Meeting in the Middle: Gifted education and middle schools working together.

Dialogue and debate between gifted education advocates and proponents of the middle school philosophy prompted this research which examines the basic constructs and ideas inherent to both fields. This study analyzes gifted education models and middle school models to identify specific areas of commonality and/or conflict. Through the use of content analysis, many common and compatible areas between gifted education and middle school education are identified. The results of this study offer very positive implications for appropriately meeting the needs of all students, including gifted children, within the middle school context.

Whether or not gifted education programs can effectively co-exist with the middle school movement has become an issue of contention among educators and researchers in both fields during the last decade. According to the National Middle School Association, "the challenge of middle school education ... is to develop an educational program that is based on the needs and characteristics of a most diverse and varied population" (National Middle School Association, 1982/1992, p. 3) of young adolescents. Proponents of the middle school philosophy advocate an educational environment which equally addresses students' social-emotional needs as well as their physical and cognitive needs (Alexander, Williams, Compton, Hines, & Prescott, 1968; Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Eichhorn, 1966; George & Oldaker, 1985). Middle school has been identified as a crucial turning point for any transescent; it is a time when many youngsters are alienated from school and is seen as a critical period for retaining students in school (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1985).

The middle school philosophy, or at least middle school instructional and organizational practice, has been viewed as antithetical to the educational needs of gifted students by some gifted educators (Feldhusen, 1990; Gallagher, 1990; Silverman, 1990). Feldhusen (1990) stated the apparent controversy succinctly: "The middle school reform movement demands an end to all special classes for the gifted" (p. 47). Silverman (1990) and Gallagher (1990), while not directly addressing middle school education, sharply criticized the practice of heterogeneous grouping. The apparent philosophical differences between middle school education and gifted education were addressed more positively by Peterman (1990). She observed that characteristics of effective middle schools were also necessary characteristics for successful programs for gifted students.

While the debate continues, more recent professional dialogue from both sides attempts to find common ground. Tomlinson (1994) suggested a melding of practices and recommendations for educating gifted students into the middle school philosophy. Among her suggestions were flexible grouping strategies and educating middle school teachers about appropriate curricula and instructional strategies for gifted students. She concluded "it would be to the advantage of education in general to have gifted education and middle school education join forces in making a case for economic support to enable both equity and excellence to be eagerly pursued in middle schools" (Tomlinson, 1994, p. 181). George and Grebing (1995) suggested strategies "to successfully challenge gifted students in the context of the regular classroom ... while preserving the best of the middle school concept for all students" (p. 13). These strategies included the use of block scheduling to permit grouping in mathematics but to prevent tracking in other subjects; varied grouping and instructional strategies within the regular classroom; the use of appropriate acceleration; and exploration courses. Coleman and Gallagher (1995) studied the attitudes of middle school educators and educators of gifted students regarding the education of gifted middle school students. They concluded that while a gap in attitudes between the two fields may exist, there were examples of successful gifted education programs in middle schools. They further cited recent statements of collaboration which have been made by both the National Middle School Association and the National Association for Gifted Children.

To clarify the issues which apparently separate gifted educators and middle school educators, this study was designed to identify specific areas of commonality and/or conflict between the two fields. Through a content analysis of models of both middle school education and gifted education, this research analyzed underlying philosophical assumptions which support or inhibit successful integration of gifted education programs within the middle school context.

Methodology

Four nationally accepted middle school education models and six recognized gifted education models comprised the samples for the content analysis. The purpose of the content analysis was to identify common themes found among middle school education models and common themes found among gifted education models in order to identify compatible concepts and constructs found in both fields.

Content analyses were performed on authors' original works in which they described their models. Themes, or essential components of a model, were identified and placed into one of three categories: content, instruction, or delivery system. This study defined theme as a single assertion about some subject which can be classified under a category (Holsti, 1969, p. 116).

A theme was placed under the category of content if it referred to the subject matter which was recommended to be taught, skills recommended to be taught, or facts, concepts, or processes recommended to be taught. A theme was placed under the category of instruction if it referred to a particular strategy, technique, or method of presenting content, if it referred to particular teaching qualities of the classroom teacher, if it referred to particular strategies or methods for evaluating student progress, or if it referred to particular strategies for organization within the classroom setting. A theme was placed under delivery systems if it referred to the organization, scheduling, or structure of the total school environment, if it referred to the inclusion of particular student support programs, if it referred to the organization of content, staff, programs or students within the context of the total school environment, or if it referred to the selection of staff or students within the context of total school programming. The categorization of themes was repeated a second time to insure intrarater reliability.

After themes emerging from each middle school or gifted education model were categorized, the data were analyzed to identify common themes. This study defined common themes as those which appeared in 60 percent of the models. In identifying common themes, the researcher used general language which reflected the concept of a particular theme, rather than using an author's specific terminology.

Emerging Themes from Middle School Models

Four models for middle school education were submitted to content analysis. This sample was derived from lists of significant middle school models submitted by three persons having a national reputation for expertise in the field of middle school education: John Lounsbury, Professor Emeritus, Georgia College and Publications Editor for the National Middle School Association; Conrad Toepfer, Department of Learning and Instruction, State University of New York, Buffalo; and Alfred Arth, Center for Curriculum and Instruction, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. These experts cited the works of William Alexander (1968), James Beane (1990), Donald Eichhorn (1966), and John Lounsbury/Gordon Vars (1978) as significant models of middle school education. Table 1 details the common themes found among the four models in this sample.

Table 1

Common Themes Among Middle School Education Models

                                           Alexander   Beane

Content
Problem-centered                               x         x
Physical Education                             x
Individual Interest Courses                    x
Thinking Skills                                x         x
Social Skills                                  x         x
Academic skills related to language
  arts, math, social studies, science          x         x
Application of skills to broad
  concepts and generalizations                 x         x

Instruction
Cooperative learning; small group
  activities                                   x         x
Physical activity; active student
  learning                                     x
Continuous record as evaluation                x

Delivery Systems
Thematic, interdisciplinary organization
  of content                                             x
Guidance through teachers
  (each has one adult)                         x
Intramural activities                          x         x
Student activities/clubs--
  part of school day                           x         x
Team teaching/team planning                    x         x
Independent study/study skills center          x         x
Continuous progress (nongraded
  plan for skill development)                  x
Flexible scheduling; regrouping
  students as needed                           x         x

                                           Eichhorn    Lounsbury/
                                                         Vars

Content
Problem-centered                                           x
Physical Education                             x           x
Individual Interest Courses                    x           x
Thinking Skills                                x           x
Social Skills                                              x
Academic skills related to language
  arts, math, social studies, science          x           x
Application of skills to broad
  concepts and generalizations                             x

Instruction
Cooperative learning; small group
  activities                                   x           x
Physical activity; active student
  learning                                     x           x
Continuous record as evaluation                x           x

Delivery Systems
Thematic, interdisciplinary organization
  of content                                   x           x
Guidance through teachers
  (each has one adult)                         x           x
Intramural activities                          x           x
Student activities/clubs--
  part of school day                           x           x
Team teaching/team planning                    x           x
Independent study/study skills center          x
Continuous progress (nongraded
  plan for skill development)                  x           x
Flexible scheduling; regrouping
  students as needed                           x           x

Common themes from middle school education models analyzed appeared in all three categories of content, instruction, and delivery system. Under the category of content, three of the four models recommended problem-centered content rather than subject-centered (Alexander, et. al., 1968; Beane, 1990; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978). The inclusion of academic skills related to language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science was recommended by all models, while Alexander (1968), Beane (1990), and Lounsbury and Vars (1978) recommended an emphasis on the application of skills to broad concepts and generalizations.

Content

Under the category of content, Alexander, et. al. (1968) recommended that content include value education, real issues relevant to students, and the application of skills and concepts to real problems. Content recommendations also included traditional subjects of English, math, science, and social studies, which Alexander, et. al. (1968) termed "organized knowledge" (p. 73).

Beane (1990) recommended that problems be studied which reflect the concerns of early adolescence and social issues. He proposed that content for general education in middle schools be organized around themes emerging from the intersections of these two factors. Beane (1990) offered the following as examples of content themes which might be studied: transitions, identities, interdependence, conflict resolution, and justice.

Eichhorn (1966) proposed a two-part curricula: the physical-cultural curriculum and the analytical curriculum. Content within the physical-cultural curriculum included fine arts, physical education, practical arts, and cultural studies. Content within the analytical curriculum included language, mathematics, social studies, and science. Lounsbury and Vars' (1978) core curriculum was based upon a problem-centered, interdisciplinary approach to the content and skills of English, social studies, and science. They also described a program of continuous progress relevant to skills in science, reading, mathematics, and foreign language.

Thinking skills, in terms of problem solving, creativity, and critical thinking, was a component all four models. Social skills appeared as a theme in three of the four models (Alexander, 1968; Beane, 1990; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978). Alexander (1968) called for values education in terms of teaching appropriate behaviors for school, work, and other social situations. Beane (1990) discussed terms such as valuing skills, self-concepting, and self-esteeming skills, and social action skills. Lounsbury and Vars (1978) proposed that skills in sharing, respecting rights, taking responsibility, and leadership be a part of the middle school curriculum. Physical education and individual interest courses were suggested by Alexander (1968), Eichhorn (1966), and Lounsbury and Vars (1978).

Instruction

Under the category of instruction, cooperative learning and small group activities were recommendations of all four models. Instructional methods which encouraged physical activity and active student learning were advocated by Alexander (1968), Eichhorn (1966), and Lounsbury and Vars (1978). Three models included the theme of evaluating student progress based upon a continuous record of observations through descriptive data or checklists (Beane, 1990; Eichhorn, 1966; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978).

Delivery Systems

Under the category of delivery systems, the theme of team teaching and team planning appeared in all four models. Three of the four models suggested that content be organized in thematic, interdisciplinary units (Beane, 1990; Eichhorn, 1966; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978). Flexible scheduling and regrouping of students was recommended by all four models. Alexander, et.al. (1968) advocated occasional rescheduling to include time in the school day for student activities such as intramurals, clubs, and student government. Scheduling and organizational recommendations also included the use of short-lengthed exploratory courses, study skills centers, the use of high school students as tutors, and independent study through teacher mentoring or seminars. Alexander, et.al. (1968) recommended the use of flexible scheduling, team planning and team teaching, as well as a non-graded, continuous progress plan for skill development.

Beane (1990) addressed the use of a team teaching structure which would include collaborative teacher planning and flexible scheduling of a heterogeneous group of students assigned to a team of teachers. Eichhorn's (1966) socio-psychological model called for a team teaching approach which included flexible scheduling and regrouping of students assigned to a team of teachers, and allowed for a student's movement through middle school within a range of two to four years.

Central to Lounsbury and Vars' (1978) model was the block scheduling approach, which assigned a group of students to one teacher or a team of teachers for up to one-half of the school day. They also encouraged flexible regrouping of students, recommending that blocks be scheduled opposite one another to facilitate cross-age grouping. Their model also allowed students to progress at their own rates through continuous, nongraded sequence of learning experiences in areas such as science, reading, or math that have a sequential skill organization. A continuous progress, nongraded plan for skill development was a theme found in three models (Alexander, 1968; Eichhorn, 1966; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978). Alexander (1968), Beane (1990), and Eichhorn (1966) proposed the use of independent study and study skills centers. An organizational plan which would allow for teachers to provide the basic guidance for students, where each student had one adult who was primarily responsible for helping him/her in areas of educational and personal growth, was recommended by three of the models (Alexander, 1968; Eichhorn, 1966; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978). All four models prescribed the use of intramural sports and the inclusion of student activities and clubs as part of the regular school day.

Emerging Themes from Gifted Education Models

Six models for gifted education were submitted to content analysis. This sample was drawn from textbooks (Maker, 1982; Passow, 1979; Smutney & Blockson, 1990) written for the purpose of surveying a variety of models of gifted education and which presented a general overview of the field of gifted education. Models designed specifically for gifted education which were cited in any one of the three textbooks were included in the sample.

Six gifted education models emerged from this analysis. The developers of these models were: Barbara Clark (1992), James Gallagher(1985), Sandra Kaplan (1974), Joseph Renzulli (1985), Calvin Taylor (1978, 1985, 1986), and Donald Treffinger (1986). Original documents written by each of these authors were used as sources from which data were gathered for content analysis. The content analysis of gifted education models followed the same process used in analyzing middle school education models. Each document was reviewed to identify themes appearing in each model. Identified themes were then placed into one of three categories content, instruction, or delivery system. This process was repeated a second time to assure interrater reliability in the same manner as done for middle school models.

After themes from each gifted education model were categorized, the data were analyzed to identify common themes. The researcher used general language which reflected the concept of a particular theme, rather than using an author's specific terminology. Table 2 details the common themes found among the six models.

Table 2

Common Themes Among Gifted Education Models

                                       Clark   Gallagher   Kaplan
Content
Based on student interest                x                   x
Issue-centered/real problems             x         x         x
Thinking Skills                          x         x         x
Social, Affective Skills                 x                   x
New, Unusual Content                     x         x         x
In-depth content, breadth of
  coverage, complex content                        x         x

Instruction
Inquiry, discovery process, research     x                   x
Strategies to develop creativity         x         x

Delivery Systems
Enrichment within the regular
  classroom                              x         x         x
Flexible scheduling/regrouping           x         x         x
Special classes outside regular
  classroom                              x         x         x
Independent study/learning
  centers/individual pacing              x         x         x
Apprenticeships, mentors, outside
  experts                                x                   x
Acceleration                             x                   x
Exploratory/student interest
  activities                                                 x

                                       Renzulli   Taylor  Treffinger
Content
Based on student interest                 x                    x
Issue-centered/real problems              x                    x
Thinking Skills                           x         x          x
Social, Affective Skills                            x          x
New, Unusual Content                      x                    x
In-depth content, breadth of
  coverage, complex content                         x          x

Instruction
Inquiry, discovery process, research      x         x          x
Strategies to develop creativity                    x          x

Delivery Systems
Enrichment within the regular
  classroom                               x         x          x
Flexible scheduling/regrouping                                 x
Special classes outside regular
  classroom                               x                    x
Independent study/learning
  centers/individual pacing               x                    x
Apprenticeships, mentors, outside
  experts                                 x                    x
Acceleration                              x                    x
Exploratory/student interest
  activities                              x         x          x

Content

Four of the six models recommended that content for gifted students have some basis in students' interests (Clark, 1992; Kaplan, 1974; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Treffinger, 1986). Five models proposed that gifted students be exposed to content in the form of issues and real problems (Clark, 1992; Gallagher, 1985; Kaplan, 1974; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Treffinger, 1986). Clark (1992) recommended an integrated curriculum which exposed students to a variety of subjects based on meaningful social problems. Gallagher (1985) proposed that, because of the diversity of needs among gifted students, no one program was sufficient. He suggested that a continuum of options in modified learning environments be available and that gifted students be matched to those programs which best fit their needs. Kaplan (1976) recommended that gifted students be exposed to real life problems. She encouraged the development of research skills, problem-solving sills, higher level thinking skills, and creative processes.

Renzulli's (1985) Schoolwide Enrichment Model suggested that students be exposed to a variety of new topics, ideas, and fields of knowledge. Additionally, the model called for students to be exposed to courses which taught thinking skills, creative processes, and research skills, and that students conduct investigations of real problems. Treffinger (1986) recommended that content be based on student interest with a variety of exploratory topics. He called for content based upon real problems and topics which developed the interrelationships among bodies of knowledge.

New and unusual content was also recommended for gifted students (Clark, 1992; Gallagher, 1985; Kaplan, 1974; Taylor, 1978; Treffinger, 1986). Thinking processes in the form of critical and creative thinking skills and problem solving skills were themes appearing in all models. Clark (1992), Kaplan (1974), Taylor (1985), and Treffinger (1986) suggested that social and affective skills be included within the content for gifted students.

Instruction

Two common themes under the category of instruction were found among the gifted education models. Clark (1992), Kaplan (1974), Renzulli and Reis (1985), Taylor (1978), and Treffinger (1986) recommended the use of research and an inquiry and discovery approach. Strategies to develop creativity and productive thinking were themes appearing in four of the six models (Clark, 1992; Gallagher, 1985; Taylor, 1978; Treffinger, 1986).

Clark (1992) provided an array of recommendations in the area of instructional strategies, including cooperative learning, simulations, incubation and reflection time, emotional awareness activities, physical activities, relaxation techniques, and individual projects. Gallagher (1985) recommended that teachers facilitate learning through strategies to teach thinking, problem-solving, and creativity skills and encouraged open-ended questioning and respect for student ideas, opinions, and questions. Kaplan (1976) encouraged the use of experiential learning, inquiry process, discussion, additional work time, and the availability of options for gifted students.

Renzulli and Reis (1985) recommended that students be involved in an inquiry process based on the academic discipline's standard methods of research and that students simulate the processes of practicing professionals. Taylor (1978, 1985, 1986) suggested that instructional strategies be employed that emphasize creative thinking and that an emphasis be placed on experiential learning, active student involvement, and self-directed learning. In the area of instruction, Treffinger (1986) suggested strategies such as higher level questioning, inquiry methods, creative activities, and individual options. Treffinger (1986) also recommended instructional strategies which encourage students to share and discuss ideas as well as techniques which supported the social and interpersonal needs of students.

Delivery Systems

All models suggested that delivery systems for gifted education programming include enrichment within the regular classroom. Other commonly appearing themes were special classes outside the regular classroom and independent study and individual pacing (Clark, 1992; Gallagher, 1985; Kaplan, 1974; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Treffinger, 1986). Acceleration was recommended by Clark (1992), Kaplan (1974), Renzulli and Reis (1985), and Treffinger, (1986).

Flexible scheduling and regrouping of students was recommended by four of the six models as a way to accommodate the needs of gifted students for interaction with intellectual peers or for independent study (Clark, 1992; Gallagher, 1985; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Treffinger, 1986). Common recommendations for delivery systems also included the use of apprenticeships, mentors, and outside experts (Clark, 1992; Kaplan, 1974; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Treffinger, 1986). Exploratory and student interest activities were proposed by Kaplan (1974), Renzulli & Reis (1985), Taylor (1986), and Treffinger (1986).

Common Elements of Middle School Education Models and Gifted Education Models

A comparison of middle school education themes (Table 1) to gifted education themes (Table 2) revealed several compatible concepts. Specifically, seven corresponding themes were found in both middle school education models and gifted education models. Under the category of content, these were (a) problem-centered content, (b) content based on individual interests, (c) critical and creative thinking skills and problem solving skills, and (d) social skills. Under the category of delivery systems, corresponding themes were: (a) flexible scheduling and regrouping; (b) independent study, individual pacing, and learning centers; and, (c) student interest activities. No congruent themes were found across models under the category of instruction.

The following table summarizes common themes found in both middle school education and gifted education models.

Five of the six gifted education models (Clark, 1992; Gallagher, 1985; Kaplan, 1974; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Treffinger, 1986) and three of the four middle school education models (Alexander, et. al., 1968; Beane, 1990; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978) recommended problem centered content. Individual student interests as a theme under the category of content appeared in the middle school models proposed by Alexander, Eichhorn, Lounsbury and Vars, and the gifted education models proposed by Clark, Kaplan, Renzulli, and Treffinger. All models in both middle school education and gifted education recommended the inclusion of critical and creative thinking skills and problem solving skills as part of content. Social skills appeared as a theme in four of the six gifted education models (Clark, 1992; Kaplan, 1974; Taylor, 1985; Treffinger, 1986) and in three of the four middle school education models (Alexander, et. al., 1986; Beane, 1990; Lounsbury & Vars, 1978).

Under the category of delivery systems, the use of flexible scheduling and regrouping of students was recommended by all middle school education models and by four gifted education models (Clark, 1992; Gallagher, 1985; Kaplan, 1974; Treffinger, 1986). Attention to independent study, individual pacing, and learning centers appeared as a theme in three of the four middle school education models (Alexander, et. al., 1968; Beane, 1990; Eichhorn, 1966) and five of the six gifted education models (Clark, 1992; Gallagher, 1985; Kaplan, 1974; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Treffinger, 1986). Incorporating student interest activities into the total school program and the regular school day was a theme found in all middle school education models and the gifted education models of Kaplan, Renzulli, Taylor, and Treffinger.

This study revealed significant areas of compatibility between middle school education and gifted education models. Furthermore, analysis of the data suggests that even where themes were not identified as congruous, they were not oppositional. For example, under the category of content, the application of skills to broad concepts and generalizations was a common theme found in middle school education models. A common theme found in gifted education models was complex content covered in depth and breadth. While not exact correspondents, these two concepts are not discordant and, in fact, are ancillary to one another.

Although no compatible themes across the two groups of models were identified under the instruction category, common themes appearing in each group of models are not in conflict. Common themes in middle school education models included the use of cooperative learning and small groups, active student participation, and continuous evaluation. Gifted education models' common themes included an emphasis on inquiry and discovery processes and strategies to develop creativity.

The same is true of themes identified under the category of delivery system. Common themes found in middle school models which were not commonly found in gifted education models included an interdisciplinary approach to organizing instruction, guidance by teachers, intramural activities, and team teaching. Common themes in gifted education models not appearing in middle school models were apprenticeships and mentors, enrichment within the regular classroom, and special classes for gifted students outside the regular classroom. While delivery systems proposed in middle school education models were different from those suggested by gifted education models, all could be incorporated within the total school program and compatibly co-exist within a school's curriculum.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the constructs of middle school education and gifted education are not as incompatible as advocates from both fields have suggested. Points of conflict between proponents of gifted education and advocates of middle school education have primarily focused on specific issues, such as cooperative learning and acceleration. While middle school educators advocated the use of cooperative learning strategies (Jones, 1990; Slavin, 1990), gifted education proponents endorsed the use of ability grouping (Feldhusen & Moon, 1992) and acceleration (Van Tassel-Baska, 1992). These issues invariably translate to a question of homogeneous grouping versus heterogeneous grouping, eventually being extrapolated to a debate about equality versus elitism. Through such extensions from specific issues to generalities, principle constructs of both gifted education and middle school education models appear to have been lost or forgotten. It would appear that a philosophical debate has been created where no fundamental differences truly exist.

The systematic analysis of middle school education models and gifted education models from this research indicate that the constructs of gifted education models and middle school education models are compatible. Underlying principles of both can co-exist within the same middle school setting. In fact, both middle school education models and gifted education models promote the use of flexible scheduling and flexible grouping practices. Furthermore, middle school education advocates and gifted education advocates agree that curriculum should include problem-centered content and should emphasize critical and creative thinking and problem solving skills.

Through a detached analysis of the frameworks of gifted education and middle school education models, it is difficult to ascertain any real points of conflict. So, what generated the debate? If disagreements are not evident in theory, one must conclude that conflicts have arisen from practice. Too often, strategies, structures, and models are placed into practice by name only. Select pieces from models are adopted by schools as a wholesale solution or panacea for particular problems. The result is a temporary focus on one program or strategy soon to be forgotten and replaced by the next current trend. This process creates a mish-mash of strategies and constructs with no concern to the total system. Inevitably, we find practices in place which have no resemblance to the concepts from which the practice is named. Thus, we have "middle schools" which practice inflexible grouping in the spirit of attaining heterogeneity and de-tracking. And, indeed, we find "gifted programs" in which the sole delivery system is pull-out enrichment while ignoring the individual needs of children.

For the sake of individual needs of all children, it is imperative that both middle school educators and advocates of gifted education return to the roots of their perspective fields. Therein we will find common ground which will benefit all young adolescents. Considering the current political climate and public opinion which perceives the American educational system as failing, educators can not afford the luxury of "intellectual debate" which results in a divisive conflict among educators whose interests and goals are the same, that is to provide a quality education for all children. It is certainly not appropriate to erect a barrier where one should not exist in the first place, except due to educators' own lack of understanding and/or inappropriate implementation of educational programs.

It is critical that the issues, or non-issues, that have separated gifted education from middle school education be resolved--and soon. As this study confirms, gifted education and middle school education share many of the same constructs and ideas. Not only should they not be in conflict, but gifted education within the middle school setting should be a perfect fit.

Table 3

Summary of Common Themes in Gifted Education and Middle School Education Models

Theme                                      Gifted Education

Problem-centered content                          x
Content based on individual
 interests                                        x
Content includes critical thinking
 skills, creative thinking skills,
 problem solving skills                           x
Content includes social skills                    x
Use of flexible scheduling, regrouping            x
Use of independent study, learning
 centers, individual pacing                       x
Student interest activities part of
 total curriculum                                 x
Content includes new, unusual topics              x
In-depth content; breadth of coverage;
 complex content                                  x
Academic skills related to language
 arts, math, social studies, and science
Physical Education
Application of skills to broad concepts
 and generalizations
Inquiry, discovery process, research              x
Strategies to develop creativity                  x
Cooperative learning; small group
 activities
Physical activity, active learning
 environment
Continuous record as evaluation
Thematic, interdisciplinary organization
 of curriculum
Guidance through teachers
 (each student has one adult)
Intramural activities
Team teaching, team planning
Enrichment within regular classroom               x
Special classes outside regular
 classroom                                        x
Apprenticeships, mentors, outside
 experts                                          x
Acceleration                                      x

Theme                                       Middle School

Problem-centered content                          x
Content based on individual
 interests                                        x
Content includes critical thinking
 skills, creative thinking skills,
 problem solving skills                           x
Content includes social skills                    x
Use of flexible scheduling, regrouping            x
Use of independent study, learning
 centers, individual pacing                       x
Student interest activities part of
 total curriculum                                 x
Content includes new, unusual topics
In-depth content; breadth of coverage;
 complex content
Academic skills related to language
 arts, math, social studies, and science          x
Physical Education                                x
Application of skills to broad concepts
 and generalizations                              x
Inquiry, discovery process, research
Strategies to develop creativity
Cooperative learning; small group
 activities                                       x
Physical activity, active learning
 environment                                      x
Continuous record as evaluation                   x
Thematic, interdisciplinary organization
 of curriculum                                    x
Guidance through teachers
 (each student has one adult)                     x
Intramural activities                             x
Team teaching, team planning                      x
Enrichment within regular classroom
Special classes outside regular
 classroom
Apprenticeships, mentors, outside
 experts

REFERENCES

Alexander, W., & McEwin, C. K. (1988). Preparing to teach at the middle level. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Alexander, W. M., Williams, E. L., Compton, M., Hines, V.A., & Prescott, D. (1968). The emergent middle school. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Beane, J. A. (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). Middle schools and their impact on talent development. Middle School Journal, 26 (3), 47-56.

Eichhorn, D. H. (1966). The middle school. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education.

Feldhusen, J. (1990). From the editor. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34 (2), 47.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (2), 63-67.

Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gallagher, J. J. (1990). Issue. (Response to issue question: Should gifted students be educated in special programs outside the regular classroom?) Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Update, 32 (8), 7.

George, P. S., & Grebing, W. (1995). Talent development and grouping in the middle grades: Challenging the brightest without sacrificing the rest. Middle School Journal, 26 (4), 12-17.

George, P. S., & Oldaker, L. L. (1985). Evidence for the middle school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Jones, M. G. (1990). Cooperative learning: Developmentally appropriate for middle level students. Middle School Journal, 22 (1), 12-16.

Kaplan, S. N. (1974). Providing programs for the gifted and talented: A handbook. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.

Lounsbury, J. H., & Vars, G. E. (1978). A curriculum for the middle school years. New York: Harper and Row.

Maker, C. J. (1982). Teaching models in education of the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publications.

National Middle School Association. (1982/1992). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author.

Passow, A. H. (Ed.). (1979). The gifted and the talented: Their education and development. (The Seventy-eighth Yearbook of The National Society for the Study of Education). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Peterman, F. P. (1990). Successful middle level schools and the development of programs for the gifted. NASSP Bulletin, 74 (526), 62-65.

Silverman, L. (1990). Issue. (Response to issue question: Should gifted students be educated in special programs outside the regular classroom?) Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Update, 32 (8), 7.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14 (1), 3-8.

Smutny, J. F., & Blocksom, R. H. (1990). Education of the gifted: Programs and perspectives. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Taylor, C. W. (1978). How many types of giftedness can your program tolerate? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 12 (1), 39-51.

Taylor, C. W. (1985). Cultivating multiple creative talents in students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 8 (3), 187-198.

Taylor, C. W. (1986). The growing importance of creativity and leadership in spreading gifted and talented programs world-wide. Roeper Review, 8 (4), 256-263.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1994). Gifted learners: The boomerang kids of middle school? Roeper Review, 16 (3), 177-181.

Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Blending gifted education with the total school program. (Second Edition Revised). East Aurora, NY: D.O.K. Publishers.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (2), 68-72.

Patti L. Chance is a Gifted Program Specialist with Clark County School District, Las Vegas, Nevada, and serves as an Adjunct Instructor with the Department of Educational Leadership, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Manuscript submitted July, 1997.

Revision accepted January, 1998.