After participating in a three-week individually paced precalculus or fast-paced science course, 892 academically talented students were surveyed about academic credit and/or course placement for their independent work. The majority of students discussed credit/placement with their schools, especially those who had taken the course with the intent to accelerate in their school program. Discussion for science (but not math) students was related to type of school, grade level, SAT scores, and gender. The majority of students who discussed credit/placement received one or the other, or both, with higher awards for placement than credit. Science students with higher math and verbal SAT scores were more likely to receive placement, and females who took math courses were less likely to receive credit than male math students. As current educational reforms are being examined, educational resources that are available outside of schools for special populations should be considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenbowC.PerkinsS.StanleyJ. (1983). Mathematics taught at a fast pace: A longitudinal evaluation of SMPY's first class. In BenbowC.StanleyJ. (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 51–78). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
BrodyL.MillsC.KrugD. (1993). Mathematics attitudes and interests of academically talented students. The Johns Hopkins University. Unpublished manuscript.
3.
BrodyL.StanleyJ. (1991). Young college students: Assessing factors that contribute to success. In SouthernW.JonesE. (Eds.), Academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 102–132). New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government. (1991, September). In the national interest: The federal government in the reform of K-12 math and science education.
5.
CeciS. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27, 703–722.
6.
Center for Talented Youth. (1992). Gender differences in eligibility and course choice. The Johns Hopkins University. Unpublished manuscript.
7.
DanielN.CoxJ. (1988). Flexible pacing. The Council for Exceptional Children. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse.
8.
DettmerP. (1991). Gifted program advocacy: Overhauling bandwagons to build support. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 165–171.
9.
DurdenW.MillsC.BarnettL. (1990). Aspects of gender differentiation in the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth. In WieczerkowskiW.PradoT. (Eds.), Highly talented young women (pp. 166–185). Bad Honnef, Germany: K. H. Bock.
10.
ElkindD. (1988). Mental acceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 19–38.
11.
FeldhusenJ. (1989, March). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 6–11.
12.
FoxL.BrodyL.TobinD. (1985). The impact of intervention programs upon course-taking and attitudes in high school. In ChipmanS.BrushL.WilsonD. (Eds.), Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation (pp. 249–274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
FoxL.WashingtonJ. (1985). Programs for the gifted and talented: Past, present, and future. In HorowitzF.O'BrienM. (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 197–221). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
GustinW. (1985). The development of exceptional research mathematicians. In BloomB. (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 298–303). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
15.
Harrington-LeukerD. (1991, November). Empty promises. The Executive Educator, 18–25.
16.
KolitchE.BrodyL. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 78–85.
17.
KulikJ.KulikC. (1984). Effects of acceleration instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 409–425.
18.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(2), 61–66.
19.
LynchS. (1990). Credit and placement issues for the academically talented following summer studies in science and mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 27–30.
20.
MatyasM.MalcomS. (Eds.). (1991). Investing in human potential: Science and engineering at the crossroads. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
21.
MillsC. (1992, March). Gender, personality, and academic ability. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Educational Researchers Association, Hilton Head, SC.
22.
MillsC.AblardK. (1991). Credit and placement: Principals' report (Tech. Rep. No. 6). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth.
23.
MillsC.AblardK.LynchS. (1992). Academically talented students' preparation for advanced-level coursework after an individually-paced precalculus class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 3–17.
24.
MillsC.DurdenW. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 11–16.
25.
MillsC.TangherliniA. (1992). Finding the optimal match: Another look at ability grouping and cooperative learning. Equity & Excellence, 25(2–4), 205–208.
26.
OakesJ.LiptonM. (1992, February). Detracking schools: Early lessons from the field. Phi Delta Kappan, 448–454.
27.
ReddingR. (1989). Underachievement in the verbally gifted: Implications for pedagogy. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 275–291.
28.
ReisS. (1989). Reflections on policy affecting the education of gifted and talented students: Past and future perspectives. American Psychologist, 44, 399–408.
29.
RimmS.LovanceK. (1992). How acceleration may prevent underachievement syndrome. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 9–14.
30.
RobinsonH.RobinsonN. (1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromises for the highly gifted student. In FeldmanD. (Ed.), New directions for child development: Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (pp. 79–94), No. 17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
RossP. (1991). Advocacy for gifted programs in the new educational climate. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 173–176.
32.
SilvermanL. (1989). The highly gifted. In FeldhusenJ.Van Tassel-BaskaJ.SeeleyK. (Eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted (pp. 71–84). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
33.
SingalD. (1991, November). The other crisis in American education. The Atlantic Monthly, 59–74.
34.
SiskD. (1988). The bored and disinterested gifted child: Going through school lockstep. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 5–17.
35.
SlavinR. (1990). Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 3–8.
36.
StanleyJ. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 36–42.
37.
StanleyI.StanleyB. (1986). High-school biology, chemistry, or physics learned well in three weeks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 237–250.
38.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (1984). The talent search as an identification model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 172–176.
