Inequities of Enrollment in Gifted Education: A Statewide Application of the 20% Equity Allowance Formula

Abstract

Underrepresentation in gifted education for ethnically diverse student groups has been widely recognized. Two recent federal district court decisions defined the lower limits of equitable participation using the 20% equity allowance formula proposed by Donna Ford. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the application of the 20% rule to identify the prevalence of inequity and associated variables in Texas gifted education programs. Using data from the Office of Civil Rights and Texas Education Agency, the authors applied the 20% rule to demographics of K-12 gifted education programs in Texas to identify inequity and used Bayesian regression with district characteristics to investigate contributing factors of inequity. Only 282 of 994 (28.4%) districts met equity standards for Hispanic students. Second, Bayesian regressions with district-level characteristics of students, teachers, and expenditures were used to identify factors associated with inequitable enrollment of Hispanic students. Overall, the model accounted for 12.9% variance (R² = 0.129, 95% highest density interval [0.095, 0.170]), with increasing variance explained by district subsets (i.e., city, suburb, town, rural). Furthermore, the results of the regression models revealed the percentage of Hispanic and White teachers were inversely associated with inequity across all district subsets. It is postulated that the mechanism of inequity is in the teacher referral process, frequently used as a determinant of gifted education enrollment. The authors suggest means of addressing this reality.

Keywords

gifted education multicultural equity identification Bayesian

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bernhardt

V. L.

(2017). Measuring what we do in schools: How to know if what we are doing is making a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Boedeker

(2017). Hierarchical linear modeling with maximum likelihood, restricted maximum likelihood, and fully Bayesian estimation. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 22, 1-9. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=22&n=2

Borland

J. H.

(2008). Identification. In Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 261-280). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Cao

T. H.

Jung

J. Y.

Lee

(2017). Assessment in gifted education: A review of the literature from 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28, 163-203. doi:10.1177/1932202X17714572

Card

Giuliano

(2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 13678-13683. doi:10.1073/pnas.1605043113

Courville

Thompson

(2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: β is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 229-248. doi:10.1177/0013164401612006

Erwin

J. O.

Worrell

F. C.

(2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 74-87. doi:10.1177/0734282911428197

Ford

D. Y.

(2005, Winter). Intelligence testing and cultural diversity: Pitfalls and promises. Retrieved from https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/winter052/

Ford

D. Y.

(2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31-35.

10.

Ford

D. Y.

(2013a, September 1). Desegregating gifted education: Lessons to learn from Illinois school district court case. Retrieved from http://wearegifted2.blogspot.com/2013/09/desegregating-gifted-educationlessons.html

11.

Ford

D. Y.

(2013b). Gifted underrepresentation and prejudice: Learning from Allport and Merton. Gifted Child Today, 36, 62-67.

12.

Ford

D. Y.

(2013c). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

13.

Ford

D. Y.

(2015). Multicultural issues: Recruiting and retaining Black and Hispanic students in gifted education: Equality versus equity in schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 187-191. doi:10.1177/1076217515583745

14.

Ford

D. Y.

Grantham

T. C.

(2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42, 217-225.

15.

Ford

D. Y.

Grantham

T. C.

Whiting

G. W.

(2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74, 289-306. doi:10.1177/001440290807400302

16.

Frasier

M. M.

Hunsaker

S. L.

Lee

Finley

V. S.

Frank

Garcia

J. H.

Martin

(1995). Educators’ perception of barriers to the identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient background. (Report No. ED402707). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

17.

Frasier

M. M.

Passow

A. H.

Garcia

J. H.

(1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students (Grant No. R206R00001). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

18.

Gelman

Carlin

J. B.

Stern

H. S.

Dunson

D. B.

Vehtari

Rubin

D. B.

(2013). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

19.

Gelman

Rubin

D. B.

(1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7, 457-511. doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136

20.

Gentry

Thomas

A. T.

(2008). Ethnically diverse students. In Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 261-280). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

21.

Geverdt

D. E.

(2015, December). Locale boundaries user’s manual. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/docs/NCES_LOCALE_USERSMANUAL_2016012.pdf

22.

Giessman

J. A.

Gambrell

J. L.

Stebbins

M. S.

(2013). Minority performance on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Second Edition versus the Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6: One gifted program’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 101-109. doi:10.1177/0016986213477190

23.

Gifted and Talented Children’s Education Act of 1978, section 901, 20 U.S.C. 3311.

24.

Goings

R. B.

Ford

D. Y.

(2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journal: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 25-36. doi:10.1177/0016986217737618

25.

Greenland

Senn

S. J.

Rothman

K. J.

Carlin

J. B.

Poole

Goodman

S. N.

Altman

D. G.

(2016). Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 337-350. doi:10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3

26.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2, 1-25. doi:10.1177/2332858415622175

27.

Grissom

J. A.

Rodriguez

L. A.

Kern

E. C.

(2017). Teacher and principal diversity and the representation of students of color in gifted programs: Evidence from national data. Elementary School Journal, 117, 396-422. doi:10.1086/690274

28.

Henson

R. K.

(2006). Effect-size measures and meta-analytic thinking in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 601-629. doi:10.1177/0011000005283558

29.

Hodges

Tay

Maeda

Gentry

(2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 147-174. doi:10.1177/0016986217752107

30.

Jacob

Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1994, now codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 8031 et seq.

31.

Johnsen

S. K.

(Ed.). (2011). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

32.

Johnsen

S. K.

(2018). Identification. In Roberts

J. L.

Inman

T. F.

Robins

J. H.

(Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 121-144). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

33.

Kettler

Puryear

J. S.

Mullet

D. R.

(2016). Defining rural in gifted education research: Methodological challenges and paths forward. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27, 245-265. doi:10.1177/1932202X16656896

34.

Kruschke

J. K.

(2013). Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 142, 573-603. doi:10.1037/a0029146

35.

Kruschke

J. K.

(2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis (2nd ed.). Kidlington, England: Elsevier.

36.

Kruschke

J. K.

(2017, June 26). Bayesian estimation of correlations and differences of correlations with a multivariate normal [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://doingbayesiandataanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/06/bayesian-estimation-of-correlations-and.html

37.

Kruschke

J. K.

Aguinis

Joo

(2012). The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 722-751. doi:10.1177/1094428112457829

38.

Lakin

J. M.

(2016). Universal screening and the representation of historically underrepresented minority students in gifted education: Students in gifted education: Minding the gaps in Card and Giuliano’s research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27, 139-149. doi:10.1177/1932202X16630348

39.

Lohr, v. United States, No. CV 74-90 TUC DCB, Consolidated Case No. CV 74-204 TUC, DCB (U.S. District Court, D. Arizona, 2015)

40.

Marland

S. P.

Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented volume 1: Report to the congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education (Report No. ED056243). Washington, DC: Office of Education.

41.

McBee

M. T.

(2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103-111.

42.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Miller

E. 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

43.

McBee

M. T.

Shaunessy

Matthews

M. S.

(2012). Policy matters: An analysis of district level efforts to increase the identification of underrepresented learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 326-344. doi:10.1177/1932202X12463511

44.

McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46 984 F. Supp. 2d 882 (N. D. Illinois, Eastern Division, 2013).

45.

Miller

E. M.

(2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 65-105. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2309/apps/doc/A208335820/OVIC?u=txshracd2679&sid=OVIC&xid=171e7575

46.

Moore

M. L.

(2002). Unclear standards create an unclear future: Developing a better definition of unitary status. Yale Law Journal, 112, 311-351. doi:10.2307/1562241

47.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.-a). Identification. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/identification

48.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.-b). Jacob Javits Gifted & Talented Students Education Act. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources-university-professionals/jacob-javits-gifted-talented-students

49.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming standards. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

50.

National Association for Gifted Children, & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

51.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Common Core of Data, years 2013-2014. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp

52.

Nishioka

(with Shigeoka

Lolich

). (2017). School discipline data indicators: A guide for districts and schools (REL 2017–240). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest.

53.

Office of Civil Rights. (2013). Civil rights data collection [Data file]. Retrieved from https://ocrdata.ed.gov/

54.

Office of Civil Rights. (2015). Civil rights data collection [Data file]. Retrieved from https://ocrdata.ed.gov/

55.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Corwith

(2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 37-55. doi:10.1177/0016986217738015

56.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Thomson

D. L.

(2010). Gifted programming for poor or minority urban students: Issues and lessons learned. Gifted Child Today, 33, 58-64.

57.

Peters

S. J.

Engerrand

K. G.

(2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 159-171. doi:10.1177/0016986216643165

58.

Peters

S. J.

McCoach

D. B.

McBee

M. T.

Matthews

M. S.

(2014). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

59.

Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80, 390-406. doi:10.1177/0014402914527244

60.

Plummer

(2016). rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC (Version 4.6) [Software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags

61.

R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.3.2) [Software]. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/

62.

Revelle

(2017). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Version 1.7.3) [Software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

63.

Russo

C. J.

(2001). Unequal educational opportunities for gifted students: Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29, 727-758.

64.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

Rourke

P. O.

Langley

S. D.

Mun

R. U.

. . . Plucker

J. A.

(2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 103-131. doi:10.1177/0162353216640930

65.

Siegle

Moore

Mann

R. L.

Wilson

H. E.

(2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 337-360.

66.

Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas state plan for the education of gifted/talented students. Retrieved from http://www4.esc13.net/uploads/gt/docs/StatePlanEnglish_June2012.pdf

67.

Texas Education Agency. (2013). Snapshot school district profiles [Data file]. Retrieved from https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/snapshot/2013/index.html

68.

Texas Education Agency. (2017). Enrollment in Texas public schools, 2016-2017. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/Reports_and_Data/School_Performance/Accountability_Research/Enrollment_Trends/?LangType=1033

69.

Thompson

(1992, April). Interpreting regression results: Beta weights and structure coefficients are both important. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

70.

Thompson

Borrello

G. M.

(1985). The importance of structure coefficients in regression research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 203-209. doi:10.1177/001316448504500202

71.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Jacob K. Javits gifted and talented students education program. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html

72.

VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(2007). Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494579.pdf

73.

Worrell

F. C.

(2015). Ethnically diverse students. In Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 237-254). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

74.

Wright

B. L.

Ford

D. Y.

Young

J. L.

(2017). Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence and equity for under-represented students of color in gifted education. Global Education Review, 4, 45-60.

75.

Yaluma

C. B.

Tyner

(2018). Is there a gifted gap? Gifted education in high-poverty schools. (Research Report No. 1.31). Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/%2801.31%29%20Is%20There%20a%20Gifted%20Gap%20-%20Gifted%20Education%20in%20High-Poverty%20Schools.pdf

76.

Yoon

Gentry

(2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 121-136. doi:10.1177/0016986208330564

77.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2004). The case law on gifted education: A new look. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 309-314. doi:10.1177/001698620404800405

78.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2005). The law on gifted education (Report No. R206R000001). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

79.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2016). Legal update of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 315-337. doi:10.1177/0162353216671836