No Blacks Allowed: Segregated Gifted Education in the

Context of Brown v. Board of Education

Donna Y. Ford, Robert A. King Jr.

Journal of Negro Education, Volume 83, Number 3, Summer 2014, pp. 300-310
(Article)

Published by Journal of Negro Education

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/802954/summary

[ Access provided at 28 Jul 2022 04:14 GMT from Lou & Beth Holtz Library Endowment ]
 The Journal of Negro Education, 83 (3), 300-310

No Blacks Allowed: Segregated Gifted Education in

the Context of Brown v. Board of Education
Donna Y. Ford Vanderbilt University
Robert A. King, Jr. Vanderbilt University

This article examines the under-representation of Black students in gifted education, asserting that
social inequalities (e.g., prejudice and discrimination) contribute to segregated gifted education
programs. Under-representation trends are presented for gifted education, along with methods for
calculating under-representation and then inequity goals. Philosophically, this article is grounded
in disparate impact discourse, where outcome is more cogent than intent. Denying access to gifted
education based on race is immoral and illegal. Pragmatically, under-representation is couched
under the larger and more comprehensive achievement gaps and inequities in school settings with
implications for de jure segregation. We discuss the under-representation of Black students in
gifted education with Brown v. Board of Education as the legal foundation and then focus briefly
on a recent court case in gifted education (McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School
District U-46) for a contemporary point of discussion. Recommendations for desegregating gifted
education for Black students regarding attitudes, instruments, and policies and procedures are
provided.

Keywords: gifted under-representation, gifted Blacks, Brown v. Board of Education, McFadden v.

Board of Education, segregation, desegregation

When submitting for this special issue on the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education
(1954), these authors were guided by the unwavering belief that discrimination has no place in
educational settings and segregation and integration are ideals that have yet to be realized in U.S.
schools and gifted programs in particular. Consequently, at the forefront of this submission is the
seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education in which segregated schools, classrooms, and
programs based on race were declared illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court avowed
the ending of separate and unequal education in America; and desegregation was to occur with all
deliberate speed. That was six decades ago, and this law and associated legal mandates have yet to
be fulfilled, particularly in gifted education, Advanced Placement (AP) classes, and other courses
for advanced learners (e.g., honors and International Baccalaureate classes).
It is unprofessional and unethical to promote and permit the inequitable distribution of
resources and opportunities to students based on race, which frequently occurs with Black
students. Inequitable or unjust resources and opportunities contribute to and promote educational
disparities, and create a vicious cycle in which Black students are denied access to school
programs that are essential to reaching their academic, intellectual, socio-cultural, and fiscal
potential and that can help close achievement gaps. Gifted education has promoted such racial
inequities. For decades, educators, policymakers, and legal personnel have failed to recruit and
retain an equitable percentage of Black students in gifted education and courses for advanced
learners (e.g., Advanced Placement classes). This lack of accountability has resulted in de facto
segregation and is witnessed in McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46,
settled in 2013. In this unprecedented gifted education case, the court affirmed that, in creating a
separate gifted education program for Hispanic students only, this school district violated the
United States and Illinois constitutions’ equal protection clauses. Rather than developing one
gifted education program for elementary school students that provided language support when
needed, this district created a separate gifted program for Hispanic students who had exited

300 ©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No. 3

English Language Learner (ELL) programs. Judge Gettlemen (who presided over McFadden)
noted that establishing a separate gifted education program based on race perpetuates the problems
that our nation’s civil rights laws were created and authorized to prevent.
This court case revives issues of disparate impact, which will be discussed later. This case is a
notice to states and other districts to eliminate discrimination (intentional and unintentional) in
gifted education practices for identification, programming, and services. With discrimination and
under-representation in mind, these authors present trends (2009-2011) regarding the
representation of Black students in gifted education using data from the Office for Civil Rights
Data Collection (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2011; CRDC: These files
are state and national estimations. The 2009-10 estimations are based on a rolling stratified sample
of approximately 7,000 districts and 72,000 schools and on reported data from those districts that
responded to the survey). Under-representation is clearly persistent and nationally pervasive. Next,
these data are positioned within the context of Brown where it is argued that gifted education must
become desegregated and integrated. De facto and de jure segregation in gifted education must
end, with all deliberate speed before another 60 years passes.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF GIFTED EDUCATION DEFINITIONS WITH CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

Similarly to many terms, ‘gifted’ eludes consensus. Traditional definitions of giftedness (almost
exclusively normed on and conceptualized on middle-class Whites) have been primarily
operationalized in two ways: (a) by high scores on IQ tests (130 and higher) and (b) by high scores
on achievement tests (often at or above 92nd percentile). Such definitions or criteria are grounded
in the conjecture that giftedness is synonymous with intelligence and that intelligence can be
measured accurately and effectively by standardized tests. Both assumptions discount the
importance of culture and opportunity in the manifestation of giftedness.
The federal government has adopted six definitions of giftedness between 1970 and 2001. The
respective definitions found in the appendix have been both promising and harmful to the
successful identification of gifted and potentially gifted Black students’ whose cultures differ from
their White peers.
The 1970 definition was poorly conceptualized—very narrow, vague, general, colorblind, and
decontextualized. It offered little guidance to states and school districts, and mentioned only
intellectual and creative giftedness. The Marland Report (1972) definition was less narrow in that
it specifically listed six types of giftedness: general intellectual, specific academic, creative or
productive thinking, leadership, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor. It is also colorblind
and void of context.
In the most commonly adopted definition of 1978, psychomotor giftedness was not
specifically listed due to the belief that those with these gifts could be served under the visual and
performing arts category; otherwise, the changes are underwhelming. The 1988 definition mirrors
the 1978 definition. Vagueness and inattention to culture and context continue.
The inclusion of the “potentially” gifted is the most culturally responsive and, therefore,
equitable aspect of the 1978 and 1993 federal definitions. Potential recognizes the critical need to
serve students who have, for various reasons, yet to manifest their gifts. This includes Black
students, underachievers, economically disadvantaged students, and students with special
educational challenges. The neglect to focus on potential and talent development contributes to
under-representation and underachievement among Black students.
The emphasis on potential and talent development is equitable. Talent development holds
much promise for recruiting and retaining gifted Black students. The 1993 definition is unlike all
the others because it addressed two historically ignored or trivialized nuances specific to Black
and other culturally different students: (a) students must be compared with others of their age,
experience, or environment; and (b) outstanding talents are present in individuals from all cultural
groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. The 2001 definition of

©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No.3 301

gifted and talented in No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) is less philosophical than the 1993
definition; it resembles earlier definitions.
Because gifted education is not federally mandated, states have much discretion regarding
identification and services, including the troubling option to neither identify, serve, nor fund such
programs; as a result, it is imperative to consider state definitions in the context of desegregating
gifted education. According to National Association of Gifted Children’s (NAGC) 2009 State of
States in Gifted Education report, the following areas of giftedness are included in state definitions
with number of states in parentheses: intellectual (n = 34), creativity (n = 26); visual and
performing arts (n = 25); academics (n = 23); specific academics (n = 21); and leadership (n = 17).
Too few states include cultural diversity (n = 10) and underachieving students (n = 5) in their
definitions. Page 27 of the NAGC (2009) report contains more information, but little had changed
in NAGC’s 2012 report. All of the states need to revise definitions to include cultural dimensions
and underachievement, since policy wise doing so is the first step for desegregating gifted
education. Another crucial step is to analyze data and set equity goals.
A discussion of under-representation is incomplete without attention to major legislation
designed to open doors to gifted programs for non-Whites and low-income students—The Jacob
K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (1988). Javits was originally passed by
Congress in 1988 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA to support the
development of talent (see http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/beginning.html). Its
purpose is to carry out a coordinated program of scientifically based research, demonstration
projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities designed to build and enhance the ability of
elementary and secondary schools to meet the special education needs of gifted and talented
students. The major emphasis of Javits is on serving students traditionally under-represented in
gifted and talented programs, particularly economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient
(LEP), and disabled students, to help reduce the achievement gap among such groups of students
at the highest levels of achievement.
Javits (1988) supports two priorities: (a) initiatives to develop and scale up models serving
students who are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs, and (b) state and local efforts
to improve services for gifted and talented students. Programs and projects must carry out one or
more of the following:

• Conducting scientifically based research on methods and techniques for identifying and teaching
gifted and talented students—and for using these programs and methods to serve all students; and
conducting program evaluations, surveys, and other analyses needed to accomplish the purpose of this
program;
• Carrying out professional development for personnel involved in the education of gifted and talented
students;
• Establishing and operating model projects and exemplary programs for serving gifted and talented
students, including innovative methods of serving students whose needs may not be met by more
traditional gifted and talented programs (including summer programs, mentoring, service learning,
and programs involving business, industry, and education);
• Implementing innovative strategies, such as cooperative learning, peer tutoring, and service learning;
• Providing technical assistance and information on how to serve gifted and talented students and,
where appropriate, how to adapt these programs to serve all students;
• Making materials and services available through state regional education service centers, or
• Providing challenging, high-level course work, disseminated through technologies (including distance
learning), for students in schools or LEAs that would not otherwise have the resources for such course
work. (Javits, 1988)

Having presented an overview of federal definitions and key legislation in gifted education,
the study turns to data and goal setting to address Black students’ under-representation in racially
segregated gifted programs.

302 ©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No. 3

Gifted Under-Representation Data and Equity Allowance Formula

When addressing inequities in gifted education, under-representation is the primary topic or focus.
The significant under-representation of Black students is a major blight of this field. The data and
trends reveal the unjust reality of segregation (de facto and de jure) in gifted education (see Ford,
2011, 2013a, 2013b).
Several statistics exist for analyzing disproportionality or representation discrepancies. The
authors rely on the Relative Difference in Composition Index (RDCI; for this study Ford, 2013a).
The RDCI for a racial group is the difference between their gifted education composition and
general education composition, expressed as a discrepancy percentage. The focal question is:
‘What is the difference between the composition (percentage) of Black students in general
education compared to the composition of Black students in gifted education?’ This formula
allows for the comparison of disproportionality. A discrepancy is considered significant when
under-representation exceeds a threshold determined legally or by decision makers, as discussed
with an equity allowance formula (Ford, 2013a).
Thresholds are not racial quotas, which are illegal but are still being debated at the time of this
writing. With quotas, group representation in school enrollment and gifted education enrollment is
proportional; hence, if Black students comprise 70% of a school district (or state), they must
comprise 70% of gifted education enrollment. After sharing examples using the RDCI, an equity
allowance formula is presented to direct educators, decision makers, and legal personnel in
determining whether under-representation is beyond statistical chance— that is, whether such an
imbalance is primarily influenced by human-made obstacles (subjective barriers) and thereby
possibly discriminatory.
The RDCI for under-representation is computed as

[100% - ((Composition (%) of Black students in gifted education)/(Composition (%) of Black students
in general education)].

Using decimals is also appropriate and will yield the same results.
Annually, at least 250,000 Black students are not identified as gifted, and as such, they are
unlikely to be served in gifted education classes and programs. Black students continue to be the
most under-represented group (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2006,
2009, 2011); and are more often the focus of complaints and litigation in gifted education (Ford,
2010, 2013a), which should be apparent given that their degree of under-representation
consistently exceeds all other racial and gender groups. The national CRDC gifted education data
for 2006, 2009 and 2011 is shown in Table 1. In 2006, Black students comprised 17.13% of school
districts but 9.15% of gifted education enrollment, which is 47% under-representation based on
the RDCI (In all years, White students are over-represented in gifted education. For example,
White students represented 56.42% of schools but 67.69% of gifted education enrollment in 2006.
Asian students are also over-represented in gifted education.) In 2009, Black students represented
16.7% of districts but 9.9% of gifted education enrollment, tantamount to 43% under-
representation. In 2011, Black students were enrolled in 19% of school districts yet only 10% of
gifted education (47% under-representation). In all three years, under-representation is roughly
50%—progress is not evident. Under-representation exists in the majority of states and school
districts (see Table 2).

©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No.3 303

 Table 1

Black Students Under-Representation in Gifted Education Nationally (2006, 2009, 2011)

Black Gifted Under-

National Enrollment
Students Enrollment Representation
2006 17.13% 9.15% 47%
2009 16.17% 9.9% 43%
2011 19% 10% 47%
Note. Data from U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Civil Rights Data
Collection. (2006, 2009, 2011).Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov

Debates and discussions, often polemic and unproductive, are prevalent regarding how to
determine when under-representation (in referrals, screening, identification, and placement) is
unreasonable and when discrimination is operating. These central questions must be addressed:
‘When is under representation significant?’ ‘How severe must under-representation be to make
changes?’ ‘How severe must under-representation be to be discriminatory?’ The authors rely on
the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights’ 20% equity allowance (see Griggs v.
Duke Power Co., 1971; Ford, 2013a) to guide decision makers in

• determining a targeted goal for the minimally accepted level of under-representation for each racial
group (and disaggregated by race, gender, income, etc.) and
• conceding that proportional percentages are ideal and equitable but difficult to achieve due to how
chance and real variables affect individuals and groups (i.e., Whites are wealthier and more privileged
than Blacks).

Several important conditions are that, when the percentage of under-representation exceeds the
designated threshold in the Equity Allowance Index, it is beyond statistical chance; therefore,
human error is in operation—attitudes, instruments, and policies and procedures may be
discriminatory against Black students. Educators and professionals must proactively and
aggressively evaluate and disaggregate student demographics, while holding those who make such
decisions legally accountable (see Tables 3 and 4).
When examining under-representation, intent matters, depending on the law being applied. In
McFadden v. Board of Education (2013), the judge found that school personnel intentionally
discriminated against Hispanic students by running two racially identifiable programs. Disparate
impact was noted, applied, and found. The doctrine of disparate impact holds that practices may be
considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate ‘adverse impact’ on students
regarding a protected trait. The protected traits vary by statute, but most federal civil rights laws
include race, color, religion, national origin, and gender as protected traits.

Table 2

Under-Representation of Black Students in Gifted Education by States (2009)

Under-Representation
State
Percentage
New Hampshire 67.25%
Nevada 62.80%
Florida 58.42%
North Carolina 58.41%
Georgia 55.83%
Nebraska 55.62%
Washington 52.55%

304 ©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No. 3

 Table 2 continues
Iowa 52.50%
Maine 51.80%
Tennessee 51.19%
Pennsylvania 50.96%
South Carolina 50.75%
Arizona 50.23%
Louisiana 49.87%
Virginia 48.33%
Alabama 47.23%
California 45.87%
Missouri 45.76%
Colorado 45.76%
Mississippi 45.48%
Oklahoma 44.11%
Connecticut 43.63%
National 40.76%
Illinois 39.81%
Maryland 39.49%
Texas 38.98%
Minnesota 36.43%
Delaware 34.21%
Michigan 29.50%
Wisconsin 23.24%
West Virginia 19.67%
Arkansas 16.29%
Alaska 5.57%
Note. States with missing and problematic or questionable
data, per the U.S. Department, are excluded from this table.
See http://ocrdata.ed.gov/ for more specifics.

Under the disparate impact doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may
be proven by demonstrating that an instrument, practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse
effect on Black students. Therefore, the disparate impact doctrine prohibits school personnel from
using a facially neutral practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected
class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on
its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect (see Griggs v. Duke Power
Co., 1971. Note that the authors refer to the 20% as the 80% rule). Terminology aside, the targeted
goal is the same for minimal representation goals that are equitable.
The RCDI used in isolation and without context is inadequate for determining unacceptable or
possibly illegal/discriminatory under-representation; it is important but incomplete for determining
goals and guidelines to reconcile equitable representation goals. This is where the Equity Index
(EI) is useful. Calculating the Equity Index (EI) is a two-step process:

Step 1: [(Composition (%) of Black students in general education) x Threshold of 20% = B]

This is abbreviated as C x T = B.
Step 2: ((Composition (%) of Black students in general education)) – B = EI.
This is abbreviated as C – B = EI.

©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No.3 305

For example, Black students were 19% of school enrollment in 2011 (see Table 1), the Equity
Index using a 20% allowance would be: B is 19% x 20% = 3.8% and EI is 19%– 3.8% = 15.2%.
Consequently, as indicated in Table 3, Black students should represent at minimal 15.2% of
students in gifted education. Nationally, the percentage for 2011 is 10%. Therefore, under-
representation for Black students is both significant and beyond statistical chance. To achieve the
minimal equity target, educators must increase Black students’ representation nationally from 10%
to at least 15.2%. These data illustrate the troubling reality that the states’ and nation’s gifted
programs are segregated for Black students. We are far from fulfilling the mandates of Brown in
gifted education.
Table 3

Black Students Under-Representation and Equity Allowance Index Nationally (2006, 2009, 2011)
National Public National
Black Under-
School Gifted Equity Allowance Index
Students Representation
Enrollment Enrollment
13.7%
2006 17.13% 9.15% 47% (GOAL: must increase from
9.15% to 13.7%)
12.9%
2009 16.17% 9.9% 43% (GOAL: must increase from
9.9% to 12.9%)
15.2%
2011 19% 10% 47% (GOAL: must increase from
10% to 15.2%)
Note. Data from U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data
Collection, 2006, 2009, 2011. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov.

The quality of education and access to an equitable education are directly related to racial
stratification. Regardless of the reason(s) for under-representation—inequitable access to gifted
education—such denial hinders and suppresses the development of ability, achievement, social,
and economic progress for Black students. Denied opportunities, regardless of intent and reason,
have resulted in segregated gifted education. Clearly, when thousands of Black students are not
participating in these reportedly most rigorous classes, programs, and services, the trajectory of
their life opportunities is seriously compromised. Underachievement is almost inevitable for many
un-identified gifted Black students as they lose interest in school and academic motivation from
being under-challenged (Ford, 2010). This cycle of inequity is vicious, as well as predictable.
There is no denying that gifted education classes and services are disproportionately
represented by and serving White, higher-income, and privileged students; and gifted education
gives them a boost up the social and fiscal hierarchy, a function of White privilege (McIntosh,
1988). Social inequities and under-representation are inseparable—social inequities feed under-
representation; under-representation feeds social inequities.
Racial prejudice and discrimination, which includes White privilege, provides some important
explanations for the question: Why do White students accrue educational benefits while Black
students are denied them? The various positions and arguments can be analyzed in terms of
explicit and implicit or hidden agendas, and how gifted education is connected to and embedded in
complex and broader social, cultural, moral, political, and economic ideologies and practices.
Unquestionably, social pressures, racism, and elitism influence efforts to desegregate and
integrate gifted education programs and services (Ford, 2013b, 2014). Under-representation for
Black students persists because teachers, decision makers, and policymakers acquiesce to the
status quo. The authors concur with Sapon-Shevin (1994, 1996) that racially segregated gifted
programs have functioned to cater to and appease Whites to decrease and prevent White flight.
Kohn (1998) set forth the same argument, indicting racially and economically privileged White

306 ©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No. 3

parents, and educators who cater to them, for contributing to and magnifying social inequities. The
connection to segregated gifted education is rarely discussed.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Too many Black students fail to achieve their potential because they are denied access to gifted
education classes and opportunities. Prejudices, stereotypes, and deficit paradigms contribute to
segregated gifted programs, which violate the principles and mandates of Brown some 60 years
later. Recent court cases such as McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-
46 (2013) serve as a reminder that we must continue to advocate for under-represented groups,
that discrimination can be both intentional and unintentional, and that discrimination exists in the
form of de facto and de jure segregation.
Discussed next is what educators, decision makers, and policymakers must consider in efforts
to desegregate and integrate gifted education for Black students. The will and sense of
accountability to eliminate human-made barriers, to take on the status quo, and to advocate for
under-represented gifted Black students is crucial.
Analyzing Data for Under-Representation and Segregation
Attitudes (deficit thinking and racism) and inequitable practices must be acknowledged, examined,
analyzed, challenged, and addressed to desegregate and integrate gifted education. Are Black
students being screened and referred by teachers in proportion to their representation in the district
or state? How pervasive and severe is under-representation? Which factors contribute to under-
representation (e.g., subjectivity as in beliefs, attitudes and values; subjective instruments such as
checklists and nomination forms; biased and unfair tests; and discriminatory policies and
procedures)? Which policies and procedures contribute to and exacerbate under-representation
(e.g., reliance on teacher referral or checklist versus school-wide grade level screening:
parent/caregiver referral or checklists: designated cutoff scores; grade at which gifted programs
began; ongoing screening; convenience and location of testing sites; modes of communicating in
neighborhoods?) Which teachers/educators under-refer Black students, and how are they being
assisted and held accountable? How effective are family referrals for Black students, and what is
being done to increase such referrals?
Determining Equity Goals/Allowance
After exploring the magnitude and causes for under-representation, equity goals must be set to
desegregate gifted education using the 20% equity allowance (Ford, 2013a). The equity allowance
is recognition that giftedness exists in every racial group; it acknowledges that students’ lived
experiences, resources, and supports are not always equally and equitably distributed. This equity
allowance takes such differences and injustices into account and, thus, opens doors for many
Black students who might otherwise not be identified and served in gifted education.
Collecting Data on the Experiences of Gifted Black Students

What are the experiences of former and current Black students in gifted education? Disaggregate
data by gender and income: What are the experiences of Black males compared to females, and
low-income students compared to high-income Black students? Surveys, interviews, focus groups,
and case studies from Black students and families regarding their experiences are essential for
desegregating and integrating gifted education.

Evaluating and Addressing Educators’ Preparation in Gifted Education

Rarely are educators formally prepared in gifted education. Gifted education preparation is
essential through courses, degreed programs, and professional development. Professional
development must be continuous and substantive; this means targeting equitable identification and
assessment instruments, policies and procedures, affective development, psychological
©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No.3 307
development, social development, cultural development, curriculum and instruction, and services
and programming for gifted Black students. Educators must understand the connection between
culture and intelligence and honor the reality that giftedness is culturally influenced. What is
valued as gifted in one culture may not be valued in another culture (Ford, 2011; Frasier et al.,
1995; Sternberg, 2007a, 2007b).

Studying and Improving Cultural Competence among Educators

Formal and comprehensive multicultural preparation helps to ensure equitable changes and
progress (Banks, 2007). The nature, extent, and quality of educators’ training to work equitably
with Black students must be examined. Professional development on culture and cultural
differences must be on-going and substantive. Some non-negotiable areas include defining and
understanding culture and cultural differences without a deficit orientation, recognizing how
culture impacts teaching, learning, testing and assessment, and classroom environment (e.g.,
relationships with teachers and classmates, classroom management). Valuing the opportunities for
becoming immersed in the culture of Blacks students includes field experiences, attending
community events, and visiting with families. Equitable multicultural preparation recognizes that
uncomfortable issues cannot be avoided, as persuasively demonstrated in Boler’s (1999) pedagogy
of discomfort scholarship. Consequently, preparation is incomplete when deficit paradigms (e.g.,
prejudices, biases, stereotypes, microaggressions) go unpacked (Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007).
Culturally incompetent educators—educators who are ill-prepared for or uncommitted to working
with Black students—risk compromising or sabotaging the educational experiences of Black
students, and thereby contribute to segregated gifted education programs (Ford, Trotman Scott,
Moore, & Amos, 2013).

Increasing the Demographics of Black Educators in Gifted Education

White teachers comprise a significant proportion of the education profession (Aud et al., 2013;
National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Students from every racial and cultural
background continue to graduate without ever having a Black teacher, counselor, educational
psychologist, or administrator. This is not a trivial matter or one that can be discounted under the
naïve and dismissive proposition that race and culture are unimportant, and that educators are
objective and colorblind/culture blind to differences across groups. While formal preparation in
multicultural education is crucial, there is an equally important need to increase the representation
of Blacks among educators, as indicated by several professional organizations. Black educators
often serve as cultural brokers, role models, mentors, and strong advocates for Black students
(Delpit, 2012; Ford, 2011; Gay, 2010; Hale, 2001; Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2005, 2009).

CONCLUSION

In the landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that
segregating children on the basis of race was unconstitutional. It signaled the end of legalized
racial segregation in the U.S. schools, overruling the “separate but equal” principle set forth in the
1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case.
Discriminatory segregated gifted programs were found recently in the McFadden (2013) court
case. While other districts may not have been found guilty of intentional discrimination, it is clear
that de facto segregation is in operation—unintentionally and intentionally—in many school
districts (Recall Tables 1–3). This inequality is deplorable and hinders the educational experiences
and potential of Black students.
In principle and in practice, gifted education professionals and those in position of power
must abide by the spirit and law of Brown (1954) regarding desegregating classrooms, programs
and services. Examining and interrogating the role of this field in contributing to and exacerbating
inequities is long overdue. Progress in gifted education under-representation has been insignificant

308 ©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No. 3

and inequitable. All deliberate speed was as essential in 1954 as it is 60 years later. Educators
must be proactive, deliberate, and diligent about eliminating intentional and unintentional barriers
to desegregating and integrating gifted education for Black students.
Unlike gifted education demographics, our nation and schools are more culturally diverse than
ever before. The field of gifted education must become culturally responsive and more
accountable to our Black students. Gifted education cannot continue business as usual after 60
years of Brown legislation.

R EFERENCES

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Hannes, G. (2013). The
condition of education 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011033.pdf
Banks, J. A. (2007). Educating citizens in a multicultural society (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. New York: Routledge.
Borland, J. H. (1996). Gifted education and the threat of irrelevance. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 19, 129-147.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
Delpit, L. D. (2012). Multiplication is for White people: Raising expectations for other people’s
children. New York: The New Press.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/
elsec/leg/esea02/beginning.html
Ford, D. Y. (2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Theory, Research
and Practice (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Ford, D. Y. (2011). Multicultural gifted education (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Ford, D. Y. (2012). Culturally different students in special education: Looking backward to move
forward. Exceptional Children, 78, 391-405.
Ford, D. Y. (2013a). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education.
Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Ford, D. Y. (2013b). Gifted under-representation and prejudice: Learning from Allport and
Merton. Gifted Child Today, 36, 62-68.
Ford, D. Y. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted
education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36, 143-154.
Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for gifted culturally diverse students:
From deficit thinking to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42, 217-225.
Ford, D. Y., Trotman Scott, M., Moore II, J. L., & Amos, S. O. (2013). Gifted education and
culturally different students: Examining prejudice and discrimination via microaggressions.
Gifted Child Today, 36, 205-208.
Frasier, M. M., Martin, D., García, J. H., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Krisel, S., & King, L. L. (1995).
A new window for looking at gifted children (RM95222). Storrs, CT: The National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Gay, J. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
Hale, J. (2001). Learning while Black: Creating educational excellence for African American
children. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. (1988). Program details.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html

©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No.3 309

Kohn, A. (1998). Only for my kid: How privileged parents undermine school reform. Phi Delta
Kappan, 79, 568-577.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Is the team all right? Diversity and teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 56, 229-234.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children
(2nd ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the
United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to
the U.S. Office of Education, 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-4. (2013). News release. Retrieved
from http://www.maldef.org/news/releases/maldef_u46_discrimination_case/
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. (Working Paper #189).
Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.
National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (2009). State of states in gifted education.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Number and percentage distribution of teachers
in public and private elementary and secondary schools, by selected teacher characteristics:
Selected years, 1987-88 through 2011-12. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.10.asp
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110 (2002).
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community.
Albany: SUNY Press.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Beyond gifted education: Building a shared agenda for school reform.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 194-214.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007a). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being and acting
intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36, 148-155.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007b). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review, 29, 160-166.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. New
York: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286.
U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2006). Elementary and secondary school
civil rights survey. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/flex/Reports.aspx?type=school
U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2009). Elementary and secondary school
civil rights survey. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations/Projections
_2009_10
U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2011). Civil rights data collection.
Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/flex/Reports.aspx?type=school
Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice. London: Routledge.
Weiner, L. (2006). Challenging deficit thinking. Educational Leadership, 64, 42-46.
AUTHORS
DONNA Y. FORD is a professor in the Department of Special Education and Department of
Teaching and Learning, College of Education at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.
ROBERT A. KING, JR. is an undergraduate student and National Pan-Hellenic Council President
at Vanderbilt University.
All comments and queries regarding this article should be addressed to
donna.ford@vanderbilt.edu

310 ©The Journal of Negro Education, 2014, Vol. 83, No. 3