This is the second 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). Read the first article here.
Last week, I opened a discussion on the costs and benefits of streaming students into academic and non-academic tracks, such as through gifted education programs. Despite the rancorous debate about the merits of these initiatives, there is little evidence that they make a difference in academic outcomes for students in either Canada or the United States. In other words, students in gifted education programs don’t perform much better than similarly intelligent students in ordinary schools. At the same time though, and there is little evidence that gifted programs are using disproportionate resources that could otherwise be used to improve the educations of a broader subset of the population. In sum, gifted education introduces few measurable costs and benefits.
This leaves us with a puzzle: if gifted programs don’t matter, why are they so contentious? Why did protesters almost come to blows when the mayor of New York tried to widen the eligibility requirements for specialized high schools (a form of gifted education)? Certainly, there is a perception that gifted education programs are superior, so maybe that explains why parents are so invested. But policymakers should know better. Why not let sleeping dogs lie and just leave gifted programs alone?
Read more