Editorial

Welcome to the second issue of the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education for 2024. First of all, I am delighted to announce that the journal is continuing to rise in international standing and influence. Specifically, in the recently released international journal rankings, the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education achieved a: • SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) of 0.393, which is its highest ever, and places it in the second quartile of international journals in Education for the very first time. According to the SJR quartile, the journal is now the equal number three ranked international journal in gifted education (only behind Gifted Child Quarterly and Roeper Review). • Source Normalised Impact Per Paper (SNIP) of 1.282 for the journal is the highest ever, and places it as the outright fourth ranked international journal in gifted education. • The CiteScore of the journal is the highest ever at 2.90, which represents a 32% increase from the CiteScore for 2022. This is an outstanding achievement for the journal, considering its small, regional base. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the many contributors to the journal, the editorial team, and of course, the readers of the journal, for making all this possible.

Given the importance of education policy to gifted education, I have always been surprised at the relative lack of scholarship in this area. The edited book Public Policy in Gifted Education (see record 2004-13603-000) helps fill the void in gifted education policy. Part of a 12-volume series put together under the series editorship of Sally Reis, this book looks back on some of the most influential articles on gifted education in honor of the 50th anniversary of the National Association for Gifted Children. The book consists of 11 highly cited articles previously published in the field's major journal, Gifted Child Quarterly, between 1980 and 2000. This edited volume is a very good introduction to gifted education policy, but the field still needs a comprehensive analysis of current policy issues that impact gifted education. However, regardless of the work to be done, readers will find this book to be the foundation on which we build current and future education policy efforts in gifted education. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

Socialization, Personality, and Academic Achievement in Gifted Children

Gifted students differ significantly with their peers in cognitive aspects, emotional and psychological aspects, and learning style. A planned talent development program can help them to reach at their highest potential. At present there are various talent development programs exist but they are not uniform in the structure. Therefore, a systematic review of journal articles on gifted education and talent development was done to understand the structure and components of gifted education program. The following journals; Roeper Review, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Gifted Education International, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted Child Today, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Journal of Advanced Academics, Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, and cogent education were reviewed from online data bases like Research gate, Google scholar, and Academia. Articles focused on talent development published from 2011 to 2020 are considered for review. The review was conducted to develop an insight and generate the themes about gifted education that cater the need of talented at school and out-of-school. The emerged themes would be helpful in developing an efficient and multifaceted talent development program. Implication of the reviewed researches are discussed which will be helpful for policy development and program development for gifted and talented.

This study develops an updated ranking of hospitality and tourism journals by assessing the influence assigned to those journals by researchers in each field. Journals are evaluated utilizing data collected from two groups, 62 of the top 100 researchers and 463 other researchers in the fields of hospitality and tourism. Results suggest that journals that are considered “top tier” in tourism and hospitality have remained relatively constant over the years. However, there is little consistency among the rankings of journals beyond the top journals in both fields. Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, and Journal of Travel Research are found to be top journals in the field of tourism while International Journal of Hospitality Management and Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research are identified as the top journals in the field of hospitality.

When submitting for this special issue on the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), these authors were guided by the unwavering belief that discrimination has no place in educational settings and segregation and integration are ideals that have yet to be realized in U.S. schools and gifted programs in particular. Consequently, at the forefront of this submission is the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education in which segregated schools, classrooms, and programs based on race were declared illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court avowed the ending of separate and unequal education in America; and desegregation was to occur with all deliberate speed. That was six decades ago, and this law and associated legal mandates have yet to be fulfilled, particularly in gifted education, Advanced Placement (AP) classes, and other courses for advanced learners (e.g., honors and International Baccalaureate classes).It is unprofessional and unethical to promote and permit the inequitable distribution of resources and opportunities to students based on race, which frequently occurs with Black students. Inequitable or unjust resources and opportunities contribute to and promote educational disparities, and create a vicious cycle in which Black students are denied access to school programs that are essential to reaching their academic, intellectual, socio-cultural, and fiscal potential and that can help close achievement gaps. Gifted education has promoted such racial inequities. For decades, educators, policymakers, and legal personnel have failed to recruit and retain an equitable percentage of Black students in gifted education and courses for advanced learners (e.g., Advanced Placement classes). This lack of accountability has resulted in de facto segregation and is witnessed in McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46, settled in 2013. In this unprecedented gifted education case, the court affirmed that, in creating a separate gifted education program for Hispanic students only, this school district violated the United States and Illinois constitutions' equal protection clauses. Rather than developing one gifted education program for elementary school students that provided language support when needed, this district created a separate gifted program for Hispanic students who had exited English Language Learner (ELL) programs. Judge Gettlemen (who presided over McFadderi) noted that establishing a separate gifted education program based on race perpetuates the problems that our nation's civil rights laws were created and authorized to prevent.This court case revives issues of disparate impact, which will be discussed later. This case is a notice to states and other districts to eliminate discrimination (intentional and unintentional) in gifted education practices for identification, programming, and services. With discrimination and under-representation in mind, these authors present trends (2009-2011) regarding the representation of Black students in gifted education using data from the Office for Civil Rights Data Collection (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2011; CRDC: These files are state and national estimations. The 2009-10 estimations are based on a rolling stratified sample of approximately 7,000 districts and 72,000 schools and on reported data from those districts that responded to the survey). Under-representation is clearly persistent and nationally pervasive. Next, these data are positioned within the context of Brown where it is argued that gifted education must become desegregated and integrated. De facto and de jure segregation in gifted education must end, with all deliberate speed before another 60 years passes.BRIEF OVERVIEW OF GIFTED EDUCATION DEFINITIONS WITH CULTURAL IMPLICATIONSSimilarly to many terms, 'gifted' eludes consensus. Traditional definitions of giftedness (almost exclusively normed on and conceptualized on middle-class Whites) have been primarily operationalized in two ways: (a) by high scores on IQ tests (130 and higher) and (b) by high scores on achievement tests (often at or above 92nd percentile). …

Seventy-one incarcerated juvenile offenders were diagnosed according to DSM-III and assessed for suicidal behavior. Subjects diagnosed as having major affective disorders or borderline personality disorders showed the highest degree of suicidal tendency and had made the most serious attempts.

The purpose of this study was to examine Korean elementary teachers’ knowledge of and interest in gifted education, in-service training needs, and perceptions of gifted education to provide implications for developing in-service teacher training programs. Korean elementary teachers completed the survey, Korean Elementary Teachers: Perceptions of Gifted Education and In-service Needs in Gifted Education. The results of this study show teacher training is an essential factor for improving knowledge of and interest in gifted education. When in-service training for gifted education is planned, the findings of this study can help provide guidelines for the training including employing qualified staff who are experts in the gifted education field, developing appropriate length of training sessions, finding the best time for training, and providing relevant content during training.

The existence of technological development requires a curriculum to adjust to technological developments that occur. The need for curriculum development in order to meet human needs and improve student competence in facing existing technological developments. To produce competent students in the field of Electrical Engineering Education, a good curriculum is needed. To get a good curriculum evaluation or enrichment must always be done. Curriculum enrichment can be done one of them by inputting a course that is image processing. Image processing subject is one of the engineering courses at Non-LPTK University. Where the composition of courses at the University of LPTK includes general courses, engineering courses, and professional expertise courses. Thus, image processing courses can be assimilated into the UNP Electrical Engineering Education curriculum. The results show that image processing courses can be assimilated into the PSPTE FT UNP curriculum with learning outcomes that are in accordance with the characteristics of the PSPTE FT UNP curriculum that students are expected to be able to understand and explain the basic concepts of the image processing course.

Meeting the needs of the gifted student with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) requires addressing both conditions. Education professionals are in a unique position to begin this process by referring the student to school specialists for evaluation. However, diagnostic confusion surrounding autism, misconceptions about special education, varying conceptions of giftedness, and overlapping behaviors of giftedness and ASD can inhibit education professionals’ ability to recognize unique behaviors of gifted students with ASD, and make appropriate referrals, placing the student at academic risk. Autism and giftedness have been studied separately in the fields of education and psychology for more than half a century. Although the study of giftedness with ASD has begun to increase in recent years, no empirical study to date has focused on education professionals who successfully referred this student population for specialized services. The present mixed methods study examined perceptions and experiences of education professionals who successfully referred gifted students with ASD for specialized services.

Understanding the nuances of the two individually specialized fields of rural education and gifted education is challenging for practitioners and education researchers. However, the combined field of rural gifted education has even more complexities. An examination of context and content in rural gifted education holds potential to elucidate facets of this specialized convergent field for advances in practice and research. This literature review systematically explores complexities in the individual fields of rural education and gifted education as they relate to the unique aspects of rural gifted education. This review provides an understanding of rurality as a context for gifted education; examines rural-specific questions about curricula content, particularly place-based curricula in gifted education; and identifies successes, challenges, and gaps in rural gifted education. The review can serve as the foundation for research exploring potential influences of place and achievement on what it means to be both rural and gifted.

In Australia, the identification of gifted individuals and the provision of an education which is appropriate to their abilities is a relatively recent phenomenon. The first national focus on the special needs of gifted students took place just over 20 years ago when educators and researchers gathered at the first Australian Conference in Melbourne in 1983 and the national body, the Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented (AAEGT), was formed two years later at the second national conference in Brisbane. A reflection on Australia's progress in Gifted Education reveals that the years through the mid 1980's and 1990's witnessed the establishment of policies and programs for gifted students which were probably second to no other country in diversity and quality. There was a marked increase in specialized provision for gifted students, many teachers in schools participated in professional development in gifted education, and undergraduate and postgraduate training, including full degrees in gifted education, began to expand within the universities. Some of these Australian initiatives are highlighted in this edition of the Gifted Education International. However, as the 1990s came to an end, many programs began to close down. Indeed some Australian States which had showcased the most advanced and creative policies and programs, were the ones which reduced or abolished them. Alarm at the change of mood in Australia was voiced by one of the most respected leaders in gifted education, and a former President of the AAEGT, Professor Eddie Braggett, when he observed that, as the new millennium dawned: it is clear that there is current national concern at the closing down of some of the excellent State and Territory initiated programs … it is obvious that gifted and talented education is facing increasing difficulties in a number of States and Territories .. In their desire to reduce costs and streamline services, State Departments and Ministries of Education often collapse sections and scale back specialised services … I have genuine fears for gifted and talented students in some States as staff of Gifted and Talented Divisions are returned to schools or reincorporated into general divisions

This year, 2024 marks the 70th anniversary of Brown versus Board of Education (1954). Despite this amount of time since Black students were legally allowed to attend schools with White students, the goal(s) of this landmark court case have not been achieved. Schools are not desegregated in many states and districts. Even more segregated is gifted and talented education (GATE) in which Black students are underrepresented about approximately 55% (Office for Civil Rights’ Civil Rights Data, 2023); denied access exists more for this group more than any other. In this brief article, we juxtapose GATE with the tenets of Brown, and provide recommendations and resources for families and educators from various disciplines. We urge educators to turn from equality to equity in order to truly advocate for their Black students.

An 11-year mixed-methods, cross-sectional longitudinal study began with a group of 121 children, identified as gifted, and followed them until high-school graduation. Parents annually identified negative life events experienced by child and family, and, at graduation, students completed an open-ended retrospective questionnaire, focusing on events, impact of events, supports, and hindrances during the school years. As a result of attrition, participants became increasingly homogeneous over time. School data were available for 59 students (of 63 family units who sustained involvement) at the end. The students had experienced many negative events and situations during the school years. However, they usually cited academic challenges, school transitions, peer relationships, and overcommitment as their most challenging experiences, not life events. Almost without exception, they maintained high achievement. Putting the Research to Use: Gifted students may not communicate their distress to adults who are invested in their achievement or non-achievement. Significant adults therefore might wisely keep the findings in this study in mind as they interact with them. Inquiring casually about how the students are feeling or how they are managing high-stress times in the academic or extra-curricular year might be appreciated and potentially helpful. Though habits of achievement may help them to maintain high grades and high levels of extra-curricular performance, achievers might quietly experience high levels of stress from their heavy involvements in or outside of school. Low achievement and a high number of absences may also reflect personal stress in gifted students. Showing non-voyeuristic, holistic interest in gifted students as complex individuals, gently commenting when they seem “flat,” not fueling ultra-competitive attitudes, and offering credible comments about personal strengths and resilience might offer crucial support at a time of vulnerability.

Understanding the nuances of the specialized fields of rural education and gifted education can be challenging for practitioners and researchers. With even more complexities, the combined field of rural gifted education may be further confounding; yet investigations into this specialized, convergent field hold potential for advances in policy, practice, and research. The literature review presented in this chapter positions rural gifted education within a social justice frame, providing understandings of rurality as a context for gifted education. The authors examine place-based curricula with rural foci in gifted education, illustrate successes and challenges in the field, and highlight inequalities in rural schools where opportunity gaps are pronounced.