In a recent edition of the Duke Gifted Letter, a publication sponsored by the Talent Identification Program (TIP) at Duke University, I took part in a so-called "Expert's Forum" about the merits and flaws of the biggest educational misnomer of modern times: the "Theory" of Multiple Intelligences (MI), as proposed by Harvard researcher, Howard Gardner.

With its egalitarian insistence that nearly everyone is gifted at something, the MI idea has taken the country, and the world, by storm. Why? Because MI artificially distributes giftedness equally among various talent areas -linguistic, mathematical, spatial, and so forth - which is a politically correct but intrinsically incorrect notion of what intelligence is. What a shame ... what a sham, and I am not afraid to say so:

As a theory, Ml is convenient, simple ... and wrong.... So many people have jumped on to the bandwagon with the idea that "everyone is gifted at something" that many gifted programs have been eliminated or watered down. Some people are under the illusion that the needs of gifted students can be met in a setting that allows multiple forms of expression. MI is a simplistic, wishful-thinking approach that seems like a good thing to people who are uncomfortable admitting that intellectual abilities are not equally distributed in American society. (Delisle, 2000, pp. 2-3)

Naturally, my comments have been interpreted by some as meaning that I am an "elitist" when it comes to identifying and serving gifted children. For those who level this accusation, I thank you. For if being an elitist means that I still believe in a distinct quality of giftedness that is the domain of the few, not the many; and if being an elitist means that I believe gifted individuals need to be understood as the complex intellectual and emotional beings that they are; and if being an elitist means that I will advocate for a small percentage of children to receive a level of academic rigor and emotional understanding that transcends the typical, then an elitist I shall be. It is a badge I will wear proudly.

Gardner's sad and incorrect notion that giftedness is as common a behavior or trait as being able to bowl a game of 100 is based on an incomplete and inaccurate interpretation of the mountains of research that prove otherwise. But, this idea of giftedness as a talent, a 'thing," is not unique to him. Starting in 1978 with the publication of Joseph Renzulli's article "What makes giftedness?" and concluding (as yet) with Gardner's latest incantation of a ninth intelligence, the world of giftedness has been upside-down, to the detriment of gifted children. As a fallout of Renzulli's and Gardner's work, it is now becoming increasingly popular for educators to scrap intact gifted programs and replace them with enrichment options for all children. This may satisfy school officials, who can now proclaim to parents that "the gifted program benefits everyone," but this schoolwide enrichment plan generally fails to provide the sustenance necessary to fulfill the complex lives of gifted children.

The idea of giftedness as being a developmental, lifelong trait that transcends day-to-day achievements has been replaced with Renzulli's "Type 111" projects and Gardner's ad nauseum intelligences. When this happens, we relegate giftedness to a commodity to be traded and displayed, rather than the unique state of mind and being that it really is. But, in our current era of school accountability, high-stakes testing, and the "win-at-all-costs" approach to education, it is hard to argue against marketplace ethos of multiple intelligences. Too few gifted educators and school administrators discuss the obvious: School programs based on Gardner's notion of intelligence or Renzulli's interpretation of giftedness as a product are based more on political expediency than they are on psychological or educational legitimacy. In our rush toward egalitarianism as regards the concept of giftedness, we have lost sight of what should be our primary vision- the gifted child who cries out for attention.

But, argue we must. For if we don't, the gifted children who inhabit our homes and our classrooms will become pawns in an educational shell game that tries to hide giftedness by shifting around notions of what intelligence entails. When this happens - "gifted one year, not gifted the next"; "multiply intelligent in math and spatial, but not in verbal or interpersonal" - we dissect the child into a specimen to be examined, rather than an entity to be cherished. Sad to say, but the work of Renzulli, Gardner, and other self-titled "talent development specialists" has tarnished the notion of giftedness more than they have shined it. For in proposing their ideas on all- inclusive giftedness, they have left behind the very children they supposedly endorse: those children who are gifted in the mind and the heart 24-7, whether or not their panache in completing projects or in sharing their multiple intelligences in 519 of the possible categories is obvious.

Elitist? You bet I am, because I believe in the sanctity of human differences and the reality that an IQ of 145 does earmark you as different at age 10 from your fourth-grade classmates in some important, but unseen, ways. Elitist? You bet I am, if it means taking a child aside and emphasizing that giftedness is a lifelong quality that does not go away when the school years end. Elitist? You bet I am, and it has nothing to do with social or economic or racial classes, but instead is simply an indication that abilities - intellectual and emotional - differ among and between people. Always have, always will. Elitist? You bet I am, for if gifted students need a foot soldier to explain to others that they may be as different from average students, academically and emotionally, as are children with mental retardation, then I will be their man.

Can we as an enterprise - can you, as an individual-give up the notion that "elitism" is a bad word and an evil concept when applied to gifted children and those who care about them? I hope that is possible, for without our active and vocal support, the gifted children we used to identify and serve in special school programs will wither as surely as do fields of grain without water.

As always, our world and our homes need the richness of spirit and compassion that gifted children provide. To abandon them up in deference to "equity" or “excellence for all" is to make them sacrificial lambs on the altar of egalitarianism. Gifted children deserve better, and who else to champion their cause than a bunch of "elitists" who realize and accentuate an essential truth: Gifted children do exist, as they always have and always will, and to discount their presence and prominence in our society is to be the ultimate intellectual snob who would rather dismiss reality than face it.

Giftedness exists, and not in equal measure across all people. Isn't it time to fess-up the errors brought about by the egalitarian illogic of Multiple Intelligences? Isn't it time to address the inherent inequities brought about by endorsing enrichment for all? Isn't it time to recapture the field of gifted child education from those who have held it hostage for a generation? Our gifted children deserve to be identified and served in ways that capitalize on their unique abilities and qualities. Please join me in being elitist enough to say so.

References

Delisle, J. R. (2000). Expert's forum. Duke Gifted Letter, 1(1), 2-3.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184,261.

Permission Statement

Permission to reprint article was granted to the Davidson Institute for Talent Development by the author, James R. Delisle.

This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted young people under 18. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.