Gifted programs in the U.S. are designed to provide enrichment for students with exceptional talent and aptitude. The aim of these programs is to help the students reach their potential and keep them engaged in school. But a new study from Professor Jason Grissom of Vanderbilt, “Money Over Merit,” discussed in the on the CPRE Knowledge Hub, should give educators, leaders, and policymakers some pause. It’s no surprise students from affluent families have many educational advantages, from prenatal care through early literacy. And there is no malice in schools attempting to meet the needs of all students, including those with exceptional talent. The problem, as this study shows, is that these extra resources from schools are not necessarily awarded based on talent.
The researchers looked at data that followed students from kindergarten through elementary school, including variables such as socioeconomic status and math and reading tests for students throughout the U. S. The bottom line: The likelihood that a student will receive gifted services from their school is largely a function of their socioeconomic status, not just talent. Students from the top 20 percent of socioeconomic status were six times more likely to receive gifted services as students from the bottom 20 percent. The causes for this stark difference are not only a function of family wealth, but also that these affluent students are more likely to be enrolled in schools with strong financial support that offer gifted programs in the first place.
Here is the most troubling finding. Even for students with nearly identical test scores in reading and math, the wealthy students are twice as likely to receive gifted services as their equally talented but poorer peers. I recall hearing a presentation from a gifted education advocate about more than 20 services that gifted students needed. There was not a single item on that list that would not benefit all students. Yet decades later, we are stuck in a routine: Poor kids get remediation, and rich kids get enrichment.
This is not an argument against programs for enrichment, but it is a clarion call for schools to more carefully consider how those resources are allocated and how students are identified as gifted. In recent classroom observations, I have seen students who are exceptionally articulate, display rich use of language, and are clearly leaders among their peers, but are nevertheless struggling readers. They would not survive most screens for gifted education, but might benefit enormously from them, along with the reading support they need. Conversely, simply having a jump start on reading because of an educationally rich home environment should not automatically lead to a label of exceptional talent, but rather may simply be the result of the advantages of family wealth.
One practical thing that leaders and teachers can do is to reflect on the four questions of Professional Learning Communities that focus on learning, assessment, intervention, and enrichment. In many schools, particularly those serving students from low-income families, there is much more attention devoted to learning, assessment, and intervention than to enrichment. Our failure to address the need for enrichment for all students – not just those labeled as gifted – risks a lost opportunity for engagement, challenge, and the joy of learning to which all students are entitled.
Subscribe to receive our blog updates