Secondary Gifted Education Program Review

Marija Glisic, PhD Laura Naismith, PhD

December 2019

FINAL REPORT

Table of Contents Hyperlinks

● Purpose and Scope of the Review

● Review Activity #1 - Literature Review

● Review Activity #2 - Review of the PDSB Special Education Plan - Gifted Component

● Review Activity #3 - Trends in Secondary Gifted Education

● Review Activity #4 - Secondary Gifted Education at the PDSB○ Enhanced Learning Program Site Profiles

○ Stakeholder Perspectives

○ Secondary Gifted Programming in the Toronto-Area Region

● Review Activity #5 - Student and Parent Voice○ Student Well-Being and School Experience

○ Reasons for not Attending the Secondary ELP

● Recommendations for Future Planning and Improvement

2

Purpose and Scope of the Review

The last PDSB Gifted Education Program Review was published in 2009, based on data collected between 2006 and 2008.

The purpose of this review is to: 1) Provide an update on the Ontario gifted education context and literature trends; 2) Describe the secondary gifted education pathways in the PDSB and neighbouring school boards;3) Assess whether current secondary gifted education programs are meeting the needs of PDSB secondary

students and their families; and4) Outline recommendations for future planning and improvement.

What does this review add? ● New data sources: Ontario Ministry of Education, Student Enrolment Analyser Special Education; PDSB

School Information System; PDSB Student Census 2018● Focused review of alignment with the Ontario Ministry of Education’s Special Education Policy and the

PDSB’s goals for Equity and Inclusion

3

Literature Review

4

Literature ReviewDefinition and Models of Giftedness

● Giftedness typically refers to above average intellectual ability, however there are many different theoretical models that explain the concept and no universal operational definition of it.[1-6]

● Perceptions of giftedness are shaped by culture and cultural norms, including beliefs, customs, needs, values, attitudes, and language.[7-8]

Characteristics of Successful Gifted Education Programs● Successful gifted education programs provide: intellectual peer interactions, flexible grouping, differentiation

of curriculum and instruction, continuous academic progress, continuity of support services, and teachers with specialized training in gifted education.[9]

● A meta-analytic study of gifted programs reported positive student outcomes with respect to their cognitive, affective, and social development.[10]

● There are limited data on gifted students’ program choices and program satisfaction in secondary school. In one Canadian study, gifted students in 3 types of specialized secondary programs (gifted, specialized science, International Baccalaureate) were highly satisfied with their academic programs and enjoyed opportunities to interact with other highly able and motivated peers.[11]

5

Literature Review (continued)

Facilitating the Transition to Secondary School● Gifted students require support when transitioning from elementary to secondary school. In a longitudinal

study of the negative life events of gifted students, nearly half of the sample reported school transitions as among their most stressful and challenging experiences.[12]

● Transition programs involving students and educators at both elementary and secondary schools can be helpful for addressing students’ academic, social, and organizational expectations.[13-15]

Equity Considerations● There is considerable evidence of disproportionalities in the composition of gifted education programs along

race, class, and gender lines.[16-19]

● Increasing the number of underrepresented students in gifted programs requires attention to both identification and retention practices.[19-22]

○ Identification Best Practices: universal screening, multiple assessment measures, teacher training on how giftedness is expressed in underserved populations

○ Retention Best Practices: culturally responsive teaching, mentoring, focus on growth mindset

6

Review of the PDSB Special Education Plan - Gifted Component

7

Giftedness in the Ontario Context● Giftedness is considered a special education need by the Ontario Ministry of Education (2017). It is categorized

as an intellectual exceptionality and operationalized as:

“an unusually advanced degree of general intellectual ability that requires differentiated learning experiences of a depth and breadth beyond those normally provided in the regular school program to satisfy the level of educational potential indicated”

● There are no standard gifted identification criteria set by the Ministry. Many Ontario school boards use a form of group-based intellectual aptitude testing (e.g., CCAT, OLSAT) in Grade 3 or Grade 4 and refer students above a certain cut-off for further individual assessment.

● The Ministry specifies 5 different placement options for K-12 students in all categories of exceptionalities including giftedness. These range from a regular class with indirect support to a full-time special education class.

● Decisions about the identification and placement of individual students are made at the school board level by Identification, Placement, and Review Committees (IPRCs).

8

Enhanced Learning at PDSB● At the elementary level, gifted education services (also referred to as Enhanced Learning) are provided at the

PDSB using a 3-tiered model.

● Identification and placement decisions are made by an IPRC based on cognitive and academic assessments completed by the student and a Gifted Rating Scale completed by a teacher.*

● Elementary students identified as Exceptional Intellectual: Gifted receive services under Tier 2 (In-School Enhanced Learning Program) or Tier 3 (Enhanced Learning Class).

● Grade 8 students identified as Exceptional Intellectual: Gifted have many secondary school options. They may:

● Choose to attend the Regional Secondary Enhanced Learning Program (ELP);● Apply for a Regional Learning Choices Program (e.g., Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate,

Regional Arts);● Choose to continue in French Immersion or Extended French (if currently enrolled); or● Choose to attend their home school;

● As of 2019-2020, there are 4 ELP sites throughout the PDSB: Heart Lake SS, Humberview SS, Lorne Park SS, and The Woodlands SS. Placement at a specific site is determined by the student’s home address.

*Resolution No. 19-110 to improve the gifted identification and placement process was passed at the Regular Meeting of the Board on May 28, 2019. Specific recommendations are due back to the Special Education Advisory Committee in the Fall of 2019.

9

PDSB Gifted Identification Process and Program Options

Elementary Secondary

10

Standards for Special Education Plans

“Regulation 306 requires every school board to maintain a special education plan…the special education plan shall be made available to the ministry for review and be publicly accessible” [23]

The PDSB’s Special Education Plan is publically available

Amendments to the plan made each school year and available for the past 13 years

Members of the community invited to provide input into the plan through the board’s

Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC)

PDSB

Min

istr

y o

f Ed

uca

tio

n

The PDSB is fully aligned with this regulation of the Ministry’s Special Education Policy and Resource Guide.

11

The IPRC Process and Transition Planning

“Identification, Placement, and Review Committees (IPRCs) are responsible for the identification of exceptional students

and their placement in special education programs.”[23]

There is no explicit mention of demission processes.

PDSB Special Education Plan ○ Category - Intellectual - Giftedness

Identification and Assessment Processes1) CCAT assessment as an initial screener for all students2) GRS assessment3) Psycho-educational assessment

Referral Process○ different referral pathways specified in the PDSB Special Education Plan

IPRC Recommendations○ placement decisions “based on demonstrated need for increasing levels of differentiated instruction”

PDSB

Min

istr

y o

f Ed

uca

tio

n

The PDSB has a longstanding practice of demitting students with a gifted exceptionality who choose not to attend an Enhanced Learning Program in secondary school. The demission process is not standardized, and demitted students do not go through an IPRC process. Demitted students’ gifted designation is removed from the PDSB Student Information System.

!12

The Individual Education Plan (IEP)

“With regard to transition planning, in addition to what is stated above about the requirements under O. Reg. 181/98, ministry policy requires that a transition plan be developed for all students, from Kindergarten to Grade 12, who have an IEP, whether or not they have been identified as exceptional by an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) and including those identified as exceptional solely on the basis of giftedness.

“A team approach should underlie the IEP process, and the process should focus on how the student is expected to progress through the Ontario curriculum – with or without accommodations, modified expectations, and/or alternative programs (those not described in the Ontario curriculum) – as well as on how the student will make

key educational transitions, including the transition to a postsecondary destination.”[23]

The classroom teacher, in the development of the Individual Education Plan (IEP), uses information from the psycho-educational assessment to inform the identification of the student’s strengths and needs and includes the corresponding strategies in the IEP.

An Individual Education Plan will be developed for students who are serviced through the ISELP

PDSB

Min

istr

y o

f Ed

uca

tio

n

PDSB students with a gifted exceptionality who choose not to attend the Enhanced Learning Program in secondary school are usually NOT provided with an IEP related to their gifted exceptionality in their secondary program. !

13

Trends in Secondary Gifted Education

14

Key Findings – Five Year Trends

Over five years (2013-2018):

1. The percentage of PDSB grade 8 students receiving gifted education services decreased from 3.3% to 1.6%. 2. The percentage of PDSB grade 9 students receiving gifted education services decreased from 1.8% to 1.0%.3. The percentages of Toronto-Area Region and Provincial students receiving gifted education services decreased slightly for grade 8 students and

were unchanged for grade 9 students.

Note: The Toronto-Area Region consists of 8 school boards: Peel, Dufferin-Peel Catholic, Toronto, Toronto Catholic, Halton, Halton Catholic, Upper Grand, and Wellington Catholic.

Data source: Ontario Ministry of Education, Education Information Centre, Student Enrolment Analyser Special Education

Students Receiving Special Education Services for Giftedness – Five Year Trends

15

Students Receiving Special Education Services for Giftedness – Five Year Trends by Gender

Key Findings – Five Year Trends by Gender

Over five years (2013-2018):

1. The percentage of female grade 8 students receiving gifted education services was slightly lower for the PDSB than for the Toronto-Area Region and the Province.

2. The percentage of female grade 9 students receiving gifted education services was lower for the PDSB than for the Toronto-Area Region and the Province.

3. Compared to all PDSB students in these grades, male students were overrepresented and female students were underrepresented.

Data source: Ontario Ministry of Education, Education Information Centre, Student Enrolment Analyser Special Education

Percentage of PDSB Students Receiving Gifted Education Services by Total Enrolment, 2013-2018 by Gender

Grade 8 Grade 9

Female Students 1.9% 1.1%

Male Students 2.7% 1.9%

All Students 2.3% 1.5%

16

Students Receiving Special Education Services for Giftedness – 2017-2018 by Municipality

Key Findings – 2017-2018 by Municipality

During the 2017-2018 school year at the PDSB:

1. Students with home addresses in Mississauga made up the majority of students receiving gifted education services in both grade 8 and grade 9.

2. Compared to all PDSB students in these grades, Mississauga students were overrepresented, while Brampton students were underrepresented. Caledon students were slightly underrepresented in grade 8 and slightly overrepresented in grade 9.

Data source: PDSB School Information System (SIS), rundate October 31, 2017

Percentage of PDSB Students Receiving Gifted Education Services by Total Enrolment, 2017-2018 by Municipality

Grade 8 Grade 9

Mississauga 2.6% 1.8%

Brampton 0.7% 0.2%

Caledon 1.0% 1.4%

All Students 1.6% 1.0%

17

Students Receiving Special Education Services for Giftedness – 2017-2018 by SVI

Key Findings – 2017-2018 by SVI

During the 2017-2018 school year at the PDSB:

1. Based on their home address postal codes, grade 8 and 9 students receiving gifted education services had lower average socioeconomic vulnerability index (SVI) scores compared to the PDSB average. These differences were highly statistically significant.

2. Grade 8 and 9 students receiving gifted education services live in areas where the median household income is higher, poverty rates are lower, and rates of home ownership and educational attainment are higher than PDSB averages.

Data sources: PDSB School Information System (SIS), rundate October 31, 2017; Socioeconomic Vulnerability Index (SVI) 2017, Peel District School Board 18

Grade 9 Program Placement of Grade 8 Identified Gifted Students over Five Years (2013-2018)

Legend

ISELP = In-School Enhanced Learning ProgramELC = Intermediate Enhanced Learning Class (Fully Self-Contained)ELP = Regional Secondary Enhanced Learning ProgramRLCP = Regional Learning Choices Program (e.g., Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, Regional Arts)EF = Extended FrenchFI = French Immersion

*Students who were in both ELP and EF/FI were counted as ELP

Data source: PDSB School Information System (SIS), rundate October 31, 2018

Key Findings – Grade 9 Program Placement

Over five years at the PDSB (2013-2018):

1. Students who were in a fully self-contained Enhanced Learning Class in grade 8 were more likely to attend the Enhanced Learning Program in grade 9, while students in the In-School Enhanced Learning Program were more likely to attend Regional Learning Choices Programs.

19

Results may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Secondary Gifted Education at the PDSB

20

Enhanced Learning Program (ELP) Site Profiles

Tota

l Nu

mb

er o

f G

ifte

d S

tud

ents

at

Each

Sit

e

Nu

mb

er o

f El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

ls in

eac

h E

LP

Cat

chm

ent

Are

a

Data source: PDSB School Information System (SIS), rundate October 31, 201821

Gifted Students in Proportion to Total Enrolment in ELP Sites - Five Year Trends

2014 2014

2014 2014

2018 2018

2018 2018

Lorne Park The Woodlands Heart Lake Humberview

Total Enrolment

Number of Gifted Students

Data source: PDSB School Information System (SIS), rundate October 31, 2018

22

Commonalities and Differences amongst ELP Sites

Commonalities Differences

● Lead teacher who coordinates the ELP, supports students, and provides ad-hoc professional learning for teachers

● Many opportunities for extracurricular activities and additional enhancements (e.g., clubs, special events, field trips, music program, volunteering)

● Capacity and willingness to take on more gifted students● Gifted students typically:

○ are involved in the school community○ have aspirations to attend university○ are very competitive for marks and awards

● High parent engagement and advocacy● Reduced available pool of incoming gifted students:

○ Changes to the identification process○ Parent perceptions of Regional Learning Choices

Programs● Observed increase in the prevalence of mental health issues (e.g.,

anxiety) in gifted students● Desire for more cross-site professional learning opportunities

focused on gifted education

● Fully self-contained ‘core’ courses at some sites and blended courses at other sites

● Some sites offer the opportunity to attend both ELP and French Immersion/Extended French, while others do not offer French programs

● Cohorts of gifted students at some sites and not at other sites● Frictions with mainstream students more pronounced at sites where

ELP is perceived as more ‘elite’● Timetabling challenges for sites with smaller programs● Some sites have been able to maintain consistency in the pool of

teachers who teach gifted students while others have not● Transportation challenges at more remote sites impact

opportunities to offer the same types of extracurricular activities and field trips as at other sites

Data source: ELP Site Visits conducted in April-May, 2019 23

Stakeholder Perspectives: Policies and Practices

● The current ELP model does not offer sufficient flexibility to meet the diverse needs of gifted learners:

○ Students have to take at least 1 enhanced course per semester to maintain bussing, even if not in an

area of strength

○ No gifted education supports for students who want to enrol in other programs

○ Need for innovative solutions to accommodate students who want to go beyond their grade level

● Information and support for the elementary to secondary transition process varies by school, particularly for

students who are demitted from the gifted program:

○ Parents of demitted students may not know that their children can come back to ELP

○ Parents of demitted students can request an IEP but need to go through the IPRC process

● Regional Learning Choices Programs are having a significant negative impact on ELP enrolment

● There is a need for more cross-site professional learning opportunities for teachers of gifted learners

● There is a need for a central gifted coordinator or principal in addition to the lead teachers at the ELP sites

Data source: Key Informant Interviews (N=8) conducted in May-June, 2019 24

Stakeholder Perspectives: Gifted Learners● Gifted learners have learning needs that cannot always be accommodated with differentiation in mainstream

classrooms:

○ Enhancements within mainstream classrooms are often more work rather than different work

○ Teachers who teach enhanced courses progress through the curriculum faster, explore additional

areas in a greater depth, and provide a stimulating environment for gifted students

○ Mainstream students are negatively impacted by being in the same class with gifted students

● Larger gifted programs provide more opportunities for students to be with like-minded peers

● Not all gifted learners are the same:

○ Some gifted students are very strong in some areas but not in others

○ Challenges in supporting students with multiple exceptionalities

○ Gifted underachievers are not well understood or supported

● Gifted students are under a lot of stress:

○ High academic expectations from self and parents

○ High involvement in activities inside and outside of school

○ High levels of perfectionism, anxiety, and other mental health issues

○ Classroom practices that promote unfriendly competition Data source: Key Informant Interviews (N=8) conducted in May-June, 2019

25

Stakeholder Perspectives: Parents of Gifted Students

● Parents prefer contained gifted courses to blended courses because they feel that they serve their children’s

academic, social, and emotional needs better

● Parents perceive Regional Learning Choices Programs to be more prestigious than the ELP and to offer better

opportunities for their children to get into their university programs of choice

● Parents want to ensure that their children have the highest level of opportunity to demonstrate success:

○ They are highly informed and engaged, but can also be very demanding of staff time and attention

○ Parents want teachers of gifted students to have specialized training

Data source: Key Informant Interviews (N=8) conducted in May-June, 2019 26

Secondary Gifted Programming in the Toronto-Area Region

27

School Board Secondary Gifted Programming IEP Process

Toronto District School Board

111 secondary schools

Most gifted students continue into the Intensive Support Program (ISP, 10 sites). The ISP offers 4 fully self-contained classes for Grades 9 and 10 and 2 for Grades 11 and 12. TTC tickets may be provided based on distance and financial criteria.

Approximately a third of gifted students do not continue into the ISP. Instead they attend other specialized schools and programs or their home school.

IEPs are maintained for all gifted students. If the student does not attend the ISP, then IEPs are managed by the school special education support team. Accommodations may relate to curriculum, social communication, organization, time management, participation in class, collaboration/group work.

Halton District School Board

16 secondary schools

Most gifted students continue into a Secondary Gifted Placement (SGP, 6 sites). Students need to take at least 2 of 4 gifted courses per year. Gifted courses are offered to other high-achieving students if necessary to fill the cohort. Transportation is provided.

The International Baccalaureate is available at 3 sites and the I-STEM program is available at 1 site.

IEPs are maintained for all gifted students. They are developed at the school level by Special Education Resource Teachers (SERTs).

Upper Grand District School Board

11 secondary schools

Gifted students attend their home secondary school. Advanced Placement programs are available at 5 sites. The International Baccalaureate is available at 1 site.

IEPs are maintained for all gifted students. Accommodations are mainly curriculum focused. Process is managed at the school level by SERTs with input from classroom teachers.

Data sources: Board Websites and Special Education Plans, Email and Telephone Survey (N = 6), conducted November 2019

Secondary Gifted Programming in the Toronto-Area Region

28

School Board Secondary Gifted Programming IEP Process

Toronto Catholic District School Board

31 secondary schools

Gifted placements in secondary schools are available in the regular classroom, with facilitated opportunities for self-selected enhanced learning. The TCDSB also offers many specialized schools and programs at the secondary level.

IEPs are maintained for all gifted students.

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

26 secondary schools

Gifted students are directed to the International Baccalaureate program (3 sites), which is also open to non-identified students. Advanced Placement programs are available at 4 sites. There are also 2 Regional Centres for the Arts.

No information available.

Halton Catholic District School Board

9 secondary schools

Gifted placements in secondary schools are available in the regular classroom. Advanced Placement programs are available at 3 sites. The International Baccalaureate is available at 1 site.

IEPs are maintained for all gifted students.

Wellington Catholic District School Board

4 secondary schools

Gifted placements in secondary schools are available in the regular classroom. The International Baccalaureate is available at 1 site.

IEPs are maintained for all gifted students.

Data sources: Board Websites and Special Education Plans, Email and Telephone Survey (N = 6), conducted November 2019

Student and Parent Voice

29

Perceptions of Gifted Students in the ELP

Percentage of ELP Students who reported experiencing the following feelings

often or all the time (N = 514)

5% to 10% higher than all PDSB secondary students

within 5% of all PDSB secondary students

Data sources: PDSB School Information System (SIS), rundate October 31, 2018; PDSB Student Census, November 2018

Percentage of ELP Students who reported taking part in learning

activities outside school on a weekly basis (N = 514)

30

Perceptions of Gifted Students in the ELP

Percentage of ELP Students who reported experiencing the following feelings

often or all the time (N = 514)

5% to 10% higher than all PDSB secondary studentswithin 5% of all PDSB secondary students5% to 15% lower than all PDSB secondary students

Data sources: PDSB School Information System (SIS), rundate October 31, 2018; PDSB Student Census, November 2018 31

Reasons for not Attending the Secondary ELP

Key Findings – Parent Interviews

● Parents of gifted students were asked why their child(ren) did not continue in ELP in Grade 9

● 72% of parents responded● The main reason for not choosing the ELP was students’ acceptance

into a Regional Learning Choices Program (71%), followed by students’ wishes (18%) and proximity to school (16%)

*Please note that parents were able to indicate more than one reason, and the results thus do not add to 100%.

% of RespondentsReason

Data source: Parent Telephone and Email Survey (N = 273) conducted July-September, 2019

32

Reason: Acceptance into Regional Program

● Perception that regional programs provide better preparation for university

● Perception that regional programs are more academically challenging

● The ELP does not provide a ‘certificate of completion’, whereas regional programs

do

● Peer pressure to attend regional programs

● The ELP does not meet gifted students’ needs (e.g., musical or artistic

enhancements)

Data source: Parent Telephone and Email Survey (N = 273) conducted July-September, 2019 33

Reason: Lack of Information

● Lack of awareness among parents and students that the Enhanced Learning Program

exists

● No information or guidance from the Board or school about secondary options for

gifted students

● Guidance counsellors indicated there was no difference between ELP and Advanced

Placement or that ELP was not necessary

● Letters from the Board indicated the child is demitted from the gifted program

Data source: Parent Telephone and Email Survey (N = 273) conducted July-September, 2019 34

Reason: Dissatisfaction with Gifted Programming

● Lack of appropriate enhancement and differentiation in elementary gifted program

● Inconsistency in program delivery

● Insufficient teacher training to teach gifted learners

● Lack of communication between teachers and families

● Not inclusive and socially supportive

● Dissatisfaction with the school in which the elementary gifted program was located

Data source: Parent Telephone and Email Survey (N = 273) conducted July-September, 2019 35

Recommendations for Future PlanningAnd Improvement

36

Recommendations for Future Planning and Improvement *These recommendations need to be considered in the context of K-12 gifted education, as elementary programming and practices impact eligibility and participation in secondary gifted programs*

Programming and Practices

1. Beginning in the 2020-2021 school year, stop the practice of demitting students with a gifted identification

who do not attend the ELP.

2. Beginning in the 2020-2021 school year, provide an IEP for all secondary students with a gifted identification.

a. Implementation will be staged:

i. Grade 9 students in 2020-2021

ii. Grade 9 and 10 students in 2021-2022

iii. Grade 9, 10, and 11 students in 2022-2023

iv. Grade 9, 10, 11, and 12 students in 2023-2024

b. Exception: any student who chooses to remain in a school after the ELP has been relocated to a different

site (see recommendation 3) will receive an IEP regardless of grade level.

37

Recommendations for Future Planning and Improvement

Programming and Practices

3. Beginning in the 2020-2021 school year, provide all gifted secondary students with an opportunity to

attend contained classes by merging the 4 ELP sites into 2:

a. Mississauga Field Office schools - The Woodlands SS

b. North Field Office schools - Heart Lake SS

c. Any student who wishes to remain in a school after the ELP has been relocated to a different site

will be allowed to remain at the current school and will receive an IEP regardless of grade level.

Program Streamlining Benefits:

● Improved educational experiences of gifted secondary students by increasing access to a variety of

contained courses at different grade levels

● Increased socialization and enrichment opportunities with a larger cohort of gifted students

● Reduced timetabling challenges for schools

● Increased opportunities to develop a consistent pool of teachers who teach gifted students

38

Recommendations for Future Planning and Improvement Programming and Practices

4. During the budget development process for the 2020-2021 school year, consider the allocation of central staff

responsible for gifted education. Areas of responsibility would include:

● Designing communication for families and responding to questions

● Coordinating professional learning

● Providing support for IEPs

● Coordinating additional learning opportunities for gifted students

● Reviewing identification practices

Information and Support for Families5. Improve communication and education about secondary gifted programming options by developing standardized

communication plans for students in both ELC and ISELP placements (e.g., information packages sent to all

parents/guardians of gifted students at time of placement and again in Grade 6 or 7)

6. Develop communication materials about the ELP for distribution during Regional Learning Choices Program

information nights

7. Work with ABC representatives to increase support for gifted students and their families in the transition to

secondary school (e.g., Erindale SS’s model of transition support for students with LDs)39

Recommendations for Future Planning and Improvement

Professional Learning and Networking Opportunities8. Provide professional learning opportunities focused on gifted education and gifted learners.

9. Provide networking opportunities for PDSB staff who teach and work with gifted students (e.g., conferences, online

discussion forums).

10. Provide networking opportunities for PDSB gifted students regardless of their secondary program choice (e.g.,

ThinkBowl).

Student Well-Being 11. Develop, in collaboration with the board mental health lead, a plan to proactively support gifted students’ mental

health throughout secondary school.

Equity Considerations

12. Continue to investigate and identify possible causes of the inequitable distribution of gifted students in the ELP

related to gender, SVI, and municipality.

13. Review the existing gifted identification processes (elementary and secondary) as they impact the pool of students

eligible to attend the ELP. 40

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the students, parents, educators, administrators, and staff who contributed

to this review.

We wish to acknowledge the members of the Review Steering Committee: Craig Caslick,

Craig Cooper, Barbara Cyr (SEAC/ABC), Kerry Everitt, Paul Favaro, Shelley Foster (SEAC),

Janet Jackowski, Sue Lawton, Shawn Moynihan, Michele Reynolds, Rosemary Stiglic, and

Erin Vardy. Special thanks to Tracey Bardell, Liza Brasil, and Kim Bennett for their

continued support.

41

References1. Freeman, J. (2015). Cultural Variations in Ideas of Gifts and Talents With Special Regard to the Eastern and Western Worlds, in Dai, D.Y. & Ching, C.K.

(Eds.), Gifted education in Asia (pp. 231-244). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

2. Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 71–91). New York, NY:

Springer.

3. McAlpine, D. (2004). What do we mean by gifted and talented? In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (2nd

ed., pp. 33-66). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Kanuka Grove Press.

4. Page, A. (2006). Three models for understanding gifted education. Kairaranga, 7(2), 11-15.

5. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current perspective on the identification and assessment of gifted students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 3-99.

6. Tourón, J. & Freeman, J. (2017). Gifted Education in Europe: Implications for policymakers and educators. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), APA handbook on

giftedness and talent (pp. 54-70). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA).

7. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2010). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

8. McAlpine, D. (1991). Issues in the education of the gifted and talented. In proceedings for the 1991 NZAGC Teachers’ Conference ‘Education for the

Gifted and Talented Child’, (pp. 12-19). Auckland: NZAGC.

9. Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2011). The Schoolwide Cluster Grouping Model: Restructuring gifted education services for the 21st Century. Gifted Child

Today, 34(4), 35–46.

10. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences,

20(4), 308-317.

11. Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-School gifted programs: Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 51(3), 256-271.

12. Peterson, J., Duncan, N, & Canady, K. (2009). A longitudinal study of negative life events, stress, and school experiences of gifted youth. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 53(1), 34-49.

42

References13. Benson, M. B. IV. (2009). Gifted middle school students transitioning to high school: How one teacher helped his students feel less anxious. Gifted Child

Today, 32(2), 29-33.

14. Smith, J. S. (2006). Examining the long-term impact of achievement loss during the transition to high school. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,

17(4), 211-221.

15. Mizelle, N. B., & Irvin, J. L. (2000). Transition from middle school into high school. Middle School Journal 31(5), 57-61.

16. Ford, D. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations

for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31-35.

17. Peterson, J. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 38, 4, 342-348.

18. Parekh, G., Brown, R. S., & Robson, K. (2018). The social construction of giftedness: The intersectional relationship between whiteness, economic

privilege, and the identification of gifted. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 7(2). Retrieved from:

https://cjds.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjds/article/view/421

19. Grissom, J. A., Redding, C., & Bleiburg, J. F. (2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Educational Review,

89(3), 337-369. Retrieved from: https://hepgjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337

20. Ecker-Lyster, M., & Niileksela, C. (2017). Enhancing gifted education for underrepresented students: Promising recruitment and programming strategies.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 79-95.

21. Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42(3),

217-225.

22. Hodges, J., Tay, J., Maeda, Y., & Gentry, M. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147-174.

23. Ontario Ministry of Education (2017). Special Education in Ontario Kindergarten to Grade 12: Policy and Resource Guide. Retrieved from:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/policy/os/onschools_2017e.pdf

43

44