FREE ESSAY ON GIFTED EDUCATION

GIFTED EDUCATION

Running head: GIFTED EDUCATION/CIVIL RIGHTS
Education of Gifted Students
A Civil Rights Issue?
Article Critique
Education of Gifted Students 
A Civil Rights Issue? 
This paper seeks to answer the question: Is the differential representation of the sexes
and of racial and ethnic groups in educational programs for gifted students a civil
rights problem? The author does a more than adequate job of presenting the arguments on
both sides of the issue and drawing logical inferences. The article seeks to identify the
actual dilemma and proposes possible approaches for resolution.
Much of the school system today has been shaped by the civil rights laws of the past. The
writer notes that the link these rights have to education is the pledge of an equal
opportunity for all children to learn and be educated in this country. Schools must
accomplish this without regard to race, creed or gender. The author notes that there have
been references to the gifted programs being just another subtle form of segregation by
the white upper-middle-class. These concerns arise from the fact that the representation
of the sexes and of ethnic groups within the gifted classes reflects just such a
phenomenon. 
The unjustified beliefs of genetic inferiority of some races have long since been
denounced. These unfounded beliefs have been replaced by research which indicates that
the genetic component of intelligence is augmented by the nurturing environment (or lack
thereof) of a child. The paper sites twin studies, which give creedence to the genetic
component of intelligence, and notes these differences apply within the different ethnic
and racial groups.
The author attributes an almost equal role to the environment of the child referring to
nurturing as the crystallization of native abilities. Noting the differences between the
sexes in math and verbal skills, the author seeks to validate this conception. The author
sees the cultural values of society as an unavoidable encroachment upon the genders
resulting in these differences. I beg to differ, as molecular and developmental studies
have shown that there are structural and biological differences in the brains of males
and females (Zhang, 1995; Palego, 2000). As a molecular biologist I would be more
inclined to attribute differences to the biochemical aspects of development.
The writer next addresses the inequities of intelligence tests and accurately identifies
them as mere predictors of future academic performance. We are unable to measure native
ability with these instruments but these devices do allow for a comparison of the
developmental level of a child in the areas of core knowledge, reasoning and conceptual
association. It is through these measures that predictions of future performance are
made.
The author now brings Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences into the debate. He uses
the theory to propose expanding the definition of giftedness. Although I do agree in
principle with Gardner's theory, the already limited resources in gifted education would
be taxed to the brink if we were to include the majority of children, as strict use of
Gardner's theory would necessitate.
The final points in the paper relate to what the author calls tall poppies. This is the
approach of Chinese Communism according to the author. The principle is that the poppies
growing too rapidly should be hewn down so as not to out grow the rest in the field. At
this point there are offerings in the paper concerning the achievement of Asian students
in American schools. The writer relates these to the home environment, emphasis on
education and tenacity of the Chinese-American students. 
I believe that this, in essence, is what we have done in education today, we've cut-down
our gifted students in an effort to avoid the criticism of elitism. The brightest and the
best are denied their potential because it is falsely believed that they can pick it up
on their own. I believe that most of the curriculum offered in mainstream education has
been so watered down that children are not challenged and are not taught to think in our
schools today - all in an effort to be fair to everyone. How is this fair to the gifted
child?
The author concludes by placing the accountability for educating our gifted children on
families, schools, and society. He urges full development of all children with
outstanding talents through the creation of early and continuing enrichment programs.
Through these efforts children would be identified early as to their talent or gift and
their education would then be geared to develop that talent for the betterment of all. 
References
Gallagher, J. L. (1995). Education of gifted students - a civil rights issue? Phi Beta
Kappan, 76(5), 408-412.
Palego, L., and others (2000). Gender and age-related variation in adenylyl cyclase
activity in the human prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and dorsal raphe nuclei. .
Neuroscience Letters, 279(1), 53-56.
Zhang, L., and others (1999). Sex differences in expression of serotonin receptors
(subtypes 1A and 2A) in rat brain: A possible role of testosterone. Neuroscience, 94(1),
251-259.
Bibliography
Gallagher, J. L. (1995). Education of gifted students - a civil rights issue? Phi Beta
Kappan, 76(5), 408-412.
Palego, L., and others (2000). Gender and age-related variation in adenylyl cyclase
activity in the human prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and dorsal raphe nuclei. .
Neuroscience Letters, 279(1), 53-56.
Zhang, L., and others (1999). Sex differences in expression of serotonin receptors
(subtypes 1A and 2A) in rat brain: A possible role of testosterone. Neuroscience, 94(1),
251-259.