Two Former Honors Students Discuss What’s Wrong With Gifted & Talented Education

Four-year-old Heidi Hankins was recently accepted into MENSA, after scoring a 159 on a standardized IQ test. While that might inspire a little bit of jealousy from other mothers whose kids are still mastering the alphabet at age four, our readers were more concerned with why a pre-schooler needed this type of recognition and publicity? Several commenters asked variations of “What’s the point in signing up your child for this type of organization at such an early age?”

The more I thought about the early identification of gifted and talented children, the more I thought back to my own experience in accelerated classes and honors programs. I am in no way comparable to the little girl whose IQ is only a point behind Albert Einstein. But I did go to school with some extremely intelligent individuals who probably could’ve given Heidi a run for her money in their early days.

So I caught up with one of the most intelligent guys I’ve ever had the pleasure of hanging out with. In a school full of gifted and talented alumni, he was always one of the brightest crayons in the box, you could say. Tuck, who had a perfect 1600 on his SATs, back when 1600 was the highest possible score, is just a couple weeks away from finishing his Ph.D. at Stanford. He’s also the guy I bothered when my calculus got a little too intense. He seemed like the perfect guy to discuss gifted and talented education with, considering that he experienced most of what accelerated learning had to offer and has found success in his post-graduate studies.

LC: This weekend, I published a piece about a 4-year-old with a 159 IQ who just joined MENSA. Overall, the commenters on our website weren’t supportive of this move and thought that it was a push by the parents to gain publicity.

And while I have mixed feelings about extremely early G&T programs, like the pre-schools in Maryland recently started, I think that there’s a benefit to encouraging support and social interaction within the gifted community for kids who have a hard time socializing with their peers. Honestly, the whole thing makes me think about our days at the Academy. So I was kind of wondering if I might get your take on it, especially as someone who obviously excelled at testing from a young age.

Tuck: I am fairly strongly against early G&T programs for several reasons.

Kids who are identified as G&T tend to be categorized as socially awkward as well; however, being identified as “special” early on may lead to a stigma. It may be that other children not picked out as G&T may subconsciously or consciously socially exclude the G&T children in some cases, leading to stunted social skills and the perceived correlation we see in adults between intelligence and lack of common sense/social skills. That is just my opinion on the matter, I have no data to back that up.

Also, G&T programs are best at identifying children who are talented at measurable, quantifiable areas, i.e. math and science. Thus, these kids are separated and pushed more in these areas, leading to a higher degree of G&T children in these professions. This is not necessarily a big issue, except that intelligent children that are pushed down this path are not exploring all the potential areas that they may excel. From a personal perspective, there is also a giant glut of people in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). The schools are training too many scientists and engineers, leading to high unemployment; perhaps our society would have been better served if these unemployed scientists/engineers had explored their interests on their own as children and found a niche in writing, business, politics, etc.

So, all in all, I think we should just let kids enjoy their childhood, we don’t have to force their accelerated learning, they will have many decades on their own to do that if they so choose.

LC: I think this whole issue of G&T programs obviously hit home for those who were in them their whole lives. I still feel like I’m somehow letting down the Academy because I’m not doing something more prestigious. Then at the same time, how many people actually get paid to write for a living, so I suppose I should be thankful as well.

I definitely agree with you that early identification and specialization tends to pigeon-hole children. It makes it more difficult for “gifted” students because they feel a tremendous amount of pressure to go above and beyond. But it also hurts kids who aren’t identified as early, because it can be almost impossible to catch up.

There was one issue that I semi-understood what MENSA was talking about when they were identifying young children. They said that for kids who simply couldn’t relate to their peers, being identified as G&T gave them a logical explanation for their lack of connection.

In lots of ways, I understand what they mean there. I can get why a young kid would want to examine what makes them different from the majority of people they spend their time with. But at the same time, wouldn’t that just set them up to be “different” their entire lives? I think there are a lot of early identified G&T kids who were really frustrated to find out that life was still difficult, even though they’re intelligent and good at math.

I guess the one question I still really have is, did you see the G&T community as a support system? Did it encourage you to do more because you identified with these already-impressive people?

Tuck: I think the fact that you feel disappointed or obligated to do something prestigious because of a G&T program you were in highlights one of the major issues. As you mentioned, there is pressure associated with identification and specialization, which seems unfair because elementary age kids are too young to choose the specialization for themselves.

I personally never saw the G&T community as a support system, and it has not functioned for me in that way. I have a quick example to illustrate my point:

I have been in G&T programs since age 7. Looking back, very little or, really, nothing I learned in those programs between the ages of 7-12 sparked any intellectual curiosity, it was just an additional assignment I had to do. When I was 15, I felt bored in a mathematics class, so I asked the teacher if I could teach the material to myself, do all the assignments, and finish two semesters in one. This did not require any additional resources from the education system, was not thrust on me, and thus was not a burden on me, i.e., when I stopped studying math and choose chemistry/biotechnology instead, I didn’t feel like I owed anyone anything. In my mind, taking G&T students and giving them extra resources does them no favors and is a disservice to those who are not chosen; instead, the greater gain is made when a student decides on their own, “yes, I want to further my studies in an area on my own, no one needs to push me/help me, I am my own best teacher/motivator”.

(Photo: Be Healthy)

Similar Posts