Over the past years the topic of facilitation of achievement has gained in importance in research as well as in the educational practice in Germany and has increasingly become subject of public debates (cf. Vock, Preckel & Holling 2007, p. 11). This is also shown by the claim to implement the facilitation of achievement as an inherent part in school (cf. Kaiser et al. 2020, Weigand & Müller-Oppliger 2021). In politics, this subject does not go unnoticed either: After the successful realisation of the project “Raising the achievement of all learners” (European Agency for Special educational needs and Inclusive education) in 2018 the project “LemaS” (“Achievement catches on in schools”) has been initiated by the “Federal Ministry of Education and Research” (“BMBF”). Its objective is to improve the support of (potentially) high-achieving students in regular classes.

The increasing interest on this topic can similarly be observed by the significant rise in the amount of programmes for the support of gifted students as well as the increasing emphasis on the teacher´s importance, particularly for gifted children (cf. Grosch 2011, p. XIII, Plunkett & Kronborg 2011, Videgor & Eilam 2011). Furthermore, educational science obtained a wider knowledge in this area, as an increasing number of publications on this topic can be noted.

The same applies to the topic of diversity of students and thus their unique set of strengths and interests (cf. Renzulli & Reis 2010), which has also become the center of attention in recent years and, as part of this, has become subject of numerous publications. On the one hand, this can be explained by the increased plurality of students, which has likewise transformed the educational perspectives of diversity (cf. Lutz & Wenning 2001, p. 12). On the other hand, inclusion plays a significant role. In its conception the recognition of diversity and the professional handling of just this diversity is deeply embedded (cf. Budde 2017, pp. 16f.). 

The concept of inclusion has increasingly influenced school development, one can even refer to it as an inclusive change of the school system. The claim for diversity-sensible opportunities and thus for the support of all children and teenagers are equally the pivot of change (cf. Katzenbach 2017, p. 124).

This, in turn, influences the facilitation of achievement, which is increasingly being transferred to it. Even though up until now it predominantly has been regarded as facilitation of excellence with the aim to reinforce a societal elite (cf. Fraundorfer 2019, pp. 30f.), there are now indications of change here, too (cf. Seitz 2017, Seitz et al. 2016), for there are “[n]o two gifted people […] alike” (Silverman 2009, p.115). 

The findings are part of our theoretical framework for further research interests, which aim to provide qualitative insights into the multiple and diverse perspectives of students, parents and teachers concerning facilitation of achievement in educational settings. Therefore we carried out narrative single-interviews, which will enrich and perhaps conuteract our theoretical findings of the review in the future.

Emerging from the research interest, we wanted to find out, in what way the national and international discourse of gifted education is on the one hand connected to exclusive practices and on the other hand to inclusion and if there have been any interfaces between the diversity of children and the discussions about the facilitation of achievement so far. The review intends to contribute to our research interests on a qualitative level. Specifically, our review was undertaken to examine following research interests: 1. to identify trends and argumentations in the international discourse concerning the facilitation of achievement and inclusion – especially in comparison to the German discourse – and 2. to characterizes considerable outlines of the discourse. The appropriated data bases were • Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) • British Education Index (BEI) • Datenbank-Infosystem (DBIS) • Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung (DIPF) • FIS Bildung • PSYNDEX, which we consulted on the basis of relevant keywords, such as potential, giftedness, talent, inclusion, diversity and difference. For our literature review we analysed 57 relevant articles, including 30 national and 27 international contributions, by content analysis (cf. Mayring 2012). Especially we conducted a combination of inductive and deductive categorisation (cf. Mayring 2012, pp. 69). The articles were selected due to the following criteria: • peer reviewed articles with a high impact factor and • published after the ratification of the UN-convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

We could identify four levels of the debate on the facilitation of giftedness and achievement, especially considering diversity. On the micro-level, especially students’ self-concepts and their notions of giftedness and achievement are being addressed. The perspective taken is a predominantly psychological one which follows the need-and-offer-paradigm differentially and is orientated towards support in a specific way. On the meso-level, a triadic relation between students, the teacher and parents could be found. This relation originates in the deficit respectively potential that has been identified on the micro-level. Through this, the teacher, students and parents make contact. So, for the formation of relationships on the meso-level, the identification of deficits respectively potentials is a vital prerequisite. On the macro-level, the institution school as well as the educational region are of particular importance. Yet, the institutional framework is barely being questioned. Instead, it is being clarified how the offers on the facilitation of achievement could be adjusted to fit into the educational framework and not vice versa. Thus, on the macro-level, extracurricular cooperation which establishes an additive instead of an integrative structure become relevant. On the chrono-level, a change of the political and scientific understanding of giftedness and achievement becomes apparent. With the passing of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities the political and scientific discourse has opened up more for a wide understanding of giftedness and achievement. But, all in all, in comparison to the international discourse the German speaking discourse is held extremely uncritical: With a few exceptions, questions concerning difference and inequality have not been followed up on in almost ten years. Yet, this knowledge is being widely ignored. Therefore, it is our future research interest to examine how these levels contextualize orientations and practices of students, parents and teachers in talent development.

Budde, J. (2017). Heterogenität: Entstehung, Begriff, Abgrenzung. In Bohl, T., Budde, J., & Rieger-Ladich, M. (eds.) (2017). Umgang mit Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, pp. 13-26. Fraundorfer, A. (2019). Begabung und „Begabte“: Unumstößliche Realität oder s Soziales Konstrukt. In Schrittesser, I. (eds.) (2019). Talent Promotion Revisited. Promoting Giftedness as a Child Right in the Context of Diversity. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, pp. 29-42. Grosch, C. (2011). Langfristige Wirkungen der Begabtenförderung. Berlin: LIT. Kaiser, M., Maier-Röseler, M, Seitz, S., Weigand, G. (2020). Leitbildentwicklung und die Gestaltung einer potenzial- und leistungsfördernden Schulkultur. In Weigand, G., Fischer, C., Käpnick, F., Perleth, C., Preckel, F., Vock, M., Wollersheim, H. (eds.) (2020). Leistung macht Schule. Förderung leistungsstarker und potenziell besonders leistungsfähiger Schülerinnen und Schüler. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz, pp. 43-53. Lutz, H., & Wenning, N. (2001). Differenzen über Differenz – Einführung in die Debatten. In Lutz, H., & Wenning, N. (eds.) (2001). Unterschiedlich verschieden. Differenz in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 11- 24. Mayring, P. (2012). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 12th ed.; Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: the importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and talented international, 26 (1-2), pp. 31-46. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. (2010). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and interests. Gifted educational international, 26 (2-3), pp. 140-156. Seitz, S. (2017). Enrichment im Untericht oder: Wie sich inclusive Schulen bereichern können. In Textor, A., Grüter, S., Schiermeyer-Reichl, I., & Streese, B. (eds.) (2017). Leistung inclusive? Inklusion in der Leistungsgesellschaft. Band II: Unterricht, Leistungsbewertung und Schulentwicklung. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, pp. 69-76. Seitz, S., Pfahl, L., Lassek, M., Rastede, M., & Steinhaus, F. (2016). Hochbegabung inclusive. Inklusion als Impuls für Begabungsförderung an Schulen. Auf dem Weg zu mehr Bildungsgerechtigkeit. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Silverman, L. (2009). The two-edged sword of compensation: How the gifted cope with learning disabilities. Gifted education international, 25 (2), pp. 115-130. Vidergor, H. E., & Eilam, B. (2011). Impact of professional development programs for teachers of the gifted. Gifted and talented international, 26 (1-2), pp. 143-161. Vock, M., Preckel, F., & Holling, H. (2007) Förderung Hochbegabter in der Schule. Evaluationsbefunde und Wirksamkeit von Maßnahmen. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Weigand, G & Müller-Oppliger, V. (2021) Handbuch Begabung. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.