Addressing Equity in Gifted Education: Identifying and Supporting Underrepresented Students

2. Identification and Programming Equity: Why Should We Care, What Can We Do About It? Marcia Gentry, Ph.D. Purdue University mgentry@purdue.edu www.purdue.edu/geri `

3. GERI… An innovative center dedicated to the discovery, study, and development of human potential… • Enrichment Programs for Gifted, Creative, and Talented Youth • Graduate Programs • Professional Development • Research

4. Philippines China Colombia Greece France Singapore Mille Lacs Band Ojibwe Navajo Nation Red Lake Nation Korea International Interest in GCT Taiwan United States Standing Rock Sioux Saudi Arabia Russia Kuwait

5. What is the problem? Severe and longstanding underrepresentation of low-income and culturally and linguistically diverse students identified as gifted Don’t ask, don’t tell mentality Haves and have nots Widening Gap Virtually ignored Native Youth by field

6. Poverty(Wyner et al. 2009) • 3.4 million high-achieving students from low-income families • Over time, they are less likely than their non-low income peers to • Persist • Improve • Graduate HS • Attend college (or attend selective college) • Earn a bachelor’s degree • Achieve at highest levels

7. Students from Poverty May lack access to books, computers, and resources They may receive less education, less intellectual stimulation, less time with their parents, fewer opportunities for enrichment and recreation, and experience poorer quality teachers than other students They also may lack “social capital”

8. (Yoon & Gentry, 2009)

9. Representation by Race by State in 2006 Yoon & Gentry, 2009

10. Representation by Race by State in 2006 Yoon & Gentry, 2009

11. Representation by Race by State in 2006 Yoon & Gentry, 2009

12. Representation by Race by State in 2006 Yoon & Gentry, 2009

13. Representation by Race by State in 2006 Yoon & Gentry, 2009

14. Nodata reported on Native Youth 2010 2013

15. Problem Excellence gaps exist among racial groups and income groups. Some of these gaps are growing The proportion of students scoring at the highest levels is shrinking (Plucker et al., 2010; 2013)

16. Purdue Group: 2 New Studies Excellence Gap, Reanalyzed to Include Native Youth Advanced; Top 10%, Multi-level Model Completion: July 2015 Underrepresentation: Analysis of OCR Data to determine extent of identification and programming. Who is missing? Where do programs actually exist?

26. Your Turn What do you hypothesize as the possible causes of these disturbing trends in representation and achievement? Talk to you neighbor

27. Possible Causes Poor identification procedures Poor instrumentation (biased) One-size-fits-all mentality Focus on performance rather than potential Focus on identification before service Belief that we can “tell” Lack of knowledge of different cultures by those charged with ID Teacher expectations

28. Possible Causes Lack of federal emphasis or leadership to reward/encourage schools that focus on innovation, talent development, and the cultivation of human potential Narrow definition regarding what constitutes achievement

29. Possible Causes Focus on underperforming students Focus on weaknesses Focus on remediation Focus on deficits Focus on AYP, VAM Little commitment to developing talents Uninteresting test preparation

30. Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality. (American Statistical Association, 2014)

31. Possible Causes Too much emphasis on tests and measures Screening as a means to identification Single time identification Unwillingness or lack of knowledge to examine equity Bending to pressures Having a set percentage

32. We would be far better off investing more money in providing direct services to children–small classes for struggling students, experienced teachers, social workers, counselors, psychologists, and a full curriculum–rather than investing in more test preparation. (Diane Ratvitch, 2014)

33. Consequences Race to the bottom No teacher left standing No child gets ahead Value Added Measure Growth Models Focus on “bubble kids” Excellence gaps widening Gifted programs deemphasized, cut, forgotten We focus on only what we can measure Scapegoating Public Education and Teachers Other countries are calling

34. Our Work: Projects HOPE and HOPE+(Having Opportunities Promotes Excellence) GERI Projects funded by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation HOPE: Enrichment programming for high potential students living in poverty. Tuition and transportation provided to attend Super Saturday and Super Summer (grades K-5) HOPE+: Summer Residential programming for high-potential Native youth from low-income families (grades 5-12)

35. HOPE Scholars • 360 served in over 1000 Super Saturday and Super Summer courses • They had positive experiences; learned new, above-grade-level content; and participated in interactive learning • Little scaffolding was needed (Miller & Gentry, 2010)

36. HOPE+ Scholars • Since 2011 when we began with 12 students from Ganado, AZ we have, with the support of the JCKF, schools, and donors, served between 60 and 75 HOPE+ Scholars in 2-weeks of GERI Summer Residential Camp • These students come from 5 communities from 4 Native American Reservations, Diné, Lakota, and Ojibwe

37. The HOPE Scale

38. TSCG Model • Total School Cluster Grouping • Research-based system designed to bring gifted education to everyone in the elementary school, while at the same time serving high-ability students

39. TSCG: Research • Achievement scores increase • More students identified as high-achieving • Fewer students identified as low-achieving • Teacher practices improve • Proportional representation improves

40. TSCG Research • 1999 study Quasi-experimental “seminal” study • Several other studies and dissertations • Book in Second Edition • Current school-as-its-own-control study • Entering Year 2 of a 5-year experimental scale-up study, nationally in 100+ schools

41. Achievement Changes

42. Achievement Changes

48. What can YOU do? • Following are some considerations that can help improve identification and programming to achieve equity

49. Identification is ComplexNot Simple and Tidy • Whatever the system, there will always be exceptions • Rather than spending huge amounts of time and money in search of a perfect identification system (often to which no exceptions are allowed), build in procedures for dealing with exceptions and the subjectivity inherent in any system

50. Truly Gifted or Simply High Achieving? • A child who can do the work and succeed in the program should be given the opportunity to do so, regardless of entrance criteria. • Overachievement does not exist, if the child is achieving at a high level, then he/she has the ability to do so. • They are just kids, and we really don’t know what they will become in the future, thus we must not restrict access based on arbitrary systems of ID. • Truly gifted vs. just high-achieving does not make sense.