Advanced Academics and Gifted Education at a Crossroads

As we adjust to a post-COVID world, or at least a society that is used to living with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), much of academics, both K-12 and higher education, seems to be at a crossroads. The view that education was the pathway to a better life, treated as unassailable for over a century, has been called into question by many on both sides of the political spectrum. Students and parents demand assurances of the employment paths made possible by investing time and money in schooling. At the same time, no one not legislators, not parents, not students, and not foundations—seems willing to pay for education, the costs of which are increasing exponentially every decade. There is no consensus regarding what should be studied, and no agreement as to which instructional practices work best with students. Some advocate newer, less expensive options to traditional education, while others question the efficacy of these innovations. The tensions created by these disagreements are often palpable, and few seem willing to even listen to the ideas of others, much less consider adopting these.

These disputes leave many educators demoralized, depressed, and with a host of unanswered questions. How can I best serve my students? Is education no longer valuable? Must all traditional instructional methods be eschewed in favor of virtual options? Can we study anything? Who can best decide what is to be explored? Where can I find guidance in planning what I will teach? Are some ways better than others? What sort of a budget will I need? Is there room for advanced academics or gifted education in this new vocationally focused educational world?

Almost forty years ago, Harry Passow first shared his could-should-would test—this was to be used to assess whether programming or curriculum intended for gifted children was in fact worthy of that designation. Passow asked three simple questions: Could most other children of the same age do it? Should we expect most other students of that age to be able to do it? and Would most other students of this age want to do it? If the answer to any of these three questions is “Yes,” then the programming or curriculum is not specifically for the gifted (Robinson et al., 2013). Programming, curriculum, or materials intended for gifted children must pass the Passow test, thus receiving all “No”: answers it is indeed appropriate for gifted students. If, however, the programming, curriculum, or materials receive one or more “Yes” answers, then it is not appropriate for gifted children. While the focus on programming, curriculum, and materials that are not intended for advanced academics or gifted education are often well intended, and sometimes excellent, they ignore gifted and talented children's needs for teaching and learning that supports their talents and needs.

Recently, there has been too little focus on curriculum and programming models that have been specifically designed to meet the needs of gifted and talented children. These include such well-known approaches including the Autonomous Learner Model, the Parallel Curriculum Model, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, the Multiple Menu Model, the Levels of Service Model, the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth Model, the Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model, the Maker Matrix, the Talents Unlimited Model, the Triarchic Componential Model, the Integrated Curriculum Model, as well as others. While a few articles have examined the efficacy of such models and approaches, all too few have done so (VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). More examinations of the efficacy and effectiveness of these models and approaches need to be conducted. The field is also ready to consider new and innovative models and approaches to serving gifted learners. The field has been focused almost solely on identification and equity at the expense of all other topics of research for too long—we need further explorations of which instructional strategies and approaches are most effective with the gifted population.

Further exploration regarding the social and emotional needs of those enrolled in advanced academic programs is also needed. Certainly, all children have social and emotional needs. The social and emotional needs of gifted and talented children, however, often differ from those of their age peers and require different modifications and interventions by teachers and parents to ameliorate them. Not only are further investigations into the particular social and emotional needs necessary, but so too are studies that explore which interventions and modifications are most effective in meeting these.

Of late, schooling has been bedeviled by educational policy “experts” who often make decisions regarding school and classroom practices and policies with little input from teachers, students, or others who work daily with children. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Otto Klemperer, these experts often know a great deal about policy, but very little about education. Advanced academic programs have been closed, gifted education initiatives disbanded, and identification processes turned on their ear, all in the name of policy “advances.” Yet are these changes advances? There is often little or no evidence that such changes will better support or meet the needs of children who can benefit from advanced academic programs. Unless and until researchers examine the ramifications and consequences of such changes, many gifted and talented children will remain underserved.

Examination regarding what type of curriculum is most effective with advanced learners is also something that has not much been studied in recent years. Of course, we know that the curriculum and teaching must be discipline-based, so that a biology class at the middle or high school level, or even one taught in elementary school, should resemble in many ways those taught at colleges and universities, with only the pacing and level of inquiry being varied depending upon student learning profiles. More emphasis needs to be placed on permitting students in advanced academic programs to be involved in the creation of knowledge, not merely upon the ability to memorize and recall information generated by others. Most educators pay lip service to John Dewey's call for hands-on education, unfortunately not realizing that Dewey was calling for children to drive the explorations and studies that occur in school, not just to be passive passengers watching someone else's interests be explored. Ceding this level of control frightens many teachers, and as a field, we need more studies demonstrating the benefits of such an approach.

Finally, all in the field are concerned with the inclusion and performance of diverse learners—children of color, English language learners, children from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds, and others—in advanced academic programs. We as a field, however, need more research on what strategies and approaches best support these diverse learners, and fewer diatribes against the field for not serving what one has decided is the optimal number who should be enrolled in such programming. Indeed, failures of certain subgroups to thrive in advanced academic programs might just as much be a documentation of their general education classroom preparation as it is any deficit attributable to the gifted and talented program to which they aspire. Unless research is conducted that indicates why certain diverse learners thrive or flounder in advanced academic programs, wholesale policy changes are at best ill-advised.

There is, of course, also good news related to our field. Submissions come from an ever-increasingly diverse pool of scholars, both in terms of geographic diversity and fields of interest. Many more articles are being submitted by international scholars, who bring unique perspectives and expertise to our field. Similarly, many more articles are being submitted that explore the avenues of delivery of advanced academic services, both at the elementary, middle, and high school levels as well as university and graduate level programs designed to best meet the needs of gifted and talented students. Explorations of the best delivery models for such programs, be their part-time, full-time, face-to-face, online, hybrid, or some other arrangement. Emphasis is being placed on what is best for the student, rather than which is most convenient for the teacher or school,

As a field, advanced academics and gifted and talented education are at a crossroads. If studies are conducted that demonstrate the most efficacious approaches in the classroom, it seems likely that more schools will adopt those policies and programs that most advantage the children they serve. If, however, we continue to reexamine familiar ground with no increase in our knowledge of how best to serve advanced learners, the future for the field seems dim. Instead, we must choose the path forward that examines programming, approaches, and methods that work to improve student performance and opportunities, as well as tools that may be adopted by teachers, schools, and others who work with advanced academic programs. The future for the field is bright, but only if we produce solid evidence that such an approach is effective, efficient, and equitable.