Questions about the value of gifted education have seen a lot of recent attention in the news recently. This recent contribution to the conversation stands out for me because of the gaps in logic:
Four gifted writers share doubts about gifted education - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/four-gifted-writers-share-doubts-about-gifted-education/2014/06/14/ec8f2228-f31a-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html
A few thoughts in response:
Gifted doesn't just mean good at what they do or creative. The
proliferation of definitions makes this difficult to discern, I
2. Not only is your sample one of convenience,
you've asked people who were never formally identified as gifted what
they think of the formal program that they didn't participate in (save
3. Gifted education advocates that I know would not
disagree with the assertion that gifted children would benefit from the
opportunity to explore their interests rather than a highly-structured
A better piece might first take a critical look at
the definition of giftedness. There are certainly lots of opportunities
to poke holes in gifted education just because of the proliferation of
definitions and the curricula developed (and sold) to support them.
a better piece might ask gifted persons who were part of a GT
curriculum what worked and what didn't. It might ask those that weren't
identified for their perspective from the outside looking in.
a better piece might take a closer look at what is actually advocated
by scholars in gifted education, rather than punching a straw man
Maybe someday I'll have the time and opportunity to write that better piece. For now, this critical response will have to do.