In this paper, we report the results of an inquiry into the effects of the placement of five economical disadvantaged minority students from central Harlem, who were identified in kindergarten as potentially academically gifted through nontraditional means, in a school for gifted students. Achievement and aptitude test data and qualitative data collected during the students' first year at the school support the conclusion that the students were appropriately placed and adjusted well academically socially and emotionally. Follow-up data suggest that the students' academic careers have, in the six years since the original data were collected, for the most part progressed well. We present assertions that begin to explain why these students have succeeded academically despite being at-risk for educational disadvantage. These assertions concern the students themselves, their families, their school, and Project Synergy, through whose activities the students were identified as potentially gifted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Intellectual assessment of children from culturally diverse backgrounds. School Psychology Review, 21, 552-565.
2.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
3.
Borland, J. H. (1990). Postpositivistic inquiry: Implications of the “new philosophy of science” for the field of the education of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 161-167.
4.
Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.
5.
DeVos, G. A. (1967). Essential elements of caste: Psychological determinants in structural theory. In G. A. DeVos & H. Wagatsuma (Eds.), Japan's invisible race: Caste in culture and personality (pp. 332-384). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
6.
DuBois, W. E. B. (1970). The talented tenth. In The Negro problem (pp. 31-76). New York: AMS Press. (Original work published 1903)
7.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
8.
Feldman, D. H. (1991). Nature's gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
Ford, D. Y. (1992). Determinants of underachievement as perceived by gifted, above-average and average Black students. Roeper Review, 14, 130-136.
10.
Ford, D. Y. (1993). An investigation of the paradox of underachievement among gifted Black students. Roeper Review, 16, 78-84.
11.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students. New York: Teachers College Press.
12.
Fordham, S. (1988). Racelessness as a strategy in Black students' school success: Pragmatic strategy or pyrrhic victory?Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 54-84.
13.
Fordham, S. (1991). Peer proofing academic competition among Black adolescents: “Acting White: Black American style.” In C. E. Sleeter (Ed.), Empowerment through multicultural education (pp. 69-93). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
14.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the burden of “acting white.”The Urban Review, 18, 176-206.
15.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. (1990). Test of early mathematics ability (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
16.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
17.
Harter, S. (1985). Perceived competence scale for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
18.
Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1983). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
19.
Kaufnan, A. S., & Kaufmian, N. L. (1985). Kaufman test of educational achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
20.
Kearney, K., & LeBlanc, J. (1993). Forgotten pioneers in the study of gifted African Americans. Roeper Review, 15, 192-199.
21.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown.
22.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Lidz, C. S. (Ed.). (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford.
24.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox among Black adolescents. Sociology of Education, 63, 44-61.
26.
Natriello, G., McDill, E. L., & Pallas, A. M. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-154.
28.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
Ogbu,J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.
30.
Ogbu, J. U. (1985). Minority education and caste. In N. R. Yetman (Ed.), Majority and minority (4th ed., pp. 370-383). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
31.
Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21(8), 5-14.
32.
Passow, A. H. (1989). Needed research and development in educating high ability children. Roeper Review, 11, 223-229.
33.
Porter, R. B., & Cattell, R. B. (1975). Handbook for the children's personality questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
34.
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1989). Test of early reading ability. (2nd ed.). Rockville, MD: PRO-ED.
35.
Richert, E. S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 149-154.
36.
Roedell, W. C., Jackson, N. E., & Robinson, H. B. (1980). Gifted young children. Perspectives on gifted and talented education. New York: Teachers College Press.
37.
Silverman, L. K., & Kearney, K. (1992). The case for the Stanford-Binet L-M as a supplemental test. Roeper Review, 15, 34-37.
38.
Steelman, L. C. (1985). A tale of two variables: A review of the intellectual consequences of sibship size and birth order. Review of Educational Research, 55, 353-386.
39.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
40.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (4th ed.). Chicago: Riverside.
41.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Patton, J., & Prillaman, D. (1989). Disadvantaged gifted learners: At risk for educational attention. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22(3), 1-15.
42.
Wechsler, D. (1991). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
43.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
44.
Wright, L., & Borland, J. H. (1993). Using portfolios to identify young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 15, 205-210.
45.
Yoder, A. H. (1894). The story of the boyhood of great men. Pedagogical Seminary, 3, 134-156.
