Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education: What the Research Says

field.

Chapter 1

Academic Competitions

Stuart N. Omdal & M. R. E. Richards

From spelling bees to sophisticated research in the sciences, academic competitions have existed for centuries. Highlighting the academic and intellectual proficiencies of students was viewed as a way to inspire others to greater achievement and to encourage students to pursue further education and career choices in their particular area of expertise. During the mid-20th century, professional organizations, businesses with interests in scientific research, and universities started new competitions, many being in the realm of talent searches. These competitions and scholarship opportunities were regarded as a method of helping students pay for college or to create more potential employees to meet the growing demands of science and technology. Today the search for talent continues and many new individual or small-group competitions are used as a form of enrichment for gifted and talented learners. These challenging activities are commonly extracurricular activities and/or designed as summer programs. Somers and Callan (1999) estimated that annually nearly 3 million students in the United States alone participate in science/math competitions.

TERMS AS USED IN THE RESEARCH

The basic terminology describing academic competitions in the literature varies. For the purposes of clarity in this chapter, the terms commonly used are defined below.

Academic Competitions

The term academic competitions is used to refer to a variety of events during which individuals or small groups of students display projects previously completed (i.e., fairs, defined on the next page) or events where students compete in activities for honors or awards (i.e., contests, defined below). Participants may send original writing or photographs of art for judging, submit projects online, or compete in a variety of content or performance areas in the same place and time with individuals or teams. In this chapter, the term does not refer to academic competitiveness between or among individual students in a class or school, nor does it refer to programs requiring an entrance examination prior to participation (e.g., the Center for Talented Youth’s Talent Search). The research on the longitudinal effects of such specialized academic acceleration as summarized by Colangelo, Assouline, and Gross (2004) cannot be generalized to address the effects or benefits of academic competitions as defined in this chapter.

Fairs

Events where students participate first at the local level before they can advance through state, national, and sometimes international levels are considered fairs. Products are displayed in a common place or are submitted online (e.g., ThinkQuest) and are judged independently of one another using specific criteria. A fair may or may not be a competition, although many are both, including science fairs, the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, and National History Day.

Contests

Contests are events in which individuals or small groups of students participate in activities and compete for honors or awards. The competition may be of a problem-solving nature (e.g., Odyssey of the Mind, Destination Imagination, Future Problem Solving Program, Math Olympiad), include information retrieval (e.g., National Science Bowl, National Tournament of Academic Excellence [formerly the Panasonic Academic Challenge]), require student performance (e.g., Music Teachers National Association competitions), or have an interdisciplinary focus (e.g., Academic Decathalon). These are usually held in a geographically central location, although some are held nationally or internationally and require submission or performance through electronic or online procedures (Math Olympiad) or via standard mail submission for judgments by experts such as those used in the Scholastic Art and Writing Awards in creative writing or poetry and the visual arts.

Between 250 and 300 fairs and contests are available for students across all academic areas in multiple formats. Recognition for winners varies from a certificate to scholarships worth thousands of dollars. For example, both the Siemens Competition in Math, Science & Technology and the Intel Science Talent Search for high school students offer top prizes of $100,000. Universities often seek those placing at the highest levels (Byko, 2004). Several resources listing these competitions are found at the end of this entry. Educators in gifted education have regarded these competitions as an extracurricular means of developing and nurturing the talents of children (Karnes & Riley, 1996) and view them as a method to allow for in-depth study and real-world application of knowledge and research skills.

MAJOR QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN THE RESEARCH

EMPIRICALLY BASED CONCLUSIONS

Much of the research conducted in the area of academic competitions is based on anecdotal evidence. Although this adds to our understanding of the importance of competitions, these informal evaluations do not provide evidence of attribution of effects or generalizability of the findings. Further, some research is on alternative populations—for example, a report by Riley and Karnes (1999) highlighted the benefits of competitions for students with disabilities produced results that cannot be generalized to gifted children. An in-depth search of the research provided few articles on the effects, short- or long-term, of academic competitions and contests on gifted participants. In general, these reports were based on anecdotal evidence of the participants as reported by the authors, and the majority of articles available explore the types of competitions and the expectations of those competitions. The following sections summarize the limited research evidence.

Benefits or Effects

Odyssey of the Mind. Fishkin (1989) examined the influence of the Odyssey of the Mind (OM) competitions. Although creativity has been shown to increase in students participating in programs such as Odyssey of the Mind when measured by instruments such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Figural and Verbal), the lack of a control group does not allow for the conclusion that gains were the result of participation in the program (Fishkin, 1989). Similarly, her findings of changes in creative self-concept as measured by self-concept inventories and internal locus of control as measured by the Crandall Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire are limited by the lack of control group comparisons. Effort as rated by the teacher/facilitator exerted in the activities of OM accounted for differences in measured creativity and in self-concept. No increase was found for subject knowledge. In Shook’s (1997) dissertation study, the experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group as measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, with no commensurate increase in problem-solving skills. In a qualitative study with five students currently involved with Odyssey of the Mind (OM), five college students who had previously participated, and two OM coaches, Weeks (2003) examined the impact of OM on the cognitive and psychosocial development of adolescents. She concluded that program design providing a balance of challenge and support appears to accelerate students’ psychosocial and cognitive development (p. 4).

Future Problem Solving Program. Frasier, Winstead, and Lee (1997) found similar results regarding perceptions of students and teacher-coaches in the Future Problem Solving Program (FPSP). Their survey indicated that both teachers and coaches deemed the program was meeting its stated goals of helping students enhance their creative thinking abilities, awareness of and interest in the future, and communication, problem solving, teamwork, and research skills. Responses of teacher-coaches were significantly more positive than those of students, and younger students (grades 4–6) were significantly more positive than middle grade students. Tallent-Runnels and Yarborough (1992) compared the responses of a group of students in a gifted education program who had participated in the Future Problem Solving Program with comparable students who had not participated. The authors reported that students participating in FPSP indicated a greater interest in global issues and viewed their control over the future more positively.

Other competitions. In a study of Finnish students who had participated in different phases of the Math Olympiad, Tirri and Nokelainen (2011) reported that the Olympiad program had increased the self-confidence of the students, as well as added confirmation to their career aspirations. Ushakov (2010) reported similar findings in a study of Russian participants in various Science Olympiad programs.

In another nonexperimental study by Freiman and Applebaum (2011), high school-level participants in the Virtual Mathematical Marathon who were engaged in the competition over an extended period of time compared to those who were engaged for a shorter period of time were found to be more successful problem solvers and appeared to be less affected by midcompetition setbacks.

In a survey of more than 11,000 high school seniors who took the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the area of economics, participants were asked to indicate in which economics-related activities they had participated (e.g., business or economics-related clubs, student-managed school store, academic competitions, stock market game or simulation). The only activity having a positive and significant relationship with test scores was participation in a stock market game or simulation either as part of an economics class curriculum or as an out of school or extracurricular activity (Walstad & Buckles, 2008).

In several follow-up studies conducted with winners in two science competitions (the U.S. Math, Physics, and Chemistry Olympiad programs) by Campbell, Feng, and Verna (1999), Campbell, Wagner, and Walberg (2000), and Campbell and Walberg (2010), 76% of the Olympians and 70% of their parents stated that they would not have accomplished as much without the programs. In addition, 76% of the Olympians and 76% of their parents judged the program as a help to them in accepting their talents. Most of the Olympians and their parents responded that they thought the program raised their awareness of educational possibilities, increased their confidence, validated their exceptional ability, and helped them set higher goals for their futures.

In a similar study of the National Ocean Sciences Bowl (NOSB), a team competition for high school students interested in the sciences associated with the study of the ocean, Bishop and Walters (2007) found that 39% of high school and college participants indicated that NOSB participation influenced the choice of their college major. Forty-one percent reported that involvement with the NOSB influenced their career choice. A separate study by Walters, Bishop, and Wlodarsky (2006) examined the social networks that evolve from participation in such programs. The researchers utilized four survey instruments, two interview protocols, site visits, and observations at 10 locations. Responses were collected from more than 500 subjects that included current and past participants, coaches, parents, and competition officials. Findings indicated that within the NOSB program, social networks develop that may influence the career choices of the participating students. The types of networks include relationships between participants and mentor relationships with coaches, college professors, researchers, and undergraduate and graduate students. The findings of this study also include documentation of perceptions of coaches, parents, volunteers, and past participants that the preparation for and participation in the competition forced students to develop academic and leadership-related skills that later transferred to college and career successes whether the participants had won or lost at the NOSB competition. Through triangulation of the data within a program evaluation of NOSB, the authors concluded that the NOSB models authentic competition, cooperation, and social sensitivity simultaneously and that competition and cooperation can function within the same context.

Personal characteristics of participants in academic competitions. Baird and Shaw’s (1996) examination of the Science Olympiad found that the use of an assessment of prior knowledge and skills of potential team members as stressed in the coaching manual was of little use in predicting the potential team member’s actual performance in a competition setting. Student success in selected events of the Science Olympiad did not correlate with his or her scores on two different skill and reasoning instruments, the Test of Integrated Process Skills (TIPS) and the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT). In a study of 190 Scripps National Spelling Bee participants, Duckworth, Kirby, Tsukayama, Berstein, and Ericsson (2010) found those who utilized deliberate practice, the solitary study of word spellings and origins (p. 178), when preparing for the competition performed at a higher level even though deliberate practice was reported as being more effortful and less enjoyable (p. 178), than other methods of preparation like being quizzed or leisure reading activities. The authors characterized these students as exhibiting the tendency to seek long-term challenging goals with perseverance and passion as being higher in grit (p. 175).

Students’ perceptions of academic competitions. Researchers have found evidence of some negative perceptions of participation in academic competitions (Abernathy & Vineyard, (2001). In examination of junior and senior high school participants’ perceptions of their experience in science academic competitions, the overwhelming majority indicated that they would not continue to participate in them.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

The published literature on the educational effects and influence of academic competitions has relied on anecdotal testimonials, survey research, and a few case studies. The lack of a body of randomized control studies or extensive qualitative research makes it nearly impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of academic competitions on student learning or development. The studies available lacked rigor in the research design (e.g., lack of control groups, vague items on surveys and other confounding factors).

One of the reasons one might want to cite research on academic competitions is to recommend their use in school systems. It is a difficult task to do that when few recent studies are available. Before drawing conclusions about the outcomes of participation in competitions, experimental and/or comparative data on these outcomes is needed. A second line of research that examines the ways in which competitions affect psychosocial outcomes for gifted students would provide further understanding of the ways competitions impact gifted students. Although a very small number of studies suggest that academic competitions can have significant impact on participants’ academic self-concept and future college and career plans, expansion and replication of this line of research would also help make more accurate assessments of the degree to which the stated goals of many of the competitions are achieved.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

RESOURCES

There are a number of books and websites that provide listings of competitions and the topic of the contests. Below is a small sampling.

Internet Sources

Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page: Contests and Awards—http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/contests.htm

Destination Imagination—http://www.destinationimagination.org

National History Day—http://www.nationalhistoryday.org

National Geographic Bee—http://www.nationalgeographic.com/society/ngo/geobee

Odyssey of the Mind—http://www.odysseyofthemind.com

Books

Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. L. (2013). The best competitions for talented kids: Win scholarships, big prize money, and recognition. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., & Candler-Lotven, A. C. (2007). Academic competitions for gifted students: A resource book for teachers and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Articles

Ozturk, M. A., & Debelak, C. (2008). Affective benefits from academic competitions for middle school gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 31(2), 48–53.

Ozturk, M. A., & Debelak, C. (2008). Academic competitions as tools for differentiation in middle school. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 47–53.

REFERENCES

Abernathy, T. V., & Vineyard, R. N. (2001). Academic competitions in science: What are the rewards for students? The Clearing House. 74, 269–276.

Baird, W. E., & Shaw Jr., E. L. (1996). Predicting success in selected events of the Science Olympiad. School Science & Mathematics, 96, 85–93.

Bishop, K., & Walters, H. (2007). The National Ocean Sciences Bowl: Extending the reach of a high school academic competition to college, careers, and a lifelong commitment to science. American Secondary Education, 35(3), 63–76.

Byko, M. (2004). Kid geniuses: Fame, fortune, and science fairs. Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, 56(9), 13–16.

Campbell, J. R., Feng, A., & Verna, M. (1999, August). United States Olympiad studies: Math, physics, chemistry. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children.

Campbell, J. R., Wagner, H., & Walberg, H. J. (2000) Academic competitions and programs designed to challenge the exceptionally talented. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed., pp. 523–535). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Campbell, J. R., & Walberg, H. J. (2010). Olympiad studies: Competitions provide alternatives to developing talents that serve national interests. Roeper Review, 33(1), 8–17.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. I). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. A. (2010). Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the National Spelling Bee. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 174–181. doi:10.1177/1948550610385872

Fishkin, A. (1989). Efforts of Odyssey of the Mind creative problem-solving teams: Effects on creativity, creative self-concept, locus-of-control and general self-concept in gifted children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(01), 135. (UMI No. AAT9004004)

Frasier, M. M., Winstead, S., & Lee, J. (1997). Is the Future Problem Solving program accomplishing its goals? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 157–163.

Freiman, V., & Applebaum, M. (2011). Online mathematical competition: Using Virtual Marathon to challenge promising students and to develop their persistence. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 11(1), 55–66.

Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. L. (1996). Competitions: Developing and nurturing talents. Gifted Child Today, 19(2), 14–15, 49.

Riley, T. L., & Karnes, F. A. (1999). Competitions and exceptional children: A great combination. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(5), 80–84.

Shook, D. N. (1997). The effect of participation in the Odyssey of the Mind program on student creative thinking and problem solving skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.

Somers, L., & Callan, S. (1999). An examination of science and mathematics competitions. The National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.learningace.com/doc/5954882/92afa02ea31c6d1fc8e3b1d5b4d8a0d6/nsf_report_on_competitions

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., & Yarbrough, D. W. (1992). Effects of the Future Problem Solving Program on children’s concerns about the future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 190–194.

Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2011). The influence of self-perception of abilities and attribution styles on academic choices: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 33(1), 26–32.

Ushakov, D. V. (2010). Olympics of the mind as a method to identify giftedness: Soviet and Russian experience. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 377–344.

Walstad, W. B., & Buckles, S. (2008). The National Assessment of Educational Progress in economics: Findings for general economics. In American Economic Review: Papers and proceedings (pp. 541–546). doi:10.1257/aer.98.2.541

Walters, H., Bishop, K., & Wlodarsky, R. (2006, March). Assessing the impact of the National Ocean Sciences Bowl (NOSB): A systems approach. Biloxi, MS: National Marine Educators Association Special Report #2.

Weeks, D. M. (2003). The impact of Odyssey of the Mind on the cognitive and psychosocial development of adolescents (Unpublished master’s thesis). Central Connecticut State University, New Britain.

Chapter 2

Acceleration

The Fair and Equitable Intervention for Highly Able Students

Susan G. Assouline, Maureen Marron, & Nicholas Colangelo

¹

Education researchers and practitioners have long acknowledged the enormous range of individual differences in cognitive ability and academic achievement among students. Within a single grade, some students struggle to master basic academic content, whereas others begin a new school year already knowing a large portion of that year’s curriculum (Reis et al., 1993).

Various school reform efforts (e.g., the No Child Left Behind Act) rightly focus on increasing academic achievement among struggling students. At the same time, however, students who demonstrate exceptional academic ability often are not appropriately challenged by their school’s curriculum and fail to make increases in achievement (Duffett, Farkas, & Loveless, 2008; National Science Foundation, 2010; Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010). Educational equity requires that all students have opportunities to develop their abilities (Benbow & Stanley, 1996) and may take the form of remedial efforts for some students and accelerated curricula for others. Without such efforts, the talents and abilities of the nation’s highest achieving students are left undeveloped.

DEFINITION OF THE TERMS

Academic Acceleration

Academic acceleration is an educational intervention that moves high-ability students through an educational program at a rate faster or at an age younger than typical (Pressey, 1949). The implementation of acceleration practices helps match the level, complexity, and pace of the curriculum with students’ intellectual and academic abilities. As the definition indicates, the term acceleration is used to refer both to acceleration as a service delivery model (in which students receive services at a younger than expected age) and as a curriculum model (in which students receive curricular material at a faster pace; Schiever & Maker, 2003).

Acceleration is also an umbrella term that captures the variety of educational adjustments to match the academic needs of high-ability students with appropriate and advanced educational curriculum, experiences, and opportunities. The two broad categories of acceleration are content based and grade based (Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration [IRPA], National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2009; Rogers, 2004; Southern & Jones, 2004). The primary distinguishing feature between content-based and grade-based acceleration is whether the accelerative intervention shortens the number of years that a student spends in the K–12 system.

Each category of acceleration can be classified further into forms and types. Forms are ways of varying the level, pace, and complexity of the curriculum. Some forms of acceleration have an additional level of specification, the type. Types are specific variations of practicing a particular form of acceleration. The distinctions between categories, forms, and types are subtle, yet informative, especially in terms of curriculum and service delivery models.

Content-based acceleration strategies provide students with advanced content, skills, or understandings before the expected age or grade level (Southern & Jones, 2004). Students typically remain with peers of the same age and grade for most of the school day but receive higher grade-level instruction in an advanced grade. Content-based acceleration can also refer to allowing students to work on higher grade-level instruction in their regular classrooms in lieu of grade-level instruction. The forms of content-based acceleration include single-subject acceleration, curriculum compacting, dual enrollment, credit by examination, Advanced Placement programs, and talent search programs.

Some forms of content-based acceleration can be classified into types. For example, single-subject acceleration can mean any of the following representative (but not exhaustive) types (IRPA, NAGC, & CSDPG, 2009):

Grade-based acceleration strategies typically shorten the number of years a student spends in the K–12 system (Rogers, 2004; Southern & Jones, 2004). In practice, a student is placed in a higher grade level than is typical given the student’s age on a full-time basis for the purpose of providing access to appropriately challenging learning opportunities. Although grade-based acceleration is commonly known as grade skipping, there are other forms of grade-based acceleration, including include early entrance to school (kindergarten or first grade), grade telescoping, and early entrance to college. Early entrance to kindergarten does not shorten the number of years the student spends in the K–12 system, but it does shorten the wait time to start school.

The forms of grade-based acceleration can be classified into types. For example, the types of early entrance to college can include any of the following representative (but not exhaustive) scenarios (IRPA, NAGC, & CSDPG, 2009):

MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DEFENSIBLE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE LITERATURE

Does Academic Acceleration Meet the Needs of Highly Able Students?

Prior to the publication of the two volumes of A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004), the academic intervention known as acceleration had become the classic casualty of belief trumping evidence. A Nation Deceived discounted mistaken beliefs and myths about acceleration with 50 years of research evidence. This seminal publication provided accessible information to educators, started a new dialogue about the role of acceleration in the education of gifted students, and encouraged the practice of acceleration.

Rogers (2010) conducted a best-evidence synthesis (a form of meta-analysis) of 234 studies from 1990–2008 that covered academic, social, and psychological outcomes of various forms of acceleration. Rogers found a strong, positive overall effect size of 0.68 for acceleration on academic outcomes, thus concluding there is a powerful academic effect to be gained from engaging in a variety of forms of acceleration, either grade-based or subject-based and either as an in-school option or an out-of-school option (p. 2).

Longitudinal studies, many from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) project, provide a reassuring, consistent, and optimistic message about accelerated students’ futures. Over the longer term, accelerated students attain advanced degrees, produce scholarly works, and contribute professionally at rates well above societal baselines (Lubinski, Benbow, Webb, & Bleske-Rechek, 2006; Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001). Other researchers (e.g., Adelman, 1999, 2006) have linked success in college to certain forms of content-area acceleration (and a rigorous curriculum more generally).

What Is the Social-Emotional Impact of Acceleration?

Concerns about possible negative social effects of acceleration cause many educators and parents to reject acceleration (Colangelo et al., 2004). One complication in understanding social and emotional effects is lack of agreement on operational definitions. Social effects can refer to a multitude of constructs, including interpersonal relationships, emotional well-being, self-esteem, attitudes about school, and hopes and aspirations for the future. Thus, the evidence tends to be piecemeal. Another complication is that the measurement of social outcomes (however operationalized) tends to be more subjective and less reliable than the measurement of academic outcomes.

Despite these limitations, Rogers (2010) assessed social and psychological outcomes of acceleration in her meta-analysis and reported small but positive effect size for social outcomes (ES = 0.14) and psychological adjustment (ES = 0.21). Kulik (2004) reported equivocal results when comparing accelerated students with bright-but-not-accelerated students on their attitude toward school and attitude toward particular academic subjects. Some studies in Kulik’s meta-analysis indicated that accelerated students liked school in general and a particular subject if it was the area of acceleration, whereas other studies indicated a slight downturn in attitudes. Kulik attributed the downturn to students not being accustomed to expending effort on schoolwork. Accelerated students have elevated educational ambitions (desire to attain an advanced degree), higher career aspirations, and a greater willingness to commit to longer periods of preparation (often necessary to complete advanced degrees) than nonaccelerated students. Accelerated students participate in extracurricular activities to the same extent as nonaccelerated students (Kulik, 2004).

Trends in the data suggest that accelerated students show a slight decline in self-acceptance (Kulik, 2004; Robinson, 2004), but, importantly, this dip is slight and (usually) temporary, and there are not serious, long-term negative effects (Neihart, 2007). These findings are consistent with the Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect (Gross, 1998; Marsh, Chesser, Craven, & Roche, 1995; Marsh & Parker, 1984), in which the top achievers in a heterogeneous classroom orient to the possibility that they may not be the top achievers in a homogeneous setting. Most likely this is a useful reality check because bright students with realistic self-esteem may be better suited for future challenges than bright students with inflated self-esteem.

Social effects of grade-based acceleration. According to Rogers (2010), the most consistently positive effects across academic, psychological, and social outcomes were found for grade skipping (p. 2). Other researchers reported that grade-skipped students had good perceptions of their social relationships and their emotional development, that they tended to have fewer serious school behavior problems than regular students (Richardson & Benbow, 1990; Robinson, 2004), and that they reported high self-esteem and internal locus of control (Richardson & Benbow, 1990).

Social effects of early entrance to school. Discussions about early entrance to kindergarten can be emotionally laden, as some critics contend that children are pushed into high-pressure academics before they have experienced childhood. However, some children are academically and socially ready for school, and allowing them to enter school early gives them the freedom to be themselves.

Early entrants adjust well academically and socially (Gagné & Gagnier, 2004; Robinson, 2004). Robinson (2004) reported slight positive, but not statistically significant, effects for socialization and affect. Although researchers typically hope for statistically significant differences in their studies, a finding of no difference between early entrants and traditional-age kindergarteners is a good outcome. Early entrants should fit in with their older peers and be at the same social level. It is not defensible to expect early entrants to demonstrate social maturity or adjustment beyond that exhibited by their older-age same-grade peers.

Robinson (2004; Robinson & Weimer, 1991) recommended that candidates for early entrance be no more than 3 months away from the school district’s designated cut-off birth date and that they undergo a psychological evaluation that includes assessment of academic readiness, emotional regulation, social skills, and social maturity. The performance of young students on ability and achievement measures is more variable than that of older students; however, with a thorough evaluation, decisions about early entrance can be made with confidence.

Social effects and early entrance to college. Early entrance to college is typically viewed as an easier decision to make than early entrance to school because the student’s accumulated years of academic experience and social development can indicate maturity, motivation, and readiness.

Nevertheless, adjusting to college is a challenge for many first-year students (Brody, Muratori, & Stanley, 2004; Muratori, 2007; Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003). Naturally, there is concern about adjustment among early entrants. The evidence regarding the social-emotional adjustment of early college entrants is generally positive (Shepard, Foley Nicpon, Doobay, 2009), although it is not uniform (Robinson, 2004). Early entrants generally are satisfied they left high school early (Muratori, 2007; Muratori et al., 2003; Robinson, 2004), and they are successful in college, particularly those who entered early through a structured program that provides social support for the transition to college life and academic demands (Muratori, 2007; Muratori et al., 2003; see also Brody et al., 2004).

Long-term social effects. Lubinski (2004) reported that adults who were accelerated in middle and high school recall their precollege experience more positively than intellectual peers who were not accelerated. Students who were accelerated did not regret their acceleration, and a small percentage wished they had been accelerated more (Lubinski, 2004). The positive recollections about acceleration from adults are good indicators that the long-term social effects of acceleration are beneficial to the individual. What happens if the intervention is to not accelerate students who are academically ready for acceleration? The students reported that a slow-paced curriculum led to boredom and discontent.

What Is the Impact of Radical Acceleration?

Radical acceleration is any combination of procedures that results in a student graduating from high school three or more years earlier than is customary (Gross, 2004, citing Stanley, 1979, p. 87). Radical acceleration is appropriate for only the most highly gifted students, such as those who have an IQ that is three or more standard deviations above the average IQ. Age-appropriate regular curriculum is not sufficiently challenging for profoundly gifted students, and they may underachieve and exhibit negative social interactions if they remain in educational and social settings not suited to their learning needs (Gross, 2004). Gross (2004) found positive outcomes for students who radically accelerate, including success in college and success at socializing well with older classmates.

How Does Twice-Exceptionality Impact the Implementation of Acceleration?

Twice-exceptional students require educational programming that addresses both their area of strength and their area of weakness. Several misconceptions can make it difficult for students to obtain the right balance of accelerated and nonaccelerated instruction (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011), including the primary misconception that a student with a disability cannot also be gifted and a secondary misconception that a student with a disability cannot be served by acceleration in the area of the student’s strength.

In a recent study that looked at the relationship among variables of ability levels, achievement performance, and educational interventions in a sample of highly gifted students with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Assouline, Foley Nicpon, and Dockery (2011) determined that talented and gifted programming contributes to the prediction of achievement, especially in the area of mathematics. Interestingly, 50% of their sample experienced some form of acceleration. This is in stark contrast to a comparable sample of highly able students with specific learning disabilities, none of whom experienced acceleration (Assouline, Foley Nicpon, & Whiteman, 2011).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our review of the research confirms that acceleration is an empirically effective intervention for high-ability students, with positive academic, social, and psychological short- and long-term outcomes. Yet, it is still underused (Assouline, Colangelo, Heo, & Dockery, 2013; Borland, 2009; Colangelo et al., 2004). Practically speaking, one or more of the 18 forms of acceleration (Southern & Jones, 2004) should be the intervention of choice over other service delivery options for the majority of high-ability students. Key considerations include how many and what options are available to students. We also suggest reviewing accelerative interventions within the context of other gifted programming options.

Acceleration and Enrichment

It is unfortunate that a false dichotomy between acceleration and enrichment has characterized the field of gifted education. The question for educators should be how much of each approach will benefit which student (e.g., the question of educational dose, as recently discussed by Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010).² Enrichment provides richer, more varied educational experiences, a curriculum that has been modified or added to in some way (Schiever & Maker, 2003, p. 164). The goal of enrichment programs is to add depth and breadth to the regular curriculum through resource rooms, special interest clubs, Saturday classes, summer programs, and other opportunities. Enrichment programs do not necessarily strive to move a student through the curriculum more quickly or to provide access to accelerated curriculum. The more closely enrichment matches a student’s interests and talents, the more it approaches acceleration (see Stanley, 1979).

Acceleration and Differentiation

Some schools adopt differentiation as an approach to serving the needs of all students. Differentiation refers to modifications in curriculum and instruction necessary to support students with academically diverse learning needs (Tomlinson, 2005). The program goals of differentiation are to respond to the diversity and mixed academic ability in a classroom by offering multiple avenues for learning. However, in a recent survey (Duffett et al., 2008), 81% of teachers reported that struggling students received the most one-on-one attention; only 5% reported that advanced students received the most attention. It seems unlikely that high-ability students receive an appropriately differentiated curriculum when they get so little attention from teachers. Moreover, the range of individual differences and academic needs may be too great for one teacher to accommodate, and the academic needs of the student may exceed the teacher’s ability to prepare accelerated content.

Although the principle of differentiation is consistent with the goals of gifted education, Hertberg-Davis (2009) noted varied reasons for how differentiation can fail to fulfill the needs of gifted students, including

lack of sustained teacher training in the specific philosophy and methods of differentiation, underlying beliefs prevalent in our school culture that gifted students do fine without any adaptations to curriculum, lack of general education teacher training in the needs and nature of gifted students, and the difficulty of differentiating instruction without a great depth of content knowledge. (p. 252)

Acceleration is about appropriate educational placement based on the developmental readiness of the student. The more closely enrichment and differentiation match interests and talents, the more they approximate acceleration. If enrichment and differentiation do not include a faster pace and higher level of work, they will not be as effective as acceleration (Borland, 2009; Stanley, 1979).

Acceleration and School Reform Models

Acceleration compares favorably to school reform models. In an evaluation of more than 200 studies of the achievement effects of multiple school-reform models (Boreman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2002, reported in Kulik, 2004), only Direct Instruction, School Development Program, and Success for All had some demonstrated effectiveness. However, the Success for All effect size represents not quite one month of growth; the acceleration meta-analyses (Kulik, 2004; Rogers, 2004; Rogers, 2010) report large effect sizes that correspond to nearly one academic year of growth. In other words, the reform models cannot compete with the effects of acceleration as an intervention.

LIMITATIONS TO THE CONCLUSIONS

The main limitation to this topic continues to be the large disparity between the research evidence and the lack of practice, which is institutionalized by a lack of policy implementation. Additional evidence of the disparity between acceleration research and practice comes from the State of the States in Gifted Education 2010–2011 (NAGC & CSDPG, 2011). The most recent results of this national survey indicate that acceleration policies are infrequent and highly variable at the state level and district levels: only eight states have a state policy explicitly allowing acceleration; 12 states have a policy that formally relegates the decision to local education agencies (LEAs); and 23 states have no policy, thus leaving any decisions about acceleration to LEAs by default. Even among the eight states that explicitly allow acceleration, not all forms of acceleration are uniformly embraced. For example, four of these states (North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia) have a state policy that also specifically permits early entrance to kindergarten. Two of these states (Florida and Kansas) have a policy that specifically does not allow early entrance to kindergarten. The remaining two states (Minnesota and New York) leave decisions about early entrance to kindergarten to LEAs. Similar comparisons can be made with other forms of acceleration reported on in the State of the States document, such as dual enrollment and proficiency-based promotion.

RESOURCES

RECOMMENDED READINGS

Acceleration Research

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1 and Vol. 2). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Acceleration Policy

Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration, National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2009, November). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Math Acceleration

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2011). Developing math talent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elementary and middle school (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Saul, M., Assouline, S. G., & Sheffield, L. (2010). The peak in the middle: Developing mathematically gifted students in the middle grades. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

The Defensibility of Acceleration

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How equity can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 249–292.

Borland, J. H. (2009). Gifted education without gifted programs or gifted students: An anti-model. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 105–118). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Adelman, C. (2006). The tool box revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Heo, N., & Dockery, L. (2013). High-ability students’ participation in specialized instructional delivery models: Variations by aptitude, grade, gender, and content area. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 135–147.

Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Forstadt, L., & Lipscomb, J. (2009). Iowa Acceleration Scale manual: A guide for whole-grade acceleration K–8 (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Assouline, S. G., Foley Nicpon, M., & Dockery, L. (2011). Predicting the academic achievement of gifted students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 38, 190–197. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1403-x

Assouline, S. G., Foley Nicpon, M., & Whiteman, C. S. (2011). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with written language disability: A reply to Lovett’s response. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 152–157. doi:10.1177/0016986210396436

Assouline, S. G., & Whiteman, C. S. (2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post-IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 380–402. doi:10.1080/15377903.2011.616576

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How equity can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 249–292.

Borland, J. H. (2009). Gifted education without gifted programs or gifted students: An anti-model. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented- Second edition (pp. 105–118). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Brody, L. E., Muratori, M. C., & Stanley, J. C. (2004). Early entrance to college: Academic, social, and emotional considerations. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 97–108). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Marron, M. A. (2013). Evidence trumps beliefs: Academic acceleration is an effective intervention for high-ability students. In C. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 164–175). New York, NY: Routledge.

Duffett, A., Farkas, S., & Loveless, T. (2008). High achieving students in the era of NCLB. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Gagné, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). The socio-affective and academic impact of early entrance to school. Roeper Review, 26, 128–138.

Gross, M. U. M. (1998). Fishing for the facts: A response to Marsh and Craven, 1997. Australian Journal of Gifted Education, 7(1), 10–23.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Radical acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 87–96). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251–253.

Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration, National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2009, November). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Lubinski, D. (2004). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 23–38). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194–199.

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729.

Marsh, H. W., Chesser, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285–319.

Marsh, H. S., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept. Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 213–231.

Muratori, M., Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. G. (2003). Early entrance students: Impressions of their first year of college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 219–237.

Muratori, M. C. (2007). Early entrance to college. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

National Association for Gifted Children, & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2011). State of the states in gifted education 2010-2011. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Foundation. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Washington, DC: Author.

Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330–341.

Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems. Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, No. 31. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hèbert, T., Plucker, J., … Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Richardson, T. M., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Long-term effects of acceleration on the social-emotional adjustment of mathematically precocious youths. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 464–470.

Robinson, N. M. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 59–68). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Robinson, N., & Weimer, L. (1991). Selection of candidates for early admission to kindergarten. In W. T. Southern & E. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 29–50). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2004). The academic effects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 47–58). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Rogers, K. B. (2010). Academic acceleration and giftedness: The research from 1990 to 2008, A best-evidence synthesis. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, D. Lohman, & M. A. Marron (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Wallace Symposium poster session on academic acceleration (pp. 1–6). Iowa City: The University of Iowa.

Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New direction in enrichment and acceleration. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 163–173). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Shepard, S., Foley Nicpon, M., & Doobay, A. (2009). Early entrance to college and self-concept: Comparisons across the first semester of enrollment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 40–57.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 5–12). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Stanley, J. C. (1979). Identifying and nurturing the intellectually gifted. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 172–180). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860–871.

1  Portions of this chapter were adapted, with permission from the editors, from Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Marron, M. A. (2013). Evidence trumps beliefs: Academic acceleration is an effective intervention for high-ability students. In C. Callahan & H. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 164–175). New York, NY: Routledge.

2  To quote Borland (2009), In educational circles, acceleration is like the Battle of New Orleans; the war is over, but some people do not know it yet and keep on fighting (p. 113).

Chapter 3

Administrative Leadership in Gifted Education

Tarek C. Grantham, Kristina H. Collins, & Kenneth T. Dickson

INTRODUCTION

A focus on administrative leadership in this Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education volume represents an important opportunity to call attention to an area that supports the foundational work in the field of gifted education and to move it forward. It will come as no surprise to most scholars and seasoned educators in the field that the empirical work is scant. At the same time, this reality does not negate the expectation that we all have for administrative leaders to investigate, understand, develop, and implement best practices that enable high-ability students to reach their full potential.

DEFINING ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP IN GIFTED EDUCATION

Scholars and practitioners have mainly researched and discussed issues that shape leaders’ work, not necessarily defined what leadership means. For example, one can find a substantive body of research and literature on identification and assessment (Baldwin, 1984; Borland, 2004; Ford & Trotman, 2000; Frasier & Passow, 1994; Patton, 1992; VanTassel-Baska, Xuemei Feng, & Evans, 2007), recommendations for implementation of gifted programs (Robinson, Shore, & Enersen, 2007), gifted program policy development and implementation (Frasier, 1997; Gallagher, 2002; Plucker, 2004); curriculum and instructional models and instructional handbooks (Bernal, 2007; Renzulli, 2004; VanTassel-Baska, 2010); and strategies for developing leadership in students (Bisland, Karnes, & Cobb, 2004; Shaunessy & Karnes, 2004). Although this literature helps us to understand ways in which leadership has been discussed and the importance of having leaders who can effectively support gifted students and programs, little empirical evidence is presented to define leadership or administrative models. Finding systemic studies of any kind defining leadership in gifted education was a difficult task. However, we can benefit from the few studies that used the term advocacy as synonymous with leadership.

Leadership Defined as Advocacy

The emergence of advocacy in the gifted education literature can be found as early as the 1980s, when scholars were encouraging parent and educator training for leadership development (Wolf, 1987). Leadership conceptualized in the form of advocacy skills has been used in a study of gifted teacher competencies (Nelson & Prindle, 1992). Other uses of the term advocacy appear in research on the role of advocacy efforts that support districts with mandates for gifted education (Purcell, 1995). Although these studies do not focus on defining leadership in gifted education, they signaled the rise of attention to leadership across the country. Gallagher (1983) defined gifted education advocacy as a set of activities designed to change the allocation of resources to improve opportunities for the education of gifted and talented students (p. 1).

Leadership and NAGC Advocacy Research

The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Task Force on Advocacy and its team of case researchers offered the first and perhaps only in-depth empirical research that helped to define effective gifted program leadership and administration. Robinson and Moon (2003) directed a national study of school districts and related personnel who engaged in effective advocacy for gifted students and gifted education programs. Through multiple case studies of advocacy events, they examined the complex series of decisions and interactions that culminated in successful outcomes. The primary research questions were (a) What do successful advocacy efforts or events on behalf of gifted and talented children look like? and (b) What factors facilitate positive outcomes for advocacy efforts at the state and local levels?

Through the Task Force on Advocacy’s seminal research and special issue of Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ), more credence was given to the term advocacy to define gifted education leadership. In several studies on effective advocacy-oriented leadership in gifted education, researchers conceptualized or defined advocacy in important ways for their research purposes. For example, Delcourt (2003) researched advocates who engaged in efforts within a state gifted education association that resulted in increased gifted education funding and services. She described leaders based on an advocacy lens as individuals who believe in a particular cause and are willing to support it in multiple ways (p. 26). In another study of bridge building by advocates within a state association to establish a state mandate for gifted education services, Enersen (2003) framed leadership through phases of advocacy efforts:

In a similar manner with advocacy phases, Grantham (2003) conceptualized leadership as a form of advocacy that promotes positive outcomes for gifted programs using a Gifted Program Advocacy Model (G-PAM), emphasizing four phases: needs assessment, development of advocacy plan, implementation, and follow-up and evaluation.

Although Robinson and Moon’s (2003) national study and related case studies refined and increased the association of the leadership concept with advocacy, their findings indicated that the terms leadership and advocacy are not always used interchangeably. For example, leadership was found to be a salient component that brings about positive advocacy outcomes. Leadership was categorized as champion leadership (i.e., one or more passionately committed individuals who championed the cause of gifted education) and organizational leadership (i.e., efforts engaged by a gifted education association). Three broad leadership characteristics that framed champions included:

When interweaving the term leadership within the category of factors that influence advocacy outcomes, the relationship between the two terms appear to be distinct, causal, or hierarchical, which can confound researchers and practitioners seeking to define leadership as an advocacy construct.

Advocacy Defined Leadership Dominates Gifted Education Literature

Since the GCQ special issue publication on advocacy, a small but substantive body of literature on leadership has emerged using the term advocacy, applying it to a range of leaders and contexts. For example, publications have focused on teachers as advocates of gifted students in schools (Besnoy, 2005; Roberts & Siegle, 2012), gifted student self-advocacy (Douglas, 2004), parent advocacy for culturally diverse gifted students (Duquette, Orders, Fullarton, & Robertson-Grewal, 2011; Grantham, Frasier, Roberts, & Bridges, 2005), and residential schools in math and science areas (Roberts, 2010). In the gifted education literature, advocacy can be viewed as an all-encompassing leadership term that most often is conceptualized broadly through models, strategies, and processes that aim to achieve specific outcomes. Presently, scholars and practitioners seem to be unifying around the advocacy concept, perhaps because it is a user-friendly concept that is politically neutral and less controversial.

Exploring Other Leadership Definitions and Models

Because a literature search in gifted education journals and other education journals yield few empirical studies that define leadership in gifted education, gifted education scholars and practitioners may benefit by examining the broader areas of educational leadership and administration and industrial/organizational psychology (e.g., Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology; Andriessen & Drenth, 1998; Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011) to develop ideas that can help define or refine leadership and administration within gifted education. Researchers in these areas have discussed a wide range of leadership constructs such as situational leadership (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985; Dunn & Dunn, 1983), contingency leadership (Vecchio, 1983), servant leadership (Crippen, 2004), transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Lentz, 2012), instructional leadership (Castellano, 2011; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Grantham & Ford, 1998; Hallinger, 2005), charismatic leadership (Behling & McFillen, 1996; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999), the coaching model of leadership (Gross, 2004), collaborative leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Lehner, 1993), and participatory leadership (Spinder & George, 1984). These leadership concepts, models, and frameworks can help us to understand ways in which gifted education leaders—namely gifted program administrators, principals, and teacher leaders responsible for gifted/advanced curricular programming—can improve gifted education programs and services for students in school. At least one researcher has begun to apply transformational leadership principles to examine and discuss the problem of underrepresentation in gifted education (Michael-Chadwell, 2011). More scholarship of this nature is needed and should be encouraged.

THE PRINCIPAL AS THE PRINCIPLE GIFTED EDUCATION LEADER

Principal leadership in gifted education is one of the most salient areas addressed in the field. Few gifted