The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

lists, if there are any? Do the students have term examinations? Papers to hand? Is there a
requirement of a final thesis or final examinations? Etc.
The "beliefs and values of what ought to be included in the curriculum" (ibid), probably those
of the interviewed person who, according to the authors, us not an expert in the field of gifted
education curriculum, have established the Israeli system of teacher training for gifted students.
Such a situation is probably possible when the belief in the advantages of special training for
teachers of the gifted is so strong (Vidergor, 2010), that it has been considered a must for all
individuals teaching in gifted programs since 2005 (Specialization of teachers of gifted students,
2011), even without "curriculum experts" for these programs. No wonder the main finding of the only
quantitative study of the teachers for the gifted training 5 Israeli programs reported:
[…] “the teachers of the gifted in this program [=the enrichment program for the gifted weekly program]
that have not studied in any of the training programs enlarged their knowledge, based on field
experience, similarly to those studies in one of the training programs.” (Vidergor, 2010, p. 9)
These training programs do not actually improve the knowledge of the participants in the
relevant areas. But even when training teachers for teaching the gifted is based on existing research
and experience, the role of beliefs in gifted education, and the tendency to treat these beliefs as
truths, is frequently found, as in the Bain et al. (2007) study, with 285 undergraduate students of
education in American colleges. Furthermore, particularly those entering the teaching profession,
hold selected beliefs about the characteristics of giftedness, regardless of the presence or absence
of empirical evidence supporting these perceptions (Bain et al., 2006).
For many years, the author has been persuaded that one of the main reasons for the
resistance so many teachers express to the gifted in general and to special education for the gifted
in particular was a result of their lack of information in the field of gifted education, counseling and
psychology. The author was sure lack of knowledge in gifted education was one of the main causes
of objection to nurturing the gifted. In fact, this conception is still valid among the vast majority of
giftedness experts; many of whom collaborated to write about "19 myths about the gifted" (Gifted
Child Quarterly, 2009). This lack of knowledge regarding didactics for the gifted includes many
misperceptions:
��Equity means that all students must reach the same educational level; gifted children who have
already reached the minimal required level must not get any additional support;
���Society has a duty for its weak members; the gifted are strong and thus do not need any further
support;
���� Nurturing the gifted must be on the account of the weaker children who deserve to get a greater
part of society’s resources.
However, a deeper insight into the literature about the attitude of pre- and in-service
teachers’ attitude toward gifted students, my 15-year experience of teaching gifted education at the
college level, as well as 30 years of parenting my gifted children have made me doubt this
assumption. Let us review some of the literature on this issue.
Carrington and Bailey (2000) studied education students in Australia, comparing their
attitude towards the gifted to that of pre- and in-service training elementary and high school
teachers in the United States, according to Cramond and Martin (1987). The research tool was a
questionnaire and the examinees were asked to rank a range of hypothetical gifted children
according to their desirability as potential students. Both elementary and high school education
students ranked the gifted, studious children at the bottom of the "desirability ladder”, as those they
would want the least to teach. Pre-service education students ranked regular, non-studious students
at the top of desirability, while those intending to teach in high school preferred gifted students who
were not studious. This gives a clear picture, known to many educators: most elementary teachers
prefer not to teach any gifted students. High school teachers, who probably need the gifted in their
classes in order to "show off”, "forgive" the gifted who "supply" them with high achievements,
contributing to their image as good teachers, on one condition: that the gifted would not be
"typical”, meaning to get good grades, but will not invest "too much.” would not ask "bothering
questions" and in short act like non-gifted. If that is the situation among most teachers, the question
is who are the minority more suitable teachers for the gifted.
Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011. 73