Faced with the daunting challenges posed by the new global economy, the U.S. is squandering one of its greatest assets in the form of its gifted and talented students. Yet the issue remains curiously absent from public debate among presidential candidates.

For Washington state, the implications affect more than just the estimated 37,000 students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses, which are regarded as the crown jewel of the academic curriculum. They also directly impact students in the Accelerated Progress Program and other options designed to nurture high-level ability in the Seattle Public Schools.

The blame begins at the federal level, where the only initiative to specifically address the unique needs of these approximately 3 million students nationwide is the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. Since it was passed in 1988, the law has languished in the shadows, producing a congressional appropriation of a paltry $9.7 million for fiscal year 2006. Only half of the states offer additional dollars.

In sharp contrast, Congress allocated $23.7 billion for fiscal year 2006 to fund the No Child Left Behind Act to bring all students up to minimal proficiency. Moreover, when school districts need to pay for after-school tutoring or other remediation, they siphon money from programs for the gifted. The law rarely has not been in the media and political spotlight ever since it took effect in January 2002. This unprecedented attention has caused school districts to place inordinate emphasis on classes consisting of basic skills aimed at low-achieving students.

No one denies that underperforming students deserve special curriculum and instruction to remediate their deficiencies. But a balance has to be struck with the needs of gifted students. Unfortunately, this has not happened in Washington, D.C., or in Seattle. It's not surprising, therefore, that many parents locally feel disaffected. They've placed their hopes on the widely publicized programs in the district as an alternative to mediocre public schools, where creativity is in short supply. But faced with limited choice and confusing rules, some parents have begun to look to private schools, even though public schools in their neighborhood are not technically failing under NCLB.

Until recently, the one program for gifted students in public schools that seemed immune to criticism was AP, which was perceived as the assured avenue to a high school's academic reputation and to a quality education. This belief was what led Cleveland High School to offer its first AP classes and the Edmonds School District to work on expanding its AP menu. It's also what counts the most in determining "America's Best High Schools." That's the title of the recent debut by U.S. News & World Reports in ranking secondary education. It's the basis as well of rankings of high schools by Newsweek and The Washington Post.

But even AP is now facing a backlash that worries parents and students, who assumed the program gave them a leg up in the cutthroat competition for admission to top-tier colleges. A series of questions about the caliber of instruction have surfaced that were unimaginable just a few years ago. To understand the reasons for the shift in opinion, it's necessary to rewind to 1955 when the College Board developed the program.

Its purpose then was to allow high school students to earn college credit -- not to buff their college applications. At the time, AP was the preserve of an academic elite. But as pressure slowly began to build to democratize the college admissions process, less able students were encouraged to enroll. The proliferation was further fueled by government subsidies and by the College Board's aggressive promotion, which resulted in a tripling of the program since 1990 alone.

The result was that admission officers gradually began to lose confidence in the quality of AP courses. This became readily apparent in February 2002, when Harvard University announced that it would grant credit only to those students who scored 5, the highest possible, on the AP exam. In quick order, other marquee-name colleges and universities also raised their cut scores for credit, signaling the beginning of a new era for AP.

But questions about AP have also come from teachers who view the curriculum as overemphasizing breadth at the expense of depth. Once they sign up to teach AP, they say they effectively forfeit the freedom to exercise their professional judgment about zeroing in on topics of special interest or relevance to their students. Some teachers have likened the curriculum to a series of virtual scripted lessons they feel compelled to follow day by day if they expect their students to be successful on the AP exams given in May.

If this litany of complaints were not enough, professors have expressed skepticism about the ability of AP teachers to handle the subject matter as expertly as they can. They cite the frequent lack of graduate-level knowledge of AP teachers and the practice of some principals assigning AP teachers without specific content expertise even at the undergraduate level. The charges have undermined the morale of AP teachers, who devote countless hours beyond the school day to prepare lessons and supplemental material.

That's one reason why pressure is building in Seattle Public Schools for enhanced professional development. Despite popular belief, not all gifted students learn by themselves. They need inspired instruction and a challenging curriculum specifically geared to their needs. When they don't get it, they become bored and drop out. In fact, gifted students drop out nationwide at the rate of about 5 percent. Unless teachers are trained to address these issues, we run the risk of losing our best young minds. That's another reason why the recent University of Virginia report needs to be taken seriously when it concluded that the district has fallen behind in educating its gifted students.

With mounting criticism from so many sides, another college-level offering known as the dual enrollment course is slowly gaining traction. These courses are taken either at college or at high school, with instruction paid or supervised by the college. A study released in October 2007 that looked at the records of 299,685 dual enrollment students in Florida found that they had higher college grade point averages and more college credits three years after high school graduation than similar students who had not been part of dual enrollment.

Academic purists maintain that dual enrollment courses and AP courses are not in the same league because the former comes in so many varieties and is less selective. They have a point. But if the only alternative to an AP or International Baccalaureate course is a regular course, then dual enrollment deserves serious consideration in the Seattle Public Schools. That's because it's important to challenge students who would otherwise be disengaged. This is particularly the case when so many seniors seem to have outgrown high school.

For students who are unsure about their ability to handle AP, or where AP courses are not available, dual enrollment provides advanced work in line with Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson's stated goal. They also serve to offset criticism that traditional gifted programs are elitist and violate the egalitarianism that has been the foundation of public schools in this country.

How dual enrollment courses will ultimately affect the courses designed for gifted and talented students in Seattle Public Schools is unclear. Tradition dies hard. But with so much at stake, it's likely that change is on the horizon. It can't come too soon.