Is talent a myth? Can anyone learn anything? I don't think so

"Gifted" programs don't help children succeed, argues Katie Arnold-Ratliff in a New York Magazine story, The Mirage of the Gifted Child.

"For decades, people in favor of G&T; have promoted the notion that we can put a concrete number to a child’s intelligence, that the smartest children need extra enrichment or acceleration to reach their potential, and that we can measure the beneficial impact of that enhanced learning on the children who receive it," she writes. It's not so.

And maybe most of those "gifted" kids are just upper-middle-class kids who know how to game the culturally biased tests or impress the racially biased teacher.

"Intelligence" is a mystery, she writes, listing some of the theories, including the long-refuted notion of "multiple intelligences." Perhaps it's "unlikely to be captured very well on a Scantron."

Then comes the graph everyone hates:

Other psychologists reject the notion of a genetic or biological component of intelligence altogether and believe there is no such thing as innate talent or aptitude, that we can all learn anything with the right teacher.

Which is nonsense. Some people learn faster than others, and are able to go farther and deeper than others. We are all equal in the eyes of God. But, otherwise, no.

Testing may favor children who've been exposed to museums and libraries and know that a pig says "oink." But relying on teacher recommendations is far more biased, as Arnold-Ratliff concedes. Universal testing is the most effective way to get more minority and lower-income students into challenging programs.

The quality of G&T classes varies widely, she writes. New York City offers five accelerated programs, and many that promise enrichment, such as projects.

“Enriched programming is highly teacher dependent, because they’re not given guidelines,” says Alina Adams, founder of NYC School Secrets. "Gifted" and general-ed teachers use the same curriculum with

G&T students asked to write five paragraphs about Charlotte's Web while general-ed students write two.

"Whatever approach G&T programs pursue, studies indicate that they don’t have much impact on a student’s immediate academic achievements," writes Arnold-Ratliff, citing a 2021 study.

Not true, writes Fordham's Brandon L. Wright. Some approaches are effective, while others are not. There is a lot of evidence supporting "acceleration, flexible readiness groupings, and pre-differentiated, prescriptive curricula, including for disadvantaged students. Evidence is weak for "less robust approaches," such as enrichment and letting each teacher do her own thing.

Most formerly G&T students "lead, at best, ordinary lives of modest accomplishment," Arnold-Ratliff writes. "A 35-year study of 677 gifted children found that by age 50, only 12.3 percent had reached a level of 'eminence,' defined as “full professors … Fortune 500 executives … judges and lawyers, leaders in biomedicine, award-winning journalists and writers.”

Of course, even if one accepts that definition of "eminence," that means the ex-gifted are far more successful than the average American.

Arnold-Ratliff closes by revealing that she built her identify on being "gifted" then requested her school file and found a letter to her parents saying that she hadn't qualified. She scored “very superior” on the verbal scale and “average” on the one that measured logic and sequencing.

Numerous X commenters pointed out that the test results were on the nose.

I volunteered in my daughter's classes in the early years. When I asked the second-grade teacher why the "gifted" teacher no longer made her monthly visit, she gave me a folder of "creative thinking" activities, a key to an empty classroom and half-a-dozen kids. I don't think they learned anything, but they escaped from the drudgery of the classroom.