Why We Need Gifted Education

Why We Need Gifted Education
Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D.
Gifted Development Center
At 2 weeks old, Jessica smiled on cue. At 14 months, she spoke in
sentences and had a vocabulary of over 250 words. By the age of 2 she
could do a 60-piece puzzle. She was so far beyond the other children in
her daycare that she became the teacher's helper. At three, Jessie taught
herself to read.
What happens when children like Jessie enter school? Are schools prepared to
allow her to progress at her own rate? Unfortunately, too often the answer to this
question is no. Jessie is expected to wait patiently while other children learn skills and
knowledge she has already mastered. She is implicitly taught to slow down her natural
rate of learning to make the teacher and the other students more comfortable. But
Jessie pays a price for her social adaptation (Kerr, 1985, 1994). She learns to be less
than she can be, to slide by without stretching herself, to deny her talents, and,
eventually, to trade her dreams for simpler, less demanding goals. This tragic waste of
Jessie’s potential affects not only her, but also society, for we have all lost whatever
gifts she might have contributed. Instead of teaching to the lowest common
denominator, schools need to become a place where individual differences are
appreciated, and where talents are recognized and nurtured.
Our world needs Jessie’s gifts, and the fully developed abilities of all gifted and
talented children. Since 1990, the educational system in the United States lost sight of
this fact, and, unfortunately, other countries have followed suit. In America, there has
always been tension between the passion for excellence and the democratic ideal of
equity. In the 90s, the pendulum swung exceedingly in the direction of equity at the
expense of excellence. The U. S. is just beginning to emerge from the “Lake
Woebegone” mentality that all of America’s children are above average. In the fierce
desire to promote equality of opportunity for all, we have inadvertently discriminated
against children of high ability and we need to rectify this injustice.
Equal opportunity does not and can never mean equal outcomes without
obliterating individual differences and destroying the fabric of democracy. There are
strong sanctions against persecution and oppression of people of different religions,
races, national origins, and those with physical handicaps, but the gifted are still fair
game. Elye Alexander (1992), in his first year at Harvard, writes that in public schools
“assaults on a student’s integrity and self-respect occur with alarming regularity” (p.
13). Elye’s experience is echoed throughout the literature. In National Excellence, the
federal report released in 1995, the following statement was made:
In America we often make fun of our brightest students, giving them
such derogatory names as nerd, dweeb, or, in a former day, egghead.
We have conflicting feelings about people who are smart, and we give
conflicting signals to our children about how hard they should work to
1
be smart. As a culture we seem to value beauty and brawn far more
than brains. (p. 13)
Kathi Kearney had a similar observation:
Each time a taunt based on a child's exceptionality (such as “nerd” or
“dweeb”) is permitted in the classroom or on the playground, each time a
highly gifted child is deliberately held back academically, each time a school
policy prohibits academic acceleration or continuous progress, we need to ask,
“What messages are we giving all children about developing talents, about the
value of academic achievement, and about intellectual diversity?” The school
climate needs to support all students—including the most gifted. We would
never allow racial or ethnic slurs to go on unchecked in today's schools, nor
would we deliberately thwart the intellectual growth of a child with a disability.
Yet, profoundly gifted children (and their families) routinely must deal with
these issues.... (Kearney, 1993, p. 16)
School has become an unsafe place for gifted children. Developmentally advanced
children, like developmentally delayed children, are at risk in a society that prizes
sameness.
The Attack against Giftedness
The gifted have been alternately applauded and neglected, exploited and
ignored, mined as a national resource and then forgotten, but never in America's history
has its brightest minds and their advocates endured such unbridled attack as in the
School Reform movement of the 1990s. It began in Florida with George's (1992) How
to Untrack Your Schools, published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (ASCD)—the main organization that influences educational
administrators in the U.S. Then Margolin (1993; 1994) Goodness Personified: The
Emergence of Gifted Children and Sapon-Shevin (1994) Playing Favorites: Gifted
Education and the Disruption of Community chimed in. All three of these reformers
linked gifted education with racism, elitism, and economic caste systems. SaponShevin (1994) told us that “gifted programs provide a way to resegregate schools
without requiring people to move” (p. 35). Margolin (1994) was convinced that
giftedness is a social construction to maintain hierarchical power relations in American
society. George (1992) admonished that “all students [should be] deemed worthy and
capable of learning everything the school has to offer” (p. 4), which implies that the
offering of subjects suited for advanced students, such as Latin, calculus, or the study of
Shakespeare, would automatically make some students feel unworthy. George’s ideas
were implemented in a middle school in Gainesville, Florida, where all seventh graders
took algebra together, even if some had not mastered addition and others were ready for
calculus.
Even Robert Slavin, whose research served as the empirical basis of the antiability grouping movement, admitted that accelerated mathematics courses are effective
for gifted students (Slavin, 1990). And few realize that his data base purposely
2
excluded “studies of special classes for the gifted” (Slavin, 1987, p. 297). Ann
Robinson (1990) reviewed 295 studies of cooperative learning, and found that the
gifted were mentioned in one percent of them—3 studies. The only study that reported
specific findings about the gifted was limited to 14 of these students! In a
Point/Counterpoint debate with Ann Robinson in the Journal for Education of the
Gifted, Slavin (1990) agreed that there is no research on the effects of cooperative
learning on the “truly gifted”:
Dr. Robinson is certainly correct in saying that the research base for
applications of cooperative learning to the truly gifted is weak.
Knowing this area well, I'd characterize it as virtually non-existent.
(Slavin, 1990, p. 28)
Yet, how many times were we told that the “research” indicated that ability grouping
wasn't good for the gifted?
Most opponents of gifted education believe that the majority of children labeled
“gifted” are economically advantaged. In reality, the gifted come from all social classes
(Dickinson, 1970), and poor children have less opportunity to achieve academic
success. While the percentage of gifted students among the upper classes may be
higher, there is a much greater number of gifted children among the lower classes
(Zigler & Farber, 1985), because the poor far outnumber the rich. If we abandon gifted
programs, gifted children from culturally diverse groups and low socio-economic
circumstances will be the ones to suffer most. Affluent parents can send their children
to private schools or some two parent families may opt to homeschool their children.
But the majority of gifted children will not have those options. These children are
prevented from fulfilling their potential when public school provisions for the gifted are
eliminated. Instead, greater efforts must be made to include bright children from all
socio-economic classes in gifted programs.
Tracking vs. Ability Grouping
During the height of the school reform movement, the distinction between
ability grouping and tracking was blurred, with educational leaders treating them as if
they were synonymous. I found this intellectually dishonest. Tracking involves the
permanent placement of students into low, average, and high achieving groups. It is an
organizational plan designed for students in the mid-range of abilities, and it has been
discredited for years. Ability grouping at both extremes has been well researched for
several decades, and has been found to be beneficial. Advocates of the gifted are not in
favor of tracking. As far back as the 1920s, the early leaders in this field distinguished
between these two very different concepts. Pritchard (1951) writes:
Professor Hollingworth was convinced that homogeneous grouping
offers the most effective type of education in populous centers...large
enough for the organization of special classes. It is important to
emphasize that Hollingworth did not interpret homogeneous grouping
as advocating the sectioning of all students in the educational system on
3
an ability basis. She repeatedly stated that in the distribution of
intelligence only the extremes are so far removed from the average that
regular school cannot meet their needs. (p. 53)
The False Accusation of Elitism
The other problem that haunts us is the claim of elitism. Hollingworth (1926;
1930) also enlightened us on this topic based upon her careful study of homogeneously
grouped gifted children.
Work with competitors of one's own caliber tends to starve conceit,
rather than feed it. Observers have recorded that a pupil coming into
special classes often meets a successful rival for the first time. (1926, p.
31)
If he remains in the special class, he is likely to leave it far less
conceited than when he entered it. (1926, p. 302)
Many of our pupils had their first experience of being equaled or
surpassed at school work when they entered the special class. Several
interesting episodes arose to suggest that conceit was corrected, rather
than fostered, by the experience of daily contact with a large number of
equals. No child was found who could not endure this experience, but a
few parents were unable to withstand the humiliation of having a child
reduced from "the head of the class," and withdrew their children to the
regular classes again, where they could continue unrivaled. (1930, p.
445)
Earnest Newland (1976), 50 years later, announced that elitism was in the eyes
of the beholder. In his analysis, he found that there was no evidence whatsoever to
support the notion that classes for the gifted breed elitism. In teaching and counseling
gifted students, I have found that feelings of inferiority in the gifted are much more
prevalent than feelings of superiority. Those children who act superior usually feel
isolated and use their verbal abilities as a defense against the rejection of their
agemates.
Several years ago, I was invited to participate on a panel at the American
Psychological Association conference in Boston, discussing the work of Leta
Hollingworth. It was my first trip to Boston, and I stayed with my friend, Dr. Carole
Ruth Harris. Carole had taught the first course on gifted education at Harvard
University and received superb evaluations from her students, after which Harvard
cancelled the course on the grounds that it was “elitist”! The thought that Harvard
considered anything elitist made me reconsider the true meaning of elitism.
Continental Airlines has it right when they call first class service “the elite
class.” You aren’t given an IQ test to sit up front, you just pay more. Elitism is, and
always has been, and always will be, a function of socio-economic differences, not
4
intellectual ones. So how did gifted education get the label of elitist? I outlined my
theory in 1991, in an article entitled “Scapegoating the Gifted: The New National
Sport.” America is rapidly losing its middle class and becoming split into a society of
“haves” and “have nots.” While individuals in technology are becoming millionaires
overnight, more and more citizens are becoming homeless. If elitism is an economic
issue, only an economic shift can solve the problem. But the wealthy are not eager to
share their resources, so a good way to avoid having to do this is to focus attention
elsewhere—find a scapegoat, and the gifted became that scapegoat. It is far easier to
divide financial resources more equitably than it is to divide one child’s intelligence
among the other students in the class. Scapegoating is mass bigotry—blaming one
group for all the ills of society. I realize that this is a powerful accusation, but it was
the blatant animosity toward the gifted during the school reform movement that led to
this conclusion. Many were aware of it, even those outside education.
In an article in Atlantic Monthly, Daniel Singal (1991) linked the dramatic
decline in SAT scores, as well as the inability of the top quartile of the student
population to do the level of college work that their parents could do, to the battle
between egalitarianism and excellence. He observed the following:
Perhaps most crucial, the…strong animus against what it defines
as “elitism,” has shifted the locus of concern in American education
from high to low achievers. All over the country, educators today
typically judge themselves by how well they can reach the least-able
student in the system... [whereas] programs...for the gifted receive no
more than token interest.
The prevailing ideology holds that it is much better to give up the
prospect of excellence than to take the chance of injuring any student's
self-esteem.... These attitudes have become so ingrained that in
conversations with teachers and administrators one often senses a
virtual prejudice against bright students. There is at times an
underlying feeling, never articulated, that such children start off with
too many advantages, and that it would be just as well to hold them back
until their less fortunate contemporaries catch up with them. (Singal,
1991, p. 6)
Separating gifted students from each other and ignoring their needs actually
fosters elitism to a greater extent than congregating them for advanced instruction.
Students who are the smartest in their class for 12 years, never crack a book or take
home homework, and ace all the tests without studying, can get a ballooned sense of
their own importance and place in the universe. When gifted students are placed in
classes together, they do not come to the conclusion that they are “better than everyone
else.” Rather, they are humbled by finding peers who know more than they do.
Hollingworth (1930) wrote, “Conceit was corrected, rather than fostered, by the
experience of daily contact with a large number of equals” (p. 445).
Much of the fear of elitism is based on the assumption that if individuals
discover that they are unusually able, they will develop aristocratic values, caring little
5
for the plight of others. However, research indicates that exactly the opposite is true.
Giftedness often is accompanied by a strong sense of responsibility, empathy, moral
concern and compassion (Dabrowski, 1972; Hollingworth, 1942; Marland, 1972;
Passow, 1988; Terman, 1925; Ward, 1985). The gifted are the backbone of social
reform and egalitarianism. They care desperately about injustice (Roeper, 1988).
Programming for gifted students enhances these higher values, rather than creating an
aristocracy.
Parallels at the Extremes
When we look at the normal curve of intelligence, we see that the vast majority
of the population (68%) is within one standard deviation of 100 IQ. Each standard
deviation in either direction puts the child at risk for peer rejection and a lack of fit with
the rate of learning in the regular classroom. Students whose abilities fall between one
and two standard deviations below the norm (nearly 14%) are considered “slow
learners”; they usually receive remedial services throughout their school career. At 2
standard deviations below the norm (approximately 70 IQ), children qualify for special
education. A little over 2% of the population is considered to have needs so clearly
differentiated from the norm that they are protected by federal mandates in many
countries. Individual intelligence tests, comprehensive psychological assessment,
staffings, individualized educational plans, certified teachers, modified curriculum and
due process are all required by U. S. law for students more than 2 standard deviations
below the mean. At 3 standard deviations below the mean (approximately 55 IQ), even
greater intervention is needed. There is a continuum of services depending upon
whether a child’s abilities fall in the mildly, moderately, severely, or profoundly
delayed range. Yet, children who are 2, 3, 4, even 5 standard deviations above the
norm, are often placed in regular classrooms with no modifications of any kind
(Silverman, 1993).
Like retardation, giftedness is a different ground that affects all of life’s
experiences. No one imagines that retardation affects only learning rate, but many
believe that the gifted are just like everyone else except that they learn faster. No one
suggests that children who are developmentally delayed are “children first,” and that
their delay is irrelevant. However, parents of children who are developmentally
advanced are frequently admonished to remember that their children are “children
first,” as if the giftedness were tangential to parental decisions. No one assumes that
people outgrow retardation. Yet, I’ve heard many adults say, “I used to be gifted.” It is
also worth noting that no other exceptionality is challenged to live up to its potential,
nor is the rationale for funding based on the population’s potential to contribute to
society.
Giftedness as Asynchrony
When giftedness is defined as high achievement in school or the potential for
recognized accomplishment in adult life, we have little ground to stand on to defend
gifted programs. The fact is that achievement is very much a function of opportunity
6
(Hollingworth, 1926), and greater opportunities for success are available to those who
have greater financial resources. Achievement, particularly recognized individual
achievement, is culturally determined (Silverman & Miller, in press).
Another way of understanding giftedness is to see it as developmental
advancement. In every culture, there are children who develop at a faster pace from
early childhood on, are inquisitive to a greater degree than their agemates, generalize
concepts earlier than their peers, demonstrate advanced verbal or spatial capacities at an
early age, have superb memories, grasp abstract concepts, love to learn, have a
sophisticated sense of humor, prefer complexity, are extraordinarily insightful, have a
passion for justice, are profoundly aware, and experience life with great intensity.
This alternative way of perceiving giftedness has been captured by the
Columbus Group in the following definition:
Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive
abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences
and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This
asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness
of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires
modifications in parenting, teaching and counseling in order for them to
develop optimally. (The Columbus Group, 1991)
Internal asynchrony is due to differences in rates of physical, intellectual, emotional,
social, and skill development in the gifted child. Uneven development is mirrored in
external adjustment difficulties since the gifted person often feels different from, or out
of place with, others. External asynchrony, then, is the lack of fit of the gifted child
with other same-aged children and with the age-related expectations of the culture.
Uneven development is a universal characteristic of giftedness. Gifted
children, in any cultural milieu, have greater discrepancies among various facets of their
development than average children (Silverman, 1993; 2002a). The clearest example of
this unevenness is the rate at which mental development outstrips physical
development. Binet constructed the mental age as a means of capturing the degree to
which a child's mental abilities differ from those of other children his or her
chronological age (Binet & Simon, 1908). The concept of mental age has proved
enormously helpful in the understanding of retardation. We recognize the inherent
difficulties of having a 17-year-old body with a 9-year-old mind. However, we still do
not understand that it is equally problematic to have a 17-year-old mind trapped in the
body of a 9 year old. This type of asynchrony doesn't arouse much sympathy.
A child’s mental age predicts the amount of knowledge he or she has mastered,
the rate at which the child learns, sophistication of play, age of true peers, maturity of
the child's sense of humor, ethical judgment, and awareness of the world. In contrast,
chronological age predicts the child’s height, physical coordination, handwriting speed,
emotional needs, and social skills. The greater the degree to which cognitive
development outstrips physical development, the more “out-of-sync” the child feels
internally, in social relations, and in relation to the school curriculum.
7
The intelligence quotient, originally named the “mental quotient” by William
Stern (1910), is simply the ratio of mental age to chronological age multiplied by 100.
Like Stern, Binet never claimed that the IQ test could measure the totality of
intelligence. He viewed intelligence as a rich, complex, multifaceted gestalt—a myriad
of dynamically interrelated abilities. Emotion and personality also played critical roles
in his conception of intellectual ability. He believed that intelligence was highly
influenced by the environment, and that it could be improved through appropriate
instruction. From Binet's developmental perspective, intelligence is a continuously
evolving process, not a static amount of raw material which stays the same throughout
life. Yet, intelligence testing is viewed today as a method of rigidly determining the
limits of one's abilities—quite different from Binet's intent. Consistent with Binet's
philosophy, the IQ should be seen as a minimal estimate of asynchrony—the extent to
which cognitive development (mental age) diverges from physical development
(chronological age).
A child with an IQ of 135 has a nine-year-old body and a 12-year-old mind,
while the extraordinarily gifted child, with an IQ of 170, has a 15-year-old mind.
Asynchrony also increases with age. At 6 years old, the child with an IQ of 135 had a
mental age of 8, and at 12, the same child will be mentally 16. The child with an IQ
score of 170 was four years advanced mentally at the age of 6, and at the age of 12, this
child will be eight years older mentally than physically. So asynchrony cannot be
thought of as static; it is dynamic, constantly changing.
The situation becomes even more complicated when it is understood that
psychologically the child is an amalgam of many developmental ages (Tolan, 1989) and
may appear to be different ages in different situations:
In terms of development chronological age may be the least relevant
piece of information to consider. Kate, with an IQ score of 170, may be
six, but she has a “mental age” of ten and a half.... Unfortunately, Kate,
like every highly gifted child, is an amalgam of many developmental
ages. She may be six while riding a bike, thirteen while playing the
piano or chess, nine while debating rules, eight while choosing hobbies
and books, five (or three) when asked to sit still. How can such a child
be expected to fit into a classroom designed around norms for six year
olds? (p. 7)
There is even a more challenging form of asynchrony that needs to be
mentioned: the condition of dual exceptionality. The most asynchronous child is one
who is both highly gifted and learning disabled. A remarkable and growing number of
gifted children have either recognized or undetected learning disabilities, such as
auditory processing weaknesses (Silverman, 2002b), writing disabilities (Silverman,
2003), visual perception difficulties (Silverman, 2001), spatial disorientation, dyslexia,
attentional deficits and Asperger Syndrome (Lovecky, 2004). Marked discrepancies
between strengths and weaknesses continue into adult life.
8
The concept of giftedness as asynchrony is very useful in attempting to gain
understanding and support for the gifted. The perennial concern about elitism is
bypassed by adopting this perspective. Asynchrony is not a competitive concept. More
asynchrony is not better.
If we recognize that giftedness is the mirror image of retardation, the 2 to 3% at
the other extreme of the curve, then we can appreciate the vulnerability of this group
and the critical need for special provisions to insure their optimal development. One of
the greatest hindrances to this awareness is that the gifted is the only group with special
needs that can pretend to be just like everyone else. Most gifted people expend an
inordinate amount of energy their entire lives trying to hide their differences, all the
while knowing in the inner recesses of their being that they are not like everyone else.
Instead of feeling better than everyone else because they are smart, more often they feel
that their differences make them defective. These feelings are expressed by a teenager
in the book, On Being Gifted:
We are not “normal” and we know it; it can be fun sometimes but not
funny always. We tend to be much more sensitive than other people.
Multiple meanings, innuendos, and self-consciousness plague us.
Intensive self-analysis, self-criticism, and the inability to recognize that
we have limits make us despondent. (American Association for Gifted
Children, 1978, p. 9)
But what is normal? Do these phrases sound familiar to you?
 “Why do you make everything so complicated?”
 “Why do you take everything so seriously?”
 “Why is everything so important to you?”
Patty Gatto-Walden calls these “the terrible toos”: The gifted are “too” everything: too
sensitive, too intense, too driven, too honest, too idealist, too moral, too perfectionistic,
too much for other people! So they live with the great secret, instilled from early
childhood on, that there is something inherently wrong with being who they are because
they don’t fit in. It is emotionally damaging to be unacceptable in the place one must
spend 6 hours of every day for 13 critical years of one’s development.
Why Do We Need Gifted Education?
Because gifted children exist and they will continue to exist despite their
unpopularity. In fact, there are more and more gifted children being born each day, and
we have a moral obligation to meet their needs. They need the opportunity for
continuous progress; this as a basic educational right. All children have the right to
learn new concepts in school every day.
Because, despite cliches to the contrary, many gifted children do not make it on
their own. Some become dropouts (Marland, 1972), delinquents (Seeley & Mahoney,
1981), underachievers (Supplee, 1990; Whitmore, 1989), depressed (Kerr, 1991) and
9
victims of suicide (Delisle, 1990). For every child with recognized gifts, still another
goes unrecognized (Dickinson, 1970). Gifted children may have learning disabilities or
other handicaps, and these dual exceptionalities tend to mask each other so that the
child appears average (Silverman, 2003). Unrecognized and undeveloped talents may
be lost permanently. The potential concert violinist must have a violin and continuous
nurturing of this ability to fulfill its potential.
Because giftedness does not develop in a vacuum. We have romanticized the
“self-made man,” but research indicates that native ability requires considerable
cultivation to develop fully (Bloom, 1985; Feldman, 1986). We cannot know how
much talent has been lost for lack of discovery and development; nor can we assess the
magnitude of that loss to the world—the music that was never composed, the medical
cure that was never discovered, the political strategy that might have averted a war.
Because eliminating programs for the gifted is as unethical as eliminating
programs for the mentally handicapped. If children who are developmentally advanced
had the same protection under the law as children who are developmentally delayed, it
would also be illegal. It is unrealistic to expect a regular classroom teacher to teach one
child addition and another pre-calculus. Yet, children of the same age may differ to that
degree in their development. Special programs are essential for the welfare of children
with special needs.
Because democracy is endangered when socialization is substituted for
education. While some countries are strengthening the curriculum of their brightest
students and allowing them to go as far as possible in their learning, other countries are
“dumbing down” the curriculum so that gifted students cannot be challenged. A onesize curriculum is as ill-fitting as putting everyone is the same size shoe. It is
unconscionable to use the most capable students to serve as assistant teachers instead of
allowing them to progress and develop their abilities.
According to A Nation at Risk, a report from the U. S. National Commission on
Excellence in 1984, over half the population of gifted students in the United States
failed to match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school. A decade
later, the findings were even more alarming. National Excellence: A Case for
Developing America’s Talent (OERI, 1993) reported that “compared with the top
students in other industrialized countries, American students perform poorly on
international tests, are offered a less rigorous curriculum, read fewer demanding books,
do less homework, and enter the work force or postsecondary education less well
prepared.” Other findings reported in this document include:
 The regular school curriculum does not challenge gifted and talented students.
 Most academically talented students have already mastered up to one-half of
the required curriculum offered to them in elementary school.
 Classroom teachers do little to accommodate the different learning needs of the
gifted.
 Most specialized programs are available for only a few hours per week.
10
It is misguided to believe that holding back the brightest students magically helps the
slower ones; bringing the top down does not bring the bottom up.
Gifted children need a bill of rights:
The Bill of Rights for Gifted Students
 The gifted have the right to continuous progress in every subject area.
 They have the right to early identification, individual assessment, and
early intervention in order to promote their optimal development.
 They have the right to be taught by teachers who have received training
in the learning and emotional differences of gifted children.
 They have the right to be placed with true peers who have similar
abilities, interests, and pace of learning, in order to foster their social,
emotional and academic development.
 They have the right to Individual Educational Plans designed to
accommodate their asynchronous (uneven) development.
 They have the right to be respected members of their school communities
and to be protected from abuse.
 And they have the right to be listened to regarding their own needs.
Thank you for joining me in this important mission to create a solid foundation
of support for the full development of all children, including gifted children.
References
Alexander, E. (1992). Learning to fly: A homeschooling retrospective. Understanding Our
Gifted, 5(1), 1, 11-14.
American Association for Gifted Children (1978). On being gifted. New York: Walker.
Binet, A., & Simon, Th. (1908). Le developpement de l'intelligence chez les enfants. L'Annee
Psychologique, 14, 1-94.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
Columbus Group (1991, July). Unpublished transcript of the meeting of the Columbus Group.
Columbus, OH.
Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. London: Gryf.
Dabrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of levels of emotional development (Vols. 1
& 2). Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science.
Dabrowski, K. (1979/1994). The heroism of sensitivity. (E. Hyzy-Strzelecka, Trans.) Advanced
Development, 6, 87-92.
Delisle, J. R. (1990). The gifted adolescent at risk: Strategies and resources for suicide prevention
among gifted youth. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 212-228.
Dickinson, R. M. (1970). Caring for the gifted. Boston: Christopher.
11
Feldman, D. H., with L. T. Goldsmith. (1986). Nature's gambit: Child prodigies and the
development of human potential. New York: Basic Books.
George, P. (1992). How to untrack your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1930). Personality development of special class children. University of
Pennsylvania Bulletin. Seventeenth Annual Schoolmen's Week Proceedings, 30, 442-446.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and development.
Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
Kearney, K. (1993). Discrimination against excellence. Understanding Our Gifted, 6(2), 16.
Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology.
Kerr, B. A. (1991). A handbook for counseling the gifted and talented. Alexandria, VA;
American Association for Counseling and Development.
Kerr, B. (1994). Smart girls two: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness. Dayton, OH:
Ohio Psychology Press.
Lovecky, D. (2004). Different minds: Gifted children with AD/HD, Asperger Syndrome and other
learning deficits. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Lovecky, D. V. (1994). The moral child in a violent world. Understanding Our Gifted, 6(3), 3.
Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Marland, S., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. (Report to the Congress of the
United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). (1993). National excellence: A case for
developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Newland, T.E. (1976). The gifted in socio-educational perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Passow, A. H. (1988). Educating gifted persons who are caring and concerned. Roeper Review,
11, 13-15.
Pritchard, M. C. (1951). The contributions of Leta S. Hollingworth to the study of gifted children.
In P. Witty (Ed.), The gifted child (pp. 47-85). (The American Association for Gifted
Children). Boston: D. C. Heath.
Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for
talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 9-27.
Roeper, A. (1988). Should educators of the gifted and talented be more concerned with world
issues? Roeper Review, 11, 12-13.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Seeley, K. R., & Mahoney, A. R. (1981). Giftedness and delinquency: A small beginning toward
some answers. In R. E. Clasen et al. Programming for the gifted, talented and creative:
Models and methods (2nd ed.) (pp. 247-258). Madison: University of Wisconsin
Extension.
Silverman, L. K. (1991, December). Scapegoating the gifted: The new national sport. Keynote
address for the Illinois Gifted Education Conference, Chicago, IL. [Printed in California's
CAG Communicator, 1992, 22(3), pp. 16-19; Indiana's Images, 1991-1992, 6(2), pp. 1, 3-5;
Louisiana's Gifted/Talented Digest, 1992, 19(3), pp. 4-7; Wisconsin's WCGT News, 18(6) pp. 811;18(7) pp. 5-7; & 18(8) pp. 5-7;Iowa Talented and Gifted Letter, April/May 1992, 18(3), pp. 1,
7-8.]
Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted
and talented (pp. 3-28). Denver: Love.
Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society.
Roeper Review, 17, 110-116.
Silverman, L. K. (2001). Diagnosing and treating visual perceptual issues in gifted children.
Journal of Optometric Vision Development, 32, 153-176.
12
Silverman, L. K. (2002a). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. Robinson, & S.
Moon, (Eds.). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we
know? National Association for Gifted Children (pp. 31-37). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Silverman, L. K. (2002b). Upside-down brilliance: The visual-spatial learner. Denver: DeLeon.
Silverman, L. K. (2003). Gifted children with learning disabilities. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 533-543). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Silverman, L. K., & Miller, N. B. (in press). A feminine perspective of giftedness. In L. Shavinina,
Ed. The Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science.
Singal, D. J. (1991). The other crisis in American education. The Atlantic Monthly, 268(5), 59-74.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A bestevidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-336.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning and the gifted: Who benefits? Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 28-30.
Supplee, P. L. (1990). Reaching the gifted underachiever: Program strategy and design. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand
gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tolan, S. (1989). Special problems of young highly gifted children. Understanding Our Gifted,
1(5), 1, 7-10.
U. S. National Commission on Excellence (1984). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U. S.
Government Printing Office.
Ward, V. S. (1985). Giftedness and personal development: Theoretical considerations. Roeper
Review, 8, 6-10.
Whitmore, J. R. (1989). Re-examining the concept of underachievement. Understanding Our
Gifted, 2(1), 1, 7-9.
Zigler, E., & Farber, E. A. (1985). Commonalities between the intellectual extremes: Giftedness
and mental retardation. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and the
talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 387-408). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
*Note: This article contains excerpts from Silverman, L. K. (1995). Gifted and
talented students. In E. L. Meyen & T. M. Skrtic (Eds.), Special Education & Student
Disability: An Introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 377-413). Denver: Love; and Silverman, L.
K. (1995). The universal experience of being out-of-sync. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.)
Advanced development: A collection of works on giftedness in adults (pp. 1-12).
Denver: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.
BIO: Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist. She founded and
directs the Institute for the Study of Advanced Development, and its subsidiaries, the
Gifted Development Center [www.gifteddevelopment.com], and the Visual-Spatial
Resource [www.visualspatial.org]. Her latest book,Giftedness 101 (New York:
Springer, 2013) describes the psychology of giftedness. Upside-Down Brilliance: The
Visual-Spatial Learner (Denver: DeLeon, 2002), honors the gifts of the right
hemisphere. Linda has written over 300 articles, books, and chapters, including the
popular textbook, Counseling the Gifted and Talented (Denver: Love Publishing,
1993). She founded Advanced Development, the first journal on adult giftedness.
Please feel free to duplicate this material and distribute.
13