Systemic inequities in educational opportunities contribute to reduced economic mobility. Extensive research has documented disproportionality in gifted education at national and state levels. However, limited research examines inequities in gifted education within districts. Informed by critical systems theory (CST), this research provides an analysis of the Gifted Gap in a school district serving a growing metropolitan area with surprisingly limited economic mobility. Results reveal underrepresentation of students experiencing poverty, and Black and Latinx students of all socioeconomic groups in gifted education programs. Inequities in gifted education create systemic barriers including reduced enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) courses, a factor that impedes college completion and participation in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) research and innovation. Reducing gifted education disproportionality is a promising way to increase economic mobility and broaden participation in STEM.
AllenJ. (2017). Exploring the role teacher perceptions play in the underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted programming. Gifted Child Today, 40, 77-86. doi:10.1177/1076217517690188
ArcherL.DawsonE.DeWittJ.SeakinsA.WongB. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 922-948. doi:10.1002/tea.21227
4.
ArsenD.NiY. (2012). The effects of charter school competition on school district resource allocation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 3-38. doi:10.1177/0013161X11419654
5.
AuW. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 25-45. doi:10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
BakerB. D.WeberM.SrikanthA.KimR.AtzbiM. (2018). The real shame of the nation: The causes and consequences of interstate inequity in public school investments. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cm6Jkm6ktUT3SQplzDFjJIy3G3iLWOtJ/view
BerlinerD. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 287-302. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151
10.
BottiaM. C.StearnsE.MickelsonR. A.MollerS. (2018). Boosting the numbers of STEM majors? The role of high schools with a STEM program. Science Education, 102(1), 85-107.
11.
BronfenbrennerU. (1977). Experimental toward an ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
12.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018, August-a). Over-the-year change in unemployment rates for metropolitan areas, not seasonally adjusted. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtch.htm
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014a). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104, 2593-2632. doi:10.1257/aer.104.9.2593
16.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014b). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104, 2633-2679. doi:10.1257/aer.104.9.2633
17.
ChettyR.GruskyD.HellM.HendrenN.ManducaR.NarangJ. (2017). The fading American trend: Trends in absolute economic mobility since 1940. Science, 356, 398-406. doi:10.1126/science.aaI4617
18.
ChettyR.HendrenN. (2018). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility II: County-level estimates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 1163-1228. doi:10.1093/qje/qjy006
19.
ChettyR.HendrenN.KatzL. F. (2016). The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the Moving to Opportunity experiment. American Economic Review, 106, 855-902. doi:10.1257/aer.20150572
20.
ChettyR.HendrenN.KlineP.SaezE. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129, 1553-1623. doi:10.1093/qje/qju022
21.
ChettyR.HendrenN.KlineP.SaezE.TurnerN. (2014). Is the United States still a land of opportunity? Recent trends in intergenerational mobility. American Economic Review, 104, 141-147. doi:10.1257/aer.104.5.141
22.
CoronadoJ. M.LewisK. D. (2017). The disproportional representation of English Language Learners in gifted and talented programs in Texas. Gifted Child Today, 40, 238-244. doi:10.1177/1076217517722181
23.
DarityW.Jr.JollaA. (2009). Desegregated schools with segregated education. In HartmanC.SquiresG. (Eds.), The integration debate: Futures for American Cities (pp. 99-117). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
DeweyJ. (1907). School and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
25.
EastmanM. G.ChristmanJ.ZionG. H.YerrickR. (2017). To educate engineers or to engineer educators? Exploring access to engineering careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 884-913.
26.
EvansE. (2015). Young, gifted, Black, and blocked: A critical inquiry of barriers that hinder Black students’ participation in gifted and Advanced Placement programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1355
27.
FarindeA. A.AdamsT.LewisC. W. (2014). Segregation revisited: The racial education landscape of Charlotte Mecklenburg schools. Western Journal of Black Studies, 38, 177-183.
28.
FielJ. E. (2013). Decomposing school resegregation: Social closure, racial imbalance, and racial isolation. American Sociological Review, 78, 828-848. doi:10.1177/0003122413496252
FloodR. L. (1990). Liberating systems theory: Toward critical systems thinking. Human Relations, 43, 49-75. doi:10.1177/001872679004300104
31.
FloresS. M.ParkT. J.BakerD. J. (2017). The racial college completion gap: Evidence from Texas. The Journal of Higher Education, 88, 894-921. doi:10.1080/00221546.2017.1291259
32.
FordD. Y. (1995). Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 52-62. doi:10.2307/2967284
33.
FordD. Y. (2011). Closing the achievement gap: Gifted education must join the battle. Gifted Child Today, 34, 31-34. doi:10.1177/107621751103400110
34.
FordD. Y. (2016). Desegregating gifted education for culturally different students: Recommendations for equitable recruitment and retention. In DeCuir-GunbyJ. T.SchutzP. A. (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in the study of motivation in education (pp. 183-198). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
35.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. W. (2008). Another look at the achievement gap: Learning from the experiences of gifted Black students. Urban Education, 43, 216-239. doi:10.1177/0042085907312344
36.
FordD. Y.WhitingG. W. (2016). Considering Fisher v. University of Texas–Austin: How gifted education affects access to elite colleges for Black and underrepresented students. Gifted Child Today, 39(2), 121-124. doi:10.1177/1076217516628914
37.
GeiserS.SantelicesV. (2004). The role of Advanced Placement and honors courses in college admissions (Occasional Paper Series 4.04). Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California.
38.
GelmanA.ParkD. K. (2008). Splitting a predictor at the upper quarter or third and the lower quarter or third. The American Statistician, 62(4), 1-8. doi:10.1198/tast.2009.0001
39.
GoingsR. B.FordD. Y. (2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 25-36. doi:10.1177/0016986217737618
40.
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. doi:10.1177/2332858415622175
41.
GruenewaldD. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12. doi:10.3102/0013189X032004003
42.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Polity.
43.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
44.
HamiltonR.McCoachD. B.TutwilerM. S.SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.. . . MunR. U. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 6-24. doi:10.1177/0016986217738053
45.
HammondD. (2010). The science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications of general systems theory. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
46.
HeafnerT. L.FitchettP. G. (2012). Tipping the scales: National trends of declining social studies instructional time in elementary schools. Journal of Social Studies Research, 36, 190-215. doi:10.1080/00377996.2011.592165
47.
HodgesJ.TayJ.MaedaY.GentryM. (2018). A meta-Analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 147-174. doi:10.1177/0016986217752107
48.
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
49.
HurtadoS.NewmanC. B.TranM. C.ChangM. J. (2010). Improving the rate of success for underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project. New Directions for Institutional Research, 148, 5-15. doi:10.1002/ir.357
50.
JordanK. R.BainS. K.McCallumR. S.BellS. M. (2012). Comparing gifted and nongifted African American and Euro-American students on cognitive and academic variables using local norms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 241-258. doi:10.1177/0162353212451701
51.
KettlerT.RussellJ.PuryearJ. S. (2015). Inequitable access to gifted education: Variance in funding and staffing based on locale and contextual school variables. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 99-117. doi:10.1177/0162353215578277
MannH. (1848). Twelfth annual report to the Massachusetts Board of Education. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Dutton and Wentworth State Printers.
54.
McBeeM. (2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 283-297. doi:10.1177/0016986210377927
55.
McClainM. C.PfeifferS. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59-88. doi:10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
56.
MilnerH. R.FordD. Y. (2007). Underrepresentation of culturally diverse elementary students in gifted education. Roeper Review, 29, 166-173. doi:10.1080/02783190709554405
57.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M.CallahanC. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe of gifted education?Roeper Review, 25, 49-60. doi:10.1080/02783190309554199
58.
MooreJ. L.IIIFordD. Y.MilnerH. R. (2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining African American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 51-67. doi:10.1177/001698620504900106
59.
MosesR. P.CobbC. E. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon Press.
60.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2018). State definitions of giftedness. Available from http://www.nagc.org/
National Science Foundation, National Science Board. (2015, February4). Revisiting the STEM workforce: A companion to science and engineering indicators 2014 (NSB-2015-10). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsb201510/nsb201510.pdf
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq
65.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.CorwithS. (2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 37-55. doi:10.1177/0016986217738015
66.
PattonJ. M. (1992). Assessment and identification of African-American learners with gifts and talents. Exceptional Children, 59, 150-159. doi:10.1177/001440299205900208
PekkarinenT.UusitaloR.KerrS. (2009). School tracking and intergenerational income mobility: Evidence from the Finnish comprehensive school reform. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 965-973. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.04.006
69.
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, 159-171. doi:10.1177/0016986216643165
70.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2012). Group-specific norms and teacher-rating scales: Implications for underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 125-144. doi:10.1177/1932202X12438717
71.
PluckerJ. A.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K-12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531840.pdf
72.
PluckerJ. A.GiancolaJ.HealeyG.ArndtD.WangC. (2015). Equal talents, unequal opportunities: A report card on state support for academically talented low-income students. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
73.
ReardonS. F.OwensA. (2014). 60 years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199-218. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043152
74.
RenzulliJ. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century. Exceptionality, 10, 67-75. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX1002_2
75.
RielV.ParcelT. L.MickelsonR. A.SmithS. S. (2018). Do magnet and charter schools exacerbate or ameliorate inequality?Sociology Compass, 12, e12617. doi:10.1111/soc4.12617
76.
RothwellJ.MasseyD. (2015). Geographic effects on intergenerational income mobility. Economic Geography, 91, 83-106.
77.
ScottT. P.ToldsonH.LeeY. H. (2010). Assessment of Advanced Placement participation and university academic success in the first semester: Controlling for selected high school academic abilities. Journal of College Admission, 208, 26-30. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893892.pdf
78.
SouthworthS.MickelsonR. A. (2007). The interactive effects of race, gender and school composition on college track placement. Social Forces, 86, 497-523. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20430751
79.
SternbergR. J. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being and acting intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36, 148-155. doi:10.3102/0013189X07299881
80.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
81.
TateW. (2001). Science education as a civil right: Urban schools and opportunity-to-learn considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1015-1028. doi:10.1002/tea.1045
82.
ThadaniV.CookM. S.GriffisK.WiseJ. A.BlakeyA. (2010). The possibilities and limitations of curriculum-based science inquiry interventions for challenging the “pedagogy of poverty.”Equity & Excellence in Education, 43, 21-37. doi:10.1080/10665680903408908
TysonK. (Ed.). (2011). Integration interrupted: Tracking, Black students, and acting White after Brown. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
85.
TysonW.LeeR.BormanK. M.HansonM. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 243-270.
WattsS.GeorgeM.LeveyD. (2015). Achieving broader impacts in the National Science Foundation, Division of Environmental Biology. BioScience, 65, 397-407. doi:10.1093/biosci/biv006
92.
WrightB. L.FordD. Y.YoungJ. L. (2017). Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence and equity for underrepresented students of color in gifted education. Global Education Review, 4(1), 45-60. Retrieved from http://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger
93.
WynerJ. S.BridgelandJ. M.DiIulioJ. J.Jr. (2007). Achievementrap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503359.pdf
YoungJ. L.Ero-TolliverI.YoungJ. R.FordD. Y. (2017). Maximizing opportunities to enroll in advanced high school science courses: Examining the scientific dispositions of Black girls. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 13, 174-183. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/j/ISSN-1946-2077/
