“Gifted and talented” (G&T) refers to educational programming designed to meet the needs of “students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.” (National Association of Gifted Children) More simply stated, children who are exceptionally bright, wise beyond their years, and in need of greater than ordinary educational challenges. To put into perspective the magnitude of this brilliance, imagine the range of intelligence quotient or “IQ” scores. It is estimated that the average adult has a recorded IQ of approximately 100, Albert Einstein 165, and the pupils qualifying for G&T status generally have an IQ of 140 or above.
Beyond these astounding numbers there is much debate over the necessity of G&T programs. Many feel that these programs are unnecessary, elitist, and a burden to the taxpayer. After the 2001 passing of the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government announced a “shift in focus” for the G&T programs. Seemingly, that shift is a result of the greater allocation of funds to special education compared to mainstream and gifted programming. In a recent article by Time Magazine (2007), it is stated that “America spends an estimated 8 billion dollars per year on educating the mentally retarded versus an estimated 800 million nationwide on gifted programs.” A concern arising from the dust cloud of this legislation is that if by 2014 no child should be left behind, should any child be inhibited?
Creating another barrier to the advancement of G&T programs is the notion that individuals born with such exceptional intelligence will establish at the very least a proficient level graduate status. Furthermore they should not receive added attention that is not needed. Some believe the assisted separation of high achievers from the low achievers widens the achievement gap and resembles an “elitist” community. Levy and Palley state “it would be unfair to ‘reward’ or offer ‘extra’ services to those children who were ‘lucky’ enough to be born with high academic potential. Supporting this attitude is a belief that with such natural intellectual advantages, gifted students do not need help” (2003).
In defense of G&T programs it has to be said that such academic anomalies cannot be left unnoticed or without support to harvest their intellectual potential. “In an era when policy makers have expressed concern for the future needs of our society and stressed the importance of education that could help the United States keep our economic advantages, it is curious that the federal government has done little to ensure that the educational needs of these children are addressed” (Levy and Palley 2003). What if by stifling a child with such gifts, we might prevent an individual from reaching their potential of a scientific or mathematical breakthrough? Perhaps these discoveries ideally could shine as the end of physical and mental disabilities ailing students at the opposite end of the learning spectrum.
It would seem that the current state of G&T programming is bleak. I believe the focus of our country is centered on attaining mediocrity and basic-level proficiency rather than nurturing the minds of our advanced youth. To those that argue for the struggles of our lower achieving students the question must be asked: What of our predeceasing cultures who removed ailing beings from the general population as a means to protect the continuity of their society? What about the idea that competition and supreme performance delivers nearly flawless results? And finally, is there not a fear that if the scales of funding are heavily tipped in favor of the unfortunate, that our country may fall from the global race of scientific, mathematical, or technological fields?
No comments:
Post a Comment