Acceleration in School Research on acceleration or grade skipping has been found to have almost uniformly positive results; acceleration is educationally and socially advantageous for highly gifted learners. (Clark, 1997) Accelerated students were more likely to be high achievers in college, to graduate, and to attend graduate school than their age peers. (Brody & Stanley, 1991) Research has found no evidence to support the notion that social or emotional problems arise through well-planned and monitored acceleration programs. (Southern & Jones, 1991) "Accelerating exceptionally or profoundly gifted children by a single year is no more effective than retaining them in the regular classroom with age-peers." (Gross, 1993) While skipping grades and other forms of acceleration are often attacked on the grounds that they may impede socialization, the research indicates that these provisions enhance both socialization and social development. (Clark, 1997; Gross, 1993; Robinson 1981) Accelerated highly gifted students achieve significantly higher levels of social and general self-esteem than do children of equal intellectual ability who have been retained with age peers or who have been permitted only a single grade-skip. (Gross, 2000) Even for moderately gifted students, recent research shows that "approximately 40-50% of traditional classroom material could be eliminated for targeted [gifted] students in one or more of the following content areas: mathematics, language arts, science and social studies." (Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich & Purcell, 1998) When exceptionally gifted children who have been rejected by their age peers are removed from the inappropriate grade placement and are permitted to work and play with intellectual peers, the loneliness and social isolation disappears, and the child is accepted as a valued classmate and friend. (Gross, 1993; Hollingworth, 1942) Adult Achievement Personality attributes predict what will happen to the gifted child in adulthood more reliably than does the child’s degree of giftedness. (Winner, 1996) An extremely high IQ score (180 or above) seems at best a crude predictor of extraordinary achievement in adulthood. (Feldman, 1984) Those gifted children most likely to develop their talent to the level of an expert will be: those who have high drive and the ability to focus and derive flow from their work; those who grow up in families that combine stimulation with support; and those who are fortunate to have inspiring teachers, mentors and role models. (Bloom, 1982; Winner, 1996) Those gifted children not "born into" a domain often discover their ultimate calling in adulthood when they are catalyzed by a crystallizing experience, a life-changing event in which a gift is discovered and self-doubts are dispelled. (Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson, 1986, Winner, 1996) Early College For the early entrants, starting college with a large number of Advanced Placement Program credits was found to be the best predictor of outstanding academic achievement. (Brody, Assouline & Stanley, 1990) It is important that students who plan to enter college early have SAT scores, both Verbal and Mathematical, at least at the mean for the freshman class of the college they plan to enter. (Brody, Assouline & Stanley, 1990) The majority of students who participated in the Study for Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) and who entered college early performed as well academically as regular age students, had higher educational aspirations, and had "greater perceived use of educational opportunities.” (Brody & Stanley, 1991) A survey of the empirical research shows that in general, early entrants earn higher grade point averages than regular students, are more likely to graduate, are likely to make the dean’s list or earn other academic honors, and pursue graduate level studies. (Olszewski-Kubilius, 1995) Early college is not for every highly gifted student and it is appropriate that students self select themselves into these opportunities. (Brody & Stanley, 1991; Robinson & Harsin, 2001) Some studies have noted that some early college entrants may experience a decrease in self-esteem during the first semester of college; this is small in magnitude and temporary. (Lupkowski, Whitmore & Ramsay, 1992; Olszewski-Kubilius, Kulieke & Krasney, 1988) Early college entrants typically finished college in less than four years and went on to gradate school. Many are pursuing doctorates and preparing for academic research careers. Some students studied abroad, accepted fellowships or pursued other educational opportunities. Most used the extra time they garnered by entering college early in very productive ways. (Brody & Stanley, 1991; Stanley, 1985; Stanley & McGill, 1986) Early Years “Both early movement and early speech contribute significantly to the highly gifted child’s capacity to acquire and process information and to relate to other people within and outside his or her family. Through early speech and reading, the young child has access to an ‘information bank’ normally reserved for children some years older, which may have a lasting effect on her values, attitudes, and interests.” (Gross, 2000) It is very important to note that it is also possible for a child to be extremely gifted, and not necessarily demonstrate early and rapid progression through developmental milestones. (Kearney, 2001; Gross, 1993) Play patterns in highly gifted children are more complex than their age mates. They are able to play games with complex rules and often create extensive dramatic and imaginative play with complex plots and characterization that extends over time. (Kearney 2001; Wright, 1993) When gifted children are allowed to enroll early in kindergarten or first grade on the basis of intellectual, academic and social readiness, they perform as well as or better than their older classmates. (Robinson & Weimer, 1991) Educational Advocacy Parents and educators both can be effective advocates of gifted students, working together to create an educational environment specifically tailored to their unique learning requirements. (Berger, 1990; Harsin, 2002; Rogers, 2002) "Successful educational planning for bright children requires positive collaboration between parents (who, incidentally do generally know their children better than anyone else!) and the teachers in the school that the parents select for their child." (Rogers, 2002) The schools that are most effective in serving the needs of exceptionally gifted students are those with teachers and administrators who have a flexible, thoughtful attitude toward these students and toward their parents, and thus were willing to explore educational activities they had never initiated, supervised or experienced previously with any other student. This flexibility permitted a collaboration to develop between the home and the school that supported the educational needs of the exceptionally gifted student. (Osborn, 2001) "Advocating for an appropriate education for an intellectually gifted child is a time consuming and stressful process. When it is successful, it can enable a gifted child to be well educated within many different school settings . . . to be a successful advocate for one’s own child requires time, skill, hard work and considerable self-discipline." (Osborn, 2001) Systematic Advocacy includes the following components: 1. Needs Assessment. Find out what is currently going on for gifted and talented students in your district, and then determine what should happen. The discrepancy between the two defines what your needs are. The next step is to make a "political" assessment: Find out who is supportive, who is undecided about improving programs for gifted and talented children, and what they will accept. 2. Planning. Map out what you want to happen, how you will present your request, and how you will get the votes needed for approval. 3. Contact. Present your request to the decision makers whose approval is essential. There are many ways that you can make informal and formal contact with decision makers and communicate your concerns for gifted and talented children. Lay the groundwork by finding ways to make contact in informal settings. Use informal contacts such as social functions or student awards ceremonies as a way to build support throughout the year, but particularly in the months preceding a formal request. Making a presentation or writing a letter to a board of education, the legislature, or one of their committees are examples of formal contact. 4. Follow-up and Evaluation. Conduct a "postmortem" on your effects to determine what to do and what not to do next time. This phase usually merges into the needs assessment of the next advocacy effort, so the process is a continuous cycle.(Berger, 1990) Before your meeting to advocate for your highly gifted child: Recognize that you are your child’s only advocate. Principals and teachers advocate for their school, their curriculum, and for "all" children, not your individual child. Believe that your child has the right to receive instruction appropriate to his or her intellectual needs. Know your child and his intellectual abilities. (Russell, LaBonte & Russell, 1999) In her study of the successful advocacy practices of parents of twelve exceptionally gifted student, Osborn identified these practices as being most effective: 1) Approaching schools respectfully, demonstrating an awareness that the school was there to meet the needs of all children, not just their child. 2) Avoiding an attitude of entitlement, as in "this is what my child is owed." 3) Being patient with the process, especially with themselves, by recognizing and accepting that they might make mistakes and that they might advocate for activities or programs that would not work well for their child. 4) Demonstrating a willingness to be honest about the child, particularly the child’s shortcomings, and to be honest about unexpected failures in the plans. 5) Reaching to build a positive collaborative relationship with the school. (Osborn, 2001) Osborn identified six important steps for parents advocating for their exceptional gifted student: Step 1: Obtain an evaluation of your child’s strength and weaknesses. Step 2: Read extensively about educational programs, plans and options that have been tried in other places. Step 3: Study the school’s structure; learn about its programs, its policies, the key decision makers and, especially, the educational point of view of the decision makers. Step 4: Formulate a tentative plan considering various options, possible objections to them, and responses to these objections. Step 5: Request planning meetings with the decision maker as well as the people (teachers) who will be implementing the decisions Step 6: Generate a paper trail. Take notes at meetings, listing topics discussed, actions agreed upon and items for further discussion. Distribute summaries of meetings with thank you letters to attendees. (Osborn, 2001) Emotional/Social Developmental profiles of extremely gifted children show no singular pattern. Children functioning four or more standard deviations from the norm differ from each other in as many ways as do children of normal intelligence. (Robinson, 1981; Gross, 2000) "The differences among levels of giftedness are rarely recognized, although mildly, moderately, highly, and profoundly gifted children are as much different from each other as mildly, moderately, severely, and profoundly retarded children are from each other." (Gross, 1993) "Profoundly gifted children may have emotional problems, or they may be well adjusted; they may be gifted across skill areas, or they may be gifted in only one skill area. In fact, they may be gifted in certain areas and delayed in others." (McGuffog, Feiring & Lewis, 1990) "Intellectual giftedness does not go away, and shapes ones development from infancy to old age." (Kearney, 1992) “Exceptionally gifted children discuss complex issues at a much earlier age than would be expected. They may ask questions or think about issues related to the origins of things: "‘How did time start?’ ‘Does time start anew with the start of a new galaxy?’ ‘What is the purpose of religion?’” (Lovecky, 1992) Exactness is a characteristic of highly intelligent students. Children who spontaneously respond with "that depends..." is a teacher’s first clue of exceptional intelligence. (Hollingworth, 1942) Given a choice, highly gifted children tend to prefer social interaction with others of similar mental age who can interact at a similar level to their own. (Lewis & Michelson, 1983, O’Shea, 1960, Roedell, 1984) Longitudinal studies of exceptionally gifted individuals who are most satisfied with their lives had parents who were understanding and supportive of their educational needs. (Bloom, 1982; Feldman, 1993; Hollingworth, 1942; Terman & Ogden, 1925) Family Families play a far more important role in the development of a child’s gifts than do schools. (Bloom, 1982; Winner, 1996) “Many aspects of the home environment and the quality of teaching appear to account for the individual child’s progress in the talent field. The attribution of gifts or the signs of giftedness as interpreted by the parents or others were important influences in setting expectations and in motivating the child to higher and higher levels of capability and interest in the talent area.” (Bloom, 1982) Data on the Study for Exceptional Talent (SET) members’ backgrounds suggest that they are likely to have well-educated and high-achieving parents; it is likely that such parents value education and do whatever they can to help their children attain the best education possible. Such family support is a great asset. (Brody & Blackburn, 1996) "A sense of isolation is very commonly felt in families of highly gifted children. First of all, our society does not make available to families of the gifted the same kinds of emotional support that are available to families of children with other exceptionalities. Even appropriate educational programming is not required by federal law, as it is for other exceptional children, but is left to the judgment (and budgets) of states and municipalities." (Kearney, 1989) A summary of research regarding early entrance to college, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius. Exceptionally gifted boys and their parents, Robert S. Albert. IQ and Testing In terms of intellectual capacity alone, the profoundly gifted student of IQ 190 differs from moderately gifted classmates of IQ 130 to an even greater degree than the latter differs from the intellectually handicapped student of IQ 70. (Gross, 1993) "Students with an IQ of 160-179 appear in the population at a ratio of fewer than 1 in 10,000, while fewer than 1 in a million students have an IQ above 180." (Gross, 1993) "Within the top 1% of the I.Q. distribution...there is at least as much spread of talent as there is in the entire range from the 1st to the 99th percentile." (H. Robinson, 1981) Teacher nomination is possibly the least effective method of identifying gifted children in the early years of school, and the method most prone to class and cultural bias unless the teachers are trained in identification of the gifted. (Jacobs, 1971; Gross, 1993; Betts & Neihart, 1988) In general, parents are accurate observers of their children’s exceptionality with regard to giftedness. (Jacobs, 1971; McGuffog, Feiring, & Lewis, 1990; Robinson, 1981) One of the forces in American society which has led, over the last few years, to a decline in school achievement among students of high intellectual potential, is the reluctance of teachers to use standardized testing to assess the aptitude and achievement levels of gifted and talented students. (Benbow & Stanley, 1997) Parenting Longitudinal studies of exceptionally gifted individuals indicate that those most satisfied with their lives had parents who were understanding and supportive of their special needs. (Hollingworth, 1942; Terman, 1926; Terman & Oden, 1947; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991) Contrary to conventional wisdom, which is that the more talented the child, the easier it is to parent the child, the research shows that the reverse is actually the case. (Albert, 1990; Bloom, 1985; Feldman 1991; Goldsmith, 1987) Parenting any exceptional child who is at an extreme from the norm has special challenges. And this is as true for the parents of profoundly gifted children as it is for the parents of mentally handicapped children. One difference between these two extreme situations is that impediments to functioning are, quite naturally, more recognizable and provided with more support and funding from society, whereas resource needs of the profoundly gifted are typically seen as the responsibility of the individual family. This makes the likelihood of successfully raising talented children often as dependent upon parents’ abilities to generate adequate material resources as on their parenting skills. (Bloom, 1982, 1985; Borland, 1989; Clark, 1992; Feldman, 1991; Feldman & Piirto, 1994; Tannenbaum, 1983; Vail, 1987) Parents of profoundly gifted children benefit from "access to experts, the companionship of others in similar situations, and the comfort of knowing they have someone whom they can contact for help.” (Capurro, 2001) Parents of exceptional gifted children are advised to create an environment for their children that has set behavioral boundaries without breaking their spirit. A "user-friendly" home environment for a highly gifted child consists of: 1. Giving the child full flexibility within firm outer limits. 2. Experiencing natural and logical pre-negotiated consequences. 3. Avoidance of punishment. 4. Knowledge of behavior management applied in a consistent, kind manner. 5. Positive reinforcement. 6. Enhanced relationship building signified by parents who enjoy their children but are not controlled by them. 7. Opportunities for intellectual, creative, social, and emotional stimulation. (Kline & Meckstroth, 1985)

References Albert, R. S. (1980, Fall). Exceptionally gifted boys and their parents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(4), 174-179. Albert, R. S. (1994). The contribution of early family history to the achievement of eminence. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & D. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent Development, Volume II (pp. 311-360). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., and Sanjani, H. E. (1995). Our future leaders in science: Who are they? Can we identify them early? In N. Colangelo, & S. Assouline (Eds.), Talent Development III (pp. 59-70). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (1990, Winter). Cognitive profiles of verbally and mathematically precocious students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 21-26. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). An eight-year evaluation of SMPY: What was learned. In C. P. Benbow, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development(pp. 205-214). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Benbow, C., & Stanley J. (1996). Inequity in equity: How ’equity’ can lead to inequity for high-potential students [Abstract]. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Berger, S. (1990). Supporting gifted education through advocacy. ERIC Digest #E494. Berger, S. (1990). Mentor relationships and gifted learners. ERIC Digest #E486. Betts, G., & Neihart, M. (1988, Spring). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2). Bloom, B. S. (1982). The role of gifts and markers in the development of talent. Exceptional Children, 48(6). Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. Borland, J. A. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press. Boyer, A. (1989). Surviving the blessing: Parenting the highly gifted child. Understanding Our Gifted, 1(3), 5, 17, 20-21. Brody, L. (1999). The talent searches: Counseling and mentoring activities. In N. Colangelo, & S. Assouline (Eds.), Talent Development III(pp. 153-157). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Brody, L., Assouline, S., & Stanley, J. (1990, Fall). Five years of early entrants: Predicting successful achievement in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4). Brody, L., & Blackburn, C. (1996). Nurturing exceptional talent: SET as a legacy of SMPY. In C.P. Benbow, & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual Talent: Psychometric and Social Issues (pp. 246-265). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Burks, B.S., Jensen, D.W., & Terman, L.M. (1930). Genetic studies of genius: The promise of youth, (Vol. 3). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Capurro, M. (2001).Pursuing profound possibilities: The Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Charlton, J. C., Marolf, D. M., Stanley, J. C., & Ng, L. (1994, December). Follow-up insights on rapid educational acceleration. Roeper Review, 17(2). Clark, B. (1997). Growing up Gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Connell, D.G., Callahan, C. M., & Lloyd, B. (1991). Socioemotional adjustment of adolescent girls enrolled in a residential acceleration program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, (2). Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Creativity across the life-span: A systems view. In N. Colangelo, & S. Assouline (Eds.) Talent Development III (pp. 9-18). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Robinson, R. E. (1986). Culture, time and the development of talent. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Daurio. S.P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In W.C. George, S. J. Cohn, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment, (pp. 16-63). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Davidson, J. (2002). The quiet crisis in American education: The neglect of highly intelligent students. Reno, NV: The Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Davidson Institute for Talent Development (2001). Acceleration for profoundly gifted students: Recommended readings. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S.B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. DeLong, M. (1994, March/April). University-based talent searches for the gifted. Understanding Our Gifted, 6(4). Eckstein, P. (1994). The childhood of a computer pioneer-- Jay Forrester. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & D. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent Development, Volume II (pp. 405-408). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Feldhusen, J., Proctor, T., & Black, K. (1986, September). Guidelines for grade advancement of precocious children. Roeper Review, 9(1). Feldhusen, J., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Seeley, K. (Eds.). (1989). Excellence in educating the gifted. Denver, CO: Love Publishing. Feldman, D. H. (1993, Fall). Child prodigies: A distinctive form of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 188-193. Feldman, D. H. (1984). A follow up of subjects scoring above 180 IQ. Exceptional Children, 50(6). Feldman, D. H. (1995). Parenting talented children. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting (pp. 285-304). New York: Longman. Feldman, D. H. (1978). The mysterious case of extreme giftedness. In A. Harry Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented: Their education and development (78th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 335-351). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fiedler, E. D. (1998). Foundations for understanding the social-emotional needs of the highly gifted. Highly Gifted Children, 12(1). Friedman, R.C., & Rogers, K. B. (1998). Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gallagher, J. J. (1996). Educational research and educational policy: The strange case of acceleration. In C. Benbow, & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual Talent: Psychometric and Social Issues (pp. 83-92). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Goertzel V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown. Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M. G., & Goertzel, T. (1978). Three hundred eminent personalities: A psychosocial analysis of the famous. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goldsmith, L. T. (1987). Girl prodigies: Some evidence and some speculations. Roeper Review, 10(2). Gross, M.U.M. (2000, Winter). Exceptionally and profoundly gifted students: An underserved population. Understanding Our Gifted, 12(2). Gross, M.U.M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. New York and London: Routledge. Gross, M.U.M. (1994). Factors in the social adjustment and social acceptability of extremely gifted children. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & D. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent Development, Volume II (pp. 473-476). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Gross, M.U.M. (1999, February/March). Small poppies: Highly gifted children in the early years. Roeper Review, 21(3), 207-214. Gross, M.U.M. (1992). The early development of three profoundly gifted children of IQ 200 In P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To Be Young and Gifted (pp. 94-138). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Gross, M.U.M. (1994, Summer). Radical acceleration: Responding to academic and social needs of extremely gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10(4). Gross, M.U.M. (1992). The use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 91-99. Gustin, W. C. (1985). The development of exceptional research mathematicians. In B. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (270-331). New York: Ballantine. Hall, E.G., & Skinner, N. (1980). Somewhere to turn: Strategies for parents of the gifted and talented. New York: Teachers College Press. Hansen, J. B. (1992, March/April). Discovering highly gifted students. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(4). Harsin, C. (2002). Educational advocacy guidebook. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Hollingworth, L.S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York: World Book. Holmes, J. S., Rin, L. H., Tremblay, J. M., & Zeldin, R. K. (1984, May/June). Colin Camerer: The early professional years of a radical educational accelerant. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 33-35. Hultgren, H. (1989, January). A case for acceleration. Understanding Our Gifted, 1(3). Jackson, N. E., & Kearney, J. M. (1999). Achievement of precocious readers in middle childhood and young adulthood. In N. Colangelo, & S. Assouline (Eds.), Talent Development III (pp. 203-218). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Jacobs, J.C. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identification of gifted children as a function of school level. Psychology in the Schools, 8, 140-142. Janos, P. M., Marwood, K., & Robinson, N. (1985, September). Friendship patterns in highly intelligent children. Roeper Review, 8(1). Janos, P. M. & Robinson, N. (1985). The performance of students in a program of radical acceleration at the university level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4). Janos, P. M., Robinson, N. M., Carter, C., Chapel, A., Cufley, R., & Curland, M., et al. (1988, Winter). A cross-sectional developmental study of the social relations of students who enter college early. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(1). Janos, P. M., Robinson, N., & Lunneborg, C. E. (1989, September). Markedly early entrance to college. Journal of Higher Education, 60(5). Janos, P. M., Sanfilippo, S., & Robinson, N. (1986). "Underachievement" among markedly accelerated college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 303-313. Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1991). Gifted children and legal issues in education: Parents’ stories of hope. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Kay, K. (1998, Fall). An anomaly: Parenting a twice exceptional girl. Highly Gifted Children, 12(2). Kaufmann, F. (1981). The 1964-1968 Presidential Scholars: A follow-up study. Exceptional Children, 48, 164-169. Kaufmann, F. (1988). Mentors provide personal coaching. Gifted Child Monthly, 9 (1), 1-3. Kaufmann, F., Harrel, G., Milam, C. P., Woolverton, N., & Miller, J. (1986). The nature, role, and influence of mentors in the lives of gifted adults. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 576-578. Kearney, K. (n.d.). Bibliography: Child prodigies. Kearney, K. (n.d.). Bibliography: Highly gifted children. Kearney, K. (2001). Frequently asked questions about extreme intelligence in very young children. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Kearney, K. (2000). Frequently asked questions about testing and assessing giftedness. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Kearney, K. (1992). Life in the asynchronous family. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(6), 1, 8-12. Kearney, K. (1989). Parenting highly gifted children: The challenges, the joys, the unexpected surprises. CAG Communicator, 19(2). Kearney, K. (1989, March). The early college option, Part I. Understanding Our Gifted, 1(4). Kearney, K. (1989, May). The early college option, Part II. Understanding Our Gifted, 1(5). Kearney, K. (1989, July). The early college option, Part III. Understanding Our Gifted, 1(6). Kearney, K. (1989, September). The early college option, Part IV. Understanding Our Gifted, 2(1). Kearney, K. (1993, March/April). The highly gifted baby. Understanding Our Gifted. Kearney, K. (n.d.). The 10 most commonly asked questions about highly gifted children. Highly Gifted Children. Kearney, K., & LeBlanc, J. (1993). Forgotten pioneers in the study of gifted African-Americans. Roeper Review, 15(4). Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Publishing Company. Kerr, B., & Colangelo, N. (1994). Something to prove: Academically talented minority students. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & D. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent Development, Volume II (pp. 361-371). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Kline, B., & Meckstroth, E. (1985). Understanding and encouraging the exceptionally gifted child. Roeper Review, 8(1). Koppel, D. (1993, June). What’s it like to raise a genius. Redbook, 51, 54, 58. Kulik, J.A., & Kulik C.L.C. (1984). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23, 22-30. Louis, B. (1993). How parents identify giftedness in young children. Understanding Our Gifted, 5(5), 1, 7-10. Lewis, G. (1984). Alternatives to acceleration for the highly gifted child. Roeper Review, 6 (3), 133-136. Lewis, M., & Michalson, L. (1983). Children’s emotions and moods. New York: Plenum. Lind, S. (2000, Fall). Before referring a gifted child for ADD, ADHD evaluation. Communicator, 31(4). Lind, S. (2000, Fall). Overexcitability and the highly gifted. Communicator, 31(4). Lovecky, D. V. (1992). Exceptionally gifted children: Different minds. Roeper Review, 15(1). Lovecky, D. V. (1999). Gifted children with AD/HD. Handout at the CHADD 11th Annual CHADD International Conference, Washington, DC. Lovecky, D. V. (1992, March/April). Hidden gifted learner, Part one. Understanding Our Gifted. Lovecky, D. V. (1992, May/June). Hidden gifted learner, Part two. Understanding Our Gifted. Lovecky, D. V. (1995). Highly gifted children and peer relationships. Counseling and Guidance Newsletter, 5(3), 2,6-7. Lovecky, D. V. (1991, Spring). Highly gifted children with Attention Deficit Disorder. Highly Gifted Children, 7(2). Lupkowski, A., Whitmore, M., & Ramsey, A. (1992). The impact of early entrance to college on self-esteem: A preliminary study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 87-90. Maker, J. (1977). Providing programs for the gifted handicapped. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. McGuffog, C., Feiring, C., & Lewis, M. (1990). The diverse profile of the extremely gifted child. Roeper Review, 10(2). Moss, E. (1992). Early interactions and metacognitive development of gifted preschoolers. In P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To Be Young and Gifted (pp. 278-318). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Neihart, M. (1999, September). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being. Roeper Review, 22(1). Neville, C. (1997, Spring). Portfolio: an effective way to present your child to the school. Highly Gifted Children, 11(1). Noble, K., & Drummond, J. (1992, Spring). But what about the prom? Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 106-111. Noble, K., Robinson, N., & Gunderson, S. (1993, February/March). All rivers lead to the sea: A follow-up study of gifted young adults. Roeper Review, 15(3), 124-130. Noble, K., Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1999, Summer). To thine own self be true: A new model of female talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly 43(4). Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1995, November/December). A summary of research regarding early entrance to college. Roeper Review, 18(2). Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1994, March/April). Talent search: A driving force in gifted education. Understanding Our Gifted, 6(4), 1, 8-13. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1999). Thinking through early entrance to college. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Center for Talent Development. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Kulieke, M., & Krasney, N. (1988). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 347-352. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Yasumoto, J. (1994). Factors affecting the academic choices of academically talented adolescents. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & D. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent Development, Volume II (pp. 393-398). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Osborn, J. B. (2000, February). Gifted children: Are their gifts being identified, encouraged, or ignored? AboutOurKids. Retrieved March 27, 2001 from http://www.aboutourkids.org. Osborn, J. B. (2001 , Spring). Assessment, educational issues, advocacy: The process of parenting an exceptionally gifted child. Reno, NV: The Davidson Foundation. Osborn, J. B. (2001, Spring). Issues in educating exceptionally gifted students. Reno, NV: The Davidson Foundation. Painter, F. (1976). Gifted children: A research study. Knebworth, UK: Pullen Publications. Piechowski, M.M. (1989). Family, developmental potential, and the growth of self. In J. VanTassel-Baska, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the school, and the community. New York: Teachers College Press. Plomin, R. (1999). Genetics and intelligence. In N. Colangelo & S. Assouline (Eds.), Talent Development III (pp. 19-40). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Pringle, M. L. K. (1970). Able misfits. London: Longman. Pollins, L. D. ( 1983). The effects of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted students. In C. P. Benbow, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 160-178). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Powell, P. M., & Haden, T. (1987). The intellectual and psychosocial nature of extreme giftedness. Roeper Review, 6(3), 127-130. Proctor, T. B., Feldhusen, J. F., & Black, K. N. (1988). Guidelines for early admission to elementary school. Psychology in the Schools, 25(1), 41-43. Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(2). Rivers, L. S. (n.d.). School within a school for extremely highly gifted students: Lincoln Public Schools, Lincoln, Nebraska. Highly Gifted Children. Robinson, H. B. (1983). A case for radical acceleration: Programs of the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Washington. In C. P. Benbow, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 139-159). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Robinson, H. B. (1981). The uncommonly bright child. In M. Lewis, & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The Uncommon Child (pp. 57-81). New York: Plenum Press. Robinson, H. B., & Robinson, N. (1992). The use of standardized tests with young gifted children. In P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To Be Young and Gifted (pp. 141-170). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Robinson, N. (n.d.). The case for radical acceleration to college. Seattle, WA: The Robinson Center for Young Scholars. Robinson, N., & Harsin, C. (2001). Food for thought: Is early college entrance an appropriate alternative? Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Robinson, N., & Noble, K. (1992, April). Acceleration: Valuable high school to college option. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 20-23. Robinson, N., & Noble, K. (1991). Social-emotional development and adjustment in gifted children. Handbook for special education: Research and practice: Vol. 4. Emerging programs. New York. Robinson, N., & Weimer, L. (1991). Selection of candidates for early admission to kindergarten and first grade. In S. T. Southern, & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press. Roedell, W. (1984). Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6(3), 127-130. Rogers, K. B. (1992). A best-evidence synthesis of research on acceleration options for gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & D. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent Development (pp. 406-409). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.   Sand, B. L. (2000). Teaching genius: The teaching principles of Dorothy Delay. Teaching Genius (pp. 67-71). Portland, OR: Amadeus Press. Schultz, R. (2000, Winter & Spring). Flirting with underachievement highly gifted children. Highly Gifted Children, 13(2). Sheehan, K. (2001). Professional perspectives on assessment of profoundly gifted children. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Sloane, K. D. (1985). Home influences on talent development. In B. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 270-331). New York: Ballantine. Stanley, J. (1989, July). A look back at educational non-acceleration: An international tragedy. Gifted Child Today, 12(4). Stanley, J. (1985). Young entrants to college: How did they fare? College and University, 64, 219-227. Stanley, J., & McGill, A. (1986). More about "Young entrants to college: How did they fare?" Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 70-73. Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (Eds). (1991). The Academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press. Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children. New York: Macmillan. Tannenbaum, A. (1986). Giftedness: a psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21-51). New York: Cambridge University Press. Terman, L., & Oden, M. (1925; 1947; 1959). Genetic studies of genius (Volumes I, IV, V). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Vail, P. L. (1987). Smart kids with school problems: Things to know and ways to help. New York: E.P. Dutton. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1989). Excellence in educating the gifted. Denver, CO: Love Publishing. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and ability grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 68-72. Warshaw, M. G. (2002). Meeting the needs of twice-exceptional children. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Westberg, K.L., Archambault, F.X., Jr., Dobyns, S.M., & Salvin, T. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research Monograph 93104. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut). Whitmore, J. (1980). Giftedness, conflict and underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Winebrenner, S. (1998, Fall). Special ed or gifted? It may be hard to tell. Highly Gifted Children, 12(2). Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Wright, B. (2001). Parents’ perspectives of early college entrance for profoundly gifted children. Reno, NV: Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Wright, L. (1993). Preschools for the gifted: What to look for. Understanding Our Gifted, 5(5), 1, 10-13. Wright, L. (1990). The social and nonsocial behaviors of precocious preschoolers during free play. Roeper Review, 12(4), 268-274.