The general objects—are to provide an education adapted to the years, the capacity, and the condition of everyone, and directed to their freedom and happiness—We hope to avail the state of those talents which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish without use, if not sought for and cultivated.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia.
Abstract
This article attempts to address the question of how to make gifted education more equitable and productive by shifting priorities to talent development for all rather than confining itself to the “gifted.” I first present an overview of political and ethical considerations in selecting a few for talent or creativity development. I then argue for a form of meritocracy in education for the purpose of producing talents, leaders, and frontier explorers that is different from what is often perceived as “elitist” and that is viable and important for the common good as well as for the individuals involved. I then discuss how we can negotiate and balance priorities of equity, excellence, and diversity. In light of this form of meritocracy, I suggest that the Talent Development Paradigm be adopted as a promising alternative to the Gifted Child Paradigm for the future of gifted education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ABC Nightline. (2012). “Gifted” kindergarten test: The results. Initially aired on April 14, 2012. Retrieved on October 19, 2012, from: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/kindergarten-children-gifted-school-public-prep-tests-16138309.
Baker, E. L. (2007). The end(s) of testing. Educational Researcher, 36, 309–317.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 249–292. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.249.
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, R. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attach on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105–124). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Borland, J. H. (2014). Identification of gifted students. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 323–342). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the “have-nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60, 149–160. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.149.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IW: Belin-Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dai, D. Y. (2011). Hopeless anarchy or saving pluralism? Reflections on our field in response to Ambrose, Van Tassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 705–730.
Dai, D. Y. (2014). Giftedness in the making: The “being” and “doing” of talent development and creativity. The Esther Katz Rosen Lecture on Gifted Children/Adolescents presented at the 2014 American Psychological Association (APA) Convention, Washington, DC.
Dai, D. Y. (in press). Envisioning a new century of gifted education: The case for a paradigm shift. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151–168.
Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114–130. doi:10.1177/0016986208315732.
Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Beyond cognitivism: Toward an integrated understanding of intellectual functioning and development. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Feinman, J. (2008). High stakes, but low validity? A case study of standardized tests and admissions into New York City specialized high schools. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center and Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [June 1, 2014] from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/high-stakes-but-low-validity.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). TIDE: Talent identification and development in education. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2011). Using the NAGC gifted programming standards to create programs and services for culturally and linguistically different gifted students. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), NAGC pre-K-grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services (pp. 45–70). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gagné, F. (2005). From noncompetence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139–153.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, J. W. (1984). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? (Revised ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Gee, J. P. (2003). Opportunity to learn: A language-based perspective on assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 27–46. doi:10.1080/09695940301696.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Editorial: Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23.
Gottlieb, G. (1998). Normally occurring environmental and behavioral influences on gene activity: From central dogma to probabilistic epigenesis. Psychological Review, 105, 792–802. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.4.792-802.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: Free Press.
Keating, D. P. (2009). Developmental science and giftedness: An integrated lifespan framework. In F. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the lifespan (pp. 189–208). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 230–242). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent identification: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333–360. doi:10.4219/jeg-2005-341.
Lohman, D. F. (2009). Identifying academically talented students: Some general principles, two specific procedures. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 971–997). New York, NY: Springer.
Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451–484. doi:10.4219/jeg-2006-245.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precious youth after 35 years. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.
Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyer.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Oaks, J., & Well, A. S. (1998). Detracking for high student achievement. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 38–41.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008) 21st Century Skills Education and Competitiveness Guide. Retrieved online at http://www.p21.org/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf.
Phillips, A. M. (2012). After number of gifted soars, a fight for kindergarten slots. New York Times. Retrieved on October 19, 2012, from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/nyregion/as-ranks-of-gifted-soar-in-ny-fight-brews-for-kindergarten-slots.html?_r=2.
Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence, genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 112–129.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reis, S. M., Kaplan, S. N., Tomlinson, C. A., Westberg, K. L., Callahan, C. M., & Copper, C. R. (1998). A response: Equal does not mean identical. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 74–77.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, R. S. (1998). A rising tide lifts all ships. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 104–111.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). Schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 280–294). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382–396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Equity, excellence, and school reform: Why is finding common ground so hard? In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 127–142). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). The concept of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Subotnik, R., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54.
Supreme Court of the United States (2003). Synopsis: Grutter v. Bollinger (02-241) 539 U.S. 306. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html.
Supreme Court of the United States (2003). Synopsis: Gratz v. Bollinger (02-516) 539 U.S. 244. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZS.html.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1, mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221–230.
Tocqueville, A. (1835/2004). Democracy in America. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dai, D.Y. A Jeffersonian vision of nurturing talent and creativity: toward a more equitable and productive gifted education. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 16, 269–279 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9364-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9364-y