Gifted Students Suffer When Public Schools Focus On Underachievers And ‘Teaching To The Middle’

The following is an excerpt from the new book “Mediocrity: 40 Ways Government Schools Are Failing Today’s Students,” by Connor Boyack and Corey DeAngelis.

Stunting The Gifted

When Caitlyn Singam was in kindergarten, her teacher suggested to her parents that she be labeled as a special-needs student because she was intellectually backward. This was a shock to her father, who noted that the young girl was already reading, including advanced material, at that young age. The teacher informed Singam’s father that she “was finishing her reading assignments ‘too fast’ to have any understanding of the material.” When the dad suggested that his daughter might simply be an advanced reader, the teacher said, “she did not think it possible the girl could be so far ahead of her peers.” Although gifted, she was being branded as deficient. 

As Singam got older, she faced significant resistance from school administrators when her parents inquired about moving her up a grade or two. According to the spokesman for the school district, they decided to rigidly follow established protocols and “simply wanted to ensure all of her needs were met.” Never mind the fact that her needs were not being met by being held back to sit in a desk next to children who were similar in age but not ability. Singam recalled what his daughter’s kindergarten teacher had warned him years before: “Public schools simply didn’t have the means to support my daughter.”

When politicians and pundits discuss education reform, they typically highlight the perceived need for more funding and programs. Their attention focuses almost exclusively on children at the bottom of the pack — the underachievers and disadvantaged children struggling to keep up with teachers’ lessons. And while this is a laudable goal when providing education broadly to millions of children, there is a lack of attention on the high achievers — a result of the “teaching -to-the-middle” tendency of most government schools. David Lubinsky led a study at Vanderbilt University analyzing the relationship between top-performing children and future achievement. “Gifted children are a precious human-capital resource,” he points out — and a severely underutilized one, since the government school system does not adequately support and challenge the students. The study focused on students scoring in the top 0.01 percentile on the SAT at a young age (or, in other words, those who ranked higher than 99.99 percent of their peers). And there was a problem they discovered: the students’ early academic excellence was “belied by years of educational setbacks and systemic pitfalls.”

Another researcher on the project further highlighted the problem:

“There’s this idea that gifted students don’t really need any help. This study shows that’s not the case. These people with very high IQs — what some have called the “scary smart” — will do well in regular classrooms, but they still won’t meet their full potential unless they’re given access to accelerated coursework, AP classes, and educational programs that place talented students with their intellectual peers.”

Singam’s experience is not unique; many gifted students are not provided challenging, intellectual opportunities in government schools. Nearly 80 percent of teachers surveyed in 2008 agreed that “Getting underachieving students to reach proficiency has become so important that the needs of advanced students take a back seat.” The system forces gifted students to remain in a holding pattern while teachers perpetually focus on underachievers hoping they will catch up. It is a cruel punishment — a boring waiting game — that never ends for those who can excel if adequately challenged. Indeed, the Vanderbilt study found that “13-year-olds in the top 3 percent of math ability who took the project’s fast-paced math class were twice as likely to go into math or science careers than a similar group that didn’t take the classes.” But if a gifted child’s spark isn’t maintained, they look for stimulation elsewhere. Of the approximately one million school dropouts every year, nearly one out of ten earned mostly As. The biggest reason for quitting, cited by those top-performing students, is boredom. And worse, gifted children sometimes develop coping strategies to better fit in with peers, intentionally hiding their intellectual gifts and stifling their strengths since they are not praised and cultivated by the system they are in. This can produce feelings of alienation, anxiety, and a sense of shame that is completely counterproductive to helping them pursue their potential, which is ostensibly the entire goal of the education system.

Yes, there’s an achievement gap in schools, but administrators and teachers are only focusing on the bottom, thus ignoring — and weakening — the top. One researcher remarked, “You could make an argument that [these neglected high-achievers] merit the greatest investment, because they’re going to be the greatest producers, based on their early academic achievement.” But that is increasingly at odds with the school system’s priorities. 

Consider California, the pedagogical petri dish whose educational experiments often trickle down to (or are forced upon) other states. In 2021, the state’s Department of Education announced a new framework for math in K-12 government schools that would structurally discourage gifted students from pursuing accelerated classes to study advanced concepts. With supposed inequity as the driving concern, the department’s lengthy framework fretted, as summarized by one commentator: 

“Too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don’t make it past basic algebra. The department’s solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.” 

One is reminded of Winston Churchill telling the House of Commons in 1945, “The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Like in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” the moochers and government administrators despise those who excel and, thus, throw roadblocks in their path to retard their progress. Parents of gifted children should look to this school system with extreme suspicion, for it treats such students as an academic afterthought. 

This is an excerpt from the new book “Mediocrity” by Connor Boyack and Corey DeAngelis, set to release on April 26, 2023.

Connor Boyack is the author of the Tuttle Twins children’s book series, which teaches the ideas of a free society to the rising generation. He is also president of Libertas Institute, a free market think tank.

Corey DeAngelis is a senior fellow at the American Federation for Children. He is also the executive director at Educational Freedom Institute, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a senior fellow at Reason Foundation, and a board member at Liberty Justice Center.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. 

Nevada Bill Proposes Protections For Doctors Performing Gender Transition Surgeries On Minors

Nevada may become a safe haven for doctors who perform gender transition surgeries on minors, per proposed legislation. It would also extend protections to doctors charged with violating minor gender modification bans in other states.

The bill, Senate Bill 302 (SB302), would prevent healthcare licensing boards from disqualifying or disciplining doctors who perform gender transition surgeries on minors. It would also prohibit Nevada’s governor from surrendering or arresting doctors who are charged with violating gender modification laws in another state.

Another state, Minnesota, has recently passed similar “safe haven” legislation for doctors who provide gender transition procedures to minors.

SB302 is sponsored by Democrat State Sens. James Ohrenschall, Melanie Scheible, Pat Spearman, Dallas Harris, and Edgar Flores. The legislation also picked up three co-sponsors: Democrat Sens. Dina Neal, Rochelle Nguyen, and Julie Pazina.

Several of the sponsors and co-sponsors hold leadership positions within the Nevada legislature: Spearman is President Pro-Tempore, Scheible is Co-Majority Whip, and Harris is Chief Majority Whip.

Trans rights are human rights, and we’re proud of Senator @Ohrenschall4NV‘s bill #SB302 to protect Nevada health care providers and trans people who travel to Nevada for gender-affirming health care pic.twitter.com/aL7llHA6H0

— NV Senate Democrats (@NVSenateDems) April 5, 2023

The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee considered the bill on Wednesday, but has yet to take action on it. The committee has until April 14 to act on the bill.

During the hearing, Ohrenschall presented the bill. The senator claimed that gender-affirming services are “medically necessary” procedures, and that sex is assigned at birth. Ohrenschall criticized the 11 states that have restricted or banned gender transition procedures for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

“I believe that this not only denies these individuals access to essential health care, but also subjects health care providers to the risk of losing their licenses, damaging their professional reputation, and facing legal sanctions,” stated Ohrenschall.

One doctor who provides gender transition surgeries to minors, John (Rob) Phoenix of the Huntridge Family Clinic, testified on behalf of the bill alongside Ohrenschall. Phoenix described himself as the leading provider of gender transition procedures to minors, which he’s done since 2015. Phoenix claimed that gender transitions were necessary to prevent deaths in gender-dysphoric youth.

“Gender affirmation, including social transitioning and gender affirming medical care are appropriate and beneficial for many gender minority youth,” said Phoenix.

Senate President Pro-Tempore Pat Spearman, who chairs the committee, rejected the notion that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder.

Spearman seemed to conflate the concepts of transgenderism and homosexuality; she claimed that the 1973 removal of homosexuality from the pages of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard for defining and diagnosing mental illnesses, proved that gender dysphoria wasn’t a mental disorder. However, the DSM maintains gender dysphoria as a mental disorder.

“The Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders [sic] removed homosexuality in 1973, so it’s not a mental disorder,” said Spearman.

Spearman further cited the Library of Medicine’s claim that gender dysphoria is a “neuroanatomical link” that exists naturally within the brain.

“[Gender dysphoria] is not something in people’s minds,” said Spearman. “I just want to put that on the record because I think science is important. And I’m not allergic to it.”

Republican Sen. Jeff Stone, Co-Minority Whip, pushed back against the legislation. Stone argued that only those over 18 years old should be able to receive gender transition treatment — not minors.

Stone testified that one of his friend’s daughters received gender transition procedures as a minor and regretted it.

“We know that not every child that has sexual dysphoria maintains that identity as they progress through puberty,” said Stone.

In response, Ohrenschall repeated that gender transition decisions should remain between the child, their family, and the doctor.

About Us

Virtus (virtue, valor, excellence, courage, character, and worth)

Vincit (conquers, triumphs, and wins)