The Perceptions of School Counselors on Preparedness for Serving Gifted Students Using Bullying Prevention and Intervention Strategies

St. Cloud State University St. Cloud State University

theRepository at St. Cloud State theRepository at St. Cloud State

Culminating Projects in Education

Administration and Leadership

Department of Educational Leadership and

Higher Education

8-2020

The Perceptions of School Counselors on Preparedness for The Perceptions of School Counselors on Preparedness for

Serving Gifted Students Using Bullying Prevention and Serving Gifted Students Using Bullying Prevention and

Intervention Strategies Intervention Strategies

Rick Halley

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/edad_etds

Part of the Educational Leadership Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Halley, Rick, "The Perceptions of School Counselors on Preparedness for Serving Gifted Students Using

Bullying Prevention and Intervention Strategies" (2020).

Culminating Projects in Education Administration

and Leadership

. 71.

https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/edad_etds/71

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Educational Leadership and

Higher Education at theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culminating Projects in

Education Administration and Leadership by an authorized administrator of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For

more information, please contact [email protected].

The Perceptions of School Counselors on Preparedness for Serving Gifted

Students Using Bullying Prevention and Intervention Strategies

Rick L. Halley

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

St. Cloud State University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree

Doctor of Education in

Educational Administration and Leadership

August, 2020

Dissertation Committee:

John Eller, Chairperson

Elizabeth Fogarty

David Lund

Plamen Miltenoff

Abstract

Despite 40 years of significant national research on various aspects of bullying (Espelage,

& Swearer, 2004), and although past research has intentionally spent time examining bullying in

specific populations, one population ignored in the research is the gifted student population

(Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). The limited research available indicates gifted students may be

vulnerable or are at risk of being targets of bullies, may become the bullies, or may even be bully-

victims (Cross, 2001a, 2001b; Peters & Bain, 2011; Parliament of Victoria, 2012; Roddick, 2011;

Schroeder-Davis, 2012). While educators and administrators play an integral role in the

development and safety of the gifted child, the research is clear; school counselors are best suited

to serve the unique developmental needs of gifted students (Bauman, 2008; Philips & Cornell,

2012).

The study was conducted to understand how versed and skilled counselors perceive their

abilities to be in addressing gifted and bullying at the elementary, middle school, and high school

levels. Data was collected through interviews of 9 Minnesota counselors who serve gifted

students, 3 at elementary, 3 at middle school and 3 at high school. Data showed bullying is a

concern at the elementary and middle school level. Gifted students were identified as a targeted

group at the elementary and middle school level. Most elementary and middle school counselors

did not feel confident in serving the unique social and emotional needs of gifted students. The

study found counselors did utilize numerous strategies to address bullying, more at the elementary

level with fewer utilized at the high school level. Most counselors in the study reported an anti-

bullying program is being utilized, with four counselors reporting no program being used.

Counselors overall perceive the strategies utilized by administrators were effective for reducing

bullying.

The themes of the dissertation include: the concept of giftedness, the unique social and

emotional needs of gifted students, the evolving role of the counselor in serving gifted students,

and the information about bullying and prevention and intervention.

The study contributes to the body of research on bullying by providing more information

for those who work toward understanding the healthy development of gifted youngsters. Also, the

study sheds light on preparedness of counseling programs at colleges and universities preparing

counselors to meet the unique needs of gifted students.

Keywords: Bully, Bullying, Social & Emotional, Counselors, Gifted, Prevention, Intervention

Dedication

This journey, and final paper is dedicated first and foremost to every child, of any age ever

bullied. To the bullied: Please know you are loved, valued, and not forgotten. My heart breaks for

all the students bullied who felt their best option was to take their own life. I am equally frustrated

to have discovered in this process adults have not always been there in ways which you needed.

The study seeks to advance this cause, and to build capacities in all those working with students,

but especially in school counselors.

Next, I dedicate this work to Leta Setter Hollingworth (1886-1939). I became obsessed

with Leta and what she accomplished for the gifted population. Why don’t more people know

about these accomplishments? One of the first counselors of gifted education, she devoted her life

to helping us further understand the social and emotional needs of the gifted. It was fascinating to

see that our paths crossed years apart in Chadron, McCook, and Lincoln, Nebraska. The fact so

much of what is being done even today comes from seeds Leta planted, adds to the legacy and

impact of her life.

I would feel remorse for not recognizing another researcher, Dr. Susan M. Swearer of

Nebraska. Dr. Swearer, at the University of Nebraska, either alone, or through collaborations with

others, has contributed endless amounts of research and ideas to the field. A well-respected

advocate nationally as well as internationally, she was a recent 2019 Keynote speaker at the

(second) World Anti-Bullying Forum held in Dublin, Ireland.

Jean Sunde Peterson has also become my modern-day professional obsession. What a

legacy she is leaving, not to mention what impact and contributions she is making to the field of

gifted and counseling. With that, I also direct everyone’s attention to the marvelous work of Linda

Silverman with the Gifted Development Center in Colorado. Then there’s Susannah H. Wood. It

is my hope to meet each of you yet in my lifetime. I know the solution for eradicating bullying

and keeping our children safe will have been highly influenced by your work and

recommendations.

Finally, I dedicate this to Dr. James T. Webb. I had the privilege of meeting and speaking

to Dr. Webb at a SENG facilitator training in Denver. Dr. Webb was a pioneer with his work

around the social and emotional needs of gifted students. Unfortunately, Dr. Webb passed away

on July 27, 2018, just as I had finished the draft of Chapter three of my dissertation. The SENG

organization will remain a critical organization for addressing the social and emotional needs of

gifted students today and in the future.

Acknowledgements

I begin by acknowledging my patient and incredible wife, Kandy, and amazing daughter,

Mariah, who have been nothing but supportive. This enormous project has meant weekends away

from home, piles of books always lying around my designated area, endless days of sitting at the

computer, days processing ideas aloud, days attending meetings with experts-- superintendents,

the MN Dept of Education, teachers, counselors and administrators, as I learned everything I

could about the themes of my dissertation.

I never would have gotten through the journey without my St. Cloud cohort. What a

wonderful, diverse and unique group of individuals coming from such varied backgrounds and

experiences. May great things continue for each of you with your completed degrees!

I am forever grateful for all the wisdom of people who have taken this path before me, and

who have moved the field forward so our gifted students are learning new information and skills

each day. A special thanks to gifted educators and authors, Dr. Richard Cash, and Barbara

Dullaghan for their knowledge and inspiration. This process has taught me that there is much

work and advocating to be done when it comes to meeting the social and emotional concerns of

students, especially our gifted population.

Thanks to my editor, Rita Speltz, a retired English teacher. I would not have chosen

anyone else. Those darn split infinitives needed extra attention.

Thanks to everyone who agreed to be a part of my board, including Dr. Elizabeth Fogarty

of the University of Minnesota, whom I will always be envious of, knowing she has studied with

the best of the best in Gifted education, including studies at the University of Connecticut.

It goes almost without saying, but a special thanks to all the counselors who agreed to

participate in the study, especially during a pandemic.

Finally, thanks to everyone who encouraged me, who asked me how I was progressing, or

who has ever been a part of my life, and added to the skills I needed to go through such a process

of completing and defending a dissertation. This would include my parents, Marvin and Beverly

Halley; my brother, Ron; my sister, Tammy; my friend, Meredith Aby-Keirstead, and my high

school speech teacher, Patricia (Olson) Stauss of Lincoln, Nebraska. Ms. Stauss has given me

skills which have allowed me to be a part of conversations in places I never dreamed possible,

including a symposium at Harvard.

Table of Contents

Page

List of Tables ............................................................................................................... 12

Chapter

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 13

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................. 20

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 21

Assumptions of the Study ............................................................................. 21

Research Plan for the Study ............................................................................... 22

Delimitations ................................................................................................ 22

Research Questions ...................................................................................... 23

Definition of Terms ...................................................................................... 24

Summary ............................................................................................................ 29

II. Review of Related Literature ................................................................................... 32

Understanding the Conceptualization of Giftedness .......................................... 33

History of the Concept of Giftedness ........................................................... 35

Other Relevant Conceptions of Giftedness .................................................. 40

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 44

The Unique Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted Students ............................ 46

Common Traits of Gifted Students .............................................................. 49

Socialization: Peer Relationships and Possible Isolation ............................. 50

Overexcitabilities of the Gifted Child .......................................................... 51

Depression and Suicide ................................................................................ 54

Chapter Page

Social and Emotional Competence: Focus on The Whole Child ................. 57

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 57

History and Changing Role of the Counselor in U.S. Schools ........................... 59

Industrial Revolution .................................................................................... 60

The Beginning of Counseling Gifted Students ............................................. 61

The Great Depression ................................................................................... 61

Formation of American School Counselor Association (ASCA) ................ 66

A Nation at Risk ........................................................................................... 69

Limitations and Concerns ............................................................................. 70

History of Bullying ............................................................................................. 74

Types of Bullying ......................................................................................... 77

The Bystander: Hurting or Helping .............................................................. 79

History of Bullying in Minnesota ................................................................. 79

Teachers and Bullying .................................................................................. 82

Administrators and Bullying ........................................................................ 84

Counselors and Bullying .............................................................................. 85

Characteristics of a Bully ............................................................................. 85

Characteristics of a Victim ........................................................................... 86

Prevalence and Significant Concern ............................................................. 87

Counselors, Gifted and Bullying .................................................................. 95

Significant Research on Gifted, Bullying, and Development ...................... 95

Gifted Students and Cyberbullying .............................................................. 98

Chapter Page

Effective Anti-bullying Strategies to Be Implemented and Supported by

Counselors ............................................................................................ 101

Effective Bullying Programs .............................................................................. 105

Conclusion of Literature Review ....................................................................... 109

III. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 113

Research Questions ...................................................................................... 114

Participants ......................................................................................................... 114

Human Subject Approval ................................................................................... 116

Research Design ................................................................................................. 116

Pilot Testing ................................................................................................. 116

Interview Questions ...................................................................................... 117

Instruments for Data Collection and Analysis ................................................... 119

Treatment of Data ............................................................................................... 119

Description of the Sample .................................................................................. 121

Procedures and Timelines .................................................................................. 124

Summary ............................................................................................................ 125

IV. Findings and Results ................................................................................................ 127

Introduction .................................................................................................. 127

Research Problem ............................................................................................... 127

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 127

Interview and Participants ............................................................................ 128

Description of the Sample Participants .............................................................. 128

Chapter Page

Research Questions ............................................................................................ 131

Interview Results: Participant Demographics .............................................. 132

Interview Results: Research Question One .................................................. 134

Interview Results: Research Question Two ................................................. 140

Interview Results: Research Question Three ............................................... 144

Interview Results: Research Question Four ................................................. 150

Summary ............................................................................................................ 154

V. Summary and Discussion ......................................................................................... 157

Research Questions ...................................................................................... 158

Research Findings Question One ................................................................. 159

Research Findings Question Two ................................................................. 164

Research Findings Question Three ............................................................... 165

Research Findings Question Four ................................................................ 170

Limitations .................................................................................................... 171

Addressing Themes Found in the Interviews ..................................................... 171

Recommendations for Furth Research ............................................................... 174

Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................... 175

Concluding Remarks .......................................................................................... 175

References ............................................................................................................................ 177

Appendices

A. Letter of Cooperation .................................................................................................. 256

B. Adult Informed Consent Form .................................................................................... 257

Chapter Page

Appendices (continued)

C. Qualitative Interview Questions ................................................................................. 259

D. Example of Coding Journal for Theme Analysis ...................................................... 261

List of Tables

Table Page

4.1 Respondents’ Years of Experience ........................................................................... 132

4.2 Respondents’ Area of Service .................................................................................. 133

4.3 Respondents’ Identified Race ................................................................................... 133

4.4 Counselors’ Perceptions of Occurrence of Bullying in their Building .................... 134

4.5 Counselors’ Perceptions of Targets of Bullying ...................................................... 138

4.6 Counselors’ Level of Confidence in Serving the Unique Needs of Gifted

Students .............................................................................................................. 141

4.7 Perception of Anti-Bullying Programs ..................................................................... 144

4.8 Counselors’ Perceived Strategies Used to Reduce Bullying .................................... 147

4.9 Strategies used by Administrators to Reduce Bullying ............................................ 150

4.10 Counselors’ Perceptions of Effectiveness of Strategies Used by

Administrators .................................................................................................... 152

Chapter I: Introduction

Dylan Klebold was identified as a gifted student. In fact, according to his mother’s

memoir Dylan, at age 4, through the school’s early entrance process, started kindergarten

(Klebold, 2016). The memoir reveals he struggled with the gifted program. Just 13 years later, on

April 20, 1999, Dylan Klebold, along with Eric Harris, murdered twelve students, one teacher,

and injured 24 others in Littleton, Colorado, before committing suicide in the Columbine

Shooting, one of several high-profile school massacres in the United States (Allanson, Lestor, &

Notar, 2015; Brown, & Merritt, 2002; Cullen, 2009; Hughes, 1999; Kohut, 2000; Langman, 2010;

Larkin, 2009; Viadero, 2009). Evidence suggests the shooters had planned and executed the

complex attack as a result of years of bullying (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003). The

shooting involved Robyn Anderson, another gifted (honor) student who purchased two shotguns

and a Hi-Point 9 mm Carbine which would later be used in the shooting (Congressional Record,

2000).

Bullying had already been a significant concern internationally. Bullying had been the

focus of research in Scandinavia countries in the late 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, prior to the

Columbine Shooting (Devoe et al., 2004; Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump et al., 2001; Olweus,

1993a. 1993b. 1996, 1999; O’Moore & Hillery, 1989; Rigby, 1993; Swearer & Cary, 2003;

Unnever & Cornell, 2003). By the 1990s, systematic research on student bullying was being

conducted in Scandinavia, Japan, England, Australia and Canada (Besag, 1989; Devoe et al.,

2004; Haynie et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993a, 1993b; Swearer, 2010; Swearer & Cary, 2003;

Unnever & Cornell, 2003, 2004).

However, while studies were being conducted on subpopulations, research specifically on

the gifted population was being ignored. Gifted children are a diverse group and may not fit the

historic profile. According to Colangelo and Wood (2015),

Gifted students live in poverty in both urban and rural areas (Howley & Howley, 2012;

Worrell & Young, 2012). Gifted students include Native Americans, Asian Americans,

African Americans, Latinos and other individuals from various racial and ethnic

backgrounds (Kitano, 2012). Gifted students can identify as gay, lesbian, queer, or

transgender (Peterson & Rischar, 2000). Students may have disabilities, may struggle with

underachievement, and may have difficulties with relationships. (p. 133)

Defining giftedness is problematic as there are several paradigms to consider (Kaufman,

2018). Levy and Plucker (2008) advocated for gifted students to be considered a separate and

unique population to gather much needed information for best serving their academic as well as

social and emotional needs.

As a result of the Columbine shooting in the United States, Dan Olweus began to train and

collaborate with his American colleagues in using systematic programming and research (Buck,

2017; Olweus, 1993a, 1993b). Olweus is considered the founding father of anti-bullying research.

He composed anti-bullying legislation in Sweden in the mid-1990s (Olweus, 1993a, 1993b).

Sweden’s legislation may have helped guide anti-bullying legislation in U.S. states beginning in

the late ‘90s. However, not until 2005 did the federal government collect data on bullying in the

United States. The study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education revealed nearly 28% of

students reported being bullied. Today, all states have some form of anti-bullying laws.

Minnesota’s first anti-bullying legislation (2009) ranked as one of the weakest in the nation by a

report released by the U.S. Department of Education (Weber, 2011). However, Minnesota

Governor Mark Dayton signed a tougher and more comprehensive bill in 2014 (U.S. Departent of

Education, 2011, 2014). Today, bullying is not taken lightly (Goldman, 2012; Kowalski, Limber,

& Agaston, 2012; Olweus, 2013a, 2013b). Students and adults have been reprimanded, and in

some cases sentenced for their involvement in bullying (Agaston, 2012).

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2016), students are bullied for

numerous reasons. Gifted students have unique social and emotional needs, including

asynchronous development, intensities or Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities, and tendencies to

struggle with relationships (Alsop, 2003, Fonesca, 2011; Lind, 2001; Silverman, 1999). Gifted

students may experience anxieties, perfectionism, and a strong sense of justice (Adderholt-Elliot,

1989; Fonesca, 2011; NAGC, 2020). The gifted may even struggle to understand why someone

would bully another person, making them even vulnerable to bullying (Betts, 1985, 1986; Betts &

Kirher, 1999; Cross, 2001a, 1002b; Kitano, 1990; Peterson, & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). Other reasons

students are bullied include: Physical appearance, race/ethnicity, gender, religion, personal

beliefs, sexual orientation, health, and disabilities (Peterson, & Ray, 2006a, 2996b). As a result of

systematic research, and changes in U.S. laws around bullying, school counselors began to play

an important role in reducing bullying in schools (Phillips, & Cornell, 2012). Evidence from

several studies suggests shortage of teachers’ effectiveness when teachers address incidents of

bullying (Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2004; Lee, 2006; Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener,

2006; Thomsen, 2002, 2012). Philips and Cornell (2012) found school counselors are more

qualified than other educators to identify and confirm acts of bullying. Jacobsen and Bauman

(2007) argued school counselors displayed more empathy for victims of physical and relational

bullying than teachers. Counselors understand the impacts of bullying are far-reaching (Jacobsen

& Bauman, 2007). Counselors understand bullied gifted students report lower self-esteem and

self-worth (Austin & Joseph, 1996; Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2004; Rigby & Slee, 1993). Gifted

students may encounter sleep disorders or illness (Gruber & Finneran, 2007; Kliewer, 2006;

Rigby, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2003; Vaillancourt et al., 2008) may have difficulties with relationships

(Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Edwards, Hershberger, Russell, & Market, 2001; Espelage & Holt,

2013; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Graham & Juvonen,1998; Juvonen, Nishina & Graham,

2000; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996), may experience more anxiety and depression

as a result (Espelage & Holt, 2013; Graham, & Juvonen, 1998; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, M,

Martunnin, Rimpela, A, & Rantanen, 1999; Kim, Koh, & Leventhal, 2005) and may have altered

brain functioning (Knack, Gomez, & Jensen-Campbell, 2010). Bullied children fantasize about

killing themselves more than non-bullied children and even attempt to take their life more often

than their non-victimized peers (Brunstein-Klomek, Marocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould,

2007; Brunstein-Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfield, & Gould, 2008).

Significant findings of specific populations over the years caution certain populations may

be more vulnerable to bullying. Maker (1977) estimates 3% of all special education students are

gifted. Numerous studies conclude special education students are at a high risk of being targets

for bullying (Blake, Lund, Zhou, Kwok, & Benz, 2012; Swearer, Wang, Maag, Siebecker, &

Frerichs, 2012). Swearer et al. (2012) followed more than 800 special education and general

education students from nine elementary, middle, and high schools. The results revealed 77% of

the special education students were found to have been victimized by bullies, and 38% admitted

they had bullied others.

Another targeted group is the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual population. Gifted

students are of various sexual orientations. For this reason, earlier research around LBGT and

bullying must be considered (NAGC, 1998). Concerns for gifted gay students initiated the

National Association for Gifted Children (1998) to establish a Gifted Children, Gay, Lesbian,

Bisexual and Transgender task force (NAGC, 1998). Data indicates there is still reason to be

concerned. A recent school climate survey (2009) found 61.1% of LGBT students felt unsafe at

school because of their sexual orientation, 39.9% felt unsafe because of their gender expression

(GLSEN, 2009, 2013).

Levy and Plucker (2008) advocate for making gifted students a special population. Levy

and Plucker (2008) argue,

Gifted students should be considered a special population because of differential abilities

and expectation, associated with their abilities. Gifted children constitute a unique

subculture that necessitates understanding and application of specialized skills by

understanding and application of specialized skills by helping professionals, including

school counselors. (p. 4)

One of the most, if not the most significant studies of gifted students at this time,

conducted by Peterson and Ray (2006a, 2006b), found 67% of gifted students had experienced

bullying by eighth grade. The study revealed bullying reported by 1 in 4 elementary gifted

students. Furthermore, 16% of gifted students identified themselves as bullies, with 29%

acknowledging they had violent thoughts. Peterson (2006) noted, “while most of the bullying

reported was verbal, it doesn’t mean it was any less harmful than the physical variety” (p. 165).

The limited research available recognized many gifted students do not feel comfortable sharing

their concerns with their families or teachers. The gifted population does not appear to want to

call any additional attention to their victimization (Peterson, & Ray, 2006a, 2006b).

Within the study of the gifted population, limited research on bullying of twice-

exceptional students is available (Baum & Owen, 1984: Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2009,

2011; Rowley, 2012). Twice exceptional is a term used for a student identified as gifted but also

has a learning disability. Twice exceptional identification often includes students on the autism

spectrum disorder (Winebrenner, 1996). Literature may also use the term 2E to describe these

students. Unfortunately, students with such specific learning disabilities face high levels of

bullying victimization (Elkind, 1973, Rose et al., 2011; Rowley, 2012). The National Center for

Learning Disabilities (2014) found 75% of students with disabilities report being bullied at least

once in the past 10 months. The fact bullying is happening in this population at such high rates

may be significant when considering it is difficult to diagnose giftedness. (Beckmann, &

Minnaert, 2018; Webb et al., 2005).

Bullying in the gifted population is an overlooked concern (Cross, 2001a, 2001b; Peterson

& Ray, 2006a, 2006b; Pfeiffer & Stocking 2000; Schroeder-Davis, 2012). Yet, this is not the first

time the gifted have been neglected (Eckel, 1950). Dr. Ruth Strang and Pauline Williamson began

the American Association for Gifted Children (AAGC) after noting the gifted were “the most

neglected children in our democracy” (AAGC, 1999, para. 1, Jolly, 2018). In a report to

Congress, Commissioner of Education, Sidney P. Marland, Jr. (1972), argued the most neglected

minority in American education was a group of youngsters he identified as gifted. If this is still

true today, this would account to over 3.2 million students in public schools in gifted and talented

programs, according to the latest report from the Office of Civil Rights within the U.S.

Department of Education. identified as gifted.

To present the other side, Mulvey and Cauffman (2001) caution, “...efforts to predict

which students will behave violently will not be successful” (p. 304). Espelage and King (2018)

leading bullying researchers point out Peterson and Ray’s (2006a, 2006b) study lacked a control

group. Neihart (1999) would argue gifted students have normal, if not better than average social

and emotional development. Dr. Tracy Cross has spent much time on this subject. Cross (2005)

has an important warning,

Gifted students need adults to guide them. Acts of individuals must be understood at the

individual level. The lesson of Columbine is not that gifted children are homicidal. Their

giftedness should in no way be assumed a cause agent in their appropriate act. A lesson of

Columbine should be school must create safe environments where learning can thrive.

Being gifted in differing types of school settings has led to different experiences. Rather

than finding condemnations for gifted students. We must commit ourselves to helping

students thrive, including gifted students. (p. 199)

In review, and to connect our themes of this complex topic and discussion, research on

bullying has been occurring in our country for over forty years (Espelage, & Swearer, 2004). The

actions of the (gifted) Columbine student shooters initiated the immediate need for research on

bullying in the United States. However, much needed research specifically on the gifted

population has been neglected and limited.

Since Columbine, each state has passed anti-bullying legislation, including Minnesota.

Despite this legislation, millions of students will be bullied this year (Modecki, Michin,

Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014). Modecki et al., (2014) meta-analysis of 80 studies on

bullying involvement rates established bullying varies across studies from 9 to 98% of

participants. Overall, the meta-analysis revealed 35% of students will experience traditional

bullying and 15% will experience cyberbullying. Over 160,000 students, including gifted

students, will skip school because they are fearful of being bullied (Whitted and Dupper, 2005).

The 40 years of research reveals students from specific populations may be at a higher risk of

being bullied which includes special ed, LBGT, gifted, and 2 E students. Students of color, in

ELL, may also be marginalized for being different (Kohut, 2007; Sue, 2010).

Eradicating bullying requires us to take immediate action (Bullying Prevention, 2012;

Chamberlain, 2003). Experts agree school personnel, from educators, to administrators, to

counselors, must be involved in finding a solution (Espelage, & Swearer, 2004, 2010). Research

indicates principals or school leaders do not utilize all options available to implement and best

address school violence (Volokh & Snell, 1998). Further research reveals teachers are not trained

in knowing all the needs of gifted students (Rogers,1986, 2001; Smith & Shu, 2000), in knowing

all the programming options for bullying and gifted students, and are not trusted by gifted

students for having the capacity for best addressing their bullying concerns (Harris & Petrie,

2003). The key to fixing this problem lies in the hands of school counselors for numerous reasons

(Bauman, 2008; Philips & Cornell, 2012). School counselors are the key stakeholders in the

bullying intervention and prevention process (Austin, Reynolds, & Barnes, 2012). They are the

best suited to provide counseling, prevention and intervention to students in the educational

setting (Bardwell, 2010; DiMatteo, 2012; Harris, & Petrie, 2003; Philips & Cornell, 2012).

Statement of the Problem

Bullying is an important public health concern (Espelage, 2014, 2015; Espelage &

Swearer, 2004, 2010; Marr & Fields, 2001; Srabstein & Leventhal, 2010). Limited research exists

on gifted and bullying. Gifted students may be given to being targets of bullying for several

reasons (Blackburn, & Erickson, 1986; Boardman, & Hildreth, 1948; Cultross, 1982; Espelage,

2003; Espelage & Swearer, 2003, 2004; Garbarino & DeLara, 2003; Newman, Horne, &

Bartolomucci, 2000; Orpinas & Horne, 2006; Swearer, 2010; Swearer & Doll, 2001). Counselors

play a critical role in stopping bullying (Cross, 2001a, 2001b, 2005; Harris, & Petrie, 2003;

Olweus, 1993a 1993b; Ross, 1996; Silverman 1989, 1993; Smith & Sharp, 1994; Sullivan, 2000).

One population ignored in the 40 years of research on bullying is the gifted population. Use of a

qualitative study utilizing interviews allows for a deep, insightful analysis of what counselors

perceive around the seriousness of bullying, including the targeted populations, the strategies

utilized, anti-bullying programs used, as well as effectiveness of strategies by their administrators

for reducing bullying.

Purpose of the Study

The study investigated the perceptions of Minnesota elementary counselors, middle school

counselors, and high school counselors, in various districts working with identified gifted

students. The purpose was to determine if participating counselors felt skilled in adequately

supporting the unique social and emotional needs of gifted students, specifically around bullying.

The study examined the bullying strategies and anti-bullying bullying programming being utilized

to support gifted learners. To conclude, perceptions of counselor's feelings regarding

administrators use of strategies for reducing bullying were examined. Information was

systematically gathered and analyzed to provide possible explanations regarding counselors’

perspectives on bullying and the gifted population.

Assumptions of the Study

Roberts (2010) defined assumptions as the aspects of the study one might “take for

granted” (p. 139). The following assumptions were identified in conducting this quantitative

design study:

• Study participants answered the questions honestly and without reservation.

• The sample studied was representative of the total population of Minnesota’s

practicing school counselors.

• Participants had access to or knew who the gifted students are currently served.

• Study participants understood their district’s bullying policies.

• Study participants understood the definition of bullying as used by the Minnesota

Department of Education Safe and Technical Schools.

Research Plan for the Study

Following approval by the dissertation committee, the researcher completed the following

• Received approval from St. Cloud State University’s Institutional Review Board

(IRB).

• Developed and sent informational and recruitment message describing the purpose of

the study, the informed consent provision, and provided the researcher’s information if

there were any concerns or questions.

• Contacted numerous principals throughout the state of Minnesota, kindergarten to

grade 12, to seek permission to consider their counselors who worked with gifted

students for participation in the study.

• Developed a set of questions for a 30-minute interview in which participants could

express interest to participate.

• Conducted thirty-minute interviews with each participant.

Delimitations

Roberts (2010) described de-limitations as the researcher’s method of narrowing the

study’s scope. The delimitations of this study include:

• The researcher chose the time of the year in which the study was conducted. A hurdle

faced when collecting qualitative data was a pandemic occurred reducing personal

access to counselors from across the state, resulting in all interviews being completed

virtually.

• The state of MN does require that all districts have an identification in place to

determine who the gifted students are. The legislation, however, does not require

districts to provide services for gifted students. For the sake of this study, counselors

were selected where services are being provided to gifted individuals.

Schwandt, (2007) describes a “crisis of representation” as the difficulty to capture and

convey an experience of another individual simply using words. Several tools were employed to

help maximize effect of the interviews. Member checks were utilized to cross-check the

researcher’s interpretation of interviews with the meaning of the interviewee in order to preserve

her voice as it relates to the phenomenon of the study. Piloting of questions was utilized as well as

numerous reviews of the coding and data gathered.

Research Questions

The study was qualitative in nature. The researcher interviewed counselors serving gifted

students from elementary, middle school and high schools across the state of Minnesota. The

following research questions were used to guide this study.

1. To what extent do school counselors believe bullying occurred in their building(s), and

what specific populations, if any, do counselors identify as targets of bullying?

2. What is the level of confidence of school counselors in understanding and serving the

unique social and emotional needs of gifted students?

3. What strategies and anti-bullying programs do school counselors utilize while

addressing bullying of gifted students?

4. What strategies do counselors identify to be most often used by administrators for

creating a safe school environment for all students, including the gifted population,

and do counselors perceive these strategies to be effective?

Definition of Terms

Aggression. Behavior intended to harm another individual who does not wish to be

harmed. (Baron & Richardson, 1994).

Anti-bullying. Anti-bullying refers to laws, policies, organizations, and movements

aimed at stopping or preventing bullying (Olweus, 1993a, 1993b).

Bullies. People who exert dominance over or inflict pain upon others through physical,

verbal, sexual, or emotional abuse. They appear to derive satisfaction from inflicting injury and

suffering on others (Olweus, 1993a, 1993b).

Bullying. A person who is exposed, repeatedly and over time to negative actions on the

part of one or more persons, and he or she is having difficulty defending himself or herself.

Although the definition may vary by state, a common definition includes:

1. Unwanted, negative active actions or aggression.

2. Repetition: Bullying behavior has been repeated over time.

1. Imbalance of Power: Bullying often involves an imbalance of power or strength

(Olweus, 1993a , 1993b, 1999).

Bullying. Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of

youths who are not siblings or current dating partners which involves an observed or perceived

power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may

inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or

educational harm (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014).

Bullying: Minnesota Dept of Education Safe and Supportive Schools Act Definition.

Bullying is an act that is intimidating, threatening, abusive or harming conduct that is objectively

offensive and,

1. There is an actual or perceived imbalance of power.

2. The conduct is repeated or forms a pattern

3. Materially and substantially interferes with students' educational opportunities or

performance or ability to participate in school functions or activities or received school

benefits, services or privileges (“MDE”, Safe & Supportive Schools Act, 2019).

Bullying intervention. A schoolwide foundation that offers a value system based on

caring, respect, empathy, and personal responsibility. Using positive discipline and support,

having clear behavioral expectations and consequences, building capacities and skills, and

involving all stakeholders including students, parents, adults, teachers, counselors, psychologists

and administration. Intervention should target specific risk factors and teach students and parents

skills for identifying and addressing bullies (Feinberg, 2003; “NCSP”, 2003; Olweus, 1997, 2001,

2013).

Bullying prevention. A prevention plan includes practices and policies that address all

forms of bullying, harassment, violence and emphasize eliminating such behaviors. A

comprehensive plan should be timely, used consistently, include social-emotional support for

victims, bullies and bystanders, and must have clear disciplinary steps (National Association of

School Psychologist, 2018).

Bully-victim. Bully-victim is a child who is at times a bully, and yet at other times a

victim of a bully (Dewar, 2007).

Cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is bullying that takes place over digital devices like cell

phones, computers, and tablets. Cyberbullying can occur through SMS, Text, and apps, or online

in social media, forums, or gaming, where people can view, participate in, or share content.

Cyberbullying includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content

about someone else. It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else,

causing embarrassment or humiliation (Stopbullying.gov, 2014).

Definition of giftedness from Marland Report. Gifted and talented children are those

identified by professionally qualified persons who, by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable

of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and

services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program, in order to realize their

contribution to self and society. Children capable of high performance include those with

demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas:

1. General intellectual ability

2. Specific academic ability

3. Creative or productive thinking

3. Leadership ability

4. Visual and performing arts

5. Psychomotor abilities (Marland, 1972).

Direct bullying. Direct bullying is a verbal and/or physical form of aggression. In fact,

this type of bullying may involve hitting, kicking, or making insults, offensive and hurtful

comments or even threats (Shetgiri, 2014).

Emotional bullying. A form of bullying that can be more subtle and can involve isolating

or excluding a child from activities. This type of bullying appears to be more common among

girls (Juvonen, Graham & Schuster, 2003).

Evidence-based approach. A practice that has been rigorously evaluated and has shown

to make a positive, statistically difference in important outcomes. Results should be producible in

other settings (Oregon Research Institute, 2020).

Exclusion: This is the act of excluding someone or somebody; the state of being left out,

especially from mainstream society and its advantage (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001).

Indirect bullying. This type of bullying often refers to relational aggression, which

includes social exclusion of victims through the manipulation of social relationships by bullies or

injuring the reputation of the victims. Relational bullying is more common among girls and can

lead to feelings of rejection at a critical time in social development (Shetgiri, 2014).

Non-verbal bullying. These are unwanted acts, such as threatening gestures, defacing

property, pushing or shoving, or even taking items from others (Atlas & Pepler, 1998).

Physical bullying: A type of bullying that can be physical in nature. This type of bullying

can accompany verbal bullying and involve acts such as kicking, hitting, biting, pinching, hair

pulling, and threats of physical harm (Janssen, Craig, Boyce, & Pichett, 2004).

Psychological bullying: This is a form of bullying that includes dirty looks, stalking,

manipulation, intimidation, and extortion (Olweus, 1993a, 1993b).

Perceptions. The study of human perception is complex. For the sake of this study

perception will be defined as understanding one’s reality from information obtained by senses,

intuition, knowledge, and experiences (Cantril, 1968).

Mass shooting. When someone “kills four or more people in a single incident (not

including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse & Richardson, 2015).

MN Safe and Supportive Schools Act. An act relating to education; providing for safe

and supportive schools by prohibiting bullying; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 124

D. 895, subdivision 1; 124D. 8955; Minnesota Statutes 2013 Supplement, section 124D.10,

subdivision 8 proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 121A; 127A;

repealing Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 121A.0695, (“MDE”, 2019).

School climate. The feelings students and staff have about their environment over time a

period of time (Peterson & Skiba, 2001).

School guidance counselor. Although the role of the counselor has evolved over time,

many counselors now focus on one of, or all three areas: Removing barriers to academic

achievement, supporting social and emotional development of students, and guiding college and

career readiness decisions (“ASCA”, 2001, 2003, 2008, 2012).

Social bullying. This type of bullying is often referred to as relational bullying or

relational aggression. Its purpose is to hurt someone’s reputation or relationships. This is done by

excluding individuals, leaving individuals out on purpose, spreading rumors about someone,

embarrassing someone on purpose, often in a public form, or telling other children not to be

friends with an individual (U.S. Department of Health, 2014).

Social withdrawal. Described as social inhibition, shyness, reticence, and social

isolation. These are all terms which conjure up images of an individual who spends time alone,

not interacting with others. Some of these terms may carry connotations of social anxiety,

isolation, insecurity, fearfulness, wariness, or loneliness. Social withdrawal, inhibition, and

shyness are often used interchangeably (Rubin, Hymel & Mills, 1989).

Thrice-exceptional (3e). A student who is colored, gifted and has a special academic or

behavioral need (Lawson-Davis, 2018).

Twice-exceptional (2e). Twice exceptional individuals demonstrate exceptional levels of

capacity, competence, commitment, or creativity in one or more domains coupled with one or

more learning difficulties. This combination of exceptionalities results in a unique set of

circumstances. Their exceptional potentialities may dominate, hiding their disability; each may

make the other so that neither is recognized or addressed (Baldwin, Omdal, & Pereles, 2015).

Twice-exceptional (2e). The term “twice-exceptional,” also referred to as “2e,” is used to

describe gifted children who have the characteristics of gifted students with the potential for high

achievement and give evidence of one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility

criteria. These disabilities may include specific learning disabilities, speech and language

disorders, emotional/behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, autism spectrum, or other

impairments, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (“NAGC”, 2018).

Verbal bullying. A form of direct bullying. It is when an individual uses insults, teasing,

or harmful words to gain power over his or her peers (Olweus, 1993a, 1993b).

Victim. This is the individual being bullied, the person or group who receives the

aggression of the bully/bullies. (Olweus, 1993a, 1993b).

Youth violence, The term refers to the intentional use of physical force or power to

threaten or harm others, impacting young people between ages 10-24 (“CDC”, 2018).

Summary

Bullying is a significant public health concern in the United States, and the subject of an

ever-increasing body of research world-wide (Batsche, & Knoff, 1994; Bosworth, & Espelage,

1999; Coy, 2001; Espelage, & King, 2018; Espelage & Swearer, 2003). At age 87, Olweus was a

keynote speaker at the first World Bullying Forum held in Sweden in 2017. The second World

Bullying Forum was held in July of 2019 in Ireland, and included keynote speakers, researchers,

presenters and participants from over 37 countries, including participants from midwestern United

States. While there are many studies on elementary, middle and high schools nationally and

internationally (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004; Berdondini & Smith, 1996; Dake, Price &

Telljohann, 2003; Juvonen, Nishna, Graham, 2000), studies focusing specifically on gifted

students are limited. Bullying impacts the social and emotional needs of students as well as

impacts their academic needs and opportunities (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Juvonen & Nishina,

2000; Milsom, & Gallo, 2006). Bullying has the potential to continue to impact students even

beyond their school experience (Leff, Power, & Goldstein, 2004; Marsh, Parada, Craven, &

Finger, 2004; Meraviglia, Becker, Rosenbluth, Sanchez, & Robertson, 2003; Paquette &

Underwood, 1999; Rigby, 1996, 2003; Van der Wal, de Wit, & Hirasing, 2003). Research

indicates the potential of bullying leading to rejection, feelings of isolation, exclusion, low self-

esteem, poor academic achievement, anxiety, depression, and may contribute to suicidal

tendencies (“CDC” 2015; Nansel, Haynie, & Simons-Morton, 2003). The gifted student

population may especially be vulnerable or at risk for being targets of bullies, or may become

bullies, or bully-victims themselves (Cross, 2001a, 2001b, Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b;

Roddick, 2011Schroeder-Davis, 2012). Whitted and Dupper (2005) argue school counselors play

a pivotal role as program developers and promoters, as well as on-site coordinators of bullying

prevention programs. In addition, counselors play the key in helping gifted students to cope

effectively and navigate the challenges of being gifted and bullied (Nansel et al., 2003; Peterson,

2006; Wood, 2010).

Limited research exists on the perceptions of school counselors regarding bullying and

gifted students (Peterson, & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). Chapter I provided the argument for the study

by laying out the complexity of this problem, the purpose and significance of the study, the

statement of the problem, as well as the scope of the research questions. Chapter II presents a

literature review on the concept of giftedness, the unique social and emotional needs of gifted

students, and the evolving role of the school counselor in serving gifted students. The review will

end by examining the results of nearly 40 years of research on bullying, and evidence-based

practices counselors can utilize with prevention and intervention strategies and anti-bullying

programs in the counseling of gifted individuals. Chapter III describes the methodology for the

study, with Chapter IV analyzing the data, and Chapter V synthesizing these findings through

discussion, leading to recommendations, and evidence-based solutions used by counselors for

reducing bullying incidents and keeping all students, including gifted students, safe and well. The

study then concludes with a bibliography and appendices.

Chapter II: Review of Related Literature

Espelage and Swearer (2003) argue bullying has emerged as one of the most fundamental

problems facing schools to date. Despite this argument, Peterson (2006), believes counselor

training programs have given little attention to the gifted student population, especially meeting

the unique social and emotional needs of high-potential students, including twice-exceptional

students. Peterson (2006) asserts:

All children are affected adversely by bullying, but gifted children differ from various

other populations in significant ways. Bullying in the gifted-student population is a highly

significant and overlooked problem that leaves these students emotionally shattered,

making them even more prone to extreme anxiety, dangerous levels of depression and

sometimes even violence and self-harm. (p. 1)

To clearly explore and understand the complexity of this phenomenon, the literature

review will be divided into four themes. First, the literature review will examine popular theories

around the concept of Giftedness. Each state defines “Giftedness” in its own terms, and thus

provides services differently based on these definitions (NAGC, 2010). However, the study will

share a common definition (Marland, 1972) used by most states in determining their definition,

services, procedures and policies. Next, the literature review will examine the unique and specific

social and emotional concerns of gifted students. The study then will explore and define the

evolving role of counselors in working with gifted students. Finally, the literature review will

examine bullying, its impacts on students, including gifted students. The literature on the bully,

the victim, and the bystander will be discussed. This review culminates in understanding the

counselor’s role in serving students with prevention strategies and programming for reducing

bullying.

By breaking down this complex phenomenon into themes: the concept of giftedness,

specific social and emotional needs of the gifted, counselor’s evolving role in serving the gifted,

and, finally, ways in which counselors may support gifted students through strategies and

programming, the review may provide insights and information to be used and analyzed for

keeping gifted children and adolescents safe from suicide, self-harm, violent thoughts, threats,

intimidation, death by others or even from devastating violence (Baker, 1995; Bartel, & Reynolds,

1986; Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b).

Understanding the Conceptualization of Giftedness

Even after an extensive review of literature on the subject, a definition of “Giftedness” or

assigning of the label of “gifted remains elusive (Bristow, Craig, Hallock, & Laycock, 1951, Card

& Guiliano, 2016). Abeysekera’s (2014) research illuminates the change of definitions of

giftedness over the past centuries is due to social, scientific, and political reasons, including the

development of intelligence testing, and the U. S. Department of Education’s initiative to identify

talented youth among minority students. Researchers Al-Hroub and Khory (2018) elucidate the

abundance of diverse definitions of giftedness is and has been a major problem in the field of

gifted research. Miller (2008) would agree. Miller believes a clear definition of giftedness is

needed in order to successfully teach, parent, and counsel, and even effectively study and

understand giftedness.

Coleman and Cross (2001) provide the history and rationale for defining giftedness in

their collective text, taking the reader back to Ancient Greece, then to Emperor Charlemagne in

eighth-century France, then brings the reader to the United States and our founding fathers.

According to Coleman and Cross (2001), Thomas Jefferson proposed tests be instituted to

identify gifted learners at the public’s expense (p. 2). Jefferson said, “We hope to avail the state of

these talents which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish

without use, if not sought for and activated” (Coleman & Cross, 2001, p. 43). Jefferson’s line of

reasoning has persisted. Gifted expert and researcher, Joseph Renzulli, claims the concept of

giftedness may be the most controversial topics in the field of gifted education. Renzulli’s 1978

article, What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition is considered one of the most read and

cited articles in gifted research. According to Renzulli, finding and agreeing on a definition is

difficult for at least two reasons (Renzulli, 1978). The first is the definition can limit or restrict the

number of performance areas considered in determining the eligibility for special programs. A

conservative definition might limit a student from entering a gifted program purely because the

program might consider academic performance only and exclude other areas such as art, music,

leadership, drama, public speaking and creative writing (Al-Hroub, & Khoury, 2018; Renzulli,

1976, 1978, 1986, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 2000). The second reason provided by Renzulli is finding

and agreeing on a definition may specify the degree or level of excellence a child must obtain to

be considered gifted (Renzulli, 1978, 2000).

The National Association for Gifted Students position paper, Key Considerations in

Identifying and Supporting Gifted and Talented Learners, found on the NAGC (2020) site claims:

“Definitions provide the framework for gifted education programs and services, and guide key

decisions such as which students will qualify for services, the areas of giftedness to be addressed

in programming (e.g., intellectual giftedness generally, specific abilities in math), when the

services will be offered, and even why they will be offered.” Rogers (2001) cautions gifted

students needing to be carefully placed in programs best fitting for their needs. Defining

giftedness is complex for several reasons, including the lens educators, counselors, parents or

scholars view giftedness or the various paradigms from the 1800s that exist until today.

History of the Concept of Giftedness

Beginning in 1884, Francis Galton, a pioneer in the study of human intelligence, set to

work in a laboratory in London. He began testing different mental abilities (Al-Hroub & Khoury,

2018). Galton, often referred to as the “Father” of gifted education, believed children could inherit

the potential to become gifted adults like their biological parents (Gallagher, 1994; Galton, 1869,

1892; Tannenbaum, 1983). Galton was the first to use the terms “Fixed intelligence” which means

a person is born with a pre-determined ability to think or process ideas and information (Al-Hroub

& Khoury, 2018). This view is rejected today Dweck (1986, 2006) as more evidence indicates

intelligence is malleable (Jacobs, 2015). Terman’s initial studies were printed in Hereditary

Genius in 1892 (Gallagher, 1994; Tannenbaum, 1983).

In 1905, the Binet-Simon intelligence scale was developed, to be used to help identify

slow or handicapped students (Aubrey, 1977). The Binet-Simon scale became the first practical

intelligence scale applied to identify differences in school settings. The Binet-Simon test was

translated into English by Henry Goddard. The test was then revised by Lewis M. Terman at

Stanford University and subsequently became known as the Stanford-Binet in 1916 (Al-Hroub &

Khoury 2018; Colangelo & Davis, 1997, 2003; Davis & Rimm, 1998; Delisle, 1992; Jolly, 2004).

The test used the concept of mental quotient, which was determined by dividing a person’s mental

age by his chronological age. The term was then renamed intelligence quotient, or IQ (Al-Hroub

& Khoury, 2018; Sattler, 2001). Unlike Binet, Terman was interested in looking at the cognitive

abilities of students at the higher end of the intelligence scale. Gifted students were defined by

Terman as those students with an IQ at or above 140 on the intelligence scale and who scored in

the top one percent (Colangelo & Davis, 1997; St. Clair, 1989) which is lower than the 3-5% of

identification measures often used today. With the introduction of intelligence testing,

“giftedness” could now be quantified, operationalized and addressed within America’s schools

(Al-Hroub & Khoury, 2018; Jolly, 2004). Terman conducted one of the first longitudinal studies

of gifted children and published in five volumes of Genetic Studies of Genius (Burks, Jensen,

Terman, 1930; Cox, 1926; Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden 1947, 1959).

In 1926, Leta Setter Hollingworth, at times referred to as the “Mother” of Gifted

Education (Gladding, 1984), published her book, Gifted Children, Their Nature and Nurture

(Hollingworth, 1926). She is also considered the first counselor to the gifted. Hollingworth

proposed her own definition of giftedness, which included setting the bar at a 180 IQ for

profoundly gifted students. There is reason to believe the term “gifted” has been universally used

ever since to refer to children born with high intelligence (Myers, & Pace, 1986). Today gifted

students may also be referred to as gifted and talented, high-achieving, highly talented, above-

average, genius, phenoms, polymaths, student wonders, student sensations, poppies, or high

potential in research or literature reviews (Feldman, 1999; Feldman & Fowler, 1998; Gagne,

1998, 1999; Gross, 1998; Morelock, 1996; Simonton, 1992, 1994; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978).

Various scholars in the field of education over the years have attempted to define different aspects

of giftedness (Kaufman, 2018) helping to expand the conceptualization of giftedness (NAGC,

2019). Kaufman himself was misdiagnosed and incorrectly placed in a special education class.

Kaufman spent years looking across the hall at students in a gifted classroom (Kaufman, 2018).

Sternberg. Robert Sternberg’s theory, most mentioned in the review of definitions, is

known as the Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. Sternberg is said to have had negative

experiences with the traditional IQ measurements (Sternberg, 1984). Sternberg’s theory

comprises three different types of thinking which include: analytical, creative, and practical

(Sternberg, 2003a, 2003b). Sternberg argues a person having higher intelligence in one or more of

these areas would be more successful (Sternberg, 2003a, 2003b). Through metacognition the

individual would need to determine which mode of thinking would be the most appropriate.

Sternberg acknowledges people may differ in their general ability to use the three types of

thinking (Sternberg, 1984). To understand intelligence, Sternberg argues experts must consider

the abilities a culture values (contextual subtheory), the degree of novelty of the task (experiential

subtheory), and the cognitive process necessary to solve a task (componential subtheory)

(Kaufman, 2018). More recently Sternberg transformed his triarchic theory into the “Theory of

Successful Intelligence.” Sternberg argues all three forms of intelligence are important for

achieving one’s goal in life (Kaufman, 2018). Sternberg clearly plays a significant part in the

history of defining giftedness; however, his models were not as widely applied or accepted as

other theorists (Kohlberg, 1964, 1969, 1984; Kohlberg & Diessner, 1991; Sternberg, 2010; Turiel,

1979, 1983, 2002). Sternberg’s theory focuses not just on the abilities of the gifted, but on

conceptual processes, the ways the gifted think separates these individuals from other nongifted

students or other populations (Kaufman, 2018; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1993).

Renzulli. Joseph Renzulli’s approach is known as the Three Ring Conception of

Giftedness (Renzulli, 1976). Unlike Sternberg’s theory, the Renzulli model (1998) has been

successfully used in schools around the world since its inception. The Three-Ring model consists

of three basic clusters of human traits which include: above average ability, a high level of task

commitment, and a high level of creativity (Renzulli, 1976, 1998). Renzulli’s model was

developed by studying adults who were highly successful or demonstrated exceptional

achievement. Renzulli (1978, 1997a, 1997b, 1998) views giftedness more as a behavior than an

attribute. The Three Ring Concept or approach has found support amongst educators, as the

conception allows students to be identified and not with an IQ alone. As a result of this theory,

more diverse students have been identified (Renzulli, 1986, 2000). However, Renzulli’s model

may fall short when a student does have a high ability or high IQ, and is considered gifted or

profoundly gifted, but still fails to perform and fails to excel. Renzulli may argue their task

commitment has not been exposed to stimuli needed for motivation (Renzulli, 1976, 1988, 1998,

2000). Another way to develop task commitment is to always build upon the child’s strengths

(Renzulli, 1986). Renzulli (2005) writes,

The task of providing better services to our most promising young people cannot wait

until theorists and researchers produce an unassailable, ultimate truth. Such truths

probably do not exist. But the needs and opportunities to improve truths probably do not

exist. But the needs and opportunities to improve educational services for these young

people exist in countless classrooms every day of the week. (p. 274)

Gagne. Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Talent differentiates between giftedness and

talent. With this model the two terms cannot be used interchangeably as they often are. Gagne

(1985, 1993,1998,1999a, 1999b, 1999b, 2013) views giftedness as being natural ability or

potential. Talent is the product of intervention (Gagne, 2013). Gagne’ believes different catalysts

can promote management between the domains of the product of intervention (Gagne, 1985).

Gagne’ believes different catalysts can promote giftedness and talent (Gagne, 2013). His model

presents five Aptitude domains: creative, intellectualization, sensorimotor, socio-affective and

others (Gagne, 1993, 1999a, 2013). By examining the child’s achievements, it can be determined

if the child is gifted. The environment serves as a catalyst as this process occurs. Not all children

are exposed to the same nurturing environment and chance may play a role in determining who

will reach their full potential. Moon (2007) believes Gagne’s theory is considered by many to be

the most comprehensive and the most valid theories of giftedness. Children who do not feel safe

and supported may not develop to their potential, impacting society in a devastating way.

Gardner. Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences has been quite popular in

the field of education, peaking perhaps in the late 1980s. His approach (1983, 1991, 1993, 1995,

1999) is quite unique in the concept moves the focus of identifying giftedness from a single

approach to a multi-category approach. The term ‘intelligence’ refers to a special ability, talent, or

skill which allows individuals to maximize their potential by building on the specific strength he

or she demonstrates. The multiple intelligences strongly parallels using preferred learning styles

(Campell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 1992). Armstrong (1987, 1994) sheds light on Gardner’s

Multiple Intelligences Theory by noting each child possesses aspects of all eight intelligences and

is challenged to develop them to a fairly high level of competence. Gardner believes by the time a

child begins school, he or she will have established ways of learning which tend to favor some

intelligences more than others (Gardner, 1983). The identification of which intelligences a child

has favored is not a simple process. Gardner does not suggest students need to master all eight

intelligences or focus on gaps in their learning (Gardner, 1995). As Gardner’s (1983, 1993, 1995)

multiple intelligences are applicable, to some degree, to all students, this model is not especially

suitable for meeting the needs of gifted students. Only three of Gardner’s intelligences may be

measured on traditional intelligence tests (Eckert, & Robins, 2016; Moon, 2006a, 2006b). Critics

of Gardner argue his concept appears to be a form of differentiation (Eckert, & Robins, 2016).

The argument is if teachers are differentiating for all students then they still are not stretching or

challenging those high potential and profoundly gifted students in ways which are pressingly

needed. which are pressingly needed.

Scott Barry Kaufman, (2018) points out these theories, although influential, are static. He

cautions these theories or concepts do not tell us how these important traits are developed across a

life span. Kaufman asks, (2018) “How do ability and motivation for example get converted to

real-world achievement? Are environmental factors more important or does success need to come

from within an individual?” (p. 78).

Other Relevant Conceptions of Giftedness

A lesser known model, which may have significance when applied to the topic of bullying

and giftedness, evolved from the positive psychology movement and is known as Operation

Houndstooth (Renzulli, Koehler, & Fogarty (2006). This model emerged from Renzulli’s Three-

Ring Conception. The result is known as socially constructive giftedness which seeks to

understand the reason a student uses their talents to help another or contributes to social capital.

Renzulli describes social capital as intangible assets to address the collective needs of individuals

and communities. The work of Renzulli et al. (2006) shows this form of capital, social capital, has

sharply declined in recent years as demonstrated by low participation in civic clubs, church

groups, parent-teacher associations, and service clubs. This framework contains several

components: Optimism, Courage, Romance with a Topic of Discussion, Sensitivity to Human

Concerns, Physical/Mental Energy and Vision/Sense of Destiny. Renzulli and colleagues describe

social capital as intangible assets to address the collective needs of individuals and communities.

Unlike the other concepts, Operation Houndstooth is not a static definition and may

answer Kaufman’s question of how motivation and environment get converted to real world

achievement, or to higher levels of social responsibility. This specific conception the authors

illuminate may be relevant for a gifted child who witnesses another student being bullied. The

gifted child may act to support and include the victim in the community and may work to remove

any barriers or reasons for a child to be bullied using the framework established. Both the victim

and the gifted child are benefitting. A safer and stronger community could be the result (Renzulli

et al., 2006).

Asynchronous development. A more recent look at giftedness comes from the work of

Linda Silverman, the Director of the Institute for the Study of Advanced Development, Colorado

Gifted Center. Silverman included asynchronous development in her definition which is the

uneven development of gifted children. Asynchrony is the term used to describe the mismatch

between cognitive, emotional, and physical development of gifted individuals (Silverman, 1997,

2009, 2012). A gifted individual may be able to explain string theory but may struggle

developmentally to tie the strings on his or her shoes. Silverman argues IQ and emotional traits

should also be considered (Silverman, 1997).

Columbus group definition. A group of parents, educators, administrators and counselors

used the work of Silverman (1997), the work of Hollingworth (1914, 1926, 1942), as well as the

work of Jean-Charles Terrassier (2011) when developing a more current definition of giftedness:

Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and

heightened intensity combines to create inner experiences and awareness that are

qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual

capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires

modifications in parenting, teaching, and counseling for gifted students/individuals to

develop optimally.

State definitions and federal definition. Individual states have varying definitions and

criteria for the identification of gifted children. School counselors will need to know their state’s

definition and should also know the federal definition. These definitions may be found on the

National Association for Gifted Children website (www.nagc.org). Most states’ definitions of

giftedness stem from the U.S. Department of Education’s Marland Report (1972), often referred

to as the “Federal Definition”.

The Marland Report. In 1972, Sidney P. Marland, Jr., provided a report to the U.S.

Congress. Marland defined giftedness as provided a report to the U.S. Congress. This is how he

defined the commissioner board’s definition of “Giftedness”:

Children who are gifted are those identified by professionally qualified persons who by

{in} virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children

who require differentiated educational programs and services beyond those normally

provided by regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and

society. (p. 8)

Marland (1972) added:

Children capable of high performance include those who demonstrated achievement

and/or potential in any of the following areas: General intellectual ability, specific

academic ability, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing

arts, and psychomotor ability. (p. 9)

Perhaps the most important finding presented to Congress in this report is Marland

acknowledged the possibility gifted children suffer psychological damage, which can even

include permanent cognitive impairment equal to or even greater than other populations. This

definition has been since reinstated in 1978 to exclude psychomotor giftedness (Coleman, &

Cross, 2001).

National Association for Gifted Children. The National Association for Gifted Children

offers a similar definition to the Marland Report and defines a gifted learner, as someone who

shows or has the potential to show an exceptional level of performance in one or more of the

following areas: General intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, visual or performing arts,

leadership ability, and creative thinking. (NAGC, 2020)

Depending upon the state, individual school districts may also have different definitions of

giftedness. One reason may be because gifted services or programming should match the type of

programming offered by the district (NAGC, 2019). For example, if the district is not offering

gifted programming in visual or performing arts the district may leave such wording out of its

definition. Within the state of Minnesota, a student may be labeled gifted in one district but may

have to apply if the child moves to another Minnesota district as each school may set their own

requirements for gifted services (MDE, 2020). The same may be true if a child labeled gifted

moves from one state to another. The student may have to apply to be considered for gifted

services in the new state.

Gifted students are often found to be within the top three to five percent in intelligence or

performance of all children (Colangelo, & Wood, 2015). Numerous states require districts have

gifted identification. An IQ of at least 130 is often considered gifted in Minnesota districts, lower

than the 140 IQ first used by Terman (1925). (An exception would be the Navigator program in

Minnetonka which requires a 140 IQ or above according to their Minnesota website). However,

not all states, including Minnesota, where the study is taking place, require identified students

receive specialized services.

Identification of twice-exceptional learners. No federal definition exists to guide the

identification of this special population of gifted students (Reis, Burke, & Burke, 2014). As a

result, misconceptions and stereotypical notions hinder the identification of the twice-exceptional

learners (Baldwin, Baum, Perles, & Hughes, 2015). Brody and Mills (1997) summarize it best,

“Twice-exceptional learners have the “characteristics of gifted students with potential for high

performance, along with the characteristics of students with disabilities who struggle with many

aspects of learning” (p. 67). In 1975, the Council for Exceptional Children formed a committee to

discuss concerns of educating twice-exceptional learners (Coleman, 1985, Coleman & Yeh,

2008). The following year the first conference on twice-exceptional learners was held in

partnership with the Council for Exceptional Children and the Connecticut Department of

Education (Coleman & Yeh, 2008).

Maker (1977) estimated three percent of special education students are gifted. The

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented reported in 1993 2% to 7% of the special

education population was comprised of twice-exceptional learners (Nielsen, 1993).

Thrice-exceptional students. Whitmore (1980) estimated between 120,000 and 180,000

special education students were gifted. Two reasons may exist for this estimation. The first reason

is the inability to diagnose giftedness and the second is the lack of research over the years

specifically for the gifted population. A review of current literature on giftedness reveals a

growing interest in researching 3e, or thrice-exceptional students. Gifted author, expert and

researcher Joy Lawson-Davis refers to 3e students as Gifted Cubed learners. A 3e student is

gifted, has a learning need, and is a student of color (Davis, & Robinson, 2018). Lawson-Davis

argues 3e students are more likely to be victimized by harsh school discipline practices. She

believes 3e students may end up expelled or may drop-out of school due to not feeling safe and

understood at school. (Davis, & Robinson, 2018).

Conclusion

According to research, the concept of giftedness has been continuously redefined and has

caused a “love-hate” relationship with the field of gifted education (Colango, & Davis, 1997).

Davis and Rimm (1998) argues, “Giftedness is caught between excellence and equity” (p. 27).

Gifted educators, advocates and researchers seek to help gifted and talented students achieve their

potential, and at the same time, feel the need to defend the argument for gifted programs being

elitist and undemocratic. Scholars attribute this clash of IQ verses equity to our changing view of

intelligence and changing needs (Borland, 1989; Gallagher, 1958, 1985; Kaufman, 2018; Plomin,

Fulker; Corley & Defries, 1997). Strong and diverse voices are engaged in the conversation due to

the increasing consciousness and political power of educators, African Americans, Hispanics,

including economically disadvantaged representation (Coleman, Sanders, & Cross, 1997;

Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005; Ford, 1993, 1995; Grissom & Redding, 2016;

Nicholson-Crotty, 2016; Sapon-Shevin, 1994). Toffler (1970) has written to the rapid changes in

our society and to the impact of change. Toffler’s (1970) work indicates and advocates the need

for developing different talents and abilities to be successful contributors in a modern world.

Another source of influence has been follow-up or longitudinal studies on gifted adults. These

influences include the 70-year study by Terman (1925), studies by Subotnik and Arnold (1993),

as well as studies by Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen (1993). According to Coleman and

Cross (2001),

Interest in the education and development of giftedness has existed since ancient times.

This interest has had positive and negative impacts on gifted persons. Over the last

century, interest has increased. A bewildering series of definitions have been proposed.

The result of the evolution of trying to define giftedness have increased the complexity of

the identification process because more decisions about the relative importance of several

abilities. The question of measurement is ever present. In some ways, the expansion of the

definition may be an illusion. The power of the IQ remains. (pp. 22-23)

The proper identification of giftedness may be a bigger problem than previously believed.

Students are often placed into specific programs, courses, or placements based on their needs.

Lack of experience with giftedness and understandings, may place a child in a classroom that is

not matched according to his academic, social and emotional and personality (Adams-Beyers,

Whitsell, Moon, 2004). The GER21 report pointed out at the 2019 NAGC convention diverse

students are not being placed correctly or even identified. Diverse students may not be placed in

classrooms that understand, value and challenge them (GER21, 2019) Minnesota educator and

researcher Karen Rogers writes, “It is my belief, after 25 years of consulting with schools, most

public schools are not doing even a minimally adequate job of managing the education of gifted

and talented learners” (Rogers, 2001, p. xv).

More than 3.3 million U.S. public school children are currently labeled as gifted.

However, a recent report (2019) cautions as many as 3.6 million gifted children in the United

States are being overlooked (GER21, 2019). Despite efforts over the last 60 years, the report also

shows a dismal view of inequality in gifted education. Unfortunately, this report comes at a time

when Seattle and New York City are considering proposals to eliminate gifted programs due to

racial discrimination and inequality in gifted education (NAGC, 2019).

The Unique Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted Students

Assumptions are common with gifted students. Lombroso assumed as far back as 1889

giftedness increased vulnerability (Neihart, 1999). Foneseca (2011) argues people assume gifted

children require little to no discipline or encouragement with regards to learning or well-being

(Treffinger, 1980, 2009; Webb, Gore, Amed, & DeVries, 2007). Such assumptions may be due to

the influence of Terman (1924, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1935, 1947) whose work found gifted

students did not have unique needs. Strang’s work with gifted students in a much different time,

her personal experiences, and her reviews of studies makes her resist Terman’s view (Strang,

1960). Strang, founder and director of the American Association for Gifted Children (1960) saw

this influence as the product of being gifted in a nongifted world. Gifted children she believed,

think differently, learn differently, and behave differently (Strang, 1950, 1951, 1960). Significant

number of gifted children do perform well and may even enjoy completion of projects beneath

their capacities (Coleman & Cross, 2001). However, a growing number of gifted students do not

share this enthusiasm for learning (Webb et al. 2007; Whitmore 1980). In fact, they may feel their

teacher or peers have nothing to offer them, school is simply boring and lacks challenge

(Casserly, 1975), the topics have no value to them personally, and, therefore, gifted students may

choose not to engage in activities, purposely choosing not to complete the assigned work or

projects (Coleman et al., 1997; Elliot 1999; Parker, 1997). Often when this happens, classroom

teachers come to believe the gifted child has been incorrectly diagnosed, and, in fact, in some

gifted programs, the label of giftedness may be removed. Identified students, even in gifted

programs, may be removed from programming and placed back in general education classrooms

remaining the only gifted child, or one of just a few gifted students in a classroom (VanTassel-

Baska, Feng, Swanson, Quek, & Chandler, 2009). Whitmore (1980) notes gifted children are

generally more vulnerable to environmental influences. Research reveals gifted children seem to

sense a “...differentness but they cannot attach a clear meaning to it (p. 188), (Coleman & Cross,

1998; Cross, Coleman, & Stewart, 1993). Delisle (1992) adds, “When combined with the pressure

to conform, the premise gifted children experience more conflict than other children seem quite

realistic (Coleman & Cross, 2001, p. 196). Coleman and Cross (1998) in an article, Is Being

Gifted a Social Handicap, argued being gifted interfered with full social acceptance. Students

minimize their visibility as gifted students to others (Coleman & Cross, 1998, p. 196).

Counselors in their role must navigate complex situations for the teacher, the

administrator, the parents and even the gifted child (Colangelo, 2003; Cross, 2005; Silverman

1989). Counselor, advocate, researcher, and author Silverman, (1989, 2013) has found gifted

students typically hold themselves and others to high standards, with a large percentage having

impossibly high standards. At least 5% of gifted children will drop out of school if they do not

feel the school is meeting their needs, and counselors must navigate this carefully (Renzulli &

Park, 2000). School counselors must work with teachers to discuss identification, acceleration,

differentiation, groupings, assignments and pacing, pretesting and compacting instruction, adding

student choice, encouraging more depth and complexity as well as more teacher-student dialogue

around independent contracts for learning (ASCA, 1993, 1999, 2001, 2007, 2013, 2019; Cross,

2005; Kennedy & Farley, 2018; Webb et al., 2005; Webb et al., 2007). Complicating the

counselor’s role is research showing both ability and environment must be considered when

working with gifted students, (Gagne, 1962; Renzulli,1979, 2000; Sternberg, 1985). Cross (2005)

writes, “...the culture in which a child is immersed has an important influence on the experience

of being gifted (p. 17). Social and emotional characteristics shape and are shaped by interactions

with others (Erickson, 1963, 1968; Wiley, 2016). Delisle’s NAGC speech (2013) on gifted school

shooters reminds counselors to pay attention to cultural identity and sociocultural aspects when

working with gifted students. Delisle’s speech also reminds counselors to remove all assumptions

about who a bully, victim, bystander or bully-victim may be (Delisle, 2012). Development must

be understood through a cultural lens. Concepts such as identity, self and achievement are socially

constructed (Coleman & Cross, 2001; Wiley, 2016). Cross (2005) argues (Erickson, 1972; Wiley,

2016). Cross (2001c) explains it this way,

Americans maintain numerous views of gifted students simultaneously. Gifted students

receive mixed messages about their place in society, and that is often interpreted to be an

indicator of the degree to which they are accepted and can be themselves. (p. 35)

Common Traits of Gifted Students

Like Silverman (1997) and Strang (1960), Cross (2005) believes gifted students will

experience certain aspects of their life differently from those who do not share the same gifts or

talents. According to Dr. James Webb gifted learners may share many common characteristics

(Webb et al., 2005). Such characteristics may include but are not limited to: learn at a rapid pace

(Start, 1995) have a need for less repetition (Start, 1995), retain information easily (Cooper &

Hoel, 2000; Dark & Benbow, 1991; Hollingworth, 1942) think in abstract, complex,

logical or illogical ways (Cooper, & Snell, 2003; Neihart, 1991; Neihart et al, 2015; Rabinowitz

& Glaser, 1985; Rogers, 1986) hold a longer attention span, may be impatient with self or others

who do not learn at the same pace (Silverman 1989; Stanley, 1993) and demonstrate a wide

range of interests (Hollingworth, 1942).

Gifted students do prefer less direction and more time to explore or experiment (Coleman

& Cross, 2001). Gifted learners prefer finding several solutions as opposed to being given one

(Rogers, 2001). Even at an early age, gifted students may have an unusual sense of humor, often

dry, using word play at an elevated level (Coleman & Cross, 2001). According to Delisle and

Galbraith (2002) gifted students enjoy learning about the nature of humankind and the universe.

As a result, even at an early age, gifted children may demonstrate intellectual

curiosity, creativity, and may ask endless questions until they understand concepts (Maker,

Nelson, & Rogers, 1994).

Socialization: Peer Relationships and Possible Isolation

Gifted children may struggle with emotional intensity (Fonesca, 2011, Lind, 2001; Sword,

2006a, 2006b; Webb, 2008),with executive functioning skills (Brown, 2006; Dawson & Guare,

2009; DeWall, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2009; Kaufman, 2010), self-regulation (Barkley, 1997;

Campbell, 2000; Cash, 2016; Guenole et al., 2015; Teeter, 1998;), and developing friendships

(Almack, 1922; Cohen, Duncan, & Cohen, 1994; Guo, 2006; Lee, Olszewski-Kublilius, &

Thomson, 2012; Peairs, 2010; Shapiro, Schneider, Shore, Margison, & Udvari, 2009; Webb,

Meckstroth, and Tolan, 1982). Up to 20% of children and youth, in general, may experience

significant emotional, or social challenges, while 30% to 40% of gifted children can be identified

with noteworthy difficulties in these areas (Armstrong, Desson, John, & Watt, 2018). According

to Armstrong et al. (2018) it is not uncommon for gifted children to set high standards for

themselves and when the expectation is not met, become critical in evaluating their own work

(Silverman, 1989, 2012; Whitmore, 1980). It is also not uncommon for gifted youth to destroy

what personal work created due to this perfectionism (Guignard, Jacquet, & Lupart, 2012;

LoCicero & Ashby, 2000; Mammadov, Cross, & Ward, 2018; Shaunessy, Suldo, & Friedrich,

2011). Gifted children procrastinate, as it is easier than failing a second time (Torrance, 1961,

1962). Placement with another student, or even in a cooperative group for learning, is quite

challenging and frustrating for gifted learners (Colangelo, 1991; French, Walker, & Shore, 2011;

Hollingworth, 1942; Silverman, 1993, Slavin, 1990). To the outsider, or inexperienced educator,

or even uninformed parent, a gifted child may appear to be arrogant, and disconnected from his or

her peers (Coleman, 1999; Delisle, 1992; Feldman, 1980; Gallagher, 1975; Gold, 1965; Hebert,

2002; Pepinsky, 1960; Reis & McCoach, 2002). Gifted learners are often focused on larger world

problems and lose interest in relationships without this focus (Hollingworth, 1942, Southern &

Jones, 1991). As a result, gifted students may choose to either be isolated or may seek

relationships with older students (Shantz, 1975). Carrie Goldman, (2012), cautions of the danger

of gifted students becoming isolated from others: “Neuroimaging studies have shown parts of the

cortical pain network are activated when a person is socially excluded” (p. 12). Goldman points

out, “...the brains of children as young as thirteen have been shown to react to social pain as if the

child were being physically injured” (p. 12).

Overexcitabilities of the Gifted Child

Dabrowski identified five areas in which gifted children may exhibit intense behaviors

(Dabrowski, 1964, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1973; Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977; Lind, 2001;

Mendaglio, 2007). These intense behaviors are often referred to as “overexcitabilities” or “super-

sensitivities.” These areas include: Sensual, intellectual, imaginational, psychomotor and

emotional.

Sensual. According to Dabrowski (1964) gifted students have a heightened awareness of

all their senses. As a result, gifted students may have sensitivity to certain smells, may not like the

feel of certain types of fabrics, or may have an appreciation for beauty or things they consider

beautiful (Mendaglio, & Tiller, 2006). Sensual overexcitabilities may cause some gifted students

to avoid walking on cracks in the sidewalk or may explain why some students refuse to walk on

thick, green grass. Along with these concerns, some gifted students may be reluctant to be

touched, whereas others may crave being held or comforted (Bouchet & Falk, 2001; Daniels &

Piechowski, 2009; Winkler & Voight, 2016; Zakreski, 2018). Even lighting may need

adjustments for a gifted student to be successful.

Intellectual. Gifted children with such intensity may continuously crave learning

(Kaufman 2018). These students may not be able to turn off their minds. As a result, school,

which is often divided into several periods during a day, becomes quite frustrating for some gifted

students.

They constantly want to delve deeper and want to know how and why something is like it

is (Daniels, & Piechowski, 2009). Teachers, counselors, or families may identify students with

intellectual intensities as those students always with a book in hand or eyes on a screen. The

challenge for the educator is to convince the gifted learner to put the book down, to find

meaning in the new subject, and to engage in the planned learning (Dabrowski, 1964).

Imaginational. Gifted students with an imaginational type of intensity view life in a

different way (Kitano, 1990). They often have dreams, enjoy fantasy and free play. These gifted

students may love drama or music. Teachers may call them out for daydreaming in class (Rinn &

Reynolds, 2012). Dabrowski warns the imaginations of gifted children can lead to vivid dreams or

nightmares. The images and events are quite detailed which can lead to sleeping issues which

may then affect student performance and relationships. (Dabrowski, 1964, 1967; Fonesca, 2011;

Piirto, 1998).

Psychomotor. This type of intensity, psychomotor, is quite common in gifted children.

Psychomotor intensity includes a “capacity for being active and energetic” (Piechowski, 1991, p.

287), the love of movement for its own sake, surplus of energy demonstrated by rapid speech,

zealous enthusiasm, intense physical activity, and a need for action (Dabrowski & Piechowski,

1977; Piechowski, 1991, 1997, 1999). Teachers may confuse this type of intensity as ADD or

ADHD. Gifted students with psychomotor excitabilities may prefer outside activities or

competitions (Dabrowski, 1970; Piechowski, 2013).

Emotional. As the name suggests, students with emotional intensity may be extremely

sensitive and empathetic to many causes or issues (Piechowski, 1979). There are often extremes

in how their intensities are presented. Gifted students with high emotional intensities may also be

referred for ADD or ADHD or even bipolar disorder. Characteristics of gifted students exhibiting

emotional intensities may include appearing shy, feeling lonely or isolated, appearing anxious,

may have problems adjusting to any type of change, may be classroom cops who insist that

everything is always fair and may have at times feelings of guilt or feelings of inferiority. Often

these intensities may become too much and may begin to play out in actual physical symptoms

such as headaches, stomachaches, sore muscles, or even stress (Dabrowski, 1972; Winkler &

Voight, 2016, Zakreski, 2018).

Gifted children with multiple intensities have a difficult time ignoring or even addressing

bullying of any form (Dabrowski, 1964, Kitano, 1990). These sensitivities are a part of a larger

theory called the Theory of Positive Disintegration in which Dabrowski believed inner sufferings

are needed for advanced development. The goal is to move oneself from where one currently is, to

where one would desire to be. Research illuminates although not all gifted students have

overexcitabilities they are found at a higher rate amongst gifted children (Kitano, 1990,

Mendaglio & Tiller, 2006). Overexcitabilities may cause gifted students to draw attention to

themselves. They can also result in gifted students having strong reactions to bullying (Gordon,

2019). Along with this, gifted students struggle to understand bullying (Gordon, 2019).

Overexcitabilities may also cause gifted students to become self-critical, leading to gifted

individuals trying to cope or navigate the situation on their own, often not trusting others to do

this for them (Gordon, 2019). In review, overexcitabilities are a heightened ability to respond to

different stimuli. School counselors need to be skilled in helping gifted students exhibiting

overexcitabilities to work through their natural tendencies while also trying to help students

maintain emotional self-regulation, balance and control (Gordon, 2019).

Depression and Suicide

A review of the literature reveals gifted students are complex. Unfortunately, such traits as

asynchronous development, perfectionism, social introversion, heightened sensitivity may make

gifted students at risk for depression and even suicide (Capuzzi, & Golden, 1988; Cross, 1996;

Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996; Delisle, 1986). Yet, to date the research is mixed and inconclusive

as to whether gifted students are at a higher risk for depression (Martin, Burns, & Schonlau, 2010;

Mueller, 2009, Neihart, 1999) and suicidal behaviors (Cross, 2012; Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996;

Cross & Cross, 2017; Cross, Gust-Brey, & Ball, 2002).

Limited research gives an insight to the troubled gifted child or adolescents. Research by

Hyatt (2010) reveals a case study for an 18-year-old female gifted adolescent. She killed herself

using a firearm. The study reveals the young gifted woman had been contemplating suicide for at

least seven years before she accomplished it. The bullying had started in kindergarten, and as she

attended school, she was continuously called names. The study reveals she had even been bullied

by adults. Her giftedness had not been understood by peers or even adults. She even expressed her

desire to kill herself in an English assignment; it appeared the teacher either did not

acknowledge the concern, or never read it. The young lady had expressed the desire to kill herself

with peers but never with other adults, other than the teacher. The reason for not telling adults

may be because of her giftedness; she never trusted adults to help her (Cortes, & Kochenderfer-

Ladd, 2014; Cross & Cross, 2017).

It must be known, gifted students may deceive those around them and mask their signs of

depression (Jackson & Peterson, 2003). Knowledge of masking is important to when gifted

students are asked to answer orally in conferencing or even in investigations by counselors or

asked to answer questionnaires about depression and suicide. Jackson and Peterson (2003) found

gifted students did not respond honestly when asked about bullying. Limited research exists in

this area. An intriguing study conducted by Mueller (2009), finds gifted Hispanic students may

have higher depression scores on questionnaires than Caucasian gifted individuals, or may be

more willing to admit such than Caucasian students.

The actual number of gifted and young people attempting or committing suicide remains

unknown, partly because of the wide variance in definitions of the intellectually gifted population

(Delisle, 1986). Data privacy complicates gifted research around depression and suicide. At least

13 adolescents die each day, or over 5,000 adolescent deaths a year, and as many as five times

that number makes less successful attempts at suicide (Tishler, McKenry, & Morgan, 1981). The

trends show these estimates may be low (“CDC”, 2019; “NIMH”, 2019). A 250 % increase in

suicides among young people since 1964 has occurred (Petzel, & Cline, 1978).

Knowing suicide rates are increasing, attention must be focused on the needs of the all

populations, including the gifted. Field and Marr did just this when they coined the term,

“Bullycide” in 1991 to bring attention to how bullying is impacting students, including gifted.

Bullycides often occurs when children or adolescents can no longer cope with the chronic abuse

of bullying. These students seeing no other way to escape it, decide to die by suicide to end the

suffering. Field and Marr (1991) explain, “Bullycides are becoming more common and occur

when the victim can no longer endure the psychological effects of being bullied. (Field, & Marr,

1991; Simmons, 2002, Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998; Sullivan, Farrell & Kliewer, 2006).

Different studies rank suicide as the second or the third leading cause of death in youth

between ages 10 and 24. Increases in suicidal ideation due to bullying, including cyberbullying

have been observed (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010, 2014). Nearly 31% of boys and 36% of girls

bullied reported suicidal thoughts (van der Wal et al., 2003). A study found in the Journal of

Secondary Gifted Education (1996) revealed the five gifted male students in the study felt

bullycides were their only options. All five males had exhibited overexcitabilities, had all suffered

from depression, had openly discussed suicide, had obsessive thinking, and may have had need

for control.

The limited research on gifted and suicide reveals:

1. Targets of cyberbullying are at least 1.5 times more likely to attempt suicide,

compared to their peers (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).

2. Gifted students die by suicide (Cross et al., 1996; Cross et al., 2002; Cross, 2013;

Hyatt, 2010).

3. Evidence exists suicide ideation rates for the 16- to 18-year-old gifted student age

range are at or are slightly lower than those of the general population (Hyatt, 2010).

4. Gifted students may see suicide as a strategy for coping (Coleman, & Cross, 2001,

2005).

5. A small amount of evidence indicates adolescent gifted students are more likely to

complete suicide in fewer attempts than the general population (Cross, 2013).

Gifted students and their search for identity and acceptance is complex. Research by Sanborn and

his associates (Sanborn, 1979; Sanborn, Pulvino, & Wonderlin, 1971) has shown the difficulties

faced by gifted adolescents who are being told they are fortunate to have exceptional talents. At

other times, the stress of living up to these expectations, causes life for gifted students to feel

aimless and barren (Shneidman, 1972).

Social and Emotional Competence: Focus on The Whole Child

Dr. George Betts argues gifted education must focus on developing the whole child (Betts,

1985; Betts & Kercher, 1999). This belief is supported by the Collaborative for Academic, Social

and Emotional Learning (CASEL) established in 1997 (www.casel.org/what-is-sel/). As the

world’s leading organization to focus on social and emotional learning, the organization has

identified and advocates for five broad areas of focus for a learner’s social and emotional

competence: Self-awareness, self-management, social-awareness, relationship skills, and

responsive decision-making (Betts, & Kirchner, 1999; CASEL, 2020). Failure to address the

needs of the whole child may place the gifted child in a more vulnerable condition (Betts &

Kirchner, 1999; Fonesca, 2011; Watson, 1965, Webb et al., 1982).

Conclusion

Coleman and Cross (2001) point out, “...popular movies portray gifted people as frail,

(Powder, 1995), bespectacled (Shine, 1996), dysfunctional (Searching for Bobby Fischer, 1993;

Little Man Tate, 1991) idealistic but misguided and even violent (Good Will Hunting, 1997)” (p.

21).

The SENG Parent’s Guide to Gifted Student’s Handbook, a significant book in the field of

gifted, illuminates the numerous social and emotional challenges faced by gifted individuals

(Webb et al., 2005). The text is designed to be used to lead discussions for parent education

classes for parents concerned about the social and emotional development of their gifted child.

However, not all studies have found gifted individuals have more social or emotional concerns.

Some earlier studies of gifted present a different view of giftedness, arguing some gifted students

do not display negative behaviors (Cross, 2005; Neihart, 1999; Terman, 1925). A smaller sample

of empirical research reviewed on the gifted from childhood through adulthood confirms

emotional disturbance may not be a common correlate of giftedness (Lajoie & Shore, 1981;

Neihart, 1999; Sears, 1977, 1979; Terman & Oden, 1947; Yewchuk, 1995). The early studies

may indicate the incidence of emotional disturbance among the gifted is comparable to the

general public (Neihart, 1999). Webb et al. (2005) reminds counselors the importance of

understanding not all gifted students are the same, and each should be treated and guided

accordingly. For each giftedness may be an asset or a burden.

Roeper (1982), Betts (1989), and Silverman (1997) caution counselors not only to be

focused on nurturing the academic needs of gifted but encourages there to be focus on the growth

of self. Unfortunately, gifted children, just like other children, grow up in a complex world where

their talents may be encouraged, praised, recognized, ignored, discredited, or even treated with

derision, scorn, and disdain (Coleman, 1961, 1985; Freeman, 1983, 2002; Schroeder Davis, 2012;

Torrance, 1962; Whitmore, 1980). Roeper (1982) strongly urges educators to nurture the psyche

of the child in the direction of self-actualization. Rowley (2012) writes, “Sometimes being

intellectually gifted comes with an emotional price: we need to grow a map of reality that

includes reaching out to children who seem unreachable” (para. 9). Neihart (1999) argues the

psychological outcomes for gifted children depends upon three factors: the type of giftedness, the

educational fit and environment, and one’s personal characteristics. Neihart (2009) also believes

“in many cases with gifted students, the developing criminal mind is evident by mid to late

adolescence” (p. 1).

Pfeiffer and Burko (2016) state, “There is no research on the prevalence of gifted students

with mental health problems; however, it is reasonable to assume a significant number of these

children/adolescents do not receive counseling or other interventions they should be seeking.

Pfeiffer and Burko (2016) believe it could be helpful if counselors working with gifted students

addressed the following developmental challenges (p. 244):

1. A significant mismatch with one’s educational environment (Pfeiffer & Stocking,

2000).

2. Time management, strategic planning, coping with anxiety, and academic pursuits

(Vitasari, Wahab, Othman, & Sinnadurai, 2010).

2. Being out-of-sync with nongifted peers (Gross, 1999, 2002).

3. Perfectionism and heightened sensitivity/overexcitabilities (Chan, 2003; Mendaglio,

2003).

4. Achievement: Feeling unsupported and misunderstood (Kerr, 1991; Kerr, Colangelo,

& Gaeth, 1998).

5. Anxiety, and indecision about career planning (Sampson & Chasin, 2008).

7. Bullying, (Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b; Pfeiffer & Stocking, 2000).

History and Changing Role of the Counselor in U.S. Schools

The role of counselors has evolved, been changed, redefined, and modernized in response

to needs of schools or even society (Aubrey, 1977; Beesley, 2004; Burnham & Jackson, 2000;

Gysbers & Henderson, 1988, 2001, 2012; Heppner, 1990; Myers & Pace, 1986; Paisley &

Border, 1995; Sajjadi, 2000; St. Clair, 1989). Dahir (2004) argues, “The history of school

counseling has depicted a profession in search of an identity” (p. 345). Klein (2000) believes,

“counseling has always been considered a vital component in the nurturing of talent and overall

service of the gifted population (p. 133).

Industrial Revolution

Schools first began utilizing counselors in the late 1800s. (Beesley, 2004; Burnham &

Jackson, 2000; Gysbers & Henderson, 2001; Paisley & Borders, 1995). Wilhelm Wundt (1832-

1920), a German scientist, is often referred to as the first psychologist (Danziger, 1980; Myers, &

Pace, 1986). Wundt (1873) argues the need for identifying components of consciousness. For the

most part, Wundt’s work was not at the focus of counseling in the U.S. but should be considered

as it began discussions around introspection (Danziger, 1980). However, it did not impact

counseling for gifted students for years to come. Two other psychologists of this time whose

work pertains to giftedness include William James (1842-1910) who focused on functionalism,

and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) who focused on the unconscious mind. James (1890) may be the

first to speak to the power of rejection (Leary et al., 2003).

The first school counselors in the United States, often known as a vocational counselors,

were not focused on the works of these psychologists, but rather were initiated to prepare students

for life after high school, and for the changing work world (Baker & Gerber, 2004; Gysbers &

Henderson, 2000; Sciarra, 2004). Vocational counselors were often hired as full-time teachers,

receiving no extra planning time, training, and little to no additional pay (Sciarra, 2004). Yet, the

counselor was expected to build relationships with families, orient new students, provide needed

assessments if required, and place students appropriately into grade, class or subject placements.

Other challenges of the times included: children being overworked, students dropping out of

school to seek employment to support their families, or themselves (Sciarra, 2004). A

combination of immigration, industrialization, and urbanization brought much needed reform to

education (Aubrey, 1977; Erford, 2010, Meyers, & Pace, 1986; St. Clair, 1989).

The Beginning of Counseling Gifted Students

Early work in the field of changing behavior was conducted by Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936).

The important work played a part in how students were rewarded or disciplined. Even today,

underperforming or unengaged gifted students may be motivated by the reward of extra screen

time, stickers, or choice time. In 1869, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, began to

explore and experiment with testing and individual differences (Meyers & Pace, 1986). Galton

then connected and applied this information to psychology theories of the time. Galton attempted

to determine the needs around those he considered to be genius or to have superior mental

abilities (Galton, 1935). He is given credit for developing a technique known as finding the

correlation, this was first used to better understand interrelationships in his intelligence studies.

Much work on twins, including gifted twins, and intelligence followed (Gladding, 1984; Myers,

& Pace, 1986). The first school for gifted students opened in 1901 in Worcester, Massachusetts

(Meyers, & Pace, 1986). As a result of Galton’s work, and the work of others, counseling of

gifted students began in the 1920s, emerging out of various intellectual movements: testing and

individual aptitudes, vocational and educational guidance, and child studies, (a movement led by

G. S. Hall , dating back to the early 1900s (Colangelo, 2003). It must also be noted the Stanford-

Binet intelligence test was published in the United States in 1916. Binet did not share Terman’s

view of fixed intelligence (Green, 1998).

The Great Depression

The Great Depression added to the need for assessing workers (Myers, & Pace, 1986). It

was also a time where young people were coping with personal trauma (Myrick, 1997). The

movement or influence of Carl Rogers, a student of Leta Hollingworth, and humanistic theory,

made the largest impact on school counseling in the years after World War II. Rogers believed

in a student-centered approach with emphasis on the self (Colangelo, 2003; Colangelo, & Wood,

2015). He asserted for allowing the student to lead the conversations, not the therapist. Rogers

also affirms Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. For a student to grow, he or she needs to be

placed in an environment that provides him or her with genuineness. This allows the student to be

open and leads to self-disclosures and personal reflection (Thorne & Henley, 2005). Rogers

believed in acceptance, unconditional love and placed great value on empathy. Change would\

only come if the child felt listened to and ultimately understood. Roger’s view contrast

with another popular theory of the time by American psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904-1990)

who believed in reinforcement but also the need at times for punishment or pain to drive

behavior (Amutan, 2014, Skinner, 1938).

Another movement having a significant impact on gifted children was led by G. S. Hall

(1903, 1911). This movement focused on specific child studies and tried to understand the natural

growth and development of gifted children. Hall’s movement worked to improve educational

practices and worked to provide information to parents about their child in an effort for the

individual to maximize his or her development. In 1932, Jean Piaget published The

Moral Judgment of Children, resulting in Piaget being considered a leading theorist on the

cognitive development of children.

Lewis M. Terman argued in the 1930s not all children should be educated the same and

felt the educational lockstep found in the school system was not working with gifted students (Al-

Hroub & Khoury, 2018). This belief still exists today (Cash, 2016; Rogers, 2001). One of the first

longitudinal studies of over 1,500 gifted children began just prior to the Great Depression and was

being conducted by Lewis M. Terman himself. A scholar, Terman worked at Stanford University

in California. Terman had built on the ideas first presented by French psychologist, Alfred Binet

(1857-1911). Binet’s test was adapted and is known in America as the Stanford-Binet assessment

(St. Clair, 2010). It received the name as Terman had developed it at Stanford, the place he

worked, and the test was adapted from the work of Alfred Binet. Terman’s project, Genetic

Studies of Genius, included collecting information relating to physical, social and emotional

development (Myers, & Pace, 1986; Terman, 1925). The studies eventually were able to address

other important issues around giftedness including: motivation, heredity, career selection and

development, and overall life satisfaction (Burks et al., 1930; Oden, 1968; Sears, P. S. & Barbee,

1977; Sears, R. R., 1977; Stanley, George & Salono, 1977, Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947,

1959). The new work represented the first longitudinal test conducted to find gifted children

through psychological tests. The study did not go without critics, considering the Sanford-Binet

test was first used to identify slower students (Fancher, & Rutherford, 2012; Kerr, 1981;

Whitmore, 1980). Terman determined these talented youngsters in his study were all well-

adjusted and could succeed without specialized counseling or educational services. Terman also

believed genius had a strong hereditary component. Terman may have been proven wrong; more

researchers now believe gifted students do have unique needs (Cross, 2005; Fonesca, 2011, Webb

et al., 2005). Current researchers also tend to believe in and advocate for a growth-mindset when

working with gifted individuals. (Dweck, 2006). The Terman myth came as a result of Terman

finding or believing gifted students were well-adjusted (Kerr, 1981; Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan,

1982). As a result, some educators came to believe gifted individuals can handle their emotions

without support (Cross, 2005; Hollingworth, 1925; Myers, & Pace, 1986; Strang, 1960). Studies

reveal the myth has been perpetuated over the years and some believe may have contributed to the

neglect of gifted children by professionals, including psychologist, counselors, teachers,

administrators and researchers (Kerr, 1981; Myers, & Pace, 1986; Webb et al., 1982; Whitmore,

1980).

During the time of the Great Depression and just beyond, Leta S. Hollingworth, was

working with gifted children in New York (Myers, & Pace, 1986). Hollingworth found gifted

students are well-adjusted, as Terman suggested (Hollingworth, 1926,1942). However, she

determined adjustment problems increased as students’ intelligence quotients rose above 150. For

those with IQs above 180, social and emotional development or adjustments could be extremely

difficult (Hollingworth, 1926, 1942). Hollingworth identified several special problems unique to

giftedness. Her information proved valuable not only to teachers but also to counselors. First,

gifted students spend far too much time with repetitive activities. Hollingworth (1942) claimed

the gifted child, “receives daily practice in habits of idleness and daydreaming” (p. 270). Second,

she observed gifted students lacked successful peer relationships (Hollingworth, 1942). Not

having peer relationships could lead to underdeveloped social skills and social isolation. Third,

Hollingworth recognized a difference between the intellectual and emotional development of

gifted students. Fourth, she warned of the likeliness of gifted students developing a cynicism

toward authority which would result in social conflict (Cross, 2005; Hollingworth, 1925,

Jackson, & Peterson 2011; Rogers, 2001). Fifth, she suggested lack of peer relationships at a

younger age may have prevented successful relationships in adulthood (Webb et al., 2005).

Finally, she noticed gifted children had difficulty in narrowing down a vocation because gifted

individuals often have a variety of interests. As a result of being indecisive, this led gifted

students to become frustrated and stressed, impacting their overall well-being (Fonesca, 2011;

Webb et al, 2005). Hollingworth’s investigations had tremendous impact on gifted learners in the

past and even still today. Hollingworth was the first to demonstrate the unique counseling and

guidance needs gifted students have. Hollingworth is referred in literature to as the first counselor

of gifted students (O’Boyle, & Benbow, 1990). All findings by Hollingworth previously

mentioned, remain relevant even today (O’Boyle, & Benbow, 1990; Webb et al., 2005).

During the time of the Great Depression, Paul Witty and Martin Jenkins (1934) conducted

the first study of intellectual giftedness among Blacks and other students of culturally different

backgrounds (Hildenbrand, 1981; Tannenbaum, 1979; Tannenbaum, 1983). The author’s study is

significant as it “opened the minds of educators and counselors and opened doors for students of

color” (Witty, & Jenkins, 1934) At this same time, David Wechsler began studying standardized

testing. He created the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence test in 1939, designed to test intelligence

and cognitive abilities of adults, eventually the test would be revised to be utilized with children.

At this same time, David Wechsler began studying standardized testing (Matarazzo, 2012;

Wechsler, 2003).

Ruth Strang, along with Pauline Williamson, founded the American Association for Gifted

Children in 1946 (Jolly, 2004). These two esteemed psychologists and advocates believed the

“gifted were the most neglected children in our democracy” (AAGC, 1951, p. 1) Ruth Strang was

concerned society would pay or lose too much if society did not develop the talents of gifted

students (Jolly, 2009; Robinson, & Jolly, 2013; Strang, 1965). Strang also made the case

misguided talent may be used in self-destructive ways (Strang, 1950, 1965). Therefore, Strang

advocated for gifted students to feel accepted (Jolly, 2009; Robinson, & Jolly 2013; Strang,

1947; Strang, 1965). Without feeling included and valued, maladjusted gifted individuals would

fail to gain satisfaction or self-fulfillment. Her research encouraged the use of counseling services

focused on the development of self-understanding, positive self-concept, and social responsibility.

Strang believed counselors should work with gifted students on self-improvement skills and

believed gifted students should reflect on the meaning of their lives (Strang, 1950, 1951, 1960).

Formation of American School Counselor Association (ASCA)

In early 1950s the professional population of school counselors remained relatively small,

even today schools struggle to have enough counselors to serve all students intentionally and

effectively (Cross, 2005, Dahir, 2004). The profession was struggling for recognition (Myers, &

Pace, 1986). This changed in 1952 with the formation of the American School Counselor

Association (Myers, & Pace, 1986; St. Clair, 1989). Almost immediately, the association

advanced standards for training and ethical behavior (Myrick, 1997). James Conant (1959) called

for schools to have one counselor for every 250 students (Eurich, 1959).

An important event occurred in 1957, propelling counseling services forward historically.

The Russians launched the Sputnik capsule. Sciarra (2004) claims the response of the National

Defense Education Act of 1958 had the greatest direct impact on school counseling in the history

of the profession. The NDEA provided districts with funds to develop counseling services and

provided funds to universities to train counselors (Sciarra 2004). Major work in counseling gifted

students was begun by John W.M. Rothney at the University of Wisconsin in 1957 (Myers, &

Pace, 1986). Research took place at the new Wisconsin Guidance Laboratory for Superior

Students. Shortly after the name was changed to The Guidance Institute for Talented Students

(GIFTS) (Mendaglio, 2007; Meyers, & Pace, 1986). The Institute’s work was led by Marshall

Sanborn, Nicholas Colangelo, and Phil Perrone (Mendaglio, 2007).

In the late 1950s, Dr. E. Paul Torrance studied gifted students and creativity. Torrance

believed creative gifted students demonstrated greater elaboration, originality, fluency, and

flexibility in their thinking skills (Torrance, & Sisk, 1998). Torrance (1959) argued creatively

gifted students had unique social and emotional needs as a result of these elaborated problem-

solving skills (Drapeau, 2014; Torrance, 1959, 1965, Torrance, & Sisk, 1998).

In the early 1960s school counselors began to focus on the potential of the student (Rye &

Sparks, 1999). New program materials were designed: career exploration, drug abuse education,

decision-making and problem-solving, along with self-development and character education

(Erford, 2003, 2010). Group counseling began and one-on-one attention to youth-at-risk became

more common. Kohlberg (1964) expanded his ideas for the sequencing of morality development.

Then, in 1964 the National Defense Education Act saw the need to expand services and

elementary counselor positions became more commonplace (Baker & Gertler, 2004). By 1967,

Ulric Neisser published, Cognitive Psychology and started a movement (Neisser, 1967; Thorne, &

Henley, 2005). Noam Chomsky was very influential in the early days of this movement (Miller,

2003). Referred to as the Cognitive Revolution in literature, this movement is significant in it

encouraged an interdisciplinary approach, linking research in the areas of anthropology, computer

science, neuroscience, and linguistics, among others (Miller, 2003). (As a result, today,

neuroscience researchers are learning more about the impacts of bullying on the brain). In 1967,

Aaron Beck argued thoughts play a significant role in the development of depression. By the

1970s more complex issues were confronting students and counselors. These included addressing

civil rights concerns and fears, women's’ rights, more calls to serve special education students

differently, and far more attention on acceptance of diversity (Erford, 2003).

During the 1960s and early 1970s John Goward founded Summer Gifted Child Creativity

classes in California (LeRose, King, & Greenwood, 1979). Gowan provided hands-on training for

counselors to work with gifted students. More importantly, Goward added to the growing

evidence showing training of counselors has a significant impact on student’s being served.

Gowan is considered a major force in promoting strategies for counselors to effectively work with

the gifted population (LeRose et al., 1979).

In 1974, the Office of Gifted and Talented, housed within the Office of Education, was

recognized and given official status (Mendaglio, 2007). A year later, Public Law 94-142, The

Education for all Handicapped Children Act, establishes a federal mandate to serve children who

have special education needs, but it did not include gifted and talented children (Dahir, 2004;

Myers, & Pace, 1986; Public Law 94-142).

Students at risk, SENG forms. In 1981 much attention resulted from the death of a

highly gifted student named James Dallas Egbert. At seventeen, James had committed suicide, a

self-inflicted gun wound, and, as a result, a fund was created in his name. His parents helped Dr.

James T. Webb, recognized as one of the most influential psychologists in the field of gifted

education, to begin an organization in the Profession of Psychology at Wright State University

(SENG, 2020). The organization is called SENG, Supporting the Emotional Needs of Gifted

(Webb et al., 2005) Almost immediately SENG began offering counseling services, workshops,

parent support groups, and even a national conference to address the needs of the gifted

population (Webb et al, 1982). Despite Mr. Webb’s recent death (July 27, 2018), SENG is still

very active today and committed to supporting gifted students, educators, counselors and families.

The 2020 SENG conference is scheduled to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in August 2020.

(SENG, 2020) The 2020 SENG conference providing counselors, educators, administrators and

families from across the world the opportunity to learn more about giftedness and bullying. The

conference also allows counselors to complete SENG facilitation training, allowing them to lead

6-week parent education trainings.

To ensure consistent training, counseling services and even models to support counselors,

the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)

was established in 1981. A year later, in 1982, Barbara Kerr established the Guidance Laboratory

for Gifted and Talented at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln campus (Kerr, 1991; Myers, &

Pace, 1986). Kerr’s work expands upon the work of GIFTS and SENG. Her staff provided

counseling training, supported research on counseling of the gifted, and conducted workshops for

gifted high school students. In 1985, the GIFTS program had to cease operations, due to lack of

funding. SENG and the Guidance Lab appear to be the only university-based programs in the

United States found in the review supporting counseling services (Myers, & Pace, 1986). The

Gifted Development Center in Colorado was established in 1979 by Linda Silverman, to provide

services and opportunities for counselors, educators, families and administrators. The Gifted

Development Center is still active today and extends support across the world (GDC, 2020).

Linda Silverman has assessed over 6,500 gifted students in the 35 years. Silverman has the

largest data bank on the gifted population to date which is important for her work with gifted

students nationally and internationally (GDC, 2020).

A Nation at Risk

A critical report on the state of education in the United States known as a Nation at Risk

was published in 1983 (U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). As a

result, accountability was a priority as school reform occurred once again. With accountability

came a unifying purpose. Journals, conferences, workshops and training led to the publication of

Developing and Managing Your School Guidance Program (Gysbers & Henderson, 1988), and

Developmental Guidance and Counseling: A Practical Approach (Myrick, 1997). School

counselors, by now sometimes referred to as guidance counselors, especially in older grades, were

required to develop K-12 comprehensive programs in the areas of career, education and personal

and social development (Colangelo, 2003). These programs address not only group needs but also

individual needs. required to develop K-12 comprehensive programs in the areas of career,

education and personal and social development. These programs were to address not only group

needs but also individual needs.

By the early 2000s research was showing again a lack of focus and cohesiveness within

the counseling profession (Dahir, 2004). Minimal data existed to support the impact of school

counselors on the academic achievement of students (Campbell, & Dahir, 1997). Along with

these concerns was the coming of the Industrial Age, resulting in a large influx of immigrant

children into the country (Dahir, 2004). Research regarding children showing adaptive

development while facing adversity or trauma began in the 1970s but was gaining the attention of

more researchers and institutes, and this focus, continues today (SAMHSA, 2019). Counselors are

charged with understanding the needs of all the various cultures their schools were serving, and,

were asked to develop multicultural competencies. In addition, the ASCA adopted National

Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997).

Limitations and Concerns

When specifically examining the role of counselors in serving the needs of gifted students

who may be bullied, or may be the bully, the history of counseling reminds gifted professionals

the role of the counselor is ever-changing (Colangelo, 2003; Gladding, 1984: Peterson, 2009).

National standards and comprehensive plans did not come into play until the 1950s or later which,

in the history of education, is still relatively recent (Cambell, & Dahir, 1997; Myers & Page,

1986). Even with standards, training for gifted students is often embedded into other training for

teachers and counselors. Bullying training and programs did not become the focus of counselors

in the United States until the late 80s, and in many states and cases were not even initiated until

after the Columbine shootings in 1999 (Olweus, 1999).

Some encouraging news is the American School Counselor Association reports most

counselors in the United States are practicing with a masters’ degrees (ASCA, 2019). However,

new school counselors continue to be educated by professors with little to no actual experience

working in schools (Peterson, 2009). The TSCI Training Model, includes members from the

University of Minnesota, is working to change this (Peterson, 2009). Also, counselors are

encouraged to be a part of the district’s or building’s leadership teams and should have access to

data and technology training. Lack of involvement with leadership teams is still a barrier with

counselors in various districts across the country (Peterson, 2009). If schools want school

counselors to be effective in closing the academic achievement gap between high and low-

performing students, if schools want counselors to help students reach their potential and to help

steer students on the path to the correct career, and if schools want counselors at the forefront of

keeping children safe, it is imperative counselors must be viewed as leaders in order to bring

about this systematic change (Peterson, 2008, 2009, 2012a, 2012b, 2014, 2015). Unfortunately,

this may not always be the case. With budget concerns, districts often see counselors as easy cuts

(Bidwell, 2013). The fear alone can lead to turnover in the counseling position, or to districts not

having full-time counselors available. Even in modern times counselors must advocate in

unnecessary ways and must show they are being accountable in order to risk not becoming

marginalized (Bidwell, 2013). A Minnesota television station, KARE 11, did an investigative

report aired on March 14, 2018, with the headline Minnesota has the Fourth Worst

Student/Counselor Ratio in the Nation (KARE 11, March 14, 2018, translation available) In the

broadcast, Katherine Vasil, a middle school counselor in the Anoka-Hennepin school district

argues counselors must be involved in the discussion of improving school safety. Vasil said, “We

are on the front lines working with students through stress and trauma and mental illness and

family issues.” Fellow Anoka-Hennepin school counselor, Theresa Weber-Sexton, when asked if

counselors are sometimes forgotten in the discussion of school safety, responded, “Often times I

do. I think there is a misconception by all about the work we do.”

An intentional effort by the ASCA to work with counselor organizations from across the

world in order to provide the best models and services to students and to address such universal

issues such as bullying (Mendaglio, 2007). A World Conference is held each year, and attended

by counselors, on the topic of bullying. The more popular models used with gifted students

include: Affective-Cognitive Therapy for Counseling Gifted Individuals by Sal Mendaglio, and A

Developmental Perspective by Jean Sunde Peterson. Erikson’s (1950), Theory of Psychological

Development, highlighting 8 developmental stages may also prove effective with gifted students

(Cross, 2005). According to Erikson (1964), psychosocial development is facilitated by resolving

crisis. Carl Rogers’s student- centered approach still has a strong influence on work being done in

schools today (Stevens, 2018).

Counselors report it challenging to find strategies and services for working with gifted

students due to their unique individual needs (Mendaglio, & Peterson, 2007; Peterson, 2006).

Counseling programs have provided counselors with minimal training strategies, and counselors

must also often seek out training on their own for working with gifted students (Peterson, 2006).

Thus, more training may be needed for understanding gifted students (Mendaglio, & Peterson,

2007). The Terman myth may have delayed attention to the gifted. Terman (1925) postulated

gifted students had normal emotional needs. This idea or myth was believed for years in the gifted

communities until later research reveals gifted students do indeed seem to have unique needs as a

result of experiencing life differently (Chapman, 1988; Strang, 1960, Webb et al., 2005,

Whitmore, 1980). Identification has been and remains a concern impacting services and

programming (Rogers, 2001). Counselors must also educate teachers. Research reveals teacher’s

may believe gifted kids will be just fine and will develop on their own with minimal assistance

(Fonseca, 2011). Other teachers see gifted services and programming elitist and believe labeling

of gifted students will have negative effects on the individual (Whitmore, 1980). Perhaps a larger

concern is the lack of funds to have counselors work with just gifted students (Baker & Friedman-

Nimz, 2004; Gallagher, 2008; Russo, 2001; Wickstrom, 2004). In comparison to special ed, gifted

funding is very limited. Current problems revealed in counseling literature for gifted youth

(Meyers, & Pace, 1986, p. 548) include:

• underachievement (Jackson, Cleveland, & Merenda, 1975; Newland, 1976; O’Shea,

1970; Perkins & Wicas, 1971; Whitmore, 1980; Zilli, 1997),

• perfectionism and overachievement (Roeper, 1982, Simpson & Kaufmann, 1981),

• depression (Lajoie & Shore, 1981, Webb et al., 1982),

• suicide (Bowers, 1978, Delisle, 1982, 1987, 1990; Fox, 1971, Lajoie & Shore, 1981;

Lemov, 1979, Lester & Lester, 1971),

• school dropouts (Lemov, 1979) and delinquency (Lemov, 1979),

• peer relationships (Webb et al., 1982, Whitmore, 1980).

• Values: An interesting challenge is gifted students may have strong values and may

question the values or lack of values of peers around topics such as family, education,

behaviors, and society (Colangelo & Parker, 1981; Sanborn & Niemiec, 1971; Webb

et al., 1982).

Another concern illuminated by Wood (2010) is whether best practices for counselors are

known, and are they being used consistently and frequently by counselors of gifted student?

Moon (2002) asserts “there is almost no outcome research available on the efficacy of specific

counseling modalities, approaches, or strategies with gifted individuals and their families.”

Counseling the gifted, due to their unique abilities and development, will require differentiating

current counseling practices (Mendaglio & Peterson, 2007; Peterson, 2006, 2007, 2009).

There is a strong need and argument for expanding counseling services for gifted and

talented students (Bidwell, 2013; Hollingworth, 1942; Kerr, 1981; Mendaglio, & Peterson, 2007;

Strang, 1951; Webb et al.,1982). Despite the limitation reviewed, including beliefs, values,

counselor-student ratio, the need for more strategies for counselors when serving gifted students,

research shows counselors are in the best position to address bullying in our schools (Austin et al.,

2012).

History of Bullying

Bullying is a current trending or contemporary topic (Boulton, & Underwood, 1992, Coy,

2001). Acts of violence or bullying is prevalent on television, in movies, streaming on Netflix, in

gaming, in the news, in books, in documentaries, or on social media (Goldman, 2012, Hirsch,

Lowen & Santorelli, 2012; Klein, 2012; Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 1006b). Bullying is not a new

phenomenon. Between 1530 and the early 17th century, a bully may have been a word of

endearment, similar to “sweetheart”, or a “fine fellow”; however, during the mid-17th century,

the word evolved and became known as the “harasser of the weak” (Koo, 2007). The earliest of

religious books and stories, including the Bible, makes references to violence “festered by the

spirit of bullying” (Allanson et al., 2015). Christian examples include: the stories of Cain and

Abel, the rivalry of Joseph and his brothers, the Good Samaritan, and David and Goliath. In

literature, examples of bullies include the works of Thomas Hughes (1857), Tom Brown’s

Schooldays, to William Golding’s (1954) Lord of the Flies, to more recent examples such

Margaret Atwood (1998) Cat’s Eye, or Jay Asher’s (2011) Thirteen Reasons Why.

One of the first articles to bring attention to bullying was written in The Times on the 6th

of August, in 1892 (Koo, 2007). The disturbing article was about a talented young soldier,

referred to as Flood, killed as a result of being bullied by members of his own military troop.

Burk completed a study on bullying in 1855, examining teasing and bullying incidents, and wrote

a journal article in 1897 in which he examined bullying among various young people (Koo,

2007). Otherwise, research on bullying remained rare, and difficult to summon, until the 1970s.

Radzinowicz and King (1977) suggests “we became more civilized, we became more sensitive to

violence” (Koo, 2007, p. 1). Involvement in wars, beginning with the Second World War could be

another reason. Or the belief exists all kids are bullied, and it is just a rite of passage. As a result,

bullying incidents may not be reported or taken seriously (Quarto, 1999).

Dan Olweus completes his first systematic bullying study in 1970 with the examination of

over 800 boys in Stockholm, referred in the literature as the “basic anatomy of bullying” (Besag,

1989; Olweus, 1978). Olweus’s book, Aggression in the Schools, Bullies and Whipping Boys

(1978) is considered a landmark, the first comprehensive study of the phenomena of bullying. By

1981, Dr. Dan Olweus, considered the founding father of bullying studies, proposed anti-bullying

legislation in Sweden (Olweus, 1993a, 1993b). Just a short year later, in 1982, three adolescent

boys between the ages of 10 and 14 committed suicide within months of each other in northern

Norway. All three adolescent boys took their lives as a result of having been bullied (Olweus,

1993a, 1993b). Perhaps difficult to understand today, considering there have been 24 school

shootings (Coughlan, S., BBC News, December 2018) and at least 44,965 suicides (AHR Annual

Report, 2018) in the United States in 2018 alone, these three deaths had ignited a panic across this

country. In response, the Norwegian government immediately called on Dr. Dan Olweus’

expertise (Olweus, 1993a, 1883b). In 1983, a year after the Norway suicides, a nationwide

campaign against bullying and school violence was initiated, one of the first of its kind, by the

Ministry of Education. Between the 1970s and the 1980s, concerns about bullying expanded

beyond Norway and Sweden. Dr. Susan Limber (2003) points out bullying had been the focus of

public concern in other parts of Scandinavia from the late 70s through the late 1980s. By the

1990s, school-based bullying interventions were being implemented across Scandinavia as well as

England (Brown, & Merrit, 2002, Hughes, 1999). In 1993, Olweus published, Bullying at School:

What We Know and What We Can Do, which has been translated into nearly 28 languages. As a

trained psychologist, Olweus came to learn and believe aggressive tendencies are not innate, and

empathy and kindness can be learned (Olweus, 1993a, 1998). By the mid-1990s legislation

against bullying in schools was passed in both the Swedish and Norwegian parliaments (Olweus

Prevention Program, 2020).

Bullying was not on the radar of most students, parents, educators or perhaps even law

enforcement or politicians in America until April 20, 1999. Two young gifted men committed the

first massive shooting in the United States at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado

(Larkin, 2009). Columbine seniors, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, killed twelve students, a

teacher, and wounded 23 others before they both committed suicide (Cullen, 2009; Klein, 2012;

Larkin, 2009). Columbine is prevalent in literature of bullying in the United States as this was the

first mass shooting in a school setting, students shooting other students. Panic spread across the

country, and across U.S. educational institutions (Cullen, 2009; Larkin, 2009; Merrit & Brown,

2002).

Olweus first defined three types of bullies (1978): the aggressive bully is a bully. He or

she is often strong, hot-tempered and easy to attack. Aggressive bullies lack empathy and have

little fear of consequences. The passive bully is insecure and uses as a way of coping or finding

control in his or her life. Finally, Olweus describes the bully-victim. This is someone, a victim

himself or herself, possibly as a way of coping, took on the role of a bully.

Types of Bullying

Although states may have their own specific definitions of bullying, more widely received

types of bullying again come from the work of Dan Olweus (1999). They are broken down as

follows:

• Verbal bullying: This is when someone uses derogatory or intimidating name calling

(Olweus, 1999).

• Social Exclusion or Isolation: The bully seeks to make sure the victim feels alone.

Social bullying may also be referred to as covert bullying. This type of bullying is

difficult to witness without training. It may happen behind the backs of students and

teachers. Clearly its purpose is to humiliate, and to cause harm to someone’s social

reputation (Olweus, 1999).

• Physical: This includes bullying incidents involving shoving, kicking, or hitting

(Olweus, 1999).

• Cyberbullying- This is bullying conducted via internet, social media or cell phones.

This type of bullying is increasingly on the rise. Cyberbullying may happen in private

and may only be known to the victim. It may include but is not limited to hurtful

images, posts, videos or texts. Cyberbullying happens at any time. Along with this, the

bully may somehow gain access to the victim’s password or log-in and use the account

as he or she fits to harm the victim or may create fake accounts.to: hurtful images,

posts, videos or texts. Cyberbullying can happen at any time. It can be in public or in

private and sometimes only known to the target and the person (or persons) bullying.

Along with this, the bully may somehow gain access to the victim’s password or log-in

and use the account as he or she fits, to harm the victim (Olweus, 1999).

Gifted students may bully in other ways: relational aggression (a type of social bullying)

(Rigby & Slee, 1997, 1999; Simmons, 2002; Wiseman, 2011) through myth telling or spreading

of rumors (types of verbal or cyberbullying) (NCES, 2017: Simmons, 2002; Wiseman, 2011) by

taking property or belongings from victims (could be physical), by controlling victims (Simmons,

2002; Wiseman, 2011) having the victim do whatever the bully wants (Simmons, 2002; Wiseman,

2016), racial bullying (could be verbal, social, or even cyberbullying), homophilic bullying

(Clark, Kitzinger, Potter, 2004; Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008), and even sexual

bullying or harassment, (including bullying against transgender students (Bazelon, 2012; Klein,

2012).

In review of the anti-bullying legislation, several states use the following criteria in their

definitions: The behavior is intended to harm or disturb, there is an imbalance of power, with a

more powerful person or group attacking the less powerful one (Nansel et al., 2001, p. 2094;

Olweus, 1978), as well as a need to show the behavior has been repeated over time. Even with

state definitions and legislation, labeling an act as bullying may be complicated. Today, school

districts may have separate policies or procedures for addressing violence, bullying and

harassment (Lorenz, 1966).

Anti-bullying expert, Barbara Coloroso (2016) has expanded her definition of bullying to

include yet another element: terror. When the bullying is frequent, consistent and persistent, she

writes, “Terror is created, and the bully can act without fear of recrimination or retaliation.” As a

result, the victim is unable to do anything and relies on the help of bystanders (p. 5). Coloroso

adds, “Thus the cycle of violence begins” (p. 5).

The Bystander: Hurting or Helping

Research shows bullying harms not only the victim, but also the bystanders as well

(Olweus & Limber, 2010; Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999). Bystanders report intense feelings

of vulnerability, and in some cases, suffer the same emotional problems as the targets (Coloroso,

2016; Weddle, 2003). Bystanders may feel afraid, powerless, and guilty for not intervening

(Coloroso, 2016; Olweus et al., 1999). Moreover, bystanders are more likely to abuse substances,

have increased mental health problems, and skip school (U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, n.d.). Unfortunately, some bystanders may join in the bullying and begin to view the

victim as somehow deserving of the treatment (Weddle, 2003). Schools must focus on bystanders,

by teaching them safe ways to intervene or encourage them to report bullying through processes,

through hotlines or other communication tools (Guilbault, 2008). Schools can focus on

bystanders, by teaching them safe ways to intervene or encourage them to report bullying through

processes, through hotlines or other communication tools (Guilbault, 2008).

History of Bullying in Minnesota

The U.S. Secret Service and the U. S. Department of Education partnered to understand

school shootings in the United States. From their partnership, the key findings revealed bullying,

as well as the culture of the building or system, was a common factor in the incidents analyzed.

(MDE, Safe and Supportive Schools Act [2013], retrieved August 1, 2019). In 2002, a landmark

report was released called, The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative; the

authors made the case for “fostering a culture of respect” in schools (p. 1). This was also echoed

in the 2004 follow-up guide, Threat Assessment in Schools. In order to prevent and to intervene in

bullying, the documents contended the presence of a strong relationship between

students and staff; the relationship appears especially critical for reducing or preventing school

shootings.

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education sent all school districts in our nation a Dear

Colleague Letter. The intent of the letter was to provide districts with guidance for handling

school bullying. Also, the letter shed light on the fact some bullying may be considered racial or

sexual harassment and, as such, would possibly be in violation of federal civil rights. The letter

warned school noncompliant districts to take corrective action. One Minnesota district, the

Anoka-Hennepin district was sued on July 22, 2011, for not protecting all students, especially

their LBGT students from bullying (MN 10

Judicial Court).

Minnesota’s original anti-bullying laws were considered weak. (Weber, 2011) The first

law did not even define bullying and provided no direction for what to do to rectify the bullying.

Districts had to have a bullying policy (MDE, 2019) but the legislation did not define if it needed

to be followed. Then in 2014, the U.S. Department of Education sent out another letter. This time

it directed schools to ensure protection for students with disabilities under Section 504 and the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

To be clear, the Minnesota Department of Education would argue they had provided

technical assistance to schools. Assistance for bullying prevention and intervention was provided

through Violence Prevention Education and Safe and Drug Free Schools initiatives and funding

since the late 1990s. The state would also argue it did try to provide guidance to school districts

on how to implement bullying prevention programs (MDE, 2020).

On March 21, 2005, a troubled 16-year-old male high school student, Weise, shot and

killed his grandfather, and his companion in Red Lake, Minnesota. He then intentionally went to

school and killed a security guard at his school, five students and eventually himself. At least

seven others were wounded. A witness reports Weise asked a student he was about to shoot, “...if

he believed in God.” Dylan Klebold had asked the same question of a Columbine survivor,

Valeen Schnurr. (Brown & Merritt, 2002, Leary et al., 2003). The shooting remains the largest

mass homicide in Minnesota history (MPR, Enger, March 18, 2015). The state responded by

conducting various focus groups: members included educators of color, American Indian

educators, LBGT students and Indian students. The MDE report known as, Listening to Cultural

Voices, sheds lights on culturally appropriate ways to prevent and intervene.

Since 2007, all Minnesota schools, private as well as public, have been expected to have a

written anti-bullying policy. The policy must address various types of bullying, including

electronic or cyberbullying. In some cases, as mentioned earlier, bullying may also be in violation

of civil rights, or may result in more penalties (Mn Stat Ann 121A. 0695). Two Minnesota

legislators, Representative Jim Davnie and Senator Scott Dibble, led a Task Force to strengthen

the bullying legislation. The bill was heard in the House of Representatives in 2013, but the

Senate bill stalled, and was not taken up again until 2014. The bill was then signed into law by

Mark Dayton on April 9, 2014. The bill had several requirements for districts. The legislation was

heard in the House of Representatives in 2013, but the Senate bill stalled, and was not taken up

again until 2014. The bill was then signed into law by Mark Dayton on April 9, 2014. The bill had

several requirements for districts:

• Adopt an anti-bullying policy following the specifics of the state statute, meaning it

should address bullying on school premises, on school transportation, and at school

activities or functions;

• Communicate and provide training to staff on the policy;

• Implement bullying prevention and intervention programs;

• Send the policy to the Minnesota Department of Education;

• Each district must have a designated contact person who is responsible then for

receiving and investigating reports of bullying and ensuring the policy and its

procedures.

It was at this time the law directed the Minnesota Department of Education to begin the

School Safety Technical Assistance Center. The purpose of the Center is to help provide schools

with support for safe learning environments. A process was developed for receiving complaints

from the public regarding bullying in Minnesota schools. In reviewing the MN legislation, it

states the School Safety Technical Assistance Center and Council expires on June 30, 2019.

Teachers and Bullying

Olweus (1993a) argues the earlier bullying is identified and addressed, the easier it is to

minimize its effects. Teachers play a major role in understanding, recognizing, and addressing

bullying (Dake et al., 2003, Quarto, 1999). Students spend most of their time with teachers, yet

teachers often are limited in the ability to help students with personal challenges, such as bullying

(Ferlazzo, 2014). It is important for teachers to understand bullying is not “a rite of passage” but

rather a dangerous form of peer abuse (Buser, Stuck, Casey, 1974: Dake, Price, Telljohann, Funk,

2003; Guilbault, 2008, Quarto, 1999). According to Rembolt (1998) educators may enable

bullying through denial, justification, blame and avoidance. Such beliefs ruin lives and impede

learning (Clabaugh, 1998, Rembolt, 1998). Rigby and Slee (1991a, 1991b) found most teachers

identified bullying as a major problem in their school. One in three teachers indicated

they had limited capacities for stopping bullying (Rigby & Slee, 1991a, 1991b). Often when

dealing with bullies, discipline is seen as an individualistic concern versus a collective concern

(Craig, Henderson, Murphy, 2000). Thomsen (2002) and Weinhold (2003) argue educators

around the world, the United States included, are often unaware of the elements creating an

atmosphere for violence. According to Get Help Now (2020), 70.4% of school staff witness

bullying, with 62% witnessing bullying two or more times in the last month, while 41% of staff

acknowledge witnessing bullying at least once a week. According to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI), the third most common location nationwide for a hate crime to occur is on a

school or college campus (Hirsch, Lowen, & Santorelli, 2012). Weddle (2003) claims,

Bullying can destroy victims' desires to learn, to live, and can leave them debilitated well

into adulthood. The magnitude of the problem and the seriousness of its effect have been

thoroughly documented. There is no longer any real debate that bullying is the most

pervasive and damaging threat that exists in schools. (p. 1)

Educators must all come to believe bullying is an act of violence that must not be tolerated

(Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000; Rigby, 1996), and thus begins and justifies the work of the

counselor to support educators. Weddle (2003) argues, “When the school community works

together to change a culture of building and violence, the culture changes. Bullies, after all, run

the school only if everyone lets them keep control” (p. 2).

Unfortunately, Stelzer (2003) points out teacher preparation programs do not require

students to enroll in school counseling programs, and as a result the teachers understanding of

counselor's role is not specifically understood. A study looked at teacher’s perceptions of

counselors over two different time periods. Both studies found teachers felt school counselors

were ineffective. Teachers did not understand the role of the school counselor (Valine, Higgins, &

Hatcher, 1972, 1982). For a counseling program to be successful, school counselors, must have

the support of the teachers and roles must be defined (Wilgus & Shelley, 1998).

Administrators and Bullying

Dr. Ratliff (2013) cautions administrators may assign counseling duties based on a

misunderstanding of the school counseling profession. Ratliff (2013) believes these are some of

the most common myths administrators may hold around counselors. most common myths around

counselors: First, school counselors only work with at-risk students being bullied. Second, the

main role of the school counselor is coordinating testing and scheduling classes. Third, school

counselors only help students with academic and career needs.

Fourth, school counselors are responsible for disciplining students. Fifth, school

counselors are hired to “fix” kids and problems. Daniel Weddle (2003) an activist, and former

administrator himself observes:

Too many school officials behave as if little acts of aggression deserve little attention.

Compounding the problem, they often underestimate the seriousness of patterns of

aggression, bullying, that do real and long-lasting harm to children. Victims are left with

three options: to continue to suffer, to stay home from school, or to retaliate. A whole-

school approach to developing an anti-bullying policy, as is as important as the policy

itself because of the process’s effectiveness in informing and mobilizing the entire school

community to focus on bullying’s effects and prevention. (p. 2)

Counselors and Bullying

Research indicates schools with comprehensive school counselors' programs display a

positive effect on student success (Bardwell, 2010; Clark & Kiselica, 1997; Dollarhide & Duval,

2017, Earle, 1998; Saginak, 2012). Beale (2001) argues school counselors if utilized correctly

may be the missing link in education reform, for example, reducing bullying and improving

academic achievement and personal growth. Sink (2105) found the school counselor profession

continues to be at the forefront of groundbreaking advancements in the development of the whole

child. Bardwell’s research (2010) argues, "...in an era where there are more options and obstacles

faced by students, the appropriate support must be available” (p. 56). School counselors are a vital

part of the education team more so than previous years (Rosales, 2015). Advocacy is essential to

the school counseling profession (Clemens, Shipp, & Kimbell, 2011). Personal relationships must

be developed between school counselors and their students (All Psychology Careers, 2015). This

assists in the building of trust and respect among counselors and students (All Psychology

Careers, 2015). The sole purpose of the professional school counselor is to provide an atmosphere

to safeguard the human rights of those in the school community (Sandhu, 2000). Professional

school counselors have a responsibility to provide intervention and prevention programs that meet

the needs of all students (Lee, 2001). Effective counselors must work to make sure their role and

duty is understood by all (Stelzer, 2003).To be most effective, counselors should work to make

sure their role and duty is understood by all (Stelzer, 2003; Ginter, Scalise, & Presse, 1990).

Characteristics of a Bully

In order to address eradicate bullying, it is necessary to understand the complexity of a

bully. Olweus (1993a, 1993b, 1999) identifies characteristics of students who are most likely to

be bullies:

• Bullies have a strong need to dominate and subdue other students in a negative way,

• Bullies like to get their own way,

• Bullies appear to gain satisfaction from inflicting injury or suffering,

• Bullies feel entitled to bully,

• Bullies are skilled at talking themselves out of situations,

• Bullies have more positive attitudes toward violence than their peers,

• Bullies may have difficulty conforming to rules,

• Bullies are often easily frustrated individuals,

• Bullies are often defiant and aggressive, even toward adults,

• Bullies tend to lack empathy toward others,

• Bullies are impulsive and easily angered,

• Bullies have average to better than average self-esteem,

• Bullies are not the most unpopular students,

• Bullies tend to be boys, but girls also participate and act as bullies,

• Bullies seek out targets less likely to fight back, or who will give them the reaction

they are seeking.

Characteristics of a Victim

Assumptions should not be made about who a victim may be (Delisle, 2012). Olweus

(1993a, 1993b, 1999) identifies characteristics of students who are most likely to be victims:

• Are cautious,

• Are sensitive,

• Are quiet, introverted, withdrawn or shy,

• Are often anxious, insecure, unhappy,

• Appear to have a low self-esteem,

• Are depressed and engage in suicidal ideation more often than their peers,

• Often do not have a single good friend,

• Relate better to adults,

• If they are boys, they may be thought to be physically weaker than their peers.

Prevalence and Significant Concern

Each day according to the National Institutes of Health (2000) in the United States alone

bullying affects more than five million students in grades six through eleven, including gifted

students. Longitudinal studies show victims of bullying have compromised social, emotional and

academic development (Ttofi, Farrington, Losel, & Loeber, 2011). Weddle (2003) believes

bullying impacts not only our schools but also our communities. Victims of bullying may be more

likely to act out than students not bullied (Chamberlain, 2003).

Leading bullying experts Espelage and Swearer (2010) report as a result of Columbine, all

states currently have passed statutes mandating schools have anti-bullying policies. The severity

of the problem has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the

U.S. Department of Civil Rights, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA), the Center for Mental Health, the World Health Organization, SENG (Supporting

the Emotional Needs of Gifted), PACER, as well as other agencies and organizations, including

The American School Counselor Association. In Sept of 2011, New Jersey passed the toughest

law against bullying in the nation (HIB, New Jersey Act.). This is the first state legislation willing

to restrict or withhold licenses for teachers or administrators who fail to comply with district

bullying policy. The New Jersey State Education department is even considering evaluating what

is occurring in each district and may be open to posting grades on each district’s website on their

actions around bullying. This sends a strong message to schools bullying is to be taken seriously

for all students in all populations.

A challenge revealed in the literature review is gifted students do not perceive their

schools make efforts to support them (Harris, & Petrie, 2003). Gifted students studied felt their

personal accounts were not taken seriously (Harris & Petrie, 2003). Davis and Nixon (2010)

found only 42 % of students reported being bullied to a school official. The study revealed only

34% of gifted students reported improvements as a result of the reporting, while nearly 29%

reported telling school officials, including teachers and administrators, made conditions and

situations worse.

Review of Peterson and Ray’s study (2006a, 2006b). The study was first reported in

Gifted Child Quarterly in 2006. The review of literature finds no significant studies of bullying

among gifted children despite 40 years of growing research base for bullying (p. 153). Peterson

and Ray (2006a, 2006b) noted the conceptual literature at the time came from outside the field of

gifted education. The authors had to look to the following areas: developmental, educational,

school, social psychology, health, medicine, criminal justice, bullying and counseling. Peterson

and Ray’s (2006a, 2006b) study included 432 gifted participants from 16 school districts from 11

states: Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska,

Texas, and Wyoming. Gender distribution was 48% male and 52% female.

Pertinent findings from Peterson and Ray’s literature review of gifted students found

gifted students have sensitives and intensities (Dabrowski, 1964; Piechowski, 1997). Gifted

students experience anxiety, phobias and have interpersonal problems (Fiedler, 1999). Students

not placed in proper gifted classrooms or environments may have be more vulnerable (Betts,

1989; Gross, 2002). Gifted gay students or even students perceived to be gay received more

harassment (Peterson, & Rischar, 2000). Asynchronous development impacts relationships and

well-being (Silverman, 1997). Gifted students may be vulnerable to isolation and at risk for

developing internalizing disorders (Robinson, & Noble, 1991; Webb, 1993). The various factors

associated with giftedness make bullying traumatic for gifted students. Akiba et al. (2002),

suggested schools with greater achievement differences between high-achieving and low-

achieving students tended to have more violence and argued for equalizing the quality of

education to lessen the possibility that achievement would spawn violence (Peterson, & Ray,

2006a, p. 150).

The study revealed significant findings. Seventy-three percent of males, and 63% of

females had experienced bullying. Bullying occurred most at the middle school level but 1 in 4

reported elementary gifted children reported being bullied. Grade 6 was when most bullying was

reported. 46% of students experienced bullying, 54% of males bullied, 14% bullied more than

10 times, 35% participated in name-calling of peers, 24% teased other students about their

appearance, 13% made contact or physically pushed others, 12% made threats, and 19% of males

reported committing a violent deed. Teasing increased in the upper grades for males and female

participants. Violent thoughts were experienced by 37% of males and 23% of females in eighth

grade. Gifted students reported their violent thoughts increased over the first 9 years of school.

Forty one percent of gifted students revealed they thought about violent thoughts at least once a

day. An almost equal percentage of each gender children were found to be vulnerable to repeated

bullying, which suggests both genders of gifted children are vulnerable to bullying. Most students

in the study perceived help from adults was decreasing. No significant differences were found

related to size of city, race/ethnicity, and geographical terms of either being bullied or being a

bully.

Many connections to literature were determined. The authors speculate gifted children and

early adolescents may be somewhat uniquely affected by bullying. Gifted students may not be

used to, and prepared for acts of aggressions, social competition, and even nonhostile bantering.

Words challenging basic personality such as dork or nerd may be troubling to gifted children not

having a solid self-concept. Pain associated with being teased may be exacerbated by gifted

students' sensitivities to justice issues. Giftedness may be valued by gifted students, parents and

teachers but may not be by the broad middle school culture. School does not feel safe for most

gifted students, especially at the middle school level. Gifted victims may become gifted bullies.

The drop in the most violent bullying by gifted students after Grade 6 may reflect a sense of

growing self and sensitivity to peers. Some bullying did continue through Grade 8 and may

continue into high school for gifted students who remain vulnerable. Gifted students seldom

report being bullied. The findings according to the authors raises concerns about the mental health

and school safety of early gifted adolescents.

Implications for counselors from the study are plentiful. School counselors in the United

States are being trained for proactive, prevention-oriented classroom lessons (Campbell, & Dahir,

1997) on topics including friendships, skills, making good choices, organization, expressing

feelings, problem-solving, and career development. Elementary counselors should be alerted to

teasing about appearance and intelligence and be proactive with attempts to prevent it. Bullying

behaviors of students of popular bullies may not come to the attention of the teachers and

counselors. Elementary counselors are more likely to be involved with large-group interventions

than middle school, though small groups are recommended for both groups. Gifted education

educators and counselor should cofacilitate groups for gifted children who are bullied or are the

bullies. Since bullying peaked in Grade 6, prevention and intervention must be a priority at this

level. Systematic evidenced-based interventions should aim to modify the environment, educate

the students and work to train teachers (Orpinas, Home, & Staniszeski, 2003, p. 446).

Other significant studies on gifted. In a smaller study, the results seem to contradict

some of Ray and Peterson’s findings. Estell and colleagues (2009) examined bullying among

three groups of 5

graders, including general education students, academically gifted students and

students with mild disabilities. Results indicate students with mild disabilities were more likely to

be viewed by peers as being bullies than were the academically gifted students, and general

education students. Students with disabilities were rated by teachers as being more likely the

bullies or victims of bullying in comparison to the other groups. This study found general

education students were rated by teachers as bullies and victims more than the academically gifted

students. This may not align with findings in Peterson and Ray’s study. Within this study, general

education students were rated by teachers as bullies and victims more than the academically gifted

student. Vulnerability did not appear to be a factor.

A study by Pfeiffer (2013) finds 72% of gifted students reported having experienced

negative name calling, compared to 40% among the nongifted. Gifted students were teased more

frequently than nongifted students. This study aligns with the findings of Peterson and Ray.

Crozier and Sklipideou (2002) report gifted students do not speak with anyone about their

experiences with bullying. Based on experience and research many argue the experiences of

gifted students make them particularly vulnerable to the occurrence and effects of bullying and

victimization (Cross, 2001a; Jackson, & Peterson, 2003).

Developmental challenges are exacerbated for gifted youth across transitions (Bosworth,

Espelage, 1999; Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Pelchar & Bain, 2004). In a study of levels of

distress with transitioning, it may be gifted students worry more about transitions and

experience difficultly adjusting afterward, perhaps resulting in higher levels of bullying

(Espelage, Huong, Rao, & Thornberg, 2015; Pelchar & Bain, 2004). Grade 6 was the level in

which the highest violence occurred in the Peterson and Ray study, and the authors cautioned

vulnerable eighth grade gifted students could be bullied as they transition to ninth grade.

Pull-out and enrichment programs may influence gifted students’ level of bullying and

victimization in comparison to other student populations. Research in special education has

shown an elevated risk for students in such programs or self-contained settings. (Barnard-Brak,

Johnsen, Hannig, Wei, 2015; Rose et al., 2009). A study by Cohen, Duncan and Cohen (1994)

argues by grouping gifted students together for special programs it may serve to reduce potential

attacks. In addition, the frequent discussions, the analysis of relationships and social and

emotional curriculums, all may encourage a supportive environment. Programming may even lead

to peer relationships outside the program (Cohen, Duncan, & Cohen, 1994). Peterson and Rays’

literature review addressed the important need for proper fit to develop the child’s sense of self

and security.

Link between bullying, violence and giftedness. Spivak and Prothrow-Stith (2001) study

pointed out the link between bullying and violence is clear. Considering one of the largest mass

shootings was committed and supported by a gifted student, one may question a link between

bullying, violence and giftedness. The United States Department of Education and the U.S. Secret

Service investigated 37 incidents of targeted violence in schools. One of eight key findings was

bullying played a role in the attacks (Brown, & Merritt, 2002; Hughes, 1999; Peterson & Ray,

2006b; Vossekuil, Reddy, & Fein, 2001; Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002).

Olenchak and Hébert examined the 50 major school violence incidents in the United States,

including the Columbine shooting, to determine the percentage of the perpetrators either

identified as gifted children or could now in retrospect have been identified as gifted individuals

(Webb et al., 2005). In Olenchak and Hébert's estimation, 85% of these children either had been

so identified or could now be identified, by their characteristics, and/or test scores or grades.

Ludwig (2012) writes, “...even if they were wrong half of the time, still more than 40% of these

violent children would be gifted” (p. 3). In his 2013 National Association for Gifted Children

conference presentation, “Shock and Awe: Mass Murderers Among Gifted Youth,” Dr. James

Delisle examined gifted murderers from 1999 to 2012 (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Red Lake,

Tucson, Aurora, and Newton), and outlined multiple and universal points of convergence.

According to Delisle, points of convergence discovered included: All shooters were victims of

frequent bullying (Delisle, 2014).

In yet another study, Leary et al. (2003), examined 15 school shootings between 1995 and

2001. Bullying was present in all but two incidents. The authors cite a longitudinal study of 880

elementary and middle-school students which showed peer rejection is a powerful indicator of

aggression and other externalizing problems. As rejection by peers increased over time, so did the

risk of aggressive behavior (Kupersmidt, Griesler, DeRosier, Patterson, & Davis, 1995). As

shown in recent experimental research real or imagined rejection increases the urge to aggress

toward both the aggressor and other people (Twenge, Baumeister, & Stuche, 2001). Leary et al.

(2003) study highlighted the early work of William James (1890), believed to be the first to

postulate rejection may precipitate rage.

If no one turned around when we entered, answered when we spoke, or minded what we

did, but if every person we met ‘cut us dead.’ and acted as if we were non-existing things,

a kind of rage and important despair would ere long well up in us, from which the cruelest

bodily torture would be a relief. (Leary et al., 2003, p. 281)

In addition to the Columbine shooters, another student in the study was Seth Trickery. A

13-year-old honor student, Trickery, was described as “funny, nice and good-natured” (Leary et

al., 2003, p. 1). This honor student walked into his middle school, walked up to a group of

students with a 9 mm handgun and emptied the entire clip of 15 bullets on his fellow students.

Trickery claimed he did not even know the students he shot and claims he does not even

understand why he did it. Court records indicated he was obsessed with the Columbine shooting.

The study revealed lack of remorse by Seth Trickery, which suggest he believes his victims

deserved their fate, or he lacks empathy. Leary et al. (2003) noticed an unusually high level of

bullying among all shooters. The Leary et al. (2003) study concludes more steps are needed to

reduce teasing and bullying at school, “both to improve the quality of life for millions of students

and to reduce the likelihood of violence. (p. 213)

In addition, a study conducted by Dr. Daya Singh Sandhu (2000) looked at 17 students

deemed “trouble-makers” by their district. Sandhu found “startling” results (p. 81), all students

had one major underlying theme he summed up in a single word, “alienation.” When Dr. Sandhu

examined the common characteristics of the students, he noted teachers of all 17 students

identified them as being high potential “with lacked interest or motivation” (p. 82). Dr. Sandhu

concluded counselors must be involved and must become proactive in their work with these high

potential students.

Counselors, Gifted and Bullying

There has never been a more critical time or need for school counselors to utilize

evidence-based approaches as there is today, with the increase in bullying and cyberbullying

(Espelage, & Swearer, 2004; Peterson, 2009). Peterson admonishes:

All children are affected adversely by bullying, but gifted children differ from various

other populations in significant ways. Bullying in the gifted-student population is a highly

significant and overlooked problem that leaves these students emotionally shattered,

making them even more prone to extreme anxiety, dangerous levels of depression and

sometimes even violence and self-harm. dangerous levels of depression and sometimes

even violence and self-harm. (Peterson, 2009, p. 14)

Research on administrators, teachers and guidance counselors reveal school counselors by

the very nature of the position and training are best suited to enforce bullying interventions and

provide expedient investigations of student-reported incidents (Philips & Cornell, 2012).

Counselors must work together with students, teachers, administrators and parents to derail the

destructive cycle of bullying and mental health problems (Swearer, Espelage, & Napolitano,

2009).

Significant Research on Gifted, Bullying, and Development

Preschool. The research is clear: youth violence starts early (Long & Pellegrini, 2003;

Peterson & Ray, 2006b). Although children are not born aggressive, factors including parenting

style and choices, culture, peer groups, socioeconomics, whether there are siblings in a family,

media, role models, toy selection, and environment, may contribute to students becoming

aggressive (Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Graham & Schuster, 2003; Haynie et al., 2001; Hunter &

Boyle, 2002 Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Maker, Nelson, & Rogers, 1994; Nansel et al., 2001). Early

childhood educators were not surprised to find research reveals physical aggression may be

common among toddlers, including gifted toddlers (Nansel et al, 2001). Students who experience

chronic stress in their beginning years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (2017) may experience impulsive behavior, poor emotional control, and lack of social

and problem-solving skills, as young as age three. Neuroscience finds even at this young age,

chronic stress can alter and even harm the brain development of children (Hanson, 2012). The

good news is the harm can be reversed (Hanson, 2012). Researchers agree on the urgency to begin

addressing treatment of others (Hanson, 2012). Bullying programs have been used with students

as young as age three to prevent aggression and violence in later years (Stor;ey & Slaby, 2013).

Elementary school and middle school. Research seems to indicate bullying increases for

gifted learners as they face their upper elementary and middle school years (Smith, Madsen &

Moody, 1999). The prevalence of depressive disorders among young children and early

adolescents vary depending upon age, sex and appear to be increasing (Avenevoli, Knight,

Kessler, & Merikangas, 2008). Victims of bullying as early as elementary or middle school may

demonstrate distorted thinking, poor problem-solving, psychomotor agitation and fatigue

(Friedberg & McClure, 2002).

A way for gifted students to cope is by hiding their giftedness from their peers and

teachers (Cross, 2001a; Peterson, & Ray, 2006a). Research shows perhaps by being outliers they

make themselves targets of individual and even group bullying (Cross, 2005; Hollingworth,

1942). However, for some the opposite is true. Some gifted students at this stage may embrace

being known as the smart one, the creative one, or the class nerd (Peterson, Duncan, & Canady,

2006). A significant longitudinal study of negative life events, stress and school experiences of

gifted youth” found even though gifted students dealt with academic challenges, peer

relationships, school transitions and other negative events, they still were able, almost without

exception, to maintain high achievement (Peterson et al., 2006). Research reveals school

counselors must work with young gifted students to find a way to embrace being gifted while also

developing social skills, friendships and long-term relationships, self-esteem, as well as identity

(Cross, 2005; Peterson & Ray, 2006).

Swearer, Collins, Radcliffe, Wang’s research (2011) reveals insights from a longitudinal

study of fifth through ninth graders. Based on their study, the authors would advocate for

prevention approaches, but also more targeted one-on-one mental health treatments for not only

the victim, but also the bully and even the bully-victims. Bullying in schools at this age usually

does not occur in private, but rather is a public occurrence. Such development can lead to

students feeling humiliated in front of peers and friends (Leary et al., 2003).

During early adolescence, aggression is viewed by peers as less negative as it was viewed

in earlier years of development. Because students have this view, less reporting may take place.

(Bukowski, Sippola, & Newcomb, 2000; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Moffitt, 1993; Pellegrini et

al.,1999). Peterson and Ray’s (2006) study asserts the possibility for bullying to continue through

ninth grade for vulnerable students.

High school. Research reveals a monotonic decrease in bullying, victimization, and

aggression as youth age, resulting in fewer incidents at the high school level than the prior middle

school developmental period (Pellegrini, 1998, 2002). Fewer reports at high school may be due to

gifted students having a stronger sense of self and identity (Erikson, 1964). However, newer

research is showing an upswing at the high school level with cyberbullying with both male and

female participants (Lenardt, & Young, 2001). Peterson and Ray’s study, which only examined

participants through Grade 8, cautions vulnerable gifted students may be targets of bullying at the

high school level.

Gifted Students and Cyberbullying

Smith, Dempsey, Jackson, Olenchak, and Gaa (2012) believe as long as online activities

continue to increase among children and adolescents (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010;

Pew Internet, 2010), bullies are likely to extend their aggressive behaviors to the cyber-world, in

addition to the physical world (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Nichols, & Storch, 2009; Vandebosch &

Van Cleemput, 2009). Cyberbullying, according to Willard (2007) is still bullying with the intent

to harm. The difference with cyberbullying according to Willard is the power imbalance. In the

cyber world, those being perceived as weaker may gain power. An example is creating a website

to be used by the weaker students to mock the more popular student. Another difference between

bullying and cyberbullying is the lack of rigid time and location. Cyberbullying may occur

anytime, day or night. Most cyberbullying reported takes place outside of school (Agaston,

Kowalski & Limber, 2007, 2013; MacFarlane, & Mina, 2018; Siegle, 2010; Smith et al., 2008).

Willard (2007) described cyberbullying as “being cruel to others by sending or posting harmful

material or engaging in other forms of social aggression using the Internet or other digital

technologies (p. 1).

She addressed eight different forms of cyberbullying. Flaming is when the student (bully)

is repeatedly sending mean and insulting messages to the victim. Denigration is when a student

(bully) sends posts or information, or rumors to damage his or her reputation or possible

friendships. Impersonation is when a student pretends to be someone else, or may send postings,

using a fake account to get the student in trouble. The goal is to damage the student’s reputation.

Outing is when a student (bully) shares someone's’ secrets or embarrassing information including

images online. Trickery is when the bully may pose as someone else to get students to reveal

secrets or embarrassing information, including images. Exclusion is when a student or group of

students excludes a student from being a part of an online group. Cyberstalking is repeated,

intense harassment which often includes threats or creates fear.

Thirty-one percent of adolescents in recent studies have reported they have said

inappropriate comments over instant messenger they would most likely not have said to the

person directly (MacFarlane & Mina, 2018: Madden & Hitlin, 2005). Youth involved in

cyberbullying are at a higher risk of psychosomatic problems, such as headaches, sleeping

problems, fatigue, and abdominal pain (Sourander et al., 2010). Hinduja and Patchin (2010), an

expert on cyberbullying, points out, “Schools do have the ability to intervene with behavior away

from school if the behavior disrupts the learning environment at school (p. 3) (Barr v. Lafon,

2008).

Unfortunately, as Patchin points out, the current MN anti-bullying legislation does not clarify or

define “substantial disruption” as do other anti-bullying laws, i.e., California and Alaska.

Smith et al. (2012) writes, “The pervasiveness of electronic media indicates cyberbullying

may have a far greater reach and potential impact than traditional bullying” (p. 116). Seventy-four

percent of teens used electronic devices in 2000; this rose to 93% by 2010 (Center and Project,

2010). In fact, cell phones had become the favored method of communication by most teenagers

in America in 2010 (Lenhart et al., 2010), with 77% of teens preferring texting to calling.

Unfortunately, as the number of students using electronic types of communication increases so

does the number of students who experience cyberbullying (MacFarlane, & Mina, 2018;

Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009). Instant messages and chat rooms are perhaps the

100

most common online venues for cyberbullying (Kowalski & Limber, 2013). Even if students

move from one location to another, such as trying to attempt to find a new school the

cyberbullying continues. It is severe, and targets find it impossible to escape this online

aggression (MacFarlane & Mina, 2018; Lenhart et al., 2010). Targets of cyberbullying have an

increased fear for their safety (Taylor, 2015). Amanda Todd, age 15; Kenneth Weishuhn, age14;

Ryan Halligan, age 13; Megan Meier, age 13; and Phoebe Prince, age 15.

Dempsey et al. (2011) exposed cyberbullies are also likely to be involved in traditional

bullying, noting highly aggressive students tend to engage in multiple forms of aggression. The

role of the bystander in cyberbullying is a bit more difficult to understand or determine (Willard

2007), although understanding the role of the bystander could be a critical piece of evidence with

this type of bullying. Bystanders may play a variety of roles: the reinforcer, the defender, the

encourager, or the ignorer (MacFarlane & Mina, 2018; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist,

Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996, Willard, 2007). Targets of cyberbullying may be using the

internet more than non-targets (MacFarlane, & Mina, 2018; Twyman et al., 2010).

Almost half of all targets of cyberbullying do not tell anyone (MacFarlane, & Mina; 2018;

Smith et al., 2008). Taylor (2015) pointed out parents want to be involved and want to help

prevent and solve any cyberbullying issues. However, the same study reveals students do not

want their parents to intervene. Research into student's choice to cyberbully is still lacking. Suler

(2004) postulates this may be due to anonymity, lack of authority figures, lack of structures, and

invisibility. Cyberbullies may be amused by the reactions they are provoking or may find their

actions to be an effective way of getting revenge (Taylor, 2015; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput,

2009). More recent research by Siegle (2011) is far more positive and found when parents

cultivate and maintain an open line of communication with gifted children, they are more willing

101

to seek help when gifted children experience something distressing online. Siegle (2011) cautions,

“Gifted children and adolescents must trust and believe adults will react rationally, logically, and

be able to solve the issue without making it worse.” Swear (2004) sums it, “Would you let your

twelve-year-old daughter walk down a dark alley? Obviously, the answer is no. Then why would

you let your twelve-year-old daughter be on the computer or be texting unmonitored? (p. 14).

Gender and bullying. Girls as well as boys engage in bullying type behaviors. (Rodkin &

Berger, 2008). Female bullying may take more subtle forms (relational aggression) and can even

have more to do with social power (Salmivalli et al.,1996). Males tend to engage in more overt

aggression (Archer, 2004; Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen, & Bricks, 2010). Girl bullies were rated by

peers as being more attractive (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougal, 2010). Peterson and Ray’s

study (2006), found gifted female students more likely to be involved in relational aggression and

boys were slightly more likely to be involved in physical aggression. Nineteen percent of the boys

in the study reported their violence peaked in sixth grade. Seven percent of girls reported their

violent acts peaked in eighth grade. Bullied boys are four times more likely to be suicidal. In

comparison, bullied girls are eight times more likely to be suicidal (Hawker & Boulton, 2000).

Several studies have shown gifted students, particularly boys, are bullied frequently because they

are distinctly different from their agemates (Clark, 1987; Ellis, 2017; Kerr & Cohn, 2001;

Peterson, 2015; Schroeder-Davis, 1998, 1999). Smith et al. (2008) found gender differences in

cyberbullying is less pronounced. Groups of cyberbullies are more likely to be female (Rodkin, &

Berger, 2008).

Effective Anti-bullying Strategies to Be Implemented and Supported by Counselors

Research clearly demonstrates the importance of a positive school climate and culture to

bullying prevention and intervention. (Stop Bullying Now, 2011.) The U.S. Department of

102

Education website offers valuable tools for counselors seeking support. Free measurement tools

are available to use in evaluating current programming. The following are recommendations for

improved conditions:

Build climate and culture. A safe and supportive school climate is key to helping gifted

students feel accepted (Stop Bullying Now, 2011). It is critical to teach empathy (Borba, 2012). It

is imperative for students to form relationships with adults but also with each other. Classrooms

with positive teacher-student relationships have less bullying and peer aggression compared to

rooms where the relationships are strained (Bailey, 2020). School culture can vary even within a

district, culture is created by students and staff. Thus, skilled and informed leadership must make

school safety a priority (Ttofi, & Farrington, 2010). Teachers must maintain consistency in

dealing with student behaviors, frequent communication and reminders about student expectations

and behaviors (Ttofi & Farrington, 2010).

Form friendship groups. Peers can play a tremendous role in reducing bullying incidents

in their schools (Bailey, 2020; Furlong, Morrison, & Greif, 2003). Students with a higher number

of friends have proven to have more protection from bullies (Collins et al., 2000, Dodge, Coie, &

Lynam, 2006). Gifted students may be viewed as outliers, or may prefer to be isolated, this can be

of great concern. Susan Jackson (1998) cautions the possibility of gifted students may be to silent

about inner conflicts so counselors must be skilled in knowing the real feelings of gifted students.

Children, as early as kindergarten, accepted by peers and have more friends at the beginning of

the school year show more improvement in academic achievement, and enjoyment of school than

the other children in their classes who do not form friendships as easily (Dodge et al., 2006; Ladd,

Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997).

103

Train teachers. When it comes to reducing 40 years of bullying research into effective

professional development for teachers more work is needed (Farrington, 1993; Farrington &

Tfofi, 2009). Perhaps one of the first steps is to determine the attitudes of the teachers about

bullying (Farrington, 1993). Holt, Keyes, and Koenig’s research (2011) has revealed the link

between school culture and teacher’s attitudes. Research showing teachers may be less open to

diversity and may be less comfortable or willing to intervene with diverse student populations

needs attention. Research also reveals social aggression can be hidden and very subtle such as a

stare or being in someone’s personal boundaries. Simmons (2002) has found more relational or

social aggression with female students. A trained teacher or counselor can notice this transpiring

(Jackson, 2001; Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). Some studies have also suggested the readiness

of teachers with stronger empathy to respond (Jackson, 1998). A study by Boulton (1997)

revealed only 27% of staff felt equipped to intervene effectively with bullying and felt the

counselor would be a more appropriate professional for handling such conflict. Assessment must

be part of the services offered to teachers when counselors provide the training (Holt, Keyes, &

Koenig, 2011).

Individualized counseling. Schools should offer levels of services (Peterson, 2009;

Treffinger, 1998), a multi-tiered or differentiated approach. One level of services could be whole-

group instruction, a second level may be small groups, and yet a different level could be

individualized sessions for individual needs (Farrington, 2013). Psychologists in the field

recommend individualized counseling for all victims, bullies and victim-bullies, along with other

programming (Ttofi, & Farrington, 2011). Newer research shows gifted students feel

marginalized and have a need for more attention or focus (Brunstein-Klomek et al., 2008;

Espelage, Low, Polanin & Brown, 2015; Espelage, Rose, & Polanin, 2015).

104

Teaching assertiveness. When children respond aggressively to a bully, the bullying

tends to last longer, and the bullying is more likely to intensify (Wilton, Craig, & Pepler, 1999).

Risk of harm increases (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Wilton, Craig, & Pepler, 1999). However,

when children use problem-solving, or stand up for themselves appropriately, the bullying tends

to end earlier (Olweus, 1999). Studies show targeted children are more likely to give in, crying

easily, responding non-assertively, and failing to defend themselves (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, &

Bukowski, 1999; Olweus, 1993a; Perry, Williar, & Perry, 1990; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie,

1993). Assertiveness skills are equally important for bystanders (Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1994;

Cross, 2005, Espelage, Low et al., 2015; Olweus, 1999).

Teach gifted students coping strategies. Cross (2005) asserts, “I believe we are far from

understanding the relationship between experiences of gifted students, how they make sense of

these experiences, and how these experiences affect gifted student’s behaviors in school and their

long-term psychological development (p. 121).

Although intelligent, Cross would remind counselors and teachers gifted children are just

that, children, “intelligent ones”, but children. He would encourage professionals to teach gifted

children and adolescents how to develop and handle relationships, how to communicate feelings

effectively, how to self-advocate and self-report and how to understand their giftedness and their

identity (pp. 73-78). Techniques like breathing, self-regulation, and mindfulness could be

powerful coping strategies (Bailey, 2020; Bosworth & Espelage, 1999).

Teach conflict resolution. Conflict resolution may be a useful tool (Furlong et al., 2003).

Research cautions the adults, or the counselor’s conflict resolution management style may make a

difference in how successful it is as a tool for bullying (Peterson & Ray, 2006). A different

conflict resolution management styles is likely needed for the victim, the bully, and victim-bully

105

(Farrington, 1993). There may need to be different conflict resolution management styles for the

victim, the bully, and victim-bully (Farrington, 1993).

Restorative justice. With restorative justice, an outside person gathers the students, and

possibly even parents, depending on the district or state’s plan and works to guide conversations

which will lead to an improved relationship between the victim and the bully (Cameron &

Thorsborne, 2001; Rigby, 2003). Some programs or states use power as part of their definition of

a bully, one person may be seen to hold more power in a bullying situation. For this reason, it

may not be fully supported by certain programs. The Olweus Bullying model has developed

restorative justice for their training (Olweus Prevention Program, 2020). The Minnesota

Department of Education (2020) claims restorative justice leads to empathetic communication,

restorative conversations and conferences, to repair the harm that has been done. The MDE also

references Restorative Circles which can be used to build relationships, teach, help students’

problem-solve, and can serve to offer ongoing support to students (MDE, 2020).

Effective Bullying Programs

Numerous anti-bullying prevention programs are available to school counselors and

districts (Bradshaw, 2015; Farrington, 1993; Ttofi & Farrington, 2010). After reviewing 44

program trials and evaluations, Ttofi and Farrington (2011) declared anti-bullying programs

yielded a 20% decrease in bullying perpetration and a 20% decrease in victimization. Experts on

bullying emphasize the need for a school-wide, or district-wide approach to bullying (Espelage &

Swearer, 2004; Olweus, 1991, 1993a, 1993b; Pepler, Craig, & Roberts, 1998). One recent study

(2015) by the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics reveals a

decrease in bullying. For over the past decade 28% of students have reported being bullied. This

new data claims around 22% report being bullied. This is the only time since 2005 any type of

106

decrease has been reported by the U. S. Department of Education. One of the reasons provided for

this drop is the implementation and focus provided by anti-bullying programs and concerned

adults. By establishing an effective, evidence-based, school-wide approach, students will no

longer find bullying to be rewarding, and will be motivated by greater social responsibility and

acceptance. Research suggest a comprehensive, evidenced-based program should consider

implementing programs focused on bystander intervention behavior supplementary to bullying

prevention programs (Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012). Listed are researched and supported

programming options for U.S. schools:

Olweus bullying prevention program. Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, OBPP, is

considered the original whole-school anti-bullying program (Olweus, 1993a). OBPP has the most

research nationally and internationally and may have had the largest impact on bullying

education worldwide (Farrington, 1993; Olweus Prevention Program, 2020; Swearer, Espelage,

Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2010). The founder is Dan Olweus. Susan P Limber is also

another important contributor to the program and is currently teaching at Clemson University

(Olweus, 1999). The program requires schools to have a team of educators, counselors, and an

administrator, focused on how bullying is impacting their building (Farrington, 1993). The

counselor receives intense training from a designated Olweus trainer. Frequent feedback is

gathered from all involved (Bradshaw, 2015; Olweus, 1993a, 1999). Trainers are available in the

state of Minnesota where the research is being conducted. The program was initially developed

in Norway during the 1980s. Research shows the program has yielded up to 50-percent reductions

in the number of reports of bullying (Olweus, 2020). Teachers and students both report the

program has led to more positive social relationships, and more positive attitudes toward school.

Students report the program has given them more effective interventions to use when approached

107

by a bully. The Olweus team is always working to make adjustment for different demographics of

American students as well as different cultures (Olweus Prevention Program, 2020). A change

evolving over time is the program does far more to empower students than its original program

(Olweus, 1999). A more recent 2018 study by Limber, Olweus, Wang, and Masiello (2018)

followed 210 schools over two years, and 95 schools for three years. This study alone found the

Average Absolute Change amounted to 3% meaning almost 2,000 students in the study had

escaped being bullied. This latest study provides yet more support for the effectiveness of the

OBPP programs with elementary, middle school and high school students in the United States.

The study also found the longer the program is utilized the better the results.

Second step. This program is geared toward students in kindergarten through grade 8.

There are daily practice activities as well as Home Links or connections. DVDs are used to teach

students about the challenges they may face, which includes bullying, cyberbullying, peer

pressure and conflict, and even substance abuse. Students are also taught how to report bullying.

Like Steps to Respect, the program also focuses on empathy, emotional management, solving

social problems, friendships, and being assertive. The program is said to be easy to implement, is

affordable, and produces immediate results (Edwards, Hunt, Meyers, Grogg, & Jarrett, 2005;

Frey, Nolen, Edstrom, Hirschstein, 2005; Low, Cook, Smolkowski, Buntain-Ricklefs, 2015; Low,

Smoklowski, Cook, & Desfosses, 2019). There are numerous studies by various authors to

support this program (Frey et al., 2005; Upshur, Heyman, Wenz-Gross, 2017; Wenz-Gross, Yoo,

Upshur, & Gambino, 2018). A 2015 study by Espelage, Polanin and Rose found the program

yielded a 20% reduction in bullying for students with disabilities. A most recent 2019 study by

Low, Smolkowski, Cook, and Desfosses revealed the program resulted in increased social-

emotional skills and decreased disruptive behaviors compared to the control group. These effects

108

were strongest for students who had the weakest skills at the beginning of the study (Low et al.,

2019).

Conscious discipline bullying. The founder of Conscious Discipline, Dr. Becky Bailey

has stated, “Our best hope of preventing school violence comes from understanding the bully-

victim dynamic” (Conscious Discipline, Chapt. 9), (Bailey, 2020). Dr. Bailey’s program

advocates for creative, brain-smart environments where students feel safe. Dr. Bailey created the

recognized video, “How to Make a Bully (From Scratch). In the video she explains a child does

not just become a bully. She would argue all bullies start out as victims and one’s life experiences

influences this development. Dr. Bailey argues stressors from birth may even be where the

journey starts. This program helps adults and students get into the best state of mind in order to

effectively communicate, cope, problem-solve and create better solutions and responses.

Research supporting Conscious Discipline can be found in the Journal of Research in Innovative

Teaching and Learning highlights that Conscious Discipline is causing huge shifts in perspectives

of teachers and parents around practices for managing children’s behaviors. The program has

consistently led to decreased child behavior issues (Bailey, 2020). A 2017 Harvard Wallace

Foundation study examined 25 programs (Jones et al., 2017). Compared to the other programs,

Conscious Discipline offers greatest focus on emotional processes. It was one of only three

programs reviewed to offer extensive climate supports. Conscious Discipline was also found to

have been one of six programs that offered professional development opportunities that focuses

explicitly on building adult social-emotional competence, and only one of two programs to offer

tools for assessing positive changes in adult behaviors or skills. Conscious Discipline received

high ratings in 8 of the 10 categories studied. The report verified that research on Conscious

109

Discipline shows reduction in hyperactivity, aggression and conduct problems (Jones et al.,

2017).

PBIS bullying prevention-positive behavior support. PBIS has been implemented in at

least 16,000 schools to date (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, Leaf, 2012). Ross and Horner (2009) created

Bullying Prevention-Positive Behavior Support to integrate bullying prevention within the PBIS

framework. PBIS is a framework that focuses on universal school-wide programs to prevent

problematic behaviors and promote school climate. Along with this, attention is given to the

bully, victim and bystander and peer reinforcement. A 2012 study by Bradshaw et al. Examining

the program in 37 elementary schools found the program yielded significant reduction in

aggressive behaviors. The program helped to increase student concentration, resulted in fewer

discipline referrals and helped students to regulate their emotions better. Concerns with the

program include having to reteach behaviors, the time it takes for data collection, and how to

communicate this data to staff. However, it has gained popularity in that it is cheaper to

implement, has a team approach and has yielded significant results (Bradshaw et al., 2012).

Hailed for the attention to data reviewed and used for decision-making, over 30 years of research

supports and finds the program has significant impacts on school improvement, including the

reduction of bullying.

Conclusion of Literature Review

One neglected population in the bullying research is the gifted population (Peterson &

Ray, 2006a, 2006b), possibly impacting up to over three million students in our nation. Gifted

children may be suffering in silence and educators, parents and counselors even may not know

when a gifted child is being victimized (Peterson, 2002, 2006). Four themes are addressed in the

literature review on this serious subject: The concept of giftedness, the unique and specific social

110

and emotional concerns of gifted students, the evolving role of the school counselor, and, finally,

bullying and possible prevention strategies and interventions programs.

According to Colagnelo and Wood (2015),

Gifted children do not necessarily fit the historic model. Some gifted students live in

poverty in both urban and rural (Howley & Howley, 2012; Worrell & Young, 2012).

Gifted students include Native Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos

and other individuals from various racial and ethnic backgrounds (Kitano, 2012). Gifted

students may identify as gay, lesbian, queer, or transgender (Peterson and Rischar, 2000).

Gifted students may have disabilities, struggle with underachievement, and have

difficulties with relationships. (p. 133)

The concept of giftedness is not an easy concept due to different paradigms- from

Sternberg, to Renzulli, to Gagne, to Gardner, to endless others, as the label of gifted remains

elusive. Some models focus on the child’s actual gifts at the time of assessment, such as an IQ,

whereas other models believe in the development of talent. Each state may define giftedness as

they best see fit. These definitions can all be found on the NAGC website. Most definitions come

from a variation of the McFarland Report from 1972, which referred to gifted youth as one of the

most neglected in our country. The Columbus Group Definition of Giftedness and Linda

Silverman’s Asynchronous Definition of Giftedness are the most current definitions offered in the

review and must also be considered.

Research by Staumbaugh & Ford (2015) suggest ongoing exposure to micro-aggressions

(including bullying) in school environments directed at marginalized students creates fear for

gifted and talented students. The gifted may feel marginalized for numerous reasons including

their intelligence, appearance, values and beliefs, ethnicity, size, and even health. Counselor’s

111

abilities to effectively address the unique social and emotional needs of gifted students is crucial.

These needs include asynchronous development, anxiety, a strong sense of justice, depression,

rejection and isolation, perfectionism as well as intensities and Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities.

The role of the school counselor has evolved over time, from helping place students in

proper classes, to guiding students to determine career pathways, to addressing the social and

emotional needs of students (ASCA, 2020). The research is clear, counselors are in the best

position to address bullying in schools (Austin et al., 2012). Teachers do not have the tools,

knowledge, trust, training and capacity for reducing or ending bullying alone (Clabaugh, 1998;

Peterson, 2009; Rigby, 1996; Rigby, & Slee, 1991a, 1991b). According to research findings,

teachers underestimate the confidence students have in their intervening effectively. Teachers

overestimate their belief students helping other students to resolve bullying incidents will be

successful. Remboldt (1998) found teachers do not always know when and how to intervene

effectively. Researchers Swearer and Espelage (2004), assert “the value of research is its

applicability” (p. 307) and encourages counselors to apply the years of research to bullying

prevention in their specific environments.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris committed the first mass shootings in Colorado in 1999 as

a result of being bullied. Immediate reaction followed and research on bullying, and, as a result

anti-bullying legislation, was passed across the country, including Minnesota. Significant amount

of unknown remains about the types of bullying, including cyberbullying. Bullying may also have

numerous long-lasting negative impacts on students (Peterson, & Ray, 2006). Gifted students may

be bullies, victims, bully-victims or bystanders (Coloroso, 2016; Peterson & Ray, 2006).

There is a link between bullying and violence. Since Columbine, over 232 school

shootings materialized with a sharp increase in shootings occurring in 2018. The literature review

112

reveals there have been other school shootings in the United States since Columbine by gifted

students. A Department of Education and Secret Service investigation (Vossekuil et al. 2001), an

analysis by Olenchak and Hebert, (2003), a study by Peterson and Ray (2006), an analysis of

gifted individuals and shootings by Dr. James Delisle (2013), a study by Leary et al. (2003), and a

study by Dr. Sandhu (2000) are a few studies which illuminate the immediate need to learn more

about gifted individuals and bullying programming and services provided.

To address bullying, Susan M. Swearer is known for saying, “It’s not the program, it’s the

people” (p. 8). Swearer, as well as numerous other researchers believe in a school-wide evidence-

based approach as such approaches have data to support them and can be successfully repeated in

other environments or settings. Individualized programming is also important. The buy-in of staff,

and the consistent engagement of all staff to make it happen is key to succeeding with reducing

bullying. Often, this responsibility falls upon the counselor or a building steering committee.

Researchers recognize the counselor’s responsibility to help gifted students reach their academic

potential, but also to make the whole child safe. Swearer and Espelage (2013) point out over 300

published violence prevention programs geared toward schools are available but of these only a

handful are empirically validated, including the Olweus Prevention Program, Steps to Respect,

Bullyproof, Second Step, KiVA, Bully Busters, PBIS, and others. Swearer (2010) argues,

When it comes to addressing the seriousness of bullying, good intentions, or words on

paper are not enough. A one-size-fits-all program to address bullying will ultimately fail,

according to decades of research on bullying. However, a piecemeal approach to bullying

prevention and intervention will also not prove productive. (p. 1)

113

Chapter III: Methodology

According to the Office of Civil Rights (2014), approximately 3,329,544 students were

identified as gifted students in 2014. The number includes 300,000-360,000 twice-exceptional

students, or students identified as gifted but may also have a learning disability (Gifted Child

Quarterly, Vol. 55). Levy and Plucker (2008) suggest gifted students be considered as a special

population. They claim, “because of differential abilities and expectations associated with those

abilities, gifted children constitute a unique subculture that necessitates understanding and

application of specialized skills by helping professionals, including school counselors” (Levy &

Plucker, 2008, p. 4).

The purpose of the study focuses on understanding the perceptions of elementary, middle

school, and high school counselors level of preparedness for serving the unique needs of gifted

students, and more specifically, looking at how well versed counselors are in leading preventions

and interventions, including strategies and anti-bullying programs. The study further seeks to

determine the types of anti-bullying strategies being used by current administrators, and whether

counselors perceive them as being effective.

Qualitative research has gained much credibility over time, with its strong roots and

foundations in sociology and anthropology (Devers, & Frankel, 2000; Merriam, 2009) The

researcher has utilized convenience sampling as part of the methodology guiding this study.

Convenience sampling is defined as selecting participants willing and available to participate in

the study (Creswell, 2008). Convenience sampling was used in selection of counselors.

Merriam (2009) argues qualitative studies offer a more in-depth analysis of a

phenomenon. Merriam (2009) asserts five main characteristics to examine. The first characteristic

is understanding the experiences of the participants (or counselors). Data collection is the second

114

distinguishing characteristic of a qualitative study. Ideally, the researcher spending time in the

natural setting of the participant may increase the depth of understanding (Schwandt, 2007).

Third, Merriam (2009) believes the researcher is the primary instrument for understandings.

Fourth, qualitative research may be considered inductive, where the researcher engages in

obtaining data and assembling it in meaningful responses. Overall, qualitative research is

designed to provide a detailed description of the participants experiences in the present. It is

plausible even new and authentic information would not be possible without a qualitative study

(Merriam, 2009)

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

1. To what extent did school counselors believe bullying occurred in their buildings, and

what specific populations, if any, did counselors identify as targets of bullying? What

specific populations, if any, did counselors identify as targets of bullying?

2. What is the level of confidence of school counselors in understanding and serving the

unique social and emotional needs of gifted students?

3. What strategies or anti-bullying programs do school counselors utilize while

addressing bullying of gifted students?

4. What strategies did counselors identify to be most often used by administrators for

creating a safe school environment for all students, including the gifted population,

and did counselors perceive these strategies to be effective.

Participants

The researcher interviewed 3 elementary counselors, 3 middle school counselors, and 3

high school counselors. The researcher sought out participation by communicating with numerous

115

administrators from across the state of Minnesota. When permission was granted, the researcher

obtained email addresses for counselors through each of the district’s webpages. An informal and

recruitment message which described the purpose of the study as well as nature of the

participation, was sent to the participants. The communication also made it clear participation was

voluntary, and information would be kept confidential. Participants were informed they could

withdraw from the study at any time. The participants were being asked to participate in a

qualitative study which would involve a 30-minute virtual interview.

The Office of Ethics and Compliance Human Research Protection Program requires

consent for the purpose of using humans in research. Informed consent is an acceptable type of

consent. This type of consent describes the potential risks that could occur in a study and provides

assurance the participant may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty (Pyrczak &

Bruce, 2005). Informed consent is required by St. Cloud State’s Institutional Review Board.

Participation should be understood as a process rather than a final, required, or mandatory event.

The intent is to make participants aware of the potential dangers of participating in the study and

allowing them to decline participation. Participation should be understood as a process rather

than a final, required, or mandatory event. The intent is to make participants aware of the

potential dangers of participating in the study and allowing them to decline participation.

Eligible applicants must employ the following characteristics:

• Obtained a current Minnesota Counseling Licensure.

• Employed as a practicing elementary, middle school, or high school counselor in a

public school serving gifted students as identified by their district.

116

Human Subject Approval

Following approval by the dissertation committee, the researcher completed the required

application for the St. Cloud State University Institutional Review Board (IBR). The IRB is a

“committee made up of faculty members who review and approve research so that the research

protects the right of the participants” (Creswell, 2008, pp. 157-158). Within the IRB application,

the researcher described the specific details of the study, the processes and procedures to be

implemented to protect the participants, the ethical implications of the study, and the ways in

which data and confidentiality will be protected. The application was submitted to the IRB for

consideration. The study was only commenced upon the approval of the IRB committee.

Research Design

Qualitative data was collected from Minnesota elementary, middle and high school

counselors serving gifted students. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) state, “Qualitative research is

multi-method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalist approach to its subject matter…….it is

best understood then as a strategy that adds rigor, breadth, and depth to any investigation” (p. 12).

Creswell (1998) added qualitative research is “...an inquiry process” (p. 1). The focus then on

qualitative studies is to understand people’s reasoning to make sense of their world. Qualitative

studies provide the researcher an experience to discover possibly new information to develop new

theories. Creswell (1998) emphasizes the ability by qualitative research to enable

the researcher “to be an active learner” (p. 1).

Pilot Testing

For pilot testing, the researcher sought out six counselors, two at each level (elementary,

middle school and high school). The interview questions were designed using information

addressed in the examination of literature on the various themes: Giftedness, understanding the

117

unique gifted social and emotional traits of gifted students, the evolving role of the counselor,

skill level of the counselor, and bullying strategies and programming. Originally 20 questions

were created, 4 aligned with each research question. Although, several participants in the pilot

process were able to answer the 20 questions within the 30-minute limit, the questions were too

specific and did not provide for discussion or reflection. Dissertation team members were

consulted as was 1 gifted expert and 2 counselors in Minnesota districts. Wording was changed as

a result of responses of counselors and administrators in the pilot document to be more open-

ended. The changes allowed for more discussion which better aligned the interview to the

research. No follow up questions were created or used for the pilot test. Upon completion of work

with dissertation team members and gifted experts, the interviews were completed again with the

pilot group resulting in significantly improved information. The researcher felt confident the final

questions collected the information desired in the given time. Twelve questions seemed to be

appropriate for the 30-minute interviews. Pilot interviews were completed in person, mostly in

school settings, with only one taking place at a local coffee shop due to convenience for the pilot

member. However, the actual interviews were not allowed to be completed in a school setting due

to Covid-19 and were completed virtually.

Interview Questions

The final interview questions developed by the researcher and used in the study were:

1. What kinds of conversations do students have with you about bullying?

2. To what extend do you believe bullying occurs in your building, and if you encounter

bullying, what are the predominant types of bullying you encounter? Does this change

by grade level?

118

3. In your experience or opinion, would you say there are any specific population(s) that

are targets of bullying?

4. Are you aware of who the gifted students are in your district and how they are

identified?

5. Do you believe gifted students are any more (or less) vulnerable to bullying than other

populations?

6. How confident are you that you are meeting the social and emotional needs of gifted

students when it comes to bullying prevention and intervention?

7. What specific strategies and anti-bullying programs do you utilize in your district to

address bullying?

8. Do you feel the intervention/prevention strategies and/or programs utilized by the

administrator have been effective with gifted students?

9. Do you feel counselors, teachers or administrators would be best suited for addressing

bullying with students? What makes you indicate or believe this?

10. How does your principal communicate bullying prevention policies? How often is this

communicated? Do you feel this is effective?

11. How often do you as a counselor receive training around bullying in your district?

What skills, strategies, curriculum or information do you feel is needed to effectively

intervene and prevent bullying for gifted students?

The researcher had no prior conversations about giftedness, counseling or bullying with

the participants prior to the interviews. The researcher informed the participants there would be

12 questions at the start of the virtual interview sessions. The researcher and participant had

agreed to a thirty-minute interview. However, the researcher informed the participants at any time

119

the questions became too personal the interviewee may choose not to answer or may end the

interview. The researcher again reminding the participants that the interviews were voluntary. The

questions were asked sequentially for all participants. The questions took the entire 30 minutes

allowing for no follow-up questions.

Instruments for Data Collection and Analysis

For the sake of this research, interviews, or a qualitative approach was preferred.

Alshenqeet (2014) analyzed the effect of using interview as a tool to measure, or to document

information. Alshenqeet (2014) determined if an interview is the best tool to answer the questions

being asked during the research process it should be used. Creswell (2007) believes the product of

intentional research and design provides readers with an accurate analysis of the experiences of

the participants.

Treatment of Data

Virtual interviews were conducted, each approximately 30 minutes in length. Once the

interviews were completed transcripts were composed of each interview to be used for coding.

The data collected was coded in several ways under concurrent themes found from the four

themes within the scope of the study: giftedness, unique needs of gifted learners, role of the

counselor and skill level, and bullying. In this specific study, data was also sorted by building

levels (elementary, middle or high school).

The researcher in preparation of this study, read the works of several experts in the field of

coding for qualitative studies. The researcher has had several conversations with Doctoral

candidates and university professors on their experiences with effective coding. He also viewed

qualitative coding videos of experts on YouTube. The researcher was most influenced by coding

methods available in The Coding Manual for Qualitative Research by Johnny Saldana (Saldana,

120

2015). Although coding programs are available for purchase and were considered, the researcher

completed coding the original way using paper, colored markers, highlighters, sticky notes, and

numerous hand-made charts and visuals to represent the findings. Using coding methods, the

researcher sought to find the similarities of the respondents even though they came from various

districts in different parts of the state of Minnesota. The research also identified the different

views from their responses. Frequency was another indicator considered and reviewed. The

researcher looked to identify if there was a sequence in the narratives of how they serve or

address factors within the scope of the study. The researcher considered causation. Upon

completion of all the reviews, a theme was determined. A theme is an outcome resulting from

reflection of the observations or documents noted with the process. Saldana (2015) offers

numerous suggestions for a researcher to be intentional with when engaged in the process.

Suggestions for coding may include determining if there are goals set and what it is

respondents are trying to accomplish? How do they go about accomplishing this goal? Do the

professionals or members understand what is happening in their building around the questions

within the scope of the research. Eventually, Saldano (2015) shares the researcher will seek to

understand the surprises, the intriguing data, or possibly even the disturbing information

collected. Gordon-Finlayson (2010) emphasizes coding is simply a structure on which reflection

may happen. These steps may be repeated over and over and reflected upon until evidence is clear

to make determinations. The researcher used coding as a way for reflection as Gordon-Finlayson

had suggested (Gordon-Finlayson, 2010).

Elemental methods are primary approaches to data analysis. A primary approach includes

the initial coding. The researcher read through each of the transcripts two times then began the

initial process. Affective methods are an approach to investigate quality of human experience and

121

feelings about their unique experiences and may even single out specific words heard within

responses. The researcher used different highlighter to mark words connected to emotions. Words

marked included: concerned, care deeply, worry, love, scared, and trust. From completion of the

approaches code mapping or categorizing follows. Visuals were generated which eventually led

the researcher to forming a code journal to examine themes. In Chart A, the researcher listed the

theme, in Chart B the evidence of the theme was listed, in Chart C the researcher looks for

contradictions or lists any concerns about this decision, in Chart D, the researcher determines if

any part of the previous work, including the literature review agreed or disagreed with the

findings of the theme. The researcher chose not to include one example of the coding journal

process in the appendix. The researcher discovered later drafts of coding reviews may prove just

as insightful as initial reviews. Again, the researcher seeks to determine how ideas relate or

interrelate or had no connections. Assertions or even new theories were formulated as a result of

introspection around this process.

Description of the Sample

The sample contained 4 different school districts: including districts from southern

Minnesota, central Minnesota and northern Minnesota. The names of districts and counselors are

all pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the respondents. Participants are listed according to level

of service. Elementary respondents were Mary, Lyn and Diana. Middle school counselors were

Katie, Sam and Sandra. High School counselors included Joy, Megan and Becky. All participants

hold at least a master’s degree. All districts included in the study advertise gifted services on their

individual school websites, although all do not offer full-time programming. Districts were

referred to as Clear Lake, Eagle Bluff, Guthrie Grove and Bakersfield.

122

Elementary counselor: Mary. Mary reports being a counselor in the district of Clear

Lake for 2 years. She came to counseling late after raising her own children. She received her

master's degree and completed a lot of her training in the 80s, early 90s. She believes so much has

changed; there is so much more attention to the whole child being served today. Mary likes the

change in that now she gets to work with far more students than when she did her initial trainings

numerous years ago. Mary identifies as Caucasian. Mary serves Title I, ELL, special education

and gifted students. Mary estimates approximately 5-8 percent of her caseload is gifted. Mary’s

district has a 16 to 1 teacher student ratio. Mary’s school advertises gifted services on their

website, and she believes they draw from other schools for that reason. Mary is the only counselor

in her building. 49% of the students in Mary’s building are diverse with an increasing Somalian

population.

Elementary counselor: Lyn. Lyn reports being a counselor for more than 12 years. Lyn

identifies as Asian. Lyn recently came to her new district, Eagle Bluff, a much larger district, after

serving in another district for several years. Lyn estimates close to 12-15% of her caseload is

gifted noting it is because the district has such a strong reputation. Lyn is one of three counselors

in her building. However, Lyn advocated and is now the only counselor in her building who

serves gifted students. Lyn’s district has an 18 to 1 teacher ratio. Lyn’s district has a diversity rate

of 29% rate which has remained stable over the past couple of years.

Elementary counselor: Diana. Diana is a recent graduate finishing her first year as a

counselor at Guthrie Grove. She identifies as Latina. Diana serves all populations including Title,

Special education, ELL, and gifted. Diana believes only about 3-5% of her caseload is gifted but

says it could be a little higher. Diana’s district has an 18 to 1 teacher ratio. Currently the district is

123

at 43% diversity, but this is expected to increase. The diversity is what drew Diana to her

position.

Middle counselor: Katie. Katie reports being a middle school counselor for Clear Lake

for 5 years. She has always served middle school students. She has not worked in any other

district. Katie identifies as Caucasian. Katie estimates 5-10% of her caseload includes gifted

students. Katie is the only counselor in her building and serves the needs of all populations. She

acknowledges diversity has increased tremendously over the past 5 years. Katie says more could

have been done to prepare for the changing demographics. She feels the district is often playing

catch-up to address issues. An example is 5 years later, and the district is now starting to provide

culturally relevant professional development for staff.

Middle school counselor: Sam. Sam is on her fifth year as a middle school counselor at

Guthrie Grove. She identifies as Caucasian. Sam estimates a little under 10% of her caseload is

gifted. Sam enjoys the challenge of working at this level. Sam serves all populations and loves the

diversity of her school. Sam is the only counselor in her building. Sam is a new mom and missed

part of the year to have her baby which she admits but difficult and worrisome.

Middle school counselor: Sandra. Sandra is a middle school counselor at Bakersfield

and has been with the district for 6 years. She identifies as Caucasian. Sandra estimates 8-10% of

her students are gifted. Sandra serves all populations although there is not always a need for ELL

services. Sandra is the only counselor in her building.

High school counselor: Joy. Joy has been a counselor for 14 years in the Eagle Bluffs

district. Joy identifies as Black. Joy estimated between 10-12% of her caseload includes gifted

students. Joy believes the gifted number is so high due to the location and wealth of residents but

124

still believes it is a progressive and outstanding district. Joy serves all populations. There are four

counselors in her building.

High school counselor: Megan. Megan is a veteran counselor with 16 years of

experience in Guthrie Grove. She identifies as Caucasian. Megan estimates about 6-10% of her

caseload is gifted depending on the year. Megan noted the district continues to edge toward the

top 25 districts in the state and believes this is partially a result of the district’s increased social

and emotional support of students. In the beginning of her career she said a lot of her time was

focused on planning assessments for the district, but more time is now allocated to serving the

needs of students. There are four counselors in her building.

High school counselor: Becky. Becky is a high school counselor with 15 years of

experience although not all have been in Bakersfield, or even in this state. She identifies as

Caucasian. Becky has an outside counseling consultation business. Becky says the number of

gifted served fluctuates by year but estimates 6-10% of her students are gifted. Becky serves most

populations adding ELL services are offered when needed. She is the only counselor in her

building.

Procedures and Timelines

The researcher developed an informational and recruitment message. The message

contained a statement of consent for all the participants. Study participants received their

communication to participate on February 11, 2020. The researcher’s school’s contact

information was included in this contact, as well as the description and purpose of the study, and

the dates and times for possible interviews. The researcher then monitored the response to the

recruitment message anticipating at least five participants at each building level to take part in the

125

study but no not accepting fewer than three. The IRB application technically listed up to 16

possible participants.

Three weeks later a reminder, encouraging participation was sent by email to counselors at

each building level. Once counseling volunteers were determined, individual 30-minute

interviews were arranged.

Due to a pandemic, it was decided not to complete the initial plan for an in-person

meeting. Virtual interviews were conducted as outlined in the IRB application.

There were no follow-up interviews scheduled with the disruption of the pandemic and the

difficulty in finding volunteers.

Summary

The study sought to obtain information from interviews of school counselors working

with gifted students at the elementary, middle or high school levels in four Minnesota districts

across the state. The 12 interview questions utilized connected to the four research questions from

the study. Districts participating came from southern Minnesota, the Twin Cities and northern

Minnesota. Initially seeking 15-16 counselors, the minimum goal of three counselors interviewed

at each level was met, with counselors working at public schools with gifted programming. The

interviews were conducted virtually due to the pandemic and health risks of in-person contacts for

both the participants and researcher.

In Chapter IV, a description will follow of the results found in the research study. The

data gathered addressed each of the four research questions using 12 interview questions. A table

has been created for each of the results for the four research questions. The results assisted in

providing information about the skill level of elementary, middle school and high school

126

counselors for serving gifted students and bullying using their knowledge of the unique needs of

gifted students.

127

Chapter IV: Findings and Results

Introduction

Bullying is an important public health concern (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Marr & Fields,

2001; Srabstein & Leventhal, 2010). The National Center for Educational Statistics (2016) reports

nearly 1 in 5 students are bullied. Olweus (1993a, 1993b) believes, “... every individual should

have the right to be spared oppression and repeated, intentional humiliation, in school as in

society at large. No student should have to be afraid of going to school for fear of being harassed

or degraded, and no parent should have to worry about such things happening to his or her child”

(p. 11).

Olweus (1993) believes school safety should be a fundamental human right for all children

and adolescents. “Despite nearly 40 years of research on bullying in the United States, a

population ignored in the literature is the gifted student population.” (p. 1).

Research Problem

Bullying is an important public health concern. Limited research exists on gifted and

bullying. Gifted students may be given to being targets of bullying for several reasons.

Counselors play a critical role in stopping bullying. One population ignored in the 40 years of

research on bullying is the gifted population. Use of a qualitative study utilizing interviews allows

for a deep, insightful analysis of what counselors perceive around the seriousness of bullying,

including the targeted populations, the strategies utilized, anti-bullying programs used, as well as

effectiveness of strategies by their administrators for reducing bullying.

Purpose of the Study

The study focused on examining the perceptions of elementary, middle school, and high

school counselors' level of preparedness for serving the unique needs of gifted students, and more

128

specifically, looking at their confidence in leading preventions and interventions, including anti-

bullying programs, for the bullying of gifted students. Perceptions of counselors on strategies

being used by administrators for reducing bullying were also examined.

Interview and Participants

The researcher received approval from the doctoral committee and the Internal Review

Board of St. Cloud State University. The researcher sought permission from 12 Minnesota

administrators randomly selected from various parts of the state. Originally, the researcher was

seeking up to 16 counselors throughout the state from various levels. This became more

challenging to accomplish as a result of a pandemic. In the end, nine different school

administrators granted permission from four separate districts. The diverse participants are from

various parts of Minnesota, from rural southern Minnesota, to the metro area, to northern

Minnesota.

Once permission was granted by the administrators, an initial email was sent to each of the

participants asking if they would be interested in volunteering to participate in a study. When

participants were determined the researcher worked with each counselor individually to set up a

time for a virtual interview. A week prior to the interview a reminder email was sent to the

participant. Due to the pandemic it was decided to complete the interviews virtually.

Description of the Sample/Participants

The sample contained four different school districts: including districts from southern

Minnesota, central Minnesota and northern Minnesota. The names of districts and counselors are

all pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the respondents. Participants are listed according to level

of service: elementary, middle school and high school. All participants hold at least a master’s

129

degree. All districts included in the study advertise gifted services on their individual school

websites, although all do not offer full-time programming.