The Gifted Gap Stem Education and Economic Immobility

829749
research-article2019
JOAXXX10.1177/1932202X19829749Journal of Advanced AcademicsCrabtree et al.
Original Article
Journal of Advanced Academics
2019, Vol. 30(2) 203–231
The Gifted Gap, STEM © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Education, and Economic sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1932202X19829749
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19829749
Immobility journals.sagepub.com/home/joaa
Lenora M. Crabtree1 , Sonyia C. Richardson1 ,

and Chance W. Lewis1
Abstract
Systemic inequities in educational opportunities contribute to reduced economic
mobility. Extensive research has documented disproportionality in gifted education
at national and state levels. However, limited research examines inequities in gifted
education within districts. Informed by critical systems theory (CST), this research
provides an analysis of the Gifted Gap in a school district serving a growing metropolitan
area with surprisingly limited economic mobility. Results reveal underrepresentation
of students experiencing poverty, and Black and Latinx students of all socioeconomic
groups in gifted education programs. Inequities in gifted education create systemic
barriers including reduced enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) courses, a
factor that impedes college completion and participation in science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) research and innovation. Reducing gifted education
disproportionality is a promising way to increase economic mobility and broaden
participation in STEM.
Keywords
gifted education, disproportionality, STEM, economic mobility, Advanced Placement
Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the
conditions of men—the balance-wheel of the social machinery.
—Mann (1848)
1The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Lenora M. Crabtree, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9210 University City Blvd.,
Charlotte, NC 28223, USA.
Email: Lmcrabtr@uncc.edu
204 Journal of Advanced Academics 30(2)
The potential of millions of gifted students, whose brilliance goes unnoticed due to
economic circumstances, racial identity, or both, is a critical untapped resource. This
failure to invest in the intellectual development of America’s children constitutes an
enormous waste of human capital, exacerbating gaps in income, and reducing eco-
nomic mobility (Finn & Northern, 2018). Research has established a direct link between
education and economic outcomes (Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2014b; Farinde,
Adams, & Lewis, 2014), thus affirming interactions between these two systems.
According to Chetty, Hendren, Kline, and Saez (2014), not all regions of the
United States are equally deserving of America’s reputation as a “land of opportu-
nity” (p. 1554). In a study exploring variation in economic mobility, the degree to
which children’s potential earnings are predetermined by the incomes of their par-
ents, 50 metropolitan regions across the United States were evaluated and ranked
(Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014). Several urban areas in the Southeastern
United States ranked in the bottom 10th of regions evaluated in the study, an unex-
pected finding given the rapid job growth and booming economies of cities in the
New South (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014). Correlation studies exploring
commonalities between regions with similar rankings indicate that residential segre-
gation, income inequality, and poor primary schools contribute to economic immobil-
ity (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014). The public school system serving one
city cited for exceptionally low economic mobility has recently experienced rapid
socioeconomic and racial resegregation. To address inequities highlighted by Chetty,
Hendren, Kline, and Saez (2014), community leaders advocate for increased access
to advanced, college-preparatory courses at high schools serving large numbers of
students experiencing poverty. Their recommendations, however, do not address
inequities in gifted education at the elementary and middle school level.
Education has been described as the great equalizer (Mann, 1848). In regions where
economic opportunity is not available to all persons, the potential for inequities in
education to contribute to limited economic mobility should be considered. Limited
access to advanced academic opportunities and differentiated instruction prevents
high-ability, low-income children from reaching their full potential (Plucker, Giancola,
Healey, Arndt, & Wang, 2015). This widening “excellence gap” between students with
demonstrated high academic potential from low-income families and similar students
from high income families has implications for social mobility and the nation’s overall
economic prosperity (Plucker et al., 2015, p. 3). Gifted education programs in elemen-
tary and middle school play an important role preparing students for success in
advanced courses in high school (Darity & Jolla, 2009), courses that correlate posi-
tively with college enrollment, completion, and a child’s future income (Flores, Park,
& Baker, 2017).
Advanced education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
enhances access to economic opportunities (Moses & Cobb, 2001). In 2016, the
median income for persons employed in science and engineering occupations was
US$83,900, an amount twice the U.S. median income of US$37,040 (National Science
Foundation, National Science Board [NSF, NSB], 2018). Science and engineering jobs
are resilient to economic downturns (NSF, NSB, 2018). In 2010, during a worldwide
Crabtree et al. 205
recession, the overall unemployment rate in the United States rose to 9.6%, yet unem-
ployment among persons with a bachelor’s degree in science and engineering was
3.9% (NSF, NSB, 2018). Consequently, providing equitable opportunities for students
preparing to pursue STEM degrees is a suggested strategy for addressing economic
mobility.
Research conducted at the national (Hodges, Tay, Maeda, & Gentry, 2018; Wright,
Ford, & Young, 2017; Yaluma & Tyner, 2018), state (McBee, 2010), and between-
district (Kettler, Russell, & Puryear, 2015) levels reveals the persistence of socioeco-
nomic and racial disproportionality in gifted education identification, services, and
distribution of resources; however, within-district analyses of inequities in gifted edu-
cation are rare. The current study utilizes Critical Systems Theory (CST) to explore
the extent of socioeconomic and racial gifted education disproportionality in a recently
resegregated, large, urban Southeastern United States school district charged with
addressing educational inequities that may contribute to economic immobility. A criti-
cal systems perspective acknowledges individuals, schools, and urban communities as
interdependent entities and incorporates the core values of critique, pluralism, eman-
cipation, and social justice to address systemic inequities (Watson & Watson, 2011).
Findings illuminate the impact of reduced access to gifted education programs in ele-
mentary and middle school on participation in advanced courses in high school,
including advanced science and math courses. Recommendations commensurate with
findings and aligned with CST are provided.
Literature Review
A plethora of descriptions posited by government agencies, advocacy groups, educa-
tion researchers, and educators contribute to the challenge of defining the term gifted
(McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; Renzulli, 2002; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell,
2011). According to Title IX of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), gifted and tal-
ented students are those
students, children or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas
such as intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership capacity or in specific academic fields,
and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school to fully
develop those capabilities.
Many Departments of Education at the state level utilize definitions that retain word-
ing from the 1993 Federal definition of giftedness, which described gifted individuals
as those who perform at exceptional levels when compared with others of their same
age, background, or environment (National Association for Gifted Children, 2018).
Also notable in this definition is the reminder that outstanding intellectual capability
and talents are found in all groups regardless of cultural background or socioeconomic
status.
Gifted education programming is critical to support the development of the talents
and abilities of gifted students (Subotnik et al., 2011). Although in later stages of a
child’s life, achievement is the measure of giftedness, initially “potential is the key
variable” (Subotnik et al., 2011, p. 7). Providing opportunities for students who dem-
onstrate exceptional potential when compared with other students of their age, experi-
ences, and environment to develop their unique talents and abilities should be the
focus of gifted education programming.
Inequities in Gifted Education Services

Nationally, 12.4% of children attending low poverty public elementary and middle
schools receive gifted education services, compared with 6.1% of students attending
high poverty schools, resulting in a 6.3% Gifted Gap (Yaluma & Tyner, 2018). Analysis
of nationally representative longitudinal data reveals that while 25% of high achieving
first graders are from low socioeconomic status families, only 56% of those students
are still considered high achieving by fifth grade (Wyner, Bridgeland, & DiIulio,
2007). A recent study of gifted education programs across three states revealed exten-
sive within-district differences in identification for gifted education related to institu-
tional level and student socioeconomic status (Hamilton et al., 2018). After controlling
for reading and math achievement scores, students who qualified for the federal Free
and Reduced-Price Lunch program (FRPL), and students attending schools with
higher numbers of students who qualified for FRPL, were less likely to be identified
for gifted programming than their wealthier peers or peers attending schools with
wealthier students (Hamilton et al., 2018). According to Berliner (2011), school-based
factors, including curriculum narrowing as a response to high-stakes testing and high
numbers of inexperienced teachers, impact the identification of gifted students at
schools serving students experiencing poverty. Inequities in opportunities to learn
including differences in mathematics instruction, vocabulary exposure, access to test-
preparation programs, and access to outside evaluators are also implicated in socio-
economic disproportionality in gifted education identification (Olszewski-Kubilius &
Corwith, 2018; Peters & Engerrand, 2016).
Extensive research conducted over 40 years reveals that regardless of socioeco-
nomic status, race plays a significant role in gifted education identification and reten-
tion (Coronado & Lewis, 2017; Ford, 1995, 2011; Goings & Ford, 2018; Grissom &
Redding, 2016; McBee, 2010; Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005; Wright et al., 2017).
Contributing factors to racial disproportionality include identification of students for
gifted education programs based on narrow criteria and a lack of knowledge regard-
ing the concept of giftedness on the part of teachers (Darity & Jolla, 2009; Ford,
1995; Ford, 2016; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Jordan, Bain, McCallum, &
Bell, 2012; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2018; Patton, 1992; Payne, 2010). Black
and Latinx students are routinely underreferred for gifted education services by
teachers who have limited training in gifted education and may act out of socioeco-
nomic and racial bias (Ford, 1995; Ford & Whiting, 2016; Jordan et al., 2012;
Sternberg, 2007). For Black students in classrooms with White teachers, underidenti-
fication of giftedness persists when achievement score data are equivalent between
White and Black students (Grissom & Redding, 2016; Jordan et al., 2012; Wright
Crabtree et al. 207
et al., 2017). During interviews with teachers of English learners, participants cite
their own lack of awareness that culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students
may be candidates for gifted services, the impact of “the language barrier” on their
perceptions of students’ academic and intellectual potential, and an overemphasis on
test scores for identification as barriers limiting opportunities for gifted English
learners (Allen, 2017, p. 82).
Gifted Education and Advanced Placement (AP) Courses

The importance of equitable identification for gifted education programs cannot be
underestimated. Participation in gifted education programs in elementary and middle
school has a positive impact on student performance, motivation, self-efficacy, engage-
ment, and self-concept (Grissom & Redding, 2016). Students identified for gifted edu-
cation programs are more likely to enroll in advanced courses; thus, lack of participation
in gifted education programs during elementary school contributes to an AP gap that
perpetuates inequities at the high school level (Darity & Jolla, 2009; Milner & Ford,
2007; Tyson, 2011). Socioeconomic disproportionality in AP enrollment is reflected in
findings that approximately 300,000 low-income students who had potential to suc-
ceed in AP courses did not enroll in any while in high school (Olszewski-Kubilius &
Corwith, 2018). A national analysis, Finding America’s Missing AP and IB Students,
revealed that in schools in which a Black–White or Black–Latinx AP enrollment gap
exists, 69% of Black and 65% of Latinx students whose Preliminary Scholastic
Aptitude Test (PSAT) scores correlated with potential success in AP science courses
were not enrolled in those courses (Theokas & Saaris, 2013).
Access to AP courses is limited by a variety of factors. When Black students attend
predominantly White schools, they are less likely to be enrolled in AP courses than if
they attend schools with higher percentages of Black students (Southworth &
Mickelson, 2007). In interviews, high achieving Black students not enrolled in AP
courses cite a lack of encouragement by teachers and guidance counselors, limited
information regarding course workload, a fear of failing, and reluctance to be the only
Black student in the classroom as major deterrents to AP enrollment (Evans, 2015).
At schools with a majority Black and Latinx population, limited numbers of AP
courses become a confounding issue. In a study of urban schools, researchers found
that predominantly White high schools offered an average of 20.6 AP courses,
whereas those with high percentages of Black students offered an average of only
11.75 AP courses.
Access to Advanced Courses and Economic Mobility

The opportunity to take AP courses in high school has a positive impact on college
admission, course grades, and college completion (Flores et al., 2017; Geiser &
Santelices, 2004; Scott, Toldson, & Lee, 2010). Among Black students enrolled in a
4-year university, academic coursework prior to college accounts for a larger portion
of the variance in college completion rates between Black and White students than any
other preenrollment factor including socioeconomic status (Flores et al., 2017).

Students who complete a college degree earn an average of US$1.6 million dollars
more than those who only possess a high school diploma (Flores et al., 2017).
Subsequently, failing to identify and provide appropriate educational services to gifted
elementary students from low socioeconomic groups, particularly, those who face the
double-edged sword of race and poverty, impacts economic mobility for students and
their families.
Despite extensive efforts to create a STEM workforce that reflects the racial, ethnic,
and socioeconomic status diversity of the United States, several groups remain signifi-
cantly underrepresented. In 2015, among persons employed in science and engineering
occupations, 6% were Latinx and 5% were Black in comparison with an overall repre-
sentation in the U.S. adult population of 15% (Latinx) and 12% (Black; NSF, NSB,
2018). Attrition from STEM majors is especially detrimental to the goal of broadening
participation in science-related fields. Although White students and students from
underrepresented groups express similar levels of interest in pursuing STEM degrees
(44% for both groups), only 27% Black and Latinx students who initially declare inter-
est graduate with a STEM degree compared with 46% of White students (Hurtado,
Newman, Tran, & Chang, 2010). These disparities occur, in part, due to the lack of
opportunity for advanced STEM coursework in high school (Eastman, Christman,
Zion, & Yerrick, 2017; Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hanson, 2007). In 2011-2012, Black
and Latinx students made up 16% and 24% of the public school population, respec-
tively, but only 7.5% and 13.5% of the students enrolled in AP science courses (U.S.
Department of Education, 2016). According to Bottia, Stearns, Mickelson, and Moller
(2018), STEM-related learning experiences prior to high school are important in deter-
mining college success. Providing enhanced educational opportunities during elemen-
tary and middle school for students to develop science identity and science proficiency
increases the potential that they will enroll in advanced science courses in preparation
for future STEM careers (Thadani, Cook, Griffis, Wise, & Blakey, 2010; Young, Ero-
Trolliver, Young, & Ford, 2017).
Economic Immobility (Mobility)

Recent analysis of U.S. Census and tax records data indicates that absolute economic
mobility, the potential for children to earn more than their parents, has fallen from 90%
in the 1940s to 50% in the 1980s, a decline linked to decreasing economic growth rates
and increasing inequalities in how that growth is distributed (Chetty et al., 2017).
Economic mobility, also referred to as intergenerational mobility, varies widely across
geographical regions of the United States (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014).
Using data reflecting the incomes of over 40 million children and their parents, econo-
mists calculated absolute economic mobility and relative economic mobility, the pos-
sibility that a child born to parents in the bottom quintile of earnings can potentially
reach the top quintile, for persons living in 50 metropolitan regions (Chetty, Hendren,
Kline, & Saez, 2014). Findings reveal that intergenerational mobility tends to be lower
in urban areas, and in the Southeast, a geographic region that includes Atlanta, Raleigh,
Crabtree et al. 209
and Charlotte, “booming” cities experiencing consistent job growth yet ranked in the
bottom five of the 50 cities studied (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014, p. 1596).
Correlation studies of this data indicate that racially segregated residential districts,
income inequality, poor quality primary schools, weak social networks, and higher
numbers of single-parent families are associated with economic immobility (Chetty,
Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014).
What factors may differ between regions and may determine economic outcomes
for children? Recent research indicates that exposure, not innate ability, plays a critical
role (Bell, Chetty, Jaravel, Petkova, & Van Reenen, 2017). In a study particularly ger-
mane to gifted education and STEM, economists found that among students with high
third grade math test scores, children from low-income families are less likely to
become inventors and receive patents for their innovations than children from families
in higher income brackets (Bell et al., 2017). Further analysis determined that expo-
sure to innovators, not financial constraints, had the greatest impact on a child’s chance
of becoming an inventor (Bell et al., 2017). According to Bell et al. (2017),
A lack of exposure to innovation can help explain why high-ability children in low-
income families, minorities, and women are significantly less likely to become inventors.
Importantly, such lack of exposure screens out not just marginal inventors but the
“Einsteins” who produce innovations that have the greatest impacts on society. (p. 42)
How can the Exposure Gap be addressed? Studies evaluating the impact of neigh-
borhoods and teachers on economic mobility may point the way (Chetty, Friedman, &
Rockoff, 2014a, 2014b; Chetty & Hendren, 2018; Chetty, Hendren, & Katz, 2016;
Rothwell & Massey, 2015). Analysis of a large, nationally representative data set cou-
pled with extensive geographic data revealed that economic segregation reduces eco-
nomic mobility across generations (Rothwell & Massey, 2015). In a controlled
experiment conducted by Chetty et al. (2016), children whose families received finan-
cial assistance to move from higher to lower poverty neighborhoods had improved
rates of college attendance, higher incomes in adulthood, and fewer incidents of single
parenthood. A study probing whether or not being in a classroom with an outstanding
teacher improves a child’s economic outcomes revealed that a value-added teacher has
a positive impact on a child’s future earnings that persists into adulthood (Chetty,
Friedman, & Rockoff, 2014a, 2014b). Accordingly, “improvements in the quality of
education [in grades 4-8] can have large returns well beyond early childhood” (Chetty,
Friedman, & Rockoff, 2014b, p. 2635).
To analyze correlations between educational policy and economic mobility, Finnish
researchers examined the impact of comprehensive school reform on intergenerational
income mobility (Pekkarinen, Uusitalo, & Kerr, 2009). Reforms occurring over a
6-year period transformed the education system in Finland from a selective system in
which students were assigned to an academic or vocational track by age of 11 years
into a comprehensive system delaying tracking until age of 16 years (Pekkarinen et al.,
2009). Examining data extending across a 30-year period, researchers determined that
comprehensive school reforms contributed to a decrease in the effect of a parent’s
earnings on the child’s earnings by 23% (Pekkarinen et al., 2009). These findings indi-
cate that increasing access to academic courses at the secondary school level may have
significant impact on intergenerational income mobility.
CST
A critical systems theoretical framework (Watson & Watson, 2011) allows an exami-
nation of systems and potential correlations with the Gifted Gap. Critique, emancipa-
tion, and pluralism are the three core ideas of CST that merge systems thinking with a
critical approach to research and analysis (Watson & Watson, 2011): “Critical Systems
Theory (CST) brings a systems thinking lens to help educational researchers under-
stand the complex nature of educational systems and problems, while incorporating . .
. broader research objectives such as emancipation and social justice” (Watson &
Watson, 2011, p. 64).
Systems theory is rooted in a biological understanding of interdependence within
and between organisms, communities, and ecosystems (Hammond, 2010). Individuals
within schools, school systems, and the urban community are intricately connected.
Bronfenbrenner (1979), the founder of ecological systems theory, is credited with
focusing on systemic change that occurs as a result of interactions within four domains
including the microsystem, mesosystem, macrosystem, and exosystem. Each system
involves unique stakeholders and processes that center around an identified subject or
structure. Examination of gifted education programs within an individual school as the
identified subject will assist in understanding each system. Within the microsystem,
the focus is on entities having consistent and frequent contact with the school
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Students, teachers, counselors, administrators, parents, and
gifted education specialists are present within the microsystem. Bidirectional interac-
tions within the microsystem define the mesosystem. Interactions between teachers
and students, counselors and parents, and teachers and gifted education specialists are
examples. The quality and degree to which these interactions occur is an important
aspect of the mesosystem. For example, varied levels of interaction between teachers
and gifted education specialists at different schools may produce varying school cli-
mates that impact advanced learning opportunities for students at the mesosystem
level. The macrosystem encompasses system-level policies that impact outcomes at
the school level. Examples include district allocation of resources to support advanced
curriculum, including gifted education programs and AP courses, at individual schools.
Finally, the exosystem includes societal entities and existing ideologies, attitudes, and
behaviors toward the identified subject. Local university faculty are examples of enti-
ties that may collaborate with nearby public schools, providing support, expanded
curriculum, and professional development in the area of gifted education. Societal
factors that may impact gifted education programs include system-level school inte-
gration and school choice initiatives.
Through the incorporation of a critical lens, CST addresses the reality that “domina-
tion and subjugation continue to play a potentially decisive role and must not be
neglected” (Flood, 1990, p. 51). Ecological systems theory suggests that change in one
Crabtree et al. 211
system ultimately impacts other systems; decisions made by stakeholders at one point
in the system impact multiple axes in the system and may ultimately provide or limit
access for groups (Brofenbrenner, 1977). Habermas (1996) critically examined systems
and argued for an historical and contemporary analysis of the interactions between
systems and their evolution over time. Following analysis, communicative action is
necessary to disrupt systems through the creation of discourse highlighting issues that
have negative impact on other systems (Habermas, 1987). An investigation of the
Gifted Gap, STEM education, and economic immobility at the district level allows for
examination of the impact of disproportional opportunities in gifted education, reveal-
ing opportunities for discourse, courageous action, and system transformation.
Current Study
Specifically, this study seeks to determine whether or not opportunities to participate
in gifted education are distributed equitably between and within elementary and mid-
dle schools in a large, urban school district in the Southeastern United States. In addi-
tion, the study explores how disproportionality in gifted education services at lower
grade levels may affect advanced course participation in high school courses, particu-
larly, those that prepare students for postsecondary opportunities in STEM education
and research.
This study is guided by the following research questions:
Research Question 1: To what extent does socioeconomic disproportionality in

gifted education exist between low and high poverty schools in a Southeastern
school district with low economic mobility?
Research Question 2: To what extent does racial disproportionality in gifted edu-
cation exist within elementary and middle schools in a Southeastern school district
with low economic mobility?
Research Question 3: Does gifted education disproportionality in elementary and
middle schools relate to patterns of AP course availability and enrollment in a
Southeastern school district with low economic mobility?
Research Question 4: Does gifted education disproportionality in elementary and
middle schools relate to patterns of participation in AP Math and AP Science
courses in a Southeastern school district with low economic mobility?
Method
Participants and Measures
A large, urban school district in the Southeastern United States (Metropolitan School
District) served as the focal district for this study. The school district serves 149,270
students living in a metropolitan region that has a population of 859,035 (U.S.
Department of Education, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018a). The percentage of stu-
dents participating in the federal FRPL program in Metropolitan School District is
Table 1. Comparison of Metropolitan School District Student and Metropolitan Area
Populations.
Percentage of school Percentage of total

district population
Group n = 149,270 n = 859,035

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.5 0.3
Asian 6.1 6.0
Black 39.6 35.3
Latinx 22.3 12.7
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.2 0.1
Two or more races 2.4 2.8
White 28.9 50.7
Note. The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights database utilizes the term Hispanic. The
authors have chosen to use Latinx as a more inclusive term for this group.
60.2%. Metropolitan School District faces similar challenges to school districts across
the United States including the impact of racial and socioeconomic resegregation fol-
lowing the lifting of court-mandated desegregation plans (Fiel, 2013; Reardon &
Owens, 2014a). In 2015-2016, 58,289 or 39% of the students in the district attended a
school at which more than 75% of the students qualify for FRPL, whereas 31,142 stu-
dents, 21% of the total population, attended a school at which fewer than 25% of stu-
dents qualified for FRPL. The majority of the district student population is Black
(39.6%) or Latinx (22.3%), however, these students are underrepresented at schools
serving few students experiencing poverty. At schools with fewer than 25% of students
who qualify for FRPL, 11% of the student population is Black and 7% is Latinx. Also
of note, although persons identified as Latinx make up only 12.7% of the city’s total
population, 22.3% of the students enrolled in Metropolitan School District are Latinx.
Approximately 10% (14,489) of students in the district receive gifted education
services. The district employs universal screening procedures, administration of a
nationally normed aptitude test, and completion of an informal rating scale by class-
room teachers to identify students as academically or intellectually gifted in the sec-
ond grade. Students not identified through this process can seek outside testing from a
private licensed psychologist. Students in the third to 12th grades may be referred to a
school-based committee by a teacher, parent, or other advocate for testing and evalua-
tion regarding possible identification. Alternative assessments for English Language
Learners are currently being developed and implemented in the district. Students who
qualify for gifted education services may receive advanced academic support at the
school in their home attendance zone or apply to attend one of several magnet pro-
grams that serve gifted students in the district.
Table 1 contains a description of the school district and the overall metropolitan
area according to the racial categories reported to the Department of Education (2018)
Crabtree et al. 213
Office of Civil Rights database for the 2015-2016 school year, the most recent year
available.
Increasing economic mobility for residents is a primary focus for community lead-
ers in the region in which Metropolitan School District is located. Although the median
household income is US$55,599, the city recently ranked in the bottom 10% of 50
metropolitan regions in terms of absolute and relative economic mobility (Chetty,
Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2018b), 15.8%
of the persons living in the metropolitan area are living in poverty, 88.4% have earned
a high school diploma, and 42.0% possess a bachelor’s or higher degree. The region’s
unemployment rate of 3.8% in 2018 is down from the previous year’s rate of 4.5% and
ranks 141 out of 388 metropolitan cities (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018a, 2018b).
Major employers include financial service and energy industries, as well as health care
providers.
The district is situated in a state that features state contributions toward public
school funding above the national average (Baker & Corcoran, 2012). Nonetheless,
the state utilizes a “regressive school funding distribution” model with children resid-
ing in high poverty districts receiving inequitable funding and reduced access to state
and local revenues (Baker & Corcoran, 2012, p. 7). Pupils in the highest poverty quin-
tile in the state receive an average of US$9,074, well below the cost of national aver-
age outcomes of US$16,011 for this group (Baker, Weber, Srikanth, Kim, & Atzbi,
2018). Metropolitan School District is a high poverty district within the state with per
pupil funding below the state average.
School choice initiatives and the competition for resources posed by nontraditional
public schools (Arsen & Ni, 2012) presents additional challenges for Metropolitan
School District. The district, located in a state in which legislation and policies are
favorable to charter schools, has experienced a rapid influx of nontraditional public
schools. Current research indicates that “growth of the charter school sector of public
education will likely heighten school segregation and exacerbate racial and socioeco-
nomic isolation” (Riel, Parcel, Mickelson, & Smith, 2018, p. 10).
Procedure
Gifted education and AP enrollment demographics for schools in the Metropolitan
School District were acquired from the U.S. Department of Education (2018) Office
of Civil Rights and National Center for Education Statistics (2018) websites.
Measures
At the school level, a categorical variable was created using FRPL as a proxy for stu-
dent socioeconomic status. Schools were categorized as low poverty (fewer than 25%
of student qualifying for FRPL) and high poverty (more than 75% of students qualify-
ing for FRPL). According to Gelman and Park (2008), calculating the average value of
an outcome y (in this case, participation in gifted education programs) within upper
and lower quartiles based on a predictor x (% of students qualifying for FRPL) does
not result in the loss of a large degree of efficiency and allows researchers to display
findings in a way that is easily accessible. Using this categorical variable aligns with
published state and national Gifted Gap data (Yaluma & Tyner, 2018), providing an
opportunity for direct comparisons.
For each elementary and middle school, total school population and the number
of students enrolled in gifted education programs were identified and used to calcu-
late the percent of students participating in gifted education programs at each school
and within each school category (low or high poverty). A similar procedure was fol-
lowed to determine the percent of students enrolled in at least one AP course, AP
Math courses, and AP Science courses at each high school and within each school
category.
The percent of students qualifying for FRPL, the percent of students participating
in gifted education programs at elementary and middle schools, and the number of AP
courses offered at each high school were identified as continuous variables. Correlations
were computed for the percent of students qualifying for FRPL and participating in
gifted education programs at elementary and middle schools. In addition, correlation
analysis was employed to examine the relationship between the percent of students
qualifying for FRPL and the number of AP courses offered at each high school.
The total population of Black and Latinx students and the number of Black and
Latinx students enrolled in gifted education programs, at least one AP course, AP
Math and AP Science courses were identified for each school. These values were used
to determine the extent of gifted education disproportionality within low poverty
schools by dividing the number of Black or Latinx students participating in a specific
category (gifted education, at least one AP course, AP Math or AP Science) by the total
number of students in the equivalent program at low poverty schools.
Participation in gifted education by ethnic group (i.e., White, Asian, Black, Latinx)
was calculated by dividing the number of students from each ethnic group enrolled in
gifted education in the district by the total number of students within each ethnic group
in the entire district. To calculate the percent of students from each group participating
in at least one AP course, AP Math courses and AP Science courses, the total number
of students from each group enrolled in each AP category was divided by the total
number of students from that group enrolled in high schools in Metropolitan School
District.
Results
The Gifted Gap is defined as the difference in the percentage of students at low and
high poverty schools enrolled in gifted education programs. Research published by the
Fordham Foundation reported this gap to be 6% nationally and 12.3% in the state in
which Metropolitan School District is located (Yaluma & Tyner, 2018). The equivalent
gap between low poverty (n = 29) and high poverty (n = 66) middle and elementary
schools in Metropolitan School District was determined to be 15.8%. Although 18.2%
of all students who attend low poverty schools receive gifted education services, only
2.4% of the students attending high poverty schools receive those services (Department
Crabtree et al. 215
Figure 1. Comparison of National, State, and Metropolitan School District student
enrollment in gifted education programs at low poverty (<25% FRPL) participation and high
poverty schools (>75% FRPL).
Note. FRPL = Free and Reduced-Priced Lunch.
of Education, 2018). The percentage of students attending high poverty schools in

Metropolitan School District enrolled in gifted education programs (2.4%) is 2-fold
lower than the state average of 5.1% (see Figure 1). At the school level, a strong nega-
tive correlation (r = –.73) between student socioeconomic status and participation in
gifted education programs is evident (see Figure 2). Several outliers are evident in
Figure 2. The two schools categorized as high poverty at which 15% and 31% of stu-
dents receive gifted education services are partial magnet schools. These schools
house gifted education magnet programs within buildings whose larger student popu-
lation is drawn from the surrounding neighborhood.
Low enrollment in at least one AP course at high poverty high schools in
Metropolitan School District mirrors the low number of students receiving gifted edu-
cation services at high poverty elementary and middle schools (see Figure 3). At low
poverty high schools (n = 3), 39.8% of students are enrolled in at least 1 AP course.
This number drops to 7.8% at high poverty schools (n = 6). Correlation analysis
reveals a negative relationship between student socioeconomic status at the school
level and the number of AP courses offered at a high school (r = –.61). Consequently,
students at high poverty high schools have access to fewer AP courses than their peers
at low poverty schools (see Figure 4).
Figure 2. The percent of students enrolled in gifted education programs at Metropolitan
School District elementary and middle schools as a function of student participation in the
Free and Reduced-Priced Lunch program. (r = –.73).
Figure 3. Percent of students receiving gifted education services (Elementary and Middle
Schools) or enrolled in 1 AP course (high schools) at low and high poverty schools.
Note. AP = Advanced Placement.
Crabtree et al. 217
Figure 4. The number of AP courses offered at a high school as a function of the Free and
Reduced-Price Lunch percentage at that high school (r = –.61).
Racial disproportionality at low poverty schools is also evident (Figure 5). Although
18% of students at low poverty elementary and middle schools are Black (10%) or
Latinx (8%), Black and Latinx students comprise only 6% (3% for each group) of the
students receiving gifted education services at those schools. Disproportionality per-
sists at the high school level. At low poverty high schools, Black students comprise
11% of the total population but only 6% of the students enrolled in at least 1 AP course.
The disproportionality between Latinx total enrollment in low poverty high schools
(7%) and Latinx students enrolled in one or more AP courses (4%) is less than the
disproportionality for Black students.
An analysis of district-wide data reveals further disproportionality in the total
proportion of each of four groups (i.e., White, Asian, Black, and Latinx) enrolled in
gifted education programs and AP courses. Although 22% of all White students and
15% of Asian students received gifted education services in Metropolitan School
District elementary and middle schools in 2015-2016, only 3.4% of Black and 2.6%
of Latinx students were enrolled in equivalent programs (Department of Education,
2018). At the high school level, 40% of White students, 37% of Asian students, 12%
Figure 5. The ratio of total Black and Latinx enrollment compared with the percent of
Black and Latinx students receiving gifted education services (elementary) or enrolled in 1 AP
course (high school).
of Black students, and 13% of Latinx students were enrolled in at least 1 AP course
(see Figure 6). The percentage of students enrolled in AP Math (White, 11%; Asian,
16%; Black, 2.6%; and Latinx, 2.0%) or AP Science (White, 11%; Asian, 13%;
Black, 2.8%; and Latinx, 2.4%) course followed a similar pattern to overall AP
course enrollment (see Figure 7).
Discussion
Although brilliance and talent are evenly distributed, opportunity is not. In a land-
mark study examining variations in economic mobility across the United States,
Chetty, Hendren, Kline, and Saez (2014) identified residential segregation, poor pri-
mary schools, and income inequality as factors correlating with reduced opportunity.
The socioeconomic and racial segregation between and within schools in Metropolitan
School District reflects structural patterns of the larger community. Although analyz-
ing these patterns is outside of the scope of this study, the impact of inequities evident
in the extensive Gifted Gap in this district and other districts across the United States
cannot be ignored. In their extensive analysis of the phenomenon of school resegre-
gation in the 21st century, Reardon and Owens (2014) call for education research to
move beyond examining the impact of school segregation on the Achievement Gap
to explore mechanisms by which segregation may have these impacts. This study
Crabtree et al. 219
Figure 6. The percentage of students of a specific group (White, Asian, Black, and Latinx)
enrolled in gifted education programs and the percentage of high school students of a specific
group (White, Asian, Black, and Latinx) enrolled in at least 1 AP course.
answers that call. Analysis of the Gifted Gap within Metropolitan School District
through a critical systems lens reveals extensive socioeconomic and racial dispropor-
tionality in gifted education programming. The current study sheds light on the role
that stakeholders in local schools can play by acknowledging and addressing inequi-
ties and ultimately removing barriers that limit opportunities for students.
According to the data, children in Metropolitan School District are not likely to be
identified for gifted educa-shame-of-the-nation-the-causes-and-consequetion programs
if they attend a school in which the majority of students are experiencing poverty. Low
numbers of students participating in gifted education at high poverty schools have nega-
tive consequences for students and teachers in these settings. This district utilizes a
“push-in” gifted education model meaning that specialists who have advanced certifica-
tion spend time in classrooms where identified students are present. When few students
are identified in a school, opportunities for gifted education specialists to work with
classroom teachers are rare. Teachers in high poverty urban schools are more likely to be
inexperienced and less likely to be trained in pedagogies that support advanced learners
(Hammond, 2010). Limited emphasis on the needs of advanced learners in high poverty
schools and classrooms contributes to the excellence gap for students in these environ-
ments (Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010).
Figure 7. The percentage of students of a specific group (White, Asian, Black, and Latinx)
enrolled in gifted education programs, AP Math and AP Science courses across the district.
Inequities in opportunities increase educational disparities and reduce the possibil-

ity that students will reach their full academic potential (Darity & Jolla, 2009; Wright
et al., 2017). Nowhere is this vicious cycle more evident than in the restricted curricu-
lum that accompanies an overemphasis on standardized tests (Berliner, 2011):
The most pernicious response to high stakes testing is perhaps the most rational,
curriculum narrowing . . . [which] reduces many students’ chances of being thought
talented in school and results in a restriction in the creative and enjoyable activities
engaged in by teachers and students. (Berliner, 2011, p. 287)
In this setting, creativity and thematic approaches to curriculum are discouraged

(Moon, Brighton, & Callahan, 2003), classroom time allotted for nontested subjects is
limited (Heafner & Fitchett, 2012; Tate, 2001), and instruction may be scripted (Au,
2011). Teachers are encouraged to focus on students predicted to have lower scores on
standardized tests, as opposed to supporting the talents and abilities of potentially
gifted students, reducing the probability that high performing students will be ade-
quately prepared to enroll in advanced courses in high school (Moon et al., 2003).
Socioeconomic disproportionality in gifted education programs at Metropolitan
School District elementary and middle schools appears to be related to limited access
and enrollment in AP courses at the high school level. At high poverty high schools,
Crabtree et al. 221
fewer than one in 10 students enroll in AP courses, whereas at low poverty high
schools, 40% of students take at least one AP course before graduating. Students with
exceptional potential who have been exposed to a narrowed curriculum for 8 years in
high poverty elementary and middle schools attend high schools that offer limited
numbers of AP courses, further compounding the excellence gap.
In low poverty (n = 29) elementary and middle schools, the percent of Black and
Latinx students receiving gifted education services is not proportional to their repre-
sentation in the school population (see Figure 5). Academic tracking in upper elemen-
tary and middle school eventually limits opportunities for nonidentified students to
attend classes with students who have had access to expanded curriculum. Consequently,
classrooms become more racially segregated as students move from elementary to
high school. Disproportional gifted identification of Black and Latinx students in low
poverty elementary and middle schools ultimately produces high schools character-
ized by hallway integration and classroom segregation, a systemic feature that limits
learning for all.
Extensive racial disproportionality in advanced academic opportunities is evident
throughout Metropolitan School District. High poverty schools in this district have
high populations of Black and Latinx students. The low number of students enrolled in
gifted education programs in these schools, coupled with racial disproportionality at
low poverty schools, produces alarming district-wide racial disproportionality. More
than one in five White students in Metropolitan School District participate in gifted
education programming. For Asian students, slightly fewer than one in five students
receive these services. In contrast, only three in 100 Black students and two in 100
Latinx students are enrolled in gifted education programs. Racial disproportionality in
gifted education enrollment reinforces the narrative that White and Asian children are
more naturally and intellectually gifted while dismissing the brilliance of Black and
Brown children, perpetuating systemic bias ingrained in the educational system. The
high percentage of White and Asian students engaged in gifted education program-
ming during elementary and middle school also correlates with a high percentage of
White and Asian students enrolled in AP Math and AP Science courses when com-
pared with Black and Latinx students. The Gifted Gap for elementary and middle
school students becomes an opportunity gap that has stark implications for college
preparation, admissions, and completion for students whose high school experiences
are devoid of advanced coursework.
A critical systems analysis suggests that addressing the Gifted Gap in elementary
and middle schools will increase access to economic opportunities inherent in fields
requiring advanced STEM education for Black students, Latinx students, and student
experiencing poverty. Participation in gifted education programs increases student
confidence and critical thinking skills and provides exposure to challenging curricu-
lum in preparation for enrollment in advanced high school courses (Darity & Jolla,
2009). The findings of this study indicate that the converse is also true. Students whose
capabilities are not affirmed and who are not exposed to enriched curriculum during
elementary and middle school are less likely to enroll in advanced courses in high
school. AP courses provide opportunities for students to engage in challenging
college-level content in the nurturing environment of a high school classroom and play
a vital role in preparing students for college success (Flores et al., 2017). As the United
States transforms from a manufacturing to knowledge-based economy, equitable
access to advanced science and math courses should ensure that education and employ-
ment opportunities in this vital sector are available to all persons (NSF, 2015).
According to Bell et al. (2017), “Drawing more low-income and [underrepresented]
children into science and innovation could increase their incomes—thereby reducing
the persistence of inequality across generations” (p. 43).
Limitations
Limitations of this study include the focus on a single school district and the use of
data reflecting gifted education and AP course enrollment during one school year.
Although data from this school district is not generalizable to all districts, these find-
ings suggest that urban school districts characterized by socioeconomic and racial
segregation contribute to the national Gifted Gap to a greater extent than suburban and
rural school districts. Although this study utilized “snapshot” data for the year 2015-
2016, a multiyear longitudinal analysis would provide more extensive opportunities to
examine correlations between gifted education services and AP course access. The
development of critical thinking skills necessary for advanced coursework in STEM is
encouraged and supported through gifted education, but specific programs may or
may not offer enhanced STEM curriculum. Consequently, a lack of information
regarding the extent to which gifted education programming at individual schools in
this district specifically supports advanced STEM education is an additional limitation
of this study.
Recommendations
Disaggregating data at the classroom, school, and district level is an important first
step toward recognizing and addressing the Gifted Gap. Teachers, administrators, and
other stakeholders may lack an awareness of the extent of racial and socioeconomic
gifted education disproportionality in their school and district. Employing a critical
systems lens, stakeholders should collect and analyze data for each school in a feeder
system to determine the extent of disproportionality and identify specific areas of
concern.
Microsystem Recommendations
School leaders should prioritize professional development for teachers and counselors
who are important gatekeepers for gifted education programs. Although universal
screening is used in early grades to identify gifted students in Metropolitan School
District, teachers continue to play vital roles as nominators following initial testing
procedures. For teacher recommendations to be valid, “nominators need explicit defi-
nitions of giftedness in addition to well-developed instruments to help express their
Crabtree et al. 223
judgments and observations” (Peters & Gentry, 2012, p. 127). Gifted education iden-
tification methods should be evaluated to ensure that measures are being used to iden-
tify CLD students who may not have high scores on Eurocentric assessments of
intelligence and academic ability (Ford, 2016). Professional development that pro-
vides opportunities for teachers and counselors to collaborate, explore implicit biases,
and consider what giftedness might look like in students whose racial, ethnic, or lin-
guistic identity differs from their own is also needed (Allen, 2017; Milner & Ford,
2007). Training for classroom teachers of diverse gifted students should incorporate
culturally relevant and critical perspectives and encourage teachers to use creative
interdisciplinary pedagogies that expand learning opportunities for all students, espe-
cially those in low socioeconomic status (SES) communities (Ladson-Billings, 2014;
Sternberg, 2007). The Young Scholars model developed in Fairfax County, VA, pro-
vides an exceptional example of a district-wide program designed to identify and sup-
port advanced abilities in CLD students in high poverty schools (Horn, 2015;
Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2018).
Mesosystem Recommendations
Low numbers of identified students at high poverty elementary schools result in an
inequitable distribution of gifted personnel and resources. Developing alternative
methods of identification within school districts, however, can improve identification
of low-income students for gifted education programs (Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith,
2018). One method recommended to address the socioeconomic Gifted Gap is to use
local norms to identify at least 10% of the top achievers at each school (Yaluma &
Tyner, 2018). The use of group-specific norms may also identify top achievers from
low-income or other subgroups of interest at diverse schools, a practice which controls
to some degree for previous opportunities to learn (Peters & Engerrand, 2016; Peters
& Gentry, 2012). Using local or group-specific norms for identification purposes
addresses some issues of equity, but counselors and teachers should be aware that a
certain percentage of gifted students may underachieve on standardized tests and
graded work. The use of a teacher-rating scale, along with local norms, can result in
the inclusion of underachievers who may go unidentified when identification practices
focus solely on achievement test data and grades (Peters & Gentry, 2012).
Macrosystem Recommendations
Although addressing the critical issue of gifted education disproportionality in ele-
mentary and middle schools will slowly transform the student population, students
currently in secondary school cannot be ignored. All secondary schools should offer an
equitable number of AP courses, a challenge that will require district leaders to real-
locate resources including grant funding, teacher allotments, curricular resources, and
laboratory equipment (Theokas & Saaris, 2013). Professional development for coun-
selors, teachers, and administrators who assist students with course selection and
enrollment should provide opportunities for personnel to explore factors that
contribute to the underenrollment of low-income students and students of color in

advanced courses (Evans, 2015). The instructional environment that a student encoun-
ters when entering a classroom should also be considered. Does the student feel wel-
come in the space? Is course content relevant and meaningful? An approach in which
teachers recognize and value the desire CLD students have to participate in an educa-
tion that is socially just and responsive to challenges in their local community is criti-
cally needed (Gruenewald, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2014).
Exosystem Recommendations
Although postsecondary educational institutions are not directly connected to K12
public school systems, university communities can play an important role in reducing
the Gifted Gap. University–school district partnerships, including Project EXCITE
(Northwestern University) and Project Promise (Baylor University), provide talent
development for students from groups underrepresented in gifted education and show
promise to address opportunity gaps (Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2018).
Developing programs that support collaboration among University-based research sci-
entists, classroom teachers, and students at high poverty schools can enhance STEM
curriculum and counteract the overemphasis on high-stakes testing. Initiatives includ-
ing Scientists in the Classroom, summer programs for CLD gifted students, and
research experiences for students and teachers have the potential to increase science
capital for all children (Archer, Dawson, DeWitt, Seakins, & Wong, 2015).
Conclusion
“What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community
want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely;
acted upon, it destroys our democracy” (Dewey, 1907, p. 19).
Increasing opportunities for persons from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic back-
grounds to contribute to STEM research, education, and innovation has been an
emphasis of the science and education community for over 40 years (Watts, George, &
Levey, 2015). As this study demonstrates, one way to broaden participation in STEM
is to address the Gifted Gap. Participation in gifted education programs provides aca-
demic enrichment and enhances student preparation for advanced coursework and
postsecondary degree attainment; therefore, opportunities to participate in these pro-
grams must be equitable. Where the distribution of gifted education services is not
equitable, stakeholders must determine if systemic barriers exist that restrict participa-
tion and work to dismantle them. Future research in this area should explore best
practices in preservice and inservice teacher education regarding the identification and
support of CLD gifted students. The impact of school choice initiatives, including
charter schools, on access to gifted education programming and advanced coursework
also requires further study. In addition, the impact of school-level funding and staffing
inequities on access to advanced academic opportunities for students experiencing
poverty and Black and Latinx students of all income groups warrants further research.
Crabtree et al. 225
Gifted education disproportionality is not a new issue, nor is it unique to this

Metropolitan School District. It is, however, one of the most ingrained and detrimental
constructs in public education. Applying a critical systems perspective necessitates
that school administrators, teachers, counselors, parents, and students be engaged to
address this challenging issue. Reflective, responsive, and courageous stakeholders
attuned to systemic barriers inherent in educational and economic systems have the
potential to create an equitable system that extends opportunity to all.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
ORCID iDs
Lenora M. Crabtree https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8555-7718
Sonyia C. Richardson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6026-5401
References
Allen, J. (2017). Exploring the role teacher perceptions play in the underrepresentation of cul-
turally and linguistically diverse students in gifted programming. Gifted Child Today, 40,
77-86. doi:10.1177/1076217517690188
Allen, A., Farinde, A., & Lewis, C. (2013). The landscape of advanced classes in CMS.
Charlotte, NC: The Urban Education Collaborative. Retrieved from http://ui.uncc.edu/
story/cms-high-school-ap-minority.
Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A con-
ceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of
capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 922-948. doi:10.1002/
tea.21227
Arsen, D., & Ni, Y. (2012). The effects of charter school competition on school district
resource allocation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 3-38. doi:10.1177/00131
61X11419654
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization
of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 25-45. doi:10.1080/00
220272.2010.521261
Baker, B. D., & Corcoran, S. P. (2012). The stealth inequities of school funding: How state
and local school finance systems perpetuate inequitable student spending. Retrieved
from http://phennd.org/update/the-real-shame-of-the-nation-the-causes-and-conse-
quences-ofinterstate-inequity-in-public-school-investments/
Baker, B. D., Weber, M., Srikanth, A., Kim, R., & Atzbi, M. (2018). The real shame of the
nation: The causes and consequences of interstate inequity in public school investments.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c
m6Jkm6ktUT3SQplzDFjJIy3G3iLWOtJ/view
Bell, A. M., Chetty, R., Jaravel, X., Petkova, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2017). Who becomes an
inventor in America? The importance of exposure to innovation (No. w24062): National
Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org
/assets/documents/inventors_paper.pdf
Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing
and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 287-302. doi:10.1080/03
05764X.2011.607151
Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., & Moller, S. (2018). Boosting the numbers of
STEM majors? The role of high schools with a STEM program. Science Education, 102(1),
85-107.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Experimental toward an ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32, 513-531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018, August-a). Over-the-year change in unemployment rates
for metropolitan areas, not seasonally adjusted. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/web
/metro/laummtch.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018, August-b). Unemployment rates for metropolitan areas,
not seasonally adjusted. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk
.htm#laummtrk.f.p
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014a). Measuring the impacts of teachers I:
Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104, 2593-
2632. doi:10.1257/aer.104.9.2593
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014b). Measuring the impacts of teachers II:
Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104,
2633-2679. doi:10.1257/aer.104.9.2633
Chetty, R., Grusky, D., Hell, M., Hendren, N., Manduca, R., & Narang, J. (2017). The fading
American trend: Trends in absolute economic mobility since 1940. Science, 356, 398-406.
doi:10.1126/science.aaI4617
Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2018). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobil-
ity II: County-level estimates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 1163-1228.
doi:10.1093/qje/qjy006
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2016). The effects of exposure to better neighbor-
hoods on children: New evidence from the Moving to Opportunity experiment. American
Economic Review, 106, 855-902. doi:10.1257/aer.20150572
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The
geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 129, 1553-1623. doi:10.1093/qje/qju022
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., Saez, E., & Turner, N. (2014). Is the United States still a land
of opportunity? Recent trends in intergenerational mobility. American Economic Review,
104, 141-147. doi:10.1257/aer.104.5.141
Coronado, J. M., & Lewis, K. D. (2017). The disproportional representation of English
Language Learners in gifted and talented programs in Texas. Gifted Child Today, 40, 238-
244. doi:10.1177/1076217517722181
Darity, W., Jr., & Jolla, A. (2009). Desegregated schools with segregated education. In C.
Hartman & G. Squires (Eds.), The integration debate: Futures for American Cities (pp. 99-
117). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1907). School and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Crabtree et al. 227
Eastman, M. G., Christman, J., Zion, G. H., & Yerrick, R. (2017). To educate engineers or
to engineer educators? Exploring access to engineering careers. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 54, 884-913.
Evans, E. (2015). Young, gifted, Black, and blocked: A critical inquiry of barriers that hinder
Black students’ participation in gifted and Advanced Placement programs (Doctoral dis-
sertation). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1355
Farinde, A. A., Adams, T., & Lewis, C. W. (2014). Segregation revisited: The racial education
landscape of Charlotte Mecklenburg schools. Western Journal of Black Studies, 38, 177-183.
Fiel, J. E. (2013). Decomposing school resegregation: Social closure, racial imbalance, and racial
isolation. American Sociological Review, 78, 828-848. doi:10.1177/0003122413496252
Finn, C. E., Jr., & Northern, A. M. (2018). Foreword. In C. B. Yaluma & A. Tyner (Eds.), Is
there a gifted gap? Gifted education in high poverty schools (pp. 4-6). Retrieved from
https://edexcellence.net/publications/is-there-a-gifted-gap
Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating systems theory: Toward critical systems thinking. Human
Relations, 43, 49-75. doi:10.1177/001872679004300104
Flores, S. M., Park, T. J., & Baker, D. J. (2017). The racial college completion gap: Evidence
from Texas. The Journal of Higher Education, 88, 894-921. doi:10.1080/00221546.2017.
1291259
Ford, D. Y. (1995). Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet. Journal of Negro Education,
64, 52-62. doi:10.2307/2967284
Ford, D. Y. (2011). Closing the achievement gap: Gifted education must join the battle. Gifted
Child Today, 34, 31-34. doi:10.1177/107621751103400110
Ford, D. Y. (2016). Desegregating gifted education for culturally different students:
Recommendations for equitable recruitment and retention. In J. T. DeCuir-Gunby & P. A.
Schutz (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in the study of motivation in education (pp. 183-198).
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Another look at the achievement gap:
Learning from the experiences of gifted Black students. Urban Education, 43, 216-239.
doi:10.1177/0042085907312344
Ford, D. Y., & Whiting, G. W. (2016). Considering Fisher v. University of Texas–Austin: How
gifted education affects access to elite colleges for Black and underrepresented students.
Gifted Child Today, 39(2), 121-124. doi:10.1177/1076217516628914
Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). The role of Advanced Placement and honors courses in
college admissions (Occasional Paper Series 4.04). Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher
Education, University of California.
Gelman, A., & Park, D. K. (2008). Splitting a predictor at the upper quarter or third and the
lower quarter or third. The American Statistician, 62(4), 1-8. doi:10.1198/tast.2009.0001
Goings, R. B., & Ford, D. Y. (2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in
gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 25-36.
doi:10.1177/0016986217737618
Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the under-
representation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1),
1-25. doi:10.1177/2332858415622175
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational
Researcher, 32(4), 3-12. doi:10.3102/0013189X032004003
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Hamilton, R., McCoach, D. B., Tutwiler, M. S., Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., . . . Mun,
R. U. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identifi-
cation of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 6-24. doi:10.1177/0016986217738053
Hammond, D. (2010). The science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications of general
systems theory. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2012). Tipping the scales: National trends of declining social
studies instructional time in elementary schools. Journal of Social Studies Research, 36,
190-215. doi:10.1080/00377996.2011.592165
Hodges, J., Tay, J., Maeda, Y., & Gentry, M. (2018). A meta-Analysis of gifted and talented iden-
tification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 147-174. doi:10.1177/0016986217752107
Horn, C. V. (2015). Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurtur-
ing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38, 19-31. doi:10.1177
/1076217514556532
Hurtado, S., Newman, C. B., Tran, M. C., & Chang, M. J. (2010). Improving the rate of success
for underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 148, 5-15. doi:10.1002/ir.357
Jordan, K. R., Bain, S. K., McCallum, R. S., & Bell, S. M. (2012). Comparing gifted and non-
gifted African American and Euro-American students on cognitive and academic vari-
ables using local norms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 241-258. doi:10
.1177/0162353212451701
Kettler, T., Russell, J., & Puryear, J. S. (2015). Inequitable access to gifted education: Variance
in funding and staffing based on locale and contextual school variables. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 38, 99-117. doi:10.1177/0162353215578277
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84, 74-84. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Mann, H. (1848). Twelfth annual report to the Massachusetts Board of Education.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Dutton and Wentworth State Printers.
McBee, M. (2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students
in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly,
54, 283-297. doi:10.1177/0016986210377927
McClain, M. C., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today:
A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology,
28, 59-88. doi:10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
Milner, H. R., & Ford, D. Y. (2007). Underrepresentation of culturally diverse elementary stu-
dents in gifted education. Roeper Review, 29, 166-173. doi:10.1080/02783190709554405
Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend
or foe of gifted education? Roeper Review, 25, 49-60. doi:10.1080/02783190309554199
Moore, J. L., III, Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining
African American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 51-67.
doi:10.1177/001698620504900106
Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston:
Beacon Press.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2018). State definitions of giftedness. Available from
http://www.nagc.org/
National Science Foundation. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in sci-
ence and engineering (NSF Publication No. 15-311). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov
/statistics/2015/nsf15311/start.cfm
Crabtree et al. 229
National Science Foundation, National Science Board. (2015, February 4). Revisiting the STEM
workforce: A companion to science and engineering indicators 2014 (NSB-2015-10).
Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsb201510/nsb201510.pdf
National Science Foundation, National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indi-
cators 2018 (NSB-2018-1). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181
/report
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Corwith, S. (2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness:
A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 37-55. doi:10.1177/0016986217738015
Patton, J. M. (1992). Assessment and identification of African-American learners with gifts and
talents. Exceptional Children, 59, 150-159. doi:10.1177/001440299205900208
Payne, A. (2010). Equitable access for underrepresented students in gifted education. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539772.pdf
Pekkarinen, T., Uusitalo, R., & Kerr, S. (2009). School tracking and intergenerational income
mobility: Evidence from the Finnish comprehensive school reform. Journal of Public
Economics, 93, 965-973. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.04.006
Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identifi-
cation of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly,
60, 159-171. doi:10.1177/0016986216643165
Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2012). Group-specific norms and teacher-rating scales: Implications
for underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 125-144. doi:10.1177/1932
202X12438717
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence
gap in K-12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531840.pdf
Plucker, J. A., Giancola, J., Healey, G., Arndt, D., & Wang, C. (2015). Equal talents, unequal
opportunities: A report card on state support for academically talented low-income stu-
dents. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
Reardon, S. F., & Owens, A. (2014). 60 years after Brown: Trends and consequences of
school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199-218. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc
-071913-043152
Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new cen-
tury. Exceptionality, 10, 67-75. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX1002_2
Riel, V., Parcel, T. L., Mickelson, R. A., & Smith, S. S. (2018). Do magnet and charter schools
exacerbate or ameliorate inequality? Sociology Compass, 12, e12617. doi:10.1111/soc4
.12617
Rothwell, J., & Massey, D. (2015). Geographic effects on intergenerational income mobility.
Economic Geography, 91, 83-106.
Scott, T. P., Toldson, H., & Lee, Y. H. (2010). Assessment of Advanced Placement participation
and university academic success in the first semester: Controlling for selected high school
academic abilities. Journal of College Admission, 208, 26-30. Retrieved from https://files
.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893892.pdf
Southworth, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2007). The interactive effects of race, gender and school
composition on college track placement. Social Forces, 86, 497-523. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/20430751
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being and acting
intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36, 148-155. doi:10.3102/0013189X07299881
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness

and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
Tate, W. (2001). Science education as a civil right: Urban schools and opportunity-to-learn con-
siderations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1015-1028. doi:10.1002/tea.1045
Thadani, V., Cook, M. S., Griffis, K., Wise, J. A., & Blakey, A. (2010). The possibilities and lim-
itations of curriculum-based science inquiry interventions for challenging the “pedagogy of
poverty.” Equity & Excellence in Education, 43, 21-37. doi:10.1080/10665680903408908
Theokas, C., & Saaris, R. (2013). Finding America’s missing AP and IB students. Retrieved
from https://edtrust.org/resource/finding-americas-missing-ap-and-ib-students/
Tyson, K. (Ed.). (2011). Integration interrupted: Tracking, Black students, and acting White
after Brown. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and
postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3),
243-270.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018a). City and town population totals: 2010-2017. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018b). Income & poverty data tables. Retrieved from https://www.census
.gov/topics/income-poverty/data/tables.2017.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Office for Civil Rights (Data Collection). Retrieved
from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Office for Civil Rights (Data collection). Available from
http://ocrdata.ed.gov/
Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2011). Critical, emancipatory, and pluralistic research for edu-
cation: A review of critical systems theory. Journal of Thought, 46(3/4), 63-77. Retrieved
from http://journalofthought.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/11watsonwatson.pdf
Watts, S., George, M., & Levey, D. (2015). Achieving broader impacts in the National Science
Foundation, Division of Environmental Biology. BioScience, 65, 397-407. doi:10.1093/
biosci/biv006
Wright, B. L., Ford, D. Y., & Young, J. L. (2017). Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence
and equity for underrepresented students of color in gifted education. Global Education
Review, 4(1), 45-60. Retrieved from http://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger
Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & DiIulio, J. J., Jr. (2007). Achievementrap: How America
is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503359.pdf
Yaluma, C. B., & Tyner, A. (2018). Is there a gifted gap? Gifted education in high-poverty
schools. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/publications/is-there-a-gifted-gap
Young, J. L., Ero-Tolliver, I., Young, J. R., & Ford, D. Y. (2017). Maximizing opportunities
to enroll in advanced high school science courses: Examining the scientific dispositions of
Black girls. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 13, 174-183. Retrieved
from https://www.learntechlib.org/j/ISSN-1946-2077/
About the Authors

Lenora M. Crabtree is an instructor at The University of North Carolina at Charlotte and a
doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction, Urban Education specialization. She possesses
a master’s degree in Biological Sciences (UNC Charlotte) and a Bachelor of Science in
Crabtree et al. 231
Molecular Biology (Vanderbilt University). A veteran high school Biology and Chemistry
teacher, her research interests include the use of critical pedagogies in science teaching and
learning and disproportionality in gifted education.
Sonyia C. Richardson is the undergraduate program director and clinical assistant professor in
the School of Social Work at The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She possesses a
Master of Social Work degree (The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and a Bachelor
of Arts in Psychology (UNC Charlotte). In addition, she is a doctoral student in the Curriculum
and Instruction, Urban Education specialization at UNC Charlotte. Her research interests
include the intersection of social work, urban education, and social justice.
Chance W. Lewis is the Carol Grotnes Belk Distinguished Professor of Urban Education at The
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has more than 100 publications including 70+
refereed journal articles. In addition, he is the executive director of the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte’s Urban Education Collaborative, which is publishing a new generation of
research on improving urban schools.

The Gifted Gap Stem Education and Economic Immobility

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gifted Gap Stem Education and Economic Immobility

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

829749

Lenora M. Crabtree1 , Sonyia C. Richardson1 ,

1The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, NC, USA

Inequities in Gifted Education Services

Gifted Education and Advanced Placement (AP) Courses

Access to Advanced Courses and Economic Mobility

other preenrollment factor including socioeconomic status (Flores et al., 2017).

Economic Immobility (Mobility)

Research Question 1: To what extent does socioeconomic disproportionality in

Percentage of school Percentage of total

Group n = 149,270 n = 859,035

of Education, 2018). The percentage of students attending high poverty schools in

Inequities in opportunities increase educational disparities and reduce the possibil-

In this setting, creativity and thematic approaches to curriculum are discouraged

contribute to the underenrollment of low-income students and students of color in

Gifted education disproportionality is not a new issue, nor is it unique to this

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness

About the Authors

You might also like