10
This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University] On: 04 November 2014, At: 06:52 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Theory Into Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20 Providing Access for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students: From Deficit to Dynamic Thinking Donna Y. Ford & Tarek C. Grantham Published online: 24 Jun 2010. To cite this article: Donna Y. Ford & Tarek C. Grantham (2003) Providing Access for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students: From Deficit to Dynamic Thinking, Theory Into Practice, 42:3, 217-225, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4203_8 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_8 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

Providing Access for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students: From Deficit to Dynamic Thinking

  • Upload
    tarek-c

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]On: 04 November 2014, At: 06:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Providing Access for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students:From Deficit to Dynamic ThinkingDonna Y. Ford & Tarek C. GranthamPublished online: 24 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Donna Y. Ford & Tarek C. Grantham (2003) Providing Access for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students: FromDeficit to Dynamic Thinking, Theory Into Practice, 42:3, 217-225, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4203_8

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_8

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyoneis expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

217

Providing AccessFord and Grantham

Few school districts in the United States have suc-cessfully recruited and retained culturally diversestudents in programs for gifted students. Black,Hispanic, and Native American students are un-derrepresented in gifted education programs na-tionally, with underrepresentation ranging from50-70%. This article addresses two questions thatare at least as old as gifted education itself: Why arediverse students underrepresented, and how can werecruit and retain more diverse students in our giftedprograms? Factors contributing to the persistent un-derrepresentation of Black students in gifted educa-tion are presented, along with suggestions forchanges. The central premise of this article is thatdeficit thinking held by educators about diverse stu-dents hinders access to gifted programs for them.

A LONG-STANDING CONCERN of researchers and practitioners has been the underrepresenta-

tion of Black students in gifted programs, namelythose with high intelligence test scores who werenot formally identified as gifted. Educators and or-ganizations have discussed the myriad consequenc-es associated with gifted Black and other diversestudents not being identified and served.

Few large-scale reports exist on cultural di-versity in gifted education identification and place-ment. However, the U.S. Department of Education(1993) noted that Black, Hispanic, and NativeAmerican students are underrepresented in giftededucation. This was also the more recent findingof the National Research Council’s Committee onMinority Representation in Special Education (Don-novan & Cross, 2002). Despite such concerns, re-ports, and even legislation (e.g., Brown v. Boardof Education, 1954), the percentage of diverse stu-dents in gifted education programs does not matchtheir representation in U.S. schools. For example,Black students represented 16.2% of public schoolstudents in 1993, but only 8.4% of students in gift-ed programs; Hispanic students represented 9% ofpublic school students, but only 4.7% of those iden-tified as gifted (USDE, 1993). Both groups tend tobe underrepresented in gifted programs by 50%.

The premise of this article is that the underrep-resentation of diverse students in gifted education isprimarily a function of educators holding a deficitperspective about diverse students. Deficit thinkingexists when educators hold negative, stereotypic, andcounterproductive views about culturally diverse stu-dents and lower their expectations of these studentsaccordingly. Until deficit thinking becomes dynamicthinking, the unnecessary underrepresentation of di-verse students in gifted education will continue.

Donna Y. FordTarek C. Grantham

Providing Access for Culturally DiverseGifted Students: From Deficit to DynamicThinking1

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, Volume 42, Number 3, Summer 2003Copyright © 2003 College of Education, The Ohio State University

Donna Y. Ford is a professor of education at The OhioState University; Tarek C. Grantham is an assistantprofessor of education at the University of Georgia.

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

218

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Summer 2003Teacher Reflection and Race in Cultural Contexts

Deficit Ideologies: LimitingAccess and Opportunity

Reactions to differences among students man-ifest themselves in various ways, and they exert apowerful influence in educational settings.

Storti (1989) raises several relevant questionsfor teachers working with gifted and culturally di-verse students: What are their perceptions of giftedstudents? How do they define giftedness? How dosuch definitions and perceptions affect their referralof students for gifted programs? Likewise, how cul-turally competent are teachers? What are their per-sonal and professional experiences in working withculturally diverse populations? What stereotypes andmisperceptions do they hold?

Perceptions—negative and positive—aboutracial backgrounds influence the development ofdefinitions, policies, and practices. Gould (1981,1995) and Menchaca (1997) noted that deficit think-ing contributed to past (and current) beliefs aboutculture, race, and intelligence. Gould demonstrat-ed how a priori assumptions and fears associatedwith different racial groups, particularly AfricanAmericans, led to conscious fraud—dishonest andprejudicial research methods, deliberate miscalcu-lations, convenient omissions, and data misinter-pretation among scientists studying intelligence.These early assumptions and practices contributedto the prevailing belief that human races could beranked in a linear scale of mental worth, as evi-denced by Burt, Broca, and Morten’s research oncraniometry (Gould, 1981, p. 86).

Later, as school districts faced increasing ra-cial diversity, educators resorted to increased reli-ance on standardized tests—biased2 standardized tests.As Gould (1995), Hilliard (1992), and others noted,the tests measured familiarity with American cultureand English proficiency, not intelligence. This almostguaranteed low test scores for immigrants (and cul-turally diverse groups) who were unfamiliar with U.S.customs, traditions, values, norms, and language.

The deficit orientation was recently revivedby the publication of The Bell Curve (Herrnstein& Murray, 1994) and in the works of Jensen (1984)and Rushton (2000). Menchaca (1997) also tracedthe evolution of deficit thinking, and demonstratedhow it influenced segregation in schools (e.g., Plessyv. Fergusen, 1896) and resistance to desegregation

during the Civil Rights era and today. For instance,some scholars conclude that educators continue toresist desegregation, and they use tracking and abil-ity grouping to resegregate students racially. Thatis, some educators argue that the underrepresenta-tion of culturally diverse students in gifted educa-tion relates, in many cases, to efforts to perpetuateschool segregation (e.g., Ford & Webb, 1995; Hil-liard, 1992). These symptoms and suggested treat-ments are discussed below.

Deficit Thinking 1: IntelligenceLittle consensus exists among educators re-

garding how to define the terms intelligent andgifted and how to do so equitably. Since 1970,there have been five federal definitions of gifted-ness, the most recent definition in 1993. Sternbergand Detterman (1986) presented two dozen defini-tions; some were biological and some behavioral.Likewise, Sternberg and Davidson (1986) sharedthe many and diverse viewpoints of scholars. Despiteinconsistency and a lack of consensus, most defini-tions of intelligence and giftedness are IQ-based andtest-driven. These definitions suggest that a “giftedor intelligent” person has a high IQ (130 or higher)and that a person is high, average, or low in intel-ligence based on an IQ score.

The most insidious aspect of issues surround-ing intelligence is the debate over the relative contri-butions of nature versus nurture. At one extreme,advocates of nature contend that intelligence is a func-tion of heredity or genetics; you are either smart ornot. At the other extreme, advocates of nurture con-tend that intelligence is a function of the environ-ment; one’s intelligence can change based oneducational experiences and opportunity, family andteacher expectations, and so forth. The nature advo-cates believe that intelligence is static, while nurtureadvocates believe that intelligence is dynamic.

More than any other racial group, Blacks arein the center of the nature-nurture debate. Someauthors conclude that Blacks are intellectually in-ferior, while others contend that the lower perfor-mance of Blacks on intelligence tests restsextensively in problems with the tests (i.e., testbias). Without question, those holding the natureposition are not likely to refer diverse students togifted education screening and placement.

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM218

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

219

Providing AccessFord and Grantham

Dynamic Thinking 1: IntelligenceDefinitions, perceptions, and theories of in-

telligence and giftedness based exclusively or ex-tensively on intelligence tests have closed manydoors for diverse students due to their narrow andunidimensional focus. Few definitions and theo-ries consider that different cultures view intelli-gence and giftedness in different ways; what isvalued as gifted in one culture may not be valuedas gifted in another culture (Sternberg, 1985).

Many theories of intelligence and giftednessexist, but two appear to capture the strengths, abili-ties, and promise of gifted diverse learners. Stern-berg’s (1985) Triarchic Theory of Intelligenceproposes that intelligence reveals itself in at leastthree ways: (a) componentially, (b) experientially, and(c) contextually. Componential learners are analyti-cal and abstract thinkers who do well on standard-ized tests and in school. They are more likely thanother students to be recruited and retained in giftedprograms. Experiential learners value creativity andenjoy novelty. They dislike rules and follow few oftheir own, seeing rules as inconveniences meant tobe broken. Contextual learners readily adapt to theirenvironments, a skill that IQ tests fail to measure.They are street-smart survivors, socially competentand practical, but they may do poorly in school.

Gardner (1983) distinguished among seventypes of intelligences—linguistics, logical-mathemat-ical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily kinesthetics,spatial, and musical—each of which entails distinctforms of perception, memory, and other psychologi-cal processes. In his Theory of Multiple Intelligenc-es, Gardner defined intelligence as the ability to solveproblems or to fashion products valued in one ormore cultural settings. Students whose intelligence isin the linguistics and logical-mathematical areas aremore likely than the remaining students to be recruit-ed and retained in gifted programs.

These two inclusive theories contend that gift-edness is a social construct that manifests itself inmany ways and means different things for differ-ent cultural groups. The theorists acknowledge themultifaceted, complex nature of intelligence andhow current tests (which are too simplistic and stat-ic) fail to do justice to this construct. In addition,the USDE’s (1993) most recent definition of gift-ed also broadens the notion:

Children and youth with outstanding talent performor show the potential for performing at remarkablyhigh levels of accomplishment when compared withothers of their age, experience, or environment. Thesechildren and youth exhibit high performance capaci-ty in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, andunusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific aca-demic fields. They require services or activities notordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding tal-ents are present in children and youth from all cul-tural groups, across all economic strata, and in allareas of human endeavor. (p. 19, emphases added)

The italicized passages should appeal toschool personnel responsible for recruiting culturallydiverse students into gifted education. First, the no-tion of talent development is a major focus of thedefinition. It recognizes that many students are dia-monds in the rough who have had inadequate oppor-tunities to develop and perform at high academiclevels. For example, some gifted Black students, es-pecially those who live in poverty, may lack expo-sure to books and other literature, they may not visitlibraries or bookstores, and they miss out on othermeaningful educational experiences.3 The definitionalso recognizes that some students/groups face morebarriers in life than others, namely discrimination.

The inclusion of the word potential in thefederal definition acknowledges our obligation toserve those students who have social, cultural, orpsychological problems, yet to manifest their abil-ities and interests. These students may include un-derachievers, minority students, economicallydisadvantaged students, and students with specialeducation needs. Finally, the definition remindseducators that giftedness exists among all socio-demographic groups.

Deficit Thinking 2: Testing and AssessmentThe use of tests to identify and assess gifted

students is pervasive in education. More than 90%of school districts use test scores for placementdecisions (Colangelo & Davis, 1997; Davis &Rimm, 1997). This nearly exclusive reliance ontest scores keeps the demographics of gifted pro-grams resolutely White and middle class. Whiletraditional intelligence tests more or less effective-ly identify and assess White students, they havebeen less effective with culturally diverse students.This reality raises the question, why do we continueto use these tests so exclusively and extensively?

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

220

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Summer 2003Teacher Reflection and Race in Cultural Contexts

Educators can choose from at least three explana-tions for the poor test performance of diverse stu-dents: (a) the fault rests within the test (e.g., testbias); (b) the fault rests with the educational envi-ronment at home and school (e.g., poor instructionand lack of access to high quality education); or(c) the fault rests with (or within) the student (e.g.,he/she is cognitively inferior, genetically inferior,or culturally deprived).

Educators who select the first two viewpointsfeel an obligation to make substantive changes inassessment and educational practices. These viewsconsider the influence of the environment on testperformance, thus adhering to dynamic thinkingand the belief that intelligence is malleable. Howev-er, the last explanation rests in deficit thinking. It isan example of blaming the victim. Educators whosupport this view abdicate any responsibility for mi-nority students’ lower test scores (see Herrnstein &Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1981; Rushton, 2000) becauseof the belief that genetics determines intelligence,and that intelligence is static or fixed.

Dynamic Thinking 2: Testing and AssessmentMuch data indicate that intelligence tests are

effective at identifying middle-class White studentsas gifted but can ignore those students who (a)perform poorly on paper-and-pencil tasks conduct-ed in artificial or lab-like settings; (b) do not per-form well on culturally loaded tests (Kauffman,1994); (c) have learning and/or cognitive stylesthat are different from White students (Shade,Kelly, & Oberg, 1997); (d) have test anxiety (Ford,1996); or (e) have low achievement motivation(Ford, 1996).

Until such issues as these are resolved, themost promising instruments for assessing thestrengths of Black students include nonverbal testsof intelligence, such as the Naglieri Non-VerbalAbility Test and Raven’s Matrix Analogies Tests,which are considered less culturally loaded thantraditional tests (see Kaufman, 1994; Saccuzzo,Johnson, & Guertin, 1994). Accordingly, these aremore likely to capture the cognitive strengths ofBlack students. Saccuzzo et al., for instance, iden-tified substantively more Black and Hispanic stu-dents using Raven’s than a traditional test, andreported that, “50% of the non-White children who

had failed to qualify based on a WISC-R qualifiedwith the Raven” (p. 10). They went on to state,“the Raven is a far better measure of pure potentialthan tests such as the WISC-R, whose scores dependheavily on acquired knowledge” (p. 10).

Educators should understand that nonverbaltests assess intelligence nonverbally. This is not tosay that students are nonverbal; rather, the tests givestudents opportunities to demonstrate their intelligencewithout the confounding influence of differential lan-guage, vocabulary, and academic exposure.

Deficit Thinking 3: Policies and PracticesProcedural and policy issues also contribute

to the underrepresentation of minority students ingifted education. Specifically, teachers systemati-cally underrefer minority students for gifted edu-cation services (Saccuzzo et al., 1994). Ford (1995)found many Black students with high achievementscores (e.g., 95th to 99th percentile) were under-represented in gifted education because teachersdid not refer them for screening. In other words,when teacher referral is the first (or only) recruit-ment step, gifted minority students are likely to beunderrepresented. Other policies relate to the itemsincluded in matrices and how they are weighted.For instance, some schools include attendance asone criterion. This information may be used evenif minority and White students have different at-tendance patterns; the same applies to other crite-ria (e.g., behavior, number of failing or low grades).Some districts even have sibling policies—studentsget points toward identification if they have a sib-ling who has been identified as gifted! Finally,schools can boast of using multiple criteria to makeplacement decisions, but IQ or achievement testscores may count for 50% or more of the totalpossible points. In this regard, the matrix becomespseudoscientific, a smoke screen.

Dynamic Thinking 3: Policies and PracticesA significant number of articles contend that

minority students are poorly represented in giftedprograms due to poor test performance, a signifi-cant contributor to this problem. But schools can-not hide behind test scores; instead, they must alsoexamine how policies and procedures disparatelyimpact the recruitment of minority students. Perhaps

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM220

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

221

Providing AccessFord and Grantham

as much as tests, teacher referrals serve as an ef-fective gatekeeper, hindering minority studentsfrom even beginning the process of screening andassessment. These policies must be evaluated,changed and, if necessary, eliminated, if we are toopen, rather than close, doors to gifted education.

Deficit Thinking 4: Teacher Preparation inMulticultural Education

Few teachers are exposed to multicultural ed-ucational experiences, multicultural curriculum andinstruction, and internships and practicum in ur-ban settings (Banks & Banks, 1995). At institu-tions of higher education, most students graduatewith a monocultural or ethnocentric curriculum thatill-prepares them to work with culturally, ethnical-ly, and linguistically diverse students. Consequent-ly, they misunderstand cultural differences amongdiverse students relative to learning, communica-tion, and behavioral styles. And educators mayperceive these differences as deficits (see Storti,1989, 1998). Teachers who hold stereotypes aboutdiverse students are not likely to create a cultural-ly responsive learning environment.

Dynamic Thinking 4: Teacher Preparation inMulticultural Education

People often believe or assume that class-rooms that lack racial diversity are homogeneous.There is no such thing as a homogeneous class-room, for students in classrooms differ by gender,race, socioeconomic status (SES), achievement, in-terests, and so forth. With forecasts projecting agrowing minority student population, teachers willhave to bear a greater responsibility for demon-strating multicultural competence (Ford, Grantham,& Harris, 1998; Ford & Harris, 1999; Ford,Howard, Harris, & Tyson, 2000). Multicultural ed-ucation preparation among all school personnel—teachers, counselors, psychologists, administrators,and support staff—may increase the recruitmentand retention of minority students in gifted educa-tion. Substantive and comprehensive preparationmust reeducate teachers so that deficit-oriented phi-losophies no longer impede diverse students’ ac-cess to programs and services. To become moreculturally competent, educators must (a) engage incritical self-examination that explores their attitudes

and perceptions concerning cultural diversity, andexamine the influence of these attitudes and per-ceptions on minority students’ achievement and ed-ucational opportunities; (b) acquire accurateinformation about various cultural groups (e.g., his-tories, historical and contemporary contributions,and their preferred learning styles); (c) learn howto infuse multicultural perspectives and materialsinto curriculum and instruction to maximize the ac-ademic, cognitive, social-emotional, and cultural de-velopment of students; (d) learn ways of advocatingand negotiating for diverse students; and (e) buildpartnerships with diverse families, communities,and organizations. As Figure 1 illustrates, educa-tors are most responsive to diverse students whenthey are competent or striving to become compe-tent in the students’ culture. Just as teacher incom-petence in a subject area hurts students so, too,does multicultural incompetence.

Deficit Thinking 5: Teacher Preparation inGifted Education

Research on teacher diversity in gifted edu-cation is miniscule. Ford (1999) surveyed minorityteachers about their decisions to enter the field ofgifted, general, or special education. Many teach-ers reported having little exposure to gifted educa-tion in their teacher preparation programs. Mostteachers, including those who held degrees in spe-cial education, also lacked any formal preparationin gifted education. This lack of preparation in andsensitivity to the characteristics of gifted students,a lack of understanding of the social and emotion-al needs of gifted students, and a lack of attentionto underachievement among gifted students4 allhinder teachers’ abilities to make fair and equita-ble referrals. The data, in short, indicate that teach-ers who lack preparation in gifted education areineffective at identifying gifted students (see Cox,Daniel, & Boston, 1985). Teachers who are notprepared to work with gifted students may retainstereotypes and misperceptions that undermine theirability to recognize strengths in students who be-have differently from their expectations. Teachersoften use the behaviors of White students as thenorm to compare diverse students, and deviationsfrom this perceived norm are unlikely to result inreferrals to gifted education.

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

222

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Summer 2003Teacher Reflection and Race in Cultural Contexts

Dynamic Thinking 5: Teacher Preparation inGifted Education

The National Association for Gifted Children(2002) has proposed standards related to teacherpreparation in gifted education. All teachers whowork with gifted students must have formal train-ing to do so in order to avoid the pitfalls just de-scribed. At minimal, such preparation must focuson testing and assessment, instructional strategiesand models, social-emotional needs and develop-ment, underachievement, culturally diversity, andworking with families. All organizations and insti-tutions providing such training must consistentlyaddress the needs and issues of diverse students.

Deficit Thinking 6: Teacher Preparation inTesting and Assessment

Because teachers take direct responsibility forproviding services to gifted students based on as-sessed needs, they require formal preparation intesting and assessment. But many teachers are notfamiliar with the tests used to guide identificationand placement decisions, nor can they reliably in-terpret intelligence and achievement test scores.Teachers lacking assessment preparation are notlikely to provide high-quality gifted education ser-

vices because they will not be able to match ser-vices to needs.

When one adds the dynamics of race, cul-ture, and language to the abovementioned issues,teachers may know even less. Yet teachers mustunderstand the impact of culture on test scores inorder to interpret the scores meaningfully. Theymust understand how culturally loaded tests canhinder minority students’ test scores. Given thatBlack, Hispanic, and Native American students tendto score lower on IQ and achievement tests thanWhite students, how can teachers interpret and usetest scores responsibly? What explanations can theygive for the differential test scores? What alternativeinstruments and assessment practices can they adopt?

Dynamic Thinking 6: Teacher Preparation inTesting and Assessment

Teachers need not become psychologists orpsychometricians to understand the purpose, ad-vantages, and limitations of test scores. Multicul-tural assessment is a growing field and teachersmust be educated in this area. Multicultural as-sessment training should focus on (a) understand-ing the purpose(s) of testing and assessment; (b)understanding factors that contribute to test bias;

Incompetence Competence

Unconscious Blissful Ignorance Spontaneous Sensitivity

You are not aware that cultural differ- You no longer have to think about whatences exist between you and another you are doing in order to be culturallyperson. It does not occur to you that sensitive (in a culture you know well).you may be making cultural mistakes Culturally appropriate behavior comesor that you may be misinterpreting naturally to you, and you trust yourmuch of the behavior going on intuition because it has been recondition-around you. ed by what you know about cross-

cultural interactions.

Conscious Troubling Ignorance Deliberate Sensitivity

Your realize that there are cultural dif- You know there are cultural differencesferences between you and another between people, you know some of theperson, but you understand very little differences, and you try to modify yourabout these differences. You know own behavior to be sensitive to thesethere’s a problem, but don’t know the differences. This does not come naturally,magnitude of it. You are worried about but you make a conscious effort to behavewhether you’ll ever figure out these in culturally sensitive ways. You are indifferences in others. the process of replacing old intuitions

with new ones.

Figure 1. Levels of cultural awareness and competence (Storti, 1998).

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM222

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

223

Providing AccessFord and Grantham

(c) understanding how to interpret subgroup normsand scores based on cultural information (e.g.,learning styles, cultural styles, language needs);(d) understanding how teaching influences students’test performance; and (e) being familiar with fairtesting standards, specifically those of the Ameri-can Psychological Association and American Edu-cation Research Association.

Deficit Thinking 7: Communication/relationshipsWith Diverse Families and Communities

Family involvement in the educational processenhances student achievement. However, if a defi-cit orientation is present among educators, they maynot communicate with culturally diverse familiesabout gifted education services and other opportu-nities. Further, if this mindset exists, diverse par-ents might view schools with suspicion and doubtthe school’s commitment to their children. Suchparents are unlikely to involve themselves in schoolsettings because of the belief that they are not val-ued as a resource and member of the school com-munity. Teachers often prefer to work with studentswhose parents are involved in schools rather thanwith students whose parents are not. How are stu-dents privileged by teachers when their parents/fam-ilies are involved? How are students hindered byteachers when their parents/families are not involved?

Dynamic Thinking 7: Communication/relation-ships With Diverse Families and Communities

In theory, school districts consider family in-volvement central to student achievement. In prac-tice, few schools consistently and aggressively buildpartnerships with Black families (Ford, 1996). Teach-ers and administrators must be proactive and aggres-sive in building trust, dialogue, and relationships withdiverse families. They must make sure that minorityfamilies know that the school district offers giftededucation services, understand referral and screeningmeasures and procedures, and know how the place-ment decisions are made. Just as important, minorityfamilies must understand the purposes and benefitsof gifted education. School personnel must avoid“drive-through teaching”; they must go into the com-munity (e.g., visit homes), attend minority-sponsoredevents, and seek the support of minority churches,organizations, and businesses in order to build home-school-community partnerships.

Equally important, efforts should focus onfamily education—holding workshops and meet-ings designed to educate diverse parents/familieson why they must advocate for their gifted chil-dren. Diverse parents need strategies for helpingtheir children cope with peer pressures and socialinjustices, maintaining achievement, and stayingmotivated and goal-oriented. Essentially, diversefamilies must have strategies to be effective advo-cates for their children in school settings.

Deficit Thinking 8: Students’ Perceptions AboutGifted Education

Perhaps the worst consequence of deficitthinking among educators is the impact it has onthe social, emotional, and psychological develop-ment of students. Fordham and Ogbu (1986) andothers have found that many gifted or high-achiev-ing Black students internalize the deficit-thinkingorientations held of them by others. Many highlycapable Black students question their own abilitiesand then sabotage their own achievement. For ex-ample, some Black students assume the role of classclown or athlete to hide their academic abilitiesand achievements, and they refuse to participate ingifted education programs. These students may alsosuccumb to negative pressures to avoid achieve-ment, particularly from their peers; and they cometo associate or equate academic achievement with“acting White.” Further, Steele and Aronson (1995)found that the test performance of Black studentscan be hindered by what he calls “stereotypethreat,” when Black students are overcome by anx-iety during test-taking situations and their perfor-mance suffers. Thus, gifted African Americanstudents may underachieve deliberately, refuse tobe assessed for gifted education services, and refuseplacement if they meet the criteria.

Dynamic Thinking 8: Students’ PerceptionsAbout Gifted Education

Self-perception is a powerful motivator anda powerful de-motivator. Teachers, counselors, andschool psychologists must work together to addressthe affective, psychological, and social develop-ment of minority students. Affective programs andactivities are needed to help diverse students copewith negative peer pressures and help with poorracial identities. Further, schools must promote a

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

224

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Summer 2003Teacher Reflection and Race in Cultural Contexts

learning environment in which all students believethat success knows no color. Small group counsel-ing, multicultural curriculum and instruction, mul-ticultural literature clubs, mentoring programs, andconflict resolution programs are but a few exam-ples of proactive initiatives that can be adopted toaddress the various needs of minority students.

ConclusionTo more effectively recruit and retain diverse

students in gifted education, educators must elimi-nate deficit thinking. This attitudinal or philosoph-ical change increases the probability that educatorswill adopt contemporary theories and definitionsof giftedness, use culturally sensitive instruments,identify and serve gifted underachievers, provideall their students with a multicultural education,provide all staff members with multicultural prep-aration, and seek strong home-school partnerships.

The success schools achieve at recruiting andretaining diverse students in gifted education de-pends heavily on critical self-examination and awillingness to move beyond deficit thinking. First,the school district should examine its philosophyof gifted education and its definition of giftedness.More specifically, its philosophy and definitionneed to be inclusive. Second, assessment instru-ments and practices must be equitable—the mea-sures must be valid and reliable for diversestudents, and ethnic, cultural, and gender biases inthe selection process should be eliminated.

Third, students in gifted programs shouldclosely represent the community’s demographics.That is, students of diverse backgrounds should beequitably represented according to criteria such asethnicity and socioeconomic status. The reasonsfor the disparities must be evaluated and eliminat-ed. Similarly, there should be evidence of increas-ing diversity among professionals in the giftedprogram.

Fourth, the school district should provide op-portunities for continuing professional developmentin gifted and multicultural education. More specifi-cally, faculty members and other school personnelmust be encouraged and given opportunities by ad-ministrators to participate in workshops, conferenc-es, university courses, and so forth. Likewise, theremust be a library for teachers and students that

contains up-to-date multicultural resources (e.g.,newsletters, journals, books, activities).

Fifth, there should be services that assess andaddress the affective and psychological needs ofminority students (e.g., social and emotional needs,racial identity, environmental and risk factors).

Sixth, schools will need to examine how muchfamilies are involved in the formal learning process.Diverse families need to be encouraged to becomeand remain involved.

Seventh, curriculum and instruction need tobe grounded in multiculturalism. The curriculumneeds to be pluralistic (i.e., it should reflect diver-sity relative to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, andother sociodemographic variables). The curriculumshould provide genuine options for all students tounderstand themselves and diverse cultures. Final-ly, policies should be in place to support multicul-turalism and diversity. Published policies regardingmulticulturalism are needed, and school personnelmust be held accountable for implementing thesepolicies.

At no time during its history has the field ofgifted education been able to boast of having arepresentative number of minority students in itsprograms. Solutions have varied, but outcomes havebeen the same—minority students continue to beunderrepresented. Perhaps it is time to look forother explanations and other solutions to this di-lemma. Students’ pedagogical clocks are ticking.How much longer must diverse students wait to berecruited and retained in gifted programs? Howmuch longer must they wait to have greater accessto gifted education programs?

Notes1. This article is a revision of Ford et al. (2002), Be-

yond deficit thinking: Providing access for giftedAfrican American students.

2. Many scholars now acknowledge that the older testswere biased but maintain that current, revised testsare now bias-free.

3. Accordingly, the federal definition recognizes thatstudents coming from high SES homes are likely tohave such opportunities, which is likely to contrib-ute to the demonstration of their giftedness.

4. Teachers are often surprised to find gifted studentsunderachieving. They equate giftedness with achieve-ment and productivity; they believe that gifted stu-dents should have high grades because their IQ orachievement test scores are high. Concomitantly,

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM224

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

225

Providing AccessFord and Grantham

when students with low test scores are doing well,teachers report that these students are overachiev-ing, but are not gifted.

ReferencesBanks, J.A., & Banks, C.A.M. (Eds.). (1995). Multi-

cultural education: Issues and perspectives. Bos-ton: Allyn and Bacon.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G.A. (1997). Handbook ofgifted education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. (1985). Educatingable learners. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S.B. (1997). Education of thegifted and talented. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Donnovan, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (Eds.). (2002). Minor-ity students in special and gifted education. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ford, D.Y. (1995). A study of underachievement amonggifted, potentially gifted, and general educationstudents. Storrs: National Research Center of theGifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Ford, D.Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement amonggifted Black students: Promising practices andprograms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D.Y. (1999). Factors affecting the career decisionmaking of minority teachers in gifted education(CRS99212). Storrs: National Research Center of theGifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Ford, D.Y., Grantham, T.C., & Harris III, J.J. (1998).Multicultural gifted education: A wakeup call tothe profession. Roeper Review, 19, 72-78.

Ford, D.Y., & Harris III, J.J. (1999). Multicultural gift-ed education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D.Y., Harris III, J.J., Tyson, C.A., & FrazierTrotman, M. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking: Pro-viding access for gifted African American students.Roeper Review, 24(2), 52-58.

Ford, D.Y., Howard, T.C., Harris III, J.J., & Tyson,C.A. (2000). Creating culturally responsive class-rooms for gifted minority students. Journal for theEducation of the Gifted, 23(4), 397-427.

Ford, D.Y., & Webb, K. (1995). Desegregating giftededucation: A need unmet. Journal of Negro Edu-cation, 64, 52-62.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ schoolsuccess: Coping with the “burden of ‘actingwhite’.” The Urban Review, 18, 176-203.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory ofmultiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York:Norton.

Gould, S.J. (1995). The mismeasure of man (reviseded.). New York: Norton.

Herrnsterin, R.J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve:Intelligence and class structure in American life.New York: The Free Press.

Hilliard III, A.G. (1992). The pitfalls and promises ofspecial education practice. Exceptional Children,49(4), 168-172.

Jensen, A.R. (1981). Straight talk about mental tests.New York: Free Press.

Jensen, AR. (1984). Test bias: Concepts and criticisms.In C.R. Reynolds & R.T. Brown (Eds.), Perspec-tives on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum.

Kaufman, A.S. (1994). Intelligent testing with theWISC-III. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Menchaca, M. (1997). Early racist discourses: The rootsof deficit thinking. In R. Valencia (Ed.), The evo-lution of deficit thinking (pp. 13-40). New York:Falmer.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2002). Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Washington,DC: Author.

Rushton, J.P. (2000). Race, evolution, and behavior: Alife-history perspective (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI:Charles Darwin Research Institute.

Saccuzzo, D.P., Johnson, N.E., & Guertin, T.L. (1994).Identifying underrepresented disadvantaged giftedand talented children: A multifaceted approach (Vols.1 & 2). San Diego: San Diego State University.

Shade, B.J., Kelly, C., & Oberg, M. (1997). Creatingculturally responsive classrooms. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threatand the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 69, 797-811.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theoryof human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J.E. (Eds.). (1986). Con-ceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Sternberg, R.J., & Detterman, D.K. (Eds.). (1986). Whatis intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on itsnature and definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Storti, C. (1989). The art of crossing cultures.Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Storti, C. (1998). The art of crossing cultures (2nded.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excel-lence: A case for developing America’s talent.Washington, DC: Author.

Ford/GranthamPM 7/24/03, 8:52 AM225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

52 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014