Journal of - Southern University New Orleans

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8Journal of Urban Education: Focus on EnrichmentWhere enrichment programs are not successful,either at a particular school or with an individualteacher, various variables are identifiedas possible reasons for the failure (Averyet al., 1997; Callahan, 2005; Landrum, 2001;Van Tassel-Baska et al., 1989). The variablesmost commonly identified include poor communication,inadequate training, or lack ofadministrative vision and support (Avery etal., 1997; Callahan, 2005; Landrum, 2001; Van-Tassel-Baska et al., 1989). It may also be that,since such programs are often intertwined withgifted education, the various individualscharged with referring gifted students, deliveringgifted education services, and administeringgifted programs have divergent notions ofwhat enrichment services should look like andhow and to whom they should be delivered.Even when enrichment education programsoffer quality services to their students, theseprograms are sometimes decried as elitist, discriminatory,or worse (Oakes, 2006; Sapon-Shevin, 1994). Dual pressures exist for enrichmentprograms to serve more students, yet alsoto serve all enrolled effectively. To date,most attempts to achieve an evenhanded solutionto this quandary have been unsatisfactory(Borland, 2005; Borland, Schnur & Wright,2000; Moon & Callahan, 2001; Tomlinson, Callahan& Lelli, 1997). Failure to achieve bothexcellence and equity may come about becauseprior training related to serving gifted learnershinders developing talents in diverse learners.Many gifted education programs, for example,traditionally have had identification proceduresthat, whether intentionally or not, haveexcluded many children of color, Englishlanguagelearners, and low-SES students (Borland,2005; Callahan, 2001; Ford & Harris, 1999;Oakes, 2006). Some school districts have attemptedto become more inclusive in theiridentification of gifted learners, hoping thatthis step would make their enrichment programsmore accessible to underrepresentedgroups. While altering identification procedurescan, and has, increased participation bymany of these previously underrepresentedgroups in enrichment programs, most are dissatisfiedwith the results (Borland, 2005; Callahan,2001; Ford, 2003). Enrichment has not alwaysproved enticing for certain learners, especiallythose who are children of color, Englishlanguage learners, or from low-SES backgrounds(Cooper, 1998; Fullilove & Treisman,1990; Moon & Callahan, 2001). If educators believethat only certain students benefit fromenrichment programs, even when the disparitiesstem from other inequities, it seems unlikelythat they will deliver enrichment equitablyor fairly.Little is known about the philosophical goalsof teachers, administrators, and gifted educationspecialists with regard to enrichment, especiallyat the elementary school level. As aresult, it is impossible to know if curricular offeringsat schools are aligned with identificationprocesses, service delivery, or instructionalmethods. Without understanding perceptionsof administrators, gifted education specialists,and regular classroom teachers regardingkey elements of enrichment programs,much spending on enrichment is wasted. If, forexample, regular classroom teachers are ableand willing to provide differentiated instructionto all students in a regular education classroom,separate pull-out programs are probablyunnecessary for some students now servedsolely or largely in pull-out settings. If, however,most regular classroom teachers are incapableof or averse to serving all students, highqualityenrichment pull-out programs or specialclasses will prove crucial to assure highlyablestudents’ continued development. Thesuccess of enrichment programs would thusseem to rely, at least in part, upon the cooperationof administrators, gifted education specialists,and classroom teachers. Incongruitybetween these groups’ views of such issues aspopulations to be served by gifted education,inclusiveness, commitment, and rationale may
Journal of Urban Education: Focus on Enrichment 9be the cause of many of the problems someprograms face.METHODOLOGYThe target populations for this study includedthree groups of educators: administrators,gifted education specialists, and regular classroomteachers who work in urban school districts.The sampling plan was developed basedupon data obtained from Market Data Retrieval(MDR), a division of Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.MDR provided, in Excel format on CD-ROMs,information regarding elementary school personnel:number of individuals employed atelementary schools in the United States, categoriesof employment, schools that serve studentsenrolled in grades K through 5, names,and mailing addresses. Included amongstthose categories of employment are listings foradministrators, gifted education specialists, andclassroom teachers. The MDR listings were chosenbecause of the scope of its database. MDRprovides access to all administrators, giftededucation specialists, and regular classroomteachers with an urban elementary schoolbackground.From the lists of eligible members from thesethree populations, random sampling methodswere used to obtain a representative sample of300 from each group. The research design chosenfor this study includes descriptive statisticsbecause descriptive studies are concerned withassessing attitudes, opinions, and preferencesand inferential statistics to explore the descriptiveresults (Brown, Renzulli, Gubbins, Siegle,Zhang & Chen, 2005; Gay & Airasian, 2003;Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). The surveyitems were constructed using a three-stepprocess. First, an extensive literature reviewvalidated student characteristics that influencethe selection of students for inclusion inenrichment programs (e.g., Borland, 2005; Callahan,2001; Ford, 2003; Renzulli & Reis, 2003;Sternberg, 2003; Tomlinson, 2003). Next, a panelof enrichment experts, including classroomteachers and administrators from urban schooldistricts and three past presidents of the NationalAssociation for Gifted Children (NAGC)reviewed the survey for construct validity. Finally,survey reliability was ascertained to beat a .94 level using the Spearman-Brown splithalfapproach (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005). The900 surveys were mailed to respondents viaUnited States Mail. After ten business days, apost-card reminding recipient of the surveywas mailed to all members of the sample whohad not, at that point, responded to the initialmailing. The response rate, n = 411, was 45.6%.After collection, the data was analyzed pursuantto standard procedures (Cohen & Swerdlik,2005; Fink, 1995; Pedhazur & Schmelkin,1991). First, the number of dependent variableswere counted and entered into SPSS. A determinationwas made for each whether to usenominal, ordinal, or ratio scales for each of thevariables. For those variables asking for therespondent’s job title, for example, nominalscales were used since these produce data thatfit into categories (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005;Fink, 1995). Ordinal scales were used withthose questions that asked for ratings ofagreement (e. g., strongly agree, agree, disagree,strongly disagree) (Cohen & Swerdlik,2005; Fink, 1995a). Ratio scales were used withitems that asked for information such as numberof students eligible for federally fundedfree or reduced-price lunch (Cohen & Swerdlik,2005; Fink, 1995). Descriptive statistics,including frequencies and summary statisticsby survey item were produced.Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in itsvarious forms (correlation, multiple regression,analysis of variance) is the most common linearmodel analysis in the social sciences(Pohlman & Leitner, 2003). Appropriate analysistechniques were performed in order to determineanswers for each of the study ques-
Page 2 and 3: ISSN 1546-3206
Page 4 and 5: Journal of Urban Education: Focus o
Page 6: iiJournal of Urban Education: Focus
Page 15: URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS’ ENRICHMEN
Page 31 and 32: Mean assimilationistMean private re
Page 33: Journal of Urban Education: Focus o
Page 39 and 40: E-MAIL AS A PEDAGOGIC TOOL: ANECONO
Page 55 and 56: TEACHING TO TRANSGRESS: AFRICANAMER
Page 67 and 68:
Journal of Urban Education: Focus o
Page 69 and 70:
EDUCATIONAL DISCOURSE: INFUSINGSTUD
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 80 and 81:
72Journal of Urban Education: Focus
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
THE RESULTS OF TEACHING MINORITYUND
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A POSTTRAUMATI
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
show all

Journal of - Southern University New Orleans

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?