Schools in general have worked hard to meet the special educational needs of a variety of students – those with learning disabilities, those learning English, those with behavioral problems and those whose households struggle with poverty. But they have neglected one key group of students with special needs: the academically gifted.
Many school districts around the country have released programs for students who are fast-tracked. The trend to eliminate or reduce these programs began about 15 years ago. But it grew in 2021, when the Black Lives Matter movement forced schools to confront the inescapable fact that they were less likely to recognize Black and Latino students as gifted than white and Asian students.
Part of the problem is that the original purpose of the award program has been lost in the competition of parents for prestige and advantage. Unlike other special education categories, the label is loved by parents. Classes and sometimes entire schools for gifted students often have a richer curriculum and other resources. They are classrooms for achievers rather than for well-defined students.
These programs were originally intended to meet the needs of students with often irregular learning patterns. It used to look like it didn’t need special attention because it often excelled. As standardized tests require schools to target students’ abilities, all focus is on those who have not yet met the mark. Those who go beyond that are treated well.
But they are not just looking. Gifted children, more than others, tend to shine in certain ways and struggle in others, a phenomenon known as asynchronous development. A third grader’s reading skills may be at an 11th grade level, while his social skills are more like a kindergartner. They often find it difficult to connect with other children. He is also in danger of being expelled from school because of his slow learning.
I don’t know if I was recognized as gifted when I was a kid, but I was definitely bored out of my mind in elementary school. It feels as if everything is repeated until paying attention in class is pointless. I started acting just to protect myself.
My third grade teacher tried several strategies, including sending me an invented assignment just to get me out of class. There is nothing. So they sent me to fourth grade even though the school policy forbade it.
That’s a disaster. I was cut off from friends and worried about the constant grilling of adults and children asking if I was in a higher class. It can’t be academic either. I love the challenge of catching up, but when that happens, school becomes boring again. The problem is not the third grade material; it’s a learning curve.
When I first started covering education in the late 1970s, it was shocking to see this need – although it was uncomfortable to hear a 10-year-old describe himself as a “mentally gifted kid” in school. council meeting. “MGM” was the name given to the program, later changed to “GATE”, for Gifted and Talented Education.
But it is not clear exactly what education was awarded. In some districts, the school is a desirable school for high achievers. Sometimes it is an enrichment for certain students. Teachers are supposed to have special training, just like special teachers do, but it doesn’t seem to work. In the schools my children attend, these gifted programs mean extra homework.
When virtue becomes prestige over learning styles and specific needs, all bets are off. Maybe the problem is called “gift” instead of “asynchronous construction”; no one would be against putting their child in an asynchronous developmental program unless they need it.
There is no doubt that racism plays a role in identifying children as gifted even if the label is based on criteria that are considered objective. But the solution to the problem is to eliminate bias, not the program itself.
To its credit, the Los Angeles Unified School District has retained gifted education, with programs that cater to different academic and creative skills. One is for highly gifted students, who may have studied college material in some areas while still in high school. But the proportional underenrollment of students of color led the district to relax enrollment requirements before recently reversing course. The criteria should be quite simple: whether the student needs and can progress quickly through the academic material.
California no longer requires schools to offer gifted programs and stopped funding them in 2013, so schools have no incentive to keep them. The answer is definitely not to eliminate the program. It doesn’t seem to have helped to open to all children as well; that lead some to slow down the pace, defeat the purpose.
Differentiated instruction — where teachers tailor lessons to different students’ needs — sounds good but is difficult to implement in large classes.
My oldest son had the good fortune to attend a small program in most schools, open to all until space is filled, which solved many of the differentiation issues. It involves several tests and many individual projects. Students choose their own books to read and report on. The project can be a written report or, if his talent lies elsewhere, a film, play, song or board game – as long as he shows that he has learned the lesson. It gives students free rein to work at their own level, to be bored and show their talent.
But the program is run by two talented teachers who know how to bring out the best in every student. It’s easier to grade tests than to evaluate projects, and I don’t know how many programs can be replicated. In any case, no more.
