Should urban schools continue to fund gifted and talented programs? Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews thinks no. “Unfortunately public schools, including those in the suburbs, rarely have the resources or teaching expertise to challenge them much,” he writes. “For urban schools, the standard gifted and talented system is often a waste of time.”

Mathews’ objection stems from his belief that the gifted and talented label is often misused and that “most successful schools try to raise the achievement of all students, no matter how high or low they start the year.”

NAESP Executive Director Gail Connelly weighed in on this subject in the May/June 2009 issue of Principal, which focuses on what schools can do and are doing to support gifted students, and describes ways that gifted and talented programs can energize a school’s curriculum. “Inequitably offering enhanced learning opportunities for members of underrepresented groups has far-reaching consequences, as indicated by the telling disparities existing between the number of minority students in public schools and the percentage of minority students in gifted and talented programs,” she wrote. “This imbalance undoubtedly affects the overall achievement gap.”

How should schools differentiate learning for gifted and talented students? Are gifted and talented programs in urban schools, as Mathews suggests, a waste of time and money?