By Clint Von Gundy
Regardless of how one feels about the results of the most recent election, whether rage, elation, or simple ennui, one has to admit that the American political landscape has shifted dramatically. As a nation, we are entering into truly unknown territory. Given the gravity of our current situation, many reading this may wonder about the impact a second Trump presidency and an overall shift in favor of deregulation and trimming of government services will have on gifted education. Reading the tea leaves on this is more or less impossible. President-Elect Trump speaks often about his fondness for “High-IQ” individuals, but whether this will have any impact on policy at the federal level under soon-to-be Education Secretary Linda McMahon is anyone’s guess. On top of that, given the nature of Trump’s proposed second term agenda, it may seem downright quaint to center gifted education as an advocacy priority at all.
While I am very concerned about what might happen to me and many people that I love over the next four years (or longer), I have also reaffirmed to my Northstar as an educator of gifted children: The best hope for a more peaceful, prosperous, humane, and sustainable future is an unapologetic investment in the education and support of our brightest young minds, their teachers, and their families.
This is what I believe. How do I get other people to believe it too?
What follows is a list of three lessons I’ve learned over the last twelve years advocating for gifted students.
Number 1: Gifted Education Is Actually Quite Popular
Despite the hemming and hawing of a vocal minority championing cosmetic equity, most Americans are actually in favor of better resources and funding for academically advanced students. They are especially prone to support gifted education if it is framed in terms of helping to guarantee future American prosperity and exceptionalism. This framing may be anathema to many (it is to me, quite frankly), but effective advocacy often involves message triangulation. There are ways to make arguments for gifted education that appeal to both conservatives and liberals, and the key is to always know your audience and what they value.
Number 2: Gifted Equity CAN Be Framed in Terms of Meritocracy
Gifted education has long struggled with issues of gatekeeping and discrimination, intentional or otherwise. Attempts to foster better representation of underserved groups in gifted programs and services are often met with cries of “lowering standards.” It is important to help people understand that gifted education at its best is about finding and developing talent as well as reducing the educational harm that can be done to students who are not appropriately challenged in school.
We can think of education as a series of diagnoses and prescriptions. Some interventions are good for everybody, like a healthy diet and regular exercise. But some may need other more intensive treatments, and these treatments will always be given in different doses and regimens based on individual needs. Gifted education shouldn’t be framed as an indulgence for a select few, but rather as necessary medicine to ensure (intellectual and psychological) health, much in the same way we conceptualize special education.
By the way, no one who cares about equity in gifted education is interested in lowering the bar for brain surgeons. Rather, they are interested in eliminating impediments to excellence. Gifted education that creates opportunities for ALL bright kids to demonstrate their brilliance will result not in less qualified brain surgeons but in more and more qualified brain surgeons.
Number 3: The Politics of Gifted Education Is Still Local
I think it’s a pretty safe bet to assume that Donald Trump hasn’t thought much, or at all, about gifted education. This will likely continue in his second term. It also doesn’t really matter. Securing and improving the future of gifted education will be a task at the state and district level. This has its advantages. Politicians in the statehouse and around the school board horseshoe are simply more sensitive to the needs and demands of individual constituents. I don’t think whether or not a politician supports gifted education should ever be the only reason you decide to vote for them or not, but the politician doesn’t need to know this when you call their office. Advocating for gifted education may also sometimes involve making common cause with people you differ from philosophically. This is a difficult task, to be sure, but building bridges with people over the one thing most people agree on (that they love their children and want what is best for them) may well prove to be a step toward suturing larger social wounds. It is entirely possible for Republicans and Democrats to agree that supporting gifted learners is broadly good, while still fighting about almost everything else. Gifted education might actually be about as politically neutral an issue as we are likely to get these days.
The next four years will be fraught, but you can fight for the future of gifted education while also fighting for other things you care about. Advocacy is not a zero sum game. Advocates fail when they give up hope and lose sight of the end goal they were fighting for in the first place. In the words of Robert Frost, “the best way out is through.”
Gifted Education Family Network 