When I was in fifth grade, my gifted class had about twenty boys and three girls. “Gifted” enrichment programs are supposed to give students with academic “superior performance” a separate curriculum to prepare them for future success (Shaunessy-Dedrick and Foley-Nicpon 2018:3). Often instituted in elementary and middle schools, they have long been criticized for prioritizing academic intelligence alone (Shaunessy-Dedrick and Foley-Nicpon 2018:4). But because so many more boys were in the class, I believed it was harder to qualify for the gifted program as a girl. I constantly felt the need to prove myself. By the time I was ten, I saw myself as smart “for a girl,” possibly the most destructive mindset I learned from the gifted program. Gender disparities and bias are not uncommon for gifted programs (Shaunessy-Dedrick and Foley-Nicpon 2018:3), which I observed firsthand from a young age. 

Teacher Gender Bias

Teachers usually nominate students for the gifted program who fit their expectations of what a gifted student should look like, often unknowingly leaning on embedded societal beliefs that boys are smarter than girls (Bianco et al. 2011:171). Yet, many teachers do not receive adequate training on gender bias in classrooms and continue to believe that gender inequality is a thing of the past (Bianco et al. 2011:172). 

In an experimental study, 77% of teachers referred a hypothetical male student, while only 54% referred the female student with the same described characteristics (Bianco et al. 2011:175). They reported choosing the male student for his “independence” and “self-motivation;” the female for her “imagination” and “creativity.” Some did not refer the female because “the competitive environment in a school’s gifted program will only promote [her] bossy attitude” (Bianco et al. 2011:176). The teachers never used “bossy” or “arrogant” to describe the male profile; instead, they celebrated his individuality and strong sense of self, revealing teachers’ implicit gender bias.

Stereotypes in Academics

Teachers are more likely to nominate students whose strengths do not match their gender stereotypes. For example, if a boy shows prowess in reading, a teacher is more likely to regard him as more proficient than a girl with the same English ability (Bianco et al. 2011:172). For this reason, sometimes students’ IQ scores are less significant than teacher recommendation in choosing gifted students (Petersen 2013:1). 

Emotional or social intelligence is also rarely considered for these programs (Shaunessy-Dedrick and Foley-Nicpon 2018:146). The gifted program acknowledges that giftedness manifests itself in ways other than school performance, but even when creativity is taken into consideration, the accomplishments of gifted men often surpass similarly gifted women (Shaunessy-Dedrick and Foley-Nicpon 2018:186).

Decreased Motivation in Girls

Due to gender disparities and bias in gifted programs, gifted girls tend to have lower self-esteem and motivation than average-ability students. This difference in motivation was far more significant among the gifted individuals than students with average ability, likely due to less reward for greater levels of effort (Preckel et al. 2008:1). Despite teachers viewing gifted girls as more disciplined and producing better work than gifted boys, they still gave the boys better grades (Bianco et al. 2011:172). Ratios of girls to boys in gifted programs can also be as low as 1:13 (Preckel et al. 2008:1). This greater bias towards boys in school has consequential effects on individual girls’ self-perceptions and gendered structure:

• Despite having the same grades as boys, girls tend to have a lower academic self-concept, meaning girls do not believe they are as capable of learning and succeeding at school as boys (Preckel et al. 2008:1). 
• Research shows that even if a girl is selected for a gifted program, she may not even want to take part due to intimidation or not seeing it as valuable (Peterson 2013:1). 
• Disinterest in careers that are more male-dominated, especially in math-related subjects, shows up in children as early as first grade (Preckel et al. 2008:1).

How Can We Educate?

As someone in the gifted program for nine years, I certainly experienced the effects of this widespread gendered predisposition on an individual level. Sociologically, the implications of the gifted program’s flaws affect mental perceptions of girls, boxing them into stereotypes predisposed by society and possibly preventing them from reaching their full potential. Underachievement is extremely common among formerly gifted girls due to decreased competency beliefs–after achieving at such a high level for so long, they experience a lack of self-efficacy (Desmet, Pereira, and Peterson 2020). 

However, gender differences in more recent studies have proved smaller than years prior, most likely because Title IX and the growing women’s rights movement have encouraged a more equitable education system (Petersen 2013:1). Schools have placed a greater priority on gender equality; more recent research has found a smaller gap between giftedness in boys and girls than years prior (Peterson 2013:1). The system is improving slowly, but education of gender bias of parents, students, and teachers is ultimately necessary (Desmet et. al 2020). Using multiple assessment criteria and relying less on teacher recommendations will make for a more equitable education system (Peterson 2013:1). 

Bianco, Margarita, Bryn Harris, Dorothy Garrison-Wade, and Nancy Leech. 2011. “Gifted Girls: Gender Bias in Gifted Referrals.” Roeper Review. 33(3):170–81. 

Desmet, O. A., Pereira, N., and Peterson, J. S. 2020. “Telling a Tale: How Underachievement Develops in Gifted Girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219888633

Petersen, Jennifer. 2013. “Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 38(4): 342-348.

Preckel, Franzis, Thomas Goetz, Reinhard Pekrun, and Michael Kleine. 2008. “Gender Differences in Gifted and Average-Ability Students.”Gifted Child Quarterly 52(2):146–59. 

Shaunessy-Dedrick, Elizabeth and Megan Foley-Nicpon. 2018. Apa Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.