How the Gifted and Talented Program Perpetuates Segregation in Schools
By: Nick Dong
Gifted and talented programs worsen segregation in schools | Joy Velasco / Fatherly
Gifted and Talented (G&T) programs, designed to provide advanced educational opportunities for high-achieving students, have long been a subject of debate in the educational community. While these programs are intended to nurture the intellectual abilities of students, they have also contributed to the persistence of segregation within schools. G&T programs, often implemented with good intentions, have inadvertently exacerbated educational inequalities and perpetuated segregation along racial and socioeconomic lines.
The Origin Of Gifted and Talented Programs
G&T programs were established to cater to the needs of students who demonstrate exceptional academic abilities. The goal was to challenge these students with a more rigorous curriculum, helping them reach their full potential. While the intent is to provide equitable educational opportunities for high-achieving students, its history has far greater consequences. The G&T program was popularized by Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman in 1916, but for reasons other than providing students greater opportunities. Rather, the program was to pronounce “that differences in intelligence and other traits could be traced to race and nationality” (McMillan). As a result, the program created the perception that the white race is intellectually superior, which has left its mark on education today.
Segregation by Design: How G&T Programs Are Structured
G&T programs have led to controversy due to its effects on segregation | Julius Constantine Motal / NBC News
One of the primary ways that G&T programs contribute to segregation is through the selection and placement process. Selection to G&T programs is often based on testing, teacher recommendations, and assessments that may not fully account for the diverse backgrounds of students. These criteria can favor students from higher-income families who have access to a greater early education, and districts with greater resources. Moreover, teacher recommendations may be biased, and indirect influences are a major factor to the process. Those with high socioeconomic status are able to afford “extracurricular and supplemental educational activities,” which leads to an increase in “general or cultural knowledge,” leaving teachers to view such as “signs of high intelligence or giftedness” (Grissom et al.). As a result, G&T programs tend to have disproportionately high numbers of white and Asian students, while Black, Latino, and economically disadvantaged students are underrepresented.
Moreover, G&T programs often exist within schools where G&T students are separated from their peers in regular classrooms. This segregation can lead to a stark divide in the school environment, with G&T students receiving more resources, attention, and opportunities, while other students are left in underfunded and overcrowded classrooms. In fact, a study in 2021 found that “more racially diverse schools are more likely to have classrooms that are more segregated than schools that are less diverse overall” (Dalane). This process ultimately allows segregation to remain prevalent in education, and for the gap in equal education to continue to widen. After the ruling of the Brown v. Board of Education case, schools across the US were forced to integrate, but districts in the south were reluctant. It took many years after the ruling until districts began integrating, but to maintain segregation, districts often funneled a majority of either Black or white students into one school, and set up G&T programs to provide a segregated education in majority Black schools (McMillan). Even in northern states, districts created “magnet programs to encourage white families to enroll their children in predominantly Black public schools” when forced to integrate (Dreilinger). The intention of G&T programs was to continue segregation, which has allowed white students to generally receive better education than minorities.
The Role of Socioeconomic Status in G&T Enrollment
Bar graph representing proportion of students in G&T programs based on socioeconomic status | Harvard Educational Review
Socioeconomic status plays a significant role in determining which students are identified as gifted and enrolled in G&T programs. Students from affluent families are more likely to attend well-funded schools with access to high-quality instruction, enrichment activities, and early childhood education. These advantages increase their likelihood of being identified as gifted. In contrast, students from lower-income families may attend underfunded schools with fewer resources, making it more difficult for them to demonstrate the same level of academic achievement or be recognized as gifted. Research has shown that “high poverty schools are less likely to have gifted programs” (Dreilinger).
In a recent study by Vanderbilt University, it was found that “a student in the top [socioeconomic status] quintile is more than six times more likely to receive gifted services than a student in the bottom quartile” (Grissom et al.). Not only do students of a lower socioeconomic status lack access to G&T programs, but are also at a disadvantage of being admitted if the program is offered. This is because parents of higher socioeconomic status are able to participate in school activities at a greater rate than working families or those of lower socioeconomic status, which is used to build relationships with teachers, and “can leverage their social networks” to ensure a referral. This creates a cycle where students from privileged backgrounds are more likely to be admitted to G&T programs, while students from disadvantaged backgrounds are excluded, perpetuating educational inequities.
The Racial Implications of G&T Programs
Bar graph representing enrollment in G&T programs by race | Owen Thompson / Education Next
The racial disparities in G&T programs are a reflection of broader systemic issues in education. In many urban school districts, G&T programs are overwhelmingly composed of white and Asian students, while Black and Latino students are significantly underrepresented. A study conducted in 2016 found that white students were three times as likely as Black students to be assigned into G&T programs (McMillan). Recent federal data shows that white students comprise only 50% of public school enrollment, but 60% of G&T programs, while Black students comprise 15% of public school enrollment, but only 9% of G&T programs (Dreilinger). This imbalance contributes to the racial segregation that persists in many schools today.
The segregation created by G&T programs can reinforce harmful stereotypes and biases. For instance, students in the general education track may internalize the belief that they are less capable or intelligent than their peers in the G&T program. Similarly, the underrepresentation of Black and Latino students in G&T programs can perpetuate the stereotype that these groups are less academically inclined or less deserving of advanced educational opportunities.
Conclusion
While G&T programs are intended to provide advanced educational opportunities for high-achieving students, their implementation has often contributed to the persistence of segregation in schools. The reliance on standardized testing and other exclusionary criteria has resulted in significant disparities in G&T enrollment, particularly along racial and socioeconomic lines. To create a more equitable education system, it is essential to reevaluate the structure and selection processes of G&T programs and work toward more inclusive and integrated approaches to education, and perhaps even eliminate such programs. By doing so, it can ensure that all students have the opportunity to reach their full potential, regardless of their background.
Sources/References
Blustain, Rachel. “Gifted Classes Drive Inequality. but What Happens When Schools Get Rid of Them?” NBCNews.Com, NBCUniversal News Group, 14 Oct. 2020, www.nbcnews.com/news/education/gifted-programs-worsen-inequality-here-s-what-happens-when-schools-n1243147.
Dalane, Kari. “Students Are Often Segregated within the Same Schools, Not Just by Being Sent to Different Ones.” The Conversation, 27 May 2022, theconversation.com/students-are-often-segregated-within-the-same-schools-not-just-by-being-sent-to-different-ones-179266.
Dreilinger, Danielle. “Why Decades of Trying to End Racial Segregation in Gifted Education Haven’t Worked.” The Hechinger Report, 14 Oct. 2020, hechingerreport.org/gifted-educations-race-problem/.
Grissom, Jason A., et al. “Money over merit? socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services.” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 89, no. 3, 1 Sept. 2019, pp. 337–369, https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337.
McMillan, Tracie. The White Bonus: Five Families and the Cash Value of Racism in America. Henry Holt and Company, 2024.
