565554

research-article2014
JEGXXX10.1177/0162353214565554Journal for the Education of the GiftedSiegle

Article
Journal for the Education of the Gifted
2015, Vol. 38(1) 58­–63
Dr. James Gallagher’s © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Concern for Gifted Learners sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0162353214565554
Beyond Academics jeg.sagepub.com

Del Siegle1

In a tribute to her father, Shelagh Gallagher (2014) wrote, “[James] Gallagher spent
his life carving a path from what education was to what it could be for children at the
edges of the educational system” (p. 330). As a national and international leader in
both the field of special education and gifted and talented education, Gallagher’s con-
cerns for the individuals at both ends of the spectrum extended beyond academics.
Although he is primarily known for his tireless lobbying to establish national and state
policies that would promote a commitment to research, curriculum development, tech-
nical assistance, evaluation, and other necessary support systems to create an effective
educational infrastructure for gifted children (J. J. Gallagher, 2013), his ultimate con-
cerns were for the well-being of students and a nation that he believed desperately
needed their developed talents in the face of international competitors.

What Was Dr. Gallagher’s Major Message? Concern for

the Nation and the Individual
James Gallagher (2005) viewed gifted children as being caught within a national
debate over equity “that refuses to recognize any individual differences in students
except those caused by unfair cultural and economic advantages or disabilities” (p. 40)
and the educational excellence needed to fully develop their talents. He always cau-
tioned that

To say that we want educational excellence for these talented students in no way suggests
that only they should receive an excellent education. There should be educational
excellence for all, just not the same, cookie-cutter education for everyone, regardless of
ability level or motivation. (J. J. Gallagher, 2005, p. 40)

1University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

Corresponding Author:
Del Siegle, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, 249 Glenbrook Road Unit 3064, Storrs,
CT 06269-3064, USA.
Email: del.siegle@uconn.edu

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on February 10, 2015

Siegle 59

He noted that American society was ambivalent toward gifted students because of
its belief in the principle of equity for all. He viewed educational opportunities for
gifted and talented students as a national security issue, but lamented that only national
crises, such as the Cold War or the Race to Space, compelled the nation to consider
developing this needed intellectual resource (Weiss & Gallagher, 1980). For Gallagher,
gifted and talented students were the greatest potential resource for advancing the
nation in a globally competitive market. He did not restrict his appreciation of their
talents to academic skills. He believed their problem-solving skills and creativity were
essential components as well (J. J. Gallagher, 2005). In one of his last published jour-
nal articles, he advocated that the development of individuals’ talents was “an act of
patriotism that will pay heavy dividends in the future if we can get the job done” (J. J.
Gallagher, 2013, p. 203).
However, Gallagher’s view of gifted students was not limited to their potential for
future accomplishments. He was also concerned about their social and emotional well-
being. He conducted some of the earliest research on self-concept and friendship
issues. The focus article for this piece, “Peer Acceptance of Highly Gifted Children in
Elementary School,” was published in 1958. At the time, he investigated
Hollingworth’s conclusion that highly gifted children might have social difficulty.
Among the reasons she cited were the “complexity of their play behavior and the high
level of their interests” (J. J. Gallagher, 1958, p. 465). Contrary to what he expected,
he found that other children often selected gifted children as friends. Their popularity
pattern did not vary by the intellectual ability of their peers. However, he noted that
highly gifted children from schools that did not identify many gifted students appeared
to have motivational problems. “Highly gifted children in the low-referral schools
may be obtaining social status at the expense of intellectual activity. To gain approval
they conform to peer values, which are generally not intellectual” (J. J. Gallagher,
1958, p. 468). This finding more than a half-century ago continues to be an issue for
educators and policy makers today as they search for ways to better identify and pro-
vide program support for students from underserved populations who may disguise
their giftedness because they dwell in communities and educational settings where
academic excellence is not rewarded (Ford, 2007; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986).
On the basis of his own work (J. J. Gallagher & Crowder, 1957) and that of
Hollingworth (1942) and Terman (Terman & Oden, 1947), J. J. Gallagher (1966) con-
cluded that “if a highly gifted child was in a group of average or below-average ability
children, he was more likely to have social problems than if he was a member of a
group of high ability children” (p. 43). This validates the need for gifted students,
particularly very high-ability students, to have opportunities to interact and work with
others of similar ability. It also supports counseling options when appropriate for stu-
dents with extreme high ability who may not be in appropriate or supportive
environments.
In addition to peer interactions, Gallagher was interested in others’ perceptions of
gifted students. His early research on attitudes among university professors toward
gifted children revealed a concern about the social consequences of acceleration that
still permeates public opinion today. He found that professors were overwhelmingly

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on February 10, 2015

60 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(1)

supportive of services to gifted students; however, a small but significant number of

them were concerned about acceleration effects on social adjustment. He cautioned,
“Careful attention should be paid to the problem of social adjustment in the use of this
technique of acceleration” (Weiss & Gallagher, 1980, p. 203). Recent research indi-
cates that this continues to be an area of concern among educators (Siegle, Wilson, &
Little, 2013), even though most research refutes any negative social effects from
acceleration (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Gallagher’s concern over how
others regarded gifted children also extended to their parents. In a program evaluation,
he and his colleagues found that one benefit of a program for gifted students was that
their parents showed greater tolerance for their children’s shortcomings. The research
reported, “The parents raised their expected standards of performance for their child in
the academic area but were inclined to view certain social and personal characteristics
with greater tolerance” (J. J. Gallagher, Greenman, Karnes, & King, 1965, p. 291).
A negative outcome of inappropriate curriculum and instruction for many gifted
students is boredom. J. J. Gallagher, Harradine, and Coleman (1997) suggested, “One
of the most persistent reports regarding gifted students’ attitudes about the curriculum
offered in their school is that their classes are a crushing bore” (p. 132). Gallagher’s
mother was a special education teacher before special education formally existed. He
understood the challenges teachers faced and viewed teachers as the solution for stu-
dent boredom as well as the solution for many of the other issues students face.

The key element in all of this remains the teacher. Unless prepared to teach gifted
students, most teachers have little or no background on strategies to cope with these
creative and fertile minds. They need information about how to provide intellectual
stimulation through problem-based learning or higher-order thinking or a variety of
differentiated programming. The more knowledge teachers have about differentiated
methods and strategies, the more they will be able to adequately address all of their
students’ needs. (J. J. Gallagher et al., 1997, p. 136)

In addition to being trained in differentiation strategies, teachers also need to be

trained in identifying and serving twice-exceptional students, those with gifts as well
as disabilities. Unfortunately, school experiences for these students often do not meet
their needs (Willard-Holt, Weber, Morrison, & Horgan, 2013) and parents, more often
than teachers, are likely to recognize these students’ gifts as well as their disabilities
(Speirs Neumeister, Yssel, & Burney, 2013). Twice-exceptional students, more than
any other population, are at the edges of the educational system that concerned
Gallagher.

Where Are We Now? Much Has Changed and Much Has

Not
Gallagher’s concern over the global competition and the United States’s ability to
compete has come to fruition. Business leaders worry about the supply of highly
skilled employees who can meet the nation’s economic needs. For example, immigrant

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on February 10, 2015

Siegle 61

workers holding H-1B visas are directly responsible for increases in inventions in the
United States (Kerr & Lincoln, 2010). Policy makers are taking note. Interest in
improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics achievement is strong.
Interest in gifted education is also on the increase in spite of poor economic condi-
tions. Funding for the Javits program, which provides research dollars in gifted educa-
tion, was restored after a 3-year hiatus.
The number of books addressing the social and emotional issues that gifted and
talented students face has dramatically increased. In addition to the National
Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and the Council for Exceptional Children–
The Association for the Gifted (CEC-TAG), organizations such as Supporting
Emotional Needs of Gifted (SENG) also provide teachers and parents with informa-
tion about helping gifted children reach their potential with special attention on social
and emotional issues.
Many of the highly touted 21st-century skills are embedded in gifted education
practices. “Gifted kids, fueled by their curiosity and intense love of learning, have
driven their teachers and parents to explore many of the 21st century skills”
(Clinkenbeard & Drummer, 2009, p. 9). However, teacher training in gifted education
is still lagging, despite an increase in the availability of campus-based and online
courses in the field. The challenge Weiss and Gallagher reported 35 years ago still
rings true today. “The dilemma appeared to be over a wish to keep the child in the
regular classroom with their [sic] age peers and a recognition of the limits to teacher
time and academic pursuits possible in the regular class” (Weiss & Gallagher, 1980, p.
204).

Where Would Gallagher Have Us Go? Learning From the

Past and Acting
Gallagher was the first Chief of the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped in the
then U.S. Office of Education. In that role, he oversaw the creation of infrastructure
for early childhood special education and set the groundwork for PL 94-142, which
ensured a free and appropriate education for children and youth with disabilities.
Through his vision and effort, opportunities emerged. He often suggested that gifted
education should follow special education’s lead and build an effective educational
infrastructure to support gifted education that was based on an extensive research base,
strong and effective curriculum, technical assistance to educators to implement that
curriculum, and comprehensive evaluation of the programs and curriculum we create.
Throughout, students’ emotional well-being and relationships with peers, teachers,
and parents should be considered. More than a half-century ago, J. J. Gallagher and
colleagues (1965) warned,

For many years “adjustments within the regular classroom” has been an accepted answer
to the education of the gifted child in the elementary grades. It seems apparent that
sizeable retooling in the teacher training institutions, and more auxiliary personnel need
to be provided before anything approaching the theoretical ideal can be obtained. (p. 303)

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on February 10, 2015

62 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(1)

Gallagher recognized what current research confirms, that highly knowledgeable

and caring teachers make a difference in gifted students’ intellectual and emotional
development (Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003; Siegle, Rubenstein, & Mitchell, 2014).
James Gallagher’s life modeled the path to be taken. Be prepared, have faith in your
cause, persist, and do not be afraid to act.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Clinkenbeard, P., & Drummer, J. (2009). Gifted education and 21st century skills: Models for
all classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/guest38cccd/gifted-education-
and-21st-century-skills
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools
hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The
Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent
Development.
Ford, D. Y. (2007). Diamonds in the rough: Recognizing and meeting the needs of gifted children
from low SES backgrounds. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked
gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 37–40). Washington,
DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ success: Coping with the “burden of acting
White.” The Urban Review, 18, 176–196.
Gallagher, J. J. (1958). Peer acceptance of highly gifted children in elementary school. The
Elementary School Journal, 58, 465–470.
Gallagher, J. J. (1966). Research summary on gifted child education. Springfield, IL: Office of
the Superintendent of Instruction.
Gallagher, J. J. (2005, May 25). Commentary: National security and educational excellence.
Education Week, 24(38), 32–40.
Gallagher, J. J. (2013). Educational disarmament, and how to stop it. Roeper Review, 35,
197–204. doi:10.1080/027832193.2013.799412
Gallagher, J. J., & Crowder, T. (1957). The adjustment of gifted children in the regular class-
room. Exceptional Children, 23, 306–312, 317–319.
Gallagher, J. J., Greenman, M., Karnes, M., & King, A. (1965). Individual classroom adjust-
ments for gifted children in elementary schools. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Teaching gifted
children (pp. 285–304). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gallagher, J. J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted
students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132–136. doi:10.1080/02783-
199709553808
Gallagher, S. A. (2014). James J. Gallagher. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 330–331.
doi:10.1177/0016986214548219

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on February 10, 2015

Siegle 63

Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children above 180 IQ: Origin and development. Yonkers, NY:
World Book.
Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom
and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20–28.
Kerr, W. R., & Lincoln, W. F. (2010). The supply side of innovation: H-1B visa reforms and
U.S. ethnic invention. Journal of Labor Economics, 28, 473–508.
Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L. D., & Mitchell, M. S. (2014). Honors students’ perceptions of their
high school experiences: The influence of teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 35–50.
doi:10.1177/0016986213513496
Siegle, D., Wilson, H. E., & Little, C. A. (2013). A sample of gifted and talented educators’
attitudes about academic acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24, 26–50. doi:10
.1177/1932202X12472491
Speirs Neumeister, K., Yssel, N., & Burney, V. H. (2013). The influence of primary caregivers
in fostering success in twice-exceptional children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 263–274.
doi:10.1177/0016986213500068
Terman, L., & Oden, M. (1947). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. IV). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Weiss, P., & Gallagher, J. J. (1980). The effects of personal experience on attitudes toward
gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 3, 194–206.
Willard-Holt, C., Weber, J., Morrison, K. L., & Horgan, J. (2013). Twice-exceptional learn-
ers’ perspectives on effective learning strategies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 247–262.
doi:10.1177/0016986213501076

Author Biography
Del Siegle, PhD, is director of The National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE)
and head of the department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut. He is a
past president of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and chair of the Research
on Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent SIG of the American Educational Research Association
(AERA). Along with D. Betsy McCoach, he is co-editor of Gifted Child Quarterly. He is the
co-author with Gary Davis and Sylvia Rimm of the popular textbook, Education of the Gifted
and Talented. He is also author of a recent book, The Underachieving Gifted Child: Recognizing,
Understanding, and Reversing Underachievement. Prior to becoming a professor, he worked
with gifted and talented students in Montana.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on February 10, 2015

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.