The purpose of this study was to explore the differential effects of access to gifted education on the mathematics and science achievement of fourth-grade Black girls. This study utilized mean difference effect sizes to examine the magnitude of differences between groups. By convention, White girls were included as a comparison group. Girls receiving gifted instruction and girls not receiving gifted instruction were the populations of interest (N = 13,868). The mathematics results suggest that Black girls participating in gifted education statistically significantly outperform Black girls in the comparison group. The mean difference effect sizes for within-group differences were almost twice as large for Black girls compared with White girls. The science results indicate that Black girls receiving gifted instruction outperformed Black girls in the comparison group. White girls, regardless of access to gifted instruction, statistically significantly outperformed Black girls in science. These results inform the recommendations provided.
AudS.Wilkinson-FlickerS.KristapovichP.RathbunA.WangX.ZhangJ. (2013). The Condition of Education 2013. NCES 2013-037. National Center for Education Statistics.
2.
BakerD. (2013). What works: Using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and participation in science. Theory Into Practice, 52, 14-20. doi:10.1080/07351690.2013.743760
3.
BeanK.BuchK.DahlbergT.BarnesT.RorrerA.CagleyL. (2014). An innovative partnership between national and regional partnerships: STARS meets McPIE. PRISM: A Journal of Regional Engagement, 3, 119-130. Retrieved from http://encompass.eku.edu/prism/vol3/iss2/3
4.
BellP.BrickerL.ReeveS.ZimmermanH. T.TzouC. (2012). Discovering and supporting successful learning pathways of youth in and out of school: Accounting for the development of everyday expertise across settings. In BevanB.BellP.StevensR.RazfarA. (Eds.), LOST opportunities: Learning in out-of-school-time (pp. 119-140). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
BohrnstedtG.KitmittoS.OgutB.ShermanD.ChanD. (2015). School Composition and the Black–White Achievement Gap (NCES 2015-018). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
7.
BoykinA. W.NogueraP. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
8.
CapraroR. M. (2004). Statistical significance, effect size reporting, and confidence intervals: Best reporting strategies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 57-62. doi:10.2307/30034803
9.
CharlestonL. J.GeorgeP. L.JacksonJ. F.BerhanuJ.AmechiM. H. (2014). Navigating underrepresented STEM spaces: Experiences of Black women in U.S. computing science higher education programs who actualize success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 166-176. doi:10.1037/a0036632
10.
ChoiN.ChangM. (2009). Performance of middle school students: Comparing U.S. and Japanese inquiry-based science practices in middle schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(1), 15.
11.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
12.
DavisD. R. (2016). The journey to the top: Stories on the intersection of race and gender for African American women in academia and business. Journal of Research Initiatives, 2(1), Article 4. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri/vol2/iss1/4
13.
DeCoitoI. (2014). Focusing on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in the 21st century. Ontario Professional Surveyor, 57, 34-36.
14.
The Education Trust. (2014). Falling out of the lead: Following high achievers through high school and beyond. Washington, DC: Author.
15.
ErwinJ. O.WorrellF. 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
16.
FarkasS.DuffettA. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of NCLB, Part 2: Results from a National Teacher Survey. Washington, DC: Fordham Institute.
FordD. Y. (2010a). Multicultural issues: Culturally responsive classrooms: Affirming culturally different gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 33(1), 50-53. doi:10.1177/107621751003300112
19.
FordD. Y. (2010b). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31-35. doi:10.1177/107621751003300308
20.
FordD. Y. (2011a). Closing the achievement gap: Gifted education must join the battle. Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 31-34. doi:10.1177/107621751103400110
21.
FordD. Y. (2011b). Multicultural gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
22.
FordD. Y. (2013). Multicultural issues: Gifted underrepresentation and prejudice—Learning from Allport and Merton. Gifted Child Today, 36(1), 62-67. doi:10.1177/1076217512465285
23.
FordD. Y. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36, 143-154. doi:10.1080/02783193.2014.919563
24.
FordD. Y.CastellanoJ.DavisJ.ColemanM. R. (2013). Special issue on racially, ethnically, and linguistically different gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today, 36, 151-151. doi:10.1177/1076217513475989
25.
FordD. Y.KingR. A.Jr. (2014). No Blacks allowed: Segregated gifted education in the context of Brown v. Board of Education. The Journal of Negro Education, 83, 300-310. doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.3.0300
26.
FordD. Y.MooreJ. L. (2013). Understanding and reversing underachievement, low achievement, and achievement gaps among high-ability African American males in urban school contexts. The Urban Review, 45, 399-415. doi:10.1007/s11256-013-0256-3
27.
FordD. Y.ScottM. T.MooreJ. L.IIIAmosS. O. (2013). Gifted education and culturally different students: Examining prejudice and discrimination via microaggressions. Gifted Child Today, 36, 205-208. doi:10.1177/1076217513487069
28.
HansonS. L. (2009). Swimming against the tide. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
29.
HenfieldM. S.MooreJ. L.IIIWoodC. (2008). Inside and outside gifted education programming: Hidden challenges for African American students. Exceptional Children, 74, 433-450. doi:10.1177/001440290807400402
30.
HenfieldM. S.OwensD.MooreJ. L. (2008). Influences on young gifted African Americans’ school success: Implications for elementary school counselors. The Elementary School Journal, 108, 392-406. doi:10.1086/589469
31.
HughesR. M.NzekweB.MolyneauxK. J. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1979-2007.
32.
HydeJ. S.LindbergS. M.LinnM. C.EllisA. B.WilliamsC. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494-495. doi:10.1126/science.1160364
33.
JahnJ. L.MyersK. K. (2014). Vocational anticipatory socialization of adolescents: Messages, sources, and frameworks that influence interest in STEM careers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 85-106. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.874568
34.
KerrB. A.MultonK. D.SymeM. L.FryN. M.OwensR.HammondM.Robinson-KurpiusS. (2012). Development of the distance from privilege measures a tool for understanding the persistence of talented women in STEM. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 88-102. doi:10.1177/0734282911428198
35.
KerrB. A.VuykM. A.ReaC. (2012). Gendered practices in the education of gifted girls and boys. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 647-655. doi:10.1002/pits.21627
36.
KnezekG.ChristensenR.Tyler-WoodT. (2011). Contrasting perceptions of STEM content and careers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 92-117.
37.
KrullM. (August, 2014). Time to end “separate and unequal” schools. Sojourners Magazine, 43(9), 9-10.
38.
LarkeP. J.EasterlyS.IrbyB.JonesW. A.LeaJ. V. (2009). The gifted African American student: What educators need to know. Journal of the Texas Alliance of Black School Educators, 2(1), 13-17.
39.
LarkeP. J.Webb-HasanG.YoungJ. L. (2016a). Culturally sensitive investigation (CSI): State of education for African American girls. In LarkeP.Webb-HasanG.YoungJ. (Eds.), Cultivating achievement, respect, and empowerment (CARE) for African American girls in preK-12 settings (pp. 17-42). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
40.
LarkeP. J.Webb-HasanG.YoungJ. L. (2016b). Introduction . . . Hey Google, include us . . . African American girls. In LarkeP.Webb-HasanG.YoungJ. (Eds.), Cultivating achievement, respect, and empowerment (CARE) for African American girls in preK-12 settings (pp. 3-10). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
41.
LeeJ.GriggW.DionG. (2007). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
42.
LehmingR.GawaltJ.CohenS.BellR. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013 (Special Report No. NSF 13-304). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
43.
LichtenbergerE.George-JacksonC. (2013). Predicting high school students’ interest in majoring in a STEM Field: Insight into high school students’ postsecondary plans. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 28(1), 19-38. doi:10.21061/jcte.v28i1.571
44.
LutkusA.GriggW.DionG. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Trial urban district assessment mathematics 2007 (NCES 2008-452). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
45.
MacFarlaneB. (2015). STEM education for high-ability learners: Designing and implementing programming. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
46.
MattaiP. R.WagleA. T.WilliamsJ. M. (2010). An often-neglected issue in consideration of gifted African American millennial students: Implications for school planning and policy. Gifted Child Today, 33(2), 26-31. doi:10.1177/107621751003300208
47.
MayesR. D.HinesE. M. (2014). College and career readiness for gifted African American girls: A call to school counselors. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4, 31-42.
48.
McBeeM. T.MatthewsM. S. (2014). Change starts with journal editors: In response to Makel (2014). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 8-10. doi:10.1037/a0035801
49.
MorrisM. W. (2016). Pushout: The criminalization of black girls in schools. New York, NY: The New Press.
50.
Moss-RacusinC. A.MolendaA. K.CramerC. R. (2015). Can evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gender bias in STEM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 194-209. doi:0361684314565777
51.
NasereddinM.ClarkT. K.KonakA. (2014, March8). Using virtual machines in a K-12 Outreach program to increase interest in information security fields. 2014 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Princeton, NJ.
52.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, & National Research Council. (2010). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
53.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011a). Digest of education statistics 2010. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_297.asp
56.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011b). The nation’s report card: Science 2009 (NCES 2011-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
57.
National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/
58.
Nicholson-CrottyS.GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyJ.ReddingC. (2016). Disentangling the causal mechanisms of representative bureaucracy: Evidence from assignment of students to gifted programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 745-757.
PernaL.Lundy-WagnerV.DreznerN. D.GasmanM.YoonS.BoseE.GaryS. (2009). The contribution of HBCUs to the preparation of African American women for STEM careers: A case study. Research in Higher Education, 50(1), 1-23. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9110-y
61.
PetersonJ. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 342-348. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002
62.
PluckerJ. A. (1997). Debunking the myth of the “highly significant” result: Effect sizes in gifted education research. Roeper Review, 20, 122-126. doi:10.1080/02783199709553873
QuinnF.LyonsT. (2011). High school students’ perceptions of school science and science careers: A critical look at a critical issue. Science Education International, 22, 225-238.
66.
RahmJ. (2008). Urban youths’ hybrid positioning in science practices at the margin: A look inside a school museum-scientist partnership project and an afterschool science program. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 97-121. doi:10.1007/s11422-007-9081-x
67.
Riegle-CrumbC.KingB. (2010). Questioning a white male advantage in STEM examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39, 656-664. doi:10.3102/0013189X10391657
68.
SadlerP. M.SonnertG.HazariZ.TaiR. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96, 411-427. doi:10.1002/sce.21007
69.
ThompsonB. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 25-32. doi:10.3102/0013189X031003025
VannemanA.HamiltonL.AndersonJ. B.RahmanT. (2009). Achievement gaps: How Black and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress (Statistical Analysis Report No. NCES 2009-455). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505903
72.
WangM. T.DegolJ. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304-340. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
WilliamsonR.BlackburnB. (2013). Rigorous schools and classrooms: Leading the way. New York, NY: Routledge.
75.
WoolleyM. E.StrutchensM.GilbertM. C.MartinW. G. (2010). Mathematics success of Black middle school students: Direct and indirect effects of teacher expectations and reform practices. Negro Educational Review, 61(1-4), 41-59.
76.
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, 45-60.
77.
YoungJ. L. (2016). From special ed to higher ed: A Black girl’s journey in discovering her giftedness. In FordD.DavisJ.Trotman ScottM.Sealey-RuizY. (Eds.), Gumbo for the soul: Liberating stories to inspire females of color. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
78.
YoungJ. L.FeilleK.YoungJ. R. (2017). Black girls as learners and doers of science: A single-group summary of elementary science achievement. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 1-20.
79.
YoungJ. L.LarkeP. J. (2017). One book and one girl at a time: Analyzing and explaining Black girl’s reading achievement in elementary school. Literacy and Social Responsibility, 9(1), 3-10.
80.
YoungJ. L.ScottC. (2016). Writing outside the margins: An exploratory analysis of Black girls achievement in middle grades writing. The National Journal of Urban Education & Practice, 9, 506-523.
81.
YoungJ. L.YoungJ. R. (2017). Opportunity knocks, will she answer: Dispositions and participation of girls of color in STEM enrichment. Journal of Expanded Learning Opportunities, 1(4), 12-25.
82.
YoungJ. L.YoungJ. R.PauflerN. A. (2017). Out of school and into STEM: Supporting girls of color through culturally relevant enrichment. Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership, 2, 28-34. Retrieved from https://kenanfellows.org/journals/index.php/JOITL/article/view/31
