Self-contained classrooms bring together gifted students full time with a teacher who is specifically trained to meet their advanced learning needs. This model is designed for students who require a consistent level of challenge that exceeds what can reasonably be provided in the general education setting.
Because all students in the classroom are working at advanced levels, teachers can adjust pacing, depth, and complexity without the constraints of whole-class grade-level instruction (though even among a classroom full of gifted students, teachers must still differentiate). Curriculum can be compacted, enriched, and accelerated across all subjects. Many self-contained gifted programs incorporate problem-based learning, interdisciplinary studies, creative thinking tasks, and opportunities for independent investigations.
Self-contained gifted classrooms create a community of intellectual peers where students can feel understood, challenged, and supported. For many students, this environment improves motivation, engagement, and self-concept related to learning. It can also provide important social-emotional benefits for students who thrive when surrounded by peers with similar interests and thinking patterns.
However, this model requires thoughtful student selection processes, ongoing evaluation, and skilled teachers. Schools must ensure that placement decisions reflect readiness and need rather than parental pressure or perceptions of prestige. Additionally, the curriculum must remain dynamic so that gifted students continue to experience meaningful growth rather than simply being “busy” with enrichment. Self-contained classrooms can be a viable gifted programming option for students who demonstrate consistently advanced mastery across subjects (see this link to an abstract about a study done on this service model).
I used to teach self-contained gifted students in a gifted magnet school and in a school-within-a-school model (SWS). It truly was an amazing teaching and learning environment! A big downside to this service option is the cost of the program. Having a separate magnet school full of self-contained gifted students is expensive. It is also expensive in a SWS model since the gifted teacher often does not teach all subjects for the grade level; many models like this provide self-contained gifted classes for math and/or English, for example.
In any event, what do you think about self-contained gifted classes as a delivery of service model? Share you ideas in the comments below! ~Ann
Cluster grouping is an intentional placement strategy that groups several gifted or high-ability students together in the same general education classroom. This approach ensures that advanced learners have academic peers, while also giving the classroom teacher the opportunity to plan deeper, more challenging instruction for a group rather than an isolated student.
When cluster grouping is implemented well, students benefit from intellectual peers who share similar readiness levels, interests, and learning pace. This creates opportunities for higher-level discussions, enriched collaborative work, and more sophisticated problem-solving experiences. For the classroom teacher, it also provides efficiency. Instead of trying to differentiate for only one advanced learner, the teacher can design targeted extensions, compact curriculum, or flexible groups that serve several students at once.
A critical factor in successful cluster grouping is teacher training. The teacher assigned to the cluster group should have strong skills in differentiation, curriculum planning, and gifted pedagogy. Without this preparation, cluster grouping can devolve into simple placement without meaningful instructional change.
Schools also need to update clusters annually to reflect student growth, new identification data, and shifting readiness levels. A static cluster model can disadvantage newly emerging advanced learners or misrepresent students whose needs have changed.
Cluster grouping works best as part of a larger continuum of gifted services. It offers a strong foundation within the general classroom, yet students may still require additional enrichment, pull-out instruction, or acceleration depending on their individual needs.
There is a great article at ASCD where you can learn more about cluster grouping as a service model for gifted learners.
My division uses cluster grouping and differentiation as our two basic gifted service models K-12. How about your division? What insights about cluster grouping with gifted students can you share in the comments below? ~Ann
Push-in services bring gifted education support directly into the general education classroom. In this model, a gifted specialist collaborates with the classroom teacher to provide targeted instruction, enrichment, or extensions for advanced learners without removing them from the core learning environment. This approach promotes access, inclusion, and responsiveness to student needs throughout the school day.
Effective push-in models depend on strong co-planning. The gifted specialist and classroom teacher work together to analyze student readiness levels, compact curriculum where appropriate, and design differentiated tasks that challenge advanced learners. This can include flexible grouping, tiered assignments, advanced questioning, or targeted mini-lessons. Because the support occurs within the regular classroom, it reinforces the idea that gifted students deserve appropriate learning opportunities during core instruction, not only as an add-on or separate enrichment activity.
One advantage of push-in services is their potential to support talent development beyond identified students. When teachers receive modeling and coaching from the gifted specialist, the overall instructional environment becomes more responsive to a broad range of learners. This builds teacher capacity and strengthens equitable access to advanced learning opportunities.
Push-in services must be planned thoughtfully to ensure that gifted learners are truly challenged. If the gifted specialist is used as an extra pair of hands instead of a specialized instructor, students may not receive the advanced learning experiences they need. Therefore, clear role definitions, consistent scheduling, and a shared understanding of gifted pedagogy are essential.
I love the push-in model as a way to have what I like to say: “Boots on the ground, eyes on kids.” Push-in allows the gifted resource teacher to serve gifted students, advanced students, and ALL students in the classroom.
What do you think about the push-in model for gifted students? Share your ideas in the comments below! ~Ann
Pull-out programs remain one of the most widely recognized service models for gifted learners. In this approach, students leave the general education classroom for a designated period each week to work with a gifted education specialist. The goal is to provide enriched instruction that extends beyond grade-level expectations and nurtures students’ strengths, interests, and advanced thinking skills.
A strong pull-out program creates an environment where gifted students can engage in complex problem-solving, creative thinking tasks, interdisciplinary explorations, and accelerated learning experiences. Because the instruction is tailored to deeper levels of understanding, students often report feeling energized by the chance to collaborate with like-minded peers. This sense of belonging is an important element of meeting gifted students’ social and emotional needs.
A key strength of pull-out programs is their flexibility. Schools can design them to include content extensions, compacted curriculum, project-based investigations, or domain-specific enrichment. When implemented well, the pull-out experience complements the student’s general classroom instruction rather than replacing it. This requires strong communication between the gifted specialist and classroom teacher to ensure alignment and avoid gaps or unnecessary repetition.
However, effectiveness depends on thoughtful scheduling, clear curricular goals, and the expertise of the gifted specialist. Without these foundations, pull-out programs can become isolated experiences that do not integrate seamlessly with the broader school program. When structured intentionally, they can offer a valuable layer within a continuum of gifted service options.
Hello, teachers and parents! I recently wrapped up my series on the National Association for Gifted Children’s Annual Convention Session Reviews. Before that, I published a fifteen-part series on gifted identification. Now I am ready to move into the next logical topic: Delivery of Service.
Identification and service delivery must work hand-in-hand. A school division’s identification system should reflect the gifted program it offers, and those programs are defined by the services they provide. Ideally, the service model should guide the identification process. However, I wanted to begin with gifted identification because it is essential to understand what giftedness means and how we recognize advanced potential before exploring how we support it.
Over the next several weeks, I will walk through ten of the most widely used service delivery models in gifted education. Many divisions blend multiple approaches, and that flexibility can work beautifully when it is intentional and aligned. I am excited to dive into these models with you and unpack what makes each one effective.
To start the conversation, I would love to hear from you. What service delivery model does your school division use, and what is one positive attribute of that approach? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Today I got to watch one of my Gifted & Talent Development Resource Teachers defend her dissertation (she passed!). Her dissertation explored the talent development journeys of students preparing for careers in aviation. Grounded in Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), her work examined how real learners move from early interest to emerging competence. While the study centered on future pilots, the lessons extend to every content area and every student with potential waiting to be developed.
One of the strongest messages from the study is that talent begins with discovery and access. Students first become interested in a domain when they encounter an experience that lights a spark or when an adult opens a door. Gagne’s model reminds us that natural abilities are only the starting point. What matters most is how opportunities, environments, and people shape those abilities over time.
Mentoring surfaced as one of the most powerful catalysts for growth. Effective mentors validated students’ thinking, taught them how to approach problems, expanded their network, and suggested next steps. In DMGT terms, mentors act as key catalysts who help transform raw interest into growing talent. This applies across all subjects. When young people have adults who invest in them, their confidence and competence accelerate.
Another lesson is the importance of belonging. Students thrive when they feel welcomed, represented, and supported within a domain. Without belonging, even strong motivation can falter. Creating inclusive learning environments is not an extra. It is a core condition for talent to flourish.
The students also emphasized that abilities are learned– there was no such thing as innate flying ability. Progress came from practice, guidance, and repeated exposure to challenging tasks. Barriers such as confidence, time, and financial constraints affected pacing, but growth continued when support systems remained steady.
For educators, the takeaway is clear. Talent development requires intentional relationships, meaningful experiences, integrated learning, and access to real-world contexts. When we understand talent as a long-term developmental process, not a fixed trait, we create more pathways for students to discover who they can become.
These lessons from my teacher’s study reinforce that talent development can be a truly powerful model for student growth in their passion area. Do you have examples from your school division of students growing along the talent development trajectory? Let us know in the comments below! ~Ann
My mentor and international gifted education guru, Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska
Wow! I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed going through all of my notes from the 2025 NAGC Annual Convention to create the 12 session reviews I’ve been posting for the past 2 weeks or so. Writing them brought everything I learned at the convention into clear focus, and this process helped me decide on the takeaways that I must share with my staff. Some of the big ones are:
My school division is on the right track with using MTSS to serve talent development and gifted education (see MTSS, IEPs, and AI and Leveraging MTSS).
My favorite moment from #NAGC25 was seeing my mentor and favorite professor ever- Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska! She taught me gifted classes at William & Mary back when I did my Master’s degree in Elementary Education with my endorsement in Gifted Education, mentored me for 14 years through several of my gifted teaching jobs, then taught me again for my Doctorate in Gifted Education Administration before she retired (I’ll have to share the story one day of how she convinced me to finally apply for my doctorate). Anyway, I was in a session right next door to hers, and as soon as the session ended, I scooted right over into the room in which she was presenting and waited on the side for the throng of people to drift away from her. She happened to look to the side, saw me, and her face lit up and she said, “Annie!” It was wonderful to get to see her and to catch up just a bit. Hopefully, you can see the joy on my face in the picture above. Well, I hope that this Gifted Education Conference review series was meaningful for you and that you, too, had some takeaways from the information I shared. Was it? Is there something you learned from my review that you’d like to discuss? If so, please add your thoughts in the comments below. I can’t wait to read them! ~Ann
This year at NAGC25, I had the privilege of presenting alongside Dr. Kimberly Beckerdite from Newport News Public Schools (VA) and Esther Gencheva from Baltimore City Public Schools (MD) on a topic that is both urgent and energizing: how intentional Talent Development practices can expand access to gifted services for students who are too often overlooked. Our three districts represent different contexts, from suburban to large urban systems, yet we share a commitment to one central idea: Talent is universal, but opportunity is not. When schools create structured, research-informed systems that nurture early potential, more students are able to show what they know and can do.
We opened with a simple truth drawn from the work of Del Siegle and colleagues: before talent can grow, students must have authentic opportunities to demonstrate strengths (see article). This means moving beyond a narrow view of giftedness and giving all students opportunities to do challenging things. Effective talent development involves purposeful exposure to challenging higher order thinking skills (such as Harvard’s Project Zero Thinking Routines), hands-on tasks, and high quality discussions that activate strengths that standardized tests alone may miss.
Across Baltimore City, Newport News, and Williamsburg-James City County, our teams have some talent development strategies in common for our K-2 students such as conducting Talent Development Push-In Lessons and providing robust teacher training in gifted characteristics and ways to nurture talent. Another talent development strategy we all had in common was utilizing the Legends of Learning Analogies Program to teach our students analogical thinking skills. This program has hands-on activities and digital game-based experiences that allow students to think critically, solve problems, and show growth from pre-to-post tasks involving verbal, non-verbal, and quantitative analogies. The data has been powerful. For example, Newport News saw seventy-two students qualify for gifted services after using the program, with ninety-five students moving on to the next round, all from Title I schools. Baltimore City continues to use the Legends of Learning Analogy Program to raise identification rates by providing direct support to schools with the lowest representation. In my small school division, early data from our two Talent Development schools will help us refine talent development instruction and strengthen our gifted identification process through triangulated evidence.
Each of our divisions is now expanding its talent development work by:
Providing more training for teachers.
Supporting more intentional Tier I rigor in all classrooms.
Teaching more integration of clear thinking routines.
Committing to more support for families.
Talent Development is not a program. It is a mindset. When schools commit to nurturing early strengths, more students begin to shine. If you attended our session, thank you for joining the conversation. Share in the comments what you thought about our work so far. If you would like our handouts or want to learn more, feel free to reach out to me. The work is worth it because our students are worth it! ~Ann
Felicia Dixon, PhD (Ball State University) and Todd Kettler, PhD (Baylor University) started this session with a reminder: in our work with gifted adolescents, our role is not to teach students what to think, but how to think. To help achieve this goal, Dr. Kettler offered a bold redefinition of secondary gifted education due to the pressures of college readiness, equity, and AI integration. His idea is called the “Dynamic Talent Pathways (DTP) Framework.” At its core is a belief that excellence and innovation are complementary, not competing- excellence reflects depth, rigor, sustained growth, and flourishing; innovation introduces new tools, structures, and partnerships that expand access to that excellence. The model merges talent development frameworks with the science of exceptional performance to re-envision secondary gifted education.
The Dynamic Talent Pathways Framework
This model pushes us beyond identification, static gifted labels, and serving gifted students toward developmental trajectories: Potential → Competence → Mastery → Domain Expertise → Exceptional Performance. The guiding question becomes: How do we move students along this pathway?
There are five theoretical frameworks upon which DTP is built:
Giftedness in adolescence begins as early potential within specific domains, but potential alone is not enough. Talent emerges when that potential is systematically developed into competence, expertise, and a growing commitment to a field. This means secondary gifted education must focus not only on performance but on identity formation. Students need opportunities to see themselves as mathematicians, writers, scientists, and creators engaged in meaningful work. When adolescents begin to internalize these identities, they gain a sense of purpose and long-term motivation that supports continued growth.
Contextual and Ecological Talent Development
Because talent is contextual, its development depends on the ecosystem that surrounds each learner. Growth is nurtured within interconnected systems that include family, school, peer networks, community partners, and broader cultural influences. Secondary schools play a critical role as ecosystem architects by designing environments, pathways, and relationships that help students move from potential toward expertise. When these supports align, students experience the kind of sustained challenge and encouragement that allows their abilities and identities to truly flourish.
Three Interwoven Strands of Talent Development
The DTP Framework is built on three mutually reinforcing strands:
1. Cognitive Mastery Acceleration, differentiated curriculum, inquiry-based learning, seminars, dual enrollment, mentorships, and independent research all strengthen domain-specific understanding. Metacognition and self-regulation become non-negotiable skills.
2. Creative Production Students engage in authentic problem-solving through design labs, innovation challenges, artistic residencies, and research projects. Assessment focuses on creative contribution rather than standardized measures.
3. Identity and Purpose Formation Through reflection, narrative work, advisory seminars, and mentoring, students connect talent to purpose and ethical engagement. Portfolios track their evolving intellectual and personal growth.
A key tool: Talent Development Plans—living documents co-created with mentors that define domain focus, short- and long-term goals, mentorship connections, and milestone experiences (performances, publications, competitions).
Context Matters: The Ecological Lens
DTP positions talent as something nurtured within nested systems—family, school, peers, community, and culture. Secondary schools function as ecosystem architects, shaping the conditions in which giftedness becomes talent.
Instructional Design & Teacher Roles
Instructionally, the model calls for inquiry and project-based learning, mentorship structures, “talent incubators,” and developmental (growth-oriented) assessment. Teachers become Talent Scouts, Learning Designers, and Developmental Mentors, supported by professional development in metacognition, affective needs, scaffolding, and creative problem-solving.
What This Means for Schools
Expected outcomes include expanded excellence, sustained engagement, equitable access, and purposeful contribution. It also invites us to rethink programs: moving away from rigidity, allowing mastery-based credit in non-strength areas, building micro-accelerations in elementary, and, above all else, prioritizing student flourishing over course collecting.
A Future-Focused Vision
The future of secondary gifted education lies in local collaboration, hybrid learning environments, data-informed talent development, and new ways of defining professional expertise. Most of all, it lies in creating conditions where gifted adolescents don’t just achieve- they thrive.
I found this presentation to be exactly what I needed to hear as my division looks at redesigning gifted programming, K-12. Therefore, this was my 3rd favorite session of NAGC25!
What do you think about Dr. Kettler’s model for secondary gifted programming? Share your thoughts in the comments below. I’d love to hear from you! ~Ann
P.S. By the way, in case you don’t know, Dr. Felicia Dixon is the mother of secondary gifted education! She is the primary editor of The Handbook of Secondary Gifted Education, with the 3rd edition coming out any day now!
One of the biggest challenges in gifted education is not simply designing strong services- it’s building the shared understanding and buy-in needed to make those services work. This session offered a powerful, practical roadmap for aligning Talent Development to MTSS (Multi-Tiered Systems of Support) so schools can support advanced learners equitably and coherently.
What Is MTSS?
MTSS is a system of supports using data-based decision making to ensure a high-quality education for all students (I love this definition of MTSS)! And it does far more than deliver interventions:
It coordinates how academic, behavioral, and SEL systems fit together.
It ensures equitable access to challenge, support, and acceleration.
Where to Start? With the Zone of Proximal Development (for information about ZPD, click here)
If our goal is to maximize growth of our gifted and advanced students, we must ask two essential questions:
Where should advanced learners spend most of their time? In their Zone of Proximal Development, working at the edge of their current competence with appropriate challenge.
Where do they actually spend most of their time? Too often below their readiness level, repeating mastered content or waiting for the rest of the class.
MTSS and Talent Development help close this gap by structuring challenge, support, and opportunity intentionally across a schoolwide system.
Building the Buy-In
A strong system begins with shared clarity and shared responsibility. The presenters cited Tamra Stambaugh, who emphasized that a robust continuum of services is essential, and it must be both horizontal and vertical. Horizontal services ensure that students have a range of opportunities and supports within their current grade level, while vertical services create an articulated path from one level to the next so students don’t lose momentum during transitions. Both dimensions depend on clear, written plans that are understood and embraced across the school community. A continuum matters because students’ learning and developmental needs vary widely, and without a thoughtful structure, we risk mismatching students with services. When done well, a continuum allows us to intentionally align environments, experiences, and supports so every learner can grow at the appropriate pace and depth.
Why Apply MTSS to Advanced Learning?
Districts increasingly recognize that MTSS is ideal for supporting advanced learners because:
It’s a model familiar to educators and leaders.
It frames challenge as a shared, schoolwide enterprise rather than the job of one gifted teacher.
It prioritizes an asset map—what strengths and services already exist in the system and who is responsible for leveraging them.
All students benefit when they have opportunities to explore interests and develop strengths.
Tiers allow for flexibility and equity across readiness levels.
It supports integration of SEL, which is essential for talent development.
The Talent Development Framework and How It Aligns to MTSS
A Talent Development (TD) approach centers on nurturing students’ emerging abilities through domain-focused development, domain-specific growth trajectories, and the understanding that giftedness is something that evolves over time rather than being a fixed trait. It emphasizes deliberately cultivating the psychosocial skills students need to thrive and creating clear pathways that lead toward genuine creative productivity. This approach strengthens MTSS by focusing on developing potential and latent talent, aligning closely with current research on learning, problem-solving, and creativity. Most importantly, TD keeps educators anchored in a strengths-based perspective, especially for underrepresented learners, so that growth for all students becomes both the priority and the expectation.
What Might a Continuum Look Like in Your District?
Dr. Corwith and Dr. Calvert suggested that if we wanted to move to a TD/MTSS continuum in our districts, we should start with looking at our student data to identify students’ relative strengths, readiness levels, and areas needing additional challenge. Then, we can map services to those needs:
Tier I (for ALL): Interest-based learning, strength-based opportunities, embedded enrichment
Tier III: Targeted, intensive services for students with complex or lower-incidence advanced learning needs
Across all tiers: Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) supports that cultivate student agency. Dr. Calvert reminded us that there is no single social-emotional profile for gifted students. Many characteristics commonly attributed to “giftedness” are learned behaviors—perfectionism, for example, is not an inherently gifted trait (Syvia Rimm talks about perfectionism here).
Another suggestion for the TD framework is that malleable psychosocial skills must live in Tier I, so all students learn skills like persistence, collaboration, self-regulation, and intellectual risk-taking.
Dr. Calvert shared the idea that districts should offer differentiated continua of services in multiple areas: Core Instruction, Enrichment, Assessment, and Psychosocial Supports. Here is a the example of the Continuum of Core Instruction he gave:
Range-Finding: How Extensive Should the Continuum Be?
Districts can use assessment data to determine how far services need to stretch and which learners fall within each zone of readiness. This process becomes especially important because gifted students often have “peaky profiles” (meaning that their strengths are uneven rather than uniformly high). For students whose readiness levels sit far beyond what typical grade-level grouping can offer, acceleration should be strongly considered. The presenters referenced Peters (2017) who encourages us to ask whether teachers can effectively serve students functioning more than two years above grade level; when the answer is no, acceleration becomes not just appropriate but necessary.
Differentiation becomes significantly more powerful when paired with the right type of acceleration (see my prior discussion about acceleration in my blog review of the Subject Acceleration session; I discuss some of the forms of acceleration that a school district could use). Subject or whole-grade acceleration does not replace differentiation—it enhances it. One way to think about this is through the idea of ZPD × 2: bringing a student’s zone of proximal development inside the teacher’s “zone of possible differentiation.” When acceleration adjusts the starting point, differentiation can operate more effectively and responsively.
Conclusion: Challenges and Opportunities
Implementing a Talent Development approach within MTSS comes with real challenges. Many educators still view MTSS as a structure designed only for special education, a misconception left over from early Response to Intervention (RtI) models. Teachers often need deeper professional learning to differentiate effectively, and schools require clear, efficient policies to guide academic acceleration. Some divisions may also need to expand the courses they offer or rethink how services are organized so that staff are supported rather than overwhelmed. And the reality is that a single gifted teacher in each building cannot meet every need—distributed teaching and shared responsibility are essential.
At the same time, the TD Framework holds remarkable opportunity. Schools can move away from outdated assumptions such as fixed ability or narrow, stereotypical views of gifted learners. They can shift from relying primarily on pull-out services to embracing more comprehensive, schoolwide talent development practices. Families can see that updated service models actually expand opportunities for advanced learning rather than reduce them. Diverse schools, especially those previously disadvantaged under NCLB-era accountability structures, can finally demonstrate the depth of student growth that traditional measures often missed. Most importantly, schools can build a sustainable, consultative approach that supports every learner in discovering strengths and developing talent.
Final Thoughts
This session was another one of my favorites from the convention. Talent Development is near and dear to my heart, and one of my passion areas in the field of gifted education. When I put together all that I learned from Dr. Corwith’s and Dr. Calvert’s session, it seems clear that implementing Talent Development within an MTSS framework isn’t about adding another initiative (MTSS is typically the way schools “do business” anyway). It’s about reimagining how we cultivate potential across an entire system. When schools commit to a continuum of services, embed psychosocial skill development in Tier I, and leverage acceleration and differentiation strategically, they create environments where advanced learners can thrive. With shared responsibility, clear processes, and strong professional learning, MTSS becomes a powerful pathway for equitable, sustainable, and high-impact gifted education.
Teaching for Talent 