Gifted and Talented Programs

Pushing students to excel or hurting everyone involved?

By Marley Richmond

The terms “honors program” or “accelerated track” and “gifted education” have been imbedded in the vernacular of the American education system since its conception, and date back to Greek philosophical schools and Renaissance court patronage. Now, it seems like every student has experienced modern gifted and talented (G&T) programs—as a participant or outsider—for better or worse. There are hundreds of forms G&T programs can take and even more methods for identifying students for these programs. Despite their popularity with parents for the perceived boost they offer students, G&T programs have faced pushback for unfair selection policies, enforcing systemic inequality, and the negative impacts on participants’ mental and emotional health.

According to the Minnesota Department of Education, gifted and talented programs have been established for “those students with outstanding abilities.” However, the issue of under-representation, specifically of culturally diverse, low-income, or ESL students, is pervasive in these programs. No matter what supposedly universal screening practices are used, G&T programs still create two distinct groups: those who are gifted and those who are not. By providing “gifted” students with additional resources, more challenging lessons, and more highly-trained teachers, school programs take these same opportunities away from students who are already identified as lower-performing. Instead of lifting up those who are at- or below-average, the education system furthers achievement gaps by helping advanced students get even further ahead, leaving others behind. Students who already have many tools for success—whether that be personal drive, natural ability, especially supportive home environments, or wealth—are given more resources and opportunities than those who actually need the extra support. Instead of separating and catering to the high-achievers, all students should have equal access to the resources for their individualized needs and personal success.  

While these programs clearly limit the academic opportunities and resources available to perceived “nongifted” students, their impacts on participants have long been debated and researched. For decades, researchers have considered the potentially detrimental impacts of G&T programs on students’ mental and emotional well-being. There are two contrasting groups of thought on this point: these programs either enhance students’ social skills (including resilience, understanding of self and others, and coping with stress) or increase students’ vulnerability, putting them at greater risk for social and emotional problems and leaving them increasingly exposed to stress and alienation. The truth is, there isn’t a clear-cut right answer; research has provided empirical evidence for both. 

Gifted and talented programs prove difficult to research because of the large range of program types and student selection methods as well as the external factors impacting students’ wellbeing. Anxiety, however, has been shown to accumulate and manifest in “gifted” adolescents even if participants did not express higher than normal rates of anxiety as children; perfectionism, fear of failure, and social isolation are causes. G&T programs can convince students that nothing but the best is enough and teach students to set the highest possible goals for themselves, whether they are attainable or not. Not every “gifted” student can become their school’s valedictorian, for example, but that shouldn’t diminish one’s self-worth.

Additionally, students in the bottom half of their G&T classes have shown especially poor academic self perception. The big fish-little pond effect, where students judge themselves against their peers, can lead to lower self esteem and increased feelings of failure and deficiency, regardless of intelligence and work ethic. In reality, the perceived negative effects of gifted and talented programs are just one symptom of overly-demanding and competitive academic environments in schools, exacerbated by the cutthroat culture of college admissions and scholarships. Changing the culture of the American education, and supporting all students in all aspects of their health, are necessary to lower rates of anxiety and depression among students as a whole. 

G&T programs ultimately fail to benefit either the “gifted” or “nongifted.” What is meant to push the “gifted” students to their full potential is actually damages participant's mental wellbeing while widening the achievement gap for those excluded from G&T programs. In Minnesota, where the education achievement gap is one of the worst in the nation, impacts of gifted and talented programs must be analysed and critically assessed to ensure that all students have equal access to tools, resources, and opportunities for success whether they are officially labeled “gifted” or not.