Intermedias: las que no clasifican en los grupos anteriores, el fríjol.

The original intention of the study was to learn from experiences with the newly implemented programming and how it was addressing gifted students’ needs, but through a careful analysis of the common narratives and experiences shared, it became apparent that their stories were less about their evaluation of the programming and more about them sharing their individual needs in the regular classroom. With the questions posed and the cue cards with either quotations from participants in the initial demographic survey or salient quotations from recent research, the focus groups were designed to have participants share their stories of experience with the new vision for secondary gifted programming, but their narratives were rooted in not only their learning needs, but their needs in the regular classroom. Likewise with teacher-participants, some shared stories of the programming framework as it pertained to building capacity within each school, but upon careful examination it showcased how the root of their narratives were about teacher-education, professional development, and an overall lack of awareness of gifted learners’ needs within public education. It was apparent that enrichment programming that was non-credit bearing and occurred outside the regular class, such as ELOPE or SPARK! conferences, were touched on in-brief as a positive experiences, indicating how alternative non-credit enrichment programming was hailed as acceptable and enjoyable, but discussions of needs seemed to stem from the regular classroom experience and the desire for

classroom teachers to not only recognize the unique needs of gifted learners, but to provide opportunities for them within the class or school for credit.

Students often shared stories of disappointment, but always seemed to understand, as they knew their above average ability needs would not likely be a priority in a class with peers requiring remedial assistance. It was as though they knew they could receive enrichment elsewhere, even though it would have to be on their own time or would not always generate achievement credits. That being said, students spoke of a desire to develop their own courses for credit that would allow them to bring in their outside interests and dive deeper into a

challenging course where they had autonomy in the design. One student shared her excitement of being able to design her own course for semester two of the same school year and one teacher spoke highly of a course framework that he was able to offer at his school where at any given time there could be 10 to 15 different projects or interdisciplinary studies occurring in the same space. With all students earning a credit for programming that was interest-based he felt it was just and proved to the students that public education can and will provide programming to meet their needs.

Upon triangulating the data it illustrated how my experiences as both the primary investigator in the research study as well as a student in an enrichment program myself, those experiences of the participants, and the literature reviewed, it provided great insight into gifted learners’ needs and how the struggle to program effectively for them has been a chronic issue in public education for decades. Gifted students need first and foremost to have educators who

are both well-versed in special education and completely mindful that Giftedness is an

exceptionality and gifted learners have special needs, not just unique talents or abilities. It was also evident that teachers of the regular classroom may not feel they are able to meet the needs of gifted students because of the great responsibility of meeting the needs of all learners in a class, which is often a struggle when trying to differentiate instruction and assessment without a solid understanding of special education (Loveless et al., 2011; see also Davis, 2006; Mills et al., 1994; Reis & Renzulli, 2010; Smith, 2011; Subotnik et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 1991; Winebrenner, 2000); even more, regular classroom teachers may not be aware that gifted learners’ needs are, indeed, their responsibility and must be met in the regular classroom (Loveless et al., 2011; see also Delisle & Lewis, 2003; Leroux, 1989; Reis & Renzulli, 2004, 2010a; Robinson & Puk, 1989; Subotnik et al., 2011).

It must also be noted that my unique positionality in the study as not only the primary investigator and former student in an enrichment withdrawal program, but as the educator responsible for implementing gifted programming in the local public school board’s secondary schools, I have been mindful of my presence throughout the process and reiterate that this narrative inquiry is the researcher’s story of the stories (Lewison, Flint, Van Sluys, 2002). To further articulate how the stories have been interpreted for understanding, great attention to both the construction and deconstruction processes have been employed including, but not limited to, having multiple perspectives on programming from various participants; showcasing the counter-narratives and grey areas, such as the other stories represented; verbatim

designed the study to learn from those who were either receiving or implementing the programming through a critical lens in order to progressively and collaborative refine (Goldszmidt et al., 2014) the system vision, as it is my responsibility to ensure we have

responsive programming that meets the needs of secondary students with the exceptionality of Giftedness. The stories and experiences shared have only added greater depth and

understanding to this exceptionality and what programs and supports would benefit gifted students. My own experiences as a receiver of programming provided a mere timeline for comparison, indicating that enrichment needs were not a priority in the regular classroom in the late 20th Century, so stories shared provided greater understanding into the needs of gifted learners in the early 21st Century. As for my role as the Secondary Gifted Itinerant, any insight or stories of experience of either current or former programming—both positives and areas requiring further development—only added greater awareness of what secondary public education could do for gifted learners today. Lastly all exceptional pupils, including learners requiring enrichment or remedial assistance, are deserving of specialized programs and services (Ministry of Education, 2001). This study was poised at addressing what students with special intellectual and enrichment needs required in today’s public education classrooms so we can continue to program effectively to meet their special needs.