Global Principles
for Professional
Learning in
Gifted Education
World Council for Gifted and Talented Children
Table of
Contents
The WCGTC Executive Committee extends a sincere
thank you to the following for supporting the work of this
committee:
■ The members of the committee who devoted many
hours to sharing perspectives, reading report drafts, and
providing helpful feedback, all in a spirit of collegial
collaboration.
■ Dr. Norma Lu Hafenstein, University of Denver, and
Chair of the WCGTC Global Principles in Professional
Learning in Gifted Education Committee.
Acknowledgements
Global Principles
for Professional
Learning in
Gifted Education
■ Dr. Rosemary Cathcart, Dr. Shelagh Gallagher, Dr.
Norma Hafenstein, Dr. Michelle Ronksley-Pavia, Dr.
Bruce Shore, and Dr. Margaret Sutherland for their
participation on the writing team.
■ Dr. Shelagh Gallagher for her assistance in compiling and
editing the document draft.
■ Kayla Steffens and Joi Lin, University of Denver,
Graduate Assistants to the Chair, Dr. Hafenstein.
CITATION
World Council for Gifted and Talented Children. (2021). Global
principles for professional learning in gifted education. https://
world-gifted.org/professional-learning-global-principles.pdf
1 Letter from the WCGTC President
2 Introduction
3 Global Principles
4 Tiered Content
5 Evidence-Based
6 Holistic
7 Broad
8 Equitable
8 Comprehensive
9 Integral
10 Ongoing
10 Sustainable
11 Empowering
12 Call to Action
13 References
17 Committee Members
21 Executive Committee Members
1
Dear Members of the WCGTC,
How happy I am to share the Global Principles for Professional Learning in Gifted Education.
This document can provide guidance when decisions concerning education are being considered by
local, regional, state/provincial, or national entities. The ten principles in this document can assist in
the development of professional learning programs in gifted education as the name of the document
highlights. These principles can provide guidance for educators, policymakers, and professional learning
specialists, as well as for those making decisions for teacher preparation programs in various localities
and countries across the globe.
The Global Principles for Professional Learning in Gifted Education were developed collaboratively
by a committee of scholars and practitioners selected from applicants who were members of the
WCGTC. Each member of the committee offered insight and ideas from their individual perspectives.
Of course, it was important to have broad representation in order to produce a document that would be
valuable in providing guidance for decision-makers in settings around the globe.
I thank Dr. Norma Hafenstein for her leadership in this initiative of the WCGTC. Her work
throughout the two-year process was supported by Joi Lin and Kayla Steffins. A heartfelt thank you
extends to each member of the committee who volunteered to be engaged in the work to develop the
principles. Thanks also go to the members of the writing team who put the final document together –
Dr. Rosemary Cathcart, Dr. Shelagh Gallagher, Dr. Norma Hafenstein, Dr. Michelle Ronksley-Pavia,
Dr. Bruce Shore, and Dr. Margaret Sutherland.
Please share this document with educators, policymakers, professional learning providers, and
leaders in teacher preparation programs who are interested in preparing all teachers to appropriately
educate gifted and talented children across the globe. Our world will be a better place as we develop
children and young people’s talents and potential to the highest levels.
Sincerely,
Julia Link Roberts, EdD
President of the WCGTC (2017-2021)
Mahurin Professor of Gifted Studies
Western Kentucky University
World Council for Gifted
and Talented Children
2
The new decade has provided stark
reminders of the need for the world’s
most able minds to be well-educated.
The global pandemic, a warming
planet, and shifting demographics
present unprecedented, complex
problems that require insight, expertise,
creativity, and cross-disciplinary
collaboration. Even in the absence of
dire crises, societal progress is fueled by
the innovation and insight of its most
gifted citizens. We all benefit as their
curiosity and vision move science, art,
and culture forward.
Although we all rely on the
contributions of gifted and talented
adults, educators worldwide
receive little information about
how to educate gifted and talented
children. The World Council for
Gifted and Talented Children Global
Principles for Professional Learning
in Gifted Education are intended to
help remedy this pervasive gap in
educator preparation by guiding
policy and practice in professional
learning about gifted education.
Some might question whether
educators need specific instruction
about gifted students, assuming that
these children will be fine on their own.
However, this is a misconception, one
of several that teachers tend to hold
about gifted students in the absence
of professional learning (Alencar et
al., 2002). In fact, dozens of research
Introduction
studies provide evidence that gifted
students have unique learning needs.
In addition to their need for advanced
content, they are more inclined to
seek information, create new ideas,
and engage in sophisticated thinking
(S. Gallagher, 2013; Sak, 2004).
Without appropriately challenging
instruction, gifted students can
become disenchanted and disengaged
from formal education (Kanevsky &
Keighley, 2003; Preckel et al., 2010).
Research also shows that, in the
absence of professional preparation,
educators lack the knowledge needed
to accurately identify gifted students
for acceleration or specialized gifted
programs; and they do not learn how
to use differentiation strategies that
increase the depth and complexity of
their instruction (Van Tassel-Baska et
al., 2021).
The most devastating loss is among
gifted students whose advanced abilities
are masked by poverty, disability,
or cultural biases. Although they
might arrive at school eager to learn,
these gifted students are frequently
overlooked and undereducated,
representing a tragic waste of personal
potential and human capital. Finding
these students while they are young
and fulfilling their desire to learn both
supports social justice and ultimately
contributes to healthy economies.
At the most basic level, providing
universal educator preparation in gifted
education helps fulfill every child’s
right to learn something new every
day. Sometimes a gifted child’s needs
can be met in the regular classroom
by a teacher who understands how to
add challenge through differentiation
of curriculum and instruction. Indeed,
all children benefit when classroom
teachers receive this preparation
in high-end learning. Other gifted
students require more intensive
intervention in the form of acceleration
or specialized programs (Assouline
et al., 2014). Educators leading these
efforts need more intensive and
advanced preparation. The need
for professional learning in gifted
education is not restricted to teachers.
For example, guidance counselors,
school psychologists, and other
support personnel need to know how
to provide gifted and talented students
with college and career planning or
social-emotional support, and school
administrators need to understand how
to monitor program effectiveness.
The following principles outline
an infrastructure for preparing all
educators to support gifted children
in their classrooms across the world,
regardless of their educational setting.
We welcome collaboration with
colleagues across education globally to
implement these principles and help
ensure that all students receive the
education they deserve.
33
1. Tiered Content. Comprehensive professional learning programs recognize that all educators work with
gifted students, so all educators need some degree of professional preparation to support the education and
growth of gifted children, although the amount and type of content may vary according to each educator’s
role.
2. Evidence-Based. A quality professional learning program is based on best-practice and research, including
the ways in which gifted students are uniquely different from other students as a core rationale for
differentiated services.
3. Holistic. Professional learning in gifted education should address the whole child, including academic,
social, and emotional needs.
4. Broad. A thorough professional learning program includes information about different levels of giftedness,
different forms of giftedness, varied methods of identification, different program models, and options for
modifying curriculum and instruction.
5. Equitable. Professional learning programs in gifted education should address the needs of students from
different racial, cultural, ethnic and indigenous groups; genders; sexual orientations; and socio-economic
statuses. Recruiting and retaining educators from representative diverse backgrounds should be a priority.
6. Comprehensive. Many school personnel affect the lives of gifted children, directly or indirectly. A plan
for professional learning in gifted education must therefore include provisions for educating administrators,
counselors, psychologists, special educators, and others about the needs of gifted students.
7. Integral. Professional learning should present gifted education in the context of an entire school program,
emphasizing that gifted students are the responsibility of the whole school community and not just the
educators charged with specific responsibilities for serving gifted students.
8. Ongoing. A professional learning plan in gifted education should provide ongoing opportunities to refine
and extend existing knowledge and skills through in-service programs and other professional learning
experiences throughout a career.
9. Sustainable. Professional learning in gifted education should be built into educational policy of the state,
region, province and/or country. Programs should be monitored regularly, and accountability systems
should be in place. Collaboration between all stakeholders–policymakers, school authorities, community
members, higher education faculty, and others–is actively encouraged.
10. Empowering. Professional learning in gifted education should prepare educators to be effective supporters,
promoting gifted students and the services they require.
Global Principles
for Professional Learning
in Gifted Education
4
Global Principle 1:
Tiered Content.
Comprehensive professional learning programs recognize
that all educators work with gifted students, so all educators
need some degree of professional preparation to support
the education and growth of gifted children, although the
amount and type of content may vary according to each
educator’s role.
Every educator works with students who excel and
who have the potential to learn faster or in further depth
than other children their age. To this extent, every teacher
needs some professional learning about gifted and talented
students. However, a regular classroom teacher working with
a broad range of students may not need the same depth or
breadth of knowledge as a teacher working in a self-contained
classroom of gifted students (Aulls & Ibrahim, 2012; Roberts
& Inman, 2015; Tomlinson, et al., 2008). The context where
teaching and learning occurs also impacts what professional
knowledge and skills are most relevant for a particular
teacher, for example, contrasting large, sparsely resourced,
multilevel classes to well-provisioned, modern classrooms
and schools (Clark & Shore, 2004). Designers of professional
learning programs should consider tiers of different depth
and complexity, which could take place in different settings,
for instance:
■ Short programs with minimal specialization offered by
school districts, education ministries or departments,
colleges, universities, either on-line, by correspondence,
or in-person.
■ In-service or other continuing professional education
related to gifted learners, for educators who have already
completed their initial preparation programs.
■ Full-time or part-time education, usually at or in
collaboration with institutions of higher education,
beyond initial teacher preparation with embedded
content in gifted education teaching subjects or other
fields (e.g., counseling, psychology, special or inclusive
education), or specializing specifically in gifted
education.
The quantity and content of professional learning
educators require to meet the needs of their gifted students
will differ in each context above and will need local
adaptation (Gubbins & Hayden, 2020). Program monitoring
and efficacy research should accompany implementation of
any professional learning plan (Johnsen & Clarenbach, 2019;
Parker, 1996; Shore et al., 1991).
Global Principles
5
SAMPLE FRAMEWORK FOR A TIERED
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PLAN
Tier 1: Sample content for all teachers, including regular
classroom teachers, early childhood educators, art and other
specialty teachers, Special Education Needs Coordinators
(SENCos), and school counselors in large school settings:
■ Awareness that child development progresses differently
for different children, and curriculum does not define
upper limits for what is expected at a given age or
stage. Gifted students, who are often not challenged by
the regular curriculum even when they excel, require
adjustments to their academic experiences to ensure they
learn something new every day.
■ The characteristics that qualify students for specialized
gifted education programming, including how giftedness
manifests differently in different populations, what might
mask the manifestation of giftedness, and what socialemotional
supports might be necessary.
■ The basic classroom and school practices that can help
gifted learners, for example, cluster grouping, higherlevel
questioning, offering above-level curriculum
materials and assignments, and using available
technology as a mechanism for differentiation.
■ The conditions under which acceleration of different
forms are advisable.
Tier 2: Sample content for teachers of enrichment
programs, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate,
or International General Certificate of Secondary Education
(IGCSE) classes, school principals. All the Tier 1 information,
and:
■ Identifying elements in the common curriculum that are
especially attractive to and valuable for extremely able
learners, as well as how to find or create such curriculum.
Methods of instruction that complement advanced
curriculum.
■ When and how to access subject-matter specialists to
assist in curriculum planning or to serve as a mentor to a
student with an interest in a subject that extends beyond
the school curriculum.
■ The social-emotional and counseling needs of advanced
students
■ Strategies that are effective when discussing gifted
education with others, including parents, school
leadership, and local education authorities .
Tier 3: Sample content for educators who work
exclusively with gifted students including program
coordinators, full-time enrichment specialists serving many
grade levels or schools, in self-contained classrooms, or
specialized schools. All information from Tiers 1 and 2, and:
■ Detailed study of the theoretical and research literature
on giftedness, talent, creativity, including how they are
defined in different cultural contexts.
■ Gifted-education program models and program
evaluation methods.
■ The educational implications of advanced development
and methods of altering the pace, depth, and/or
complexity of curriculum and instruction for advanced
learning, including self-regulated learning and how
experts work creatively.
■ Specialized knowledge and strategies to support the
social-emotional needs and intensities of gifted learners.
■ How to conduct action-research and evaluate the
effectiveness of local practices.
■ Advanced content knowledge relative to the grade level
they teach.
Global Principle 2:
Evidence-Based.
A quality professional learning program is based on
best-practice and research, including the ways in which gifted
students are uniquely different from other students as a core
rationale for differentiated services.
Evidence-based professional practice is the gold standard
in every field. In the case of gifted education an evidencebased
professional learning program is based both on (a)
research regarding the nature of gifted and talented students
and best practice in the field, and (b) research regarding
best practice in professional learning. Numerous classroom
practices in gifted education have been shown to be effective
and should be featured in teacher preparation for gifted
learners (Little, 2017; Miller, 2009; Peters & Jolly, 2018).
6
Fewer studies address when and how to teach
educators the dispositions and skills that are essential to
gifted education (Reid & Horváthová, 2016). Most gifted
teacher-education practices and standards arise from the
consideration of expert panels. This provides a rationale
rather than evidence, but a defensible start. The current
evidence base supports the following observations:
■ In anthologies of research on giftedness, talents, and
creativity, none has more than one chapter on teacherpreparation
research (e.g., Plucker & Callahan, 2020;
Robinson et al., 2006).
■ Some individual studies offer valuable steps for
identifying competencies (e.g., van Gerven, 2021),
experience, beliefs, or dispositions that enhance teaching
of gifted learners.
■ One study directly observed changes in teachers’
classroom-practices and compared these to student
reports of their classroom experiences. The largest
teaching change was more student-led work (Hansen &
Feldhusen, 1994). Results of another study suggested that
while all forms of professional preparation provide some
benefit, university training was most likely to impact
teacher practice (Westberg & Daost, 2003).
■ Some empirical research reports outcomes to changes
in attitudes (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011; Vreijs et al.,
2017), improvement in equitable identification practices
(Gallagher & Gallagher, 2013; Riley et al., 2017) and
planning for curriculum compacting (Reis & Westberg,
1994).
Evidence-based practice in teacher preparation for gifted
education is attainable, but the formal research base needs to
grow. Perhaps a more productive way to foster building a solid
evidence base for professional learning in gifted education
would be to focus on accumulating a substantial archive of
case studies of gifted learners, intervention-specific actionresearch
reports, and comparisons of teaching practices and
learner outcomes. Each practice would benefit from being
contextualized regarding teacher background, instructional
setting, the evidence base in general education, and
uniqueness or adaptation to learners with different kinds of
giftedness. Evidence-based learning that is culturally relevant
makes a difference in prospective teachers’ knowledge about
teaching gifted students (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2021).
Global Principle 3:
Holistic.
Professional learning in gifted education should address the
whole child, including academic, social, and emotional needs.
All professional learning should focus on the notion
that young people are unique and individual. When
designing professional learning programs in gifted education,
it is important to consider the diverse nature of these
learners and what those differences mean for classrooms,
learning, instructional strategies, and also the larger life
of the classroom and school community. This will allow
consideration of all aspects of school life that impact on the
learner, including “life-wide and life-long” circumstances
(Teschers, 2020, p. 77). A holistic view of gifted education
considers all dimensions of child development.
■ A whole-child perspective. A professional learning
program should encourage teachers to think beyond
a gifted student’s outstanding cognitive abilities and
include the student’s affective needs. Although many
gifted students are well adjusted, some face special
social-emotional challenges that result from being gifted
(Freeman, 2006). These include adjusting to cognitive,
creative, or emotional intensity; social adjustment issues;
perfectionism; or coping with real or perceived pressure
to perform. Some students may be bright but immature
socially and emotionally (Silverman, 2013) others are
socially and emotionally advanced for their years. Some
gifted students have additional exceptionalities, such as
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism,
or physical differences. All teachers need some level of
information about gifted students’ characteristics and
social-emotional needs. Teachers also need to know
that academic needs should not be ignored or deferred
while meeting social-emotional needs; meeting the needs
of the whole child requires attention to academic and
social-emotional needs simultaneously (Cathcart, 2020).
■ A whole-school approach. Gifted education should be
integral to individual schools and to the larger school
system, not an add-on or an afterthought. (see Tiered,
Integral, Comprehensive).
■ A whole-life view. Professional learning in gifted
education would benefit from considering gifted
learners in terms of their whole lives (Teschers, 2020).
7
Consider family background, culture, socio-economic
status, skills, interests, and abilities, and long term and
short-term support needs. It is beneficial to incorporate
cultural norms and values alongside the wider school
drivers to guide and shape gifted education in ways
that value and celebrate all learners (e.g., girls, children
from underrepresented cultural groups, underachievers,
children with disabilities).
■ A whole-community endeavor. An effective professional
learning program will help educators consider how gifted
education offers opportunities in and beyond school,
including the home environment, the child’s social
world, the wider family and community, and how these
interact and impact on education and gifted education in
particular (see Comprehensive).
Professional learning in gifted education should blend
academic, social, emotional, and cultural factors to ensure
they come together in unique ways that develop, challenge,
encourage and support gifted learners in the school context
and across the lifespan.
Global Principle 4:
Broad.
A thorough professional learning program includes
information about different levels of giftedness, different forms
of giftedness, varied methods of identification, different program
models, and options for curriculum and instruction.
A common thread running through the principles is
uniqueness of the learner. It is therefore no surprise that there
is no single presentation of a gifted learner which fits neatly
into the stereotype that many people hold (Matheis, et al,
2020). Giftedness manifests itself in different ways, in
different places, in different degrees, at different times, and
within or across subject domains. Some gifted children are
high achievers, others have advanced potential but are not
high achievers. This diversity requires that professional
learning opportunities present a variety of perspectives,
program structures, curriculum models, instructional
practices, methods of social-emotional support, and
identification procedures. Educators should be exposed
to increasingly broad perspectives about numerous topics
as their expertise increases (see Tiered). Among the core
concepts to include are:
■ Foundations and expressions of gifts and talents. Gifted
students tend to share similar cognitive and personality
characteristics (S. Gallagher, 2009); even so, giftedness is
expressed in different ways (Subotnik et al., 2011).
■ Cultural context. Different cultures may value different
knowledge traits and skills. For instance, some cultures
value social constructs and communal expression of
ability over individual achievement. These cultural
variations may result in different definitions of giftedness.
■ Factors that mask giftedness or contribute to
underachievement. Exceptional ability may be masked
or inhibited by numerous barriers, including emotional
problems, cultural bias, or accompanying exceptionalities
(Gilar-Corbi et al., 2019; Siegle, 2018).
■ Identification. Exclusive use of an IQ test as the sole
method for identification is no longer recommended.
Professional learning programs should stress a
holistic view of the child and present the advantages
and disadvantages of using different tools including
achievement test scores, information from parents and
teachers, behavioral checklists, and samples of student
work as part of identification in addition to IQ scores.
Using multiple identification tools should improve
student access to programs, not create multiple barriers
to programs.
■ Models for differentiating curriculum, instruction,
and assessment. A critical examination of the range of
models that describe gifted students and gifted education
so educators can construct their own evidence-based
understanding of giftedness and how to serve gifted
learners.
■ Program structures. Different ways to integrate a
gifted program into school offerings including cluster
grouping, pull-out services, forms of acceleration, and
individualized programs.
School administrators, counselors, and teachers should
also understand the diversity of gifted learners, and how
to respond to their needs by making necessary program
provisions. Allowing staff time to discuss theoretical and
practical issues related to gifted education will build a strong
community of educators who are ready and able to respond to
gifted learners whom they teach.
8
Global Principle 5:
Equitable.
Professional learning programs in gifted education should
address the needs of students from different racial, cultural,
ethnic and indigenous groups; genders; sexual orientations; and
socio-economic statuses. Recruiting and retaining educators
from representative diverse backgrounds should be a priority.
Gifted students exist among all groups, cultures,
indigenous groups, genders, sexual orientations, and regions
of the world, and they all have a right to an appropriate
education. Professional learning plays a pivotal role in
promoting equitable student identification, and in ensuring
diversity among the cadre of educators who work with gifted
students. It is imperative that all gifted students are reflected
among the teachers who educate them.
■ Underrepresentation of gifted children according to
gender, across diverse cultural groups, and income
groups is a global problem that is well-researched
and long known in gifted education (Bianco et al.,
2011; Wallace & Erikson, 2006). Professional learning
programs should include content about how giftedness
may be expressed differently among different groups,
how and why gifted students may mask their giftedness
because of cultural expectations, and other reasons
why giftedness may not be recognized (Henderson &
Jarvis, 2016). Ensuring equitable representation of gifted
students from all backgrounds is consistent with the aims
of global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) relative
to education (UNESCO, 2015).
■ Retaining diverse gifted students in a gifted program is as
important as identification. Professional learning should
include discussion about how to modify curriculum and
instruction to attract and engage these students (Novak
et al., 2020).
■ Professional learning programs should actively recruit
teachers from diverse backgrounds for advanced
preparation in gifted education. Underrepresentation of
culturally diverse teachers in gifted education programs
perpetuates stereotypes of gifted students (Morgan,
2019).
Every teacher who works with gifted students should
understand how to provide all qualified students access to
a gifted education program, how to provide educational
opportunities that reflect a variety of perspectives, and how
to provide access to social and emotional supports needed
to stay in the program over time. One critical component of
this goal is for teachers from culturally and ethnically diverse
backgrounds to receive training in gifted education so gifted
students can see them as intellectual and creative leaders in
their schools. Increasing the diversity among students and
teachers in gifted education is good for all students, because it
increases appreciation for the fact that insight, creativity, and
innovation occur among all the world’s peoples.
Global Principle 6:
Comprehensive.
Many school personnel affect the lives of gifted children,
directly or indirectly. A plan for professional learning in gifted
education must therefore include provisions for educating
administrators, counselors, psychologists, special educators, and
others about the needs of gifted students.
When at school, gifted children interact with many
school personnel beyond their classroom; therefore, all school
personnel who are directly or indirectly involved with gifted
students should be educated and be aware of their needs. A
comprehensive professional learning plan should incorporate
a whole-school approach to teaching, learning, and
supporting gifted students (Renzulli & Reis, 2014; Robinson
& Campbell, 2010). A whole-school approach focuses on the
responsibilities of all personnel in the school community,
thus, ensuring that gifted students have opportunities to
maximize their experiences at school.
■ A whole-school community understanding, awareness,
and knowledge about the unique needs of gifted
students will provide an optimized school-wide learning
environment for gifted students (see Holistic).
■ School administrators are responsible for the success
of all school programs, including the gifted education
program. They should learn about different program
models, and effective methods for evaluating the success
of a gifted program, especially when the aims of the
9
program go beyond traditional school content (Callahan
& Reis, 2004).
■ Gifted students have unique social, emotional and
well-being needs. All guidance counselors and school
psychologists should understand these needs to support
gifted students at school (Blaas, 2014; Silverman, 2012).
■ As many as one in six gifted students has some form
of learning difference in addition to their giftedness
(Ronksley-Pavia, 2020; Silverman, 2012). It is particularly
important for special educators to understand the
intersection between advanced ability and special needs.
A whole-school approach to supporting gifted students
should focus on the responsibilities of every member of
the school community, regardless of whether the school
personnel were directly or indirectly involved with gifted
students.
Global Principle 7:
Integral.
Professional learning should present gifted education in the
context of an entire school program, emphasizing that gifted
students are the responsibility of the whole school community
and not just the educators charged with specific responsibilities
for serving gifted students.
Often, services for gifted students are seen as separate
from the general school program, leading to considerable
misunderstanding both about gifted students and about
the aims of gifted education (Alottey et al., 2020; Matheis
et al., 2017). Classroom teachers report that the absence
of knowledge about gifted education leaves them feeling
unprepared serve gifted students (Antoun et al., 2020; Rowan
& Townend, 2016). The absence of professional learning
exacerbates separation of gifted and regular education and
leads to misconceptions about how and when to accelerate
students or put gifted students in specialized programs
(Sanchez-Escobedo et al., 2020).
There are two ways to see that gifted education services
are seen as integral in schools. First, present gifted education
as a part of a continuum of services during professional
learning. Even a self-contained program should be seen as
contributing to the whole school environment. Encourage
teachers to identify their role in the gifted program (e.g.,
regular classroom differentiation, making referrals, looking
for opportunities to collaborate) and how the gifted program
connects with their classrooms (see Tiered).
Second, an effective professional learning program
should ensure that content about gifted education is
integrated into professional learning opportunities in all
content areas in which advanced programming can and
should occur. As a part of offering a tiered program of
professional learning, learning modules in gifted education
would be useful in specialty areas, including:
■ Special Education. Although some gifted students may
also have a specific learning disability, ADHD, autism,
or other exceptionalities, special education teachers are
not likely to refer students to a gifted program (Bianco
& Leech, 2010). Professional learning programs should
embed units of study in gifted education to ensure that
teachers look for both learning challenges and strengths.
■ Career and Technical Education/Vocational Education
and Training. Topics found in vocational paths are
increasingly sophisticated, including finance, health
science, and information technology. Many gifted
students are attracted to these subjects (Gentry et al.,
2007). Teachers specializing in these areas would benefit
from knowing how and why to differentiate for gifted
students.
■ The Arts. Visual and performing arts, music, and creative
writing teachers would benefit from knowing the
characteristics of gifted students, many of whom pursue
artistic interests (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008).
Evidence suggests that when teachers receive information
about gifted students, their attitudes towards gifted students
improve (Lassig, 2009) and they make more accurate
program referrals to gifted programs (Elhoweris, 2008). A
gifted program that is integral to the educational offerings
of a school, district, agency, ministry, or region provides the
surrounding community with evidence of a commitment to
high standards, and benefits everyone by sharing resources
and strategies that enhance learning for all students.
10
Global Principle 8:
Ongoing.
A professional learning plan in gifted education should
provide ongoing opportunities to refine and extend existing
knowledge and skills through in-service programs and other
professional learning experiences throughout a career.
Professional learning needs to be an ongoing part
of every teacher’s career, throughout the whole of that
career, everywhere in the world (Education International &
UNESCO, 2019). This need applies to professional learning
in gifted education as much as it does to other teaching areas.
There is arguably a case for saying it is even more necessary
in relation to gifted education wherever provision for gifted
learners has historically been minimal or absent. An ongoing
system professional learning should:
■ Draw upon current and classic research in the field.
Professional learning in gifted education needs to
be well-informed and up to date with the research
to provide teachers with guidance and support in
developing provision for gifted learners (see Evidence-
Based).
■ Result in changed practice. Continuous recording,
tailoring to teachers’ needs, evaluation, and sharing of
practice are crucial components in professional learning
in gifted education because it ensures that professional
learning remains fresh and encouraging for teachers,
inspiring them to try new ideas and supporting them
in finding satisfaction in their work with gifted learners
(Wycoff et al., 2003).
■ Align with other changes that impact on the classroom
and the teacher’s role within it. Technology is an obvious
example, but there are also changes that can influence
teaching in more subtle ways, including changing
cultural attitudes (see Integral, Holistic).
■ Provide goals and rewards. Ongoing learning in
professional development should also be achievable.
Teachers should be able to access quality professional
learning in gifted education readily and appropriately
as needed. Systems need to be in place at local, regional,
and national levels to recognize expert providers of
professional learning and to ensure schools can readily
access such expertise. Schools need to provide good
record-keeping of staff involvement in professional
learning in gifted education to ensure all staff have
ongoing opportunities to review and improve their
knowledge and understanding in this field.
Local education authorities and schools should
become aware of the range of opportunities for continuing
professional learning in gifted education, which might
include online or in-person university courses, workshops,
conferences, visiting speakers, teacher clusters, memberships
in regional, national, and international associations and/
or access to online media and publications (Stevenson et al.,
2016). Methods that encourage teachers agency around what
they learn (Chandra-Handa, 2019) or to learn together in
small groups around mutually agreed upon goals are both
flexible and effective (Iskandar et al., 2020).
Finally, a commitment to ongoing professional learning
in gifted education recognizes that individuals themselves
change over time and are exposed to change in multiple
ways. Ongoing professional learning should be a process
which helps the individual recognize and come to terms with
changes. Ongoing professional learning in gifted education
should be engaging, challenging, and rewarding.
Global Principle 9:
Sustainable.
Professional learning in gifted education should be built
into educational policy of the state, region, province and/
or country. Programs should be monitored regularly, and
accountability systems should be in place. Collaboration
between all stakeholders–policymakers, school authorities,
community members, higher education faculty, and others–is
actively encouraged.
Educational policies often reflect social policy, which
“creates the rules and standards by which scarce resources are
allocated to meet almost unlimited social needs” (J. Gallagher,
2002, p. 1). Including professional learning in gifted education
in the policies of a state, region, province, or country sends
a message that this preparation has value, and, by extension
that gifted children are valued. Evidence suggests that
educational policies have a direct impact on the availability of
11
opportunities for gifted students (Baker & Friedman-Nimz,
2004).
Professional learning in gifted education should be
considered an integral component of larger policies about
personnel preparation and gifted education. Establishing
policies around professional development in gifted education
will help ensure a systemic approach to developing and
maintaining professional learning in gifted education. Sample
policy provisions would establish:
■ Clear professional learning requirements for all
educational personnel who have contact with gifted
students from pre-service education through advanced
degrees (see Tiered, Comprehensive)
■ Standards and goals for professional learning designed by
qualified personnel within the appropriate region, state
department, or ministry, along with a plan for regular
updates to ensure that standards and goals are based on
evidence-based best practice (Kim & Gentry, 2008; also
see Evidence-Based), and help ensure that educators
receive information about special populations of gifted
students (Peters et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2015)
■ A means of monitoring and evaluating professional
learning opportunities to ensure programs are up to date.
■ Tangible support for professional development programs,
including funding.
If professional learning in gifted education is to become
an enduring feature of educational policy, then it must
be closely woven into those components of larger school
policies that reflect educational values. Achieving enduring
professional learning in gifted education requires deliberate
thought and planning at each level of the education system.
Global Principle 10:
Empowering.
Professional learning in gifted education should prepare
educators to be effective supporters, promoting gifted students
and the services they require.
Gifted students—especially disadvantaged or other
hard-to-find gifted students—benefit from having a champion
(Robinson & Moon, 2003). One outcome of implementing
Global Principles 1-9 should be that gifted students have the
support of not just one, but numerous educators who feel
empowered to work on their behalf at different levels of any
educational authority. The presence of a champion for gifted
education in a school has multiple benefits, including more
equitable and accurate identification.
Empowered educators successfully engage with others
to create support systems for a specific group who have
unmet needs. To become empowered supporters of gifted
students, educational personnel must have the following
knowledge, skills, and tools incorporated at some point in
their professional learning:
■ Access to evidence-based information about the unique
characteristics of gifted students and rationale for
altering educational practice on their behalf.
■ Knowledge of which messages about gifted education
persuade different audiences, including parents,
colleagues, and educational agencies and organizations
outside of gifted education (Jones & S. Gallagher, 2013).
■ Communication skills, including communication
through social media, to call for support for their gifted
program specifically and for gifted education generally.
■ Access and opportunity to participate in professional
organizations for gifted education at the local, national,
and international level. Many of these organization have
advocacy tools to help deliver effective messages.
■ For teachers seeking advanced knowledge or degrees (see
Tiered), how to access or form leadership cadres who can
work together to make coordinated efforts to advance
gifted education by influencing educational, civic, or
governmental entities (Maier, 1993).
Despite decades of effort, the notion that gifted students
exist and have different educational needs receives very
different reception country by country or even region by
region. Gifted students continue to need adults who are
willing and able to step forward and effect change in their
school, region, state, or nation for the benefit of the children,
and the entire world.
12
Every child deserves to learn something new at school every day; gifted children are no different
from any other child in this respect. Gifted and talented children should learn from teachers who
are prepared to deliver the appropriate curriculum, using the most effective strategies, to ensure this
learning occurs. School should also be a place where gifted and talented children’s social and emotional
needs are understood and met. Gifted and talented children thrive when they are taught by teachers who
understand the ways that their learning and their social and emotional needs differ from their peers of
the same age and who know how to address those needs.
This document is intended as a tool to create positive change on behalf of gifted students locally,
regionally, and globally. The principles can serve to urge educational leaders and policymakers to invest
in teacher professional learning and gifted education. Policymakers should adopt policies that mandate
the inclusion of gifted education in teacher education programs at national, regional, and local levels.
Institutions of higher education have a crucial role to play in developing and infusing highquality,
evidence-based professional learning in gifted education throughout their education programs.
Institutions that take on this charge will fill a long-neglected gap in educator preparation and become a
cornerstone in the effort to foster new scholarship, correct misconceptions, and build new opportunities
for collaboration.
Educational leaders and organizations should invest in the education of gifted students by including
gifted education in teacher education programs and in-service offerings.
Experts in both specialized gifted and talented education and general teacher education should
collaborate to develop teacher standards that include gifted education in teacher education programs.
Gifted children, their families, teachers, fellow students, the broader community and the
larger society benefit when gifted learners are identified, supported, and provided with education
commensurate with their needs and potential. In gifted education, as in all education, concern must be
focused on the whole child. We invite others to join our commitment to the education and well-being of
every gifted and talented child.
Call to Action
The 10 Global Principles are interconnected;
even so, they are difficult to implement
simultaneously. In fact, there is no ideal starting place; the starting point will depend on the nature
of the conversation about gifted education in a specific location, and what guidelines for professional
learning are already in place. Consider conducting a formal or informal needs assessment to see what
ideas in this document will be well received or form a task force to develop a strategic plan. The most
important first step is to start and keep going. The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children is
here to help! Contact headquarters@world-gifted.org for more information.
HOW TO BEGIN
13
INTRODUCTION
Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. D. S., &
Blumen, S. (2002). Trends in gifted
education in South America: The
Brazilian and Peruvian scenario. Gifted
and Talented International, 17(1), 7-12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.20
02.11672980
Assouline, S. G., Marron, M., & Colangelo,
N. (2014). Acceleration: The fair and
equitable intervention for highly
able students. In J. A. Plucker & C.
M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and
practices in gifted education: What the
research says (pp. 15–28). Routledge.
Gallagher, S. A. (2013). Building bridges:
Using research from the Big Five,
MBTI, overexcitabilites, and Perry to
explore personality differences of
gifted youth. In C. S. Neville, M. M.
Piechowski, & S. S. Tolan (Eds.) Off the
charts: Asynchrony and the gifted child
(p. 56-118). Royal Fireworks Press.
Kanevsky, K., & Keighley, T. (2003).
To produce or not to produce?
Understanding boredom and the
honor in underachievement. Roeper
Review, 26(1), 20-28. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02783190309554235
Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A.
(2010). Ability grouping of gifted
students: Effects on academic
self-concept and boredom. British
Journal of Educational Psychology,
80(3), 451-472. https://doi.
org/10.1348/000709909X480716
Sak, U. (2004). A Synthesis of research
on psychological types of gifted
adolescents. Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education, 15(2), 70–79. https://
doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-449
VanTassel-Baska, J., Hubbard, G. F., &
Robbins, J. I. (2020). Differentiation
of instruction for gifted learners:
Collated evaluative studies of teacher
classroom practices. Roeper Review,
42(3), 153-164. http://doi.org/10.1080
/02783193.2020.1765919
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 1:
TIERED CONTENT
Aulls, M. W., & Ibrahim, A. (2012). Preservice
teachers’perceptions of
effective inquiry instruction: Are
effective instruction and effective
inquiry instruction essentially the
same? Instructional Science, 40(1),
119-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11251-010-9164-z
Clark, C., & Shore, B. M. (2004). Educating
students with high ability (Rev. ed.).
UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0013/001383/138328e.pdf
Gubbins, E. J., & Hayden, S. M. (2020).
Professional development. In J. A.
Plucker, & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical
issues and practices in gifted education:
A survey of current research on
giftedness and talent development (3rd
ed.) (pp. 349-360). Routledge.
Johnsen, S. K., & Clarenbach, J. (Eds.).
(2019). Using the National Gifted
Education Standards for pre-K-grade 12
professional development. Routledge.
Parker, J. P. (1996). NAGC Standards
for Personnel Preparation in Gifted
Education: A brief history. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 40(3), 158-161. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001698629604000307
Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F., (2015).
Strategies for differentiating
instruction: Best practices for the
classroom (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A.,
& Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended
practices in gifted education: A critical
analysis. Teachers College Press.
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J.
S., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns,
D. E., Strickland, C. A., & Imbeau, M.
B. (2008). The parallel curriculum: A
design to develop learner potential and
challenge advanced learners (2nd ed.).
Corwin Press.
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 2:
EVIDENCEBASED
Gallagher, S. A., & Gallagher, J. J. (2013).
Using Problem-based Learning to
explore unseen academic potential.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problembased
Learning, 7(1), 111-131.
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F.
(1994). Comparison of trained
and untrained teachers of gifted
students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
38(3), 115-121. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001698629403800304
References
14
Little, C. (2017). Teaching strategies
to support the education of gifted
learners. In S. Pfeiffer, E. ShaughnessyDedrick,
& M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA
handbook of giftedness and talent (pp.
371-386). American Psychological
Association.
Miller, E. M. (2009). Effect of training
in gifted education on elementary
classroom teachers’theory-based
reasoning about the concept of
giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly,
33(1), 65-105. https://doi.
org/10.1177/016235320903300104
Peters, S. J., & Jolly, J. L. (2018).
The influence of professional
development in gifted education
on the frequency of instructional
practices. The Australian Educational
Researcher, 45(4), 473-491. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13384-018-0260-4
Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (Eds.).
(2020). Critical issues and practices in
gifted education: A survey of current
research on giftedness and talent
development (3rd ed.) Routledge.
Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2011).
Learning to be a teacher of the gifted:
The importance of examining opinions
and challenging misconceptions.
Gifted and Talented International, 26(1-
2), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/153
32276.2011.11673587
Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2021).
Teaching gifted education to preservice
teachers: Lessons learned. In S.
R. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness
and talent development in the AsiaPacific
(p. 1-22). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_67-1
Reid, E., & Horváthová, B. (2016). Teacher
training programs for gifted education
with focus on sustainability. Journal
of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
18(2), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1515/
jtes-2016-0015
Reis, S. M., & Westberg, K. L. (1994).
The impact of staff development
on teachers’ability to modify
curriculum for gifted and talented
students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
38(3), 127-135. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001698629403800306
Riley, T., Webber, M., & Sylva, K. (2017).
Real engagement in active problem
solving for Māori boys: A case study
in a New Zealand secondary school.
Gifted and Talented International,
32(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15332276.2018.1522240
Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen,
D. L. (2006). Best practices in gifted
education: An evidence-based
guide. Routledge and the National
Association for Gifted Children (USA).
van Gerven, E. (2021). Raising the bar: The
competencies of specialists in gifted
education. School for Educational
Studies, Hasselt University,
Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Vreijs, C., Ndanjo Ndungbogun, G.,
Kieboom, T. & Venderickx, K. (2017).
Training effects on Belgian preschool
and primary school teachers’
attitudes towards the best practices
for gifted children. High Ability
Studies, 29(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/13598139.2017.1312295
Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2003,
Fall). The results of the replication
of the classroom practices survey
replication in two states. The National
Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented Newsletter, 3–8. https://
nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/fall032
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 3: HOLISTIC
Cathcart, R. (2020). Understanding and
working with gifted learners: “They’re
not bringing my brain out” (4th ed.).
Routledge.
Freeman, J. (2006). The emotional
development of gifted and talented
children. Gifted and Talented
International, 21(2), 20-28. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2006.116
73472
Silverman, L. K. (2013). Asynchronous
development: Theoretical bases and
current applications. In C. S. Neville,
M. M. Piechowski, & S. S. Tolan
(Eds.), Off the charts: Asynchrony and
the gifted child (pp. 18–47). Royal
Fireworks Press.
Teschers, C. (2020) Proposing a Holistic
Inclusive Education Model for
Policy, Curriculum and Classroom
Development. New Zealand Journal of
Teachers’ Work, 17(1 & 2), 73-87.
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 4: BROAD
Gallagher, S. A. (2009). Designed to fit:
Educational implications of gifted
adolescents’cognitive development.
In F. Dixon (Ed.), Programs and services
for gifted secondary students (pp.
3-20). Routledge.
Gilar-Corbi, R., Veas, A., Miñano, P., &
Castejón, J. L. (2019). Differences in
personal, familial, social, and school
factors between underachieving and
non-underachieving gifted Secondary
Students. Frontiers in Psychology,
10, 2367. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.02367
Matheis, S., Keller, L. K., Kronborg, L.,
Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Do
stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness
and gender stereotypes in pre-service
teachers’beliefs about student
characteristics in Australia. AsiaPacific
Journal of Teacher Education,
48(2), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.108
0/1359866X.2019.1576029
15
Siegle, D. (2018) Understanding
underachievement. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.),
Handbook of giftedness in children (pp.
285-297). Springer, Cham. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_16
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P.,
& Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking
giftedness and gifted education:
A proposed direction forward
based on psychological science.
Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1529100611418056
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 5: EQUITABLE
Bianco, M., Harris, B., Garrison-Wade, D., &
Leech, N. (2011). Gifted girls: Gender
bias in gifted referrals. Roeper Review,
33(3), 170-181. https://doi.org/10.108
0/02783193.2011.580500
Henderson, L., & Jarvis, J. (2016). The
gifted dimension of the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers:
Implications for professional
learning. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(8), 60-83. http://ro.ecu.
edu.au/ajte/vol41/iss8/4
Morgan, H. (2019). The lack of minority
students in gifted education: Hiring
more exemplary teachers of color can
alleviate the problem. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 92(4-5),
156-162, https://doi.org/10.1080/000
98655.2019.1645635
Novak, A. M., Lewis, K. D., & Weber,
C. L. (2020). Guiding principles
in developing equity-driven
professional learning for educators
of gifted children. Gifted Child
Today, 43(3), 169–183. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1076217520915743
UNESCO. (2015). World education forum
2015: Final report. United Nations.
https://inee.org/resources/world-
education-forum-2015-final-report.
Watson, B., & Eriksson, G. (Eds.) (2006).
Diversity in gifted education:
International perspectives on global
issues. Routledge.
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 6:
COMPREHENSIVE
Blaas, S. (2014). The relationship between
social-emotional difficulties and
underachievement of gifted students.
Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 24(2), 243–255.
Callahan, C. M., & Reis, S. M. (Eds.)
(2004). Program evaluation in gifted
education. Corwin Press.
Renzulli, J., & Reis, S. M. (2014).
Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A howto
guide for talent development (3rd
ed.). Routledge.
Robinson, W., & Campbell, J. (2010).
Effective teaching in gifted education:
Using a whole school approach.
Routledge.
Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2020). Twiceexceptionality
in Australia: Prevalence
estimates. Australasian Journal of
Gifted Education, 29(2), 17-29.
Silverman, L. K. (2012). Giftedness 101.
Springer Publishing Company.
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 7: INTEGRAL
Allotey, G. A., Watters, J. J., & King,
D. (2020). Ghanaian science and
mathematics teachers’beliefs
about gifted education strategies.
Gifted Education International,
36(3), 250–265. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0261429420946732.
Antoun, M., Kronborg. L., & Plunkett,
M. (2020). Investigating Lebanese
primary school teachers’perceptions
of gifted and highly able students,
Gifted and Talented International,
35(1), 39-57. http://doi.org/10.1080/1
5332276.2020.1783398
Bianco, M. Y., & Leech, N. (2010). Twiceexceptional
learners: Effects of
teacher preparation and disability
labels on gifted referrals. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 33(4),
319-334.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The
psychology of optimal experience.
Harper Perennial Modern.
Elhoweris, H. (2008). Teacher judgment in
identifying gifted/talented students.
Multicultural Education, 15(3), 35-38.
Gentry, M., Peters, S. J., & Mann, R. L.
(2007). Differences between general
and talented students’perceptions of
their career and technical education
experiences compared to their
traditional high school experiences.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3),
372–401. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-
2007-496.
Lassig, C. J. (2009). Teachers’attitudes
towards the gifted: The importance of
professional development and school
culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted
Education, 18(2), 32-42.
Matheis, S., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., &
Preckel, F. (2017). Threat or challenge?
Teacher beliefs about gifted students
and their relationship to teacher
motivation. Gifted and Talented
International, 32(2), 134-160. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.15
37685
16
Rowan, L., & Townend, G. (2016). Early
career teachers’beliefs about their
preparedness to teach: Implications
for the professional development
of teachers working with gifted and
twice-exceptional students. Cogent
Education, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.108
0/2331186X.2016.1242458
Sánchez-Escobedo, P., Valdés-Cuervo,
Á., Contreras-Olivera, G.A., GarcíaVázquez,
F.I., & Durón-Ramos, M.F.
(2020). Mexican teachers’knowledge
about gifted children: Relation to
teacher teaching experience and
training. Sustainability, 12, 4474.
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 8: ONGOING
Chandra Handa, M. (2019). Leading
differentiated learning for the gifted.
Roeper Review, 41(2), 102–118.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.20
19.1585213
Education International, & UNESCO.
(2019). Global framework
of professional teaching
standards. https://issuu.com/
educationinternational/docs/2019_
ei-unesco_framework
Iskandar, S., Darmanto, D., & Suryani, E.
(2020). Assessing the implementation
of teachers’ community (MGMP) as
a medium for ongoing professional
development to enhance English
teachers’ professional competence.
Proceedings of the 1st Annual
Conference on Education and Social
Sciences (ACCESS 2019). 1st Annual
Conference on Education and Social
Sciences (ACCESS 2019), Mataram,
Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/
assehr.k.200827.093
Stevenson, M., Hedberg, J. G., O’Sullivan,
K., & Howe, C. (2016) Leading
learning: the role of school leaders in
supporting continuous professional
development. Professional
Development in Education, 42(5), 818-
835. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941525
7.2015.1114507
Wycoff, M., Nash, W. R., Juntune, J. E.,
& Mackay, L. (2003). Purposeful
professional development: Planning
positive experiences for teachers of
the gifted and talented. Gifted Child
Today, 26(4), 34–64. https://doi.
org/10.4219/gct-2003-116
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 9: SUSTAINABLE
Baker, B., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004).
State policies and equal opportunity:
The example of gifted education.
Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 26(1), 39-64. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/3699503
Gallagher, J. (2002). Society’s role in
educating gifted students: The role of
public policy. (Research Monograph
02162). Storrs: National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented,
University of Connecticut. https://
nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-based_
resources/gallaghe
Kim, H., & Gentry, M. (2008). A survey
of Korean elementary teachers’
perceptions of and in-service needs
for gifted education. Gifted and
Talented International, 23(1), 61-80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.20
08.11673513
Peters, S.J., Gentry, M., Whiting,
G.W., & McBee, M.T. (2019). Who
gets served in gifted education?
Demographic representation
and a call for action. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 63(4), 273-287. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0016986219833738
Roberts, J. L., Pereira, N., & Knotts, J. D.
(2015). State law and policy related
to twice-exceptional learners:
Implications for practitioners
and policymakers. Gifted Child
Today, 38(4), 215–219. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1076217515597276
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 10: EMPOWERED
Jones, E., & Gallagher, S. A. (March,
2019). America agrees: A national
public opinion poll about gifted
education. Pasadena, CA: Institute for
Educational Advancement. https://
educationaladvancement.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/IEA-P-Full-
Report-Web-1.pdf
Maier, N. (1993). Advocacy as a force in
the education of gifted and talented.
Gifted and Talented International, 8(1),
20-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332
276.1993.11672773
Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M.
(2003). A national study of
local and state advocacy in
gifted education. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47(1), 8-25. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001698620304700103
17
Committee Members
Anies Al-Hroub,
Lebanon
Anies Al-Hroub is an
Associate Professor of
Education Psychology
and Special Education and the former
Chairperson of the Department of
Education at the American University
of Beirut (AUB). Al-Hroub completed
his PhD and MPhil in Special Education
(Giftedness and Learning Disabilities)
from the University of Cambridge and
his MA (Special Education) and BA
(Psychology) from the University of
Jordan.
Rosemary Cathcart,
New Zealand
Rosemary Cathcart,
QSM, PhD, heads REACH
Education Consultancy
which specializes in the provision of
professional development in gifted
education, working with teachers both
in New Zealand and in other countries.
She has been involved in this field for
almost four decades as teacher, program
and model developer, author, conference
presenter, advisor, and political advocate.
Global Principles for Professional Learning in Gifted Education
Viviene DeOkoro,
Jamaica
Viviene DeOkoro is the
founder and CEO-Principal
of DeOkoro Magnet
Educational Foundation and DeOkoro
Magnet Schools for Gifted and Talented
in Jamaica. DeOkoro also serves as
the CEO for the Caribbean Centre for
Giftedness and Creativity. She has a BA of
Music, MA of Education, and a Doctorate
of Professional Studies. She completed
a post-graduate certificate of effective
practice in gifted education through
REACH Education Consultancy in New
Zealand.
Soha Elzalabany,
Egypt
Soha Elzalabany is an
adjunct instructor of the
American University in
Cairo, School of Graduate Education. She
served previously as a school principal,
support program director, special and
gifted education coordinator, and
educator in several international schools
in Egypt. She works with students with
learning difficulties as well as gifted
students in international schools.
Szilvia Fodor,
Hungary
Szilvia Fodor, PhD is a
psychologist, and works
as an assistant professor
at the Department of Educational
Psychology, University of Debrecen
in Hungary. After graduation she had
a few years’experience as a school
psychologist, but for almost 20 years she
has been involved as a teacher and a
researcher in higher education. She has
courses on developmental psychology,
educational psychology, and gifted
education for students of psychology,
pedagogy and she is also active in
teacher training.
Shelagh Gallagher,
USA
Shelagh A. Gallagher’s
career in gifted education
spans over 30 years, with
positions including classroom teacher,
Research Assistant at Duke TIP and the
North Carolina School of Science and
Mathematics, Director of Research and
Assessment at the Illinois Mathematics
and Science Academy, grant director
at the William & Mary Center for Gifted
Education, founding team member
18
Norma Hafenstein,
USA
Norma Lu Hafenstein
is the Daniel L. Ritchie
Endowed Chair in Gifted
Education and Clinical Professor at
the University of Denver, Morgridge
College of Education. Hafenstein led
the development and implementation
of the University of Denver’s Carnegie
Project on the Education Doctorate
(CPED) in Curriculum and Instruction
with a specialization in Gifted Education.
She was a member of the Colorado
Department of Education Standards
Development Team, designing the
Core, Specialist and Director of Gifted
Education endorsements for Colorado
educators. She is Principal Investigator of
a U.S. Department of Education Jacob K.
Javits grant project, I-REECCH, delivering
virtual professional learning to rural
Colorado educators to increase equitable
gifted identification of diverse rural
students.
Ernst Albert Hany,
Germany
Ernst Hany serves as
Faculty of Education at the
University of Erfurt. Hany
holds a professorship for educationalpsychological
diagnostics and differential
psychology.
Mojca Juriševič,
Slovenia
Mojca Juriševič is a Full
Professor of Educational
Psychology at the Faculty
of Education of the University of
Ljubljana. She has 25 years of experience
in pre- and in-service teacher education
and in initiatives related to national
teacher education policy. Her main
research interests are motivation to learn,
professional development of teachers,
and studies in giftedness and gifted
education.
of two schools for gifted students,
and 13 years as professor, researcher,
writer, and director of two Javits grants
at UNC Charlotte. Shelagh Gallagher
is the President-Elect of the National
Association for Gifted Children.
Şule Güçyeter,
Turkey
Şule Güçyeter is working
in the Gifted and Talented
Education Division at the
Usak University Faculty of Education
Special Education Department. She
gives lectures on gifted and talented
education, creativity, and special
education. She worked on the DISCOVER
Problem Matrix, which is used to
develop different types of problems in
her master’s degree, and on developing
model and test to identify gifted
students in mathematics in her doctoral
dissertation.
Ahmed Hamdan,
UAE
Ahmed Hassan Hamdan
is an associate professor
at the Dept. of Special
Education, College of Education, United
Arabic Emirates University. He received
his PhD from the University of Arizona,
Tucson, USA in 2006 in Special Education/
Gifted. He is currently the Editor-in-Chief
of the International Journal for Research
in Education (IJRE), UAEU.
Joi Lin,
USA
Joi Lin is a PhD student of
Curriculum and Instruction,
specializing in Gifted
Education Leadership at the Morgridge
College of Education, University of
Denver. Joi is a former math teacher
with a BS in Mathematics and Secondary
Education and an MS in Industrial
and Organizational Psychology. She is
Director of Professional Education at the
Gifted Development Center and chairs
the Mensa Education and Research
Foundation’s Gifted Education Fellowship
Committee. Joi Lin serves as a graduate
assistant supporting the work of the
committee chair, Dr. Norma Hafenstein.
Michael Kainose Mhlolo,
South Africa
Professor Michael Mhlolo is
an NRF C-rated researcher
and Full-Professor of
Mathematics Education. He holds a
PhD in Mathematics Education from
the University of the Witwatersrand in
Johannesburg, South Africa. His research
interests are in Giftedness in general and
in Mathematical Giftedness in particular.
Federica Mormando,
Italy
Federica Mormando
founded and directed
the Emilio Trabucchi
School (Milan-1984-1993), dedicated to
children with high intellectual potential.
President and founder of the Eurotalent
Italia association, vice-president of the
NGO Eurotalent from 1993 to 2016,
president and founding member of the
NGO Human Ingenium, which deals with
the identification and enhancement of
gifted items, as well as intuitive, creative
thinking and non-measurable talents.
19
Srinivasan Muthusamy,
India
Srinivasan Muthusamy
has a background in
engineering, education,
arts, and English literature. After
experiencing the performance and
unique strengths of students, Srinivasan
began studying gifted education.
Muthusamy completed a Masters in
gifted education at the National Research
Centre on Gifted and Talented, UCONN,
USA. Muthusamy is an ardent, lifelong
student of studying how to foster gifts
and talents. Muthusamy became founder
and vice-principal of a residential school,
worked as professor at the Staff Training
Institute of the Salala Palace in Oman,
and supports gifted students at the
GEAR Innovative International School in
Bangalore.
Connie Phelps,
USA
After teaching grades K-12
general education and
gifted special education
students, Connie Phelps now prepares
gifted facilitators to teach diverse
PK-12 gifted learners. Since 2004, she
has served as the Gifted, Talented, and
Creative Program Director at Emporia
State University. An endowed professor
recognized for impact on students,
she has prepared several hundred
gifted facilitators in Kansas for PK-12
endorsements and graduate degrees.
Julia Link Roberts,
USA
Julia Link Roberts is the
Mahurin Professor of
Gifted Studies and the
Executive Director of The Center for
Gifted Studies and The Carol Martin
Gatton Academy of Mathematics and
Science in Kentucky. She is an active
advocate for gifted children at the state,
national, and international levels. For
her advocacy work, she received the
very first David W. Belin Advocacy Award
from the National Association for Gifted
Children (NAGC) in 2001. Dr. Roberts is
a leader in gifted education serving on
the boards of the Kentucky Association
for Gifted Education and The Association
for the Gifted (a division of the Council
for Exceptional Children); and she is
President of the World Council for Gifted
and Talented Children. She is chairperson
of The Kentucky Advisory Counsel for
Gifted Education.
Michelle Ronksley-Pavia,
Australia
Michelle Ronksley-Pavia
is a lecturer and Griffith
Institute for Educational
Research Adjunct Research Fellow at
Griffith University, Australia. RonksleyPavia
has an international profile as a
leading researcher and expert in gifted
education and twice-exceptionality.
Ronksley-Pavia’s expertise as a leader in
the field of twice-exceptional research
and advocacy has recently been
recognized by the Bridges 2e Center for
Research and Professional Development.
Bruce M. Shore,
Canada
Bruce M. Shore is
Emeritus Professor of
Educational Psychology
at McGill University. He served as
Department Chair, McGill Association
of University Teachers President, and
Dean of Students. His research has
explored inquiry-based instruction and
exceptionally able students’cognitive
and social thinking, generating 14 books,
more than 200 other written items, and
over 300 presentations and workshops.
His involvement with gifted students
began as a mathematics teacher and
continues as Advisor to the McGill
Chapter of the Golden Key International
Honour Society and Secretary of Golden
Key’s International Leadership Council.
An elected Fellow of the American
Educational Research Association, he
attended the first World Conference on
Gifted and Talented Children, is a World
Council founding member, chaired the
4th World Conference, and has been
a Delegate and Executive Committee
Secretary.
Kayla Steffens,
USA
Kayla is working toward
her doctorate degree in
Curriculum and Instruction
with a specialization in gifted education
at the Morgridge College of Education,
University of Denver. She holds a BA in
Psychology and Sociology, and an MA in
Curriculum and Instruction specializing
in secondary mathematics education,
gifted education, and culturally and
linguistically diverse education. Currently,
Kayla works as a middle school math
teacher, volunteers as a Regional Director
with Destination Imagination, serves
20
Eleonoor van Gerven,
Netherlands
Eleonoor van Gerven
is director of Slim!
Educatief, a private teacher
education institute in The Netherlands.
She specialized in teacher education,
gifted education, and the systemic
change- and solution-focused approach.
She developed the competency matrix
for specialists in gifted education and
a framework for assessing teacher
competencies in gifted education. She
developed the post-graduate courses
Specialist in Gifted Education and the
Specialist in Educating Twice Exceptional
Learners, which are both accredited by
the Dutch Society for Higher Education.
Eleonoor van Gerven is the current chair
of the Educational Insights Group.
Mantak Yuen,
Hong Kong
Mantak Yuen, PhD, is
Associate Professor and
Director of the Laboratory
and Program in Creativity and Talent
Development, Centre for Advancement in
Inclusive and Special Education, Faculty
of Education, the University of Hong
Kong. Yuen is the leader of the Master of
Education program in Gifted Education
and Talent Development. He served as
the Director of the Doctor of Education
Program (2015-2019).
as a board member of SoMe CAGT,
the South-Metro Affiliate of Colorado
Association for Gifted and Talented,
and was appointed to serve on the
Colorado Gifted Education State Advisory
Committee. Kayla Steffens serves as
a graduate assistant supporting the
work of the committee chair, Dr. Norma
Hafenstein.
Margaret Sutherland,
Scotland
Margaret Sutherland
is a professor at the
University of Glasgow,
Scotland, and a Fellow of the Royal
Society of Arts. She is the Director of
Partnerships, Communication and
External Engagement and of the Scottish
Network for Able Pupils. She has 40
years teaching experience in schools
and higher education. She has written in
the field of gifted education and is the
author of a number of academic papers,
chapters, and books on the subject.
She serves on the editorial board of the
Korean Journal of Educational Policy,
Journal for the Education of the Gifted
and Talent, formally known as the Turkish
Journal of Giftedness and Education. She
is a member of the editorial advisory
board for the Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs, the British
Journal of Special Education and Support
for Learning.
Rachel Zorman,
Israel
Rachel Zorman has been
the executive director
of the Szold Institute
since 2008. The institute enhances
Israeli education and social services via
research, evaluation and implementing
training and innovative intervention
programs. Zorman received her PhD
in special education from Columbia
University, NY.
WCGTC Executive
Committee Members
21
Julia Link Roberts
President
Mahurin Professor of Gifted Studies,
Executive Director of The Center for Gifted Studies,
Executive Director of the Carol Martin Gatton
Academy of Mathematics and Science
Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, KY
Eleonoor van Gerven
Member
Managing Director
Slim! Educatief
Almere, Netherlands
Leonie Kronborg
Vice President
Senior Lecturer/Coordinator of Postgraduate
Studies in Gifted Education
Monash University
Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Anies al Hroub
Member
Associate Professor of Educational
Psychology & Special Education
American University of Beirut
Beirut, Lebanon
Tracy Riley
Secretary
Professor and Dean,
Research
Massey University
Palmerston North, New Zealand
Sue Prior
Member
Prior Learning
Hong Kong, China
Margaret Sutherland
Treasurer
Professor and Director of Communications,
Partnerships and External Relations
University of Glasgow
Glasgow, Scotland
Tyler Clark
Executive Administrator
World Council for Gifted and
Talented Children,
The Center for Gifted Studies
Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, KY
World Council for Gifted
and Talented Children
Endorsed by: