1st Edition

Gifted and Talented Education

Edited By Deborah Eyre
    2225 Pages
    by Routledge

    The education of gifted and talented pupils is an established domain of study but research in the area has increased dramatically, particularly in the past fifteen years. The reason for this burgeoning interest relates principally not to conventional educational concerns but rather to the desire of governments around the world to maximize intellectual capital better to compete in a globalized economy. Nurturing those with exceptional ability is now seen as a societal necessity rather than simply an educational objective. A secondary aspect of this societal interest relates to equity; gifted and talented programmes are at the forefront of national and international educational policy and they are increasingly being adopted in the pursuit of meritocracy as a mechanism to improve life chances and to stimulate social mobility.

    As serious thinking about and around the education of the gifted and talented continues to flourish, this new title in the Routledge series, Major Themes in Education, meets the need for an authoritative reference work to codify and make sense of the field’s literature. Edited by Deborah Eyre, the founding Director of the world-renowned Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth at the University of Warwick, this new Major Work brings together in four volumes the foundational and the best cutting-edge scholarship. The editor has drawn on the most important and influential research from a broad range of countries to create a one-stop ‘mini library’ which describes and analyses the rationale and purposes of gifted education. Particular attention has been paid to the controversies surrounding definitions and the identification of giftedness, and the collection provides a substantial overview of best practice in relation to education in schools and classrooms, as well as special programmes. The material gathered also closely considers the substantial hurdles that may face children identified as especially gifted.

    Gifted and Talented Education is fully indexed and has a comprehensive introduction, newly written by the editor, which places the collected material in its historical and intellectual context. It is an essential library purchase and is destined to be valued by scholars and students—as well as by educational policy-makers—as a vital reference work and research tool.

    Volume I

    Section 1. Rationale and Purposes of Gifted Education

    1.1. The Case for Gifted Education

    1. R. Cigman, ‘The Gifted Child: A Conceptual Enquiry’, Oxford Review of Education, 32, 2, 2006, 197–212.

    2. J. J. Gallagher, ‘Our Love-Hate Affair with Gifted Children’, Gifted Child Today, 9, 1, 1986, 47–9.

    3. A. Robinson and S. M. Moon, ‘A National Study of Local and State Advocacy in Gifted Education’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 1, 2003, 8–25.

    4. E. Chiotis, C. Chronopoulos, and B. M. Shore, ‘The Canadian Contribution to Gifted Education: A Comparative Analysis of Prominent Themes’, Gifted and Talented International, 17, 1, 2002, 22–30.

    5. N. M. Robinson, ‘Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right: Sacrificing the Needs of Gifted Students Does Not Solve Society’s Unsolved Problems’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 4, 2003, 251–73.

    1.2. Gifted Education as a Feature of General School Systems

    6. J. J. Gallagher, ‘Gifted Education in the 21st Century’, Gifted Education International, 16, 2, 2002, 100–10.

    7. J. F. Feldhusen, ‘Programs for the Gifted Few or Talent Development for the Many?’, Phi Delta Kappa, 79, 10, 1998, 735–8.

    8. J. S. Renzulli, ‘Expanding the Conception of Giftedness to Include Co-cognitive Traits and Promote Social Capital’, Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 1, 2002, 33–40, 57–8.

    9. B. M. Shore and M. A. B. Delcourt, ‘Effective Curricular and Program Practices in Gifted Education and the Interface with General Education’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 2, 1996, 138–54.

    10. R. J. Campbell et al., ‘English Model of Gifted and Talented Education: Policy, Context and Challenges’, Gifted and Talented International, 22, 11, 2007, 47–54.

    1.3. Giftedness in the Long Term

    11. J. Freeman, ‘Giftedness in the Long Term’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 4, 2006, 384–403.

    12. D. F. Lohman and K. A. Korb, ‘Gifted Today but not Tomorrow? Longitudinal Changes in Ability and Achievement During Elementary School’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 4, 2006, 451–86.

    13. B. S. Bloom, ‘The Role of Gifts and Markers in the Development of Talent’, Exceptional Children, 48, 6, 1982, 510–22.

    14. C. R. Harris, ‘The Hollingworth Longitudinal Study: Follow-Up, Findings, and Implications’, Roeper Review, 12, 3, 1990, 216–22.

    15. D. Lubinski and C. P. Benbow, ‘Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth After 35 Years’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 4, 2006, 316–45.

    Section 2. Socio-Cultural Perspectives

    2.1. Cultural and Equity Issues in Specific Countries

    16. R. J. Campbell et al., ‘The Social Origins of Students Identified as Gifted and Talented in England: A Geo-Demographic Analysis’, Oxford Review of Education, 33, 1, 2007, 103–20.

    17. I. Krisjansen and B. Lapins, ‘Gifted Education in South Australia: The Emerging Student Aristocracy’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 22, 1, 2001, 49–66.

    18. T. Olivier and L. Wood, ‘Inspiring Teachers to Discern and Enrich Gifted Learners in a Disadvantaged Environment’, Gifted Education International, 23, 2, 2007, 160–72.

    19. H. Jenkins, R. Moltzen, and A. Macfarlane, ‘Embracing Maori Giftedness: The Dynamics of Power, Culture and Visibility’, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 39, 1, 2004, 55–70.

    20. M. T. McBee, ‘A Descriptive Analysis of Referral Sources for Gifted Identification Screening by Race and Socioeconomic Status’, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 2, 2006, 103–11.

    2.2. Landmark Developments in Gifted Education

    21. J. S. Renzulli, ‘The Identification and Development of Giftedness as a Paradigm for School Reform’, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 2, 2000, 95–114.

    22. H. Gardner, ‘Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages’, Phi Delta Kappa, 77, 3, 1995, 200–3.

    23. R. J. Sternberg and P. R. Clinkenbeard, ‘The Triarchic Model Applied to Identifying, Teaching, and Assessing Gifted Children’, Roeper Review, 17, 4, 1995, 255–60.

    24. K. A. Ericsson, K. Nandagopal, and R. W. Roring, ‘Giftedness Viewed From the Expert-Performance Perspective’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 3–4, 2005, 287–311.

    25. U. Goswami, ‘Neuroscience and Education’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 1, 2004, 1–14.

    Volume II

    2.3. Gifted Children or Gifted Education?

    26. J. Van Tassel-Baska, ‘The Development of Academic Talent: A Mandate for Educational Best Practice’, Phi Delta Kappa, 79, 10, 1998, 760–3.

    27. D. W. Chan, ‘"Education for the Gifted" and "Talent Development": What Gifted Education Can Offer Education Reform in Hong Kong’, Education Journal, 28, 2, 2000, 1–13.

    28. D. J. Shernoff et al., ‘Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory’, School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 2, 2003, 158–76.

    29. W. F. White, ‘Divergent Thinking vs Convergent Thinking: A GT Anomaly’, Education, 3, 2, 1990, 208–13.

    30. V. I. Panov, ‘Gifted Children: Identification, Teaching and Development’, Russian Education and Society, 44, 10, 2002, 52–80.

    31. H. H. Steiner and M. Carr, ‘Cognitive Development in Gifted Children: Toward a More Precise Understanding of Emerging Differences in Intelligence’, Educational Psychology Review, 15, 3, 2003, 215–46.

    Section 3. Definitions and Identification

    3.1. Early Pioneers in the Study of Giftedness

    32. L. M. Terman, ‘The Discovery and Encouragement of Exceptional Talent’, American Psychologist, 9, 6, 1954, 221–30.

    33. J. P. Guilford, ‘Intellect and the Gifted’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 3, 1972, 175–84, 239–43.

    34. E. P. Torrance and K. Goff, ‘A Quiet Revolution’, Journal of Creative Behaviour, 23, 2, 1989, 136–45.

    3.2. Definitions: Seminal Papers on the Definition of Intelligence and Ability

    35. A. H. Passow, ‘The Nature of Giftedness and Talent’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 1, 1981, 5–10.

    36. R. J. Sternberg, ‘WICS as a Model of Giftedness’, High Ability Studies, 14, 2, 2003, 109–37.

    37. F. Gagné, ‘Transforming Gifs into Talents: the DMGT as a Developmental Theory’, High Ability Studies, 15, 2, 2004, 119–47.

    38. H. Stoeger and A. Ziegler, ‘Praise in Gifted Education: Analyses on the Basis of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness’, Gifted Education International, 20, 2005, 306–29.

    39. J. G. Geake and C. S. Dodson, ‘A Neuro-Psychological Model of the Creative Intelligence of Gifted Children’, Gifted & Talented International, 20, 1, 2005, 6–16.

    40. E. Winner, ‘The Origins and Ends of Giftedness’, American Psychologist, 55, 1, 2000, 159–69.

    3.3. Identification Dilemmas, Identification Methods, the Significance of Labels

    41. J. Alvino, R. C. McDonnel, and S. Richert, ‘National Survey of Identification Practices in Gifted and Talented Education’, Exceptional Children, 48, 2, 1981, 124–32.

    42. E. Winner, ‘Exceptionally High Intelligence and Schooling’, American Psychologist, 52, 10, 1997, 1070–81.

    43. Y. Benito and J. Moro, ‘An Empirically Based Proposal for Screening in the Early Identification of Intellectually Gifted Students’, Gifted and Talented International, 14, 2, 1999, 80–91.

    44. H. Stoeger, ‘Identification of Giftedness in Early Childhood’, Gifted and Talented International, 21, 1, 2006, 47–65.

    45. K. Lau and D. W. Chan, ‘Identification of Underachievers in Hong Kong: Do Different Methods Select Different Underachievers?’, Educational Studies, 27, 2, 2001, 187–200.

    46. D. F. Lohman, ‘The Role of Nonverbal Ability Tests in Identifying Academically Gifted Students: An Aptitude Perspective’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 2, 2005, 111–38.

    47. G. Kaufmann, ‘What to Measure? A New Look at the Concept of Creativity’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 3, 2003, 235–51.

    48. J. C. Stanley and C. P. Benbow, ‘SMPY’s First Decade: Ten Years of Posing Problems and Solving Them’, Journal of Special Education, 17, 1, 1983, 11–25.

    Volume III

    Section 4. Curriculum and Classrooms

    4.1. Curriculum Models

    49. M. C. Pyryt, ‘Thinking About Model Specification in Gifted Education’, Gifted and Talented International, 15, 2, 2000, 85–91.

    50. J. Van Tassel-Baska and E. F. Brown, ‘Towards Best Practice: An Analysis of the Efficacy of Curriculum Models in Gifted Education’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 4, 2007, 342–58.

    51. C. A. Tomlinson, ‘Quality Curriculum and Instruction for Highly Able Students’, Theory into Practice, 44, 2, 2005, 160–6.

    52. J. S. Renzulli, ‘The Multiple Menu Model for Developing Differentiated Curriculum for the Gifted and Talented’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 3, 1988, 298–309.

    53. S. M. Reis et al., ‘Curriculum Compacting and Achievement Test Scores: What does the Research Say?’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 2, 1998, 123–9.

    54. H. Wientjes and R. Tanner, ‘Compacting, Enrichment and Multiple Intelligence Theory in Gifted Education: A Dutch Example’, Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 19, 3, 2005, 2–7.

    55. D. R. Krathwohl, ‘A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview’, Theory into Practice, 41, 4, 2002, 212–18.

    56. D. J. Treffinger, ‘From Gifted Education to Programming for Talent Development’, Phi Delta Kappa, 79, 10, 1998, 752–5.

    57. J. Piirto, ‘Implications of Postmodern Curriculum Theory for the Education of the Talented’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 4, 1999, 324–53.

    4.2. Teaching and Learning

    58. K. B. Rogers, ‘Lessons Learned About Educating the Gifted and Talented: A Synthesis of the Research on Education Practice’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 4, 2007, 382–96.

    59. R. Linn-Cohen and N. B. Hertzog, ‘Unlocking the GATE to Differentiation: A Qualitative Study of Two Self-Contained Gifted Classes’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 2, 2007, 227–59.

    60. J. Guignard and T. I. Lubart, ‘A Comparative Study of Convergent and Divergent Thinking in Intellectually Gifted Children’, Gifted and Talented International, 22, 1, 2007, 9–15.

    61. V. Baumfield, ‘Tools for Pedagogical Inquiry: The Impact of Teaching Thinking Skills on Teachers’, Oxford Review of Education, 32, 2, 2006, 185–96.

    62. K. J. Topping and S. Trickey, ‘Collaborative Philosophical Inquiry for Schoolchildren: Cognitive Gains at 2-Year Follow-Up’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 4, 2007, 787–96.

    63. M. Gorodetsky and R. Klavir, ‘What Can We Learn From How Gifted/Average Pupils Describe Their Processes of Problem Solving?’, Learning and Instruction, 13, 3, 2003, 305–25.

    64. T. L. Riley and F. A. Karnes, ‘Problem-Solving Competitions: Just the Solution!’, Gifted Child Today, 28, 4, 2005, 31–64.

    65. L. Kronborg and M. Plunkett, ‘Providing an Optimal School Context for Talent Development: An Extended Curriculum Program in Practice’, The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 15, 1, 2006, 16–24.

    4.3. Teachers and their Practice

    66. W. Vialle and S. Quigley, ‘Does the Teacher of the Gifted Need to be Gifted?’, Gifted and Talented International, 17, 2, 2002, 85–90.

    67. L. Hamilton, ‘Teachers and the Very Able: Case Studies of Four Scottish Schools’, High Ability Studies, 10, 1, 1999, 85–96.

    68. N. G. Carrington and S. B. Bailey, ‘How Do Preservice Teachers View Gifted Students? Evidence from a NSW Study’, The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9, 1, 2000, 18–22.

    69. B. M. Shore and C. Kaizer, ‘The Training of Teachers for Gifted Pupils’, Canadian Journal of Education, 14, 1, 1989, 74–87.

    70. D. Eyre, ‘Structured Thinking: Improving Provision for the Gifted in Ordinary Schools’, Gifted and Talented International, 22, 1, 2007, 31–8.

    71. M. K. Kitano and K. S. Pedersen, ‘Action Research and Practical Inquiry: Multicultural Content Integration in Gifted Education: Lessons from the Field’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 3, 2002, 269–89.

    72. P. Kelly, J. Berry, and D. Battersby, ‘Developing Teacher Expertise: Teachers and Students Doing Mathematics Together’, Journal of In-Service Education, 33, 1, 2007, 41–65.

    73. D. Eyre et al., ‘Effective Teaching of Able Pupils in the Primary School: The Findings of the Oxfordshire Effective Teachers of Able Pupils Project’, Gifted Education International, 16, 2, 2002, 158–69.

    74. R. R. Maia-Pinto, ‘Educational Practices on a Brazilian Gifted and Talented Program’, Gifted Education International, 20, 1, 2006, 32–43.

    Section 5. School-wide and Non-school Provision

    5.1. Structural Models

    75. J. S. Renzulli and S. M. Reis, ‘The Reform Movement and the Quiet Crisis in Gifted Education’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 1, 1991, 26–35.

    76. N. K. Buchanan, R. A. Fox, and D. E. Martin, ‘Gifted and Talented Programs in Charter Schools’, Journal of School Choice, 1, 2, 2006, 101–30.

    77. L. Hoogeveen, J. G. van Hell, and L. Verhoeven, ‘Teacher Attitudes Toward Academic Acceleration and Accelerated Students in the Netherlands’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 1, 2005, 30–59.

    78. M. U. M. Gross, ‘Exceptionally Gifted Children: Long-Term Outcomes of Academic Acceleration and Nonacceleration’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 4, 2006, 404–29.

    79. H. W. Marsh, ‘The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect on Academic Self-Concept’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 3, 1987, 280–95.

    80. S. Hallam and J. Ireson, ‘Secondary School Pupils’ Preferences for Different Types of Structured Grouping Practices’, British Educational Research Journal, 32, 4, 2006, 583–99.

    81. C. Tieso, ‘The Effects of Grouping Practices and Curricular Adjustments on Achievement’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 1, 2005, 60–89.

    82. R. Fardell and J. G. Geake, ‘Vertical Semester Organisation in a Rural Secondary School: The Views of Gifted Students’, Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 14, 1, 2005, 15–29.

    Volume IV

    5.2. Programmes Specifically for the Gifted

    83. E. A. Hany and C. Grosch, ‘Long-Term Effects of Enrichment Summer Courses on the Academic Performance of Gifted Adolescents’, Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 6, 2007, 521–37.

    84. A. N. Rinn, ‘Effects of a Summer Program on the Social Self-Concepts of Gifted Adolescents’, The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 2, 2006, 65–75.

    85. T. R. Tretter, ‘Gifted Students Speak: Mathematics Problem-Solving Insights’, Gifted Child Today, 26, 3, 2003, 22–33.

    86. J. J. Gallagher and A. Ramsbotham, ‘Early Childhood Programs for the Gifted’, Educational Horizons, 56, 1, 1977, 42–6.

    87. J. Landvogt, G. Leder, and C. Abbott, ‘Experiences of Learning and Teaching in an Accelerated Program: The View from Within’, TalentEd, 19, 2, 2001, 1–9.

    88. W. Curry, W. MacDonald, and R. Morgan, ‘The Advanced Placement Program: Access to Excellence’, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 1, 1999, 17–23.

    5.3. New Technologies and Distance Learning

    89. P. Wallace, ‘Distance Education for Gifted Students: Leveraging Technology to Expand Academic Options’, High Ability Studies, 16, 1, 2005, 77–86.

    90. C. M. Adams and T. L. Cross, ‘Distance Learning Opportunities for Academically Gifted Students’, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 2, 1999–2000, 88–96.

    91. K. Besnoy, ‘How Do I Do That? Integrating Web Sites into the Gifted Education Classroom’, Gifted Child Today, 29, 1, 2006, 28–34.

    92. M. M. Christopher, J. A. Thomas, and M. K. Tallent-Runnels, ‘Raising the Bar: Encouraging High Level Thinking in Online Discussion Forums’, Roeper Review, 26, 3, 2004, 166–71.

    93. W. Ng and H. Nicholas, ‘Technology and Independent Learning’, Roeper Review, 29, 3, 2007, 190–6.

    94. M. W. Colombo and P. D. Colombo, ‘Using Blogs to Improve Differentiated Instruction’, The Education Digest, 73, 4, 2007, 10–14.

    Section 6. Personal Development

    6.1. Social and Emotional Development

    95. J. Freeman, ‘The Emotional Development of the Highly Able’, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 4, 1997, 479–93.

    96. G. T. Betts and M. Neihart, ‘Profiles of the Gifted and Talented’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 2, 1988, 248–53.

    97. J. A. Leroux, ‘Voices from the Classroom: Academic and Social Self-Concepts of Gifted Adolescents’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 3, 1988, 3–18.

    98. J. H. Borland, R. Schnur, and L. Wright, ‘Economically Disadvantaged Students in a School for the Academically Gifted: A Postpositivist Inquiry into Individual and Family Adjustment’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 1, 2000, 13–32.

    99. K. L. Speirs Neumeister, ‘Understanding the Relationship Between Perfectionism and the Achievement Motivation in Gifted College Students’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 3, 2004, 219–31.

    100. N. M. Robinson et al., ‘Family Factors Associated with High Academic Competence in Former Head Start Children at Third Grade’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 4, 2002, 278–90.

    6.2. Gender and Background

    101. L. H. Fox, D. Sadker, and J. L. Engle, ‘Sexism in the Schools: Implications for the Education of Gifted Girls’, Gifted and Talented International, 14, 2, 1999, 66–79.

    102. M. Van Houtte, ‘Gender Context of the School and Study Culture, or How the Presence of Girls Affects the Achievement of Boys’, Educational Studies, 30, 4, 2004, 409–23.

    103. E. Renold and A. Allan, ‘Bright and Beautiful: High Achieving Girls, Ambivalent Femininities, and the Feminization of Success in the Primary School’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27, 4, 2006, 457–73.

    104. M. Hargreaves, M. Homer, and B. Swinnerton, ‘A Comparison of Performance and Attitudes in Mathematics Amongst the "Gifted": Are Boys Better at Mathematics or Do They Just Think They Are?’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 1, 2008, 19–38.

    105. H. Elhoweris et al., ‘Effect of Children’s Ethnicity on Teachers’ Referral and Recommendation Decisions in Gifted and Talented Programs’, Remedial and Special Education, 26, 1, 2005, 25–31.

    6.3. Underachievement

    106. A. Ziegler and H. Stoeger, ‘Identification of Underachievement: An Empirical Study on the Agreement Among Various Diagnostic Sources’, Gifted and Talented International, 18, 2, 2003, 87–94.

    107. S. N. Phillipson and A. K. Tse, ‘Discovering Patterns of Achievement in Hong Kong Students: An Application of the Rasch Measurement Model’, High Ability Studies, 18, 2, 2007, 173–90.

    108. B. Staudt and A. C. Neubauer, ‘Achievement, Underachievement and Cortical Activation: A Comparative EEG Study of Adolescents of Average and Above-Average Intelligence’, High Ability Studies, 17, 1, 2006, 3–16.

    109. L. Kanevsky and T. Keighley, ‘To Produce or Not to Produce? Understanding Boredom and the Honor in Underachievement’, Roeper Review, 26, 1, 2003, 20–8.

    110. D. B. McCoach and D. Siegle, ‘Factors That Differentiate Underachieving Gifted Students from High-Achieving Gifted Students’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 2, 2003, 144–54.

    6.4. Multiple Exceptionality

    111. D. Montgomery, ‘Double Exceptionality: Gifted Children With Special Educational Needs and What Ordinary Schools Can Do’, Gifted and Talented International, 18, 1, 2004, 29–35.

    112. S. Tresman and L. Peer, ‘Dyslexic and Gifted: Are the Two Really Compatible? And How Can These Learners Be Nurtured?’, Gifted Education International, 20, 1, 2005, 29–35.

    113. S. A. Gallagher and J. J. Gallagher, ‘Giftedness and Asperger’s Syndrome: A New Agenda for Education’, Understanding Our Gifted, 14, 2, 2002, 7–12.

    114. J. A. Leroux and M. Levitt-Perlman, ‘The Gifted Child with Attention Deficit Disorder: An Identification and Intervention Challenge’, Roeper Review, 22, 3, 2000, 171–6.


    Professor Deborah Eyre is an academic and government adviser. Based at the University of Warwick she was the founding Director of the UK Government’s National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth and has advised governments across the world on policy and practice in gifted education.

    The Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) was established in 2002 and based at the University of Warwick has a remit to lead improvements in education for gifted and talented children up to the age of 19 years. An ex-teacher, LEA adviser, and university academic, Deborah Eyre’s current role combines advising and shaping the gifted dimension of national education initiatives as well as directing NAGTY’s work with schools, students, and parents.

    Eyre has had a long-standing interest in the education of able/gifted pupils and has worked in this field for over twenty-five years. She is a leading academic researcher with a particular interest in classroom pedagogy for gifted and talented children. Her academic work includes models for helping teachers improve their practice in schools (Structured Tinkering) and for integrating gifted education into general education structures (The English Model). Author of many books and articles including the seminal text Able Children in Ordinary Schools, a guidance handbook for teachers and headteachers.

    During her career she established the Oxford Brookes Research Centre for Able Pupils, designed the UK Government’s National Training Programme for Co-ordinators of Gifted and Talented Pupils in EiC schools, and served as a specialist adviser to the House of Commons Education Select Committee.

    Eyre serves on the Board of the Teacher Development Agency (TDA) and is its representative on the Board of the National College for School Leadership (NCSL). She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a Professor of Education at the University of Warwick, an Advisory Board Member of the Center for Talented Youth, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Governor of Kingshurst City Technology College, and an Executive Committee Member of the WCGTC (World Council for Gifted and Talented Children).