Information Technology Services



Running head:  Gifted and Talented Selection

Gifted and Talented Selection and the Achievement Gap

Roger S. Baskin, Sr.

George Mason University

Abstract

A contributing factor to the achievement gap is the selection process that many school districts utilize in the selection process for gifted and talented services.  Intended to give gifted students an accelerated curriculum, the process often creates gaps in access which then leads to gaps in achievement for populations historically underrepresented in advanced courses.  The process of selection further exacerbates the achievement gap in that students selected for gifted and talented centers can get as much as six years of advanced courses while their counterparts in regular classes get very little in the way of higher level thinking skills.

Gifted and Talented Selection and the Achievement Gap

Definition:

One issue that contributes to the achievement gap is the structure that many school districts use to identify students for gifted and talented education (Anguiano, 2003; Baldwin 1991; Bernal, 2002; Borland and Wright, 1994; Ford and Harris, 1998; Gallagher 1994; Grantham, 2003; Maker, 1996; Morris, 2002). Typically based on standardized test scores and teacher recommendations, the process often ignores the attributes of gifted children from diverse backgrounds. The result is a gap in access to opportunities for higher level thinking and problem solving. Because some students receive exclusive gifted and talented center education as early as grade three while their peers are often taught to pass state mandated tests, the gap widens due to exposure to two very different curriculums—one designed to develop problem solving and higher level thinking skills and the other to prepare for a very limited set of skills important for state tests. The result is a monopoly of cultural capital and symbolic capital reminiscent of Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social stratification (1991). Although high schools often offer open enrollment to advanced courses, by the time students reach ninth grade, there is often a six year difference in what they have learned which reflects in performance in these college-preparatory courses. This gap, manufactured by institutional practice, then replicates in colleges throughout the nation.

Race and economic status are often factors in both the selection of students and the success of students in these advanced courses. Typically, white and Asian students are in the majority of these courses while black and Hispanic students are in the minority both in access and in success.

The means by which intelligence is defined is problematic and highly subjective (Ford, 1996). The very origin of intelligence testing, which was initially termed mental test as early as the 1890’s (Benjamin, 1997), is closely tied to white supremacist ideas of the intellectual inferiority of people of color (Stewart, 1996; Wiggans, 2007). Ironically, some of the first tests designed to show differences in intelligence between Blacks and Whites tended to demonstrate that Blacks outpaced Whites (Guthrie, 1998; Stetson, 1897).

Often, students are not identified because of the limitations of the most popular definitions. Typically, intelligence is measured by cutoff scores on standardized tests. Some school districts allow parents to pay for multiple tests if the scores from the school-administered tests are not high enough. This part of the process puts low income families at a disadvantage because they cannot pay for the cost of the tests. Also, the parents who pay for the testing typically get what they pay for, so the tests are not a reflection of the student’s abilities but of the allegiance of the hired professional to the paying client.

This would explain, for example, why a number of the gifted and talented centers and governor’s schools in the state of Virginia have virtually no students on free and reduced meals. These centers and schools are the domain of the wealthy. Hence, the class stratification of the larger society is reproduced in schools (Grant and Wong, in press). This is most clear in the

process of gifted and talented selection. Parents from less affluent backgrounds may not be as aware of the process as those parents who have established the type of social capital that enables them to navigate the barriers associated with access to advanced courses (Lee and Bowen, 2006).

The identification process is further biased by the nature of the tests that are administered. Tests that are typically used to evaluate giftedness place ESOL students and students from poverty at a disadvantage because they are based on a particular set of language acquisition skills that are associated with dominant cultural capital. Students who do not have access to this capital are not unintelligent but are limited in their access to the nuances of dominant cultural assumptions about language and reasoning. However, when these same students are given tests that are not grounded in dominant cultural language, they perform much better. Tests like the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) are one example of how students from diverse backgrounds can be more adequately identified as exceptional in intelligence.

Another barrier that is a part of the selection process is the means by which behaviors are categorized as either gifted, average, or below average. Some gifted behaviors are exhibited beyond the school day. Students who perform work for their community, church, or family exhibit the kind of problem solving and fast thinking often associated with giftedness; yet, because of the limitations of the school culture, some students may never get the opportunity to exhibit their unique abilities.

Further compounding the problem, students who are from poorer communities often have less opportunity to get the type of enrichment that leads to identification. The teachers are often less experienced and less fluent in their abilities to differentiate for exceptional learners.

How it contributes to the gap:

The selection process for gifted and talented centers contributes to the gap in that it creates a group of students, largely white and Asian, who have access to higher level thinking exercises much sooner and much more often than black and Hispanic students. Further, it not only impacts these two groups but also impacts students who are from low income households. Although given the opportunity in high school to participate in advanced secondary courses like honors, Advanced Placement (AP), and International Baccalaureate (IB), the students who were not selected to be a part of gifted and talented center programs earlier in their school career are often behind their counterparts who have benefited from these opportunities, in many instances, since third grade. Even among gifted students, predominantly black gifted and talented students lag behind their white counterparts in achievement (Viadero, 2008).

Chart 1 demonstrates the disparities that exist in one Virginia school district. School District A has openly expressed a commitment to addressing the disparity that exists in the selection process for gifted and talented program services by identifying the percentage of students from underrepresented populations and working to make sure that the demographics of the gifted and talented programs reflect the diversity of the school district. Although minimal progress has been made, the chart indicates that the most recent efforts fall 26 percentage points behind the intended outcome for minority participation. The fact that a school district that is predominantly minority can still have a participation rate in gifted and talented programs of 30% speaks to the bias inherently built into the selection process.

Further, the 21% access gap that exists among students on the free and reduced lunch program points to the disparity that exists in class distinction. Additionally, students who are learning English as their second language are 13 percentage points from the target goal.

Chart 1

School District A

Comparison of Gifted Program and

School Division Demographic Profiles

2004-05 and 2005-06

| |2004-2005 |2005-2006 |

|% Division Minority Students |54 |56 |

|% Program Minority Students |27 |30 |

|% Division Free & Reduced Lunch |30 |28 |

|Students | | |

|% Program Free & Reduced Lunch |7 |7 |

|Students | | |

|% Division LEP Students |13 |15 |

|% Program LEP Students |1 |2 |

Charts 2 and 3 point to the achievement gaps that exist within another Virginia school district. A comparison between AP and IB math courses demonstrates disparities in access and achievement in School District B. Both charts demonstrate the highest level of math attainable in AP and IB respectively. Both demonstrate lower numbers of Blacks and Hispanics and lower achievement in comparison to Whites and Asians.

Chart 2

Results in AP Statistics for School District B

|Ethnicity |2002-2003 |2003-2004 |2004-2005 |2005-2006 |

|Asian |Tested: 227 |Tested: 222 |Tested: 213 |Tested: 315 |

| |Scored 3 or above: 115 |Scored 3 or above: 105 |Scored 3 or above: 111 |Scored 3 or above: 184 |

| |(50.7%) |(47.3%) |(52.1%) |(58.4%) |

|Hispanic |Tested: 30 |Tested: 35 |Tested: 26 |Tested: 35 |

| |Scored 3 or above: 6 (20%) |Scored 3 or above: 12 |Scored 3 or above: 9 |Scored 3 or above: 16 |

| | |(34.3%) |(34.6%) |(45.7%) |

|Black |Tested: 31 |Tested: 35 |Tested: 34 |Tested: 37 |

| |Scored 3 or above: 7 |Scored 3 or above: 8 |Scored 3 or above: 7 |Scored 3 or above: 16 |

| |(22.6%) |(22.9%) |(20.6%) |(43.2%) |

|White |Tested: 735 |Tested: 631 |Tested: 660 |Tested: 664 |

| |Scored 3 or above: 368 |Scored 3 or above: 328 |Scored 3 or above: 395 |Scored 3 or above: 383 |

| |(50.1%) |(52%) |(59.8%) |(57.7%) |

|Other: |Tested: 18 |Tested: 20 |Tested: 25 |Tested: 22 |

|(American Indian, Alaskan |Scored 3 or above: 8 |Scored 3 or above: 10 |Scored 3 or above: 14 (56%)|Scored 3 or above: 15 |

|Native, Multiracial, Native |(44.4%) |(50%) | |(68.2%) |

|Hawaiian, and Undesignated) | | | | |

Chart 3

Results in IB Mathematical Studies for School District B

|Ethnicity |2000-2001 |2001-2002 |2002-2003 |2003-2004 |2004-2005 |2005-2006 |

|Asian |Tested: 40 |Tested: 52 |Tested: 96 |Tested: 93 |Tested: 76 |Tested: 99 |

| |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or |

| |35 (87.5%) |47 (90.4%) |75 (78.1%) |76 (81.7%) |59 (77.6%) |above: 91 |

| | | | | | |(91.9%) |

|Hispanic |Tested: 13 |Tested: 22 |Tested: 33 |Tested: 30 |Tested: 36 |Tested: 32 |

| |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or |

| |10 (76.9%) |20 (90.9%) |29 (87.9%) |18 (60%) |30 (83.3%) |above: 20 |

| | | | | | |(62.5%) |

|Black |Tested: 21 |Tested: 35 |Tested: 42 |Tested: 48 |Tested: 39 |Tested: 42 |

| |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or |

| |12 (57.1%) |25 (71.4%) |35 (83.3%) |30 (62.5%) |27 (69.2%) |above: 31 |

| | | | | | |(73.8%) |

|White |Tested: 147 |Tested: 222 |Tested: 297 |Tested: 337 |Tested: 257 |Tested: 268 |

| |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or |

| |138 (93.9%) |208 (93.7%) |280 (94.3%) |300 (89%) |219 (85.2%) |above: 251 |

| | | | | | |(93.7%) |

|Other: (American |Tested: 8 |Tested: 4 |Tested: 9 |Tested: 9 |Tested: 17 |Tested: 14 |

|Indian, Alaskan Native,|Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or above: |Scored 4 or |

|Multiracial, Native |6 (75%) |3 (75%) |8 (88.9%) |8 (88.9%) |15 (88.2%) |above: 11 |

|Hawaiian, and | | | | | |(78.6%) |

|Undesignated) | | | | | | |

Interestingly, the IB program demonstrates much higher pass percentages among Blacks and Hispanics. These math scores are a reflection on the level of access students are able to gain at earlier stages in their academic careers. Algebra, the gateway course that leads to advanced mathematics, is typically offered to students on the regular track in 9th grade. Students in gifted and talented centers can start as soon as 7th grade. Further, pre-algebra classes, can begin in a limited number of schools in 6th grade. It is offered, however, in all gifted and talented centers. The fact that some students can prepare sooner for algebra based on their selection to gifted and talented centers speaks to the disparity in academic achievement later in high school.

There are also ramifications for college admission and credit. Although minority students tend to do better in IB classes, most colleges do not recognize these classes in the same way they recognize AP courses (Matthews, 2008). Hence, students may excel in advanced math at a school that offers IB but not receive credit toward college. On the other hand, a student may do well on an AP course and receive college credit. The dynamic is further complicated by the fact that the schools in School District B that offer IB are typically majority minority schools and schools with higher percentages of students in the free and reduced meals program. Hence, students who are minorities and poor have to deal with the structure of gifted and talented selection and the prejudice of colleges arbitrarily choosing one advanced secondary program over another.

Policy debate surrounding the issue:

The way we define gifted potential is a major policy concern because it is a highly subjective matter that is often interwoven with racist ideas of genetic superiority and inferiority. Further, the need for professional development in the area of differentiation is key for those

schools who want all students to benefit from exposure to higher level thinking skills. Additionally, schools that prepare teachers must consider an emphasis on differentiation and the identification of gifted traits in all students. Another policy debate surrounding this issue is the financial support of programs that are designed to offer enrichment for populations that are historically underrepresented in advanced courses like AP, IB and honors.

A little about the history of two such programs will help to amplify the existing habitus (schemes of perception, thought, and action) of some local school district communities. One initiative to close the participation gap in advanced courses lasted for approximately ten years. Privately funded, the program was designed to gather the most promising black and Hispanic students in an effort to prepare them for the rigors of a magnet school admissions process. Working with 100 7th and 8th graders, the program also attracted some of the school systems most accomplished minority teachers.

The program operated at the magnet school for its entire lifetime and had students meet twice a month and three weeks in the summer. They learned advanced math, English, and science and technology including robotics. Organizations such as Hispanic Engineers and National Society of Black Engineers were also connected to the program by offering mentoring and curriculum support.

Students who managed to gain admission into the magnet school were tracked by the program. If they experienced difficulty in transitioning through the school, the program would advocate for them. This challenged the existing doxa or deeply held beliefs of the school and larger community that these students did not belong.

According to one former administrator, the program was no longer funded because it serviced only Blacks and Hispanics—the two groups who were underrepresented in the advanced secondary courses and in the student population of the school. Because of the legal challenge of Gratz Hamacher/ Grutter v. The Regents of the University of Michigan, the question of programming that supported a particular race was put into question and led to the demise of this first effort at creating a pipeline to the school.

The program was renamed. Deemed by many to be less organized and less rigorous than its predecessor, the program focused on preparing students for admission to the magnet school. The second version of the program began to be funded by the school system and was no longer privately funded. As a result, the demographics of the program changed because it was no longer restricted to Blacks and Hispanics.

The new formulation opened the door for students who traditionally would not have attended it also mirrored the concerns of the larger society that programs should not be based on race—even when particular races were underrepresented. Further the program took in more students—over 300. It also added a 6th grade component.

With the start of the school year also came an effort to redesign the program so that it would not focus solely on test preparation for admission to the magnet school. The expanded view of the program would now include the explanation of other options including AP and IB.

The program would also be evaluated the same year it started the redesign. This raises questions as to the real intent of the evaluation in that it is customary to evaluate programs after a curriculum has been established and a means of developing routines has been solidified.

The evaluations were, as a matter of course, not favorable and suggested that the program was ineffective. This supported the doxa of the larger community and socially reproduced programs that do not threaten the status quo.

Now in its third and final year of evaluation, the program is not slated to be funded by the school system any longer. At one time deemed as the pipeline by which black and Hispanic students entered into one of the most selective schools in the nation, the program is now ending.

The work of Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky (2002) discusses the impact of change and how people react to change agents. The reactions are very similar to that of school district cultures that react to programming and initiatives that symbolize the change in the area of access and equity gaps:

1. marginalize

2. divert

3. attack

4. seduce

The effort mentioned above was clearly marginalized by its own school district in

that it was relegated to a program as opposed to a district effort to close the equity and access gap that existed. Further, the program went through a diversion from its original intent in that it was originally focused on black and Hispanic students—the underrepresented populations in advanced courses. Further, the seduction of more funding and more students at the cost of losing the goal of access for black and Hispanic students led to an effort that looked very different. This all resonates with the work of people like Gloria Ladson-Billings who talks about a moral

debt that is associated with historical racism, institutionalized inequality, and the economic disenfranchisement of marginalized populations (2006).

One area of reaction—attack—is best explained through the work of Bourdieu (1989). He talks about symbolic violence and that is exactly what happened in this case. Symbolic violence is when one person or group who hold power imposes a way of thinking upon an individual or group with less power. Further, the oppressed group is convinced that the power holder is right and therefore their position of powerlessness is right. In this way, the social order is legitimized by the very people who suffer under it. Ironically, the effort was dealt symbolically violent blows on several fronts. First, there was the idea that the effort was un-American because it focused on groups that were left behind and underrepresented which left some to question its validity (including those who would stand to benefit from its existence). Second, black and Hispanic parents whose children were a part of the program began to question the program’s worth in comparison to opportunities that were not targeted at underrepresented populations. Finally, when it was clear that the program would not be funded, there was very little effort at supporting or defending the program from the communities most impacted by these decisions. The interpretation of the school district was deemed sufficient.

What was at stake in the previous attempts at change? Well, the culture of the school touted as the pride and joy of the district was at stake. The idea that there was an elite school with affluent, white and Asian students who were largely untouched by other cultures was at stake.

Many questioned attempts to bring in more students of color because it was seen as a way of

dumbing down the school. This is reminiscent of the belief in genetic and cultural inferiority

believed by many to be the true cause of the achievement gap (Herrnstein, 1973; Herrnstein &

Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1969; Scarr, 1992). Further, the myth that the playing field is level and

that students who are underrepresented do not need support is questionable.

Further, the overall effort of supporting underrepresented students during their middle school years was thwarted while no one questioned the advantage of families who could afford to pay for tutoring and other academic enrichment that would prepare their students after school and in the summer. Underrepresented populations who received these services for free were now left with nothing.

Declared by leaders of the school district to be the victim of tough budgetary times, the question needs to be asked, “Do we sacrifice those who are already behind when times are hard and resources are limited?”

Proposed practices:

A redefinition of the term gifted is vitally needed. Currently, many school districts use

definitions that present more questions than definite answers to what giftedness looks like.

These definitions are typically interpreted through the lens of bias and hence leave out large

numbers of students. The speed with which one learns is one means that districts use. But this is troubling in that it ignores a number of cultural and individual considerations. Howard Gardner (1983) and Donna Ford (1996) have both attempted to define giftedness in ways that include a variety of experiences and strengths that students possess.

A reformation of the way students are identified for gifted and talented centers is also

needed. The use of a wider lens that encompasses strengths that students possess beyond

test scores and subjective teacher recommendations is a start. Some school districts are beginning to use portfolios that can demonstrate student work that may not be captured in the traditional process of identification.

Further, the use of tests that are not based in language (like the NNAT) (Naglieri and Ford 2003) is a step that some school districts are taking to identify more students from diverse backgrounds. Ultimately, the idea that students should be separated based on their performance on tests and teacher recommendations is problematic, because it creates gaps in access which then leads to gaps in achievement.

The best practice, particularly at the elementary level, is to differentiate. People who grimace at this word must admit that even in gifted and talented centers there are students with varying degrees of proficiency in various disciplines. Students who excel in math may struggle with organizing their thoughts in writing. Yet they are still given the support needed to achieve

because they have been deemed gifted and hence are capable of reaching the teacher’s

expectations.

When teachers are given professional development that enables them to identify

exceptional ability and professional development that enables them to differentiate instruction,

students benefit from having access to equitable instruction. Further, professional development

that is geared toward culturally responsive pedagogy is also a significant step in the direction

of equity in access and achievement.

A final practice that school districts can take is to support programs that provide enrichment for underrepresented populations. This support is especially needed in the area of

algebra proficiency so that students have a better opportunity at being prepared for the advanced math and science classes that utilize algebra. Programs like The Algebra Project, Inc. are an

example of this effort.

References

Anguiano, L. T. (2003, Fall) Underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented

education. Multicultural Education. Retrieved from . 29 Apr. 2008.

Baldwin, A.Y. (1991). Ethnic and cultural issues. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),

Handbook of gifted education (pp. 416-427). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Benjamin, L. T. (1997). A history of psychology: Original sources and contemporary

research (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Bernal, E. M. (2002). Three ways to achieve a more equitable representation of culturally

and linguistically A portrait of successful middle different students in GT

programs. Roeper Review, 24, 82-88.

Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted economically

disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory 7 (1), 14-25.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Thompson, J. (Editor).

Boston: Harvard University Press.

Ford, D.Y. & Harris III, J.J. (1998). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Ford, D.Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising

practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Current and historical thinking on education for gifted and

talented students. In P. O. Ross (Ed.), National excellence: A case for developing

America’s talent: An anthology of readings (pp. 26-40). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of multiple intelligences. New York:

Basic Books.

Grant, R. & Wong, S. (in press). Critical race perspectives, Bourdieu and language education.

In A. Luke and J. Albright (Eds.), Bourdieu and literacy education. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates. Chapter 8.

Grantham, T. C. (2003). Increasing Black student enrollment in gifted programs: An

explanation of the Pulaski county special school district’s advocacy efforts. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 47, 46-65.

Guthrie, R. (1998). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology (2nd ed.).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Heifetz, R. and Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive

through the dangers of leading. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Herrnstein, R. J. (1973). I.Q. in the meritocracy. Boston: Little, Brown.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure

in American life. New York: Free Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). Environment, heredity, and intelligence. Harvard Educational

Review, 39(1), 1–50.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:

Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. 2006 Presidential address. Educational

Researcher, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp. 3-12.

Lee, J. and Bowen, N. (2006, Summer). Parent involvement, cultural capital,

and the achievement gap among elementary school children, American Educational

Research Journal. Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 193-218

Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem,

needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.

Matthews, J. (2008, February 25). Despite IB growth, college credit is elusive. The

Washington Post. B1.

Morris, J. E. (2002). African American students and gifted education: The politics of race

and culture. Roeper Review, 24, 59-62.

Naglieri, J. A. & Ford, D.Y. (2003). Addressing under-representation of gifted minority children

using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155-160.

Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990’s: Development and individual

differences. Child Development, 63, 1–19.

Stewart, N. A. (1996). Melanin, the melanin hypothesis, and the development and

assessment of African infants. In D. Ajani ya Azibo (Ed.), The African psychology

in historical perspective and related commentary (pp. 99–138). Trenton, NJ: Africa

World Press.

Stetson, G. R. (1897). Some memory tests of Whites and Blacks. Psychological

Review, 6(3), 285–289.

Viadero, D. (2008, April 16). Black-White gap widens faster for high achievers.

Education Week. Vol. 27, Issue 33, Pages 1, 13.

Wiggan, G. (2007, September). Race, school achievement, and educational inequality:

Toward a student-based inquiry perspective. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 77,

No. 3, pp. 310-333.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download