Are we leaving behind students with gifts?

As we approach the 2007 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a great deal of attention will be centered on a part of the legislation known as No Child Left Behind. It's time we reflect on a program and a unique group of students who are often left out of the conversation and the debates surrounding NCLB--the "gifted" students.

As a nation, we have never truly accepted the concept and importance of gifted education. We haven't passed a law for gifted education like the one we passed for the special-needs students at the other end of the continuum, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. IDEA changed the world for special-needs students, yet gifted students haven't been validated with a legal kiss of acceptance. Yes, state departments of education have provided lip service and mandates for gifted education, but they have followed up with double talk and minimum funding for programs.

Have we left gifted education behind? Actually, we never picked it up. You can't leave what you never had. So why haven't we valued the merits and potential of gifted education?

The concept of gifted education is compromised too often by how we select the students for the program. Do we select them based on their cognitive ability or their environmental and experiential advantages? Selection of students for gifted programs in kindergarten, 1st or 2nd grades is strongly influenced by the parents' educational background, income level and cultural experiences.

Is identification of students as gifted based on their cognitive ability or their quality of life experiences? The most common form of identification in most school districts is centered on language usage and/or verbal and math skills. However, Harvard's Howard Gardner has clearly identified multiple kinds of intelligence and skills. So it follows there are multiple kinds of giftedness.

Giftedness is based on some level of intelligence, and we define intelligence by the norms or rules of a culture. Without the validation of a culture, intelligence is an unidentified capacity. A culture is a holistic experience with multiple factors, such as thought, speech, action, artifacts and traditions. If a culture defines intelligence, then those with the greatest exposure to the dominant culture have an advantage in the intelligence accepted by that culture. The more experiences accumulated in such a culture the better prepared one is to demonstrate "giftedness" in that culture.

Therefore we must seek multiple means of identifying gifted children in and out of the dominant culture. We must resist the urge to identify gifted students based on a standard culturally based literacy, math or general knowledge assessment. Leaders might be more excited about gifted education if the selection process were grounded in better selection criteria differentiation.

The selection of gifted students is child's play compared to finding effective ways to teach, coach or guide them. It is much easier to leave them behind than it is to truly enrich, encourage, enlighten and liberate them--yes, liberate or free them to truly grow their gift.

The concept of giftedness is one of potential, possibility and hope. Our gifted programs must see and value students as opportunities for greatness, but we must remember that they are children who are gifted, not just gifted children. They can be brilliant yet fragile; they can be thought-provoking and misunderstood.

Why leave gifted children behind? It's so easy to teach and impart knowledge to the standard, but the exceptions force us out of our comfort zones. A challenging, innovative and inspiring gifted education program breaks the routine patterns. It forces teachers and students to become learners, explorers and collaborators. We can't allow our gifted students to be left behind because our nation can't afford the loss. But first we have to identify them.