Justifying Gifted Education: A Critique of Needs Claims and a Proposal

Abstract

References to needs, special needs, counseling needs, differential educational needs, and the like are common in gifted education publications. These phrases may be the primary or only justification for counseling practices and special education services for the gifted. This essay critically examines the features and assumptions of needs claims, one type of justification for special services for the gifted, and argues that they rest on unstated theories and unavowed moral values, define a paternalistic relationship between teachers and gifted students, and, most significantly, encourage the impression that gifted students deserve things that other students do not. Proposals for more adequate forms of justification that make explicit and defend the moral, theoretical, and empirical bases of advocacy claims are offered.