Clicking on the article titles will take you down the page to a summary of the article.  From there you will often find a link to the full text article.

• Neal & Schazenbach (2007). Left Behind By Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability - a University of Chicago study that finds that NCLB has led to educators focusing on students in the middle—the so-called “bubble kids”—in order to boost scores on the state exams and ignoring students at the upper and lower ends of the distribution.
• Becoming An Advocate for Your Gifted Student: An Interview with Carol Morreale . (2004). an article from the Spring 2004 newsletter of Northwestern's Center for Talent Development (CTD)
• Bernal, E. M. (2003). To no longer educate the gifted: Programming for gifted students beyond the era of inclusionism . Gifted Student Quarterly, 47, 183-191.
• Parent Advocates: Creating Opportunities for Gifted Students. (2003). an article from CTD's Fall 2003 newsletter
• Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 31-50.
• Robinson et al. (2000). Two tails of the normal curve: Similarities and differences in the study of  mental retardation and giftedness ,
• Smith (2003) . Cultivating otherwise untapped potential , An article in the May 2003 APA monitor on research and programs that are being developed to identify gifted children earlier and to ensure their success.
• Swiatek, M. -A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved? , Gifted Child Quarterly , 47, 118-130
• Tomlinson, C. A. Gifted learners and middle school: Problem or promise. Eric Digest #535 - an incredibly useful and concise summary of a number of major issues around the conflicts between the needs of academically advanced students and the middle school model.
• Winner (1997).  Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling ,
• Winner (2000).  The origins and ends of giftedness ,

Bernal, E. M. (2003). To no longer educate the gifted: Programming for gifted students beyond the era of inclusionism. Gifted Student Quarterly, 47, 183-191.

• Bernal's basic argument is that if programs have as their goal "the education of identified gifted students" these programs are vulnerable to discontinuation.  At a most simplistic level one could say that if we stopped identifying gifted students we would no longer need gifted education (editor's note: this seems to be a trend in some school districts).  Rather, he argues that the goal should be reformulated to "the development of gifted young adults."  There are a number of choice quotes in the paper:
• "The evidence now indicates that there are limits to the benefits of cooperative learning for GT students in heterogenous settings (Robinson, 1998).  We now know that the belief that the presence of GT students in the regular classroom enhances the performance of the other students is pure fantasy (Allen, 1991); regular students attempt to achieve more when they see their intellectual peers try things and succeed, not when they see the smart kids do them. And there are too many teachers who would rather use the gifted students who have already mastered a lesson as peer tutors, regardless of their readiness for this role, than individualize or differentiate their learning (Ray, 1997)." p. 184
• "...gifted children are rarely served in inclusive settings because teachers make no or few modifications on instruction to assist them and almost never incorporate differentiated or individualized instruction (Archambault et al., 1993)." p. 184
• "The belief that all teachers should be able to teach the gifted in regular classrooms, as we have seen, is professionally naive and, in my experience, offensive to the teachers who do not care to work with GT children and feel forced to do so." p. 184
• "The bottom line is: To achieve dependable results, GT students must be, at a minimum, clustered in a regular classroom (Gentry, 1996) under a specialized teacher (Schuler, 1997) who really wants to work with GT students (Bernal, 1998b)." [back to top ]

Robinson et al. (2000). Two tails of the normal curve: Similarities and differences in the study of  mental retardation and giftedness,

•  Examining the commonalities and differences between the fields in social issues, definitions, developmental differences from the norm, values and policy issues, and educational and long-term implications deepens insights about both normal and deviant development. The authors stress the importance of individual differences in the differential design of educational strategies and the application of approaches developed with specialized populations to normally developing children. [back to top ]

Swiatek, M. -A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved?, Gifted Child Quarterly, 47 , 118-130

• Basic Finding:  The authors surveyed 4515 third through sixth graders who had scored at or above the 95th percentile on standardized achievement tests.  These students were asked about their educational experiences as part of their participation in the Talent Search sponsored by the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Talented Elementary Students (C-MITES).  Pull-out programs were the most commonly reported type of special education (40%).  Thirty seven percent of students reported that they were not involved in any in-school gifted program and 75% reported no form of acceleration.  Questions about math education found that 65% of these high ability students reported that "I am in the regular classroom, learning the same mathematics as all of the other students."  The authors conclude that gifted and talented students may not be served well by their schools both in terms of overall programming and in regards to specific math content.[back to top]