Gifted Education Programs - Literature review Example

Gifted Education Programs (Add (Add (Add Gifted Education Programs United s has long advocated for gifted education programs for talented children. Various events made and strengthened the demand to identify and foster gifted students. Some such events are the World Wars and the Space Race. As World Wars broke out, the nation realized the importance to have skilled people in the right positions. The demand to have the right people in the right place became paramount for the security of the nation. The second important event was the Space Race of 1950s. As USSR had its lunar missions, the nation was in utmost need to overtake its all-time rival in the race. Thus, it was believed that brains should be identified and promoted early. However, the impact of such a move has never been clear. Though studies have been conduced sporadically, none has been conclusive enough to say whether it is wise to continue with gifted education programs or not. The first point that is put forward by people like Southern, Jones, and Fiscus (1989) is the socio-emotional consequences of such a separation from their mediocre counterparts. It is argued that when such students are separated, they are subjected to practices like grade skipping, gifted classes, and gifted schools as a way of acceleration. According to the writers, there are both isolation and development of self-misconception. The most important social and personality issue that can arise out of such programs is elitism as against the common American concept of egalitarianism. The students who just manage to enter the gifted category get access to special privileges and high esteem. This situation gives birth to the development of elitism in this group of elite students as they start believing that they are special category of people who deserve special attention. Admittedly, all these pains are worth taking if there is a significant improvement in the academic and social performance of the selected talents. A survey that was conducted recently (cited in Garfunkel & Mumford, 2011), revealed that American students stand 25th in mathematical ability out of the total 34 countries that are compared. Here, the serious question arises: is it worth spending this much of money, time, and effort on something that apparently fails to make any considerable improvement in the students of both the gifted and the ‘cattle classes’? There is a large number of studies that show that the effects of gifted education on the cognitive performance, social performance, and socio-emotional characteristics are either marginal or negative. The literature review done by Hoogeveen looks into the various studies that deal with social and emotional consequences of gifted education programs. Hoogeveen’s (2008) study adopted a method in which the effect of various gifted education programs is measured in a scale in which 0.80 indicates large effect, 0.50 indicates medium effect, and 0.20 indicates insignificant effect. From the 23 studies reviewed by Hoogeveen, it was found that the impact of class enrichment programs on the cognitive performance of students ranges from 0.95 to -0.30. Similarly, the impact of teacher training on the cognitive performance of the students is between 0.04 and -0.09. Thus, it becomes evident that according to the 23 studies identified, the impact of various gifted students education programs is either very meager or very negative. In other words, such gifted education programs do not considerably improve the cognitive performance of students. However, as one moves ahead to see the social performance impact of such gifted education programs, one gets even a more pathetic picture. According to the study (University of Debrecen, 2008), the impact of acceleration on the social performance of the gifted students ranges from 0.15 to -0.06. Similarly, the impact of pull-out programs ranges from 0.14 to 0.34. Thus, studies prove that gifted education programs do not considerably improve the social performance of the so-called gifted students (University of Debrecen, 2008). However, the area that faces the worst effect is the area of social and emotional characteristics ranging from academic self-concept, emotional stability, motivation, non-academic self concept, general self concept, and learning strategies. It is surprising to see that according to all the 23 studies reported, the impact of all gifted education programs ranging from acceleration, within class enrichment, gifted class, gifted school, and pull out programs, is negative. In other words, the study undoubtedly proves that the gifted programs have a seriously negative impact on the academic and non-academic self-concept of students. In addition, if there is any positive effect on their intellectual capacity, it is small or minimal. Another similar study comes from Bui, Craig, and Imberman (2011). Their study took into consideration the educational performance of 5500 students who were divided into two groups: gifted students who got gifted education programs, and the non-gifted students who got normal education. Their scores over two years, that is, in 6th and 7th grades were taken into consideration to verify if the gifted students showed any improvement in their performance due to their access to better education and facilities. In the view of Bui, Craig and Imberman (2011), when the educational performances in math, reading, and language were considered, it was found that the gifted students did not exhibit any significant improvement in their reading and language performance that could justify their access to better education and privileges. However, more striking is the revelation that the math performance of the gifted students, in fact, fell though they got access to the gifted programs. Thus, the studies make one point rather obvious: gifted programs do not improve the academic performance of the gifted students. In addition, such programs have a negative impact on their academic and non-academic self-concepts. However, the study by Traxler and Ann (1987) proves that most of the gifted programs in the period 1982-83 were not scientifically evaluated for their result. Though many programs claimed positive effects, the evaluators were untrained people and the measures usually involved mere observation and creative products. Thus, again, it becomes evident that everything from the concept of gifted students to gifted education programs is on shaky grounds. Even after years and years of spending and researches, the programs could not exhibit any significant improvement in either academic or social performance of students. Instead, the only obvious effects are the adverse impact on the academic and non-academic self-perceptions. Admittedly, America spends a lot on gifted education. For example, the federal grant, The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program, Title I grants to projects, The Young Scholars Program from The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, The Davidson Foundation, and the National Association for Gifted Children, to mention but a few. According to reports, the Congress spent nearly $ 7.5 million in the year 2010 through Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. However, the results prove that the money spent on these programs is not well spent, because the programs failed to exhibit any significant improvement in the educational performance of those students. In addition, such programs only result in a defective development of self perception in those students. In total, it becomes evident that the program goes wrong either because the concept of gifted personalities is wrong or because the methods adopted to foster them are wrong. It seems that creativity comes out of the unusual and hence, it is not possible to identify and shake it out of someone. Thus, considering the great financial burden it causes for no apparent benefit, it is wise to give up such programs, and instead, try to improve the standard of curriculum as a whole. Thus, by avoiding special attention, it is possible to avoid the development of an elite class that believes itself superior for no apparent reason. This will reduce unnecessary burden on the exchequer too. References Bui, S. A., Craig, S. G & Imberman, S. A. (2011). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on achievement and behavior. The National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17089 Garfunkel, S & Mumford, D. (24 August, 2011). How to fix our match education. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html Hoogeveen, L. (2008). Social-emotional consequences of accelerating gifted students. 1-223. Retrieved from http://dare.ubn.kun.nl/bitstream/2066/73315/1/73315_sociemcoo.pdf Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 29-35. Traxler, Ann, M. (1987). Gifted education program evaluation: A national review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(2), 107-113. University of Debrecen. (2008). Psychological aspects of gifted education. Department of Educational Psychology, 29-32. Retrieved from http://www.kockakor.hu/dokumentumok/Kiadvanyok/KONYV_Psychological_Aspects_of_Gifted_Education.pdf Read More