. In J.S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for
developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 352-390). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
Stanley, J. C., Keating, D., & Fox, L. (1974). Mathematical talent. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins
University Press.
Sternberg, (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 25, 86-93).
Suchman, J. (1975). A model for the analysis of inquiry. In W. Barbe and J. Renzuli
(Eds.), Psychology and education of the gifted (2nd ed.). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Taylor, C.W., Ghiselin, B., Wolfer, J., Loy, L., & Bourne, L.E., Jr. (1964). Development
of a theory of education from psychology and other basic research findings. Final Report,
USOE Cooperative Research Project, N. 621. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.
Tomlinson, C.A. et al. (2002). The parallel curriculum model. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Treffinger, D. (1986). Thinking skills and problem solving. Honeoye, NY: Center for
Creative Learning.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instruction models for talented
students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164-169.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L.D., Little, C.A., & Hughes, C.E. (2000). An evaluation of
the implementation: The impact of the William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 23, 244-272.
VanTassel-Baska, J. & Little, C. A. (Eds.) (2003). Content-based curriculum for highability learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Walberg, H. (1991). Productive teaching and instruction: Assessing the knowledge base.
In H.C. Waxman and H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 33-62).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Williams, F. (1970). Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling (2nd ed.).
Buffalo, NY: D.O.K. Publishers.