Speaker 1: Welcome to the Psychology Podcast, where we give you insights
Speaker 1: into the mind, brained behavior and creativity. I'm doctor Scott
Speaker 1: Barry Kaufman, and in each episode I have a conversation
Speaker 1: with a guest. He will stimulate your mind and give
Speaker 1: you a greater understanding of yourself, others, and the world
Speaker 1: to live in. Hopefully we'll also provide a glimpse into
Speaker 1: human possibility. Thanks for listening and enjoy the podcast today.
Speaker 1: It's a great pleasure to have doctor Scott Peters on
Speaker 1: the podcast. Doctor Peters is an Associate Professor of Educational
Speaker 1: Foundations and the Richard and Veronica Teller Endowed Faculty Fellow
Speaker 1: of Education at the University of Wisconsin Whitewater, where he
Speaker 1: teaches courses on Measurements and Assessment, research methodology, and gifted education.
Speaker 1: His research focuses on educational assessment, gifted talented student identification,
Speaker 1: disproportionality within K twelve education, and educational policy. He's the
Speaker 1: first author of Beyond Gifted Education, Designing and Implementing Advanced
Speaker 1: Academic Programs and Services from Purpose to Implementation, and the
Speaker 1: co author, along with Jonathan Pucker, of Excellent Gaps in Education,
Speaker 1: Expanding Opportunities for Talented Students, published by Harvard Education Press.
Speaker 1: So great to chat with you today, Scott. It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1: I didn't know you were going to read all that.
Speaker 1: It sounds it sounds a lot fancier when you say
Speaker 1: it than and in reality, but it's wonderful. It's very Uh,
Speaker 1: it's rightly fancy. You've done a lot, You've been a
Speaker 1: lot of this field, and you've an awesome first name.
Speaker 1: And I look forward to chatting with you today about
Speaker 1: all that except your first name. Yes, we'll probably restrain
Speaker 1: ourselves in it. Yeah. So you've been rethinking gifted education,
Speaker 1: you've been working in the field of gifted education. Did
Speaker 1: you start out in this field rethinking it? How did
Speaker 1: you start off? It's actually funny because I have to
Speaker 1: answer that question saying no, because there's this kind of
Speaker 1: fame book chapter by a guy named Jim Borland from
Speaker 1: Columbia University in New York, and I think the title
Speaker 1: of the chapter is something along the lines of Gifted
Speaker 1: education without gifted Children. And I can remember reading that
Speaker 1: chapter early on in my graduate training and just hating
Speaker 1: it and just thinking it was a ridiculous proposition and
Speaker 1: that it was overly simplistic and all these things. And
Speaker 1: now I think of Jim Boreland as probably one of
Speaker 1: the most forward thinking individuals who was unappreciated in his time,
Speaker 1: and every time I read his work, I'm just it's
Speaker 1: so in line with my own thinking, and so I
Speaker 1: have to completely confess that, No, at first, I was
Speaker 1: very much not of the mind that I am now,
Speaker 1: And a lot of it just came from trying to
Speaker 1: have to rationalize some of the things we do to
Speaker 1: K twelve practitioners to school district personnel and parents, and
Speaker 1: that became harder to do onder the typical paradigm. And
Speaker 1: so that's kind of what led me to thinking, Okay,
Speaker 1: what makes this more internally defensible, like what makes our
Speaker 1: field more internally consistent in logical within the goals of
Speaker 1: education more broadly? And that's kind of what led me
Speaker 1: to saying, are we really doing this right or really
Speaker 1: communicating it right or be on the right foundation good?
Speaker 1: I really really like that. I like how it kind
Speaker 1: of emerged this. You didn't like start off with the
Speaker 1: agenda because a lot of people look but to be honest,
Speaker 1: a lot of people in this field and have started
Speaker 1: off with an agenda, and the longer they've been promoting
Speaker 1: an agenda, the hard it is for them to It's
Speaker 1: like there're a lot of activists in the field, not
Speaker 1: necessary scientists. Is that a fair statement, It's true. Matt Makle,
Speaker 1: a good colleague of mind from Duke University, describes it
Speaker 1: as a field that has both research and advocacy goals.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a challenge in education or any
Speaker 1: kind of social field, is you have people that are
Speaker 1: in it to do advocacy, but then are also kind
Speaker 1: of doing science sometimes and sometimes those can work together
Speaker 1: where see can utilize science and you know, scientific foundational
Speaker 1: knowledge to do advocacy, but they're not necessarily the same thing.
Speaker 1: When I do a study on gifted education, I'm not
Speaker 1: doing it to show that gifted education is important and good.
Speaker 1: I'm doing it to ask a question. And if that
Speaker 1: question or the answer tells me that, no, you know,
Speaker 1: this gifted service is a bad idea, or this is
Speaker 1: not working or it wasn't effective, I'm fine with that
Speaker 1: because my goal, first and foremost is science and that
Speaker 1: has definitely gotten me in trouble with some people in
Speaker 1: the field before. Just as an eat real quick example,
Speaker 1: I did a study on whether or not teacher training
Speaker 1: and gifted education, something I do in part for a living,
Speaker 1: has any effect on teacher practices in the classroom, and
Speaker 1: the answer is basically nu and its self reported practices
Speaker 1: in the classroom, I should say. And obviously that wasn't popular.
Speaker 1: You know, people don't want to hear that, But the
Speaker 1: data kind of just are what they are. So no,
Speaker 1: I think you're absolutely right. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: people that are very much in the field for advocacy
Speaker 1: because they are true believers. Well, now that is very
Speaker 1: interesting because the field does need advocates absolutely or else
Speaker 1: it won't sustain itself. I mean, if the field only
Speaker 1: consisted of the scientists you're pushing papers, there's not going
Speaker 1: to be any translation. So there needs to be a
Speaker 1: good communication between the scientists and advocates. Maybe a criticism
Speaker 1: is that there has been a bifurcation between them, and
Speaker 1: I think that would be a reasonable criticism. Would you
Speaker 1: have that criticism. I'm not trying to put words in
Speaker 1: your mouth, by the way. No, it's a couple of
Speaker 1: really good points. First and foremost, that scientists need to
Speaker 1: be better communicators. I mean, I think this is a
Speaker 1: big topic in the world of kind of psychology right
Speaker 1: now in general. You know, this is something I think
Speaker 1: you especially have been really effective at, if I can
Speaker 1: put in a plug, is communicating you know, science to
Speaker 1: a broader kind of lay audience. I mean, that's not
Speaker 1: an easy thing to do. You know, hardcore scientists are
Speaker 1: not always adapt at that. It's not easy. So I
Speaker 1: do think it needs advocates. This is kind of maybe
Speaker 1: a larger broader issue though, of sometimes the desire for
Speaker 1: advocacy to give the field a reason for being can
Speaker 1: get in the way of good science and can bias
Speaker 1: you know, scientific findings, and so I do think there's
Speaker 1: definitely a relationship between those two, but there does need
Speaker 1: to be you know, there is also kind of sometimes
Speaker 1: when they need to be, when they need to be separate.
Speaker 1: But no, I think in part of the topic I
Speaker 1: think of today is the need to advocate for students
Speaker 1: who are not average or whatever you want to call them, typical,
Speaker 1: who are appropriately challenged by grade level content. Those students
Speaker 1: very much do need to be advocated for kind of
Speaker 1: all science aside. Yeah, so there is this advocate part
Speaker 1: of you as well, then, oh absolutely, I mean that's
Speaker 1: kind of how to get back to your original question,
Speaker 1: how I got interested in the field. I got interested
Speaker 1: in it because of the absurdity of the idea of
Speaker 1: just teaching people based on how old they are. Like, okay,
Speaker 1: so it's you are seven, welcome to third grade. You
Speaker 1: must need to learn multiplication. That's so arbitrary, Like to
Speaker 1: this day, it frustrates me the idea that I don't
Speaker 1: know anything about you, but because you are in third grade,
Speaker 1: I'm going to teach you this on Tuesday. Like the
Speaker 1: disconnect between student readiness, between disconnect of interest and what
Speaker 1: we actually teach them. That disconnect bothers me for all kids,
Speaker 1: not just above average kids or advanced kids. It bothers
Speaker 1: me for everybody. You know. That's my interest is how
Speaker 1: to align those things better. And that absolutely that argument
Speaker 1: is not a you know, I guess it's a scientific argument,
Speaker 1: but it's very much an advocacy belief. So I do
Speaker 1: kind of wear that hat as well. Yeah, it sounds
Speaker 1: like you're trying to think how to phrase this. You'd
Speaker 1: probably be happy with an education system and this might
Speaker 1: be going too far ahead, but an education system where
Speaker 1: we didn't need the phrase gifted children, but that simply like, well,
Speaker 1: there's nothing simple about it, but that took that goal
Speaker 1: that you just set, Like you just said, you just
Speaker 1: gave a very worthy goal. And you say, well, the
Speaker 1: problem is and you pinpointed it. You pinpointed precisely the problem.
Speaker 1: It seems like you're saying, maybe that's the problem. The
Speaker 1: problem isn't that we aren't finding more quote gifted show necessarily,
Speaker 1: but the problem is what you've just stated, which didn't
Speaker 1: need the word You didn't say the word gifted at all,
Speaker 1: really in that that whole right problem. Yeah, No, I
Speaker 1: think you hit the nail and head exactly. Which is
Speaker 1: and I've said this before, which is in the world
Speaker 1: of you know, perfectly differentiated educational experiences. You know, now
Speaker 1: we tend to call that the term is personalized learning.
Speaker 1: In that world, we wouldn't need to have all these
Speaker 1: labels to then, you know, confer or just act as
Speaker 1: catalysts for specialized services. So if every single kid had
Speaker 1: to some degree a differentiated and inherently and automatically imperfectly
Speaker 1: differentiated learning experience, we wouldn't need to label kids as
Speaker 1: learning disabled or as gifted or whatever, because the service
Speaker 1: that they are provided would be targeted to them already,
Speaker 1: like we could bypass the step of identification and go
Speaker 1: straight to meeting the kids where they are. That's the ideal,
Speaker 1: you know, unrealistic perhaps, but that's the ideal world. And
Speaker 1: that's a lot of times what I argue for in
Speaker 1: the field of gifted ed is to get past this
Speaker 1: idea of gifted and to even suggest that maybe the
Speaker 1: idea of gifted is a barrier to the goal of
Speaker 1: challenging more kids. And that's not necessarily a view that
Speaker 1: is widely shared in the field. Why do you think
Speaker 1: it's not Why do you think that some people have
Speaker 1: certain agendas that go beyond or No, I shouldn't say
Speaker 1: agenda because I kind of prints them in a nefarious
Speaker 1: light and I don't mean to do that, but they
Speaker 1: have a different assessment of the need. I guess is
Speaker 1: what I'm trying to say that is in conflict with
Speaker 1: what you see as the fundamental need. I think that
Speaker 1: is a good way of putting it. The way some
Speaker 1: colleagues and I tried to articulate it was that there's
Speaker 1: kind of two wings to the field. There's probably more
Speaker 1: than two, but we just kind of articulated this way.
Speaker 1: There's this group that is interested in high ability psychology.
Speaker 1: You know, they're interested in the brains of you know,
Speaker 1: Nobel Peace or not Noble Peace Prize, but like you know,
Speaker 1: huge award winners, you know, people that find cures for
Speaker 1: cancer and famous artists. They want to know what makes
Speaker 1: them tick and how they see the world differently in
Speaker 1: their motivational trajectories. You know, the psychology of really you know,
Speaker 1: profound brilliance. And that's a very interesting field. Then there's
Speaker 1: this wing of the field that I'm more in, which
Speaker 1: is more interested in and how do we challenge everybody tomorrow,
Speaker 1: Like how do we make sure everybody is in their
Speaker 1: zone of proximal development as often as possible while in school?
Speaker 1: And there is some overlap, like there are some kids
Speaker 1: who perceive the world differently who also need more math
Speaker 1: on Thursday morning, But those aren't the same group of kids.
Speaker 1: There are kids that are truly brilliant, you know, they
Speaker 1: can almost see numbers, like they just think differently. And
Speaker 1: some of those kids and need more language arts class
Speaker 1: and some of them need you know, mediation. It's I
Speaker 1: just don't see them as the same group of people.
Speaker 1: And I think the field has for a very long
Speaker 1: time tried to pretend that they are the same, and
Speaker 1: so some of the people really disagree with my perspective.
Speaker 1: Are more of the high ability psychology folks, you know,
Speaker 1: they're much more interested in, you know, again, the over excitabilities,
Speaker 1: the unique social emotional needs of certain kids. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that's bad. I'm just saying it's not as
Speaker 1: much my focus. Gotcha. Do you think that there's a
Speaker 1: place room at the table for people with all these
Speaker 1: different focuses to come together and have their own advocacy
Speaker 1: for it. I think there is. I think in all honesty,
Speaker 1: I think the important thing is just to be honest.
Speaker 1: When we're talking about school based services or out of
Speaker 1: non school based services. Yeah, if we're talking about identifying
Speaker 1: gifted kids for the purpose of receiving some kind of
Speaker 1: advanced intervention in school, that's one purpose. If we're talking
Speaker 1: about identifying gifted people so that we can, you know,
Speaker 1: better understand how they came up with all these patents
Speaker 1: and maybe these incredible inventions, it's just a different purpose.
Speaker 1: So I think we can have the conversation together. It's
Speaker 1: just and I say, whenever I work with teachers or
Speaker 1: anybody else that I am interested in identifying kids for
Speaker 1: gifted services in school. I'm not interested in gifted adults.
Speaker 1: I mean again, it's not that it's a bad thing
Speaker 1: to study. I'm just not interested in that. I'm not
Speaker 1: focused on that. I'm not interested in, you know, gifted musicians.
Speaker 1: It's just not my focus area. So it's worth it's
Speaker 1: worthy of study. I'm just kind of like a subset,
Speaker 1: I guess you might say, of a larger field. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so let's talk about some of these these ideas
Speaker 1: you put forward in your Rethinking Gift Education book. You
Speaker 1: do ask the question identification for what, So it sounds
Speaker 1: like this does dovetail with what we're talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: in the sense that like we should be explicit about
Speaker 1: the for what part? Right, Yes, And that's one of
Speaker 1: the things that is amazing to me is how rarely
Speaker 1: people that run gifted programs can articulate why those programs exist.
Speaker 1: You know, I'll ask a gifted coordinator or an advocate
Speaker 1: or even a GT parent say, well, why does you
Speaker 1: know the Madison School District have a gifted ED program?
Speaker 1: And their answer will usually be, oh, well, it's to
Speaker 1: serve the gifted or to meet the needs of the gifted,
Speaker 1: And I say, well, I don't know what that means,
Speaker 1: Like what does that mean? And so I like to
Speaker 1: see a much more explicit purpose to the services to say,
Speaker 1: you know, we have program X, Y or Z to
Speaker 1: provide for kids for whom existing services are not enough.
Speaker 1: So we've got this program in place for those kids who,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, have already exhausted other services. So it's
Speaker 1: very much a kind of response to intervention or levels
Speaker 1: of service kind of a model. But I do think
Speaker 1: that's been a problem, like for advocates in gifted ED
Speaker 1: is the inability to articulate why the services are important.
Speaker 1: Just saying because there are gifted people is not a
Speaker 1: very convincing argument for a congressman or a school board member.
Speaker 1: Does that mean there are unngifted people? See, that's another
Speaker 1: problem with the term. Isn't there a book with that type?
Speaker 1: I know, but I try to keep myself out of
Speaker 1: the podcast when I tell you, no, I think that
Speaker 1: hits on one of the problems with the term. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And some people claim, well, no matter what you call it,
Speaker 1: it's gonna take on a bad label. And I disagree
Speaker 1: with that. I think the fact that it's called gifted,
Speaker 1: like the term was something else, you know, high ability,
Speaker 1: in need of acceleration people, right, I mean, if you
Speaker 1: called it that, that does not have It's not even
Speaker 1: an issue of denotation, it's connotation. It's a literal denotative
Speaker 1: meeting of the term gifted. Right. It makes it seem
Speaker 1: like it's been you know, bestowed, that it's permanent, that
Speaker 1: it's a trait of your being, and that you have
Speaker 1: it and somebody else doesn't. And that's just that entire
Speaker 1: denotation is such a barrier to what the advocates of
Speaker 1: the field are trying to accomplish because it turns people off.
Speaker 1: I have to have like a thirty minute conversation with
Speaker 1: someone about what I mean by gifted before I can
Speaker 1: get to the actual work of the field. That's like
Speaker 1: the definition of a barrier. Like I don't want to
Speaker 1: spend my time on that. So I agree. I think
Speaker 1: the term is bad and it makes it seem like
Speaker 1: there are the special people and then there's everyone else,
Speaker 1: and I don't think that's correct or helpful. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: have yet to quite honestly, I've yet to hear one
Speaker 1: convincing logical argument for why that label is good, and
Speaker 1: almost every argument I've seen it seems to be like
Speaker 1: there's this group of gift education educators that follow the
Speaker 1: termin kind of spirit of gifted education. Turman was very
Speaker 1: much about there are these special children that where that's
Speaker 1: the only line that genius is recruited, and a lot
Speaker 1: of the termin kind of in my reading of his work,
Speaker 1: it has a very eugenics feel to it. It has
Speaker 1: this like this kind of it's hard to like articulate,
Speaker 1: but it's like I get a certain spidey sense when
Speaker 1: I listen to like certain people talk that I don't
Speaker 1: get here or get without other people talk, and I
Speaker 1: just don't know what it is. I've been trying to
Speaker 1: articulate what that spidey sense is. But there's some people
Speaker 1: who talk about quote their gifted educators in a way
Speaker 1: that it's like goes way way beyond it does it
Speaker 1: go like far far beyond just like you know, I
Speaker 1: have students who aren't that are ready for grade level. No,
Speaker 1: it's like something completely different, different plane of existence. It's
Speaker 1: like they're like the spiritual angels that God put on earth.
Speaker 1: So they really do believe that in a sense, and
Speaker 1: so yes, yes, do you see something similar? I very
Speaker 1: much see something similar. And again, I think that's what
Speaker 1: makes it so hard for kind of advocacy within the field,
Speaker 1: because you can't go in front of a congressman or
Speaker 1: in front of a school board and say, well, there
Speaker 1: are these special people that are more special than the
Speaker 1: other students, and they've been endowed with some kind of
Speaker 1: special talents and therefore regular school is bad for them
Speaker 1: and they deserve more. That's just such a non convincing argument.
Speaker 1: But instead, if you can argue, well, Bobby has mastered
Speaker 1: pre algebra, so we think he should get algebra. Like
Speaker 1: that's such a no one would disagree with that. Like
Speaker 1: this the kind of much more you know what I've
Speaker 1: describe as kind of the advanced academics framework of these
Speaker 1: kids need X because they've mastered Why is a very
Speaker 1: simple and compelling and unobjectionable argument. If you say these
Speaker 1: kids need X because they are gifted, then first of all,
Speaker 1: you have to explain what that means all the and
Speaker 1: you also have all the baggage comes with it. You
Speaker 1: have these people that have these preconceived notions of what
Speaker 1: it means. They might no termin work and they've got
Speaker 1: a bad association with that. It just doesn't Not only
Speaker 1: do I argue the term doesn't facilitate the goals of
Speaker 1: the field, I actually think it is an active barrier
Speaker 1: to the goals of the field. Yeah, so I think
Speaker 1: that is what you describe is very much something I experience,
Speaker 1: and I think it gets a little bit a trait
Speaker 1: versus state kind of distinction. Yeah. For those that are
Speaker 1: more like essentialism, I think yep. Absolutely. Yeah. So you know, well,
Speaker 1: we definitely bonded over that. I mean, you reached out
Speaker 1: to me after my book came out, and then I
Speaker 1: read your book and I was like, wow, we're independently
Speaker 1: on somewhere whatever the wavelength is. Is it not the
Speaker 1: exact same way when there's a genus of wave length
Speaker 1: at least that we're on together. So I definitely appreciate
Speaker 1: some of your arguments and the phrase the idea of
Speaker 1: gifted children, and I I'm belaboring this point because I
Speaker 1: do think it's important. There's been something about it that
Speaker 1: has bothered me at another level that I don't think
Speaker 1: I've ever been able to fully articulate, and I didn't
Speaker 1: do so in un Gifted, But maybe I'll be able
Speaker 1: to at some point in this conversation today. Sure, I understand,
Speaker 1: I've been there. Yeah, it's tough. There's like something else,
Speaker 1: There's something It's like, it's a tautology in a sense,
Speaker 1: and let me try to understand I put that out there,
Speaker 1: and then let me try to see if I can
Speaker 1: explain what I mean by that at all. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, there is no ten commandments. There's God never
Speaker 1: gave Moses a tablet that said these are the characteristics
Speaker 1: of the gifted children. So what I'm saying is there's
Speaker 1: no objective. Sometimes it's treated as though that is some
Speaker 1: sort of like ordained thing that like, you know, oh,
Speaker 1: but that's not a gifted child. But then isn't it
Speaker 1: possible to say, well, you're the one that defined that
Speaker 1: what gifted I'll gifted child means. So okay, help me
Speaker 1: with this point, because I do you see what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to get it. It It feels like a tautology in
Speaker 1: a sense, like you're gifted because you're gifted. It seems
Speaker 1: like a logical fallacy to me. There is a lot
Speaker 1: of that, and there's you know, if you were to
Speaker 1: bring an alien to the planet and that person, you know,
Speaker 1: that alien were to ask this question, you know, like, well,
Speaker 1: talk to me about what it means to be gifted.
Speaker 1: You know, they get a lot of typical responses like okay,
Speaker 1: you know, is high achieving or as high ability of
Speaker 1: some kind. And so an alien might say, okay, so
Speaker 1: so i'll gifted kids are high achieving, Like well, no, no,
Speaker 1: not necessarily. It's like okay, well, so what are they all?
Speaker 1: It's like, well, some are this but not all, and
Speaker 1: some are this but not all. And eventually the definition
Speaker 1: becomes so vague and abstract. Again I'll drop Matt Makle's
Speaker 1: name again, because he and my colleague Matt McBee to
Speaker 1: the study where they took the National Association for Gifted
Speaker 1: Children's definition, like what they say is giftedness, and they
Speaker 1: tried to operationalize it so they actually put it into
Speaker 1: what criteria might look like, and when they apply that,
Speaker 1: you start ending up with the majority of humans being
Speaker 1: gifted in some way or another, and which is somewhat
Speaker 1: strange given kind of just about any gifted at advocate
Speaker 1: would say, well, of course, not everybody's gifted. At the
Speaker 1: same time, their definition says that the majority of people
Speaker 1: are gifted. It's a really problematic area for services because
Speaker 1: the definition is so vague. It's different across state lines.
Speaker 1: There's no mandated services. The terms are implemented differently, and
Speaker 1: again that's why I prefer a much more concrete term,
Speaker 1: you know, like a kid who needs X, Y or z,
Speaker 1: rather than a gifted kit. I just don't think it's
Speaker 1: very instructionally helpful. Or in the assessment world, we use
Speaker 1: the term diagnostic efficacy, So how effective is an assessment
Speaker 1: or a data point in telling me what you need
Speaker 1: today in my class as? And if I walk up
Speaker 1: to a teacher and say, this kid is gifted, so
Speaker 1: go forth and take care of that, the teacher is
Speaker 1: gonna have no idea what to do because the term
Speaker 1: just doesn't carry any information. Special education terms are a
Speaker 1: little bit better, but they're still a little problematic, But
Speaker 1: gifted is really problematic. It is problematic. So well, it
Speaker 1: seems like the negc the spirit of it, and your
Speaker 1: point is very well taken, But it seems like everyone's
Speaker 1: talking about inclusivity these days. You know, that's at least
Speaker 1: on the Lefty's that's a very left, but a very
Speaker 1: left buzzword. Now there is a large part of your
Speaker 1: work that does involve inclusivity, because we can, let's like
Speaker 1: merge your excellent Gaps and Education book with the discussion
Speaker 1: we're having already, because it seems so part and parcel
Speaker 1: of this conversation. So you do want to include groups
Speaker 1: that have perhaps been left out of the table, like
Speaker 1: minority groups, those who are traditionally underrepresented in gifted education
Speaker 1: and preaps have been not perhaps but I think historically
Speaker 1: have been over represented in special education the other side.
Speaker 1: So there's this big part of you that once inclusivity
Speaker 1: in that direction, how do you reconcile that form of
Speaker 1: inclusivity from your criticism of the ability form of inclusivity
Speaker 1: that it seems like, you know, like letting everyone in
Speaker 1: that shows above average ability in anything in the world.
Speaker 1: It's a tough question I'm asking you, I know, but
Speaker 1: it is. It's a high level question. Yeah, a question.
Speaker 1: It's you know, it's also something I wrote this article.
Speaker 1: I think it came out in twenty sixteen, you know,
Speaker 1: one of those like excellence and equity kind of articles
Speaker 1: and gift the John quarterly talking about how do you
Speaker 1: have both? You know, how do you have excellence which
Speaker 1: I was kind of thinking of as services that challenge
Speaker 1: the kids who need something more, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: the traditional purpose of gifted end to challenge the underchallenged
Speaker 1: while at the same time having greater equity, which is
Speaker 1: really kind of what you're asking is, how do you
Speaker 1: challenge advanced kids who are already advanced, while at the
Speaker 1: same time not just having a service population that's we'll
Speaker 1: just call them very traditionally high income, very privileged kind
Speaker 1: of kids. They tend to be caucation, tend to be
Speaker 1: certain NASIA groups, right right, it's you know, this is
Speaker 1: I've written a paper on this where I analyzed Office
Speaker 1: Civil Rights data, you know, and show the most recent
Speaker 1: data about how underrepresented certain groups are and how overrepresented
Speaker 1: others are compared to the population. We're doing a study
Speaker 1: right now to look at if you were to change
Speaker 1: the norm group, you know, look at school norms versus
Speaker 1: national norms, how would that change who gets identified as gifted?
Speaker 1: So it really is a it's it's a hard thing.
Speaker 1: It's a great question. The way I've and I don't
Speaker 1: have a singular answer, but the way I've been thinking
Speaker 1: about it lately is that the field really does need
Speaker 1: to have kind of two parallel goals. There really does
Speaker 1: need to be kind of a talent development goal, and
Speaker 1: there also needs to be kind of a I guess
Speaker 1: I would call it more of an advanced academic goal.
Speaker 1: And so the talent development goal is really about providing
Speaker 1: advanced learning opportunities to kids that couldn't access them via
Speaker 1: their own resources. So, you know, a simple example is,
Speaker 1: you know, I live in Madison, Wisconsin, and high quality
Speaker 1: early childhood education experiences here in Madison cost sixteen thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a year. So if you want your kid to
Speaker 1: be in high quality three year old pre kindergarten, it's
Speaker 1: going to cost you, on average, sixteen thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1: There's no way a low income family can afford that.
Speaker 1: So if we want to actually put a dent in
Speaker 1: the gap between the population serveding gifted programs or the
Speaker 1: excellence gap, if we actually want to mitigate that, we
Speaker 1: have to start by backfilling some of those missed opportunities,
Speaker 1: some of those opportunity gaps, So things like very early on,
Speaker 1: you know, providing greater access to early childhood education as
Speaker 1: a program out of Northwestern called Project Excite, where a
Speaker 1: colleague of mine went into third grade classrooms to identify
Speaker 1: students for a kind of a gifted education boot camp
Speaker 1: to prepare them for high school ap classes. So they
Speaker 1: were starting in third grade, Like you really do have
Speaker 1: to go way back and start providing those advanced opportunities
Speaker 1: early if you want to close those gaps in the
Speaker 1: long term. That's kind of the talent development side. But
Speaker 1: then there also needs to be the services in place
Speaker 1: for the kids who just need something right now. So
Speaker 1: regardless of why a kid needs it, whether it's because
Speaker 1: you know, both her parents were physics professors or whatever,
Speaker 1: the kid needs more math right now, let's not debate why.
Speaker 1: Let's just focus on what the kids needs right here
Speaker 1: and right now. And those are different, Those are very
Speaker 1: different programs, those are very different services, They have different
Speaker 1: service populations, but they're both necessary if we care about
Speaker 1: both goals, if we care about challenging everyone who's underchallenged
Speaker 1: and about mitigating those disparities, because otherwise you can't. There's
Speaker 1: no way to kind of fix the disparity argument and
Speaker 1: gifted ed by just like getting a different test or something.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's not It exists because of larger societal
Speaker 1: and equality, not because of you know, solely we're always
Speaker 1: using the wrong test or something. So I think it's
Speaker 1: kind of a two pronged approach that follows along with
Speaker 1: two parallel goals that the field should have. But again
Speaker 1: I'm not speaking for like the field. This is just
Speaker 1: kind of how I've started to think about it. Well,
Speaker 1: that's very interesting. I mean, this is there's an angel
Speaker 1: dilemma between equity versus excellence. And I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's exactly exactly what you're talking about, but this is
Speaker 1: really really interesting, Scott. So you're saying, perhaps we could
Speaker 1: have one form of like, let's not called gift education
Speaker 1: right now, it's called enriched how about we call it
Speaker 1: enrichment education. Sure, one aspect where everyone in that school
Speaker 1: gets enriched beyond, you know, according to their readiness. And
Speaker 1: then there that seems like the equity. And then there
Speaker 1: could be another of education, talent development, whatever, where the
Speaker 1: explicit goal is like if someone wants to be eminent
Speaker 1: or great at something someday, you know, like because that
Speaker 1: would require a whole different set of things like coaches
Speaker 1: and sure, I mean if we're telling music or whatever,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not going to serve them to just
Speaker 1: stick them in a gift education class and do math
Speaker 1: problems that's told be highly custom tailored. Right, Yes, And
Speaker 1: the question of what domains should we serve in terms
Speaker 1: of talent in schools is kind of one that I
Speaker 1: always just run from and claim total ignorance and say
Speaker 1: that's outside of my control. Like, you know, I believe
Speaker 1: we should have music in schools. I believe we should
Speaker 1: have art in schools. But I'm also not going to
Speaker 1: go there and say, like, you know, we should have
Speaker 1: gifted welding programs in schools. Like that's just a whole
Speaker 1: different conversation. But no, I think I agree with you
Speaker 1: completely that there should really like, let's presume for a
Speaker 1: second that a school district wants to close excellence gaps.
Speaker 1: They want to close the disparities in what students' access
Speaker 1: ap classes, what students go to college, and all those things.
Speaker 1: If they really want to do that, you know, in
Speaker 1: a place like Madison where I live, you know, they
Speaker 1: have like thirty four elementary schools. Some of those elementary
Speaker 1: schools are almost one hundred percent low income kids, one
Speaker 1: hundred percent minority kids. If the district really wants to
Speaker 1: put a dent in excellence gaps. They should be citing
Speaker 1: extra gifted programs in those schools, you know, programs to
Speaker 1: help those kids develop the kinds of critical thinking skills
Speaker 1: that a lot more privileged kids have been able fortunate
Speaker 1: enough to develop because of outside opportunities. So Jonathan and
Speaker 1: I call it front loading, where we're kind of front
Speaker 1: loading those skills early times in plucker for our listeners, Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: my apologies, not I get them confused because I have
Speaker 1: two Jonathan's and I work. We describe it as front
Speaker 1: loading opportunities early on in school so that come the
Speaker 1: advanced opportunities later those kids are actually ready. And so
Speaker 1: if we actually want to put a dent in the
Speaker 1: disparities and gifted at enrollment or in AP enrollment or
Speaker 1: college attendance or whatever, we need to be putting more
Speaker 1: kind of talent development programs in low income, lower performing schools.
Speaker 1: Not less. I mean, it's the opposite of what people
Speaker 1: tend to think about gift today. And then yes, we
Speaker 1: should also have those other things you talked about with
Speaker 1: regard to eminence, and yes, that's certainly true, but I
Speaker 1: also just think of it in terms of, well, look,
Speaker 1: we got a. You know, roughly two percent of the
Speaker 1: America's fifth graders are four or more years advanced in math.
Speaker 1: So that's fifth graders that need high school material in
Speaker 1: terms of math. I'm just talking about those kids too,
Speaker 1: Like they might not go on to be a theoretical physicist,
Speaker 1: but they just need geometry. Now, sure, that's the other
Speaker 1: side of the equation. We got the talent development on
Speaker 1: one side, and then kind of the advanced services to
Speaker 1: meet that kids need. Right now, that's kind of the
Speaker 1: too pronged approach that is at least currently knocking around
Speaker 1: my brain. Accelerate because you do in your Gift Education
Speaker 1: book talk about acceleration versus enrichment, right, you kind of
Speaker 1: make that distinction a little bit, yes, as two potential
Speaker 1: you know, programming tools and so yeah, when you said
Speaker 1: let's not call it gifted, you know, I agree. We're
Speaker 1: talking about just different levels and types of services for
Speaker 1: all students. Yeah, I mean, every student is somewhere on
Speaker 1: this continuum in terms of what they're receiving. So you
Speaker 1: might have some kids who are just you know, just
Speaker 1: you know, they're just kind of receiving enriched learning experience
Speaker 1: right now, whereas some kids what they need is to
Speaker 1: be accelerated three years. You know, it depends on where
Speaker 1: they are and what they need. But yes, there's a
Speaker 1: that kind of goes back to what we talked about
Speaker 1: at the beginning. In the ideal world, everybody has some
Speaker 1: kind of personalized learning experience. What we're talking about now
Speaker 1: is just kind of a midway point on that continuum. Cool.
Speaker 1: And there's one particular question that you ask in your
Speaker 1: Rethinking Gift Education book that provides a really nice segue
Speaker 1: to your excellent CAPS book, and that is what happens
Speaker 1: when addressing under representation is the goal of gift educating.
Speaker 1: This is a very thorny question, potentially very contras as well,
Speaker 1: right it is. You know, I tell people all the
Speaker 1: time I work in the fields of assessment and gifted
Speaker 1: ED and disproportionality in gifted ED. So literally every part
Speaker 1: of my field is a thorny issue or a controversial topic,
Speaker 1: which is delightful for me since I never have the answers.
Speaker 1: You know, there's no clear answers it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have decided that disproportionality is bad, and I guess
Speaker 1: for your listeners, you know, disproportionality is kind of the
Speaker 1: unequal rates at which different student groups participate in Gifted
Speaker 1: ED or AP or whatever. Right now, we're talking about
Speaker 1: Gifted ED. So just as a background, African American and
Speaker 1: Hispanic students participate in gifted programs at only about sixty percent,
Speaker 1: as is their participation in the general school population, So
Speaker 1: they're underrepresented by about forty percent. And then White students
Speaker 1: are just slightly overrepresented about fifteen percent, and Asian students
Speaker 1: are almost twice as represented. So that's what we're talking
Speaker 1: about when we're talking about underrepresentation. And if mitigating that
Speaker 1: is the goal or is a goal, then that kind
Speaker 1: of authorizes us to take more proactive steps. I mean,
Speaker 1: as you said, there's no eleventh Commandment that says equity
Speaker 1: shall be within gifted education. I mean, that's just a choice.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's a good choice or a bad choice.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it's a choice. And if it is
Speaker 1: a choice, then I really spent a lot of time
Speaker 1: decided or working on methods to kind of accomplish that.
Speaker 1: So if you want better representation of African Americans and
Speaker 1: gifted programs, what are the levers you could push in
Speaker 1: terms of policy and well, oh, I mean the lowest
Speaker 1: hanging fruit. I suppose there's too low hanging fruit. The
Speaker 1: first one is to get rid of what Matt McBee
Speaker 1: and I called two phase identification systems. And so you know,
Speaker 1: you and I work in university, so we're probably pretty
Speaker 1: familiar with this, but applying to a university is basically
Speaker 1: a two phase placement system, because the first phase is
Speaker 1: you being encouraged to apply and then seeking out and
Speaker 1: taking the ACT or the SAT or something like that.
Speaker 1: For the most part, we don't universally screen the entire
Speaker 1: American high school population for college eligibility, and because of that,
Speaker 1: we miss people typically in gifted at in K twelve,
Speaker 1: the number one time that kids are evaluated for gifted
Speaker 1: services is following a teacher or parent referral. And just
Speaker 1: think about which students are going to be referred. It's
Speaker 1: going to be students who are of the dominant cultural group,
Speaker 1: Students who are like me, They're loud, white Caucasian males
Speaker 1: that have a certain personality type, that are individually driven,
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff, and that's going to exacerbate this proportionality.
Speaker 1: So the simplest thing that could be done is instead
Speaker 1: of having kind of that two phase system where you've
Speaker 1: got to jump over one hurdle before you get evaluated
Speaker 1: with the next is to just evaluate everybody. So take
Speaker 1: all all your second graders and put them through the process.
Speaker 1: That's going to miss the fewest amount of students. There's
Speaker 1: no offens or lots of If you evaluate everyone, you're
Speaker 1: going to miss the fewest amounts of students. And this
Speaker 1: is exactly why a lot of states have gone to
Speaker 1: universal Act administration for college because you missed the fewest students.
Speaker 1: It's the exact same concept for K twelve gifted head.
Speaker 1: And then the other low hanging fruit is to use
Speaker 1: building norms. So traditionally in gifted d you know, there's
Speaker 1: giftedness criteria of a one point thirty IQ or the
Speaker 1: top two percent or the top five percent, and that's
Speaker 1: compared to a national norm, and that gives us this
Speaker 1: hugely unequal demographic. If instead we went to building norms
Speaker 1: where gifted is not operationalized as the top five percent
Speaker 1: of the country, but is instead operationalized as the top
Speaker 1: five percent in every school building, you would see a
Speaker 1: roughly two hundred to three hundred percent increase in the
Speaker 1: number of African American or Hispanic students identified. Wow, that's
Speaker 1: thing I could talk all day about. But it has
Speaker 1: to do with enrollment. Well, I get it, but I
Speaker 1: mean you have a whole chapter in your book about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that is great, and for the listener, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: the simple principle that taking account local norms, taking account,
Speaker 1: you know, who are the people around you in your
Speaker 1: school system as opposed to the national averages. And you know,
Speaker 1: you make that very convincing point in your book. So
Speaker 1: that that was one thing that really stuck out to
Speaker 1: me when I read it. Another thing that really stuck
Speaker 1: out to me when I read your book was in
Speaker 1: the some states, the drastic disconnect between the identification and
Speaker 1: the actual intervention or what happens after in the end
Speaker 1: of dedication. I keep saying the statistic, and I maybe
Speaker 1: my memory might be bad from your book, but I
Speaker 1: recall you saying that in Connecticut or somewhere like almost
Speaker 1: one hundred percent of the money goes towards identification. There
Speaker 1: was some state, I think it was Connecticut or something
Speaker 1: with it, but like, but hardly any money goes towards
Speaker 1: actual programming. What was it? Yes, well, we do cite. Well,
Speaker 1: the one state that's jumping out in my head is
Speaker 1: Minnesota because they because Minnesota mandates identification, but they don't
Speaker 1: mandate services. Yeah, and there are other states that do
Speaker 1: that as well. There's only a couple I can't think
Speaker 1: of them off the top of my head. So there
Speaker 1: are states that mandate identification but not services. So of course,
Speaker 1: what do the districts do when they spend the money identification?
Speaker 1: And maybe if they just happen to have lots of
Speaker 1: money laying around, they have services. But then I also
Speaker 1: know of districts here in Wisconsin that once spent all
Speaker 1: the money they had for gifted AD on a single
Speaker 1: test and then didn't have anything left the door. So
Speaker 1: the sole point of identification was to identify there was
Speaker 1: no service, which is which is ludicrous from my perspective,
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean, the nice thing about local norms
Speaker 1: is that a lot of the as I said earlier,
Speaker 1: the levers to address disproportionality can also harm the other goal.
Speaker 1: Like I mentioned those two goals like challenging the underchallenge
Speaker 1: and also better equity, a lot of the levers that
Speaker 1: address equity can actually harm the other goal because think
Speaker 1: a good if we wanted perfectly equitable gifted populations, we
Speaker 1: could just let kids at random, you know, just randomly
Speaker 1: choose kids from the school population, and you're going to
Speaker 1: have a gifted population that's perfectly representative of the school.
Speaker 1: But that's silly, like that wouldn't make it. We're not
Speaker 1: doing a psychology experiment, yea, right right. We wouldn't be
Speaker 1: identifying the kids that need a service, right, just identifying
Speaker 1: kids for I don't know, some purpose. But the nice
Speaker 1: part about local norms is it satisfies both goals. It
Speaker 1: would get us better equity, and we'd be identifying the
Speaker 1: kids who are the most likely to be under challenged
Speaker 1: in their particular educational setting. So the kids who are
Speaker 1: the most advanced in their building are the ones who
Speaker 1: are most likely under challenged in their particular We don't
Speaker 1: care how you compare, you know, if you're in Boston
Speaker 1: to how you know, it doesn't matter how you compare
Speaker 1: to kids in New Mexico. What matters is how you
Speaker 1: are compared to, like your local curriculum to what's being
Speaker 1: provided in school. And that's why the local comparison is
Speaker 1: just much more intelligent. I mean, I am so over
Speaker 1: the whole concept of national norms. As I was talking
Speaker 1: about earlier about diagnostic efficacy, a national norm just tells
Speaker 1: me so little in terms of what you need as
Speaker 1: a student, Like, great, you're at the ninety seventh and
Speaker 1: a half percentile, you know, what should I teach you tomorrow?
Speaker 1: It just tells me nothing. Whereas if I know you're
Speaker 1: in the top two percent of fifth graders at my
Speaker 1: middle school, like, okay, at least now I know that
Speaker 1: you're probably, you know, one of the students that's most
Speaker 1: likely under challenge compared to the regular curriculum. It's not
Speaker 1: a slam dunk, we don't know that for sure, but
Speaker 1: it's like a decent indicator. Yeah, So, I mean you
Speaker 1: sold me on that already. I'm sold. So you know,
Speaker 1: you and Jonathan put forward a plan for addressing excellence
Speaker 1: gaps in your more recent book, which is a little
Speaker 1: bit of a different than the plan of Beyond Gift Education.
Speaker 1: So could you please as this specific plan that you
Speaker 1: think is the most reasonable way of addressing this, And
Speaker 1: also I want you to address like do you envision
Speaker 1: a realistic goal someday of like one hundred percent complete
Speaker 1: excellent gap production? Oh gosh, that's a great question. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a similar question when people ask me about the
Speaker 1: whole equity and gifted populations, like do I expect perfect equity?
Speaker 1: Like should that be the goal? And I always try
Speaker 1: to be clear when I'm answering and say there's a
Speaker 1: difference between should it be the goal and is it
Speaker 1: like a reasonable expectation, like yes, I would love it.
Speaker 1: My you know, view of the world is a place
Speaker 1: where whether or not you know you live below the
Speaker 1: poverty line or are from an African American family or
Speaker 1: an English language learner, is not relevant to your educational opportunities,
Speaker 1: to your rate of achievement. That is my preferred world.
Speaker 1: So yes, in a preferred world, we wouldn't see things
Speaker 1: like excellence gaps or disparities and gifted enrollment or the
Speaker 1: like in the US especially and in most kind of
Speaker 1: industrialized countries. But the US has the dubious honor being
Speaker 1: really bad in this regard. Income and family education is
Speaker 1: very closely tied to access, and in the US you
Speaker 1: get more access if you can afford it. You get
Speaker 1: more opportunities if you can afford it, and because of that,
Speaker 1: you know, eliminating excellence gaps eliminating gifted ed disproportionality is
Speaker 1: not going to happen anytime soon. It's easier to eliminate
Speaker 1: the gifted identification disparity than it is to limitate excellence gaps.
Speaker 1: Excellent s gaps are getting worse. Well it Excellence gaps
Speaker 1: define it sure. So the excellence gaps are just the
Speaker 1: disparities and rates of advanced achievement on any metric. So
Speaker 1: most typically, you know, Jonathan Plucker and I look at
Speaker 1: NAPE scores, so the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and
Speaker 1: you can look at the rates at which students on
Speaker 1: free reduced lunch score advanced and say fourth grade science,
Speaker 1: eighth grade math, if they're low income or now low
Speaker 1: incomeing is you know, is a gap. And you know,
Speaker 1: the rates of advanced achievement have been going up, you
Speaker 1: know since the nineties, but also in the nineties the
Speaker 1: rates were zero for some groups. Even right now they're
Speaker 1: still zero for some groups. So I think the you know,
Speaker 1: a good example is the science area. You know, science
Speaker 1: gets kind of short shrift a lot of the time,
Speaker 1: but you know, only something like one percent of eighth
Speaker 1: graders score advanced in science total, So it's hard to
Speaker 1: have a gap, but the gaps have been closing for
Speaker 1: things like for sorry have like achievement gaps have been
Speaker 1: narrowing a little bit over the over time, excellence gaps
Speaker 1: have not. So the visual I can paint you, and
Speaker 1: you know, I can send you pictures of this or
Speaker 1: graphs of this, but the visual I can paint you
Speaker 1: is picture. From like, say, nineteen nineties through now through
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen was the most recent NAVE data point. The
Speaker 1: rate of advanced achievement and reading and in math for
Speaker 1: low income students, for African Americans, for Hispanic students has
Speaker 1: been growing. It's been get you know, slowly a couple
Speaker 1: points over that time, but that's been vastly outpaced by
Speaker 1: the growth among higher income widen Asian students. So just
Speaker 1: a huge differential in terms of the gap. So whereas
Speaker 1: before maybe the gap was only a couple percentage points
Speaker 1: because there were zero low income students scoring advance compared
Speaker 1: to three percent of hire income students, now it might
Speaker 1: be two percent versus fifteen percent. So that gap is
Speaker 1: widening mostly because the growth among privileged groups is outpacing
Speaker 1: the growth among less privileged groups. What's a privileged group
Speaker 1: what do you mean by well, you know, I hate
Speaker 1: these terminology because you have to use shorthand, but it's bad.
Speaker 1: Usually when we're talking about excellent gaps or disproportionality, the
Speaker 1: underrepresented or underprivileged group or the groups that have fewer
Speaker 1: educational opportunities are low income students, so students from experiencing poverty. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you mean educational opportunities, yes, Like, are you privileged
Speaker 1: just by definition by the fact that you're like overrepresented
Speaker 1: in gifted education? You know what I'm saying, Does that
Speaker 1: make you privileged? Nor? What I would No, not at all.
Speaker 1: What I would also actually challenge something I just said
Speaker 1: as well, which is we in the field of you know, equity,
Speaker 1: kind of people that are just in equity tend to
Speaker 1: refer to Caucasian Asian and non free and reduced lunch
Speaker 1: kids as if they are privileged in some way, which
Speaker 1: reality is not fair. I mean, there's lots of underprivileged
Speaker 1: white kids. Is in Wisconsin where I'm from, there's lots
Speaker 1: of first generation immigrant Asian students who are not at
Speaker 1: all advantaged, you know, so it's very much advantage you
Speaker 1: mean advantaged? Yeah? Good, No, I think it's really good
Speaker 1: to define terms when we talk about this stuff. Okay, cool, Yeah,
Speaker 1: absolutely these are really problematic, you know, ordinal categories. These
Speaker 1: are not discrete groups. But of course we treat because
Speaker 1: if they're discreet, as if you know, all African Americans
Speaker 1: are the same, we're all low income kids are the same.
Speaker 1: And of course that's not true. I mean, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of research about how bad of a proxy forree introduce,
Speaker 1: lunch status is for you know, access and income. But
Speaker 1: it's basically all we have, so we end up relying
Speaker 1: on it a lot. But yeah, there's a couple of
Speaker 1: great reports about excellence gaps and people want to see
Speaker 1: these charts about how about how worse they've gotten over time?
Speaker 1: Thank you? So just let's conclude. Can you just give
Speaker 1: me your just simply your plan for addressing it, just
Speaker 1: my simple five point plan guaranteed to solve all problems?
Speaker 1: And can you summarize the basic gist? Gosh, not really? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, I mean, how can we direct the reader
Speaker 1: leave the listener with something? You know? I think the
Speaker 1: biggest thing is that we need to start thinking about
Speaker 1: actually mitigating advanced performance disparities as as important of a
Speaker 1: goal as mitigating minimal proficiency. So, you know, for for
Speaker 1: fifty years, the US has been concerned about mitigating minimal
Speaker 1: achievement gaps, and we devote all these resources to it,
Speaker 1: but we always seem to forget about the kids that
Speaker 1: are already yet proficiency, you know, Like why aren't we
Speaker 1: concerned about low income kids scoring advanced? Why do we
Speaker 1: only have minimal expectations for them? Like that's a pretty
Speaker 1: very you know, one ethical thing. So policies and after
Speaker 1: school enrichment programs in low you know, overall quote low
Speaker 1: performing schools where there's you know, lots of minority students,
Speaker 1: like those kids need to have advanced services too, And
Speaker 1: both from a policy standpoint for like accountability, and also
Speaker 1: the from the standpoint of where do we cite programs
Speaker 1: that needs to become more of a priority. And that's
Speaker 1: a lot of what we talk about in the book.
Speaker 1: As our model addresses sounds like you, guys, I've got
Speaker 1: to catch a train. So I just want to say, Scott,
Speaker 1: I want to say thank you so much for cheying
Speaker 1: with me today and raising so many important issues and
Speaker 1: kind of being at the forefront of these issues as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was a fun conversation. I appreciate you having me.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Psychology Podcast. I hope you
Speaker 1: enjoyed this episode. If you'd like to react in some
Speaker 1: way to something you heard, I encourage you to join
Speaker 1: in the discussion at thus Psychology podcast dot com. That's
Speaker 1: the Psychology podcast dot com. Also, please add a rating
Speaker 1: and review of the Psychology Podcast on iTunes. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being such a great supporter of the podcast, and tune
Speaker 1: in next time for more on the mind, brain, behavior,
Speaker 1: and creativity.