(Photo by the Government of British Columbia via Flickr/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED)
Disclaimer: The author of this article is an alumnus of the Transition Program for Gifted Students (TPGS), one of the special education programs mentioned in this article. However, he has graduated and is no longer with the program in any official capacity.
Listen to this article:
Recently, the Vancouver School Board (VSB) announced a pause in admissions at the University Transition Program (UTP), also known as the Transition Program for Gifted Students (TPGS). The UTP is a program tailored for students from Grades 7 and 8 classified as gifted. Students at the program receive small-class instruction on the campus of the University of British Columbia (UBC), thanks to a tri-partnership between the VSB, UBC, and the British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Education. This move, allegedly from concerns for student mental health, has caused controversy within the student, alums, and parent community.
This change will ultimately hurt gifted learners across BC, with repercussions beyond the border. Contrary to popular belief, giftedness concerns a specific need. According to a 2021 research review, gifted students need more tailored support to fully succeed educationally. For this reason, most school systems across Canada classify giftedness as a special education need, such as the BC Ministry of Education and the government of Ontario.
Unfortunately, the UTP’s pause is not an isolated incident. In the last three years alone, the VSB has gone after various programs for students with disabilities and gifted students. Gifted students at these programs — for example, honours classes, mini schools, and the Multi-Age Cluster Class — are supported by staff specifically trained for their needs.
Why Are These Programs Needed?
These special education programs partially or may completely separate their students from the overall student population. Critics often claim they are inequitable or unfair, arguing that the programs reinforce differences between students and may implant racial discrimination. However, not having these special education programs would realistically increase inequity.
Research has found that students who are the target of these special education programs, such as gifted students, often feel unmotivated in traditional classrooms. They require special curricula or accommodations to fully thrive. The report cited suggests that the curriculum of these programs should be individualized and paced in a way that best engages the student. However, teachers in traditional classrooms often do not have the resources and time to accommodate the needs of gifted students, as they must care for other students in the class.
Many students who attended these special education programs spoke about their positive experiences in these programs. For example, many noted that they felt more “challenged” by the structure of these programs, while others said that they “did not fit in” in a traditional classroom environment. The curriculum of these programs appropriately challenges the gifted students they are designed for while encouraging them to explore their interests.
Special Education Programs: A Gift or a Burden?
Another line of attack often used by critics of special education programs is that the entrance exams for these programs place an unnecessary burden on students. These critics say teachers should refer their students to these programs instead; however, teacher referrals would further bias the system. One study found that students were more likely to be referred to gifted programs if their teacher was of the same race as them. Some districts have also tried offering the special education programs’ curricula to all students regardless of their needs, which defeats the purpose. Different types of students have different needs, and, as research has shown, it is not practical for one teacher to fulfill the needs of every individual student in a traditional classroom.
Instead, a useful model is universal testing for special education needs, which removes bias from the equation. While lower-income students often still struggle with these tests, support can and should be provided to them to bridge the gap in “educational opportunities” that they experience.
Pay For Better Education?
Cancelling special programs would also lead to increasing financial inequity. If the public school system cannot meet the specific needs of their students, parents may choose to take another option: fee-charging private or independent schools. There is a market for schools that cater to particular needs. Vancouver alone has an independent school for students with dyslexia and another for gifted students.
However, there is a big difference between these independent schools and the special education programs the VSB has cut. Although the VSB programs are part of the public school system and are free for students, independent schools charge fees. These fees effectively build a paywall for education. Many parents cannot afford the often expensive tuition for independent schools, which can be tens of thousands of dollars a year. Parents are, therefore, forced to send their children to schooling options that do not meet their needs. Meanwhile, those who can pay receive more educational support. Though these schools often also have payment assistance programs for financially burdened families, this is not equitable and is less accessible than the taxpayer-funded public school system where students can have their needs met currently.
This problem is, unfortunately, not only happening in Vancouver. In Ottawa, for example, the Ottawa-Carleton school board considered cutting gifted programs as they were “elitist.” In Toronto, gifted programs may get axed over inequity concerns. A San Diego high school suddenly cancelled its advanced classes without consulting with parents, again over inequity concerns. And most famously, New York City announced in 2021 that it would cut all gifted and talented programs — as known in the United States. However, the solution to these equity issues is not to shut down the programs entirely and ignore the needs of all neurodivergent students and students with disabilities. Instead, the aim should be to improve the inclusivity of these programs.
What Should Educational Administrators Rather Do?
While the goals of some educational administrators to improve education for all are noble, they should not come at the expense of dragging any student down. Instead, educators should look towards making education more individualized, with students with different needs placed in specific groups. Inclusivity issues and racial inequity in special education are real issues administrators need to tackle. Yet, the solution is to change how students are selected — not to abolish the programs themselves. Many students rely on these programs to fulfill their educational needs. Taking this choice away from them will only worsen the equity problems already present in education today.
Edited by Gustavo Villela
