_PNG.png){kind=small}
Amendments to the Gifted Program –– An Opinion
By: Joanne Liang
In the York Region District School Board, students are required to take several standardised tests in their third year of elementary education. One of these tests, not unsimilar to an IQ test, is what determines their qualification for the district’s special education program: the gifted program.
(image: Antoine Dautry on Unsplash)
A gifted child is, quote YRDSB, “a pupil whose behavioural, communication, intellectual, physical or multiple exceptionalities are such that he or she is considered to need placement in a special education program by committee.”
Again, quote YRDSB, "The Ontario Curriculum is differentiated for gifted students in order to: 1. Ensure that the expected level of achievement is demonstrated, 2. Provide learning experiences at an appropriate cognitive level, 3. Provide students with the learning and thinking tools to allow them to maximise their learning potential, 4. Match instruction and learning environment with student learning styles."
Takeaway: the purpose of the gifted program is to provide an experience and environment that caters to these students’ special learning needs. At least, this is how it’s described on paper. However, in practice, the gifted program has several issues.
In this article, I want to address two long-term problems associated with the gifted program: 1. the actual implementation of its so-called purposes, and 2. the damaging associations with the term “giftedness”. Hopefully, my points will ultimately shine light on the need for amendments to these issues.
1. Implementation of the Gifted Program
The root cause of the gifted program’s faulty implementation is that, well, nobody really understands its purpose. Hell, the program’s own definition contradicts itself–– it tries to cater to students’ unique learning needs by adapting the curriculum for their cognitive level, but the screening process involves an IQ test, literally the most standardised test out there. How is the curriculum supposed to help students hone their divergent thinking skills if the material they are given is unable to actually examine their thought processes?
It’s also important to note that a child’s IQ only makes up for so much of their abilities. Maybe they’re not good test takers, or maybe they’re more inclined towards other subjects that aren’t tested on the IQ test, because one standardised test can only measure so much. For example, arts and the sciences are largely integrated into the student curriculum up until high school, but they don’t have nearly as many questions on the IQ test compared to language and maths. This supports the idea that perhaps our current definition of a “gifted child” has been, ironically, too narrow-minded up until now.
This leads to my next point: the subjects that are tested on the IQ test; they can be easily studied for. The standardised format of the IQ test means that the questions have definite answers that, with enough time and extracurricular studies, a student can prepare for. A growing number of research shows that children who are enrolled into extracurriculars and education earlier on in childhood have an advantage in cognitive growth compared to children who aren’t. Essentially, it’s like a stat buff right before taking the test, which can yield incorrect results which only reveals itself over time. This is also a concern that, upon discussing the topic with my peers, many other students in the gifted program have brought up.
“While the test does do its job relatively well, it is easily exploited by people who intentionally study for the IQ test element. This in itself is not really an issue, but the fact that some people are willing to do this to get into the gifted program is telling of the way it's perceived by parents.” ––Tim Xia, Grade 10
“I think it's kind of goofy because you can study for a lot of that stuff, which means that it's not really a fair test. Give kids something on the spot and see how well they solve that instead. ” ––Daniel Lam, Grade 10
This is where things become tricky: the issues I stated earlier are already present in the screening process, which is kind of telling towards the program as a whole. The curriculum has way too much of a focus on nurturing intelligence in specific fields, to the point it ends up missing its original purpose by a far shot––to help students with their unique skill sets. Unfortunately, that also means a majority of the material taught in the program is also covered through extracurriculars. Students whose parents can afford the time and money on extra education are given an unfair advantage in the world of academics, and the gifted program ends up becoming a glorified fast tracking program. Hold on…what was its original purpose again?
Just because a kid thinks differently, that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a genius. But what does that mean for the other students? The non-geniuses, the ones who the program was originally intended for, who still to this day are lacking in the support that they need? The gifted program has become a place where more homework and worksheets somehow equates to developmental learning, but that’s not necessarily the case for these students. Tests have become harder in difficulty, and because they’re summative, that ends up impacting their grades.
I don’t know about you, but this absolutely blows my mind––why should a student’s academic performance be impacted by the margin between gifted material and mainstream material? This is a sentiment that many other students seem to share as well.
That leads me to my proposal: if the gifted program is truly intended to be the unconventional learning space that it promotes itself to be, I believe this can be achieved with more effective practices––starting with the screening process.
Despite all my nitty gritty comments towards the IQ test, I understand its purpose and functionality. Giftedness can’t exactly be measured, especially if the definition itself is vague to begin with––that’s why the next best option is to assign a minimum psychometric value to “gifted standards”. I do believe, however, that there should be a larger emphasis on examining the child’s thought process instead of looking at pure results.
2. Associations with the Term “Giftedness”
This brings me to my second point: the attitude surrounding the gifted program and with gifted students, which only enables the worst parts of the program. There seems to be this general stereotype that “gifted kids are smart” or some other sort of misconception. This could be a result of many factors such as, once again, the structure of the program which promotes academic intelligence, but the perception of giftedness undoubtedly has had a profound impact on these students.
“Gifted teachers think that, since we’re gifted, they don’t really have to teach, and we move at a much faster pace and often go off on tangents being taught random things.” ––Anon.
This example highlights just one of the few problems that arise due to stigma around giftedness. A child’s intellectual capability should in no way interfere with the amount of effort an educator puts into their job, but unfortunately, this is often the case in gifted programs. Furthermore, the impacts are seen not just on their quality of education, but on their mental health as well.
The unrealistic expectations that come with the identification of giftedness is an issue that holds many long-term consequences. The children who are pushed to strive for academic success are more prone to experiencing feelings of intense inferiority or insecurity in their capabilities, especially when their self-perception clashes against an undesirable outcome. This can snowball into a larger mental health issue––performance anxiety and stress are especially common experiences amongst children in the gifted program––, and if not monitored properly, it can severely detriment their learning mindset and work habits. This is proven by numerous studies which examine the performance of gifted children in workplace environments after leaving school.
Perfectionism is a toxicity in the gifted program that I’ve witnessed impact those close to me. This fact is especially exemplified because of the area where we live in and its demographics. Immigration makes up for a lot of our population growth, and for the students here, many of our parents are likely also immigrants. But with immigration, they bring with them their cultures as well.
Many students, I myself included, have grown up in a household where academics are seen as crucial to our future success. Peer pressure and family expectations are just a few reasons that play a role behind the ignored but ever present mental health issues in education––and they only become more enabled through the gifted program, which enforces false yet still damaging expectations of “geniusness” onto these students.
It is to my understanding that, as of now, the gifted program is lacking in the developmental and mental support aspects of the students’ education. With this in mind, there are two possible solutions that come to mind that could help alleviate this:
The gifted program should be implemented into more schools across York Region. This is to prevent having too high concentrations of gifted students whose individual needs cannot be met.
Gifted classrooms should be organised so that they contain no more than 16-17 students. This is to allocate more time and energy towards homeroom teachers so that they can focus on the personal needs of their students as well as focus on teaching course content.
I want to emphasise that the role of the teacher is not just to educate the students on course material, but also to prepare the students so that they are well-equipped for entering adulthood with a healthy mindset and developed work habits. However, given the state that current public schools are in, that is far from the case. The recommended number for students in a classroom is no more than 18, yet schools like Markville and Unionville High School are well over their carrying capacity, reaching numbers in the high 20's and nearing 30's. Meanwhile, schools like Markham District High School suffer from a shortage in students.
In addition to this, I believe it would be beneficial for schools to invest in hiring school psychologists. Not just counsellors, not just guidance teachers, but professionals who are educated on what it is that an individual requires, especially one with individual needs such as a gifted child. Numerous research indicates an association between schools with high-SES (supplemental education services) and higher math performance compared to schools with low-SES.
As a Grade 10 who’s been in the gifted program for the past seven years, I’ve come to realise many flaws with the system that could be improved if we put in even just a little more effort. This is my last year in the gifted program, and it’s also my school’s last year hosting the program; therefore, the issues that I address here in hopes of alleviating are all the more personal in terms of importance. To the adults and educational figures out there, I hope you’re reading this: change starts not with the children, but with the adults that they rely on who shape their development and growth. Please consider what’s best for them––it's not just your future in your hands, but the futures of all the children who look to you as their models. Thank you.
Phew, managed to get it in before New Years.. Thanks so much for the wait guys! We're finally back, and with some blockbuster articles at that! Let us know your thoughts and comments below. As always, please look forward to our next instalment too! We have a lot more cooking up :)
Joanne, Rachel and Grace