An Analysis of School Enrichment Programs

Every child has the right to a good education; to deny them this is an infringement of justice. Most people would agree with this statement, but what they wouldn’t agree on is what it means for an education to be “good.” Should there be one universal curriculum? Or should it vary among schools? What about within schools? This debate gained relevance in the 20th century, when schools began implementing Gifted and Talented programs. It’s argued that these programs give gifted children a good education, since a standard curriculum might not be suitable for them. On the flip side, there could be negative consequences of treating gifted students differently; especially since students deemed “gifted” are overwhelmingly white and asian. This leads people to claim that gifted programs exacerbate racism by giving certain students a superior education to their black and brown peers. So are these programs a form of racist discrimination, or are they a fundamental right? In this essay, I will address the issues with eradicating Gifted and Talented programs on the basis of justice, according  to Michael J. Sandel’s definition in his book Justice. I will then propose a course of action, supported by Sandel’s book, to reduce the racial inequality at the core of this debate.

Gifted and Talented programs have helped children all over the country get the education they need, but in recent years, these programs have come under attack. In 2020, The Seattle Times reporter Hannah Furfaro noted, “About 1.7% of students in a gifted program called the ‘highly capable cohort’ — which tests students for admission when they’re young and largely teaches them separately from their peers — are Black. But Black students make up roughly 14.2% of the district’s enrollment.” (Furfaro 2020). In the following year, New York City’s former mayor Bill de Blasio revealed plans to completely eliminate advanced education in public schools. His intentions were to prevent certain kids from receiving a superior education to others, stating, “Every New York City child deserves to reach their full potential,” (de Blasio 2021). What these people fail to consider is that gifted programs, while undoubtedly flawed, have numerous benefits on children from all different backgrounds.

By removing Gifted and Talented programs from public schools, we are taking opportunities away from underprivileged children, creating an unfair system as well as doing a disservice to the world. In an article for the Gifted Development Center, P.H.D Linda Kreger Silverman argues, “Parents of gifted and talented youngsters who can afford private schools, private lessons, a wealth of books and other enrichments at home can make up for at least some of what their youngsters are not getting in the classroom.  It is the great potential of children from homes with fewer resources that is most likely to be lost forever.” (Silverman 2023). Children from wealthy families can get an advanced education from elsewhere, but poorer students rely on public schools. In Justice, Michael Sandel writes that “A fair meritocracy […] removes obstacles to achievement by providing equal educational opportunities, so that those from poor families can compete on an equal basis with those from more privileged backgrounds.” (Sandel 2009). In a just world, academic resources would be as accessible to low income students as they would to the rich. Removing advanced education from public schools takes us farther from that world, stripping poor children of the opportunities that their wealthier peers may have. This creates a system where different classes have different resources, making it impossible for them to fairly compete. What should also be considered is that without these resources, many disadvantaged gifted kids wouldn't be able to reach their full potential. In her aforementioned article, Dr. Silverman states, “There are countless cases of vanishing giftedness. We can never know how much talent has been lost for lack of discovery and development. Nor can we assess the magnitude of that loss to the world—the music that was never composed, the medical cure that was never discovered, the political strategy that might have averted a war.” (Silverman 2023). Without gifted education, a large number of incredible minds would go unnoticed, never helping the world in the ways that they otherwise could have. While explaining the concept of maximizing welfare, Sandel writes, “In deciding what laws or policies to enact, a government should do whatever will maximize the happiness of the community as a whole.” (Sandel 2009). By failing to nurture future change makers, we would be depriving the world of all sorts of discoveries and advancements. This would reduce the happiness of everyone, preventing the maximization of welfare. The termination of Gifted and Talented programs would create a classist, unfair world and would prevent positive change from occurring.

Gifted programs are proven to benefit precocious kids, and to deprive them of these benefits would be to reduce their overall happiness. Professors Ghina Kalaji and Nadera Alborno confirm that “Enrichment programs positively affect both GT students’ academic achievement and socio-emotional development.” (Kalaji & Alborno 2023). In Justice, Sandel discusses the beliefs of philosopher Jeremy Bentham, stating, “According to Bentham, the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility. By “utility,” he means whatever produces pleasure or happiness,” (Sandel 2009). Philosophers like Bentham believe that morality is based on what will make people happy. Advanced education brings happiness to gifted students, which, based on Bentham’s logic, make them morally acceptable. He believed that happiness was the key to justice, and gifted programs provide that happiness.

The eradication of gifted programs would worsen public school environments, harming the rest of the students. Research has shown that students perform better when they’re surrounded by intelligent classmates (Riley 2023). If it weren’t for gifted programs, many of these intelligent classmates would transfer out of public schools. Forbes contributor Frederick Hess writes, "When schools abandon gifted learners, affluent families [...] move their kids to private schools," (Hess 21). Numerous bright students would transfer to private schools, depriving public schools of an intellectual environment. This would lead to a lower performance from public school students, which would have a negative impact on their futures. In Justice, Sandel summarizes the utilitarian belief that “In deciding what laws or policies to enact, a government should do whatever will maximize the happiness of the community as a whole.” (Sandel 2009). Giving advanced students an inclination to stay in the public school system will create a more academic environment, benefiting the whole community. According to Justice, this makes gifted education a moral institution, since it increases the wellbeing of a larger group of people.

If we want to create a fair system that benefits children, eradicating gifted education is not the way to go. But there’s still the issue of racial imbalance within these programs. The number of black and hispanic children deemed ‘gifted’ is disproportionately low. If eliminating gifted programs isn’t the solution to this problem, then what is? After much research on this topic, I’ve concluded that our best option is providing comprehensive tutoring in public schools. Children of color face high rates of poverty, which is likely why they don’t perform as well in school. A reliable tutoring system will give these children the opportunity to improve their performances. Adriana Overton, a senior contributor to the Chicago Policy Review writes, “Evidence shows that structured, high-impact, in-school tutoring programs can dramatically improve student outcomes. A recent meta-analysis on high-impact tutoring concluded that it can lead to higher test scores, close learning gaps, increase graduation rates, and reduce absenteeism.” (Overton 2024). This strategy would reduce the racial performance gap, specifically giving gifted children the resources they need to distinguish themselves. By doing so, it would equal out the playing field between different groups of students. According to Justice, this takes us a step towards a fair meritocracy, since it gives everyone a fair shot at being ‘gifted’. Comprehensive tutoring would also increase justice without reducing the happiness of students, making it a much better alternative to terminating gifted programs altogether.

Is this plan possible to execute? As it turns out, it is. Overton affirms, “Though it will be expensive to implement impactful tutoring programs, districts do have some options to support these initiatives. Last April, the Department of Education announced additional funding through the American Rescue Plan and philanthropic sources to help districts build out research-based programs. High-impact tutoring would be a good use of these funds as it is evidence-based and proven effective.” (Overton 2024). Public school systems often have large amounts of money that students will never see. This money often goes to administrators who already have more than enough money. If we were to instead use the money to implement effective tutoring programs, students would be greatly benefited, while relatively little harm would be caused to the administration. This would increase overall happiness, which, according to Sandel’s book, would also increase justice.

Gifted programs are often attacked for their lack of diversity, with many people suggesting that we ban them altogether. But according to Sandel’s book Justice, this would only make the education system more unfair; it would exacerbate the inequality of classes by taking opportunities from low-income students, as well as depriving the world of their potential success; it would eliminate the positive effects these programs have on gifted students’ wellbeing; and it would drive away many intelligent students, worsening the environment of the schools. This completely counters the ideas of creating a fair meritocracy and maximizing welfare, two key components to Sandel’s definition of Justice. Instead of attacking gifted education, we should lift everyone up by implementing impactful tutoring in public schools. This would give gifted children from all backgrounds the resources they need to develop their skills and distinguish themselves from their peers, creating a diverse set of young minds within gifted programs. When it comes to justice, it’s better to lift people up than to bring them down.

Works Cited

Furfaro, Hannah. “Black-white divide in Seattle schools' gifted programs, discipline rates among worst in nation.” The Seattle Times, 17 February 2020, https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/black-white-divide-in-seattle-schools-gifted-programs-discipline-rates-among-worst-in-nation/. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Hess, Frederick. “Gifted Education Is Under Attack.” Forbes, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2021/12/06/gifted-education-is-under-attack/?sh=5ef89df950ee. Accessed 21 March 2024.

“The Influence of Gifted and Talented Programs on Students’ Self-concept.” Athens Journal of Education, 2023, http://www.athensjournals.gr/education/2023-10-3-8-Kalaji.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Overton, Adriana, and Dagmawit Mengestu. “American Students Are Behind: High-Dose Tutoring Can Help | Chicago Policy Review.” Chicago Policy Review |, 20 February 2024, https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2024/02/20/american-students-are-behind-high-dose-tutoring-can-help/. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Riley, Naomi Schaefer, and Syed Ali. “'The Peer Effect' Review: Trying to Find a Key to Success.” The Wall Street Journal, 6 December 2023, https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/the-peer-effect-review-trying-to-find-a-key-to-success-e4d991f0. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Sandel, Michael J. What's the Right Thing to Do? New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.

Sgueglia, Kristina. “NYC to eliminate gifted and talented school program that opponents say segregated students.” CNN, 8 October 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/new-york-gifted-and-talented-education-program/index.html. Accessed 21 March 2024.

Visani, Gabriella. “Eliminating Gifted Programs Increases Inequality — Gifted Development Center.” Gifted Development Center, 21 November 2023, https://gifteddevelopment.org/musings/increasedinequality. Accessed 21 March 2024.