The failures of academic categorization

Gifted programs are a common feature in public grade schools and foster accelerated learning for “high-ability” children, who are classified as such based on their intelligence quotient (IQ). Since the rise in popularity of gifted programs in the 1950s, there has been minimal change to the gifted categorization process, which fails to take into consideration key aspects of a child’s learning abilities, such as personality and environment, which lie beyond the confines of IQ test scores. The categorization of children into gifted programs based only on IQ scores is an outdated practice; these scores alone are not indicative of a child’s academic potential and achievement, nor their ability to perform in gifted programs in grade school.

Many grade schools in the United States place students in accelerated “gifted” programs as early as kindergarten. The assessments that determine the gifted abilities of the student usually include both intellectual testing (IQ tests) and academic testing (i.e., reading comprehension and arithmetic). Dr. Mary-Catherine Mcclain and Dr. Steven Pfeiffer from Florida State University suggest that “there is a growing consensus in the gifted field that advocates using multiple and alternative approaches to identifying gifted students.” Gifted examinations should include and depend on more in-depth, comprehensive assessments, testing not only the cognitive abilities of a child but also the psychosocial variables, heavily affected by their environment, that determine academic success. Although IQ tests are a very common measure of intelligence and are proven to adequately test certain cognitive abilities like pattern recognition, this test alone is not enough to determine the academic success of a child, nor to categorize them as “gifted” or otherwise.

Nicolas Colangelo et al. from the Belin-Blank Center Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration have mentioned the need to incorporate inclusive, holistic assessments in order to place students into accelerated programs. Such assessments would include versions in the student’s first language, as to not exclude ESL (English as a Second Language) students or discount their academic abilities. The evaluation would also include “social and behavioral adjustment” and both seek out and evaluate all potential of prospective students.

The idea that IQ is directly correlated to “gifted” ability is also fiercely contested by Dr. Pfeiffer, who cites the absurd subjectivity of IQ from state to state that can allow for the rejection of a child who may be considered gifted in one state but not another. There is no line in the sand that bounds those who are “born gifted” and otherwise, as there is no distinction in cognitive ability between children separated by a few IQ points. Therein lies the problem with equating giftedness to IQ—high IQs and gifted ability are not synonymous.

A study done at Maastricht University concluded that personality is a greater indicator of academic success than IQ tests; personality traits such as motivation, leadership, and inquisitivity greatly influence the approach a child takes to their education. Personality was a greater factor and higher indicator of academic success (measured by grades) than achievement tests (in the form of standardized testing). It was also concluded that although IQ scores, achievement test scores, and grades are all indicative of some form of later life success relating to academia (such as wages and completion of higher education), grades are more reflective than IQ, as “they capture aspects of personality that have independent predictive power.” The conclusion can then be drawn that if personality is a greater indicator of academic success than IQ, and academic success is a greater indicator of life success than IQ, personality is far more representative of a child’s proclivity towards academia than IQ scores.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis done at New York University concluded that environment plays a role in a child’s IQ score. The study reported four main ways to significantly raise a child’s IQ by environmental intervention. The first way is accomplished by the addition of supplements, specifically long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFA) and iron supplements, to a pregnant mother and/or to a child of preschool age, respectively. These supplements are proven to help with neural development. The remaining three ways detail methods to raise the IQ of children through early academic intervention. The first, enrolling them in preschool, was proven to raise IQ scores by an average of four to seven points. The second, interactively reading with them, raised it by over six points. The last method was enrolling them in an educational institution as an infant if they are from a low-socioeconomic status (SES) household. Thus, because there are ways to significantly alter the IQ of a child, as proven above, it cannot be concluded that IQ tests are an accurate test of pure learning potential.

Research on the topic is also largely silent to adverse, unintended reactions to the above methods, such as possible disinterest caused by early education; subdued personality due to early introduction to school environments; or a lack of parental support if the child’s parents do not have sufficient academic backgrounds. Furthermore, there is lack of sufficient evidence that any motivation or keenness towards education as a result of early school enrollment will endure years of grade school. This has been defended by drawing on the fiction that “giftedness” is a lifetime quality and can be accurately determined when a child begins schooling (generally around five years old). Whatever cognitive ability is tested at five years of age is surely not what will remain with them for the entirety of their life, let alone the entirety of grade school. For example, pattern recognition skills, which are a primary subject of IQ tests, are honed with age.

High IQ scores have also been linked to several learning and mental health obstacles, including anxiety and stress, which can hinder cognitive processes like memory retrieval. High IQ students with learning disorders such as Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have been found to need more academic support than high IQ peers without it, as ADHD often reduces the ability to process and absorb information in school, manifesting as lack of focus, tardiness, and poor organizational skills. Thus, two students with the same IQ could have vastly different learning abilities; in school, one may be categorized as higher ability than the other due to their aptitude for retaining and comprehending information quickly, despite being neck and neck in skills measured through the IQ test.

Research has also suggested that high IQ children have been found to be more sensitive than children with an average IQ. The emotional intensity found in high IQ children can be another external factor contributing to academic performance. Harrison and Haneghan also found a correlation between high IQ and anxiety or fear. With high IQ in children comes a higher risk of fear of the unknown and anxiety, which increases vulnerability due to high emotional sensitivity. This relates back to the idea that personality greatly influences the academic potential and abilities of a child, as a child with severe fear and anxiety may not be able to perform at their full potential, despite being “gifted” by numeric standards.

Furthermore, Estrella Fernandez et al. from Oviedo University mention how the subjectivity of “giftedness” falls upon the schools, creating the responsibility for highly inexperienced teachers to categorize students based on academic ability. This can lead to the exclusion of high-ability students who are overlooked by teachers who are not familiar with the psychology behind comprehensive tests of ability; students who may appear to struggle with learning assessments or “emulat[e] students with learning disabilities” may not be identified as high-ability, especially if they are of an underrepresented group or from a low-SES household. In this case, the evaluators are often too inexperienced to take into account factors other than IQ scores, since that is the easiest and most generally accepted form of quantifying intelligence. Again, the lack of inclusion inherent in academic categorization based solely on IQ tests becomes apparent.

Contemporary cognitive science supports the idea that the intelligence quotient is not enough to foresee the academic ability of a child, despite its quantitative nature making it attractive to those who use it to categorize. The incorporation of testing other aspects of a child’s abilities proves more beneficial to indicate both their ability to perform in settings of accelerated learning and their long-term academic success; the consideration of personality and environment influences a child’s learning abilities, which may be overlooked in an IQ test. Systematically categorizing young children into groups of “gifted” or otherwise solely using the assessments of the intelligence quotient is outdated, exclusive, and inaccurate.