For decades, advocates for gifted education have believed that society has a “love-hate” relationship with gifted students (J. Gallagher, 1988). The “love” in this equation represents the public’s appreciation for the benefits reaped from the inventions and insights of creative, productive individuals; the “hate” is the envy some feel towards others who seem to have an easier path to higher achievement and its rewards.

However, the belief in the society’s ambivalent attitude has taken root in the absence of substantial data that it actually exists. Although research reports the mixed feelings that some teachers and parents hold towards gifted students (McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Troxclair, 2013), assessment of public attitudes rarely extends beyond a few questions. In fact, there is little evidence indicating that the public understands what the word “gifted” means. Assessing public understanding is a crucial early step in any advocacy plan. A mismatch between an advocate’s assumptions about the public’s beliefs and the public’s actual beliefs is sure to lead to misdirected efforts. Specifically, efforts to gain support go awry if advocates and their audience do not agree on: (1) the meaning of important terms, (2) the conditions needing change, or (3) the potential impact of change–or the consequences of failing to change.

The way the public interprets the word “gifted,” both through literal definition and indirect interpretation, affects every conversation about policy and practice; therefore, the first set of items on the IEA-P was designed to discover how the public defines giftedness and related terms.

For most respondents, the terms “Gifted,” “Gifted and Talented,” “Genius,” or “Advanced Learner,” elicited words or images associated with intrinsic ability or an innate capacity to learn quickly (Table 1.1). Eighty- three percent of the descriptors offered for the word “Genius” related to intrinsic ability or rapid learning, as were 82% of the descriptors for “Gifted,” 73% for “Advanced,” and 67% for “Gifted and Talented.” Fewer than 25% of the words or images offered to describe the terms “Gifted,” “Gifted and Talented,” or “Genius” were related to school achievement, an indication that respondents did not immediately link giftedness with school success.

The responses also suggest that poll respondents distinguish between students who excel because of superior ability and students who excel because of hard work. Descriptors offered for prompts beginning with “High-x” or “Highly-x” were more varied, but in general they portrayed successful students with Guts, Resilience, Initiative and Tenacity (GRIT) (Duckworth, 2016): they are described as hardworking, motivated, and determined. This was true even when “High-” was paired with “Potential.” Fifty-five percent of descriptors offered for students who were “High-Achieving,” “High- Potential,” or “High-Performing” were associated with achievement, as were 40% of descriptors for the term “Highly-Able,” evoking Renzulli’s definition of “schoolhouse gifted” (Renzulli, 1982).

Across the board, the terms elicited very few words or images associated with creativity. Descriptors related to creativity were offered most often for the term “Gifted and Talented” (14%), followed by “Gifted” (8%), and “Genius” (6%). Terms beginning with “High-” almost never evoked words or images associated with creativity.

Respondents offered few stereotypic descriptions and no words or images that suggested dislike for children with advanced ability (Table 1.1). Only 5-6% of respondents used descriptors associated with wealth, and these were primarily associated with the terms “Gifted,” “High-Achieving,” “Highly- Able,” and “Gifted and Talented.” “Genius” students were most likely to be described as awkward (4%), and students with “High-Potential” were most likely to be described as nerds (4%). None of the eight terms elicited references to underachievement or failure to fulfill potential. Descriptors associated with different personality attributes were also notably absent, aside from those related to GRIT; there were no suggestions of curiosity, inquisitiveness, intensity, or intuition. In their descriptions of giftedness and ability, respondents generally kept a narrow focus on the capacity to learn.

The poll assessed whether the public could distinguish between accurate and inaccurate claims made about gifted students. Many of the statements presented in these questions represent mistaken, but presumably widely held, convictions about giftedness, including that: (1) giftedness is common, (2) gifted students do not need special services, (3) gifted students are always at the top of their class, and (4) gifted students are wealthy. Respondents also answered questions asking whether they thought gifted students receive more resources than either average students or students level as students with learning disabilities. Answers offered by IEA-P respondents, summarized in Tables 1.2 to 1.5 [8] , indicate that Americans are capable of distinguishing between myth and reality regarding the nature of giftedness.

Is everyone gifted, or are gifted children rare? The question of whether respondents believed all students are gifted was addressed indirectly by asking if they agreed that gifted students comprised a small subset of the student population. Three of every four respondents (74%) agreed that with learning disabilities, and whether they thought if gifted students should receive resources at the same gifted students are rare (Figure 1.1). Only 3% of the respondent group strongly disagreed with the statement that gifted children are rare (Table 1.2).

Education Influencers. Over 70% of Opinion Elites and Parents agreed that gifted students are rare, with Opinion Elites somewhat more inclined to strongly agree (28% Opinion Elites, 21% Parents).

Racial/Ethnic Groups. Over 70% of each racial/ethnic group agreed that gifted students are rare, led by 80% of Hispanics. Close to 20% of each subgroup strongly agreed, led by one-third of higher-income Black and lower-income Hispanic respondents (33% and 32%, respectively).

Are gifted kids so smart they don’t need special programs? A majority of the American public understands that gifted students need specialized services to fulfill their potential (Figure 1.2). Sixty- eight percent disagreed with the statement “Gifted students are so smart, they do just fine without special programs.” Between 60-70% of respondents disagreed with the statement regardless of income or race/ethnicity (Table 1.3).

Racial/Ethnic Groups. Among the three racial/ethnic groups, Blacks were least likely to agree that gifted students are from well-off families (24%). While Hispanic respondents were more likely than White or Black respondents to believe that gifted students come from well-off families, a majority (68%) thought they were not, and 36% “strongly disagreed.” Lower- income respondents within each racial/ethnic group were more likely to think that gifted students were affluent, compared to their higher-income counterparts. The greatest within group discrepancy was between higher- and lower-income Hispanics (38% and 20% who agree, respectively).

Do gifted kids need just as much funding and support as students with learning disabilities? The American public believes the gifted students need funding and support at levels equal to students with learning disabilities. Nearly three of every four respondents agreed with this statement (73%), and 29% were in strong agreement (Figure 1.5).

Education Influencers. Seventy-five percent of Opinion Elites agreed that gifted students should receive funding and support equivalent to students with learning disabilities, with a nearly even split between those who strongly agree (36%) and somewhat agree (38%). A slightly higher proportion of Parents (79%) agreed that gifted students and students with learning disabilities should receive similar levels of funding. The proportion of Parents who strongly agreed was similar to the Opinion Elites (35%).

Racial/Ethnic Groups. Among racial/ethnic groups, Hispanics were most likely to agree that gifted students need funding and support similar to that of students with learning disabilities (84%), followed by Blacks (76%), and Whites (70%). Black respondents were most likely to strongly agree (39% Black, 31% Hispanic, 27% White). Of higher-income Black respondents, 42% strongly agreed that gifted students needed as much funding and support as students with learning disabilities, compared to only 29% of higher-income Hispanic or White respondents (Table 1.6).

Education Influencers. Opinion Elites are nearly equally likely to think that average students and gifted students received more resources (33% average, 31% gifted). Parents were slightly more likely to think average students received more resources (36% average, 29% gifted).

Racial/Ethnic Groups. Over one-third of each racial/ ethnic group believed that gifted and average students received similar levels of resources; however, White respondents were more likely than Black or Hispanic respondents to think that average students received more resources than gifted students (34% White, 29% Hispanic, 24% Black). Black respondents were most likely to think that gifted students received more resources than average students (43%), followed by Hispanics (36%) and Whites (28%). In each racial/ethnic group, lower-income respondents were more likely than higher-income respondents to think that gifted students receive more resources than average students.

Synopsis

The Public’s Understanding of “Gifted” and Related Terms

A common understanding of terminology is the baseline for effective advocacy. Using language that the public intuitively understands is crucial to sending a clear message.

• Results from the IEA-P suggest that the public has a basic understanding of the word “Gifted” which is consistent with most experts in the field: gifted children have an intrinsic ability to learn quickly.
• The public distinguished between “Gifted” children and children with “High-Ability.” In the minds of the public, gifted children have an inherent ability to learn faster, while “High-Ability” children achieve through determination, persistence, and hard work. The public rarely used words associated with high IQ or quick learning when describing students with “High-Ability.” Advocates should avoid using the word “Gifted” and “High-Ability” interchangeably, because the public associates the two terms with different groups of students.
• The public rarely included creativity in their descriptions of giftedness or high ability. When words associated with creativity were invoked, they were in response to the terms “Gifted and Talented,” “Gifted,” and “Genius.”
• When asked to volunteer descriptions of gifted or high-ability children, the public rarely offered terms invoking common stereotypes suggestive of maladjustment. They also never mentioned personality attributes as an integral part of giftedness. Instead, they focused narrowly on attributes related to the capacity to learn.
• Of the terms tested in the IEA-P, “Gifted and Talented” and “Gifted” had the largest shared understanding between experts and the lay public.

Public Beliefs about Giftedness 

The literal definition of a word is different from its cultural interpretation. Misconceptions about a group of people can lead to false assumptions about their needs. However, according to the responses in the IEA-P, the public does not subscribe to many of the so- called “myths” about gifted students.

• 76% of IEA-P respondents think that gifted children are rare, comprising a small proportion of the student population. It may be that in everyday conversation someone will say “all children are gifted,” meaning that all children have intrinsic value or something to contribute. However, when the question is presented in context, the public does not believe in the Lake Woebegone effect that “all children are above average.”
• The public believes that, though rare, gifted students come from all walks of life. 71% disagreed that gifted students are from well-off families, including over 70% of most analysis groups. Both in open-ended questions and in response to forced-choice items, the public made it clear that they believe gifted students live in neighborhoods in every corner of the country.
• The public understands that gifted students require special services to cultivate their abilities. 70% of the public believed that gifted students need special services, and the same number felt that gifted students should receive resources at the same level as students with learning disabilities. They held this attitude even though 55% also believed that gifted students are already at the top of their class. This result marks a shift in thinking from 40 years ago when providing services for students with learning differences had much more support than providing services for gifted students.