Abstract
Currently, in Western society, five significant paradigm shifts can be distinguished affecting Dutch and Flemish gifted education: (a) an inclusive approach of education, (b) response to educational needs, (c) new perspectives on giftedness, (d) social constructivism, and (e) evidence-informed teaching. In this review article, the positioning of the education of gifted students in primary schools in the Netherlands and Flanders is explained within the context of these five significant paradigm shifts. There are frictions between what is, from a theoretical perspective, desirable optimally and what can currently be realized in Dutch and Flemish education. The process of change demonstrates a need for competent specialists in gifted education. Because basic teacher competencies for the Netherlands and Flanders are already prescribed by law, the construction of a competency matrix is recommended for specialists in gifted education that combines the general teaching competencies with competencies that apply specifically for gifted education.
Keywords
In this study, the position of gifted education in the Netherlands and Flanders is reviewed in the context of the professional demands that are set for teachers in both countries. Flanders represents the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Between both countries, there are many similarities in teaching standards, teacher education standards, educational paradigms, and the position of gifted education. Discussing the position of gifted education in both countries together seems only natural as specialists from both countries influence the position of gifted education reciprocally.
For both countries, the initial interest in gifted education was raised by parental self-help organizations in the mid-1980s. Parents and teachers approached local and regional special educational needs coordinators (SENCos) with their questions about what to do with gifted students. In response, these professionals started to deliver workshops and training courses for teachers. This movement caused a snowball effect and giftedness was placed on the educational agenda.
In the following years, an increasing number of Dutch and Flemish people claimed to have developed expertise in giftedness and teaching the gifted, either based on personal experience or based on a solid theoretical and practical underpinning. With or without a professional background in education or as teacher–educators, this group of self-acclaimed specialists in giftedness responded to the growing demand of schools for professionalization in gifted education. Their response influenced the position and quality of gifted education in both countries. Lunenberg et al. (2014) suggested that the quality of teacher–educators determines the quality of teachers and that the quality of teachers is crucial to the quality of primary and secondary education. Consequently, the professionalism of teacher–educators involved in continuous professionalization courses on gifted education affects both the quality and the position of gifted education via the teachers they educate. The quality and position of gifted education are also affected by the teacher–educator’s ability to connect educational strategies in general and strategies for gifted education in a way that gifted education becomes a natural part of education in general. In both countries, a clear connection between the two was lacking. Gifted education was mostly based on pedagogical and didactical strategies considered fit for gifted students without considering how these strategies matched education in general. Because the connection between general education and gifted education was lacking, for teachers, it became difficult to meet the fast-growing professional demands toward the education of their gifted students (de Boer et al., 2013; de Heer, 2017; Haenen & Mol-Lous, 2014).
However, in the last 10 years, the pressure of the current educational paradigm shifts on perceptions of gifted education has had an unmistakable effect. In the Netherlands and Flanders, changes in educational strategies and perspectives now start to influence gifted education. A connection between what seems appropriate for gifted learners and what seems adequate for education in general becomes visible. It is in this light that this article reviews the position of gifted education in both countries.
The Interdependency of Educational Paradigms
According to Kuhn (1962), a paradigm provides a model for analyses and interpretation for a community of practitioners. Hence, the use of a paradigm determines both one’s assumptions and one’s critical thinking and sets contextual boundaries for problem solving. Teachers can be considered as a community of practitioners (Enthoven & de Bruijn, 2010). As they reflect on their practice (Korthagen, 2017; Loughran, 2015), their practice is influenced by their critical reflections of both theory and daily experiences (Biesta, 2007, 2010, 2012; Carrier, 2015; Cooper et al., 2017; Nelson & Campbell, 2017).
A paradigm can be distinguished from a trend. A trend reflects a general movement in a situation or in the way people behave, and does not provide a model for analyses and interpretation. Trends can be explained by looking through the lens of a paradigm to critically review the change in a situation. A paradigm shift arises when a dominant paradigm is considered to be incompatible with new phenomena and facilitates the adoption of a theory or new paradigm (Kuhn, 1962).
In education, five paradigms shifts determine the educational discourse in the Netherlands and Flanders. As a result of the prominent place they take in education in general, they also affect gifted education. The leading paradigms can only be reviewed in their interdependency of each other. Each paradigm affects the four other paradigms. The dynamic of each of the five independent paradigm shifts and their influence show the complexity of teaching as a profession in general and in gifted education in particular. However, when one realizes that these paradigm shifts cannot be recognized purely on their own merit but must be seen through the interplay of one with another, an even more complex dimension becomes visible. The complexity of these changes is illustrated by the interdependency of the Big Five as shown in Figure 1.
The interdependency of the "Big Five.”
The first paradigm shift’s aim is for the transformation of society toward one based on the concept of inclusion. Striving for an inclusive society has resulted in the quest for an inclusive approach to education (Borland, 2005; Mol-Lous, 2011; Rodriguez, 2021). To make this work, we need to respond to the needs of learners and shift the way we teach and support them (Borland, 2005; Clijsen et al., 2007; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Mol-Lous, 2011; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017). This is the second paradigm shift. Learning instead of achieving becomes the core business of education. If learning for all is accepted as the central concept in education, then the needs of gifted students should be addressed as well. What one considers to be the needs of gifted students is affected by his definition of giftedness (Dai & Chen, 2014). In modern society, giftedness is no longer regarded as static but as the result of a developmental process (Freeman et al., 2010; Gagné, 2010; Lo et al., 2019; Lo & Porath, 2017; Sternberg, 2009; Subotnik et al., 2011). This represents the third paradigm shift. The fourth paradigm shift is a development toward curricular and instructional strategies based on social constructivism, often referred to as 21st-century skills. The fifth, and final, paradigm shift affecting Dutch and Flemish education that is introduced in this article is the shift toward evidence-informed teaching.
The First Paradigm Shift: The Inclusive Approach
In education, inclusion is about accepting that every student has an individual educational profile with personal educational needs (Bakx, 2015; Oostdam, 2009; Pameijer & van Beukering, 2007; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017). Teachers learn to see, understand, and respond to those needs in a way that enables their students to reach toward their next zone of proximal development (Mol-Lous, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978). Discussion of the concept of the inclusive approach is relevant within the context of developments in gifted education in the Netherlands and Flanders. In both countries, (part-time) segregated education for the gifted has become increasingly popular (Keeman, 2010; Vlaams Parlement, 2019). This seems contradictory to the inclusive approach and shows a growing polarization between stakeholders in gifted education.
An Inclusive Approach in Education
When it comes to education, the difficulty with the concept of inclusion is that it lacks an overall definition that is accepted worldwide. “Inclusion means different things to different people” (Armstrong et al., 2010, p. 29). Inclusion is often defined by what is being done (Ainscow et al., 2006; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011), so instead of one definition, there are as many descriptions of inclusion as there are describers. The underpinning concept of the inclusive approach is a social model of disabilities (Oliver, 1996). In this model, disabilities are seen as a result of the way that society is organized. Logically, reasoning from this perspective means that if thresholds and barriers for individuals with impairments are taken away, only educational needs rather than special educational needs are left. Therefore, special educational needs are not defined by the inability of the individual, but by our concept of normality and the boundaries that are set for what is normal and what is not (Borland, 2005; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Oliver, 1996). Embracing an inclusive approach means that differences between students’ didactical and pedagogical needs have to be accepted (Dijksma, 2007; Mol-Lous, 2011). Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) stated that the perspective of educational needs still refers to the argument that some children “necessarily require something ‘different from’ or ‘additional to’ that which is ordinarily available” (p. 815). They noted that an inclusive practice refers to a situation where teachers extend and enrich their classroom activities in such a way that participation in these activities becomes available for all students in their classroom.
Both the Netherlands and Flanders have passed laws on inclusion. In the Netherlands, it is common to refer to “Passend Onderwijs” (appropriate education; Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2012) as a synonym for inclusion; in Flanders, they refer to the “Begeleidingsdecreet” (Vlaamse regering, 2019). With these laws, both governments want to guarantee sufficient education for every child in its environment, or as they call it, “in a home near environment” (Amsing et al., 2009; Mol-Lous, 2011; Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2012). In the Netherlands, standards for the school inspectorate explicitly include gifted students (Wolters, 2009). In the current Flemish governmental plans for 2019 to 2024, gifted students are mentioned explicitly as well (Vlaams Parlement, 2019). The notion of educational needs as the basis for a differentiated and inclusive pedagogy is currently dominant in the Netherlands and Flanders (Mol-Lous, 2011; Pameijer & van Beukering, 2007; Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2012; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017; Vlaamse Regering, 2019). As a result, the concept of gifted education is seen in both countries as a meaningful response to the educational needs of gifted students.
Segregated Education for Gifted Students
Although the influence of this paradigm shift is toward inclusion, it is important to note that there has been an increasing, fast-growing focus on full-time segregated education for the gifted in both countries. This reflects the seemingly contradictory perspective on the position of education for the gifted in that inclusive educational context. Having said that, it should also be noted that, on their governmental website, the Flemish Department of Education states that full-time segregated education for the gifted is not available (Hoogbegaafde leerlingen, n.d.). Only part-time segregated education for gifted students using pull-out programs is acknowledged. The following, therefore, only applies to the Netherlands.
Special primary schools for the gifted were a rarity in the Netherlands in the 20th century (de Boer et al., 2013). At the turn of the 21st century, a few special schools for full-time segregated education for the gifted were introduced (Hoogeveen et al., 2004). They were all funded privately. Most of these schools closed almost as fast as they began. In 2007, a private initiative reintroduced full-time segregated education for the gifted at primary school level (Keeman, 2010). Ignited by their personal experiences, the founders of these so-called Leonardo schools stated that gifted students are better served in a full-time segregated situation of a homogeneous group with students of equal intellectual capacities (“Leonardo-onderwijs voor hoogbegaafde kinderen,” n.d.). The Leonardo school founders did not consult international research. However, several studies of special programs for gifted students in the United States, published between 1988 and 2004, showed that there are indeed positive effects to be observed. These studies were recently referred to by Kitsantas et al. (2017). In the Netherlands, studies by Hoogeveen et al. (2004), Doolaard and Oudbier (2010), and de Boer et al. (2013) stated that, although these positive effects were observed in the United States, there was insufficient evidence that the same would apply in the Netherlands. They recommended further research on this topic. A more recent study by Hornstra et al. (2017) on “the effects of full-time and part-time high-ability programs on developments in students’ achievement emotions” shows no significant positive effect on students’ achievement emotions among participants of full-time programs. Reliable data of overarching research into the effects of full-time segregated education for the gifted in the Netherlands are not available. Hence, an evidence-based conclusion about the effects of this approach cannot be drawn at this point in time.
Since 2007, the number of Dutch special schools for the gifted has increased rapidly (Houkema et al., 2018; Keeman, 2010). Although the government prefers an inclusive approach to a segregated approach (de Boer et al., 2013), full-time segregated education for the gifted is formally acknowledged in the Netherlands. To implement the Act for Appropriate Education for their gifted students, schools have the right to install full-time segregated classes for the gifted (Dekker, 2014; “Passend Onderwijs,” n.d.). The founders of the Leonardo schools argued adroitly that gifted students could and should be seen as students with special needs (Keeman, 2010). They compared the intensity of the educational needs of gifted students with the intensity of the educational needs of students traditionally perceived as having special needs. They argued, quite successfully to the general public, that if a teacher cannot respond as optimally as desired for traditional students with special needs, it could hardly be expected that this same teacher would be able to do so for gifted students (Keeman, 2010; Mijland, 2010).
In the Dutch discussion on the Act for Appropriate Education, these arguments make sense to many people. Parents, teachers, school management teams, and members of school boards argue that aiming for inclusion in day-to-day practice focusses worryingly on how to include traditional special-needs students in the ordinary classroom (Mol-Lous, 2011; Oostdam, 2009). Advocates for full-time segregated education for the gifted argue that the effort that is required to make the basic concept of inclusion work leaves little room to invest equally in yet another group of students with special needs (Smits, 2019). They also argue that initial teacher training courses do not provide teachers with the necessary skills to cater effectively to the needs of gifted students in regular schools. Research into the quality of the competency of Dutch teachers seems to confirm this claim (de Boer et al., 2013; Mol-Lous, 2011).
The competency matrix for gifted education published in 2011 by van Gerven and Hoogenberg provides an overview of relevant competencies. The matrix provides a framework of 49 recommended competencies for specialists in gifted education. 1 In addition, an extensive list of examples of knowledge and skills matching individual competencies provides users of the matrix the opportunity to explore ways the described professional behavior can be made visible in their daily practice. The matrix is used for curriculum construction for teacher education courses focusing on gifted education. Teacher–educators can select coherent competencies and use them as educational objectives for their courses. For instance, if one wants to set up a course on identifying gifted learners, competencies describing matching professional behavior can be selected. Matching curriculum content (literature, practical assignments) can be created or selected from a preexisting range available at the institute that is developing the teacher education course. The matrix can also be used as a self-assessment tool for specialists in gifted education to assess their professional strengths and weaknesses in their professional context and for joining the Dutch professional register.
To connect gifted education explicitly with regular education, this matrix is underpinned by the general teaching competencies required of Dutch and Flemish teachers in primary education. The matrix shows a large overlap between general teaching competencies and competencies for gifted education as they are suggested in the international literature on gifted education (van Gerven & Hoogenberg, 2011). This overlap shows that the argument that Dutch and Flemish teachers are not equipped to cater for gifted students in their classroom can at least be disputed.
Because complex adjustments are required to respond to the differing educational needs of every student, one cannot argue that being gifted on its own merit is a valid argument for education in a full-time segregated setting (Borland, 2005; Lo & Porath, 2017; van Gerven, 2017). Putting the inclusive approach into practice requires teachers to stretch their current professional abilities: reorganizing their actions in a way that meets the student’s needs based on a perspective of diversity (Adema et al., 2009; de Boer et al., 2013; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Haenen & Mol-Lous, 2014; Mol-Lous, 2011; Oostdam et al., 2007; Waslander, 2011).
The Second Paradigm Shift: Responding to Educational Needs
Educational interventions should be a direct response to the educational needs of individual students (Coleman & Johnsen, 2011; Pameijer & van Beukering, 2007; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017). In the Netherlands and Flanders, responding to educational needs is done by taking on a change-and-solution–focused pedagogy. This approach applies to the education of all learners (gifted or nongifted) and not just to learners who are at risk (Ledoux & Waslander, 2020; Mol-Lous, 2011; Pameijer & van Beukering, 2007; Schuman & de Vries, 2020; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017). In the Dutch and Flemish context, it creates ample opportunities for a broad range of diverse pedagogical and didactical strategies (Pameijer & Denys, 2018; Schuman & de Vries, 2020). van Meersbergen and de Vries (2017) suggested that seven underpinning assumptions are needed to make this approach successful: (a) A student’s individual educational needs are placed in a central position, (b) one can only tune into a student’s needs if one keeps in mind how the interplay between persons and situations affects those needs, (c) the teacher makes the difference, (d) aiming for opportunities and chances dominates the intervention strategies, (e) educating is a collaborative process between everyone who is involved, (f) all interventions are specifically designed to reach the set goals, and (g) interventions are systematically applied and transparent for everyone involved.
In the Netherlands and Flanders, the concept of a differentiated response to educational needs is not limited to the academic curriculum; it includes all aspects of our curriculum, with an additional focus on the student’s well-being. Pameijer and Van Beukering (2007) pointed out that a differentiated curriculum can only be successful if a differentiated pedagogic strategy supports it. The ability to differentiate requires, therefore, not only managerial and didactic skills but also an extended repertoire of pedagogic and social skills (Bakx, 2015; Meijer, 2004; Pameijer, 2017; Pameijer & Denys, 2018; Schuman & de Vries, 2020; van der Meer, 2016). To make an approach like this work, teachers need to be watching for the student’s potential, for factors stimulating the actualization of this potential, and for challenges or limitations in the actualization of potential (Weterings, 2017). Within the bounds of reality and the bounds of what is reasonable, teachers should be able to respond to those needs based on their professionalism (Bakx, 2015, 2019; Pameijer, 2017; Pameijer & Van Beukering, 2007; Schuman & de Vries, 2020). However, if a teacher feels that he or she has hardly any knowledge or has not developed the right level of skills for educating gifted students, it is not likely that such a teacher will be successful in finding the meaningful educational responses needed by gifted students (de Boer et al., 2013; Segers & Hoogeveen, 2012; Troxclair, 2013; Vreijs et al., 2017).
A teacher’s response to a student’s educational needs and a student’s response to the interventions are ongoing processes (Coleman, 2018; Pameijer & van Beukering, 2007; Peters & Oveross, 2020; Schuman & de Vries, 2020; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017). As educational interventions are now led by the individual needs of students, the long-used Procrustean approach as a concept of education should be dismissed. The idea of one-size-fits-all pedagogical–didactical strategies cannot underpin teaching approaches any longer (Borland, 2005; Doornbos & Bergman, 1991; Oostdam, 2009; Stevens, 1997). Although basic standards can be stipulated, responding to educational needs implies that, within a regular group, there will be differences in the way students can meet those standards (Sutherland & Stack, 2014; Tomlinson, 2009; Winstanley, 2010). There may be students for whom the standards are set far too high, as there may also be students who can exceed these standards easily (van Gerven, 2014a). A change in policy should offer enough room to include the education of the gifted in the regular classroom and the regular school. However, this is all based on the assumption that an inclusive approach means that we accept that every student is different (Armstrong et al., 2010; Clijsen et al., 2013; Oostdam, 2009). It is also based on the assumption that teachers have enough means, opportunities, and the competency to respond appropriately for each individual student. Although responding to individual educational needs sounds logical—potentially providing an individual student with an optimal learning environment and with optimal learning opportunities—and differentiation could be the key to all of this, it might also be a good suggestion to listen to the voice of reality. The change-and-solution–focused pedagogy does not come without limitations to what is possible in day-to-day practice in schools. It only works by the grace of a realistic balance between that which is optimally desirable and that which is optimally workable (Mol-Lous, 2011; Oostdam, 2009; van Gerven, 2014b). It is the permanent trade-off between the reality of day-to-day teaching and wishful thinking about the opportunities every student should have.
The Need for Differentiation
The Dutch educational law (Article 8) explicitly states that schools should facilitate ongoing continuous progress for all students (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Wetenschappen en Cultuur, 2016). In Article 1.3 of Flemish educational law (“Decreet betreffende gelijke onderwijskansen-1,” 2012), the government refers to striving for optimal learning and developmental chances for all students. Hence, the educational process must match the best possible way to develop a student’s potential. Differentiation is a basic condition that creates an inclusive approach in education (Deunk et al., 2015; Eysink et al., 2017; Janson, 2017; Mol-Lous, 2011; Oostdam, 2009) as it creates opportunities to match the curriculum and learning experiences to the learners (Roberts & Inman, 2013). Therefore, the ability to differentiate is one of the most important teachers’ competencies, described in the Dutch Teacher Qualification Standard as well as in the Flemish Standard (Onderwijscoöperatie, 2014; Vlaamse Onderwijsraad, 2017).
Effective differentiation is intentional and requires effective assessment (Coleman, 2018; Peters & Borland, 2020; Peters & Oveross, 2020; Roberts & Inman, 2013; Robertson & Pfeiffer, 2016). Good assessment directs teachers’ decisions on how to differentiate (Coleman, 2018). It makes it possible to set educational goals for individual students, which then makes it possible for the teacher to plan matching actions (Hattie, 2013, 2014; Marzano, 2007; William, 2011). Consequently, the ability to differentiate creates ample opportunities for educating the gifted in the regular classroom (Janson, 2017). “Tuning” is the magic word required when striving to achieve an optimal match (Kramer & Wildeboer, 2017; Pameijer & van Beukering, 2007; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017). Without it, an intervention cannot be successful because a match between the student’s needs and the curriculum would be coincidental.
In the Netherlands and Flanders, two strategies for differentiation are used: “convergent differentiation” and “divergent differentiation” (Denessen, 2017). Convergent differentiation means that standard educational objectives, set for the entire group of students, are applied in a three-tiered structure (20%–60%–20%), based on Bell curve distribution. According to Meijer (2004), it acknowledges the natural differences between the characteristics of individual students. Divergent differentiation means that the response to a student’s educational needs is as individualized as possible. It aims to create a personalized educational continuous process, in which each student has an individualized exit profile (Mol-Lous, 2011; Oostdam, 2009).
Both concepts of differentiation are open to criticism. An important objection to the concept of convergent differentiation is that, in practice, subgroups based on a Bell curve are not as homogeneous as this way of grouping might suggest. Applying this to the education of gifted students, if we take a closer look at Tier 3, the 20% of students with the highest potential, we may see differences based on ecological influences (Lo et al., 2019; Ziegler et al., 2017) that we have missed before. The problem is that the curriculum in Tier 3 has a ceiling based on the average abilities of students’ achievements in Tier 3 and not on the abilities of the gifted students. Consequently, the curricular opportunities offered at Tier 3 are only a partial match to the abilities of gifted students (Hornstra et al., 2016; van den Bergh, 2018). Another point of criticism is that convergent differentiation does not offer as many opportunities to acknowledge natural differences, compared with those offered by divergent differentiation. Based on the theories of Stevens and Doornbos, Oostdam (2009) suggested that it is important to do justice to mutual differences between students to be adaptive to the different needs they have. The construction of tiered goals, used for the concept of convergent differentiation, ignores the surplus of natural abilities of gifted children and limits their opportunities to excel.
Based on these points of criticism, it seems rational to opt for divergent differentiation. Divergent differentiation provides opportunities for an optimal match between a student’s needs and the education offered, to stimulate the ongoing continuous progress of a child’s development (Mol-Lous, 2011). Hence, this way of differentiation seems to offer more opportunities for the education of gifted students (Janson, 2017; Lo et al., 2019). One strong objection to divergent differentiation is that it stretches the teacher’s capacity for classroom management above and beyond what might be seen as fair and reasonable (Kuipers, 2017; Mol-Lous, 2011). Second, advocates of convergent differentiation point out that, to be effective, the administrative workload of divergent differentiation requires too much time, time which could be better invested in real teaching.
The System of Response to Educational Needs
In the Netherlands and Flanders, educational needs are ranked based on the complexity of the response needed from teachers to respond to those needs. This is similar to what is called the response to intervention (RtI) approach (Coleman, 2018; Peters & Borland, 2020; Peters & Oveross, 2020; Robertson & Pfeiffer, 2016). This ranking can be graphically represented in a pyramid. This representation is founded on the concept of the continuum of achievements and support by Armstrong et al. (2010). The more complex a student’s needs are, the more intense the support must be to sort, affect, and stimulate individual development. This way of dividing and ranking educational needs in a tiered structure shows similarities toward the structure of RtI (Coleman, 2018; Peters & Borland, 2020; Peters & Oveross, 2020; Robertson & Pfeiffer, 2016). The required skills to recognize and understand a student’s needs become more sophisticated if the needs increase to the next level of complexity (Pameijer & van Beukering, 2007; Peters & Oveross, 2020; Robertson & Pfeiffer, 2016; Schuman & de Vries, 2020; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017). Without the ability to recognize, to understand, and to interpret a student’s needs, a teacher cannot respond effectively (Bakx, 2015; Biesta, 2012; Coleman, 2018).
This construct of achievement, the identification of needs, and a matching, meaningful response in support applies both in a heterogeneous setting (regular schools) and a homogeneous setting (full-time education and pull-out programs for the gifted). Each student has a unique profile based on personal traits and natural capacity. The student’s ecological system influences this profile (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lo et al., 2019; Mol-Lous, 2011; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017; van Meersbergen & Jeninga, 2012). This interaction results in a unique educational profile (van Gerven & Hoogenberg, 2011; Ziegler et al., 2017). Therefore, the idea should be dismissed that all students within a homogeneous setting have the same educational needs.
Figure 2 shows a pyramid of support regarding gifted education in the Netherlands and Flanders (van Gerven, 2014a). This pyramid is almost identical to the way overall educational support in both countries is organized (Clijsen et al., 2007; Prodia, 2012), similarities to the pyramid structure of RtI (Coleman, 2018) can also be recognized. Similar to the concept of RtI, a decision-making team becomes involved (Coleman, 2018). At each level of support, however, the decision-making team varies in who might become involved (Pameijer & van Beukering, 2007; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2017). The two bottom levels of the pyramid of support represent the basic support provided in every classroom. Every school can design its unique concept of basic support (Levels 1 and 2). Level 1 represents the regular curriculum. Level 2 is the variation in the regular curriculum allowed to be applied within certain limits as the teacher deems appropriate for the student. The extent to which school management has confidence in their teaching staff determines how strictly they set these limits. This implies that at this level, decisions are not made by a multidisciplinary decision-making team (Coleman, 2018) but by the classroom teacher. The teacher often includes the student in the decision-making process. Level 3 represents the support provided by the school’s SENCo when adjustments at Level 2 are not sufficient and intensified support is needed. This support is additional or can be an alternative to what is offered at Level 2. Support at this level is the adjustment toward a far-reaching kind of differentiation. The decision-making team consists of the teacher, the SENCo, the parents, and the student. Interventions at Level 3 can be split into two kinds of support: support that helps the teacher to see and understand educational needs and support that helps the teacher provide an effective and meaningful response toward those needs. Both kinds of support aim to help the teacher focus on what the teacher needs to become self-sufficient, and what the teacher needs to support or guide the student.
The pyramid of support: Continuum of educational needs and support.
Additional support provided by Level 4 is taken care of by peripatetic SENCos working regionally for district school councils. These peripatetic SENCos are often teachers who specialize in a particular field of learning and behavioral problems. Interventions at this level can be aimed at supporting the SENCo, the teacher, or the student. Everything that applies for Level 3 support applies for Level 4 support as well. The major difference between the tasks of both types of educational advisors lies within the complexity of the cases, or the unicity of a problem (i.e., the combination of giftedness with a specific learning or behavioral disorder). At this level, a multidisciplinary decision-making team includes teachers, parents, SENCos, and often the student. Level 5 refers to placement in special-needs classes and is mostly reserved for students with learning and/or behavioral disabilities.
The application of the pyramid of support varies for each school. With reference to the education of gifted students, the stability of this pyramid of support is still weak in the Netherlands and Flanders. The characteristics of each school determine the shape and stability of their pyramid of support. The stability of the pyramid increases if the number of students who need support at the next level of intensity decreases per layer. The more competent teachers become, the wider the possible layer they can serve. The adaptability of the pyramid is also affected by the school’s student population. If the basic needs of the student population already call highly on a teacher, the chance that this teacher can respond individually to the needs of a large group of students is less likely. Therefore, defining whether interventions belong to Level 2 or Level 3 is different in every school. When, for some reason, interventions for gifted students at Level 2 are insufficient or difficult to organize, the call on Level 3 to become more actively involved becomes more intense. Figure 3 visualizes how this affects the stability of the pyramid.
The unbalanced pyramid of support.
The Third Paradigm Shift: New Perspectives on Giftedness
The question of “What is giftedness?” is discussed worldwide. A wide range of different opinions can be noted (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2016; Balchin et al., 2009; Collangelo & Davis, 2003; Dai & Chen, 2014; Freeman et al., 2010; Kreger-Silverman, 2013; Lo & Porath, 2017; Pfeiffer, 2008; Shavinina, 2009; Subotnik et al., 2011). Dai and Chen (2014) referred to three perspectives as different paradigms: (a) the gifted child paradigm, (b) the talent development paradigm, and (c) the differentiation paradigm.
The perspective of the gifted child paradigm is the equivalent to Matthews and Folsom’s mystery perspective (Dai & Chen, 2014; Matthews & Folsom, 2009). In the gifted child paradigm, giftedness can best be seen as a “state of being.” A person is born gifted, and signs of giftedness can be noticed from a very early age on. Gifted children can be recognized by specific personality traits combined with advanced intellectual development. In this perspective on giftedness, insufficient attention is given to the complexity of being gifted if the focus is only on high achievement (Dai & Chen, 2014). Kreger-Silverman (2013) stated that the behavioral indicators are more important than isolated academic achievements. With regard to teacher competency, this means that the ability to observe and correctly interpret behavioral patterns prevails over the selection by academic achievements (Bakx, 2015, 2019; Haenen & Mol-Lous, 2014).
The talent development paradigm and the differentiation paradigm both represent the mastery perspective (Dai & Chen, 2014; Matthews & Folsom, 2009). Exponents of the talent development paradigm define giftedness as a concept of constructivism, a result of a developmental process where an individual’s developmental potential as a key variable interplays with the pedagogic–didactic environment and with personal effort in a way that demonstrates exceptional achievements (Cohen, 2012; Dai & Chen, 2014; Gagné, 2010; Heller, 2010; Lo et al., 2019; Renzulli, 1985; Sternberg, 2002; Subotnik et al., 2011). Viewed using this perspective, IQ and previously observed high achievements are seen as the most reliable indicators of giftedness. Compared with the exponents of the gifted child paradigm, exponents of the talent development paradigm have more reservations about indicating behavior. They state that, from the majority of indicators mentioned in the gifted child paradigm, it cannot be said beyond any doubt that this behavior can only be the result of a high IQ (Subotnik et al., 2011).
The international striving for inclusive education would appear to favor the differentiation paradigm as a way of thinking. Dividing the world into educational “haves and have-nots” is no longer appropriate (Borland, 2005; Dai & Chen, 2014; Lo et al., 2019; Lo & Porath, 2017). Therefore, in this paradigm, the identification of giftedness as “a state of being” or as “a selection criterion” for alternative educational arrangements is no longer relevant. The differentiation paradigm focuses on the optimal interplay between child and the educational environment to provide meaningful educational responses that encourage talent development. In this educational needs-based concept of giftedness, it is only logical that education has the highest results if it is conceptualized as providing a dynamically responsive curriculum match for the educationally advanced (Lo et al., 2019).
With regard to educational interventions, all three paradigms stress the need to respond to individual differences between gifted students and to tune into their individual profiles of strengths and weaknesses (Dai & Chen, 2014; Kreger-Silverman, 2013; Subotnik et al., 2011). This implies that they all feel that the educational needs of gifted students are likely better served in an educational environment based on divergent differentiation. Therefore, competence in seeing and understanding educational needs and in creating meaningful educational responses goes hand in hand with the ability to acknowledge and recognize the individual needs of gifted students (Lo et al., 2019). Responding to those needs requires an ability in effective classroom management, and the ability to adjust the curriculum in a way that best serves the individual developmental opportunities of students (Bakx, 2015, 2019; Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2018; Johnson et al., 2016; Rogers, 2007).
In the Netherlands and Flanders, teachers are aware of the fact that there are different definitions. However, they are not aware of the different theoretical fundamentals that underpin these definitions. It is almost unknown that each perspective on giftedness has its own separate indicators, separate educational goals, and separate educational strategies (Dai & Chen, 2014). Consequently, communication and processes of decision making are often blurred. Every school is allowed to define giftedness differently (van Gerven, 2017). In day-to-day practice, even within one team of teachers, several interpretations of a chosen definition can exist without the team being aware of it. This can result in a seemingly arbitrary selection of who is to be labeled as gifted or not (de Boer et al., 2013; Doolaard & Oudbier, 2010; Haenen & Mol-Lous, 2014).
If asked, teachers will summarize the personal traits of the gifted based on the gifted child paradigm. However, when it comes to selecting students for enrichment activities, they base their decisions on achievements, leave the earlier mentioned personal traits outside of their scope, and limit the concept of educational needs of gifted students solely to curricular interventions (Slim! Educatief, Postgraduate Teacher Education Course Specialist in Gifted Education, personal communication/class discussions between 2010 and 2020). Where they strive for an educational approach based on the concept of a differentiated response to individual educational needs for most students in their classroom, they move away from that approach when dealing with gifted students. Their pedagogical and didactical responses are mostly based on the concept of a one-size-fits-all-gifted-students curriculum. Standard preset coursework for students who are identified as gifted has become increasingly popular, leaving ideological convictions regarding optimal differentiation behind on the shelf (Kuipers, 2017).
The somehow unconscious ambivalence toward what it is to be defined as giftedness often results in a Babylonian confusion between teachers within a team, teachers and parents, and even between teachers and specialists in gifted education (van Gerven, 2017). Whereas the paradigm shift worldwide is moving from the more mystery-oriented perspective (giftedness is seen as innate and relatively static) toward a more mastery-oriented perspective (giftedness is seen as the result of a developmental process) and the differentiation paradigm is definitely on the rise, in the Netherlands and Flanders, mystery and mastery perspectives are becoming more and more intertwined. An integrated perspective like this can be recognized in Kieboom and Venderickx’s (2017) theory of giftedness.
Inclusion versus segregation, responding to educational needs, the call for differentiation, and a changing perspective on giftedness have to be seen within the context of another major paradigm shift in education: the movement toward social-constructivism educational strategies.
The Fourth Paradigm Shift: Social Constructivism and 21st-Century Skills
The fourth paradigm shift is demonstrated by a fast-emerging need to adjust education to the development of 21st-century skills. A traditional approach to education is no longer seen as sufficient (Onderwijsraad, 2014; UNESCO, 2015; Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming, n.d.). The high-speed development of knowledge and skills and the increasing emphasis on technology require that people should be able to adjust themselves at the same pace (Onderwijsraad, 2014; Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming, n.d.). Therefore, education should be modified by adjusting traditional didactics to modern requirements (De Bie, 2016). This means a shift from a knowledge transfer-based didactic toward a knowledge construction-based didactic, also referred to as social constructivism. This shift is a complex process. Knowledge transfer can be a straightforward operation. The knowledge and skills to be taught are known, as is how the results of the learning process can be assessed. Knowledge construction, however, is not that straightforward. Process and results can vary enormously. Educational objectives are not always easy to stipulate because new knowledge is often constructed, and qualitative criteria to assess this new knowledge can be difficult to predict (Marzano & Kendall, 2008).
A social constructivist/constructivism didactic requires the application of different skills from the traditional way of teaching. Marzano and Heflebower (2012) distinguished cognitive and conative skills that need to be developed by students. The Onderwijsraad (2014), the Dutch National Board for Educational Advice, pointed out three domains of skills: thinking skills, social skills, and metacognitive skills, also referred to as 21st-century skills. In its report “Van lerensbelang” (The importance of learning), the Flemish Ministry of Education describes 14 different categories of skills that can be clustered as thinking skills, social skills, metacognitive skills, and information technology (IT) skills (Bambs et al., 2016). These so-called 21st-century skills are not new in education (Thijs et al., 2014), nor are the necessary teacher competences (Mol-Lous, 2011). What is new is the fact that these 21st-century skills are valued as important for everybody, and not only for the more highly educated (UNESCO, 2015). Following international politics, the Dutch and the Flemish governments, therefore, concluded that these skills should be developed by all students and that this learning process should be started at a very early age (Onderwijsraad, 2014; Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming, n.d.).
Although there is a difference in terminology, all approaches focus on the same behavior. For daily practice in education, it means that teachers have to teach children how to become self-regulating, creative, and critical thinkers, able to solve relatively complex problems in a social context that requires them to be active participants and effective team players, with the ability to reflect on their behavior as the trigger for processes and results (Vermeulen & Vrieling, n.d.). Due to the digitalization of information and communication, the development of information and communication technology (ICT) skills should also be part of this modern curriculum.
Previously in this article, the concept of a differentiated response to educational needs was introduced. With the shift toward a social-constructivist approach to education, the necessity for differentiation becomes more compelling than ever. Not only does curriculum content have to be taught, but also all students be equipped with a broad set of self-regulating, social, and metacognitive skills (van der Donk et al., 2015; Ylvisaker & Feeney, 2014). Hence, the individualized teacher’s response is conditional to its success (Kroesbergen et al., 2017). These skills are developed and internalized over a long period. A condition of developing these skills is the taking on of all different kinds of assignments and projects in various educational contexts (Meltzer, 2018; Stoeger & Ziegler, 2011; van Gerven, 2020). Each student has their own strengths and weaknesses in these skills (Anderson et al., 2014; Barkley, 2012). This implies that this new didactic depends not only on a student’s capacity and efforts but also very much on the teacher’s capacity and attitude (Onderwijscoöperatie, 2014; Vlaamse Onderwijsraad, 2017). The teacher’s ability to model preferred behavior is essential. This conclusion affects the profession of teaching. To adjust their didactics to what is required by a social-constructivist approach to education, teachers must first develop these 21st-century skills themselves (Vermeulen, 2016; Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming, n.d.; Voogt & Pareja Roblin, 2010).
There is a discrepancy between one of the axioms of the social-constructivist approach and the approach of gifted education based on the gifted child paradigm. For the social-constructivist approach to education, the desire to fulfill one’s potential (self-actualization) is conditional for learning. In this approach, a growth mind-set (Dweck, 2017) is needed for educational success. The gifted child paradigm, however, is, according to Dai and Chen (2014), based on a fixed mind-set where innate abilities are the main requirements for educational success. In the gifted child paradigm, self-actualization is seen as a result of education (Kreger-Silverman, 2013). Educational success is defined by the person’s ability for self-actualization. This makes the match between a social-constructivist approach and gifted education based on the gifted child paradigm a more complex one.
Connecting the social-constructivist approach to education to the mastery-oriented approach is less complex. There is a match between the social-constructivist approach toward education and the social-constructivist approach toward giftedness, as in the talent development paradigm (Sternberg, 2009; Subotnik et al., 2011). Many similarities can be observed, and taking these similarities into account, it might be concluded that, provided there is sufficient teacher support, the skills aimed for could be a proper match for the way a lot of gifted students learn (Schrover, 2015). The idea that (outstanding) achievements are the result of a combination of potential and effort (Dweck, 2017), combined with taking ownership of one’s development, makes it likely that a concept of giftedness based on the talent development paradigm can be implemented successfully as a school strategy for educating the gifted (Schrover, 2015).
However, no paradigm is introduced without healthy criticism. Although this approach might appear to be adequate for many gifted students, based on the individual educational profiles of gifted students, there is no enough evidence that it is good for all gifted students. This conclusion brings the focus onto the last paradigm shift.
The Fifth Paradigm Shift: Evidence-Informed Teaching
In 2006, Onderwijsraad, the Dutch National Board for Educational Advice wrote, “Research can provide a more reliable judgement on the appropriateness of methods and approaches, and can prevent the continuing of ideological discussions and ‘trial and error’” (pp. 9–10). The advice to assign ideology and personal professional experiences (based on N = 1) as secondary to generic proven principles showed the direction of future discussions of new pedagogical and didactical approaches. Although personal professional experiences were not excluded completely when it comes to determining “what works” (Onderwijsraad, 2006), they were marginalized. Evidence-based teaching became dominant in the discourse on the quality of education (Biesta, 2007; Diery et al., 2020). However, in the Dutch and Flemish practical discourse on gifted education, evidence-based teaching was hardly an issue.
In the Netherlands and Flanders, the discussion of strategies for evidence-based teaching in general is dominated by the research of John Hattie and Robert Marzano (Hattie, 2013, 2014; Hattie & Yates, 2015; Marzano, 2007, 2011). For teachers, the fast-growing emphasis on the concept of evidence-based teaching has had a major impact on their practice (van Braak et al., 2008; Vandenberghe, 2005). They need to be enabled to use empirical evidence productively (European Commission, 2007), and although expected to integrate empirical evidence with their teaching experience, their personal (individual) professional experiences seem to be less valued than before (Biesta, 2007). They have had to learn how to accept that “good for one” does not automatically mean that it is “good for all” or even “good for most.” Research by Diery et al. (2020) suggested that students in teacher education are more likely to accept information derived from their daily practice than from research-based sources of knowledge, and that they were more motivated to learn from these practical resources. This information tells us how teachers weigh the importance of their personal experiences and how complex it is for teacher–educators to teach them to accept research-based sources of knowledge. Applied to gifted education, this means that teachers are more likely to accept information based on their personal experience with gifted learners instead of accepting information based on theoretical information. If the teacher’s experiences reflect a complex situation wherein they had difficulties responding meaningfully to the needs of their gifted learners, it is likely that these experiences influence the teacher’s perspectives on gifted learners and gifted education. Putting these experiences in a broader perspective, matching evidence-based resources and showing how personal experiences may be deviant from what applies to a larger group of students require the teacher–educator’s ability of the responsible use of data.
The process of learning how to use and value (empirical) evidence is widely discussed among teacher–educators (Diery et al., 2020; Simpson, 2020). In 2015, at the biannual conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Robinson presented a hierarchy of evidence. She distinguished three separate levels of evidence. The first level is referred to as soft evidence or wisdom. At this level, the evidence is shaped by the personal experience of one professional with one student. Advice obtained at this level should be seen as personal recommendations. The evidence for advice at this level lacks theoretical underpinning and is mostly shaped by trial and error (Robinson, 2015). The second level of evidence is referred to by Robinson as best practice. Best practice differs from common practice. In this context, best practice refers to a theoretically underpinned approach, applied within clear conditions but with the flexibility to adjust as seen fit. At Level 3, hard evidence forms the top level of Robinson’s hierarchy and is referred to as evidence based. The level of stringency in the application of conditions and set rules is at its highest on this top level. This stringency has its roots in the field of medicine. Biesta (2007) states that at this level, effective interventions are those proven to have a positive causal relationship between the intervention and the response; he argues that a unidirectional focus on the effectiveness leaves the most important question—“effective for what?”—undiscussed.
In light of using this hierarchy, it is a valid question to ask what can be considered as reliable evidence and whose evidence counts (Nelson & Campbell, 2017). To what extent does evidence gathered from overarching research prevail over evidence gathered by teachers in their daily practice? The complexity of evidence-based education leaves additional factors out of scope, suggesting that what has been proven effective for most, is also effective in individual cases. It leaves undiscussed if “effective” is synonymous with “good”; it just assumes that it is a synonym. However, that also can be discussed (Biesta, 2012; Korthagen, 2017; Mol-Lous, 2011). Teacher–educators stress the importance that teachers also have to learn how to weigh when, from a change-and-solution–focused pedagogy, “good for one” should prevail above “good for all” (Biesta, 2007, 2012; Mol-Lous, 2011). Moreover, as a parallel process, teachers have to be enabled to distinguish when an approach is based on prejudice toward a group of students and to dismiss such an approach even when they feel personally attracted to that approach based on personal experiences (Biesta, 2007).
Instead of evidence-based teaching, a better concept might be evidence-informed teaching. This last concept leaves room for teachers to make professional judgments for individual cases based on different types of evidence and different contexts where this evidence needs to be applied (Nelson & Campbell, 2017). Evidence-informed teaching does not provide a recipe book. Sharples (2017) suggested integrating professional expertise with the best external evidence from research to improve the quality of practice. Professional expertise encompasses the teacher’s professional ability “to integrate knowledge and handle complexity, and formulate judgements with incomplete or limited information, but that includes reflecting on social and ethical responsibilities linked to the application of their knowledge and judgements” (Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks, 2005, p. 68).
The paradigm shift toward evidence-informed teaching brings two issues to light influencing the position and quality of gifted education in the Netherlands and Flanders. The first issue has to do with the quality of postinitial teacher education regarding gifted education. To meet current European standards in teacher education (Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks, 2005), the quality of teacher education is crucial (European Commission, 2007; European Commission Education and Training, 2013). Effective evidence-informed decision making requires that teachers be taught how to do this responsibly while staying true to their professional values (Biesta, 2012; Campbell et al., 2017; Diery et al., 2020). An important aspect affecting the quality of teacher education is the use of an evidence-informed approach by teacher–educators in their courses (Diery et al., 2020; Pillen et al., 2018). This calls for qualified teacher–educators who are more experienced in research and teaching and who are able to implement the use of reliable evidence (Diery et al., 2020; Lunenberg et al., 2014). This is where the paradigm shift toward evidence-informed teaching influences the position of gifted education in the Netherlands and Flanders. In both countries, not all specialists in giftedness involved in continuous professional development (CPD) of teachers are qualified teacher–educators. Anyone who wants to do so is allowed to provide CPD courses for teachers in any subject. There is no legal or professional standard that guarantees the quality of these CPD courses. Although a person may be well-informed regarding giftedness, that does not automatically imply that the same person is qualified to provide teacher education (Lunenberg et al., 2014). Hence, questions can be raised how that affects the quality of evidence-informed teacher educating in courses for CPD and how that affects the quality of gifted education. In other words, how do we ensure that gifted education is not based on quicksand, myths, and misconceptions (Diery et al., 2020)?
The second issue regarding the paradigm shift toward evidence-informed teaching is raised by the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to accept that proposed strategies used in different countries and cultures for gifted education match the Dutch and Flemish social–economical and educational contexts. When it comes to gifted education, existing research about what works and what does not work is mostly based on projects in countries other than the Netherlands and Flanders (de Boer et al., 2013; Doolaard & Oudbier, 2010; Haenen & Mol-Lous, 2014; Hoogeveen et al., 2004; Mooij et al., 2007; Segers & Hoogeveen, 2012). Although that does not mean that this knowledge cannot be adopted, it prevents a one-on-one transferal of ideas. For every proven strategy, one must take into account that there might be differences between the educational and social contexts wherein the strategy is applied (Biesta, 2007, 2012). There also might be differences in the underlying concept of giftedness, cultural assumptions as to what are to be set as educational goals, and what is defined as “good” in education and “good” for education. Not only is the development of giftedness systemically influenced, but education as well (Schuman & de Vries, 2020; van Meersbergen & Jeninga, 2012). Evidence of what works and what does not is highly dependent on the context wherein this proof is gathered, applied, and valued. Thus, the most interesting question is not whether a strategy for gifted education works or not, but what are the conditions for application and the underlying normative concept of what a good education is, and in what context these students can best be served.
Conclusion
In this article, Dutch and Flemish education of the gifted is positioned within the context of five interplaying significant paradigm shifts, all affecting Dutch and Flemish education. The interaction among the five paradigms, related to the call on expertise that each paradigm places on teachers, demonstrates the complexity of teaching in general and of teaching the gifted especially. In the Netherlands and Flanders, school administrations are free to decide how they think these students are served best. There are no laws that describe a specific framework for gifted education. Gifted education is expected to be integrated into education in general and to stay as close as possible to educational strategies generally considered to be appropriate for all learners. These premises connect the position and quality of gifted education in both countries to the position and quality of teacher–educators active in the CPD of teachers regarding gifted education.
As a result of the inclusive approach, the education of gifted students should be integrated into every school’s practice (Dekker, 2014; Slob, 2018; Vlaams Parlement, 2019). This relies highly on the teacher’s ability to differentiate in pedagogics and didactics and requires well-developed managerial skills (Denessen, 2017; Eysink et al., 2017; Janson, 2017; Kuipers, 2017). The diversity of their students’ educational profiles also calls on the teacher’s creative problem-solving skills. To determine what strategies will work, or what the best intervention is under specific conditions, a further required competency is the teacher’s ability to weigh their options critically (Biesta, 2012; Korthagen, 2017). Hence, a condition of competence is not just a declarative knowledge of giftedness but also a declarative, evidence-informed knowledge of different educational strategies (de Boer et al., 2013; Haenen & Mol-Lous, 2014; Hoogeveen et al., 2004; van Gerven & Hoogenberg, 2011). To be able to put this knowledge to use, teachers need to develop perspectives on giftedness and align their actions with their chosen perspectives (Dai & Chen, 2014).
The way individual educational needs call on a teacher’s managing capacity to respond meaningfully to those needs in daily practice, taking into account how other students with different needs also call on this capacity at the same time, determines the level of support they choose as a response to the needs of the gifted student. The width of the existing support pyramid depends, therefore, on a school’s population, the level of professionalism of the teachers, and the managerial options school administrators have. As a result of this, the level of support used to respond to the educational needs of gifted students may differ for all schools. Even within a teaching team, there will be differences in what each teacher can offer. It requires managerial responsibility to develop a continuum of support with the highest balance to circumvent possible inequalities in the care of students due to the different capabilities of a teaching team.
From the interdependency of the educational paradigms, five main domains of teacher competencies can be inferred as explicitly influencing the education of gifted students:
Understanding conceptions of giftedness: The need for in-depth knowledge of the theoretical perspectives on giftedness and gifted education and the ability to apply this knowledge contextually in educational practice.
Seeing educational needs: The change-and-solution–focused pedagogy is needed for seeing and profiling the educational needs of gifted students.
Understanding educational needs: It is imperative to interpret and understand the educational needs of gifted students within their ecological context (i.e., an interactive system of the student, the teacher, the curriculum, physical learning environment, the family, and peers).
Responding to educational needs: Effective education requires meaningful responses to the educational needs of gifted students from contextual and developmental perspectives. In so doing, (learning) process and (learning) results are equally important.
Assessing the responses to interventions: Tuning into a student’s needs requires both the competence to monitor the process of responding meaningfully to a student’s educational needs and the ability to interpret the student’s responses to these interventions contextually.
Taking into account that basic teacher competencies for the Netherlands and Flanders are already prescribed by law, competence in the domains mentioned above should always be described in relation to those basic teacher competencies. Such a connection prevents gifted education from being seen as separate from education in general and opens ample opportunities for an even more inclusive approach to gifted education than currently is offered in Dutch and Flemish schools.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
