Resources to Educate the Gifted

Read "Gifted Minds We Need to Nurture," an op-ed piece by Joann DiGennaro in The Washington Post of Saturday, February 10, 2007.

The piece begins:

At an educators' meeting in Washington last fall, conversation turned to whether the federal government should support programming for this nation's most gifted and talented high school students. Educators overwhelmingly said that top students in secondary schools need no assistance, much to my dismay. Priority must be given to those not meeting the minimal standards in science and math, they reasoned.

The ugly secret is that our most talented students are falling through the cracks. Not one program of such major governmental agencies as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation or NASA specifically targets the top 5 percent of students who have demonstrated academic excellence and have the greatest potential for becoming our inventors, creators and groundbreaking scientists.

The allocation of educational resources to education, and among education programs is an issue of the most fundamental importance to our society. The "No Child Left Behind" and "Education for All" movements are based on the belief that all children have the right to some educational services, and this country is rich enough to provide a fairly rich educational experience to the vast majority of children,

There is a question of "the last ten percent" -- those children who have special needs and as a consequence are very expensive to educate. I am simply not qualified to recommend where the line should be drawn in educating these kids, except to note that this nation has far too often and for far too long done too little for children with such special needs.

DiGennaro addresses the issue of children with another kind of special needs -- those children who are in the top five percent intellectual ability. She focuses on science and mathematical instruction for the top science and math students, but her point could be made for kids who have potential managerial talent, or talent in other fields that would bring large social and/or economic returns to the nation if fully developed.

I would suggest that it is not only good sense to invest in educating these kids, but it would be worthwhile to grant them a right as citizens of this country to an education that challenges them and offers the opportunity to fully develop their intellectual capabilities.

DiGennaro is perhaps a little disingenuous, not recognizing that in our decentralized educational system, many school districts do have magnet programs, advanced placement programs, and other special programs to help gifted students develop those gifts. However, there are clearly areas where such programs are not offered. I suspect she is right to call for national programs, funded by the federal government, and managed by federal government agencies to enhance the educational opportunities for gifted and talented students in key areas.

She seems to be calling for the effort to take place in high schools, but such efforts can clearly be useful in junior high schools, and indeed in grammar schools. One might well screen students to identify those with unusual talents early on, to begin to develop those talents at a very early age (and keep the kids from being bored in school), if one does not keep "late bloomers" out of the enhanced learning streams.

I would note further that the nation needs for leaders in many fields to understand science and technology, as it needs leaders in science and technology to be educated in the humanities. The two cultures has caused too many problems for us to stovepipe learning opportunities for our future leaders.