实现资优教育的公平:观点与问题

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
F. Worrell, Dante D. Dixson
{"title":"实现资优教育的公平:观点与问题","authors":"F. Worrell, Dante D. Dixson","doi":"10.1177/00169862211068551","DOIUrl":null,"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 and what it means. As noted above, inequity in gifted education is frequently defined as the disproportionality of representation by students of color and students from low-income backgrounds within GATE programs relative to their representation within the student population. And it is this issue that Peters (2022a) chooses to address in his piece. In the target article, Peters begins with a discussion of the context of underrepresentation and then provides several overarching (and subordinate) reasons for underrepresentation and the difficulties in combating this concern. He outlines several ways that inequality is pervasive in American society (e.g., unequal academic opportunities, institutional racism) and how this inequality contributes to the disproportionality present in GATE. In the third major section of the article, Peters proposes several ways in which GATE programs, and American society, can move forward to achieve more equity in GATE. Following Peters’ (2022a) target article are 28 commentaries from a diverse group consisting of academics, students, and practitioners. We have grouped the commentaries on the basis of content. For example, some of the responses extend on or amplify Peters’ (2022a) comments, whereas others are focused on specific topics such as identification protocols, racism, and social justice. Some of the commentaries are focused on a subject area (e.g., mathematics) or a subpopulation (e.g., twice-exceptional students), or other national contexts, and one commentary includes the perspective of journal editors. In his response to the commentaries, Peters (2022b) articulates two of the major themes that he saw in the responses and engages with those themes thoughtfully. The purpose of this special issue is to engage in a conversation about a pressing issue in the field of gifted education, the disproportionally low enrollment of students from some ethnic-racial backgrounds and from low socioeconomic 1068551 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211068551Gifted Child QuarterlyWorrell and Dixson editorial2021","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"314 1","pages":"79 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Achieving Equity in Gifted Education: Ideas and Issues\",\"authors\":\"F. Worrell, Dante D. Dixson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00169862211068551\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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 and what it means. As noted above, inequity in gifted education is frequently defined as the disproportionality of representation by students of color and students from low-income backgrounds within GATE programs relative to their representation within the student population. And it is this issue that Peters (2022a) chooses to address in his piece. In the target article, Peters begins with a discussion of the context of underrepresentation and then provides several overarching (and subordinate) reasons for underrepresentation and the difficulties in combating this concern. He outlines several ways that inequality is pervasive in American society (e.g., unequal academic opportunities, institutional racism) and how this inequality contributes to the disproportionality present in GATE. In the third major section of the article, Peters proposes several ways in which GATE programs, and American society, can move forward to achieve more equity in GATE. Following Peters’ (2022a) target article are 28 commentaries from a diverse group consisting of academics, students, and practitioners. We have grouped the commentaries on the basis of content. For example, some of the responses extend on or amplify Peters’ (2022a) comments, whereas others are focused on specific topics such as identification protocols, racism, and social justice. Some of the commentaries are focused on a subject area (e.g., mathematics) or a subpopulation (e.g., twice-exceptional students), or other national contexts, and one commentary includes the perspective of journal editors. In his response to the commentaries, Peters (2022b) articulates two of the major themes that he saw in the responses and engages with those themes thoughtfully. The purpose of this special issue is to engage in a conversation about a pressing issue in the field of gifted education, the disproportionally low enrollment of students from some ethnic-racial backgrounds and from low socioeconomic 1068551 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211068551Gifted Child QuarterlyWorrell and Dixson editorial2021\",\"PeriodicalId\":47514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gifted Child Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"314 1\",\"pages\":\"79 - 81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gifted Child Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211068551\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211068551","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

1177/00169862211068551《资优儿童》季刊
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Achieving Equity in Gifted Education: Ideas and Issues
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 and what it means. As noted above, inequity in gifted education is frequently defined as the disproportionality of representation by students of color and students from low-income backgrounds within GATE programs relative to their representation within the student population. And it is this issue that Peters (2022a) chooses to address in his piece. In the target article, Peters begins with a discussion of the context of underrepresentation and then provides several overarching (and subordinate) reasons for underrepresentation and the difficulties in combating this concern. He outlines several ways that inequality is pervasive in American society (e.g., unequal academic opportunities, institutional racism) and how this inequality contributes to the disproportionality present in GATE. In the third major section of the article, Peters proposes several ways in which GATE programs, and American society, can move forward to achieve more equity in GATE. Following Peters’ (2022a) target article are 28 commentaries from a diverse group consisting of academics, students, and practitioners. We have grouped the commentaries on the basis of content. For example, some of the responses extend on or amplify Peters’ (2022a) comments, whereas others are focused on specific topics such as identification protocols, racism, and social justice. Some of the commentaries are focused on a subject area (e.g., mathematics) or a subpopulation (e.g., twice-exceptional students), or other national contexts, and one commentary includes the perspective of journal editors. In his response to the commentaries, Peters (2022b) articulates two of the major themes that he saw in the responses and engages with those themes thoughtfully. The purpose of this special issue is to engage in a conversation about a pressing issue in the field of gifted education, the disproportionally low enrollment of students from some ethnic-racial backgrounds and from low socioeconomic 1068551 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211068551Gifted Child QuarterlyWorrell and Dixson editorial2021
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
29.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the official journal of the National Association for Gifted Children. As a leading journal in the field, GCQ publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies. GCQ welcomes manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome. Additionally, GCQ reviews selected books relevant to the field, with an emphasis on scholarly texts or text with policy implications, and publishes reviews, essay reviews, and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信