Financially Under-resourced and Rural Students

Characteristics

As previously discussed in other sections of this portfolio, many populations are severely underrepresented. However, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and English Language Learners are severely underrepresented in the top 1%, 5%, and 10% of all students in all academic levels (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 6). However, a major reason for this underrepresentation stems from the fact that many of those same students live in low socioeconomic circumstances compared to Asian and White students. Therefore, I found it super helpful to look at the table given in Chapter 2 of Special Populations in Gifted Education, because it gave a side-by-side view of characteristics of the underrepresented groups to urban, advantaged White children. One can quickly see that the characteristics attributed to White students seem to be completely positive, yet with each of the following columns, they describe difficulties, and negative characteristics and traits.

It is interesting to note that most of the disadvantaged gifted students come from minority groups such as Hispanics and African Americans. This thinking that only urban, White students can be advantaged, creates many cultural barriers to students who do not fit that category. It creates a stereotype that can be easily influenced by educators who already have low expectations of students who are not White, or come from low-socioeconomic statuses. From the time they step into a classroom, those students who are not from the "normal" group, are set up for failure, only due to their language, skin color, or financial ability. This can create underachievers who do not wish to showcase talents for fear of being different, criticized, or not seen/valued enough to be able to portray those gifts and skills. Therefore, they will never be identified, resulting in more underrepresentation for special populations, and an increase in White privilege found in these gifted programs.

(Castellano & Frazier, 2011, p. 33)

Most students in this population fall under relative and rural poverty, which means they lack the basic needs and services that would typically be available in cities and suburbs (Tomlinson & Borland, 2022, p. 84). For those students who do live in poverty, they typically have fewer resources at home to help with homework, or engaging activities to equip them for success, as well as less access to computers, internet, and other materials that aid them outside of school. Other characteristics could include: greater likelihood of having developmental delays or learning disabilities, higher levels of persistent stress, health issues, food insecurity, family stress and trauma, housing instability, higher rates of absenteeism, lower achievement scores, higher dropout rates, and more (Tomlinson & Borland, 2022, pp. 85-86).

In addition to coming from a low socioeconomic homelife, many students, particularly those living in rural areas have not traveled outside or far away from their home communities, have less access to public transportation, and uneven access to virtual and internet experiences, which only widens the opportunity and academic gaps that these students face (Azano, 2020, p. 47). In other words, being so far away from everything, while it does create a sense of community, also creates isolation from resources and additional supports both for the students as well as the educators. Unfortunately, many of the characteristics also stem from a negative and incorrect perception and belief about these students strengths and abilities. Also known as stereotype threat, it can affect student's to the point where they are unwilling to engage in challenging activities, feel as though they aren't as capable of others, or disengage completely and adopt the idea that their success is unimportant (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 17). This leads to many students needing support to overcome problems dealing with low self-efficacy or low self-esteem.

However, not all traits and characteristics of this population have to be negative. In the report done by the National Association for Gifted Children about low-income, high-ability students, they mention that successful low-income, high-ability African American and Latino students had a strong belief in themselves and their ability to succeed, confident in their own racial identity, had high educational and career aspirations and were motivated to accomplish them, had a strong work ethic and commitment to study, as well as emotionally supportive family and adults for support and guidance (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 16).

It is possible, and should be the normal for students to feel like they are able to succeed both in and out of the classroom, and have the support and resources needed to accomplish it. I loved this table that I found done by Indiana University for research from a Javits Grant, that portrays the traits of talented and gifted students in rural settings. However, what is unique is that the first column discusses traits associated with rural advantaged students, where the second column addresses traits that are for rural disadvantaged. While it yet again includes many negative traits, I found it interesting that 1) they would separate the traits into advantaged versus disadvantaged and 2) that they put the rural advantaged traits first. I think it speaks volumes that the first column you would read would be positive, despite the fact that they include the more negative traits as well.

traitstagstudentsruralsettings.pdf

(Traits of Talented, n.d.)

Effectiveness of Current Programming Options

Unlike most of the other populations, financially under-resourced and rural gifted students, actually have quite a few different programming options that are used currently, that have been proven successful. This is not to say that all of them work perfectly, and that there are not barriers that prevent them from being able to attain these programs and services. For instance, some district-wide gifted programs require students to leave their neighborhood, which can result in a barrier of transportation for some under-resourced or rural students. In addition, there is a general lack of school and district policies regarding the use of all forms of acceleration and prohibit credit for out-of-school courses and programs, which limit the learning abilities that these students could have (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, pp. 10-11). Additionally, having fewer students in these schools makes differentiation and other programs slightly difficult based on the staff and resources that are unlikely to be available. Finances can also play a factor in preventing students from certain programs and services. Most out-of-school opportunities, which could include weekend classes, summer programs, or study abroad programs are tuition based, and this can cause a barrier for low-income students who have jobs, care for younger siblings, or simply do not have enough financial aid to cover the costs (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 11).

Those are just a few challenges that rural students have to fight against. Some others could include a lack of community resources, a sizable peer base, difficulty in hiring teachers, lack of training for teachers, and a sense of isolation (Castellano & Frazier, 2012, p. 29). Therefore, these programs should be cost-effective, available to students from all forms of cultures, geographical places, and racial backgrounds, as well as form a sense of community around both students and teachers in order to combat these challenges that prevent effective programming.

Despite the common barriers, there are many beneficial and available programs and services that help students achieve academic success. Before diving into the programs, it's important to first look at some common factors and goals that should be implemented into all programs and services for this population. Firstly, common factors that should be included into all programs and services given to these students include expanded learning time, augmented student support networks, and enriched curriculum (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 4). This allows for students to not only be given work that can help develop their talents and abilities, but give them more time to do so, in order to fully showcase their knowledge and gifts. Secondly, the goals for for these learners should include the "development of a psychological identity that supports high achievement; increased access to challenging curricula, rigorous educational programs, and selective institutions of higher education; access to out-of-school supplemental programs; and community and family support" (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 4). These should be the same not only for this population, but for all highly-able learners across the nation.

It's also important that programs are started as early as possible because they tend to be more open with fewer qualifying criteria for students, where programs that start later have more specific requirements and criteria (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 12). This will cast a wider net, allowing for more students to be accepted into the gifted program should they show any potential of giftedness. These programs must also be continuous and have multiple entrance points, even if it may be easier to be screened and identified in the earlier grades compared to those in high school.

Two different resources help to outline potential and successful programs, services, and recommendations for students from low-income, or rural areas. The first resource comes from the National Association for Gifted Children, in a report they did on supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. What I love is that they first give 11 recommendations of how to always include challenging curriculum and opportunities students within these programs that could be beneficial and successful for them in and outside of the classroom. Since challenging curriculum and student support are two of the foundational concepts needed for effective programming, I love that all of the recommendations are aligned in some form to them, in order to prove how important the core concepts are to successful programming. They are laid out on pages 22-23 of the attached full report under the heading Programs and Services. (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, pp. 22-23).

In addition, the report includes an entire appendix of proven, successful programs that support low-income, high-ability students. For each of these programs, they provide at least an overview and program summary, outlining the positive effects and concepts of each. This allows for teachers to see the proof of success, as well as what each program is aiming to do in regards to supporting these students, particularly in the areas of math, academic gaps for minority students, AP or IB coursework, and more. These are all found on pages 27-30 of the attached full report in Appendix A. (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, 27-30).

unlocking_emergent_talent.pdf

The other resource is a report done by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation about identifying and supporting academically promising students in rural areas. Similarly to the report done by the NAGC, they give multiple programs available to helping support students from this population. Firstly, they list 6 programs listed under the Cooke Foundation Rural Grant Programs. All of these provide opportunities for students to work with enriched curriculum, but also get out into the community and work outside of the classroom. I love that they included how much the universities and organizations can support if worked with collaboratively to showcase that it is not an individual effort to meet the needs of these students. Those 6 programs can be found on pages 2-3 of the attached full report (Lynn & Glynn, 2018, pp. 2-3). Additionally, they give 6 recommendations for services listed as:

Expose promising rural students to people and opportunities outside their home communities
When possible, provide consistent engagement throughout the year
Encourage professional development in schools
When possible, take advantage of digital technologies
Provide acceleration and enrichment opportunities
Identify and address deficits in basic skills

However, they do not simply list the recommendations, but give full detail about how the programs listed from the grants could accomplish those recommendations, as well as other reasons why the recommendations, if done correctly, can help not only students, but also educators achieve academically, especially for these students that live far away from most opportunities that are afforded to students living in urban areas. All of the recommendations are listed throughout the pages 15-23 of the attached full report (Lynn & Glynn, 2018, pp. 15-23).

Small-Town-Big-Talent-Jack-Kent-Cooke-Foundation-Jan-2020-edit.pdf

For those who would just like to see the available programs mentioned in both of these large reports, instead of all of the information listed, I have created an infographic that lists the specific programs mentioned for each of the two populations. I still highly suggest reading through those two reports for more recommendations on strategies for programming for rural and under-financed students, as well as more description on who sponsors these programs and how they can benefit these students. However, I know that it is a large chunk of text, so for those that would like to do additional research on your own, or just a quick glance at possibilities, I hope this inforgraphic helps.

Effectiveness of Identification and Assessment Practices

Many of the capable children from this special population are often not identified because of barriers that prevent them from demonstrating learning potential on tests or other assessments. Many of the barriers stem from the inaccurate perceptions that teachers have about the capabilities of these students and the strengths they can bring (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 9). These misconceptions lead to assessment and identification tools being biased and limiting to the students in the screening process. Additional barriers could include:

Identification processes that do not use multiple and varied types of assessments (e.g., tests and portfolios) and thus fail to gain a complete picture of students
Selection criteria that do not evaluate students’ ability or potential in light of their previous opportunities to learn (i.e., use national norms rather than norms based on a local population more similar to the students being evaluated)
Reliance on nominations or evaluations from teachers with little or no training in gifted education and/or advanced subject-matter knowledge, multicultural education, or experience teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students
Identification practices that give students “one shot” at entrance into a gifted program; and identification processes that are static and look only at performance at a single point in time rather than for patterns of significant growth or “upward trajectories” over time

(Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 10).

Too often, there is an overreliance on standardized tests to determine this population's gifted potential (Castellano & Frazier, 2012, p. 32). There is too little data gathered in the assessment process which leads to misidentification for students, and an overdependence on nominations and checklists that typically have some form of bias. Therefore, identification should include more nontraditional methods such as untimed, nonverbal intelligence tests; measures of spatial abilities, and a greater emphasis on analysis of students' products (Castellano & Frazier, 2012, p. 32). Other forms could be checklists and reports from parents, teachers, and the child, along with student's work or performance. Cultural considerations should also be an important factor when figuring out identification tools. By using culturally sensitive items, it can prove a more appropriate assessment of the student's performances, attitudes, and values, creating a more full picture of the student's potential.

With all of these, it's important that educators have an asset-based mindset that values the potential that can be found in all students, as well as multiple opportunities for them to demonstrate their knowledge in order to create full and complete profiles of themselves. Each student brings unique abilities to the table, and creating identification processes and tools that allow for them to showcase them, effectively and without bias, should be the ultimate goal for all educators. Hence why professional development is always going to be a suggestion in order for teachers to be more aware of the characteristics of this population in order to use and know of identification and assessments that would be beneficial for these students.

In addition, identification practices such as using multiple and varied types of assessments including tests, observational data, and rating scales with adequate technical qualities, creating multiple gateways and entry points, or evaluating students’ potential by using local and subgroup norms can all help to take down the barriers that are preventing students from being screened (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 22). Similar to the programming recommendations found in the Small Town, Bit Talent report by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, they also list recommendations for identifying these students, using answers from people associated with those initial 6 grant programs, as well as how to navigate those identification practices in order to best support and screen those students who are getting unidentified. Those can be found on pages 9-12 of the attached report above (Lynn & Glynn, 2018, pp. 9-12).

Suggested Practices for Teaching

Just as with any identification tool, the biggest suggestion for teaching these students is for educators to have a perspective that emphasizes strengths over weaknesses. Teachers must develop knowledge and dispositions about these rural students, as well as support a desire to learn more about the students and themselves in order to create a personal relationship with these students (Castellano & Frazier, 2012, pp. 30-31). This will help prevent any deficit thinking or negative attitudes that could hinder any efforts to recognize the gifts and talents in these students.

Teachers should set high expectations for these students and consistently support those expectations. Since an enriched curriculum is one of the core components for effective programming, giving students a culturally responsive curriculum where their experiences, cultural heritage, language, and values are recognized, appreciated, and reflected in the curriculum and instruction they receive at school, allow for them to be motivated and engaged with the materials in the classroom in order to become high achievers (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 10). If educators can increase self-efficacy in their students, they will be able to help them set their own goals and expectations that they want to achieve, creating independent learners.

However, if educators are going to implement these expectations, they must also provide resources and supports to reach them. These could include things such as "providing more public STEM schools, implementing gifted education pedagogy that can improve all student achievement, and incorporating training in gifted education methods into preservice and in-service teacher education, especially training on identifying and serving high-ability, low-income, and culturally and linguistically diverse students" (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, p. 19). These can result in more engagement, leading to higher development of these student's talents and abilities. Other potential teaching strategies for educators from the NAGC report are listed below:

Provide multiple strategies to support student achievement at the highest levels, and expand access to rigorous curriculum and supplemental services and programs.
Expand preservice and in-service teacher training on identifying and serving high-ability, low-income and culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Support emergent talent as early as possible, establishing a commitment to achievement at an early age
Engage communities to support in-school learning and supplement curriculum with outside-of-school opportunities
Minimize a student’s zip code and socioeconomic status as the determining factors for receiving a rigorous, high quality education.
Identify successful program models and interventions that work with low-income, high-ability students from different geographical, cultural, and racial backgrounds.
Remove policy barriers that impede participation and access
Having many knowledgeable adults in a student’s social network and the confidence to access them for assistance

(Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012, pp. 3, 14).

Castellano & Frazier create four major categories of recommendations to improving the quality of gifted services provided to students from this population. Within each of these categories they make a few points on how to successfully utilize those recommendations in order to give the best supports for the students. I have laid them out as best as possible below, because I believe they do a phenomenal job of showcasing how important it is to have community and utilize the resources that are available to educators.

Maximizing strengths within the rural community (Castellano & Frazier, 2012, pp. 37-38)
- Students must be provided with an appropriate and intellectually challenging curriculum on a consistent basis (curriculum differentiation, content acceleration, individual learning plans, grouping practices)
- Educators should demonstrate the importance of developing a broad perspective when meeting the needs of these students
- School and community organizations provide an "environment of possibilities" for planning, sustained focus, creative problem solving, and leadership.
Promoting parent involvement (Castellano & Frazier, 2012, p. 38)
- Parents can assist teachers in locating enrichment resources outside of the school setting at area universities or local organizations.
- Parents can assist with gifted program notices, gifted program referral and screening, and student participation
Utilizing technological innovations (Castellano & Frazier, 2012, pp. 38-41)
- The Internet and computer technologies also serve as a viable tool in providing access and accommodations for rural gifted students.
- Networking with other educators through college and university classes, professional organizations, conferences, and the Internet help break down the barriers of distance and isolation for teachers and students.
- Adaptability of technology allows individual learning preferences to be enhanced.
- Virtual schools are a viable option for rural gifted students
- Videoconferencing can connect geographically separated classrooms
- Online mentorships are available from experts in various fields to help students in the most rural locations.
Incorporating systemic staff development (Castellano & Frazier, 2012, pp. 41-42)
- Communicating and collaborating with colleagues who work in a variety of settings can open up new opportunities for teachers and administrators to share resources, develop programs, and to serve students better.
- All educators must become culturally competent and endorse policies that are culturally responsive to advance the field of gifted education.
- By establishing a genuine learning community and by providing high-quality, ongoing professional development, rural schools can continue to provide students with opportunities to learn and teachers with opportunities to grow.

All of these practices lead to more access to opportunities and participation within different programs in order to meet their unique needs, and continue to develop their knowledge and skills. It also helps students to become engaged with not only the material but with people who believe in them and want to help them succeed both in and outside of the classroom. In addition, these strategies can prevent barriers from arising that could limit their capabilities and strengths.

Page updated

Report abuse