Most people can agree on two propositions: that programs for gifted youngsters are a good thing, challenging the fast learner more than the standard curriculum, so long as they have high standards and expectations for participating students. And that such programs should be readily accessible to students of every race. But what happens when those two principles come into conflict? Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Daniel Golden reports that the laudable desire to increase the number of minority (black and Hispanic, not Asian) students in gifted classes is leading schools to relax the entrance requirements and standards of gifted and talented programs. In some states, students who don't make the cut-offs for such programs can still enter if they pass an easier "alternative test" (sometimes tests with no words, only images, or that purport to appraise giftedness by allowing students to manipulate blocks or shapes). In other states, students falling just short of the cut-off may qualify if they have a high GPA - no matter the rigor of their course load - or show evidence of "leadership" or community service. It's one thing to raise the level of minority participation in these programs by strengthening the educational foundations of minority youngsters. But who really benefits if "gifted" programs ease their entrance standards or dilute their definition of academic excellence?
"Boosting minorities in gifted programs poses dilemmas," by Daniel Golden, Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2004 (subscription required)