Project STREAM: a 13-year follow-up of a pre-college program for middle- and high-school underrepresented gifted.

"Those who have the potential for succeeding as gifted adults require not only the personal attributes often mentioned in definitions of giftedness, but also some special encounters with the environment to facilitate the emergence of talent" (A. J. Tannenbaum, personal communication, August 4, 2006).

Finding those special encounters that will ignite interests and fuel talent development in gifted individuals is essential to the mission of gifted education. Men and women of greatness do not rise Aphrodite-like from the sea of youth with talents and abilities full-blown, ready to offer their gifts and talents to society. Instead, their histories reveal a background of exploratory experiences, encounters with role models, mentors, and multiple opportunities to challenge and develop their special potential (American Association of Gifted Children, 1979; Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993). Sometimes parents provide the necessary experiential encounters for their gifted child, but society cannot depend upon this. More often this responsibility is entrusted to educators who are expected to identify gifted and talented potential and to find the means to help it become realized.

In recent years, two of the most demanding challenges to educators of the gifted have been the identification of gifts and abilities in culturally different and economically disadvantaged youth and the building of programs to develop their talents. This is not a new issue in gifted education (Baldwin, Gear, & Lucito, 1980; Bernal, 1974; Frasier, 1989b; Passow, 1972), but changing demographics and heightened awareness regarding the lack of proportionate representation of certain minority groups and low-income students in gifted and talented programs across the nation (Richert, 2003; Ross, 1993) have pressed leaders in gifted education to focus on these missing youth. This challenge is formidable, part of an unresolved national crisis related to equity, ethical, and excellence issues. Success is elusive, and despite years of school reform many "minorities and economically disadvantaged children are still not reaching their full academic potential" (Cavazos, 2002, p. 695).

Educators of the gifted and talented have responded to the challenge in multiple ways. New paradigms have been advanced in response to societal changes, shifting demographics, and the current concerns of the gifted movement (Feldman, 1991; Gallagher, 2000; Renzulli & Purcell, 1996). Revised theories of giftedness reflect more inclusiveness that embraces a wider variety of abilities and talents (Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1981). Educators continue to seek alternative means of identification to match the multidimensional definition of giftedness (Borland & Wright, 1994; Clasen, 1993; Frasier, 1994; Maker, 1996; Reid, Udall, Romanoff, & Algozzine, 1999). Specific efforts have concentrated on programs designed to recognize and to develop a range of talents in traditionally underserved groups. Program examples indicate the diversity of approaches: in-school modifications (Nielsen, Higgins, & Hammond, 1993; Renzulli & Reis, 1997); family support (Hiatt, 1994); and university/school collaborations (Goertz, Phemister, & Bernal, 1996). The need for teacher training and staff development in identifying and programming for underrepresented students also has been addressed (Moon, Callahan, & Tomlinson, 1999; Siegle & Powell, 2004).

Support for change has come from a variety of sources. Since its inception, the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1989 has assisted research and development of innovative identification methods and programming for culturally different and economically disadvantaged students throughout the nation. As a result, a broadened selection of procedures exists for finding giftedness and gifted potential in diverse populations, such as performance-based assessments of linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial abilities (Maker, Nielson, & Rogers, 1994) and K-2 student-behavior observation protocols (Griffin & McKenzie, 1993). Program concepts also have been expanded with models developed in settings ranging from distressed urban areas (Becker, 1993; Kay & Subotnik, 1994) to impoverished rural areas (Spicker, 1992, Swanson, 1995). Grants also have provided underrepresented youth with unique opportunities such as the 7+ plan for promoting potential (Baldwin, 1994) and Damiani's (1996) Individual Family Support Plan. (See Robinson, 1994, for descriptions of additional Javits projects.)

Innovative programs for able minority and low-income students also have been supported by state departments of education, colleges, and universities working in collaboration with elementary and secondary schools (Clasen, 2003; Jones, Yonezawa, Ballesteros & Mehan, 2002). Such partnerships have resulted in a variety of pre-college programs designed to promote the skills needed for academic success, while also providing students direct access to college and university campuses. These pre-college programs are advocated as one of the most promising means for influencing high-school graduation rates and a college-orientation in high-ability minority students who often do not consider higher education an option (Loza, 2003; Lyall, 1991; Perna, 2000).

It is the identification of underrepresented students for participation in pre-college programs and the efficacy of educational interventions that are of specific interest in this paper. Certainly the literature on gifted is replete with descriptions and studies of pre-college programs (e.g., Feldhusen, 1991; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2003; Parker, 1998). Few studies, however, have investigated the long-term effect of pre-college programs for underrepresented gifted on later performance, such as, high-school graduation and participation in higher education (Loza, 2003). Even successful programs often have no research base to indicate which elements of the program work and which do not (Levine & Nidiffer, 1996). Further, while research offers substantial evidence of the long-term positive effects of pre-college and accelerated opportunities for students identified by rigorous academic measures (Lubinski & Benbow, 1994; Swiatek, 1993), there is scant information on long-term academic success of gifted underrepresented students who have been identified using both academic and nonacademic measures, especially when students have been identified in elementary or middle school.

Upward Bound and A Better Chance (ABC) have been recognized as two successful transition programs bridging the gap between high school and college for minority and low-income students. Providing long-term participation with focus on skills and a college orientation, both programs have reported a significant number of their participants entering post-secondary education (Levine and Nidiffer, 1996). The Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program, Inc. (DAPCEP), a collaboration between Detroit secondary schools and area universities to increase the representation of minority students in science and engineering, also reported success (Alamprese, Erlanger, & Brigham, 1988).

While noting "the limited studies done to gauge their effectiveness," Loza (2003, p. 50) concluded that pre-college programs are making inroads in closing the gap between minority and non-minority students entering higher education. Thus, in finding and serving traditionally underrepresented gifted, it is probable that pre-college programs increasingly will become a programming option, especially when advocated by university administration (Lyall, 1991).

Many students selected for pre-college experiences likely will be identified by an array of assessments designed to locate diverse abilities and talents, and the long-term efficacy of these identifiers needs to be evaluated. So, too, must the educational interventions designed to promote the abilities of culturally different gifted be evaluated longitudinally (Gallagher, 2000). This need to address the issue of time in research on giftedness has been noted by Subotnik and Arnold (1993). While recognizing that longitudinal studies have serious drawbacks, such as mobility of subjects and difficulty in acquiring responses, the authors argued that results outweigh the drawbacks. They captured their position in a succinct statement: "Knowing whether we have chosen the right people or intervened in useful ways depends on what becomes of individuals marked as gifted and treated through education" (p. 118).

One explanation for the lack of research on pre-college programs is the fact that most are developed by partnerships or collaborations, undertakings that can be challenging to evaluate. While multiple benefits are accrued to partnerships--shared expertise, expanded resources, exchange of diverse perspectives--for the researcher, partnerships can be a mare's nest. They are usually complex, difficult to describe, hostile to evaluation: independent variables often are elusive or fuzzy; multiple means of delivering services, especially in several sites, makes evaluation difficult; and the various interests of stakeholders, such as the school district or university, may necessitate compromise on the part of the researcher, thus weakening evaluation designs and findings (Knapp, 1995).

With these challenges acknowledged, this paper reports a 13-year follow-up of a university/school, pre-college partnership program funded initially by a 3-year Jacob Javits grant. The partnership was designed to impact the underrepresentation of gifted minority and low-income students in gifted programs in participating schools and to promote systematic pre-college opportunities intended to increase the likelihood of high-ability minority students graduating from high school and continuing in higher education. Project STREAM (Support, Training and Resources for Educating Able Minorities) was funded in December 1989 and began operating in 1990 (see Appendix). Following grant sponsorship, the program was supported in subsequent years by the university system, partnership schools, and the state Department of Public Instruction, thus maintaining program continuity for participants during high school and allowing for identification of additional cohort groups. Although the Javits grant supported the collaboration between three universities, one university governed the grant, where the program director was on faculty. The current study reviews the program developed at the governing university.

The purpose of the 13-year follow-up was to assess program efficacy over time, especially its degree of long-term success in reaching the goals of high-school graduation, college enrollment, and college graduation. Related to this purpose was the attempt to provide data relative to the efficacy of certain nonacademic means of identification (problem-solving, art, and leadership) in contrast to grade point average or teacher nomination of underachieving students with academic potential. In addition, both quantitative and qualitative data were used to analyze program components in terms of how they might have influenced primary goals.

Three principal questions were addressed: (a) To what extent were the primary program goals achieved: participants' graduation from high school, matriculation in and graduation from an institution of higher learning? (b) How effective over time were academic and non-academic identification measures in terms of student outcomes? and (c) Did certain program components seem to relate to project success or failure in terms of student outcomes?

Background

Partnership leadership included STREAM staff, school liaisons, key classroom teachers, summer staff, selected university faculty, the deans of the College of Education and of Outreach and Continuing Education, and the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Support. At their respective levels, all were regular participants in program formation and development. The leadership team represented the ethnic diversity of the participants.

Program Premises and Design

STREAM was founded on three basic premises. First, talents and abilities are distributed equally without regard to gender, race, or ethnicity. Second, multiple kinds of talents exist, and identification and programming must correspond accordingly. Third, forces working in collaboration are more likely to effect change than forces operating independently.

Giftedness was defined as potential or demonstrated ability for superior performance in the following areas: general or specific academic, artistic, leadership, and problem solving. This multidimensional definition reflected national and state definitions as well as many contemporary views of giftedness.

The overarching conceptual model for the program was Julian Stanley's Talent Search model (Stanley, 1979). Although STREAM had radical differences from the Stanley model, it also had some critical Talent Search elements, including early identification (sixth or seventh grade) of high-ability students, fast-paced offerings, college explorations, and commitment to assist identified students from middle through high school. Identification and programming procedures were influenced by the multiple intelligences theory of Gardner (1983), the multiple identification approaches of Baldwin (1984) and Frasier (1989a), and the curriculum differentiation process of Kaplan (1986).

STREAM had four major student components: (a) identification of gifted minority students and in-school accommodations to meet their educational needs; (b) a summer campus residency; (c) out-of-school offerings and Saturday classes at area universities; and (d) at least one visit per semester to an institution of higher learning. Three program elements supported the student components: (a) systematic planning with teachers and liaisons; (b) in-school meetings with students where program staff, guest speakers, and students discussed topics ranging from study skills to peer pressure; and (c) meetings with parents or guardians of the students.

In-school accommodations varied across districts. In all four districts, needs of identified gifted students in middle school were met primarily within the regular classroom. Nevertheless, middle-school administrators identified several classes as advanced or more challenging, and a majority of the STREAM students were eventually placed in these classes. To assist classroom teachers, university classes or workshops focusing on differentiated curriculum were offered in all districts. When a gifted and talented program existed in the district, many students identified for STREAM were invited to participate in the program, thus contributing to additional school recognition of underrepresented students as gifted and talented.

Fast-paced offerings were given in both academic (communication, science, research, and technology) and non-academic (art, design, and theater) areas in the summer residency, during the school year in Saturday university classes and out-of-school sessions. In high school, Advanced and Honors classes were available in all schools.

Program Formation

Subjects. Participating schools were in four school districts: urban, suburban, mid-size, and rural. Students were identified in all district middle schools, except the urban, where three middle schools were involved. Students were identified in sixth (primarily) or seventh grade, with the exception of 13 qualifying eighth graders considered extremely at-risk by teachers. Approximately 15% (n = 204) of the minority populations in target grades across the participating schools were identified for program participation, urban (n = 102); suburban (n = 35); mid-size (n = 29); rural (n = 38); 112 females and 92 males. Ethnic groups included African-American (n = 124), Latino (n = 62), Southeast Asian (n = 14), and Native American (n = 4). Forty nine percent were economically disadvantaged as determined by free lunch and support for involvement in activities such as band or orchestra.

Identification. Identification criteria fell into seven categories and were both academic and non-academic, with three being quantitative and four qualitative. Students were considered potential program candidates by qualifying in any one of the categories. In some instances, identification means varied slightly among schools in order to adjust to specific needs and demands of a school district. Following identification, each eligible student was interviewed by staff to assess motivation and willingness to be involved for at least 1 year.

Quantitative criteria included the following:

1. Contextual Problem Solving. Contextual problem-solving included two problems in which the student could imagine actually playing a part: a baby-sitting incident and school truancy. Assessments were scored by trained graduate students for ideational fluency and flexibility. Interrater reliability was r = .85 for flexibility and r = .96 for fluency.

2. Art Assessment. An art measurement assessed seven levels of drawing and conceptual ability (Cornia, Stubbs, & Winters, 1983). Raters were experienced middle-school art teachers trained to use the assessment (r = .96). Minority students in the top 5% of problem-solving or art ratings were eligible for program participation. (See Clasen, Middleton, & Connell, 1994 for a more detailed description.) (c) Grade Point Average. Minority students with a grade point average (GPA) of 3.5 or above were eligible on the basis of general academic ability. Students achieving a GPA of 3.0-3.49 and often with high ability in a specific area such as math or language were considered for admission when recommended by the school liaison or gifted coordinator.

Qualitative criteria included the following:

1. Identification by experts. In two districts, students with high ability in problem solving and art were identified by experts, rather than scored assessments. Art teachers identified students on the basis of extant work, and coaches of groups such as Odyssey of the Mind identified outstanding problem solvers.

2. Teacher nomination, academic potential, academics in a specific area, and leadership. Following training, classroom teachers filled out nomination forms including the Renzulli-Hartman Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics (Renzulli, Smith, Callahan, White, & Hartman, 1977) and a screening questionnaire asking teachers to identify underachieving minority students with high potential in 13 areas, including 3 used for identification to STREAM: general potential, specific academic, and leadership. Students identified by two or more teachers were considered potential participants.

At district request, urban school teachers used only the screening questionnaire. The use of alternative identifiers demonstrates the necessity for partner negotiation and compromise. Assessments, however, served a second purpose: Administrators concluded that teacher participation in the process resulted in wider recognition of giftedness as multidimensional and a greater acceptance of students being placed in advanced classes or in a special program.

Finally, written permission or informed consent of parents or guardians was required for release of grades, use of assessments, and student interviews. Parents or guardians received information in English, Spanish, or Hmong via mailings and community meetings.

13-Year Follow-Up

Subjects

Subjects (n = 158) for the longitudinal study included those students from the original 204 middle-school students qualifying for STREAM for whom school records or contact persons were available 13 years later. The sample included 74 males and 84 females. Four ethnic groups were represented: African American (n = 95); Latino (n = 48); Southeast Asian (n = 11); and Native American (n = 4). Each of the original four school districts was represented: Urban (n = 81), suburban (n = 28), midsize (n = 23), and rural (n = 26).

Data Collection

Follow-up quantitative data included (a) high-school graduation, yes/no; (b) high-school exit grade point average; (c) matriculation in an institution of higher learning, yes/no; and (d) graduation from an institution of higher learning, yes/no. Students' schools provided data on graduation from high school and exiting grade point average (GPA). School personnel, students and their families provided data on attendance at college and college graduation. Data for each student from initial entry into the program included (a) demographics, (b) means of identification, and (c) entry GPA. Participation data were available from yearly program records.

Follow-up qualitative data included surveys from STREAM graduates requesting current career information and evaluation of the program in terms of their academic decision making. Surveys were mailed or delivered to seniors in their schools (n = 92). Eleven were undeliverable. When a phone number was available, follow-up calls were made to non-respondents, resulting in a return of 43 surveys, 53% of the surveys delivered (n = 81). Other qualitative data included random samples of evaluations and interviews collected over the course of the program.

Analyses

Using the SSPS package, version 10, statistical tests were done to determine any significant differences in the relationship between independent variables and outcomes. Parametric analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), was used to determine any differences between groups on grades. The non-parametric chi-square ([chi square]) test was used for data in the form of frequency counts, for example, the criterion variables of high-school completion, continuing education in an institution of higher learning, and graduation.

Surveys and summer evaluations were analyzed using frequency counts. Data from interviews were subjected to content analysis requiring inferential categories. Responses that appeared to be identical or very similar were grouped, and once a sufficient number of statements was available, the category was labeled. Analyses and sorts were done by trained graduate students and reviewed by two university faculty.

Results

High-School Graduation

1. Sixty-eight percent (n = 107) of the 158 students in the sample graduated from high school, 47 males and 60 females.

2. There were no graduation records for 32% (n = 51) of the students in this group, 27 males and 24 females. For students with no graduating record, the files were marked "dropped," "left school," or only the last grade was registered. Seven were identified by schools as having left the state with no requests for transfer of transcripts. Eleven students left school to work in family businesses. Attempts to reach non-graduates were largely unsuccessful.

Higher Education

3. At the time of data collection (2000-2003), 60% (n = 64) of the 107 high-school graduates (40.5% of the 158) were enrolled in an institution of higher learning or already had graduated with an advanced degree. The 64 students included 6 who had dropped out of college for 1 to 2 years for personal reasons but were resuming their studies.

College Graduation

4. Of the 64 students in the sample seeking high education degrees, 42% (n = 27) (17% of the 158) were reported (by self-report, school personnel, or family) to have graduated from an institution of higher learning, primarily a college or university, with degrees in business, teaching, psychology, art and design, and engineering. Based on entry age, the average age of this group was 22, with almost all graduating in 4 or 5 years of matriculation. Eight were continuing their education, seeking advanced degrees, such as a PhD or law degree.

No significant differences by gender or race were found for any of the three outcome variables. A significant relationship, [chi square](df 9, 158) = 17.32, p = .044, was found between outcomes and school districts. The mid-size school was most successful with 91% of participants (n = 21) graduating from high school and 70% (n = 16) continuing in higher education.

Identification Means and Outcomes. To investigate relationships between student outcomes and independent variables, chi-square ([chi square]) tests were done as well as analyses of variance (ANOVA). Three questions were of particular interest: (a) How did non-academic assessments as the primary form of identification compare with academic criteria in terms of outcomes? (b) Were certain combinations of identifiers especially effective in terms of academic criteria? (c) Did multipotentialities make a difference in terms of outcomes?

1. Primary identifier. Students may have qualified in more than one category, but the first score qualifying a student was considered the primary identifier. Since nonacademic assessments were of special interest; students were first selected from the top 5% in problem-solving or art. No significant differences for either of these were found between identification by scored assessment or expert. Leadership nominations were considered next. Students were then selected by grade point average and for potential by teacher nomination.

In terms of high-school graduation, no significant differences were found among identification measures, with one exception. Chi-square dispersion of data indicated that teacher nomination of underachieving students with potential was negatively associated with graduation rates. Students nominated for potential were less likely to graduate from high school than students identified by any other measure.

Overall, in terms of outcomes, identification in art served less well than other non-academic assessments in relation to academic outcomes. Although students with art ability as the primary identifier received various state and, in one case, national recognition for their artistic talent, slightly only over half graduated from high school, and less than half of these graduates continued in higher education. Table 1 shows the distribution of primary identifiers in terms of all outcomes.

2. Primary Identifier in Combinations. When students would have qualified on more than one identifier, some combinations seemed especially effective. For example, a combination of problem-solving ability and leadership, with either being the primary identifier, was significant, [chi square](df 6,158) = 21.738, p = .001, in terms of outcomes. Students with high ability in both were significantly more likely to continue education and complete an advanced program than students with neither of the skills. Significant relationships with outcomes were also found between problem-solving identifiers and GPA, [chi square](df 3,158) = 18.456, p = .000) and leadership and GPA, [chi square](df 3,158) = 17.993, p = .000.

While GPA was important, an entry GPA of 3.50 or above was not critical to success: The majority of students with primary identifiers in problem solving, art, or leadership who graduated from high school and continued in higher education were admitted with a GPA between 3.0 and 3.49. Maintaining a strict 3.5 entry level GPA criterion would have eliminated more than two-thirds of the students in these three first admittance categories who later proved to be successful in terms of outcomes. Nevertheless, grade point averages were good predictors of success. Although not always as their primary identifier, 45 students entered the program with a 3.5 GPA or above. Of these students, 38 graduated from high school and 22 continued in higher education.

3. Multipotentialities. Students who would have qualified on more than one criteria were more likely to be successful on all three outcome criteria than students qualifying on only one assessment. While the finding that having multiple abilities increased the likelihood of academic success indicates the aggregate power of different abilities, it also documents that many underrepresented students possess multiple potentialities.

Program Participation. In terms of evaluating program effectiveness, the relationship between student outcomes and student involvement in the program was a pivotal question, and both quantitative and qualitative data addressed the issue.

Four levels of program participation were identified: (a) high level = 5-6 years of active involvement, including summer institutes, campus exploration days, and out-of-school activities; (b) mid-high level = 2 or more summers on campus, 3 or more years involved in 3 or more out-of school activities each year; (c) low level = less than 2 years involvement in summer institute or out-of-school activities; and (d) no involvement: dropped after participation in one or two activities.

Chi-square analysis, [chi square](df 9, 157) = 57.013, p = .000, indicated significant differences between degrees of participation and combined student outcomes: The more program involvement, the more likely students were to graduate from high school and continue their education. Of the high-level participants, 97% (n = 33) graduated from high school, and 88% (n = 30) of these high-school graduates enrolled in an institution of higher learning, with 44% (n = 15) having graduated from college at the time of data collection. A similar interaction was found between mid-level participants and outcomes. No significant differences in participation were found by gender, ethnicity, school, or means of identification, indicating no bias toward individuals on the basis of gender, ethnicity, or location. Figure 1 graphs the interaction between participation levels and program criteria. Participation data were incomplete for one student and dropped from the analyses. Findings suggest that involvement in a long-term program designed to develop an academic orientation may have substantial impact on the educational choices of underrepresented students of high ability. Most notable is the finding that 88% of the high-level participants attended or completed college while available information indicated that only 5% of the non-participants continued in higher education.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Surveys and Interview Data

Qualitative data were used to assess participant opinions of the program and to identify program components perceived to be effective contributors to achievement of outcomes. Student surveys (n = 43) and random samples of summer residency evaluations (n = 77) involved Lickert-type responses. Interviews with students, school liaisons, staff, and parents (n = 24) were subjected to content analysis.

Survey respondents ranked the importance of seven program components previously identified as critical to the program: summer programs, school-year activities, developing friendships, working with students of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, working with university faculty, working with summer staff, and becoming familiar with a university. Questions were ranked 1-5 on importance: not very, a little bit, important, quite, and very. Using the same scale, a separate question asked "How important overall was STREAM in helping you decide to go to college?" The survey also invited comments.

On the question of overall importance of the program to career decisions, 88% of the respondents ranked the program "important" or "very important." The three top-ranked program components were (a) becoming familiar with a college campus (93%); (b) summer programs (89%); and (c) working with students of diverse backgrounds (88%). Eighty-five percent evaluated the summer residency program as "very important" to their success in school.

Voluntary comments indicated that students perceived the program as bridging both psychological and academic gaps as they made transitions from middle to high school and later to higher education: "I made great friends in the programs, and we helped each other hang onto our goals. Deep down, I think we all began to have different dreams of the future because of the program." "Over and over we heard that this (college) was where we belonged if that was what we wanted. Pretty soon you come to believe it."

Content analysis of interviews (n = 24) with students, school liaisons, staff, and parents generated four categories of program characteristics considered critical to successful student outcomes.

1. Stability. Stability for many of the students was not a given; and students often noted their trust in the consistency of the program. Parents viewed the long-term opportunities and the stability and quality of the staff as most important. Faculty, several of whom were involved all 13 years, noted that the long-term interactions allowed them to follow students developmentally, nurturing and challenging their academic, emotional, and social growth as appropriate.

2. Sense of community. Student responses indicated that the program gave them a sense of belonging, of "being part of something special." "I look forward to being on campus all year." "I make sure that I can get time off (from summer job) so I can be there with everyone." Thirteen years later in an unsolicited e-mail, a former student participant wrote: "This program gave me friends for life. We stay in touch to this very day. Thank you."

3. Challenging curriculum. Students indicated that the curriculum gave them a definite edge in school, specifically in research, writing, and technology. One junior noted, "We wouldn't be coming each time if we didn't get lots out of it." Several referenced university classes: "They really gave me a head start." And, "Mostly they gave me confidence in myself."

4. University campus experiences. Students, staff, and parents all noted the value of multiple campus experiences and their impact on expectations. One parent said, "We really sort of discouraged college before this program. Now we know (our child) can go." A student wrote, "When I first got involved in the program in sixth grade, I didn't know whether I wanted to go to college or not. Since I started ... getting to know people, the whole experience, I can't miss that."

Several questions are raised by the findings: What mediating factors might best promote clusters of potentialities in underrepresented students? How might we best match curricula with ability? How and when might interventions for underrepresented youth be most effective? How do we guarantee opportunity, especially in long-term commitments?

Discussion

The current study addresses aspects of two critical issues related to underrepresented gifted: identification and programming. It also speaks to the issue of evaluation over time, considering both assessments and programming in terms of effectiveness on later performance. Overall, the findings reinforce arguments for multiple forms of identification, both academic and non-academic, and offer encouragement for the development of stable pre-college programs for underrepresented gifted students. Recognizing that programs that work in one setting may need modifications in another, the following discussion is intended to share and explore ideas that may transcend venues and institutional structures.

Identification

Except for teacher nomination of underachieving students, in general, both non-traditional and traditional identifiers worked. Findings are not an argument to set aside traditional measurements but instead to cast as wide a net as possible using a combination of traditional and alternative assessments. This is consistent with the position that identification of "all" potentially gifted students should involve multiple, alternative criteria (Frasier, 1994; Renzulli & Purcell, 1996).

Problem-solving ability, recognized as an indicator of giftedness by numerous researchers (Maker, 1996; Mumford, Connelly, Baughman, & Marks, 1994; Sternberg, 1981), seemed an especially effective predictor of later academic performance. Leadership also seemed to be a good predictor. This positive interaction of problem-solving and leadership skills with academic success over time suggests that gifted, as well as other students, would be well-served by a healthy infusion of problem- and inquiry-based learning and leadership activities in school curricula. This seems especially important today when many gifted students are expected to have their educational needs met in the regular classroom.

Findings on art identification were somewhat surprising since the program provided summer and school-year offerings in art areas. While artistic ability should be identified, resultant offerings must be congruent with identification. Thus a better match might be a specific arts program, with academic goals well-integrated with art enrichment. Flexibility in time and space also should be considered. Our students often sought their own space and defined time, even dismissing lunch--or another class--to persevere on a task. Perhaps these artists will find personal means of developing their talents, as did one talented artist who left high school to work as a cartoonist.

In terms of academic success, grades were important, especially an entry GPA of 3.5 or above. Nevertheless, findings suggest flexibility regarding GPA as an identifier since a majority of students with an entry level of GPA between 3.0 and 3.49 and with strengths in problem solving and leadership were successful in terms of outcomes.

Although teacher nomination of underachieving students with potential did not relate positively to future academic performance, it seems likely that program emphasis on potential played a role here, and it was as Siegle and Powell (2004) suggested: Teachers were desirous of not overlooking a potentially gifted student and may have been overly generous in nominations, especially when assessing academic potential in sixth grade. However, interactions with nominated students indicated that, although very bright, some were already dismissive of the role of education in their life. For some of these young people, a program designed to enhance student abilities and academic confidence for eventual, but not immediate, involvement in a gifted program might have been the best fit (Baldwin, 1994). Such a program would involve working with family, opportunities for counseling, and interactions with role models and mentors.

Several identification aspects argue for earlier identification and intervention for underrepresented students. Despite program intervention, low, middle-school entry grade averages were largely unaffected over time. Also, by sixth grade, some talents were being dismissed. Learning of his outstanding score in art, one student responded, "Yeah, but that don't count for nothing."

Programming

One of the most promising findings in the study was the significant, positive relationship between student academic outcomes and student participation in the pre-college program. For many, the program was regarded as a place for academic support and an experience that crystallized their thoughts about entering higher education. Perhaps just as important, it was perceived as a source of interpersonal support, providing a network of significant relationships with peers and adults.

Program Organization. STREAM's stability for over 13 years was due to the collaboration of multiple individuals and institutions all bound with a common goal, to improve educational opportunities for high-ability minority and low-income students. Achievement of such a challenging goal is dependent on forces working together; it cannot be achieved alone. Partnerships are not always easy, but when based on parity of esteem among members, partnerships can flourish from the sharing of common goals, an exchange of ideas and practices, and an on-going support network (Goodlad, 1991).

Programs with the promise of long-term commitment are particularly important to youth who may be unsure of their abilities, whose life experiences are less than stable, and whose families may be unable to provide the opportunities needed to fulfill potential. This is not to diminish the value of short-term programs. It is to say that for some students they are not enough. For some, trust and emotional security must be established before the academic and talent development will begin to flourish. This takes time. And programs for middle-school youth need time to address normal adolescent issues, such as peer pressure, while concurrently addressing talent development and an academic orientation. Further, trust among staff, students, and teachers also takes time to develop.

Program size, often influenced by funding sources that look for large numbers of participants, can be a determinant of success. At times, the smaller unit may be most effective, especially when goals are long-term and program organization is complex. In this case, a smaller group in the residency program and out-of-school classes increased instructors' opportunities to assess abilities and to individualize instruction. The smaller group also contributed to a sense of community and a student-developed network of friendships across districts.

Curriculum & Activities. One of the program's challenges was to provide rigorous and meaningful academic activities structured for only 1 or 2 weeks in the summer. What seemed to work well was a problem-based curriculum, centered around a current relevant event or a theme important to the age group, such as, excellence, change, or power. Much teaching was teamed, allowing overlap of curriculum in content and targeted skills.

One 2-week summer unit, a favorite of students, can serve as an exemplar. High-school students assumed roles on the U.S. Judiciary Committee which at that time was considering the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court (prior to Anita Hill). After 2 weeks of research on Mr. Thomas' legal decisions, including work in the law library of a major university, and the development and analysis of a survey given to university students and faculty, students debated their findings and defended their individual decisions with a group of university and community members. Mr. Thomas did not win approval, but it was not a unanimous decision.

Campus Experiences. Living on campus, using university resources, and interacting with university faculty and students gave STREAM students a sense of comfort with university life. One student's comment was typical: "They (faculty, staff) made me feel that I could fit in here." And another, "I know how college works. Wherever I go, I know I can succeed." Campus experiences should start early, at least by middle school, for underrepresented students and their parents who may not even be considering college. This is also an opportune time for parents to learn about scholarships, financial aid, and campus resources as well as to observe their children having success in college settings.

It was our experience that universities and colleges were very willing to participate in student visitations, with faculty, including renowned professors, offering sessions ranging from chemistry magic to music recording. Concerned with the enrollment gap between minority and low-income students and majority, affluent students, faculty recognize that enrolling currently eligible students is insufficient and that the university must assist in increasing the pool of eligible minority students (Jones, Yonezawa, Ballesteros, & Mehan, 2002).

Evaluation. One other program element was critical: systematic evaluations. First, funding sources expected accountability, and evaluation reports played a substantial role in the long-term commitment of supporters. Second, summative and formative findings provided a research base for program development. Evaluation provided staff with data on what was or was not working and offered both advocates and critics evidence of program effectiveness.

Special Issues. The program was not without its difficulties. Attrition was one concern. Some students dropped out for work or family obligations. Some left the program because "I just didn't want to work that hard," or "I didn't want to be separated from my friends," or "It won't make a difference for me anyway." We lost a few extremely bright students to gangs. The loss of these students underscored the need for programs to prepare for students with potential who are not yet ready, academically or emotionally, for a more rigorous gifted program but who might become ready with special attention.

A second concern has been shared by others (Han& Marvin, 2000; Maker, 1996). In regard to underrepresented gifted youth, the program had little impact on a systemic paradigm change state-wise. Nevertheless, ownership of a new direction in gifted and talented at the foundational level must eventually come as educators continue to wrestle with national achievement and graduation gaps among minority and non-minority students. Educators of the gifted may not be winning the battle yet, but they seem far ahead in knowing what to do and, in many instances, how to do it.

Limitations. By their nature, longitudinal studies, especially those with relatively small numbers, have inherent problems: Loss of subjects is a serious issue. All trace of some is lost as subjects move or are in some instances deceased. The result may be a biased sample in the follow-up (Borg & Gall, 1989). For example, we do not know how many of the students whom we were unable to contact may have continued their education in another venue.

Self-report can be suspect. Interviews also can be problematic in terms of validity. Data in the long-term studies may be lost or incomplete. In actual school settings, researchers and school personnel may have a tenuous alliance over time, and change in administrators or classroom teachers may result in either increased or decreased research or program support.

Conclusion

Success is measured in a variety of ways. In this study, it was measured by academic markers. Yet, we cannot say that students who did not graduate may not be successful--in contribution to society, professionally or personally. We do know, however, that statistics indicate that the lack of a high-school diploma and higher education are often associated with low-paying jobs, limited access to positions of power and prestige, and a cycle of poverty (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003, p. 274).

Appendix

STREAM was developed with a U.S. Department of Education Jacob Javits Grant #R206A00188 and support from the University of Wisconsin--Whitewater; UW Extension & Outreach, and the State Department of Public Instruction.

Manuscript submitted June 10, 2005. Revision accepted October 25, 2005.

REFERENCES

Alamprese, J. A., Erlanger, W. J., & Brigham, N. (1988). No gift wasted: Effective strategies for educating highly able. disadvantaged students in mathematics and science (Vol. 2). U.S. Department of Education: Office of Planning. Budget, and Evaluation.

American Association for Gifted Children (1979). On being gifted. New York: Walker & Company.

Baldwin. A. Y. (1984). The Baldwin Identification Matrix 2 for the identification of the gifted and talented: A handbook for its use. New York: Trillium Press.

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

Baldwin, A. Y., Gear, G. H., & Lucito, L. J. (Eds.). (1980). Educational planning for the gifted: Overcoming cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic barriers. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Becket, J. (1993). Urban scholars: Access to excellence for students and schools. In C. M. Callahan, C. A. Tomlinson, & P. M. Pizzat (Eds.) Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students (pp. 85-102).Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented.

Bernal, E. M. (1974). Gifted Mexican American children: An ethno-scientific perspective. California Journal of Educational Research, 25, 261-273.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.

Cavazos. L. F. (2002). Emphasizing performance goals and high-quality education for all students. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 690-697.

Clasen, D. R. (1993). Project STREAM: Support, training and resources for educating able minorities. In C. M. Callahan, C. A. Tomlinson, & P. M Pizzat (Eds.), Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students (pp. 1-21). Charlottesville. VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Clasen, D. R. (2003, January). Project STREAM: A long-term university/school partnership extending learning borders for education majors and school-age students of color: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.

Clasen, D. R., Middleton, J. A., & Connell, T. J. (1994). Assessing artistic and problem-solving performance in minority and non-minority students using a nontraditional multidimensional approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 27-32.

Cornia, I., Stubbs. C., & Winters, N. (1983). Art is elementary: Teaching visual thinking through art concepts. Layton, UT: Gibbs M. Smith.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Damiani, V. B. (1996). The Individual Family Support Plan: A tool to assist special populations of gifted learners. Roeper Review. 18, 293-297.

Feldman, D. H. (1991). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education? In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 89-94). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Saturday and summer programs. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 197-208), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Frasier, M. M. (1989a). Identification of gifted Black students: Developing new perspectives. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2, pp. 213 225). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Frasier, M. M. (1989b). Poor and minority students can be gifted, too. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 16-18.

Frasier, M. M. (1994). A manual for implementing the

Frasier Talent Assessment Profile (F-TAP): A multiple criteria model for the identification and education of gifted students. Athens, GA: Georgia Southern Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Changing paradigms for gifted education in the United States. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and relent (2nd ed., pp. 681 693). New York: Pergamon Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goertz, M. J., Phemister, L., & Bernal, E. M. (1996). The new challenge: An ethnically integrated enrichment program for gifted students. Roeper Review, 18, 298-300.

Goodlad, J. (1991). School-university partnerships. The Education Digest, 56, 58-61.

Griffin, N. S., & McKenzie, J. (1993). Nebraska Starry Night: A behavior-based observation protocol, version 8.893. Lincoln: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Han, K., & Marvin, C. (2000). A five year follow-up study of the Nebraska Project: Still a long way to go.... Roeper Review, 23, 25-33.

Hiatt, E. L. (1994). Promises to keep-The story of Project Promise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 85-88.

Jones, M., Yonezawa, S., Ballesteros, E., & Mehan, H. (2002). Shaping pathways to higher education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 3-11.

Kaplan, S. N. (1986). Qualitatively differentiated curricula. In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted (pp. 121-134). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Kay, S. I., & Subotnik, R. F. (1994). Talent beyond words: Unveiling spatial, expressive, kinesthetic, and musical talent in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 70-74.

Knapp, M. S. 0995). How shall we study comprehensive collaborative services for children and families? Educational-Researcher, 24(4),5 16.

Levine, A., & Nidiffer, J. (1996). Beating the odds: How the poor get to college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Loza, P. P. (2003). A system at risk: College outreach programs and the educational neglect of underachieving Latino high school students. The Urban Review, 35, 43-57.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1994). The study of mathematically precocious youth (SMPY): The first three decades of a planned fifty-year longitudinal study of intellectual talent. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and relent (pp. 255-281). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lyall, K. (1991, November). Precollege programs: Early intervention is our key to success. Paper presented at the Precollege Conference, Madison, WI.

Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.

Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 4-19.

Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., & Tomlinson. C. A. (1999). The effects of mentoring relationships on preservice teachers' attitudes toward academically diverse students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 56-62.

Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Baughman, W. A., & Marks, M. A. (1994). Creativity and problem solving: Cognition, adaptability, and wisdom. Roeper Review, 16, 241-246.

Nielsen, M. E., Higgins, L. D., & Hammond, A. E. (1993). The Twice-Exceptional Child Project: Identifying and serving gifted/handicapped learners. In C. M. Callahan, C. A. Tomlinson, & P. M. Pizzat (Eds.), Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students (pp. 145-168). Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2003). Special summer and Saturday programs for gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed., pp. 219-228). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Parker, J. P. (1998). The Torrance Creative Scholars Program. Roeper Review, 21, 32-35.

Passow, A. H. (1972). The gifted and the disadvantaged. The National Elementary Principal, 51, 24-31.

Perna, L. W. (2000). Promoting college enrollment through early intervention. The Eric Review, 8(1), 4-9.

Reid, C., Udall, A., Romanoff, B., & Algozzine, B. (1999). Comparison of traditional and problem solving assessment criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 252-264.

Renzulli, J. S., & Purcell, J. H. (1996). Gifted education: A look around and a look ahead. Roeper Review, 18, 173-178.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The school-wide enrichment model: New directions for developing high-end learning. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (2nd ed., pp. 136-154). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., Callahan. C., White, A., & Hartman, R. (1977). Scales far rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Richert, E. S. (2003). Excellence with justice in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 146-158). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Robinson, A. (Ed.). (1994). Javits Grant Projects [Special issue]. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38.

Ross, P. O. (Ed.). (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly. 48, 21-29.

Spicker, H. H. (1992). Identifying and enriching rural gifted children. Educational Horizons, 70, 60-65.

Stanley, J. C. (1979). The study and facilitation of talent in mathematics. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development. Seventy-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 169-185). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86-93.

Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1993). Time for a change. Roeper Review, 15, 118-120.

Swanson, J. D. (1995). Gifted African-American children in rural schools: Searching for the answers. Roeper Review, 17 261-266.

Swiatek, M. A. (1993). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 15, 120-124.

Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Donna Rae Clasen is professor emerita at the University of Wisconsin--Whitewater where she developed and directed Project STREAM. As a faculty member in the College of Education, she taught courses in gifted education, adolescent development, and educational psychology. Her special interests are underrrepresented gifted, adolescents, and program development.

Special recognition goes to Ms. Eve Hall, program associate, for her expertise, dedication to students and their families, and quality of character she brought to the program. School liaisons, staff, and teachers were remarkable individuals: gifted, talented, and always able to find one more solution to a problem. Thanks also to Gunnard Swanson and Bob Clasen for reviewing editions of the manuscript, to Shelby Connell for early assistance with data, and to reviewers for their thoughtful and meaningful suggestions.

Embedded in the figures and numbers of this study are real young people who have shown the capacity and the promise to become valuable contributors to their personal world as well as the large one. We do not know how many might have found success without academic and social support, but we do know that it is our task to ensure that all youth are offered opportunity. It is in this spirit that educators of the gifted take on the challenge of the introductory quote to this paper, the creation of special encounters that will facilitate talent development in all gifted and talented youth so that the result may be for all as it was for one young woman: "Because of the program, life is so much better because I am becoming the person I dreamed of being."

Table 1
Successful Outcomes for Students by
Primary Identifier

                             High-
              No record      school
  Primary        of        graduation   Attending
identifier    graduation      only       college

Problem           6            1           12
solving
(N = 25)

Art               5            6            2
(N = 17)

Grade point       15           16          11
average
(N = 53)

Leadership        4            5           11
(N= 26)

Teacher           21           15           1
nomination
(N = 37)

Total             51           43          37

                           Percent successful
                           on one or more
  Primary      College     outcomes by
identifier    graduation   primary identifier

Problem           6          19/25         76
solving
(N = 25)

Art               4          12/17         71%
(N = 17)

Grade point       11         38/53         72
average
(N = 53)

Leadership        6          22/26         85
(N= 26)

Teacher           0          16/37         43
nomination
(N = 37)

Total             27        107/158        68%