1 / 25

Potential Unleashed

Potential Unleashed. Identifying Underrepresented Populations in Gifted Education in Illinois.

dulcej
Download Presentation

Potential Unleashed

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Potential Unleashed Identifying Underrepresented Populations in Gifted Education in Illinois

  2. At no time in our history have these students been proportionately represented in gifted education. Three groups have received the bulk of this attention: African-American, Hispanic-American, and Native American students. Statistics show that these three groups are underrepresented by some 50 to 70% . According to the Office for Civil Rights, a discrepancy of 20% or more is unacceptable and may indicate biases in instruments, policies, procedures, and practices. (Ford & Whiting, 2008) There is Low Representation of Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted Education.

  3. Arbitrariness of giftedness? • Societal threat to mainstream White/European cultural norms and beliefs? • Practices used to identify giftedness? • A combination of the three? Why do these discrepancies exist in gifted education?

  4. Definition of Giftedness • The premises for most used definitions for giftedness are very different. One focuses on outstanding intellectual ability and potential, while the other emphasizes productivity and creativity of multiple types of intelligences. • ESEA defines gifted as, “Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities,” thus combining the two schools of thought. Giftedness as a Social Construct

  5. James Borland claims that giftedness is a twentieth century social construct “created in advance of the identification of its members, and the identification of the members of the category both is predicated on the belief that the category exists and serves, tautologically, to confirm the category’s existence.” • The socially constructed purpose favors economically advantaged children and families in the educational system while neglecting to recognize the inequity to less advantaged children and their families due to the identification processes used, potentially stemming from a cultural or societal threat to the mainstream white society. Giftedness as a Social Construct

  6. The result, arbitrary identification processes • Based on the decision of educational entities • Can cause “Geographical Giftedness Disorder” • The issues stemming from social construction of gifted education and the lack of equity in identification processes • The under identification of Black, Hispanic, and poor students • Their lack of participation in gifted programs proportionately to the general student population • The over identification of White and Asian students in gifted programs when compared to their proportions in the general student population Giftedness as a Social Construct

  7. Historical underpinnings of gifted education • Began with Lewis Terman and the Stanford-Binet IQ test and Genetic Studies of Genius • Modern day gifted education is rooted in response 1957’s Sputnik, Math – Science - Engineering • Next surge in gifted education came in 1972 with the Marland Report and the 3-5% of the population concept. • Gifted Programming or District Sanctioned “White & Financial Flight”? Giftedness as a Social Construct

  8. “Within large urban districts, particularly those characterized by impoverished, struggling schools and large, ethnically diverse populations, gifted programs (in- cluding gifted magnet programs) have served (and sometimes been promoted) as a way of stemming white flight; by providing segregated programming for gifted students,some white parents – whose children are in the gifted program – will remain within the district.” Sapon-Shevin, 1994 Giftedness as a Social Construct

  9. Spent the majority of my career in education in gifted programming • It’s because I care about gifted education that I bring attention to these issues • Gifted must seek to be an field of equity • This socially constructed educational practice is entrenched within the American education system despite the inequity it imposes to the system • How can we work within the system to create the most equitable opportunities? Does she even like gifted education?

  10. The National Research Council used data from the Office of Civil Rights to report on underrepresented populations in gifted education and found the following ratios: • 7.5 White students out of 100 were identified as gifted, • 10 out of 100 Asian/Pacific Islander children were identified as gifted • 3 out of 100 Black students were identified gifted • 3.5 out of 100 Latino students were identified as gifted Gifted Identification

  11. In 2016, One Chance Illinois found the following: Gifted Identification

  12. Despite decades of efforts to eradicate racial and socioeconomic disproportionality and inequity in gifted education, White middle-class and upper-middle-class children continue to be disproportionately overrepresented while poor children, Black, and Brown students are disproportionately underrepresented • James Borland wrote, “It is worth repeating that this (underrepresentation) has nearly always been seen, within the field, as wrong and remediable. However, the persistence of the problem tempts one to question just how tractable the problem is within the field as it is currently established.” Gifted Identification

  13. Large unit districts in Illinois were the source due to the similar makeup and availability of a more diverse students population. • Find the large unit districts that have the most proportionate demographics between their all student and gifted student populations, specifically Black, Hispanic, and White students • Explore the identification processes used in these proportionate schools to ascertain the practices that most equitably identify underrepresented populations So is anyone identifying proportionately?

  14. Demographic data sets from the Office of Civil Rights were used to identify the ratios of the all student populations to the gifted student populations • Districts were then rank ordered by the differences between their all student population and gifted student population percentages. • The identification practices of the districts that were found to be most proportionate were examined • Findings were made as to the individual and collective group of practices that resulted in the most proportionate ratios. Study Methodology

  15. Findings: BlackStudents

  16. Findings: HispanicStudents

  17. Most Proportionate Districts

  18. Achievement Assessments • Cognitive Assessment • Non Verbal Assessment • Parent Recommendation • Peer/Self Nomination • Teacher Recommendation • Universal Screening What practices result in the most proportionate results?

  19. Results

  20. What one LUD has done (Gr 1)

  21. What one LUD has done (Gr 6)

  22. Grade 1 • For the 2016-2017 school year, the NaglieriNonverbal Ability Test was used as a universal screener with a pre-determined cut score along with teacher and parent recommendations. • For the 2017-2018 school year, the Cognitive Ability test was used as the universal screener along with DIBELS, the district Math assessment, and parent recommendations. These data points were put into a matrix and rank ordered then the top 7% of the population was identified. Cut score was determined by that specific population. • Teacher recommendations were also available for suggesting a review of student data but students did not receive matrix points for this nor could they be denied access based on teacher recommendations. What did they do?

  23. Grade 6 • For the 2016-2017 school year, the Stanford 10 Achievement Test was used as a universal screener with a pre-determined cut score along with teacher and parent recommendations. • For the 2017-2018 school year, The Cognitive Ability test was used as the universal screener along with the Scholastic Reading Inventory, the district PARCC assessment scores, and parent recommendations. These data points were put into a matrix and rank ordered then the top 7% of the population was identified based on that specific population. • Teacher recommendations were also available for suggesting a review of student data but students did not receive matrix points for this nor could they be denied access based on teacher recommendations. • For the 2018-2019 school year The Cognitive Ability test was used as the universal screener along with the NWEA MAP achievement test, and parent recommendations. What did they do?

  24. Updating website with programming and identification information • Calling all families of identified students from underrepresented populations to explain the opportunity • Provide the Parent Recommendation Survey as an online form • Provide professional development for teacher on characteristics of gifted students from underrepresented populations Additional Strategies

  25. Contact information • Jonnell Baskett • jonnellcbasket@gmail.com • PowerPoint Link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XYVEjOXWoAByTifdJH2AQ-RK6TXbM11C/view?usp=sharing Questions

More Related