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.
In this article, let’s conduct a full values analysis on the issue. I’ll look at three potential ways of responding to the racial and socio-economic disparities in admissions to gifted programs, systematically outline the values that are operational under each policy, and describe a few important insights.
Policy 1: Do Nothing
Of course, we always must start with ol’ faithful: take no action. Under this option, limited gifted programs would continue to be offered in certain jurisdictions, but admissions would also remain inequitable. This option should be considered, even if it wouldn’t solve our main problem (i.e. admission to gifted programs does not reflect the diversity of the broader population). Simply put, sometimes the imperfect status quo is the best outcome available. In addition, since gifted programs don’t appear to make participants more successful, the debate over gifted education might be a distraction from more pressing issues. The story of gifted education does not appear to be an example of relatively privileged children leveraging their early advantages to gain unfair, outsized rewards later in life. The real impacts of gifted education are questionable, so the inequitable admission process may not have any tangible negative effects on society-wide outcomes. It may not be worth the time, energy, and political capital to correct this issue.
Doing nothing, however, would still elicit values-based reactions from the public. First, there would be a mixed reaction based on the Care value (i.e. causing pain is wrong, especially to the vulnerable). Opponents of gifted education charge that inequities inherent to gifted education hurt both participants (as they can become arrogant, self-righteous, or even lazy when granted the gifted label) and those who are left out (as they can believe themselves to be stupid and disengage from education). In contrast, proponents claim that intelligent children struggle in normal classrooms, because they are unable to be themselves and reach their full potential. As noted earlier, neither of these arguments is convincing. Nevertheless, they are widely believed, so they will have an important effect on the public’s reaction to the status quo.
Under the Fairness value, gifted programs violate equity, as they grant naturally talented children differing treatment from the broader school population. In theory, gifted programs harmonize with proportionality for the same reason. Intelligent and hardworking students deserve special treatment, and it’s only fair to give it to them.
It should be noted, however, that the facts could be framed in a way to suggest that gifted education violates proportionality. Under this argument, inequities are not intrinsically wrong (as they are under the equity value). Instead, wide inequities in admissions to gifted programs suggest that many talented and hard-working – but socially disadvantaged – children are unable to access gifted programs due to factors outside their control. In a truly proportional system, a poor, talented, dark-skinned child who works hard would have the same chance to get into a gifted program as an equally talented and hardworking white child. The data suggests that this is not the case, so the principle of proportionality is under threat in the status quo. Consequently, doing nothing would elicit a mixed reaction based on the proportionality value, depending on how the issue is framed.
The Liberty value (i.e. freedom and autonomy are moral goods) is also operational. Gifted education programs have been framed as an issue of choice. No child must go to a gifted education program (and no parent is forced to put their child in these programs either). It’s just an alternative to an ordinary classroom. And there is nothing that harmonizes more with the Liberty value than free choice, so it’s no surprise that the economist/saint of libertarians Milton Friedman was a major advocate for expanding school choice, going so far as to advocate for a government-financed voucher system to replace public education. This would allow families the greatest freedom to select the best education for themselves. If you want to do to a sports school, go ahead! Arts school? No problem! Consequently, any additional school/classroom offerings beyond the ordinary system, including gifted education, are likely to harmonize with the Liberty value.
The final value that is operational is the Authority value (i.e. followers should obey legitimate authorities, who should demonstrate effective leadership in turn). Parents generally believe that the state should have a limited role in raising their children. It follows that some parents see parental authority (not state authority) as supreme in matters of education. For an example of this thinking, see this article on school choice from Focus on the Family, a Christian support group, which argues:
You are your child’s first and best teacher. […] All parents must wrestle with making a school choice. […] Some parents contract out children’s schooling in the form of a public, private or charter school. Others retain control and choose to home-school. No matter what option you choose, the key concept to remember is that your child’s schooling is your responsibility.
To this author, the parent is the rightful authority in matters of education, so the parent (not the state) should be able to choose their child’s school or classroom. Consequently, this author would likely argue that the government should provide options and allow parents to decide what is best for their children. Like under the Liberty value, the Authority value harmonizes with greater school/classroom choice, and consequently, with the existence of gifted programs.
This outlines the four values that are operational in the debate over gifted education. The status quo only harmonizes with the Liberty and Authority values, so there are good reasons to believe that other policies would lead to more acceptable moral outcomes. Let’s briefly consider two other policies and see how the balance of values changes.
Policy 2: Cut Gifted Programs and Integrate Classrooms
This policy, which is being pursued in New York and (partially) in Vancouver, would elicit a mixed reaction based on the Care value. If you believe gifted programs are harmful, then this policy will harmonize with your values. But this view is not universal, and many people believe that gifted and talented children will suffer by the lack of opportunity afforded by an integrated classroom.
On the Fairness value, cutting gifted programs harmonizes with equity, because children of various abilities will be placed in the same classroom, potentially reducing the advantages that flow from socio-economic and racial inequities. This approach will also encourage student mixing between racial and socio-economic groups, a key outcome that is often pursued to increase equity in society.
However, this policy would violate proportionality, because there are no obvious rewards for hard work and intelligence. Students will remain in the same class (with the same classmates) if they perform well or poorly. To many people, this seems unfair.
We can also anticipate that the cutting of gifted programs would violate both the Liberty value and the Authority value. Under the former value, the cutting of (seemingly popular) programs would be viewed as an unwarranted restriction on choice and freedom. Under the latter value, some people would perceive the integration of classrooms as the state intervening in matters best decided by parents; the government should give parents options, not strong-arm them into raising their kids in certain ways.
Policy 3: Expand Access to Gifted Education
When presented with the endemic racial and socio-economic disparities in gifted education, many commenters push for a third policy: improve the academic performance of underrepresented groups or expand access to the programs. Like opponents of gifted education, these commenters are unhappy with the status quo, but they focus on the implementation of gifted programs, rather than inherent inequities. Approaches vary, but a few policies are widely supported within this group, such as improving busing to specialized schools, screening all students for gifted status automatically (rather than relying on parents to take the initiative), and creating more gifted programs in poorer communities. Any number of specific policies could fall under the umbrella of “expanding access”, but I will treat it as one approach for the sake of simplicity.
As with the other two policy options, it has would elicit a mixed reaction based on the Care value. Some people think that gifted education programs are inherently harmful, as they make participants arrogant and hurt the self-confidence of those who do not qualify. Seen this way, improving access to elitist institutions doesn’t help anyone. Others see gifted education as an important tool for supporting intelligent children, so they would argue that the expanded access is beneficial. Between the three policies here, expanding access probably violates the Care value least, especially if the specific approach selected focused on raising academic outcomes for poorer children. Who has moral qualms with that?
As expected, this policy would harmonize with the proportionality expression of the Fairness value. More smart and hardworking students would be rewarded for their efforts. However, it would have a mixed effect on the equity value. Increasing access would likely improve the racial and socio-economic make-up of gifted classrooms, harmonizing with equity. But at the same time, gifted education is intrinsically inequitable; some children get in, and some don’t. Truly equitable gifted education is a contradiction of terms. It must be exclusionary. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that disparities in racial and socio-economic status could be fully purged from gifted education programs, even if their effects could be mitigated. Consequently, the equity-based arguments against gifted education remain relevant under this policy.
Finally, expanding access to gifted education would harmonize with both the Liberty and the Authority value. The expansion of these programs would increase choice, allowing parents to make the best decisions for their children. This policy is less likely to be interpreted as the government infringing on a parents’ authority. No child must go to a gifted education program. Parents are just being provided the option.
Summing Up
See below for a table on these impacts on values:
Note: the yellow-green colour of the Expand Access–Care/Harm box is intended to show that the impact is mixed, but it leans towards harmonization.
Insights
This values analysis reveals several important insights. First, it’s clear that cutting gifted programs and integrating classrooms is likely to elicit a strong negative moral reaction from the public. This policy only harmonizes with the equity expression of the Fairness value, which is important to a relatively narrow group of left-leaning people. However, it violates three important values that cut across the political spectrum: proportionality and Liberty are highly regarded by everyone, and Authority is important to conservatives. This insight was confirmed by the intensely negative reactions to efforts to cut and/or alter gifted programs in New York and Vancouver. If elected representatives want to implement this policy, they should expect major controversy.
Second, if elected representatives decide to cut gifted programs, this values analysis suggests better ways to communicate this decision to reduce backlash. For an example of an ineffective strategy, let’s look back to the FAQ that the Vancouver School Board used to defend its decision to cut honours classes:
Q: Why will the remaining honours courses in the District be phased out?
A: These classes are not part of the BC Ministry of Education’s Redesigned Curriculum. The District is committed to supporting diversity, equity and inclusion. By phasing out these classes, all students will have access to an inclusive model of education, and all students will be able to participate in the curriculum. This avoids streaming students, while allowing those students who wish to work ahead to do so.
This isn’t going to cut it (pun intended). This defence is entirely based on equity, which is not a particularly important value for most people. This explanation might reflect the central motivation for the cuts, but the Vancouver School Board could have communicated its policy more strategically to appeal to a broader moral palette.
For example, the Vancouver School Board could also have provided an explanation of how capable but disadvantaged students are being unfairly left out of honours programs (i.e. a proportionality-based defense), or could have pointed out that other options (such as Advanced Placement classes) are still available (reminding parents and students that they still have choices).
Furthermore, there was some speculation that the decision to cut honours classes was due to budget constraints (see the comments on this Reddit thread). I’m not familiar with the Vancouver School Board’s financial standing, but if this was done for budget reasons, just say so. It might sound more noble to a member of a School Board to justify the cuts on equity grounds, but the average person thinks about education differently than a School Board executive. Using an unpopular moral defence is more likely to elicit controversy than employing a relatively non-political justification.
Third, this analysis reveals interesting ways to make cuts to gifted education more palatable. To reduce the violation of the proportionality value, policymakers could introduce other rewards for good academic standing alongside the cuts. This could possibly include expanded recognition for strong students or the introduction of a minor scholarship program for academic excellence at the high school level that could cover enrichment activities (e.g. school trips).
With regards to the Liberty and the Authority values, policymakers could expand parental choice in other ways. For example, they could provide each student with a grant to support extra-curricular activities (private tutoring, team sports, Kumon-type after-school classes, etc.). This policy would empower parents, regardless of their financial situation, to provide alternative enrichment opportunities for their children outside of school.
I don’t mean to suggest that these are great (or even practical) ideas. It’s hard to come up with good policy, and I’m writing this in my spare time. A lot of policy work is needed to develop better policy alternatives. However, these are some starting points. If anyone has ideas of other policy options, please leave a comment!
Conclusion
The debates around gifted education are fascinating when values are taken into account. It’s no surprise that education evokes a wide range of moral reactions, but only a systematic analysis of people’s values can expose the nooks and crannies of the ethical frameworks involved. I hope this three-part analysis has shown the importance of this tool in policy analysis.
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.