1 / 38

Gifted Education and the The Emerging Minority-Majority

Gifted Education and the The Emerging Minority-Majority. The Problem of Minority Underrepresentation in an Age of Radical Demographic Change. By James Mark Leavins. A Research Project for Dr. Victoria Morin, Troy University. Fall 2011. Introduction.

duman
Download Presentation

Gifted Education and the The Emerging Minority-Majority

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. Gifted Education and the The Emerging Minority-Majority The Problem of Minority Underrepresentation in an Age of Radical Demographic Change

  2. By James Mark Leavins A Research Project for Dr. Victoria Morin, Troy University. Fall 2011

  3. Introduction • Since the advent of Gifted Education, minorities have typically been underrepresented relative to their share of the school enrollment population (Castellano, 2003). • Often, minority underrepresentation has been discussed in the context in which schools are committing a moral/ethical failure (Castellano, 2003; Ford, 2010). • In the age of radical changing demographics, however, the minority underrepresentation has economic implications as serious as the moral ones (Tavernise, 2011; Ford, 2010).

  4. Introduction continued… • The United States is experiencing a radical restructuring of its racial/ethnic composition (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011a). • This change coincides with a restructuring of the age distribution of the American population (USDC, 2011b). • In short, America is becoming more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse while becoming older. Younger Americans now make up a smaller percentage of the U.S. population. Older Americans are increasing their percentage (USDC, 2011a, 2011b).

  5. Introduction continued… • As the Baby Boomers retire, an increasingly diverse workforce will increasingly be required to support federal entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare (Fulwood, 2011). • Moreover, the workplace itself is rapidly changing towards knowledge-based and creativity-based enterprises that are less-structured and less-repetitive than traditional workplaces (Grantham & Ware, 2004). • Minority workers will make up an essential part of this new workforce (Frey, 2011a).

  6. Introduction continued… • Gifted education programs can be well-suited in nurturing students who will have the qualities needed in these new types of 21st century workplaces. • And given the American demographic changes, it is unavoidable that the future workforce will be much more diverse (Fulwood, 2011). • Yet minorities are still very underrepresented in gifted education programs (Ford, 2010).

  7. Minority Underrepresentation in Gifted Education • Ford (2010) contends that black students are underrepresented by 48%. • Ford (2010) contends that Hispanic students are underrepresented by 38%. • Ford (2010) also maintains that a combined minimum of 500,000 black and Hispanic students were not receiving appropriate advanced educational services by 2006.

  8. The Emerging American Minority-Majority • An American minority-majority population is one in which the total sum of members of minority groups make up a majority of the total population (Dougherty, 2011). • Current demographic trends are propelling the United States towards minority-majority status (Roberts, 2008,2009). • The U.S. might reach minority-majority status by 2050, or perhaps as soon as the early 2040s (Roberts, 2008, 2009).

  9. The Emerging AmericanMinority-Majority • The U.S. Census Bureau designates any self-identified person OTHER than “white non-Hispanic” as a minority (USDC, 2011c). • In the next 30 to 40 years, American residents who self-identify as Hispanic, black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, multiracial, or any combination thereof are projected to outnumber non-Hispanic whites (Roberts, 2008, 2009).

  10. The Emerging AmericanMinority-Majority • The 2010 United States Census revealed a degree of racial/ethnic demographic change that exceeded expectations (Brownstein, 2011). • The “Next America” (Brownstein, 2011, para. 1) has arrived sooner than expected.

  11. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • As of 2010, the total U.S. population stood at approximately 309,000,000 (USDC, 2011c). • Of this total, approximately 64% of U.S. residents were non-Hispanic whites (Martinez & Ariosto, 2011). • Approximately 36% of the U.S. population belonged to one or more minority group (USDC, 2011c, 2011a). Thus the 2010 U.S. population was 36% minority.

  12. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • To put it another way, over 1 in 3 American residents was a minority in 2010, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (USDC, 2011c). • This change is dramatic. In 1990, twenty years prior, the non-Hispanic white majority made up 76% of the U.S. population (Frey, 2011c). • The 1990, the minority share of the U.S. population was slightly less than 1 in 4, a share of 24% (Frey, 2011c).

  13. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • From 1990 to 2010, the non-Hispanic white share of the U.S. population fell by 12 percentage points (Frey, 2011c). • From 2000 to 2010, the U.S. population grew by 27.3 million (USDC, 2011d), an increase of 9.7% (USDC, 2011d). • Of this increase, non-Hispanic whites contributed only 2.3 million, or merely 9% of the overall U.S. population growth (Frey, 2011d).

  14. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • From 2000 to 2010, the minority population grew by 29% (USDC, 2011c). • From 2000 to 2010, the non-Hispanic white population grew by a little over 1% (USDC, 2011c). • From 2000 to 2010, minorities accounted for over 90% of the U.S. population growth (USDC, 2011c)

  15. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • By 2010, the U.S. Hispanic population stood at 50.5 million, a ten year increase of 43% (USDC, 2011a,2011c). • By 2010, Hispanics constituted about 16% of the U.S. population, roughly 1 in 6 American residents (Associated Press, 2011). • By 2010, black Americans made up about 12.6% of the U.S. population, numbering nearly 40 million (Martinez & Aristo, 2011).

  16. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • The Asian population also grew by 43% from 2000 to 2010, totaling 14.7 million (USDC, 2011a). • By 2010, Asians constituted about 5% of the U.S. population (USDC, 2011a). • Self-identified multiracial American residents made up about 2.9% of the U.S. population (Associated Press, 2011).

  17. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • The West region, by 2010, was the region closest to minority-majority status, with a minority population of 47.2% of the total regional population (USDC, 2011c). • The South region, by 2010, had a minority population that made up 40% of the total regional population (USDC, 2011c). • The Northeast region, by 2010, had a minority population that made up 31% of the total regional population (USDC, 2011c).

  18. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • The Midwest region, by 2010, had a minority population of 22.2% of the total regional population (USDC, 2011c). • From 2000 to 2010, the minority population grew by 29.1% in the West, 34% in the South, 21.3% in the Northeast, and 23.5% in the Midwest (USDC, 2011c). • In contrast, from 2000 to 2010, the non-Hispanic white population grew by only 3% in the West, and in the Northeast, the non-Hispanic white population actually declined by 3.4% (USDC, 2011c).

  19. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • By 2010, four American states had reached minority-majority status (USDC, 2011c). • These four minority-majority states were Hawaii, California, New Mexico, and Texas (USDC, 2011c). • By 2010, minorities made up 59.9% of California’s population, 54.7% of Texas’, 59.5% of New Mexico’s, and 77.3% of Hawaii’s (USDC, 2011c).

  20. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • By 2010, eight other states had minority populations that exceeded 40% of the state population (USDC, 2011c). • These states were Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York (USDC, 2011c). • From 2000 to 2010, Arizona’s minority population grew by 45% (USDC, 2011c)

  21. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • From 2000 to 2010, Florida’s minority population grew by 43% (USDC, 2011c). • From 2000 to 2010, Georgia’s minority population grew by 40% (USDC, 2011c). • From 2000 to 2010, Maryland’s minority population grew by 30% (USDC, 2011c). • From 2000 to 2010, Nevada’s minority population grew by 78% (USDC, 2011c).

  22. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • By 2010, in each of these eight states that had a minority population in excess of 40%, all eight had minority population growth rates that exceeded the growth rates of the respective non-Hispanic white populations (USDC, 2011c). • In fact, the non-Hispanic white populations actually declined in New Jersey, Maryland, New York, and Mississippi (USDC, 2011c).

  23. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • By 2010, the four most-populated states of California, Texas, New York, and Florida had attained either minority-majority or near minority-majority status (USDC, 2011c). • These four states have a combined population of 100.4 million residents, accounting for almost 1 in 3 American residents (USDC, 2011c). • Moreover, the aggregate four-state minority population was about 51.8 million, a 51% minority-majority (USDC, 2011c).

  24. The 2010 U.S. Census:Results and Analysis • The radical racial/ethnic demographic changes that are upon the United States are geographically broad and deep (USDC, 2011c). • These changes are particularly profound at the younger end of the age range (Frey, 2011c). • These changes will greatly impact the racial/ethnic composition of American public schools (Frey, 2011a).

  25. The New Demographics of American Young People • Frey (2011) argues that the United States is on the path to a minority-majority in American schools. • By 2010, minorities constituted 46.5 % of the U.S. population below the age of eighteen (Tavernese, 2011b). • Brownstein (2011) claims the U.S. under-18 age bracket will likely be minority-majority by the early 2020s, and perhaps as early as 2015. • Ten states already have a minority-majority children populations (Frey, 2011c). • These ten children-population minority-majority states are Mississippi, Georgia, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Texas, California, New Mexico, and Hawaii (Frey, 2011c).

  26. The New Demographics of American Young People • Frey (2011e) sees an interconnected importance between the increasing racial/ethnic diversification of American children and the percentage decline of the under-18 age bracket as a share of the total U.S. population. • Frey (2011e) describes the non-Hispanic white population as increasingly aging, and destined for decades of low or negative population growth.

  27. The New Demographics of American Young People • Tavernise (2011) notes that in eight states, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas, a minority-majority exists in preschool programs, kindergartens, and nursery schools. • School demographic diversification, as such, is burgeoning at the younger end of the age range (Fulwood, 2011).

  28. The New Demographics of American Young People • From 2000 to 2010, the American under-18 age bracket grew by only 2.6% (USDC, 2011b). • From 2000 to 2010, the American under-18 age bracket’s percentage share of the U.S. population fell from 25.7% to 24% (USDC, 2011b). • In contrast, from 2000 to 2010, the 45 to 64 years age bracket grew by 31.5%, to a population share of 26.4% (USDC, 2011b).

  29. The New Demographics of American Young People • For roughly the next twenty years, the 2010 under-18 age bracket will be entering the workforce as the 45 to 64 age bracket enters into retirement, and begins receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits (Fulwood, 2011). • These federal entitlements for the elderly will constitute a large financial burden on these young and diverse workers (Fulwood, 2011).

  30. The New Demographics of American Young People • As the Baby Boomers retire, the United States will need highly productive younger workers, especially when considering that they will make up a smaller percentage of the working population than before (USDC, 2011b; Frey, 2011e). • Moreover, the 21st century workplace will require more and more workers who can think creatively (Grantham and Ware, 2004).

  31. The New Demographics of American Young People • Gifted Education programs can help prepare young people for these new 21st century workplace environments. • Minority workers will increasingly be an important part of that workforce (Fulwood, 2011; Frey, 2011a). • Ford (2010) notes, however, that minority underrepresentation in gifted education still persists.

  32. The New Demographics of American Young People • Ford (2010) contends that minority “underrepresentation is not their problem; it is everyone’s problem” (Ford, 2010, page 31). • Ford (2010) notes that white enrollment share in public schools has fallen form 75% in 1972 to less than 60% in 2006. • Yet Castellano (2003) notes that gifted education programs have historically been the domains of white middle class students.

  33. The New Demographics of American Young People • It is also worth noting that American student enrollment actually declined slightly from 2000 to 2008 (USDC, 2011e). • Thus, the traditional talent pools from which gifted education programs derive the vast majority of their students are shrinking as a share of the under-18 and overall population (Castellano, 2003; Ford, 2010).

  34. Elitism vs. Egalitarianism in Gifted Education • Sternberg (1996) argues that, in terms of gifted education, a strictly elitist approach versus a strictly egalitarian approach is a false dichotomy. • Sternberg (1996) argues that the “Jeffersonian tradition” (p. 263) in education offers both opportunity for all and strong academic rigor. • Castellano et al. (2003) contend that schools should use a wide variety of factors when considering minority students for admission to a gifted education program.

  35. Elitism vs. Egalitarianism in Gifted Education • Ford (2010) warns against the concept of using so-called objective standards when considering prospective minority candidates on the grounds that these seemingly objective and colorblind standards are, in fact, full of cultural bias • Oakland & Rossen (2005) argue that local standards should be utilized when considering applicants from different cultural and/or linguistic backgrounds.

  36. Elitism vs. Egalitarianism in Gifted Education • Sternberg’s (1996) call for equal opportunity in conjunction with academic rigor is not incompatible with calls for greater flexibility (Ford, 2010; Castellano, 2003; Oakland & Rossen, 2005) in gifted education admission standards. • The radical demographic-related economic challenges demand that gifted education programs pursue academic rigor and greater minority admission and involvement.

  37. Conclusion • The economic future of the United States depends, in part, on the ability of schools to nurture their brightest and most gifted students. • Gifted education can play a significant role in preparing an increasingly diverse student population for an increasingly different working environment. • The growing inertia of demographic change might force schools to reconsider a whole host of educational issues, including minority underrepresentation in gifted education programs.

  38. Acknowledgements • This presentation was made by James Mark Leavins, graduate student at Troy University, Dothan Campus, Fall 2011. • This presentation was made to fulfill a course requirement for EDG 6670, a gifted education course taught by Dr. Victoria Morin, Troy University. • The information in this presentation comes from the information contained in the course research paper written by James Mark Leavins.

More Related