Fight the Sledgehammers

This being my first real post about GT issues, I think it's fitting that I start from the beginning: the need for gifted services.

My mother happened to meet a teacher at a recent event of some sort, and mentioned in conversation that I was starting my MA in Gifted Education. This "teacher" essentially roadblocked the conversation by saying, "Oh. I don't believe in streaming kids that way." My mother, not having the passion for gifted issues that I do, didn't respond. Had I been there myself, my reaction would have gone something like this:

What is the purpose of education? Some - I call them the Sledgehammers of Equality - believe the purpose of schools is to produce an entire population with a standard, undeviating skillset. Some may talk about “preparing children for the workforce”, and seem to be under the impression that a twenty-first century, technology-based economy does not prize individuality and talent; some are more concerned with “self-esteem”, and believe that the key to giving each child confidence in their abilities is to ensure that they do not differ at all from the people around them. Whatever their reasoning or provenance, the Sledgehammers are powerful. Many (perhaps most) teachers either agree with them or, at least, are content to teach under the system they have created.

But good teachers know that the purpose of education is to ignite the mind and help each child reach his own intellectual and creative potential. Research has borne out the idea that, roughly speaking, students whose intelligence is within two standard deviations of the norm can reach their potential within the regular classroom, perhaps given some accommodations. This equates to an IQ between 70 and 130 (if you’re one of those who don’t believe in the validity of IQ, I will be discussing this in a future post), and includes roughly 95% of the population. The other 5% (2.5% at the low end and 2.5% at the high) require special services to reach their individual potential. The regular classroom and the regular teacher are simply not equipped to educate a mind different from the average to such a degree; the “direction” of difference changes nothing. A freeway built for cars that travel at 75 miles per hour is appropriate for neither bicycles nor Formula One racers.

The 2.5% of children with an IQ below 70 are variously known as mentally handicapped, mentally retarded, or whatever term is considered sufficiently sensitive this month. These individuals generally require full-time or near-full-time special educational programs. And they generally receive such programs. The 2.5% at the other end of the scale have to fight tooth and nail to receive any services at all – and any services they are offered are often stopgaps or temporary solutions, like one-hour-a-week pullout programs or grade acceleration (that’s another future post). Why? This goes back to the Sledgehammers. They believe that the purpose of special education programs is to help children with special needs function identically to their agemates (not true), and they shudder at the thought of programs that might allow the gifted to reach a higher plateau. This, they say, would make everyone else feel bad.

Because apparently, the way to feel good about yourself is to compare yourself to others. And they would instill this philosophy in our children.

In advocating their philosophy of enforced equality, they attempt to rob 2.5% of the population – approximately 1.5 million school-age children in the United States alone – of the opportunity to fulfill their potential. They also attempt to rob the greater society of the benefits of innumerable products of genius that may never come to be. We almost lost Einstein himself to the education system’s contempt for genius. How many potential Einsteins have been lost along the way?

Is gifted education divisive, as the Sledgehammers claim? That depends on whether you believe self-worth comes from within or without. Most children who are not athletically skilled seem comfortable with the existence of those who are. This is because they see that adults are comfortable with the concept of athletic ability. Most adults, however, are not comfortable with the concept of intellectual giftedness. Genius is a taboo subject; the only thing it is less appropriate to talk about than one’s own giftedness is one’s children’s. So of course children learn that everyone should have the same level of intelligence. But we can un-teach this. We can teach children that in the realm of the mind, just like in the realm of the body, there are some with talents others cannot match, and that this has no bearing on anyone’s value as a human being. We can, in essence, practice what we preach about celebrating diversity and everyone being special in their own way.

Or we can continue ignoring the problem and failing the greatest minds of tomorrow.

You choose.