Counseling the gifted: past, present, and future directions.
Who Are the Gifted?
What is giftedness and what does it look like? These are probably the questions that cause the most frustration for counselors, educators, parents, and gifted individuals alike largely because the field of gifted education cannot agree on how giftedness is defined (Reis & Renzulli, 2009). Generally, identification of gifted individuals occurs while they are in elementary school. Identification practices in most U.S. states rely on the areas defined by a report titled Education of the Gifted and Talented, often referred to as the Marland Report (Marland, 1972). Based on the guidelines of this report, the consensus of what constitutes giftedness has included 3% to 5% of the school-age population demonstrating outstanding abilities, performance, and achievement (including general intellectual ability) in specific academic domains, as well as in creativity, leadership, arts, and psychomotor ability. Although each state may interpret these guidelines slightly differently, most have relied on the guidelines to establish their districts' identification procedures, which typically include multiple measures, such as IQ scores, achievement test scores, grade point averages (GPAs), teacher and parent observations, student portfolios, performances, and interviews (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2013).
The identification of gifted individuals has also relied on the analysis of characteristics, traits, and abilities resulting from researchers' and psychologists' work with gifted students and adults as well as from analyses of biographies of eminent individuals (Renzulli, 2005; Simonton, 2003). Lovecky (1994) suggested five predominant traits of gifted individuals: (a) divergent thinking (original, innovative, novel ideas); (b) excitability (high levels of arousal and energy, but with a focus and concentration); (c) sensitivity (characterized by identification with others and empathy); (d) perceptiveness (being able to see multiple facets of a situation simultaneously; insight and intuition); and (e) entelechy (taken from the Greek word for having a goal) or the combination of motivation and inner strength. Hoh (2008) identified several cognitive characteristics of gifted individuals. These include the following: (a) precocity (especially early verbal abilities); (b) perceptual sensitivity or awareness of what others fail to notice (Sternberg & Lupart, 1992); (c) persistent concentration (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004) and commitment to a task (Renzulli, 2005); (d) extreme fascination with a topic and/or curiosity with a concept or idea (Winner, 1996); (e) superior memory, including kinesthetic memory or hands-on "body knowledge" (Cooper, 2000, p. 190); (f) advanced information retrieval (Dark & Benbow, 1991); (g) dynamic imaging, as demonstrated by very young talented artists who can depict and describe objects from multiple imagined perspectives (Harrison, 1999); (h) advanced reasoning abilities that can organize information and work with abstract ideas (Ablard & Tissot, 1998); (i) the ability to take abbreviated steps in problem solving (Cooper, 2000); and (j) flexible thinking, including diverse approaches in problem solving and working with novel situations (Shavinina & Kholodnaja, 1996).
Another way of understanding gifted individuals' traits and characteristics was provided by Kazimierz Dabrowski, the Polish psychiatrist and psychologist, after having counseled gifted and talented clients such as writers, actors, and artists in the late 1930s and early 1940s (see Daniels & Piechowski, 2009). At that time, many of the experiences these clients reported, such as intense periods of concentration and creative visions, were considered pathological or neurotic. However, Dabrowski "saw inner forces at work that on the one hand generated overstimulation, conflict and pain, but on the other hand ... provoked individuals to search for a way through the pain, strife and disharmony" (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009, p. 6). Dabrowski's theory viewed the development of the gifted individual as development, not as a manifestation of pathology, illness, or psychoneurosis.
However, the development of gifted individuals may be uneven. Gifted individuals are typically more advanced mentally than other individuals of their chronological age (Silverman, 2002). The experience of discrepancies between the rates of intellectual, psychomotor, and affective development within gifted individuals is referred to in gifted education as asynchronous development (Silverman, 2002). As defined by the Columbus Group (cited in Silverman, 2002), asynchronous development occurs in individuals in a way that "advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm" (p. 32).
Thus, there is no one uniform profile of a gifted individual because gifted individuals vary in how these traits and characteristics are displayed, or in what combination. Indeed, "there is no more varied group of young people than the diverse group known as gifted children and adolescents" (Robinson, 2002, p. xi). Historically, the profile of a gifted individual is a White upper-class or middle-class student who is well behaved in the classroom, has a high GPA, belongs to a traditional nuclear family that is involved and financially secure, and is a member of various honor societies and student groups. In this respect, the use of traditional methods of identification of gifted individuals has missed significant talent, especially in culturally diverse populations (Reis & Renzulli, 2009). Thus, as the field of gifted education progresses, it is seeing a change in the conceptualization of giftedness and talent development as well as identification practices (Olszewski-Kubilius, Subotnik, & Worrell, 2015).
Some gifted students do fit the historical profile; however, quite often they do not, especially in today's diverse school populations. Some gifted students live in poverty, both urban and rural (Howley & Howley, 2012; Worrell & Young, 2012). Gifted students include African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and individuals from various other racial and ethnic backgrounds (Kitano, 2012). Gifted students come from a variety of family structures, including traditional families, divorced and blended families, extended families with grandparents, or foster homes (Hermann & Lawrence, 2012). Gifted students can identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (Peterson & Rischar, 2000). Gifted individuals sometimes have disabilities (Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015). They might use substances; engage in self-injurious behaviors; and experience mental health concerns, grief and loss, relocation, lack of food and housing, community violence, sexual abuse, and restricted resources and opportunities (Peterson, 2006, 2009). Gifted individuals may experience academic difficulties and underachievement (Siegle, McCoach, & Rubenstein, 2012), bullying (Peterson & Ray, 2006), and difficulties finding like-minded peers and developing social and romantic relationships (Robinson, 2008). They can experience high expectations of self and from others (Peterson, Duncan, & Canady, 2007) and unhealthy perfectionism (Schuler, 2002).
Basically, gifted individuals can look like anyone, and more than likely every counselor has worked with a gifted client whether or not he or she is aware of the fact. However, there may be so much mythology surrounding the concept of giftedness or of counseling the gifted that it may preclude service providers from working effectively with gifted children, adolescents, or adults.
Mythology Surrounding Giftedness
The gifted population has been surrounded by its own mythology, so much so that the flagship journal of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), Gifted Child Quarterly, devoted an entire volume in 2009 to address the specific myths that continue to interfere with educational policy, service, and research pertaining to the gifted. Among the authors in the volume, Moon (2009) discussed the falsehoods underpinning the concept that "high ability students don't face problems and challenges" (p. 274), and Peterson (2009) deconstructed the idea that "gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs" (p. 280).
Gifted clients who seek counseling may be asked the question, "If you're so smart, why do you need counseling?" (Ruf, 1999, para. 1). Counselors need to remember, however, that gifted clients are just as likely as other clients to have encountered anxiety, relocation, illness, separation, divorce, death or loss, peer conflicts, abuse and neglect, and substance abuse (Moon, 2009). There is a belief that the gifted individual's gift or talent (typically linked to high IQ) somehow inoculates the individual, making him or her immune to boredom, stress, depression, or confusion (Moon, 2009). This belief often intertwines with a second: that if these individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs, then there is no need for counselors to be exposed to training about the gifted population or for differentiated counseling services (Peterson, 2009). Peterson (2009) suggested that "gifted individuals are no more or less likely than others to have mental health concerns" (p. 280). However, Peterson and other researchers (Mendaglio, 2007; Robinson, Reis, Neihart, & Moon, 2002) believed that the very traits and developmental patterns of gifted individuals create the concerns that may cause them to solicit the help of counselors. In essence, gifted individuals must cope with the same developmental challenges and tasks as all other client groups; however, "the characteristic associated with giftedness ... may make the subjective experience of meeting normal challenges qualitatively different from others' experience" (Peterson, 2009, p. 281).
Perhaps the most pernicious belief that leads to ambiguity about giftedness is that all individuals are gifted in their own way. Michael Thompson (1998), in his address to the Indiana Association for the Gifted, suggested that if everyone is X, then
everyone is Michael Jordan in their own way. Everyone is exhausted in their own way. Everyone is female in their own way. Everyone does calculus in their own way. Everyone is a great writer in their own way.... It is only when giftedness is discussed that someone feels the need to make it a universal attribute; someone may not be gifted--everyone must be. But just as everyone is not tall, even in their own way, everyone is not gifted, even when we twist the idea by saying, in their own way. Everyone is not gifted. It isn't true, (paras. 18, 22-24)
Colangelo (2009) argued that anti-intellectualism has been embedded in U.S. society in such a way that the nation has discounted the activities of the mind and the individuals who are performing at a high level in such activities. Thompson (1998) suggested that intellectual giftedness does not garner public appreciation or support. The concept of intelligence is such a volatile concept that many believe that if it is a gift, then it is a gift, not paid for, and given to someone through no merit of his or her own. Hence, "if you are gifted, you shouldn't deserve any credit for something that was only a gift" (Thompson, 1998, para. 39) despite the hours of practice, study, and commitment it takes to develop it (see Olszewski Kubilius et al., 2015). As Thompson discussed, the concepts of gift and giftedness are different. The term gift is used to describe the best qualities, skills, and characteristics of a person, whereas giftedness is a term that professional educators and researchers use to describe very bright, intelligent, and creative people who require a differentiated education. According to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1993),
these two beliefs--a distrust of the intellect and an assumption that people should be allowed to develop to their full potential--have clashed throughout American history and have muddled efforts to provide a quality education for the nation's most promising students, (p. 13)
Is Counseling the Gifted a Social Justice Issue?
Historically, educational agendas in the United States have been partly crafted by judicial and federal and state policies and rulings. Baker and Friedman-Nimz (2002), Wickstrom (2004), and Gallagher (2008) traced some of the legal precedents set by U.S. courts concerning the gifted as well as the role that national policy and perception have played in legislation and educational provisions.
In 1994, the U.S. Congress added the following clause to the U.S. Code: "National policy is that every citizen is entitled to an education to meet his or her full potential" (General Education Provisions Act, 1994, [section] 1221-1). In the case of students with disabilities, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004 made provisions for a "free appropriate public education" ([section] 1401) in the least restrictive environment as determined by an individualized education plan (IEP). In more than 20 states, IEPs also provide for the educational needs of the gifted if the state recognizes gifted students as exceptional children (Gallagher, 2008). Yet, when the first U.S. Supreme Court case tested these provisions (Board of Education v. Rowley, 1982), its ruling "established a floor of educational opportunity below which public schools could not fall, rather than creating an open-ended continuum maximizing available programs" (Wickstrom, 2004, p. 270). Wickstrom (2004) and Russo (2001) suggested that this ruling resulted in the perception that gifted programming was considered peripheral and nonessential at the federal level.
In the case of federal constitutional arguments, gifted advocates have tried to claim that gifted children fall under the umbrella of a "protected class"; thus, "depriving gifted children of an ability appropriate education is depriving them of a constitutionally guaranteed 'fundamental right'" (Baker & Friedman-Nimz, 2002, p. 5). To do so, states must show a "compelling state interest" rather than a "rational basis" (Baker & Freidman-Nimz, 2002, p. 6) for their decisions and actions. Without federal legislative or judicial protection, it falls then to the states to address the gifted programs and services.
In state constitutional arguments in the cases in Washington and Wyoming, the courts decided the following: In Washington, "the state did not have a similar obligation to provide aid for gifted education," whereas in Wyoming, "the court did recognize the need to provide supplemental services for gifted children by acknowledging expert testimony to that effect" (Baker & Friedman-Nimz, 2002, p. 8). Gallagher (2008) wrote that with the exception of the Office of Civil Rights' investigations into the disproportionate lack of minority students in gifted education programs, there have been limited state or federal court cases and policies regarding educational provisions for the gifted. At the present time, the "federal government does not require identification and services for gifted students, nor does it provide resources to states or school districts to support identification of these learners" (NAGC, 2013, p. 1).
Social Justice and the Gifted Individual
The counseling profession continues to advocate for the development of multiculturally competent counselors (Arredondo & Arciniega, 2001; Sue & Sue, 2013) and to equip counselor educators and supervisors with the necessary awareness, knowledge, and skills with which to provide culturally competent counseling (Toporek, Ortega-Villalobos, & Pope-Davis, 2004). A lack of attention in counseling to the multicultural factors of racial and ethnic diversity, gender, and sexual orientation can and has resulted in early termination of services and a mistrust of the counseling profession (Sue & Sue, 2013).
Robinson, Zigler, and Gallagher (2000) argued that "individuals who are intellectually challenged or gifted share the burden of deviance from the norm in both a developmental and statistical sense" (p. 1413). Robinson (2002) wrote that "by virtue of being ahead in one or more domains, the degree of internal differences gifted children experience is usually greater than those encountered by any average child who does not have a disability" (p. xvii). Levy and Plucker (2003) suggested that because individuals with disabilities have shared circumstances and particular identifiable characteristics, they meet the criteria of a cultural or subcultural group. Because society has certain, and often negative, expectations of the gifted population, it behooves the counselor to understand the characteristics of this particular group in order to provide appropriate services. If the counseling field acknowledges the interaction of cultural identities and has broadened multicultural counseling to include additional factors such as ability, then the gifted and talented become a special population within the field of counseling, and one that is deserving of counselors' awareness and perhaps a differentiated skill set. However, little information about this population has made its way into the counseling profession's literature.
History of Counseling the Gifted Individual
It is important to review how and when counseling became intertwined with gifted education to understand better the current state of counseling the gifted. In JCD1s 1986 special issue on giftedness, Myers and Pace (1986) gave an overview of historical landmarks from Francis Galton to Lewis Terman and Leta Hollingworth to the rise of centers for talent development and where the field stood in terms of counseling the gifted up until that point. Building on Myers and Pace's article and incorporating other historical outlines (Sajjadi, 2000; St. Clair. 1989), we provide a synopsis of the history of counseling the gifted in Table 1. Although the table is not an exhaustive list of milestones in either the field of gifted education or the field of counseling, it is our hope that it illustrates how both fields have contributed to the scholarship and training pertaining to counselors who work with the gifted population.
Traditionally, there have been three primary service providers available for counseling gifted students and adults. These include (a) centers for giftedness and talent development, (b) helping professionals and practitioners (psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, social workers, and counselors), and (c) the schools.
Centers for Giftedness and Talent Development
Several centers in the United States that were established dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in talent development also offered counseling as a standard component of student services (Myers & Pace, 1986). Frequently, these centers' research studies suggested conceptualizing and serving the gifted child through specific developmental models and humanistic counseling approaches, all of which were and are theoretical models used in the counseling profession (Sajjadi, 2000). These centers served as active training centers for psychologists, therapists, and counselors to learn how to work successfully with gifted individuals (Myers & Pace, 1986). Currently, several centers for talent development in the United States and abroad include counseling and assessment as part of their services (Harder, 2012; Yoo & Moon, 2006).
Individual counseling and family counseling for gifted individuals have been provided by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and licensed counselors, with a wide variety of interventions and treatment repertoires based on their orientations, training, and techniques (Mendaglio, 2007). However, when it comes to research, little is known about how these helping professionals work with gifted individuals. Empirical research is partly found in the gifted education literature with a focus on specific constructs, such as self-concept, anxiety or motivation, or diagnoses and epidemiology, in comparison with nongifted groups (Mueller, 2009). Other research can be found in journals representing a diverse range of helping professions, including counseling, psychiatry, and social work, as well as education journals. Specific studies have surveyed psychologists (Pfeiffer, 2001), parents (Yoo & Moon, 2006), and school personnel (Moon, Kelly, & Feldhusen, 1997) about what is needed in terms of service or future research. Qualitative studies and conceptual articles have been written by practitioners detailing their experiences working with gifted clients or families (Bourdeau & Thomas, 2003; Bratter, Sinsheimer, Kaufman, & Alter, 2007; Grobman, 2006), and there has been an increase in studies pertaining to misdiagnosis and assessment in working with the gifted (Amend & Peters, 2012). The literature has primarily emphasized suggested best practices that typically focused on children and adolescents (Assouline, Colangelo, & Heo, 2012) and models and approaches to counseling (Mendaglio, 2007).
Unfortunately, this leads to a fractured picture of what is known about counseling the gifted. There is also a lack of information about how helping professionals are trained in their preparation programs to work with gifted clients (Peterson & Wachter Morris, 2010) or how effectively trained professionals are working with their gifted student clients and families. According to Moon (2002), this lack of training leads to two problems: "First, very few mental health professionals know how to adapt their counseling strategies to better meet the needs of individuals with high abilities and second, untrained counselors may pathologize normal characteristics of gifted individuals" (p. 218).
The teacher of the gifted. Typically, "counseling" has been provided by classroom teachers (Croft, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, 1991) who know the gifted student the best and have the most amount of contact with the student. In addition, the teachers of gifted students generally have the skills and knowledge to provide services such as bibliotherapy, discussion groups, special projects, career exploration, tutorials, and role playing, all of which can be facilitated inside the classroom (VanTassel-Baska, 1991). Teachers have been and continue to be in a unique position to meet the social and emotional needs of their gifted students through meeting their intellectual and academic needs by differentiating instruction or identifying points at which the students can benefit from acceleration or compacting (Croft, 2003).
The professional school counselor. The school counselor has also been in a unique position to counsel gifted students. ASCA (2013) updated its position statement on professional school counselors' involvement with gifted and talented students, stating that these students have unique needs that can be met by school counselors through programmatic planning, including academic and college/career preparation, involvement in identification processes, advocacy, working with families, and collaboration with other staff members. ASCA suggested that school counselors keep abreast of the latest research on gifted and talented students and help raise awareness of these students' unique needs and characteristics. If requested to provide intentional programming for gifted students, the school counselor has a diverse range of suggested best practices, models, and approaches for meeting the academic, personal, social, and career needs of the gifted from which to choose in addition to ASCA's suggestions (Moon, 2007; Peterson, 2006). Flowever, these choices can be confusing, given the fact that, as in the case of other helping professionals, there is little empirical research that has addressed how, or if, these best practices and models work effectively with gifted students (Peterson, 2009).
Counselor Training and Preparation
Judging from the 2009 accreditation standards put forth by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP; 2009), it would seem that counselor education and supervision programs have an obligation to expose students to issues related to advanced development and giftedness. The 2009 Standards underscored the need for all counselors to have the appropriate knowledge and skills to address ability as a part of human growth and development (Standard II.3.e.) and emphasized this area as a part of the necessary knowledge base for school counselors (Standards A.6.d. and E.4.) and student affairs or college counselors (Standard E.I.).
However, currently, most counselors-in-training graduating from CACREP-accredited institutions are not required to take specialized classes in gifted and talented education. According to Peterson and Wachter Morris (2010), of the school counseling CACREP-accredited graduate programs that participated in their study, most dedicated only 3 contact hours or fewer on the subject matter. Although counselors-intraining of all kinds would benefit from specific designated course work focusing on the identification, nature, and needs of gifted individuals, as well as from clinical experiences, infusing giftedness into different course work is also a viable option (e.g., identification and testing issues could be discussed in assessment and appraisal classes, and talent development models could be discussed in counseling theories courses). Preparation programs might consider partnerships with talent development centers at their universities or consider hiring gifted and talented teachers and coordinators as adjuncts or lecturers for classes.
Collaboration Between Professional Organizations
Some helping professions have had recent dialogues about the gifted and talented population. Organizations such as the American Educational Research Association have divisions, branches, or special interest groups pertaining to the research and service of the gifted population. The American Psychological Association has created its Center for Gifted Education Policy (http://apa.org/ed/schools/gifted/index. aspx), which is involved with research, clinical applications, and advocacy. However, within the American Counseling Association (ACA), there is no interest group or division dedicated to counseling the gifted individual. NAGC holds several networks similar to the divisions within ACA, including the Counseling and Guidance network whose membership includes counselors, licensed psychologists, educational psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals. Partnerships between ACA and NAGC could result in position papers, research and grants, advocacy efforts, and the creation of professional development resources.
As advocates for counseling the gifted, we are frequently asked by parents and educators where they can find counselors who are trained, certified, or experienced in working with gifted individuals. Unfortunately, these counselors are hard to find. A quick look through the filters of the National Board for Certified Counselor's (NBCC) Counselor Find (www. nbcc.org/counselorfind) will not yield "gifted and talented" as an area of specialty. After finding potential counselors, families of gifted individuals who may be seeking support must then determine if the counselor has had any training or experience in working with the gifted population. One of the biggest concerns these students, adult clients, and their families might have is that their experience and development as gifted individuals is not pathologized (Yermish, 2010). Yermish (2010) suggested 20 guidelines for counselors and therapists working with gifted clients, including the fact that high intelligence occurs in individuals from all backgrounds and has "pervasive effects ... on every aspect of the lived experience of gifted individuals" (para. 2) and that helping professionals should recognize that these clients may bring unique exceptional needs and challenges to the therapeutic relationship. If individuals and families are seeking counselors, ACA and NBCC may wish to consider developing their own position papers, educational resources, and advocacy tool kits for counselors as well as for the gifted individuals and families who seek their help. It is our hope as counselors and advocates that a simple online search for the terms counseling and gifted would lead families and future potential gifted clients directly to ACA.
To be a vital part of the future of talent development in the United States, counselors must be prepared to work with gifted individuals. Hence, there is a need for counselors of all kinds to have access to information they can use to inform their practice. The fields of gifted education and counseling are dedicated to helping people to develop their unique talents while supporting them through life's often unforeseen challenges. This article was designed not only to outline where gifted education and counseling have been but also to emphasize the need for dialogue between the two established professions. We, as counselor educators and researchers in gifted education, believe that such conversations and shared knowledge will enhance both counselors and gifted educators, and we look forward to the contributions such conversations can inspire. We are honored that JCD recognized the need to update the field on 30 years of new research and conceptualizations pertaining to counseling the gifted.
Ablard, K. E., & Tissot, S. L. (1998). Young students' readiness for advanced math: Precocious abstract reasoning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 206-223. doi: 10.1177/016235329802100205
Amend, E. R., & Peters, D. B. (2012). Misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis of gifted children: The importance of accurate assessment. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 585-596). Waco, TX: Pruffock Press.
American School Counselor Association. (2013). The professional school counselor and gifted and talented student programs. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/ home/position%20statements/PS_Gifted.pdf
Arredondo, P., & Arciniega, G. M. (2001). Strategies and techniques for counselor training based on the Multicultural Counseling Competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 263-273.
Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., & Heo, N. (2012). Counseling needs and interventions for gifted students: Personality considerations and social-emotional development. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 153-178). Waco, TX: Pruffock Press.
Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2002). Is a federal mandate the answer? If so, what was the question? Roeper Review, 25, 5-11. doi: 10.1080/02783190209554189
Blackburn, A. C., & Erickson, D. B. (1986). Predictable crises of the gifted student. Journal of Counseling & Development, 64, 552-555. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tbO 1200.x
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
Bourdeau, B., & Thomas, V (2003). Counseling gifted clients and their families: Comparing clients' and counselors' perspectives. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 114-126. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2006-415
Bratter, T. E., Sinsheimer, L., Kaufman, D. S., & Alter, J .S. (2007). Residential treatment of gifted and self-destructive adolescents: The John Dewey Academy. Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 69-84.
Colangelo, N. (2009). Anti-intellectualism. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity and talent (pp. 42-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Vol. I). Iowa City: University of Iowa, Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Colangelo, N., & Zaffrann, R. T. (1979). New voices in counseling the gifted. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Cooper, E. E. (2000). Spatial-temporal intelligence: Original thinking processes of gifted inventors. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 24. 170-193. doi: 10.1080/13875860801959547
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 standards. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2009Standards.pdf
Croft, L. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 558-571). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M. M. (2009). Embracing intensity: Overexcitability, sensitivity, and the developmental potential of the gifted. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 3-29). Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Dark, V. J., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Differential enhancement of working memory with mathematical versus verbal precocity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 48-60. doi: 10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.52
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Improvement Act of 1999, S. 1443, 106th Cong. (1999).
Foley-Nicpon, M., & Assouline, S. G. (2015). Counseling considerations for the twice-exceptional client. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 202-211.
Gallagher, J. J. (2008). Psychology, psychologists and gifted students. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research and best practices (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Springer.
General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. [section] 1221 et seq. (1994).
Gowan, J. C., & Bruch, C. B. (1971). The academically talented student and guidance. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Grobman, J. (2006). Underachievement in exceptionally gifted adolescents and young adults: A psychiatrist's view. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 199-210.
Harder, B. (2012). The current need for a system-theoretical background in counseling the gifted. High Ability Studies, 23, 69-71.
Harrison, C. (1999). Visual representation of the young gifted child. Roeper Review, 21, 189-194. doi: 10.1080/02783199909553960
Hermann, K. M., & Lawrence, C. (2012). Family relationships. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 393 408). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Hoh, P. S. (2008). Cognitive characteristics of the gifted. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practice in gifted education (pp. 57-83). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Howley, A., & Howley, C. (2012). Counseling the rural gifted. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 121-136). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. [section] 1401 et seq. (2004).
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-297.
Kitano, M. (2012). Social-emotional needs of gifted students of color. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 209-226). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Klein, A. G. (2000). Fitting the school to the child: The mission of Leta Stetter Hollingworth, founder of gifted education. Roeper Review, 23, 97-110. doi: 10.1080/02783190009554075
Levy, J. J., & Plucker, J. A. (2003). Assessing the psychological presentation of gifted and talented clients: A multicultural perspective. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 16, 229-247. doi: 10.1080/095150703100016100
Lovecky, D. V (1994). Exceptionally gifted children: Different minds. Roeper Review, 17, 116-210. doi: 10.1080/02783199409553637
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education (Document No. Y4.L 11/2: G36). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Mendaglio, S. (2007). Introduction. In S. Mendaglio & J. S. Peterson (Eds.), Models of counseling: Gifted children, adolescents, and young adults (pp. 1-6). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Mendaglio, S., & Peterson, J. S. (Eds.). (2007). Models of counseling: Gifted children, adolescents, and young adults. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Moon, S. M. (2002). Counseling needs and strategies. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 213-222). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Moon, S. M. (2007). Counseling issues and research. In S. Mendaglio & J. S. Peterson (Eds.), Models of counseling: Gifted children, adolescents, and young adults (pp. 7-32). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Moon, S. M. (2009). Myth 15: High-ability students don't face problems and challenges. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 274-276. doi: 10.1177/0016986209346943
Moon, S. M., Kelly, K., & Feldhusen, J. (1997). Specialized counseling services for gifted youth and their families: A needs assessment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 16-25.
Mueller, C. E. (2009). Protective factors as barriers to depression in gifted and non-gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 3-14. doi: 10.1177/0016986208326552
Myers, R. S., & Pace, T. M. (1986). Counseling gifted and talented students: Historical perspectives and contemporary issues. Journal of Counseling & Development, 64, 556-557.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). 2012-2013 state of the nation in gifted education: Work yet to be done. Washington, DC: Author.
National Defense Education Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-864; 72 Stat. 1580-1605.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent (Report No. ED 359743). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Olszewski-Kubilius, R, Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Conceptualizations of giftedness and the development of talent: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 143-152.
Peterson, J. S. (2006). Addressing counseling needs of gifted students. Professional School Counseling, 10, 43-51.
Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280-282. doi: 10.1177/0016986209346946
Peterson, J. S., Duncan, N., & Canady, K. (2007). A longitudinal study of negative life events, stress and school experiences of gifted youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 34-49. doi: 10.1177/0016986208326553
Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying among the gifted: The subjective experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 252-269. doi:10.1177/001698620605000305
Peterson, J. S., & Rischar, H. (2000). Gifted and gay: A study of the adolescent experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 149-164. doi:10.1177/001698620004400404
Peterson, J. S., & Wachter Morris, C. (2010). Preparing school counselors to address concerns related to giftedness: A study of accredited counselor preparation programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 311-366.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2001). Professional psychology and the gifted: Emerging practice opportunities. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 175-180. doi: 10.1037/7357028.32.2.175
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 233-235. doi: 10.1177/0016986209346824
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 246-279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, N. M. (2002). Introduction. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. xi-xxiv). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Robinson, N. M. (2008). The social world of gifted children and youth. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho educational theory, research and best practices (pp. 33-51). New York, NY: Springer.
Robinson, N. M., Reis, S. M., Neihart, M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues: What have we learned and what should we do now? In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 267-288). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Robinson, N. M., Zigler, E., & Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Two tails of the normal curve: Similarities and differences in the study of mental retardation and giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 1413-1424.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bemstein, M. M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127-151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ruf, D. L. (1999). If you're so smart, why do you need counseling? Retrieved from Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted website: http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/if-youre-sosmart-why-do-you-need-counseling
Russo, C. J. (2001). Unequal educational opportunities for gifted students: Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29, 727-758.
Sajjadi, S. H. (2000). Counseling gifted students: Past research, future directions. Gifted Education International, 5, 111-121. doi: 10.1177/026142940001500112
Schuler, P. (2002). Perfectionism in gifted children and adolescents. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 71-79). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaja, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 3-35. doi: 10.1177/016235329602000102
Siegle, D., McCoach, B., & Rubenstein, L. D. (2012). Understanding and addressing underachievement in gifted students. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 511-528). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love.
Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 31-37). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). When does giftedness become genius? And when not? In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), The handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 358-372). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith-Hughes Act (Vocational Education Act) of 1917, Pub. L. 347. 64th Cong. (1917).
St. Clair, K. (1989). Counseling gifted students: A historical review. Roeper Review, 12, 98-102.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lupart, T. I. (1992). Creative giftedness in children. In P. S. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 35-51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Strang, R. (1951). Mental hygiene of gifted children. In P. Witty (Ed.), The gifted child (pp. 131-162). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Terman, L. (1925). Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Thompson, M. C. (1998, April). All children are gifted. Keynote speech presented at the annual conference of the Indiana Association for the Gifted, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://giftedkids.about.eom/od/gifted101/a/gifted_response. htm
Toporek, R. L., Ortega-Villalobos, L., & Pope-Davis, D. B. (2004). Critical incidents in multicultural supervision: Exploring supervisees' and supervisors' experiences. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 66-83.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1991). Teachers as counselors for gifted students. In R. M. Milgram (Ed.), Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors and parents (pp. 37-52). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wickstrom, C. D. (2004). Give us the best and brightest, but ...: A historical review of U.S. national policy on education for the highly capable. In D. Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 263-274). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Witty, P. A., & Jenkins, M. D. (1934). The educational achievement of a group of gifted Negro children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 585-597.
Worrell, F. C., & Young, A. E. (2012). Gifted children in urban settings. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 137-152). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Yermish, A. (2010). Cheetahs on the couch: Issues affecting the therapeutic working alliance with clients who are cognitively gifted (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3415722)
Yoo, J. E., & Moon, S. M. (2006). Counseling needs of gifted students: An analysis of intake forms at a university-based counseling center. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 52-61.
Nicholas Colangelo, College of Education, and Susannah M. Wood, Department of Rehabilitation and Counselor Education, University of Iowa. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nicholas Colangelo, College of Education, University of Iowa, 459 Lindquist Center North, Iowa City, IA 52242 (e-mail: email@example.com).
TABLE 1 Brief Time Line of Counseling the Gifted Individual Year Milestone 1906 Frank Parsons influences vocational guidance, linking education to careers. 1913 The National Vocational Guidance Association is established. 1916 Lewis Terman, considered the "father" of gifted education, publishes the Binet-Simon intelligence tests, which result in the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Beginning in the 1920s, his longitudinal studies investigate the lived experiences of gifted individuals and result in the Genetic Studies of Genius in 1925. 1917 The Smith-Hughes Act (Vocational Education Act) provides funding for vocational guidance. 1922 In New York, Leta Hollingworth's Special Opportunity class at P.S. 165 begins. This class would lead to the founding of the future P.S. 500, the Speyer School. Her experiences and research lead her to conclude that highly gifted children have intellectual and affective needs that can be met through counseling and "emotional education." 1934 Witty and Jenkins publish 'The Educational Achievement of a Group of Gifted Negro Children" in the Journal of Educational Psychology', becoming the first authors to describe intellectual giftedness among African American students and students from culturally diverse backgrounds. 1937 Terman oversees the modification of the Binet-Simon intelligence tests and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. 1951 Strang emphasizes the use of counseling and guidance for gifted students to reduce maladjustment in her book chapter titled "Mental Hygiene of Gifted Children." Carl Rogers publishes Client-Centered Therapy in the same year. 1952 The American Personnel and Guidance Association, precursor to the American Association for Counseling and Development and the current American Counseling Association (ACA), is established. The future American School Counselor Association (ASCA) is one of its divisions. 1954 The National Association for Gifted Children is founded. 1957 The Soviet satellite Sputnik is launched, indicating America's defeat in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The subsequent "space race" results in the mobilization of the talent development movement, especially in STEM areas. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 would provide funding for counselors in the schools. The Wisconsin Guidance Laboratory for Superior Students (later renamed the Guidance Institute for Talented Students) is established this year, providing counseling for gifted students. 1958 John Curtis Gowan, psychologist, promotes counseling for gifted individuals and trains counselors to work with gifted students in his Gifted Child Creativity Classes. 1964 Kazimierz Dabrowski publishes Positive Disintegration, providing a developmental framework for understanding the gifted experience. 1971 Gowan and Bruch's The Academically Talented Student and Guidance is published. 1972 The first report on gifted education, Education of the Gifted and Talented, more commonly referred to as the Marland Report (Marland, 1972), is delivered to the U.S. Congress. The report states that the gifted and talented population constitutes 3% to 5% of the school population and that this population is not having its educational needs met. If the lack of educational provision continues, this would result in significant curtailment of gifted students' abilities. The report also gives the foundation for the federal definition of gifted and talented and sets the stage for the Office of Gifted and Talented in 1974. The Association for Non-White Concerns, precursor to the current ACA division Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development, is founded, as is the Council on Rehabilitation Education. 1976 The American Mental Health Association is established. 1979 Denver, Colorado's Institute for the Study of Advanced Development and its subsidiary, Gifted Development Center, are founded with an emphasis on assessment, counseling, and consultation. Colangelo and Zaffrann's New Voices in Counseling the Gifted is published. 1981 The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs is established. In the same year, the suicide of Dallas Egbert, a highly gifted 17-year-old who had experienced depression, gains national attention. James T. Webb founds the Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted program. 1982 The Guidance Laboratory for Gifted and Talented is founded by Barbara Kerr at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 1986 The Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD) publishes a special issue dedicated to the unique characteristics, development, and needs of the gifted and how counselors in a variety of settings can meet those needs. 1988 The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act is passed, providing limited federal funding for gifted educational programs. 1993 The release of National Excellence: A Case of Developing America's Talent (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1993) draws attention to a "quiet crisis" in educating talented students. The report supports the Javits Act by promoting the newly established federal definition of giftedness with an expanded scope that includes diversity in cultural and economic backgrounds. In the same year, Linda K. Silverman publishes Counseling the Gifted and Talented. 1999 The Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Improvement Act allocates $20 million for schools to hire qualified school counselors. 2002 Neihart, Reis, Robinson, and Moon publish the edited book The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know? which reviews the latest research on the development and social-emotional needs of gifted children and adolescents. The Javits program is included in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 2004 Colangelo, Assouline, and Gross's A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students is published, providing educators, policy makers, and the public with research that highlights disparities between acceleration practices, educational beliefs, and what the evidence really demonstrates. 2006 ASCA's Professional School Counseling journal publishes a special section on students with exceptionalities, including students with disabilities and students identified as twice-exceptional and gifted. The University of Iowa's School Counseling program wins the North Central Association for Counselor Education and Supervision's Innovative Counselor Education Program Award for its integration of gifted education course work into its program curriculum and partnership with the Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. 2007 Sal Mendaglio and Jean Sunde Peterson develop the edited book Models of Counseling: Gifted Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. 2012 Tracy and Jennifer Cross publish the edited Handbook for Counselors Serving Students With Gifts and Talents. 2013 ASCA revises its position statement on school counselors and gifted and talented programs, which was originally drafted in 1988. 2014 JCD releases a special section dedicated to counseling the gifted and talented individual.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Theory & Practice|
|Author:||Colangelo, Nicholas; Wood, Susannah M.|
|Publication:||Journal of Counseling and Development|
|Date:||Apr 1, 2015|
|Previous Article:||Introduction to the special section: counseling the gifted individual.|
|Next Article:||Conceptualizations of giftedness and the development of talent: implications for counselors.|