The Education of Gifted Students: A
Reflection on Teacher Misconceptions
and Practice
Introduction
Academically gifted students are entitled to learn in classrooms. This means that they require intentional
and targeted support so that their potential can be realised, and it is the responsibility of teachers to
provide that support (Gross, 1999). However, there are numerous misconceptions and negative attitudes
surrounding gifted education that inhibits growth. Dorling’s (2010, p. 41) spiteful comment summarises
some of these beliefs; ‘Treating a few people as especially able inevitably entails treating others as
especially unable. And if you treat people like dirt you can watch them become more stupid before your
eyes—or at least through their answers to your multiple choice questions in public examinations, and
in their restricted options in life thereafter.’ Dismantling his claims reveals the false accusations that (1)
gifted education is elitist, and (2) gifted students do not deserve special provisions. In this paper, these
issues will be addressed, with emphasis on the true need for social justice in gifted education with the
underrepresentation of students from Indigenous, low-socioeconomic, and EAL/D backgrounds.
Reflections will also be communicated on how I can best address these issues in my current context as
a beginning teacher.
Elitism and Social Justice
There is a prevailing issue that many teachers consider gifted education to be elitist (Gross, 1999; Jung,
2014; Lassig, 2009). This has even been perpetuated by academics, purporting that gifted education is
in conflict with egalitarianism and social justice (Dorling, 2010; Schulz, 2005). Within these claims is
the assumption that gifted children will succeed on their own and therefore do not require additional
support. Australian egalitarianism—coined ‘revenge egalitarianism’ by Fussell (1983, as cited in Gross,
1999, p. 93)—can have a leveling attitude where individuals feel a need to bring others down to their
level (Gross, 1999). It must be acknowledged that many studies report mixed findings on teacher
attitudes and many teachers are supportive (Lassig, 2009; Plunkett & Kronborg, 2007). However, any
existence of entrenched opposition to gifted education must be addressed to achieve true equity.
Gifted education as elitist is a fatal misunderstanding of the true meaning of equity and social justice.
The Education Act (NSW Government,1990) states that teachers should assist every child to achieve
their academic potential. Denying support for gifted children is denying them these rights. Gross (1999,
p. 94) argues that, ‘equal opportunity requires that all students, regardless of their level of ability, should
be encouraged and facilitated to develop their potential to the fullest. Unfortunately, this is often
misinterpreted as implying that no child should be given an educational 'opportunity' that is not
appropriate for his or her classmates.’
The assumption that gifted students will succeed on their own is not supported by broader academic
literature. Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT, 2009) indicates that students
can have ‘natural’ gifts of abilities in one or more domain, which can develop into a talent in a
professional field (Gagné, 2009). The developmental process is key for students to reach their full
potential, and this process can be significantly affected by teachers (Gagné, 2009). In Hattie’s (2008, p.
108) synthesis of meta-analyses related to achievement, he argues that ‘variance due to teachers makes
the difference’. In gifted education, the quality of teacher involvement is dependent on their personal
attitudes towards gifted students (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011). It is these attitudes and subsequent
actions that can affect outcomes for gifted students.
As a beginning teacher, I can take two broad courses of action to counter the perception of elitism in
gifted education. Firstly, I can examine my own attitudes towards gifted students and my expertise
relevant to gifted education (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011). Secondly, I can advocate for the rights of
gifted students and encourage teachers to seek appropriate training.
When examining predictors of teacher attitudes towards teacher programs and provisions, Jung (2014)
found that low power distance orientations, high levels of contact with gifted people, and older age were
predictors of positive attitudes towards gifted education. Whilst age cannot be manipulated, Jung (2014)
gave some recommendations to build support for gifted education in preservice teachers:


Strengthen preservice teacher support for gifted programs and provisions and educate teachers
to clarify the needs and rights of gifted students.
Facilitate interaction between preservice teachers and gifted individuals.
These recommendations can be extended to professional development opportunities for existing
teachers to continually build their experience and knowledge base. When teachers are more supportive
of gifted education, they are more likely to support students as they deserve (Plunkett & Kronborg,
2011).
Underrepresentation of Students from Indigenous, LowSocioeconomic, and EAL/D Backgrounds
The true injustice is not the existence of gifted education; it is the underrepresentation of students from
Indigenous, low-socioeconomic, and EAL/D backgrounds in gifted programs in Australia (Blackburn,
Cornish, & Smith, 2016; Chaffey, Bailey, & Vine, 2015; Goss & Sonnemann, 2016) Giftedness is nondiscriminatory, but people are (Cross, 2013; Thraves, 2018). This underrepresentation is due to systemic
inequality of educational opportunity and deficit paradigms that feed into poor identification practices
(Blackburn, Cornish, & Smith, 2016). This results in students missing opportunities to develop their
gifts and contribute to society.
For example, Thraves (2018) interviewed ten teachers an Australian boarding school where there was
persistent underrepresentation of some cultural minority groups in the enrichment programs. It was
found that teachers viewed gifted programs as performance based, and therefore they attributed the
underrepresentation of Indigenous students to their culture and systemic school-based factors (Thraves,
2018). Contrarily, Peters & Engerrand (2016, p. 162) argue that, ‘the direct relationship between access
to resources and opportunities to learn can result in students who have had the most opportunities to
learn being perceived as the most gifted.’ As teachers, we must actively guard against this perception.
There are two main approaches to counter under-identification of gifted minorities and disadvantaged
students; to use different tests, or to use tests differently. The argument to use different tests is centred
on the preposition that most tests are racially biased, and therefore they assess cultural knowledge rather
than gifts (Peters & Engerrand, 2016). Supporters of this argument advocate for ‘culture-neutral’ tests
to be conducted. However, the widely accepted social model of literacy and numeracy situates literacy
and numeracy themselves as embedded cultural practices, and therefore I argue that there is no such
thing (Perry, 2012). Alternatively, tests can be utilised differently by comparing students to a local
norming group defined by geographical bounds or ethnicity (Peters & Engerrand, 2016). This allows
schools to identify and support students that are most advanced relative to other students in their
demographic (Peters & Engerrand, 2016). However, this assumes that students within the same norming
groups have had very similar educational experiences, which is often inaccurate (Peters & Engerrand,
2016).
It has been found that multidimensional and dynamic testing have higher integrity. For example,
Chaffey, Bailey, & Vine (2015) trialled a dynamic testing technique to identify high academic potential
in Australian Aboriginal children. 79 children aged 8-11 from a rural district of northern New South
Wales were tested on Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM). Then, half the students received
a metacognitive intervention whilst the other half became a control group. When students were retested,
it was found that students participating in the metacognitive intervention demonstrated giftedness in
similar proportions to the larger population (Chaffey, Bailey, & Vine, 2015).This approach aligns with
Gagne’s DMGT (2009) by focussing on responsiveness to intervention. The influence of cultural
knowledge is decreased due to the collection of baseline data.
Similarly, Horn’s (2015) Young Scholars model is a multidimensional approach to identification and
support for gifted students. The identification process involves rigorous teacher professional
development and the full-time provision of a gifted and talented resources teacher. Identification is
based on a combination of teacher observations, student work samples, and test scores. Teachers found
that students excelled when given opportunity for challenge (Horn, 2015). In the 11 years since the
program was initiated, there has been a 565% increase in the number of Black and Hispanic students
receiving gifted services in high school due to more equitable identification.
As a beginning teacher, I must be receptive of my own tendencies towards deficit logic and
identification bias. I will seek to implement rigorous identification strategies such as those described by
Chaffey, Bailey, & Vine (2015) and Horn (2015) so that students from all backgrounds are recognised
for their gifts, regardless of their previous opportunities.
Acceleration for Gifted Students
The final issue to be addressed in this paper is the lack of appropriate services for gifted students. In
particular, there is significant empirical support for acceleration, however it is often not translated to
practice (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius & Peternel, 2010; Missett et al., 2014). Acceleration is the faster
academic progress for a student to match their level and pace. Radical acceleration is the skipping of a
grade. It can also refer to curriculum compacting, personalised spacing, and flexible grouping strategies
to allow students to access content at a more rapid pace (Missett et al., 2014). Many teachers are
reluctant to implement these strategies due to concern that children that are accelerated will have socioemotional adjustment issues (Lassig, 2009; Missett et al., 2014; Neihart, 2007).
Missett et al. (2014) investigated teacher beliefs about gifted education provisions and found that they
significantly influence the extent to which teachers use evidence-based practices such as personalised
pacing, ability grouping, and formative assessment for gifted education in their classroom. Often,
teachers are oriented towards group needs rather than individual needs, and when they are oriented to
individual needs, it is towards the needs of struggling students (Missett et al., 2014). However, it has
been demonstrated that accelerated students are often better adjusted than nonaccelerated gifted students
and they achieve more highly academically (Lassig, 2009; Neihart, 2007; Steenbergen-Hu, Makel &
Olszewski-Kubilius, 2016). Few psychosocial disadvantages of acceleration have been documented
(Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius & Peternel, 2010). In fact, there can be positive effects; acceleration helps
students to facilitate positive relationships with peers of similar abilities and increase self-confidence.
There can also be benefits for gifted students from minority backgrounds. Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius &
Peternel (2010) conducted a study on the academic acceleration of gifted minority students in
mathematics. Specific concerns exist for minority students identified as gifted- by achieving
academically, they may be perceived as ‘acting white’ which is a potential rejection of their culture and
peers (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius & Peternel, 2010). In the study, 30 students from grades 4 to 9
participated in a project to take accelerated science and maths courses outside of school hours. It was
found that participants viewed their studies as exciting and challenging compared to their boring
classwork (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius & Peternel, 2010).
There is overwhelming evidence to support acceleration programs for gifted students. Neihart (2007)
offers recommendations to support the academic and social development of accelerated students:




Highly gifted students should be accelerated for the benefit of their wellbeing and academic
achievement.
Students who are being considered for acceleration should be assessed for social readiness,
emotional maturity, and motivation for acceleration.
Where possible, students should be accelerated as part of a cohort.
Staff development should be prioritised so that all teachers can deliver accelerated instruction
to students in their classrooms.
Many of these recommendations run parallel to Horn’s (2015) Young Scholars program, as described
above. There are four levels of support, depending on the needs of students. In Levels I and II, students
received differentiated and accelerated instruction classroom activities. Then, in Level III, students
engage in part-time pull-out programs to study sophisticated and complex content. Level IV is the
highest level of support, where students are placed in a full-time, highly challenging instructional
program (Horn, 2015).
At the level of control of a classroom teacher, it is my responsibility to ensure that all students receive
support similar to Levels I and II in Horn’s program. I will also continue to advocate for the
implementation of more comprehensive approaches where they are not currently being implemented.
Conclusion
It is the right of all students to have the opportunity to reach their potential in Australian classrooms,
and gifted students are no different. The attitudes and actions of teachers matter; it is the strategies we
use that influence outcomes for our students (Hattie, 2008). Therefore, I will continue to support
students within my classroom. There should be a holistic approach to identification and provision within
schools as outlined by Horn (2015). I will continue to advocate for equitable identification practices
and programs for gifted students on a school-wide level so that students from all backgrounds can access
opportunities to grow academically.
References
Blackburn, A., Cornish, L. & Smith, S. (2016). Gifted English Language Learners: Global
understandings and Australian perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(4),
338–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216671834
Chaffey, G., Bailey, S. & Vine, K. (2015). Identifying high academic potential in Australian
Aboriginal children using dynamic testing. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(2),
24–37. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2015.0014
Cross, J. R. (2013). Gifted education as a vehicle for enhancing social equality. Roeper Review:
Special Issue on Social Inequality and Gifted Education, 35(2), 115–123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.766962
Dorling, D. (2010). The return to elitism in education: a society's attitudes to innate intelligence are
closely correlated with its levels of inequality. Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture,
44. 35-46.
Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In B. MacFarlane,
& T. Stambaugh, (Eds). Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce
Vantassel-Baska (61-80). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
Goss, P. & Sonnemann J. (2016, March 21). Widening gaps: What NAPLAN tells us about student
progress. Grattan Institute. Retrieved from https://grattan.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/937-Widening-gaps.pdf
Gross, M. (1999). Inequity in equity: the paradox of gifted education in Australia. The Australian
Journal of Education, 43(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494419904300107
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Horn, C. V. (2015). Young Scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential
in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 19–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556532
Jung, J. Y. (2014). Predictors of attitudes to gifted programs/provisions: Evidence from pre-service
educators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 247–258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214547636
Lassig, C. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted: The importance of professional development
and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 32-42.
Missett, T., Brunner, M., Callahan, C., Moon, T., & Price A. (2014). Exploring Teacher Beliefs and
Use of Acceleration, Ability Grouping, and Formative Assessment. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214541326
Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 51(4), 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306319
New South Wales Government (1990). Education Act 1990 No 8. Retrieved from
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1990-008
Perry, K. (2012). What is literacy? a critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of
Language & Literacy Education, 8(1), 50–71. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1008156
Peters, S. & Engerrand, K. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of
underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3),
159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2007). Gifted education in Australia: a story of striving for balance.
Gifted Education International, 23(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940702300109
Plunkett, M. & Kronborg, L. (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of
examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International, 26(12), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673587
Schulz, S. (2005). The gifted: Identity construction through the practice of gifted education.
International Education Journal, 5(5), 117-128.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What One Hundred Years of
Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K-12 Students'
Academic Achievement: Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses. Review of
Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
Thraves, G. (2018). Teacher perceptions of gifted cultural minorities: an Australian study. TalentEd,
30(1), 17–31.