Should Giftedness Be Subsumed Under Neurodiversity? A Discussion
The global trend toward considering the gifted neurodivergent is rapidly expanding, and a major debate has emerged: Should giftedness be included under this umbrella term? This isn't just an academic question; the answer has significant implications for how gifted students are identified, funded, and supported in education systems worldwide.
We are diving into this current, high-profile topic. Is this a strategic win or a dangerous misstep for the gifted community? What's your take? We'd love to hear your perspectives.
The Central Conflict: Alignment vs. Stigma
The term neurodiversity simply means the natural variation in human brains. Proponents argue that since the gifted have "different wiring"—often described by the Asynchronous Development definition—they are clearly not neurotypical and therefore belong in the neurodiversity movement.
Arguments for Inclusion (The Pros)
Linking giftedness to neurodiversity provides authority, systemic protection, and justification for accommodations by recognizing it as a form of natural neurological difference.
A New Foundation for Support: Framing giftedness as a form of neurodiversity gives it immediate authority and a strong justification for accommodations, as it moves the focus from "potential to be eminent" to simply needing support for different neurological needs.
Systemic Protection: Linking gifted programs to a broader, recognized category like neurodiversity could provide systemic support and prevent programs from being cut as a "frill," a historical problem when gifted education is separated from other special services.
Embracing Difference: The global movement toward embracing neurodiversity encourages understanding and accommodation for all forms of neurological difference.
Concerns About Misclassification (The Cons)
The primary risk is a fundamental misunderstanding of the term in practice, harming the gifted and they programs they need:
Association with Deficit: To most people, and to many educators, neurodivergent immediately implies a "condition," a deficit, or an impediment to learning (e.g., autism, ADHD, dyslexia). Giftedness is not a deficit and does not typically impede learning.
Erosion of Specific Support: When educational ministries (like in New Zealand) lump all forms of neurodiversity together and assign a generic "Learning Support Coordinator," the specific, high-level educational needs of the gifted often get overlooked in favor of students with diagnosed learning disabilities.
Harmful Assumptions: The link can lead to erroneous conclusions, such as the idea that all gifted individuals are on the autistic spectrum. It can also fuel damaging assumptions, like the Italian legislative proposal suggesting gifted education's purpose is "overcoming the misalignment between cognitive and emotional development"—assuming that all gifted children are emotionally immature.
A Potential Compromise: Neurocomplexity?
In the 1970s, gifted education was considered part of Special Education. However, it had a separate identity. While systemic support is vital, we must ensure the gifted are not lumped indiscriminately with disabilities and disorders, as they are neither.
The Columbus Group has offered an alternative term: neurocomplexity.
Neurocomplexity describes the gifted as both cognitively and emotionally complex. Their complexity makes them vulnerable in environments that don't understand their differences.
This term maintains the idea of a distinct neurological makeup but emphasizes the need for accommodations to thrive and actualize potential, rather than fixing a "condition."
What's Your Verdict?
Do the benefits of systemic protection and greater recognition under the neurodiversity umbrella outweigh the risks of misunderstanding and losing targeted support?
Is "neurodiversity" the right shield, or does it come with too much baggage? Would the alternative, "neurocomplexity," be a more accurate and beneficial way to advocate for gifted individuals?
We want to hear your perspectives on this critical discussion.
