Dive Brief:
- Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews find flaws in gifted education programs, particularly as it pertains to specialist James Delisle's new book “Dumbing Down America: The War on Our Nation’s Brightest Young Minds (And What We Can Do to Fight Back)."
- Mathews believes there is too much subjectivity in selecting which students are gifted or not, and he questions what would happen to the students who just missed the "gifted" cut-off if gifted students truly do need different resources.
- In an email response to Mathews, Delisle recommended a "junior varsity" type of option for students who just missed the highly gifted mark.
Dive Insight:
Mathews did not like Delisle's response. "To me, this is a recipe for mediocrity," he wrote. "Students who are a few IQ points below the gifted program minimum are likely to get as much out of the most challenging classes as the officially designated gifted students do. Why not let them take those courses?"
He also cites a lack of evidence from gifted advocates, like Delisle, that proves gifted programming actually works. The logic does get a little bit confusing, as Mathews simultaneously denies the need for gifted programming while also saying students right below this arbitrary cut-off would also benefit from specialized programming.
