Discusión en Sala

Overrepresentation or Underrepresentation of Students in Gifted and Talented Programs According to Social Identities Such as Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status?

The following information reflects participant perceptions of racial, ethnic, and/or socioeconomic inequities in SPS’s G&T program. Contributors shared their opinions in online

and in-person focus groups, over the phone, or via email. Additional data supporting SPS’s acknowledgment and plan to rectify G&T disproportionality came from its PFTEOTG and a memo from SPS’s CAO and GEC to the superintendent. After presenting data from the aforementioned sources, I share common themes that I identified in my data.

Participant Response

All research participants agreed that racial, ethnic, and even socioeconomic

disproportionality exists in SPS’s G&T program. In fact, their first reactions when asked about overrepresentation and underrepresentation included: “Absolutely!” “Yeah!” “Not surprised.” “Totally know it... lived it... still, live it.” There are “gross inequities.” “I see this at my school,” and "we are fighting this at my Title I school.” One GSS even claimed that she “can walk into a CBG classroom [and immediately notice] there’s not a lot of diversity.”

Beyond their initial reactions, some participants gave possible reasons and a few offered solutions for the inequities in SPS’s G&T program. These participants said that over-reliance on academics, achievement, and biased assessments, tools, and practices are boundaries for certain student populations. A GSS added that assessment vocabulary is a roadblock to the G&T program for some students. Others commented that some (presumably privileged) parents pressure teachers, schools, and possibly SPS into evaluating and later deeming their children eligible for the G&T program. One participant reasoned that parents “of certain economic groups” might have had “negative educational experiences” when growing up and are unaware of or are apathetic towards the G&T program and/or feel that “getting through [school] is good enough.” A different contributor said that unequal representations of certain groups might be “due to lack of exposure to books, varied thinking, and creative play [which leads to] a huge gap in learning.” Others believe that teachers only want to refer those who are “smart” and avoid

referring students deemed “discipline problems.” Regardless of the reasons leading to the program’s racial, ethnic, and/or socioeconomic inequities, some participants believe that SPS's G&T department is aware there is a problem and are working to correct it.

Participant recommended solutions to mitigate SPS's G&T program inequities include “expanding our viewpoints and using other types of indicators beyond standardized testing to determine who qualifies [as gifted],” fixing or adopting a new evaluation tool, educating stakeholders on the “influence that trauma, early experience and intervention, and basic

nutritional health have on student performance,” and enlightening parents on the G&T program and its services. To the latter, several open houses, including a “Community Night,” have been held to increase stakeholders understanding of SPS’s G&T program and its services. In addition to the aforementioned suggestions, two members of the BLA group wrote that employees need to “recognize that all students have talents,” to “focus on talent development versus skills

acquisition” (particularly for those who might have opportunity gaps), and to encourage problem-solving and critical thinking in all students.

As previously mentioned, SPS’s G&T department is aware and is working to enhance the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic proportionality of its G&T program as evidenced by the

divisional goals that appear in the 2017-22 PFTEOTG comprehensive plan and contents of a memo that SPS’s CAO and GEC sent to the Superintendent on March 13, 2018. Excerpts from both documents are included below.

2017-22 Plan for the Education of the Gifted (p. 5 & 6) Identification

Goal: Continue to evaluate and revise procedures which increase referrals and eligibility of students from underrepresented populations for gifted education program services.

Delivery of Services

Goal One: Continue to research, develop, and implement opportunities to nurture the potential of students from underrepresented populations through a continuum of gifted education program services.

Equitable Representation of Students

Goal One: Continue to identify assessment methods which recognize students who will benefit from gifted education program services. Goal Two: Provide professional development opportunities which focus on cultural competency and non-traditional characteristics of giftedness.

March 13, 2018 Memo (p. 1) Background

“In October, an analysis of state report data over time revealed trends that supported large reforms to gifted education in Sunnydale Public Schools. Even though demographic data over the last thirteen years showed a slight increase in the number of students from traditionally underrepresented populations referred for gifted education services, the makeup of our identified gifted population has not experienced change much beyond that which could be attributed to changes in our total enrollment over time. The evidence clearly shows the need to change our identification process so that we may progress towards demographics of our identified gifted population better reflecting those of our school division as a whole. In preparation for new screening measures and identification protocols for the 2018-2019 school year, the Office of Gifted Education has piloted two different instruments thus far. The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test

(NNAT) in three elementary schools provided valuable data and revealed students whose other data did not adequately reflect their potentials; twenty-seven percent of the fifth graders referred for testing solely based on NNAT scores were identified eligible for services. Additionally, first grade teachers in eleven elementary schools recently completed online HOPE Teacher Rating Scales for their entire classes. This research-based qualitative screening tool does not rely on students’ computer or test- taking skills that could negatively affect results for young children, and its simple format prevents it from being a time-consuming task for teachers. Data from this tool is currently being shared with participating schools to empower screening committees with data as they review students for possible referral, with outcomes analyzed in late May after eligibility decisions are made.

Emerging Themes

Participants are acutely aware of the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disproportionality both in SPS’s G&T program and in G&T education at large; contributors spoke of many factors that might lead to over and underrepresentation of certain student populations, and all parties, including the division at large, seem to recognize the need and have offered several

recommendations to work toward addressing concerns.

RQ 5. What are Stakeholders’ Perceptions About the Purposes, Effectiveness, and Value of