RETURN
 
 
 
 

Ms. Andrea J. Chipego has effectively discussed the question of "fair and equal opportunity" while describing a district’s struggle with answering the question, "Should students who have not meet the criteria of gifted be allowed to sign up for the specially designed integrated history and English classes reserved for the gifted students?"

Ms. Chipego has described an emotionally charged issue through the eyes of the parents of "gifted" students, the parents of "non-gifted" students and the superintendent. The issues are highlighted and clarified through references to Nation at Risk and other references sited in the body of the paper. Although Ms. Chipego does not reference Perkinson in her paper, she does a credible job documenting the history of the Intelligence Test by researching the thinking of Simon, Binet and Lewis Terman.

I believe the history of special education is important to note in order to frame the "gifted" controversy. In 1975 Congress passed Public Law 92-142, "The education for All Handicapped Children Act," which assured that all handicapped children receive "a free, appropriate public education, which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs" (Perkinson p. 180). Two states in the union, Florida and Pennsylvania attached a classification of gifted into their state special education laws because advocates claimed that gifted children’s unique educational needs were also not being met in regular education.

The Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Children was formed, and a powerful voice for gifted education has been present in the state since that time. This organization has blocked many efforts to have language taken out of the state law, which protects the rights of gifted students. PAGE fights efforts by school districts to "water down" gifted education as they see it. It is reasonable to believe that the district’s PASE organization is getting advice and legal backing from the powerful PAGE Association.

PAGE would believe that Strike’s (1998) "equal respect" argument would apply to gifted children. Advocates contend that before gifted education became mandatory, intellectually gifted children were put into classrooms, which taught to the middle. This type of teaching and classroom environment did not meet the unique learning needs of the gifted student; thus, gifted children were discriminated against in the same manner that other special education students were. PAGE might also use Feinberg’s (1998) argument of Historical Impediments and Compensatory Education, which rights wrongs of the past. Strike (1998) contends that the principle of equal respect need not require us to select the most efficient use of resources (p. 57). In this case, filling in the class with "non-gifted" students. Even though the gifted program is open only to gifted students, with a few exceptions, it is meeting the needs of children whose unique educational needs had been ignored in the past.

The superintendent is put off by the parents’ elitist attitude. The PAGE group would answer that they have to be relentless, as they continue to fight for their children’s right to an appropriate education, which can so easily be dismissed with the statement,

"We don’t have to worry about the bright children because they will get it anyway." Although this issue is emotionally charged, I would ask the superintendent to consider the following questions:

Why are students in high school trying to get themselves labeled as "gifted"?

Is it for the prestige of being labeled gifted? Or is it to have access to a course that has been deemed outstanding by the students who take the course? I would contend that is it to have access to the course. If this is the case, why doesn’t this district offer the exact same course to the general population? The integrated history and English course described contains all of the components addressed in Best Practices of Learning and Teaching.

I believe that this debate is not so much a debate about gifted education, as it is about an opportunity for all students to be exposed to quality courses, which challenge and motivate learners. It might behoove the superintendent to look at the dilemma from this perspective, instead of wasting valuable time and resources engaging in a battle against gifted education.

Feinberg, W., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). School and society. New York: Teachers College Press.

Perkinson, H. J. (1995). The imperfect panacea: American faith in education. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Strike, K.A., Haller, E.J., Soltis, J.F. (1998). The ethics of school administration. New York: Teachers College Press.

TO TOP