Educating the gifted in Brazil: analysis from a learning-resource perspective

Abstract

Gifted education in Brazil presents some characteristics due to the reality of South American countries. This study aims to describe the current situation of the programs for the gifted in Brazil from the Education and Learning Capital Model (ELCM) perspective. The procedure utilized was the analysis of documents and publications and an online survey. The participants were 51 educators and psychologists (84% F) from different Brazilian regions, ages 28 to 69 (Mean= 40), working in private (40%), public institutions (90%), and non-governmental organizations (10%). The results indicated positive aspects of exogenous learning capitals reflected in legislation that guarantees rights at the Federal, State, and Municipal spheres for gifted children and special programs at universities for high school and college students. However, there are main challenges from the endogenous Learning Resource, which focus on academic skills and disregard other aspects of physical health. Political discontinuities and societal myths block the advancement of programs for the Brazilian gifted, so information to clarify these children’s rights in society is a priority.

Keywords:

• High ability
• talent
• gifted
• South America
• educational policies

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Sadiq Ismail, United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates

SUBJECTS:

• Testing, Measurement and Assessment
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Mental Health
• Teachers & Teacher Education
• Inclusion and Special Educational Needs
• School Psychology
• Educational Psychology

Gifted education is a priority in developing a nation’s human and social capital (Chandler, 2013; Dai & Kuo, 2017; Rindermann, 2018; Stoeger et al., 2018; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2023). In Brazil, although federal and state laws regulate the education of high abilities and gifted students, several barriers still exist that prevent the implementation of educational programs for this specific population. Professionals face many challenges due to myths regarding giftedness in the general population. Furthermore, the lack of investment in teachers’ training and resources for special educational programs compromises the care of gifted children in this country. However, various cities offer public and nongovernmental programs to improve motivation and excellence among gifted children from elementary to university. The role of professional associations is considered extremely important to enforce laws for educating the gifted and to increase public awareness of their social and educational needs.

Brazilian education for the gifted: Historical perspective

Brazil is the largest country in South America, with a population of 219 million people and Portuguese is the national language. Federal and state laws support public education from daycare to university level. Elementary education is mandatory for all children in the primary elementary grades (1 to 9) and has a 98% registration rate. Compulsory and free primary education is provided from 4 (four) to 17 (seventeen) years of age. Approximately 80% of students, mainly from low-income families, attend elementary and middle public schools; the other 20% of students, mainly from middle- and high-income families, attend private schools (IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2023).

Educational concerns for Brazilian gifted children can be traced back to the history of intelligence testing in Europe and the United States at the beginning of the 20^th century, mainly from the work of Binet and Terman, who proposed the first tests to measure children’s intelligence (Wasserman, 2018). This important French author visited the country in 1906 and helped to organize the first laboratory on pedagogical psychology in Sao Paulo (Teixeira, 2019). However, the creation of the first program for Brazilian gifted children in 1945 is credited to Helena Antipoff, a Russian psychologist who came to work in Brazil in 1929 and was concerned with children’s rights as well as the influence of socioeconomic environment on developing children’s intelligence (Campos, 2000). Antipoff was a leader who favored national policies for gifted children and organized the first Association for gifted children (ADAV) in 1973, proposing an educational program to encourage gifted children where they could choose activities of their interest with teachers’ support to stimulate their creativity (Campos, 2003; Wechsler et al., 2018).

In 1971, the Ministry of Education held the 1st Seminar on Giftedness in the city of Brasília (Brazil’s capital), with the presence of Dorothy Sisk, then coordinator of the Training Program for Teachers and Gifted People at the University of South Florida, and in the following year, James Gallagher, from the University of North Carolina (Mazzotta, 2021). The arrival of these two experts culminated in the first concept of giftedness adopted within the scope of public policies in Brazil, which mirrors the concept presented in the Marland Report in 1972 (Jolly & Robins, 2022) which defines gifted and talented children as those who present notable performance and/or high potential in the following isolated or combined areas: intellectual capacity, academic aptitude; creative or productive thinking; leadership ability; exceptional talent for visual arts, dramatic arts and music and psychomotor capacity (Alencar & Fleith, 2001; Novaes, 1979).

The federal law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education, Law 5,692, established the need to educate gifted children in 1971 (Ministerio da Educação, 1971). In 1973, the National Center for Special Education was created under the Ministry of Education. In 1989, it was transformed into the Secretariat of Special Education. Since then, the Special Education program in Brazil has undergone several name changes, although its primary purpose has remained focused on providing specialized assistance to students with disabilities, behavior disturbance, and high abilities (Delou, 2007).

In 1994, the term high skills was used only for the first time without significantly changing the concept. Three critical national laws were fundamental to ensure the legal continuity of pedagogical rights for students with high abilities or giftedness in Brazil, named Education Guidelines and Bases Law, which were published in 1961, 1971, and 1996, the last one being based on international agreements signed with the World Bank, in 1990, and UNESCO (Ministério da Educação, 1996).

It was only in 2001 that the National Education Council elaborated a comprehensive document defining that high abilities/giftedness could be used as synonyms. According to this document and the pillars of education for the 21st century, from UNESCO, high abilities/giftedness refers to incredible ease of learning, which leads to quickly mastering concepts, procedures, and attitudes, thus involving knowing how to know, knowing how to do, and knowing how to be (Conselho Nacional de Educação, 2001). In this document, other guidelines for caring for this particular population were added, with the concept of multifunctional resource environments for gifted students and the requirements for specialized programs and appropriate equipment and educators who should be prepared to supplement these children’s basic educational needs. In addition, these students should receive more educational challenges than students in regular classrooms (for example, through accelerated learning programs). This was a broader conception of gifted education, thus indicating the importance of teachers’ contribution to the development of these exceptional students (Alencar et al., 2009; Virgolim & Konkiewitz, 2014).

In 2003, the Brazilian Council for Giftedness (ConBraSD) was created to bring together and represent national and international individuals and legal entities at the federal, state, municipal, and Federal District levels that are associated with activities or are interested in teaching and researching, as well as offering services related to giftedness (ConBraSD, 2023). This was an essential step for the growth of the education of gifted Brazilian children, as information was provided on federal laws to guide teachers and parents on the rights of these children for special programs. Ten national conferences have already been organized by ConBraSD, which provided excellent opportunities to discuss themes related to gifted identification and education in Brazil. The Brazilian Journal of High Abilities/Giftedness (Revista Brasileira de Altas Habilidades e Superdotação, 2023) is also published by ConBRASD. It helps to disseminate scientific information from Brazilians and international authors on the areas of high abilities and giftedness.

National programs for gifted education in Brazil

The Activities Center for High Abilities/Giftedness (NAAHS/S) was established in 2006 for all 26 Brazilian states and the Federal district. These centers aimed to offer enrichment activities to gifted students (e.g. accelerated learning and after-school programs) with the support of trained teachers to attend to their needs and family guidance (Ministério da Educação, 2006). Educational materials prepared by educational experts invited by the Secretary of Special Education were sent to all educational secretaries in the country, and special seminars and workshops were designed to train teachers to attend to gifted children’s particular interests (Correa & Delou, 2016; Fleith, 2007). Therefore, a specific educational system for the gifted was planned for the first time in the country’s history (Virgolim, 2007). These centers were developed through joint efforts of the Ministry of Education, UNESCO, and state educational departments. More than 20 years later, there are still a few NAAHS/S operating at state levels in some Brazilian capitals.

There are good examples of NAAH/S functioning in two states: Maranhão and Mato Grosso do Sul, which attend gifted children nominated by teachers on after-school enrichment programs, designing individual projects for children. They also offer teachers training programs for the municipal schools and family guidance. The Education Secretary funds another well-implemented program at the Federal District in Brasilia (Brazil’s capital). This program is based on the School Wide Enrichment Model by Renzulli and Reis (1997) and provides enrichment opportunities to approximately 1,000 children coming from public schools, mainly from low socioeconomic environments (Alencar & Fleith, 2001; Wechsler & Fleith, 2017). It can also be cited a well-established program offered by the Center of Talent Development (CEDET) at the municipal level in Lavras (Minas Gerais state), which attends 500 children who come from public schools in the city and are identified as having high abilities by trained teachers (Association of Parents and Friends to Support Talent [ASPAT], 2023; Guenther, 1995).

There are also programs for gifted individuals offered by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which receive many students from elementary public schools and achieve higher social impact. Two examples can be cited: the IRS – Institute Rogerio Steinberg (IRS, 2023), located in the city of Rio de Janeiro, and the Social Institute to Motivate, Support and Recognize Talents (ISMART, 2023), located in three cities (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Belo Horizonte). All these organizations attend intellectually and creatively gifted students; however, ISMART has programs only for intellectually and academically gifted students. A private organization with partnerships with international organizations that gives scholarships to gifted children from low socioeconomic children is the Instituto Alpha Lumen (2023), in the city of São José dos Campos (Sao Paulo state). These organizations prioritize outstanding students with high academic or intellectual abilities and offer educational opportunities and scholarships for creative students to pursue their interests.

Brazilian students’ performance at the PISA- International Program for Student Assessment is worrisome, as they only achieved the 64th position on Mathematics, that is 93 points below the OECD average, and only 2.5% obtained top performance in at least one subject (Reading, Mathematics and Science) in the last census (World Bank, 2018, 2024). In despite of poor PISA results, several young Brazilians who work in the industrial sector have already obtained gold and bronze medals in the World Skill program by SENAI (National Service for Industrial Training), thus indicating that giftedness is often not noticed in schools (World Skill, 2024).

There are national and federal programs which offer opportunities to students attending public and private middle schools or universities through Olympic competitions. Some examples of these programs can be named, such as the Mathematics Olympiads organized by the National Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics (IMPA) and the Brazilian Society of Mathematics, which has been organized since 1979 (Instituto de Matemática Pura Aplicada [IMPA], 2023). The Olympiads for the Portuguese Language was created in 2003 and was initially supported by private banks and now continues to be offered by the Ministry of Education (Ministério da Educação, 2023b). The Olympiads for Science is also a significant competition in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy and Robotics and is funded by the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, 2023). National programs supported by federal research foundations, such as National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPQ, 2023), as well as state research foundations and universities, also provide scholarships to high school and undergraduate students under the Scientific Initiation Program (PIBIC) to stimulate their scientific interest (CNPQ, 2023). These programs have created tremendous opportunities for students. Although these programs do not mention the word gifted, as this could probably bring opposite reactions from society, they are considered critical educational possibilities for the gifted individual.

Although there are programs for the gifted in public schools at the elementary and middle school educational levels, they are mainly concentrated in big cities in the southeast and central regions, such as Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Brasilia. Thus, there are few opportunities for gifted students living in other states. Furthermore, policy discontinuities that limit resources for gifted programs over the years negatively affect teachers’ motivation to continue working with these groups of students. The current number of students identified as gifted, described in the last school census as just 26,815 students (Instituto Nacional de Educação e Pesquisa Anísio Teixeira [INEP], 2022) does not represent the real number of gifted students as the total number of children in special education reaches at 1.525.794.

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the status of gifted educational programs in Brazil from the perspective of professionals attending this particular population. We used the theory proposed by the Educational and Learning Capital Model (ELCM) developed by Ziegler, Vialle and Stoeger (Stoeger et al., 2017; Ziegler et al., 2017; Ziegler & Baker, 2013), which presents a systemic model to analyze the resources provided for the gifted (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017). This model assumes that a systemic approach is better for understanding gifted education within a culture (Vialle & Stoeger, 2018) and analyzes the environment under five dimensions (didactic, social, infrastructural, cultural, and economic) within the telic, actional, episodic and attentional components.

Method

Participants

The participants were 51 Brazilian professionals (84% Females) aged 31 to 72 (M = 46). They were living in the states of Amazonas, Piauí Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and the Federal District. Participants worked as teachers (25%), psychologists (15%), or other administrative functions. Their work experience with gifted students varied from 5 years to 20 or more years (22%). Their work setting was varied from private clinics (40%), public schools (20%), public universities (19%), municipal or state educational departments (14%), NGOs (10%), resources and special programs (20%), or combination of these organizations.

Instrument

Three experts in gifted education created an online questionnaire with specific questions to contemplate each dimension of the Education and Learning Capital Model (Ziegler et al., 2017). Fifty-three open and multiple-choice questions tapped the following capitals: didactic (5 questions), social (2 questions), infrastructural (1 question), cultural (5 questions), and economic (5 questions) educational capital; telic (12 questions), actional (3 questions), episodic (4 questions), organismic (5 questions), and attentional (11 questions) learning capital. The first page of the questionnaire presented an Authorization to be signed informing that the data will be treated confidentially. Participants could review their answers before submitting them and contact experts if they had any questions. The completed questionnaire was administered via the Google Forms platform.

Procedure

This research was not submitted to the Ethics Committee because it was data collected from public opinion without identifying the participants, according to the resolution (n.12/2023) of the Brazilian Research Ethics Council/Ministry of Health.

The online questionnaire was sent to all members of the National Council for the Gifted (ConBraSD). Participants were also invited via social media to reach professionals who had experience or were involved in services for the gifted. The response time for the questionnaire was set at 30 days. The first part of the questionnaire contained a description of the research objectives, its risks, and benefits. After clarification, the participant confirmed whether they would like to participate by marking acceptance of the questionnaire before proceeding to the first questions.

The research results were categorized according to the definitions of Educational and Learning Capitals by Ziegler and Stoeger (2017), forming two distinct groups: Type of Exogenous Learning Resource (Economic Educational Capital, Infrastructural Educational Capital, Cultural Educational Capital, Social Educational Capital, Didactic Educational Capital) and Type of Endogenous Learning Resource (Organismic Learning Capital, Actional Learning Capital, Telic Learning Capital, Episodic Learning Capital, Attentional Learning Capital, Episodic Learning Capital). The multiple-choice answers were analyzed through percentages and the open-ended questions were analyzed by consensus among the researchers and categorized by the main themes.

Results

The description of the type of activities offered by the participants is presented in Table 1. As observed, the activities are mainly directed toward individual students through project planning and enrichment activities. Family guidance and continuing education programs are also offered at the schools in addition to team training. Psychotherapy, mentoring, and assessment are also offered, but in small proportions.

Table 1. Frequency of type of activities offered by professionals.

Activities	Percentage
Individual projects	57%
Enrichment activities	53%
Family guidance	57%
Continuing education programs	55%
School consultation	45%
Team training	33%
Psychotherapy	29%
Educational guidance	28%
Team supervision	28%
Mentoring	28%
Supervision and acceleration	20%
Substitutive teacher	6%
Occupational health	3%
Neuropsychological assessment	4%
Psychological and educational assessment	4%

* Note: More than one activity may be cited.

Exogenous learning resources

Economic educational capital

According to Ziegler and Stoeger (2017), Educational Economic Capital reflects every kind of wealth, possession, money, or valuables that can be invested in initiating and maintaining educational and learning processes. The results indicated different types of financial and material support, foundations, and scholarships (57%) for gifted education. Funds for the public schools are received from the federal level (Ministry of Education (35%) and from municipal educational departments. Private banks or donations support the NGOs. Parents spend absolutely nothing when public bodies offer educational services or in partnerships between companies and public bodies. Locations that do not receive any support are a minority in the group surveyed (16%). In the areas of sport, music (voice or instrument), ballet, and other artistic areas, public investment is so small that it passes as unknown (27%).

Infrastructural educational capital

The Infrastructural Educational Capital, according to the model proposed by Ziegler et al. (2017), relates to materially implemented possibilities for action that permit learning and education to take place. Thus, a question was made to investigate what type of structure existed to care for people with high abilities or giftedness. The participants informed that resources come from universities (47%), educational centers (37%), associations and non-governmental organizations (35%), special schools and online resources (29%) each, and libraries (19%). The lowest rates indicated funds were resource rooms (6%). Students also have support to participate in national competitions such as Olympiads (42%) in Astronomy, Robotics, and Mathematics and have received awards, such as gold (56%) and silver (36%) medals.

Cultural educational capital

The cultural educational capital reflects the value system and thinking patterns that hinder or facilitate the attainment of learning and educational goals (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017). Therefore, the questions asked about the cultural educational capital had the purpose of investigating beliefs about ‘the concept of people with high abilities or giftedness’, ‘the theoretical concept of high abilities or giftedness’, and ‘how they believed that students with high abilities or giftedness were seen by their peers’, and what was the ‘conception of high abilities or giftedness in the workplace’ of each research participant. Four open questions were asked.

The first open question was related to what each research participant understood about the theoretical concept of ‘people with high abilities or giftedness’. In this question, eight types of understanding were found: concept based on several dimensions of development combined (34%); concept based on some theory (24%); emphasis on above-average ability (22%); concept based on legislation (7%); emphasis on neurodevelopment (4%); concept based on a development dimension (3%); concept on unknown basis (2%) and blank answer (4%).

The second open question related to each participant’s theoretical concept about high abilities or giftedness. Multiple conceptions were found, ranging from the most popular, Joseph Renzulli’s Theory of the Three Rings, Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and the psychometric IQ Theory, as well as their conception or authorship.

The third question was related to research participants’ beliefs regarding how their peers view people with high abilities or giftedness. It was possible to group the open responses into three groups: 6% neutral representation (diverse, different); 34% negative representation (distrust; discomfort; stuck up; strange; prejudice; discrimination; envy; bullying; not accepted; invisible; ignored; stereotypes; ignorance and unhealthy) indicating myths about gifted students. However, there were 34% positive representations (prominence; admiration; adaptation to the environment; studious; exceptional; collaborative; intelligent; ease; accepted and genius).

The fourth open question investigated the concept of high abilities or giftedness in the participants’ workplace. For the most part (78%), conceptions were based on Renzulli’s Three Ring Theory (21%), although myths (19%) were indicated, and 14% indicated their conceptions without theoretical identification or conceptions. Other conceptions also appeared, although in the minority (22%), indicating denialist connotations, discredit, or lack of knowledge.

The fifth open question asked participants what types of programs existed in their regions aimed at developing students with high abilities or giftedness. The responses showed a predominance of enrichment programs (66%), accelerated studies (52%), agreements with universities (38%), exchange programs (16%), and summer programs (14%), with 2% specialized educational service, multifunctional resource room, business scholarship, startup production, talent development, and no answer (4%).

Social educational capital

The Social Educational Capital includes all people and social institutions that can contribute directly or indirectly to the success of learning and educational processes, according to Ziegler and Stoeger (2017). So, questions with multiple options were made to investigate the people involved in the success of the learning and education processes of children with high abilities or giftedness in the workplace. More than one option was accepted. Answers indicated there are several people involved: parents and teachers (70%) each, psychologists (58%), educational specialists (44%), volunteers (26%), mentors (24%), and others (20%). The existence of advocacy groups to advocate in favor of high abilities or giftedness, such as parents’ associations in their State/Municipality/Federal District, was also indicated as Yes (31%), No (33%), and I don’t know (35%).

Didactic educational capital

The Didactic Educational Capital refers to the know-how in designing and improving educational and learning processes (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017). Therefore, the question about sufficient professional training in the region of the research participants to support students with high abilities or giftedness showed that 81% responded No, 12% said Yes, and 7% said I don’t know. The different places where this training occurs are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Training sites and programs for gifted children and their parents.

Training sites	Percentage
Online meetings with experts	62%
Universities	44%
State Educational courses	36%
Regular schools	34%
Social medias (Instagram)	34%
Teacher’s training schools	10%
NGOs	10%
Programs for gifted children
Multifunctional resources rooms	75%
Enrichment program	60%
Acceleration of Studies	39%
Specific resource room program,	33%
Olympiads and knowledge competitions	33%
Partnership with educational departments	25%
Summer enrichment program	15%
Mentoring program	8.3%
Paralympic program	2.0%
Programs for parents
Group discussion meetings	50%
Small guidance groups	28%
Extension courses	21%
Psychological support groups	9%

* Note: more than one option was allowed.

The information presented in Table 2 indicates that the most frequent opportunity for training is through online meetings, probably due to the influence of COVID-19, where all teachers’ training was offered via online meetings. This type of training is also indicated as the most convenient considering the long distance these professionals live and the difficulties of having access to specialists far from the capitals. Still, universities are offering special long-distance courses and curricula specific for the gifted, as well as workshops provided by state educational departments. If primary education teachers or early childhood education teachers in the region where they live receive training to work with students with high abilities or giftedness, the answers were: Yes (19%), No (63%), I don’t know (17%).

There are three types of programs mostly offered to gifted children, which are the multifunctional resource room (75%), enrichment (60%), and acceleration of studies (39%). Other types of programs, such as Olympiads and Paralympic preparation, summer programs, and mentoring programs, also exist in smaller proportion. As for the parents, there are meetings to discuss general topics related to gifted education (50%) and meetings for educational extension and psychological support.

Endogenous learning resources

Organismic learning capital

Organismic Learning Capital consists of a person’s physiological and constitutional resources, according to Ziegler and Stoeger (2017). Thus, a question was formulated to analyze whether schools offered programs to ensure gifted/high-ability children have a healthy diet, physical activities, or guidance for good sleeping habits. Answers indicate Yes (25%) and No (46%). The importance of sports meant a divided opinion, as indicated by Yes (31%), No (36%), and I don’t know (36%).

The aspect of rest at school is valued in Ziegler and Stoeger’s theory (2017). For this reason, it was asked how schools deal with rest periods for students with high abilities or giftedness while at school. There could be more than one alternative answer. The responses indicated that the school encourages healthy habits in children with high abilities (16%), there is special attention to the diet or sleeping habits of students (10%), there is rest planning to recover organic wear and tear evidenced by students (2%), learning occurs at times of the day when students are particularly rested (4%), the school does not provide rest periods for gifted students (30%), and they had no information (54%).

Actional learning capital

The Actional Learning Capital should reflect the action repertoire of a person and the totality of actions they can perform. The strategies for developing this capital are described in Table 3. As can be observed in this table, the actions are primarily formed while teaching academic subjects (16%), whereas (45%) had no information to provide in this direction.

Table 3. Strategies for Actional Learning Capital.

Development of learning habits	Percentage
In academic subjects	16%
In specific programs	16%
In extra-curricular activities (dance, music, drama, etc.)	14%
No information	45%
Support to special conditions
Autism spectrum disorder	61%
Specific learning disorders (ADHD, dyslexia, dyscalculia)	51%
Neurodevelopmental disorder	29%
Mental health disorders (Depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc.)	27%
Physical disability	24%
Deafness	24%
Sensory disability	20%
Cerebral palsy	10%
Selective mutism	15%
Specific diseases (Morbid obesity, marrow transplant, cancer)	10%
Do not know or work with these special conditions	5%

About the question of whether the school favored the development of learning habits for students with high abilities or giftedness with special conditions, the answers showed a priority for those with autism spectrum disorders (61%) as well as those with specific learning conditions, such as attention-deficit-hyperactive, dyslexia and dyscalculia (51%). Other conditions such as neurodevelopmental, mental health disorders, physical disabilities, or specific diseases (e.g. morbid obesity, marrow transplant, cancer, leukemia) were also listed in more minor frequencies.

Telic learning capital

Telic Learning Capital comprises the totality of a person’s anticipated goals that offer possibilities for satisfying their personal needs, according to Ziegler and Stoeger (2017). Therefore, actions directed to this type of learning are significant as they reflect the values existing in programs for the gifted in each nation. Brazilian participants describe the telic strategies through various actions, as presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Strategies for the Telic Learning Capital.

Strategies	Percentage
	Yes	No	Don’t know
Provide vocational guidance to the gifted	73%	13%	14%
Attention to the gifted sexual diversity	47%	38%	15%
Attention to the gifted from different nations	40%	45%	15%
Stimulation of gender equality in career choices	35%	40%	25%
Attention to the gifted from different ethnicities	35%	33%	32%
Encouragement of academic aspirations	31%	50%	19%
Encouragement of female abilities in hard sciences	27%	53%	20%
Development of life projects	15%	57%	28%

* Note. More than one strategy may be chosen.

The highest priorities were given to vocational guidance (73%), attention to the gifted ‘sexual diversity’ (47%) as well as attention to the gifted from different nations (40%), as more immigrants, especially from Venezuela and Bolivia, have come to Brazil in the last years due to political turmoil in their countries. Programs and discussions to provide gender equality and the insertion of females in hard technological sciences are also mentioned, although in lower percentages.

Attentional learning capital

The Attentional Learning Capital denotes the quantitative and qualitative resources conducive to learning. Programs for the gifted in Brazil are mainly given once a week (52%) or twice a week (14%), usually 4 hours every meeting (48%) or between 4 to 6 hours each day (14%). Other activities include excursions (42%) and scientific fairs (57%). Gifted children are also taken to see theater performances (37%), visit museums (37%), and movies (27%). Parents usually do not pay for these extra school activities, but there are municipal funds to make these educational opportunities available.

The survey of legislation used in the State/Municipality/Federal District that supports the identification and care of high abilities or giftedness showed a division in the respondent group. One group (38%) indicated State/Municipal/Federal District legislation, and the other group (61%) left the answer blank. Legislation at the university level that supports the identification and care of high abilities or giftedness found the following data: I don’t know (40%), the Education Guidelines and Bases Law (22%), other local legislation (7%) and one answer indicated the Brazilian Inclusion Law, which refers to this audience.

The identification process for entering these programs is presented in Table 5. The main admission procedures are based on parents’ interviews or nominations (65%), teachers’ observations (56%), and experts’ nominations (54%). More objective assessment procedures such as individual intelligence tests, teachers’ rating scales, and creativity and achievement tests are highly used (40–50%). Other procedures, such as Olympic awards, peers’ nominations, group intelligence tests, and children’s products, are also mentioned.

Table 5. Identification procedures of gifted children.

Procedures	Percentage
Interview with parents	65%
Teacher’s observation	58%
Experts’ nominations	54%
Individual intelligence tests	52%
Teachers’ rating scales	50%
Creativity tests	41%
Achievement tests	41%
Self-nomination	28%
Peers’ nomination	26%
Olympics awards	26%
Group intelligence tests	24%
Children’s products (portfolio)	24%
Group dynamics	15%

* Note: More than one option was allowed.

Episodic learning capital

Episodic Learning Capital refers to concerns that are simultaneous goals and situations that are relevant and accessible to gifted students, as defined by Ziegler and Stoeger (2017). Federal laws (Ministério da Educação, 2008) and municipal laws are cited as the primary support for gifted programs.

Three national NGOs were mentioned in addition to federal and municipal programs that offer programs for the gifted in main Brazilian cities. The Institute Rogerio Steinberg (IRS, 2023) in Rio de Janeiro, the Social Institute to Motivate, Support and Recognize Talents (ISMART, 2023), in six cities (São Paulo, Soracaba, São José dos Campos, Cotia, Rio de Janeiro and Belo Horizonte), Institute for Learning Optimization (INODAP, 2023) in Curitiba. The international organization MENSA also has a branch in Sao Paulo, offering opportunities for scholarships as well as social interactions for high-intelligence individuals from various cities.

The positive consequences of these programs to gifted students are various, as mentioned by the participants’ open answers, such as motivation, better self-esteem, higher chances of being placed in technical schools as well as colleges, lower school drop-out rates, fewer emotional problems such as depression and isolation, fewer behavioral problems, better appreciation among family members.

Discussion

This study, the first in Brazil with the design in the dimensions of the Education and Learning Model (Ziegler et al., 2017), aimed to describe the current situation of programs for gifted people in Brazil and highlighted the challenges of the permanence and effectiveness of the rights highlighted in your legal documents. Brazil, in its continental dimensions, has been providing educational assistance apart from the needs of these students, failing to include in its priorities the needed attention to the training of educators, the necessary evaluation of the educational practices developed in its service programs, and the development of programs that make gifted people aware of their identity as well as care for their healthy practices, rest and professional guidance.

The area of gifted education in the Brazilian context presents antagonistic contexts. Considering the other countries in South America, Brazil is in a position of reference for this population, especially given the large gap in public policies in neighboring countries when the topic is giftedness (Wechsler & Fleith, 2017). In its five regions, it is possible to find offers for this audience, ranging from identification, evaluation, and service with different scopes of legal support and educational offers (Alencar et al., 2000). National legislation addresses the diverse needs of these students by offering and supporting rights; however, it is in educational action and practices that the most significant challenges are found (Delou, 2007). In addition to large capitals, different municipalities have had great difficulty implementing Federal and State public policies in their cities.

Several aspects of exogenous Learning Resources for the gifted were observed in this research. The existence of legislation that guarantees rights at the Federal, State, and Municipal levels to attend gifted children and funds allocated through university programs to stimulate scientific interests in high school and college students are essential actions for the gifted. National competitions also stimulate and reward those with high abilities/giftedness in different areas. Although the main conceptions of giftedness come from Renzulli’s Three Rings Model, there are still misconceptions and myths among professionals, indicating there is a need for a massive training program for those who work in this area. Online meetings with experts or university long-distance educational programs provide training opportunities. Individual projects, offered in multifunctional resource rooms, are the main activities promoted through enrichment programs and acceleration of studies.

Endogenous Learning Resources indicated the need to focus more on the organism learning capital, as very few programs encourage healthy habits among gifted students, which tends to prioritize the cognitive and creative aspects of their education. In telic learning capital, vocational guidance is the highest goal described for the gifted. However, attention is also given to sexual diversity, gender equality, and cultural differences as more immigrants have recently come to Brazil. Support for special conditions, such as autism spectrum disorder and specific learning difficulties, are available. Still, the time available for gifted education is limited, as most programs are only offered once a week, usually for 4 hours. Although other activities can be included in these programs, they depend on municipal funds. Identification processes for the gifted programs are mainly based on nominations from parents, teachers, and experts, in addition to objective measures (teachers’ rating scales, individual and group intelligence and creativity tests, Olympic awards, etc.). The NGOs provide essential opportunities for episodic learning.

In conclusion, there are positive as well as concerning actions on gifted education in Brazil, such as: the recognition that different people and institutions contribute directly or indirectly to the development process of these students; the provision of a support network developed by non-governmental organizations to promote and achieve higher levels of training, achievement and socialization with peers; the defense of rights related to the various needs of this population through organizations and institutions that support gifted people. However, there is still a need to inform society concerning the rights of educating their gifted children and to invest in programs to attend and complement their education. This will require intensive programs to train teachers and other professionals who could work with the gifted on strategies to create spaces for supplementary activities in regular schools and specialized services;

Given this scenario, different strategies can be proposed and outlined to achieve the rights established in legal documents. One of them is to develop a national evaluation system for the services offered based on national legislation and the defense of these people’s human rights; second is to promote training and qualification programs at universities for different professionals to work with this public; third would be to guarantee resources and incentives for gifted students in scientific initiation scholarships and support for vocations in different areas of expression; fourth, the proposition of a comprehensive survey by state, based on the study presented, could be a contribution to understanding the needs of these people in the 5,570 Brazilian municipalities; fifth; a robust investment to consolidate rights and outline public policies; sixth, the provision of a support network developed by non-governmental organizations to promote and achieve higher levels of training, achievement and socialization of gifted children with their peers; and finally, seventh, the defense of rights and clarification to society about the diverse needs of this population through organizations and institutions that support gifted people. These strategies could serve as a guide for educational authorities.

Author note

The authors are members of ConBraSD- Brazilian Gifted Council, which is a non-governmental organization that brings together experts and researchers with the aim of analyzing current practices for identifying and caring for gifted individuals.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the collaboration of the National Council for the Gifted (ConBraSD) on the data collection for this research and the important suggestions to this manuscript given by Dr. Albert Ziegler.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data reported in this study will be available in contact with the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Solange Muglia Wechsler

Solange Muglia Wechsler has a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Georgia (Athens, USA) and a postdoctoral fellowship at the Torrance Center of Creative Studies. She is the founder of the Brazilian Association of Creativity and Innovation (CRIABRASILIS).

Vera Lucia Palmeira Pereira

Vera Lucia Palmeira Pereira has a master’s degree in Education and is a consultant for the National Education Council of the Ministry of Education.

Cristina Maria Carvalho Delou

Cristina Maria Carvalho Delou has a PhD in Education. She is currently the president of ConBraSD and represents the area of giftedness at the National Commission for Special Education.