Are gifted kids really just a mirage?
A recent article in The Intelligencer (by New York Magazine) raised a lot of conversation - and speculation - about giftedness. It went beyond “is the gifted education system in the United States working?” to ask the more fundamental question: “is the gifted education system in the United States needed?”
I read the article.
And then re-read it.
And then let my brain marinate on the ideas and theories for a few days.
(I knew I had a lot of thoughts, but it always takes my brain time to turn those ephemeral, just-out-of-reach concepts into tangible ideas.)
After some thoughtfulness I realized the issue I was having with fleshing out my idea was that I didn’t completely agree with the article, but I didn’t completely disagree either. And holding two contrasting ideas as truths at the same time is confusing!
I want to tackle five main takeaways I had from the article. The ones I agree with, the ones I have qualms with, and the ones that made me think.
Idea: Anyone can learn if they have the right teacher.
My Take: I agree kind of…
…but where I disagree is that this matters with giftedness. Giftedness is NOT what you learn - it is how you learn.
You can absolutely have two students who have an amazing teacher and both learn how to incorporate subordinating conjunctions into their writing. But the difference might arise where one learns it through the planned instruction, methodically moving from direct instruction to group practice to independent application, while the other picks it up after one repetition, begins incorporating it into their writing, and then starts to play with the format - spontaneously learning appositives along the way.
Idea: People confuse giftedness with “cultural capital”
My Take: I not only agree, I LOVE this phrase: cultural capital.
Too often people assume that any 5-year-old who mentions “Tchaikovsky” is gifted, while a 9-year-old who is re-reading Dogman couldn’t possibly be.
This is all wrong. If the 5-year-old is simply repeating a fact they learned, a name they saw, or composer they were taught during piano class - that doesn’t necessarily show giftedness. Conversely, if the 9-year-old is diving into the character of Dogman, grappling with the moral ambiguity of Petey, noticing nuances in the illustrations and how they impact the story - they could be signs of giftedness.
Idea: Small gains (1 to 2%) among gifted students prove programs aren’t working
My Take: Disagree
As someone who has taught gifted education for 15 years let me tell you, it is incredibly hard to show measurable growth in gifted students. This is because when a kid is already scoring in the 98th or 99th percentile compared to peers nationwide, it is really hard to push them that next percentile - especially if your programming focused on going deeper within concepts and not just hitting the surface while climbing an academic ladder.
Think of it this way. When an Olympic sprinter decreases their time, it’s not by seconds - it’s by fractions of a second. But just because the unit of time seems small, that shouldn’t minimize the time and effort of that accomplishment.
Idea: Because only 12% of gifted students chose careers of “eminence,” gifted programs aren’t working.
My Take: Hard disagree
This one got my blood boiling a little bit, because as a product of gifted education who currently has a career that would not be deemed “eminent” as a lowly public school teacher, I hate to think that could be used to poke holes at the education I received.
We talk about gifted burnout, yet if we make it the burden of students to prove the worth of their programming by only choosing arbitrarily selected “successful” careers, we’re not just increasing burnout - we are making it unavoidable.
Gifted kids do not owe anyone a career path.
The Idea: Gifted Programming doesn’t reflect the actual student make-up in public education
My Take: Agree
And yet cutting the programming because we’re doing a bad job of identifying gifted students is such a lazy approach to this problem.
As a kid in the ‘90s, I remember when it came to light that some of baseball’s biggest home run hitters were using steroids or corking their bats. We didn’t cancel baseball. We changed the rules, strengthened oversight, and worked to make the game fairer.
Giftedness exists. If our identification systems disproportionately miss certain groups of students, then our responsibility isn’t to eliminate services. It’s to improve access.
That could mean:
Universal screening instead of teacher referrals.
Multiple pathways for identification.
Greater exposure to diverse types of thinking and problem-solving.
More gifted intervention specialists who can co-teach in general education classrooms.
Better training and resources for general education teachers to recognize and support gifted learners.
The answer to inequitable access isn’t fewer opportunities. It’s making those opportunities accessible to every child who could benefit from them.
New Resource for Curious Thinkers
Time Machine Travels is an immersive puzzle adventure designed for gifted and twice-exceptional learners who love creativity, problem-solving, and big ideas. Children build their own time machine and travel through four unique worlds, solving mysteries through a mix of creative challenges and logic puzzles. Each completed activity unlocks clues, leading to world-specific secrets and one final master puzzle.
Flexible, engaging, and designed to work with the way gifted brains learn, Time Machine Travels can be completed in a single afternoon or stretched out over weeks of adventure. If your child loves stories, puzzles, art, imagination, and thinking outside the box, this might be their next favorite challenge.
Save 25% through the month of June with code: TIME
