Over the past three decades, the achievement of waves of American students with high intellectual potential has declined as a result of inequity in educational treatment. This inequity is the result of an extreme form of egalitarianism within American society and schools, which involves the pitting of equity against excellence rather than promoting both equity and excellence, anti-intellectualism, the "dumbing-down" of the curriculum, equating aptitude and achievement testing with elitism, the attraction to fads by schools, and the insistence of schools to teach all students from the same curriculum at the same level. In this article we provide recommendations for creating positive change-recommendations that emphasize excellence for all, that call for responsiveness to individual differences, and that suggest basing educational policies on well-grounded research findings in psychology and education. Educational policies that fail to take into account the vast range of individual differences among students-as do many that are currently in use-are doomed to be ineffective.

Conclusion
By drawing on several lines of converging evidence, we have demonstrated that the achievement of America's brightest students has declined over the past three decades, lagging even further behind their counterparts in other nations. They are less well prepared academically today than they were a generation ago. Some feel that they are better at identifying how they feel about problems but not better at thinking about problems (Singal, 1991). Yet it is on the thinking about problems and arriving at solutions that societal progress is dependent. Individuals who can apply scientific ingenuity to alleviate human suffering and solve social problems are needed. Such persons are not just born. True, they are individuals born with strong propensities to learn and to develop intellectually at a high level; but they must also be nurtured and provided the educational opportunities required to develop optimally. Despite the importance of such opportunities, schools infrequently provide them. Most schools at best make slight provisions for gifted students; few provide well-formulated programs. Why?

The lack of attention or caring for America's brightest students is a result in large part to extreme egalitarianism, which presents itself in the form of six forces operating within American society and hence its schools: the pitting of equity against excellence rather than promoting both equity and excellence; anti-intellectualism; the dumbing-down of the curriculum; equating aptitude and achievement testing with elitism and avoiding their use; the attraction to fads; and the insistence of educators to teach all students from the same curriculum at the same level. These forces have led to a situation in which the precocious students are not being treated equitably; they simply are not provided with an appropriate education-an education that brings out their potential. This hurts bright students from minority or lower socioeconomic backgrounds the most, because parents often cannot provide alternative educational experiences to compensate for their neglect by the system.

We have provided recommendations for creating positive change and hence a restoration of educational equity and a better balance between equity and excellence. The first recommendation involves underscoring the necessity of incorporating well-supported findings from psychology and education when developing educational policy (Cuban, 1990). Research repeatedly has shown that a one-size-fits-all mentality does not work; we need to be responsive to individual differences (Benbow & Lubinski, 1994).

With respect to intellectually advanced students, this involves the adoption of accelerative strategies by schools, reaffirming the importance of homogeneous grouping (not tracking) for instruction, and use of special high schools that embody the former two approaches. Acceleration and homogeneous grouping are the most effective known educational interventions on behalf of talented students. [Grouping is different from tracking (cf. Feldhusen & Moon, 1992)]. Neither has been empirically shown to harm any group of students; the evidence, indeed, is to the contrary. We believe that the evidence in support of acceleration and grouping (with a differentiated curriculum) for meeting the academic and socioaffective needs of intellectually precocious students is so compelling that it is simply malpractice for schools not to use these procedures appropriately.

One might assume that lack of financial resources prevents schools from meeting the academic needs of high-potential children. Yet acceleration costs little if anything to adopt. It might actually save money. The principal requirement is administrative and curricular flexibility. If an effective medical treatment were withheld under such circumstances, we would be morally outraged. We ought to respond similarly when opportunities are withheld that prevent optimal psychological and intellectual development of a group of individuals. If we want talented individuals to be well prepared when society needs them, we need to be there for them when they need us. That is the mark of a humane, responsible, effective society.

The wisdom of John Gardner (1984) brings us to conclusion:

Extreme equalitarianism, or, as I would prefer to say, equalitarianism wrongly conceived-which ignores differences in native capacity and achievement and eliminates incentives to individual performance-has not served democracy well. Carried far enough, it means the end of that striving for excellence that has produced history's greatest achievements.

"Let us take the discussion out of the hands of polarizers and build an educational system that serves each in terms of his or her talents, stretching each, challenging each, demanding of all the best that is in them."

Permission Statement

Permission to reprint this article was granted to the Davidson Institute for Talent Development by the College of William and Mary, Center for Gifted Education.

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 18 and under. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.