Gifted Programs In the News
Gifted program redesign has been in the national news quite a bit lately. Recently, Bill de Blasio, the out-going mayor of New York City, announced that the public schools’ gifted program was going to be phased out immediately. However, Eric Adams, the incoming mayor, has pledged to expand it. Meanwhile, Beverly Catlin, the gifted coordinator of the Charlottesville public school system, has identified 86% of her 3rd-11th graders as gifted! On July 14, Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon signed into law Senate Bill 744, which removes the requirement that graduating seniors must be able to show they can read, write, and do high-school level math, subjects which have long been considered indispensable for society. Other school districts are campaigning to eliminate all grades and all testing! All of these drastic changes are designed to improve equity—and they will all fall short of actually meeting the needs of students, especially the gifted students, in their care.
New York City has a problematic gifted system which should be completely reinvented. They identify four-year-old children, which means those youngsters with college-educated parents and good preschools will have much more life experience, higher vocabulary, and a strong edge on the test. Then they are placed in special classes with other bright four-year-olds and kept separate from their peers for the next nine years. These so-called gifted classes do not have a special curriculum and do not require special qualifications of the teachers. This is basically segregation of the upper class, and one can easily locate the “gifted” classes in each grade by which room has few dark faces. Allison Roda, an assistant professor at Molloy College who has studied New York City’s gifted programs, says that they have tried test prep and expanding programs, but still few Black and Latinx students qualify. “It seems more equitable to have mixed-ability classes… in terms of resources and parent involvement and what parents can donate.” While it is true that some studies have shown positive effects on lower-ability students in a mixed ability classroom, there are no measurable positive effects for those with high ability—and, if the range of ability in the classroom is wide, no one actually benefits at all by this grouping. It seems that those who haven’t mastered the content are reluctant to ask questions in front of those who know the material, while those who have already mastered the concepts are often asked to tutor, grade papers, and run errands while they wait for others to learn and review material. Teachers focus their attention to the middle, with children who need extra help becoming frustrated and children needing extra challenge becoming bored. At both ends of the ability spectrum, the kids are disengaged and disruptive. New York City would benefit from providing enriching thinking lessons to all primary students and then offer gifted testing to all students in third or fourth grade, when they had experienced several years of similar content. Students should also be able to test in at older ages, and there should be a second option of teacher referrals and student portfolios for those who don’t test in but seem intelligent and motivated. It should be noted that any “gifted” instruction should differ in content, pace, rigor, and method of instruction from the regular curriculum, and the teachers in the program should have their gifted endorsement to better provide this instruction!
In Charlottesville, essentially any student who showed that he/she might benefit from deeper study of language or math was labelled gifted, a term made meaningless since there was no change in what was provided for those identified as such. Basically, they did nothing except change the labels, which doesn’t benefit anyone at all. This would be like learning that few of your track team could run a mile, so you tape off a 100-yard distance and tell everyone it is a mile. The district’s official explanation of its new program says: “We begin with the conviction that giftedness is distributed equally among all groups. . . .We believe that all students are talented and we cultivate their potential through collaborative, high-quality, differentiated instruction.” I believe that is true, but it should be cultivated in the regular classrooms, all day, every day! Collaborative, high-quality, differentiated instruction is beneficial for all students. They shouldn’t need to be identified as gifted to receive good instruction! However, true gifted instruction should still be available to those who would typically be labeled gifted (those who can pass an aptitude test in the top 3%). These students in the top 3-5% need their needs met, too, and the typical program will not suffice for them. Joni Lakin, an associate professor at the University of Alabama who researches identification practices for gifted programs, called (the new Charlotteville identification system) “just bonkers.” Lakin said, “Not all students need gifted services, and if all students can be successful, it’s not gifted services.”
I am encouraged that many people are now taking a deeper look at identifying gifted among a more diverse population, because I am absolutely certain that intelligence is evenly distributed among the races. However, If I lived in Oregon, and I was told that my dark-skinned child no longer had to demonstrate any proficiency in core content to obtain her diploma, I would be highly indignant! It is completely unrealistic to expect a graduate to go to college or into the work force without these important skills in place. All children are certainly capable of learning, and, by eliminating the need for some to demonstrate that capacity, all the Oregon schools have done is give students an excuse for not achieving and take the pressure off their teachers to actually prepare these students for the real world! What could possibly be more racist? Meanwhile, many politicians are pushing for all testing and even grades to be eliminated, again, in the interest of equity. Without testing, how will the teachers know what the students already know in order to prepare lessons and task analyses at appropriate levels? Without testing, how will students know what they have mastered and how they compare with other students across the nation? How will students discover their strengths or prepare themselves for their futures in any meaningful way? I am concerned about all of our students in this gradeless, testless dystopia, because it is human nature for teens to focus on peers rather than studies, and this approach will not hold the students or their teachers accountable while our country “dumbs down” even more against those nations with higher scholastic standards. There will be students who truly believe they can take only minimum requirements and focus on classes in art and p.e. and then go to college and major in pre-med. There will be an even wider abyss between economically advantaged and disadvantaged students, quite the opposite of what was intended with these well-meaning but disastrous ideas!
I am also very concerned that, in the interest of “equity”, the actual gifted programs are being displaced or diluted. The label and the curriculum are becoming meaningless! This seems like punishing or ignoring the very students who have the potential to enrich our society the most. Would anyone tell a gifted runner that she must jog with the rest of the class until they, too, can run 4-minute miles? Would anyone tell a first grade Van Gogh to color inside the lines because that was what his classmates were doing? You get the point. Gifted children need to be challenged to develop their abilities, to be socialized at least some of the time with their intellectual peers, and to think in ways that are natural to how their brains work. In my opinion, true equity means that all students have the right to feel safe at school, to be successful as learners, and to learn new information with the proper rate, rigor, content and method of instruction at least part of each day by teachers that are well-prepared to instruct them appropriately. My definition of equity would apply to students whether they are gifted, typical learners or qualified for special education assistance. A gifted program that ignores the needs of the gifted is not a “gifted program” at all!
This is beginning to feel like a rant, probably because I am so passionate about educating all children–and these trends are so counter-productive to true education. Let me close in a more positive way: Not all school districts are following such short-sighted trends. Some are actually differentiating to meet the needs of the individual children in their care in creative, positive ways. One example in Arizona is 11-year-old Jimi “Monty” Hernandez, who began his education in a special ed class because of his diagnosis as autistic, ADHD, and fragile due to a heart condition. However, he was soon tested and discovered to be profoundly gifted. His school arranged for him to skip grades, compact content, and do dual enrollment, while providing the accommodations he needed to be a successful learner. He will graduate high school this spring around his twelfth birthday, and has been accepted into Arizona State University for fall with plans to become a pediatric neurologist. He is certainly an unusual student, whom I bring up simply as an example of how creatively teachers can arrange to meet students’ needs and what amazing students we may have all around us. He could easily have been lost in the system and gone through 12 years of special education classes if no one had looked deeper into his abilities. All our students deserve to have their abilities recognized and addressed!
For descriptions of some ways to accommodate to meet individual students’ needs, see “Definitions of Strategies to Serve Gifted Learners” in the Gifted Resources section.