“Muchos de los vacíos en mi conocimiento y comprensión eran simplemente límites de mi formación cultural de origen y clase social, no por falta de abilidad y esfuerzo como me temia.” – Sonia Sotomayor, Mi Amado Mundo

Sonia Sotomayor es la primera Hispana y tercera mujer asignada a la Corte Suprema de Los Estados Unidos. En su autobiografía, Mi Amado Mundo (10), ella cuanta su historia de esfuerzo  y determinación. Aunque era una niña naturalmente inteligente y con mucha promesa por delante, soportó muchas dificultades – fue diagnosticada con diabetes juvenil a los 8 años, hija de un padre alcohólico que falleció cuando ella tenia tan solo nueve años de edad,  y criada en un hogar por una madre sobrecargada de trabajo y preocupaciones. En su libro, ella comparte su historia de reflexión y encuentro personal. El dicho de arriba es de un pasaje donde ella describe su lucha con la escritura con el idioma inglés que estaban llenos de construcciones en español. Aunque era una joven brillante que asistía a la Universidad de Princeton, tuvo que trabajar mucho para superar esta limitación, completando ejercicios de gramática y aprendiendo 10 palabras de vocabulario todos los días para compensar las oportunidades perdidas debido a la falta de exposición y las limitaciones que implicó su niñez sumergida en la pobreza. La notable disparidad entre Sotomayor y sus compañeros de clase se vio más a fondo cuando se hizo conocer las cifras financieras de los más adinerados en Princeton, los estudiantes con fondos fiduciarios, cuyos padres generosamente donaron a Yale, mientras que su madre sólo genero $5,000 al año. Pese la discrepancia del estatus socio-economico (SES)  y formacion de su origen cultural ella recibió los honores más altos en la escuela de derecho de Princeton y de Yale y ahora es una Juez Asociada de La Corte Suprema de Justicia de La Nación de los Estados Unidos.

La historia de firmeza y coraje de salir adelante de Sonia Sotomayo es admirable, da esperanza para los niños, adolescentes, y jóvenes adultos que en estos momentos estan pasando por adversidades. Su historia razona con muchos niños superdotados que tienen talento increíble pero con obstáculos extremos – ya sea cultural, lingüístico, estatus socio-económico SES, o factores de entorno ambientales.

En el año 1998, la ley Jocob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act fue aprovada y establece que “talento extraordinario estan presente en niños y adolescentes de todos grupos culturales, pese a su estatud económico, y areas de fueza humana.”(11). Tambien en el reporte National Excellence, A Case for Developing America’s Talent (11),  expone una crisis en la educación de estudiandes dotados, ya que hay una disparidad en la proporción de estudiantes identificados y servidos en programas dotados entre los niños talentosos de hogares económicamente desfavorecidos y/o de diversidad cultural y lingüística (CLD).

Teniendo en cuenta la historia de Sotomayor, el propósito de este blog es para explorar la investigación que se ha llevado a cabo sobre por qué estudiantes con origenes diversos y estudiantes de la clase baja (SES) son poco representados en los programas dotados y como podemos reclutarlos y retenerlos en nuestros programas dotados.

Paso de 20 años, Los Estados Unidos ha experimentado una transformación demográfica significante dado a immigrantes (9). En el presente, 23.7% de niños escolares en Los Estados Unidos son de padres imigrantes (6), trayendo diversidad cultural y lingüístico (CLD) con las instituciones que ellos llegan a tener contacto. En el contexto de estos rápidos cambios de communidad y panorama educacional, como nos podemos asegurar dar una educación de calidad a los niños de origen diverso, y mas especificamente, a los niños superdotados? Esta pregunta ha facinado a investigadores, politicos, y educadores, ya que su éxito tiene implicaciones directas en el futuro de nuestra nación.

Investigadores han encontrado que disimilitudes en logros academicos existen con estudiantes de diferente raza y etnicidad, auque entre los estudiantes mas capaces (7). Una gran canditad de niños con diversidad cultural y lingüística (CLD) viven cerca de escuelas con financiación insuficiente, con falta de rigurosos curriculos escolares, tienes menos recursos educativos, y constantemente emplean a maestros menos experimentados y capaces (1). Niños dotados entre estas escuelas estan particularmente en riesgo porque constantemente son pasado por alto he ignorados (2).

Investigadores también han planteado la identificación de un niño con alta abilidad de aprendisaje de diversidad cultural y lingüística (CLD) y con bajo estatus socio-económico SES son mayormente impactados por percepciones inexactas de parte de maestros y facultad educativas. La desigualdad en la nominación de maestros para programas dotados son inconsistentes entre distritos y escuelas a nivel nacional (4,5). Además, existe una dependencia de las medidas validadas de inteligencia y una escasez de evaluaciones dinámicas, la evaluación de maestros y padres y exámenes de habilidad no verbal (4,8).

Unícamente analizando  los ingresos de los padres los estudiantes cuyas familias están en el cuartil de ingresos superior con padres de ingresos en el alto nivel  son cinco veses mas probables  de ingresar en programas dotados que estudiantes con padres de ingreso  en el cuartil inferior(2).  Durante un largo periodo de tiempo, estudios han demostrado que estudiantes de bajo estatus socio-económico SES susesivamente logran graduarse de la secundaria a tiempo pero es menos probable que asistan a universidades reconocidas comparados con sus compañeros de alto estatus socio-económico SES (14% vs. 21%); menos probable de graduarse de la Universidad (49% vs. 77%); y menos probable de recivir diploma de maestria (29% vs, 47%) (8).

Estos analisis sugieren que hay una necesidad por nuevas estrategias para identificar estudiantes dotados de culturas diversas, lingüísticas, y de bajo estatus socio-económico SES. Sin embargo, puesto que la educación dotada no es mandato federal – conducen a diferencias en las definiciones, la identificación y la programación entre distritos y estados – es dificil implementar estas estrategias (4).

Como mi conocimiento es en sicología aplicada, siempre aprecio cuando la investigación se traduce en practica o proporciona implicaciones para practicas efectivas. En todos los artículos que leí, la mayoría de ellos también proporcionó soluciones potenciales para mejorar la identificación y la retención de diversos estudiantes en programas dotados.

El currículo avanzado de alta calidad debe seguir siendo creado y evaluado. Los estudiantes dotados diversos se beneficiarían de un currículo culturalmente sensible y apropiado para el desarrollo (5). Muchos estudiantes dotados se desconectan de las clases por que se aburren, hay una necesidad de enriquecer programas y currículo que evocan el potencial de un estudiante dotado. Como los examenes de inteligencia y las referencias de los maestros a menudo se encontraron como una fuente de representación insuficiente los estudiantes diversos en programas dotados, el campo de la educación dotada necesita examinar y considerar concepciones más amplías de la inteligencia, definiciones alternativas de dotación y modelos inclusivos de evaluación. La investigación también ha vinculado el éxito de alumnos dotados de diversidad cultural y lingüística CLD y bajo estatus socio-económico SES con relaciones familiares positivas, donde los estudiantes sobresalen en la escuela a pesar de las barreras económicas y sociales (3). Esto demuestra que hay una necesidad de un esfuerso colectivo para brindar y proponer cambio, uno que incluya energía no solo de escuelas y padres, pero tambien investigadores y politicos.

Por último, las comunidades y las organizaciones también pueden proporcionar apoyo y asistencia a personas dotadas de diversos orígenes, ofreciendo talleres, clases enriquecedoras y oportunidades de aprendizaje(8).

Aunque pude ofrecer una visión general de la diversidad en relación con el supertalento, sólo se abordó en este blog la diversidad cultural, lingüística y económica. Sin embargo, hay una serie de investigaciones que abordan las relaciones entre ser dotado y la diversidad de género, estudiantes dotados con discapacidades (2e: doblemente excepcional), y la diversidad geográfica. Por último, no podemos descuidar la importancia de la diversidad y los factores no cognitivos de alto rendimiento. Hay mucho que aprender de la investigación que examina las necesidades sociales y emocionales de los niños dotados.

Imagine si Sonia Sotomayor no hubiera recibido asistencia financiera en la escuela de derecho de Princeton y Yale; Estados Unidos habría sido carente de un líder importante. Con esto en mente, le pido que se tome el tiempo para donar a AIE, para que podamos continuar sirviendo a los estudiantes que pueden no tener los medios financieros para beneficiarse de nuestros programas. En nombre de los estudiantes y familias que servimos, le damos gracias por ser parte de la comunidad de AIE!

Referencias

1. Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (Barton, P. E. (2003). Disectar las inconsistencias del alto rendimiento. Princeton, NJ: Servicio de Pruebas Educativas.

2. Borland, J. H. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. (Borland, J. H. (2004). Problemas y prácticas en la identificación y Educación de estudiantes dotados de grupos menos representados. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.)

3. Castellano, J.A. & Frazier, A.D. (2010). Special populations in gifted education: Understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds. Waco, TX: National Association for Gifted Children/Prufrock Press. (Castellano, J.A. & Frazier, A.D. (2010). Poblaciones especiales en educación dotada: entendiendo a nuestros estudiantes más capaces de diversos orígenes. Waco, TX: Asociación Nacional de niños dotados /Prufrock Press.)

4. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-306. (Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Estudiantes con diversidad cultural y lingüística en educación superdotada: problemas de reclutamiento y retención. Niños excepcionales, 74(3), 289-306.)

5. Johnsen, S.K. (2014). Assessing Growth of Gifted and Advanced Students. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 4-5. (Johnsen, S.K. (2014). Evaluación del Crecimiento de Estudiantes Dotados y  Avanzados. El Niño Dotado de Hoy en Dia)

6. Mather, M. (2009). Children in immigrant families chart new path. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. (Mather, M. (2009). Niños de familias imigrantes establecen nuevo recorrido. Washington, DC: Oficina de Referencia de Población.)

7. Miller, L. S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the United States at all levels of the education system. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. (Miller, L. S. (2004).Promoviendo el sostenimiendo del crecimiento en la representación de Afroamericanos, Latinos y Nativos Americanos entre los mejores estudiantes en los Estados Unidos en todos los niveles del sistema educativo Storrs: University of Connecticut, El Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre el Dotado y Talentoso.)

8. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. (Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Desencadenando el talento emergente: apoyando el alto rendimiento de los estudiantes de bajos ingresos y con alta capacidad. Washington, DC: Asociación Nacional de Niños Dotados.)

9. Perez, Patricia. (2010). College Choice Process of Latino Undocumented Students: Implications for Recruitment and Retention. Journal of College Admission, 206, 21-25. (Perez, Patricia. (2010). Proceso de Elección Universitaria de Estudiantes Latinos Indocumentados: Implicaciones para el Reclutamiento y la Retención: Diario de Admisión a la Universidad, 206, 21-25.)

10. Sotomayor, S. (2013). My Beloved World. New York: Knopf. (Sotomayor, S. (2013). Mi Amado Mundo. New York: Knopf.)

11. United States Department of Education. (1993). National Excellence: The Case for Developing America’s Talent. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (Departamento de Educación de los Estados Unidos. (1993). Excelencia Nacional: El Caso para Desarrollo de Talentos de America. Washington, DC: Departamento de Educación de los Estados Unidos, oficina de investigación y mejoramiento educacional.)

“Many of the gaps in my knowledge and understanding were simply limits of class and cultural background, not lack of aptitude or application as I feared.”

― Sonia Sotomayor, My Beloved World

Sonia Sotomayor is the first Hispanic and third woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. In her memoir, My Beloved World (10), she tells her story of resilience and determination. Although a naturally precocious child with much promise, she endured many hardships – she was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at age 8, the daughter of an alcoholic father who passed away at age 9, and raised in a single-parent household by an overburdened mother. In her book, she shares her story of self-discovery.

The above quote comes from a passage in which she describes her struggle with writing that resulted from English that was riddled with Spanish constructions. Although she was a bright young woman attending Princeton University, she had to work hard to overcome this limitation by completing grammar exercises and learning 10 vocabulary words every day to compensate for lost opportunities due to lack of exposure and the limitations implicit in a childhood entrenched in poverty. The striking disparity between Sotomayor and her fellow classmates was further realized when she was made privy to the financial figures of the most well-off at Princeton, students with trust funds, whose parents generously endowed Yale, while her mother only made $5,000 a year. Despite the discrepancy in socioeconomic (SES) status and cultural background, she received the highest honors at Princeton and Yale Law School and is now an Associate Justice for the highest judicial body in the United States.

Sonia Sotomayor’s story of tenacity and grit is admirable; it provides hope to children, adolescents, and emerging adults who are currently facing adversity. Her story is one that resonates with many gifted children who have considerable talent but face a myriad of challenges – whether they are cultural, linguistic, SES, and/or environmental.

In 1998, the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act was passed and stated that “outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor”(11). Yet, in the report National Excellence, A Case for Developing America’s Talent (11), attention is called to a quiet crisis in the education of gifted students, as there is a disparity in the proportion of students identified and served in gifted programs among talented children from economically disadvantaged homes and/or from culturally or linguistically diverse (CLD) groups.

Taking into consideration Sotomayor’s story, the purpose of this blog is to explore research that has been conducted on why diverse students and students from lower SES backgrounds are underrepresented in gifted programs and how we can recruit and retain more of them for our gifted programs.

Over the past 20 years, the United States has experienced a significant demographic transformation due to immigration (9). Currently, 23.7% of school-age children in the United States are children of immigrants (6), bringing linguistic and cultural diversity (CLD) to the institutions with which they come in contact. In the context of these rapidly changing communities and educational landscapes, how do we ensure quality education for children of diverse backgrounds, and more specifically, those who are gifted? This question has fascinated researchers, policy makers, and educators, as their success has direct implications on our nation’s future.

Researchers have found that disparities exist in academic achievement based on race and ethnicity, even among the most able students (7). A large number of CLD children reside in schools that are underfunded, lack a rigorous curriculum, have fewer educational resources, and often employ less experienced teachers (1). Gifted children within these schools are particularly at risk because they are often overlooked (2).

Researchers have also posited that the identification of a high ability learner from CLD and lower SES background is significantly impacted by inaccurate perceptions held by teachers and schools. Inequalities in teacher nomination for gifted programs are pervasive among districts and schools nationwide (5,8). Additionally, there is a dependency on validated measures of intelligence and a dearth of dynamic assessments, teacher and parent ratings, portfolios, and nonverbal ability tests (4,8).

Looking solely at income, it has been found that students whose families were in the top income quartile were 5 times more likely to be in gifted programs than students whose parents’ income was in the bottom quartile (2). Longitudinally, studies have shown that students from lower SES backgrounds often graduate from high school on time but are less likely to attend selective colleges than their higher SES peers (14% vs. 21%); less likely to graduate from college (49% vs. 77%); and less likely to receive a graduate degree (29% vs. 47%) (8).

These findings suggest that there is a need for new strategies in identifying gifted students of diverse cultural, linguistic, and SES backgrounds. However, since gifted education is not federally mandated – leading to differences in definitions, identification, and programming across districts and states – it is difficult to implement these strategies (4).

As I was trained in Applied Psychology, I always appreciate when research is translated into practice or provides implications for effective practices. In all of the articles I read, the majority of them also provided potential solutions to ameliorate identification and retention of diverse students in gifted programs.

High-quality, advanced curriculum must continue to be created and evaluated. Diverse gifted students would benefit from culturally sensitive and developmentally appropriate curriculum (5). As many gifted students disengage in classes where they are bored, there is a need for enriching programs and curriculum that evoke a gifted student’s potential. As intelligence testing and teacher referrals were often found to be a source for underrepresentation of diverse students in gifted programs, the field of gifted education needs to examine and consider broader conceptions of intelligence, alternative definitions of giftedness, and inclusive assessment models. Research has also linked the success of CLD and lower SES gifted learners to positive family relationships, where students excelled in school despite economic and social barriers (3). This demonstrates that there needs to be a collective effort to bring about change, one that includes energy from not only schools and parents, but also researchers and policy makers.

Finally, communities and organizations can also provide support and assistance to gifted individuals from diverse backgrounds by offering workshops, enriching classes, and apprenticeship opportunities (8).

While I was able to provide a general overview of diversity and giftedness, only cultural, linguistic, and economic diversity were addressed in this blog. There is, however, a spate of research that addresses giftedness and gender diversity, gifted students with disabilities (2e: twice-exceptional), and geographic diversity. Finally, we cannot neglect the importance of diversity and non-cognitive factors of high achievement. There is much to be learned from research that examines the social and emotional needs of gifted children.

Imagine if Sonia Sotomayor had not been granted financial assistance at Princeton and Yale Law School; America would have been bereft of an important leader. With that in mind, I ask that you take the time to donate to IEA, so that we may continue to serve students who may not have the financial means to benefit from our programs. On behalf of the students and families we serve, thank you for being a part of the IEA community!

Like this post? Sign up for our email newsletter to receive more information and resources about gifted youth straight to your inbox.

References

1. Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

2. Borland, J. H. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

3. Castellano, J.A. & Frazier, A.D. (2010). Special populations in gifted education: Understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds. Waco, TX: National Association for Gifted Children/Prufrock Press.

4. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-306.

5. Johnsen, S.K. (2014). Assessing Growth of Gifted and Advanced Students. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 4-5.

6. Mather, M. (2009). Children in immigrant families chart new path. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

7. Miller, L. S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the United States at all levels of the education system. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

8. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

9. Perez, Patricia. (2010). College Choice Process of Latino Undocumented Students: Implications for Recruitment and Retention. Journal of College Admission, 206, 21-25.

10. Sotomayor, S. (2013). My beloved world. New York: Knopf.

11. United States Department of Education. (1993). National Excellence: The Case for Developing America’s Talent. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

1. Some definitions address the “asynchronous development” found in gifted kids. One such definition comes from the Columbus Group (1991):
   “Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in parenting, teaching and counseling in order for them to develop optimally.”
   This is the definition we use at IEA.
2. Through the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act – part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act – the federal government currently defines gifted students as:
   “Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.”
3. In Gifted Children: Myths and Realities, Ellen Winner defines giftedness with these three atypical characteristics:
   • Precocity – “They begin to take the first steps in the mastery of some domain at an earlier-than-average age. They also make more rapid progress in this domain than do ordinary children, because learning in the domain comes easily to them.”
   • An insistence on marching to their own drummer – “Gifted children not only learn faster than average or even bright children but also learn in a quantitatively different way.”
   • A rage to master – “Gifted children are intrinsically motivated to make sense of the domain in which they show precocity.”
4. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) defines giftedness as the following:
   “Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g., mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills (e.g., painting, dance, sports).”
5. Most states also have their own definition of “gifted” for program and funding purposes. To see your state’s definition, look here: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/52/28/5228.htm. It is important to note that few districts differentiate between the different levels of giftedness. A child who scores in the 130 – 140 range on an IQ test is very different than the child who scores in the 150 – 180 range.

While no two definitions are the same, there are a few guiding principles which can help structure our thinking about giftedness.

• Annemarie Roeper, who developed the Annemarie Roeper Model of Qualitative Assessment, helps bring together many of the different theories with her conception that “giftedness is a greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experiences.”
• Some believe there are many areas of giftedness, not all of which are what we typically think of as intellectual. The following are six categories of giftedness to which experts and definitions often refer:
  1. General intellectual ability
  2. Specific academic ability
  3. Creative ability
  4. Leadership ability
  5. Visual and performing arts ability
  6. Psychomotor ability
• While some define giftedness based on IQ score, IQ tests do not always tell the whole story, and identifying solely based on IQ tests can ignore many kids considered gifted by other criteria.
• “Gifted” is not the only word that can be used to describe these incredibly bright and talented young people. (For an exploration of the various terms most often used, take a look at Stephanie Tolan’s post “What is in a Name?”) The word itself is not what is important. Neither, in many ways, is the definition. What is important is that we identify these highly able young people and help them reach their full intellectual and personal potential.
• Gifted children, no matter how you define or identify them, have different educational needs than their age-peers. Their education needs to allow them to grow with their unique intellectual development.

Due to the variety of definitions in the field, it is often more effective to use specific descriptions of your child’s abilities and insights. This may make it easier for others to understand your child’s needs.

Like this post? Sign up for our email newsletter to receive more information and resources about gifted youth straight to your inbox.