Gifted education programs identify students with exceptional ability or potential and provide specialized educational interventions to develop general academic and domain-specific talent. Research and legal actions have found access to gifted education riddled with inequity. Indicators of inequity in selection practices based on disproportionality have been developed in the context of employment and gifted education; however, these indicators have not been compared side by side. We evaluate combinations of disproportionality-based metrics and thresholds on their ability to flag for inequity those selection practices that are indeed inequitable while not flagging for inequity those that are not. Specifically, the risk ratio and a generalized form of the Inequity Allowance Formula/Inequity Index, called here the inequity allowance ratio, are evaluated with thresholds between 0.1 and 0.9. We evaluate false-positive rates and true-positive rates when equity or inequity in selection practices exists. Furthermore, we explore the effect of program selectivity on the performance of these indicators. Ultimately, we find that recommendations regarding which disproportionality-based metric and threshold to use depends on factors that we cannot know, including the distribution of qualification of students and the quantifiable selectivity of a program. Therefore, the use of a disproportionality-based indicator when evaluating programs for potential inequity is not recommended.
BiddleD. (2006). Adverse impact and test validation: A practitioner’s guide to valid and defensible employment testing. Routledge.
2.
BlanchettW. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of White privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006024
3.
ConneryC. E.GreenP. C.III.KaufmanJ. C. (2019). The underrepresentation of CLD students in gifted and talented programs: Implications for law and practice. The University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender, and Class, 19(1), 81–101.
4.
Ecker-LysterM.NiilekselaC. (2017). Enhancing gifted education for underrepresented students: Promising recruitment and programming strategies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686216
5.
ErwinJ. O.WorrellF. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428197
6.
FordD. 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.
7.
FordD. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Prufrock Press.
8.
FordD. Y. (2015). Multicultural issues: Recruiting and retaining Black and Hispanic students in gifted education: Equality versus equity in schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583745
9.
FordD. Y.ScottM. T.MooreJ. L.AmosS. O. (2013). Gifted education and culturally different students: Examining prejudice and discrimination via microaggressions. Gifted Child Today, 36(3), 205–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513487069
10.
FordD. Y.WrightB. L.WashingtonA.HenfieldM. S. (2016). Access and equity denied: Key theories for school psychologists to consider when assessing Black and Hispanic students for gifted education. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 10(33), 265–277.
11.
GirvanE. J.McIntoshK.SmolkowskiK. (2019). Tail, tusk, and trunk: What different metrics reveal about racial disproportionality in school discipline. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1537125
12.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
13.
GrissomJ. A.RodriguezL. A.KernE. C. (2017). Teacher and principal diversity and the representation of students of color in gifted programs. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 396–422. https://doi.org/10.1086/690274
14.
HospJ. L.ReschlyD. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000204
LambK. N.BoedekerP.KettlerT. (2019). Inequities of enrollment in gifted education: A statewide application of the 20% equity allowance formula. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219830768
17.
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).
18.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.WatermanC. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794
19.
McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46 984 F. Supp. 2d 882 (N. D. Illinois, Eastern Division, 2013).
NoltemeyerA. L.MujicJ.McLoughlinC. S. (2012). The history of inequality in education. In NoltemeyerA. L.McLoughlinC. S. (Eds.), Disproportionality in education and special education (pp. 3–22). Charles C Thomas.
23.
Office for Civil Rights. (2013). Civil rights data collection [Data file]. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/
OswaldD. P.CoutinhoM. J.BestA. M.SinghN. N. (1999). Ethnic representation in special education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic variables. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903200401
28.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
29.
PetersS. J.GentryM.WhitingG. M.McBeeM. T. (2019a). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738
30.
PetersS. J.Rambo-HernandezK.MakelM. C.MatthewsM. S.PluckerJ. A. (2019b). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446
31.
R Core Team. (2021). A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
32.
RileyT.WhiteV. (2016). Developing a sense of belonging through engagement with like-minded peers: A matter of equity. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-016-0065-9
33.
RuryJ. L. (2005). Education and social change: Themes in the history of American schooling (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
SchollenbergerT. L. (2015). Racial disparities in school suspension and subsequent outcomes: Evidence from the national longitudinal survey of youth. In LosenD. J. (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Research for policymakers (pp. 31–43). Teachers College Press.
35.
SkibaR. J.Poloni-StaudingerL.GalliniS.SimmonsA. B.Feggins-AzzizR. (2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200402
36.
SullivanA. L.ArtilesA. J.Hernadez-SacaD. I. (2015). Addressing special education inequity through systematic change: Contributions of ecologically based organizational consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929969
VoulgaridesC. K.FergusE.ThoriusK. A. K. (2017). Pursuing equity: Disproportionality in special education and the reframing of technical solutions to address systemic inequities. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16686947
40.
WaltonG.CohenG. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29783880
41.
WrightB. L.FordD. Y.YoungJ. L. (2017). Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence and equity for under-represented students of color in gifted education. Global Education Review, 4(1), 45–60.
YoonS.GentryM. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330564
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
