Month: November 2021

This is the final article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it).

Over the past two weeks, I delved into recent efforts to cut gifted education programs and other methods of streaming students into academic and non-academic tracks. My first article demonstrated how an exclusive focus on the costs and benefits of gifted education is not particularly fruitful for a policy analyst. There are few costs (and few benefits), so this lens provides little insight into the importance of these programs to students, parents, and educators.

In my second article, I outlined how considerations of fairness are a more useful way to understand the moral underpinnings of gifted education. Importantly, the meaning of “fairness” differs defending on your worldview, and gifted education serves as an excellent example of the two main expressions of fairness: some people on the left define fairness as equity (i.e. everyone is treated in the same way), while the bulk of the political spectrum – the entire right and a large proportion of the left – view fairness as a question of proportionality (i.e. people get what they deserve). Consequently, since gifted programs are inherently inequitable, opposition from certain left-wing groups would be expected. However, gifted programs resonate with the proportionality values of a broader subsection of the population, so any effort to shrink or cut gifted programs is likely to confront fierce opposition. Overall, I argue that proponents and opponents of gifted education fundamentally disagree over the fairness of the programs, not their effectiveness.

This is the first article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it).

About two years ago, it was almost impossible to open the New York Times without finding an article about streaming in the education system. Streaming (or tracking) is the practice of separating students into different classes based on academic performance and/or capacity. Streaming can occur in two main ways: between schools through the creation of specialized schools that have academic requirements for entrance (e.g. science-focused schools, sports schools, gifted schools, etc.) or within schools by offering differing course streams based on academic ability (e.g. pure vs. applied math, Advanced Placement courses).

In the past several years, backlash against student streaming has intensified, sparking intense debate over the practice. The most widely debated effort was probably mayor Bill de Blasio’s attempt to scrap the SHSAT, an standardized exam that regulates admission to eight selective high schools in New York that serve as a feeder system to the most prestigious universities in the U.S. This step was intended to reduce (primarily racial) discrepancies between the students admitted to these high schools and the broader population of New York. After fierce public resistance, led primarily by Asian-American families (who are disproportionately admitted to these schools), de Blasio’s effort failed.