Gifted Education in Context: Grading K-12 Public Schools.

A series of questions on the IEA-P sought to determine where gifted education stands relative to other issues in education. The first questions in this section of the poll asked IEA-P respondents to grade public schools on a scale from A to F on their effectiveness meeting the needs of (1) all students, low-income students, (3) students with learning disabilities, and (4) gifted students.

Grades for public education’s effectiveness in addressing the needs of all students, low-income students, and students with learning disabilities. I EA-P respondents’ grades reflect a generally bleak view of public education in America; they parallel the answers to a similar question posed to respondents in the 2016 PDK/Gallup poll (Table 2.1). Only 5% of IEA-P respondents gave an A to public schools for addressing the needs of students with learning disabilities, 3% gave an A for addressing the needs of low-income students and 2% awarded an A for addressing the needs of all students. Far higher proportions of respondents gave a B for services provided to each group of students, and even more awarded a C.

Fewer than 25% gave the public schools an A or B combined for addressing the needs of all students and for students with learning disabilities, and only 17% awarded an A or B combined for addressing the needs of low-income students. For each of these three groups, the proportion of respondents who awarded a D or F combined equaled or exceeded the proportion who awarded an A or B combined.

Grades for addressing the needs of gifted students. Grades awarded to public schools for how well they addressed the needs of gifted children were consistently far better than the grades awarded for addressing the needs of other groups of children. Among all respondents, 21% awarded an A to public schools for their effectiveness in meeting the needs of gifted students, regardless of the term used, five times the rate that A grades were assigned to public education overall. Fifty-six percent awarded either an A or B, combined (Figure 2.1), and only 15% awarded a D or F grade.

Impact of varying terminology. The public was most likely to give the public schools an A when asked about addressing the needs of “Gifted” students (21%), followed by “High-Achieving” and “High- Potential” students (16% each). The public was least likely to award an A when asked to grade the public school’s success in serving “Highly-Able” students (12%), but even this was twice the number of A grades awarded for services to students with learning disabilities (5%) (Table 2.1).

Above average grades awarded by racial/ethnic group. Markedly different patterns emerged among racial/ethnic groups when looking at patterns of awarding “above average” A and B combined. For some terms, more Hispanic and Black respondents awarded high grades:

• “Advanced Learners”: Over 60% of Black and Hispanic respondents awarded an A or a B to schools compared to 45% of White respondents;
• “High-Achieving”: Over 65% of Hispanic and 62% of Black respondents awarded an A or a B to schools compared to 53% of White respondents;
• “Gifted and Talented”: 60% of Hispanic and 57% of Black respondents awarded an A or a B to schools, compared to 49% of White respondents.

For other terms, Hispanics were the least likely to award above average grades:

• “Gifted”: 61% of White and 58% of Black respondents awarded an A or a B to schools compared to 35% of Hispanic respondents; and
• “Highly-Able”: 60% of Black and 58% of White respondents awarded an A or a B to schools compared to 44% of Hispanic respondents.

Across terms and groups, the schools were least likely to receive an A or a B from Hispanic respondents with reference to “Gifted” students (35%), and most likely to receive an A or a B from Black respondents with reference to “Advanced Learners” (67%).

Public concern over high profile issues in education. The American public expressed a deep desire for strong public schools, and nothing was more important to them than high-quality teachers. Fully 80% of respondents considered inadequate funding to hire high-quality teachers a problem, and 43% believed it was one of the biggest problems facing public education (Figure 2.2, Table 2.3).

Inadequate funding for STEM education also provoked concern, with 77% of respondents indicating that it was either “A Big Problem” or “One of the Biggest Problems” facing public schools. A similar percentage (75%) reported that inadequate funding for low-income schools and students with learning disabilities was a problem, and accountability testing was considered excessive by 66% of respondents. Six in ten respondents believed that inadequate funding for arts education was either a big problem or one of the biggest problems facing education.

Public concern over resources for gifted education. Despite the relatively high grades public schools received for addressing the needs of gifted students, 57% of IEA-P respondents indicated that inadequate resources for gifted students were a problem. The number of people who thought that the lack of gifted education resources was a sizable problem exceeded the number of parents of gifted students, the number of parents with school-aged children, and even the number college graduates polled. Thirteen percent of the overall respondent group reported that lack of resources for gifted education was one of the most significant problems in education (Figure 2.3).

Education Influencers. Approximately two-thirds of Opinion Elites and Parents reported that a lack of resources in gifted education was a problem (Figure 2.4).

The impact of terminology on priorities. Public support for providing resources for gifted students was high regardless of the term used, although the terms “High-Potential,” “Gifted and Talented,” and “Gifted” elicited the highest level of support (Table 2.5). Across terms, 7-9% of the public reported that providing resources for gifted students was the “Single Most Important” priority in education, and between 51-58% of the public thought it was either the “Single Most Important Priority” or “One of a Few Very Important Priorities.” As illustrated in Figure 2.7, the public supports providing services to both gifted and high-achieving students, even though many associate the two terms with different groups of children.

Education Influencers. Between 63-65% of Opinion Elites believed that providing resources for “Gifted,” “Gifted and Talented,” “Highly-Able,” or “High-Potential” students was either the single most important or one of the few important priorities in public education. They responded much more favorably to these four terms than to “High-Achieving,” “Genius,” “High-Performing,” or “Advanced,” none of which received support from more than 60% of the subgroup. Parents were most likely to respond that schools should place a priority on providing “High-Potential” or “Gifted and Talented” students with the resources they need.

Racial/Ethnic Groups. A majority of respondents thought that providing resources for gifted students was an important priority; however, the overall results masked sizable differences among demographic groups. Black respondents were most likely to consider gifted education a priority. Over 60% of Black respondents said gifted education was either the single most important priority or one of a few important priorities for all terms except one, “Genius” (58%). Seventy-two percent of Black respondents reported that ensuring resources for “High-Potential” students was an important priority.

Regardless of the term used, a majority of Hispanics considered ensuring resources for gifted students a priority, with especially high rates of support for “High-Potential” and “Advanced” students (66% each) as well as for “Genius” students (64).

The proportion of White respondents in support of ensuring services for gifted students ranged from 47-60%, and was consistently lower than the percent of Black respondents in support, regardless of the term used to describe gifted students. The proportion of White respondents in support of ensuring services for gifted students only reached 60% once, for “High-Potential” students.

Lower-income Black respondents voiced strong support for ensuring resources for gifted students, often at margins far beyond White, Hispanic, or higher-income Black respondents. Over 70% of lower-income Black respondents believed that providing resources for gifted students was an important priority across a majority of terms. The only two terms that did not prompt support from more than 70% of lower-income Black respondents were “Genius” at 68%, and “Advanced” at 64%. In many cases the proportion of lower-income Black respondents in support was 15-20% higher than other groups.

Synopsis

How the Public Grades K-12 Schools

The American public does not subscribe to many of the so-called “myths” of gifted education, however, one myth that still seems prevalent is that gifted education programs already possess the resources they need to educate the nations brightest students. Well over half of the individuals polled believed that gifted education is necessary and voiced support for providing resources for gifted students. However, when grading the K-12 schools, the public also reported thinking that schools are already doing a good job meeting the needs of gifted students, relative to other groups.

• IEA-P respondents’ grades of K-12 schools reflect a generally dim view of public education in America. Only 5% of IEA-P respondents gave an A to public schools for addressing the needs of students with learning disabilities, 3% gave As for addressing the needs of low-income students and 2% awarded As for addressing the needs of all students.
• IEA-P respondents generally believed that the public schools were doing a better job addressing the needs of gifted students than needs of all students, low-income students, or students with learning disabilities. The American public was more generous in awarding either an A or a B for services to gifted students, regardless of the term used for giftedness. The term “Gifted” received the highest number of As (21%), and “Highly-Able” the lowest (12%).
• Americans think that services for gifted students are adequate, even robust, awarding them an A or a B grade; here, public perception diverges with reality. The public seems uninformed about the absence of gifted programs in many states and inadequate funding nationwide. Correcting the public’s misconceptions about the availability of gifted programs is a necessary first step to advocacy to fill in the nation’s patchwork quilt of programs and policies for gifted students.

The Lack of Resources for Gifted Education is a Problem

 Respondents’ answers to benchmark questions reveal substantial concern about the state of K-12 public education. They responded with trepidation about every issue presented in the poll, but nothing was more important to the public than the absence of funding for high-quality teachers. Concern about this issue was high among all respondents but particularly high among Black and Hispanic respondents, 90% of whom reported that lack of funding for high-quality teachers was either “A Big Problem” or “One of the Biggest Problems” in education.

• Teacher quality, STEM education, and educational equity for low-income students are common topics in national education news, so it is natural that the public responds to them with heightened concern. Moreover, issues such as teacher quality, STEM, the arts, and testing directly affect all students, regardless of ability, while the state of gifted education directly affects only a subset of students. Even so, 57% of the public believed that providing resources for gifted education was either “A Big Problem” or “One of the Biggest Problems” in education. This was both less concern than was expressed about more salient educational issues, and more concern than might be expected given the lack of exposure the public has to information about challenges in funding gifted education programs around the country.
•  The public awarded relatively high grades to schools for addressing gifted students’ needs. Even so, the number of people who were concerned about the lack of gifted education resources and thought it was a sizable problem exceeded the number of parents of gifted students, the number of parents with school- aged children, and even the number college graduates polled.

Improving Gifted Education is a Priority

Judging from the responses of IEA-P respondents, the concern voiced by the American public translates into support for change. Many believe that providing gifted students with appropriate resources should be among the nation’s education priorities.

• Support was reported from over 50% of poll respondents regardless of the term used to describe giftedness and despite their differing interpretations of terms such as “Gifted” and “High-Achieving.” The terms most likely to evoke support for ensuring resources, overall and within analysis subgroups, were “Gifted,” “Gifted and Talented,” and “High-Potential.”
• A majority of every income and racial/ethnic group believed that lack of resources for gifted education was a problem and placed a high priority on addressing the problem. Over 50% of each race/ethnicity-by-income group agreed that inadequate gifted education resources were either a “Big Problem” or “One of the Biggest Problems” facing public education, indicating support for providing resources for gifted children that extends far beyond an elitist minority.