For something that would go on to define so much of my life, the day our school’s gifted program started was utterly underwhelming.
One day in 2011, a man in too-tight khaki pants came into our classroom and pulled a few students, including myself, to take a test. I do not remember much about the test. I couldn’t tell you its name, its different parts, or how long it took.
What I do remember is being presented with random shapes and squiggles and asked to use the figure to come up with an image of my own creation. A rectangle became a stage upon which children performed a musical, or a series of loops became filaments in a light bulb sparking above someone’s head.
To me, these questions did not suggest that the test assessed our intelligence.
I do not recall anyone directly stating that the gifted and talented kids were “smarter” than the other students. The name “gifted and talented” would have given it away, but our program had a different name: LINKS. If it was an acronym, I never learned what it stood for, and frankly, it didn’t matter — all the students knew what it meant.
When talking about LINKS, teachers spoke in code, saying that we needed “an extra challenge” or “more enrichment.” Regardless of the language adults used, the schism was evident to students — there are the smart kids, and there are the average kids.
As it stands, gifted and talented programs have lost sight of their intended purpose, dividing and categorizing students rather than enhancing their learning experience. When talking about inequity and separation within gifted programs, there is an unignorable racial and socioeconomic component.
Schools disproportionately deny Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous students to gifted programs even if they meet the requirements for acceptance. Parents who can afford it may hire tutors to help their children study for gifted program entry exams. Wealthy schools even identify more gifted students than underfunded schools. If gifted programs truly fulfilled their purpose of developing outside-the-box thinking, diversity would be a priority.
Even within these gifted programs, there are differences in each of the students’ strengths and weaknesses. Programs accept students who obtain high scores on standardized math and reading tests as well as students who are highly motivated and creative.
Inequality is a throughline inextricably tied to the gifted program. Whether intentional or not, these programs force expectations for academic performance on children from an early age and threaten students’ self-esteem both inside and outside these initiatives. It reinforces education gaps and creates a hierarchy in the classroom.
Every student has a unique skill set that the right tools can develop. This reality should not be neglected. In establishing a gifted program, the school system celebrates only some students’ talents. This teaches children that their natural strengths are not valuable or useful.
To address this issue, educators must first address the truth: all students have strengths and weaknesses. Schools must teach students how to utilize their strengths and not be discouraged by their weaknesses.
Small group work with like-minded students is an asset. However, it needs to be available to everyone. The fact that this only exists for certain students speaks to the lack of investment in school systems across the country. Moreover, it highlights the problematic reality of the lack of equity within education.
It is clear that the issues with gifted programs run deep, and a complete overhaul is necessary. Gifted programs can exist, but only so long as they provide specialized education to each and every student based on their distinct talents.
Education is a powerful tool, one that serves to uplift, but also one that can serve to divide. It is imperative that gifted education highlights the gifts of all students, not just the ones that happen to succeed on a test.