Gifted Student Poverty

The gifted student and poverty are two incredibly diverse topics that meet in underfunded and misunderstood programs. In an attempt to define gifted and talented (GT) students, as well as our understanding of poverty, the assumptions and misinterpretations of our knowledge slowly becomes evident through research analysis. First, seeking to define the problem and then to create change, the fundamental flaw is exposed; scholars do not agree on what poverty is and what necessarily defines social economic status. Culture, resources, population density, race, religion, and ethnicity are but a few of the categories that people use in an attempt to define themselves and these classes, further complicate the analysis of research, in terms of student
Money alone does not explain poverty, and the term social economic status does not have a common definition across the literature within the field of GT studies. However, in general terms, poverty and social economic status are usually determined by “…one’s relative standing in regards to income, level of education, employment, health, and access to resources” (Burney & Beike, 2008). In terms of rural and urban populations, there is no standard definition among the statistical analysis of students and families affected by poverty (Burney & Beike, 2008). Even the idea that income level, and not race, produce social inequality is challenging to the established litany on the subject of poverty, social economic status, and the gifted student (Kitano, 2003). The idea of poverty is complex and is represented and experienced differently across geographic, racial, ethnic and cultural lines, as blurry as they may sometime be (Burney & Beike,
The customary definition of giftedness as exceptionally high achievement, as identified by traditional referral and assessments processes, are based on social values rather than empirical evidence and as a result, “achievement-based definitions fail to consider limited opportunities for some children to acquire the experiences necessary to demonstrate their potential …”(Kitano, 2003). The opportunity for a gifted student to show their colors may be further complicated by “…insufficient nutrition, higher rates of health problems, amount and quality of learning experiences in the home, family dysfunction, and violent crime” (Kitano, 2003). The current definition of giftedness does not address future or even contemporary needs, but instead reflects social value sets (Kitano, 2003). “A definition of giftedness must address these children’s strengths – which may be academic achievement for some and, for others, creativity, problems solving, or resilience and persistence in the face of adversity – demonstrated via verbal or other modalities” (Kitano,