Diversity+and+Giftedness

**Diversity and Giftedness**
-Andrea Juckniess-Kemerer (ready for grading)

Schools first started providing services for gifted students as early as 1860, but was not in schools in the United States until the 1960s or so (Oakland & Rossen 2000). Enrollment and qualification for gifted students was determined by performance on general intelligence tests in which students were expected to test in the top 2% to be labeled "gifted." Funding for gifted programs was provided in response to the space race, which was during segregation, so the under representation of minorities started at the beginning and never recovered.

Definitions of giftedness are determined by states and the programs offered are decided by the district, so across the nation there is quite a variety of observable GATE populations. The majority of gifted identification places emphasis on intellectual intelligence and this is based largely on intelligence tests data. White and Asian/Pacific Islander students do significantly better than Black and Hispanic students, which creates a level of under representation in gifted programs that is hard to overcome. Interestingly enough, in the state of California, it is illegal to issue an intelligence test to an identified Black student because of legislation passed in which intelligence tests were found to be culturally biased against Black persons. How, then, is it fair to attempt placement of gifted Black students?

Generally, there is an unmet need in the United States for gifted education, which by similar argument to that of special education, exists because some students demonstrate abilities in advance of their peers.

Regardless of the somewhat present or neglected programs that do exist for gifted students, there is a lack of representation and diversity in the "gifted" group. See Article:

According to Ford (2003): -National reports indicate that middle-class and White students are "overrepresented" in gifted programs (U.S.Department of Education, 1998) -Since the 1980s, their representation has remained steady or increased, while the representation of culturally diverse students has decreased (Ford, 1998) -Low-SES students are underrepresented in gifted education (U.S. Department of Education)

Good news: social inequalities that cause the above issues are easily correctable. For example, acknowledging injustices of the past lends itself to a side effect of ignorance regarding contemporary injustices. Ford argues that de facto segregation exists today and this must be addressed. She also notes that while many minority families are often impoverished and single-parent households, it is not the fault of parents or care givers that their students are denied the same access to gifted programs. Across society, "Black and Hispanic students continue to be in classrooms (a) with the least prepared teachers; (b) with the least experienced teachers; (c) with fewer fiscal, physical, and educational resources; (d) with lower levels of instruction; and (e) with teachers who hold low expectations of them" (Ford 286). As teachers we cannot control our colleagues' preparedness, but we can support all our colleagues when they struggle. We can arrange that materials that are still in good condition, but are being replaced can be passed along to schools or districts that lack materials. We can participate in discussions or conferences in which teachers of mostly minority populations are encouraged to hold high expectations of their students, regardless of the external pressures or opinions. We've all seen "Stand and Deliver" and admired Jaime Escalante (may he rest in peace), but we rarely attempt to have the same drive or compassion. This is something we can consider and try to move toward.

Students continue to be underrepresented in gifted education. Why? Ford states that it has to do with attitudes, definitions, measures (traditional tests), policies and procedures, and programming. There are some horrifying thoughts and myths regarding the affect changes will have to the gifted programs. (See page 5 of linked article for some of these statements.)

People with biased attitudes and opinions of minority students voice that they believe family and home life of impoverished students do not prepare them for school and therefore they cannot be gifted. This assumes that all minority students are low-income. Aside from that, these attitudes overlook that giftedness is based upon the intelligence of the individual which is not fostered at home, but rather is born to the child, as are talents, and is innately part of who the child is. Achievement on the other hand, or how well a student performs in school, is based on home life and both preparedness of the child and educational support from the family. When expectations of minority students are low, the effort to make change to support the high-achieving, low-income students is at a minimum.
 * Equal Rights for Minorities in Gifted Education**

Every child has a chance to be gifted or talented, so the number of minorities in a gifted program should nearly equally reflect the percentage of the school population of said minority group. Teachers need to be unbiased in order to equally identify any student as gifted. Ford (2000) argues that one of the ways to do this is to close the achievement gap between minorities and white students by increasing the presence of minority students in AP classes and gifted programs. While Ford has good arguments, this is somewhat of the-chicken-and-the-egg because how can more students exist in those classes when identification and placement is lowered by bias?

Ford highlights a key point in data collection and publications of studies. The norms for students in these studies holds that white students are the norm and the norm for white students is high-income. These statistics alone are not true and skew the results in a biased manner. Ford calls for the following in order to close the achievement gap: concern, compassion, courage, commitment, collaboration, and change. Teachers in gifted education are encouraged to identify all gifted students by first grade and continue to assess them as gifted students throughout elementary school. Teachers should educate families and caretakers of gifted students so they feel informed and able to make decisions regarding their student's education. Part of this knowledge gives parents the opportunity to nominate their students for evaluation as gifted students.

Teachers who have the most contact with minority students are likely to be lower-paid and often have less training. With this lower level of training is an increased likelihood that their knowledge of proper identification of gifted students is less sufficient. There are a number of methods to identify gifted students; one is teacher nomination. When teachers are less knowledgeable, they may not nominate all potentially gifted students. Another influence on a failure of the nominating method is the point in a child's educational time line when nomination occurs; if a gifted immigrant student is not yet in the United States when nominations occur, future teachers may not consider the student in later years if they are not informed that nominations can continue to occur.

Social scientists are taught to eliminate all humanistic tendencies to judge and to remain objective. However, researchers have experienced life and as a result have formed beliefs that may or may not influence their professional beliefs. The way in which a person interprets what is observed will be a result of their identity, including their gender, race, age, socio-economic status, religion, and educational level; it is inevitable because non-biased and objective observation cannot come from a single individual.
 * Culturally Responsive Research**

Culturally responsive teachers seek to increase multicultural or cross-cultural awareness and understanding. Culturally responsible teachers feel that it is important to always include culturally and linguistically diverse students in their work. Culturally responsive teachers are self-reflective and take the time to "think seriously, critically, and honestly about their own views of racial diversity and racially diverse groups" (Whiting, Ford, Grantham, Moore 2008). Self-awareness comes from understanding one's own cultural beliefs, values, and norms; this means that recognizing bias, but not acting upon that creates a greater sense of self-awareness.

As stated above, White and Asian/Pacific Islander students do significantly better than Black and Hispanic students in intelligence test. And since in the state of California it is illegal to issue an intelligence test to an identified Black student because of cultural bias, intelligence cannot be a prominent determining factor for some minorities. There is also identification on achievement tests. Some students, such as twice-exceptional students, do not perform on achievement tests in a manner that reflects their intelligence.
 * Issues with Gifted Identification**

__References__

Ford, D. (2000). Closing the Achievement Gap: Gifted Education Must Join the Battle. //Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 31-4.//

Ford, D. (2003). Two Other Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: Sacrificing the Needs of Diverse Students Does Not Solve Gifted Education’s Unresolved Problems. //Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 26(4),// //283-291.//

Oakland, T., & Rossen, E. (2000). A 21st-Century Model for Identifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs in Light of National Conditions: An Emphasis of Race and Ethnicity. //Gifted Child Today, 29(4), 56-63.//

Whiting, G., Ford, D., Grantham, T., & Moore, J. (2008). Considerations for Conducting Culturally Responsive Research in Gifted Education. //Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 26-30.//