Volume 1 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership - Page 19

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 17 seen as highly engaging for all students, criticism remains as to how these approaches are applied any differently for gifted students than for general education students. Gentry and Mann (2008) responded that gifted students’ academ- ic products should strongly reflect professional standards which are much higher than grade level standards. Products that are designed to assess a students’ learn- ing can be personalized from a menu of options or be self-created by the students themselves (Gentry & Mann, 2008). Unique products should also offer an assessment of the learning process itself rather than just a final perfor - mance task. Products should embed cognitive demand and “stretch students in application of understanding and skill as well as in the pursuit of quality” (Tomlinson et al., 2006). If gifted students need measurably different learning experi - ences, then the heterogeneous classroom, even with product development, may be insufficient if the cognitive demand is not embedded in the design of the task. Cluster Grouping with Differentiation in Heterogeneous Classrooms The differentiated classroom is reminiscent of the one-room schoolhouse where different ages and abilities were a nor - mal part of the classroom experience. Cluster grouping is a type of ability grouping for gifted students within the general education classroom. It is the practice of grouping four to six identified gifted students into a single classroom with a teacher who has received training on differentiation and teaching to gifted students (Walker & Seymour, 2002). Gifted students are clustered into classrooms with a teacher who has been designated as the teacher of record. The clus - ter grouped classroom also includes non-gifted students. Cluster grouping is cost efficient and also does not disrupt the general education setting. Thus, it has become an attrac - tive model for districts who may not be able to create mag - net or homogeneous school-within-a-school models. Clus - ter grouping represents a model that allows gifted students to receive services on a full time daily basis. Strategies used within the cluster-group classroom for gifted are: acceler - ation, compacting, enrichment, independent studies, and flexible grouping (Brulles & Winebrenner, 2011). Ongoing assessment invites flexible grouping according to the needs and results of both formative and summative assessments. Discussion Regarding Effectiveness of Cluster Grouping Purposeful and intentional differentiation lies at the heart of the cluster-group model. Although cluster grouping for gifted students is widely promoted, varying empirical evi - dence exists to support its practice for improving academic growth. Because enrichment and differentiation is largely left up to the individual classroom teacher to implement, the difference between ideal and actual effectiveness is recog - nized. Gentry and MacCougall (2008) found that “curricular differentiation is more efficient and likely to occur when a group of high-achieving students is placed with a teacher who has expertise, training, and a desire to differentiate cur - riculum than when these students are distributed among many teachers” (p. 12). The differentiation movement was born of political and monetary necessity and not what research has shown offers gifted students the best opportunity for their largest year- ly academic growth. Questions remain about the theory of cluster grouped differentiation for gifted students. Dr. Carol Tomlinson, the originator of the whole school cluster model, discussed the practical problems related to differen - tiation in an interview with Wu (2013). Wu (2013) conclud - ed the following: With the ever expanding needs in the general education classroom, the teacher’s job to help each of the students understand that everybody has a next step in learning. When everybody’s next step is the same, great. But if the next steps differ for different students, which is typical, then it becomes the teacher’s role to create more than one ‘‘next step.’’ (p. 130) In defense of the differentiated cluster grouping model, Dai and Chen (2013) blamed the poor results on weak teach - er training and lack of will on the part of the campus or dis - trict administration. When reacting to the criticism that dif- ferentiation is unrealistic due to the many constraints on the classroom teacher to cover grade level standards for all stu- dents, Dai and Chen (2013) stated that the theory of differen - tiation is not invalidated by poor implementation. Howev - er, Dai and Chen (2013) acknowledged that “as the diversity of students in the same classroom escalates, the question of how to meet precocious and advanced learners’ unique edu - cational needs through appropriate, personalized education