The editor introduces a special issue on myths in gifted education. He suggests that myths deal with three major topics: definitions of the gifted and talented, identification, and programs. He concludes with a list of 14 questions concerning alternative approaches. (CL)

The author refutes the myth that gifted students comprise a single, homogeneous group. She cites the wide variety of characteristics and notes the influence of environment upon the individual, all of which supports the need for multicomponent programs. (CL)

The myth that the gifted constitute 3 percent to 5 percent of the population is countered by a discussion of two types of giftedness: schoolhouse giftedness in which students excel in testtaking, and creative/productive giftedness in which students may not have high IQs. The 3 percent to 5 percent figure is seen to equate giftedness with IQ. (CL)

The author suggests that it is a myth of gifted education that a school must identify a certain percentage of students as gifted, which forces an adjustment in criteria and definition until just the right number of students have been identified. (CL)

Some identification and programing approaches for gifted students are said to shortchange all students and perpetuate a myth of exclusivity. The real issue, the author contends, is not whether the label "gifted" is affixed, but whether all children's needs are met through the regular curriculum or through adaptations. (CL)

Uniformity of assessment in identifying gifted students should be replaced by a variety of measures to document the unique personal and learning characteristics as a basis for instruction. (CL)

The author suggests that, although measuring creativity is a challenge, it is not impossible. Measures of the creative process are available, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. (CL)

The importance of applying multiple selection criteria from the beginning in the identification of gifted students is stressed. Approaches which use achievement and intelligence tests as a primary screening criteria before applying multiple criteria are said to be only skin deep. (CL)

No one program can meet the needs of gifted and talented students with diverse cultural influences, learning styles, developmental stages, and creative requirements. (CL)

It is important to develop total "ownership" in gifted programs so that regular teachers, administrators, and community members realize the benefits of serving the above average student. (CL)

The author asserts that there can be no single curriculum for all gifted students because any curriculum must be modified for particular needs. The proliferation of commercial curricula and identification processes which do not stress differences among gifted students are two reasons for the myth of a single curriculum. (CL)

Gifted programs should not be developed only to compensate for inadequate regular classrooms. Instead, the principles of gifted education should be applied to the total environment, with enrichment activities for gifted students requiring intensity of effort in specialized areas. (CL)

Meeting the needs of gifted students requires a diversity of educational offerings, with three basic modifications of the regular curriculum (more information, higher level material, and faster pace). (CL)

Characteristics of gifted programs that stick out like a "sore thumb" include vulnerability to charges of elitism, the notion that gifted students are better students, a lack of teacher support, and a high degree of rigidity. (CL)

Followup and tie in between regular classrooms and gifted programs are essential for quality programing. "Ownership" of the program by the entire school community, including counselors, librarians, and administrators, is also important. (CL)