Students who come from low-income backgrounds tend to be underidentified and underserved in gifted education. Early interventions with learners of high potential from underserved groups, including exposure to challenging curriculum and summer opportunities, are important for nurturing these students’ talents and preparing them for advanced learning opportunities in later school years. Project SPARK, based on the Young Scholars model, focuses on recognizing and responding to high-potential learners from underserved populations in the early grades. In this study, we examined the effects on mathematics achievement of participation in a summer program as part of Project SPARK in schools with substantial populations of students in poverty, as demonstrated by percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch. We examined summer program effects on achievement for the sample overall and specifically for students from low-income backgrounds. Students who participated in the summer program made moderately larger mathematics achievement gains than students who did not participate, with Cohen’s d-type effect sizes of 0.92. Students who qualified for free or reduced lunch saw similar gains over the summer if they participated in the summer program, indicating that the summer program experience was supportive for students across a range of income backgrounds.
AdamsC. M.ChandlerK. L. (Eds.). (2014). Effective programs models for gifted students from underserved populations. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
2.
Advanced Academic Programs Office, Instructional Services Department. (2013). Young scholars Handbook (Rev. ed.). Fairfax, VA: Fairfax County Public Schools.
3.
AlexanderK. L.EntwisleD. R.OlsonL. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167-180. doi:10.1177/000312240707200202
4.
AugustineC. H.McCombsJ. S.PanseJ. F.SchwartzH. L.SchweigJ.McEachinA.Siler-EvansK. (2016). Learning from summer: Effects of voluntary summer learning programs on low-income urban youth. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
5.
BostonM.WolfM. K. (2006). Assessing academic rigor in mathematics instruction: The development of the Instructional Quality Assessment Toolkit. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
6.
BurneyV. H.BeilkeJ. R. (2008). The constraints of poverty on high achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 295-321.
7.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2014). National surveys of gifted programs: Executive summary. Charlottesville: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Virginia.
8.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (Working Paper No. 21519). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21519
CockrellK. (2014). Project Excite. In AdamsC. M.ChandlerK. L. (Eds.), Effective program models for gifted students from underserved populations (pp. 1-13). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
11.
CooperH.CharltonK.ValentineJ. C.MuhlenbruckL.BormanG. D. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65, i-vi + 1-127.
12.
FeingoldA. (2009). Effect sizes of growth-modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials in the same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological Methods, 14, 43-53. doi:10.1037/a0014699
13.
FengA. X.VanTassel-BaskaJ.QuekC.BaiW.O’NeillB. (2005). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students’ learning using the integrated curriculum model: Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27, 78-83. doi:10.1080/02783190509554294
14.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J.SpinelliA. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds: A research-based curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566-585.
15.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.ChapinS. H.SheffieldL. J. (2011). Exploring shape games: Geometry with Imi and Zani. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
16.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.FirmenderJ. M.CarrollS. R. (2013). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement curriculum units on the mathematics achievement of first-grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 71-84. doi:10.1177/0016986213479564
17.
GiessmanJ. A.GambrellJ. L.StebbinsM. S. (2013). Minority performance on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, versus the Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6: One gifted program’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 101-109. doi:10.1177/0016986213477190
18.
HamiltonR.McCoachD. B.TutwilerS. M.SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.. . . MunR. U. (2017). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 6-24.
19.
HarradineC. C.ColemanM. R. B.WinnD.-M. C. (2014). Recognizing academic potential in students of color: Findings of U-STARS~PLUS. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 24-34. doi:10.1177/0016986213506040
20.
HornC. (2014). The Young Scholars model. In AdamsC. M.ChandlerK. L. (Eds.), Effective program models for gifted students from underserved populations (pp. 45-60). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
21.
HornC. V. (2015). Young Scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38, 19-31. doi:10.1177/1076217514556532
22.
KaulC. R.JohnsenS. K.WitteM. M.SaxonT. F. (2015). Critical components of a summer enrichment program for urban low-income gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 38, 32-40.
23.
KimM. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 102-116.
24.
KitanoM. K. (2007). Poverty, diversity, and promise. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners: Conference proceedings from the National Leadership Conference on Low-Income Promising Learners (pp. 31-35). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children and Center for Gifted Education, College of William & Mary.
25.
LeeS.Olszewski-KubiliusP.PeternelG. (2009). Follow-up with students after 6 years of participation in Project Excite. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 137-156. doi:10.1177/0016986208330562
26.
LohmanD. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333-360. doi:10.1177/001698620504900203
27.
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Advanced Academics, 17, 103-111. doi:10.4219/jsge-2006-686
28.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.MillerE. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 258-278. doi:10.1177/0016986216656256
29.
McCallM. S.KingsburyG.OlsonA. (2004). Individual growth and school success: A technical report from the NWEA growth research database. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
30.
McCoachD. B.BlackA. C. (2008). Evaluation of model fit and adequacy. In O’ConnellA. A.McCoachD. B. (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 245-272). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
31.
McCoachD. B.O’ConnellA.ReisS. M.LevittH. A. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14-28. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.14
32.
MillerR.GentryM. (2010). Developing talents among high-potential students from low-income families in an out-of-school enrichment program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 594-627. doi:10.1177/1932202X1002100403
33.
NaglieriJ. A. (2011). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (2nd ed.). London, England: Pearson Education.
34.
NaglieriJ. A.FordD. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155-160. doi:10.1177/001698620304700206
35.
National Association for Gifted Children & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
NeumeisterK. L. S.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. C.DixonF. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479-499.
37.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2014). NWEA recommendations for transitioning students from MPG to MAP 2 – 5. Portland, OR: Author.
38.
Northwest Evaluation Association Psychometric Services. (2016). MPG to MAP scale alignment for SPARK data. Portland, OR: Author.
39.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2007). Working with promising learners from poverty: Lessons learned. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners: Conference proceedings from the National Leadership Conference on Low-Income Promising Learners (pp. 43-46). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children and Center for Gifted Education, College of William & Mary.
40.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2010). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32, 61-70. doi:10.1080/02783190903386892
41.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.ClarenbachJ. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
42.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS.NgoiM.NgoiD. (2004). Addressing the achievement gap between minority and nonminority children by increasing access to gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 127-158. doi:10.1177/016235320402800202
43.
PayneA. (2011). Equitable access for underrepresented students in gifted education. Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
44.
PluckerJ.GiancolaJ.HealeyG.ArndtD.WangC. (2015). Equal talents, unequal opportunities: A report card on state support for academically talented low-income students. Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
45.
RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.
46.
Rambo-HernandezK. E.McCoachD. B. (2015). High-achieving and average students’ reading growth: Contrasting school and summer trajectories. Journal of Educational Research, 108, 112-129. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.850398
47.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
RaudenbushS. W.LiuX. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387-401.
49.
ShakleeB. (1993). Preliminary findings of the early assessment for exceptional potential project. Roeper Review, 16, 105-109. doi:10.1080/02783199309553551
50.
ShakleeB. (2002). Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale. Fairfax, VA: Fairfax County Public Schools.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Author.
53.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2017). Curricular considerations for advanced learners from low-income and minority backgrounds. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (3rd ed., pp. 47-62). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
54.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.AveryL.StruckJ.FengA.BrackenB.DrummondD.StambaughT. (2003). Classroom Observation Scales–Revised. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education, College of William & Mary.
55.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X.de BruxE. (2007). A study of identification and achievement profiles of performance task-identified gifted students over 6 years. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 7-34. doi:10.4219/jeg-2007-517
56.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.JohnsonD.AveryL. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110-123. doi:10.1177/001698620204600204
57.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.). (2007). Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners: Conference proceedings from the National Leadership Conference on Low-Income Promising Learners. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children and Center for Gifted Education, College of William & Mary.
58.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (2008). What works: 20 Years of curriculum development and research. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
59.
WorrellF. C. (2007). Identifying and including low-income learners in programs for the gifted and talented: Multiple complexities. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners: Conference proceedings from the National Leadership Conference on Low-Income Promising Learners (pp. 47-51). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children and Center for Gifted Education, College of William & Mary.
60.
WynerJ. S.BridgelandJ. M.DiIulioJ. J. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from low-income families. Washington, DC: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
61.
XiangY.DahlinM.CroninJ.TheakerR.DurantS. (2011). Do high flyers maintain their altitude? Performance trends of top students. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
