By Thomas Ultican 7/22/2026
In California, we call them GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) students, other states have their own designations. Whatever label gifted and talented students are given, these programs are fraught with controversy. The smell of elitism bothers many people and how students in the programs are identified sparks equity concerns. There is also unease about the mental health of GATE students.
Matthew Yglesias, a cofounder of Vox whose articles have appeared in Atlantic, Slate, Think Progress, American Prospect and other publications, recently wrote about Gifted and Talented education in New York. His article was published by ‘The 74’ this July.
It was mostly a response to Katie Arnold-Ratliff cover story for New York Magazine criticizing New York City’s gifted and talented program in public schools. She broached skepticism of giftedness based on a 2019 study by Brian Bernstein, Camilla Benbow and David Lubinski on the life outcomes of intellectually precocious youth. One of their findings said that 12.3% of youths identified as gifted became eminent later in life. Eminent was defined as being a Fortune 500 CEO, leader in medicine, prestigious judge, scientist or lawyer. Arnold-Ratliff found this low percentage reason to doubt the value of GATE education.
Yglesias disagreed. He attributed this to a “dysfunctional tendency in some edu-left circles to stigmatize all efforts at measurement.” He believes Arnold-Ratliff’s critique of gifted and talented is wrong and is another part of the push to eliminate tracking in K-12 schools; which he believes to be a good idea.
Gifted Education History
October 6, 1971, Commissioner of Education, S. P. Maryland, sent a copy of a congressionally mandated report on the status of gifted and talented education in the country to Vice President Spiro Agnew and House Speaker Carl Albert. The report included:
“Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society. Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas, singly or in combination:
-
- general intellectual ability
- specific academic aptitude
- creative or productive thinking
- leadership ability
- visual and performing arts
- psychomotor ability” (Page 8)
In it, there is an estimate that 3% to 5% of students fit this definition. The report also claims, “Gifted and talented children are, in-fact, deprived and can suffer psychological damage and permanent impairment of their abilities to function well which is equal to or greater than the similar deprivation suffered by any other population with special needs served by the Office of Education.” (Pages 10-11)
The study was planned, coordinated, and directed by Jane Case Williams, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Development (Page 19). Jane began her government career at Head Start in the Office of Economic Opportunity. She transferred to the U.S. Office of Education (now the Department of Education) to plan and direct the mandated study of gifted education. The paper is known as the Maryland Report.
Another major effort for gifted education was the 1988 passage of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Children and Youth Education Act. It was named after Republican Senator Jacob Javits who was America’s first Jewish senator. Javits died in 1986 but his long-time commitment to gifted education caused his former colleagues to name the act for him.
The Javits program is unique in its emphasis. Through a coordinated mixture of scientifically based research and demonstration projects, the Javits program researches how to identify and foster underrepresented gifted students, and how to implement this research in elementary and secondary schools. Generally, the Javits program embraces in-depth research, demonstration projects, and school training to better serve the educational needs of gifted students.
Criticism Mounts
Typical of gifted education criticism is an article in Psychology Today, “The Embarrassing Secret About Gifted Programs,” by Doctor Jenny Grant Rankin. She calls for changes noting:
“Students are significantly less likely to receive gifted services if they are African American or Hispanic than if they are white, particularly when they have white teachers. For example, black students are half as likely as white students to be labeled gifted, even when their test scores are comparable (Grissom and Redding, 2016).”
In 2024, Natalie Calero wrote “Dissecting the Gate Program: A deep dive into the good, bad, and ugly.” The paper was her Liberal Studies Capstone at Chico State University for Dr. Maris Thompson. Chico State is sometimes derisively called “drunken state” but it is actually a very successful school in the California state system. Interestingly two of Ronald Reagan’s key staff members graduated from there; Mike Deavers and Ed Rollins.
Calero noted, “My findings suggest that the Gate Program unintentionally promotes social segregation and burnout amongst exceptional students.” She cites research showing students feeling isolated and lonely once put in the program and being mocked by peers. Students felt because of the label teachers expected them not to need help. (Pages 2 and 8)
In one school she studied, students were pulled out of class for English and Math but were in their classes for everything else. In this case student felt the program was fun and gave them more say in their education. They were no longer bored in class and did not feel isolated. It was the conviction of students that this was a superior system and that they would not want a full-time program. (Pages 11-12)
Calero concludes:
“There is a hope to continue these programs but make them more equitable. I do not believe this is a viable option as having these programs continues to promote segregation within the education system. This leads to my second limitation which is my personal bias, that these programs are not salvageable.” (Page 15)
Conclusions
My personal experience in the classroom leads me to side with Katie Arnold-Ratliff’s opinion. I met many precocious students but only one student in 15-years that I felt was truly gifted. From discussions with other teachers, I heard about two more students at our high school that were likely gifted. In other words, I believe that less that 0.1% of students are truly gifted. The rest of that 3% cited in the Maryland report were probably excellent students but not gifted.
Matthew Yglesias has confidence in testing to identify gifted students. While clearly good students can be identified by standardized testing, the problem is that equally gifted students are missed by these tests.
I think a better approach to dealing with gifted students is differentiation. Good students should be given challenges to work on while in the same class that has students who may be struggling to read. It can be done and money for gifted education should go toward training all teachers how to differentiate instruction and to developing strategies and lessons for this purpose.
I can certainly relate to Natalie Calero’s conclusion that gifted and talented programs “are not salvageable.” However, I do disagree. I feel our approach needs to change and the practice of isolating students needs to be abandoned. Remember gifted students are still children and they still need socialization.
Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not figured out how best to deal with our brightest students. This discussion need to be expanded.
Recent Comments