Joann DiGennaro, President, Center for Excellence in Education
In a competitive global economy, America’s future rests on nurturing its most talented, innovative thinkers. Yet on many levels—financially, legislatively, academically and socially—those who are most capable of providing new ideas are being ignored. This is in stark contrast to what many top students experience overseas.
As President of the Center for Excellence in Education (CEE), an organization that I founded with Admiral H.G. Rickover, I have traveled the globe speaking with government officials, educators and some of the world’s STEM prodigies. Many international high school scholars have taken part in the Center’s Research Science Institute (RSI), a six‐week summer enrichment program in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), sponsored with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have found that the commitment and resources devoted to high‐achieving students abroad, including in developing countries, exceeds what is done here.
For example, India is focusing on ramping up investment in education to $44 billion in 2008 from $11 billion in the late 1980s. While only a third of the country’s students finish high school today, the World Bank estimates that in five years, nearly half will. India is committed to enrolling 40 million students in college by 2020 and conferring 8 million bachelor’s degrees, or four times as many as the United States. The country already confers more bachelor’s degrees than the United States. Meanwhile, more than half of American college students drop out before graduation.
While other countries are concentrating on developing their most academically talented, America seems to be turning away from meritocracy. It wasn’t this way a generation or two ago. Indeed, the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957 prompted the U.S. to pass its first large‐scale initiative in gifted education, the National Defense Education Act. The legislation provided funds to identify and support talented students. Over four years, more than $1 billion was channeled into 40,000 loans, 40,000 scholarships, and 1,500 graduate fellowships, primarily to achievers in STEM.
Yet the momentum, which helped channel great numbers of Boomers into STEM careers, did not last. The Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act was the only federal program dedicated to gifted students and offered competitive grants for gifted programs. While the amount appropriated for these initiatives was never impressive, reaching just over $11 million at its peak, even that modest sum became a target. Funding fell from $9.6 million in 2006 to $7.46 million in 2010. Last year, the Javits Act was completely defunded.
With no federal funding for gifted education, states have charted their own paths. According to the National Association of Gifted Children (NAGC), just 26 states require gifted programs and only six provide funding. The NAGC estimates that Virginia spent approximately $44 million on 185,000 identified gifted students in 2010. Another worrisome fact from the report: only six states require all elementary and secondary teachers to have training in gifted education. Virginia is one of the states that does not require general education teachers to have training on the needs of gifted students.
Nationwide, the percentage of public high schools that offer Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses is abysmally low—just slightly more than a third. According to the College Board, only 42.4 percent of Virginia 2012 graduates took at least one AP examination during high school, as compared to 48.2 percent in Maryland.
Although many assume that intellectually advanced children need little help, often the opposite is the case. Peer groups place much emphasis on blending in, yet gifted students inevitably stand out. Gifted children are often lightning rods for their peers’ criticisms; some react by hiding their talents or deliberately failing. If they are also bored by the curriculum, gifted students may disengage. Although estimates of gifted students who drop out vary, in 1995, Dr. Sylvia Rimm, clinical professor at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine,suggested that as many as one out of five high school dropouts come from the gifted population.
Furthermore, gifted children are often more sensitive to outside stimuli and may have problems processing many levels of experience. This can lead to asynchronous development, according to several leading psychologists, which means that while they may be years ahead of their fellow students in terms of intellectual understanding, they may mature more slowly in others. Albert Einstein, for instance, did not speak until the age of four.
All of these factors isolate the gifted child. In 2006, Purdue University researcher Jean Sunde Peterson found that by eighth grade, two‐thirds of the 432 gifted students studied had become victims of bullying and even acts of violence.
America cannot afford to lose its most intelligent students. I have often heard students who attend such enrichment programs as the Research Science Institute express joy at finally feeling like they belong‐‐not just academically, but socially. Clearly, meeting others who are literally like‐minded at a pivotal time in their young lives has a positive and lasting impact.
Gifted students must be afforded an education that allows them to develop their talents fully. This nation cannot afford to squander their gifts and the significant contribution they can make to the STEM workforce.