Having taught for a number of years I found that special programs can be both hazardous and helpful. There was a double blind study done by Rosenthal where the teachers were told that the child's locker number was his I.Q. By the end of the year the child was performing up to his locker number. Now, if this motivates, or improves the child's performance, then of course it is acceptable. Too frequently, this is not the case.

Many of the children were placed in my classroom, not because of overachievment, but underachievement. My expectation of them was not ever based on records or tests, but what happened in the classroom. I frequently would call the parents to report the "good behavior" of the child. It was always interesting that once the parents believed, the child achieved.

We have to decide at this point who is making the decision about being gifted. There are many children that have great potential that is never discovered because the teacher couldn't look past the dirty face and poor clothing of the child. As sad as it seems we are all visual animals with preconceived ideas. Who is to do the choosing? Would it be a test that would determine this?

Tests are known as racially biased. Written tests cannot accurately demonstrate the knowledge possessed by the dyslexic child. Tests are taken by some with great ease and by others with dread and intimidation. Can a test accurately predict latent artistic talent, or a penchant to spin a good yarn?

Gifted and talented programs are frequently crowded with children that display excellent classroom manners. These are the "yes men" of tomorrow. Unless a teacher is extremely observant then she will miss the fact that the child that is daydreaming may be tomorrow's astrophysicist, the student that seems left behind is really brilliant but also autistic and unable to socially respond appropriately.

Gifted and talented programs should be done within the classroom with every child working at their own level. The child excelling can be given extra work in the area. I was lucky enough to be able to opt out of mathematics courses the first day, of the first class in my college curriculum. Because it was a commuter school, and I was a working mom, I attended two days a week from early in the morning until late at night. I was lucky enough to have a professor that allowed me to continue the course and make my own syllabus or take an A and exit. I chose the first. As I sat in my own little area of the room working on a project that I had designed, I listened with half an ear to the mathematics course. There were often logical answers and proofs that I had not considered. The technique that the others used to arrive at the answers were different than how I would approached it, but still very feasible and interesting. I learned several steps that I would never have learned had I skipped these courses.

I indeed believe that most gifted programs are elitist and dangerous. They promote student frequently beyond steps that are necessary in their development and choices are made based on the decision maker's biases. Every child is gifted in some area. It should be mandatory that the teacher finds that area and brings it to light, in a normal classroom setting.

Learn more about this author, J P Whickson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Are gifted and talented programs elitist??
We want to hear your view. Write now!