Can We Talk?

481 views

Published on

The Underrepresentation of African American Males in AIG Programs
Dr. Brenda Hargrove
5th Annual ECU Gifted Conference
October 5, 2011
www.ecugifted.com


This presentation examines critical factors in under-representation and administrator and teacher perceptions of barriers to identification of African American male students. Results of a dissertation study conducted in 2007 in Eastern North Carolina will be presented. Implications for current instructional practices and professional development will be discussed.

Published in: Education, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
481
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Fisher’s Exact significance is utilized for administrators because the cells contained less than 10 expected counts in the cell.
  • N=132 responses
  • Minority & White teachers---professional development; screening selection processes; watering down the curriculum/program; intellectual giftedness not valued Minority & White administrators—testing bias and prejudicial attitudes
  • Non school—home, language, values, nonstandard english; school-related—attitudes, testing, ability to recognize, curriculum, selection process, beliefs White teachers ranked all school related factors as “minor”; minority teachers ranked four as major.
  • Staff Development Model (Frasier); Project Start; Project (Darity)
  • Can We Talk?

    1. 1. Can we talk? The under-representation of African American males in academically gifted programs October 5, 2011 Brenda H. Hargrove, Ed.D
    2. 2. Introduction Contributions of African Americans in education, politics, sciences, architecture, etc. Reflected negatively in prison system, health care system, and the public school system (special education).
    3. 3. Nationally 17% total school population, 8% African Americans enrolled in Academically gifted (2006) In NC, 30% Black students in total population, 10% in AIG (2001)
    4. 4. <ul><li>2008 National Center for Education Statistics </li></ul>Enrollment in AIG/ 2004 2006 % of student population 2008 African American Males 3.9 4.3 31.2 White 15.7 15.4 54.3 Hispanic 3.0 3.1 10.3 American Indian 6.3 6.2! 1.4 Asian 16.5 17.3 2.5
    5. 5. 2004 NC Head Count Total Academically Gifted population—145,467 African American males—6,539
    6. 6. Statement of the Problem Despite significant achievements and advances of African Americans, the African American male is over-represented in special education programs, yet under-represented in programs for the academically gifted.
    7. 7. Literature Review Causes <ul><li>Psychological (motivation, achievement)—Herbert, 1998; Grantham, 1997, 2004; Ford, 1998, 1992; Steele, 1997. </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural (acting white, value systems)—Ogbu, 1997, Osborne, 1999; Patton, 1997,1998; Spencer, 2001. </li></ul><ul><li>Social (definitions, selection process)—Serwata, Deering & Stoddard, 1989; Daniels, 1998, 2002; Tidwell, 1993; Plata, Marsten & Trusty, 1999 </li></ul>
    8. 8. Teacher Role <ul><li>Siegle & Powell, 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Ford, 1998; Patton, 1997, 1998; Frasier, 1997; Ford, Moore & Milner, 2005; Hunsaker, 1991; Rhodes, 1992; Gear, 1976 </li></ul><ul><li>High & Udall, 1983 </li></ul>
    9. 9. Administrator Role <ul><li>Jones, 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>NABSE, 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>Grantham, 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Tomlinson, Callahan & Lelli, 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>Robinson, 2003 </li></ul>
    10. 10. Summary <ul><li>Under-representation –a perpetual problem in gifted education </li></ul><ul><li>Various influencing factors—psychological, cultural, social </li></ul><ul><li>definition, assessment, retention </li></ul>
    11. 11. Purpose of Study <ul><li>The purpose of this study was to explore factors influencing under-representation of African American males in gifted programs </li></ul><ul><li>The focus of this study was the perceptions of teachers and school administrators of barriers to the identification of African American males </li></ul>
    12. 12. Demographics <ul><li>System A--White (38%); African American (53%); Hispanic/other (9%) </li></ul><ul><li>African American males in AG (10%) </li></ul><ul><li>System B—White (41%); A. A. (51%); Hispanic/other (8%) </li></ul><ul><li>African American males—(3%) </li></ul><ul><li>System C—White (36%); A. A. (57%); Hispanic/other (7%) </li></ul><ul><li>African American males in AG—(11%) </li></ul><ul><li>System D—White (39%); A. A. (50%); Hispanic/other (11%) </li></ul><ul><li>African American males in AIG—(7%) </li></ul>
    13. 13. Research Design <ul><li>Descriptive, mixed method </li></ul><ul><li>Instrument (Frasier, et al., 1995) </li></ul><ul><li>Sampling </li></ul><ul><li>Participants </li></ul><ul><li>189 school administrators </li></ul><ul><li>2494 teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Grades 3-8 </li></ul><ul><li>81 schools </li></ul>
    14. 14. Frasier, Hunsaker, Lee, Finley, Garcia & Martin, 1995 <ul><li>Educator’s perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged (ED) and limited English proficient (LEP) backgrounds </li></ul><ul><li>Instrument—Why do we identify so few gifted children from economically disadvantaged (ED) and limited English proficient (LEP)backgrounds? </li></ul><ul><li>10 barriers </li></ul>
    15. 15. Methodology <ul><li>Email list serve </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic likert scale survey </li></ul><ul><li>Time frame—1 st week of September---last week </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of data (SPSS) </li></ul><ul><li>Chi square </li></ul><ul><li>Frequency distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Cross tabulation </li></ul><ul><li>Content analysis </li></ul>
    16. 16. Research Questions <ul><li>1. What are teacher perceptions of the barriers to the identification of African American males for gifted programs? </li></ul><ul><li>2. What are school administrator perceptions of barriers to the identification of African American males for gifted programs? </li></ul><ul><li>3. Does ethnicity of teachers have a relationship to their perceptions of barriers to the identification of African American males for gifted programs? </li></ul>
    17. 17. Research Questions <ul><li>4.       Does ethnicity of school administrators have a relationship to their perceptions of barriers to the identification of African American males for gifted programs? </li></ul><ul><li>5.       Does professional development in giftedness for classroom teachers have an impact on their perceptions of barriers to the identification of African American males for gifted programs? </li></ul><ul><li>6.       Does professional development in giftedness for school administrators have an impact on their perceptions of barriers to the identification of African American males for gifted programs? </li></ul>
    18. 18. Research Hypotheses <ul><li>1.       There is no significant difference among minority and non-minority classroom teachers in their perceptions of barriers to identification of African American males for gifted programs. </li></ul><ul><li>2.       There is no significant difference among minority and non-minority school administrators in their perceptions of barriers to identification of African American males for gifted programs. </li></ul>
    19. 19. Research Hypotheses <ul><li>3.       There is no significant difference among classroom teachers with professional development in giftedness or no professional development in their perceptions of barriers to identification of African American males for gifted programs. </li></ul><ul><li>4.       There is no significant difference among school administrators with professional development in giftedness or no professional development in their perceptions of barriers to identification of African American males for gifted programs. </li></ul>
    20. 20. Demographics
    21. 21. Findings <ul><li>Major barrier—60% or more in agreement </li></ul><ul><li>Administrators—differences in language experiences; home environment; teacher inability to recognize traits </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers—differences in language experiences; home environment </li></ul><ul><li>Moderate barrier—59% to 40% agreement </li></ul><ul><li>Administrators—standardized testing; prejudicial attitudes; screening/selection processes; nonstandard English </li></ul>
    22. 22. Findings <ul><li>Teachers—Teacher inability to recognize; screening/selection process; intelligence not valued; nonstandard English </li></ul><ul><li>Minor barrier—39% or less </li></ul><ul><li>Administrators—Beliefs about giftedness; intellectual giftedness not valued; watering down the program </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers—Standardized tests; prejudicial attitudes; beliefs about giftedness; watering down program </li></ul>
    23. 23. Question Rating & Classification Minority Rating & Classification Caucasian Teachers 1.Differences in language experiences 68.6 62.1 2.Home environment 72.4 80.3 3.Inability to recognize traits 75.2 38.5 4.Standardized test bias 66.3 18.1 5.Prejudicial attitudes 68.3 18.1
    24. 24.   Question Rating & Classification Minority Rating & Classification Caucasian Teachers 6.Beliefs about gifted children who come from African American backgrounds 14.3 13.4 7.Use of narrow screening/selection process 75.5 27.5 8.Intellectual giftedness not valued 37.3 49.8 9.Watering down of program quality 40.0 4.9 10. Non standard English 49.0 47.1
    25. 25. Findings <ul><li>Chi-Square for teachers X ethnicity </li></ul><ul><li>Significance values of p< .05 </li></ul><ul><li>teacher ability to recognize characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Test bias </li></ul><ul><li>Prejudicial attitudes </li></ul><ul><li>Selection/screening process </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual giftedness not valued </li></ul><ul><li>curriculum </li></ul>
    26. 26. Table 7. Chi-Square Analysis for Teachers ( N=366) Variable Value df Asymp.sig   1. differences in lang X ethnicity 1.199 1 .274     2. home environment X ethnicity 2.580 1 .108     3. teacher ability X ethnicity 37.253 1 .000     4. test bias X ethnicity 74.448 1 .000     5. attitude X ethnicity 88.447 1 .000    
    27. 27. p<.05 6. beliefs X ethnicity .007 1 .933     7. selection process X ethnicity 66.043 1 .000     8. values X ethnicity 4.675 1 .031     9. curriculum X ethnicity 69.950 1 .000     10. non-standard English X ethnicity 3.579 1 .059    
    28. 28. Findings <ul><li>Chi-square for school administrators X ethnicity </li></ul><ul><li>Significance values of p< .05 </li></ul><ul><li>Testing bias & prejudicial attitudes </li></ul>
    29. 29. Table 8. Chi-square Analysis for Administrators (N=56) Variable Value df Asymp.sig   1. differences in lang X ethnicity .000 1 1.000     2. home environment X ethnicity .000 1 1.000     3. teacher ability X ethnicity 3.092 1 .079     4. test bias X ethnicity 10.053 1 .002     5. attitude X ethnicity 11.929 1 .001    
    30. 30. 6. beliefs X ethnicity .000 1   1.000   7. selection process X ethnicity 1.456 1 .228     8. values X ethnicity .193 1 .660     9. curriculum X ethnicity 2.868 1   .066   10. non-standard English X ethnicity .705 1 .401    
    31. 31. Findings <ul><li>Chi-square for teachers and chi-square for administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers X professional development </li></ul><ul><li>Administrators X professional development </li></ul><ul><li>No significance values P < .05 </li></ul>
    32. 32. Table 9. Chi-square for Teachers (N=369) Variable Value df Asymp.sig   1. differences in lang X professional development .410 1 .522     2. home environment X professional development .968 1 .325     3. teacher ability X professional development .005 1 .943     4. test bias X professional development .034 1 .854     5. attitude X professional development .718 1 .397    
    33. 33.   6. beliefs X professional development .059 1 .808     7. selection process X professional development .076 1 .782     8. values X professional development .107 1 .744     9. curriculum X professional development .480 1 .488     10. non-standard English X professional development 1.477 1 .224    
    34. 34. Table 10. Chi-square for Administrators (N=56) Variable Value df Asymp.sig Exact sig.   1. differences in lang X professional development .000 1   .730   2. home environment X professional development .049 1   .711   3. teacher ability X professional development .568 1 .259   4. test bias X professional development .000 1 1.000     5. attitude X professional development .950 1 .330    
    35. 35. p<.05 6. beliefs X professional development .296 1   .562   7. selection process X professional development 1.427 1 .232     8. values X professional development .570 1 .339   9. curriculum X professional development .000 1   1.000   10. non-standard English X professional development .701 1 .403    
    36. 36. Table 11. Open-ended comment categories or themes   Item N Percentage 1. Parents/parental involvement 32 24% 2. Peer pressure/”acting cool/white” 33 25% 3. Behavior of African American males 18 14% 4. Home environment 18 14% 5. Role models/mentors 19 14% 6. Cultural differences 15 11% 7. Processes/school system 14 11% 8. Motivation/attitude/self-image 13 10% 9. Socioeconomic/poverty 12 9%
    37. 37. Open-ended comments <ul><li>N=132 comments </li></ul><ul><li>“I’ve been teaching for 27 years and I have never had a gifted African American male”. </li></ul>
    38. 38. Other Findings <ul><li>Minority </li></ul><ul><li>Testing Bias –70% Agreed </li></ul><ul><li>Prejudicial Attitudes—75% Agreed </li></ul><ul><li>Non-Minority </li></ul><ul><li>Testing Bias—81% Disagreed </li></ul><ul><li>Prejudicial Attitudes—83% Disagreed </li></ul>
    39. 39. Conclusions <ul><li>Major barriers from 1995 to present </li></ul><ul><li>(Test bias & lack of ability to recognize vs. </li></ul><ul><li>Home environment & language experiences) </li></ul><ul><li>Ethnicity </li></ul><ul><li>School related vs. non-school related </li></ul><ul><li>Professional development </li></ul>
    40. 40. Implications <ul><li>More uniformity of local gifted plans </li></ul><ul><li>Partnerships with parents, families and community </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring of professional development according to state guidelines </li></ul>
    41. 41. Implications <ul><li>Curriculum and activities that promote positive images as role models </li></ul><ul><li>Instructional strategies/classroom management </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporation of self-knowledge and understanding other cultures </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural competence </li></ul><ul><li>Professional Development opportunities (types) </li></ul>
    42. 42. Professional Learning Communities <ul><li>A collaborative group of educators using data to focus on student learning and effective instructional practices </li></ul><ul><li>Trusting and honest self-reflection and evaluation </li></ul>
    43. 43. Professional Learning Communities <ul><li>Continued research is needed to gauge the impact of various types of professional development on perception or attitude of participants </li></ul><ul><li>Online professional development </li></ul><ul><li>Course: “Diversity for educators in the classroom” </li></ul>
    44. 44. Food for Thought <ul><li>“ Why does knowledge of what needs to be done so frequently fail to result in action or behavior that is consistent with that knowledge?” </li></ul><ul><li>Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action . Boston: Harvard Business School. P. 4 </li></ul>
    45. 45. Summary <ul><li>Dialogue—”the encounter of women and men in the world in order to transform the world” (Freire, 1970) </li></ul><ul><li>Begins with the will to seek change by all school personnel (Darity, et al., 2001) </li></ul>

    ×