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.
Undeterred, he changed tack and put forward a plan that would end New York’s gifted elementary education program altogether. Under de Blasio’s scheme, no new students would be admitted into gifted programs. Instead, students of various abilities would be mixed in the same classrooms, and teachers would be trained to integrate high-performing students. Despite de Blasio’s dogged persistence, these reforms are unlikely to be implemented; he leaves office at the end of 2021, and his successor (who, as of writing, is almost certain to be Democratic nominee Eric Adams) opposes the plan. Even so, the ongoing debate over streaming is likely to continue, both in New York and elsewhere.
In fact, a similar debate is currently ongoing in Vancouver. This school year, the Vancouver School Board sparked controversy when, à la de Blasio, it stopped offering honours-level math and science classes (i.e. a sort of gifted education program). These classes were only open to students who scored higher than 80% in the previous year, with the intention of providing a more enriching and challenging educational experience to high-performing students.
Although these courses were only offered at two schools, this decision proved to be contentious. Almost every Canadian has gone to school, so everyone has an opinion on how public education should be organized. Although debate never reached the same intensity as in New York, Canadians did not shy away from sharing their opinions on the reform online.
Due to the combination of high public interest in and emotional attachment to the issue, education is a fertile ground for values analysis. Commenters on any educational reform tend to rely on, and refer to, their personal experiences from school. Parents, who have a strong vested interest in their children’s positive scholastic outcomes, typically cite their children’s successes and failures to defend their views. Largely anecdotal, these are usually not robust, technocratic, evidence-based arguments. Instead, debates over education are often filled with moral judgements, with both sides seeking to advocate for their preferred vision of society.
This makes education a fertile ground for values analysis. So let’s dig into the values at play in the debate over gifted education, but first I’ll demonstrate that the perceived costs and benefits of the policy only play a secondary role.
The Cost-Benefit Debate
The most rational way to discuss streaming is to focus on its costs and benefits (i.e., does streaming work?) These costs and benefits don’t have to be financial. They could include better test scores, lower stress for students, or even happier parents. If we narrowly focus on costs and benefits, than the debate over streaming come down exclusively to evidence. If the evidence suggests that streaming leads to better outcomes, then it’s a good policy; if not, then the government should avoid using steaming in education. Easy.
And so, the two sides of the debate line up to present their evidence. Opponents of gifted education raise several concerns, principally that gifted programs don’t improve overall academic outcomes, so there is little benefit to students. The Vancouver School Board made this claim in a statement defending the cancellation of honours courses, noting that they “do not provide enrichment” (i.e. they don’t work). There is a fair bit of academic research that backs up this assertion, but findings have been mixed on balance. For example, a 2021 study of U.S. school results showed that gifted programs only barely improved academic outcomes – and Black students saw no improvement at all. This finding aligns with a 2011 U.S. study and a 2018 Canadian study showing similar, marginal impacts. However, this completely contradicts other studies that show disproportionate gains for racial minorities. Some other studies even show that non-segregated classrooms lead to better outcomes for everyone; in other words, gifted programs are harmful to the students that attend.
In response to these charges, proponents of gifted education point to other benefits outside of test scores. Parents of gifted students raise concerns that their children would be victims of bullying in normal classrooms. As one alumni put it, honours classes were “the places where [she] felt the safest. […] Because people aren’t hurting you in those classes, because you’re not different intellectually.” Others argue that that gifted children become bored and disruptive when not challenged, hurting everyone’s learning. Some “out-of-the-box” thinkers have even proposed that restricting access to gifted education programs would reduce innovation and ultimately damage the local economy – which is a bit of a stretch, but clearly rooted in the costs and benefits.
However, voiced on social media offers another, perhaps more convincing, argument: gifted education and other accelerated learning programs helps students from lower income backgrounds fulfil their potential. For example, see this comment on Reddit in response to the Vancouver School Board’s decision to cut honours classes. This was the most popular post that contained an explicit argument on the thread:
This does nothing but harm lower/middle class bright students. The rich are always going to find ways around it, whether it would be moving to a school outside of Vancouver, transferring the kids to private school, etc. Let’s harm the kids they claim to help in the name of equity. Instead of stifling kids why not work to create an environment where all kids can excel?
Or see the highest rated comment on this Globe and Mail article on the subject:
This is equity run amok.
My own son is in a special Ed classroom due to his learning challenges. No one would dare take that from him. Each child deserves what is best for him and his potential.
Similarly why shouldn’t a child gifted in a particular area not be permitted to become his best? Isn’t that what every child deserves, the opportunity to reach his individual maximum potential?
A majority of posts online seemed to express similar sentiments. In fact, it is hard to find a widely shared social media post that is supportive of the Vancouver School Board’s decision. True or not, this is the argument that the public appears to have found the most convincing.
But why? The data shows that gifted education programs are of questionable (at best) value for racial minorities and students from lower incomes. They are most certainly underrepresented in these programs, and even if they are admitted, it’s not clear that they enjoy better educational outcomes. Sure, anyone can come up with a nice anecdote about their son or daughter and how great gifted education for them specifically, but if those effects were widespread, they would consistently show up in the data. They don’t.
So, the opponents of gifted education win the debate, right?
Not so fast: they don’t have particularly strong evidence-based arguments either. It might be the case that gifted education is ineffective at improving performance, but, despite the findings of a few outlying studies, it’s unlikely to be harming anyone. Students who take part in these programs are at least as successful as similarly talented students who attend ordinary schools. So why do opponents of gifted education make such a fuss?
They might argue that gifted education programs take up resources that would be better spent on general education programs, but there is not a lot of evidence to suggest that gifted education programs are particularly expensive. Several Provinces have gifted programs without dedicating special funding to them. I’m unable to locate any studies that show a decline in the quality of regular education when gifted programs are created, which suggests that gifted programs don’t act as parasitic cash-sinks that steal resources from children in regular classrooms.
Conclusion
Overall, if we just focus on the costs and benefits, there aren’t many strong arguments to support or oppose gifted education. If we were only concerned with demonstrable care/harm effects, we’d all be indifferent to the idea. So why don’t we just call the debate a draw and talk about something else?
But there are also moral arguments at play that are equally as important as the evidence, and we can’t understand the debate over gifted education without thinking about our values. Next week, I’ll prove it by demonstrating that the driving force in this debate is the clash between two different conceptions of fairness, one which emphasizes equity and the other which focuses on proportionality.
If you liked this article, please consider signing up for the mailing list on the right side of this page. A new article will be sent every Tuesday at 9:00 AM.