It happens at some point in most school districts across the
country. A parent, teacher, or curriculum specialist meets with the school
board to propose a modest increase in gifted services. It could be a middle
school accelerated math class, a fourth-grade pull-out science group, another
high school AP class. After a few respectful nods, the questions begin. How would this affect the kids who aren’t
identified as gifted? Wouldn’t that make them feel bad? And aren’t
all children “gifted,” each precious and unique in their own special way?
These questions have derailed gifted services
for decades. Debate about the meaning of the term haunts the dialogue of
administrators and teachers who scramble to educate gifted children while trying
to also recognize the talents of those who are not identified. The argument
against increasing gifted services frequently centers on the concept of giftedness, how gifted
services might affect the rest of the school community, and whether children
identified as gifted should be “entitled” to additional services. Some states
have minimal guidelines or requirements for gifted education that are easy to
circumvent. Educators can minimize the importance of gifted services and create
few opportunities for gifted learning to avoid the appearance of elitism or favoritism
toward the gifted and their families. If
some kids are gifted, might that imply that the other students are not equally
special? Will that hurt their self-confidence? Wouldn’t it be better to sacrifice a little
enrichment for the gifted kids so that we can protect the self-esteem of the others?
Parents who grapple with the meaning of “giftedness” sometimes
fan the flames of this debate, particularly when their child is not identified.
Some parents view gifted education as a status symbol, a goal that their child must achieve.
Why isn’t my child gifted? Does that mean
others won’t think my child is special? Parents sometimes have their
children tested and retested, and if they don’t meet the criteria, the gifted
program may be disparaged. Maybe the psychologist didn’t know how to test. Maybe the tests were
wrong. Maybe the whole concept is bad. Maybe, maybe, maybe…
In reality, giftedness is a learning difference. Like any other learning difference, it is identified through careful
testing and evaluation. Although guidelines for identification and standards
for the provision of gifted services differ from state to state, there is
widespread agreement that gifted children and adults are different. They learn at a faster pace, absorb information with
greater depth and complexity, have exceptional abstract reasoning skills, and
are creative and innovative in their thinking.
And with IQ scores at least two standard deviations above the norm, they
constitute about 5% of the population. Yet that 5% deserves an appropriate and
meaningful education that meets their unique educational needs.
If one of the roadblocks to providing gifted services is
the name itself, maybe it is time to change the name. The term “gifted” incites conflict, engenders
unrealistic expectations, and rouses feelings of envy among parents. It fuels debate,
results in time wasted defending the merits of the classification, and fosters
endless battles in school districts where even the most incremental increase in
services can be denied. It leads to a false debate over superiority, resulting
in bitterness and anger, or apology when none is due. And while parents and
educators continue to dispute the merits of gifted education, children languish
in classrooms that offer little stimulation or challenge.
In a world where perception can be everything, a new name
for giftedness could remove some of the barriers to education. If children who
met the criteria for identification received a different label, less time might
be wasted fighting for services. Just as the term for mental retardation was
changed to intellectual disability, in part, to create a more respectful public
perception, the term “gifted” also warrants revision. A variety of terms could be considered, such
as “accelerated learner,” “high ability learner,” “accelerated learning
ability,” or “high aptitude ability.” Any
term that is descriptive, and emphasizes learning and aptitude rather than a
presumed “gift,” might engender less of an emotional reaction among educators,
parents, and the public in general. If
such a relatively minor revision in terminology could enhance the provision of
gifted services, then it is clearly time for a change.
Let’s find another term, and not call them “gifted”
any more.
