An increasing amount of literature focuses on effective advocacy efforts that promote excellence in gifted education, yet educators know very little about successful advocacy efforts targeted to ensure equitable representation of Black students in programs for the gifted. In this article, the author presents findings and research of an advocacy event in Pulaski County, Arkansas, where one school district's efforts to desegregate their gifted program resulted in more Black students enrolled. Different phases of a Gifted Program Advocacy Model (G-PAM) are used to explain important components of the Pulaski County Special School District's advocacy efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arkansas Department of Education. (1986). The gifted and talented program approval standards. Little Rock: Author.
2.
Aubrecht, L. (1981). Organizing for advocacy: Making it work on the state and local level. In P. B. Mitchell (Ed.), An advocate's guide to building support for gifted and talented education (pp. 31-41). Washington, DC: National Association of State Boards of Education.
3.
Brown, C. (1995). The underrepresentation of minority group children among those students identified for gifted and talented programs as an issue under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
4.
Chunn, E. W. (1987-88). Sorting Black students for success and failure: The inequality of ability grouping and tracking. Urban League Review, 11(1-2), 93-106.
5.
Davis, G., & Rimm S. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
6.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Varieties of qualitative research (pp. 31-63). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Dettmer, P. (1991). Gifted program advocacy: Overhauling bandwagons to build support. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 165-171.
8.
Duke, D. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York: Random House.
9.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. III (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
Frasier, M. (1987). The identification of gifted Black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 155-180.
12.
Gallagher, J., & Coleman, M. (1992). State policies on the identification of gifted studentsfrom special populations: Three states in profile. (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED349748)
13.
Grantham, T. C., & Ford, D. Y. (1998). Principal instructional leadership can reverse the under-representation of Black students in gifted education. National Association for Secondary School Principal Bulletin, 82, 100-109.
14.
Harris, C. (1997). Pulaski County Special School District petition for releasefromfederal court supervision. Little Rock, AR: Williams, Lancaster, & Jefferson.
15.
Jick, T. D. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In J. V. Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 135-148). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
17.
Mitchell, P. B. (Ed.). (1981). An advocate's guide to building support for gifted and talented education. Washington, DC: National Association of State Boards of Education.
18.
Moon, S. (1991). Case study research in gifted education. In N. K. Buchanan & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education: A handbook of methods and applications (pp. 157-178). New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven: Yale University Press.
21.
Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96, 681-690.
22.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Pulaski County Special School District School Board. (1992). Pulaski County Special School District desegregation plan. Pulaski County, AR: Author.
24.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). Building advocacy through program design, student productivity, and public relations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 182-187.
25.
Shaklee, B. D., Padak, N. D., Barton, L. E., & Johnson, H. (1991). Educational partnerships: Gifted program advocacy in action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 200-203.
26.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
27.
Vestal, J. C. (1993). Parental advocacy for the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 16(2), 8-13.
28.
Wasson, F. R. (1984). Advocacy for gifted and talented in Florida: Why it works. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 7, 286-290.
29.
Weitzman, E., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
