Nelson Mandela, South African anti-apartheid leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, once said, “Education is the most important powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” As demonstrated by Mandela’s quote, the foundation of a stable, prosperous life is built on the quality of education and resources available in childhood. Thus, it is an utmost priority that each student, regardless of race, gender, or background, has an education tailored to fit their unique traits and characteristics. One such way this goal has been achieved is via the implementation of gifted programs: specialized classes and tailored programs enacted to cater to the needs of students who are identified as ‘talented’. Dr. Pamela Clinkenbeard, professor at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, explains that gifted programs offer a gateway to a better quality of life as measured by income tax revenue, GDP, crime rates, and more. Therefore, it is vital that all students are guaranteed equal opportunities and a means to secure success throughout life. However, recent research suggests that economic differences threaten such equal opportunity. Factors including lack of access to testing materials due to poor socioeconomic backgrounds, absence of gifted programs in high poverty schools, and strong correlations between race and SES lead to disparities in the American gifted education system.
The crucial role wealth plays in access to education is a leading cause of inequity in the educational system. Compared to their peers from wealthier backgrounds, gifted students with poor socioeconomic status are provided with limited resources. Thus, standards that measure which students should be identified as gifted are biased and unfair towards those from high-poverty households. Scott Peters, an Associate Professor at Cornell University, and Kenneth Engerrand, president of Brown Sims, state, “Inequities in opportunities to learn including differences in mathematics instruction, vocabulary exposure, access to test preparation programs, and access to outside evaluators are […] implicated in socio-economic disproportionality in gifted education[.]” Factors that determine which students are gifted such as test scores and extracurricular activities are influenced by wealth, since only select students have access to test prep and tutoring. These services are undoubtedly more available to students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and consequently leave impoverished students at a disadvantage. The importance placed on test scores fails to accurately identify gifted kids and unintentionally selects against those with less opportunity. Jason Grissom, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University, and Christopher Redding, a doctoral student at Vanderbilt University, explain, “A student from a family in the top 20 percent of socioeconomic status is more than six times more likely to receive gifted services than a student in the bottom 20 percent.” This research enhances the ongoing claim that students from impoverished environments perform lower due to insufficient resources and are less likely to be chosen for participation in gifted programs. The implications are far-reaching since low income kids are cheated out of a potential pathway to success due to inadequate education.
Beyond the issues that stem from gifted education identification, there also exists a challenge in the quality and quantity of gifted programs available. Schools with higher rates of poverty do not usually offer the same in-depth gifted education compared to their wealthier counterparts. Elizabeth Anne Evans at Georgia Southern University reports, “In a study of urban schools, researchers found that predominantly [upper-class] high schools offered an average of 20.6 AP courses, whereas those with high percentages of poverty ridden households students offered an average of only 11.75 AP courses.” Schools with higher rates of poverty are less likely to provide a variety of gifted programs that are tailored for talented individuals. Moreover, AP classes increase chances of college admission and relieve the financial burden of college classes which is extremely beneficial for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. In fact, AP classes are often worth course credit and allow students to skip unnecessary classes to pursue more challenging courses. Wealthier students, then, have more opportunities to show rigor in applications which will allow for better resumes and access to higher education. This highlights the original problem at hand: gifted programs and classes are not as widely available in high-poverty schools. As mentioned above, higher quality education leads to higher annual income, greater perceived status, and an overall better quality of life. Without the chance to participate in gifted education, low-income students lose the opportunity to achieve greater success.
Another major injustice with gifted education is the strong overlap between race and poverty. The correlation between minority and low socioeconomic backgrounds creates the basis for low recognition rates of talented students among racial and ethnic minorities. Burney and Beilke, esteemed researchers at the Indiana for Education Program, describe the connection between poverty and ethnicity, thereby illuminating the fact that many ethnic minority students are also from low-income households. With this double-minority status, students face even more difficulty in being identified as gifted. Additionally, Donna Y. Ford, professor of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University, and Gilman W. Whiting, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, more thoroughly discuss the outward implications of being a minority. Black and Latinx students are routinely under-referred for gifted education services by teachers who have limited training in gifted education and may act out of implicit socioeconomic and racial bias. Unknowingly, professionals discriminate against underrepresented students due to preconceived notions. These students face a lack of resources to foster high achievement and face potential discrimination, resulting in lower levels of gifted identification. The challenges faced by students in these groups may eventually hinder their long-term academic achievement and higher-level educational possibilities.
Overall, it is crucial that every student has access to resources that can enhance their education and fit their intelligence. Simply defining education as the process of learning does not do the term justice. Instead, education is the key to a happy, prosperous life, and its importance cannot be overstated. However, due to differences in socioeconomic backgrounds, higher-poverty kids are held against biased standards, not given access to advanced programs, and often discriminated against on account of race. It is vital that all students, regardless of race and economic status, are guaranteed an education that matches their needs.
Aditi Kona is a junior at North Oldham High School.
The opinions expressed on the Forum represent the individual students to whom they are attributed. They do not reflect the official position or opinion of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence or the Student Voice Team. Read about our policies.
