“He’s a hard worker, but I don’t think he’s gifted.” – Stella, 4th grade teacher
“I mean, she gets all As, but she isn’t gifted? What’s wrong with this picture?” – Parent, 5th grade student
As a gifted teacher, I frequently have to explain the criteria for gifted programs, both my own and at other locations I have researched. Reading this research paper from Chancey and Butts regarding the difference between honors and gifted at the university level raised more questions than it answered, but the questions themselves are valuable.
In this theoretical article, Chancey and Butts explore the overlap between gifted students and honors students. Utilizing the theories used as the foundation of the Honors program at University of Connecticut (UConn), which comprises 10 percent of the student body, the authors share their thoughts on how cooperation between the K-12 Renzulli gifted center and the UConn Honors program benefits both organizations.
The purpose of the paper, to respond to the differences between the honors and gifted categories, is approached but not achieved. In short, they express that the commonalities between honors and gifted groups are myriad without going into detail into what those are or how they might differ in educational terms. It is important to consider the implications of how each is defined, as it can impact programming and selection at the K-12 level. The article is less utilitarian than it might be because it does not delve deeply into the similarities and differences in any way that allows them to be applicable. While they share that the three rings which define the Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development also provide the framework for the UConn Honors Program, the disparate characteristics of these two student groups are not delved into.
This leads me to ask the following: Are all gifted students honors students? Or are all honors students gifted students? Is there a palpable difference between the academic needs of students who are above average and work hard (an unofficial, local definition for Honors students) and those gifted students who might or might not apply themselves? These questions beg for definitions and frameworks which respond directly to where there is or is not a difference in the required identification procedure and programs for each. This informs my question of assessment types that reach under-identified students as well as programs which can meet the needs of both assiduous (but presumably not gifted) and gifted students. While this article seems to pass on the opportunity to explore the difference, it does provide a helpful example (UConn) where Honors students are working successfully within a program designed with gifted principles in mind. If researched further, this example could provide a more universal model to unify the differentiation / enrichment / Honors progression followed at many K-12 sites.
This paper is a reminder of the need to define desired local outcomes based on national standards prior to establishing identification criteria or designing gifted programs.
Chancey, J. M., & Butts, J. L. (2018). Gifted Students, Honors Students, and an Honors Education. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 19(2), 33+. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1216056.pdf
Myths About Gifted Students. National Association of Gifted Students. https://nagc.org/page/myths-about-gifted-students
Renzulli, J. (1998). Three Ring Conception of Giftedness. In Baum, S. M., Reis, S. M., & Maxfield, L. R. (Eds.). (1998). Nurturing the gifts and talents of primary grade students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/three-ring_conception_of_giftedness/
Gifted Weekly 