Educational programs for gifted students face both philosophical and practical challenges from egalitarians. Some object that gifted schools inherently undermine a commitment to equality in education, while others observe that schools for talented students cater to privileged youth and effectively discriminate against disadvantaged minorities.This article taps into recent theorizing on equality to explore an illuminating case study: admissions policies at New York City's so-called `specialized' high schools. After dismissing less nuanced proposals on both ends of the spectrum,I draw upon Elizabeth Anderson's theory of `democratic egalitarianism' to argue that, while schools devoted to talented students could be seen as consistent with a commitment to equality, admissions policies for these schools must reach beyond meritocratic principles to ensure diversity in their student bodies. Racial and socioeconomic integration of social institutions, including schools — and elite schools perhaps most of all — should be a priority for those who care about democracy.
Anderson, E. (1999) `What is the point of equality?', Ethics109: 287-337.
2.
Anderson, E. (2007) `Fair opportunity in education: A democratic equality perspective', Ethics117: 595-622.
3.
Baker, B. (2001) `Gifted children in the current policy and fiscal context of public education: A national snapshot and state-level equity analysis of Texas', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis23(3): 229-50.
4.
Brighouse, H. and Swift, A. (2006) `Equality, priority and positional goods', Ethics116: 471-97.
5.
Callahan, C. (1997) `The construct of talent', Peabody Journal of Education72(3/4): 21-35.
6.
Children's Defense Fund -New York (2007) `Child poverty in New York City'. Available at www.cdfny.org/Issues/Tools/Child%20Poverty%20in%20New%-20York%20City%202006.pdf (accessed 1 December 2007).
7.
Cohen, G.A. (1989) `On the currency of egalitarian justice', Ethics99: 906-44.
8.
Dworkin, R. (2003) `Equality, luck and hierarchy', Philosophy and Public Affairs31(2): 190-8.
9.
Ford, D. (1995) `Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet' , The Journal of Negro Education64(1): 52-62.
10.
Gootman, E. (2006) `In elite schools, a dip in blacks and Hispanics' , New York Times, 18 August.
11.
Gootman, E. (2008) `Gifted programs in the city are less diverse.'New York Times, 19 June.
12.
Gould, S.J. (1996) The Mismeasure of Man. New York : W.W.Norton & Co.
13.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) 539 US 306.
14.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) 539 US 244.
15.
Gutmann, A. (1999) Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Hart, J. (1997) `Destroying excellence', The Dartmouth Review, 28 May.
17.
Hernandez, J. (2008) `Racial imbalance persists at elite public schools' , New York Times, 8 November.
18.
Herrnstein, R. and Murray, C. (1996) The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
19.
Herszenhorn, D. (2005) `Admissions test's scoring quirk throws balance into question', New York Times, 12 November.
20.
Hirschman, A.O. (2007) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Kincheloe, J.L., Steinberg, S.R. and Gresson,A.D. III, eds (1997) Measured Lies:The Bell Curve Examined. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
Konstantopoulos, S., Modi, M. and Hedges, L. (2001) `Who Are America's gifted?', American Journal of Education109(3): 344-82.
23.
Koski, W. and Reich, R. (2007a) `When "adequate" isn't: the retreat from equity in educational law and policy and why it matters', Emory Law Journal56: 545.
24.
Koski, W. and Reich, R. (2007b) `The state's obligation to provide education: adequate education or equal education?' (unpublished paper under review).
25.
Kozol, J. (1992) Savage Inequalities. New York : Harper.
26.
Kozol, J. (2005) The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York: Crown.
27.
Levittown v. Nyquist (1982) 57 NY2d 27.
28.
Lewin, T. (2007) `Colleges regroup after voters ban racial preferences' , New York Times, 26 January.
29.
Mac Donald, H. (1999) `How Gotham's elite high schools escaped the leveller's ax', City Journal, spring.
30.
Macedo, S. (1999) Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) 551 US.
32.
Merry, M. (2007) `Educational justice and the gifted', Theory and Research in Education6(1): 47-70.
33.
`Mike' (2006) Gothamist blog. Available at http://www.gothamist.com/archives/200608/18/nycs_top_high_s.php (accessed 1 December 2007).
34.
NACAC (2008) Report of the Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission. Arlington, VA: National Association for College Admission Counseling.
35.
Newman, M. (1995) `Cortines has plan to coach minorities into top schools', New York Times, 18 March.
36.
Orfield, G. and Lee, C. (2006) Racial Transformation and the Changing Nature of Segregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
37.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) 551 US.
38.
Phillips, L. (1983) `The gifted and talented among/between us'. The English Journal72(8): 43-4
39.
Rawls, J. (1971) ATheory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Renzulli J. and Reis, S., eds (2004). Identification of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
42.
Scheffler, S. (2003) `What is equality?'Philosophy and Public Affairs31(1): 5-38.
43.
`Sir Deurr' (2006) Gothamist blog. Available at http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/08/18/nycs_top_high_s.php (accessed 1 December 2007).
44.
US Department of Education. (1993) National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent.
45.
Van Parijs, P. (1991) `Why surfers should be fed:The liberal case for an unconditional basic income', Philosophy and Public Affairs20: 101-31.
