Eliminating Gifted Programs Increases Inequity
By Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D.
At the age of 4, Michelle read fluently. She skipped second grade. By sixth grade, she stood out among her peers and began attending gifted classes. She learned French and took accelerated courses. Michelle attended Chicago’s first magnet high school for gifted students. She graduated cum laude from Princeton where she did her thesis on “Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” She went on to earn a law degree from Harvard Law School. If we abandon gifted programs, as we are being entreated to do once again, we ignore the benefits of gifted programs for diverse students like Michelle Obama. We worsen inequality, because children of privilege have access to a wealth of resources, whereas children with limited means are dependent on public schools to identify and develop their special abilities.
Gifted Education Under Attack
Sadly, gifted programs are recurrent scapegoats of a racially biased society. In the latest attack, on October 14th, NBC News published a report by Rachel Blustain claiming that “gifted programs worsen equality.” The article mistakes gifted programs for outdated “tracking,” implies that these programs are segregated and racist, and recommends that they be discontinued. Brandon Wright composed an excellent rebuttal, posted on the Fordham Institute website October 29th: “Gifted Education Done Right Benefits Black and Hispanic Children. It’s Not Inherently Racist.” Wright says:
…to better prepare Black, Hispanic, and low-income children to excel academically…we need to make sure that the most promising among them get enrichment and acceleration. That means gifted education.
…too many districts serving poor students and students of color have taken previous and misguided charges of racism to heart and eliminated their own gifted education programs… Proponents of this fallacious view have long been more effective in shaming urban districts in deep-blue cities to eliminate gifted education than they have been with their affluent and suburban counterparts. So rich kids…still get access to enrichment and acceleration…whereas poor and minority kids in the city do not.
As calls increase to eliminate gifted programs in the name of equity, policymakers and school leaders must resist them—and recognize that bowing to that misguided pressure will do more harm, not less, to their Black and Brown students. (Wright, 2020)
Most Gifted Children Are Poor
Gifted education has been wrongly accused of conferring more advantages on the advantaged. On the contrary, for 50 years, research has shown that the gifted come from all socio-economic classes (Dickinson, 1970). “Although the incidence of giftedness may be higher in the higher economic stratum, the absolute number of gifted people will be greater in the lower classes” (Zigler & Farber, 1985, p. 400). If we lined up all the gifted children in the world, the vast majority would be poor, because the poor far outnumber the rich. Affluent families can hire mentors or send their children to private schools and middle-class families may opt to homeschool their children. Most gifted children do not have those options.
It is the bright children from homes with few financial or educational resources who need special programs in school the most. Parents of gifted and talented youngsters who can afford private schools, private lessons, a wealth of books and other enrichments at home can make up for at least some of what their youngsters are not getting in the classroom. It is the great potential of children from homes with fewer resources that is most likely to be lost forever. (Beck, 1992)
Giftedness is not easily recognized in poverty. The economically disadvantaged have less opportunity for academic success. Achievement may be a function of privilege, but giftedness is not; it is abstract reasoning, which is color blind and transcends socio-economic limitations. It is the clever joke. The astute question. The thoughtful remark. The witty retort. The drawing of the inside of the pumpkin. Instead of restricting opportunities by cutting programs, we need to make a greater concerted effort to locate unusually capable children from all socio-economic classes and all diverse groups and include them in gifted programs.
Abolishing programs for the gifted can never eradicate the inequities that exist between the haves and have nots. The problem is economic, not educational. Gifted programs have become the scapegoat to focus attention away from the real issue of economic inequality. It would be far easier to distribute our country's wealth more equitably than it would be to distribute one group's intelligence more equitably. Pointing a finger elsewhere has always been a convenient way to sidestep a problem no one wants to address.
Gifted education is needed to feed the minds of underprivileged bright children as much as free lunch is needed to fuel their bodies. Early identification of gifted children in poverty and support for their abilities is life changing.
Intersectionality
Regardless of color, gifted children are at risk for being bullied, teased, rejected, ostracized (Peterson & Ray, 2006). They are outsiders. They possess characteristics outside the norms for their age, gender, ethnic group, social class and race. While they yearn for connection, they realize that when others become aware of their giftedness, they will be treated differently (Coleman, 2012). So they dumb down, hiding their gifts to prevent ridicule and rejection. This is a recipe for invisibility and dashed aspirations.
Intersectionality is the recognition that members of minority groups have multiple social identities, which intersect to create a whole that is different from its component parts (Carbado, Crenshaw, Mays & Tomlinson, 2013). Black or Hispanic gifted children have multiple identities. Some cultivate different dialects to fit in with various groups. They may be discriminated against for being gifted, as well as for being of color. This may lead to isolation, feeling that they don’t belong anywhere. Gifted programs may be the only place where they feel accepted and recognized, where they make friends who understand them, where they are urged to develop their potential.
Why We Need Gifted Programs
No one would intentionally stunt the growth of a child. Yet, this is what educational systems do when they are blind to individual differences in ability. Equal opportunity can never mean equal outcomes. We cannot set the exact same educational goals for the entire student body. That would be brutally inappropriate for all students who learn faster or slower than the norm. Children do not all learn at the same rate, nor do they require identical preparation for adult life. While the goal for one child is to be able to read books, the goal for another is to be able to write them. One student needs to master sufficient basic mathematics to balance a budget in adult life, while another needs exposure to enough advanced mathematics to be able to discover a new source of energy. Keeping both students at the same level of instruction prevents the natural progress of the rapid learner and frustrates the slower one.
Gifted children are expected to wait patiently while other children learn skills and knowledge they have already mastered. They are taught to slow down their natural rate of learning to make the other students more comfortable. They learn to be less than they can be, to slide by without stretching themselves, to deny their talents, and, eventually to trade their dreams for simpler, less demanding goals. This tragic waste of potential affects not only the student, but all of society, for we have all lost whatever gifts they might have contributed.
There are countless cases of vanishing giftedness. We can never know how much talent has been lost for lack of discovery and development. Nor can we assess the magnitude of that loss to the world—the music that was never composed, the medical cure that was never discovered, the political strategy that might have averted a war.
Gifted children of all colors and all socio-economic levels must feel free to express the fullness of themselves, to strive to be their personal best instead of dumbing down. Schools need to be a place where individual differences are appreciated, and where abilities are recognized and nurtured.
Six Definitive Principles for Educators
1. Nothing is gained in the name of democracy by holding back our brightest students.
2. Bringing the top down does not bring the bottom up.
3. It is our moral obligation to serve ALL students, including the gifted.
4. Every child has the right to learn something new in school every day.
5. Eliminating gifted programs reduces opportunities for diverse groups and increases inequity between rich and poor.
6. Sacrificing the needs of the gifted in misguided attempts to eliminate racism prevents the brilliant members of culturally diverse groups from being discovered and developed.
It is the talented poor who suffer the most when programs for the gifted are cut.
References
Beck, J. (1992, February 10). Educational “mainstream” drowns gifted kids. The Denver Post, p. 5B.
Blustain, R. (2020, October 14). Gifted programs worsen inequality. Here’s what happens when schools try to get rid of them. NBC News Education.
Carbado, D. V., Crenshaw, K. W., Mays, V. M., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 303-312.
Coleman, L. J. (2012). Lived experience, mixed messages, and stigma. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.) Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts & talents (pp. 371-392). Prufrock.
Dickinson, R. M. (1970). Caring for the gifted. North Quincy, MA: Christopher
Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148-168.
Wright, B. L. (2020, October 29). Gifted education done right benefits Black and Hispanic children. It’s not inherently racist. Fordham Institute website. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/gifted-education-done-right-benefits-black-and-hispanic-children-its-not
Zigler, E., & Farber, E. A. (1985). Commonalities between the intellectual extremes: Giftedness and mental retardation. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 387-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Note: This article is based in part on Silverman, L. K. (1992). Scapegoating the gifted: The new national sport. Connections: Newsletter of the Center for Gifted Education, William and Mary College, Iowa Talented and Gifted Letter, Wisconsin’s WGCT News, Louisiana’s Gifted/Talented Digest, Indiana’s Images, and California’s CAG Communicator. Excerpts were also taken from Silverman, L. K. (2019). Hvorfor egalitære samfund har brug for særlig undervisning for højtbegavede børn. (Why egalitarian societies need gifted education.) Kognition og Pædagogik (Cognition & Pedagogy), #111/112, 6-16.
