RESEARCH General Education

GIFTED EDUCATION
Students like benefits of special programs, but don't like being labeled

Craig Chamberlain, Education Editor
(217) 333-2894; cdchambe@uiuc.edu

8/1/2000

Photo by Bill Wiend Gifted programs are providing valuable benefits to students, but are saddling them with undesired labels, according to many such former students in a recent University of Illinois study conducted by Nancy Hertzog, a professor of special education.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Gifted programs are providing valuable benefits to students, but are saddling them with undesired labels, according to many such former students in a recent University of Illinois study.

Many also question whether the benefits gave them an unfair advantage, and wonder why some of what they learned could not be taught to other students, says Nancy Hertzog, a UI professor of special education. A former teacher of gifted programs, Hertzog is the researcher who conducted the study.

"They were happy that they had been provided the types of experiences and challenges offered to them through participation in gifted programs," Hertzog wrote in a paper presented recently at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

"But they also painted pictures of harassment for being labeled gifted, of feeling different and separated from their peers because of pull-out programs or segregated classes. They felt a sense of injustice that they had better educational opportunities. They offered advice to make these activities available to many more students."

Hertzog's qualitative, interview-based study of 50 UI students apparently is the first to seek out post-high school students with experience in gifted programs and ask them to look back on their K-12 careers.

Although previous studies have interviewed graduates of specific gifted curricula, Hertzog's study apparently is the first to seek participants from a wide range of schools and gifted programs.

She advertised for subjects in the UI's colleges of education and of engineering, then selected randomly from the volunteers. All had participated in a gifted program of some type for at least three years during their K-12 schooling.

Each was interviewed using open-ended questions about their experiences and the "benefits" and "costs" of their participation in gifted programs.

Among the surprises for Hertzog was that many students remembered few specifics about their elementary experiences in gifted programs, though most "felt strongly about being separated and segregated so early."

She also was surprised at what students listed as the prime benefits of their gifted education. Instead of talking about programs being fun and engaging, they stressed things such as how they helped them prepare for college, learn study skills, and value hard work and challenges.

Based on the study, "there's no doubt in my mind that the techniques that we use in gifted programs are beneficial, that they have a positive impact on students," Hertzog said.

"There's also no doubt in my mind that in the field of gifted education, and among general educators, we have to look more carefully at what we do when we label children -- that this has serious side effects, and even if we label them positively, it's not necessarily a positive effect.

"I think we need to pay attention to the strengths and talents [of all students], and we need to teach teachers to do that instead of trying to determine who's gifted," Hertzog said. "I want us to get away from asking who's gifted, to looking at how we can get every child to want to learn more."