Solving the Right Problem: The Need for Alternative Identification Measures in Gifted Education

Abstract

Gifted and talented education (GATE) exemplifies racial and economic hierarchies that exist in our society, with historically marginalized (HM) students significantly less likely to be identified as gifted, and subsequently receiving gifted services, than their peers (Grissom et al., 2019). Peters (2021) advanced the dialogue around inequities by attempting to not only highlight their existence but to also offer insights into the barriers to overcoming inequity. Although we agree with Peters on his thorough analysis of the complex factors, we challenge the assertion that investigating alternative identification methods wastes effort on solving the wrong problem because traditional standardized tests play a critical role in perpetuating, and often amplifying, systemic inequities in education. Grounded in the University of California (UC) system’s effort to reduce bias in their admissions decisions, Peters (2021) asserts that the inclusion of traditional standardized tests promotes racial and economic diversity in educational programs. However, the report from the UC task force tells a more nuanced story (University of California Academic Senate, 2020). Although test scores produced more equitable results than other achievement metrics, namely high school GPA, this approach was far from demonstrating equity. Prior to dropping standardized tests, 37% of California residents in the UC student body were HM students, whereas 59% of the state’s high school graduates were HM students. Moreover, the task force found substantial performance differences among demographic groups on the SAT and the ACT, noting that these tests alone would have precluded many HM students from gaining admission to the UC system. The advantage of including standardized test scores was due to a comprehensive review of them that allowed for varying thresholds based on students’ context. Although traditional standardized tests may not universally exacerbate existing disparities, it is clear that they are not equitably identifying students for admission. Consistent with the UC findings, the College Board itself reports gaps in SAT performance as a function of racial and economic demographics, with discrepancies as large as 15% to 20% for Black and Latinx students compared with White and Asian students (College Board, 2014, 2020). When considering the intersection of race and family income, the results are even more striking: The effect of family income on SAT performance is almost twice as large for Black students than for White students (Dixon-Román et al., 2013). Similar performance discrepancies exist across other common tests used for university admissions (e.g., ACT, 2020) such as intelligence quotient and achievement tests commonly used for gifted identification (e.g., Kena et al., 2016; Silverman, 2009). One interpretation of these scores is that different groups have different levels of ability, but these assessments are largely testing past achievement. Although these may be historically good predictors of college success among those with equal opportunity, one must question how to address these discrepancies in light of opportunity gaps when trying to identify students who will thrive in college (or GATE programming). Local norms (e.g., selecting based on score distributions within subgroups) offer one solution to score discrepancies across demographics (e.g., Peters, 2021). However, when applied at the demographic level, this is equivalent to saying that some groups require a lower bar. Although at the point of college admissions, the cumulative effects of opportunity gaps may necessitate some adjustments in admissions requirements, norms associated with demographics still send the message that one group is inherently more capable than another. For GATE, if we start from the premise that highability students come from every background, the conclusion must be that the bar does not need to be lowered; it needs to be changed. Measuring ability/potential rather than achievement may be essential in GATE, where advanced learning programs could help combat opportunity gaps. This is where alternative/complementary methods come into play. Alternative solutions need not involve eliminating testing; tests come in a wide variety, including tests of fundamental skills and aptitudes that likely reflect capacity for advanced learning (Lohman, 2005). By focusing more directly on what we actually want to measure, alternative methods can not only help identify larger numbers of HM students for gifted services (Lohman, 2005) but also help build more comprehensive, inclusive, and accurate conceptualizations of academic ability. As such, alternative 1046394 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211046394Gifted Child QuarterlyFlynn and Shelton research-article2021