Dimensions of underachievement, difficult contexts, and perceptions of self: achievement/affiliation conflicts in gifted adolescents.

People often say to me that there seems to be a bias against poor minority children who do well in school, that they are actually punished by other kids for being "smart." This is true in many cases. The smart children are perceived as weak, and weakness is something that is often punished in poor communities. The best way I can describe it is that many children feel that their lives are so harsh, so uncertain, that when they see a child doing well in school and adopting middle-class norms and attitudes it triggers the reaction "you think I'm going to suffer and live a life of fear, fear for my future, for my safety, fear for my very existence, and you're gonna just waltz through life and make it out of here? No way. You ought to feel pain and fear and doubt just like the rest of us." And so they target those kids to make sure they don't escape without "paying their dues."

The "dues" I remember were a constant stream of petty humiliations--others cutting in front of you in the lunch line, making jokes about you out loud, taking your lunch money. (Canada, 1995, p. 150)

As the need to belong increases during adolescence, gifted adolescents' struggle to establish a cohesive sense of self may gradually and progressively undermine their capacity to realize their potential. Society doesn't always appreciate extreme differences, and it sometimes gives unsound feedback to individuals with high ability. Affiliation/achievement conflicts arise in some individuals when they perceive that their achievement goals are not valued by their mainstream culture. They encounter contradictory expectations about what they should value and what goals they ought to pursue. For instance, they may struggle to determine what it means to be intelligent and female, or to be creative and male, or to express pride in their culture and achieve academically. Gifted girls can be vulnerable to messages like, "Be smart, but don't be too smart;" "Earn good grades but be popular;" "Compete, but be nice." Gifted boys may struggle to resolve messages that seem to narrow their masculine identities like, "Be sensitive, but be strong;" "Boys don't study;" or "Express yourself but don't act gay" (Anderson, 1999; Canada, 1995; Hebert, 1996; MacLeod, 1990; Willis, 1981). Some gifted youth from minority cultures may feel pressured by messages like, "Achieve, but don't act White;" or "Get the best education you can, but don't abandon your community;" "You're not Black enough;" "You're not White enough" (Cousins, 1999; Ferguson, 2000; Kuriloff & Reichert, 2003; Napier, 1996; Ogbu, 1988; West, 1993). In addition, gifted youth from economically disadvantaged backgrounds often find themselves trying to reconcile statements like, "You think you're better than us?" or "Don't waste money on college," with their aspirations for upper mobility (Baldwin, 1994; Bay-tops, 1994; hooks, 2000; Horvat & Antonio, 1999; Tea, 2003; Wentworth & Peterson, 2001).

Taking advanced classes, participating in academic extracurricular activities, working hard to get on the honor roll, doing homework, pursuing high grades, and working with a teacher on a project are examples of achievement behaviors that might be in conflict with cultural expectations. As a result, students may feel pressure to reject those behaviors in order to maintain a sense of belonging and identity within their cultural groups.

Perspective on this phenomenon has broadened considerably since the 1980's, when the focus in gifted education was primarily on conflicts experienced by gifted women (Betts & Neihart, 1988; Farmer, 1976; Kerr, 1983; Reis, 1987, 1996, 1998; Reis & Callahan, 1996; Tresemer, 1977). We now understand that the process of disengagement with one's academic or intellectual abilities is better viewed as a socio-cultural phenomenon observed in a much wider range of individuals. Academic resistance or withdrawal is a common response to the dissonance that arises when one first becomes aware of these conflicting messages, usually during adolescence. Some investigators refer to it as "academic disidentification,'" meaning to no longer feel encouraged or discouraged about academic performance (Osborne, 1997). Others explain it as a type of academic apathy that may arise when self-esteem is no longer tied to academic success or failure (Ford, 1996; Ford & Harris, 1999; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Patton & Townsend, 1997). The aims of this article are to review the research on affiliation/achievement conflicts in gifted students, and to propose interventions that may alleviate the negative impact they can have on achievement.

Review of the Research

Considerable research tells us that developing talent is more of an uphill battle with some groups of children than with others. The cultures of class, gender, race, and ethnicity introduce contradictions that, at best, thwart the efforts of some gifted students and at worst, utterly defeat them. For example, we know that Hispanic students and poor students drop out of school much more frequently than do others (Driscoll, 1999; Hauser, Simmons, & Pager, 2001; Horn & Bobbit, 2000; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000). The achievement gap persists between Black and White students. Differences between the highest achievers in both groups have increased, and affluent children continue to score above the national average on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) while disadvantaged children continue to score below (Horn & Bobbitt, 2000). In addition, the number of students completing college has remained virtually unchanged for over three decades. About 75% of privileged youth go directly from high school to college, but only half of poor youth do (Ellwood & Kane, 2000; Kane, 2001). Special education students and those with limited English proficiency are much less likely than other students to be in the accelerated classes, regardless of their talent (August & Hakuta, 1998; McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997). In addition, students in the lowest ability classes are more likely than students in other classes to have poorly trained teachers, inappropriate curriculum, and insufficient resources (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Education Trust, 2000; Heubert & Hauser, 1999).

One of the broad findings from the research on talent development and academic achievement is that achievement/affiliation conflicts are common during adolescence among gifted females, gifted-minority students, gifted-disadvantaged students and some gifted males, and that these conflicts act as an eroding influence on their aspirations and self-concepts (Arnold, 1995; Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik, 1996; Benbow & Arjimand, 1990; Carlson, Uppal, & Prosser, 2000; Diaz, Hebert, Maxfield, Ratley, & Reis, 1995; Filipelli & Walberg, 1997; Ford, 1992, 1996; Fordham & Ogbu 1986; Hebert, 1996; Kerr, 1991 ; Kerr, Arnold, Martinez-Thorne, & Napier, 1996; Noble, 1996; Noble, Subotnik, & Arnold, 1999; Reis, 1987; Silverman, 1995; Stellers, 2001; Subotnik & Arnold, 1996; Tomlinson-Keasey & Blurton, 1992; Townsend & Patton, 1995; Wentworth & Peterson, 2001).

Gifted Women

Many investigators have observed this eroding influence on bright women. For example, one of Karen Arnold's (1995) findings from her longitudinal study of high-school valedictorians and salutatorians was that the self-reported intelligence of females declines in the sophomore year of college. In their study of mathematically precocious youth, Benbow and Arjimand (1990) noted that the aspirations of mathematically gifted females declined significantly over time. Kerr's (1991) research concluded that many gifted-adolescent females deny their gifts and talents and resist being identified as gifted or talented. Read's (1991) study of achievement and career choices of gifted males and females found that females outnumbered males in gifted programs in elementary schools, but that males outnumbered females in high-school gifted programs. Donna Ford (1996) summarized the findings regarding gifted-females' underachievement as follows:

   Research suggests that females are at greater risk for
   underachievement than are males for numerous reasons.
   First, they have less confidence in their own
   intellectual abilities, particularly in mathematics and
   the sciences. Second, they are likely to have higher
   social service than intellectual values. Third, they are
   more likely to be concerned with peer or social acceptance
   than with intellectual development. Fourth, they
   experience more conflict and confusion than do gifted
   boys with respect to their life goals. (p. 120)

Gifted Minority Students

Other investigators have observed a similar phenomenon among talented minority students. For example, the National Education Longitudinal Study has been tracking 25,000 students since their eighth-grade year in 1988. Osborne (1997) compared the grades, test scores, and self-esteem measures of African American, Hispanic, and white students in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades and found that academic disidentification was much more pronounced among African American males than among any of the other groups. Osborne further noted that the academic investment of African American females, White students, and Hispanic boys dropped only slightly during the secondary-school years while that of Hispanic females actually increased. Ogbu (1988) postulated that peer influence has much to do with this disengagement, arguing that some African Americans may develop an oppositional social identity in response to racism and prejudice, which causes them to associate certain achievement orientations and behaviors with betrayal of their cultural group.

The pursuit of academic excellence has psychological costs for many minority students and for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Canada, 1995; Graham, 1999; Hochschild, 2003; hooks, 2000; Jones, 2003; Kastberg & Miller, 1996; Kuriloff & Reichert, 2003; Ostrove, 2003; Pipher, 1995; Rodriguez, 1982; Rubinowitz & Rosenbaum, 2000). These costs include feeling invisible, marginalized, isolated, or feeling powerless, being discriminated against, and even rejection from family and friends.

For example, Ostrove (2003) focused on class influences among talented women by exploring the ways that class background shaped working-class women's college experiences. She surveyed 193 women who graduated from Smith College in the 1960s, and observed that women from working-class backgrounds reported significantly more social alienation and significantly less academic preparedness during their college years than did women from higher-status backgrounds. "So I went off in this great haze of glory and then I got there and it's like, Oh my God, I'm not prepared for anything that I'm experiencing here" (p. 780).

Kuriloff and Reichert (2003) explored the ways in which 27 boys from diverse economic and racial backgrounds negotiated the "social geography" of an elite boys' prep school. All boys who occupied the margins of the school described problems negotiating the social terrain of the school and unique ways of solving them. Lower-status boys described a long period of time when they struggled because they didn't dress, speak, or behave like high-status students, but gradually they did learn how to act to fit in. Marginalized boys were more keenly aware of the dress, speech, and behaviors needed to succeed and made a conscious effort to imitate them. These lower-status boys also contended with lower expectations, which they perceived to be prejudice:

   I'll give you an example of a typical attitude. The other
   day, this teacher was talking about a character of a
   book, he said something like, 'You got this guy who's
   got, like, a mechanic mouth.' And I was about to walk
   out because my Mom's fiancee is a mechanic. (p. 762)

There was also awareness among the working-class boys that what they were working toward might separate them from who they had been.

Studies of gifted students from working-class or impoverished backgrounds indicate that low-income students may deny their talent, not only because they perceive conflicting messages, but also because they are uncomfortable negotiating the crossing of class boundaries (Baldwin, 1994; Cookson, & Persell, 1991; Diaz et al., 1995; Ford, 1992; Horvat & Antonio, 1999; Horvat & Lewis, 2003; Jones, 2003; Napier, 1996). Minimizing their abilities is one way to avoid the discomfort or to justify resigning themselves to their present economic status. Gifted students from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds may be encouraged to work hard in school, but discouraged from pursuing a college education or from taking accelerated classes. Parents may tolerate the pursuit of high achievement only as long as it doesn't interfere with earning a paycheck or with responsibilities at home. In low-income families there may be a greater expectation to marry young and secure a job rather than go to college. Some low-income families may not view college as worth the financial sacrifice. In families where no one has college experience, adults are not aware of financial aid resources that would make college possible, nor are they aware of ways to prepare for college admission.

Effective Interventions

Although there are yet no studies that examine how effective some interventions are in helping high-ability students resolve affiliation/achievement conflicts, several researchers identified the supports or interventions associated with students' ability to maintain high aspirations and high achievement in spite of pressures to withdraw or deny their talent. For instance, the coping strategies described by the boys in Kuriloff & Reichert's study (2003) included trying to assimilate; explaining their situation to fellow students; and trying to hide the differences between themselves and more privileged students. Students who lacked coping strategies had less self-esteem and seemed vulnerable to self-loathing.

African American boys were most successful at negotiating the psychological challenges they faced because their shared discourse was informed by discussion about class and race, and they could explicitly label the unfairness they saw in certain systems. Kuriloff and Reichert cited several benefits enjoyed by those boys who participated in shared discourse about class, race, and achievement:

   The African American boys collectively developed a
   sophisticated set of strategies for coping with these
   painful aspects of the school's social geography. Creating
   the BSA (Black Student Alliance) forced the
   school community to recognize them and gave them a
   foundation for voicing their collective concerns. In the
   BSA, these boys compared notes across class lines.
   Because some of their parents, both poor and wealthy,
   had insights into class, they were able to tap into these
   discourses. This, in turn, enabled them to develop critiques
   of the school. What emerged, as we have seen,
   was a broadly helpful understanding of the race and
   class dynamics of the school. What emerged, also, was
   an associated critique of the school's hidden curriculum
   as well as agreement about the value of mastering
   it. And, finally, these boys developed genuine insight
   into the transformative power of the intellectual content
   to which they were exposed. (2003, p. 764)

One of Kuriloff and Reichert's working-class seniors explained a difference he noted in how his current prep school and former public high school defined masculinity:

   Just because you excel doesn't mean you're on the right
   path to manhood. Because at other schools when you
   have somebody who's really smart with great
   grades ... that's who everybody perceives as a
   geek ... not popular.... Here ... you get people "who' are
   smart who range from the person who may be
   stoned ... [to] the person who's prim and proper. (2003,
   p. 757)

African American boys managed most effectively because they talked among themselves about the hidden and overt expectations regarding class, race, and achievement. Other boys lacked this intra-group discourse and did not fare as well. Other writers also underscored the role of peer-group networks in supporting academic achievement (Ford, 1996; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Hickam, 2000; Horvat & Lewis, 2003; MacLeod, 1987).

Jones (2003) used an interpretive research process to explore ways that class marginality shapes identity and academic practice in the lives of 10 female professors from working-class backgrounds. She noted that participation in advanced classes sometimes intensified the experience of marginality and visibility experienced by working-class minority gifted students, because in such classes they developed greater awareness of advantage and disadvantage, privilege and injustice at an earlier age. For instance, Maria, a gifted third-generation Mexican American woman stated the following:

   I distinctly remember being very different that way
   and as I went into junior high school I just continued to
   be at the top classes the gifted classes and the top math
   classes and the top science classes but I always felt like
   something was missing because most of my friends
   had all the extras had the music lessons had you know
   all the enriching experiences ... travel ... vacation you
   know all that other stuff that was really different from
   what I experience and I think that that enriched their
   life and allowed them to excel a little bit more and I
   think for me that held me back at a young age. (p. 809)

Many studies document the phenomenon of affiliation/achievement conflicts among gifted adolescents and adults and its undermining influence on an individual's identity, goals, and self-concept, but what evidence is there that it contributes directly to gifted students' academic disengagement? At least four studies have tied affiliation/achievement conflicts directly to academic withdrawal.

Spielhagen's (1996) ethnographic research found that 35% of the high-potential females aged 14-16 cited lack of support and peer pressure as a barrier to achievement. Subjects of all ages further mentioned role models and mentors as important for achievement. The subjects in Read's (1991) survey of 142 public-school districts often mentioned peer pressure as their reason for terminating their participation in the gifted program in 10th grade. In Rimm, Rimm-Kaufman, and Rimm's (1999) survey of more than 1,000 talented-adult women, 15% of the subjects reported that social isolation was their most negative experience in childhood, and some reported deliberately doing poorly on tests or failing to turn in assignments in order to preserve their social status. Finally, students in Brown and Steinberg's (1990) survey of more than 8,000 California and Wisconsin students reported that they withdrew from honors classes, debate, and computer clubs in order to avoid being called derogatory names and other negative social consequences.

What Should We Do?

An important, though tentative, finding from a few of the studies on hidden costs of high achievement is that certain kinds of supports were associated with students being able to keep motivation, aspirations, and achievement high, in spite of pressing affiliation/achievement conflicts. These preliminary observations may provide some initial guidance regarding how to address these conflicts with high-ability students.

For instance, Kuriloff and Reichert's (2003) important finding that talented African American boys managed the "social geography" of an elite boy's school more effectively than any other group, suggests that helping students to engage in open discourse and critique about class, identity, and achievement can be liberating for students struggling with affiliation/achievement conflicts. Similarly, Datnow & Cooper's (1996) study of peer networks also suggests that opportunities for open discussions about identity, achievement, and the psychological costs of upward mobility may help talented students grow more confident in their ability to manage affiliation/achievement conflicts, and to better control what used to "just happen" to them. Shared discourse has a liberating power that seems to grant marginalized or confused students permission to stay the course of high achievement.

Having a "meta" view of the psychosocial world of achievement and of upward mobility may help students embrace the attitudes and skills needed to pursue high achievement, without feeling like they're selling out (Datnow & Cooper, 1996: Horvat & Lewis, 2003). Interventions and support for gifted students struggling with affiliation/achievement conflicts should therefore be organized around regular discussions about class, race, identity, and achievement, and around direct instruction of coping strategies. Students should talk about how class, race, and gender affect lives and critique class, race, and gender stereotypes. They need to be able to see, name, and talk about these issues in order to feel empowered and to strengthen their grip on the behaviors needed for high achievement.

In addition, as several studies and personal accounts point out, (Cookson & Persell, 1991; Ford, 1996; Kastberg & Miller, 1996; Kuriloff & Reichert, 2003; Rodriquez, 1982; Tea, 2003), many talented students need pointed assistance in negotiating two or more cultures simultaneously because acceptable codes of behavior vary among cultures and classes. For instance, in some ethnic cultures, behaviors that are encouraged in accelerated educational programs (e.g., questioning authority, critical thinking) are discouraged at home because they are perceived as disrespectful of authority. The language of power and respect differs between inner-city streets and other settings and across class, gender, and ethnic boundaries as well. It is imperative that some gifted students become adept at code switching: a process of deliberately changing behaviors to accommodate the expectations of an environment, in order to realize their potential. Code switching is a coping skill that can be taught (Canada, 1995; Kuriloff & Reichert, 2003).

For example, students from various ethnic or class groups can identify the dress, speech, and behaviors that communicate "success" or "respect" in different settings and practice switching from one set of behaviors to another as they switch environments. A young man may choose to wear conservative business wear at his mentorship, and to wear trendy fashion clothes to school, for example. Inner-city youth may adhere to the "street code" for behavior when they're in their home neighborhoods, but use more widely accepted behaviors when they leave the neighborhood for other opportunities. Many people who negotiate more than one cultural group at a time code switch without even being conscious that they are making the changes. The challenge is to make the switches effectively, without feeling as if they are betraying or compromising their identity. Conversations and interviews with successful adults who actively negotiate two or more cultures on a daily basis can help students tap into their insights about class, race, identity, and achievement, and develop awareness of additional coping strategies.

Findings from studies like Hebert's (1993), which observed that achieving, gifted, minority students have a stronger sense of self, and clearly defined goals, point to the potential value of exercises and experiences that help students to clarify their beliefs, identify their values, recognize the explicit and implicit expectations from family and community, describe traditions, and support risk-taking. Knowledge about self, culture, and social contexts is essential for fulfilling potential, and is an ongoing process (Arnold et al., 1996; Canada, 1995; Cousins, 1999; Noble et al., 1999; Osborne, 1997; Pipher, 1995; Rodriguez, 1982; Walker & Mehr, 1992).

Reading and reflecting on the personal accounts of gifted individuals who have found ways to cope with the dissonance they feel because they live and work in multiple cultures may be useful too (Halbert, 1993, 1996), as can movies that depict talented youth resolving achievement conflicts. For instance, a student in Kuriloff and Reichert's (2003) study described how reading literature by Black writers for an English class helped him to imagine a different future for himself as well as a masculinity that integrated intellectual power:

   They seem like such great people. They seem like they
   have everything going for them.... It's intellectual
   power. It's the power that when people listen to [them],
   that when people look at them, they look at them with
   respect. I just see the ideal of manhood inside of
   them ... that's the way I want to be. (p. 765)

Through identification with characters in literature, readers may vicariously experience adaptive roles, attitudes, or feelings they have not experienced before, and may gain new insights into solutions to similar challenges in their own lives or into alternative coping strategies. Since the emotional distance provided by reading is less threatening to the reader than the reality of his or her everyday life, the reader is less defensive and more open to new experience. The cathartic release readers sometimes experience can serve to raise their consciousness of important issues in their own lives and may itself be healing. The external frame of reference provided by reading allows the reader to view his or her experience as a detached observer, and to critically examine forces of classism, racism, or sexism in the lives of others before critiquing similar forces in his or her own life (Cecil & Roberts, 1992).

Stories such as Mama's Girl by Veronica Chambers (1997), My name is Asher Lev by Chaim Potok (1972), Rocket Boys by Homer Hickam (2000), or the comedic play, Ride a Blue Horse by Harris (1986) about the American poet James Whitcomb Riley, who has poems instead of marbles in his pockets, serve as realistic illustrations of the tensions gifted teenagers may experience when they are members of cultures that do not value certain behaviors associated with talent. These and true accounts like Ron Suskind's (1998) moving story about a gifted Black teenager's journey from the inner city to the Ivy League may offer a foundation from which talented students can begin to make sense of the contradictions and unfairness they experience in their own pursuits of excellence. Similarly, reading excerpts from biographies like Graham's (1999), Rodriguez' (1982), and hooks' (2000) intimate memoirs of their personal struggles with class and race consciousness can help students contrast the similarities and differences in affiliation/achievement conflicts among various groups. Billy Elliott, October Sky, Smoke Signals, and Finding Forrester are examples of movies with this theme.

Since numerous studies indicate that concerns about balancing family and career negatively impacts women's achievement more than it does men's (Arnold, 1995; Arnold et al., 1996; Farmer, 1976; Kerr et al., 1996; Napier, 1996; Reis, 1987, 1998; Reis & Callahan, 1996; Silverman, 1995; Walker & Mehr, 1992), it seems appropriate to begin talking with gifted students about this issue as early as sixth grade. Certainly by high school, gifted men and women should be engaged in conversations that encourage them to consider the trade-offs they might anticipate with traditional and nontraditional choices. Readings from Andrea Gabor's (1995) fascinating book, Einstein's Wife: Work and Marriage in the Lives of Five Great Twentieth-Century Women or Bateson's (1990) Composing a Life, may be useful to stimulate their thinking and discussion.

A key to success with students struggling with affiliation/achievement conflicts seems to be the creation of welcoming learning environments (Hebert, 1993, 1996; Patton & Townsend, 1997; Zappia, 1989). Welcoming learning environments have four characteristics. They address identity and learning goals concurrently; they normalize conflicts students experience; they include cultural brokers; and they provide direct instruction in social skills for leadership.

If the learning environment appears to focus on achievement goals at the expense of identity goals, it is likely that students will eventually withdraw from that particular learning environment and identity goals will take priority. If the learning environment seems to stress one goal over another, students will at best remain ambivalent and inconsistent in their performance. Ideally, welcoming environments address identity and learning goals concurrently.

Welcoming learning environments also normalize the conflicts students' experience. Adults explain the conflicts as a societal phenomenon that affects many people from different groups and they acknowledge the mixed messages student receive. This acknowledgment serves to reduce students' anxiety and to externalize the problem. An adolescent's response to mixed messages is often either to personalize the problem or to blame others. "There must be something wrong with me," or "It's not fair for them to make these demands; they have no right!" When adults normalize the conflict, they alert students to the subtle and not-so-subtle messages of society regarding the expectations for different groups (Pipher, 1995). Normalizing can occur in one-on-one interactions, in group discussions, through research projects, through selected readings, or in a host of classroom activities and assignments. Inviting adults who are successfully grappling with these mixed messages in their own lives to speak to students can also spark conscious awareness and discussion.

In addition, welcoming learning environments include cultural brokers. Cultural brokers are those who understand gender, class, racial, or ethnic cultures sufficiently enough that they can explain cultural symbols in a variety of contexts, mediate the potential conflicts, and build bridges across contexts (Exum, 1983; Gay, 1993; Gentemann & Whitehead, 1983; Giroux, 1992; Patton & Townsend, 1997). Teachers need to be aware of cultural styles and values that influence the cognitions and affect of some high-ability learners. Teachers should also realize the significant role extended family members play in many minority and low-SES families (Ford, 1996), and recognize that family members may be the best cultural brokers for students.

Finally, welcoming learning environments provide direct instruction in social skills necessary for leadership across contexts. Students are taught the verbal and nonverbal communication and attitudes needed to succeed and lead in a variety of social and cultural contexts. Patton and Townsend (1997), for example, suggested that skills particularly relevant to African American students are those related to addressing issues of power, authority, control, self-control, and conflict resolution.

The research has important implications for college campuses as well. Recent articles like Kaufman's (2001) in the Wall Street Journal indicate that class issues are still prominent on college campuses, even more so than issues of race. Class-based cultures and class markers seem to determine who is marginalized and who belongs more than do race markers. Kaufman noted, "unlike Blacks or Latinos on campus, poor and working-class white students are largely invisible. There are no special programs for them, no easily identifiable professors they can seek out, no student groups to help them belong" (p. A6). Faculty in colleges and high schools should explore ways we can create learning environments in which issues of class can be talked about more openly. In an ideal world, mentoring programs should be offered to youth who will be first-generation college students.

Family Support

The economic or social realities of some gifted families may require them to be more concerned about survival than they are about their children's optimal achievement and satisfaction. Some families live in neighborhoods where there is a very real threat of danger every time their children leave the house. Other families are so overburdened with economic or social hardships that they have few personal resources left to provide their children with the kinds of opportunities they dream of (Albert, 1978, 1980; Friedman, 1994; Shumow, 1997). Nevertheless, studies do suggest that family dynamics make more significant contributions to achievement outcomes for children than do demographic variables. For instance, parents whose children are achieving in school consistently set high and clear expectations (American Association of University Women, 1992; MacLeod, 1987; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002; Olszewski-Kubilius, Kulieke, & Buescher, 1987; Van Tassel-Baska, 1989). Strong extended family relations tend to promote emotional health, social competence, and self-efficacy (Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Rutter, 1987; Strom, Strom, Strom, & Collingsworth, 1994; Van Tassel-Baska, 1989; Werner, 1984). Further, an authoritative parenting style contributes to greater achievement and fewer conflicts than an authoritarian parenting style (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Bigner, 1994; Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988).

Hebert's (1993) ethnographic study of 12 gifted Black males in the inner city concluded that achieving and underachieving students were distinguished by several characteristics. First, achievers had a strong sense of self and aspirations and will to achieve. In contrast, underachievers lost sight of their goals and felt confused and despairing. Achievers also had at least one adult who nurtured them and their families tended to be spiritual and optimistic. Underachievers, on the other hand, frequently had difficult family situations and negative peer environments. They also had negative school and counseling experiences.

Parenting style appears to influence achievement and psychosocial outcomes for gifted students in ways that are a bit different than for other adolescents (Callahan, Cornell, & Loyd, 1990; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 1987). Some evidence suggests that gifted students, given their heightened sensitivity, superior motivation, and orientation toward mastery, may be more negatively impacted by authoritarian parenting styles than other adolescents are (Dwairy, 2004; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996; Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994). Authoritarian parents attempt to control their children and restrict their independence, whereas authoritative parents allow their children progressively more autonomy as they get older and rely less on overt control. In contrast, permissive parents place few limits on their children and have few expectations for them (Baumrind, 1966).

Within some cultures, identity is formed in terms of family relationships and family history, so children may not develop a sense of self separate from the identity of their family (Carlson et al., 2000; Dwairy, in press, 2004). Since there are differences in family dynamics across cultures, there is a need for differential guidance for the families of culturally different gifted students. For instance, Dwairy (2004) observed that gifted Palestinian Arab students fared better than their nongifted agemates with an authoritative style of parenting rather than an authoritarian style. He noted, "Needless to say, programs for Arab gifted children may need to give more attention to the role that parents play" (p. 283).

Summary

Hidden assumptions regarding class, identity, and achievement may continue to negatively affect large numbers of talented youth unless deliberate efforts are made to reconcile the conflicts (Keister & Moller, 2000). Students who lack a means for recognizing and critiquing their conflicting experiences may feel inadequate and internalize negative experiences. Schools ought to play a stronger role in helping talented students evaluate the social costs of success and observe, label, and critique the "social geography" of their education and communities.

Discussions that raise awareness about such accommodations are a starting point. Students who participate in discussions that develop a framework for evaluating the ways that class, race, gender, and ethnicity speak to identity and achievement will be able to understand their affiliation/achievement conflicts in broader terms. Shared discourse and direct instruction in coping strategies may potentially strengthen their ability to put their experiences into perspective and give them confidence to embrace the cultural capital they need for high achievement before they go to college. The work of several investigators stresses the importance of shifting discussions about "ability," so common in gifted programs, to discussions about "learning the drill" (Kuriloff & Reichert, 2003) or the necessity of hard work and perseverance. Regular opportunities for shared discourse, replacing talk about ability with talk of hard work and perseverance, and reading literature with characters whose lives mirror those of the students in meaningful ways, may be helpful.

Current evidence suggests that students who do not share an understanding of classism or racism as societal phenomena tend to internalize their negative experiences. Participation in shared discussions about the overt and covert manifestations of class, race, and ethnicity, and of the related affiliation/achievement conflicts that arise may have a liberating effect on talented youth, giving them permission and confidence to pursue their highest aspirations with abandon.

Manuscript submitted November 1, 2004.

Revision accepted November 3, 2005.

REFERENCES

Albert, R. S. (1978). Observation and suggestions regarding giftedness, familial influence, and gender. Roeper Review, 20, 110-115.

Albert, R. S. (1980). Family positions and the attainment of eminence: A study of special family positions and special family experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 201-211.

American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: National Education Association Professional Library.

Anderson, E. (1999). The code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton.

Arnold, K. D. (1995). Lives of promise: What becomes of high school valedictorians: A fourteen-year study of achievement and life choices. New York: Jossey Bass.

Arnold, K D., Noble, K., & Subotnik, R. (1996). Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1998). Educating language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Baldwin, A. Y. (1994). The seven plus story: Developing hidden talent among students in socioeconomically disadvantaged environments. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 80-84.

Bateson, M. C. (1990). Composing a life. New York: Penguin Books.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Baytops, J. L. (1994). At-risk African-American gifted learners: Enhancing their education. Research in Social Policy, 3, 1-32.

Benbow, C., & Arjimand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 430-441.

Betts, G., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 248-253.

Bigner, J. J. (1994). Individual and family development: A life-span interdisciplinary. approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, B. B., & Steinberg, L. (1990). Academic achievement and social acceptance: Skirting the "brain-nerd" connection. Education Digest, 55, 55-60.

Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271-282.

Callahan, C. M., Cornell, D. G., & Loyd, B. (1990). Perceived competence and parent-adolescent communication in high ability adolescent females. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 256-269.

Canada, G. (1995). Fist, stick, knife, gun: A personal history of violence in America. Boston: Beacon Press.

Carlson, C., Uppal, S., & Prosser, E. C. (2000). Ethnic differences in processes contributing to the self-esteem of early adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 4467.

Cecil, N. L., & Roberts, P. L. (1992). Developing resiliency through children's literature. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.

Chambers, V. (1997). Mama's girl New York: Riverhead Books.

Cookson, P. W., & Persell, C. H. (1991). Race and class in America's elite preparatory boarding schools: African Americans as the "outsiders within." Journal of Negro Education, 60, 219-228.

Cousins, L. H. (1999). "Playing between classes": America's troubles with class, race and gender in a Black high school and community. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30, 294-316.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8. Retrieved December 17, 2003, from epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

Datnow, A., & Cooper, R. (1996). Peer networks of African American students in independent schools: Affirming academic success and racial identity. Journal of Negro Education, 65, 56-72.

Diaz, E. I., Hebert, T., Maxfield, L., Ratley, M., & Reis, S. (1995). Case studies of talented students who achieve and underachieve in an urban high school. (Research Report 95120). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Driscoll, A. (1999). Risk of high school dropout among immigrant and native Hispanic youth. International Migration Review, 33, 857-875.

Dwairy, M, (2004). Parenting styles and mental health of Arab gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 275-286.

Dwairy, M. (in press). Parenting styles and psychological adjustment of Arab adolescents. Transcultural Psychiatry.

Education Trust (2000). Honor in the boxcar Washington, DC: Education Trust.

Ellwood, D., & Kane, T. (2000). Who is getting a college education? Family background and the growing gaps in enrollment. In S. Danziger & J. J. Waldfogel (Eds.), Securing the future: Investing in children from birth to college (pp. 282-324). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Exum, H. (1983). Key issues in family counseling with gifted and talented black students. Roeper Review, 5, 28-31.

Farmer, H. S. (1976). What inhibits achievement and career motivation in women? The Counseling Psychologist, 6, 12-14.

Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Filipelli, L. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1997). Childhood traits and conditions of eminent women scientists. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 95-103.

Ford, D. Y. (1992). Determinants of underachievement among gifted, above-average, and average Black students. Roeper Review, 14, 130-136.

Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students; school success: Coping with the burden of acting white. The Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Friedman, R. C. (1994). Upstream helping for low-income families of gifted students: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 5, 321-338.

Gabor, A. (1995). Einstein's wife: Work and marriage in the lives of five twentieth century women. New York: Penguin Books.

Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (Eds.). (1983). Stress, coping, and development in children. New York: McGraw Hill.

Gay, G. (1993). Building cultural bridges. Education and urban society, 25, 285-299.

Gentemann, K. M., & Whitehead, T. L. (1983). The cultural broker concept in bicultural education. Journal of Negro Education, 54, 118-129.

Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 179-183.

Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ early developmental aspects: The Fullerton longitudinal study. New York: Plenum Press.

Graham, L. O. (1999). Our kind of people: Inside America's Black upper class. New York: Harper Collins.

Harris, A. (1986). Ride a blue horse. Anchorage, AK: Anchorage PR Plays.

Hauser, R., Simmons, S., & Pager, D. (2001). High school droput, race-ethnicity, and social background from the 1970's to the 1990's. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Department of Sociology.

Hebert, T. (1993). Ethnographic descriptions of the high school experiences of high ability males in an urban environment. Storrs: University of Connecticut.

Hebert, T. (1996). Portraits of resilience: The urban life experiences of gifted Latino young men. Roeper Review, 19, 82-90.

Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hickam, H. (2000). Rocket boys. New York: Delta.

Hochschild, J. L. (2003). Social class in public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 821840.

hooks, B. (2000). Where we stand: Class matters. New York: Routledge.

Horn, L. & Bobbitt, L. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First generation students' math track, planning strategies, and context of support. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Horvat, E. M., & Antonio, A. L. (1999). "Hey, those shoes are out of uniform": African American girls in an elite high school and the importance of habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30, 317-342.

Horvat, E. M. & Lewis, K. S. (2003). Reassessing the "Burden of Acting White": The importance of peer groups in managing academic success. Sociology of Education, 76, 265-280.

Jones, S. (2003). Complex subjectivities: Class, ethnicity, and race in women's narratives of upward mobility. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 803-820.

Kane, T. (2001). College going and inequality: A literature review. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kastberg, S. M., & Miller, D. G. (1996). Of blue collars and ivory towers: Women from blue-collar backgrounds in higher education. In K. Arnold, K. Noble, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: New perspectives on female talent development (pp. 4967). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Kaufman, J. (2001, June 8). At elite universities, a culture of money highlights class divide. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A6.

Keister, L. A., & Moller, S. (2000). Wealth inequality in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 63-81.

Kerr, B. (1983, Fall). Raising aspirations of gifted girls. Vocational Guidance Quarterly. 32, 37-44.

Kerr, B. (1991). Smart girls, gifted women. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Kerr, B., Arnold, K., Martinez-Thorne, Y., & Napier, L. A. (1996, September). Gender's contributions to realizing talent over the life span: Old pitfalls, new paradigms. Panel presented at the Esther Katz Rosen Symposium on the Psychological Development of Gifted Children, Lawrence, KS.

Kuriloff, P., & Reichert, M. C. (2003). Boys of class, boys of color: Negotiating the academic and social geography of an elite independent school. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 751-770.

MacLeod, J. (1990). Ain't no makin' it: Aspirations & attainment in a low-income neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

McDonnell, L., McLaughlin, M., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Napier, L. A. (1996). Nine native women: Pursuing the doctorate and aspiring to positions of leadership. In K. Arnold, K. Noble, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: New perspectives on female talent development (pp. 133-147). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Noble, K. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1999). To thine own self be true: A new model of female talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 140-149.

Ogbu, J. U. (1988). Human intelligence testing: A cultural-ecological perspective. Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 68, 23-29.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2002). Parenting practices that promote talent development, creativity, and optimal adjustment. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, and S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional adjustment of gifted children: What do we know (pp. 205-212)? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Kulieke, M., & Buescher, T. (1987). The influence of the family environment on the development of talent: A literature review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 6-28.

Osborne, J. (1997). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational Psychology. 89, 728-735.

Ostrove, J. M. (2003). Belonging and wanting: Meanings of social class background for women's constructions of their college experiences. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 771-784.

Patton, J. M., & Townsend, B. L. (1997). Creating inclusive environment for African American children and youth with gifts and talents. Roeper Review, 20, 13-17.

Pipher, M. (1995). Reviving Ophelia. New York: Ballantine Books.

Potok, C. (1972). My name is Asher Lev. New York: Random House.

Read. C. R. (1991). Gender distribution in programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 13, 188-193,

Reis. S. M. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted child Quarterly, 31, 83-88.

Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Choices and compromises of talented women. Storrs, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1996). My boyfriend, my girlfriend, or me: The dilemma of talented teenage girls. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 2, 434-446.

Rimm, S. B., Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Rimm, I. (1999). See Jane win: The Rimm report on how 1000 girls became successful women. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. New York: Bantam Books.

Rubinowitz, L., & Rosenbaum, J. (2000). Crossing the class and color lines: From public housing to white suburbia. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rumberger, R., & Thomas, S. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73, 39-67.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

Shumow, L. (1997). Daily experiences and adjustment of gifted low-income urban children at home and school. Roeper Review, 20, 35-38.

Silverman, L. K. (1995). Why are there so few eminent women? Roeper Review, 18, 5-13.

Spielhagen, F. R. (1996). Perceptions of achievement among high-potential females between 9 and 26 years of age. In K. Arnold, K. Noble, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 193-208). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Stellers, S. L. (2001). Social mobility and psychological distress: Differences among black American men and women. African American Research Perspectives, 7, 117-147.

Strom, R., Strom, S., Strom, P., & Collingsworth, P. (1994). Parents' competence in families with gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 39-54.

Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1996). Success and sacrifice: The costs of talent fulfillment for women in science. In K. Arnold, K. Noble, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: New perspectives on female talent development (pp. 263-280). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Suskind, R. (1998). A hope in the unseen. New York: Broadway Books.

Tea, M. (Ed.). (2003). Working without a net: The female experience of growing up working class. Emeryville, CA: Seal Books.

Tomlinson-Keasey, C., & Blurton, E. U. (1992). Gifted women's lives: Aspirations, achievements, and personal adjustment. In J. Carlson (Ed.), Cognition and educational practice: An international perspective (pp. 151-176). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Townsend. B. L., & Patton, J. M. (1995). Three "warring souls" of African American high school students, International Association of Special Education monograph, 1-8.

Tresemer, D. (1977). Fear of success. New York: Plenum.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1989). The role of the family in the success of disadvantaged gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 22-36.

Walker, B. A., & Mehr, M. (1992). The courage to achieve: Why America's brightest women struggle to fulfill their promise. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Wentworth, P. A., & Peterson. B. E. (2001). Crossing the line: Case studies of identity development in first-generation college women. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 9-21.

Werner, E. E. (1984). Resilient children. Young Children. 40, 68-72.

West, C. (1993). Race matters. Boston: Beacon Press.

Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.

Zappia. (1989). Identification of gifted Hispanic students: A multidimensional view. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Defensible programs for gifted students from underserved populations: Cultural and ethnic minorities (pp. 10-26). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Maureen Neihart, Psy.D., is a licensed clinical child psychologist in Laurel, MT. Dr. Neihart's special interests include children at risk and high performance coaching. She dreams of a literary life, and is currently working on a novel about the humanity of inner city adolescents. E-mail: [e-mail]