Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Assessing the Arguments against Gifted Education: Rejoinder to Robin Small

1999; SAGE Publishing; Volume: 43; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1177/000494419904300109

2050-5884

Miraca U. M. Gross,

Education Systems and Policy

Robin Small and I appear to agree much more than we disagree. We both affirm that and children -- like all children -- have the right to develop their abilities to the fullest. Neither of us pretends that all children have gifts or talents (I like Small's description of this as `a pious fiction, not a helpful insight') or that differences in innate abilities do not exist or influence children's capacities to learn. We are both aware of the power of the word `elitism' in hindering the use, in Australia, of educational interventions which other nations have used successfully for many years to assist in fostering the potential of children. However, not all educators find themselves in agreement with our philosophies. The pious fiction is usually expressed as a confident assertion, and programs for the are often emotively portrayed as actively disadvantaging other students. I will give just three examples of the very many such claims over the last ten years. A senior executive from the Tasmanian Education Department argues against special assistance for students on the grounds that `helping the overlooks and devalues the excellence that is inherent in everyone' (Boag, 1990, p. 149). Carey (1994) of the Australian Education Network describes the provision of special programs for intellectually students as `educational apartheid' and `the segregation of the gifted and talented from the great unwashed' (p. 18). In a recent interview in the Brisbane Courier Mail, the President of the Queensland Teachers Union is reported as describing the Minister for Education's proposal even to consider the introduction of selective high schools as elitist, socially unjust and, echoing Carey, educational apartheid (Lloyd, 1999). (It is disturbing to note both the emotive language in which these claims are expressed, with its overtones of racial discrimination, and the claimants' failure to buttress their assertions with any supportive evidence.) Small is correct in noting that my arguments are addressed to several audiences, which vary in both interests and attitudes -- politicians, teachers, bureaucrats, unionists, school administrators and many others. As can be seen from the previous paragraph, opposition to education is found in many and disparate groups. The commonality of these `audiences' lies in their responsibility for the education and welfare of Australia's children, including her and children -- a group for whom that responsibility is more often abrogated than upheld. My sporting analogy Perhaps I have not clarified this point sufficiently, perhaps Small has misunderstood; but in employing a sporting analogy to contrast Australia's enthusiasm for developing sporting and athletic talent with our reluctance to develop intellectual talent, I am not promoting sporting philosophies as `good' models for education. Rather I am suggesting that the arguments often put forward against the development of programs for the academically are weakened by the fact that the very provisions often condemned as dangerous/impractical/costly/inequitable for the development of intellectual talent are viewed as desirable and freely accepted for the development of other talents (particularly, but not only, talent in sports and athletics). The analogy holds unless it can be shown either (a) that the principles of effective development of intellectual talent are in some way radically different from those of other kinds of talent, or (b) that accepted practices/philosophies in sporting or other fields are either bad or counter-productive and therefore should not be adopted in education. Small's criticism of my reference to the Olympic Games as `prestigious' is a rather obvious red herring. Despite his or anyone else's reservations (including my own) concerning such issues as bribery, drug abuse and corruption, it is patently still true that such international events are very prestigious indeed (even for undesirable reasons), else why would cities and countries try so hard, commit so much money and even stoop to unethical means to be able to host them? …