INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UM I directly to order. U n iversity M icrofilm s International A Beil & H ow ell Inform ation C o m p a n y 3 0 0 N orth Z e e b R o a d . Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 USA 3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0 O rd e r N u m b e r 9208802 The statu s o f gifted and talented program m ing in relation to equity in high-m inority schools in M ichigan Lewis, Nancy M., Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1991 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 THE STATUS OF GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMMING IN RELATION TO EQUITY IN HIGH-MINORITY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN By Nancy M. Lewis A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1991 ABSTRACT THE STATUS OF GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMMING IN RELATION TO EQUITY IN HIGH-MINORITY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN By Nancy M. Lewis The status of gifted and talented programming in Michigan's high-minority schools reported in this study. in relation to equity was Using survey methodology, areas of gifted programming were examined. program option and model availability, distribution, four They were (1) (2) racial/gender (3) degree of 3tudent involvement, and (4) identification practices. The study showed that in Michigan's high-minority school districts academic options were the most popular type of program option, followed by multiple emphasis programs (programs designed to address more than one talent or skill area within one program o p t i o n ) . It further showed that programming tended to be more heavily concentrated at the elementary level than at the middle and high school level. The most popular models in the surveyed districts were found to be pullout programs, before/after school programs, and self-contained classrooms. Although minorities were found in gifted programming at a rate higher than the national average, Blacks and Hispanics were shown to be underrepresented in the three program types studied (academic, multiple emphasis, and creativity development), with creative options showing the greatest underrepresentation. Some evidence of clustering of Black students into multiple emphasis programs was also found. Although the study revealed an approximately equal number of sustained and short-term programs, it was found that sustained programs generally accommodated larger numbers of students. Therefore, there were considerably more students placed in sustained than in short-term program s . Finally the study showed that the practices used to identify students in Michigan's high-minority districts were comparable to the state and nation, but in many districts did not fully comply with The Association for Gifted guidelines adopted by the Michigan Department of Education. In addition, programs, process, the study showed that in well over half of the a selection process followed the identification indicating that the students who were in gifted programming were not necessarily representative of those who were identified. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Doctoral studies can be a lonely ordeal for commuting students. Without the collegial support of fellow students and a readily accessible doctoral committee, students often feel isolated and insecure. commuting Those feelings of isolation were no different for me, and at times they seemed overwhelming. Had it not been for the support and encouragement of my husband Jim and my son Chris, I might not have seen this dissertation to its completion. Clark, My parents, John and Bessie were also supportive and often provided the listening ear I needed to express my disappointments and triumphs. Their confidence Finally, in me never wavered, my advisor, Dr. even when mine did. Robert Poland, provided the professional expertise and guidance needed to complete a project of this magnitude. My family and my faith gave me the strength to see this dissertation through. I am grateful for both. I hope that I can now return the favor by giving those who supported me the time and attention they so richly deserve. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................... Chapter I. II. III. IV. vii Page INTRODUCTION TO THE S T U D Y ..................... 1 Introduction .................................... Statement of the Problem ....................... Purpose of the S t u d y ........................... Need for the S t u d y .............................. Research Questions .............................. Assumptions ..................................... Procedural Design .............................. Delimitations .................................. L i m i t a t i o n s ..................................... Definitions of Terras ........................... O v e r v i e w ......................................... 1 4 7 8 9 9 11 12 13 14 17 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ....................... 19 Introduction ..................................... The Association for Gifted Standards ......... Program Models and Options .................... Racial/Gender Distribution .................... Degree of Involvement ......................... Methods of Identification .................... 19 19 20 24 26 27 DESIGN AND P R O C E D U R E ........................... 34 Introduction ..................................... P o p u l a t i o n ....................................... Survey Design .................................. Survey Procedures .............................. Data A n a l y s i s .................................. S u m m a r y ......................................... 34 34 35 41 43 46 PRESENTATION OF D A T A ........................... 47 Introduction ..................................... Target Population/Survey Response ........... District D a t a .................................. District Demographics ....................... Gifted Demographics ......................... 47 48 48 48 52 v Chapter Page IV. P r o g r a m m i n g .................................. Gifted Supervision ........................... Gifted Philosophy ........................... Gifted Potential .............................. Building-Level D a t a ........................... Program Options .............................. Program Models ................................ Racial/Gender Distribution .................. Degree of Involvement ....................... Identification Methods ....................... Identification Tests ......................... S u m m a r y ......................................... 54 56 56 58 59 59 65 67 74 78 82 84 V. FINDINGS AND C O N C L U S I O N S ....................... 85 Introduction ..................................... The P o p u l a t i o n .................................. District Findings .............................. Student Representation ....................... P r o g r a m m i n g .................................. Gifted Supervision ........................... Identification of Gifted Potential ......... Building-Level Findings ....................... Program Options .............................. Program Models ................................ Racial/Gender Distribution .................. Degree of Involvement ....................... Identification Methods ....................... Comparisons With Other Studies ................ C o n c l u s i o n s ..................................... Recommendations for Further Research ......... R e f l e c t i o n s ...................................... 85 86 87 87 88 89 89 90 90 92 93 95 96 97 99 103 105 R E F E R E N C E S .................................................. 108 APPENDIX Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Cover Letter ..................... S u r v e y ............................ List of Michigan's High-Minority D i s t r i c t s ....................... Map of Michigan's High-Minority D i s t r i c t s ....................... Follow-up Letter ................ Comparative Analysis of Related State and National Studies . . vi 114 115 131 133 134 135 LIST OF TABLES XaJalS- T itle Page 1 Sizes of Surveyed and Responding Districts 49 2 Enrollment Profile of Responding Districts 50 3 Students in Responding Districts by Race 52 4 Gifted Option Availability in Responding Districts 53 5 1990-91 Total and Gifted Population by Race 54 6 District Criteria for Gifted Program Expansion 55 7 Titles of Gifted and Talented Supervisors 57 8 Status of District Philosophy Statements 57 9 Methods Used to Identify Gifted Potential 59 10 Gifted Option Types in Responding Districts 60 11 Availability of Programming by Grade Level 62 12 Scope of Programming By School Level 64 13 Maximum Number of Students Per Program Option 65 14 Program Models by School Level 66 15 Race/Gender Representation in Academic Options 68 16 Race/Gender Representation in Multiple Options 70 17 Race/Gender Representation in Creative Options 71 18 Representation in Options by Race/Gender 73 19 Sustained Versus Short-term Programs 74 20 Racial Groups 75 21 Total Students 22 Kinds of Sustained Programming in Sustained Vs. Short-term Options in Sustained and Short-term Programs vii 76 77 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 23 Kinds of Short-term Programming 78 24 Identification Methods Used in Districts 79 25 Identification Methods by School Level 80 26 Method Used for Final Placement 81 27 Tests Used to Identify Gifted Students 83 viii CHAPTER 1 Introduction to the Study Introduction In his article, "A Magic Circle," Frank E. Williams (1988) writes about the current emphasis on gifted education, citing it as the third occurrence of such emphasis in education history. the 1920s and 1930s, The first wave occurred in right after the Terman studies began; the second wave during the 1960s, Sputnik. following the launching of Williams cautions us about this most recent upsurge in gifted educ a t i o n . . . . the rise and fall of gifted education in this country in the past can probably be attributed to the faults of those who planned and conducted such programs just as much as to the whims of the times. (P. 2) M 4 1 1 4 A ruxiiama A M A M cu. g u c a uuao « aoiiio movement have been elitists, gain. In fact, education, J „ xii J_ 1. _ one - 4 XJx - J fill o c u _ J . _ jl i euuuttOXOll who were using it for personal much of the rise and fall of gifted argues Williams, can be attributed to the tension created by the dual concerns of equity and excellence. Goldberg (1986) says it this way: The two belief systems about the role of education in a democracy have existed in American society since its inception. They have always been uneasy 1 2 bedfellows, displacing one another as the weight of socio-political events and consequent anxieties activated the one or the other, (p. 227) This equity/excellence tension is prevalent not only in the United States Gardner, 1984; 1961), (Gallagher, 1986; Tannenbaum, but in other countries as well Berezine and Foleyeva, 1972; Dunstan, 1979; (Gallagher, 1983; Gold, 1986). Williams encourages educators to study and learn from the previous two waves of gifted education and to "be responsible enough to monitor their own motives and behavior" argues, (p. 2) during this third era. will prevent a third "fall" Doing so, he in gifted education. The inequities most often cited in the literature regarding gifted education are related to the underrepresentation of minority groups. The demise of gifted education usually follows allegations of race and sex discrimination, As a result, as evidenced by this underrepresentation. many educators today are sensitive to race and gender distributions in such differentiated programs. By subjecting themselves to self-monitoring activities, educators discourage allegations of discrimination. In 1974, the Michigan Legislature appropriated funds under Section 47 for the development of programming for gifted and talented students in grades K-12. This commitment to gifted and talented programming was reaffirmed 3 in 1983 in a position statement, which includes the following policy: It is the policy of the Michigan State Board of Education that educational institutions at all levels address the unique needs of gifted and talented students by providing planned educational opportunities which will enable them to achieve optimum personal growth, (p. 5) The State Department of Education requires that all school districts receiving Section 47 funds submit an annual report regarding the status of their gifted programming. This report includes some information regarding racial/gender representation, program options offered, program models available in the district. However, and this report is somewhat limited in the amount of detail it provides. For example, the racial/gender numbers are reported in an aggregate form. That i s , the numbers reported are for all schools within the district for all program options and models combined. (K-12) and In order to understand the status of gifted programming in Michigan in relation to equity, it is important to know the racial and gender distribution within the various program options. Such information can reveal any clusterings of subpopulations within the various program options which would result in unequal representation of racial and gender groups across existing programming options. 4 The amount of student involvement of the racial and gender groups in various program options is also important to an understanding of the status of gifted programming. In the past this degree of involvement has not been regularly reported. Equitable treatment of all racial and gender groups should mean that all groups receive an approximately equal number of hours of regular and sustained intervention. Finally, equity in gifted programming should mean that nationally accepted practices for identifying all racial and gender groups are utilized in high-minority schools. In Michigan no regular reporting of identification practices occurs. Therefore, the responsiveness of Michigan educators to recommended identification practices in unknown. This unreported data seem vital in order to fully understand the status of gifted programming in relation to equity. The need for this information led to the following study. Statement of the Problem The underrepresentation of minorities in gifted programs Chambers, is well documented 1980; Frasier, (Baldwin, 1989; Roeper Review journal article, Masten, 1987; McKenzie, 1985). 1986; In her 1985 E. Susanne Richert reported on the results of a national study on gifted education. One of the findings indicated that "education equity is being violated in the identification of significant subpopulations" (p. 69). Citing national figures published by the United States Department of Education's Office of 5 Civil Rights, Blacks, Richert reported that "minority groups such as Hispanics, and Native Americans are underrepresented by 30 to 70 percent" (p. 69). According to Richert, figures are collected annually, these but have not been published since 1980. A review of recent educational literature revealed a real concern on the part of educators regarding such inequities. An April, 1990, ERIC search on the subject of culturally diverse gifted students listed 134 abstracts on the subject. In many of these articles, the possible causes, papers, and books, as well as recommended solutions, minority underrepresentation are suggested. this increased attention, for As a result of minority involvement in gifted programming appears to be somewhat on the rise. However, the aggregate manner in which these data are reported leaves a number of questions unanswered regarding the status of gifted programming for minority students. Three aspects of minority involvement which are infrequently reported, but are important in order to fully describe the status of gifted programming in relation to equity are (a) the racial/gender distribution within each type of program option, (b) the degree of involvement for students within various program options, and (c) the method(s) of identification used for the various program options. The lack of these data makes it difficult to completely analyze the current status of gifted and talented programs in terms of equity. This problem, as explained in 6 the following paragraphs, was the central focus of this study. Radial/Gender Distribution Most school districts report the total minority involvement in all gifted program options. However, they seldom report the minority involvement in each Individual option within the total district program. exists in Michigan as well. This situation The data reported annually in the Michigan Department of Education Section 47 Final Report include only the total number of students in a district who are involved in some component of the total gifted program. Minority and gender involvement within the individual components is not reported. Degree of Involvement The number of hours that students participate in the various program options is seldom reported. Consequently, there is no way to describe the degree of involvement of minority students in each program option or the number of minority students involved in sustained versus short-term programs. Michigan is one of the states that does not regularly report student involvement. Identification Many school districts do not report their method(s) of student identification for each program option. Therefore, there is no way to determine whether or not culturally 7 diverse schools are responding to recommended practices for identifying gifted students in all racial and gender groups. This is the case in Michigan schools as well. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate the current status of gifted and talented programming in Michigan by examining (a) the gifted and talented program options available in high-minority schools in Michigan, (b) the racial/gender distribution within these various types of options, (c) the degree of involvement of students within these options, and (d) the predominant methods of identification for various program options. It is believed that the results of this study can enrich the current body of information regarding gifted and talented programming in Michigan and give educators another way to examine programs in relation to equity. It is also believed that the study will contribute to the understanding of educators regarding the complexity of equity issues and the need to look at all facets of gifted and talented programming carefully in order to fully understand how all racial and gender groups are affected by program organisation and design. Finally, it is hoped that the study will generate an interest in the examination and, if warranted, the redesign of individual gifted and talented programs in order to ensure fair and equitable practices in all districts. 8 Therefore, although the main purpose of the study was to describe the current status of gifted and talented programming in Michigan, it is hoped that it will motivate all educators to examine in greater detail their own programs and that it will stimulate the development of self­ monitoring processes aimed at ensuring equitable programming for all students regardless of race or sex. Need for the Study The more information educators have about the present organization and structure of gifted and talented programming, the better the chances are for quality, equitable programming. Michigan practices, Although this study was limited to the results of the study may give educators across the country a better understanding of gifted education. Perhaps it will encourage other states to conduct similar studies. study, By examining the results of this educators can be better informed about the organizational and distributional tendencies of gifted and talented programming. Such information should be useful in guiding and planning local programs. The focus of this study differs from previous studies of gifted and talented programming in Michigan. Because this study provides new information about the status of gifted programming, it should give educators a better understanding of racial/gender involvement in such programs. It is another way to focus attention on the importance of 9 constant examination of all types of programming--not just gifted and talented programming— in relation to equity. Although this study is focused on equity as it relates to gifted and talented programming, education as a whole. therefore, it is also about equity in The importance of the study, is not only to provide additional information about the current status of gifted and talented programming, but also to encourage a similar examination of other curriculum areas as well. Research Questions The main research question for this study was: What is the current status of gifted and talented programming in relation to equity in high-minority schools in Michigan? order to answer the main research question, four subsidiary questions were asked. In They were: 1. What program options and models are available in high-minority schools? 2. What is the racial/gender distribution within the program options? 3. What is the degree of involvement of students in gifted programming in the surveyed schools? 4. How are students options? identified for the various program Assumptions It was assumed that the position taken by the Michigan Department of Education regarding the appropriateness of gifted and talented programming is correct. That is, it is assumed that a differentiated curriculum for gifted and 10 talented students is a desirable goal. such as this one that informs, Otherwise, a study and perhaps guides, gifted and talented educators would have been inappropriate. It was also assumed that a focus on high-minority schools was an appropriate way to look at issues of equity. Although equity is important regardless of the minority representation of a school, culturally diverse schools should be especially sensitive to the needs of minority students. Therefore, a focus on the status of such schools seemed warranted. Also assumed was a high level of integrity on the part of the gifted and talented coordinators who were asked to describe program options middle, in a typical elementary, and high school in their respective districts. assuming the accuracy of this information, By the results of this study can used to inform and guide educators about gifted programming in Michigan, Finally, descriptive, as well as in other states. because this study was intended to be not evaluative in nature, it was assumed that all of the gifted and talented program options described in the surveys were legitimate program options. That is, it was assumed that the options described fit within the generally accepted guidelines for appropriate gifted and talented programming. 11 Procedural Design The focus of this study was equity. In order to examine this issue as it relates to gifted programming, a questionnaire was designed to answer the four subsidiary research questions. The subjects for the study were all Michigan school districts with a minority population of 24 percent or more. The questionnaire was sent to the gifted and talented coordinator of each district. These names were acquired through the Gifted and Talented Division of the Michigan Department of Education. The data from the surveys were tabulated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Particular attention was given to the types of program options available in the schools and the subpopulation groupings within each option. The methods of identification for the various program options were tabulated and a comparison was made between recommended Michigan practices and nationally recognized and recommended practices for culturally diverse populations. Finally, the number of sustained versus short-term program options was examined in relation to minority groups to determine the amount of minority involvement. In a series of tables and graphs the survey results are summarized in a form that is intended to make the data more usable and understandable. The purpose of the above programming analyses was to examine the racial and gender distribution and degree of involvement within each type of program option in order to 12 get some sense of equitable treatment. Although the main purpose for the examination of common identification practices was to simply report the most predominant methods, this information can also help other educators understand the distribution patterns that may result from such identification and/or selection practices. It may also encourage further research on the relationship between identification/selection practices and minority representation. Delimitations Equity is a broad and complex issue. It was not the intent of this study to investigate all of the aspects of equity in relation to gifted and talented programming. Although it is hoped that the outcome of the study will contribute to the body of Information about gifted programs, the data provided by this study alone are not enough. are many other phenomena that affect equity. quality was not examined, qualifications, Program nor was teacher training or teacher effectiveness, identification procedures, There quality of parental or student satisfaction, or many other areas that affect students involved in gifted programming. It would have been inappropriate, therefore, to make conclusive statements regarding equity based on this study alone. Only by combining the data from this study with previous and follow-up studies can conclusions be drawn regarding program equity. 13 It also was not the intent of this study to evaluate in any way the quality of gifted programming in Michigan. The focus of the study was on the current status of gifted and talented programs conclusions, in relation to equity. therefore, The findings and make no statements regarding the quality of programming available to students. Finally, although predominant identification procedures were investigated, there was no attempt to link specific identification practices with the racial/gender distributions within individual program options. Although the findings of this study may lead to further research along these lines, no such correlations were developed. Limitations Survey research by its very nature is impersonal. With no personal contact between the researcher and the respondent, the data may seem somewhat sterile and lifeless. The survey form was simple and straightforward by design in order to increase the likelihood of return. Detailed information about each district's gifted and talented programming was not solicited. The questions were designed to be answered by simply checking a box or writing a few numbers or words. It was recognized, however, that asking respondents to fit answers into pre-established categories might conceal significant details. However, it was believed that the benefits of a higher return rate outweighed the loss of detail. 14 The results of this study reflect the status of gifted programming in high-minority schools only. It would be inappropriate to generalise these findings to all schools. Definitions of Terms To ensure a common understanding of the terms used in this study, the following definitions have been provided: Gifted and T a l e n t e d : In 1978 the United States Office of Education adopted the following definition of gifted and talented: Gifted and talented children means children, whenever applicable, the preschool, youth, and who are identified at elementary or secondary level, as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that gives evidence of high performance capability in areas such as intellectual, academic, creative, or leadership ability, and visual arts, and who, specific or in the performing by reason thereof, require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school. (Public Law 95-56 1, Title II, Part A Section 902) In 1979 the Michigan State Advisory Council for the Gifted and Talented adopted this same definition, and it is the one used for purposes of this study. Program O p t i o n : For purposes of this study, a program option was assumed to be any school-sponsored activity 15 offered exclusively to identified gifted and talented students. Program options are often categorized by general talent area such as general i n t e l l e c t u a l , specific a c a d e m i c , creative...thinking, leadership, visual .ar.ta,, and performing arts. Options may also be listed under such specialized categories as seminars, m e n t o r s h i p s . advanced P l a c e m e n t . independent s t u d y , flexible s c h e d u l i n g , clubs, grade a c c e l e r a t i o n , internship, dual e n r o l l m e n t , early g r a d u a t i o n , and others. Program M o d e l : For this study, the program model described the manner in which the program option was designed. Types of program models included cluster grouping in the classroom, self-contained c l a s s r o o m s , individual education plans., PUllQ.Ut...pro g r a m a , classroom c o n s u l t a n t s , and others (see model definitions below). Cluster grouping: The grouping of selected students for differentiated instruction within the classroom. Self-contained c l a s s r o o m : A separate classroom designed exclusively for selected students and providing a differentiated curriculum for all or part of the school day. Individual education plans (IEP): An individually designed curriculum plan written to meet the unique needs of each student. Pullout programs: Programs in which the student is removed from the regular classroom for a part of the school day or week and provided with differentiated instruction in another classroom. Classroom co n s u l t a n t : The provision of personnel to the regular classroom teacher for purposes of supplying specialized expertise within the classroom. 16 Sustained O p t i o n s : For this study, sustained programming included all options offered at least three hours a week during the entire school year. Short-Term O p t i o n s : For this study, short-term programming included all options offered less than three hours a week and/or less than the entire school year. Academic O p t i o n s : Gifted program options that address general intellectual areas. Academic options may be either enriching or accelerated in nature. Creative O p t i o n s : Gifted programs whose primary focus is creative thinking. Multiple Emphasis O p t i o n s : Gifted programs that address more than one talent or skill area within the same program offering. Identification: For this study, identification referred to the recognition of students as potential candidates for a gifted program option. Se lecti o n : For this study, selection referred to the placement of students in a specific gifted program option. High-Minority Districts: For this study, high minority districts were defined as those districts with a racial minority of 24 percent of higher. 17 Michigan- Educational Assessment Program (MEAP): A criterion-referenced test given to all Michigan students to assess the students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The test reflects Michigan State Board of Education approved objectives and is given in grades 4, 7, and 10 for math and reading and in grades 5, 8, and 11 for science. Intermediate School District body, (ISP): Generally a county-wide the ISD is an intermediary body between the local school district and the State. ISDs offer services to local school districts such as data processing, in the county, professional development programs, consultants, and media resources. Under-/Overrepresentation: Under- and over-representation figures cited in this study were calculated as the difference between the actual minority percentage in the school district and the gifted minority percentage divided by the district percentage. Overview Chapter 1 included an introduction to the study, followed by a statement of the problem, for the study, the purpose and need the main and subsidiary research questions, assumptions about the study, the procedural design, delimitations and limitations, terms used in the study. and the definitions of key 18 Chapter 2 contains a literature review of gifted and talented education, with a focus on racial and gender equity. The research procedures, survey design and use, including a discussion of the identification of the population, the methods of data analysis, are described in Chapter 3. The results of the survey in relation to the main research question and the four subsidiary questions are presented in Chapter 4. Finally, conclusions, research. Chapter 5 includes the findings and as well as recommendations for further and CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature Introduction In an effort to determine what is already known in relation to the main and subsidiary questions asked in this study, the literature was reviewed with a focus on those questions. The literature related to the overall issue of equity was presented in Chapter 1. The following review presents the research and literature that is relevant to the four subsidiary questions of this study. The Association for Gifted Standards In 1989 The Association for Gifted the Council for Exceptional Children, for Programs (TAG), a division of approved the Standards Involving the Gifted and T a l e n t e d . These same standards have been adopted by the state of Michigan. Armstrong's 1990 Ingham Intermediate School District study (see ISD definition, page 17) revealed that in Michigan both the ISD Gifted and Talented Consultants and the local district Gifted and Talented Coordinators highly endorse these standards. Therefore, the TAG standard related to each subsidiary question will be presented as a guideline for comparison with the current status reported in this study. 19 in Michigan, as 20 Program Models and Options Program Options Regarding program options, gifted options TAG recommends that all "go beyond academics and include options areas such as the arts, leadership, and creativity" in (p. 6). Most gifted educators agree that a variety of programming options is necessary in order to provide a quality, comprehensive program for gifted and talented students (see Taylor, Richert 1986; Boyer, 1980; Newman, 1985). (1985) says it this way: No single program option can ever meet the multiple and diverse needs of all gifted students. Therefore, a comprehensive identification procedure requires multiple program options. This point of view is supported by Parke (p. 72) (1989): A great majority of gifted and talented program options serve students with high academic abilities; those focusing on creativity, ship are far less frequent. options must be developed, in regular classrooms, special schools. (p. the arts, and leader­ An array of program including provisions special classes, and 5) A study authorized by the Michigan State Department of Education and conducted by Armstrong (1990) produced several findings regarding gifted program options in Michigan. schools receiving Section 47 funding (a section of the All 21 Michigan State School Aid A c t ) , which represents 98 percent of the school districts Therefore, in Michigan, were examined. a profile of the programming trends among all districts in Michigan regardless of minority representation is provided. The results of this study showed that general intellectual and academic options continue to be addressed by an increasing number of districts. Evidence was also found that districts are increasingly identifying students in the areas of creative and productive thinking, leadership, and visual and performing arts. Other options that were available state-wide were seminars, independent study, Also indicated special clubs and career internships. was a considerable increase in the number of options available to students at all levels. Armstrong's study concluded that Michigan school districts are making progress in broadening their identification procedures t.o Identify students in a variety of talent areas and that districts will need to respond with comprehensive programming which meets the needs of the students in these talent areas as well as for the academically talented (K-12). It is evident from the research and literature reviewed that an emphasis is being placed on multiple options at both the state and national level. Gifted educators support the need to expand the programming options to include programming beyond the traditional academic offerings. 22 Program Models The TAG standards regarding program models recommend that programs "be determined by the needs of the students being served" (p. 7). These guidelines say: In some instances, programs may be held before or after school or in settings other than school when the nature of the experience convenience of the schedule) timing, (not the requires this (p. 7) Of the literature reviewed, most beneficial for students. no one model emerged as the However, two grouping patterns— homogeneous and heterogeneous— received fairly equal support. Williams (1988), encourages the use of in-class programs whenever possible since they provide enrichment opportunities to all students regardless of ability. students, argues Williams, Gifted can then be given special opportunities to carry a lesson beyond where the others stop. This position is supported by a number of educators who believe that homogeneous ability grouping plans do not consistently help any group of students Oakes, 1985, 1986; Persell, 1977; (see Goodlad, Swartzbaugh, 1988). 1984; In her 1988 study of tracking, Oakes concluded that "everyone usually seems to do as well (and low and average students usually better) when placed in mixed groups" On the other hand, Feldhusen's (p. 194). 1989 synthesis of research on gifted youth contradicts the heterogeneous 23 grouping advocates. After reviewing the research and literature Feldhusen concluded: Grouping of gifted and talented students in special classes with a differentiated curriculum leads to higher academic achievement and better academic attitudes for the gifted and leads to no decline in achievement or attitudes for the children who remain in the regular heterogeneous classroom. (p. 10) Both the homogeneous and heterogeneous advocates cite considerable research to back their positions. Thus, educators seem to be left to weigh both points of view and choose the position they believe is most appropriate for their own educational settings. Gallagher, Weiss, Ogelsby, and Thomas (1983) conducted a survey of gifted programs in the United States. This study revealed that the program model most widely used was the resource room/pullout program (41 p e r c e n t ) , followed by self-contained classrooms (23 percent). were most popular in grades 3 through 6. high schools, Special classes In junior high and honors classes were the most popular form of instruction. Armstrong (1990) reported that in Michigan the 1988-89 data showed that the most popular model at the elementary level was a teacher consultant for the classroom (45 percent) and pullout programs (39 p e r c e n t ) . The majority of services at the middle school level were in the form of 24 counseling (70 percent). Teacher consultant services p e r c e n t ) , cluster grouping (41 (23 p e r c e n t ) , and self-contained classes (22 percent) level. At the high school the predominant service was again counseling percent) were also popular at the middle school (63 p e r c e n t ) , followed by teacher consultants and self-contained classes (33 (18 percent). Racial/Gender Distribution The TAG standard clearly addresses equity in gifted and talented programs. The standard states: Assessment instruments and procedures must be in place that fairly measure the capabilities of all students. condition, Cultural heritage, gender, native language, economic handicapping condition, and other factors that mitigate against fair assessment must be taken into account when procedures and instruments are chosen, (p. 13) Racial Representation It has repeatedly been stated that giftedness can be found in every ethnic and racial group and at all socioeconomic levels Gallagher, 1985; however, Davis & Rimra, 1986; Marland, 1985; 1972). that despite efforts toward minority students remain underrepresented in gifted programs Parke, 1983; Kitano & Kirby, Research tells us, equity, (Clark, (Frasier, 1989). 1989; Gallagher, 1983; Masten, 1985; Many educators argue that broadening the definition of giftedness and the types of program offerings 25 will increase the minority representation (Masten, 1985). Since s uch expansion is just beginning to occur in Michigan and nationally, it is too soon to assess whether this prediction is accurate. Past research and literature reported racial representation only in aggregate form since programming had been limited mainly to academic offerings. None of literature or research reviewed reported racial representation by type of program option as is done in this study. Gender Representation The literature revealed no national data regarding gender representation in gifted and talented programming. In Michigan, 1988-89, however, Armstrong (1990) reported that in 49 percent of the gifted and talented participants were male; 51 percent were female. These percentages have remained fairly constant over the past five years. racial data, As with gender representation is reported as an aggregate number, rather than by type of program option. the figures were reported by type of option, If some educators suggest that females would be underrepresented in program options requiring high levels of creativity and E n n s , 1985). Schwartz this underrepresentation. stereotyping, success. (Daniels, Heath, (1980) cites three reasons for They are (1) sex role (2) lack of self-confidence, According to Schwartz: and (3) fear of 26 Women have intellectual and creative potential; they have intellectual abilities. To use them effectively they need stimulation, self-confidence, and feelings of independence. need recognition, (from Daniels, acceptance, Heath, Enns, p. Even more they and opportunity. 164) Degree of Involvement The TAG standards regarding degree of student involvement in gifted and talented programming state: Gifted and talented students are given the chance to become actively involved with the field they are studying. (p. 15) School districts offer sustained as well as short-term program options for the gifted. A sustained option is defined by the Michigan State Department of Education as one that meets at least three hours a week throughout the entire school year. Armstrong's 1990 study of Michigan schools showed that "less than half of the districts offer regular intervention, sustained over time" (p. 16). Armstrong says: While virtually all districts report students participating in programming for gifted and talented s t u d e n t s , the views of intermediate school district gifted and talented consultants indicate that only 12 percent of the districts offer comprehensive K-12 programming and 40 27 percent of the districts offer little or no regular programming. (Executive Summary, p. 4) This finding reflects the national status as well. Tannenbaum's 1985 national survey (Cox, e t a l . ) of 16,000 schools revealed a predominance of what Tannenbaum calls "provisions" (fragmentary, comprehensive, sustained programming. supported by Gold Thus, ad hoc offerings) This finding is (1986). despite recommendations for sustained, comprehensive programming, the research and literature suggest that schools in Michigan, country, rather than as well as across the are struggling to achieve this degree of involvement for students in gifted programming. Methods of Identification An entire section of the TAG standards is devoted to identification. Those standards most pertinent to the issues addressed in this study are as follows: a. Diverse abilities and intelligences. Students are gifted and talented in a wide range of abilities areas. When conducting assessment for the purposes of identification, student strengths and needs are determined in as many spheres as possible, b. (p. 11) Qualitative and quantitative m e a s u r e s . A balance between qualitative and quantitative measures can be achieved by selecting among instruments 28 s uch as standardized tests; tests; observations by trained teachers and other professionals; self-, criterion-referenced peer, interviews; demonstrations and portfolios; and parent nominations; and evaluations of students' pation in established programs, c. student Nondiscriminatorv a s s e s s m e n t . (p. partici­ 12) Assessment instruments and procedures must be in place that fairly measure the capabilities of all students. Cultural heritage, economic condition, handicapping condition, gender, native language, and other factors that mitigate against fair assessment must be taken into account when procedures and instruments are chosen, (p. 12) Problems With Identification A review of the literature revealed that identification processes were repeatedly cited as one of the major causes of inequity in gifted programming 1986; Masten, 1989; Richert, 1985; Frasier, 1987). Ryan 1987; (1983) (Culross, 1989; McKenzie, Johnsen, 1986; Baer, reports that research efforts have indicated that as many as half of the intellectually gifted children are not identified 1973; Pegnato, 1959). The National Report on Identification 1982) (Dunn, (Richert, etal., revealed substantial confusion among practitioners about defining, identifying, and determining which 29 population should be served in gifted programs. Some of the problems cited in the report include: 1. There is confusion about definitions of giftedness, as evidenced by conflicting definitions and identification procedures in use around the country. 2. Educational equity is being violated in the identification of significant subpopulations. Tests are used for populations for which they have not been normed. Minority groups are excluded systematically from gifted programs as a result of biased procedures. 3. Identification instruments are misused; tests are being used to measure abilities which they were not designed to determine. 4. Instruments and procedures are being used at inappropriate stages of the identification process. Many instruments are being used for placement that are appropriate only for placing students in a broad talent pool rather than into various program options [emphasis added] that require specific characteristics. This report also revealed a distressing gap between research and its application to equitable identification. Treffinger and Renzulli (1986) concur with this finding saying: The majority of law, procedures policy, and practical lag at least ten to fifteen years behind current research-based knowledge. (P. 151) Need for Expanded Definition of Giftedness Richert (1987) reports that much of the identification controversy centers around whether IQ by itself can designate or identify giftedness, whether broader definitions are more appropriate, or if characteristics beyond the cognitive are more relevant. As a result of this 30 controversy, many gifted educators advocate expanding the concept of giftedness beyond IQ (Feldhusen, 1983; Gould, 1978; Richert, Torrance, 1981; Guilford, 1982, 1970; 1986; Gold, Meeker, Tannenbaum, 1986). describe Project Spectrum, 1967; 1986; 1969; 1983; Gardner, Renzulli, Taylor, Hatch and Gardner 1985; (1986) a four-year project to develop a new means for assessing the intellectual propensities of preschool children. The goals of this project were "to move beyond the idea of a single intelligence to an understanding of a range of competences and to advance from tests to assessments" (p. 148). These assessment processes result in descriptive profiles of each child, which allow evaluators to consider the child's strengths and weaknesses in light of his cultural and family background. These profiles coordinate input from the evaluators' observations, as surveys from parents and teachers. as well The Project Spectrum data downplay the importance of scores and "avoid an overvaluation of particular point totals" (p. 149). Say Hatch and Gardner: The loss of the ready precision obtained in standardized tests will be compensated for by the richness and variety of information that is obtained, (p. 150) Treffinger and Renzulli is "dynamic and multi-facted" (1986) argue that intelligence (p. 152). These educators of the gifted believe that the tendency to quantify intellectual ability in the form of a single test score is 31 misleading, sample of as it represents a "limited and unrepresentative 'intelligent' behavior" (p. 152). Need for^Multiple Identification Methods An expanded definition of giftedness leads to a need for a broader identification process. reflects such a change, identification process. The literature recommending a multiple Kaufman and Harrison (1986) argue that no one method of identification is adequate. These authors found that teacher and parent nominations, group intelligence tests, and achievement tests used by themselves were even less accurate than IQ tests in identifying the gifted. Robinson and Chararad (1986) argue that virtually all identification methods except standardized tests rely exclusively on subjective assessment, making each of them questionable methods of identification by themselves. As a result of the apparent weaknesses of the various single identifiers, most educators of the gifted now strongly advocate the use of a combination of evaluation methods to provide a profile of each child's strengths. Each evaluation measure in such profiles, however, is considered separately rather than combined into a "giftedness information, composite. i n dex." Combining the data obscures the creating a meaningless apples-and-oranges (Borland, 1986) 32 Tag t. ...Cantra-versy Many educators argue that some standardized tests used for identifying gifted students are culturally biased (Black, 1963; Davis, 1975; Hoffman, 1974; Nairn, 1962; Gardner, Kamin, etal. , 1980); and Gardner, 1974; Samuda, 1941; Klineberg, Goolsby, 1935; Miller, 1975). Recent research on identifying and testing gifted children has resulted in some recommendations regarding appropriate tests and identification processes which are less culturally biased. For example, the 1982 National Report on Identification recommends five tests: Cattell Culture-Fair Intelligence Series, Progressive Matrices, (l) The (2) The Ravens (3) The Cartoon Conservation Scales, (4) The Stallings Environmentally Based Screen, System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment. and (5) The These tests are designed to measure intellectual abilities in students from linguistically and culturally different backgrounds. In addition, the Structure of Intellect Tests and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Tests have been normed for certain subpopulations (Meeker, 1978; Bruch, 1971). Frasier (1987) reviewed the literature and research on culturally fair identification and recommends several standardized instruments that examine intelligence from a broader perspective. In addition to some of those cited by the National Report on Identification, Frasier recommends the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Children, the Kaufman Battery for and the Abbreviated Binet for Disadvantaged 33 Children. Masten (1985) has developed a useful guide for matching various tests and techniques to the particular minority group being identified. Finally, in her 1985 Identification Update for Roeper R e v i e w . Richert provides a "Matrix of Promising Practices for Identifying the Disadvantaged Gifted and Tale n t e d . " Michigan Status on Identification The literature revealed little about the methods and processes used in Michigan to identify gifted and talented students. Although the 1990 Department of Education study showed that students were being identified in more talent areas than in the past, the study did not report the methods used to identify these students nor did it report the types of tests common in Michigan districts. embraces the TAG standards, Since Michigan it is assumed that the state encourages multiple, as well as culture-fair, practices. past research and literature does not However, indicate the extent of these practices. provided in this study, therefore, identification The information will give educators a better understanding of the status of identification practices in Michigan's culturally diverse schools. CHAPTER 3 Design and Procedure Introduction The status of gifted programming in Michigan's culturally diverse schools was investigated through a survey mailed to the 51 districts with a minority population of 24 percent or higher. This list was acquired from the Michigan Department of Education's 1988-89 Fourth Friday file. (Fourth Friday is a pre-established date set each year by the State of Michigan for the purpose of doing a state-wide student count by district, used for purposes of f u n d i n g . ) This was the most recent list available giving minority representation in Michigan's school districts. The survey was sent to the gifted and talented coordinator of each district. This survey was designed to gather data concerning the main and subsidiary questions identified in Chapter 1. The cover letter and survey that were mailed to the coordinators can be found in the Appendix, labeled items A and B. The population, survey design and procedure, and the data analysis are described in detail in the following pages. Population Although some data exist regarding the status of gifted programming in Michigan and across the United States, few reports concentrate on high-minority schools 34 very 35 exclusively. This study made these schools the prime focus and allowed for some comparison of these districts to the state as a whole and to the nation. Because aggregate, state-wide data can obscure important detail about specific types of schools, this study centered exclusively on culturally diverse schools in an effort to set them apart for examination. The 51 school districts in Michigan with a minority population of 24 percent or more were identified by the Michigan Department of Education as culturally diverse and were therefore the subject population for this study. The districts represented a wide student population ranging from 21 to 184,992 students. The minority population ranged from 24 percent to 99.5 percent. Although the districts were spread geographically across the state, Peninsula, including the Upper a considerable number of the districts were concentrated in southern Michigan, especially in the southeast and southwest corners of the state. A list of the districts and a map showing their distribution across the state are labeled items C and D in the Appendix. Survey Design The Cover Letter The purpose and importance of the study were described in a cover letter accompanying the survey. The Gifted and Talented Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Education co-signed this letter as an endorsement of the 36 study's value. Although the name of the district and the respondent's name were requested in the survey, the cover letter assured strict confidentiality in the final report. The Survey The complete survey, bound in booklet form, included an instruction page that reiterated the purpose and confidentiality statements. pages in length. The survey itself was fourteen All fourteen pages were used by the coordinators only if the district offered at least two program options at each of the school levels. The questions were designed to be answered with a minimum of writing. Whenever possible, checklists were provided for ease of writing. A postage-paid, addressed envelope was provided for each respondent for mailing the survey back. District Data. Pages 1 and 2 of the survey were used to learn about the district as a whole. In order to determine whether the district minority population had changed significantly from the 1988-89 Fourth Friday count, the racial/gender distribution of the entire school district was requested. Also requested was the gifted and talented student population by race. The gifted and talented supervision, policies, and procedures of the district were also investigated in this section. To reduce the amount of writing required, the 37 coordinators were asked to attach copies, rather than write, their .mission statements and their program options if these documents were available. Asking for copies of these documents served two purposes. First, it established whether or not the district had a written philosophy and/or listing of program options. Second, it provided examples of the philosophy and program options for these districts. The remaining district questions were intended to examine practices regarding the identification of gifted and talented p o t e n t i a l . as well as the process for program expansion. The first two pages of the survey provided an overview of the district as a whole in terms of philosophy, practices, and programming for gifted and talented students. It supplied the descriptive background necessary to better understand the remaining building-level data. Building-Level D a t a . The remainder of the survey narrowed the scope of the study to individual buildings. Using the four subsidiary research questions as a basis, pages 3-14 concentrated on programming at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Because it would have been unrealistic to ask the coordinators to describe all of their program options at all of their buildings, they were asked to describe two program options at each level. For districts with more than one school at each of these levels, coordinators were asked to choose one typical school to describe. A typical school was defined in the survey as one 38 that characterized the variety of programming, the racial/gender representation, as well as of the district as a whole. The survey for each of the building levels was identical, asking the same questions for each level. The survey questions and their relationship to each of the subsidiary research questions are described below. Survey Q u e s t i o n s . The first subsidiary research question addressed program option and model availability in the surveyed schools. Since The Association for the Gifted standard encourages a variety of program options and models based on the needs of the students, the first six questions of the building-level portion of the survey were aimed at determining whether this variety existed in culturally diverse schools and, if not, what options and models were most predominant. Program options are often identified by type or category. schools. Five major categories are commonly found in They are academic, leadership, counseling. creativity, performing/visual arts, and affective development or The survey was intended to determine whether all of these categories were equally common or whether there was a predominance of any one type of program option. Questions 1-5 of the building-level surveys were intended to determine the availability and frequency of the five categories in surveyed schools. 39 Question 6 of the building-level portion of the survey addressed program models and was used to determine the variety of program models available in the high-minority schools. Seven types of models are commonly found. are cluster grouping, self-contained classroom, They regular class with IEP (individual educational plan), pull-out program, and resource center, teacher consultant, counseling/affective development. Question 6 examined the frequency of each of these types of models. The second subsidiary research question was concerned with the racial/gender distribution within e ach of the types of program options. Question 12 of the building-level portion of the survey solicited these race and gender figures. The purpose of this question was to determine whether or not the racial/gender population of the individual program options reasonably duplicated the entire district population or whether there were over- and underrepresented groups in any of the types of options. The third subsidiary research question was related to the amount of involvement students had in individual program options. The purpose of this question was to determine the number of sustained versus short-term programs available in surveyed schools. In Michigan a sustained program is defined as one that meets at least three hours a week during the entire school year. Sustained programming, is encouraged whenever possible. of course, Question 8 of the 40 building-level portion of the survey determined whether a program would be defined as sustained or short-term. The fourth and final subsidiary research question involved identification practices of surveyed schools. As discussed in Chapter 2 under "Problems With Identification," the failure to provide equitable gifted programming is frequently linked to identification practices. Therefore, a considerable portion of the survey addressed the practices of surveyed schools. The research findings regarding equitable identification practices which resulted in the TAG standards were reviewed in Chapter 2. These recommendations encourage the use of multiple identification methods as well as empirically-proven culture-fair tests. The use of procedures that measure potential as well as demonstrated talent is also encouraged by these standards. District-wide identification practices, as well as building-level methods used to identify students for specific program options were investigated through the survey. Questions 2 and 3 of the district portion of the survey addressed the identification of gifted and talented potential. Question 2 simply determined whether the district attempts to identify potential, while question 3 determined if any of the individual program options were specifically intended to develop potential. Questions 8-11 on the building-level portion of the survey addressed identification practices for individual 41 program options. question 8. The methods used were identified in For those schools using multiple identification methods, question 9 clarified whether or not one method took precedence. It established whether one condition had to be met before the others were considered. This question is important because the district does not really utilize multiple methods if one condition must be met before the others are considered. That is, the district may say that they are using multiple identification methods when they are really including or excluding students by the first method applied. Question 9 made that distinction. Identification for, and participation in, gifted programming are two different conditions. Students identified as gifted are not guaranteed participation in gifted programming. Questions 10 and 11 in the survey clarified how a student got from the status of identification to participation by asking about number limitations and selection processes. Survey Procedures The survey was mailed January 7, 1991. Respondents were asked to return the survey by February 1. After the initial mailing of the survey, it was found that some districts were not responding because the districts had no gifted programming. letter was mailed on January 21, 1991, opportunity to report that situation, Therefore, a follow-up to give districts an if it existed. It was 42 felt that the lack of programming in some districts was as important to the study as was the reporting of the status of current programs. The follow-up letter gave respondents an opportunity to report the lack of gifted programming on the letter and mail it back in the enclosed addressed, postage- paid envelope. In this letter coordinators were also encouraged to participate in the study regardless of the size of their district, as it was found that some small districts felt that their data would not significantly contribute to the study. Finally, the follow-up letter provided an opportunity for respondents to request a new copy of the survey should the original survey have been misplaced. letter is labeled item E in Twenty-three districts the Appendix. (45 percent) survey by the February 1 deadline. had not responded to the survey telephoned during that week The follow-up responded to the Those coordinators who by February 4 and encouraged to were return the survey by the end of February. All surveys received through February 28, included in the study. 1991, were This allowed eight weeks from the time the survey was mailed until data analysis began. Any surveys received after February 28 were not included in the data analysis described below. districts surveyed Thirty-five of the 51 school (68.6 percent) responded to the survey. 43 Data Analysis The main purpose of the study was to report the current status of gifted programming in high-minority districts. This status report was to be presented in such a way that some conclusions could be drawn regarding equity in these districts. Although many facets of the school experience affect equity, this study focused on the four areas identified in the four subsidiary questions. program option and model availability, distribution in program options, involvement in program options, practices. They were (1) (2) racial/gender (3) degree of student and (4) identification The data for the findings and conclusions have been tabulated and reported under these four headings. Program Options and Models The program options and models reported in the surveys were tabulated by type to determine which categories of options and models were most common. This tabulation was intended to provide evidence of variety, the surveyed schools. or lack of it, in It also revealed which grades were receiving the greatest amount of gifted programming, as well as the scope of programming school-wide and district-wide. Racial/Gender Distribution When speaking to issues of equity, race and gender representation within the individual program types is an important component. Therefore, the number of students in each type of program option was tabulated by race and 44 gender. The purpose of this tabulation was to look for evidence of equal representation of race and gender in all types of options. That is, it was intended to determine whether each race and gender was proportionally represented in all five types of program options or whether some groups were over- or underrepresented. Race and gender distribution tables are presented in two ways. First, each program type was analysed to determine the race and gender representation in each of the programs. Second, each race and gender group was examined individually to determine if any group tended to appear more frequently in some programs than in others. This second analysis was intended to determine whether there was any tendency toward clustering of racial groups into one or more program types. Degree of Involvement The number of sustained and short-term program options was tabulated by school level for comparison. The percentage of students in both sustained and short-term programs was also tabulated by race and reported in table form. The purpose of this analysis was again to look for evidence of racial clusterings— this time in sustained versus short-term programs. Identification Schools use many different methods to identify students for gifted and talented programming. Some of these methods 45 include grades, creativity), testing (aptitude, rating scales, administrator, peer, achievement, recommendations parent), IQ, (teacher, and self-nomination. As reported in Chapter 2, the TAG standards recommend the use of a variety of methods, identifier. rather than relying on one single As is also reported in Chapter 2, this recommendation has the support of most gifted educators, especially when attempting to locate gifted minorities. In order to understand the identification methods of the surveyed schools, the number of programs using a single identification method versus the number using multiple methods was tabulated and reported in table form. The methods used for final selection and placement were also tabulated. This summary revealed how students moved from identification to participation status. A number of different tests are used to identify children for gifted programming. include aptitude, tests. achievement, Categories of tests intelligence, and creativity Within these categories there are many tests from which schools can choose. As reviewed in Chapter 2, there are also several culture-fair tests that are widely accepted among gifted educators for identifying gifted students. In an effort to see what tests were commonly used in the surveyed schools, the different types of tests were tabulated to determine which tests were most frequently used. In order to see whether there were any predominant categories or types of tests, these tests were tabulated by 46 category (achievement, aptitude, intelligence, e t c . ) and by test name. Summary This study of gifted programming in high-minority schools was accomplished through a survey mailed to all districts in Michigan with a minority population of 24 percent or higher. Four specific areas of gifted programming were investigated in an effort to examine issues of equity in these school districts. The areas studied were (1) the availability of gifted program options and models, (2) the racial/gender representation within these program options, (3) the degree of student involvement, and (4) the common methods of identification. The responses to these surveys were tabulated and are reported in the following chapter. CHAPTER 4 Presentation of Data Introduction The purpose of this study was to survey high-minority school districts in Michigan in order to learn more about the status of their gifted programming. This status report was further intended to shed some light on equity within these districts. In order to learn about the districts, questions were sought. answers to four They were: 1. What program options and models are available in high-minority schools? 2. What is the racial/gender distribution within the program options? 3. What is the degree of involvement of students in gifted programming in the surveyed schools? 4. How are students identified for various program options? The results of the survey are presented in the following manner. First, the survey return rate and the district data are reviewed to provide a descriptive overview of the surveyed districts. supervision, Demographic data, philosophy, practices, as well as program and programming at the district level are discussed here as a backdrop for the remaining building-level data. data are presented. Second, the building-level The data regarding program model and option availability are presented, types of models and options. revealing the most common The racial/gender 47 48 representation is examined for evidence of racial clusterings in certain types of programs. Next, the degree of student involvement within program options is presented, with particular attention given to the frequency of sustained versus short-term programs. Finally, identification methods are reviewed. the types of Commonalities of practices are reflected in these tabulations. Tables are provided in each section to clarify relationships. Target Population/Survey Response The survey was sent to the 51 school districts Michigan identified in the in 1988-89 State Department's Fourth Friday File as high minority; that is, it was sent to all districts with a minority population of 24 percent or higher. Thirty-five (68.6%) of the 51 districts responded to the survey. District Data District Demographics District s i z e . The sizes of the surveyed and responding districts are reviewed in Table 1. table, As can be seen by this the percentage of responding districts in each size category coincide quite closely with the surveyed districts. The responding districts are therefore quite representative of the population surveyed in terms of district size. 49 Table 1 SIZES OF SURVEYED AND RESPONDING DISTRICTS Surveyed Districts District Size* Number of Districts Responding Districts Percent of Total Number of Districts Percent of Total SMALL 13 25. 5 8 23 MEDIUM 22 43. 1 14 40 LARGE 16 31. 4 12 34 1 3 UNKNOWN (anon) TOTALS 51 100.0% 35 100% *Small Districts = 999 students or less *Medium Districts = 1,000-4,999 students *Large Districts = 5,000 students or more Student Po p u l a t i o n . Table 2 provides a detailed enrollment profile of the 35 responding districts. This table includes the total enrollment figures for each responding district, students as well as the percentage of minority in each of the districts. District No. 35 in the table) One district (labeled as responded anonymously, providing no population figures. Therefore, the total enrollment figure reflects the total for the remaining 34 districts. 50 Table 2 ENROLLMENT PROFILE OF RESPONDING DISTRICTS* N = 35 Districts District Total Enrollment District District District District District District District District No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. District District District District District District District District District District District District District District No. 9 No. 10 No. 11 No. 12 No. 13 No. 14 No. 15 No. 16 No. 17 No. 18 No. 19 No. 20 No. 21 No. 22 District District District District District District District District District District District District District No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.35 Percent Minority SMALL DISTRICTS 90 797 814 26 102 661 177 320 71 63 56 46 35 29 28 24 MEDIUM-SIZED DISTRICTS 4,569 2,303 1,847 1,800 2,365 2,446 2,295 3,416 4,696 1, 144 1,582 3,299 2,440 1,800 99 97 91 60 56 44 44 38 29 28 28 28 27 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (Anon.) LARGE DISTRICTS 7,223 29,179 15,464 8,520 25,730 7,324 21,951 12,692 8,895 7,826 5,037 13,885 Unknown 83 69 68 48 47 46 43 41 34 29 29 25 Unknown TOTAL = 202,715 *Extracted from the Michigan Department of Education 1988-89 Fourth Friday File. 51 District M a k e - u p . The 35 responding districts represented a combined total in excess of 40 high schools, middle schools, and 250 elementary schools. 50 The minority representation within the 35 responding districts ranged from 24 percent to 99.5 percent. distributed geographically, Responding districts were well including both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas of Michigan. Racial P r o f i l e . A racial profile of all of the students in the responding districts is provided in Table 3. The data for this table were extracted from the Michigan Department of Education Special Report from the 1988-89 Fourth Friday File. (See definition of Michigan's Fourth Friday process on page 34, Chapter 3.) This file includes a breakdown of the state's student enrollment by district and by racial group. Of the 35 responding districts, 1990-91 Fourth Friday figures, provided Fourth Friday data, 20 provided updated as requested. Of those who all remained in the high minority category of 24 percent minority population or higher. In fact, all but three districts providing Fourth Friday data showed an Increase in minority representation during 1990-91 over the 1988-89 count provided by the State Department of Education. One large district and one medium- sized district had a one percent minority decrease; small district had a 10 percent drop, represented only 18 students. but this one very 10 percent Seventeen of the 20 districts also showed a decrease in total student population. 52 Table 3 STUDENTS IN RESPONDING DISTRICTS BY RACE* N = 34 Districts Race. Number Indian 2,191 1.0 Asian 3,114 1.5 Hispanic 11,672 6.0 Black 84,199 41.5 101.539 50.Q 202,715 100.0% Caucasian TOTAL Percent ^Extracted from the Michigan Department of Education Special Report from the 1988-89 Fourth Friday File. N o t e . Although 35 districts responded, one district did so anonymously; the student count for this district could not be included in the table. Gifted Demographics The availability of gifted programming in the surveyed schools is reported in Table 4. percent, all. Six districts, or 17 of the 35 responding districts had no programming at At least one of these districts fell into the large district category (over 5,000 students) and at least two other districts fell into the medium-sized category (1,000- 4,999 students). The 29 districts with gifted programming offered a total of 121 different program options at the elementary level, 61 at the middle school level, and 62 at the high school level. The surveys provided descriptions of 44 elementary programs 53 (36 percent of the total program offerings); 27 middle school programs (44 percent of the total); and 26 high school programs (42 percent of the total). Table 4 GIFTED OPTION AVAILABILITY IN RESPONDING DISTRICTS N = 29 Districts Total Options in All Districts ELEMENTARY 121 4.2 61 2.1 _£2. 2.1 MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL Note. Average Number of Options Per District 244 Six additional districts had no. gifted programming. Twelve of the 29 districts with gifted programming reported both Fourth student counts. Friday student counts Therefore, and gifted program comparisons could be made in these districts between total minority representation and gifted minority representation. The total student population by race and the gifted population by race of the 12 districts that provided these data are reported in Table 5. An examination of Table 5 will show that Blacks and Hispanics were underrepresented in gifted programming by 49 and 43 percent respectively, overrepresented by 44 percent under/overrepresentation, while white students were (see explanation of page 17). 54 Table 5 1990-91 TOTAL AND GIFTED POPULATION BY RACE N = 12 Districts Percent Total Total Gifted Percent Students of Total Caucasian 28,836 50. 0 3,636 72 Black 21,417 37. 0 953 19 6,041 10. 5 320 6 Asian 886 1. 5 93 2 Indian 545 1. 0 31 1 Hispanic 57,726 TOTALS 100.0% Total Gl; 100% 5,033 N o t e . Although 35 districts responded to the survey, only 12 provided both Fourth Friday and gifted population figures. Programming Surveyed schools were asked whether their districts had a written list of available program options. districts with gifted programming (24 percent) indicated that their districts did have printed lists. included the list of offerings, Seven of the 29 Four of the seven as requested. four were professionally printed brochures. Three of the Coordinators were also asked whether other program offerings were under consideration for their districts. districts Twelve of the 29 indicated that additional program offerings were under consideration. The most frequent change indicated was a total or partial revision of all program options. The most frequent addition under consideration was mentorships. 55 Finally, coordinators were asked to list the major criterion for the addition of a program offering. details all of the responses. most common criterion. Table 6 "Student needs" emerged as the ("Student needs" generally refers to student skills or talents that have been identified through testing or other methods and have been deemed worthy of further development through a differentiated curriculum.) "Teacher availability" and "resource availability" were also common responses to this survey question. Table 6 DISTRICT CRITERIA FOR GIFTED PROGRAM EXPANSION N = 29 Districts Number of Criterion Districts Percent of Total Student needs 16 40.0 Teacher availability 10 25.0 Resource availability 8 20.0 Funding 1 2.5 Parental requests 1 2.5 Racial integration 1 2.5 District review 1 2.5 Reorganization 1 2.5 _L 2.5 40 100. 0 Research - current practice TOTALS Note. Some districts listed more than one criterion; therefore, the total exceeds the number of districts. 56 Gifted Supervision The titles held by the persons in charge of gifted programming are summarized in Table 7. The surveys asked for the name of the person in charge of gifted and talented programming in the district and the title held by that person. Although some districts had a full-time gifted and talented coordinator, many districts combined gifted and talented coordination with other duties. Gifted and talented coordination was often the responsibility of the state and federal program director, the principal, or combined with some other title, talented teacher. the superintendent, such as gifted and Two district coordinators did not indicate their title. Gifted. ..Philosophy. The status of philosophy statements districts is summarized in Table 8. districts with gifted programming, percent, in the surveyed Of the 29 responding 18 districts, or 62 had a written mission statement or philosophy. Respondents were asked to include a copy of their philosophy in the survey. Eight districts complied with this request. One of the philosophies specifically mentions equality of treatment, status, program. regardless of race, gender, or socioeconomic as a goal of the district's gifted and talented Some of the others make a reference to all children being unique with special talents, to race or gender. but do not directly refer 57 Table 7 TITLES OF GIFTED AND TALENTED SUPERVISORS N = 35 Districts Number of Districts Title Gifted/Enrichment/Able Learner Coord. Percent 12 34. 2 5 14. 2 Director, State and Federal Programs 4 11. 4 Principal 3 8.6 Gifted and Talented Teacher 2 5. 7 Superintendent 2 5.7 Assistant Superintendent- 1 2.9 Reading Consultant 1 2.9 Director, 1 2.9 Administrative Services Assistant 1 2.9 Human Resources Coordinator 1 2.9 JL 5.7 35 100. 0 Two Titles: G/T Coordinator/2nd Title Special Education No title given TOTALS Table 8 STATUS OF DISTRICT PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS N = 29 Districts Districts With Written Philosophy: 18 Percent of Total: 62 Districts Without Written Philosophy: H Percent of Total: 38 TOTALS 29 100% 58 Gifted Potential Of the 29 responding districts that had gifted programming, 20 (69 percent) indicated that they attempt to identify gifted potential as well as demonstrated talents. All of the methods used to identify potential in the surveyed districts are reviewed in Table 9. The use of a multiple method was the most common identification practice for locating gifted potential. testing, Other practices teacher recommendations, listed included self-nomination, and teacher/parent checklists. Twelve of the 20 districts indicated that testing was used exclusively or in combination with other identification methods to identify potential. The most common tests used to identify potential were the Cognitive Abilities Test and the California Test of Cognitive Skills, percent of the tests used. the IOWA, Johnson, each representing 19 Other tests mentioned included the California Test of Basic Skills, Wechsler, In addition, Woodcock and Otis Lennon. two districts indicated that their teachers have received training to identify gifted potential. A majority of the coordinators indicated that one or more program options in the district were designed specifically to develop the child's potential. of the 29 districts (79 percent) available for this purpose. Twenty-three indicated that options were 59 Table 9 METHODS USED TO IDENTIFY GIFTED POTENTIAL N = 29 Districts Number of D1stricts Method Percent Of.Total No method used 9 31 Multiple 8 28 Testing 5 17 Teacher recommendation 4 14 Self-nomination 2 7 Teacher/parent checklist TOTALS -L __3. 29 100% Building-Level Data Program,.Options The program options described by the surveyed districts are reviewed in Table 10. At the building level, 97 different program descriptions were provided— 44 elementary, 27 middle school, options and 26 high school programs. (see definition, Academic page 16) were most popular, representing 52 percent of the elementary programs, percent of the middle school programs, 48 and 61 percent of the high school programs. The second most popular option was a multiple option; that is, a program designed to address a combination of areas, such as academic enrichment/creativity. Multiple options were generally magnet schools or self-contained classrooms, where several areas could be emphasized. 60 Table 10 GIFTED OPTION TYPES IN RESPONDING DISTRICTS N = 29 Districts ELEMENTARY Program Type Number of Programs Academic Multiple Creativity Performing/Visual Arts Other Leadership Affective Development Counseling Total Elementary Programs = MIDDLE Program Type Total Middle School Programs = HIGH Program Type Academic Multiple Creativity Leadership Performing/Visual Arts Affective Development Counseling Other 23 13 4 2 2 0 0 _a 52. 0 30. 0 9. 0 4.5 4. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 44 100.0% Number of Programs Academic Multiple Creativity Performing /Visual Arts Leadership Affective Dev. Counseling Other Percent of Elementary Percent of Middle Sch. 13 10 2 2 0 0 0 _JQ. 48. 0 37. 0 7.5 7.5 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 27 100.0% Number of Programs 16 8 1 1 0 0 0 q. Total High School Programs = 26 TOTAL PROGRAMS (ALL LEVELS) = 97 Percent of High School 61. 31. 4. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100. 0% 61 In order to get a sense of the extent to which each type of option was available school-wide, the coordinators were asked to indicate the number of sections that were available within the school chosen. Twenty-three of the 44 elementary options had more than one section available at the school. In many cases, the same option was available to several different grades. The number of sections available in one school ranged from one to 31. At the middle school level, 16 of the 27 options described had more than one section available at the school. The number of middle school sections available at one school ranged from one to 12. At the high school level, 10 of the 26 options described had more than one section available. The number of sections ranged from one to 21 at the schools described. In order to get a sense of district-wide availability of options, coordinators were asked whether the program options described were available at more than one school. districts had more than one elementary school; Twenty-two eighteen of the districts offered some or all of the options at other schools. Eleven districts had more than one middle school; nine of these districts offered options at other schools. Six districts had more than one high school, three of which offered options at other schools. Table 11 reveals that there are more program options at the elementary level than at the middle and high school level, with grades three through six having the most options. 62 Table 11 AVAILABILITY OF PROGRAMMING BY GRADE LEVEL N = 29 Districts Number of Programs Grade Percent of Grand Total* ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade TOTAL ELEMENTARY = 12 16 21 36 40 _11 3.6 4.7 6.3 10.7 11.9 12.2 166 49. 4% MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAMS 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade TOTAL MIDDLE SCHOOL = 37 25 22. 11. 0 7.5 6.6 84 25. 1% HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade TOTAL HIGH SCHOOL = *GRAND TOTAL (ALL PROGRAMS) = 22 20 21 22 6.6 6. 0 6.3 6.6 85 25.5 % 335 100.0% 63 The scope of programming by level is reported in Table 12. Of the 35 districts, 16 (46 percent) program options at the elementary level. had at least two Six more districts had elementary magnet schools, with extensive programming. Of the remaining 13 districts, five had one option at the elementary level. Eight districts had no elementary gifted programming. At the middle school level, 5 (14 percent) of the 35 districts had at least two program options. Three other districts had magnet schools with extensive programming. the remaining 27 districts, Of 14 had one gifted program and 13 had no gifted programming at the middle school level. At the high school level, 8 (23 percent) of the 35 districts had at least two program options. In addition, districts had magnet schools with extensive programming. the remaining 24 districts, 3 Of 9 had one program option and 15 had no programming at the high school level. The maximum number of students that can be accommodated within a program option is reported in Table 13 (page 65). Coordinators were asked whether the district set a maximum number for program options. Approximately half of the program options do have a student limit. frequent number reported was 20 students, (49 percent) The most but the limit ranged from a low of 7 (mainly competitive teams) to a high of 700 (a magnet school). 64 Table 12 SCOPE OF PROGRAMMING BY SCHOOL LEVEL N = 35 Districts ELEMENTARY Scope of Programming Magnet schools Two or more options One program option No programming TOTALS MIDDLE Scope of Programming Magnet schools Two or more options One program option No programming TOTALS HIGH Scope of Programming Magnet schools Two or more options One program option No programming TOTALS Number of Districts Percent of Elementary 6 16 5 JL 17 46 14 _21 35 100% Number of Districts Percent of Middle Sch. 3 5 14 11 9 14 40 _!1 35 100% Number of Districts Percent of High School 3 8 9 11 9 23 25 _4i 35 100% 65 Table 13 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER PROGRAM OPTION N 29 Districts Maximum Students Frequency 7 9 12 15 15 16 18 20 2 0 25 24 25 25- 30 26- 28 29 30 30- 32 60 70 140 150 170 300 600 700 3 1 1 2 2 1 - 5 2 2 2 2 - Magnet Schools Program...Models The program models are reported in Table 14 by school level. At the elementary level, the pullout program school programs 14 percent, the most common model was (28 p e r c e n t ) , followed by before/after (24 p e r c e n t ) . Cluster groups accounted for while self-contained classrooms and magnet schools represented 12 percent each. Pullout and before/after school programs were also the most popular models at the middle school level, percent, each accounting for 22 followed by self-contained classrooms (20 percent). 66 Table 14 PROGRAM MODELS BY SCHOOL LEVEL N = 29 Districts ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH Model Number of Programs Percent of Elementary Pullout Program Before/After School Cluster Self-contained Magnet Resource Center Other Regular Class - IEP 14 12 7 6 6 2 2 _! 28 24 14 12 12 4 4 __ 2. TOTAL 44 100% Model Number of Programs Percent of Middle Sch. Pullout Before/After School Self-contained Cluster Magnet Resource Center Regular Class - IEP Other Teacher Consultant 9 9 8 5 3 2 2 2 _i 22 22 20 12 7 5 5 R __2. TOTAL 41 100% Number of Programs Model Before/After School Self-contained Other Magnet Cluster Pullout Teacher Consultant TOTAL Percent of High School 10 9 5 3 3 3 _i 29 26 15 9 9 9 34 100% 67 At the high school level, before/after school program contained classrooms the most common model was the (29 p e r c e n t ) , followed by self- (26 percent). mentorships and advanced placement. models, Other popular models were Specially designed tailored to meet individual district needs, were more common at the high school level than at the middle and elementary level. Racial/Gender Distribution Not all of the responding schools were able to provide the race/gender distribution within individual program options. In many cases this was because the distribution changed each semester or marking period. However, student distributions were provided for 21 elementary programs, middle school programs, and 14 high school programs. The race/gender representation in academic options reported in Table 15. 18 In these options, is 75 percent of the students were white and 25 percent were minority. Since it was known that 50 percent of the population in the responding districts was minority, these figures revealed that minorities were underrepresented in academic options by 50 percent. 17). (See explanation of under/overrepresentation, page The gender representation was most equal among the white students, with 48 percent male and 52 percent female. The greatest gender disparity was in the Black population, with 39 percent male and 61 percent female. 68 Table 15 RACE/GENDER REPRESENTATION IN ACADEMIC OPTIONS N = 29 Districts Race WHITE Number of Students Male Female TOTALS BLACK INDIAN 52- 36 _3£ 1,311 100% 75 89 139. 39 6JL_ 100% 13 49 61 45 ,.55_ 3 110 100% 36 31. 54 46_ Male Female Male Female TOTALS ASIAN Male Female TOTALS PROGRAM TOTALS 5 ...a. 228 TOTALS HISPANIC 48 Percent All Races 627 _ 6 M Male Female TOTALS Percent of Race . . .. 67 100% 22 17 56 44_ 39 100% 1,755 — 2. 6 2 __ 2. 4 — 1 L 2 100% 69 The race and gender representation in multiple emphasis options, which were mainly magnet schools and all-day self- contained classrooms, options, is reported in Table 16. 69 percent of the students were white, percent were minority, In these while 31 indicating a 38 percent underrepresentation of minorities. The females outnumbered the males in these programs in all racial groups, but the disparity between males and females was not as great as in the academic options. The greatest gender disparities in multiple emphasis options were in the Black and Asian p o p u l a t i o n s , where females outnumbered males by 14 and 16 percentage points respectively. Both the Indian and white population had a gender separation of 4 percent. The race and gender representation in creative options is reported in Table 17 (page 71). percent of the students were white, minority underrepresentation. Black and Hispanic students. students in creative programs. In these options, indicating a 60 percent The remaining 20 percent were There were no Asian or Indian Again, disparity was in the Black population, and 62 percent females. 80 the greatest gender with 38 percent males The Hispanic population was 50 percent male and 50 percent female, while the white population had 44 percent males and 56 percent females. Although three visual and performing arts programs were described, no racial or gender distributions were provided for these options. 70 Table 16 RACE/GENDER REPRESENTATION IN MULTIPLE OPTIONS N = 29 Districts Race Number of Students Male Female WHITE TOTALS Male Female BLACK TOTALS HISPANIC Male Female TOTALS INDIAN Male Female TOTALS Male Female ASIAN TOTALS PROGRAM TOTALS Percent of Race Percent All Races 1,029 1,126 48 52 2,155 100% 69. 0 327 .410. 43 .57 10. 0 ..14J1 757 100% 24. 0 57 66 . 33. 0 36...Q 46 .54 2.0 2,0 123 100% 4. 0 34 .3.7 48 52 1.0 L.Q 71 100% 2. 0 18 _2.5. 42 -_5.8... 43 100% 3,149 .5 .5 1. 0 100.0% 71 Table 17 RACE/GENDER REPRESENTATION IN CREATIVE OPTIONS N = 29 Districts Race WHITE Number of Students Male Female TOTALS BLACK Male Female TOTALS HISPANIC Male Female 44 &S... JLL 133 100% 80 11 _1£L 38 ...6.2., 7 _11 29 100% 18 2 __2. 4 Male Female 0 _JL TOTALS ASIAN Male Female TOTALS PROGRAM TOTALS Percent All Races 59 _ZA TOTALS INDIAN Percent of Race _____ 50 ..5.0 1 100% 2 0 0 0 0% 0 0. 0 0 0 0% 166 35 0 _____ 0 . 0 _____ 0 0. 0 100% 72 One p rogram listed under the "other" category as "problem solving" had only seven students enrolled. Racial analysis was not done on this program because of its small numbers. The clustering of racial groups is reported in Table As revealed by this table, 18. 63 percent of the Hispanics were placed in a multiple emphasis program; that is, a program designed to address more than one talent or skill area in a single offering. Most of the remaining Hispanic students were in an academic program; that is, a program that addresses general intellectual areas. The Asian students academic programs were about evenly divided between (48 percent) and multiple emphasis options (52 p e r c e n t ) . The Black students showed the greatest evidence of clustering tendencies, with 74 percent of the Black students placed in multiple emphasis options. T w e n t y - three percent, of the Bla c k students were in academic areas. Sixty percent of the Indian students were placed in academic programs, while 39 percent were in multiple emphasis areas. Sixty percent of the white students were in multiple emphasis areas, with 36 percent in academic areas and 4 percent in creativity development programs; whose primary focus is creative thinking. that is, programs 73 Table 18 REPRESENTATION IN OPTIONS BY RACE/GENDER N = 29 Districts Program Race HISPANIC Academic Multiple Creativity Number of Students Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL HISPANIC ASIAN Academic Multiple Academic Multiple Creativity Male Female Male Female Academic Multiple Other TOTAL WHITE Male Female Male Female Male Female Multiple Creativity TOTAL WHITE 2 b 100% 22 17 18 25 27-, 21-1 48 22— . 3 0 — 1 52 100% 89 139 327 430 11 18 9— l 14-1 23 32-, 42-1 74 3 100% 1,014 Male Female Male Female Male Female 49 61 34 37 2 0 27— i 33-1 60 2 0 — 1 39 £□ i 183 INDIAN Academic 19~1 16-1 35 29-, 3 4 — 1 63 82 TOTAL BLACK INDIAN 36 31 57 66 2 2 194 TOTAL ASIAN BLACK Percent of Race Male Female Male Female Male Female 627 684 1,029 1,126 59 74 3,599 100% 17— 1 19— 1 36 29— , 31 — 1 60 2 —1 2-1 4 10 0 % 74 Degree of Involvement To determine the degree of involvement students had in gifted programming, coordinators were asked whether the program met regularly all year. They were also asked the number of hours that the program met each week. Programs that met regularly throughout the year for at least three hours a week were labeled "sustained." Those that did not meet all year or that met for less than three hours each week were labeled "short-term." As Table 19 shows, there were more short-term programs than sustained programs at the elementary level. level, However, at the middle and high school sustained programming outnumbered short-term programming. Magnet schools accounted for six of the elementary and three of the middle and high school sustained programs. Table 19 SUSTAINED VERSUS SHORT-TERM PROGRAMS N = 29 Districts NUMBER OF PROGRAMS Sshool Level Sustained Elementary Schools 19 23 Middle Schools 16 11 14. 12. 49 46 High Schools TOTALS Short-Term N o t e . Two program descriptions did not include length of time and therefore could not be assigned a status. 75 In terms of numbers of students, far more students were placed in sustained programs than in short-term programs, mainly because of the large numbers of students that can be accommodated in magnet schools and self-contained classes. Eighty-seven percent of the students were in sustained programming; 13 percent in short-term programs. minority population, Among the 89 percent were in sustained programs; 11 percent in short-term programs. breakdown of students Table 20 shows the racial in sustained and short-term programs. Table 20 RACIAL GROUPS IN SUSTAINED VS. SHORT-TERM OPTIONS N = 29 Districts Race HISPANIC Program Type Sustained Short-Term ASIAN Sustained Short-Term BLACK Sustained Short-Term WHITE Sustained Short-Term INDIAN Sustained Short-Term Number of Students Male Female Male Female 90— , 96—J Percent of Race 186 94- 8 1 3-1 11 6- Male Female Male Female 35-i 37-1 72 92- Male Female Male Female 404-, 542— 1 34-, 55-1 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 3n 3-1 J 100% J 100% 6 8- 946 91- 89 9- J 100% 1437— 1 1554-12,991 218-, 273-1 491 48-1 55-1 28-, 32-1 86- J 100% 14- 103 63- 60 37- J 100% 76 Sustained and short-term programming are reported in Table 21 to display racial breakdown by program type (sustained versus short-term). Table 21 TOTAL STUDENTS IN SUSTAINED AND SHORT-TERM PROGRAMS N = 29 Districts SUSTAINED Race Number of Students Indian Asian Black Hispanic 2 2 22 4 1,307 TOTAL STUDENTS Percent 60 9 6 1 89 _11 13 2 30 166 25 2, 991 70 491 75 4,298 100% 657 100% 18.6. Caucasian Number of Students Percent 103 72 946 TOTAL MINORITY SHORT-•TERM The sustained offerings common to the surveyed districts are characterized in Table 22. percent of the total offerings. included enrichment classes percent), Magnet schools represented 24 Other sustained programs (24 percent), acceleration/advanced placement self-contained classes (10 percent). were made up of pull-out, class options. cluster groups (12 percent) (16 and The remaining programs after-school, and special within- 77 Table 22 KINDS OF SUSTAINED PROGRAMMING N = 29 Districts Number of Programs of. Total Magnet Schools 12 24. 5 Enrichment Classes 12 24.5 8 16.3 6 12. 2 Self-contained Classes 5 10.2 After-School Programs 3 6. 1 Within Class Programs 2 4. 1 Pullout Programs — L 2. 1 TOTAL 49 Program Cluster Groups Acceleration/Adv. Placement Percent 100. 0% The short-term offerings common to the surveyed districts are characterized in Table 23. Competitive teams that run during a portion of the school year represented 28 percent of the short-term offerings. programs Common competitive included Future Problem Solving, Mind, Science Olympiad, and Young Authors. Odyssey of the Intermittent enrichment programs represented another 26 percent of the short-term programs. After-school programs represented 13 percent of short­ term programs, while mentorships and Junior Great Books accounted for another 4 percent each. The remaining programs were miscellaneous special options such as Youth in 78 Government, Artist in Residence, Junior R.O.T.C., and independent studies. Table 23 KINDS OF SHORT-TERM PROGRAMMING N = 29 Districts Number of Protrrams Program Percent of. Total Competitions 13 28. 3 Enrichment Offerings 12 26. 1 Misc. 11 23. 9 After-School Programs 6 13. 1 Mentorships 2 4.3 JL 4.3 46 100. 0% Special Programs Junior Great Books TOTAL MentiflcatlaiL .Methods. Coordinators indicated that they use multiple methods to identify students for most of their programs. However, 36 percent of those citing the use of multiple methods also stated that one identification method takes precedence; that is, one condition must be met before the others are considered. Another 4 percent of this group did not state whether one method takes precedence or not. The identification methods used by the surveyed districts are f reported in Table 24. Those programs that indicated a multiple identification method, but further indicated that one method takes precedence are not listed in the multiple 79 category, but rather by the method that is considered first. As this table shows, 58 percent of the programs described used a multiple method of identification, while 42 percent used a single identifier. Table 24 IDENTIFICATION METHODS USED IN DISTRICTS N = 29 Districts Number of Programs Method Multiple identifier Percent of Total 51 58 15 17 Grades 7 8 Self-nomination 6 7 Teacher recommendation 5 6 Behavioral rating scale 3 3 Peer recommendation 1 1 Single identifier: Achievement tests TOTALS 88 100% N o t e . For some program options, all students were placed and no identification methods were used. Data from these options are not included in this table. All of the identification methods that the districts indicated might be used are listed in Table 25. includes all items checked, takes precedence or not. This table regardless of whether one method 80 Table 25 IDENTIFICATION METHODS BY SCHOOL LEVEL N = 29 Districts NUMBER OF PROGRAMS Elementary Middle High 32 18 21 71 Achievement tests 30 16 9 55 Parent nomination 24 12 15 51 Self-nomination 14 10 19 43 Grades 14 10 18 42 Peer recommendation 5 3 9 17 Aptitude tests 6 5 4 15 Creativity tests 6 3 4 13 Intelligence tests 5 4 2 11 Behavioral rating 5 3 2 10 Other 1 1 4 6 Method Teacher/Adm. Recom. Total Coordinators were also asked whether other methods of identification were under consideration. Eighty percent of the responses indicated that no further identification methods were being considered. Of the 20 percent who responded positively to this question, the methods under consideration included intelligence and creativity tests, portfolios, and product development. considering multiple methods. One district was 81 Qualifying for a program, of course, does not guarantee that a student will be placed in an option. Therefore, coordinators were asked how the final decision was made to place a student. in Table 26. The responses to this question are reviewed The most common response was that all identified students were placed; manner. 44 percent responded in this Another 16 percent indicated that a committee made the decision. In some districts, more than one method was used to make the final decision regarding the placement of students. others, methods were combined. In Districts using more than one method or those combining methods are listed under the multiple category in the table. Table 26 METHOD USED FOR FINAL PLACEMENT N = 29 Districts Number of Programs Method Percent of Total All identified placed 39 44 Committee decision 14 16 Multiple method 12 14 Test cut-off scores 11 12 9 10 Interviews 3 3 Random selection L 1 TOTALS 89 Other (tryouts, self-selection) 100% 82 Identification Tests The tests used by surveyed districts to identify students for gifted programming are reviewed in Table 27. previously noted, As achievement tests were used for identification more than any other type of test. The most frequent test listed by coordinators under the achievement category was the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (see description of MEAP, page 16). the California Achievement Test It was followed closely by (CAT). Forty-two percent of the achievement tests listed by coordinators were either the Michigan Educational Assessment Program or the California Achievement Test. Two other common achievement tests listed by coordinators were the Iowa Test of Basic Skills the California Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and (CTBS). Although 15 districts indicated that aptitude tests were used in their districts to identify gifted students, four districts specified which test was used. did identify the test, only Of those who no one test was mentioned more than once. Thirteen districts used a creativity test; three districts identified the test used. however, Of these three, two indicated that they have developed their own test; district used the Sylvia Rimm test. only one 83 Table 27 TESTS USED TO IDENTIFY GIFTED STUDENTS N = 29 Districts TfiSt. Frequency ACHIEVEMENT TESTS Michigan Educational Assessment Program ................ 10 California Achievement Test .............................. 9 Iowa Test of Basic S k i l l s ................................... 6 California Test of Basic Skills ......................... 4 Metropolitan Achievement Test ........................... 4 Stanford Achievement Test ................................ 3 Test of Cognitive Skills ................................ 2 SRA Achievement Series .................................. 1 Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test .................. 1 American College Testing ................................ 1 PACT ... . . . . 1 IOWA A l g e b r a .............................................. 1 APTITUDE TESTS K A M S C ....................................................... Cognitive Abilities ....................................... School and College Ability Test ......................... ATYP O p t i o n s .............................................. 1 1 1 1 INTELLIGENCE TESTS Wechsler (WISC-R) ......................................... 2 CREATIVITY TESTS School's o w n .................................................2 Sylvia R i m m ................................................ 1 84 Summary The status of gifted programming in high-minority Michigan schools, districts, based on a survey returned by 35 of those has been summarized in this chapter. The district data provided an overview of gifted programming in the responding districts. The building-level data provided more detailed information regarding program models and o p t i o n s , racial/gender representation, degree of student involvement, and identification methods used in individual schools. These data are analyzed in Chapter 5, particularly as they relate to equity. The results of this study are also compared to other state and national studies. In addition, some suggestions regarding additional research are offered in Chapter 5 that might enhance the results of this study and increase the likelihood of equitable gifted programming for all students. CHAPTER 5 Findings and Conclusions Introduction Using survey methodology, this study examined four aspects of gifted programming in high-minority schools in Michigan. The areas studied were options available, program options, (1) the program models and (2) the racial/gender distribution in (3), the degree of student involvement, (4) the practices and procedures of identification. and It is believed that the data from this study will augment existing data and provide educators with more information about gifted programming, especially in relation to racial and gender equity. This chapter will consist of four parts. First, the status of Michigan's gifted programming in high-minority schools will be described, Chapter 4. first, based on the data presented in General district findings will be described followed by building-level descriptions. this data will be interpreted. Second, Comparisons will be made between the findings of this study and the findings of related state and national studies. will be offered regarding equity, Third, some conclusions based on the descriptions and comparisons made in the first two parts. Finally, some recommendations will be made regarding further research on this subject. 85 86 The review that follows will address equity only in relation to the four areas studied. It is recognized that equity encompasses much more than these four areas. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to extend the conclusions offered in this chapter beyond the four areas identified without additional information. For example, quality of programming is a very important component that was not examined in this study. The existence of a program alone does not ensure a particular level of quality. It was not the intention of this study to evaluate the quality of the programming in high-minority schools and no assumptions regarding quality should be made solely on the basis of the findings in this study. The information that follows descriptive, not evaluative. is intentionally It should be read with that understanding. The Population The 51 school districts in Michigan with a minority population of 24 percent or higher were the population for this study. Thirty-five districts to the survey. districts, districts. determined. (68.6 percent) Among the responding districts, 14 were medium-sized districts, responded 8 were small and 12 were large The size of one anonymous district could not be The responding districts covered a wide geographic region across both the Upper and Lower Peninsula. 87 The total population of the responding school districts exceeded 200,000 students. The combined minority population of these districts was approximately 50 percent, 100,000 students. These figures were extracted from the Michigan Department of Education's file, or over 1988-89 Fourth Friday which lists district student counts by race. District Findings Student Representation Six of the 35 responding districts (17 percent) had no gifted programming at all in their school districts. These districts did not complete the survey and therefore did not provide updated population figures. districts did complete the survey. The remaining 29 Twenty of the 29 districts reported their 1990-91 district population by race; 12 of these districts also provided their gifted population by race. Seventeen of the 20 districts reporting their total district population showed an increase in minority representation from the 1988-89 Fourth Friday report as well as a decrease in total student population. With the 12 districts that provided both total student population and gifted population by race, a racial comparison was made between the total population and the gifted population. districts, Thi3 comparison showed that for these 12 Blacks and Hispanics were underrepresented in gifted programming by 49 and 43 percent respectively. Asian and Indian students were fairly proportionately represented, 88 while white students were overrepresented by 44 percent explanation of under/overrepresentation, (see page 17). Programming The 29 districts with gifted programming offered a total of 121 different program options at the elementary level, or an average of four different elementary options per district. At the middle and high school level, 61 and 62 different options were available respectively in the 29 districts, or an average of two different options per district. Six of the 29 districts districts) had magnet schools for gifted students at the elementary level; three districts (about 20 percent of the (about 10 percent) had magnet schools for middle and high school gifted students. Of the districts with gifted programming, about one- fourth indicated that they had printed lists of the district's program options. About half of those with printed lists complied wit h the request to include the list in the survey. About half of those who complied had professionally printed brochures promoting magnet schools or specialized cluster programs. The most common district-wide change under consideration in the surveyed districts was a partial or total revision of all gifted program options. The most common addition under consideration was a mentorship program. According to district coordinators, the major criterion for the addition of a program option was "student 89 needs" (40 percent), percent) followed by "teacher availability" and "resource availability" (25 (20 percent). Sixty-two percent of the coordinators indicated that their districts had a written mission statement or philosophy for their gifted program. those districts Less than half of included a copy of this statement in the survey as requested. Most mission statements addressed the issue of meeting the needs of all students regardless of ability. One mission statement specifically referred to race and gender equity. Gifted Supervision About one-third of the responding districts employed a full-time gifted coordinator for the district. The remaining two-thirds combined gifted supervision with other responsibilities. Gifted supervision was often the responsibility of a gifted program teacher, state and federal program director, (principal, superintendent, the district's or an administrator assistant superintendent). Identification of Gifted Potential Well over half of the districts indicated that they attempt to identify gifted potential as well as demonstrated abilities. About one-third of these districts use multiple methods to do this. Teacher, parent, and administrator recommendations were also quite common and were often used in combination with a test to identify potentially gifted students. Two districts indicated that their teachers had 90 received training for the identification of gifted potential. Other districts used teacher and/or parent checklists to identify characteristics of giftedness. Over three-fourths of the districts indicated that at least one program option in the district was specifically designed to develop the student's potential. Building-Level Findings Program Options The surveys provided descriptions of 97 different building-level program options. About half of the options described were academic offerings. options had a multiple emphasis, part of that multiple focus. Another one-third of the with academics representing Multiple emphasis options were generally magnet schools or all-day self-contained classrooms where a variety of emphasis areas could be addressed. Creativity development was the third most common type of program; however, creative programs represented less than 7 percent of the total options. arts programs represented 3 percent, programs accounted for 1 percent. Visual and performing while leadership There were no programs identified exclusively as affective development or counseling. The remaining options were miscellaneous special programs, which were listed in the "other” category of the survey. About half of the program options available at the building level had more than one section available in that 91 building. In many cases the same program option was offered to several different grades. About half of the elementary options described were available at other elementary schools in the district; the middle school level, in other buildings level, at less than 20 percent were available in the district. At the high school this figure dropped to 15 percent. The most comprehensive programming was at the elementary level, where over 60 percent of the buildings described in the surveys had a magnet school or two more program options available to students. Twenty-three percent of the elementary schools had no programming. At the middle school level, less than 25 percent of the buildings described in the surveys had a magnet school or two or more program options. Thirty-seven percent of the middle schools described had no gifted programming. At the high school level, just over 30 percent of the buildings described in the survey had a magnet school or two or more program options. Over 40 percent of the high schools had no programming at the high school level. There were more programs available at the third, fourth, fifth, grade level. and sixth grade levels than at any other Nearly half of the program options were offered at one or more of these four grades. About half of the buildings described in the surveys set a maximum number of students for individual program 92 options. The most common maximums set ranged from 20 to 30 students. Program Models The most common program model at the elementary level in the surveyed schools was the pullout program (see definition, page 15), program offerings. school programs, programs. which accounted for 28 percent of the It was followed closely by before/after which accounted for 24 percent of the Other relatively common models at the elementary school were cluster groups (see definition, page 15) and magnet s c h o o l s , which occurred more frequently at the elementary level than at other levels. At the middle school level, pullout programs and before/after school programs were most popular, each representing 22 percent of the total middle school offerings. classrooms They were followed closely by self-contained (see definition, page 15), which accounted for 20 percent of the middle school models. Before/after school programs were the most common high school programs. offerings, They represented 29 percent of the total followed by self-contained classrooms, accounted for 26 percent. which There were more uniquely designed models tailored to meet individual needs at the high school level than at the other levels. programs, Mentorships, work incentive and lunch-hour programs were a few examples. 93 Racial/Gender. Distribution It was more difficult for coordinators to provide race and gender figures at the building level than at the district level. There were two reasons for this. First, in some cases race and gender records for gifted programming were simply not kept at the building level. short-term programs, period or semester, records. However, Second, for the distribution changed every marking making it difficult to maintain accurate building-level figures were provided for 21 elementary programs, 18 middle school programs, and 14 high school programs. The race and gender distributions were examined by type of program. As previously indicated, the most popular type of option in the surveyed schools was the academic option, followed by a multiple option, development options. and finally creative Visual/performing arts and leadership options combined represented less than 5 percent of the total offerings; there were no affective development or counseling options in these districts. Therefore, racial/gender distributions were examined only in the academic, multiple, distributions and creative options, since the in the other programs would have been too small to be meaningful. It was known that the school districts that responded to this survey had minority populations ranging from 24 to 99.5 percent (see District Demographics, page 51). It was also known that the average minority population for these 94 districts was approximately 50 percent (see Tables 3 and 5). The minority representation in the academic, multiple, and creative programs was found to be 25, 31, and 20 percent respectively, indicating an underrepresentation of minorities in all three types of programs. Blacks and Hispanics accounted for the greatest disparity. Although Blacks represented approximately 37 percent of the total student population, multiple, the Black population in academic, and creative programs was respectively. Likewise, 13, 24, and 18 percent Hispanics represented 10.5 percent of the total student population, but only 4 percent of the academic and multiple options and 2 percent of the creative options. In terms of gender, females outnumbered males in all three types of programs. This disparity resulted in some measure from a larger number of females than males in the Black and white populations. Indian population, In the Hispanic. Asian, and males and females were about evenly represented in all types of programs. The greatest gender disparity was in the Black population, where females outnumbered males in academic, creative, and multiple programs by 22, 24, and 14 percentage points respectively. To determine whether racial groups tended to be clustered into one type of program, students the percentage of in each race that were placed in each type of option was analyzed. This analysis showed that 74 percent of the Blacks, 63 percent of the Hispanics, and 60 percent 95 of the white students were in multiple emphasis programs (mainly magnet schools and self-contained classes). The remainder of the students in these three races were mostly in academic programs. Asian students were about evenly divided between academic and multiple emphasis areas. Sixty percent of the Indian students were in academic programs; 39 percent in multiple emphasis areas. D.egrfi.e-.of Involvement The majority of students in the surveyed districts were in sustained programs; that is, programs that met regularly throughout the year for at least three hours a week. Although only about half of the programs were sustained programs, 87 percent of the students were in these programs. This was mainly because of the large numbers of students that could be accommodated in magnet schools. Among the minority population, 89 percent of the students were in sustained programming. Again, this was because minorities were represented in greater numbers multiple emphasis programs other types of programs. (mainly magnet schools) However, in than in even though the vast majority of minority students who were in gifted programming were in sustained rather than short-term programs, all minority groups combined represented only 30 percent of the total number of students in sustained programming. Although the number of sustained and short-term programs was about equal overall, short-term programs 96 outnumbered sustained programs at the elementary level. reverse was true at the middle and high school level, The where sustained programming outnumbered short-term programs. The most common sustained programs were magnet schools and enrichment classes. The most common short-term programs were competitions, such as Odyssey of the Mind and Science Olympiad, and intermittent enrichment programs. Identification Methods In a little more than half of the programs described in the surveys students were identified using multiple methods. Among the most popular methods of identification were teacher recommendations, nomination, achievement tests, parent and self­ and grades. In the programs where a single identifier was used, the most popular method of identification was the achievement test. The most common achievement tests were the Michigan Educational Assessment Program Achievement Test (ITBS). aptitude, (MEAP), the California (CAT), and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Achievement tests were much more common than intelligence, or creativity tests. Eighty percent of the districts were not considering the addition of any new identification methods. For 44 percent of the described programs all identified students were placed. For programs that could not accommodate all identified students, 16 percent indicated that a committee made the final decision on who would participate; 14 percent 97 used a multiple method. Many of the others used a cut-off score or tryouts to select the final participants. Comparisons With Other Studies In order to put the findings of this study in perspective with other related studies, a comparison was made of the findings of this study with two national and two state studies. Since these national and state studies focused on all schools, rather than high-minority schools, some comparisons could be made between the status of schools in general and high-minority schools. Such comparison should increase our understanding of the status of Michigan's high-minority schools, especially in relation to equity. National Studies In 1982 the United States Department of Education commissioned research that resulted in The National Report on Identification, Comprehensive (Richert). Assessment and Recommendations for Identification of Gifted and Talented Youth Identification practices and services offered to gifted youth across the country were examined in this national study. Several of the findings from this study were discussed in Chapter 2. In 1985 O'Connell surveyed the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted in order to learn about gifted program characteristics, including program offerings and identification practices across the country. The 98 findings of this study, as well as the Richert study, were reviewed in order to gain a national perspective on the issues related to this present study. State Studies The two state-wide studies on gifted programming were both completed during the last five years. Both were intended to examine the status of gifted programming in their respective states. The first study, A. McKenzie, practices, done in New Jersey in 1986 by Jamieson looked at the influence of identification race, and socioeconomic status on the identification of gifted students. This study examined both identification methods and equity in New Jersey schools and is cited under these topics The second study, in Chapter 2. done in Michigan in and the Ingham Intermediate School District, 1990 by Armstrong was supported by a grant by the Michigan Department of Education. It was designed to evaluate Michigan gifted programming. Programming, practices, and methods of identification were examined in some detail in this study. Several of the findings from this study were discussed inChapter 2. A detailed summary of this comparative analysis of state and national studies is labeled Item F in the Appendix. Where appropriate, will draw f rom this analysis. the conclusions that follow 99 Conclusions The main research question for this study was: What is the current status of gifted and talented programming in relation to equity in high-minority schools in Michigan? In order to answer the main research question, subsidiary questions were asked. four The conclusions that follow will be presented in four sections to coincide with those four subsidiary questions. These questions are re­ stated at the beginning of each section. In addition, the pertinent findings which led to the conclusions are re­ stated in each section. Subsidiary Question 1: What program options and models are available in high-minority schools? FINDING: Program Option A v a i l a b i l i t y . Program types were not equally represented in the surveyed schools. the state and nation as a whole, Like high-minority districts in Michigan had more academic options than any other type of program 2). (see study comparison, Appendix F, page Except as part of a magnet program, visual/performing arts, leadership, and creative offerings were not common in the high-minority districts. Affective development as a separate offering was not available in any district. FINDING: Program Option S c o p e . High-minority districts in Michigan had twice as many gifted program options at the elementary level than at the middle or high school 100 level. This concentration of programming at the elementary level coincides with the state as a whole (see Appendix F, page 1). Seventy-seven percent of the high-minority districts had one or no program options at the middle school level; 68 percent of the districts had one or no programs at the high school level. FINDING: Program Model A v a i l a b i l i t y . minority districts Although high- in Michigan utilized all seven types of the common models, these model types were not represented equally. This condition coincides with the state and nation as a whole Appendix F, page 2). (see study comparison, Pullout, before/after school, and self-contained models were most predominant. CONCLUSION 1: Gifted students in Michigan's high-minority school districts received program option and model availability and variety comparable to their counterparts across the state and nation as a whole. Subsidiary Question 2: What is the racial/gender distribution within the program options? FINDING: District Racial R e p r e s e n t a t i o n . District-wide, minorities were underrepresented in gifted programming in Michigan's high-minority schools by 44 percent explanation of under/overrepresentation, (see page 17). This compares to a 30-70 percent underrepresentation figure reported by Richert in her 1982 national study. study comparison, Appendix F, page 4). (See Blacks and 101 Hispanics accounted for most of this underrepresentation. Indian and Asian students were fairly proportionately represented district-wide. This differs only slightly from the New Jersey study which showed an underrepresentation of Blacks, Indians FINDING: (see study comparison, Hispanics, and Appendix F, page 4). P rogram Racial R e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Within individual types of p r o g r a m s , minorities were found to be underrepresented in creative, emphasis options by 60, FINDING: academic, and multiple 50, and 38 percent respectively. Racial Clustering in Program O p t i o n s . some evidence of clustering of Blacks emphasis areas. There was into multiple That is, a proportionately larger number of Blacks were found in multiple emphasis options (mainly magnet schools) FINDING: than in other types of programs. Gender R e p r e s e n t a t i o n . In terms of gender, Michigan's h i gh-minority schools had a.slightly higher female r epresentation in gifted programming than the state average. The disproportionately larger number of Black females compared to Black males in gifted programming accounts for some of this difference. CONCLUSION 2: Minorities were represented in gifted programming in Michigan's high-minority school districts at a rate higher than the national average; however, Blacks and Hispanics remained underrepresented in all program types. 102 Subsidiary Question 3: What is the degree of involvement of students in gifted programming in the surveyed schools? FINDING: Sustained Versus Short-term Progra m m i n g . Sustained and short-term programming were equally represented in Michigan's high-minority districts. is consistent with the state as a whole comparison, FINDING: This (see study Appendix F, page 5). Student Repre s e n t a t i o n . Since sustained programs tended to accommodate larger numbers of students than short-term programs, the vast majority of students in gifted programming in Michigan's high-minority schools were found to be in sustained programs. CONCLUSION 3: Gifted students in Michigan's high-minority school districts were involved in gifted programming to a degree comparable with their counterparts across the state. Subsidiary Question 4: Hew arc students identified for the various program options? FINDING: Multiple Versus Single Identifiers. Multiple and single identification methods were found about equally in the surveyed schools. This finding is consistent with the state and nation as a whole comparison, FINDING: (see study Appendix F, page 5). Common Methods U s e d . The most common methods of identification in Michigan's high-minority schools (teacher recommendations and achievement tests) coincided with the most common methods used state-wide 103 and across the country (see study comparison, Appendix F, page 5). FINDING: Common T e s t s . The popularity of achievement tests in high-minority schools coincided with state and national practices page 5). (see study comparison, Appendix F, Tests recognized to be sensitive to minority populations were not common in the surveyed schools. CONCLUSION 4: The practices used to identify students for gifted programming in Michigan's high-minority school districts were comparable to the state and nation, but many districts did not fully comply with The Association for Gifted guidelines adopted by the Michigan Department of Education. Recommendations for Further Research As a result of this study, it has become apparent that research is needed on the racial distributions of students who are identified for gifted programming who are s e l e c t e d ). gifted programs (rather than those For approximately 50 percent of the in Michigan's high-minority schools, there was a limit on the number of students who could be accommodated within the program. programs, Consequently, for those the students who were identified for programming were not guaranteed placement in that program. A selection process followed to determine who would ultimately be placed in gifted programming. Therefore, selected for gifted programming the students who were (and were the focus of this 104 study) were not necessarily representative of the students who were identified. The literature has generally focused on identification methods to explain minority underrepresentation, while selection processes have been virtually ignored. The assumption seems to be made that students in gifted programming represent all identified students. Michigan's high-minority schools, case. at least, In this is not the A study that examined the racial distribution of identified students, rather than selected students, would help to clarify whether those two distributions are similar. Other possible causes for minority underrepresentation also deserve more research attention. For example, since participation in gifted programming is often voluntary, do minority students opt out of programming more often than white students? of, Or, is it possible that minorities drop out or are removed from, programming more ofton than white students? Another topic of research that would enhance the findings of this study is an investigation of program types. Explanations regarding the lack of program variety deserves more attention. In spite of countless recommendations by gifted educators that programming should be expanded into areas such as visual/performing arts, creativity, schools. leadership, and academic offerings continue to dominate in most A study that explored the reasons for this phenomenon might aid educators in changing that trend. 105 A closer examination of magnet schools also warrants more attention. Explanations for the higher rate of minority involvement in magnet schools than in individual gifted program options in regular schools need to be pursued. a closer look at how magnet schools In addition, are designed and operated, as well as the content of individual course offerings, Finally, deserves attention. replication of this study in other states would reveal whether Michigan's high-minority schools are typical of high-minority schools nation-wide. • Eeflections One generally goes into a study such as this one with some preconceived ideas about how the study will "turn o u t . " I was no different. As I planned this study, I anticipated two findings. First, I expected to find that minority involvement in gifted programming would be on the rise. was somewhat accurate, expected. This expectation but to a lesser degree than I had Since educators have known about and studied minority underrepresentation in gifted programming for decades, I expected to see a considerably higher minority representation in gifted programming than was found. Although I am disappointed by the numbers, I am encouraged that progress continues to be made toward more equitable representation. 106 My second expectation reflected a concern expressed by some educators that racial groups might be found to be clustered into visual/performing arts and creative options (rather than academic options) options and/or into short-term (rather than sustained options). was not confirmed by the study. First, This expectation visual/performing arts and creative programs were rarely available to anv students. They were not popular options in spite of efforts by educators of the gifted to change that trend. regard to degree of involvement, in sustained, Second, in most minority students were not short-term programs. This finding should reassure educators that minorities who are placed in gifted programming receive consistent, There were, of course, respond to the survey. regular programming. 16 districts that did not Although the 35 districts that did respond were quite representative of all 51 high-minority districts in terms of size and minority representation, I will always wonder if the findings would have changed significantly had there been a 100 percent response rate. I am certainly more appreciative of the role of magnet schools now that I see their effectiveness in integrating minorities into gifted programming. I am, however, concerned about small school districts and rural districts where magnet schools are unlikely solutions to gifted programming needs. These districts seemed to be struggling to provide equitable programming. Based on the comments on the s u r v e y s , it is evident that 107 coordinators know that their programming falls short in some areas. Most seemed to want to do better, of reasons, they could not. but for a variety Though not solicited, many coordinators expressed their frustrations with not being able to provide the equitable programming that they know their students deserve. This study has shown that total equity has not yet been achieved in high-minority districts. This will come as no surprise to most of the coordinators and supervisors who are struggling in these districts to change this condition. Most seem eager for a listening ear and ready for any kind of assistance that might help them to make equity a reality. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Armstrong, D. (1990). An evaluation of Section 47 Gifted and Talented programming, Mason, MI: Ingham Intermediate School District. Association for the Gifted (1989). Standards for programs involving the gifted and talented. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Baer, N. A. (1989). Programs for the gifted: A present or a paradox? Phi Delta Kappan. 61, 621-623. Baldwin, A. Y. (1987). I'm black, but look at me, I am also gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly. 31(4). 180-185. Berezine, G. & Foteyeva, A. (1972). Educational work and extracurricular educational establishments. In N. Kugin et a l . , Education in the U . S . S . R . . Moscow Progress Publishers. Black, H. (1963). They shall not pass. W. W. Morrow. Borland, J. H. (1986). IQ tests: bathwater, saving the baby. 163-167. New York: Throwing out the Roeper Review. 8(3). Boyer, E. (1980). Problem finders needed. Boyer assails lack of creativity by 'tried' universities. Higher Education & National A f f a i r s . 29(1), 4. Bruch, C B. (1971). Modification of procedures for identification of the disadvantaged gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly. 15, 267-272. Chambers, J. A . , F. Barron, and J. W. Sprecher (1980). Identifying gifted Mexican-American students. Gifted Child Q u a r t e r l y . 24(3), 123-128. Clark B. (1983). Growing up gifted Charles E. Merrill. Cox, (2nd e d . ). Columbus: J . , Daniel, N. & Boston, B. 0. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 108 109 Culross, R. (1989). Measurement issues in the screening and selection of the gifted. Roeper Review. 12(2), 76-78. Daniels, R . , Heath, R. & E n n s , K. (1985). Fostering creative behavior among university women. Roeper Review. 7 (3) , 164-166. Davis, A., Gardner, B . , & Gardner, south. Chicago Press. M. R. (1941). Deep Davis, G. & Rimm, S. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dunn, L. M. (1973). Exceptional children in the schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Dunstan, J. (1983). Attitudes to provision for gifted children: The case of the U.S.S.R. In B. Shore, F. Gagne, S. Larivee, R. Tali, and R. Tremblay (Eds.) Face.to Face With Giftedness (pp. 290-327). New York: Trillium Press. Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). A new conception of giftedness and programming for the gifted. Illinois Council for the Gifted Journal. 5, 2-6. Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth, Educational Leadership. 46(6). 6-11. Frasier, M. M. (1987). The identification of gifted black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the G i f t e d . 10(3), 155-180. Frasier, M. M. (1989). Poor and minority students can be gifted, too! Educational Leadership. 46(6). 16-18. Gallagher, J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (3rd e d . ), Gallagher, J. F. , Weiss, P. Oglesby, K. & Thomas, T. (1983). The status of gifted/talented education: United States survey of needs, practices, and policies. Los Angeles: Leadership Training Institute. Gallagher, J. J. (1986). educational drama. Equity vs. excellence: An Roeper Review. 9(4). 233-235. Gallagher, J. J. (1984), Excellence and equity— A worldwide conflict. Gifted International. 2(2). 1-11. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, J. W. (1961). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? New York: Harper & Row. 110 Gold, M. J. (1986). Roeper Review. Gifted: Not "the same the world o v e r . ” 8(4). 252-256. Goldberg, M. L. (1986). Issues in the education of gifted and talented children, part I. Roeper Review. 8(4), 226-233. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York: Goolsby, T. M. (1975). Alternative admissions criteria for college. Nontraditional approaches to assess the academic potential of black students. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Gould, S. J. (1981). W. W. Norton. The mismeasure of man. New York: Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hatch, T. C. and Gardner, H. (1986). From testing intelligence to assessing competences: A pluralistic view of intellect. Roeper Review. 8(3). 147-150. Hoffman, B. (1962). The tyranny of testing. Crowell-Collier. New York: Johnsen, S. (1986). Who are the gifted? A dilemma in search of a solution. Education of the Visually Handicapped. 18(2), 54-70. Kamin, L. J. (1974). The science and politics of IQ. York: Wiley and Sons. New Kaufman, A. S. and Harrison, P. L. (1986). Intelligence tests and gifted assessment: What are the positives? Roeper Review. 8(3). 154-159. Kitano, M. & Kirby, D. (1986). Gifted education: comprehensive view. Boston: Little, Brown. Klineberg, 0. & Row. (1935). Race differences. New York: A Harper Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, D . C . : U.S. Government Printing Office. Masten, W. G. (1985). Identification of gifted minority. Roeper Review. 8(2). 83-85. Ill McKenzie, J. A. (1986). The influence of identification practices, race, and SES on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 30(2), 93-95. Meeker, M. (1978). Nondiscriminatory testing procedure to assess giftedness in Black, Chicano, Navajo, and Anglos. In A. Y. Baldwin, et al. (Eds.). Edu ca tio nal Planning for the gifted; Overcoming cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic barriers. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Meeker, M. (1969). The structure of intellect: Its interpretation and uses. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Michigan Department of Education (1983). Position paper on gifted and talented education in Michigan schools. Lansing, Michigan. Miller, L. P. (Ed.) (1974). The testing of black students: A symposium. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Nairn, A. & Associates (1980). The reign of ETS. The Ralph Nader Report on the Educational Testing Service. Ralph Nader. Newman, F. (1985). Higher education and the American resurgence. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Oakes, J. (1985). inequality. Keeping track: How schools structure New Haven: Yale University Press. Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, Part 1: The policy and practice of curriculum inequality. Phi Delta Kappan. 68 (1), 12-17. O'Connell, P. (1985). The state of the states' gifted and talented education: The council of state directors of programs of the gifted. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Education and Cultural Services. Office of Civil Rights Report (1979). U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC: Pegnato, C. W. & Birch, J. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children. 25, 300-304. Parke, B. (1989). Educating the gifted and talented: An agenda for the future. Educational Leadership. 46(6), 4-5. 112 Persell, C. (1977). Education and inequality: A theoretical and empirical synthesis. New York: Free Press. The Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan. 60, 108-184. Richert, E. S. (1985). Identification of gifted students: An update. Roeper Review. 8(2). 68-72. Richert, E. S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 31(4). 149-154. Richert, E. S. (1986). Roeper Review. 8, Toward the Tao of 197-204. giftedness. Richert, E. S., Alvino, J. , McDonnel, R. (1982). The national report on identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South. Robinson, N. M. , and Chamrad, D. L. (1986). Appropriate uses of intelligence tests with gifted children. Roeper Review. 8(3). 160-163. Ryan, J. (1983). Identifying intellectually superior black children. Journal of Educational Research. 76(3). 153-156. Samuda, R. J. (1975). Alternatives to traditional standardized tests, introduction. In R. J. Samuda, Psychological testing of American minorities. New York: Dodd, Mead. Schwartz, L. (1980). Advocacy for the neglected gifted: Females. Gifted Child Quarterly. 24(3). 113-117. Swartzbaugh, P. (1988). Eliminating tracking successfully. Educational Leadership. 45 (5). 20. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1979). Pre-sputnik to post Watergate concern about the gifted. In A. H. Passow (ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development, 78th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. 113 Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). light on the gifted. Reflection and refraction of Roeper Review. 8(4), 212-218. Taylor, C. W. (1986). The growing importance of creativity and leadership in spreading gifted and talented programs world-wide, Roeper R e v i e w . 8(4), 256-263. Taylor, C. W. , Albo, D . , Holland, J. , & Brandt, G. (1985). Attributes of excellence in various professions: Their relevance to the selection of gifted/talented persons. Gifted Child Quarterly. 29, 29-34. Torrance, E. P. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. New York: Dodd, Mead. Treffinger, D. and Renzulli, J. (1986). Giftedness as potential for creative productivity: Transcending scores. Roeper Review. 8(3). 150-154. Williams, F. E. Quarterly. (1988). A magic circle. 11(1), 2-5. Gifted Child IQ A P P E N D I X 114 APPENDIX A M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y C O t lF C F O F E D U C A T IO N • OF.H IK T M F N T O l IF V f HER F tl l < U I O N I KM I VSMM, • Mil Mil, VS • IKK•l 11114 J a n u a r y 7, 1991 Dea r G i f t e d and T a l e n t e d C o o r d i n a t o r : T h e e n c l o s e d s u r ve y is b e i n g c o n d u c t e d for a d i s s e r t a t i o n at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y on the s u b j e c t of g i f t e d and t a l en te d programming. Y o u r d i s t r i c t is o ne of f i f t y - o n e d i s t r i c t s c h o s e n for this survey. T h e p u r p o s e of the s u r v e y is to d e s c r i b e the c u r r e n t status of g i f t e d and t al e n t e d p r o g r a m m i n g in c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e schools. P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n is b e i n g g i v e n to the types of p r o g r a m m i n g o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e to s t u d e n t s , the p r o g r a m m o d e l s used, the r a c i a l / g e n d e r d i s t r i b u t i o n of s tu d e n t s , a n d the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n m e t h o d s m o s t c o m m o n in the s u r v e y e d schools. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d in this sur ve y w i l l be k ept s t r i c t l y confidential. N e i t h e r you n o r y o u r d i s t r i c t w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d by nam e a n y w h e r e in the f i n al report. R e a d e r s of the d i s s e r t a t i o n wil l not be abl e to a s s o c i a t e d i s t r i c t s w i t h s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e s o r f i n d i n g s and no d i s t r i c t w i l l be s i n g l e d o ut for e x a m i n a t i o n . Mos t of the d a t a w i l l be r e p o r t e d in a g g r e g a t e form. As you c an see, N a n c y M i n c e m o y e r , G i f t e d and T a l e n t e d C o o r d i n a t o r for the M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , is s u p p o r t i n g this stu dy a n d has c o - s i g n e d this letter. Ms. M i n c e m o y e r b e l i e v e s , as I do, that the d a t a c o l l e c t e d in this s u r v e y w i l l e n h a n c e the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t d a t a a nd g i v e e d u c a t o r s a c l e a r e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the s t a t u s of g i f t e d e d u c a t i o n . I h o p e it w i l l a l s o b e n e f i t y o u r own d i s t r i c t by s t i m u l a t i n g s o m e d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g the s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d to y ou r g i f t e d a nd t a l e n t e d s tu d e n t s . In o r d e r to m a k e the r e s u l t s of this s t u dy m e a n i n g f u l , y o u r input is needed. I h o p e y o u w i l l take the time to fill o u t the s u r v e y and r e t u r n it in the s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , p o s t a g e - p a i d e n v e l o p e . Feel free to cal l m e c o l l e c t at the p h o n e n u m b e r g i v e n b e l o w if y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the sur ve y. T h a n k s for h e l p i n g to m a k e this d i s s e r t a t i o n p o s s i b l e . Sincerely, (Mrs.) N a n c y M. L ew i s 532 R u s t i c D ri v e S a g i n a w , MI 486 04 Telephone: Nancy MYpcemoyer C o o r d i n a t o r , G i f t e d and T a l e n t e d M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n (517) 7 5 5 - 6 3 8 2 HSU is an A//irmuitvt Action/Equni Opportunity Inilitutwn 115 APPENDIX B A STUDY OF THE STATUS OF GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMMING IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN Nancy M. Lewis 532 Rustic Drive Saginaw, MI 48604 A Study for the Completion of a Dissertation at Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 116 GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAM SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS; The purpose of this survey is to describe the current status of gifted programming in culturally diverse schools in Michigan. Because it would be unrealistic to ask you to describe every program option in every schooi in your district, the survey asks you to describe two program options at each of your school levels (elementary, middle/junior high, and high school). Pages 1 and 2 of the survey ask for information regarding your entire school district and your district's gifted and talented student population. Pages 3-6 ask for a description of two elementary programs. Pages 7-10 ask ubout middle/ junior high programs, and pages 11-14 usk about your high school programs. If you have more than one school at any of these levels, please choose one typical school at each level to describe. A typical school should be one that characterizes the variety of programming, as well as the racial/gender representation of the district as u whole. The questions are designed to be answered by u simple check mark or a few words or numbers to make it as easy as possible to complete. All information reported in this survey will be kept strictly confide nt ia l. The results of this survey should make a contribution to our knowledge of gifted and talented programming in Michigan. I hope you will take the time to fill it out. Thanks for your help. Nancy M. Lewis C 1 1 ^ J4 n - nujtit. Saginaw, MI Telephone: • 48604 (517) 755-6382 117 GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAM SURVEY DISTRICT DATA 1. Name of School District: 2. Name of person completing this form: 3. Title: 9. Number of schools in the district: 5. Racial/Gender profile of entire K-12 student population (as reported for the 1990-91 Fourth Friday): ________________________ Phone: Elementary ( ) Middle High____ ______ Number of Students Race American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islanders: Black (not Hispanic): Hispanic: Caucasian: Male Male Male Ma le Male Female Female Female Female Female GIFTED AND TALENTED DATA 1. Does your district have a written mission statement or philosophy for your gifted and talented programming? Yes _ _ _ No_ ___ IF YES, PLEASE ATTACH A COPY OF THE DISTRICT MISSION/PHILOSOPHY. 2. Does your district attempt to identify potential as well as demonstrated talents? That is, are efforts made to find students who are not currently demonstrating high ability, but who may have the potential for outstanding performance with special programming? Yes _ _ _ No_ ___ IF YES, PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW THIS IS DONE: 3. _____________________________ How many different gifted and talented program offerings are available at the following school levels? Elementary _ _ _ _ Middle High _ _ _ _ Do uny of these offerings address the development of the child's potential? Yes ___ No _ _ _ _ Does your district have a written list of the available program offerings at each level? Yes ___ No_ ___ IF YES, PLEASE ATTACH A COPY OF THIS LIST. CONTINUE ON BACK: 118 4. Are ocher program offerings under consideration for your district? Yes No If yes, what offerings are under consideration? 5. What is the ma jor criterion for the addition of a program offering? Student needs _ _ _ Teacher availability r a c i a l /g e n d e r _ _ _ Resource availability _ _ _ _ Parental requests School recommendation Other (explain) (check one) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ profile OF DISTRICT IDENTIFIED GIFTED (K-12) NOTE: If the racial/gender data is available by school level, please complete Section A. If not, please skip to Section B, which asks for the same racial/ gender data that is reported annually to the Michigan Department of Education, if your district receives Section 47 funding. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL(S) SECTION A. Number of Students Race American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islanders: Black (not Hispanic): Hispanic: Caucas ian: Male Ma le Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female MIDDLE SCHOOL(S) American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islanders: Black (not Hispanic): Hispanic: Caucasian: Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female HIGH SCHOOL(S) American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islanders: Black (not Hispanic): Hispanic: Caucasian: NOTE; Complete Section B only if the data for Section A is not available. SECTION B. K-12 GIFTED STUDENTS (ALL LEVELS) Race American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islanders: Black (not Hispanic): Hi sp a n i c : Caucasian: Number of Students Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female 119 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROFILE PROGRAM OPTION 1 1. Program Name or Description of Program: 2. Which of the following best describes the type of program this option represents: Accelerated Academic program Academic Enrichment program _ _ _ Performing/Visua 1 Arts program Leadership program Creativity Development program Affective Development program Counseling program (specify type of counseling) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Is this option available at more than one school in your district? If yes, how many? ________ Yes _ _ _ No 4. What grade level(s) does this option serve? 5. How many sections of it are offered at this school? 6. What program model is used for this option? K 1_ _ _ 2___ 3_ _ _ 4_ _ _ 5_ _ _ 6_ _______ (check one) Cluster grouping in regular classroom Self-contained class Regular class with IEP Pullout program Resource center Teacher consultant services to classroom teacher Before/After-schoo 1 program Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7. Is this program offered throughout the entire school year? Yes ___ No If yes, how many hours per week does it meet? ______ If no, when is it offered? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8. How are students identified for this program option? (check all methods used) Grades (CPA) Aptitude test (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Achievement test (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Intelligence (IQ) test (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Creativity test (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Behavioral rating scale (specify) Te acher/administrator recommendation Peer recommendation Self-nomination Parent nomination Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTINUE ON BACK: 120 A 9. 10. If more than one method of identification is checked in Question 8, does any one method take precedence? (Does one condition have to be met before the others are considered?) Yes ____ No If yes, explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ How is the final decision made regarding who will participate in this program option? Interviews Cut-off scores (identify test and cut-off) Committee Random selection All identified students are placed Other (identify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11. Is there a maximum number of students that this program option can accommodate? Yes ____ No If yes, what is the maximum number of students? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12. Racial/Cender profile of students in this program option in the one school chosen as typical: Race American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islander: Black (not Hispanic): Hi sp ani c: Caucasian: Number of Students Male Ma le Male Ma le Ma le Female Female Female Female Female 121 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROFILE PROGRAM OPTION 2 1. Program Name or Description of Program: 2. Which of the following best describes the type of program this option represents: Accelerated Academic program Academic Enrichment program Performing/Visual Arts program Leadership program Creativity Development program Affective Development program Counseling program (specify type of counseling) Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Is this option available at more than one school in Yes _ _ _ No _ _ _ If yes, how many? 4. What grade level(s) does this option serve? K 5. How many sections of it are offered at this school? 6. What program model is used for this option? your district? 1___ 2___ 3__ 4_ _ _ 5_ _ (check one) Cluster grouping in regular classroom Self-contained class Regular class with IEP Pullout program Resource center Teacher consultant services to classroom teacher Before/After-school program Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Is this program offered throughout the entire school year? Yes _ _ _ No If yes, how many hours per week does it meet? _____ If no, when is it offered? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8. How are students identified for this program option? (check all methods used) Grades (CPA) Aptitude test (specify) ___________ Achievement test (specify) ________ Intelligence (IQ) test (specify) ___ Creativity test (specify) Behavioral rating scale (specify) _ Teacher/administrator recommendation Peer recommendation Self-nomination Parent nomination Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTINUE ON BACK: 122 6 9. 10. If more than one method of identification is checked in Question 8, does any one method take precedence? (Does one condition have to be met before the others are considered?) Yes ___ No If yes, explain: _____________ How is the final decision made regarding who will participate in this program option? Interviews Cut-off scores (identify test and cut-off) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Committee Random selection All identified students are placed Other (identify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11. Is there a maximum number of students that this program option can accommodate? Yes _ _ No _ _ _ If yes, what is the maximum number of students? ___________ 12. Racial/Cender profile of students in this program option in the one school chosen as typical: Race American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islander: black (not Hispanic): Hi sp a n i c : Caucasian: Number of Students Male Male Ma le Ma le Male Female Female Fema le Female Female ********** ****************************** Are any other identification methods under consideration for elementary students in your district? Yes __ _ No If yes, which method(s)? _______________ 123 MIDDLE SCHOOL PROFILE PROGRAM OPTION 1 1. Program Name or Description of Program: 2. Which of the following best describes the type of program this option represents: Accelerated academic program Academic enrichment program Performing/Visual Arts program Leadership program Creativity Development program Affective Development program _____ Counseling program (specify type of counseling) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Is this option available at more than one school in your district? Yes _ _ _ No If yes, how many? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4. What grade level(s) does this option serve? 5. How many sections of it are offered at this school? 6. What program model is used for this option? . 7. 8. 6_ _ _ 7___ 8_ __ 9__ _________ (check one) Cluster grouping in regular classroom Self-contained class Regular class with IEP Pullout program Resource center Teacher consultant services to classroom teacher Before/After-school program Other (specify) Is this program offered throughout the entire school y e a r 7 If yes, how many hours per week does it meet? _______ If no, when is it offered? How are students identified for this program option? Yes ___ No__ _ _ (check all methods used) Grades (GPA) Aptitude test (specify) ___________ Achievement test (specify) ________ Intelligence (IQ) test (specify) _ _ _ Creativity test (specify) _________ Behavioral rating scale (specify) _ Teacher/administrator recommendation Peer recommendation Self-nomination Parent nomination Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTINUE ON BACK: 124 8 9. 10. If more than one method of identification is checked in Question 8, does any one method take precedence? (Does one condition have to be met before the others are considered?) Yes ___ No If yes, explain: _____________ How is the final decision made regarding who will participate in this program option? Interviews Cut-off scores (identify test and cut-off) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Committee _ _ _ Random selection All identified students are placed Other (identify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11. Is there a maximum number of students that this program option can accommodate? Yes ___ No If yes, what is the maximum number of students? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12. Racial/Gender profile of students in this program option in the one school chosen as typical: Race American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islanders: Black (not Hispanic): Hi s p a n i c : Caucasian: Number of Students Hale Male Ma le Male Male Female Female Female Female Female 125 9 MIDDLE SCHOOL PROFILE PROGRAM OPTION 2 1. Program Name or Description of Program: 2. Which of the following best describes the type of program this option represents: AcceLerated Academic program Academic Enrichment program Performing/Visual Arts program Leadership program Creativity Development program Affective Development program Counseling program (specify type of counseling) ____________________ Other (specify) 3. Is this option available at more than one school in your district? Yes _ _ _ No _ _ _ If yes, how many? _________ 4. What grade level(s) does this option serve? 5. How many sections of it are offered at this school? 6. What program model is used for this option? 6 ___ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ _ 9_ _ ___________ (check one) Cluster grouping inregular classroom Self-contained class Regular class with IEP Pullout program Resource center Teacher consultant services to classroom teacher Before/After-school program Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,f C r\ t ' r\ A ¥ V> *-« iir> K n iif ► Vi n on ► (rn If yes, how many hours per week does it meet? If no, when is it offered? __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8. How are students identified for this program option? (check all methods used) Grades (CPA) Aptitude test (specify) Achievement test (specify) _____ Intelligence (IQ) test (specify) Creativity test (specify) Behavioral rating scale (specify) _ Teacher/administrator recommendation Peer recommendation Self-nomination Parent nomination Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTINUE ON BACK: 126 10 9. If more than one method of identification is checked in Question 8, does any one method take precedence? (Does one condition have to be met before the others are considered?) Yes _ _ _ No ___ If yes, explain: ______________ 10. How is the final decision made regarding who will participate in this program option? _ _ _ Interviews Cut-off scores (identify test and cut-off) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Committee Random selection All identified students are placed Other (identify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11. Is there a maximum number of students that this program option can accommodate Yes ___ No If yes, what is the maximum number of students? _ _ _ _ _ _ 12. Racial/Gender profile of students in this program option in the one school chosen as typical: Race Number of Students Ma le Ma le Ma le Ma le Male American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islander: Black (not Hispanic): Hi s p a n i c : Caucasian: j. J. j. j, j. Jf j. .t. j. jf a. ju jff a. jy Female Female Female Female Female -V Are any other identification methods under consideration.for middle school students in your district? Yes ___ No ___ If yes, which method(s)? _ _ _ _ _ V* 11 HIGH SCHOOL PROFILE PROGRAM OPTION 1 1. Program Name or Description of Program: 2. Which of the following best describes the type of program this option represents Accelerated academic program Academic enrichment program Performing/Visual Arts program Leadership program Creativity Development program Affective Development program Counseling program (specify type of counseling) Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Is this option available at more than one school in your district? Yes _ _ _ No _ _ _ If yes, how many? _________ 9. What grade level(s) does this option serve? 5. How many sections of it are offered at this school? 6. What program model is used for this option? 9 10 11 12 ___ (check one) Cluster grouping in regular classroom Self-contained class Regular class with IEP Pullout program Resource center Teacher consultant services to classroom teacher Before/After-school program Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7. Is this p r o g r a m o f f e r e d t h r o ugho ut the e n t i r e school year? Vos ____ No If yes, how many hours per week does it meet? _________ If no, when is it offered? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8. How are students identified for this program option? (check all methods used) Grades (GPA) Aptitude test (specify) Achievement test (specify) _____ Intelligence (IQ) test (specify) Creativity test (specify) Behavioral r a t in g sc al e (spe ci fy ) __ Teacher/administrutor recommendation Peer recommendation Self-nomination Parent nomination Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTINUE ON BACK: 128 12 9. 10. If more than one method of Identification is checked in Question 8, does any one method take precedence? (Does one condition have to be met before the others are considered?) Yes ___ No If yes, explain: _______________ How is the final decision made regarding who will participate in this program option? Interviews Cut-off scores (identify test and cut-off) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Committee Random selection All identified students are placed Other (specify) 11. Is there a maximum number of students that this program option can accommodate? Yes _ _ _ _ No ___ If yes, what is the maximum number of students? _____ 12. Racial/Cender profile of students in this program option in the one school chosen as typical: Race American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islanders: Black (not Hispanic): Hispanic : Caucasian: Number of Students Male Ma le Ma le Male Ma le Female Female Female Female Female 129 13 HIGH SCHOOL PROFILE PROCRAM OPTION 2 1. Program Name or Description of Program: 2. Which of the following best describes the type of program this option represents: Accelerated Academic program Academic Enrichment program Performing/Visual Arts program Leadership program Creativity Development program Affective Development program Counseling program (specify type of counseling) Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Is this option available at more than one school in your district? Yes _ _ _ No ___ If yes, how many? ____________ 4. What grade level(s) does this option serve? 5. How many sections of it are offered at this 9 ___ 10 11 12_ _ _ _ ______ school?__ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6. What program model is used for this option? (check one) Cluster grouping in regular classroom Self-contained class Regular class with IEP PuLlout program Resource center Teacher consultant services to classroom teacher llefore/After-school program Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If yes, how many hours per week does it meet? If no, when is it offered? ________________ 8. How are students identified for this program option (check all methods used) Grades (GPA) Aptitude test (specify) ___________ Achievement test (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Intelligence (IQ) test (specify) _ _ _ Creativity test (specify) _________ Behavioral rating scale (specify) __ Teacher/administrator recommendation Peer recommendation SeIf-nominat ion Parent nomination Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTINUE ON BACK: 130 14 9. 10. If more than one method of identification is checked in Question 8, does any one method take precedence? (Does one condition have to be met before the others are considered?) Yes ___ No If yes, explain: ______________ How is the final decision made regarding who will participate in this program option? Interviews Cut-off scores (identify test and cut-off) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Committee Random selection All identified students are placed Other (identify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11. Is there a maximum number of students that this program option can accommodate? If yes, what is the maximum number of students? __________ Yes ___ No 12. Racial/Gender profile of students in this program option in the one school chosen as typical: Number of Students Race American Indian or Alaskan Native: Asian or Pacific Islander: Black (not Hispanic): Hi sp ani c: Caucas ia n: Ha le Ma le Ma le Ma Le Ma le Fema le Fema le Female Female Female * * * * * * * * * * + * ■**■** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Are any other i d e n t i f i c a t i o n met h o d s in your district? Yes No unde r c o n s i d e r a t i o n for high school s tudents If yes, which method(s) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 131 APPENDIX C MICHIGAN'S HIGH MINORITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS* District Percent Minority Highland Park City Schools Inkster City School District Detroit City School District Buena Vista School District City of Muskegon Heights School District 99. 97. 91. 90. 89. 5 4 6 7 9 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Benton Harbor Area Schools Beecher Community School District Mackinac Island Public Schools Flint City School District Oak Park City School District 83. 75. 71. 69. 69. 2 5 1 4 4 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Saginaw City School District Covert Public Schools Pontiac City School District Ecorse Public School District Westwood Community Schools 67. 63. 62. 59. 56. 7 4 6 9 5 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. St. Ignace Area School District Southfield Public School District Grand Rapids City School District Muskegon City School DistrictCross Village School District 56. 48. 46. 46. 46! 1 5 8 5 2 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Eau Claire Public Schools River Rouge City Schools Albion Public Schools Lansing Public School District Brimley Area Schools 45. 1 44. 2 43. 8 43. 1 42. 2 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. School District of Ypsilanti Kalamazoo City School District Mt. Clemens Community Schools Willow Run Community Schools Sodus Twp. School District 5 41. 5 41. 3 37.9 37. 3 36.5 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Baldwin Community Schools Westwood Heights School District Moran Township School District Battle Creek Public Schools Cassopolis Public Schools 36. 0 35.3 35.3 33.8 33.4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 132 MICHIGAN'S HIGH MINORITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS - Page 2 District Percent Minority 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Baraga Area School District Jackson Public Schools Madison School District Romulus Community Schools Holland City School District 29.3 29.2 29. 1 28.8 28. 8 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Carrollton School District Fennville Public Schools Watersmeet Twp. School District Brldgeport-Spaulding Community Schools Sault Ste. Marie Area Schools 28. 3 28.3 28.3 27. 9 27. 8 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Coloma Community Schools Hamtramck Public Schools Ann Arbor Public Schools South Haven Public Schools Berrien Springs Public Schools 27. 1 26.8 26. 1 24.9 24.8 51. Detour Area Schools 23.8 ^Extracted from the Michigan Department of Education Special Report from the 1988-89 School Fourth Friday file. 133 APPENDIX D MICHIGAN’S HIGH MINORITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS •i4 t 2-1 .17 ’■3 + ' ’23 *J7 .2* 134 APPENDIX E M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y EAST L A N SIN G • M IC H IG A N • HdHH IOVt C O LLEG E O F E D U C A T IO N • D E P A R TM EN T <>E TEAC HER E D U C A T IO N January 21, 1991 Dear Gifted and Talented Coordinator: Approximately two weeks ago I sent you a gifted and talented program survey for my dissertation at Michigan State University. Since sending out the survey, I have found that some were not returned because the districts are not currently offering any gifted programming. If this is the case in your district, please indicate that fact at the bottom of this letter, sign your name and title, as well as your district name, and return the letter in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. The reporting of this information is just as important as filling out a survey. It is also just as important to hear from smali districts as it is from medium- and large-sized districts. No district is too small. If you have already returned the survey, I would like to thank you for your participation. If you have gifted programming and have not yet returned the survey, I would encourage you to do so by February 1 so that I can include your data in the final tally. As stated in my previous letter, ail data will be kept strictly confidential and no district will be singled out for examination. If you did not receive the original survey or if you need another copy of the survey, feel free to request one right on this letter. Be sure to include the name and address of tne person to whom the survey should be sent. Should you have any questions or concerns, feei free to call me collect at the number given below. Once again, I would like to thank you for participating in this important study. Sincerely, Saginaw, MI 532 Rustic Telephone: (517) 755-6382 My district does not currently offer gifted programming Name of District: My Name: Title: Please send another copy of the survey to: Name: Title: Address: MSU it an A f/irm a th * Actiun/Fqual O pfm rtunily Inttitutton 48604 135 APPENDIX F COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RELATED STATE AND NATIONAL STUDIES The following pages compare the findings of this Michigan high-minority study to two national and two state studies as they relate to one another. understood, however, that even though the all four studies looked at some similar issues, identical. It should be Therefore, the questions were not always exact comparisons cannot always be made between the results' of this study and the others. However, the results reviewed below are similar enough to get some ideas about the similarities and/or differences between high-minority schools and all schools in general. The complete reference for each study is available at the end of this document. Program Option Findings 1. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): The most comprehensive programming was at the elementary level. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Mich i g a n ) : The most comprehensive programming was at the elementary level. 136 2. 1985 NATIONAL STUDY (all schools): The intellectual option was the dominant option in 97 percent of the states. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): Most programming fell into general intellectual and academic areas. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): Most programming fell into academic areas. 3. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): The least frequent program option was leadership development. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): The least frequent program option was leadership development. Program Model Findings 1. 1985 NATIONAL STUDY (all schools): Pullout programs were considerably more popular than inclass programs. 2. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): At the elementary level the most common models were teacher consultant, cluster, and pullout respectively. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): At the elementary school level the most common models were pullout, before/after school, and cluster respectively. 3. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): At the middle school level the most common models teacher consultant, cluster, and self-contained respectively. were 137 3 CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in M ichigan): At the middle school level the most common models were pullout, before/after school, and self-contained respectively. 4. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): At the high school level the most common models were teacher consultant, self-contained, and cluster. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): At the high school level the most common models were before/after school, self-contained, and specialized progr a m s . Supervision Findings 1. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): 49 percent of the districts had a district gifted and talented coordinator. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): 34 percent of the districts had a district gifted and talented coordinator. 2. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): 14 percent of the supervisors held some other title (principal, teacher, superintendent, e t c . ) CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): 48 percent of the supervisors held some other title (principal, teacher, superintendent, e t c . ) 138 Racial/Gender Findings 1. 1982 NATIONAL STUDY (all schools): Minority groups were underrepresented in gifted programming by 30-70 percent. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools): Minority groups were underrepresented in gifted programming by 44 percent. 2. NEW JERSEY STUDY (all schools in New Jersey): Blacks, Hispanics, and Indians were proportionately underrepresented in gifted programming. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): Blacks and Hispanics were proportionately underrepresented in gifted programming. 3. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): 49 percent of the gifted students were male; were female. CURRENT STUDY 51 percent (high-minority schools in Michigan): 46 percent of the gifted students were male; were female. 54 percent Degree of Involvement Findings 1. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan Regular sustained programs middle school level. CURRENT STUDY schools): were more frequent at the (high-minority schools in M ichigan): Regular sustained programs middle school level. were more frequent at the 139 5 2. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): Less than half of the schools had regular sustained programming. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools About half of the programs sustained programs. in Mich i g a n ) : in the districts were Identification Findings 1. 1982 NATIONAL STUDY (all schools): The most common methods of identification were achievement tests, grades, and teacher recommendations. NEW JERSEY STUDY (all New Jersey schools): The most common methods of identification were teacher nomination, achievement tests, and IQ tests. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): The most common methods of identification were achievement and aptitude tests. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): The most common methods of identification were teacher recommendations and achievement tests. 2. 1985 NATIONAL STUDY (all schools): 64 percent of the states reported using multiple methods of identification. INGHAM STUDY (all Michigan schools): 41 percent of the districts use multiple identification methods in most of their schools. CURRENT STUDY (high-minority schools in Michigan): 58 percent of the programs used multiple methods of identification to identify students for the program. 140 6 STUDIES USED FOR COMPARISON INGHAM STUDY: Armstrong. D. (1990). An Evaluation of Section 47 Gifted and Talented Programming, Mason, MI: Ingham Intermediate School District. NEW JERSEY STUDY: McKenzie, J. A. (1986). The Influence of Identification Practices, Race, and SES on the Identification of Gifted Students. Gifted Child Q u a r t e r l y . 30(2), 93-95. 1985 NATIONAL STUDY: O'Connell, P. (1985). The State of the States ' Gifted and Talented Education: The Council of State Directors of Programs of the Gifted. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Education and Cultural Services. 1982 NATIONAL STUDY: Richert, E. S. Alvina, J. , McDonnell, R. (1982). The National Report on Identification: Assessment and Recommendations for Comprehensive Identification of Gifted and Talented Youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South.