拆解天才教育中的不平等:需要种族/民族类别、社会经济地位和地理上的细微差别

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI:10.1177/00169862211040533
Jaret Hodges, Rachel U. Mun, Anne N. Rinn
{"title":"拆解天才教育中的不平等:需要种族/民族类别、社会经济地位和地理上的细微差别","authors":"Jaret Hodges, Rachel U. Mun, Anne N. Rinn","doi":"10.1177/00169862211040533","DOIUrl":null,"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 monolithic entities. Poverty and its consequences are felt differently across individuals. Although levels of economic capital may be similar, there may be stark differences in social and cultural capital between families living in generational poverty and those in transient poverty, for example, that a graduate student experiences. A child born into a family from generational poverty is likely to have reduced cultural capital compared with a child of the educated graduate student whose family’s poverty is only a temporary stop to higher economic and social status. That said, both children would qualify for federal meal subsidies and so benefit from gifted identification policies that provide provisions for children who qualify for federal meal subsidies. Sakamoto et al. (2021) found that immigrants from Nigeria have comparable or greater educational and economic attainment in comparison with individuals who are Asian or White in the United States. By the second generation (the children of those immigrants) gaps in educational and economic outcomes were erased. The experiences of a family that recently immigrated from Africa in transient poverty are likely different from a family descended from slavery in generational poverty due to their varying amounts of cultural and social capital. Thus, an important distinction in describing the intersection between race/ethnicity and poverty is considering whether poverty is generational or transient. 1040533 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211040533Gifted Child QuarterlyHodges et al. article-commentary2021","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"116 1","pages":"154 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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 monolithic entities. Poverty and its consequences are felt differently across individuals. Although levels of economic capital may be similar, there may be stark differences in social and cultural capital between families living in generational poverty and those in transient poverty, for example, that a graduate student experiences. A child born into a family from generational poverty is likely to have reduced cultural capital compared with a child of the educated graduate student whose family’s poverty is only a temporary stop to higher economic and social status. That said, both children would qualify for federal meal subsidies and so benefit from gifted identification policies that provide provisions for children who qualify for federal meal subsidies. Sakamoto et al. (2021) found that immigrants from Nigeria have comparable or greater educational and economic attainment in comparison with individuals who are Asian or White in the United States. By the second generation (the children of those immigrants) gaps in educational and economic outcomes were erased. The experiences of a family that recently immigrated from Africa in transient poverty are likely different from a family descended from slavery in generational poverty due to their varying amounts of cultural and social capital. Thus, an important distinction in describing the intersection between race/ethnicity and poverty is considering whether poverty is generational or transient. 1040533 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211040533Gifted Child QuarterlyHodges et al. article-commentary2021\",\"PeriodicalId\":47514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gifted Child Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"116 1\",\"pages\":\"154 - 156\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gifted Child Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040533\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040533","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

资优教育的学者们一致认为,有必要根据种族/民族类别(Peters等人,2019)、社会经济地位(Hamilton等人,2018)和地理位置(Hodges, 2018)来解决边缘化群体的教育公平问题。在识别服务方面存在边缘化(Mun等人,2021;Peters等人,2019)以及这些服务的范围(Hodges, 2018)。然而,不太清楚的是,构成这些边缘化群体的子群体的复杂性。了解种族/民族,社会经济和地理名称的细微差别是缩小K-12天才和人才服务中公平差距的关键组成部分。在彼得斯(2021)提出的解决这些公平差距的解决方案中,我们认为,如果考虑到这些细微差别,成功的可能性更大。将学生划分为广泛的种族/民族在联邦和州一级发生,影响了学生在学校的标签。美国教育部(2008)承认七个种族/民族类别:美洲印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民,亚洲人,黑人或非裔美国人,西班牙裔,夏威夷原住民或其他太平洋岛民,白人,以及两个或两个以上的种族。然而,在这七个类别中,经济资本(如金钱、财产)、社会资本(如社会网络、联系)和文化资本(如教育、知识、培训)的不同水平存在着巨大的差异和细微差别(Marcucci, 2020)。例如,美国印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民的分类代表的不是单一的单一文化,而是具有独特文化和语言的众多不同民族。黑人的分类不仅代表了美国非洲奴隶的后裔。还有来自非洲、拉丁美洲和加勒比地区的多元化移民群体(Mwangi, 2014)。彼得斯(2021)在他对威斯康星州农村苗族社区的描述中简要地描述了这种理解。亚洲学生被认为在资优教育项目中有很好的代表性(Peters等人,2019),但这种代表性不太可能延伸到所有被归类为亚洲学生的群体(例如,苗族)。例如,如果一位学者说,缅甸难民的孩子与受过高等教育的东亚移民的孩子的天赋身份是一样的,那么他很可能会遭到怀疑。然而,在资优教育领域,亚洲学生的代表性很普遍(Peters et al., 2019)。彼得斯(2021)没有讨论的是社会经济地位、地理或它们与种族/民族的交集的细微差别。就像种族/民族类别之间的细微差异一样,不同社会经济地位和地理群体的儿童也会有所不同。该领域将很好地考虑这种可变性如何与资优教育的公平差距有关。社会经济地位群体不是单一的实体。每个人对贫困及其后果的感受是不同的。虽然经济资本水平可能相似,但生活在世代贫困中的家庭和那些暂时贫困的家庭(例如,研究生所经历的)之间的社会和文化资本可能存在明显差异。与受过良好教育的研究生的孩子相比,出生在一个世代贫困的家庭的孩子的文化资本可能会减少,而一个受过良好教育的研究生的孩子的家庭贫困只是暂时阻止他们获得更高的经济和社会地位。也就是说,这两个孩子都有资格获得联邦膳食补贴,因此受益于为有资格获得联邦膳食补贴的儿童提供规定的天才识别政策。Sakamoto等人(2021)发现,与美国的亚裔或白人相比,来自尼日利亚的移民具有相当或更高的教育和经济成就。到了第二代(这些移民的孩子),教育和经济成果上的差距就消失了。由于文化和社会资本的不同,一个最近从非洲移民过来的暂时贫困家庭的经历可能与一个世代贫困的奴隶制后裔的经历不同。因此,在描述种族/民族与贫穷之间的交集时,一个重要的区别是考虑贫穷是世代的还是暂时的。1040533 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211040533Gifted Child QuarterlyHodges等
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Disentangling Inequity in Gifted Education: The Need for Nuance in Racial/Ethnic Categories, Socioeconomic Status, and Geography
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 monolithic entities. Poverty and its consequences are felt differently across individuals. Although levels of economic capital may be similar, there may be stark differences in social and cultural capital between families living in generational poverty and those in transient poverty, for example, that a graduate student experiences. A child born into a family from generational poverty is likely to have reduced cultural capital compared with a child of the educated graduate student whose family’s poverty is only a temporary stop to higher economic and social status. That said, both children would qualify for federal meal subsidies and so benefit from gifted identification policies that provide provisions for children who qualify for federal meal subsidies. Sakamoto et al. (2021) found that immigrants from Nigeria have comparable or greater educational and economic attainment in comparison with individuals who are Asian or White in the United States. By the second generation (the children of those immigrants) gaps in educational and economic outcomes were erased. The experiences of a family that recently immigrated from Africa in transient poverty are likely different from a family descended from slavery in generational poverty due to their varying amounts of cultural and social capital. Thus, an important distinction in describing the intersection between race/ethnicity and poverty is considering whether poverty is generational or transient. 1040533 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211040533Gifted Child QuarterlyHodges et al. article-commentary2021
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
29.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the official journal of the National Association for Gifted Children. As a leading journal in the field, GCQ publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies. GCQ welcomes manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome. Additionally, GCQ reviews selected books relevant to the field, with an emphasis on scholarly texts or text with policy implications, and publishes reviews, essay reviews, and critiques.
期刊最新文献
A Meta-Analytic Evaluation: Investigating Evidence for the Validity of the Cognitive Abilities Test Voices of Families of Color: Navigating White Spaces in Gifted Education Research Topics and Trends in Gifted Education: A Structural Topic Model Evidence-Based Instructional Practices for Twice-Exceptional Students With Autism Toward Equity and Transparency: A Content Analysis of Florida Elementary Acceleration Policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1