Situation

The X school district is in an upscale suburban area outside of a large city. The community is quite interested in the education of its members. They generally vote favorably for innovations and changes that they feel would benefit the students and the local educational system, and many maintain an involvement or at least an awareness of the issues relevant to the schools. They see the school district as promoting the continuing positive reputation (and property values) of the community. As a result, the curriculum is strong and the course offerings are numerous. Among the offerings are several integrated courses specifically and exclusively reserved for the students who have been deemed eligible for the gifted support program. These courses are organized to include honors level history and English, and often incorporate other disciplines such as art and music. The courses are taught in an integrated and experiential style, and enjoy a very positive evaluation by the students. As special education courses, under the regulations and mandates of the state, they consume a significant proportion of the district’s resources. Despite their general support of school programs, several members of the board, along with some community supporters, are beginning to question the increasing amount of district resources spent on the gifted high school courses.

The popularity of the integrated courses is increasing. More and more students want to participate in these courses. However, they are advised of the admission policy that they must be formally identified as gifted before they can register for the courses. The "non-gifted" students and their parents are putting much pressure on the superintendent and the board. Over the last few years, the number of referrals made to the special education office by the high school counselors have drastically increased. The "non-gifted" students want to have the opportunity to take the integrated courses, and if it means that they must be called "gifted" to do so, then they will make every effort to do what it takes to attain that status.

The procedure for assessing gifted eligibility is costly. Although a multiple criteria approach to the testing for gifted is to be utilized in district X, the score attained on intelligence testing using a standard intelligence test (IQ testing) is most often a major determinant in attaining gifted status. The superintendent discovers that some parents have their children tested outside the district by persons who are reportedly known to administer the necessary IQ test with the most relaxed standardization, frequently resulting in IQ scores significantly higher than comparable district testing. Given the above considerations, including the escalating cost of maintaining the current program and admission methods, the increasing demand for "gifted testing," the conflicts and parental arguments arising when a child is found not to be eligible for gifted status, and the elitist nature of the program, the superintendent decides that action must be taken.

The superintendent feels that it would be more equitable and more efficient to open these courses to students other than those deemed "gifted." He questions the relevancy of IQ tests in determining whether a student should have the opportunity for admission to a course, and feels that achievement and other merit based criteria should be critical factors, giving children an equal chance to participate in the course. The superintendent is also concerned about what he perceives to be the elitist attitude that has developed among many of the students (and their parents) in these "gifted" courses and the increasingly explicit drive to exclude students who may also benefit from these course offerings. Parents of the "non-gifted" students are becoming more vocal about the rights of their children. They feel that the non-gifted children are less advantaged in the district compared to the gifted, and they applaud the superintendent for his attempts to equalize the opportunity for all students.

The parents of the identified gifted students in the district, however, were outraged by the suggestion that the "gifted" courses be open to students other than those officially identified as gifted. They fear that the superintendent’s plan is just the beginning of a ploy by the superintendent and board to "cut" the gifted program in the district to save money at the expense of their children. They emphasize the special needs of gifted students, and demand that the superintendent recognize and address these needs. The "gifted parents" immediately organize, forming a group that they call Parents Advocating for Student Excellence (PASE), vowing to maintain the exclusivity of the selection process for the "gifted" course, and to "advocate" for "continued educational excellence" in the district.

Debate

Several significant questions emerge in this case. Should the selection process utilized in admission to the integrated courses be more equitable? Is the present course admission criteria (primarily IQ) relevant? Will the change proposed by the superintendent result in excellence (effectiveness) being sacrificed for budget (efficiency)?

Introduction

A very brief history of special education may assist in framing the "gifted" controversy. As early as 1872, according to Perkinson (1995), complaints emerged at the NEA Convention regarding the "lock step, mechanical education (p.70)" that geared instruction to average students, thus handicapping the bright and the slow learners. One of the "most remarkable" developments at this time was the creation of special schools and classes for exceptional children, segregating the "mentally deficient" from regular classes. At the NEA Convention in 1901, the Department of Deaf and Dumb, Blind, and Feeble-Minded renamed itself the Department of Special Education ( p. 70). 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 education and related services designed to meet their unique needs"(p.80). Two states, Florida and Pennsylvania added a classification of gifted into their state special education laws to assure that gifted children’s unique needs for academic challenge beyond that provided in the regular education program, be met.

Although not the first such warning, in 1983 Americans were admonished in A Nation at Risk that the increasing "mediocrity" in the American educational system was a threat to America’s national security (Newman & Wehlage, 1995). Total reorganization and restructuring were called for, and the movement toward educational reform was escalated. Paralleling this reform in the general education forum, significant changes were being sought in the approach to gifted education. While many advocated for strong resource support for the gifted based on the premise that "tomorrow’s world leaders and professionals are today’s gifted children" (Davis & Rimm, 1994), others maintained that truly gifted students do not need help; that they are self directed, and accomplish anything they want on their own if they apply themselves (Berger,1994). Yet others propose that it behooves the educational system to provide a gifted education for all children (Llewelyn, 1993) and not focus resources on special programs for the gifted. There is a long history of tensions between those who advocate for the gifted and most often homogeneous grouping, and those who seek equity and heterogeneous grouping. The issues involve not only educational efficiency and effectiveness, but also bring into question the values equity and fairness in society.

Discussion

As the superintendent considers the PASE demand that the high school gifted program remain exclusive, he also considers his belief that equality of opportunity in education is important and necessary. He believes that everyone must be given a chance to succeed; each must be given a chance to display his or her talent. Allowing the exclusive admission policy to continue would, in the superintendent’s mind, be providing more advantage to the already advantaged. The superintendent believes that he must change the admission criteria for the gifted courses, opening these courses to other students. The community and board, and particularly the PASE group, will expect that he present a thorough analysis of the issues involved.

The superintendent believes that he could preserve both effectiveness and efficiency in his plan to open the gifted courses, allocating resources more equally to provide both equity and excellence. Resources, both human and financial, would be utilized in a more efficient and equitable manner if the integrated courses were open to other students. Group wide efficiency would certainly be improved. No longer would the exclusive admission policy deny resources and educational opportunity to the "group" in order to provide marginal benefits to the gifted.

In advocating for equal educational opportunity, the superintendent recalls that equality involves treating equals equally and unequals unequally (Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 1998). The superintendent’s proposal is implicitly stating that the student groups are unequal. He would like to provide unequal resources to these unequal groups to increase the benefit (welfare) of the lesser advantage of these groups, those categorized as "non-gifted." At present, the superintendent sees that more resources are being applied to the gifted students on the theory that the gifted can make the best use of these resources for the overall good of society. On the contrary, the superintendent advocates that increased resources must be provided to the lesser advantaged "non-gifted" group, giving them the opportunity to "raise" their level of knowledge and critical thinking skills, and bring them up to the level of the already advantaged gifted students. In this way, more students are provided with the level of learning offered by the integrated courses, thus increasing the overall benefit to society in the long-term. According to Strike (p.56) as the principle of benefit maximization is discussed, it may be that we would end up teaching the already advantaged students what they would otherwise learn by themselves, reaching the point of diminishing returns. Whatever additional learning we provide them may be small in relation to the costs involved.

In an attempt to support his position, the superintendent refers to the principle of equity/ fair share. According to Strike, this principle requires that no one receive more of a scarce resource than any other, all things being equal. However, does this principle become mute when dealing with the gifted? Rozycki (1999) discusses this issue, stating that special education status, as is the case with the gifted, often interferes with treating the gifted in accordance with this fair share principle.

The superintendent uses Rozycki’s arguments, asserting that certain circumstances override the exemption of the gifted students from the fair share principle in this case. He feels that the gifted students have no need at the high school level in district X to exclusively "own" the integrated courses. He sees this "ownership" as exclusive and as resulting in the advantaged becoming more advantaged, while the less advantaged are kept from moving beyond their present level. In addition, the resources being dedicated to the assessment and identification of "giftedness" as a requirement for admission to the integrated courses could most certainly be better used for an overall increase in benefit. Finally, the superintendent feels that need to elevate other students to the level enjoyed by the gifted students is at least as great as the need of the gifted students to be at that level. He truly believes that no undue harm would come to the gifted students if they "shared" these courses with other students who are qualified.

Aligning himself with the views of the conflict theorists, the superintendent feels that the present system of exclusivity in the high school gifted courses maintains the elitism frequently associated with that program. The gifted students are given an "edge" and others are prevented from accessing opportunities that may change the power base and the status quo and the "domination," so to speak, of the few. More advantage is given to the already advantaged, placing and added burden on the less advantaged. According to Feinberg & Soltis (1998), the conflict theorists would ascribe this striving to maintain or acquire gifted status as an attempt to overcome one’s place in life, to reach what is perceived to be a "universal norm." These "universal norms," however, generally serve to maintain class systems, to maintain the position of the advantaged, and to keep others out of the best positions. Feinberg points out that these norms are generally set by the class that is most powerful at the time, and are frequently accepted as true (universal) by others who strive to reach these norms. In the view of the conflict theorist, the ultimate purpose is to assure that those in control, so to speak, maintain the control, thus maintaining the status quo. The conflict theorists also maintain that a false consciousness is developed, and that schools are the most influential institution in maintaining this false consciousness. The schools provide students with "compelling reasons for doing that which they otherwise might not be inclined to do…"(p.57). The superintendent at X school district would like to disarm this false consciousness related to the need to be, or to be called, "gifted" in order to be considered successful in his district.

In considering his plan and approach, the superintendent again refers to the principle of benefit maximization. According to Strike (1998), the principle of benefit maximization requires that the superintendent look to the maximization of some societal good. "If we fail to treat equals equally, and unequals unequally, we will end up using our resources and opportunities less effectively than we might and thus not maximize human welfare" (p.55). Using this principle, making educational decisions about students on the basis of relevant criteria as opposed to irrelevant criteria is the most efficient use of resources and gives the most effective chance at equal opportunity. In this way, equal treatment (for example, a more open admission to the integrated course) is justified since the opportunity of the students to participate in the course is based not on an irrelevant number, but on what he considers the relevant criteria of achievement and effort. The number of students exposed to the integrated course would be increased. This would, the superintendent feels, be more efficient than using resources to specifically "treat" the most able students.

The superintendent realizes that schools are expected to be both efficient and effective. Rozycki (1999), in a paper posted on the internet titled The ethics of educational triage: Is special education moral? notes that it is often necessary that teachers "triage," a concept frequently utilized in the medical realm. As applied to schools, "triage" refers to the practice of "teaching to the middle." The superintendent feels this dilemma. If he "opens" the "gifted" high school courses to other than identified gifted students, he may be accused of sacrificing excellence and effectiveness for efficiency. In fact, the PASE group accuses him of just that. They insist that increasing resources to support the "non-gifted" students’ participation in the integrated courses would result in "watering down" the courses rendering them less effective. Rozycki reminds us that without effectiveness, there can be no efficiency. The ultimate result, the PASE group asserts, would be to disadvantage the gifted students. Thus the PASE group emphasizes, the superintendent may be sacrificing excellence and effectiveness for efficiency, should he go ahead with his plan.

The PASE group goes on, emphatically disagreeing with the superintendent. In the opinion of the PASE group, the needs of the gifted students are significantly different than those of other students, and they require different strategies for success. They assert that before gifted education became mandatory, the type of teaching and the classroom environment rendered the gifted discriminated against. Their children often find regular classes unchallenging, stifling, and inappropriate to their needs. Allowing "non-gifted" students into the integrated courses and "teaching to the middle," PASE feels, will surely bring down the level of the courses rendering the gifted students disadvantaged. The group reminds the superintendent that the gifted students, through no fault of their own, have a greater need for more challenging academic programming than the "non-gifted." They proceed to assert that gifted students deserve specifically designed programs and resources that are exclusive and allow for the kind of challenge and instruction specifically needed for these students. Given these considerations, the PASE group contends that the Fair-Share Principle is rightly overridden for the gifted student.

In order to nurture the special academic talents of the gifted students, the PASE group feels that these students must be given frequent opportunity to intellectually interact with their intellectual peers without the roadblocks created by the lower conceptual and intellectual levels; by the lesser "ability" of the non-gifted students.

Davis & Rimm (1994) spur the PASE group on with a statement indicating that tomorrow’s world leaders and professionals are today’s gifted children. In addition, the group, aligned in opinion with a Functionalist view, proposed that the most academically able should be prepared by the school for their positions as leaders in society, and feel that a greater proportion of the district’s resources may have to be expended in order to accomplish this. That is, the district must allocate more resources to the students with the most potential to lead society. According to Feinberg (1998), the Functionalists believe that schools function to meet the essential needs of society and the work force.

According the Principle of Benefit Maximization (Strike, p.56), if we wish to allocate educational resources, we look for characteristics that permit people to make the most efficient use of these resources. The PASE group believes, as did the gifted parents in a case presented by Strike (p.51), that the gifted can make the most efficient use of these educational resources since the gifted are likely "society’s future leaders and scientists" (p. 56). They insist that the gifted have the ability for high level performance and leadership, and thus have an increased chance of greater contribution to society. They remind the superintendent that, in allowing non-gifted students into the integrated courses, the school would be remiss in its obligation to the non-gifted students and gifted students alike. The school, say the PASE parents, must assume its responsibility to prepare the non-gifted students to assume their roles in society, and these roles may likely require a different preparation than that of the gifted student who should be prepared for higher level positions.

Relevant Criteria

With these discussions in mind, the superintendent remembers that a critical concept has been thus far neglected in the discussion. That concept is the concept of relevance; the relevance of the criteria used for admission to the integrated courses. If we fail to treat equals equally and unequals unequally, than we will use our resources and opportunities less than effectively, and likely less than efficiently (Strike, p.55). And in this case, the superintendent must consider the measurement criteria used to determine these equal and unequal groups. He must consider whether it is relevant to use ability as measured by an IQ score in determining treatment. That is, who should receive the opportunities provided by the integrated courses?

At this point, a diversion from the debate is in order. The superintendent feels that it is important to review the history of the criteria (intelligence testing) presently being utilized for admission to the integrated courses.

Stevens & Wood(1995) note that the concept of intelligence is far from fixed. They go on to point out that some concepts of intelligence emphasize the genetic determinants, others focus on environmental contributions. The intelligence test, however, is primarily linked to a genetic conception of intelligence. Since the early twentieth century, the most common approach to the study of intelligence has been the psychometric approach, making a scale of numbers the central feature of student classification. When the degree of intelligence of a person is referred to today, it is most often a reference to the number on a scale. Problems related to these numbers, their reliability and their validity have persisted over the years. The debate over the fairness of the use of these IQ numbers has been heated and remains so.

The early investigations on IQ testing by Simon and Binet, were based in attempts to improve the classification and instruction of "mentally defective" children, the "feebleminded and ill-behaved" (Stevens, p.57). There was reported a startling correlation between quantitative level of intelligence and academic success. It took little time for these tests to be widely applied to classification and placement of students. Stevens points out that Lewis Terman in The Measurement of Intelligence (1916) hailed the use of these measures indicating that, " In the near future intelligence tests will bring tens of thousands of these high grade defectives under the surveillance and protection of society. This will ultimately result in curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency" (p.58). Stevens indicates that Terman did not stop there, but went on to insist that it was a deplorable waste to let children of high ability go unidentified and without treatment. Terman claimed that the wealth of the country and the progress of civilization depended upon genius. Stevens then goes on to quote Terman once again. The "handicapping influences of poverty, social neglect, physical defects, or educational maladjustments" have hidden many of the gifted from view. According to Stevens, Terman said, "It would be the desirable to make all promotions on the basis chiefly of intellectual ability" (p.58).

Over time, the use of the IQ as a relevant criteria for placement has been increasingly criticized. In Pennsylvania, the "gifted" are given special education classification. Although the definition of gifted continues to include a specific number based on the measured IQ (130), the state indicates that this number cannot be the only criteria used in the selection process. According to Stevens (1995), the number continues to hold primary status despite many protests over the years by those who outlined the historical abuses of IQ based classification. Based on assumptions of a meritocracy, and much akin to the functionalist view, the measured IQ aided in classifying those who would do society the most good in terms of economic and social benefits in the long run. Classification is considered necessary for filling all levels of society’s needs in the workplace beyond school. In essence, this view led to educational policies based on segregation and classification, and was frequently defended on the basis of equal opportunity and benefit maximization.

Again reflecting functionalist concepts, the PASE group may espouse the claim that the measured IQ is a means to determine which students have adequate ability to take on the rigors of higher level course work, and to be successful. They would, perhaps argue that equality in our schools depends on classification in relation to ability, since it enables the individual to avoid the failure that would result from an undertaking that is too difficult. In alignment with the functionalist view, this approach allows each individual to be educated according to his or her capabilities, and thus to eventually meet the needs of each individual student and the overall needs of the community.

Citing the intellectual impediments argument described in Feinberg (1998), the PASE group is guided in making the following points. They believe that it is possible to objectively measure the general intelligence through standardized "culture-fair" tests, and that these tests do predict the achievement potential of an individual child. The intellectual impediments model emphasizes that individuals differ with regard to their abstract conceptual ability, and that the principle of equality of opportunity only insists that such differences be addressed fairly and appraised accurately, and that people with similar ability be treated in similar ways. The PASE group thus argues that IQ tests are justified and the unequal distribution of resources based on IQ is also justified.

The superintendent may point out to the PASE group that there are many arguments in opposition to the concept that an IQ test could measure intelligence. IQ is too narrow a concept and is biased towards the white middle class culture, opponents say. Although there is correlation between school success and measured IQ, this success does not necessarily translate to success beyond school. He may also indicate, as would those who espouse the cultural impediments model (Feinberg, 1998) that many factors other than measured IQ may account for success in school, success in a broader world, and even perhaps, success in an integrated high school course. Motivational factors tied to family life and culture are seen to weigh heavily on ability and achievement than IQ score. Competence, the superintendent adds as he recalls the interpretivist position, is not a property of the individual, but it is a property of the situation. A student may be competent in a wide range of situations and activities except the one’s that a school may define as competent (Feinberg, p.96).

The superintendent recalls the Principle of Equal Respect (Strike, p.56). Since he believes that IQ is an irrelevant criteria for differences in treatment, he notes that using it to determine admission to the integrated courses would deny the other students equal respect and equal educational opportunity. "The use of resources that best expresses equal respect for persons need not be the one that maximizes some outcome" (p.57).

The superintendent is aided in his criterion argument by Rozycki (1994), who reminds us that using a test for placement should satisfy two conditions: the scores must vary beyond measurement error, and there must be a significant difference in the treatment they indicate. The superintendent posits that neither of these conditions are consistently satisfied in using the IQ to determine difference in treatment. He poses several questions to illustrate his point.

What actually is the IQ score that would indicate success or failure in these particular integrated courses? Presently, according to Pennsylvania regulations, a standard score of 130 defines a student as gifted. Does that mean that any decreased variance from this score renders a student incapable of performing successfully in the integrated courses? Do all students with an IQ score of 130 perform well in the courses? As the IQ score varies upwards of 130, is there a proportional increase in performance? Or could it be that a student with an IQ score of 118, given strong motivation and effort can perform more successfully than a student with a higher IQ? Does the IQ score and "gifted status" guarantee success in the course, or in life for that matter? Would students not deemed to be gifted always fail or do more poorly?

The superintendent ponders as to whether he should use the "exceptions" to assist him in his argument. The "exceptions" are students who, for one reason or another, were deemed by counselor or teacher to be worthy of admission to the integrated courses without being officially identified as gifted. The fact that these "exceptions" for the most part, did well in the integrated "gifted only" courses seems to demand that the relevancy and equity of the criteria for admission to the course be seriously questioned. These students and/or their parents may have found the "back door," so to speak. The "exceptions" may have unearthed the "rules of the game."

The superintendent concludes that perhaps the mere fact that there are "exceptions" to the IQ admission criteria and to the exclusivity of the "gifted courses" at the high school may indicate that the concepts of relevancy, equality and fairness are already informally in place. He thus believes that he is merely attempting to formalize an already informal practice and to base this practice on sound-decision making and judgement in relation to moral and ethical principles.

The PASE group vows to continue to fight for their children’s right to an appropriate education, including the exclusive courses that meet their children’s needs. Only in this way will the school provide equality, equity and fairness to these children.

Final Thoughts

Perkinson (1995) points out that the public school has become the battleground for social conflicts, "interminable and irresolvable social conflicts"(p.194). He asserts that "these conflicts are politically undecidable, because they stem from strongly held values that many are unwilling to compromise. So, any solution proposed to satisfy one group, inevitably harms, or threatens, the values of some other politically conscious group"(p.194). The solution may satisfy the minority group that complains about victimization, but the same solution often infuriates the members of the majority group who also say that they are being victimized.

Clabaugh& Rozycki (1997) emphasize that as America grows more diverse and as the quarrels multiply, it becomes increasingly important to evaluate the points of the controversy systematically and critically. Looking for points of reconciliation to avoid the type of impasse described above by Perkinson, may be the superintendent’s best action at this point. Perhaps the following question provides a possible alternative view that is worthy of consideration. Is it possible that offering the exact same course to the general population without disbanding the "gifted" classes might be one point of reconciliation? It, at least, may be a starting point.

Clabaugh,,G. K., & Rozycki, E.G. (1997). Analyzing Controversy: An Introductory Guide. Connecticut: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.

Berger, S. (1994). Planning for Gifted Students. Virginia: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Davis, G. & Rimm, S. (1994). Gifted education: Matching instruction with needs. In Education of the Gifted and Talented (pp.1 —24). 3^rd ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

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

Llewelyn, J. (1993). Providing a gifted education for every child. The College Board Review. 168, 13.

Newman, F. & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful School Restructuring.Wisconsin: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin.

Perkinson, H.J. (1995). The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Rozycki, E.G. (1994). Rationales for intervention: From test to treatment to policy. ../../../EGR/Rationales.html.

Rozycki, E.G. (1999). The ethics of educational triage: Is special education moral? http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/Triage.html.

Stevens Jr., E. & Wood, G.H. (1995). Justice, Ideology, and Education: An Introduction to the Social Foundations of Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Strike, K.A., Haller, E.J., Soltis, J.F. (1998). The Ethics of School Administration. New York: Teachers College Press.

TO TOP