Paul Andrew Bourne, B.Sc (Hons.); Dip. Edu.
An investigation into the attitudes of school personnel toward ‘gifted’ children in two inner-city secondary school in Kingston, Jamaica.
INTRODUCTION
The education system is a mode of psychosocial and cultural socialization for all societies (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000). It is through this medium that many children are exposed to the requirements of an organic society. Societies function on the basis of solidarity; the purpose through which the educational institutions is to fashion. Despite the primacy of the family in the socialization process, the school is an important agent in value and role transmission. Therefore, the school’s personnel are a vital ingredient in the socio-psychological development of students. The Jamaican society faces further social decay if teachers and other school personnel continue to fuel the social stratification that came from the colonial system. The colonial system used class, race and gender to structure many Caribbean societies (Greene, 1993). The education system is one such institution in the establishment of inequalities. It is through informal education that particular groups of persons are discriminated against because belief is handed down through ‘culturalization’. Inequalities do exist even in inner-city schools among students and teachers. The children of the affluent and the ‘gifted’ are isolated, praised and reverenced by school personnel in the education system. The issue of class, race and gender provide answers to discriminatory attitude of educational administrators against low performers.
The UNFPA (2005) recognizes that there are plethora of inequalities meted out against particular groups within our societies; and so, one of its mandates in the Millennium Development Goal for 2015 is ‘gender equality and equity’ (p.1). This space is not limited to reproductive issues and ‘rights’ but within it scope is subsumed discriminatory practices against children and the underclass. The issue of gender (Greene, 1993) and educational discrimination was the bedrock upon which Caribbean societies were fashioned in particular Jamaica by the colonial demagogues (LaGuerre, 1993). This was through women being felt to nurture children at home while the man venture in academic pursuits and other endeavours. Education, therefore, was a tool for the privilege within the social space of the masses. Because education was used as the vehicle for social mobility, a miniscule number of poor were able to access the ‘quality’ facilities dependent on their enormous abilities compared to less academically incline elite children. The social bias for academically gifted child is embedded within the socialization and the construct of the education system.
Theoretical framework
According to Greene (1993) the "Issues of race and class are central to identifying the patterns of social, economic and political relations and to understanding the prospects for development in the Caribbean" (p.2). Within this social theorizing lies an in-depth avenue for the understanding of the establishment of the education system and the preference for particular characteristics therein. The discriminatory practices of school personnel against particular pupils in their care are simply not accidental but are embedded in race, class and gender stratification of Caribbean societies. Greene’s work alludes to this fundamental social construct of Caribbean nations. It was Smith (1960), a Jamaican anthropologist, who forwards a theorizing on the plurality of our societies. Smith’s theory is in the social space of roles of culture in the functioning of a divided society. Caribbean societies function in two major classifications; one, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ and this primarily govern the allocation of resources. This explains the preference of educators to expend addition human and other resources in already ‘gifted’ pupils while the academic challenged is substantially felt on their own.
Intertwined in the inequality and the discriminatory stance of numerous school personnel against ‘ghetto’ students who are academically challenged is ‘gender’ discrimination in particularly leveled against boys. Bourne (2004) forwards a perspective in a quantitative study on Jamaican advanced level candidates that "the country’s educational system was fashioned from the British system; as such, Grammar schools (i.e. Traditional High Schools) were designed to supply pupils for further studies in addition to supplying ‘high quality’ employees for the pubic and private sector" (p. 7). The societies’ biases do not cease to operate only within traditional high schools but is extended to non-grammar schools. Because educational system is structure based on excellence (i.e. high grades in non-practical subjects), many inner-city students are discriminated against; and the academically inclined among the discriminate is assist in great measures.
According to Bourne, Hargreaves in Haralambos and Holborn (2000, p.231) states, "many schools fail to produce a sense of dignity of working-class. If pupils fail to achieve individual success in competitive exams they will tend to rebel and fail to develop a sense of belonging within the school" (Bourne, 2004, p.13). It is within this environ that the discipline and academically inclined students become educators’ preference for much assistance while the ‘trouble’ makers (indiscipline and less achieved pupil) felt to destroy themselves with knowing the silence of the school administrators. Within this social space of ‘high’ academic performance, the ‘gifted’ students are highly favoured as they foster and propel the personal biases and socialization of the teachers. Lindgren (1976) concurs with Bourne (2004) that particular observable attainment in ‘gifted’ pupils is praised by the education system. He posits that fast learners (i.e. ‘gifted’) are assets without intervention and so it is difficult to comprehend why they need any special assistance or attention from the instructor as against the low performers, which is predominantly the case in inner-city and other secondary educational institutions.
The works of Rosenthal et al. (1968) and other scholars provide a clear understanding of the influence of teachers’ attitude in the performance of students. Students are social entities, therefore, when they are lauded, encouraged and praised with particular reinforcement (Baron et al., 2005, 2006); they are highly likely to performance at a higher degree. The reverse holds true of those who are felt to operate independent of social affection by their teachers. The expressed interest of the educator in the space of the ‘gifted’ pupil is a positive motivator that leads social advancement of the already ‘talented’ child. The researcher being a teacher for over two decades concurs with the social preference of teachers for ‘gifted’ pupils. The relationship sometimes seems infectious, a position that befall many of my colleagues.
Freeman (1993) provides a justifiable reason why the previous experience should not be fostered by educators. Freeman supply an understanding of the intellectual development of students by arguing that the process of academic development is not confined to the simple acquisition of skills; and "perception is learnt from experience and it affects reasoning" (Bourne, 2004, p.20). Formal education should not be seen as the only route for developing competence, and that many forces are influencing the knowledge level of students. If the skills and talents needed by society are predominantly limited to the elite, then, which ever way the elite is selected, there will inevitably be talented individuals whose potential will be undiscovered by the society. The elitists are not confined to the economic bourgeoisie but include "gifted" children (i.e. academic pundits).
Bourne (2004) forwards the perspective that the primary responsibility of instruction is to bring about the maximum degree of achievement in learning, ensuring maximum performance and high self-actualization. In order to achieve this in schools, Bourne believes that competent teachers are necessary who understand their multispatial role in educating pupils. Competence, here, is wider than an in-depth grasp an academic knowledge base but the recognition that learning may be latent (i.e. from Skinner’s theorizing); this signifies why by providing the most suitable environment for learning for the ‘gifted’ child is a process of fostering social stratification.
Rationale
Studies have shown that education is a means of class stratification. Greene (1993) and LaGuerre among other academic clear show the function of class, race and gender in the establishment of Caribbean societies. They forward theorizing that highlight the importance of education the social settings of our society. The society through education offer an opportunity of social mobility for particular groups that were not initial endowed with certain resources. Particular groups of people are labelled and distinguish by our social space. This differentiation may be discriminatory or accepting by the elites. 'Gifted' children form part of the exclude group by all societies. The label results in a stance or perception of them all the general public. This perception explains certain biases either in their favour or against them by persons who must interface with them on a regular basis.
With the educator's function and in particular the school personnel, any negative perception of the 'gifted' child result in a retardation of the development. As the educator's responsibility is to impart knowledge in an unbiased manner to all children, and so any stance socio-psychological against the 'gifted' child may result in underachievement. The issue becomes even more complex in inner city zones in which children have little support from external agents. Children thrive on various stimuli for cognitive and psychosocial development and high achievers are no different. Hence, school personnel's attitude toward 'gifted' students plays a paramount role in their development.
The psycho-social development of a child is dependent on many external agents to which the educational system was 'designed. For inner city children, their cognitive development to meet the requirements of society must be aided by educational development. This must be provided in a nurturing environment, and so the school personnel must understand the 'gifted' in an effort to provide for their development. The importance of educators and other support staffers in secondary educational institutions is important in order to ensure that each child 'gifted' or academically challenged attain his/her full potential. This can not be attained in an environment in which the school personnel label students 'Brain', 'Nerd', 'Einstein', 'Dunce' or make negative comments in regard their abilities and capabilities.
Therefore, within the social space of child development, the issue of attitude of school personnel toward 'gifted' children must be explore in inner city, Jamaica.
Research Objectives
• To conduct documentary investigation of past research on the issue of school personnel's attitude toward 'gifted' students
• To survey the attitude of Jamaica school personnel toward 'gifted' students
• To determine the socioeconomic factors which account for the school personnel's attitude toward 'gifted' children
• To assess how particular attitude affect the socio-psychological attitude of 'gifted' children
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Gender
This refers to social differentiation of maleness and females in roles or the social meanings of being male or female base on functions.
Socialization
School personnel
Persons who are employed by an educational institution in order to carry out its mandate. The examples here include teachers, ancillary and administrative staffers, and principal.
Attitude
This is the psychosocial actions of the school’s personnel in regard the persons who are felt in their care while within the space of the educational institution.
Gifted students
Individuals who exhibit high academic performance in subjects
LITERATURE REVIEW
The social pressure that is levied on school administrators and educators to attain a particular outcome by society may provide answers on the attitude of school personnel concerning ‘gifted’ students. ‘Gifted’ individuals are continuously having to interface with privilege and favours during the educational process in our society (Cook, 1924; Whipple, 1936; Findley, 1971). This social reality is a dialect one. Mead (1954) in a thought provoking article reveals that there is a plight of the ‘gifted’ child in the American culture of the 1950s. She said the very term is used to label children who exhibit intellectual abilities, "gifted", indicating that their success has been given, ‘not earned’. "Giftedness" is, therefore, viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. The over slant to this, is the ‘overbearingness’ of the school personnel in want to aid the development process of these children.
Weiner and O’shea (1963) found that the higher the level of education attained by university students, teachers, or administrators, the more accepting they were of ‘gifted’ individuals. Aspy (1975) study shows the influence of the teacher to affect the achievement and growth of the child. In general, the attitudes held by the majority of school personnel toward ‘gifted’ individuals are principally positive. Studies done on attitudes of faculty members at universities have shown that ‘gifted’ students are highly favoured and held in high esteem. This sees the willingness of the administrators to aid the candidates in many areas of endeavours. Weiss and Gallagher (1980) administered an attitude survey to faculty of five major universities which indicate a strong positive attitude toward ‘gifted’ students. The positive reinforcement for being ‘gifted’ in the school system includes high accolades and public recognition for achievement. Jackson et al. (1981) in a study to assess the attitudes of kindergarten and first-grade teachers toward academically talented early entrants found that these children were assigned the lowest ranks of all candidates to be considered for these classrooms.
The socio-political and economic structure of Third World states in particular Commonwealth Caribbean nations are significant in understanding the workings in the general publics and the classroom. Conflict theorists argue that schools routinely tailor the education according to students’ social background, which explains the dilemma of many educational institutions to aid the educational process of the pupils when teaching in Standard English while their audience communicates in another tongue (i.e. Creole). The matter is even more far reaching in inner-city schools. Borclieu (1997) states that irrespective o the academic talents of students who attend inner-city school, the fact is limited financial resources are expended therein, and this speaks to the inequality of the social structure.
With the social structure from colonial times being to accept the authority of the demagogues, the atmosphere is similar in educational institutions. Even though, teachers often times thrive to attain impartiality, they are attracted to ‘gifted’ children because of intricacies of the colonial annals. Macionis and Plummer (2002) highlights the reality of the education system, they cite that, "most schools reserve their best teachers for students in favoured streams. Thus, high-stream boys and girls find that their teachers put more effort into classes, show more respect towards students and expect more from them" (p. 502). This situation does not only apply to in America the country of the Macionis and Plummer but is typical to Jamaica and across the secondary education system.
Schools are important agents of social stratification in contemporary societies, and their sorting and socializing functions have long been of interest to sociologists. Of particular concern is the school’s response to inequalities among entering students (Gamoran and Mare, 1989, p.1147)
Gamaron and Mare’s perspective highlight not only the social stratification within the American society and its institutions which foster particular biases against group of pupils but introduce the issue of class biases of educators concerning their students. This happening is not atypical but is subsumed in all Caribbean nations (Rosenthal, 1968; Lindgren, 1976; Green, 1993). Such realities are recognized by the United Nations, and justify that institution’s publication in 2005 "State of World population, 2005: The promise equality. Gender equity, reproductive health and the Millennium Development Goals." The issue is not simply recognition of sort as it is a practice that destroys social equality. Studies have found that the present educational system’s role in promoting excellence or ‘maintaining inequality’ (Gamoron and Mare, 1989) does not foster ‘social’ development.
Giroux (1973) writes that ‘schools are not merely sites for instructional purposes’, but are ‘cultural and political sites’ and form the ideological apparatus of the state. Giroux’s perspective concurs with the writings of Greene (1993) and LaGuerre (1993) that class stratification exists in Caribbean societies; and, this is continued by the educational system. The term ‘gifted’ is a social label that is ascribed to pupils to which particular expectations are required from the individual. Nicely et al. (2001) write that the ‘gifted’ pupils are often times ridiculed and embarrassed by their peers because they are withdrawn from the average classroom and place by themselves. The study finds that teachers did not understand the implications of the withdrawing a ‘gifted’ child to participate in an "Exceptional Child Program". One of the findings in the study is that teachers felt that ‘gifted’ children were more work and this they compared to the "Remedial Program" and the found that educators prefer the latter as they argued it made their functions easier. Nicely et al.’s highlights the difficulties faced by ‘gifted’ students and the challenges of teachers who are insensitive those students social environment.
A study in the United States from a national survey of classroom teachers finds that they made only minor modifications to meet the needs of gifted and talented pupils (Archambault et al., 1993). Nonetheless normal heterogeneous classrooms are exactly where many gifted children are found on a permanent basis. Such classrooms are designed to cultivate high-ability students and promote their healthy development in both the cognitive and affective areas if a gifted-friendly classroom environment exists.
A gifted-friendly atmosphere is one in which a brilliant student feels valued and comfortable, free to widen socially and emotionally, as well as intellectually (Kennedy, 1995). It is a setting in which a child is encouraged both to ask and to answer complex questions. It is an environment in which individual differences are honored, and no one is ostracized. According to Kennedy, "It is an environment in which the child can expect to learn new things every day -- and to enjoy that learning" (1995, p.1).
Nicely et al. (2001) findings concur with the study of Kennedy. According to Kennedy:
Common sense suggests that a gifted-friendly classroom environment can best be created by a teacher who genuinely likes gifted kids. And the blunt truth is that some teachers are not fond of gifted children. Most educators of the gifted can relate tales of teachers who ignore students, use them as status symbols, or even harass them with comments like, "If you're supposed to be so intelligent, why can't you remember to bring your lunch money?" Bright kids placed with teachers who don't like them may wither both intellectually and emotionally. Placed with teachers who enjoy working with the gifted, they usually flourish (Kennedy, 1995, p. 2).
Kennedy’s theorizing unearths the social underpinning of the ‘gifted’ pupil’s environment while introducing the social biases of educators concerning this group of students. The educators display negative reinforcing behaviour in an attempt to belittle the value of ‘gifted.’ This setting provides a counter perspective to the favourable perspective of many school personnel for the ‘gifted’ children. The psychological abuse of many ‘gifted’ children is from the position the teachers. Educators are often told that classrooms should be "psychologically safe," but they may need to facilitate in developing such environments. In the most basic sense, psychological safety means that no child will cringe, inwardly or outwardly, when she enters a classroom. The right of a child free from abuse, psychological as well as physical, overt as well as covert, and teacher-sourced as well as student-sourced is still an issue in contemporary society. For a gifted child, this may well denote that no one will call him/her "Brain" or "Einstein" or "Nerd" or that he will be appreciated for his funniness and friendly manner as well as for his/her intellectual mind. This also includes freedom from remarks like, "If you're as smart as people say, you wouldn't keep losing your mittens" (Kennedy, 1995). The functioning principle is common sense: if it is unacceptable to allow teasing or pressure of children who are overweight, physically inept, or developmentally delayed, it is equally intolerable to taunt or daunt a child for superior intellectual prowess.
Many teachers report that meeting the demands of high ability students is similar to meeting the challenges of integrating disabled students in their classrooms. High academic pupils may be pleasant but can also be demanding, impatient, perfectionistic, sarcastic and disruptive. Therefore the regular teachers have not received sufficient training in issues related to gifted and talented students (McGrail, 1997). She writes that:
For many, services to gifted and talented students may seem to be elitist. In fact, the U.S. Office of Education's 1972 Marland Report found school psychologists, more than other school personnel, were hostile toward gifted students. Hopefully, attitudes have changed in the last twenty-five years. . . . Gifted and talented students, like all students, should learn something new every day (McGrail, 1997)
McGrail’s findings provide a clear set of challenges faced by ‘gifted’ students because of the social label, and equally highlights the need for social scientists in the Commonwealth Caribbean to critical analyze the same issue from the social space of inner-city secondary school in Jamaica. The life of the ‘gifted’ is not entirely glamorous, as McGrail points to particular attitude of their teachers. Education is a continuous process, and McGrail forwards a theorizing that all students "should learn something new every day". Therefore, the hostile of teachers if is felt unchecked is highly likely to reduce the outcome in the learning process for the intellectually advanced pupils. As ‘gifted’ children are likely to be underachievers in the event that they are not challenged and encourage to excel (Bricklin and Bricklin, 1967; Lowenstein, 1977; Whitmore, 1980; Dowdall, & Colangelo, 1982; Covington, 1984; Butler-Por, 1987; Rimm, 1986).
The social space in which ‘gifted’ children are found is multispatial and highly complex. The attitude of teachers varies from willingness to assist to hostile, and to ignorance of their demands. This study seeks to explore the social setting concerning the attitude of school personnel toward ‘gifted’ children in two inner-city secondary school in Jamaica.
METHODOLOGY
Population
The population will constitute all teachers, administrators and ancillary staffers of two secondary schools in Kingston, Jamaica.
Sampling frame
The sample size will consist of 20 teachers, 20 administrators, and 20 ancillary staffers. The researcher will seek to collect data from equal number of males (i.e. 50 %) and females (50%). Stratified random sampling technique will be use to select the sample size. This will include
i. make a listing all secondary schools in Kingston, Jamaica;
ii. based on (i) above, choose two schools by way of simple random sampling;
iii. based on (ii) above, make a listing of all teachers, administrators and ancillary staffers;
iv. make a listing of the male and females separately;
v. select 10 individuals by way of stratified random sample from each group of male and female.
Data collection Instrument
The study will collect information through the use of questionnaire. There will one general instrument for all sub-groups. The researcher chose to utilize this instrument as it is the most convenient and comprehensive tool in gathering pertinent data that are quantitative (see Appendix I). After this instrument has been constructed within the aforementioned parameters of the study, undergraduate students from the University of the Technology, Jamaica who is in the various faculties will be used to validate the instrument. Ensuingly, the questions will be modified based on the suggestions made by these undergraduate students. A pretest of the modified questionnaire will be given to a similar population. This will be followed by another set of alterations that the researcher will present to her supervisor for approval. The pilot tests will be done in order to ensure that the:
i) items are clearly stated to avoid ambiguity;
ii) the variables are measured by the appropriate items
iii) the range of investigation was adequate
To eliminate researcher bias, the questionnaires will be distributed by the school’s administrator.
Analysis plan
The Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12.0 will used to analyze the data.
Presentation of data
The findings of this research will be presented by tables and pie graphs.
Reference
Adderholdt-Elliott, M. (1987). Perfectionism: What's bad about being too good? Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Alan, S. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48 (6), 60-65.
Anderson, L.M. (1989). Learners and learning. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed.) Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. Oxford: Pergamon.
Archambault, F.X., Westberg, K.L., Brown, S.W., Hallmark, B.W., Emmons, C.L., &, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. (Executive Summary). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Ashton, P. T. & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Baron, R. A., & Kalsher (2005). Psychology (6th). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (2006). Social Psychology (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Barton, L., & Walker, S. (1981). Schools teacher and teaching. London: Falmer Press.
Betts, G. T. (1991). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 142-153), Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bloom. B. (1977). Affective outcomes of school learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 32. 193-198.
Bourne, P. (2004). An investigation into the effects of social and physical factors, and instructional resources on the academic performance of advanced level accounting candidates in Jamaica. Unpublished research. University of the West Indies, Mona.
Bricklin, B., & Bricklin, P. (1967). Bright child, poor grades. New York: Delacorte.
Burgess, R. G. (1986). Sociology, education and schools. London: B. T. Batsford.
Butler-Por, N. (1987). Underachievers in schools: Issues and intervention. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Buttery, T. J. (1978). Pre-service teachers' attitude regarding gifted children. College Student Journal, 12, 288-289.
Canant, J. V. (1967). The comprehensive high school in America. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clarke, B. (1980). Growing up gifted. Ohio: Merrill Publishing.
Cook, R. R. (1924). "A study of the results of Homogeneous grouping of abilities in high-school classes." In the Education of Gifted Children, National Society of the Study of Education Yearbook, vol. 23, edited by Guy M. Whipple. Bloomington III: National Society of the Study of Education.
Covington, M. V. (1984).The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and applications. Elementary School Journal, 85, 5-20.
Delisle, J. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional development of gifted youth: A practical guide for educators and counselors. New York: Longman.
Dowdall, C. B., & Colangelo, N. (1982). Underachieving gifted students: Review and implications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 179-184.
Evans, H. (1999). Gender and achievement in secondary education in Jamaica. Kingston, Jamaica: Planning Institute of Jamaica.
Feldhusen, H. (1986). Individualized teaching of gifted children in regular classrooms. East Aurora NY: D.O.K. Publishers. Feldhusen, J. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46 (6), 6-11.
Findley, W., State of World population, 2005: The promise equality. Gender equity, reproductive health and the Millennium Development Goals & Bryan, M. (1971). Ability grouping: 1970. Athens, Ga: Center for Educational Improvement.
Galbraith, J. (1983,1984). The gifted kids survival guides, I and H. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Gamaron, A & Mare, R. D. (1989). "Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or Neutrality." American Journal of Sociology, 94, 3: 1146-83.
Gowan, J. C. (1955). The underachieving child: A problem for everyone. Exceptional Children, 21, 247-249, 270-271.
Greene, J. E. (ed.). (1993). Race, class and gender in the future of the Caribbean: An overview. Kingston: Institute of Social and Economic Research.
Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M. ( 2000) Sociology themes and perspectives, (5th). London: Harper Collins Publisher.
Harris, J. R., & Liebert, R. M. (1987). The child: Development from birth through adolescence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Karnes, F. and Collins, E. (1984). Handbook of instructional resources & references for teaching the gifted. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kennedy, D. M. (1995). Plain talk about creating a gifted-friendly classroom. Roeper Review, 17, 4: 232.
LaGuerre, J.G. (1993). A review of race, and class in the Caribbean. In Greene, J.E. (ed.). Race, class and gender in the future of the Caribbean.
Landrum, M. (1995). Preservice teacher preparation in meeting the needs of gifted and other academically diverse students. Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Lateria, A. (1998). When gifted children unerachieve. UNSW Graduate Review.
Lindgren, H. C. (1976). Educational psychology in the classroom, (5th). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Lowenstein, L. F. (1977). An empirical study concerning the incidence, diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up of academically underachieving children. Khartoum, Sudan: University of Khartoum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 166 922)
Macionis, J & Plummer, K. (2002). Sociology (2nd ). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Maker, C.J. (1983). Curriculum development for the gifted Rockville, MD: Aspen.
McGrail, L. E. (1997). Modifying Regular Classroom Curriculum for High Ability Students. Retrieved on November 25, 2005 from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq262high_ability.html
Morgan, S. (2001). Talented children among us in Outlook, the Gleaner.
Nicely, R. F. Jr., Small, J.D., and Furman, R. L. (2001). Teachers attitudes toward gifted children program - implication for instructional leadership.
Nicely, R. J., Small, J. & Furman, R. (1980). Teacher attitudes toward gifted children and programs: Implications for instructional leadership. Education, 101, 12-15.
Parke, B. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rash, P. K., & Miller, A. D. (2000). A Survey of Practices of Teachers of the Gifted. Roeper Review, 22(3), 192-194.
Renzulli, J. and Reis, S. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Ventura, CA: N/S-LTI G/T.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Rimm, S. (1986). Underachievement syndrome: Causes and cures. Watertown, Wl: Apple Publishing.
Roets, L. (1992). Modifying standard curriculum for above-average learners. Des Moines: Leadership Publishers, Inc.
Rogers, K. (199l). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development'. New York: Rinehart and Winston.
Rubenzer, R. L., & Twaite, J. A. (1979). Attitudes of 1,200 educators toward the education of the gifted and talented: Implications for teacher preparation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 202-213.
Schmitz, C. and Galbraith, J. Managing the social and emotional needs of the gifted. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Silverman, L. (Ed.), (1993). Counseling the gifted & talented. Denver: Love Publishing.
Smith, M. G. (1960). Social and cultural pluralism. Annals of the New York Academy Science, 83, 5: 763-777.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Emerging concepts of giftedness. In W. B. Barbe & J. S. Renzulli (Eds.), Psychology and Education of the Gifted (3rd ed.) (pp. 47-54). New York: Irvington.
Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Fostering effective, independent learning through individualized programming. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 429-460), Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). (2005). State of World population, 2005: The promise equality. Gender equity, reproductive health and the Millennium Development Goals. New York: UNFPA.
VanTassell-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners, (2nd). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Webb, J., Meckstroth, E., and Tolan, S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child: A practical source for parents and teachers. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Publishing Co.
Whipple, G. M, (ed.). (1936). The grouping of pupils, National Society for the study of Education Yearbook vol. 35, 1. Bloomington III: Public School Publishing.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Winebrenner, S. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom: Strategies and techniques every teacher can use to meet the academic needs of the gifted and talented. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.