The success of gifted learners and gifted programs in public schools depends upon principals who are well versed in the needs of gifted learners (Gallagher and Gallagher, 1994). Principal leadership in setting direction, developing people, and redesigning the organization influences teaching and student achievement in schools (Leithwood et al., 2004). Research indicated limited knowledge of the unique social-emotional and academic needs of the gifted learner contributing to underachievement and underrepresentation in gifted education (Lewis, et al., 2007; Reis and McCoach, 2000; Rimm, 2008; Siegle and McCoach 2003). The purpose of this Delphi study was to identify principal leadership practices that are effective in supporting gifted learners and gifted programs. Empirical data collection included three Delphi rounds, one open and two-structured principal leadership practices surveys, one included individual and panel ratings. Supervisors of gifted, principals, and university professors represented multiple regions across the Commonwealth of Virginia on the Delphi panel. By consensus, the Delphi panel identified 10 highly effective principal leadership practices, eight to support gifted learners and two for gifted programs. The highly effective principal leadership practices addressed social-emotional, curriculum, teacher differentiation, scheduling for staff collaboration, peer grouping, and selecting gifted cluster teachers. Implications for practice included teacher reluctance to differentiate, targeted professional development for principals and teachers of gifted students, professional learning community for teachers to analyze practices, and district and school opportunities in hiring, acceleration, and compacting curriculum (Urlik, 2017; Weber et al. 2003). Future research recommended studying implementation and impact of the 10 highly effective principal leadership practices in this study, gifted programs, and professional development in gifted education and principal and teacher preparation programs. / Doctor of Education / The purpose of this study was to identify principal leadership strategies that experts in the field of education thought were effective in supporting gifted learners and gifted programs. The experts included: school principals, supervisors of gifted programs, and university professors from three regions in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The experts in the study were from: Northern Virginia, Central Virginia, and the Tidewater Region. All the experts had knowledge and experience working with gifted students and gifted programs. Essentially, it is important for school principals to provide instructional support to all groups of students which should include gifted learners (Gallagher and Gallagher, 1994). The research technique involved the Delphi Method which used three rounds of questionnaires to receive input from the panel of experts. Yousef (2007) determined that the Delphi Method provided an opportunity for a panel of experts to handle a complex problem without being in the same location. By consensus, the expert panel identified 10 highly effective principal leadership practices, eight to support gifted learners and two for gifted programs. The eight highly effective leadership practices included practices such as: principals providing feedback to teachers, principals ensuring gifted students get their social emotional needs met, principals modeling a good attitude toward gifted students and avoiding special treatment remembering that gifted students are very sensitive in nature. Additional highly effective principal leadership practices in support of gifted learners were to have principals ensure that teachers provide something different instructionally in the classroom for gifted learners such as being able to move at a faster pace through the curriculum, work independently and or work in small groups if appropriate. The two highly effective principal leadership practices in support of gifted programs determined that principals select teachers of gifted students with the same care as they would regular education and special education teachers. The second highly effective principal leadership practice meant principals should ensure gifted learners are receiving a different curriculum and students’ strengths and areas of growth are the focus.

The central research question is the extent to which gifted programming affects student academic outcomes of gifted as compared to not-gifted students and how this differs by race/ethnicity and/or poverty status. Since the identification of elementary school students as gifted is not random, propensity score matching is used to remove this bias in the estimates of the effects. A matched sample of North Carolina middle school students based on individual level data of both gifted and not-gifted students of varied racial/ethnic groups and income levels is used for this analysis. This enables a comparison of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade student achievement to determine the extent to which participating in gifted programming differentiates effects by race/ethnicity and poverty status. I show the additional test score gain, if any, from being in gifted programming compared to students not participating in gifted programs. Variations in gifted program effects across race/ethnicity and income are assessed. This research adds empirical evidence to the more qualitatively focused gifted debate by analyzing differences in student outcomes between gifted and not-gifted students in North Carolina. Since black and lower income students are less likely to participate in gifted programs, they disproportionately encounter less experienced teachers, lower expectations, and fewer resources. The extent to which these additional learning supports translate to differences in student outcomes are analyzed.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to gather data from a variety of sources including teachers, special education directors, and the state director of gifted education to determine what gifted programs and or strategies are currently being offered in the selected schools and to explore emerging strategies in the education of intellectually gifted students in the Bristol Tennessee School System, Johnson City School System, Kingsport City School System, Sullivan County School System, and Washington County School System. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. The findings were presented relative to the research questions. While the education provided to intellectually gifted students in Upper East Tennessee is varied, the options for educational programming and instructional strategies are modeled after the suggested programming options and instructional strategies mentioned in the research literature by prominent experts in the field of gifted education. The use of these options and strategies varied from system to system and sometimes from school to school. Although the education for the intellectually gifted student in Tennessee is mandated under the umbrella of special education, programs are often based on financial support from the various systems. Recommendations include continuing an emphasis on differentiating the curriculum to provide academic challenges beyond the regular classroom, providing opportunities for increased instructional time, and garnering the support of educational administrators.

Gifted adolescents who experienced a randomized lottery process to continue attending their school are the focus of this study. For more than 10 years, sixth-grade students at a Northern California school for gifted students have participated in a lottery process to continue attending their school for seventh and eighth grades. This study describes the reflections of nine lottery participants, and the social and emotional effects that a school lottery has on adolescents. The student perspectives were gained through in-person interviews and participants’ written impressions. Stress and anxiety were commonly endured by all participants. The study explores other effects such as reliance on support networks consisting of friends, families and teachers for social and emotional well-being.

The central research question is the extent to which gifted programming affects student academic outcomes of gifted as compared to not-gifted students and how this differs by race/ethnicity and/or poverty status. Since the identification of elementary school students as gifted is not random, propensity score matching is used to remove this bias in the estimates of the effects. A matched sample of North Carolina middle school students based on individual level data of both gifted and not-gifted students of varied racial/ethnic groups and income levels is used for this analysis. This enables a comparison of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade student achievement to determine the extent to which participating in gifted programming differentiates effects by race/ethnicity and poverty status. I show the additional test score gain, if any, from being in gifted programming compared to students not participating in gifted programs. Variations in gifted program effects across race/ethnicity and income are assessed. This research adds empirical evidence to the more qualitatively focused gifted debate by analyzing differences in student outcomes between gifted and not-gifted students in North Carolina. Since black and lower income students are less likely to participate in gifted programs, they disproportionately encounter less experienced teachers, lower expectations, and fewer resources. The extent to which these additional learning supports translate to differences in student outcomes are analyzed.

The central research question is the extent to which gifted programming effects student academic outcomes of gifted as compared to not-gifted students and how this differs by race/ethnicity and/or poverty status. Since the identification of elementary school students as gifted is not random, propensity score matching is used to remove this bias in the estimates of the effects. A matched sample of North Carolina middle school students based on individual level data of both gifted and not-gifted students of varied racial/ethnic groups and income levels is used for this analysis. This enables a comparison of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade student achievement to determine the extent to which participating in gifted programming differentiates effects by race/ethnicity and poverty status. I show the additional test score gain, if any, from being in gifted programming compared to students not participating in gifted programs. Variations in gifted program effects across race/ethnicity and income are assessed. This research adds empirical evidence to the more qualitatively focused gifted debate by analyzing differences in student outcomes between gifted and not-gifted students in North Carolina. Since black and lower income students are less likely to participate in gifted programs, they disproportionately encounter less experienced teachers, lower expectations, and fewer resources. The extent to which these additional learning supports translate to differences in student outcomes are analyzed.