Gifted Education as Safe Space: An Equal Opportunity Model by Kathryn Fishman-Weaver
I believe that educational magic happens when students discover the right safe space at school. There are varied hallowed spaces like these in high schools: the art studio, the debate room, the band room, the media center, and the gifted resource room are among them. As educators we have all seen that magic when a student feels safe enough to take risks that push their zone of proximal development personally and academically (Vygotsky 1978). Likewise, our counselors see the affective and academic consequences when students do not connect with a safe space at school. This article focuses on the potential for gifted resource rooms to be safe spaces for student learning and development at the high school level.
The gifted resource room is a natural safe space. However, there is a homogenous elephant in the room. Namely, African American, Latino, and low-income students continue to be underrepresented in gifted education programs (Ford & Grantham 2001; Renzulli 2011). Implicit (and explicit) bias in tracking, referral, and identification processes all contribute to this problem. Renzulli argues that giftedness is “something we can develop in far more students than previously identified using an IQ cutoff approach” (2011, p. 61). Similarly, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) writes that “formal assessments are only one tool in determining giftedness. Tests should be used in conjunction with subjective assessment tools” (NAGC, 2014). Recognizing this, several bodies, including the NAGC, states, and local school districts, have enacted alternative identification procedures such as portfolio assessments. However, even with these alternative measures, programs have experienced limited gains in increasing the racial diversity of gifted education student populations (Ford & Grantham 2001; Renzulli 2011). The complexities of identifying twice-exceptional students (students with both learning disabilities and giftedness) also present a challenge (Bianco 2005). One theory for the persistent underrepresentation of non-traditional groups in gifted education is that even alternative identification processes require a referral and teachers are less likely to refer students from traditionally underrepresented groups.
What if instead of focusing our energy on improving identification assessments, we focused our energy on helping students self-identify with appropriate, authentic, and challenging learning opportunities? In the following sections I explore the impacts of this pedagogical self-identification experiment as practiced in the gifted education department I chair at a large public high school. To build my caseload, I begin with my list of “identified gifted students,” but then quickly try to connect with high-potential and high-achieving students our identification procedures may have missed. Among my students “identified as gifted,” not all choose to participate fully in our range of gifted services; some of these students have found other safe spaces for personal growth and enrichment, including, for example, our fine and performing arts programs, and our technology and engineering program at the neighboring career center. One of my goals as an educator is to make sure all students have such a place, not necessarily that the space be my classroom.
Our gifted program is set up as an open resource room from 7:30AM-4:05PM daily. There are no gifted ID cards to show at the door. All are welcome. In fact, I encourage my students to “bring a friend” when they come to the gifted center. I specifically target our advanced placement classes (where we have recently made huge gains in closing the opportunity gap). I also reach out to our minority achievement council. This model works particularly well at the secondary level with self-directed and resource delivery programs. Our space is built with classroom culture in mind. We have an electric kettle and tea, a large conference table, bean bags, board games, and six computers. There is always an adult in the room and the adult’s primary responsibility is to connect and build relationships with students. Our room opens an hour and a half before school. We run an internship program that connects students with field experiences in their area of interest and a service learning program where students serve local agencies. We have a partnership with the special education program in the district where we do collaborative projects (http://www.ajeforum.com/learning-across-the-continuum-collaborative-projects-between-gifted-education-and-special-education-by-kathryn-fishman-weaver/ ).Additionally, I work closely with our guidance department to deliver college and course counseling services to students. All of these services are fully adaptable to the diverse enrichment needs of our learners.
I recognize that even self-identification is an imperfect solution. The biggest obstacle is that self-identification requires students to see themselves as appropriately matched to gifted education programs, even as we know marginalized student groups are receiving contrary social messages. This is a micro-sociological issue of identity. George Herbert Mead was among the earliest theorists to consider how and why we develop identity or a self; he proposed that the answer to both of these quandaries lies in the social world. Mead wrote, the “self…is reflective and indicates that which can be both subject and object” (Mead, 1929/2013 p.162). Said differently, in order to answer the proverbial question, who am I?, or for my purposes, am I gifted?, a student must examine his or her own self in relation to their social context. (Callero 2003; Dunn 1997). To tackle this issue at my school we have worked diligently to increase our advanced placement (AP) enrollment. By encouraging all students to take a stretch class, having students self-identify trusted adults in the building, and working closely with our guidance department, some of our AP courses have tripled in enrollment. These efforts attempt to, first to support underrepresented students in developing a self-concept that says they are indeed bright, capable, high-potential learners, and second, to alter the homogenous advanced placement social context. This is directly relevant to equal opportunity gifted models. Once a student finds their way to my gifted program I continue to work towards the same goals by encouraging introspection, self-reflection, and metacognitive activities. I also go out of my way to construct my room as a safe space for all learners, even when this includes reconstructing other students’ perceptions of whom our space is for.
Naysayers might worry about opening the proverbial flood gates to gifted education. As a teacher and educational leader, if I find that I have “too many” students interested in enrichment opportunities, I view that as a welcome educational problem in my high school. I believe that educational leaders must practice transformational leadership. Transformational leadership focuses on a sharing of power and compassionate concern for followers (Kezar 2006, p. 34). It is distinguished by its focus on morals and ethics. This means if hundreds of students need the safe space of the gifted center and the advanced services we offer, than we need to find a way to provide those services. Knowing that gifted identification is at best inadequate and at worst inaccurate, we must find ways to help students, particularly marginalized students, self-identify for enrichment opportunities and then make appropriate academic and affective supports available. To return to the idea of transformational leadership, Burns defines transformational leadership as “a mutual process based on an ethic of care for the follower that is focused on socially desirable ends. To determine socially desirable ends and to act in ways that show caring, leaders need to be guided by ethics and morals” (1978, quoted in Kezar 2006, p. 35). This is the pedagogy equal opportunity education embodies.
What are the results of my school’s experiment in self-identification? At any given time, about 40 percent of the students in our gifted resource room were never identified for gifted education. Our African American participation rates are up. Students who had not previously participated in gifted education tend to be among the most dedicated to our services, perhaps because they have self-selected them. The culture in our gifted resource room is academic, safe, inclusive, and positive. Gifted learners do have unique academic and affective needs and this program is designed to meet those at an individual level, where they are most effective (NAGC 2014).
The last school bell for the day rang almost an hour ago, but I am still in my classroom finishing up some work. I pull out my draft of this piece to do another read through. My article is ready to go with the exception of the conclusion. I scan my classroom, thinking about how to explain what my students and I have created. The sun is setting outside, but nine students are still here: two are planning a volunteer event, one is working on our gratitude bulletin board, two are practicing for a debate tournament, two are working quietly on papers, one student is mixing up some hot chocolate, and another two are sharing a snack before a study session. Three of the nine were never in gifted programs before mine. French music is playing through the speakers, and you can’t help but notice how happy everyone seems. The potential for that educational magic that happens when students discover their safe space at school is palpable.
References:
Bianco, Margarita. 2005. “The Effects of Disability Labels on Special Education and General Education Teachers’ Referrals for Gifted Programs.” Learning Disability Quarterly 28 (4): 285-93.
Callero, Peter L. 2003. “The Sociology of Self.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 115-133.
Dunn, Robert G. 1997. “Self, Identity, and Difference: Mead and the Poststructuralists.” Midwest Sociological Society 38 (4): 687-705.
Ford, Donna Y. and Granham, Tarek C. 2003. “Providing Access for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students: From Deficit to Dynamic Thinking.” Theory into Practice 42 (3): 217-25.
Kezar, Adrianna J., Rozana Carducci, and Melissa Contreras-McGavin. 2006. Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education. San Francisco: Wiley Periodicals Inc.
Levinson, Bradley A., Jacob P.K. Gross, Christopher Hanks, Julia H. Dadds, Kafi Kumasi, Joseph Link, and Dini Metro-Roland. 2011. Beyond critique: Exploring critical social theories and education. Paradigm Publishers.
Renzulli, Joseph S. 2011. “More Changes Needed to Expand Gifted Identification and Support.” The Phi Delta Kappan 92 (8): 61.
National Association for Gifted Children. 2014. “Tests & Assessments.” Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/identification/tests-assessments.
National Association for Gifted Children. 2014. “Why are gifted programs needed?” Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/identification/tests-assessments.
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. “Interaction between learning and development.” Pp. 77-91 in Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.-
