Global Principles

for Professional
Learning in
Gifted Education
World Council for Gifted and Talented Children
 1 Letter from the WCGTC President

2 Introduction

3 Global Principles
4 Tiered Content
5 Evidence-Based
6 Holistic
7 Broad

Table of 8 Equitable
8 Comprehensive
9 Integral

Contents 10 Ongoing
10 Sustainable
11 Empowering

Global Principles 12 Call to Action

for Professional 13 References

Learning in 17 Committee Members

Gifted Education 21 Executive Committee Members

Acknowledgements
The WCGTC Executive Committee extends a sincere ■ Dr. Rosemary Cathcart, Dr. Shelagh Gallagher, Dr.
thank you to the following for supporting the work of this Norma Hafenstein, Dr. Michelle Ronksley-Pavia, Dr.
committee: Bruce Shore, and Dr. Margaret Sutherland for their
■ The members of the committee who devoted many participation on the writing team.
hours to sharing perspectives, reading report drafts, and ■ Dr. Shelagh Gallagher for her assistance in compiling and
providing helpful feedback, all in a spirit of collegial editing the document draft.
collaboration.
■ Kayla Steffens and Joi Lin, University of Denver,
■ Dr. Norma Lu Hafenstein, University of Denver, and Graduate Assistants to the Chair, Dr. Hafenstein.
Chair of the WCGTC Global Principles in Professional
Learning in Gifted Education Committee.
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
 World Council for Gifted
and Talented Children

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

1
 Introduction
The new decade has provided stark studies provide evidence that gifted education helps fulfill every child’s
reminders of the need for the world’s students have unique learning needs. right to learn something new every
most able minds to be well-educated. In addition to their need for advanced day. Sometimes a gifted child’s needs
The global pandemic, a warming content, they are more inclined to can be met in the regular classroom
planet, and shifting demographics seek information, create new ideas, by a teacher who understands how to
present unprecedented, complex and engage in sophisticated thinking add challenge through differentiation
problems that require insight, expertise, (S. Gallagher, 2013; Sak, 2004). of curriculum and instruction. Indeed,
creativity, and cross-disciplinary Without appropriately challenging all children benefit when classroom
collaboration. Even in the absence of instruction, gifted students can teachers receive this preparation
dire crises, societal progress is fueled by become disenchanted and disengaged in high-end learning. Other gifted
the innovation and insight of its most from formal education (Kanevsky & students require more intensive
gifted citizens. We all benefit as their Keighley, 2003; Preckel et al., 2010). intervention in the form of acceleration
curiosity and vision move science, art, Research also shows that, in the or specialized programs (Assouline
and culture forward. absence of professional preparation, et al., 2014). Educators leading these
educators lack the knowledge needed efforts need more intensive and
Although we all rely on the
to accurately identify gifted students advanced preparation. The need
contributions of gifted and talented
for acceleration or specialized gifted for professional learning in gifted
adults, educators worldwide
programs; and they do not learn how education is not restricted to teachers.
receive little information about
to use differentiation strategies that For example, guidance counselors,
how to educate gifted and talented
increase the depth and complexity of school psychologists, and other
children. The World Council for
their instruction (Van Tassel-Baska et support personnel need to know how
Gifted and Talented Children Global
al., 2021). to provide gifted and talented students
Principles for Professional Learning
The most devastating loss is among with college and career planning or
in Gifted Education are intended to
gifted students whose advanced abilities social-emotional support, and school
help remedy this pervasive gap in
are masked by poverty, disability, administrators need to understand how
educator preparation by guiding
or cultural biases. Although they to monitor program effectiveness.
policy and practice in professional
might arrive at school eager to learn, The following principles outline
learning about gifted education.
these gifted students are frequently an infrastructure for preparing all
Some might question whether overlooked and undereducated, educators to support gifted children
educators need specific instruction representing a tragic waste of personal in their classrooms across the world,
about gifted students, assuming that potential and human capital. Finding regardless of their educational setting.
these children will be fine on their own. these students while they are young We welcome collaboration with
However, this is a misconception, one and fulfilling their desire to learn both colleagues across education globally to
of several that teachers tend to hold supports social justice and ultimately implement these principles and help
about gifted students in the absence contributes to healthy economies. ensure that all students receive the
of professional learning (Alencar et At the most basic level, providing education they deserve.
al., 2002). In fact, dozens of research universal educator preparation in gifted

2
 Global Principles
for Professional Learning
in Gifted Education
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, and sexual orientations.
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.

3
 Global Principles
Global Principle 1: and complexity, which could take place in different settings,
for instance:
Tiered Content. ■ Short programs with minimal specialization offered by
Comprehensive professional learning programs recognize school districts, education ministries or departments,
that all educators work with gifted students, so all educators colleges, universities, either on-line, by correspondence,
need some degree of professional preparation to support or in-person.
the education and growth of gifted children, although the ■ In-service or other continuing professional education
amount and type of content may vary according to each related to gifted learners, for educators who have already
educator’s role. completed their initial preparation programs.
Every educator works with students who excel and ■ Full-time or part-time education, usually at or in
who have the potential to learn faster or in further depth collaboration with institutions of higher education,
than other children their age. To this extent, every teacher beyond initial teacher preparation with embedded
needs some professional learning about gifted and talented content in gifted education teaching subjects or other
students. However, a regular classroom teacher working with fields (e.g., counseling, psychology, special or inclusive
a broad range of students may not need the same depth or education), or specializing specifically in gifted
breadth of knowledge as a teacher working in a self-contained education.
classroom of gifted students (Aulls & Ibrahim, 2012; Roberts
& Inman, 2015; Tomlinson, et al., 2008). The context where The quantity and content of professional learning
teaching and learning occurs also impacts what professional educators require to meet the needs of their gifted students
knowledge and skills are most relevant for a particular will differ in each context above and will need local
teacher, for example, contrasting large, sparsely resourced, adaptation (Gubbins & Hayden, 2020). Program monitoring
multilevel classes to well-provisioned, modern classrooms and efficacy research should accompany implementation of
and schools (Clark & Shore, 2004). Designers of professional any professional learning plan (Johnsen & Clarenbach, 2019;
learning programs should consider tiers of different depth Parker, 1996; Shore et al., 1991).

4
 ■ Strategies that are effective when discussing gifted
education with others, including parents, school
SAMPLE FRAMEWORK FOR A TIERED leadership, and local education authorities .
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PLAN
Tier 3: Sample content for educators who work
Tier 1: Sample content for all teachers, including regular
exclusively with gifted students including program
classroom teachers, early childhood educators, art and other
coordinators, full-time enrichment specialists serving many
specialty teachers, Special Education Needs Coordinators
grade levels or schools, in self-contained classrooms, or
(SENCos), and school counselors in large school settings:
specialized schools. All information from Tiers 1 and 2, and:
■ Awareness that child development progresses differently ■ Detailed study of the theoretical and research literature
for different children, and curriculum does not define
on giftedness, talent, creativity, including how they are
upper limits for what is expected at a given age or
defined in different cultural contexts.
stage. Gifted students, who are often not challenged by
the regular curriculum even when they excel, require ■ Gifted-education program models and program
adjustments to their academic experiences to ensure they evaluation methods.
learn something new every day. ■ The educational implications of advanced development
■ The characteristics that qualify students for specialized and methods of altering the pace, depth, and/or
gifted education programming, including how giftedness complexity of curriculum and instruction for advanced
manifests differently in different populations, what might learning, including self-regulated learning and how
mask the manifestation of giftedness, and what social- experts work creatively.
emotional supports might be necessary. ■ Specialized knowledge and strategies to support the
■ The basic classroom and school practices that can help social-emotional needs and intensities of gifted learners.
gifted learners, for example, cluster grouping, higher- ■ How to conduct action-research and evaluate the
level questioning, offering above-level curriculum effectiveness of local practices.
materials and assignments, and using available
■ Advanced content knowledge relative to the grade level
technology as a mechanism for differentiation.
they teach.
■ The conditions under which acceleration of different
forms are advisable.

Tier 2: Sample content for teachers of enrichment

programs, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, Global Principle 2:
or International General Certificate of Secondary Education
(IGCSE) classes, school principals. All the Tier 1 information,
Evidence-Based.
and: A quality professional learning program is based on
best-practice and research, including the ways in which gifted
■ Identifying elements in the common curriculum that are
students are uniquely different from other students as a core
especially attractive to and valuable for extremely able
rationale for differentiated services.
learners, as well as how to find or create such curriculum.
Evidence-based professional practice is the gold standard
Methods of instruction that complement advanced
in every field. In the case of gifted education an evidence-
curriculum.
based professional learning program is based both on (a)
■ When and how to access subject-matter specialists to research regarding the nature of gifted and talented students
assist in curriculum planning or to serve as a mentor to a and best practice in the field, and (b) research regarding
student with an interest in a subject that extends beyond best practice in professional learning. Numerous classroom
the school curriculum. practices in gifted education have been shown to be effective
■ The social-emotional and counseling needs of advanced and should be featured in teacher preparation for gifted
students learners (Little, 2017; Miller, 2009; Peters & Jolly, 2018).

5
 Fewer studies address when and how to teach
educators the dispositions and skills that are essential to Global Principle 3:
gifted education (Reid & Horváthová, 2016). Most gifted
teacher-education practices and standards arise from the
Holistic.
Professional learning in gifted education should address the
consideration of expert panels. This provides a rationale
whole child, including academic, social, and emotional needs.
rather than evidence, but a defensible start. The current
All professional learning should focus on the notion
evidence base supports the following observations:
that young people are unique and individual. When
■ In anthologies of research on giftedness, talents, and designing professional learning programs in gifted education,
creativity, none has more than one chapter on teacher- it is important to consider the diverse nature of these
preparation research (e.g., Plucker & Callahan, 2020; learners and what those differences mean for classrooms,
Robinson et al., 2006). learning, instructional strategies, and also the larger life
■ Some individual studies offer valuable steps for of the classroom and school community. This will allow
identifying competencies (e.g., van Gerven, 2021), consideration of all aspects of school life that impact on the
experience, beliefs, or dispositions that enhance teaching learner, including “life-wide and life-long” circumstances
of gifted learners. (Teschers, 2020, p. 77). A holistic view of gifted education
■ One study directly observed changes in teachers’ considers all dimensions of child development.
classroom-practices and compared these to student ■ A whole-child perspective. A professional learning
reports of their classroom experiences. The largest program should encourage teachers to think beyond
teaching change was more student-led work (Hansen & a gifted student’s outstanding cognitive abilities and
Feldhusen, 1994). Results of another study suggested that include the student’s affective needs. Although many
while all forms of professional preparation provide some gifted students are well adjusted, some face special
benefit, university training was most likely to impact social-emotional challenges that result from being gifted
teacher practice (Westberg & Daost, 2003). (Freeman, 2006). These include adjusting to cognitive,
■ Some empirical research reports outcomes to changes creative, or emotional intensity; social adjustment issues;
in attitudes (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011; Vreijs et al., perfectionism; or coping with real or perceived pressure
2017), improvement in equitable identification practices to perform. Some students may be bright but immature
(Gallagher & Gallagher, 2013; Riley et al., 2017) and socially and emotionally (Silverman, 2013) others are
planning for curriculum compacting (Reis & Westberg, socially and emotionally advanced for their years. Some
1994). gifted students have additional exceptionalities, such as
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism,
Evidence-based practice in teacher preparation for gifted or physical differences. All teachers need some level of
education is attainable, but the formal research base needs to information about gifted students’ characteristics and
grow. Perhaps a more productive way to foster building a solid social-emotional needs. Teachers also need to know
evidence base for professional learning in gifted education that academic needs should not be ignored or deferred
would be to focus on accumulating a substantial archive of while meeting social-emotional needs; meeting the needs
case studies of gifted learners, intervention-specific action- of the whole child requires attention to academic and
research reports, and comparisons of teaching practices and social-emotional needs simultaneously (Cathcart, 2020).
learner outcomes. Each practice would benefit from being ■ A whole-school approach. Gifted education should be
contextualized regarding teacher background, instructional integral to individual schools and to the larger school
setting, the evidence base in general education, and system, not an add-on or an afterthought. (see Tiered,
uniqueness or adaptation to learners with different kinds of Integral, Comprehensive).
giftedness. Evidence-based learning that is culturally relevant
makes a difference in prospective teachers’ knowledge about ■ A whole-life view. Professional learning in gifted
teaching gifted students (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2021). education would benefit from considering gifted
learners in terms of their whole lives (Teschers, 2020).

6
 Consider family background, culture, socio-economic ■ Foundations and expressions of gifts and talents. Gifted
status, skills, interests, and abilities, and long term and students tend to share similar cognitive and personality
short-term support needs. It is beneficial to incorporate characteristics (S. Gallagher, 2009); even so, giftedness is
cultural norms and values alongside the wider school expressed in different ways (Subotnik et al., 2011).
drivers to guide and shape gifted education in ways
■ Cultural context. Different cultures may value different
that value and celebrate all learners (e.g., girls, children
knowledge traits and skills. For instance, some cultures
from underrepresented cultural groups, underachievers,
value social constructs and communal expression of
children with disabilities).
ability over individual achievement. These cultural
■ A whole-community endeavor. An effective professional variations may result in different definitions of giftedness.
learning program will help educators consider how gifted
■ Factors that mask giftedness or contribute to
education offers opportunities in and beyond school,
underachievement. Exceptional ability may be masked
including the home environment, the child’s social
or inhibited by numerous barriers, including emotional
world, the wider family and community, and how these
problems, cultural bias, or accompanying exceptionalities
interact and impact on education and gifted education in
(Gilar-Corbi et al., 2019; Siegle, 2018).
particular (see Comprehensive).
■ Identification. Exclusive use of an IQ test as the sole
Professional learning in gifted education should blend method for identification is no longer recommended.
academic, social, emotional, and cultural factors to ensure Professional learning programs should stress a
they come together in unique ways that develop, challenge, holistic view of the child and present the advantages
encourage and support gifted learners in the school context and disadvantages of using different tools including
and across the lifespan. achievement test scores, information from parents and
teachers, behavioral checklists, and samples of student
work as part of identification in addition to IQ scores.
Global Principle 4: Using multiple identification tools should improve

Broad. student access to programs, not create multiple barriers

to programs.
A thorough professional learning program includes ■ Models for differentiating curriculum, instruction,
information about different levels of giftedness, different forms and assessment. A critical examination of the range of
of giftedness, varied methods of identification, different program models that describe gifted students and gifted education
models, and options for curriculum and instruction. so educators can construct their own evidence-based
A common thread running through the principles is understanding of giftedness and how to serve gifted
uniqueness of the learner. It is therefore no surprise that there learners.
is no single presentation of a gifted learner which fits neatly
into the stereotype that many people hold (Matheis, et al, ■ Program structures. Different ways to integrate a
2020). Giftedness manifests itself in different ways, in gifted program into school offerings including cluster
different places, in different degrees, at different times, and grouping, pull-out services, forms of acceleration, and
within or across subject domains. Some gifted children are individualized programs.
high achievers, others have advanced potential but are not School administrators, counselors, and teachers should
high achievers. This diversity requires that professional also understand the diversity of gifted learners, and how
learning opportunities present a variety of perspectives, to respond to their needs by making necessary program
program structures, curriculum models, instructional provisions. Allowing staff time to discuss theoretical and
practices, methods of social-emotional support, and practical issues related to gifted education will build a strong
identification procedures. Educators should be exposed community of educators who are ready and able to respond to
to increasingly broad perspectives about numerous topics gifted learners whom they teach.
as their expertise increases (see Tiered). Among the core
concepts to include are:

7
Global Principle 5: Every teacher who works with gifted students should
understand how to provide all qualified students access to
Equitable. a gifted education program, how to provide educational
opportunities that reflect a variety of perspectives, and how
Professional learning programs in gifted education should
to provide access to social and emotional supports needed
address the needs of students from different racial, cultural,
to stay in the program over time. One critical component of
ethnic and indigenous groups, genders, and sexual orientations.
this goal is for teachers from culturally and ethnically diverse
Recruiting and retaining educators from representative diverse
backgrounds to receive training in gifted education so gifted
backgrounds should be a priority.
students can see them as intellectual and creative leaders in
Gifted students exist among all groups, cultures,
their schools. Increasing the diversity among students and
indigenous groups, genders, sexual orientations, and regions
teachers in gifted education is good for all students, because it
of the world, and they all have a right to an appropriate
increases appreciation for the fact that insight, creativity, and
education. Professional learning plays a pivotal role in
innovation occur among all the world’s peoples.
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.
Global Principle 6:
■ Underrepresentation of gifted children according to Comprehensive.
gender, across diverse cultural groups, and income Many school personnel affect the lives of gifted children,
groups is a global problem that is well-researched directly or indirectly. A plan for professional learning in gifted
and long known in gifted education (Bianco et al., education must therefore include provisions for educating
2011; Wallace & Erikson, 2006). Professional learning administrators, counselors, psychologists, special educators, and
programs should include content about how giftedness others about the needs of gifted students.
may be expressed differently among different groups, When at school, gifted children interact with many
how and why gifted students may mask their giftedness school personnel beyond their classroom; therefore, all school
because of cultural expectations, and other reasons personnel who are directly or indirectly involved with gifted
why giftedness may not be recognized (Henderson & students should be educated and be aware of their needs. A
Jarvis, 2016). Ensuring equitable representation of gifted comprehensive professional learning plan should incorporate
students from all backgrounds is consistent with the aims a whole-school approach to teaching, learning, and
of global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) relative supporting gifted students (Renzulli & Reis, 2014; Robinson
to education (UNESCO, 2015). & Campbell, 2010). A whole-school approach focuses on the
■ Retaining diverse gifted students in a gifted program is as responsibilities of all personnel in the school community,
important as identification. Professional learning should thus, ensuring that gifted students have opportunities to
include discussion about how to modify curriculum and maximize their experiences at school.
instruction to attract and engage these students (Novak ■ A whole-school community understanding, awareness,
et al., 2020). and knowledge about the unique needs of gifted
■ Professional learning programs should actively recruit students will provide an optimized school-wide learning
teachers from diverse backgrounds for advanced environment for gifted students (see Holistic).
preparation in gifted education. Underrepresentation of ■ School administrators are responsible for the success
culturally diverse teachers in gifted education programs of all school programs, including the gifted education
perpetuates stereotypes of gifted students (Morgan, program. They should learn about different program
2019). models, and effective methods for evaluating the success
of a gifted program, especially when the aims of the

8
 program go beyond traditional school content (Callahan learning. Even a self-contained program should be seen as
& Reis, 2004). contributing to the whole school environment. Encourage
■ Gifted students have unique social, emotional and teachers to identify their role in the gifted program (e.g.,
well-being needs. All guidance counselors and school regular classroom differentiation, making referrals, looking
psychologists should understand these needs to support for opportunities to collaborate) and how the gifted program
gifted students at school (Blaas, 2014; Silverman, 2012). connects with their classrooms (see Tiered).
Second, an effective professional learning program
■ As many as one in six gifted students has some form should ensure that content about gifted education is
of learning difference in addition to their giftedness integrated into professional learning opportunities in all
(Ronksley-Pavia, 2020; Silverman, 2012). It is particularly content areas in which advanced programming can and
important for special educators to understand the should occur. As a part of offering a tiered program of
intersection between advanced ability and special needs. professional learning, learning modules in gifted education
A whole-school approach to supporting gifted students would be useful in specialty areas, including:
should focus on the responsibilities of every member of ■ Special Education. Although some gifted students may
the school community, regardless of whether the school also have a specific learning disability, ADHD, autism,
personnel were directly or indirectly involved with gifted or other exceptionalities, special education teachers are
students. 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
Global Principle 7: teachers look for both learning challenges and strengths.

Integral. ■ Career and Technical Education/Vocational Education

and Training. Topics found in vocational paths are
Professional learning should present gifted education in the increasingly sophisticated, including finance, health
context of an entire school program, emphasizing that gifted science, and information technology. Many gifted
students are the responsibility of the whole school community students are attracted to these subjects (Gentry et al.,
and not just the educators charged with specific responsibilities 2007). Teachers specializing in these areas would benefit
for serving gifted students. from knowing how and why to differentiate for gifted
Often, services for gifted students are seen as separate students.
from the general school program, leading to considerable
misunderstanding both about gifted students and about
■ The Arts. Visual and performing arts, music, and creative
writing teachers would benefit from knowing the
the aims of gifted education (Alottey et al., 2020; Matheis
characteristics of gifted students, many of whom pursue
et al., 2017). Classroom teachers report that the absence
artistic interests (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008).
of knowledge about gifted education leaves them feeling
unprepared serve gifted students (Antoun et al., 2020; Rowan Evidence suggests that when teachers receive information
& Townend, 2016). The absence of professional learning about gifted students, their attitudes towards gifted students
exacerbates separation of gifted and regular education and improve (Lassig, 2009) and they make more accurate
leads to misconceptions about how and when to accelerate program referrals to gifted programs (Elhoweris, 2008). A
students or put gifted students in specialized programs gifted program that is integral to the educational offerings
(Sanchez-Escobedo et al., 2020). of a school, district, agency, ministry, or region provides the
There are two ways to see that gifted education services surrounding community with evidence of a commitment to
are seen as integral in schools. First, present gifted education high standards, and benefits everyone by sharing resources
as a part of a continuum of services during professional and strategies that enhance learning for all students.

9
Global Principle 8: access such expertise. Schools need to provide good
record-keeping of staff involvement in professional
Ongoing. learning in gifted education to ensure all staff have
ongoing opportunities to review and improve their
A professional learning plan in gifted education should
knowledge and understanding in this field.
provide ongoing opportunities to refine and extend existing
knowledge and skills through in-service programs and other Local education authorities and schools should
professional learning experiences throughout a career. become aware of the range of opportunities for continuing
Professional learning needs to be an ongoing part professional learning in gifted education, which might
of every teacher’s career, throughout the whole of that include online or in-person university courses, workshops,
career, everywhere in the world (Education International & conferences, visiting speakers, teacher clusters, memberships
UNESCO, 2019). This need applies to professional learning in regional, national, and international associations and/
in gifted education as much as it does to other teaching areas. or access to online media and publications (Stevenson et al.,
There is arguably a case for saying it is even more necessary 2016). Methods that encourage teachers agency around what
in relation to gifted education wherever provision for gifted they learn (Chandra-Handa, 2019) or to learn together in
learners has historically been minimal or absent. An ongoing small groups around mutually agreed upon goals are both
system professional learning should: flexible and effective (Iskandar et al., 2020).
■ Draw upon current and classic research in the field. Finally, a commitment to ongoing professional learning
Professional learning in gifted education needs to in gifted education recognizes that individuals themselves
be well-informed and up to date with the research change over time and are exposed to change in multiple
to provide teachers with guidance and support in ways. Ongoing professional learning should be a process
developing provision for gifted learners (see Evidence- which helps the individual recognize and come to terms with
Based). changes. Ongoing professional learning in gifted education
should be engaging, challenging, and rewarding.
■ 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
Global Principle 9:
learning remains fresh and encouraging for teachers, Sustainable.
inspiring them to try new ideas and supporting them
Professional learning in gifted education should be built
in finding satisfaction in their work with gifted learners
into educational policy of the state, region, province and/
(Wycoff et al., 2003).
or country. Programs should be monitored regularly, and
■ Align with other changes that impact on the classroom accountability systems should be in place. Collaboration
and the teacher’s role within it. Technology is an obvious between all stakeholders–policymakers, school authorities,
example, but there are also changes that can influence community members, higher education faculty, and others–is
teaching in more subtle ways, including changing actively encouraged.
cultural attitudes (see Integral, Holistic). Educational policies often reflect social policy, which
■ Provide goals and rewards. Ongoing learning in “creates the rules and standards by which scarce resources are
professional development should also be achievable. allocated to meet almost unlimited social needs” (J. Gallagher,
Teachers should be able to access quality professional 2002, p. 1). Including professional learning in gifted education
learning in gifted education readily and appropriately in the policies of a state, region, province, or country sends
as needed. Systems need to be in place at local, regional, a message that this preparation has value, and, by extension
and national levels to recognize expert providers of that gifted children are valued. Evidence suggests that
professional learning and to ensure schools can readily educational policies have a direct impact on the availability of

10
opportunities for gifted students (Baker & Friedman-Nimz, (Robinson & Moon, 2003). One outcome of implementing
2004). Global Principles 1-9 should be that gifted students have the
Professional learning in gifted education should be support of not just one, but numerous educators who feel
considered an integral component of larger policies about empowered to work on their behalf at different levels of any
personnel preparation and gifted education. Establishing educational authority. The presence of a champion for gifted
policies around professional development in gifted education education in a school has multiple benefits, including more
will help ensure a systemic approach to developing and equitable and accurate identification.
maintaining professional learning in gifted education. Sample Empowered educators successfully engage with others
policy provisions would establish: to create support systems for a specific group who have
■ Clear professional learning requirements for all unmet needs. To become empowered supporters of gifted
educational personnel who have contact with gifted students, educational personnel must have the following
students from pre-service education through advanced knowledge, skills, and tools incorporated at some point in
degrees (see Tiered, Comprehensive) their professional learning:

■ Standards and goals for professional learning designed by ■ Access to evidence-based information about the unique
qualified personnel within the appropriate region, state characteristics of gifted students and rationale for
department, or ministry, along with a plan for regular altering educational practice on their behalf.
updates to ensure that standards and goals are based on ■ Knowledge of which messages about gifted education
evidence-based best practice (Kim & Gentry, 2008; also persuade different audiences, including parents,
see Evidence-Based), and help ensure that educators colleagues, and educational agencies and organizations
receive information about special populations of gifted outside of gifted education (Jones & S. Gallagher, 2013).
students (Peters et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2015) ■ Communication skills, including communication
■ A means of monitoring and evaluating professional through social media, to call for support for their gifted
learning opportunities to ensure programs are up to date. program specifically and for gifted education generally.
■ Tangible support for professional development programs, ■ Access and opportunity to participate in professional
including funding. organizations for gifted education at the local, national,
and international level. Many of these organization have
If professional learning in gifted education is to become advocacy tools to help deliver effective messages.
an enduring feature of educational policy, then it must
be closely woven into those components of larger school ■ For teachers seeking advanced knowledge or degrees (see
policies that reflect educational values. Achieving enduring Tiered), how to access or form leadership cadres who can
professional learning in gifted education requires deliberate work together to make coordinated efforts to advance
thought and planning at each level of the education system. gifted education by influencing educational, civic, or
governmental entities (Maier, 1993).

Despite decades of effort, the notion that gifted students

Global Principle 10: exist and have different educational needs receives very

Empowering. different reception country by country or even region by

region. Gifted students continue to need adults who are
Professional learning in gifted education should prepare willing and able to step forward and effect change in their
educators to be effective supporters, promoting gifted students school, region, state, or nation for the benefit of the children,
and the services they require. and the entire world.
Gifted students—especially disadvantaged or other
hard-to-find gifted students—benefit from having a champion

11
 Call to Action
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 high-
quality, 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.

HOW TO BEGIN 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 [email protected] for more information.

12
 References
INTRODUCTION Sak, U. (2004). A Synthesis of research Parker, J. P. (1996). NAGC Standards
on psychological types of gifted for Personnel Preparation in Gifted
Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. D. S., &
adolescents. Journal of Secondary Education: A brief history. Gifted Child
Blumen, S. (2002). Trends in gifted
Gifted Education, 15(2), 70–79. https:// Quarterly, 40(3), 158-161. https://doi.
education in South America: The
doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-449 org/10.1177/001698629604000307
Brazilian and Peruvian scenario. Gifted
and Talented International, 17(1), 7-12. VanTassel-Baska, J., Hubbard, G. F., & Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F., (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.20 Robbins, J. I. (2020). Differentiation Strategies for differentiating
02.11672980 of instruction for gifted learners: instruction: Best practices for the
Collated evaluative studies of teacher classroom (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Assouline, S. G., Marron, M., & Colangelo,
classroom practices. Roeper Review,
N. (2014). Acceleration: The fair and Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A.,
42(3), 153-164. http://doi.org/10.1080
equitable intervention for highly & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended
/02783193.2020.1765919
able students. In J. A. Plucker & C. practices in gifted education: A critical
M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and analysis. Teachers College Press.
practices in gifted education: What the GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 1:
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J.
research says (pp. 15–28). Routledge. TIERED CONTENT
S., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns,
Gallagher, S. A. (2013). Building bridges: Aulls, M. W., & Ibrahim, A. (2012). Pre- D. E., Strickland, C. A., & Imbeau, M.
Using research from the Big Five, service teachers’ perceptions of B. (2008). The parallel curriculum: A
MBTI, overexcitabilites, and Perry to effective inquiry instruction: Are design to develop learner potential and
explore personality differences of effective instruction and effective challenge advanced learners (2nd ed.).
gifted youth. In C. S. Neville, M. M. inquiry instruction essentially the Corwin Press.
Piechowski, & S. S. Tolan (Eds.) Off the same? Instructional Science, 40(1),
charts: Asynchrony and the gifted child 119-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 2:
(p. 56-118). Royal Fireworks Press. s11251-010-9164-z
EVIDENCE-BASED
Kanevsky, K., & Keighley, T. (2003). Clark, C., & Shore, B. M. (2004). Educating
Gallagher, S. A., & Gallagher, J. J. (2013).
To produce or not to produce? students with high ability (Rev. ed.).
Using Problem-based Learning to
Understanding boredom and the UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
explore unseen academic potential.
honor in underachievement. Roeper images/0013/001383/138328e.pdf
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-
Review, 26(1), 20-28. https://doi.
Gubbins, E. J., & Hayden, S. M. (2020). based Learning, 7(1), 111-131.
org/10.1080/02783190309554235
Professional development. In J. A.
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F.
Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. Plucker, & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical
(1994). Comparison of trained
(2010). Ability grouping of gifted issues and practices in gifted education:
and untrained teachers of gifted
students: Effects on academic A survey of current research on
students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
self-concept and boredom. British giftedness and talent development (3rd
38(3), 115-121. https://doi.
Journal of Educational Psychology, ed.) (pp. 349-360). Routledge.
org/10.1177/001698629403800304
80(3), 451-472. https://doi.
Johnsen, S. K., & Clarenbach, J. (Eds.).
org/10.1348/000709909X480716
(2019). Using the National Gifted
Education Standards for pre-K-grade 12
professional development. Routledge.

13
Little, C. (2017). Teaching strategies Reis, S. M., & Westberg, K. L. (1994). Freeman, J. (2006). The emotional
to support the education of gifted The impact of staff development development of gifted and talented
learners. In S. Pfeiffer, E. Shaughnessy- on teachers’ ability to modify children. Gifted and Talented
Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA curriculum for gifted and talented International, 21(2), 20-28. https://
handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. students. Gifted Child Quarterly, doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2006.116
371-386). American Psychological 38(3), 127-135. https://doi. 73472
Association. org/10.1177/001698629403800306
Silverman, L. K. (2013). Asynchronous
Miller, E. M. (2009). Effect of training Riley, T., Webber, M., & Sylva, K. (2017). development: Theoretical bases and
in gifted education on elementary Real engagement in active problem current applications. In C. S. Neville,
classroom teachers’ theory-based solving for Māori boys: A case study M. M. Piechowski, & S. S. Tolan
reasoning about the concept of in a New Zealand secondary school. (Eds.), Off the charts: Asynchrony and
giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted and Talented International, the gifted child (pp. 18–47). Royal
33(1), 65-105. https://doi. 32(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Fireworks Press.
org/10.1177/016235320903300104 15332276.2018.1522240
Teschers, C. (2020) Proposing a Holistic
Peters, S. J., & Jolly, J. L. (2018). Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, Inclusive Education Model for
The influence of professional D. L. (2006). Best practices in gifted Policy, Curriculum and Classroom
development in gifted education education: An evidence-based Development. New Zealand Journal of
on the frequency of instructional guide. Routledge and the National Teachers’ Work, 17(1 & 2), 73-87.
practices. The Australian Educational Association for Gifted Children (USA).
Researcher, 45(4), 473-491. https://doi.
van Gerven, E. (2021). Raising the bar: The GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 4: BROAD
org/10.1007/s13384-018-0260-4
competencies of specialists in gifted
Gallagher, S. A. (2009). Designed to fit:
Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (Eds.). education. School for Educational
Educational implications of gifted
(2020). Critical issues and practices in Studies, Hasselt University,
adolescents’ cognitive development.
gifted education: A survey of current Diepenbeek, Belgium.
In F. Dixon (Ed.), Programs and services
research on giftedness and talent
Vreijs, C., Ndanjo Ndungbogun, G., for gifted secondary students (pp.
development (3rd ed.) Routledge.
Kieboom, T. & Venderickx, K. (2017). 3-20). Routledge.
Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2011). Training effects on Belgian preschool
Gilar-Corbi, R., Veas, A., Miñano, P., &
Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: and primary school teachers’
Castejón, J. L. (2019). Differences in
The importance of examining opinions attitudes towards the best practices
personal, familial, social, and school
and challenging misconceptions. for gifted children. High Ability
factors between underachieving and
Gifted and Talented International, 26(1- Studies, 29(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/1
non-underachieving gifted Secondary
2), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/153 0.1080/13598139.2017.1312295
Students. Frontiers in Psychology,
32276.2011.11673587
Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2003, 10, 2367. https://doi.org/10.3389/
Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2021). Fall). The results of the replication fpsyg.2019.02367
Teaching gifted education to pre- of the classroom practices survey
Matheis, S., Keller, L. K., Kronborg, L.,
service teachers: Lessons learned. In S. replication in two states. The National
Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Do
R. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness Research Center on the Gifted and
stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness
and talent development in the Asia- Talented Newsletter, 3–8. https://
and gender stereotypes in pre-service
Pacific (p. 1-22). Springer. https://doi. nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/fall032
teachers’ beliefs about student
org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_67-1
characteristics in Australia. Asia-
Reid, E., & Horváthová, B. (2016). Teacher GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 3: HOLISTIC Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
training programs for gifted education 48(2), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.108
Cathcart, R. (2020). Understanding and
with focus on sustainability. Journal 0/1359866X.2019.1576029
working with gifted learners: “They’re
of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
not bringing my brain out” (4th ed.).
18(2), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1515/
Routledge.
jtes-2016-0015

14
Siegle, D. (2018) Understanding UNESCO. (2015). World education forum Antoun, M., Kronborg. L., & Plunkett,
underachievement. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), 2015: Final report. United Nations. M. (2020). Investigating Lebanese
Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. https://inee.org/resources/world- primary school teachers’ perceptions
285-297). Springer, Cham. https://doi. education-forum-2015-final-report. of gifted and highly able students,
org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_16 Gifted and Talented International,
Watson, B., & Eriksson, G. (Eds.) (2006).
35(1), 39-57. http://doi.org/10.1080/1
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Diversity in gifted education:
5332276.2020.1783398
& Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking International perspectives on global
giftedness and gifted education: issues. Routledge. Bianco, M. Y., & Leech, N. (2010). Twice-
A proposed direction forward exceptional learners: Effects of
based on psychological science. teacher preparation and disability
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 6:
Psychological Science in the Public labels on gifted referrals. Teacher
COMPREHENSIVE
Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi. Education and Special Education, 33(4),
org/10.1177/1529100611418056 Blaas, S. (2014). The relationship between 319-334.
social-emotional difficulties and
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The
underachievement of gifted students.
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 5: EQUITABLE psychology of optimal experience.
Australian Journal of Guidance and
Harper Perennial Modern.
Bianco, M., Harris, B., Garrison-Wade, D., & Counselling, 24(2), 243–255.
Leech, N. (2011). Gifted girls: Gender Elhoweris, H. (2008). Teacher judgment in
Callahan, C. M., & Reis, S. M. (Eds.)
bias in gifted referrals. Roeper Review, identifying gifted/talented students.
(2004). Program evaluation in gifted
33(3), 170-181. https://doi.org/10.108 Multicultural Education, 15(3), 35-38.
education. Corwin Press.
0/02783193.2011.580500
Gentry, M., Peters, S. J., & Mann, R. L.
Renzulli, J., & Reis, S. M. (2014).
Henderson, L., & Jarvis, J. (2016). The (2007). Differences between general
Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-
gifted dimension of the Australian and talented students’ perceptions of
to guide for talent development (3rd
Professional Standards for Teachers: their career and technical education
ed.). Routledge.
Implications for professional experiences compared to their
learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Robinson, W., & Campbell, J. (2010). traditional high school experiences.
Education, 41(8), 60-83. http://ro.ecu. Effective teaching in gifted education: Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3),
edu.au/ajte/vol41/iss8/4 Using a whole school approach. 372–401. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-
Routledge. 2007-496.
Morgan, H. (2019). The lack of minority
students in gifted education: Hiring Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2020). Twice- Lassig, C. J. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes
more exemplary teachers of color can exceptionality in Australia: Prevalence towards the gifted: The importance of
alleviate the problem. The Clearing estimates. Australasian Journal of professional development and school
House: A Journal of Educational Gifted Education, 29(2), 17-29. culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 92(4-5), Education, 18(2), 32-42.
Silverman, L. K. (2012). Giftedness 101.
156-162, https://doi.org/10.1080/000
Springer Publishing Company. Matheis, S., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., &
98655.2019.1645635
Preckel, F. (2017). Threat or challenge?
Novak, A. M., Lewis, K. D., & Weber, Teacher beliefs about gifted students
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 7: INTEGRAL
C. L. (2020). Guiding principles and their relationship to teacher
in developing equity-driven Allotey, G. A., Watters, J. J., & King, motivation. Gifted and Talented
professional learning for educators D. (2020). Ghanaian science and International, 32(2), 134-160. https://
of gifted children. Gifted Child mathematics teachers’ beliefs doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.15
Today, 43(3), 169–183. https://doi. about gifted education strategies. 37685
org/10.1177/1076217520915743 Gifted Education International,
36(3), 250–265. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0261429420946732.

15
Rowan, L., & Townend, G. (2016). Early Stevenson, M., Hedberg, J. G., O’Sullivan, Roberts, J. L., Pereira, N., & Knotts, J. D.
career teachers’ beliefs about their K., & Howe, C. (2016) Leading (2015). State law and policy related
preparedness to teach: Implications learning: the role of school leaders in to twice-exceptional learners:
for the professional development supporting continuous professional Implications for practitioners
of teachers working with gifted and development. Professional and policymakers. Gifted Child
twice-exceptional students. Cogent Development in Education, 42(5), 818- Today, 38(4), 215–219. https://doi.
Education, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.108 835. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941525 org/10.1177/1076217515597276
0/2331186X.2016.1242458 7.2015.1114507
Sánchez-Escobedo, P., Valdés-Cuervo, Wycoff, M., Nash, W. R., Juntune, J. E., GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 10: EMPOWERED
Á., Contreras-Olivera, G.A., García- & Mackay, L. (2003). Purposeful
Jones, E., & Gallagher, S. A. (March,
Vázquez, F.I., & Durón-Ramos, M.F. professional development: Planning
2019). America agrees: A national
(2020). Mexican teachers’ knowledge positive experiences for teachers of
public opinion poll about gifted
about gifted children: Relation to the gifted and talented. Gifted Child
education. Pasadena, CA: Institute for
teacher teaching experience and Today, 26(4), 34–64. https://doi.
Educational Advancement. https://
training. Sustainability, 12, 4474. org/10.4219/gct-2003-116
educationaladvancement.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/IEA-P-Full-
GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 8: ONGOING GLOBAL PRINCIPLE 9: SUSTAINABLE Report-Web-1.pdf
Chandra Handa, M. (2019). Leading Baker, B., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004). Maier, N. (1993). Advocacy as a force in
differentiated learning for the gifted. State policies and equal opportunity: the education of gifted and talented.
Roeper Review, 41(2), 102–118. The example of gifted education. Gifted and Talented International, 8(1),
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.20 Educational Evaluation and Policy 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332
19.1585213 Analysis, 26(1), 39-64. http://www. 276.1993.11672773
jstor.org/stable/3699503
Education International, & UNESCO. Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M.
(2019). Global framework Gallagher, J. (2002). Society’s role in (2003). A national study of
of professional teaching educating gifted students: The role of local and state advocacy in
standards. https://issuu.com/ public policy. (Research Monograph gifted education. Gifted Child
educationinternational/docs/2019_ 02162). Storrs: National Research Quarterly, 47(1), 8-25. https://doi.
ei-unesco_framework Center on the Gifted and Talented, org/10.1177/001698620304700103
University of Connecticut. https://
Iskandar, S., Darmanto, D., & Suryani, E.
nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-based_
(2020). Assessing the implementation
resources/gallaghe
of teachers’ community (MGMP) as
a medium for ongoing professional Kim, H., & Gentry, M. (2008). A survey
development to enhance English of Korean elementary teachers’
teachers’ professional competence. perceptions of and in-service needs
Proceedings of the 1st Annual for gifted education. Gifted and
Conference on Education and Social Talented International, 23(1), 61-80.
Sciences (ACCESS 2019). 1st Annual https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.20
Conference on Education and Social 08.11673513
Sciences (ACCESS 2019), Mataram,
Peters, S.J., Gentry, M., Whiting,
Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/
G.W., & McBee, M.T. (2019). Who
assehr.k.200827.093
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

16
 Global Principles for Professional Learning in Gifted Education

Committee Members
Anies Al-Hroub, Viviene DeOkoro, Szilvia Fodor,
Lebanon Jamaica Hungary
Anies Al-Hroub is an Viviene DeOkoro is the Szilvia Fodor, PhD is a
Associate Professor of founder and CEO-Principal psychologist, and works
Education Psychology of DeOkoro Magnet as an assistant professor
and Special Education and the former Educational Foundation and DeOkoro at the Department of Educational
Chairperson of the Department of Magnet Schools for Gifted and Talented Psychology, University of Debrecen
Education at the American University in Jamaica. DeOkoro also serves as in Hungary. After graduation she had
of Beirut (AUB). Al-Hroub completed the CEO for the Caribbean Centre for a few years’ experience as a school
his PhD and MPhil in Special Education Giftedness and Creativity. She has a BA of psychologist, but for almost 20 years she
(Giftedness and Learning Disabilities) Music, MA of Education, and a Doctorate has been involved as a teacher and a
from the University of Cambridge and of Professional Studies. She completed researcher in higher education. She has
his MA (Special Education) and BA a post-graduate certificate of effective courses on developmental psychology,
(Psychology) from the University of practice in gifted education through educational psychology, and gifted
Jordan. REACH Education Consultancy in New education for students of psychology,
Zealand. pedagogy and she is also active in
Rosemary Cathcart, teacher training.
New Zealand Soha Elzalabany,
Rosemary Cathcart, Egypt Shelagh Gallagher,
QSM, PhD, heads REACH Soha Elzalabany is an USA
Education Consultancy adjunct instructor of the Shelagh A. Gallagher’s
which specializes in the provision of American University in career in gifted education
professional development in gifted Cairo, School of Graduate Education. She spans over 30 years, with
education, working with teachers both served previously as a school principal, positions including classroom teacher,
in New Zealand and in other countries. support program director, special and Research Assistant at Duke TIP and the
She has been involved in this field for gifted education coordinator, and North Carolina School of Science and
almost four decades as teacher, program educator in several international schools Mathematics, Director of Research and
and model developer, author, conference in Egypt. She works with students with Assessment at the Illinois Mathematics
presenter, advisor, and political advocate. learning difficulties as well as gifted and Science Academy, grant director
students in international schools. at the William & Mary Center for Gifted
Education, founding team member

17
 Norma Hafenstein, Joi Lin,
USA USA
Norma Lu Hafenstein Joi Lin is a PhD student of
is the Daniel L. Ritchie Curriculum and Instruction,
Endowed Chair in Gifted specializing in Gifted
Education and Clinical Professor at Education Leadership at the Morgridge
the University of Denver, Morgridge College of Education, University of
College of Education. Hafenstein led Denver. Joi is a former math teacher
the development and implementation with a BS in Mathematics and Secondary
of the University of Denver’s Carnegie Education and an MS in Industrial
Project on the Education Doctorate and Organizational Psychology. She is
(CPED) in Curriculum and Instruction Director of Professional Education at the
with a specialization in Gifted Education. Gifted Development Center and chairs
of two schools for gifted students, She was a member of the Colorado the Mensa Education and Research
and 13 years as professor, researcher, Department of Education Standards Foundation’s Gifted Education Fellowship
writer, and director of two Javits grants Development Team, designing the Committee. Joi Lin serves as a graduate
at UNC Charlotte. Shelagh Gallagher Core, Specialist and Director of Gifted assistant supporting the work of the
is the President-Elect of the National Education endorsements for Colorado committee chair, Dr. Norma Hafenstein.
Association for Gifted Children. educators. She is Principal Investigator of
a U.S. Department of Education Jacob K. Michael Kainose Mhlolo,
Şule Güçyeter, Javits grant project, I-REECCH, delivering South Africa
Turkey virtual professional learning to rural Professor Michael Mhlolo is
Şule Güçyeter is working Colorado educators to increase equitable an NRF C-rated researcher
in the Gifted and Talented gifted identification of diverse rural and Full-Professor of
Education Division at the students. Mathematics Education. He holds a
Usak University Faculty of Education PhD in Mathematics Education from
Special Education Department. She Ernst Albert Hany, the University of the Witwatersrand in
gives lectures on gifted and talented Germany Johannesburg, South Africa. His research
education, creativity, and special Ernst Hany serves as interests are in Giftedness in general and
education. She worked on the DISCOVER Faculty of Education at the in Mathematical Giftedness in particular.
Problem Matrix, which is used to University of Erfurt. Hany
develop different types of problems in holds a professorship for educational- Federica Mormando,
her master’s degree, and on developing psychological diagnostics and differential Italy
model and test to identify gifted psychology. Federica Mormando
students in mathematics in her doctoral founded and directed
dissertation. Mojca Juriševič, the Emilio Trabucchi
Slovenia School (Milan-1984-1993), dedicated to
Ahmed Hamdan, Mojca Juriševič is a Full children with high intellectual potential.
UAE
Professor of Educational President and founder of the Eurotalent
Ahmed Hassan Hamdan Psychology at the Faculty Italia association, vice-president of the
is an associate professor of Education of the University of NGO Eurotalent from 1993 to 2016,
at the Dept. of Special Ljubljana. She has 25 years of experience president and founding member of the
Education, College of Education, United in pre- and in-service teacher education NGO Human Ingenium, which deals with
Arabic Emirates University. He received and in initiatives related to national the identification and enhancement of
his PhD from the University of Arizona, teacher education policy. Her main gifted items, as well as intuitive, creative
Tucson, USA in 2006 in Special Education/ research interests are motivation to learn, thinking and non-measurable talents.
Gifted. He is currently the Editor-in-Chief professional development of teachers,
of the International Journal for Research and studies in giftedness and gifted
in Education (IJRE), UAEU. education.

18
 Srinivasan Muthusamy, Julia Link Roberts, Bruce M. Shore,
India USA Canada
Srinivasan Muthusamy Julia Link Roberts is the Bruce M. Shore is
has a background in Mahurin Professor of Emeritus Professor of
engineering, education, Gifted Studies and the Educational Psychology
arts, and English literature. After Executive Director of The Center for at McGill University. He served as
experiencing the performance and Gifted Studies and The Carol Martin Department Chair, McGill Association
unique strengths of students, Srinivasan Gatton Academy of Mathematics and of University Teachers President, and
began studying gifted education. Science in Kentucky. She is an active Dean of Students. His research has
Muthusamy completed a Masters in advocate for gifted children at the state, explored inquiry-based instruction and
gifted education at the National Research national, and international levels. For exceptionally able students’ cognitive
Centre on Gifted and Talented, UCONN, her advocacy work, she received the and social thinking, generating 14 books,
USA. Muthusamy is an ardent, lifelong very first David W. Belin Advocacy Award more than 200 other written items, and
student of studying how to foster gifts from the National Association for Gifted over 300 presentations and workshops.
and talents. Muthusamy became founder Children (NAGC) in 2001. Dr. Roberts is His involvement with gifted students
and vice-principal of a residential school, a leader in gifted education serving on began as a mathematics teacher and
worked as professor at the Staff Training the boards of the Kentucky Association continues as Advisor to the McGill
Institute of the Salala Palace in Oman, for Gifted Education and The Association Chapter of the Golden Key International
and supports gifted students at the for the Gifted (a division of the Council Honour Society and Secretary of Golden
GEAR Innovative International School in for Exceptional Children); and she is Key’s International Leadership Council.
Bangalore. President of the World Council for Gifted An elected Fellow of the American
and Talented Children. She is chairperson Educational Research Association, he
Connie Phelps, of The Kentucky Advisory Counsel for attended the first World Conference on
USA Gifted Education. Gifted and Talented Children, is a World
After teaching grades K-12 Council founding member, chaired the
general education and Michelle Ronksley-Pavia, 4th World Conference, and has been
gifted special education Australia a Delegate and Executive Committee
students, Connie Phelps now prepares Michelle Ronksley-Pavia Secretary.
gifted facilitators to teach diverse is a lecturer and Griffith
PK-12 gifted learners. Since 2004, she Institute for Educational Kayla Steffens,
has served as the Gifted, Talented, and Research Adjunct Research Fellow at USA
Creative Program Director at Emporia Griffith University, Australia. Ronksley- Kayla is working toward
State University. An endowed professor Pavia has an international profile as a her doctorate degree in
recognized for impact on students, leading researcher and expert in gifted Curriculum and Instruction
she has prepared several hundred education and twice-exceptionality. with a specialization in gifted education
gifted facilitators in Kansas for PK-12 Ronksley-Pavia’s expertise as a leader in at the Morgridge College of Education,
endorsements and graduate degrees. the field of twice-exceptional research University of Denver. She holds a BA in
and advocacy has recently been Psychology and Sociology, and an MA in
recognized by the Bridges 2e Center for Curriculum and Instruction specializing
Research and Professional Development. 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

19
as a board member of SoMe CAGT, Eleonoor van Gerven, Rachel Zorman,
the South-Metro Affiliate of Colorado Netherlands Israel
Association for Gifted and Talented, Eleonoor van Gerven Rachel Zorman has been
and was appointed to serve on the is director of Slim! the executive director
Colorado Gifted Education State Advisory Educatief, a private teacher of the Szold Institute
Committee. Kayla Steffens serves as education institute in The Netherlands. since 2008. The institute enhances
a graduate assistant supporting the She specialized in teacher education, Israeli education and social services via
work of the committee chair, Dr. Norma gifted education, and the systemic research, evaluation and implementing
Hafenstein. change- and solution-focused approach. training and innovative intervention
She developed the competency matrix programs. Zorman received her PhD
Margaret Sutherland, for specialists in gifted education and in special education from Columbia
Scotland a framework for assessing teacher University, NY.
Margaret Sutherland competencies in gifted education. She
is a professor at the developed the post-graduate courses
University of Glasgow, Specialist in Gifted Education and the
Scotland, and a Fellow of the Royal Specialist in Educating Twice Exceptional
Society of Arts. She is the Director of Learners, which are both accredited by
Partnerships, Communication and the Dutch Society for Higher Education.
External Engagement and of the Scottish Eleonoor van Gerven is the current chair
Network for Able Pupils. She has 40 of the Educational Insights Group.
years teaching experience in schools
and higher education. She has written in Mantak Yuen,
the field of gifted education and is the Hong Kong
author of a number of academic papers, Mantak Yuen, PhD, is
chapters, and books on the subject. Associate Professor and
She serves on the editorial board of the Director of the Laboratory
Korean Journal of Educational Policy, and Program in Creativity and Talent
Journal for the Education of the Gifted Development, Centre for Advancement in
and Talent, formally known as the Turkish Inclusive and Special Education, Faculty
Journal of Giftedness and Education. She of Education, the University of Hong
is a member of the editorial advisory Kong. Yuen is the leader of the Master of
board for the Journal of Research in Education program in Gifted Education
Special Educational Needs, the British and Talent Development. He served as
Journal of Special Education and Support the Director of the Doctor of Education
for Learning. Program (2015-2019).

20
 WCGTC Executive
Committee Members
Julia Link Roberts Eleonoor van Gerven
President Member
Mahurin Professor of Gifted Studies, Managing Director
Executive Director of The Center for Gifted Studies, Slim! Educatief
Executive Director of the Carol Martin Gatton Almere, Netherlands
Academy of Mathematics and Science
Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, KY

Leonie Kronborg Anies al Hroub

Vice President Member
Senior Lecturer/Coordinator of Postgraduate Associate Professor of Educational
Studies in Gifted Education Psychology & Special Education
Monash University American University of Beirut
Clayton, Victoria, Australia Beirut, Lebanon

Tracy Riley Sue Prior

Secretary Member
Professor and Dean, Prior Learning
Research Hong Kong, China
Massey University
Palmerston North, New Zealand

Margaret Sutherland Tyler Clark

Treasurer Executive Administrator
Professor and Director of Communications, World Council for Gifted and
Partnerships and External Relations Talented Children,
University of Glasgow The Center for Gifted Studies
Glasgow, Scotland Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, KY

21
World Council for Gifted
and Talented Children