How schools use talent search scores for gifted adolescents.

Talent search programs have been in existence for over 30 years and have successfully assisted hundreds of thousands of students by identifying their abilities, nurturing their talents through educational programs, and connecting schools and families to appropriate resources, services, and programs (VanTassel-Baska, 1998). As documented in numerous articles (e.g., Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 1997; Benbow, 1992b; Brody, 1998; Jarosewich & Stocking, 2003; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998a; VanTassel-Baska), talent search was initiated in the early 1970s by Dr. Julian Stanley at Johns Hopkins University as part of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY). Its primary goal at that time was to identify mathematically talented pre-high school-aged students using the Scholastic Aptitude Test-Math (SAT-M). Talent search has expanded to include other above-grade-level tests that assess both mathematical and verbal areas in elementary and middle school-aged children.

The idea of talent search came from the belief that children need to take tests commensurate with their abilities, developmental rates, and pre-existing knowledge and skills, not their chronological age or grade. Several major university-based gifted institutes, such as the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University, the Talent Identification Program at Duke University, the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University, and the Rocky Mountain Talent Search at the University of Denver, conduct talent search programs annually in order to provide students in grades 7 or 8 who score at the 95th percentile or above on nationally normed tests with more accurate information about their academic abilities.

According to Olszewski-Kubilius (1998a), talent search programs include the following major components: the diagnosis and evaluation of the area and level of students' abilities via off-level tests such as ACT, SAT, or EXPLORE; educational placement for individual students based on test scores; access to further talent development opportunities, such as weekend programs, summer programs, contests, competitions, and distance education programs; and guidance via newsletters, magazines, and conferences. There is a rather substantial body of research about talent search, specifically the predictive validity of off-level scores. For example, research studies show that talent search students score comparably to college-bound students on the SAT and/or ACT (Bartkovich & Mezynski, 1981; Benbow, 1992a; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998b), that scores on these tests in middle school are good predictors of academic achievement in high school and college (Barnett & Durden, 1993; Benbow, 1992a, 1992b; Benbow & Arjmand, 1990; Burton, 1988), and that talent search scores have predictive validity within the gifted population discriminating different patterns of achievement for students scoring at the top versus bottom quartile of the top 1% (Benbow,1992a, 1992b).

Research has documented the effect of talent search participation on students' attitudes and academic performance in school. For example, after participation in talent search, students perceived that they had better knowledge about the nature of their academic abilities (Ablard, Mills, & Hoffhines, 1996; Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 1997; Brody, 1998; Jarosewich & Stocking, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, 1989) and had higher educational and career aspirations (Benbow & Arjmand, 1990; Brody; Burton, 1988; VanTassel-Baska; Wilder & Casserly, 1988).

As for education patterns and subsequent achievements of talent search students, Barnett and Durden (1993) compared students who participated in talent search with students who participated both in talent search and subsequent educational programs. Though a higher degree of academic acceleration and a greater participation in academic opportunities were found for students who participated in both talent search and subsequent educational programs, Barnett and Durden found that students who participated in talent search alone were as academically successful as the former. A sizeable percentage of these talent search (only) students accelerated in specific subject areas such as math/computer (48.4%) and English (23.6%); performed well (usually A to B+) on college-level math or computer courses taken in high school (see also Kolitch & Brody, 1992); graduated from high school almost one year earlier than their age-equivalent peers; and earned substantially high grade-point average (3.4 on average) in college.

The testing in talent search has spawned educational program models such as fast-paced summer classes in which 120 hours of honors level high school instruction are compressed into 75 hours (Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998a). Using SAT and ACT scores comparable to the average high school college-bound seniors, fast-paced summer programs serve middle school-aged students whose reasoning abilities are advanced by four to five years. The effect of these types of programs on students' talent development is a function of the degree to which students partake of educational opportunities subsequent to talent search as well as the quality of the programs. The academic performance of students in these talent search educational programs and their effects on students are strong, substantial, and positive (Ablard, Mills, & Hoffhines, 1996; Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 1997; Barnett & Durden, 1993; Benbow, 1992b; Benbow & Arjmand, 1990; Brody, 1998; Burton, 1988; Jarosewich & Stocking, 2003; Kolitch & Brody, 1992; Olszewski-Kubilius & Grant, 1996; VanTassel-Baska, 1989). Students in fast-paced, 3-week long accelerated summer classes perform as well as or better than high school students who typically take the courses for a full academic year at school. For example, mathematically talented 7th graders who scored about 600 or above on the SAT-Math successfully completed two high school precalculus math courses in less than 50 hours of instruction (Bartkovich & Mezynski, 1981) and achieved at high levels in a special program in which 4 years of high school math were compressed into 2 1/2 years (Benbow, Perkins, & Stanley, 1983). Junior high school-aged students who took high school science classes in a 3-week summer program scored at or above the 70th percentile on standardized tests in biology, chemistry, and physics, compared to norms for high school juniors or seniors who had a full year of instruction (Lynch, 1992). They also performed well in subsequent science courses in their schools (Lynch).

Other documented effects of participation in talent search summer programs include experiencing greater academic challenge (Enersen, 1993; Mills, Ablard, & Lynch, 1992); taking more rigorous advanced courses including AP and honors levels (Barnett & Durden, 1993); greater acceleration during high school (Barnett & Durden; Olszewski-Kubilius & Grant, 1996); higher educational aspirations (Olszewski-Kubilius & Grant); greater participation in math related extracurricular activities (Olszewski-Kubilius & Grant); a higher likelihood of getting a National Merit Letter of Commendation and pursuing professional degrees or careers in math (Kolitch & Brody, 1992; Olszewski-Kubilius & Grant); more awards and honors in high school (Barnett & Durden); selection of more academically rigorous institutions for higher education (Barnett & Durden; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991); and greater feelings of acceptance by peers and increased positive self-image (Enersen; VanTassel-Baska, Landau, & Olszewski, 1984). Parents also perceived positive effects of participation in these programs for their children including better study skills, new friends, and increased support for achievement (Enersen; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998b).

Relatively few studies exist regarding how students, parents, or educators "utilize" talent search scores in real school settings to obtain appropriate service. For example, three major studies (e.g., Jarosewich & Stocking, 2003; Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, in press; Wilder & Casserly, 1988) investigated parents' and educators' perceptions of the value of talent search, reasons for involving students, and use of the scores.

Wilder and Casserly (1988) used surveys to conduct a follow-up on 1,846 students who took the SAT as 7th graders through several regional talent search programs and their parents. They found that typically, a large percentage of talent search participants earned A's or B's (85%) in high school, had high educational aspirations (94% expected to go to college and 43% to attend graduate or professional school), and took advanced or honors courses in their schools (78%). As for reasons for taking the SAT through the talent search program, "to see what it was like" (76%) and "practice for college entrance examination" (69%) were the two most frequent answers given. When asked about the persons who encouraged them to take the test, overwhelmingly (78%), students referred to their parents. Students (79%) and parents (77%) perceived the experience of taking the SAT as positive and commented about the prestige and pride of being invited to participate and their curiosity about the test. After taking the SAT, students were invited to participate in one or more subsequent educational activities, mostly college-based summer programs, sponsored by the talent search program (53% of students report invitations vs. 60% of parents). Only 10% of the parents reported that their children participated in any type of such activities, and less than 10% responded that their children were placed in advanced, accelerated, or enrichment courses or programs at their schools subsequent to talent search participation. (However, the percentage of students who participated in subsequent educational programs outside of school is most likely an underestimate because the question used in the survey asked only about programs sponsored by the talent search organizations themselves and not about programs from other institutions to which the talent search programs give families access.)

Jarosewich and Stocking (2003) also investigated students' and parents' perceptions about talent search. They surveyed 909 7th and 8th grade students who participated in talent search through the Talent Identification Program (TIP) at Duke University and their parents. This study was a replication and extension of the Wilder and Casserly study (1988) and generally found a similar pattern of positive feelings and experiences about the talent search from both parents and students. Specifically, parents were proud of their children for taking the SAT or ACT, regarded the testing opportunity as an indicator of their children's academic accomplishments, and believed that the experience of taking the test benefited their children. Both parents and students endorsed feelings such as "proud," "confident," or "excited" as opposed to negative ones such as "apprehensive," "nervous," or "frustrated" in regard to the talent search experience. As for the reasons for taking the SAT or ACT, students' desire to learn more about their abilities, to satisfy their curiosity about the out-of-level tests, and to obtain useful assistance for college entrance through the talent search were primary reasons given. Encouragement by parents, family members, and the talent search organization (TIP) was also important for students in deciding to take the above-grade-level tests.

Swiatek and Lupkowski-Shoplik (in press) studied 597 families and 93 schools of elementary school-aged students who took the EXPLORE (a test typically taken by students in grade 8) through the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Talented Elementary Students (C-MITES). They found that, in general, schools did not use students' EXPLORE scores for planning in-school programming. Only 15.7% of the families and 20.4% of the schools responded that their schools had used students' EXPLORE scores for placement or as a basis for altering their child's educational programs. The main reason given by schools for not using the scores was a lack of knowledge about how to do so. Of the families who said that their schools did use the EXPLORE scores, their children received academic acceleration in at least one subject area, placement in the school' s pullout gifted program, or an invitation to participate in an academic competition. Schools similarly reported that they used EXPLORE scores for accelerating a student in a subject, for changing a student's educational program, for inviting a student to participate in an academic competition or for placing a student in a pullout gifted program, or the schools just incorporated the scores into a larger portfolio of the student's work. Swiatek and Lupkowski-Shoplik also found that parents' major reason for enrolling their children in the talent search was to qualify them for other special gifted programs and that the majority (72.7%) of parents thought that their children would not have participated in other educational programs unless they had been in the talent search.

Clearly, a substantial amount of research and literature has shown that participation in talent search is a positive experience for students and their parents. Research documents the benefits of participation in talent search and subsequent educational programs on students' achievement and talent development and also suggests that parents believe that talent search connects their children with other talent-developing educational activities. Yet talent search programs were never designed exclusively to enable talented students to participate in outside-of-school programs. One of the goals of talent search was to impact what schools do for gifted students. It was hoped that, armed with better and more accurate information about students' abilities, schools would work to provide a better array of services to them.

Research Questions

This study attempted to examine the talent search program from the perspectives of local school officials who enroll their students in the program, a topic on which little research currently exists. Specifically, we were interested in the following issues and questions:

(1) How do local schools learn about talent search and how do they encourage students to participate in it?

(2) How do local schools serve students after they participate in talent search? What do they do with the test scores and how do they use them?

(3) What impact does talent search have on the local school's work with gifted students? Does it affect their programs, classes, or curricula?

(4) What differences exist between schools that actively participate in talent search versus those that are less active in terms of methods to involve students, follow-up after testing, use of scores, school services provided to students, and the like?

Methods

Participants

Participants were 214 local school officials who had students in grades four through eight (mainly in grades seven and eight) participate in talent search through the Center for Talent Development (CTD) at Northwestern University. The talent search as conducted at CTD enabled 4th, 5th, and 6th graders to take the EXPLORE test and 6th through 9th graders to take either the SAT or the ACT. The majority (over 90%) of students who participate in talent search through CTD qualify on the basis of high performance on standardized test scores. However, less than 10% qualify on the basis of parent or school nomination or recommendation, which enables talented children to participate in talent search if they do not have standardized test scores or if their test scores do not reflect their potential. Analysis by CTD of the scores of students who enter on the basis of parent or school nomination or recommendation versus standardized test scores suggests comparable performance, Almost half (43.5%) of the respondents were guidance counselors, and 16.8% and 8.9% of the respondents were full-time and part-time gifted coordinators, respectively. Other positions held by the respondents were principal (9.3%), teacher (7.5%), gifted educator or director (2.8%), and assistant superintendent (2.3%). An overwhelming percentage (83.6%) of the respondents worked at public schools, while less than 10% were from private (7.9%) or parochial (6.5%) schools. Of the educators' schools, 63% identified students as gifted or talented, while 37.1% did not. Of schools that stated that they identified gifted and talented students, most reported that 15.0% or less of the body of students were identified as gifted or talented (11.6% reported 2-5% identified; 35.5% reported 6-10% identified; 15.7% reported 11-15% identified; 14.9% reported 16-20% identified). As for programs provided for gifted students, they included opportunities to accelerate in specific subject areas such as math (78.5%), training for teachers on differentiating instruction in the regular classroom (55.6%), pull-out programs (34.1%), and the option to grade-skip (33.6%). Other school programs included academic gifted programs, classes, or workshops (4.7%); programs such as mentorship and dual enrollment (4.7%); academic competitions (4.2%); independent studies or seminars (1.4%); and honors courses (0.9%). Thirteen (6.1%) coordinators also responded that no special gifted programming was available in their schools.

Instrumentation 

This study used a survey that consisted of four sections: general information about the school (e.g., position held by the respondent, type of school, programs provided for gifted students in school, etc.); information about how talent search is conducted in school (e.g., how schools initially learned about talent search, how students are selected for talent search participation, how schools encouraged students to participate in talent search); the follow-up actions taken by the schools after the talent search testing (e.g., how schools recognize students who participate in talent search, how they help students and parents interpret test scores, how they help students identify further appropriate educational services); and recommendations for future talent search services. There were 17 items in the survey, mostly in a multiple-choice format with some in an open-ended format. A complete list of survey questions with their response formats is presented in the Appendix.

Data Collection and Analysis

A survey was sent out to 325 school coordinators in the Midwest who had more than 22 students participate in talent search through the Center for Talent Development (CTD). There was no specific reason for the criteria of 22 students or more in identifying potential survey respondents other than to secure a sufficient number of responses. Data were collected from May to July, 2003. A total of 214 of the 325 school coordinators responded and returned the survey to the Center (a total return rate of 65.8%). Descriptive statistics were computed for the entire sample and for subgroups of active versus less active schools among this group. Respondents were classified as an active group versus a less active group according to the ratio of the number of talent search participants from the school to the number of applications initially requested by the school. The "more active" schools were more successful in getting students in their schools to participate in talent search compared to the "less active" schools. A group of "more active coordinators" (n = 53), who ranked in the upper 25th percentile (75th percentile and above based on the ratio of participation to requested applications), and a group of "less active coordinators" (n = 79) who ranked in the bottom 25th percentile (25th percentile and below on the ratio), were compared in terms of their responses to each survey item. Cross tabulation analyses were conducted to compare responses by subgroup.

Results

Talent Search Participation in the School

For the entire group of survey respondents, the majority (71.7%) of the coordinators responded that they themselves identified qualified students to participate in talent search for their schools and 25.0% of them did so for their school districts. Coordinators initially learned about the talent search program primarily through mailing (40.2%). Other means included learning about the program from another educator or school (19.6%), at a conference (6.5%), from a parent (3.7%), or from a child (usually their own child) whom they knew had participated in the program (3.7%). Additional responses included previous counselors (n = 2), the guidance department (n = 1), central administrative office staff (n = 1), and the intermediate school district (n = 1). Yet 34.1% of the respondents were "not sure" how they first learned about the talent search. As for the person who initially decided to implement talent search in their schools, responses were "myself" (22.2%), previous coordinator (21.7%), and principal (17.9%), superintendent (4.2%), previous gifted teacher or coordinator (1.9%), principal or counselor (0.9%), and curriculum director (0.3%). Thirty percent (29.7%) of the coordinators also responded "not sure" regarding who initially involved their schools in talent search.

When asked about how they selected students for talent search participation, overwhelmingly, 90.2% responded that they used students' achievement test scores (95th percentile or above). However, 30.4% used parent nomination, followed by teacher nomination (9.3%), other test-score criteria (8.4%), formal identification by the school as "gifted" or "talented" (7.5%), or participation in the school's gifted and talented programs or classes (5.6%). A few schools also used scores on state proficiency tests (n = 3), cognitive abilities tests (n = 3) or aptitude tests (n = 1), and grade reports (n = 1) to select students for talent search.

The majority of the coordinators (74.3%) sent a letter to parents and students written by themselves or their schools in order to encourage students and their families to participate in the talent search. Sending a form letter provided by the talent search program (31.3%), verbal contact with individual families (27.6%), holding a parent meeting to discuss the program (17.3%), and contact with teachers in their schools or districts to get student nominations (7.0%) were other means schools used to explain the program to families and encourage participation.

Talent Search Follow-Up

There were several methods used by respondents to follow up with students after the talent search testing. More than half (66.4%) of the coordinators recognized students who participated in talent search by passing out certificates at a special ceremony. To help students and parents interpret the students' test scores, 20.1% of the coordinators held individual meetings with students and parents, 16.4% used a special letter or other materials written by themselves, their schools, or districts, and 6.5% held group meetings. Other responses regarding follow-up activities included sharing scores with teachers and counselors (n = 8), recognizing students via assemblies or newsletters (n = 8), and communications with parents about further educational services for the students (n = 6). Also, there were 46 (21.5%) coordinators who said that no special follow-up activities were provided for the talent search participants to help them interpret their test scores.

In regard to how educators use talent search participation to assist individual gifted students, the most frequently chosen response was that scores helped students find program options not available through their local schools (73.4%). Almost a third (27.1%) of the coordinators stated that students' participation in talent search helped them craft academic programs for individual students that included accelerated classes and enrichment activities, and 17.8% reported that the talent search program helped them determine eligibility for special gifted classes in their schools. However, less than 10% of the respondents had used the talent search scores to design new classes or programs for the talent search students in their schools (8.9%), to determine eligibility for scholarships (3.7%), or to prepare for future SAT or ACT testing (2.8%). There were four teachers (1.9%) who indicated that they became aware of students' needs for advanced or accelerated programs in school after testing and that talent search promoted the self-esteem of the students through the challenging experience of taking off-level tests. Five (2.3%) teachers also stated that they did not use talent search for any purpose in their schools.

Regarding how to improve the talent search program, more than half (54.2%) of the school coordinators supported the proposal that CTD should provide talent search scores on stickers that could be adhered to students' permanent school records. They agreed with the suggestion that CTD should make talent search brochures (booklets) or written materials easier for parents to understand (28.5%), provide a poster to help local schools to publicize the talent search program (28.0%), and provide materials to help them present information to parents (26.2%). Other suggestions supported by participants included a packaged PowerPoint presentation to help educate parents about talent search (6.1%), availability of more convenient testing locations (6.1%), more guidance materials for parents (1.4%), online access to the program (0.9%), and reduced cost for the tests (0.9%).

Forty-nine coordinators gave written comments about their experiences with talent search, and 17 (34.7%) of them felt that talent search was a good opportunity for students who need advanced educational services commensurate with their academic abilities but have only a few educational options (e.g., accelerated or enrichment classes or programs) available in their schools. Thirteen (26.5%) coordinators wished they received more information about the process of testing, interpretation of the test scores, ways to explain the test results to students and their parents, and lists of registered students in the program. The coordinators were also concerned about the cost of the testing, and thus, suggested more financial aid (e.g., scholarships) for students (n = 7, 14.3%). Other issues commented on by the coordinators related to the use of percentile scores to determine eligibility for the program (n = 4, 8.2%), trouble with online registration (n = 3, 6.1%) or testing locations (n = 2, 4.1%), differentiated certificates for students based on scores (n = 2, 4.1%), and deadline extension (n = 1, 2.0%).

Comparisons Between More Active Versus Less Active Coordinators

The only statistically significant difference found in the survey responses between the more and less active schools was that less active schools were more likely to identify students as gifted or talented in their schools than more active schools ([chi square] [1, 86] = 5.33, p < .05; 73.4% vs. 53.8%). However, of the school coordinators who reported that they identified gifted students formally in their schools, no significant difference was found for the percentage of gifted students identified by the more active versus the less active schools. For example, 88.5% of the coordinators from the more active schools versus 70.4% from less active schools said that they identified 20% or fewer of their students as gifted.

As for the person who initially decided to implement talent search in local schools, there were no differences (p > .05). "Coordinators" including the survey respondents themselves, were the most frequently identified person for both the more active and the less active schools (45.3% versus 43.0%) followed by "school principals" (more active 24.5%, less active 15.2%). Only 3.8% of either group responded that superintendents had initiated talent search in their schools.

More and less active schools did not differ in how they identified students for participation in talent search (p > .05). Both used achievement test scores at the 95th percentile primarily (more active 86.8%, less active 100%) with about 30% of each group using parent nomination along with achievement tests (more active 32.1%, less active 29.1%). Other responses included teacher nomination (11.3%) and students' participation in school gifted programs or classes (9.4%) for the active coordinators, and other test score criteria (11.4%) for the less active coordinators (See Figure 1 for details).

No statistically significant differences were found between more and less active schools in how they notified students about talent search, encouraged participation, or followed up after testing (p > .05). More active and less active schools were not different in sending a form letter provided by the talent search program (more active 26.4%, less active 34.2%), in holding individual meetings to help families understand the test scores (more active 15.1%, less active 24.1%), in contacting teachers in their schools or districts for student nominations (more active 13.2%, less active 2.5%), and in holding group meetings for the test score interpretation (more active 9.4%, less active 3.8%). Also, about 20% of both more and less active schools responded that no special follow up was used in their schools for talent search participants subsequent to testing (more active 22.6%, less active 16.5%).

The more active and less active schools were also similar in how they utilized talent search scores-mainly to find outside-of-school educational program options for students not available in their schools (more active 77.4%, less active 69.6%), to help them devise individualized placements for students (more active 24.5%, less active 30.4%), to determine eligibility for school-based special gifted classes (more active 17.0%, less active 17.7%), and to design new classes or programs for gifted students (more active 11.3%, less active 11.4%).

The study found other similarities between both groups of schools with regard to how they learned about talent search (e.g., mainly through mailings from the Center) and how they conducted follow up after testing (e.g., passed out certificates at a special ceremony). See Figures 2 and 3 for more information.

As for gifted services offered in local schools, more active and less active schools were not significantly different (p > .05). Acceleration in specific subject areas was the type of program most frequently employed in both groups of schools (more active 71.7%, less active 79.7%). The more active and less active schools were not different (p > .05) in other services, such as future programs for training teachers on differentiating instruction (more active 47.2%, less active 63.3%), in-class clustering of gifted students (more active 47.2%, less active 55.7%), pull-out programs (more active 34.0%, less active 40.5%), and grade-skipping (more active 26.4%, less active 38.0%), provided for gifted learners in their schools. In addition, 3.8% of the less active schools and 13.2% of the more active schools responded that no special program was available for gifted students in their schools.

Summary and Discussion

1. For school coordinators, mailings (40.2%) from the talent search institution were the primary way of initially hearing about talent search.

2. The decision to participate in talent search was most often made at the school level and made by someone below the principal. Nearly half of the respondents said that school gifted coordinators (43.9%), including themselves, were responsible for initiating and implementing talent search in their schools. A very small percentage (less than 5%) of schools had someone at the district level (e.g., superintendent) make this decision.

3. Achievement test scores at the 95th percentile or above (90.2%) were the most frequently used criteria for selecting students for talent search, while formal identification by schools as gifted (7.5%) and participation in schools' gifted and talented programs or classes (5.6%) were less frequently used as the selection criteria. A sizeable percentage (30.4%) of students came into talent search via parent nomination in addition to or in lieu of standardized test scores.

4. The majority (74.3%) of school coordinators used letters written by themselves as the primary means to encourage families to have their child participate in talent search.

5. The most typical follow-up action taken by schools after students' participation in talent search was a school sponsored ceremony to present certificates (66.4%). Group meetings with parents and students (6.5%) and/or special letters or other written materials (16.4%) were not used frequently as means of helping parents understand the meaning and implications of talent search scores.

6. The most prominent benefit of talent search perceived by the school coordinators was the utility of scores in guiding students to find appropriate and challenging academic programs and educational experiences "outside of their schools" (73.4%).

7. Almost a quarter (21.5%) of the schools involved in the study did nothing to help families interpret talent search scores subsequent to the testing.

8. Relatively few schools used talent search to design in-school programs for students (8.9%) or to craft programs for individual students (17.8%). However, a large percentage (over 70%) reported using acceleration in a specific subject as a means to accommodate gifted learners, although it is unclear if this was in response to students' talent search scores.

9. There were no statistically significant differences in implementation or follow up with talent search students between schools who were more active and less active in terms of student participation in talent search. The only difference found between these were that less active schools were more likely to identify students as gifted or talented in their schools than more active schools (73.4% vs. 53.8%).

This study confirmed that talent search is perceived by schools as a means of obtaining academic opportunities for gifted students, but primarily outside-of-school opportunities. Overwhelmingly, our research indicates that talent search helps schools find appropriate courses, programs, and experiences outside of school for their students (73.4%). The percentage of schools in our study that used talent search scores to determine individualized placements for students (27.1%) or to determine eligibility for school gifted programs (17.8%) is low and similar to that reported by Swiatek and Lupkowski-Shoplik (in press; who obtained percentages of around 16% from families and 20% from school personnel for the use of EXPLORE scores for similar purposes) and Wilder and Casserly (1988; who found that 10% of families said that their children received a special program or placement subsequent to talent search).

Our data showed that the talent search program is not likely used by schools to a significant degree to guide the design of new school-based programs. Previous studies (e.g., Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, in press; Wilder & Casserly, 1988) also showed that talent search scores were not perceived by parents as significantly instrumental in getting students placed in advanced or accelerated programs in local schools. This suggests that schools still see talent search as an outside-of-school activity and fundamentally integrated into or articulated with an array of services for academically gifted children. The recommendation, endorsed by many counselors, that talent search programs provide stickers to students of talent search scores for school records, suggests that schools want students' scores and value the information, but may not want to act on the information. Thus, training and/or workshops for teachers and school personnel are needed to help local schools understand the meaning and implication of off-level test scores for their academically talented students.

Though the majority (90.2%) of the students were selected for talent search participation via achievement test scores at the 95th percentile or above, parent nomination was used more often as a criterion for qualification than other methods including teacher nomination, formal identification by the school as gifted or talented or participation in the school's gifted programs or classes. However, for the large group of talent search participants in 2003 (over 25,000 students), only 7.1% of students came into talent search via parent nomination while 90.8% used various qualification tests including Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), Terra Nova, Stanford Achievement Test, Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP), and Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). The high rate of parental nomination for this study may be due to differences between survey respondents and the larger pool of talent search participants, or to question response formats (multiple choices on the survey vs. only one choice for the application). Yet the data on parent nomination suggest that schools are using multiple methods to identify students for talent search participation beyond the traditional ones that consist mainly of achievement tests and particularly schools with high numbers of participants. Talent search organizations need to continue to encourage schools to use multiple criteria, including parent nomination to qualify students, especially for students who do not have test scores or whose abilities may not be easily or accurately assessed via traditional achievement tests.

Contrary to what we expected, more active schools were less likely to identify students as gifted or talented in their schools than less active schools. It is likely that these schools feel a need for talent search more than the less active schools because they have little available to offer gifted students and desire to refer them to outside-of-school educational programs.

Limitations and Future Research

This study had an excellent response rate for social science research, yet we do not know and were unable to assess the degree to which the respondents mirrored the larger talent search population. Thus, the possibility of bias exists. As a descriptive study based on schools' responses, this study did not include comparative data from different parties such as students and parents who might have different perceptions of how schools did or did not utilize talent search scores. Previous research has revealed discrepancies between parents' and educators' perceptions of schools' responses to students' summer programs (Olszewski-Kubilius, 1989) as well as follow-up activities to talent search (Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, in press). Future research involving multiple perspectives from students, parents, and schools would yield a clearer picture of the impact of participation in talent search.

Another limitation of this study is that information was not gathered about whether individual teachers made accommodations for individual students in their classrooms subsequent to their talent search participation. The study did not assess whether students' talent search scores are even shared with classroom teachers so that differentiated instruction could be provided. It is possible that more provisions were in place than were detectable.

Obstacles to schools' use of talent search scores for local school programming were not assessed, but only the extent of their use of such scores. If talent search is to become a program that impacts local schools' efforts as it was designed to be, research is needed that investigates why schools do not use scores. Previous research suggests that school administrators do not understand the meaning of off-level test scores, but other obstacles such as limited resources or entrenched programs may be operative as well.

Appendix A List of Talent Search. Coordinator Survey

1. About the School

(a) Talent search student identification (1 = my school, 2 = my district, 3 = other)

(b) Position at school (1 = teacher, 2 = part-time gifted coordinator, 3 = full-time gifted coordinator, 4 = principal, 5 = guidance counselor, 6 = other)

(c) Type of school (1 = private, 2 = parochial, 3 = public, 4 = charter, 5 = other)

(d) Grades served (1 = PreK, 2 = K, 3 = 1st, 4 = 2nd, 5 = 3rd, 6 = 4th, 7 = 5th, 8 = 6th, 9 = 7th, 10 = 8th, 11 = 9th)

(e) Number of students this year*

(f) Identification of students as "gifted" or "talented" (1 = yes, 2 = no)

(g) If yes, percentage of identified students as "gifted"*

(h) Programs provided for gifted learners (1 = pull-out program, 2 = in-class clustering of gifted students, 3 = training for teacher on differentiating instruction, 4 = acceleration in specific subject, 5 = grade-skip, 6 = no programming, 7= other)

2. About Talent Search Participation at School

(a) Discovery of talent search (1 = parent, 2 = mailing, 3 = conference, 4 = internet, 5 = another educator, 6 = child participated in talent search, 7 = not sure, 8 = other)

(b) Person implemented talent search (1 = principal, 2 = superintendent, 3 = previous coordinator, 4 = myself, 5 = not sure, 6 = other)

(c) Criteria for selection (1 = test score 95th percentile or above, 2 = other test score, 3 = formal identification, 4 = participation in school's gifted program, 5 = teacher recommendation, 6 = parent nomination, 7 = other)

(d) Support for talent search (1 = parent meeting, 2 = sending the form letter from Handbook, 3 = sending a letter, 4 = verbal contact, 5 = contacting teachers, 6 = other)

(e) Number of students informed by grade level* (1 = 3rd, 2 = 4th, 3 = 5th, 4 = 6th, 5 = 7th, 6 = 8th, 7 = 9th*)

3. Talent Search Follow-Up

(a) Follow-up method (1 = group meeting, 2 = individual meeting, 3 = letter or material, 4 = certificate or ceremony, 5 = no follow-ups, 6 = other)

(b) How does talent search help? (1 = determine eligibility, 2 = determine academic programs, 3 = design new class, 4 = find program options, 5 = other)

4. Improving Service

(a) suggestions for easier implementation (1 = poster, 2 = meeting material, 3 = PowerPoint presentation, 4 = talent search scores, 5 = easier talent search literature, 6 = convenient testing location, 7 = no suggestions, 8 = other)

(b) any comment to the Midwest Talent Search*

Note. Response formats are given in parenthesis (); * indicates open-ended items.

REFERENCES

Ablard, K. E., Mills, C. J., & Hoffhines, V. L. (1996). The developmental study of talented youth (DSTY): The participants (Technical Report No. 13). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Institute for the Academic Advancement of Youth.

Assouline, S., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (1997). Talent searches: A model for the discovery and development of academic talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 170-179). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Barnett, L. B., & Durden, W. G. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 161-168.

Bartkovich, K. G., & Mezynski, K. (1981). Fast-paced precalculus mathematics for talented junior-high students: Two recent SMPY programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 73-80.

Benbow, C. P. (1992a). Mathematical talent: Its nature and consequences. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. (pp. 95-123). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Benbow, C. P. (1992b). Academic achievement in mathematics and science of students between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 51-61.

Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 430-441.

Benbow, C. P., Perkins, S., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Mathematics taught at a fast pace: A longitudinal evaluation of SMPY's first class. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 51-78). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brody, L. E. (1998). The talent searches: A catalyst for change in higher education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 124-133.

Burton, N. W. (1988). Young SAT-takers: Two surveys: Survey II: Test-taking history for 1980-81 young SAT-takers (College Board Report No. 88-1). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Enersen, D. L. (1993). Summer residential programs: Academics and beyond. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 169-176.

Jarosewich, T., & Stocking, V. B. (2003). Talent search: Student and parent perceptions of out-of-level testing. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(3), 137-150.

Kolitch, E. R., & Brody, L. E. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 78-86.

Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically talented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 147-154.

Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Lynch, S. J. (1992). Academically talented students' preparation for advanced-level coursework after individually paced precalculus class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(1), 3-17. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1989). Development of academic talent: The role of summer programs. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self and the school (pp. 214-230). New York: Teachers College Press.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998a). Talent search: Purposes, rationale, and role in gifted education. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 106-113.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998b). Research evidence regarding the validity and effects of talent search educational programs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 134-138.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Grant, B. (1996). Academically talented women and mathematics: The role of special programs and support from others on acceleration, achievement, and aspirations. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women (pp. 281-294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). A ten-year longitudinal follow-up of participants in a fast-paced mathematics class. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 138-159.

Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (in press). An evaluation of the elementary student talent search by families and schools. Gifted Child Quarterly.

VanTassel-Baska, J. L. (1989). Profiles of precocity: A three-year study of talented adolescents. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners (pp. 29-39). New York: Teachers College Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). A critique of the talent searches. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 139-144.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Landau, M., & Olszewski, P. (1984). The benefits of summer programming for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 73-82.

Wilder, G., & Casserly, P. L. (1988). Survey I: Young SAT-takers and their parents (College Board Report No. 88-1). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University. She has worked at the Center for more than 20 years, during which she has conducted research and published widely on issues of talent development, particularly the effects of accelerated educational programs and the needs of special populations of gifted children. Dr. Olszewski-Kubilius is active in national and state-level advocacy organizations for gifted children. She currently serves as an editor of Gifted Child Quarterly. Previously, she was a co-editor of the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education and served on the editorial advisory boards of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted and Gifted Child International and as a consulting editor for Roeper Review. E-mail: [e-mail] 

Seon-Young Lee, Ph.D., is a research assistant professor of the Center for Talent Development in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. She was a postdoctoral fellow of the Center over the past two years after receiving her doctorate from the University of Georgia. She worked as a consultant for statistical data analysis in the Department of Educational Psychology and a research assistant at the Torrance Center for Creative Studies when she pursued her doctorate. Dr. Lee has conducted research on educational psychology and gifted education using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. E-mail: [e-mail]

Manuscript submitted June 2, 2004.

Revision accepted July 29, 2004.

Figure 1

How did you select students
for talent search participation?

                                  More Active       Less Active
                               Schools (n = 53)   Schools (n = 79)

Achievement test scores at           86.8%             100.0%
the 95th percentile or above

Parent nomination                    32.1%              29.1%

Teacher nomination                   11.3%               7.6%

Participation in my school's          9.4%               5.1%
gifted/talent program or class

Other test score criteria             5.7%              11.4%

Formal identification by my           1.9%               7.6%
school as gifted or talented

Note: No differences are statistically significant.

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Figure 2

How did your school initially
hear about talent search?

                               More Active       Less Active
                            Schools (n = 53)   Schools (n = 79)

Mailing                          41.5%               41.8%

Not sure                         28.3%               35.4%

Another educator                 20.8%               15.2%
or school

Parent                            5.7%                2.5%

A child I know or my              5.7%                1.3%
own child participated in
talent search

Conference                        1.9%                6.3%

Internet                          0.0%                1.3%

Note: No differences are statistically significant.

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Figure 3

How did you follow up on talent search scores
with your students?

                               More Active       Less Active
                            Schools (n = 53)   Schools (n = 79)

Recognizing students by           66.0%              67.1%
passing out certificates at
a special ceremony

No special follow-up              22.6%              16.5%

A special letter or other         18.9%              15.2%
materials that I or someone
at my school/district wrote

Individual meetings to help       15.1%              24.1%
parents and students interpret
their scores

Group meeting to help              9.4%               3.8%
parents and students interpret
their scores

Note: No differences are statistically significant.