Editorial, Opinion

EDITORIAL: Advanced, gifted programs in public school systems are inequitable, require updating

Boston Public Schools have suspended testing into their Advance Work Classes program for this year. This means next year, new fifth and sixth graders will not be entering the program.

“There’s a lot of work we have to do in the district to be antiracist and have policies where all of our students have a fair shot at an equitable and excellent education,” Superintendent Brenda Cassellius told GBH News in reference to the hiatus.

It wasn’t until the article had already been published that Cassellius clarified the test and program enrollment were suspended solely because of the pandemic, not as a result of their commitment to combating inequity.

If BPS is only temporarily pausing the program due to COVID-19 and doesn’t actively work toward addressing the deep-rooted inequities, it’s unlikely there will be any real positive impact from the decision.

BPS is already an intensely segregated system. An advanced placement program that separates students who test well and students who don’t — starting as young as eight years old — only furthers the performance gap.

More than 70 percent of students in the program were found to be white and Asian, despite a huge majority of the BPS student population being Black and Hispanic.

Angela Ao/DFP STAFF

The program separates “advanced” children from “regular” children. But in reality, the distinction is due to a variety of external factors — after all, a standardized test isn’t an accurate measurement of intelligence. 

It’s a test of who has access to resources and time more than anything else. The advantages and disadvantages at play here can be traced back to the very same educational structures that children’s parents and grandparents were filtered through. Privilege and knowledge compound on top of themselves.

Students who don’t have to worry about basic necessities — such as housing, food and clean water — will be able to prioritize their studies. Students whose families are willing to spend time helping them with homework will have a support system and extra attention. Students whose families are able to afford tutors and outside help will have supplemental education and knowledge.

Furthermore, the test is just the first step. Students who qualify are entered into a lottery, randomly selected and sent invitations and then have to apply before being accepted. That’s a lot of work for third graders who might not fully grasp the extent of the program’s impact.

Students who don’t test well or who don’t have the same quality resources and support system to do well may be discouraged from trying, especially when their chances are reduced to luck even if they make it past the test score.

It can’t be emphasized enough that this is happening during formative years. Gifted kid programs that exist across the country can start as young as four years old.

If that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is. Some programs last throughout middle school and into high school without any further reevaluation, relying on one standardized test result from years ago to determine the future of a student’s education.

These programs have also been shown to harm students assigned to the lower levels. On both levels, the standardized test and existence of the program introduces stress and pressure to students at an early age. It can also cause susceptibility to lower self-esteem or unhealthy mindsets and cycles of behavior later on in life.

That isn’t to say we should hold students back if they naturally learn faster, but it also shouldn’t be done in such a segregated way that inevitably fosters animosity, elitism and anxiety.

If the gifted program is maintained, admittance should be more holistic. Students should be recommended by teachers who have worked with them personally instead of qualifying based on one test score. The gifted program and the regular educational track should also be equally funded.

In general, we must prioritize the funding of our public schools and raising teachers’ salaries. The quality of teachers — ones who are happy with their job and able to support themselves — is vital to accommodate different learning styles and paces, and we need a diversity of those educators to offer students acceptance and support.

But given the fact that accelerated programs are inefficient and often unsuccessful, it might be time to put them to bed for good. Funds that previously sustained the program could even be re-allocated to the special education division, which merits an increase in financial support.

Rather than attaching a label to young children, we could invest in a schoolwide enrichment model that is available to all students, allowing for more equitable and healthy academic growth.





More Articles

2 Comments

  1. The existence of the advanced and gifted programs does not harm anyone who isn’t in them. However the existence of these programs definitely annoys people who can’t accept disparities in socio economic outcomes, even when they’re driven by things unrelated to race.

  2. Gifted and talented programs in schools provide accelerated learning for students who are not being intellectually challenged by the standard curriculum (and yes, who outpace their peers). As one of those former students, I would argue they provide opportunities for children from backgrounds of socioeconomic disadvantage rather than compound inequality. I was raised by a single father (after my mother passed away) who worked in construction. Private schools, dance lessons, soccer clubs were beyond our budget, as were test prep courses. The gifted program provided resources to explore creative pursuits to which I otherwise did not have access. “Testing” into it also removed the punishment of academically outpacing my peers, which is not hyperbolic- I had quite literally been punished in “regular” school for reading “too fast” for my peers to follow. Cancelling these programs because they are not inclusive to EVERY child punishes the many children who benefit from them.