School Integration Limits the Ability of Local Norms to Diversify Gifted Programs: A Mathematical Analysis with Implications Related to the Achievement Gap

Abstract

Experts within gifted education have advocated for the use of local norms when selecting students for gifted programs, instead of national-level norms. Local norms compare students to their immediate peers to identify gifted students and are believed to produce a more diverse gifted program. However, district integration limits the ability of local norms to diversify gifted programs, a fact that has been almost completely overlooked in gifted education scholarship. Through a simplified example, we show that local building-level norms are best at diversifying gifted programs when schools are highly segregated. Conversely, when achievement gaps are present and a uniform admissions cutoff is applied, building-level norms in highly integrated schools produce highly segregated gifted programs. In short, the use of building-level local norms trades one form of segregation for another. Implications and recommendations for gifted education and beyond are explored. A preprint version of this article is available at https://psyarxiv.com/nemch/.

Keywords

gifted identification local norms diversity gifted education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Calvin

. (2000). Use of standardized tests in admissions in postsecondary institutions of higher education. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.20 https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.20

Carman

C. A.

Walther

C. A. P.

Bartsch

R. A

. (2018). Using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 nonverbal battery to identify the gifted/talented: An investigation of demographic effects and norming plans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097

Carman

C. A.

Walther

C. A. P.

Bartsch

R. A

. (2020). Differences in using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 nonverbal battery versus the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 2 to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(3), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220921164 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220921164

Curran

F. C.

Kellogg

A. T

. (2016). Understanding science achievement gaps by race/ethnicity and gender in kindergarten and first grade. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189×16656611 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656611

Deary

I. J.

Thorpe

Wilson

Starr

J. M.

Whalley

L. J

. (2003). Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: The Scottish mental survey 1932. Intelligence, 31(6), 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-2896(03)00053-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00053-9

de Brey

Musu

McFarland

Wilkinson-Flicker

Diliberti

Zhang

Branstetter

Wang

(2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2018 (NCES publication No. 2019-038). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019038.pdf

Feingold

. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062001061 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062001061

Ford

D. Y

. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.919563 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.919563

Frisby

C. L

. (2013). Meeting the psychoeducational needs of minority students: Evidence-based guidelines for school psychologists and other school personnel. John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Fry

(2009). The rapid growth and changing complexion of suburban public schools. Pew Research Center.

11.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

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

12.

James

D. R.

Taeuber

K. E

. (1985). Measures of segregation. Sociological Methodology, 15, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/270845 https://doi.org/10.2307/270845

13.

Jensen

A. R

. (1980). Précis of bias in mental testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005161 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005161

14.

Jensen

A. R

. (1985). The nature of the black–white difference on various psychometric tests: Spearman’s hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(2), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00020392 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00020392

15.

Jensen

A. R.

(1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Praeger.

16.

Kalogrides

Loeb

. (2013). Different teachers, different peers: The magnitude of student sorting within schools. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189×13495087 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13495087

17.

Knott

. (2021, June 14). 86% Of Charlottesville students in grades 3-11 are identified as gifted. The Daily Progress . https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/education/86-of-charlottesville-students-in-grades-3-11-are-identified-as-gifted/article_49ff3982-cd5e-11eb-8776-eb3c4344ae73.html

18.

Lakin

J. M

. (2018). Making the cut in gifted selection: Score combination rules and their impact on program diversity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752099 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752099

19.

Lamb

K. N.

Boedeker

Kettler

. (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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219830768

20.

Lipsey

M. W.

Puzio

Yun

Heberg

M. A.

Steinka-Fry

Cole

M. W.

Roberts

Anthony

K. S.

Busick

M. D.

(2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms (NCES publication No. 2013-3000). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20133000/pdf/20133000.pdf

21.

Little

. (2017). Racial and socioeconomic gaps in executive function skills in early elementary school. Educational Researcher, 46(2), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189×17698700 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17698700

22.

Makel

M. C.

Kell

H. J.

Lubinski

Putallaz

Benbow

C. P

. (2016). When lightning strikes twice: Profoundly gifted, profoundly accomplished. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616644735 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616644735

23.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Waterman

. (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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794

24.

Murray

(2021). Facing reality: Two truths about race in America. Encounter Books.

25.

Naglieri

J. A.

Ford

D. Y

. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700206

. (2017). Minority achievement gaps in STEM: Findings of a longitudinal study of project excite. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673449 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673449

27.

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(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165

28.

Peters

S. J.

Matthews

M. S.

McBee

M. T.

McCoach

D. B.

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

29.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A

. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446 https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446

30.

Petersen

N. S.

Novick

M. R

. (1976). An evaluation of some models for culture-fair selection. Journal of Educational Measurement, 13(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1976.tb00178.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1976.tb00178.x

31.

Pfeiffer

S. I

. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n01_03

32.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

Warne

R. T.

(2015). Measuring the outliers: An introduction to out-of-level testing with high-achieving students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915569359

33.

Reardon

S. F.

Kalogrides

Shores

. (2019). The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps. American Journal of Sociology, 124, 1164–1221. https://doi.org/10.1086/700678

34.

Reardon

S. F.

Portilla

X. A

. (2016). Recent trends in income, racial, and ethnic school readiness gaps at kindergarten entry. AERA Open, 2(3), Article 2332858416657343. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416657343 https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416657343

35.

Renzulli

J. S

. (1978/2011). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821

36.

Sander

R. H.

Taylor

Jr. (2012). Mismatch: How affirmative action hurts students it’s intended to help, and why universities won’t admit it. Basic Books.

37.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C

. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056 https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

38.

Swanson

J. D

. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000103 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000103

39.

te Nijenhuis

van den Hoek

., & Armstrong

E. L

. (2015). Spearman’s hypothesis and Amerindians: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 50, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.006

40.

Warne

R. T.

(2016a). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360

41.

Warne

R. T.

(2016b). Testing Spearman's hypothesis with Advanced Placement examination data. Intelligence, 57, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.05.002.

42.

Warne

R. T

(2020). In the know: Debunking 35 myths about human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

43.

Warne

R. T.

(2021). Statistics for the social sciences: A general linear model approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

44.

Warne

R. T

. (2022). Analyzing disproportionate representation in gifted education: Identification procedures, proximal causes, distal causes, and theoretical causes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037943

45.

Warne

R. T.

Anderson

Johnson

A. O.

(2013). The impact of race and ethnicity on the identification process for giftedness in Utah. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(4), 487–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213506065

46.

Worrell

F. C.

Dixson

D. D.

(2018). Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students. In Pfeiffer

S. I

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 209–2226). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_13

47.

Worrell

F. C.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Dixson

D. D

. (2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846

48.

Yoon

S. Y.

Gentry

. (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 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.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB

0.32 MB