A commentary on the December/January issue: The real problem is the very idea of “giftedness”

The articles in the recent issue of Kappan on finding and developing talented youth miss some important points about the consequences of separating students by ability.

Several of the articles included in Kappan’s December 2020/January 2021 issue make a strong case for continued support of gifted and talented (GT) programs in the nation’s public schools. Students who perform significantly ahead of their classmates, argue the authors, should be given advanced learning opportunities, separate from the regular instruction offered in general education classes (Vaughn, Feldhusen, & Asher, 1991). However, they add, talented low-income students and students of color have often been denied equal access to GT programs, leaving them cut off from the challenging instruction they need (Ford & Whiting, 2008). Those programs are valuable, the authors conclude, but access to them should be made more equitable by overhauling the “narrow and restrictive” criteria districts have used to identify gifted students.

I agree with the authors to a point: In many districts, the process of identifying gifted students has been deeply unfair. However, I have to take issue with the idea that GT programs can or ever will be made truly equitable. Like many other researchers, I would argue instead for dismantling separate GT programs and integrating all students into mixed-ability classrooms, where differentiated teaching should be provided to diverse learners based on the inclusive special education model (Oakes, 2005; Roda, 2015). As I see it, the negative effects of creating a formal distinction between students, labeling some as gifted and others as non-gifted, outweigh the benefits. Perhaps because I come at this topic from a background in sociology — unlike the authors of these articles, who are grounded in the field of psychology — I am deeply skeptical that their suggestions for overhauling GT education will work in every context. As I’ve found in my own research in New York City, such well-meaning plans tend to be subverted, particularly in large urban districts, by local political conflicts over resources and by advantaged families putting pressure on school leaders to maintain separate programs.

What the authors do and do not discuss

The importance of moving toward greater equity in GT programs while maintaining excellence is an important theme across the articles. The authors suggest (1) redefining giftedness, so as not to assume that students “are gifted across all areas” (Dixson et al., 2020), (2) rethinking how we identify students’ talents, such as by employing universal screening that does not rely on teacher or parent referrals (Wai & Worrell, 2020) or multiple assessments (Dixson et al., 2020), and (3) redesigning and expanding programs to meet local needs (Peters, Carter, & Plucker, 2020). It is likely, I think, that GT programs could identify and include slightly more Black, Latinx, and low-income students if policy makers, school leaders, and educators were to follow the various strategies described in the articles.

Notably, however, the authors do not suggest changing the practice of sorting students into gifted and non-gifted categories in the first place. It appears that, in their view, the pursuit of academic excellence requires assigning students who are identified as GT to homogenous classes or groups of their own. However, doing so requires labels, even if temporary ones, and the problem with labels is that teachers and students very quickly begin to internalize them. Judgments about academic potential and worth often turn into self-fulfilling prophecies. Using value laden language like “high flyers” and “most capable” when referring to students labeled GT, or terms like “disadvantaged” or “struggling” to refer to students who are not given the GT label, inevitably perpetuates negative stereotypes about the students who are left out.

The evidence does suggest that teachers can practice effective instruction in mixed-ability classrooms if given the right resources and supports.

A better approach is to stop labeling some students as more likely to succeed than others based on the social construction of giftedness (Margolin, 1994; Morris, 2001; Oakes, et al., 1997) and, instead, to group students heterogeneously by race, social class, and ability, differentiating instruction to meet their individual needs. The authors make little mention of this as an option, and one article claims that there is insufficient evidence of its viability (Plucker & Callahan, 2020). However, that strikes me as incorrect. The evidence does suggest that teachers can practice effective instruction in mixed-ability classrooms if given the right resources and supports.

Research has shown that heterogeneous, detracked classrooms can lead to greater student achievement and success (Rui, 2009) and that mixed-ability classrooms are most effective when teachers believe in the fluidity of student intelligence and are trained appropriately to differentiate instruction for different ability levels (Boaler & Staples, 2008; Watanabe et al., 2007). When districts detrack math courses, the result tends to be increased test score outcomes (Boaler, 2006; Burris, 2014) and future placements in more advanced math courses (Boaler & Staples, 2008; Welner & Burris, 2006). Possibly the strongest evidence regarding heterogenous classrooms for “gifted” and “non-gifted” students was provided by a recent study by David Card and Laura Giuliano (2016), which found that when students labeled non-gifted were placed in gifted classes their math and English language arts achievement scores increased by 0.5 standard deviations.

A more balanced view of the best way to serve all students would have also included the literature on equity pedagogy and complex instruction (Banks, 2012; Cohen & Lotan, 2004). Complex instruction (CI) is a teaching strategy that relies on cooperative group work in diverse classrooms. It provides students with many ways to be successful by assigning different tasks around a central concept. Teachers who practice CI set high expectations for learning and academic engagement, creating an environment where students draw on each other’s unique strengths and abilities through student dialogue and problem-solving (Cohen & Lotan, 2004). In this type of classroom, academic diversity is viewed as an asset, not a limitation, and is aligned with the research that has shown diversity makes us smarter (Phillips, 2014). It is an alternative to separating students into different academic tracks, which, the authors admit, creates a problem for equity because of the strong relationship between track placements and students’ background characteristics, especially race and social class (Mulkey et al., 2009), as well as differential access to high-quality teachers and resources (LeTendre, Hofer, & Shimizu, 2003). CI does not sort and label students, thereby preventing the “reproductions of status orderings from the larger society” from entering the classroom (Bannister, 2016).

Moreover, the authors in the December/January issue neglected to provide a thorough discussion of the historical structures, systems, and policies that have systematically created and sustained unequal student outcomes. GT segregation by race and social class is a long-standing historical problem that has roots in the racist eugenics movement (Stark, 2014). In more contemporary times, GT programs and other “advanced” curricular offerings grew during the desegregation era as a way for more affluent white families to secure additional resources and maintain the racial hierarchy within diverse schools (Garland, 2013). Many scholars believe that GT policy is a key mechanism of maintaining white privilege in U.S. schools (Connery, Green, & Kaufman, 2019; Leonardo, 2007; Mansfield, 2015). The point here is that educators should acknowledge that, historically, the GT system was built to benefit white students. Only if they recognize this can districts start to dismantle that system by changing the taken-for-granted policies and structures that keep these racial inequities intact.

Another missing element in this issue is the lack of any in-depth qualitative work examining the GT equity problem. Most of the authors included in the issue are educational psychologists who’ve based their arguments and conclusions on quantitative studies. Yet, there are many qualitative studies that can answer questions about how and why GT programs remain segregated and unequal. For example, Annegret Staiger (2004) looked at the racial stratification between a GT magnet program and the regular program within a high school and found that students had feelings of superiority and inferiority related to which program they were placed in, and since the GT program was mostly white, school staff equated giftedness with whiteness. In another qualitative study, Maika Watanabe (2008) found that students in schools with a “bifurcated curriculum” internalize the “hierarchical” labels that are placed on them, which students said can impact their motivation levels. Furthermore, teachers in these schools give more attention and higher expectations to the gifted track students.

At the elementary school level, Mara Sapon-Shevin’s classic (1994) book, Playing Favorites, examined an elementary school’s pull-out GT program. Her ethnographic findings showed that when students are pulled out of class, this “disrupts the community” and “impairs the creation of a climate of inclusion and acceptance of difference.” Similarly, my own qualitative research into New York City’s GT system found that the admissions policy leads to status distinctions in parents’ perceptions of schools and programs, further exacerbating racial inequalities (Roda, 2015, 2017; Sattin-Bajaj & Roda, 2018). Parents with the resources to do so use prepping and tutoring programs to get their children into the full-time elementary GT programs, even though most GT parents in the sample did not believe their children were truly “gifted and talented.”

What we can learn from New York City

The implementation of New York City’s gifted and talented admissions policy does everything the authors in the December 2020 Kappan say not to do. Admissions into GT programs rely on parents as gatekeepers because they have to sign their children up to take the GT exams. It also relies heavily on how students score on a single standardized test when they are four years old. Parents whose children make the 90th percentile cutoff (compared to other students their age who also took the test) can apply and rank their top three GT programs on the centralized application. These programs are typically offered as full-time K-5 programs housed within schools that also offer general education programs.

Demographics in the city’s elementary GT programs are highly segregated by race, class, and linguistic ability, even with the provision of offering the exam in several languages. In 2017, 81% of incoming kindergarten GT students were white and Asian, despite only making up 35% of the total population; at the same time, only 18% of GT offers were given to Black and Latinx kindergarten students, who make up 65% of the district’s total population (School Diversity Advisory Group, 2019). This GT segregation has a cumulative effect in the older grades, “paving a reliable path to the city’s most coveted middle and high schools” (Veiga, 2018). The eight specialized high school demographics are even worse than elementary GT programs: As Robert Kim (2020) wrote in his piece, only 10% of students in these schools are Black and Latinx, and 86% are white and Asian.

On paper, then, it would seem to make sense to implement the recommendations that the Kappan authors propose. The problem, however, is that the city has already tried many of these policy changes, and they have not worked to increase diversity in GT programs and at specialized high schools. Sometimes they’ve led to even more segregation.

First, a few gifted programs and schools have set aside a small percentage of incoming kindergarten seats to low-income students. The problem with the set-aside option, though, is that siblings of students already enrolled in the school get first priority, only having to score at the 90th percentile for admissions when other non-sibling students often have to score a 98 or 99. Effectively, that reduces the number of seats available to low-income students. This set-aside policy also assumes that enough low-income students will apply, make the cutoff score, and choose the program/school. My research, however, suggests that some Black and Latinx parents do not choose GT programs, even when their child is offered a seat, because they do not want their child to be one of the only students of color in the class.

Second, the district has sought to prep and test more students for the specialized high schools. Indeed, the current school chancellor reported that even as more Black and Latinx students were prepared and tested in 2019, the number of Black and Latinx students who qualified for the schools did not increase. This is because prepping and testing more students does not mean more students will pass the cutoff score. In fact, the cutoff score is a moving target based on who else took the test and how they scored. Since there are a limited number of seats available, increasing the number of students who take the test merely drives acceptance rates down. Based on my research, I believe that even with expanded GT testing, the most advantaged parents will secure seats for their children at the expense of others because they have the resources to do so. As Christina Veiga (2018) has reported, “an industry of tutors and test prep have evolved around this admissions process, as parents have learned how to angle for a limited number of spots for their children.”

The city’s third strategy for increasing diversity was to expand the number of programs and schools, thus baking a bigger pie, as Scott Peters, James Carter, and Jonathan Plucker suggest (2020). For example, Chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Mike Bloomberg increased the number of GT programs in 2008 as part of their efforts to expand school choice. Yet, at the same time, they also switched from having each district or school maintain local control of GT admissions to a citywide centralized application process with a 90th percentile cutoff score, and they switched from using multiple measures to identify GT students to the one measure that is associated with social class (i.e., standardized test scores). Because students in low-income neighborhoods that are also mostly Black and Latinx did not qualify for GT using this strict test score cutoff, programs closed in low-income areas and expanded in high-income ones.

New York City district officials also expanded the number of seats available at the high school level by creating/designating five new specialized high schools that use the same single exam for admissions. The result is that while some of these newer schools admit slightly higher percentages of Black and Latinx students, the overall rate of admissions of Black and Latinx students remains unacceptably low. I would expect the same general trend if the city expanded elementary GT programs because expanding the number of seats only causes parents to try even harder to get their children into these highly selective options. Ultimately, any GT policy changes that are made to the current system will result in similar levels of segregation. Time and time again, when districts make a distinction between labeling some students gifted and others not, the parents with the greatest resources and the most advantages find ways to secure the gifted label for their children. NYC’s history suggests that inequality isn’t just rooted in the schools’ admissions system — it’s rooted in the very idea that students should be divided into separate categories and given separate services and resources; separate never turns out to be equal.

Time to move beyond traditional gifted and talented programs

There is a dire need for systemwide changes to make our public schools both excellent and equitable. The authors in this special issue address one aspect of the debate — how to reduce the unfairness of GT selection — but I believe that we need to make bigger changes than they suggest. We cannot ignore that GT policy was designed to benefit white students over others, and we cannot expect to tinker our way to separate-but-equal GT programs. Now is the time to unbuild this structure by phasing out traditional GT programming and turning our attention to schoolwide programs (such as Complex Instruction and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model) that offer all students access to excellent instruction in diverse classrooms. As a number of scholars of gifted education have argued (Borland, 2003; Reis & Renzulli, 2005; Tomlinson, 2014), this is the most equitable way to maximize the talents of all children.

We cannot ignore that GT policy was designed to benefit white students over others, and we cannot expect to tinker our way to separate-but-equal GT programs.

It may prove to be politically acceptable to many parents, as well. In my recent research, I examined the motivations and actions of a parent-led group that successfully phased out a disproportionately white and Asian GT track in a multiracial elementary school in NYC. I found that parents, teachers, and the school principal advocated for replacing the traditional pull-out GT program with schoolwide enrichment because of (1) neighborhood gentrification’s effect on GT enrollment, (2) the mismatch between the school’s reputation as a multiracial school and the maintaining of a separate, segregated GT program, and (3) substantial resource inequities across tracks. They believed that the school’s racial achievement gap in the school was due to the segregated tracks and that, if the GT program stayed in place, the school would eventually become a disproportionately white school.

Due to the pandemic and the switch to virtual learning, NYC policy makers have been forced to revise admissions to selective schools because the existing criteria have become untenable — state standardized tests have been cancelled, student attendance hasn’t been counted, and traditional grades have been set aside, prompting integration advocates to call for the cancellation of those school screening processes (Nunberg & Smith-Thompson, 2020; Shapiro, 2020).

Mayor Bill de Blasio recently responded by announcing changes to admissions that will affect current 4th and 7th graders’ acceptance into middle and high school for the 2021-22 school year. The biggest change is that all middle school screens (test scores, grades, and geographic priority) will be eliminated and a school lottery system will be issued instead (Veiga, 2020). However, while the mayor “provided some of his most forceful comments yet about the need to pursue integration measures” (Veiga, 2020), critics of the new plan, including myself, are skeptical that the removal of screens alone will necessarily result in more diverse schools, echoing my larger arguments in this commentary: (1) The plan is still based on school choice, (2) School choice favors advantaged families who have the time and resources to navigate the system, and (3) There are no mechanisms in place to enhance school diversity. Also missing from the mayor’s plan is any mention of changes to the elementary–level GT admissions process.

As the debate over GT admissions and segregation rages on, it is time to show students and families that educators are serious about rectifying decades of inequities by reimagining gifted education. Districts should ask themselves why they are continuing to sort and segregate students, which students are continuously marginalized and left out of accessing the most challenging curriculum and educational resources, and how they can repurpose school services for the benefit of all students. This would bring us closer to resolving the conflicting goals of equity and excellence in public education.

References

Banks, J.A. (2012). Multicultural education: Dimensions of. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (Vol. 3, pp. 1538–1547). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bannister, N.A. (2016). Breaking the spell of differentiated instruction through equity pedagogy and teacher community. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 335–347.

Boaler, J. (2006). How a detracked mathematics approach promoted respect, responsibility, and high achievement. Theory into Practice, 45 (1), 40-46.

Boaler, J. & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside school. Teachers College Record, 110 (3), 608-645.

Borland, J.H. (2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted education without gifted children. In J.H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Burris, C. (2014). On the same track: How schools can join the twenty-first century struggle against resegregation. New York, NY: Beacon Press.

Burris, C. (2004, January 28). When excellence and equity thrive: Why do we tolerate the curriculum gap that results from tracking? Education Week.

Card, D. & Giuliano. L. (2016). Can tracking raise the test scores of high-ability minority students? American Economic Review, 106 (10), 2783-2816.

Cohen, E.G. & Lotan, R.A. (2004). Equity in heterogeneous classrooms. In J. A. Banks & C. A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 736–750). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Connery, C.E., Green, P.C., & Kaufman, J.C. (2019). The underrepresentation of CLD students in gifted and talented programs: Implications for law and practice. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender, and Class, 19 (1), 81-101.

Dixson, D.D., Peters, S.J., Makel, M.C., Jolly, J.L., Matthews, M.S., Miller, E.M., . . . & Wilson, H.E.. (2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 22-25.

Ford, D.Y. & Whiting, G.W. (2008). Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students. In S.I. Pfieffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research and best practices (pp. 293-308). New York, NY: Springer.

Garland, S. (2013, March 13). Who should be in the gifted program: New York, D.C., and other cities experiment with making honors classes more inclusive. Slate.

Kim, R. (2020). The legal battle over high school entrance exams. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 64-66.

Leonardo, Z. (2007). The war on schools: NCLB, nation creation and the educational construction of whiteness. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10, 261-278.

LeTendre, G.K., Hofer, B.K., & Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 43-89.

Mansfield, K.C. (2015). Giftedness as property: Troubling whiteness, wealth, and gifted education in the United States. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17 (1), 1-18.

Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. New York, NY: Transaction Publishers.

Morris, J.E. (2001). African American students and gifted education: The politics of race and culture. Roeper Review, 24 (2), 59-62.

Mulkey, L.M., Catsambis, S., Steelman, L.C., & Hanes-Ramos, L. (2009) Keeping track or Getting offtrack: Issues in the tracking of students.” In L.J. Saha, A.G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 1059–1078). Berlin, Germany: Springer Science + Business Media LLC,.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Number of public school students enrolled in gifted and talented programs, by sex, race/ethnicity, and state: Selected years, 2004 through 2013-14. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J., Wells, A. S., Jones, M., & Datnow, A. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98, 482-510.

Peters, S.J., Carter, J., & Plucker, J.A. (2020). Rethinking how we identify “gifted” students. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 8-13.

Phillips, K. W. (2014, October 1). How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American.

Plucker, J.A. & Callahan, C.M. (2020). The evidence base for advanced learning programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 14-21.

Reis, S. & Renzulli, J. (2005). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and interests. New Haven, CT: LPI Learning.

Roda, A. (2015). Inequality in gifted and talented programs: Parental choices about status, school opportunity, and second-generation segregation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Roda, A. (2017). Parenting in the age of high-stakes testing: Gifted and talented admissions and the meaning of parenthood. Teachers College Record, 119, 1-53.

Rui, N. (2009). Four decades of research on the effects of detracking reform: Where do we stand? A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2, 164-183.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Sattin-Bajaj, C. & Roda, A. (2018). Opportunity hoarding in school choice contexts: The role of policy design in promoting Middle-Class parents’ exclusionary behaviors, Educational Policy, 34 (7), 992-1035.

School Diversity Advisory Group. (2019). Making the grade II: New programs for better schools. New York, NY: Author.

Spielhagen, F.R. & Brown, E.F. (2008). Excellence versus equity: Political forces in the education of gifted students. In B.S. Cooper, J.G. Cibulka, & L.D. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 374-387). New York, NY: Routledge.

Staiger, A. (2004). Whiteness as giftedness: Racial formation at an urban high school. Social Problems, 51, 161-181.

Stark, L. (2014). Naming giftedness: whiteness and ability discourse in US schools. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 24 (4), 394–414.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Turner, E.O. & Spain, A.K. (2020). The multiple meanings of (in)equity: Remaking school district tracking policy in an era of budget cuts and accountability. Urban Education, 55 (5), 783-812.

Vaughn, V.L., Feldhusen, J.F., & Asher, J.W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35 (2), 92-98.

Veiga, C. (2018, July 17). To integrate specialized high schools, are gifted programs part of the problem or the solution? ChalkbeatNY.

Veiga, C. (2020, December 18). NYC announces sweeping changes to middle, high school application process. ChalkbeatNY.

Wai, J. & Worrell, F.C. (2020). How talented low-income kids are left behind. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 26-29.

Watanabe, M. (2008). Tracking in the era of high-stakes accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record, 110 (3), 489-534.

Watanabe, M., Nunes, N., Mebane, S., Scalise, K., & Claesgens, J. (2007). “Chemistry for all, instead of chemistry just for the elite”: Lessons learned from detracked chemistry classrooms. Science Education, 91(5), 683-709.

Welner, K., & Burris, C.C. (2006). Alternative approaches to the politics of detracking. Theory Into Practice, 45, 90-99.