Challenges With the Identification Placement and Provision of Instruction to Low-Income Students

In 2015, I wrote about my personal philosophy of the gifted learner. I stated in my paper that, “Giftedness is not a one, set definition. The definition of gifted must encompass intellect, ability, creative talent as well as emotional awareness. It cannot be micro-managed and be a “one size fits all” definition” (Dauber, 2015). People, who are gifted, need differentiation and opportunity to express, demonstrate and show their giftedness. Educators must be able to provide opportunities for the gifted learner to express his/her abilities and/or talents. Gifted students learn differently and require special educational experiences in order to grow academically and achieve their highest potential. Therefore, the education field must be able to understand not only the cognitive side of a gifted learner but the affective or social/emotional aspects too.

With this in mind, how then is it fair to give a student in Compton the same test that is given to a student in Beverly Hills? The answer is obvious, it is not fair. However, if a test on life in the ghetto and Ebonics was given to children in Beverly Hills, it is safe to assume nearly all the children would fail. This example illustrates that by changing the culture for which the test is written the previously gifted kids fall to the ranks of retards while the ghetto kids advance to the state of genius. To better evaluate the intelligence potential of any student from any background, the I.Q. tests given should cover a broader range of topics, so that a musical genius is not mistakenly placed in a class for the mentally challenged.

gifted students within those states, and are not consistent across the United States. “Seven states

Students from low-income and first generation backgrounds often struggle in different academic subjects. Subsequently, students have lower expectations for themselves when it comes to academic achievement. The majority of first generation students come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Seeing that, families work countless hours in factories and other places where they are underpaid because of the lack of educational opportunity they experienced themselves. According to Blackwell and Pinder (2014) in the United States higher education is becoming the outlet to different avenues of opportunity whether it is through social mobility or economic progress. While screening out possible topics of interest for a research proposal, one of the challenges I encountered in my field experience was the lack of college access education and funding for the families in the urban high schools. The first generation student family typically is unaware of the college process because the student’s parents have not attended an institution of higher education. Therefore, the students cannot count on their knowledge of the process. Eventually, when students reach the financial aid process it becomes difficult because parents usually cannot afford full tuition expenses and at the same time do not understand the process. In these situations, schools with a college going culture can prepare staff to provide extra support to students by developing professional training in college access, mentorship

A Gifted and talented (G/T) student” is “one who . . . exhibits high performance capability in an intellectual, creative, or artistic area, possesses an unusual capacity for leadership, or excels in a specific academic field” (Aldine ISD Board Policy Manual, 2014). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides a state plan, which outlines the standards for Texas schools to be in compliance. It also offers the educational opportunities these students should receive. In fact, there are performance measures for five aspects of G/T programs including student assessment, service design, curriculum and instruction, professional development, and family and community involvement. The plan assists districts in delivering these comprehensive services to

Disproportionality is something that plagues schools all over the United States. “Disproportionality is defined as the “overrepresentation” and “underrepresentation” of a particular population or demographic group in special or gifted education programs relative to the presence of this group in the overall student population (National Association for Bilingual Education, 2002).”

Mala Morrow is a gifted student. She was identified as being gifted after she scored in the 98 percentile on the Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS). She maintained an A average while she was enrolled in elementary school, now as a middle schooler she has a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 3.9. Mala’s ethnicity is Indian. She is actively learning, English, German, and she is fluent in two different Arabic dialects. These attributes clearly define that Mala is properly labeled as a gifted and talented student.

I observed Julie Tolbert’s gifted third, fourth, and fifth grade classes. The kids in each class were mainly girls but only by a few numbers. Each child had a different learning style, and while they are all in a gifted class some were slower than others with each subject. A child that did really well in the science part of the day might struggle more in the social studies part of the day. Julie would accommodate each learning style to the best of her ability seeing as her ratio was normally

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights reported that African American students represent 17.13% of the total public school population while they account for more than 26% of the children served in special education classrooms (Banks, J. j., & Hughes, M. S. 2013). Across all ethnic groups, African American students are at the highest risk of being placed in special education (Harry & Klinger, 2006). According to researcher Banks, once labeled as having a learning disability, African American students are less likely to be given the opportunity to be tested out of the remedial classes. (Banks, J. j., & Hughes, M. S. 2013)

Standardized, merit-based assessment also disadvantages minority and low socioeconomic status students because of its presentation as a measure of ability. The performance of both black and low socioeconomic status students depends upon the context in which the test is administered. If tests are presented as measures of ability, these students tend to perform lower than their more advantaged peers; if tests are presented as general non-diagnostic studies, they perform equally. As one of over 100 examples, when administered questions from the Graduate Record Examination under normal testing circumstances, low socioeconomic status students answered an average of 8.90 correctly, compared with 12.30 for their high socioeconomic status peers. When presented as a general laboratory study, the scores were 11.46 and 10.89, respectively (Croizet, 2008). Such differences arise due to social anxiety and stereotype threat, the fear of confirming the supposed inferiority of a social group (Croizet, 2008).

[Students who are gifted] give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic or leadership capacity, or in specific academic field, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. ( No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB], 2002, p. 526)

In the article “Ethnic in schools: we are all part of the problem” by Ron B. Voxxi, the author points out how majority of ethnic groups is stereotyped into categories based on standardized test scores. Many of those stereotype are from tests that measures one's intelligence, but not everyone has the same intelligence as the next person, especially while considering ethnicity. Due to stereotypes of this nature the standard for achievements in schools are set lower for African Americans and Hispanics, which supposedly are lower achieving groups. While on the other hand Asian are considered smart and superior in mathematics but women do not ever compare in the science and mathematics department. Due to stereotype threat, students are affected

The idea of “enhanced” and “standard” classes is an awful idea in my opinion. Doing this creates more racial disparity. All students should be learning at the same pace as those who aren’t as “gifted.” Another example as to why I think cultural explanations are shaping inequality in race, and achievement is, the whole idea that parents can hire a private psychologist to test a child. The article then goes on to mention how “private testing gives an advantage to upper-income families, who tend to be white.” This example is self-explanatory, and this option serves as a disadvantage to those families who cannot afford for their child to have a private psychologist. When the article mentions that “gifted” students are considered to be white and Asian, that is being stereotypically bias in my opinion. I think that shapes inequality amongst the different races because in todays society Asians and whites are just expected to have full academic abilities, and to meet the standard

The topic of gifted and talented education is one that has always sparked debates among parents and teachers, and recent movements towards totally integrating classrooms have added to this debate. For many years now, "average" children, gifted and

Those that support ability grouping in schools argue that it is not just gifted and talented students that benefit from this practice. Although students benefit slightly from ability grouping even when course content is not altered, they could gain much more when the curriculum is adjusted to suit their academic needs, according to Mary Ann Swiatek (1997). Swiatek argues, students with mathematical talented are ready to learn statistics/probability, geometry, and pre-algebra long before those topics are introduced in school. If the advanced material is presented, gifted students will learn it, thereby boosting their academic achievement. (Swiatek, 1997)