Equity and Excellence: Providing Access to Gifted Education for Culturally Diverse Students

Abstract

Lacking both Incentive and opportunity, the probabilities are very great that, however superior one's gifts may be, he will rarely live a life of high achievement. Follow-up studies of highly gifted young Negroes...reveal a shocking waste of talent--a waste that adds an incalculable amount to the price of prejudice in this country. (Educational Policies Commission, 1950, p. 33) As the aforementioned quote suggests, a mind is not only a terrible thing to waste, a mind [1] is a terrible thing to erase. That is to say, we are wasting and erasing gifts and talents when we do not recognize the strengths of students. primary premise of this article is that the under-representation of diverse students in gifted education centers on the debate between excellence and equity, which is grounded in a perspective about culturally diverse populations. This thinking effectively hinders educators from recognizing the gifts and talents of students who are different from the dominant culture. Hindrances to Progress Recognizing the loss of talent among diverse students who are not being identified as gifted, Congress (1988) passed legislation (i.e., Javits Act) to promote the interests of gifted students; its major goal is to support efforts to identify and serve minority [2] and low SES students. This legislation requires that about half of the funded projects serve low socioeconomic status (SES) students. Moreover, the National Association for Gifted Children (1997) published a position statement urging educators to use more than one test to make educational and placement decisions about gifted students and to seek equity in their identification and assessment instruments, policies, and procedures. Despite these initiatives, little has changed in the demographics of gifted education (or the practices and instruments used to identify gifted students). In a 1996 article, Ford examined reports that focused on the demographics of gifted education nationally. trends revealed that Black, Hispanic, and Native American st udents have always been under-represented in gifted education and, in some years, their under-representation increased rather than decreased. Why do culturally diverse students persist in being underrepresented in gifted education? While a majority of publications point to testing and assessment issues, experiences suggest that the primary barrier is the pervasive deficit orientation that prevails in society and schools. After examining this orientation, we discuss symptoms of this orientation, such as the low referral rates of diverse students for gifted education services and the heavy reliance (sometimes exclusive reliance) on tests that inadequately capture the strengths and cultural orientations of diverse students. Deficit Ideologies: Limiting Access and Opportunity Perceptions about differences among students manifest themselves in various ways, and they exert a powerful influence in educational settings. A common saying among African Americans is The less we know about each other, the more we make up. For instance, if a teacher does not understand how some cultural groups value cooperation or communalism over competition, that teacher may perceive the diverse child as being too social. Communalism is a commitment to social relationships and social learning (e.g., working in groups, helping others). It is a we, us, our philosophical orientation (see Boykin, 1994; Shade, Oberg, & Kelly, 1997). Likewise, if teachers do not understand that some cultures come from an oral tradition, they may neither recognize nor appreciate the strengths of students who prefer speaking more than writing and reading. They may not recognize that students who speak nonstandard English can still have strong verbal skills. Thus, teachers may not refer culturally and linguistically diverse students for gifted education services if they equate giftedness with verbal, reading, and/or writing proficiency. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 63 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.