2014 Tomlinson Jarvis

540826
research-article2014
JEGXXX10.1177/0162353214540826Journal for the Education of the GiftedTomlinson and Jarvis
Article
Journal for the Education of the Gifted
2014, Vol. 37(3) 191–219
Case Studies of Success: © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Supporting Academic sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0162353214540826
Success for Students With jeg.sagepub.com
High Potential From Ethnic

Minority and Economically
Disadvantaged Backgrounds
Carol Ann Tomlinson1 and Jane M. Jarvis1
Abstract
The underrepresentation of ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged students in
gifted education must be understood in terms of broader school contexts and practices.
This qualitative study investigated how teachers and schools contributed to the
academic success of minority students of high potential from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds. Researchers collected observation, interview, and documentary data for
2 years at each of three case study sites with a reputation of effectiveness in supporting
academic success of minority students from low-income backgrounds. Data indicated
that (a) teachers and schools can positively affect achievement without being exemplary
in all facets of their practice, (b) teachers’ and schools’ definitions of success shape
students’ opportunities for achievement, (c) developing the capacities of high-potential
students necessitates supported access to challenging curriculum for all minority
students, and (d) educators who foster academic success in minority students support
students to comfortably navigate dual cultural worlds.
Keywords
gifted education, talent development, ethnic minority, poverty
The federal definition of giftedness embodies the assumption that high potential for
academic and other forms of achievement is present in individuals from all cultural
1University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
Corresponding Author:
Carol Ann Tomlinson, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, 405 Emmet Street South,
Charlottesville , VA 22904, USA.
Email: cat3y@virginia.edu
192 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 37(3)
and socioeconomic backgrounds (U.S. Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, 1993). Yet, the achievement gap between the White, upper-middle-class
majority and students from most ethnic minority groups persists, and the issue of
underrepresentation of cultural and socioeconomic diversity in advanced academic
courses and programs for the gifted remains seemingly intractable (Donovan & Cross,
2002). The achievement gap and the underrepresentation of minority gifted students
are not mutually exclusive concerns but operate within a common system in which
opportunities for the development of academic talent in minority students from eco-
nomically disadvantaged backgrounds are constrained by myriad interdependent fac-
tors. Understanding the roots and possible solutions to these related concerns may
require a broader perspective on contexts for talent development than is traditionally
offered within the gifted education literature.
The purpose of this qualitative case study research was to investigate effective
practices for fostering academic success in ethnic minority, economically disadvan-
taged students across three markedly different schools, with a particular focus on stu-
dents with high academic potential. Typically, research into disparities in achievement
and representation has focused on factors that contribute to the problem rather than
factors that contribute to academic success for these populations. In gifted education,
research into promising practices and programs in gifted education for minority and
economically disadvantaged students has tended to address more equitable identifica-
tion processes or the effectiveness of specific programs (Tomlinson, Ford, Reis,
Briggs, & Strickland, 2004). This study provides a different perspective on the issue
by exploring, in naturalistic school settings, the complex interplay between individual
characteristics and environmental factors associated with talent development for stu-
dents from ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In this way,
the aim was to identify factors associated with effective practice as they applied more
broadly than identification and gifted education programming.
The Achievement Gap, the Excellence Gap, and Minority

Underrepresentation
Recognizing and nurturing academic potential in ethnic minority and economically
disadvantaged students is not a concern singular to the field of gifted education, but
has roots in and implications for the broader field of education. Across the board, stu-
dents from African American, Latino, and Native American backgrounds average sig-
nificantly lower scores on a range of standardized achievement tests than do their
counterparts from the White majority and from some Asian American groups, and
continue to score well below national averages (Braun, Chapman, & Vezzu, 2010;
College Board, 2000; Ford & Harris, 1999; Weinstein, Gregory, & Strambler, 2004).
This achievement discrepancy is most pronounced in urban areas (Lewis, James,
Hancock, & Hill-Jackson, 2008), and is mirrored by disparities in other educational
outcomes such as low grades and high dropout rates (Denbo & Moore Beaulieu, 2002;
Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005) that are associated in turn with ongoing inequality in
future income levels, occupational opportunities, health, and a range of other social
Tomlinson and Jarvis 193
outcomes (Levine, 2005; McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Although membership in an

ethnic minority group clearly does not automatically imply economic disadvantage or
carry identical implications (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012), students with
a combination of low economic and ethnic minority statuses may be considered espe-
cially at risk of poor academic achievement, particularly subject to low teacher expec-
tations, and among those least likely to be identified for advanced academic classes
and gifted education services (Kitano, 2003; Swanson, 2006).
Inextricably related to the achievement gap is the well-documented underrepresen-
tation of minority and economically disadvantaged students in advanced academic
courses and programs for the gifted relative to their representation in the general popu-
lation (e.g., Ford, 1998; Worrell, 2003). Moreover, research by Plucker and colleagues
(Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010; Plucker, Hardesty, & Burroughs, 2012) has high-
lighted the significant and increasing “excellence gap,” which defines the disparity at
the highest levels of achievement between students from White, affluent backgrounds
and the top-performing students from minority and low-income backgrounds.
Many caution that there is no “silver bullet” explanation for the pervasiveness and
persistence of achievement discrepancies, but rather the issue can only be understood
and addressed from multiple theoretical perspectives (Murphy, 2009). Like the
achievement gap, Mary Frazier proposed that the issue of minority underrepresenta-
tion in gifted programs is complex and multifaceted and suggested that if it were “sim-
ply a matter of finding the right test, then this would not be a difficult problem to
solve” (Grantham, 2002, p. 50). Similarly, Burney and Beike (2008) noted that in
considering its constraining effect on high achievement, poverty must be considered
as more complex and pervasive than “a discrete, easily identifiable variable” (p. 171).
Among the theoretical perspectives commonly offered to understand the achievement
gap and minority underrepresentation in gifted programs are the deficit paradigm,
whereby discrepancies from dominant cultural norms are viewed as deficiencies that
are at the root of low achievement, and the discontinuity paradigm, whereby low
achievement is assumed to stem from the disconnect for many minority students
between the cultures of home and school (Lewis et al., 2008).
The Deficit Paradigm

The deficit paradigm is rooted in the outdated belief that intellectual and temperamen-
tal differences between racial groups are innate and unresponsive to educational inter-
vention, such that students from some groups are less likely to achieve at high levels
compared with their peers from the dominant cultural group. From this perspective,
“blame” for the achievement gap may be attributed to minority students and their
families, whose cultural practices, values, and characteristics are interpreted as deficits
thought to undermine educational success (Ford, Harris, Tyson, & Trotman, 2002).
Although most teachers of minority students would explicitly reject such beliefs, the
considerable body of research on differential teacher expectations for students from
minority ethnic backgrounds has suggested that the deficit paradigm remains alive and
dangerously well (see Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007, for a meta-analysis). This is despite
evidence from empirical research that interacting school-based factors such as quality
of education provided and differential treatment of students by race more effectively
account for the achievement gap than student-based factors such as social and cultural
capital and level of engagement (Oates, 2009). The deficit paradigm may contribute to
the achievement gap via multiple paths, including through low teacher expectations
for some groups that translate into low-level curriculum and instruction (Lynn, Bacon,
Totten, Bridges, & Jennings, 2010; McKown & Weinstein, 2008; Swanson, 2006) and
are ultimately internalized by students.
In the gifted education literature, the deficit paradigm has been touted as a “princi-
pal barrier” to equitable identification and support of minority students in advanced
programs (Ford et al., 2002, p. 53). For example, it is suggested that deficit thinking in
relation to African American students is reflected in an overreliance on identification
instruments that are known to be poor indicators of ability in this population, a misin-
terpretation of some common cultural characteristics as deficits (e.g., communalism
and the oral tradition), and the use of practices such as tracking and static ability
grouping that consistently result in the underrepresentation of minority students in
advanced tracks or courses (Center on English Learning and Achievement [CELA],
2003; Donovan & Cross, 2002). These approaches may stem from traditional views of
giftedness as a set of performances and behaviors that reflect dominant cultural values.
They may perpetuate the notion that minority students more rarely evidence gifted
potential and belong in lower academic tracks, and that the causes of low achievement
lie beyond the control of the teacher or the school (Briggs & Renzulli, 2009).
The Discontinuity Paradigm

The discontinuity paradigm highlights the tension for many minority students between
the sociocultural contexts in which they live and the dominant cultural values com-
municated through mainstream schooling (Lewis et al., 2008). According to this para-
digm, underachievement can be attributed to the failure of teachers and schools from
the dominant culture to offer culturally responsive curriculum and instruction that
acknowledges and values diverse perspectives and serves as a bridge between indi-
vidual students and academic content (Ford, Milner, & Moore, 2005; Ladson-Billings,
1992; Spillane, 2004). At the peer level, this discontinuity has been framed in African
American populations according to the well-documented phenomenon of “acting
White,” whereby students associate achievement-related behaviors with the dominant
White culture, perceiving the pursuit of academic success as synonymous with sacri-
ficing elements of one’s racial identity (Ogbu, 2004). The existence of these beliefs
was supported in a recent study of gifted African American middle and high school
students, the majority of whom equated “acting White” with being intelligent and
achieving in school, whereas “acting Black” was identified with lower intelligence,
low priority for academic work and achievement, and poor speech and behavior (Ford,
Grantham, & Whiting, 2008).
The discontinuity perspective has been central to discussions not only of identifica-
tion or selection but also the retention of minority students in Advanced Placement
(AP) and gifted education programs and students’ choice to participate (Ford, Whiting,
& Gilman, 2010; Moore et al., 2005). However, research by Diamond, Lewis, and
Gordon (2007) found that although high-achieving African American students in a
desegregated setting perceived their race as an important part of their identity and as
potentially limiting their educational opportunities, they were no more likely than
high-achieving White students to report disengagement from education, lack of striv-
ing for academic success, or negative peer pressure associated with high achievement.
High-achieving African American students in this study linked achievement difficul-
ties with a culture of low expectations from teachers and White peers rather than nega-
tive peer pressure from African American students. These and other contradictory
findings related to the “acting White” phenomenon indicate that further research is
needed across contexts and with more nuanced investigation of the multiple interact-
ing factors affecting outcomes for minority students.
Fostering Achievement in Minority Students of High

Potential
If low teacher expectations are associated with underachievement in minority stu-
dents, the reverse also holds true. Effective schools have been found to embrace and
promote a strong common mission and vision, fostered by focused school leaders, that
articulates high expectations for minority student success (Hale & Rollins, 2006;
Ladson-Billings, 1994; Riehl, 2000; Theoharis, 2010; Walker, 2000), the implementa-
tion of which influences teachers’ professional commitment and sense of efficacy
(Osterman, 2000; Riehl, 2000), willingness to reflect on their own practices rather than
blaming students for poor academic performance (Tatto, 1996), and tendency to tailor
instruction to students’ individual needs (Foley, Levinson, & Hurtig, 2001; Langer,
2000). High teacher expectations are also reflected in students’ perceptions of school
and feelings of belonging (Langer, 2000). On a related note, involving parents in the
life of the school and the education of their children rather than blaming parent atti-
tudes or family economic circumstances for poor performance has been shown to
increase positive parent perceptions of the school and to increase the level of trust
between parent and teacher (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Genuine efforts to involve
parents are also a hallmark of gifted education programs that support the successful
participation of culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse (CLED) students
(Briggs, Reis, & Sullivan, 2008).
Consistent with a mission of high expectations for student success, effective schools
for economically disadvantaged minority students typically provide support for many
students to access advanced learning opportunities, rather than offering classes that are
exclusively tracked, grouped, or otherwise divided along racial and/or economic lines
(CELA, 2003; Hilliard, 2003). However, it is important that students are not expected
to simply “sink or swim” in advanced classes or for teachers to assume that students
will display characteristics of giftedness without first being engaged in high-level,
challenging curriculum (Jarvis, 2009). A qualitative review of gifted education pro-
grams indicated that those most effective in identifying and serving CLED students
“front loaded” exposure to challenging curriculum as a precursor to identification and

program participation, and provided appropriate supports to help students achieve
(Briggs et al., 2008). A 3-year ethnographic study of the culture of high-ability, high-
achieving students from diverse backgrounds in an urban high school identified that
individual motivation, resilience, and the development of a strong belief in self were
fostered in the context of interactions with a network of high-achieving peers, access
to challenging courses and extracurricular activities, and support from family and sig-
nificant adults (Hébert & Reis, 1999). These students were able to maintain high
expectations for their own achievement, surround themselves with peers and adults
who held similar high expectations, and feel supported as they accessed challenging
curriculum.
Research Questions
Although we did not specifically examine the achievement gap or underrepresentation
of minority students in programs for the gifted, both issues and their associated theory
and research helped frame the study of factors that promote success among students
from economically disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds. Both areas are
concerned with barriers to high academic achievement and the recognition and nurtur-
ance of academic potential in students from diverse backgrounds. There has been
increasing acknowledgment in the literature that gifted potential can be latent, particu-
larly for students who have lacked access to engaging, high-quality curriculum and
instruction (Briggs & Renzulli, 2009); the question becomes how to support students
in a way that enables them to show evidence of that potential. The overarching ques-
tion addressed through this research is this: What are the factors at work in settings
that appear to successfully nurture academic talent and achievement in students from
minority, low-income backgrounds?
For the purposes of this study, the student population of interest included those
from minority ethnic groups, predominantly those from African American back-
grounds and a smaller number of Latino students, who were also considered economi-
cally disadvantaged as broadly defined by the receipt of free or reduced lunch and/or
their attendance at a school in a neighborhood characterized by widespread economic
depression. It should be noted that the term minority is used in some instances to refer
to a group of students who do not constitute a numerical minority in a particular set-
ting. For example, at the Flagstaff School, African American students represented a
clear majority. However, as the study included participants from a number of ethnic
groups whose proportional representation varied between sites, the term minority is
used in a sociological sense and to establish consistency with previous literature.
The focus was on groups of students who were not formally identified as gifted but
who could be considered to have high potential for academic achievement on the basis
of teacher reports or demonstrated academic success when exposed to challenging
curriculum. The purpose of this deliberately broad definition of high academic poten-
tial was to be as inclusive as possible in considering the phenomenon of talent devel-
opment in settings beyond formal programs for the gifted. Of particular interest were
the characteristics and behaviors of teachers who effectively recognized and took steps
to nurture potential in these students, the nature of the classrooms they created, and the
experiences of students in these classrooms.
Method
This research used a multiple case study design. A qualitative case study approach is
particularly suited to the in-depth investigation of phenomena in naturalistic settings
where inquiry is guided by questions of “how?” and “why?” (Yin, 1994). In the class-
room and school sites selected for this study, multiple, interacting variables were
potentially important in explaining the processes and contexts of effective talent
development, and a case study approach allowed for flexibility in examining different
aspects of this topic, incorporating multiple perspectives, and allowing new areas of
focus related to the phenomenon of interest to emerge over time in response to chang-
ing conditions of the study. The design of this research accords with the definition of
an instrumental case study proposed by Stake (1995), in that it sought to “provide
insight into a specific issue, or redraw a generalization” (p. 44). In this case, the pur-
pose was to develop deep understanding of specific cases of teachers working to pro-
mote the academic success of students with high potential from minority, economically
disadvantaged backgrounds, and to situate that work within a broader framework of
relevant contextual factors. The multiple case study design allowed for the exploration
of common factors that appeared to characterize this work across diverse educational
environments.
Selection of Sites and Participants

This study was conducted in three schools in the United States assigned the pseud-
onyms of Sunnydale High School, Flagstaff School, and Lionel Elementary School. A
strategy of purposive sampling was used to gain maximum insight from cases that
appeared to represent the criterion of success in talent development with students from
the target population (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The selection of three schools in differ-
ent locations and serving different student populations was intended to facilitate the
investigation of common patterns across diverse cases. Each of the three research sites
was initially recommended to the principal investigator by veteran educators and uni-
versity faculty with considerable experience and expertise working with schools serv-
ing students from minority, economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In the case of
Sunnydale, the initial consideration for inclusion was also informed by the school’s
involvement in the national Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) pro-
gram, which offers personal and academic support to middle and high school stu-
dents—largely those from low socioeconomic and/or minority backgrounds—who
possess the potential for achievement in advanced classes but who have been over-
looked using conventional measures of achievement (see http://www.avid.org for
more information). Based on these initial recommendations, the principal investigator
researched each school’s student achievement record and demographic variables and
then conducted a series of site visits to further explore the schools’ suitability for inclu-
sion in the study. The unit of analysis in this study varied across sites based on the
nature of the site and access to teachers and classrooms. In each instance, however, the
focus was on teachers’ thinking, planning, and classroom practice in relation to talent
development in minority, economically disadvantaged students.
Sunnydale High School. Sunnydale is a public high school located in a college town in
the Southeastern United States, in a nationally high-performing district comprising 14
schools serving more than 10,000 students. At the time of the study, approximately
1,400 students were enrolled at Sunnydale in Grades 9 to 12, consisting of 69% White
students, 16% African American, 3% Latino, and 12% Asian American or other eth-
nicities. Of the 129 staff, approximately 80% were White, 16% were African Ameri-
can, and 4% were represented by other ethnicities. Sunnydale’s student population
represented greater ethnic and socioeconomic diversity than was present in the pre-
dominantly White, upper-middle-class community in which it was located.
In the 3 years preceding data collection at Sunnydale, the percentage of African
American students scoring above the national median on the Metropolitan Achievement
Test had increased from 37% to 48%, which reflected greater gains than White, Asian
American, or Latino students. During these 3 years, the school had developed and
begun to implement a multifaceted plan to close the achievement gap between its
White and minority students. One component of the plan was to support minority stu-
dents with perceived high potential to enroll and succeed in AP classes. Enrollment in
AP classes was the school’s stated approach to addressing the needs of gifted and
advanced learners, and the national AVID program had been adopted by the school
specifically in an effort to support students from minority, economically disadvan-
taged backgrounds to succeed in these classes. The program provided academic sup-
port, SAT tutoring, college planning, and study skills training. Students selected for
AVID had demonstrated strong academic potential as reflected in at least average aca-
demic grades and/or through teacher reports and a stated desire to attend a 4-year
college.
At the Sunnydale site, three teachers affiliated with, the AVID program comprised
the predominant unit of analysis; these teachers evidenced the skill and will necessary
to support the academic success of students who were entering advanced-level classes
for the first time. In this setting, “success” with the target population was represented
by increasing numbers of students from low-income and minority backgrounds elect-
ing to take advanced classes for the first time, and working productively and effec-
tively as they engaged with those advanced opportunities. It became evident that the
school faculty did not adhere to a common philosophy or parallel practices regarding
the student population of interest, and thus it was most useful to examine the three
classrooms in which teachers, working largely as “soloists,” enabled these students to
succeed at new levels of challenge. Within the AVID classes that were observed, the
ethnic breakdown was approximately 50% African American and 50% White, with
virtually all students qualifying for free or reduced lunch based on economic need.
Eleven African American AVID students were observed in classes and invited to par-
ticipate in focus groups over the course of the study.
Flagstaff School. Flagstaff, located in a heavily populated, economically depressed

region of the Mid-Atlantic United States, is a prekindergarten through eighth-grade
school with approximately 800 students at the time of the study. Although a public
school, Flagstaff receives additional support from a private foundation, which facili-
tates a longer school day and year, the purchase of further resources, and tennis facili-
ties. At the time of data collection, more than 95% of students at Flagstaff were African
American, virtually all of whom qualified for free or reduced lunch, and who were also
provided daily breakfast by the school. The majority of staff members were also Afri-
can American.
Despite its economically disadvantaged population, the Flagstaff School was
remarkable for its consistently high pass rates on state-mandated standardized tests—
scores that routinely far outstripped the performance of African American students in
other public schools in the district and that matched or exceeded the pass rates of the
district as a whole. Flagstaff had no formal identification processes or programs for
academically gifted students or those considered to have high academic potential; in
fact, students performing in the top quartile on state-standardized tests were encour-
aged to attend the district’s gifted magnet school. Because students were not formally
identified as gifted, signs of high academic potential were recognized and described
very broadly throughout the research by teachers and observers, such as by noting
those students who demonstrated high levels of intellectual curiosity, academic moti-
vation, and performance during classes. Flagstaff was considered to represent “suc-
cess” with the target population in that students from highly disadvantaged backgrounds
consistently lived up to high teacher expectations for academic achievement and per-
formed on standardized tests at significantly higher levels than might be predicted
from demographic variables alone. As a result, the vast majority of students were
found to “buy into” school by completing homework, participating in meaningful
ways, and developing high aspirations for high school and college.
At Flagstaff, the predominant unit of analysis was the school, because it became
evident that the staff operated from a common philosophy and agreed-upon set of
practices to support the success of low-economic minority students; thus, it was most
informative in this case to examine the approach at the school level with examples
from various facets of the school.
Lionel Elementary School. Lionel is an elementary school located in a sprawling metro-

politan area in the northern Mid-Atlantic region of the United States with approxi-
mately 350 students in prekindergarten through sixth grade at the time of the study.
Lionel students were approximately 51% Hispanic, 33% African American, and 16%
Caucasian and “Other,” with many in the latter group being second language learners
from Asia and Africa. Lionel is in a school district that is largely affluent and widely
recognized for high achievement. However, the school was neither affluent nor high
scoring. More than half of its students qualified for free or reduced lunch and the
school received Title I funding. Most of its scores on state-mandated standardized tests
were below benchmark levels specified for competence. Nevertheless, the school was
initially recommended for inclusion in the study based on its introduction of some
promising efforts to develop a concerted, schoolwide approach to developing potential

in minority students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. These efforts
included supplemental programs for English speakers of other languages (ESOL); a
schoolwide program led by the school reading teacher to address diverse readiness
levels through flexible, between-class grouping and increased instructional time; and
resource assistance for students with identified special educational needs, including
gifted and talented students. The resource assistance followed a “push-in” model
whereby school and district specialists visited classrooms to facilitate lessons and col-
laborate with classroom teachers.
Lionel was initially considered to represent “success” with the population of inter-
est based on its deliberate investment of resources into programs designed to support
high achievement for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, access to
the site became increasingly difficult as the study progressed and a new principal
assumed leadership of the school. As data collection continued, a lack of common
philosophy and set of practices among its mostly veteran teaching staff became evi-
dent and early promising efforts diminished. It became increasingly difficult to find
clear examples of the school’s success with the target population. For that reason—
quite different from the Flagstaff rationale—it made sense to establish the school as
the unit of analysis and to seek data from as wide a variety of personnel and class-
rooms as possible.
Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection for the study took place over a period of 4 years, and the design allowed
for data from each site to inform the framing of questions for subsequent sites. Data
were collected and analyzed for Sunnydale during Years 1 and 2, for Flagstaff during
Years 2 and 3, and for Lionel in Years 3 and 4. Researchers spent a total of approxi-
mately 80 hr at each site conducting observations, focus groups, and interviews. This
prolonged time in the field, which enabled researchers to reach the point of data satu-
ration, was a key factor in establishing the credibility of the findings.
The principal investigator was a university professor with extensive school and
university teaching experience and a record of qualitative research related to the edu-
cation of diverse students. Other on-site researchers were experienced educators hold-
ing advanced degrees in education and familiarity with qualitative methodology. Data
collection at each site involved collaboration between at least two researchers, and the
research team met regularly with the principal investigator to examine data, discuss
emerging patterns, and refine questions and procedures for subsequent data collection.
The credentials of the researchers and the collaboration between on-site researchers
and the larger research team at different stages of data collection and analysis helped
establish the credibility and confirmability of findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Data included observation guided by semistructured protocols, semistructured
interviews with teachers and administrators, focus group interviews with students, and
review of documents such as school publications, student achievement data, lesson
plans, and student work samples. Teachers’ instructional approaches, interactions with
students, efforts to establish a supportive classroom environment, references to the

school mission and vision, communication of expectations for achievement, and
efforts to acknowledge and address the needs of students who showed signs of high
potential were among the specific areas of interest during the observations. Each
researcher kept extensive observation notes and a reflexive journal, and these became
part of each case record. All individual and focus group interviews were recorded and
later transcribed. Again, semistructured interview protocols were initially based on
significant factors suggested by the review of research literature, and these were
expanded and refined as informed by ongoing data collection. The process of collect-
ing data from multiple sources and in multiple forms allowed for triangulation to
ensure the trustworthiness of findings.
During and after data collection, researchers constructed a case record by organiz-
ing, classifying, and editing raw data and developing initial categories and codes for
analysis. Researchers not involved in data collection coded and recoded the data per-
taining to each site, and identified meaningful patterns and themes. These researchers
developed initial case study narratives reflecting key themes, for review by on-site
researchers. The principal investigator also reviewed each case record and narrative,
developed individual case reports, and wrote the cross-case analysis. This process of
coding, recoding, and checking among the research team and the extensive case
records that could serve as an audit trail were essential to establishing the trustworthi-
ness of the findings.
Within the case studies, quotes and other data have been assigned codes according
to whether the source is an observation (O), an interview (I), or a researcher note (N).
Following the code are the initials of the participant’s assigned pseudonym. Some
participants were interviewed on more than one occasion and an “O,” “I,” or “N” fol-
lowed by a number indicates the interview from which the quote was sourced. This
allows the case study narrative to flow while at the same time signaling that the quote
comes directly from an interview, an observation, or reflective notes.
Results
Although our intention in this research was to study three different sites in which
teachers were effective in supporting the academic success of students from minority,
economically disadvantaged backgrounds, including those with high academic poten-
tial, prolonged time in the field indicated that only two sites fit this profile. Lionel
Elementary had a reputation for success that had been earned under the leadership of
a strong principal prior to the study, and preliminary site visits during Year 1 were
promising. However, through the process of transition to a new principal in Year 2, it
evolved that the school’s previously shared vision for its diverse learners was not sus-
tained and that many of the purported effective practices were not deeply embedded,
consistent ways of working across classrooms. The contrast between the two success-
ful sites and the less successful one on a range of factors proved informative in inter-
preting the data and developing an understanding of key themes, as presented in the
following thematic analysis.
A Shared Vision for Student Success

A key factor in understanding the approach of each school related to its vision for
student success. At Flagstaff most palpably, staff shared a coherent, articulated vision
for student success, which was enacted through a schoolwide approach to every aspect
of teaching and programming for the predominantly African American, economically
disadvantaged student body. The vision incorporated both good character and high
student achievement and was communicated through a common language, the nature
of student–teacher interactions, school documents, and the banners and slogans dis-
played liberally around school buildings with messages such as, “I must learn to earn,”
and “I am someone special” (OS1, p. 1). These slogans related to the school’s central
character education program, which emphasized a conception of success that went
beyond school achievement to embody good citizenship. As one teacher explained:
I tell students that we are all intelligent and we are all going somewhere. We have a goal.
And I think it’s very important . . . that we’re all working towards something. And I’m not
pushing [standardized] tests. I’m thinking long term, graduate high school, go to college,
be a productive, responsible citizen . . . I even had that outside my room . . . I said, “I
come down here so that I can help you be responsible, productive citizens. That’s why
I’m here.” And I’m serious about that. (IT2, p. 161)
Others expressed a similar commitment to preparing students for lifelong citizen-

ship, and the schoolwide focus on character education was borne out in students’
behavior and descriptions of the value of their schooling. Students indicated in focus
groups that the few who do not behave well represent a distraction to others and that it
would be “wise to check their behavior” (e.g., IS1, p. 139), whereas another advised
that “teachers should keep up their good behavior. That way we can follow them and
have good role models” (IS1, p. 138). Expectations for behavior and achievement
were embedded in an education contract signed by all parents at enrollment, which
stipulated that the student must maintain a C+ or higher average, stay drug and crime
free, and not become pregnant or father a child. The contract also referred to appropri-
ate attitudes and behaviors of parents, including “discuss what was learned at school
each day” and “send my child to school on time each day (good attendance is crucial
to my child’s success in school).”
Together with strong character development, expectations for high academic
achievement were integral to the schoolwide vision and consistently reinforced. Rule
10 on the list posted in every classroom stated simply, “I will achieve” (OD12, p. 202).
A language of achievement was spoken by teachers, students, and administrators. One
researcher noted after a meeting with administrators:
[The principal] and [a foundation administrator] believe that the key to success is the
appropriate belief system. They acknowledge that many people—Black and White—do
not believe these children can learn. They feel that this commitment to achievement is
necessary to weather the issues of a social nature at the school. (IA2, p. 185)
It was clear from interviews that the great majority of teachers, most of whom were
African American, shared this belief in students’ capacity to achieve and were commit-
ted to the Flagstaff model; this was reinforced in daily classroom interactions. When
one teacher was complimented on her dress by a student, she used the opportunity to
share with the class that, as a child, her family was poor and could not afford nice
things, but through her own hard work in school she was able to secure a well-paying
job and earn money to spend on nice clothes. She went on to remind students that
through their hard work they would be able to have nice things as adults (ON8, p. 221).
There were many examples of teachers explicitly and implicitly sharing with students
the belief that they could and were expected to succeed at school and beyond, and
students themselves expressed the wish that all students would be studious and take
their work seriously (IS2, p. 170).
At Sunnydale, high expectations and commitment to student success were also evi-
dent, but primarily in individual teachers’ approaches rather than as a shared, consis-
tent, schoolwide vision fostered by strong leadership. The target AVID students
recognized high expectations and belief in their capacity to achieve as exceptional to
the three teachers who became the focus of the study. One student described her
teacher in the following terms:
[Ms. Ladd] thinks above the realm for us. Like if we have one of her classes, like I have
Bio, well I can’t say that I’ve done slum work, but if we were to do slum work, she would
notice that and she would want more from us . . . we know not to do slum work and so we
don’t do it. And that will help us in college. (IL2, p. 4)
This was typical of student references to teachers’ high standards and tendency to
follow through if they produced poor-quality work. The AVID coordinator, Mr. Steiner,
expected his students to achieve success in advanced coursework, but his vision for
student success went beyond this; he was committed to helping students see them-
selves as successful, aspire to attend college, and navigate the college application pro-
cess. His approach involved providing maximum support for students to develop the
skills required to succeed, and then holding them accountable for their own efforts and
outcomes:
I’m not going to tell the kids that they are doing a great job if they’re not doing a great
job. And I think to some degree they appreciate that. They want to know when they are
messing up or not messing up. And that goes into how you treat African Americans too.
Some teachers . . . are so careful with it. They baby them or not grade them at the same
standard and give them an easier grade and that’s just as destructive as failing everybody
. . . Nobody should kid themselves that the kids don’t recognize it. They recognize it from
the get go and they will tell me about it all the time. (IKS3, p. 16)
The AVID students perceived a link between their teachers’ high standards and their
own drive to achieve. As one student simply stated, “It matters to do well in school
because of Mr. Steiner’s expectations” (AI, p. 2).
At Sunnydale, the teachers’ sense of purpose and vision for talent development
emerged as more personal than universal. Despite stated district-level commitment to
supporting the academic success of economically disadvantaged and minority stu-
dents—and to a lesser degree a school-level acknowledgment of the need—there was
no chorus of intent to ensure support across the faculty. School structures such as static
grouping of students based on perceived ability or potential (tracking) spoke of com-
fort with the status quo, and the three teachers who comprised the unit of study did not
enjoy the collegial support system that was a hallmark of Flagstaff. The coordinator
was something of an exception, in that he was part of a strong district-wide AVID
team. In addressing the needs of economically disadvantaged minority students,
Sunnydale could be considered a “loosely coupled” organization with individual
examples of strong commitment to student success.
At Lionel, the school mission statement espoused that, “irrespective of cultural,
economic, social, and learning differences, every child can learn” (N, p. 60). However,
data from the period of transition between principals suggested a very general sense of
caring for and wanting to support students rather than a shared, clearly articulated
vision and plan for doing so in practice. Attempts to build coherent, schoolwide
approaches, such as through a consistent reading program targeted toward students’
readiness, gradually lost momentum, and there was little evidence of a shared lan-
guage and vision for developing academic success in minority students from economi-
cally disadvantaged backgrounds or any students with high potential. Instead, teachers
tended to describe their commitment in very general positive terms with little refer-
ence to specific strategies or practices:
I believe so much in the fact that . . . we have so many children who have so much
potential that is never tapped. And I do what I do because I love seeing children succeed.
I love seeing them proud of themselves. I love to see them believe in themselves. (IT1, p.
55)
This was somewhat typical of the kind of generic sentiments or strategies refer-
enced by staff, who often cited the very caring environment of the school. The contrast
with Flagstaff especially and Sunnydale to a lesser extent was evident and reinforced
the critical importance of a clear, common purpose toward which school leaders and
teachers could direct and evaluate their specific efforts.
Genuine Efforts to Understand and Reach Students

Teachers who emerged as most effective in fostering academic growth in minority
students with high potential spoke of genuine efforts to understand their students’
experiences and perspectives, including cultural and family experiences, and to use
that knowledge to help students better connect with academic content and expecta-
tions. Throughout, the data were examples of teachers making efforts to find out about
students’ lives outside of school, to make learning experiences more relevant to stu-
dents’ experiences, to demonstrate respect for students’ cultural identities, and to help
students recognize and navigate the “dual worlds” of their home and school cultures.
Although some went further than others in achieving this understanding, the effort was
acknowledged by students and appeared critical to students’ own commitment to
engage and achieve.
At Flagstaff, staff communicated a deep sensitivity to the complexity of students’
home experiences in the way they developed programs, designed learning experi-
ences, and established environments for learning. One teacher described how “Every
day I have [students] write in their journals, simply because they need structure . . . it
gives them a sense of security. Think about the environment they are living in” (ID2,
p. 158). Another explained,
There’s no back-up plan for these kids. Either you use your brain and get ahead and get
an education, or you succumb to the perils of your society, of your culture. I mean that’s
it. There are no other options. (IT2, p. 162)
Teachers at Sunnydale also referred to their AVID students’ home backgrounds and
made deliberate efforts to get to know their students as individuals. Ms. Merle
described making a point to “be aware of the whole student, not just judging the per-
son’s academic success. I mean, knowing other things that the kids like, what’s going
on, extracurricular activities at the school, work, family” (IIM2, p. 13). She distributed
an interest inventory early in the year to “find out what students are into” and encour-
aged students to “just come by” out of class time, both for academic support and to
“[m]ake an effort so that we can have a relationship sooner rather than later” (IIM3, p.
19). Ms. Merle also described becoming gradually more conscious throughout the year
of the challenges faced by some of the AVID students, such as lack of access to basic
school materials, and the need for her male African American students in particular to
negotiate an identity that would allow them to achieve in school without feeling pres-
sure to “act White” (IIM3, p. 6). Ms. Ladd’s consciousness of her students’ cultural
backgrounds appeared more developed than Ms. Merle’s, and a student referred to her
as one of the “Blackest teachers in the school” (OBL1, p. 1). She made a point of regu-
larly attending extracurricular activities with mostly minority students, which she felt
were traditionally not well attended:
I am faithful about going to the Unity Dinners and [events] like that. If I can get to no
other events, if the choice is the Sports Banquet or the Unity Dinner, I’ll go the dinner
because I think it is really important for parents and kids to see that you are there and you
are supporting them and you care. That’s a message, it’s a visual message, and that you
had a good time. (IBL2, p. 14)
In explaining his philosophy, Mr. Steiner explained that, “The key to any teaching
is knowing the kids” (IKS3, p. 7):
There are teachers who don’t know what kids play what sports or which kids are in drama
and they don’t ask, “How was the game?” or “How was the play?” . . . If you don’t do
that, you are never going to get anywhere with these kids. (IKS1, p. 10)
Steiner described his process at the beginning of the year for systematically memo-
rizing information about each student, their families, parent names, siblings, occupa-
tions, and financial circumstances. This knowledge enabled him to follow up with
families and to ensure individual students did not fall behind, and also empowered
parents to support their children’s success. As one student explained,
Well, it was weird because when I first got into AVID, I didn’t like [Mr. Steiner] because
he knew everything. And my mother, she was like, “How was your day?” and I’m like,
“Fine.” She didn’t [not] know anything that went on. She knew everything so I couldn’t
really get away from her . . . [Mr. Steiner] was pushing me to do it for myself. (IMI, p.
10)
Students shared stories of how Mr. Steiner would drop into their other classes to
check on them “and to make sure you were paying attention, to make sure you had
your homework done. He stayed in close contact with teachers” (IR2, p. 5). Mr.
Steiner’s approach to student support was highly personalized:
A shotgun blast to the whole class about how you need to apply [for scholarships] isn’t
the same thing as one-on-one saying, “You’ve got to do this and you’ve got to do that.
And here’s your scholarship form, and you need to apply and bring it to me by Friday and
I’ll look at the draft.” (IKS3, pp. 4–5)
At both Sunnydale and Flagstaff, there were multiple examples of teachers going
beyond their teaching role to support students before and after class, to take time to get
to know them and their families, to monitor their progress, and to attend extracurricu-
lar activities in which they were involved. In part, these efforts appeared to stem from
a sense of urgency about ensuring that students were successful, given the odds that
were stacked against them. The strong belief in students and high expectations for
achievement, effort, and behavior discussed in the previous section were supported
within classroom and school cultures of genuine caring. Mrs. Deronda, a Flagstaff
teacher, expressed this sense of caring to her class one morning: “I [drive past] eight
other elementary schools before I get here,” she said. “I want to be here with you. I
want you to become educated, responsible, and productive students” (OD8, p. 221). In
a kindergarten classroom at the same school, a student arrived late one morning and
his teacher immediately asked whether he had had breakfast and arranged for him to
get something to eat (OT47, p. 113).
Students at both schools expressed awareness that their teachers knew and cared
about them as individuals and had their best interests at heart. A Flagstaff student
explained that his teacher had “done a lot of things for me personally, and she’s kind.
She has a good personality and she tries her best to help me with the things I need”
(IS2, p. 172). The case of a particular third-grade student, Shimina, illustrated how
both high expectations and nurturing worked hand-in-hand at Flagstaff. A researcher
noted,
Shortly after winter break, the teacher received a private note from Shimina. The young
girl thanked the teacher for “being tough” and for caring about her. She explained that she
too wanted to be a teacher, just like Mrs. Deronda. (N5, p. 216)
Students noted that their teachers worked to create an atmosphere of respect and
fairness in the classroom, fostering a sense of community and acceptance. A Sunnydale
student explained that her teacher fostered trust and encouraged students to share their
ideas with her policy of “anything that comes out, stays in the room” (IIM2, p. 13):
Like when we’re in the class, it’s like her class may be open to people. Like I was this
kind of shy person, whatever. But now I can stand up, ask questions, and not be too shy.
I mean, she just brings warmth to the classroom. She doesn’t make you feel bad in any
kind of way. (IS, p. 11)
Ms. Ladd deliberately sought to encourage student sharing, noting that, “I think
they like that they are accepted, that whatever they say—it may not be appropriate for
the moment or right—but [they] have a right to say it” (IBL2, p. 15). Students appreci-
ated this atmosphere of acceptance:
Well, the way I see it, [Ms. Ladd] doesn’t treat anybody differently, and sometimes at the
school I see people treating others differently, like by their race or something like that . . .
I think she sees everyone as an individual, not the color of his or her skin, not the height,
the weight, or anything like that . . . and that really helps. (IIM2, p. 6)
Interestingly, some students felt that their teachers did treat minority students dif-
ferently, but did so in subtle ways that were about ensuring they were participating and
making progress in their advanced classes, which was reflected in one student’s com-
ment that “I think [my teacher] kind of focuses on [the AVID students] so we don’t get
distracted” (IS2, p. 12). Another said,
Like when we’re doing things in the classroom like where . . . everyone has to participate,
if the minorities in the class are not participating, [the teacher] will get them involved . . .
other teachers, they won’t do that. (IIM2, pp. 6-7)
At Lionel, teachers early in the study referred to their school as a “very caring
place,” and this was somewhat apparent in the original principal’s approach to the
morning routine; observers noted that she was consistently visible and engaged, greet-
ing students in the hallway each morning, giving them “high fives” and promoting a
welcoming atmosphere for students and visitors. Teachers were more likely to arrive
to school early and engage with their students informally before classes. As the study
continued, it became more difficult to find evidence of specific ways in which this
focus on caring was deliberately fostered. For example, teachers spoke about the car-
ing that underscored their classroom interactions with students, but observers noted a
heavy focus on teacher-directed instruction, especially in the upper grades; this
included little interaction with students and teachers often sat behind their desk
throughout a lesson. Students’ comments referred generally to teachers being “help-

ful,” but were not as focused on the personal lives of students or as reflective of emo-
tion as those from the other schools, and teachers did not describe their efforts to
understand and reach minority students in the same detail as those from the other sites.
It was evident through the data across sites that teachers’ success with minority and
economically disadvantaged students was grounded in their efforts to genuinely under-
stand and appreciate their students’ cultural experiences and perspectives; to get to
know them as individuals; to foster open, respectful environments for learning; and to
communicate a sense of caring. Even where some of these efforts lacked deep cultural
understanding, students appeared to recognize and appreciate the effort and to feel
motivated to engage, participate, and achieve.
The Nature of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

There were discernible differences between the three sites in their approaches to cur-
riculum, instruction, and assessment. In this realm, Sunnydale teachers demonstrated
most evidence of rich, high-level, conceptually based curriculum of a kind most likely
to engage and challenge students of high potential. Like other aspects of their practice,
Flagstaff teachers demonstrated a highly consistent, coordinated approach across
classrooms, but although expectations were high for student achievement, this tended
to be defined in terms of performance on state-standardized tests, and the curriculum
was heavily focused on minimum state benchmarks. At Lionel, there were some efforts
to develop consistent approaches to planning and teaching across the school, but in
practice these efforts became somewhat diffuse. Although all three schools showed
room for improvement in some aspects of their curriculum, instruction, and assess-
ment, there were elements of practice that appeared to be effective in engaging and
encouraging high-level achievement in students from minority and economically dis-
advantaged backgrounds.
Teachers at both Flagstaff and Sunnydale explained how they tried to make the cur-
riculum and instruction as relevant as possible to minority students’ own experiences,
which was part of their effort to create an inclusive classroom community and to
engage students with important content:
My teaching approach has changed since coming to Flagstaff, because I think in the
beginning I wanted to cover content. And now I want to create understanding and
relevance in what I teach . . . many times when I’m planning my lessons I say, “How can
I relate this to something the kids can relate to in their own lives?” Because unfortunately
these kids have limited background experiences. (IT2, p. 157)
At Sunnydale, Ms. Merle felt that “the material matters” and should have relevance
for the students (IIM2, p. 13). She suggested that “African American literature is a
powerful route” to engage students in key concepts (IIM2, p. 19). One of her students
explained that English is her favorite class “because [my teacher] teaches about rac-
ism, sexism, drugs, alcohol. We read a lot” (IM, p. 3). Another explained that they read
a lot of books, often controversial, but “it was good and I felt like, I mean a majority
of it was like hatred, power hungry, sex, religion, so those were things . . . teenagers
probably need to hear about to get engaged” (IS2, p. 13). Ms. Ladd similarly felt that
choosing the right material was critical to engaging students, and she sought to offer
topics of interest. However, she was adamant that African American issues and
resources are important for all students to engage with:
I’ve always felt that when they first started having those discussions in the school system,
my kids were still in the school system. They’d talk about how African American children
need to have Black images, and I said, “And so do my children.” (IBL2, p. 11)
Mr. Steiner had a keen sense of how to capture students’ interest and make choices
that would encourage students to think and work at high levels of engagement, and he
was willing to take risks to achieve this aim:
All they say in AVID training is you need to get them interested in issues and have them
learn how to talk about issues and things like that. So what better issue in a class that’s
50/50 [minority/White] than [race]? And it makes for some great talk and writing. By far,
though, American History X is the best thing I’ve ever shown. But I don’t think in a lot of
public schools you’d be able to show that. (IKS3, p. 2)
Students appreciated these efforts to engage them in interesting texts and issues.
One noted that “We watched the movie, American History X, and we talked about
issues from that. That movie was sad. I had a lot of emotions going about feelings we
had. And that was good” (IR2, p. 7). Most of the target students at Sunnydale described
how their teachers would engage them in interesting, relevant discussions about what
they were studying, and felt that their teachers had strong content knowledge. A stu-
dent explained how she felt in English classes:
One day we’ll do a project or something . . . it doesn’t have to do with the English book.
Then she as a teacher will try to relate it to literature and things like that . . . You’re not
aware that you are learning, but you are actually learning. Like something that you’ve
done, she can convert it, literature and authors and things like that. I just feel like she
knows what she’s doing. (IM2, p. 11)
Other students gave examples of how teachers used the content as a starting point
for making connections or sharing related stories. There was also evidence of teachers
attempting to create learning environments that they believed African American stu-
dents would find comfortable. Mr. Steiner explained the way he had considered the
learning environment in terms of the differences between predominantly Black and
White churches:
I think that’s where my classroom is pretty successful with African American students,
because there’s a lot of talking back and forth, whereas in a White church, you’re just
supposed to sit. Nobody sings out of line. Nobody will say, “Jesus” out of line. But in a
Black church, it’s different. And I think we make the parallel with some of the classrooms
that kids have to sit in. For example, [another teacher] sits there and lectures for the entire
57 minutes with no feedback, no nothing. That’s bad teaching, but it’s especially bad
teaching for African American students. And that’s a real difficult statement to make,
because that can be construed as, “Well, African American students need a little jazz
combo in the background to help them learn.” Some people will take it like that, but it’s
not true. You have to get the kids going back and forth, and I think that’s probably the
biggest choice I make that affects the classroom dynamic. (IKS3, pp. 3-4)
While considering cultural influences, teachers recognized that African American

students were also individuals and varied in their needs, interests, and learning prefer-
ences. One teacher noted that although African American students often prefer to work
collaboratively, this is not the case for every student. Ms. Ladd also described her shift
toward more differentiated instruction, noting that, “I thought you could just treat all
kids the same and they’d succeed, but that’s just not true” (IBL2, p. 18). It was evident
that the AVID students were at the forefront of teachers’ thinking as they planned cur-
riculum and selected resources.
On the instructional side, students consistently commented on the range of strate-
gies their teachers used, and felt that this distinguished their AVID teachers from oth-
ers in the school. Beyond guided class discussion, instructional strategies included
small-group work and regular student choice in texts and project topics. Some students
commented on the regular quizzes used by teachers to ensure that students kept pace.
It was clear that students appreciated the chance to make choices and be exposed to
different ways of working. One commented of Mr. Steiner, “He makes things interest-
ing. We do no two things the same two days in a row. He teaches for understanding. In
other classes, it’s like you are a factory worker in a daggone assembly line” (IA, p. 3).
It was evident that all three target teachers were extraordinary in the eyes of the stu-
dents. Interestingly, the observers consistently noted that the teachers were good and
highly committed but did not appear exceptional or remarkable in their approaches.
However, after the observers followed the AVID students through their school day,
they became aware that these students were unaccustomed to good teaching. Few
other teachers made an effort to engage them or to know them as individuals.
Expectations were low and discussion, where it did occur, was pitched at a low level.
There was little evidence of effective teaching beyond the classrooms of the AVID
teachers.
At Flagstaff, the nature of curriculum and instruction was much more structured,
with a heavy focus on drill and routine. Teachers used the language of state standards
in their instruction and referred consistently to mandated state tests; many even had
large copies of individual standards displayed in their classrooms, and daily objectives
written on the board in each classroom also used the language of standards. There was
an explicit focus on test-taking skills, and activities and assessments often emphasized
factual recall of standards-based content (OT11, p. 41). The majority of instruction
followed a “stand and deliver” model, particularly during the beginning of each lesson
as the teacher directed the learning process from the front of the classroom (N2, p.
188). One observer noted that “the students are thoroughly versed in the routines of the
classroom, and the designated helpers automatically perform their chores to keep
things running smoothly” (OT51, p. 131). This almost military precision was deliber-
ately calculated to provide students with a sense of structure and predictability, which
several teachers noted was lacking in students’ home lives. Students themselves
espoused the benefits of classroom routines for their learning:
Student: Something that helps me in the classroom? There’s a whole lot of stuff.

Interviewer: Talk about all of it.
Student: How [the teacher] writes stuff on the board. And when she greets us good
morning, she says good morning and everything we’re going to do today. And
she has all the work on the board, so the people that are ahead, we can already
finish the work instead of waiting for other people. (IS1, p. 134)
Although classes typically began with whole-class instruction as teachers intro-

duced a concept or skill, students would often then work independently through tasks
while the teacher circulated to provide individual feedback. This was done quietly in a
way that did not humiliate or draw attention to struggling students (OT8, p. 33). Most
evidence of differentiated instruction at Flagstaff was of this kind; individual feedback
and support provided both inside and outside the classroom rather than planned adjust-
ments to specific tasks or materials. In this aspect, there appeared to be notable future
scope for teachers to challenge students who showed signs of high potential through
greater focus on high-level, conceptual connections and opportunities for in-class
extension and enrichment. Targeted support and extension was provided on a struc-
tural level, because the longer school year allowed for “intersession” blocks in which
students could revise specific content related to state standards or engage in enrich-
ment. However, there was little evidence of proactive, systematically differentiated
instruction in Flagstaff classrooms, including for students capable of advanced work.
At Lionel, differentiation was also understood predominantly at a structural level.
During the original principal’s tenure, the reading specialist had been supported to col-
laboratively develop a schoolwide reading program that involved assessing students
and then grouping them by readiness across grades and providing opportunities for
groups of students to work with appropriately leveled texts. This had been going on for
7 years when the study began and was identified as a key way the school tried to
increase achievement for its population of minority and economically disadvantaged
students. However, the reading specialist explained that when the new principal
arrived, “she gave staff the option of keeping on or bailing out [of the reading pro-
gram]. Teachers in grades 4 through 6 bailed out. They now do their own thing and,
quite candidly, it is a hodgepodge” (IF, p. 42). Observers noted very little evidence of
differentiation in reading classes, especially in the upper grades, which were primarily
characterized by “teacher talk and review of information” (N1, p. 24). Even in the
lower grades where readiness-based grouping continued, there was little evidence of
differentiated instruction within these groups based on ongoing assessment.
Lionel had a policy of “push-in” specialist support in classrooms, including for
math, reading, ESOL, and gifted education. However, both specialists and teachers
noted that collaboration was inconsistent and not always effective, and these programs
appeared to lack clear, coherent objectives. One observer described a class led by the
gifted specialist, during which the classroom teacher left the room. The observer
noted,
[T]he teacher is not back and it appears that the [gifted specialist] expects to be done. She
has seemed to be drawing things out for a bit to wait for him. He still is not back, so she
has [students] read their texts while they wait. There is lots of [student] fidgeting, playing
with erasers and pencils. The gifted specialist is clearly frustrated that the regular
classroom teacher is not back . . . The teacher finally returns (after 12 minutes absence).
[The gifted specialist] tells him what they did. [The teacher] says this was a good lesson—
it “stretches their minds.” (OT1, p. 44)
This example proved somewhat indicative of Lionel’s surface-level attempts to

develop and implement targeted programs and approaches for its diverse learners,
including gifted students. Teachers asserted, “We have differentiated groups” (p. 25)
and administrators emphasized that “awareness of differentiation is a goal and the
entire faculty have done a course on Differentiated Instruction” (p. 34). However, it
seemed that differentiation was interpreted as between-class readiness grouping and
there was little evidence of differentiation once students were in groups or classes.
Often, students in small groups did exactly the same thing regardless of readiness.
There were some examples of in-class assessment and “spot checking” of student writ-
ing, and some teachers mentioned preassessing students prior to a unit of work, but in
practice there was much greater emphasis on standardized testing than in-class assess-
ment to inform differentiation. There were posters around classrooms presenting
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (MI) but no evidence throughout the study
of planning or teaching based on MI (N1, p. 4).
Discussion
In the field of gifted education, there is increasing recognition that successful efforts
to identify and develop high academic potential in students from ethnic minority and
economically disadvantaged populations must involve both identifying current
advanced achievement or performance and nurturing and uncovering latent potential
(Jarvis, 2009). The focus of this multiple case study research enabled a broad explora-
tion of efforts to uncover and develop high intellectual potential, by encompassing
schools’ and teachers’ efforts to provide a foundation of high-quality curriculum and
instruction for all students, address underachievement in students of minority and eco-
nomically disadvantaged backgrounds, and enact a schoolwide vision of success. In
addition to differences in grade level, setting, and ethnic and economic composition,
the three schools differed in their approach in other significant ways. In each instance,
both school and teacher factors and the interaction of those factors worked in concert
to contribute to the varying degrees of success of minority and economically disadvan-
taged students of high potential. It is acknowledged that this research included only a
small number of sites, one of which emerged as problematic in the extent to which it
fit the intended criteria. Additional research into practices in naturalistic contexts
across different kinds of schools would add strength to the findings reported here.
A notable implication of this research was that, to have a positive effect on the aca-
demic success of high-potential students from minority and economically disadvan-
taged groups, teachers and schools did not have to be uniformly excellent across all
key factors. Teachers at Sunnydale demonstrated sound practices in terms of curricu-
lum and instruction and took genuine steps to understand and reach individual stu-
dents, but these did not stand out as exceptionally innovative or beyond a level of good
teaching that might be found in many classrooms across the country. The teachers’
cultural awareness was sometimes naïve, and they operated without a cohesive, whole-
school approach grounded in a shared vision. Yet, the students in their AP courses from
minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds spoke of the life-changing
effect of their teachers. At Flagstaff, there was undoubtedly a shared vision from lead-
ership down, a sense of urgency for student success, and many examples of consis-
tency and caring in teachers’ work, which enabled the school to achieve remarkable
results for its predominantly African American students living in circumstances of
high poverty. At the same time, there was significant future scope for more advanced
content and learning opportunities, greater focus on high-level reasoning and problem
solving in curriculum, and more systematic efforts to differentiate instruction for the
range of learners, including those with high potential. Even at Lionel, where most of
the indicators were weak, students came to school with enthusiasm and talked about
feeling safe and welcomed there.
This research suggests that teachers do not have to be perfect to help students
develop readiness to succeed. Teachers willing to invest modestly but overtly and
consistently in minority and economically disadvantaged students can begin to have
an effect. At both the school level (at Flagstaff) and the individual teacher level (in all
three schools), the data supported the principle that challenging deficit thinking about
students from ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds is critical
to success, which accords with previous research on both gifted and general popula-
tions (e.g., Briggs et al., 2008). Effective teachers did not ignore the challenges their
students faced but assumed that their efforts as teachers could and should lead to high
levels of student achievement rather than assuming that poor achievement would be
the inevitable outcome of factors beyond their control. This is consistent with the
growing body of research confirming the teacher’s significant effect on student
achievement regardless of students’ external circumstances (Hattie, 2012). The high
degree of teachers’ personal responsibility and investment in student success was evi-
dent time and again in the data.
Findings from this study can also be understood in terms of the discontinuity para-
digm, in that effective teachers recognized and made efforts to bridge the gap between
the cultures of home and school. Consistent with previous research, these teachers
worked to help their students understand how to succeed in the “mainstream” while
continuing to value and identify with their own cultures (Ford et al., 2010). They not
only gave students skills and opportunities to enter into a “new world,” but were also
willing to enter their worlds with them. They made genuine efforts to understand stu-
dents’ perspectives and consciously incorporated this knowledge into planning cur-
riculum and instruction that were culturally and personally relevant. These teachers
did not ask the students to displace the familiar with “something better,” but rather to
learn to live in two worlds—to become multicultural. They taught students to “speak
green” (code switch from casual language to “green” language, or the language of
power and money) and when to do so, but they also made sure there was ample time
in the day for students to speak their own dialects. They invited students to engage
with them in and out of the classroom, but they also went to students’ afterschool
activities. They asked students to consider a vision of a successful life and also helped
them find examples of people from their cultures and economic backgrounds who had
lived and even shaped the dream. In other words, students were supported to develop
a sense of themselves as high achievers without sacrificing their racial identities; they
were helped to manage the tension between high achievement and maintaining cul-
tural belonging that has been identified as a potential barrier to engagement and
achievement (Ford et al., 2008).
Importantly, effective teachers in the study did not expect students from minority
backgrounds to change their characteristics or behavior to “fit” a rigid program or cur-
riculum; rather, teachers recognized the need to consider how to make their curriculum
and teaching a better fit for their students. Both students and their teachers had to set
aside established ways of working to facilitate success. This sense of flexibility, shared
responsibility, and compromise is a consistent theme in the gifted education literature,
where rigid identification and programming practices have been well-documented as
consistent barriers to participation and success for minority students (e.g., Nguyen,
Callahan, & Stevenson, 2010).
Effective teachers, particularly at Sunnydale, provided students with access to
advanced content and courses, which is critical to talent development but did not sim-
ply expect students to succeed on their own. There was a palpable sense at both
Sunnydale and Flagstaff of teachers ensuring that students did not “fall through the
cracks” and many examples of efforts to help students build the background knowl-
edge and skills they needed to succeed at more advanced levels. This accords with
previous research that highlights the importance of appropriate support structures for
students with high potential who may lack the academic preparation for advanced
programs (e.g., Briggs et al., 2008; Briggs & Renzulli, 2009). In addition to the oppor-
tunity to study high-quality curriculum, the findings reinforce the need for instruction
that allows students from minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds to
simultaneously move backward and forward. In other words, teachers must be willing
to uncover and address deficiencies in prior learning even as they continue to support
students in moving forward with their more privileged and academically experienced
classmates. The implication is that high-quality curriculum and instruction will have
to be a precursor to high performance, not a reward that the student accrues only after
high performance.
Although “good” can be “good enough” to support student achievement on a small
scale when considering individual teachers, a best-case scenario arises when a school
is on an unambiguous mission to support the achievement of students from minority

and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and that intent is translated into robust
and consistent action. There is no doubt that the student population at Flagstaff posed
by far the greatest challenge of the three sites in which to engineer student success. It
is highly unlikely that the success the Flagstaff students and staff repeatedly achieved
would happen in a place that is less focused. High levels of structure, extended school
time, genuine parental involvement, clarity about curricular goals, and an extraordi-
narily committed staff all appeared indispensable in the school’s accomplishments
(Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009). Flagstaff was able to take a group of young people demo-
graphically at risk of school failure, gather them together in a setting that should com-
pound the considerable difficulties in their individual lives, establish discipline (first
at the school and classroom levels and then at the level of the individual), and teach the
content and skills necessary to distinguish themselves on measures that typically
reserve “success” for more privileged learners. The profile of success at Flagstaff was
consistent with previous research highlighting the importance of a shared, consistent,
and systematically enacted vision of success for disadvantaged students that engen-
ders a sense of urgent purpose about supporting individuals and groups of students
(Riehl, 2000). To work more effectively to develop the capacity of high-potential stu-
dents will require schools and classrooms to provide a quality foundation for all stu-
dents from minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Interestingly, it emerged from the findings that the definition of success established
by a school or teacher is significant in shaping student opportunity for long-term aca-
demic success. This point has not been emphasized in the extant literature, although the
influence of teacher expectations on student achievement is well established. At
Flagstaff, the whole-school definition of student success incorporated elements of both
academic achievement and good character, with achievement very much defined in
terms of performance on state-standardized tests, and this definition drove the nature of
curriculum and instruction across the school. At Flagstaff, success meant that students
from minority and very disadvantaged backgrounds achieved academically at much
higher levels than would be expected based on demographics, and that students demon-
strated high levels of connectedness to school and high aspirations for current and
future academic success. Despite undeniable successes at Flagstaff, it is worth reflect-
ing on how definitions can also be inhibiting. If the conception of success were expanded
to include movement from baseline competence to deep conceptual understanding,
application, and creation of ideas, the power of the school would be not just impressive,
but extraordinary. It is acknowledged that students in the top quartile of achievement in
Flagstaff’s district were encouraged to attend the gifted magnet school, leaving a popu-
lation that might not usually be considered to include students with high potential. This
point notwithstanding, observers still noted opportunities to develop curriculum and
incorporate instructional approaches advocated in the gifted education literature and
evidence of students who appeared ready to work at more advanced levels.
At Lionel, success may have been defined as caring. Teacher caring is a precursor
to academic achievement, but it is not sufficient, because students can neither under-
stand the concept of high expectations nor learn to aspire to them in the absence of
clarity about what they should learn and why. Teachers often referred to student suc-
cess in a general way, but manifestations of success were difficult to find. A key point
is that “commending success” without a clear, enabling definition and a specific plan
for students to develop both the content mastery and habits of mind to achieve that
success is hollow. At Sunnydale, success had often been curiously defined as working
up to one’s current level of performance. This circular approach may happen when
students are sorted by group and taught according to expectations for the group in
which they are placed. The AVID students involved in this research were among his-
torically few who took advanced classes at the school, which is perhaps not surprising,
given the definition of success that had guided practice for so long. Teachers within the
AVID program understood the need for persistent attention and support to help stu-
dents define and then work toward success, and the need for comparable support and
high expectations beyond specific classes, teachers, or programs.
Taken together, the results of this study lend support to previous research on both
gifted and general populations in terms of factors that support academic success, and
therefore increase the likelihood that academic talent will be recognized and devel-
oped in students from minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. These
include teachers and schools who operate from a strengths perspective rather than a
deficit view of cultural difference and poverty (Hale & Rollins, 2006), who help stu-
dents navigate the world of academic achievement without sacrificing their cultural
identities, who provide both the support and challenge required for students to succeed
at high levels, and who are flexible in response to individuals and groups of students
rather than expecting students to fit rigid programs or profiles. In addition, these fac-
tors are most effective when part of consistent, schoolwide practices grounded in a
shared vision for student success. This research highlights the importance of teachers
and schools considering the (sometimes implicit) definitions of student success that
guide their practices and to identify and address unintentional limits on student
achievement that may result.
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 author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: The work reported herein was supported under the Educational
Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award Number R206000001-05, as adminis-
tered by the Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The findings and
opinions expressed in this report do not reflect the position op policies of the Institute of
Educational Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education.
References
Braun, H., Chapman, L., & Vezzu, S. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap revisited.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21), 1–99.
Briggs, C. J., Reis, S. M., & Sullivan, E. E. (2008). A national view of promising programs and
practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 131–145.
Briggs, C. J., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Scaffolding CLED students to promote greater par-
ticipation in programs for the gifted and talented. Journal of Urban Education: Focus on
Enrichment, 6(1), 1–15.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Burney, V. H., & Beike, J. R. (2008). The constraints of poverty on high achievement. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 171–197.
Center on English Learning and Achievement. (2003, Spring). Tracking and the literacy
achievement gap. English Update, 1–4. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/cela/pdf/
Newsletter_2003_Spring.pdf
College Board. (2000). Advancing minority high achievement: National trends and promising
programs and practices. New York, NY: Author.
Denbo, S. J., & Moore Beaulieu, L. (Eds.). (2002). Improving schools for African American
students: A reader for educational leaders. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Diamond, J. B., Lewis, A. E., & Gordon, L. (2007). Race and school achievement in a desegre-
gated suburb: Reconsidering the oppositional culture explanation. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 20, 655–679.
Donovan, S. M., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted educa-
tion. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Foley, D. A., Levinson, B. A., & Hurtig, J. (2001). Anthropology goes inside: The new educa-
tional ethnography of ethnicity and gender. Review of Research in Education, 25, 37–98.
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems
and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 4–14.
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.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J., III. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Ford, D. Y., Harris, J. J., Tyson, C. A., & Trotman, M. F. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking:
Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24, 52–58.
Ford, D. Y., Milner, H. R., & Moore, J. L. (2005). Underachievement among gifted students of
color: Implications for educators. Theory Into Practice, 44, 167–177.
Ford, D. Y., Whiting, G. W., & Gilman, W. (2010). Beyond testing: Social and psychological
considerations in recruiting and retaining gifted Black students. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 34, 131–155.
Grantham, T. C. (2002). Straight talk on the issue of underrepresentation: An interview with Dr.
Mary M. Frasier. Roeper Review, 24, 50–51.
Hale, E., & Rollins, K. (2006, June). Leading the way to increased student learning. Principal
Leadership, 6(10), 6–9.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hébert, T. P., & Reis, S. M. (1999). Culturally diverse high achieving students in an urban high
school. Urban Education, 34, 428–457.
Hilliard, A. (2003). No mystery: Closing the achievement gap between Africans and excel-
lence. In T. Perry, C. Steele, & A. Hilliard (Eds.), Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting
high achievement among African American students (pp. 131–165). Boston, MA: Beacon.
Jarvis, J. M. (2009). Planning to unmask potential through responsive curriculum: The “Famous
Five” exercise. Roeper Review, 31, 234–241.
Kitano, M. K. (2003). Gifted potential and poverty: A call for extraordinary action. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 26, 292–303.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Liberatory consequences of literacy: A case of culturally relevant
instruction for African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 61, 378–391.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American stu-
dents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Langer, J. A. (2000). Excellence in English in middle and high school: How teachers’ pro-
fessional lives support student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37,
397–439.
Levine, A. (2005). Why should I worry about schools my children won’t attend? 2004 annual
report. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Lewis, C. W., James, M., Hancock, S., & Hill-Jackson, V. (2008). Framing African American
students’ success and failure in urban settings: A typology for change. Urban Education,
43, 127–153.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lynn, M., Bacon, J. N., Totten, T. L., Bridges, T. L., & Jennings, M. E. (2010). Examining
teachers’ beliefs about African American male students in a low-performing high school in
an African American school district. Teachers College Record, 112, 289–330.
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the
achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 235–261.
Moore, J. L., Ford, D., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining African
American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 51–67.
Murphy, J. (2009). Closing achievement gaps: Lessons from the last 15 years. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(3), 8–12.
Nguyen, M., Callahan, C. M., & Stevenson, D. L. (2010). The AP challenge program: Advancing
gifted minority student achievement in high school and beyond. Gifted Children, 4(1), 12–
17. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol4/iss1/3
Oates, G. L. (2009). An empirical test of five prominent explanations for the Black-White aca-
demic performance gap. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 12,
415–441.
Ogbu, J. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting White” in Black history, com-
munity, and education. The Urban Review, 36, 1–35.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high
achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association
for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=10000
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70, 323–367.
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N. A., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excel-
lence gap in K-12 education. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
Plucker, J. A., Hardesty, J., & Burroughs, N. (2012). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and
America’s persistent talent underclass. Storrs, CT: Center for Education Policy Analysis.
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A
review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational admin-
istration. Review of Educational Research, 70, 55–81.
Spillane, J. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand policy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Swanson, J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted stu-
dents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 11–25.
Tatto, M. T. (1996). Examining values and beliefs about teaching diverse students: Understanding
the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 155–
180.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial
minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 253–273.
Theoharis, G. (2010). Disrupting injustice: Principals narrate the strategies they use to improve
their schools and advance social justice. Teachers College Record, 112, 331–373.
Tomlinson, C. A., Ford, D. Y., Reis, S. M., Briggs, C. J., & Strickland, C. A. (2004). In search
of the dream: Designing schools and classrooms that work for high potential students from
diverse cultural backgrounds. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Jarvis, J. M. (2009). Solid foundations and high ceilings: A case study
of African American talent development in a low-income urban school. Journal of Urban
Education: Focus on Enrichment, 6, 102–121.
U.S. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case
for developing America’s talent. Retrieved from http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/
Resources_id_11342.aspx
Walker, V. S. (2000). Valued segregated schools for African American children in the South,
1935–1969: A review of common themes and characteristics. Review of Educational
Research, 70, 253–285.
Weinstein, R. S., Gregory, A., & Strambler, M. J. (2004). Intractable self-fulfilling prophecies
fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education. American Psychologist, 59, 511–520.
Worrell, F. C. (2003). Why are there so few African Americans in gifted programs? In C. C.
Yeakey & R. D. Henderson (Eds.), Surmounting the odds: Education, opportunity, and
society in the new millennium (pp. 423–454). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Author Biographies
Carol Ann Tomlinson is William Clay Parrish Jr. professor and chair of Educational Leadership,
Foundations, and Policy at the University of Virginia. Her career comprises more than 20 years
as a public school teacher and 20 years at the university level, where her extensive work is
largely centered on differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
Jane M. Jarvis is a senior lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia, where
she teaches and conducts research in gifted education, special education, and differentiated
instruction. Jane has broad experience in education and holds a PhD in educational psychology/
gifted education from the University of Virginia.

2014 Tomlinson Jarvis

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2014 Tomlinson Jarvis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

540826

High Potential From Ethnic

Carol Ann Tomlinson1 and Jane M. Jarvis1

1University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA

and socioeconomic backgrounds (U.S. Office of Educational Research and

The Achievement Gap, the Excellence Gap, and Minority

outcomes (Levine, 2005; McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Although membership in an

The Deficit Paradigm

The Discontinuity Paradigm

Fostering Achievement in Minority Students of High

“front loaded” exposure to challenging curriculum as a precursor to identification and

Selection of Sites and Participants

Flagstaff School. Flagstaff, located in a heavily populated, economically depressed

Lionel Elementary School. Lionel is an elementary school located in a sprawling metro-

promising efforts to develop a concerted, schoolwide approach to developing potential

Data Collection and Analysis

students, efforts to establish a supportive classroom environment, references to the

A Shared Vision for Student Success

Others expressed a similar commitment to preparing students for lifelong citizen-

Genuine Efforts to Understand and Reach Students

throughout a lesson. Students’ comments referred generally to teachers being “help-

The Nature of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

While considering cultural influences, teachers recognized that African American

Student: Something that helps me in the classroom? There’s a whole lot of stuff.

Although classes typically began with whole-class instruction as teachers intro-

This example proved somewhat indicative of Lionel’s surface-level attempts to

is on an unambiguous mission to support the achievement of students from minority

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like