Are “Gifted and Talented” Classes Responding to Political Needs of Parents and Politicians? Should We Be “Segregating” Gifted Students?
- Are gifted classes a surrogate for creating segregated classes?
- Are gifted classes an affirmation of perceived parenting skills?
- Are gifted classes a strategy for preventing white flight or embedding gentrification?
The debate around whether the Specialization High School Admissions Test (SHSAT) is discriminatory is part of decades long, a many decades long discussion of gifted classes, sometimes enlarged to gifted and talented classes.
Since the 1920’s New York City had IGC classes, classes for “Intellectually Gifted Children” beginning in grade four and in Junior High Schools, SP classes, “Special Progress, “ in grades seven through nine. The eligibility: scores on New York City Reading and Math tests; yes, the city gave tests way back into the past.
The debate was homogeneous versus heterogeneous classes.
“Progressive” schools supported heterogeneous classes; most schools divided kids by scores on the city tests into classes by perceived ability.
Parents and teachers who favor homogeneous grouping argue teachers can better target instruction if the range of abilities in a class are narrower, actually research supports heterogeneous classes. One could argue that homogeneous grouping advocates show an implicit bias, they want their kid in classes with other “similar” kids by race and class.
Another continuing argument is the very definition of giftedness. The National Association for Gifted Children describes a number of frameworks: Gagne, Renzulli and Gardner have definitions of giftedness; I have always looked to CONTINUE READING: Are “Gifted and Talented” Classes Responding to Political Needs of Parents and Politicians? Should We Be “Segregating” Gifted Students? | Ed In The Apple
