Gifted and Talented (G&T) programs have long been a subject of debate in the education community. On one hand, proponents argue that these programs provide crucial opportunities for academically talented students to be challenged and reach their full potential. On the other hand, opponents argue that G&T programs perpetuate inequality and unfairly advantage already privileged students. In recent years, the latter argument has gained traction, and many school districts across the United States have either significantly reduced or completely eliminated their G&T programs.
While it is important to work towards greater equity in education, the wholesale elimination of G&T programs is misguided and ultimately harmful to the students who need them most. Removing G&T programs from schools under the guise of promoting equality is a short-sighted approach that fails to account for the unique needs of academically gifted students.
Research has shown that academically gifted students have unique educational and social-emotional needs that are not being met in traditional classrooms. Gifted students benefit from more challenging coursework and the opportunity to work with peers who share their intellectual curiosity and ability. These students may also face unique challenges, such as feeling isolated or unsupported in a traditional classroom setting. (1)
Eliminating G&T programs leaves these students without the resources they need to thrive, and can lead to feelings of frustration, boredom, and even depression. (5) Moreover, research has shown that the elimination or reduction of G&T programs can lead to lower academic achievement for both gifted and non-gifted students, as teachers are less likely to differentiate instruction when there is not a designated program for gifted students. (6)
It is also worth noting that the elimination of G&T programs disproportionately affects low-income and minority students, who are already underrepresented in these programs. Without G&T programs, these students are denied the opportunity to be challenged and reach their full potential, perpetuating existing inequalities in education. (2) (7)
To be clear, the existence of G&T programs does not mean that the needs of non-gifted students should be ignored. In fact, research has shown that the existence of G&T programs can benefit all students, as teachers are more likely to differentiate instruction when there is a designated program for gifted students. (6) Additionally, G&T programs can help reduce the achievement gap by providing resources and opportunities to underserved students who show academic potential. (2)
In conclusion, the wholesale elimination of G&T programs in the name of promoting equality is a misguided and harmful approach to education. Instead of eliminating these programs, school districts should work to increase access to G&T programs for all students, particularly those who are traditionally underrepresented in these programs. By doing so, we can create a more equitable and just education system that meets the unique needs of all students. (1) (3) (4) (6) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(1) National Association for Gifted Children. (2021). Position Statements. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/position-statements
(2) Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N. A., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (Other) Gap!: The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12 Education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512738.pdf
(3) Callard-Szulgit, R., & Mazurkewicz, G. (2012). Reversing Underachievement: Creative Productivity as a Systematic Intervention for Gifted Students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(4), 277–294. doi: 10.1177/1932202X12443180
(4) Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1037/a0013688
(5) Peterson, J. S., Duncan, J. L., & Canady, R. L. (2010). Effects of Grouping Practices and Curricular Adjustments on the Achievement of Gifted Students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1177/1932202X09352157
(6) Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University. (2016). Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Resource for Educators and Parents. Retrieved from https://www.ctd.northwestern.edu/resources/gifted-education-research-resources/research-giftedness-and-gifted-education
(7) National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States: Results from the 2015-16 National Teacher and Principal Survey. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019067
(8) Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
(9) Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Lee, S. Y., & Thomson, D. T. (2018). Advocacy for Gifted Programs: Looking Toward the Future. Gifted Child Today, 41(2), 72-82. doi: 10.1177/1076217517747581
(10) U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Implementing ESSA: Opportunities to Support Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education for America’s Students. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essa-stem-02242016.pdf
(11) Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Regular Classroom Practices with Gifted Students: Results of a National Survey of Classroom Teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 150–156. doi: 10.1177/001698629303700402
