Gifted Child Quarterly最新文献

{"title":"Solving the Right Problem: The Need for Alternative Identification Measures in Gifted Education","authors":"Ashley S. Flynn, A. Shelton","doi":"10.1177/00169862211046394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211046394","url":null,"abstract":"Gifted and talented education (GATE) exemplifies racial and economic hierarchies that exist in our society, with historically marginalized (HM) students significantly less likely to be identified as gifted, and subsequently receiving gifted services, than their peers (Grissom et al., 2019). Peters (2021) advanced the dialogue around inequities by attempting to not only highlight their existence but to also offer insights into the barriers to overcoming inequity. Although we agree with Peters on his thorough analysis of the complex factors, we challenge the assertion that investigating alternative identification methods wastes effort on solving the wrong problem because traditional standardized tests play a critical role in perpetuating, and often amplifying, systemic inequities in education. Grounded in the University of California (UC) system’s effort to reduce bias in their admissions decisions, Peters (2021) asserts that the inclusion of traditional standardized tests promotes racial and economic diversity in educational programs. However, the report from the UC task force tells a more nuanced story (University of California Academic Senate, 2020). Although test scores produced more equitable results than other achievement metrics, namely high school GPA, this approach was far from demonstrating equity. Prior to dropping standardized tests, 37% of California residents in the UC student body were HM students, whereas 59% of the state’s high school graduates were HM students. Moreover, the task force found substantial performance differences among demographic groups on the SAT and the ACT, noting that these tests alone would have precluded many HM students from gaining admission to the UC system. The advantage of including standardized test scores was due to a comprehensive review of them that allowed for varying thresholds based on students’ context. Although traditional standardized tests may not universally exacerbate existing disparities, it is clear that they are not equitably identifying students for admission. Consistent with the UC findings, the College Board itself reports gaps in SAT performance as a function of racial and economic demographics, with discrepancies as large as 15% to 20% for Black and Latinx students compared with White and Asian students (College Board, 2014, 2020). When considering the intersection of race and family income, the results are even more striking: The effect of family income on SAT performance is almost twice as large for Black students than for White students (Dixon-Román et al., 2013). Similar performance discrepancies exist across other common tests used for university admissions (e.g., ACT, 2020) such as intelligence quotient and achievement tests commonly used for gifted identification (e.g., Kena et al., 2016; Silverman, 2009). One interpretation of these scores is that different groups have different levels of ability, but these assessments are largely testing past achievement. Although these may b","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"46 1","pages":"144 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76171913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Achieving Equitable Outcomes Requires Expanded Services","authors":"April Wells, J. Plucker","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037952","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"108 - 109"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79406051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Achieving Equity Within Public Education","authors":"D. McCoach","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037956","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"28 1","pages":"103 - 104"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87660555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Decentering Whiteness in Gifted Education: Addressing the Needs of the Gifted “Others” Through Social Justice and Culturally Responsive Pedagogies","authors":"Rhoda Myra Garces-Bacsal, H. Elhoweris","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037713","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"124 1","pages":"121 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83442092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Underrepresentation in Gifted Education Revisited: The Promise of Single-Group Summaries and Meta-Analytic QuantCrit","authors":"Jemimah Young, J. Young","doi":"10.1177/00169862211039731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211039731","url":null,"abstract":"Many statistical measures are commonly used to document the persistence of inequity within gifted education (Young, Young, & Ford, 2017; Ford, 2013; Hodges et al., 2018; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). Thus, in response to the challenges presented by Peters (2021), we contend that an approach that considers critical race theory as a lens for the design, analysis, and interpretation of representation data in gifted education is necessary but remains elusive. In this commentary, we present an example of an alternative analysis (i.e., single-group summary). Borrowing from the work of Ford (2013) and Lamb et al. (2019), we examined Black student representation in gifted education meta-analytically using data from the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection to provide an example of the utility of single-group summaries. A single-group summary is described as the estimation of population parameters for a single group on a particular outcome. We aim to present a novel application of QuantCrit and meta-analytic thinking to support more informed and equitable decisions in gifted education. Using data from the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection database, we computed the relative difference in composition index (RDCI), the Equity Index (EI), and the Inequity Score (IS) in the current single-group summary.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":"136 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83152392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Response to Peters: Promising Practices and a Missing Piece","authors":"P. Olszewski-Kubilius, R. Subotnik","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037968","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037968","url":null,"abstract":"Peters (2021) argues that gifted education has a severe problem regarding the underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students as well as children from low-income families—and that the field has not achieved measurable success in improving equity. He supports his arguments by highlighting data showing that the focus has been on the wrong solution—namely finding some method of identification that will result in proportional representation. Peters purports that the underidentification of whole groups of students largely reflects disparities that exist in opportunities to learn by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, which result from institutional racism and poverty. We agree with Peters that gifted education specialists are responsible for making today’s gifted education services equitable, accessible, welcoming, and effective for all students, and we offer suggestions on how to enhance the effectiveness of those efforts and avoid pitfalls that derail good ideas.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"86 1","pages":"110 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79406460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Journal Editors’ Role in Supporting Equity","authors":"M. Matthews, Jennifer H. Robins","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037708","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"78 1","pages":"161 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90356758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Additional Challenges to Achieving Equity in Gifted and Talented Education","authors":"Matthew C. Makel","doi":"10.1177/00169862211039735","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211039735","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"19 1","pages":"101 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84386161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Achieving Equity in Gifted Education: Ideas and Issues","authors":"F. Worrell, Dante D. Dixson","doi":"10.1177/00169862211068551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211068551","url":null,"abstract":"The disproportionality in the ethnic-racial and socioeconomic make-up of students in gifted and talented education (GATE) programs has been identified by many scholars as the most critical and the most intractable issue facing the field of gifted education (e.g., Grissom & Redding, 2016; Olszewski-Kubilius & Steenbergen-Hu, 2017; Plucker & Peters, 2016; Worrell & Dixson, 2018). Considered a fundamental equity issue by many (e.g., Peters & Engerrand, 2016)—that is, an issue of fairness—there is a growing body of scholarship on what should be done (Ford, 1998; Grissom et al., 2019). However, despite the efforts of many researchers and educators (e.g., Horn, 2015; Lee et al., 2009), this disproportionality has not been remedied (Peters, Gentry, et al., 2019), and indeed, the problem is perceived as more urgent in the sociohistorical context of 2021, with the increased focus on civil rights and social justice. As academics, we put forward different theoretical frameworks and ideas to solve problems, we test competing hypotheses, and we engage in robust debates about the most appropriate solutions to problems. These research endeavors are systematic attempts to solve complex problems, such as the issue of disproportionality in gifted education. Given the ongoing concerns about this issue and in keeping with the scientific underpinnings of the field, the editors of Gifted Child Quarterly decided to devote a special issue to the topic of equity in gifted education. The goal of the special issue is to bring together ideas from across the field to better understand disproportionality in GATE in hopes of making progress on this pernicious issue. The format of the special issue includes a target article on equity within GATE, commentaries on the target article solicited from a wide variety of stakeholders, and a response to the commentaries by the author of the target article. The authors of this introduction were asked to serve as guest editors for the special issue. In choosing a scholar to write the target article, we considered the conceptual and empirical contributions of several individuals who regularly publish on equity within GATE. In addition, we also considered these individuals’ engagement with the extant empirical literature. After considering these and other factors, we invited Dr. Scott Peters to write the target article. We felt that Dr. Peters’ contributions to several theoretical frameworks on gifted education (i.e., advanced academics and excellence gaps; e.g., Peters et al., 2014; Plucker & Peters, 2016) as well as his conceptual and empirical research on multiple models of identification aimed at diversifying GATE (e.g., McBee et al., 2014; Peters & Engerrand, 2016; Peters, Rambo-Hernandez, et al., 2019) made him an excellent choice for the target article. Equity is a broad term that can have a different definition for different people. Within the GATE literature, there are many different definitions and perspectives on what equity is a","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"314 1","pages":"79 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80065334","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Analyzing Disproportionate Representation in Gifted Education: Identification Procedures, Proximal Causes, Distal Causes, and Theoretical Causes","authors":"Russell T Warne","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037943","url":null,"abstract":"Peters (2021) presented an analysis of disproportionate representation of demographic groups in gifted education programs. He views disproportionate representation as a consequence of inequalities that originate outside of gifted education and says that narrowly focusing on gifted education practices will be inadequate for remedying the inequities in the field. Peters’ analysis has four levels of increasing generality: local gifted education practices, proximal causes, distal causes, and theoretical causes. Unfortunately, Peters’ argument grows increasingly shaky as its generality increases.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"29 1","pages":"98 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80186171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}