Equity and Excellence: An Analysis by Donna Ford and Harmon - Article Example

? Equity and Excellence: An Analysis Equity and Excellence: An Analysis Donna Ford and Harmon in their article “Equity and Excellence: Providing Access to Gifted Education for Culturally Diverse Students” published in the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education discusses the gifted education program in the country, focusing on the under-representation of culturally diverse students who are also gifted. Factors which prevent educators from recognizing the gifts and talents of students belonging to the cultural minorities and most importantly, the importance of balance and reconciliation between equity and excellence in education were also tackled (Ford and Harmon, 2001). The writers presented and fully discussed the background of the issue, mentioning Congress passing legislations promoting the interests of gifted students. According to the National Association for Gifted Children, in order to help reduce gaps in achievement and to encourage the establishment of equal educational opportunities for all U.S. students, Congress allocated $7.5 million in 2010 for the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act to the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented and funds grants that focus on identifying and serving gifted and talented students coming from culturally, linguistically and ethnically diverse backgrounds and are traditionally under-represented. Almost all decisions are made at the state and local level. State laws, local policies, and unstable funding varies widely, resulting to disparity of gifted education services between school districts and the different treatment and protection of talented and gifted students under the law (NAGC, n.d.). With the present system used in educational and placement decisions, the system of identification and assessment, together with present policies and procedures which seem not effective enough, if what the authors say will be believed, it is not surprising that students belonging to the cultural minority, have been under-represented in terms of gifted education. Their claim that culturally diverse students are under-represented is fully backed by their presentation of established causes; two of them are testing and assessment issues. According Ford and Harmon, these tests are ineffective due to several factors that affect test results. Again, the authors, by giving explanations on why standardized tests are ineffective, and giving emphasis on the explanation of educators which says that “the fault rests with the student” successfully introduced the idea of deficit thinking. They claim that deficit-oriented philosophy hinders educators from seeing the potentials of diverse students. In these, I fully agree with the authors. Deficit thinking leads to educators focusing only on students who are capable of getting high scores in intelligence tests and those who are achievers. These factors make educators blind to possibilities that the students are of the same level when it comes to intelligence. Others just need to be motivated. The fact that diverse students face social injustice such as discrimination, stereotypes, negative peer pressure among others, in school is proof of deficit thinking/ deficit-oriented philosophy which results to under-representation of gifted but culturally diverse students (Ford and Harmon, 2001). Ford and Harmon claim inadequate policies and practices contribute to under-representation and are backed by Richard Valencia in his book “Dismantling Contemporary Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice”. Valencia stated that throughout the history of deficit thinking in education, examples of educational policies or practices, in the micro and macro level, are fueled by class and racial prejudice keeping economically disadvantaged students of color in their place. Valencia further stated that the historical and contemporary bases are evident in “state constitutional statutes, state educational agency policies, judicial outcomes, state legislation, local school board policies and classroom teacher practices” (Valencia, pp 9-10). This proves Ford and Harmon’s claim that if teacher referral is the first (or only) recruitment step, diverse students are likely to be under-represented in gifted education. Perceptions about differences among students being one of the reasons educators are not referring culturally diverse students for gifted education services, and equating these differences with deficits. The authors successfully directed the readers to the issues regarding access to gifted education for culturally diverse students (Ford and Harmon, 2001). Shedding deficit thinking is logical. If it hinders the representation and the possible development and enrichment of deserving diverse students, they are quite correct in this recommendation. By backing this up with suggestions for moving the field of gifted education to the next level, the authors are trying to show the readers that a change in the system is possible. By adopting contemporary theories and definitions of intelligence and giftedness, it will broaden the scope of coverage and thus will surely include diverse students including those who come from families of low socio-economic status. By adopting culturally sensitive instruments, educators will be forced to consider diverse students who are poor test takers and also students who are gifted but only lack motivation (Ford and Harmon, 2001). When it comes to identifying and serving underachievers and low socio-economic students, I am inclined to disagree with the authors to a certain degree. Educators and society have already identified these students. This is why there exists the issue of deficit thinking. The educators have already segregated the students from achievers to non-achievers, often relying on test-driven definitions that ignore the strengths of culturally diverse students. But I fully agree and can say that the authors are correct when they say that educators should take into consideration the circumstances that diverse students are in, among them poverty as the most important (Ford and Harmon, 2001). Providing multicultural preparation for educators is the most important recommendation that the authors have cited. This will remove deficit-oriented philosophy which for me is the root cause of under-representation. These preparations will enable educators to accept and consider gifted students, no matter the background or circumstances they are in. And possibly be able to create a classroom environment which is culturally sensitive and culturally responsive. This preparation goes hand-in-hand with developing home-school partnerships. By exposing educators and school administrators to what diverse families’ lives are all about, including their cultures and beliefs, they will be more understanding and considerate of every student belonging to these communities. Establishing partnership also will result to helping each other in improving each other’s understanding about the community and the school institution and thus will be able to improve diverse students’ outlook with regards to their intelligence and abilities. Providing a multicultural education to gifted students will give them the sense of belongingness and the assurance that they are not just in the sidelines and as the authors say, for them to fully understand and appreciate diverse population. Finally, a continuous evaluation is to assure that further improvements will be done if needed (Ford and Harmon, 2001). Readers being educated are expected to fully understand and appreciate the current situation of gifted education with regards to diverse students. By discussing symptoms such as low referral rates and heavy reliance on tests that do not effectively capture diverse students’ strengths and cultural orientation, the authors delve on the root cause of the issue and effectively presented them, thus making their suggestions and recommendations credible. By citing information coming from different sources which tell of trends and statistics the authors allow the readers to fully understand their point. This article is so effective that it causes the readers to stop and think of the logic and the point the authors are trying to present. Educators, after reading this will think differently about giftedness and intelligence and gifted education as a whole. References Ford, D., and Harmon, D. (2001, Spring 2001). Equity and Excellence: Providing Access to Gifted Education for Culturally Diverse Students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 141. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database. Valencia, Richard. (2010) Dismantling Contemporary Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Print. National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d) Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved 1 March 2013, from http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=548. Read More