|
Article Excerpt
African American males continue to go underidentified for our nation's gifted programs. This lack of identification has led to underrepresentation by as much as 50% nationally (Office of Civil Rights, 2002). According to Lee (1996), "Black males encounter formidable challenges to their educational development and many of them experience a serious stifling of achievement, aspiration, and pride in school systems throughout the country" (p. 5). Both current and historical arguments (e.g., Bennett, 1992; D'Souza, 1996; Hermstein & Murray, 1994; Simon, 2007), much like Armstrong Williams' dire report on African American male crime statistics cited in a 2004 column in the New York Amsterdam News, would have many of us believe that Black males are pathological and failing miserably in our nation's schools; when, in actuality, our nation's schools seem to be the purveyors of pathology and are miserably failing our Black males (Dunbar, 2001; McNally, 2003).
Despite our efforts at expanding the definition of giftedness to include several categories and criteria in the identification process, we continue to see a high degree of underrepresenation among African American male cohorts. The literature in the past two decades has been noteworthy (e.g., Fashola, 2005; Ferguson, 2000; Ford, 2003; Ford, Moore, & Milner, 2005; Grantham, 2004; Hopkins, 1997; Hrabowski, Maton, & Greif, 1998; Kunjufu, 1990, 2005a; Lee, 2005; Morris, 2002; Ogbu, 2003; Polite & Davis, 1999; Porter, 1998; Taylor & Phillips, 2006; Watson & Smitherman, 1996; Whiting, 2006; Wynn, 1992) regarding the "underachievement" and underrepresentation of African American males in U.S. schooling. According to the literature on these phenomena, African American males have been disproportionately placed in special education classrooms (Harry & Anderson, 1994; Kearns, Ford, & Linney, 2005; Watkins & Kurtz, 2001) and underrepresented in gifted and talented programs (Ford, 1995; Bonner, 2001; Ford, Grantham, & Bailey, 1999).
In this article, we discuss the promise offered by one of the ability areas cited in the federal definition of giftedness--leadership ability--to address and circumvent this cycle of underrepresentation. An examination of an array of contributing factors found to impact African American male readiness and identification for gifted programming is explored; namely, definitions of giftedness, secondary school contexts, identity development, resilience, and leadership potential each are considered in turn. Perhaps by considering this often overlooked form of giftedness among African American male populations, we can "... increase the representation of Black males in gifted education. Maybe then these young men can have the opportunity to fulfill their potential" (Whiting, 2006, p. 227).
DEFINING GIFTEDNESS
What has historically and currently served as formidable barriers to the identification of African American males for gifted and talented programs are the definitions of giftedness used by most states. These definitions tend to focus narrowly on giftedness as a construct measured overwhelmingly, if not solely, by academic ability. According to Sternberg (2007), "Different cultures have different conceptions of what it means to be gifted. But in identifying children as gifted, we often use only our own conception, ignoring the cultural context in which the children grew up" (p. 160).
Hence, an unfortunate outcome of our truncated views regarding the necessary and sufficient attributes to be identified as gifted is that they create a template that all children do not fit neatly. Even more problematic have been the attempts at identifying a definition that is parsimonious, inclusive, and flexible while also being heuristic. Hence, finding a definition that adequately describes an elusive and multifaceted concept like giftedness has been an ongoing task since the field began. Posing the greatest challenges to this process are the many ways that giftedness can be operationalized (Gardner, 1983; Renzulli, 1981; Sternberg, 1985) nationally and in various cultures (Bonnet, 2001; Ford, 1995; Hilliard, 1976). Matthews (2004) stated,
Beginning with its origins in the early history of psychology, giftedness was defined primarily in terms of intellectual ability. By the 1950s, however, spurred by factors that included the multifaceted model of intelligence developed by J. P. Guilford and the elaboration by DeHann and Kough of l0 categories of gifts and talents, a variety of efforts began leading toward a broader conceptualization of giftedness. (p. 77)
A first step in expanding how giftedness was defined came by way of Congressional mandate and the subsequent efforts of Commissioner of Education Sydney Marland (1972), who published the first federal definition of giftedness. According to Marland's definition, giftedness was defined as follows:
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons, who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society. Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas singly or in combination: (a) General Intellectual Ability, (b) Specific Academic Aptitude, (c) Creative or Productive Thinking, (d) Leadership Ability, (e) Visual and Performing Arts, and (f) Psychomotor Ability [This was dropped from the definition. It was thought that students with great athletic talent were being discovered.]
Successive refinements of the Marland definition have since been developed. Theorists have acknowledged the multifaceted, complex nature of intelligence and how contemporary tests (often overly simplistic and static) fail to do justice to this construct (Ford, 2003; Frasier, 1989; Grantham & Ford, 2003; Hilliard, 1976; Sternberg, 2007). Thus, the United States Department of Education (1993) broadened the definition of giftedness:
Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capacity in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, and unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (p. 19)
Readily apparent across the states is the wide variation in the use of this definition (Davidson Institute, 2007; National Association for Gifted Children, 2005); consequently, depending on state mandates and local norms, how and if this definition is used in its current form is debatable. It is important to note that states are not required to use the federal definition and can opt for their own definitions. According to the Education Commission of the States (2004), "The states vary in how they identify gifted and talented students as well. Twenty-five states use 'gifted and talented,' or some variation, as the classifying term. Eighteen states have chosen to only use the term 'gifted,' or some variation and not mention the word 'talented.' Finally, three states use the term 'high ability student'" (p. 1). Also, it is important to note that some states embrace more traditional definitions of giftedness--those focusing on academic ability and intelligence, while others use more multifaceted and fluid criteria.
Although there is great variability across these state's definitions, many have been consistent in employing leadership capacity or leadership potential as an area of importance. According to the 2004-2005 State of the States Report provided by the National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 13 states included leadership in their definition of giftedness. Significant in these definitions is Matthews' (2004) observation that, "Leadership has been retained in the federal definition of giftedness across major revisions, since its inclusion in the Marland Report (1972) definitions more than 30 years ago" (p. 77).
Gifted African American Males: The Secondary School Context
A number of factors have been cited as contributing to the widespread underrepresentation of African American males in gifted programs. According to Ford, Harris, Tyson, and Frazier-Trotman (2002), lack of teacher referral, low test scores, and student and family choice are the three most significant factors. Moreover, Hughes and Bonner (2007) found that structural inequalities also serve as major barriers. These barriers include teacher propensites to pathologize African American males in their early school experiences, education tracking that locks African American males into substandard classes, and ineffective classroom learning environments. Hughes and Bonner (2006) asserted,
For Black males, the acquisition of an education is often a catch-22 situation in which to fully understand what academic accoutrements are necessary for success they must possess certain cultural capital (Bordieu, 1997). Yet, the Black male is expected to have certain cultural capital in order to understand what academic accoutrements are necessary for success. (p. 4)
This conundrum often...
|
