Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211042910
K. Lamb, J. Jolly, J. Lakin
The field of gifted education has faced issues of equity for decades. Peters (2021) highlights a variety of systemic reasons traditional gifted identification processes may fail to equitably identify traditionally underrepresented students; however, at the core of Peter’s argument is a defense of the gifted and talented label. Common criticisms of gifted education include that it promotes fixed labels attached to opaque instructional practices or services that provide greater advantages to a privileged few (Grissom et al., 2019). The gifted label also attracts stereotypes and misconceptions relative to student behaviors and services. For instance, the label perpetuates the misconception that most students are gifted across academic domains rather than having specific areas of strengths and weaknesses (Lohman et al., 2008). As a result, gifted education services rarely meet the unique needs of the students being served, but rather provide a onesize-fits-all service—the antithesis of a specialized service. Dixson et al. (2021) proposed an approach to gifted education focused on maximizing learning, which involves short-term, malleable decisions using assessment data to immediately inform instruction rather than long-term labels. Essentially, these are existing strategies, primarily used in special education, to monitor progress with data-based decision making designed to support students academically. Three key services include (a) diagnostic labels only as needed, (b) push-in services from specialists ensuring students get instruction aligned with their needs, and (c) responsive services, such as Response to Intervention (RtI), that allow teachers to identify needs and modify instruction more effectively for a larger pool of (potentially or currently) highachieving students.
几十年来，资优教育领域一直面临着公平问题。Peters(2021)强调了传统的天才识别过程可能无法公平地识别传统上代表性不足的学生的各种系统性原因;然而，彼得论点的核心是为天才和才华标签辩护。对天才教育的常见批评包括，它给不透明的教学实践或服务贴上了固定的标签，为少数特权阶层提供了更大的优势(Grissom et al.， 2019)。天赋异禀的标签也吸引了对学生行为和服务的刻板印象和误解。例如，这个标签延续了一种误解，即大多数学生在学术领域都有天赋，而不是在特定领域有优势和劣势(Lohman et al.， 2008)。因此，资优教育服务很少能满足被服务学生的独特需求，而是提供一种一刀切的服务——与专业服务相反。Dixson等人(2021)提出了一种以最大化学习为重点的资优教育方法，该方法涉及使用评估数据立即通知教学的短期、可延展性决策，而不是长期标签。从本质上讲，这些都是现有的策略，主要用于特殊教育，通过基于数据的决策来监控学生的进步，这些决策旨在支持学生的学业。三项关键服务包括(a)仅在需要时才使用诊断标签，(b)由专家提供的自助式服务，确保学生获得符合其需求的指导，以及(c)响应式服务，例如对干预的响应(RtI)，使教师能够识别需求并更有效地修改指导，以满足更多(潜在或当前)优秀学生的需求。
{"title":"Asset-Based Decision Making to Address Inequity in Gifted Education Services","authors":"K. Lamb, J. Jolly, J. Lakin","doi":"10.1177/00169862211042910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211042910","url":null,"abstract":"The field of gifted education has faced issues of equity for decades. Peters (2021) highlights a variety of systemic reasons traditional gifted identification processes may fail to equitably identify traditionally underrepresented students; however, at the core of Peter’s argument is a defense of the gifted and talented label. Common criticisms of gifted education include that it promotes fixed labels attached to opaque instructional practices or services that provide greater advantages to a privileged few (Grissom et al., 2019). The gifted label also attracts stereotypes and misconceptions relative to student behaviors and services. For instance, the label perpetuates the misconception that most students are gifted across academic domains rather than having specific areas of strengths and weaknesses (Lohman et al., 2008). As a result, gifted education services rarely meet the unique needs of the students being served, but rather provide a onesize-fits-all service—the antithesis of a specialized service. Dixson et al. (2021) proposed an approach to gifted education focused on maximizing learning, which involves short-term, malleable decisions using assessment data to immediately inform instruction rather than long-term labels. Essentially, these are existing strategies, primarily used in special education, to monitor progress with data-based decision making designed to support students academically. Three key services include (a) diagnostic labels only as needed, (b) push-in services from specialists ensuring students get instruction aligned with their needs, and (c) responsive services, such as Response to Intervention (RtI), that allow teachers to identify needs and modify instruction more effectively for a larger pool of (potentially or currently) highachieving students.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"28 1","pages":"113 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77823751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211040533
Jaret Hodges, Rachel U. Mun, Anne N. Rinn
There is consensus among scholars in gifted education on the need to address educational equity for marginalized groups based on racial/ethnic categories (Peters et al., 2019), socioeconomic status (Hamilton et al., 2018), and geography (Hodges, 2018). Marginalization exists in terms of identification for services (Mun et al., 2021; Peters et al., 2019) and the extent of those services (Hodges, 2018). Less clear, however, are the complexities of the subgroups who comprise those marginalized groups. Understanding the nuances of racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic designations is a critical component of closing gaps in equity within K-12 gifted and talented services. In the proposed solutions to address these equity gaps outlined by Peters (2021), we argue that success is more likely if these nuances are considered. Aggregating students into broad racial/ethnic categorizations occurs at the federal and state level, affecting how students are labeled in schools. The U.S. Department of Education (2008) recognizes seven racial/ethnic categories: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, and two or more races. Within those seven categories, though, is an immense amount of variation and nuance with differing levels of economic (e.g., money, property), social (e.g., social networks, connections), and cultural (e.g., education, knowledge, training) capital (Marcucci, 2020). For example, the categorization American Indian or Alaska Native represents not a single monolithic culture but a plethora of diverse peoples with distinct cultures and languages. The categorization Black represents not only individuals who are descendants of African slaves in the United States. but also a diverse group of immigrants from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean (Mwangi, 2014). Peters (2021) briefly describes this understanding in his description of the Hmong community in rural Wisconsin. Students who are Asian are considered well represented in gifted education programs (Peters et al., 2019), but it is unlikely that representation extends to all groups of students who would be classified as Asian (e.g., the Hmong). For example, a scholar would likely be met with skepticism for stating that gifted identification for children of Burmese refugees is the same as that for children of highly educated East Asian immigrants. Yet stating that students who are Asian are well represented is common within the field of gifted education (Peters et al., 2019). What Peters (2021) does not discuss is the nuance within socioeconomic status, geography, or their intersection with race/ethnicity. Like the nuanced differences within racial/ ethnic categories, children within differing socioeconomic status and geographic groups vary as well. The field would be well served to consider how this variability is related to gaps in equity in gifted education. Socioeconomic status groups are not monolith
{"title":"Disentangling Inequity in Gifted Education: The Need for Nuance in Racial/Ethnic Categories, Socioeconomic Status, and Geography","authors":"Jaret Hodges, Rachel U. Mun, Anne N. Rinn","doi":"10.1177/00169862211040533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040533","url":null,"abstract":"There is consensus among scholars in gifted education on the need to address educational equity for marginalized groups based on racial/ethnic categories (Peters et al., 2019), socioeconomic status (Hamilton et al., 2018), and geography (Hodges, 2018). Marginalization exists in terms of identification for services (Mun et al., 2021; Peters et al., 2019) and the extent of those services (Hodges, 2018). Less clear, however, are the complexities of the subgroups who comprise those marginalized groups. Understanding the nuances of racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic designations is a critical component of closing gaps in equity within K-12 gifted and talented services. In the proposed solutions to address these equity gaps outlined by Peters (2021), we argue that success is more likely if these nuances are considered. Aggregating students into broad racial/ethnic categorizations occurs at the federal and state level, affecting how students are labeled in schools. The U.S. Department of Education (2008) recognizes seven racial/ethnic categories: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, and two or more races. Within those seven categories, though, is an immense amount of variation and nuance with differing levels of economic (e.g., money, property), social (e.g., social networks, connections), and cultural (e.g., education, knowledge, training) capital (Marcucci, 2020). For example, the categorization American Indian or Alaska Native represents not a single monolithic culture but a plethora of diverse peoples with distinct cultures and languages. The categorization Black represents not only individuals who are descendants of African slaves in the United States. but also a diverse group of immigrants from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean (Mwangi, 2014). Peters (2021) briefly describes this understanding in his description of the Hmong community in rural Wisconsin. Students who are Asian are considered well represented in gifted education programs (Peters et al., 2019), but it is unlikely that representation extends to all groups of students who would be classified as Asian (e.g., the Hmong). For example, a scholar would likely be met with skepticism for stating that gifted identification for children of Burmese refugees is the same as that for children of highly educated East Asian immigrants. Yet stating that students who are Asian are well represented is common within the field of gifted education (Peters et al., 2019). What Peters (2021) does not discuss is the nuance within socioeconomic status, geography, or their intersection with race/ethnicity. Like the nuanced differences within racial/ ethnic categories, children within differing socioeconomic status and geographic groups vary as well. The field would be well served to consider how this variability is related to gaps in equity in gifted education. Socioeconomic status groups are not monolith","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"116 1","pages":"154 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79263286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037948
Nancy B. Hertzog
{"title":"Should it Matter Who Sits Next to Me?","authors":"Nancy B. Hertzog","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037948","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"99 1","pages":"126 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75664912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037704
Angela M. Novak
{"title":"Peter Parker Principle: From White Privilege to Gifted Critical Discourse","authors":"Angela M. Novak","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037704","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"2 1","pages":"128 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76998194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037717
David P. Walrod
{"title":"Equity Through the Participation of Twice-Exceptional Students in Gifted Programming","authors":"David P. Walrod","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037717","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"113 1","pages":"142 - 143"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84180118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037945
J. Y. Jung, Rahmi Luke Jackson, G. Townend, M. Mcgregor
The underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students in public school gifted and talented programs is an unresolved issue for school systems and the field of gifted education around the world. Peters (2021) has provided a thoughtful, well-researched, and defensible overview on the topic, that outlines possible reasons for the underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students, along with multiple useful proposals for action in the future. In this commentary, two additional courses of action are described that may complement the proposals of Peters (2021). Arguably, one qualifies as “low-hanging fruit” that may be actionable immediately by school systems, while the second may require effort and action over the longer term. The first proposal relates to an issue that was not covered by Peters (2021)—a reexamination of the definitions of giftedness and talent that guide our identification processes and educational interventions. Although multiple different definitions of giftedness and talent are simultaneously being used in different parts of the world, most do not appear to be very inclusive of under-represented subgroups of gifted students. Therefore, one approach to address the inequity in gifted education may be to go beyond Peters’ (2021) suggestion of “reframing” what it means to be gifted, by the adoption of alternative definitions of giftedness that better and more explicitly acknowledge the characteristics, circumstances, and needs of disadvantaged gifted students. One such definition is the definition proposed by Gagné (2009, 2013), which makes a clear distinction between high level ability (i.e., giftedness) and high level achievement (i.e., talent), explicitly acknowledges possible environmental and intrapersonal factors (i.e., environmental and intrapersonal catalysts) that may positively or negatively influence the development of both ability and achievement, and gives recognition and status to highly able individuals who do not necessarily translate their abilities into corresponding achievements. Essentially, Gagné recognizes the phenomenon of underachievement, which is commonly understood to be a substantial discrepancy between one’s level of ability and achievement. Although the definitions and models proposed by other scholars acknowledge both ability (e.g., Renzulli, 1988) and environmental factors in the development of giftedness or talent (e.g., Tannenbaum, 2003), they do not go as far as Gagné (2009, 2013). Some examples of the specificity and elaboration given to ability and environmental factors by Gagné (2009, 2013) include the acknowledgment of maturation and learning processes that lead to the development of abilities, the role of socioeconomic status, the presence/absence of caregivers, the influence of significant others in one’s social environment, access to learning resources, and the availability of educational interventions. The adoption of definitions of giftedness and talent that clearly acknowledge possibl
{"title":"Equity in Gifted Education: The Importance of Definitions and a Focus on Underachieving Gifted Students","authors":"J. Y. Jung, Rahmi Luke Jackson, G. Townend, M. Mcgregor","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037945","url":null,"abstract":"The underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students in public school gifted and talented programs is an unresolved issue for school systems and the field of gifted education around the world. Peters (2021) has provided a thoughtful, well-researched, and defensible overview on the topic, that outlines possible reasons for the underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students, along with multiple useful proposals for action in the future. In this commentary, two additional courses of action are described that may complement the proposals of Peters (2021). Arguably, one qualifies as “low-hanging fruit” that may be actionable immediately by school systems, while the second may require effort and action over the longer term. The first proposal relates to an issue that was not covered by Peters (2021)—a reexamination of the definitions of giftedness and talent that guide our identification processes and educational interventions. Although multiple different definitions of giftedness and talent are simultaneously being used in different parts of the world, most do not appear to be very inclusive of under-represented subgroups of gifted students. Therefore, one approach to address the inequity in gifted education may be to go beyond Peters’ (2021) suggestion of “reframing” what it means to be gifted, by the adoption of alternative definitions of giftedness that better and more explicitly acknowledge the characteristics, circumstances, and needs of disadvantaged gifted students. One such definition is the definition proposed by Gagné (2009, 2013), which makes a clear distinction between high level ability (i.e., giftedness) and high level achievement (i.e., talent), explicitly acknowledges possible environmental and intrapersonal factors (i.e., environmental and intrapersonal catalysts) that may positively or negatively influence the development of both ability and achievement, and gives recognition and status to highly able individuals who do not necessarily translate their abilities into corresponding achievements. Essentially, Gagné recognizes the phenomenon of underachievement, which is commonly understood to be a substantial discrepancy between one’s level of ability and achievement. Although the definitions and models proposed by other scholars acknowledge both ability (e.g., Renzulli, 1988) and environmental factors in the development of giftedness or talent (e.g., Tannenbaum, 2003), they do not go as far as Gagné (2009, 2013). Some examples of the specificity and elaboration given to ability and environmental factors by Gagné (2009, 2013) include the acknowledgment of maturation and learning processes that lead to the development of abilities, the role of socioeconomic status, the presence/absence of caregivers, the influence of significant others in one’s social environment, access to learning resources, and the availability of educational interventions. The adoption of definitions of giftedness and talent that clearly acknowledge possibl","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"23 1","pages":"149 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78132179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037944
D. Long
{"title":"Equity, Not Just Equality: How Equality of Educational Outcome Policies Could Help Narrow Excellence and Identification Gaps","authors":"D. Long","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037944","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"38 6 Suppl 1 1","pages":"105 - 107"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83579429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：