Historically, tension has existed between gifted education and middle school education (Tomlinson, 1992), leaving some advocates of each educational practice suspicious of the other, and leaving middle school students who are advanced in one or more dimensions of learning in a sort of educational no-man's-land. While some legitimate areas of disagreement are likely to persist, there are enough areas of shared belief to bridge the practice between gifted education and middle school education. This digest provides an overview of (1) some areas of agreement between the fields, (2) some areas of tension, and (3) some promising directions that could engage educators in mutual planning of appropriate services for all middle school students, including those we sometimes call "gifted."
Shared Beliefs of Gifted Education and Middle School Education
There are at least three areas of common concern shared by gifted education and middle school education.
First, when it comes to articulated beliefs about what constitutes appropriate instruction for early adolescents, both groups are proponents of instruction that: (1) is theme based, (2) is interdisciplinary, (3) fosters student self-direction and independence, (4) promotes self-understanding, (5) incorporates basic skills, (6) is relevant to the learner and thus based on study of significant problems, (7) is student-centered, (8) promotes student discovery, (9) values group interaction, (10) is built upon student interest, (11) encourages critical and creative exploration of ideas, and (12) promotes student self-evaluation (e.g., Currier, 1986; Kaplan, 1979; Maker & Nielson, 1995; Stevenson, 1992).
Second, few educators of the gifted would argue with the core tenets set forth in Turning Points (Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents, 1989) that middle school programs should: (1) create small communities of learning within larger school settings, (2) teach a solid academic core, (3) ensure success for all students, (4) enable educators closest to students to make important decisions about teaching and learning, (5) staff middle schools with teachers trained to work effectively with early adolescents, (6) promote health and fitness, (7) involve families in the education of learners, and (8) connect schools with communities.
Third, both groups of educators share a deep concern for the cognitive and affective welfare of early adolescent learners. Both groups also understand that there is great variability in the academic, social, emotional, and physical development of the early adolescent group. Both also subscribe to the reality that early adolescents are subject to change, including spurts in physical growth, new interests, and intellectual awareness. And both believe that all middle school students should take part in challenging learning experiences.
Gifted Education and Middle School Education: Problems and Promise
The following issues have concerned educators in gifted education and middle level education. But emerging dialogue offers promise and some evident next steps for moving ahead into a more collaborative future (Clews, 1995).
Excellence vs. Equity
Gifted education exists to foster development of high-end excellence. It therefore stresses practices that are most likely to promote "expertise" in learners with advanced performance and/or potential. Middle school education, on the other hand, views education through an equity lens, where all students have an equal opportunity to succeed. In a country that has struggled with the competing values of equity and excellence throughout its history (Gardner, 1961), it is not surprising that both groups continue to struggle with mechanisms for balancing the belief that all people should have equal opportunity with the belief that each individual should be assisted in developing his or her maximum capacity. The tension is heightened in the face of scarce resources for education.
Emphasis on Heterogeneity
Because middle school educators emphasize the negative impact of homogeneous grouping on at-risk learners, heterogeneity has become a hallmark descriptor of "good" middle schools (Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents, 1989). But educators of the gifted value the benefits of ability grouping for advanced learners. The availability of some forms of homogeneous grouping for these learners has been strongly advocated by proponents of gifted education (Allan, 1991). Educators of the gifted are also concerned about a lack of emphasis on differentiated instruction for academic diversity in heterogeneous classrooms in the literature of middle school, and reject a one-size-fits-all approach to educating students as varied as those who inhabit middle schools.
Use of Labels
Middle school advocates often reject labeling students as "learning disabled" or "gifted" (George, 1993). Such labeling, they believe, favors some students and stigmatizes others. Advocates of gifted education believe that identifying high potential and performance is necessary if awareness of and planning for talent development is to occur (Coleman & Gallagher, 1995).
Ambiguity About Appropriate Middle School Curricula
For much of its 30-year history, middle school education has attended more to issues such as student affect, scheduling, detracking, teaming, and school climate than to what constitutes effective and appropriate curricula in middle school classes (Beane, 1990). Educators of the gifted, who place strong value on challenging opportunities for advanced learners in their area(s) of strength, have been concerned about middle level education, including a basic skills approach to instruction. On the other hand, middle school educators argue that what has been called "gifted education" (e.g., enrichment, high level thinking, problem-solving) is good education for all learners, and should not be reserved for any single group of middle school students. They believe that energies of educators should be focused on establishing that sort of "good education" in heterogeneous classrooms and that the proliferation of such classrooms would serve all middle school students well.
Use of Cooperative Learning as an Instructional Strategy
Middle school educators promote cooperative learning as a prime means of establishing effective heterogeneous communities of learning (Slavin, 1980; Toepfer, 1992). Educators of the gifted find that overuse of some cooperative learning strategies, particularly those focused on learning of basic information and skills, results in a lack of challenge for advanced learners, inordinate use of these learners as "junior teachers," and inappropriate pressure for these learners to solve instructional problems (Robinson, 1990).
Affective Needs of Early Adolescents
Middle school educators stress development of school environments in which early adolescents can belong to a nurturing group and have consistent access to adults who know and care about them (George & Shewey, 1994). Most educators of the gifted have concerns that affective experiences of advanced learners, which sometimes take on "a different spin," are overlooked in middle schools where advanced learning is deemphasized and where few teachers are trained to understand advanced learners. For example, peer pressure to conform may be experienced in a somewhat different context by many academically talented females and minority students than by other agemates (Ford, 1994; Kerr, 1985).
The result of strongly held and often divergent views about educating early adolescents has led to some tension between the two groups of educators. Leaders of each group have not always attempted to build bridges. Publications, conferences, team meetings, and informal dialogues among educators have only recently begun to break ground in listening and attempting to find solutions.
Allan, S. (1991). Ability grouping research reviews: What do they really say to the practitioner? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60-65.
Beane, J. (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.
Clews, V. (Producer), (1995). In balance: Gifted education and middle schools (film). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Coleman, M., & Gallagher, J. (1995). Middle schools and their impact on talent development. Middle School Journal, 26(3), 47-56.
Currier, L. (1986). A declaration of independence. A creed for middle school educators. Middle School Journal, 17(2), 4-6.
Ford, D. (1994). Nurturing resilience in gifted black youth. Roeper Review, 17(2), 80-85.
Gardner, J. (1961). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? New York: Harper & Row.
George, P. (1993). Tracking and ability grouping in the middle school: Ten tentative truths. Middle School Journal, 24(4), 17-23.
George, P., & Shewey, K. (1994). New evidence for the middle school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Kaplan, S. (1979). Inservice training manual: Activities for developing curriculum for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute.
Kerr, B. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Publishing Company.
Maker, J., & Nielson, A. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
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.
Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342.
Stevenson, C. (1992). Teaching ten- to fourteen- year olds. New York: Longman.
Toepfer, C. (1992). Middle level curriculum: Defining the elusive. In J. Irvin, (Ed.), Transforming middle level education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tomlinson, C. (1992). Gifted education and the middle school movement: Two voices on teaching the academically talented. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(3), 206-238.
ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced and disseminated, but please acknowledge your source. This publication was prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, under contract no. RR93002005. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Department of Education.
This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted young people 18 and under. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.
The appearance of any information in the Davidson Institute's Database does not imply an endorsement by, or any affiliation with, the Davidson Institute. All information presented is for informational purposes only and is solely the opinion of and the responsibility of the author. Although reasonable effort is made to present accurate information, the Davidson Institute makes no guarantees of any kind, including as to accuracy or completeness. Use of such information is at the sole risk of the reader.