Thomas Stewart
Academic success is as much dependent on how students feel about themselves as the letter grades that fill their transcripts. In fact, the two might be more correlated than they appear.
When I was in first grade, my parents applied for a local elementary school in Fresno that featured a so-called Gifted and Talented Education program. The school was nationally recognized and boasted impressive academic success rates, so who wouldn’t want to send their kid there?
After passing a test, I was admitted into the school. My family was so excited. I had gained access to take strategically accelerated courses taught by specially trained teachers.
The world was at my fingertips.
But now as a rising sophomore in college, I think about the consequences of applying a “gifted” label to California children. I eventually realized that students in the program rarely got the chance to interact with those outside of it. This separation endured throughout high school and was paired with the pressure of living up to the gifted label.
Studies have shown that gifted students have a higher risk of adverse mental health issues than the average student. On the other hand, students that participate in standard or remedial courses are more likely to remain stuck on that academic track — even if they are perfectly capable of performing at a higher level. It’s been proven that a student’s collegiate performance is proportional to the rigor of their high school curriculum, which means that underestimating a student can limit their potential.
We are left with a lose-lose situation that has detrimental psychological effects on all students. Gifted students lack the opportunity to engage with more of their school community while standardized students are deprived of amazing educational opportunities. This social distinction endures throughout and after high school, leaving both groups feeling as though there is no place in which they can interact — as though they are inherently different.
We cherished the years I spent in the gifted program during elementary school, and I thrived with the knowledge that I had the potential to challenge myself academically. Being immersed in an enriched academic environment so early on gave me the confidence and preparation to tackle advanced placement and honors courses in high school without a second thought.
By the time I reached high school I immediately felt at home, but it was largely because I was going to school with the same kids from elementary school. While this fostered a sense of community, I often felt restricted when it came to meeting students who weren’t taking advanced courses.
After years of gifted classes, I began to question just what this system was. A conversation with my high school principal later revealed that my high school didn’t actually feature any gifted courses.
Since these courses were not taught by teachers specially trained in the program’s methods, there was no meaningful difference between gifted courses and regular courses. Given how the state funds its public school system, California’s gifted program has become more of a label than an access point to advanced education.
As I reflect on my experiences, I think of how my mother often credits my experience in the gifted program as the kick-starter to my success in secondary schooling and my overall development.
I couldn’t agree more. I believe that all children should have access to the resources of the gifted education program. This approach would eliminate the isolating effects of the current system, while providing “gifted” and “standard” students with different educational experiences that better fit their abilities.
Limiting either group is, and has been, a disservice. Through an equalized curriculum, we can initiate change and build a brighter, stronger future for California students.
Thomas Stewart is a student at Columbia University and a Fresno native. He wrote this for CalMatters.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(3) comments
Thanks for your essay, Mr. Stewart, but I have to wonder whether all of your gifted courses were taken in a gifted-only school. Why? Because from what I recall, gifted classes are classes provided at schools which feature many, many more non-gifted classes. As such, were you given instructions to shun students in non-gifted classes? If not, there’s no reason why you still couldn’t interact with “regular” students.
If you propose providing all students with the resources of a gifted education program, you’re basically saying there is no gifted education program and it just becomes a “regular” program. As you have described, there will always be a subset of students that are gifted. Just as there will always be a subset of student that are sub-par. If we provide extra tutelage to students who are sub-par (as we should), why wouldn’t we allow students who are gifted to be their best? Or would you prefer all students, regardless of ability, be “stuck” in the same classes? Because it sounds like that's what you're advocating. If I'm wrong, please explain why.
Yes, maybe it is different where the author went but around here they don't even have separate gifted classes in elementary. I had that as a kid from 4th-6th grade and it was amazing. There are gifted schools but they are private.
I am not sure what this author is advocating for. His gifted program sounds amazing and he credits it with his later success. Certainly all students should have equal resources, but not all students have the same needs or abilities. How would it help students who need remedial instruction to expect them to keep up with advanced students at a young age? Some students would struggle and others would be bored. Differentiated instruction to the extent it can be done helps everyone.
As far as meeting a variety of kids, high schoolers tend to segregate themselves naturally into groups based on common interests. Forced friendships don't work. Sports and extracurriculars are a great way to meet a variety of people you may not have in class- my son plays 3 HS sports and has many diverse groups of kids he hangs out with, even if they don't all take advanced classes.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.