Volume 1 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership - Page 20

18 services in the regular classroom becomes even more salient for educators” (p. 157). The seminal research of Kulik (1992) used a meta-analy - sis to examine findings on grouping from research conduct - ed from 1916 to 1992. The author found that academic gains for gifted students were directly influenced by the degree of curricular adjustment and not the form of grouping per se (Kulik, 1992). In other words, grouping in a cluster model is effective if the curricular differentiation is consistent and on-going. If cluster grouping is not led by a curriculum or teacher who differentiates as a matter of practice, then gifted students will not see academic gains (Kulik, 1992). The au - thor’s conclusion was that gifted students are able to have their academic needs met through cluster grouping and that such grouping is an “appropriate and necessary function of the school system” (Kulik, 1992, p. 127). Weinebrenner (1992) promoted the cluster grouping model as a means to diminish the elitist attacks against gifted education in homogeneous classrooms. Theoretical- ly, all students would benefit from the same differentiated instructional model. Years later, Hertberg-Davis (2009) re - sponded to Weinebrenner’s research and reported finding a lack of differentiation in heterogeneous classrooms. Hert - berg-Davis (2009) concluded that differentiation in the regu - lar classroom in a cluster model is not an effective substitute for homogeneous grouping programming and that cur- rent instructional practices fail to meet gifted and talented learners’ needs. Researched Guidelines for Effective Cluster Grouping While cluster grouping, as a model for serving the gifted, is a practical means to an end, maintaining recommendations from past research are believed to increase the model’s effec - tiveness. First, students should be clustered with their intel - lectual as well as same-age peers (Bryant, 1987; Delcourt & Evans, 1994; Hoover, Sayler, & Fedlhusen, 1993; McInerney, 1983; Oakes, 1985; Rogers, 1991; Slavin, 1990; Winebrenner, 1992). Secondly, cluster grouping provides for full-time gifted student services without requiring additional pro - gramming or staffing (Hoover et al., 1993; Rogers, 1991; Winebrenner, 1992). Third, the highest achieving, or highly gifted students, should be removed from general education classrooms so that other general education students can emerge as intellectual leaders (Kennedy, 1989; Winebrenner, 1992). Fourth, the achievement levels within a single class - room are reduced to offer more differentiation opportunities for students at the upper levels of achievement (Coleman, 1995; Delcourt & Evans, 1994; Rogers, 1993). Discussion of Recent Trends “Homogenization of educational experience is advocated primarily as a means to social change; the rush to hetero- geneous grouping and cooperative learning for the gifted is probably heavily influenced by these same social and po - litical value systems” (Feldman & Moon, 1992, p. 84). Reis (2004) warned that the social-political demands that have served gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms may have detrimental effects. Cluster grouping may “detract from achieving what is basic to a quality gifted program, namely acceleration and constant ability grouping. Acceler- ation and grouping are the lightning rod issues that test the level of endorsement that gifted programs enjoy in a local school district” (Reis, 2004, p. 70). The expanding range of academic readiness in most public schools has exacerbated the ability of teachers to ef- fectively differentiate (Petrilli, 2011). “By the fourth grade, public-school children who score among the top 10 percent of students on the National Assessment of Educational Prog- ress (NAEP) are reading at least six grade levels above those in the bottom 10 percent. Even differences between students at the 25th and at the 75th percentile are huge—academic readiness is separated by at least three grade levels” (Petrilli, 2011, p. 49). De-tracking advocates have claimed the victory in the classroom as cluster grouping and within-classroom differentiation have gained acceptance while homogeneous grouping programs for the gifted have retreated. Mean- while, in the classroom, the level of support needed by all students, even the gifted, has risen along with the increasing range of academic readiness. Conclusions In conclusion, the inherent democratic tension between ex - cellence and equity in the classroom is far from resolved. In the politically charged educational environment, gifted edu- cators have been urged to embrace the inclusive model with Kathryn Pabst Schaeffer, Ed.D.