Customer Reviews

Playing Favorites: Gifted Education and the Disruption of Community

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

In a roomful of people, one person chokes on his food. "Fair" would be to give him the Heimlich Maneuver. "Equal" would be to give everyone the Heimlich Maneuver.

"Equal" would also be to give no one the Heimlich Maneuver, and that seems to be what the author is arguing in this sophomoric effort.

The reviewer immediately below posted a lovely point-by-point rebuttal, and I see no reason to duplicate those efforts here. But I do wish to emphasize that the author has based nearly all of the book on her one little study in one small Midwestern town, while ignoring YEARS of studies involving thousands of people all over the world.

One size does not fit all, not in clothing, not in fast food meals, and not in education.

I'd give this book no stars if I could. The one thing it is good for is as concrete evidence of how many people, ignorant of the research, perceive gifted education. Part of the problem is in the word "gifted." If they already have a gift, why give them more? They truly do not understand that giftedness is very much a gift that can come with a rather steep price tag.

Back in the bad old days, our choking friend would have been SOL. Isn't it great that we now have the research and the technique to give him what he needs, and the wisdom to know that giving him the Heimlich is not playing favorites?

According to the author:

"This book is about something important that is happening in our nation's schools, a phenomenon called 'gifted education,' which identifies certain children as eligible to receive particular kinds of educational experiences, often segregated from their 'nongifted' peers."

Her view of this "phenomenon" is clear and unequivocal:

"These programs speak to us of unequal educational opportunities, racism, elitism, and exclusion."

In the remainder of the book she attempts to justify this conclusion. And whether or not you believe that she succeeds will probably, at least in part, depend on your own experience with, and knowledge of, the characteristics and needs of gifted children.

It may also depend on the social and political views you hold. There is little doubt that the authors' conclusions were influenced by her own views, because she says so:

"Of course I have values and beliefs about this issue, and they have inevitably guided my choice and interpretation of this topic."

There is also little doubt what her beliefs are:

"...gifted education [is] being used to further reify social and class stratification."

Unfortunately, the evidence presented to support her views consists largely of anecdotes, which, at least on the evidence presented above, may have been selectively collected or reported. According to her:

"The major portion of the data presented in this books is drawn from a study I conducted during the 1987-1988 school year in a small town in the Midwest. For that study, I interviewed thirty-six of the forty teachers in the school district, as well as a [unspecified] sampling of parents and students in the gifted program."

To some I suppose this may sound substantial. But the research on gifted children, their development and their education consists of hundreds of studies of thousands of individuals (children, parents and teachers) for periods of up to several decades. Sapon-Shevin ignores the results of the bulk of this work, much of which directly addresses and rebuts many of the criticisms that she makes.

One issue she spends discusses critically at some length is the difficulty of defining and measuring "giftedness". While there certainly are differences in both opinion and policy on this issue, there is also much agreement. (And the fact that people or policies set different cut-off levels does not negate the concept of "giftedness": after all, does the concept of "tallness" lose its utility just because we wouldn't all agree on who to call "short", "average" and "tall"?)

Sapon-Shevin's arguments are all based on her ideas of what is socially just and ethical and her conception of what schools should be about. They totally ignore the documented fact that the existing system often does not serve the needs of one, easily identifiable, group particularly well.

Perhaps one of the most significant flaws in the book is that Sapon-Shevin concentrates all her discussion on only a couple of the many types of provisions which can be made for gifted children: special classes and programs. One of the commonest provisions, grade skipping, is never mentioned. This should in no way threaten her "community of learners" and, indeed, if anything it should strengthen it.

Sapon-Shevin undoubtedly means well, but she has chosen her target extremely poorly. In most places, programs for the gifted get the smallest slice of the educational budget. Removing this would make not one iota of difference to the wider school community but would be a terrible blow to many bright and talented children.

This is probably one of the most negative books I have ever read on the subject of gifted education. The authors proceed through a series of emotional and illogical assumptions and statements about gifted students and what their needs are in our school systems. The suggestions the authors make to "help" these students by being "fair" to everyone, are harmful at best. This is just another example of the anti-intellectualism that seems to be running rampant in our society today.

As a parent of a gifted child I've seen a number of similarities between my child's education and what was described in the Book. Although I don't agree with everything the author had to say, she eloquently outlines some undeniable problems with gifted programs. Every parent who is concerned about their child's education should read this book.

Mara Sapon-Shevin (MSS for short), author of _Playing
Favorites_, has no idea what built modern civilization,
and what is needed to maintain it. This is that little
something called the mind.

I have seen few books as anti-mind, anti-civilization,
anti-rationality, anti-Humanity, and ultimately anti-life
as this one. We don't need more dumbing down. We don't
need more politically correct hipness. We don't need any
more of this kind of tyrannical "community" or "society".
We don't need Pol Pot in North America.

MSS has no idea of the tortures that gifted children endure
every day, particularly in dumbed-down socialist jock
schools. She thinks it's all wine and roses, and that
special gifted education means snobby little brats
chauffered to private schools. Wake up, MSS! For one
thing, check out something called "bullying". And check
out another thing called "boredom". And find out why
gifted persons have higher than average rates for
depression and suicide. (Especially profoundly gifted.)

This educrat is all in favor of protecting ethnic minorities,
gays/lesbians, and the disabled from discrimination -
but not gifted persons. What hypocrisy! With her envy-
scarred PC mind, it's impossible for someone like MSS to
consider that the gifted themselves are a minority, and
deserve equal treatment. I suspect that MSS prefers them
to be suicidal neurotics, "equal" to everyone else, rather
than happy productive citizens who might return something
of value to the community (like a cure for cancer).

Without realizing it, MSS justifies a particularly
hypocritical and insidious type of racism and classism.
A good many gifted programs are intended to give poor/
minority children a chance they might never have
otherwise. They are not country clubs for the rich, at
the public's expense. But no, Junior must never be
"acting white", even if it means being a positive
example for the community.

_Playing Favorites_ belongs in the same junkpile as _Mein
Kampf_. How many more suicides - and Columbine-like
massacres - will result from the cancellation of gifted
programs on the weight of MSS's advice?