Three reporters at the Charlotte, North Carolina, “New Observer” obtained seven years of student data and began to analyze it. Joseph Neff, Ann Doss Helms, and David Raynor will be using this database to ask more questions, but they began with a straightforward inquiry about why so many low-income students were not encouraged to enroll in challenging courses.
They write:
“About this time every year, roughly 5,000 North Carolina 8-year-olds show they’re ready to shine. Despite the obstacles of poverty that hobble so many of their classmates, these third graders from low-income families take their first state exams and score at the top level in math.
“With a proper push and support at school, these children could become scientists, engineers and innovators. They offer hope for lifting families out of poverty and making the state more competitive in a high-tech world.
“But many of them aren’t getting that opportunity, an investigation by The News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer reveals. Thousands of low-income children who get “superior” marks on end-of-grade tests aren’t getting an equal shot at advanced classes designed to challenge gifted students.
“As they start fourth grade, bright children from low-income families are much more likely to be excluded from the more rigorous classes than their peers from families with higher incomes, the analysis shows. The unequal treatment during the six years ending in 2015 resulted in 9,000 low-income children in North Carolina being counted out of classes that could have opened a new academic world to them.”
Students whose families are low-income are far less likely to gain entry to gifted classes than upper-income students with the same scores.
“Every year across North Carolina, thousands of low-income students who have superior math scores are left out of programs that could help them get to college, an investigation by The News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer reveals. They are excluded from advanced classes at a far higher rate than their more affluent classmates who don’t qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.”
North Carolina doesn’t have the money to pay for counselors.
“In North Carolina, public schools average almost 400 students per counselor, and the load is much higher at many schools.
“The state pays for counselors based on a district’s enrollment. When the American School Counselor Association tracked state ratios in 2013-14, North Carolina’s level of 391 students per counselor was below the national average of 491 and comparable to the neighboring states of South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee. Only three states fell below the recommended 250, and 11 averaged more than 500 students per counselor.
“Wake County has one counselor for every 393 high-school students, one counselor for every 372 middle-schoolers and one for every 630 in elementary school.”
The changes that North Carolina should make to identify the talents and needs of all students requires funding for smaller classes and more counselors.
The state legislature in recent years has been unwilling to fund education adequately. The legislators need to know that they are wasting the talents of the young people who will be voters, leaders, scientists, and professionals.
Hopefully this series will make them think about how shorty-sighted they have been in refusing to pay the cost of good schools, which all children needs.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article149942987.html#storylink=cpy

Unfortunately, this is happening in California and with this Administration’s attitude toward students with special needs, the future looks bleak.
LikeLike
I disagree that this is happening from my perch in California. This article talks about the 8-year-old kids not getting into advanced classes, but there aren’t any advanced classes for the kids to get into until High School here. I don’t think there were ever any advanced classes in elementary school (which I was okay with). Our school eliminated all of the advanced classes in Junior High about two to three years ago (which I am NOT okay with). They did this, in part, because of the unpleasant demographics in our junior high advanced classes. The advanced classes had the too-many-white-kids syndrome.
There are so many problems with my school’s reaction. The teachers say that they are “challenging everybody,” but that’s BS. They aren’t “challenging everybody.” We’ve seen the classes by now because they’ve implemented the program, and the quality of academics has declined at the school. It is a bleak future for the “advanced” kids.
I would have preferred that the school try to address the problem by:
1.) Having better placement tests and
2.) Bolstering the support for the “gifted” low-socio kids at the elementary school level. By the time the kids get to junior high, it’s just flat-out too late.
It sounds like the school in this article has the opportunity to create a really strong program. I hope they nail it by having good placement and opportunities, instead of by eliminating the opportunities for everybody.
LikeLike
True, teachers can’t challenge everyone they teach because there is no way to academically and intellectually challenge a child who refuses to cooperate in class, refuses to do homework, refuses to do classwork, refuses to read, etc. thanks mostly to the child’s dysfunctional environment and lifestyle outside of school.
LikeLike
I applaud the effort of the journalists, but there is also a narrow focus on test scores, especially math and “above grade level” scores. I would like to see a more generous concept of gifted, not limited to test scores in “academic subjects” as typically measured by tests.
LikeLike
Agreed. Designation as gifted could be much less expensive if it were just done as a teacher observation. No guidance counsellors, no red tape, just good professionals try to to do the best for the students without layers of trying to impress each other. Then maybe we could fund the process.
Of course, it is well documented that North Carolina will not do that until a responsible generation is returned to power. When I lived in that state in 1980-84′ it was the envy of all the country. Now it is victim of narrow financial interests. Kind of a microcosm of America, don’t you think?
LikeLike
I think a better area for demographic analysis on this would be parent education level. It so happens that lower family income roughly correlates to lower parent education level, but there are instances in which college educated families can be lower income. When I have seen instances of lower income students being identified as gifted, it is usually because there is college level education in the family.
One reason this issue should matter is that gifted programs usually involve a track to college. It is a way to promote social mobility if students from lesser educated (& lower income) families can make it to and graduate from college.
LikeLike
Not just the education level of the parents, but the higher correlation is with the mother’s level of education.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree (I’ve read that before), but much of the time demographic data that includes parent education level doesn’t break it down by which parent has which level of education. Usually it’s given as the highest level of the parents in the family.
LikeLike
Treat all children as gifted by enriching them academically and socially by exposing them to rigorous intellectually challenging curricula. Empower teachers and impoverish all who seek to profit by defrauding communities,
LikeLike
I have dealt with gifted programs and criteria of giftedness in my career as an ESL teacher. When children do not have a middle class background or they do not speak English well, traditional measurements and scores on standardized tests do not reflect students’ true potential. Some elements of “giftedness” are cultural. ELLs also have a problem because they are sometimes over identified for special education. These students need more observable criteria for selection rather than a just a standardized test. When it became noted that almost all the “gifted” children were white, I worked to help include an ELL student once in awhile in order to appease the local NAACP. Actually, the best solution was my school district phased out its gifted program when it became a status symbol and political football among certain middle class parents. I agree with Abigail; all children should be empowered and challenged.
LikeLike
A better question is why do we even still cling to such an absurd notion as “giftedness?” As if every human being on this planet isn’t a unique creation endowed with unique gifts. If we approached education as the journey of helping each child discover and unlock those gifts the entire planet and everyone on it would be in such better shape. Why is it that scoring high on some test or other (every single one of which has been shown to be biased in favor of affluent white people, especially males) is some magical key and only those select few get to pursue a worthy life?
LikeLike
Don’t count on the Koch Brothers’ Tea Party dominated legislature in North Carolina doing any thinking, none. They already have their marching orders from ALEC. Knowledgeable, original thought based on critical thinking and problem solving is not encouraged or allowed.
LikeLike
Save the kids from LABELS!
LikeLike
Yes. “Good” labels can be just as damaging as “bad” ones.
LikeLike
While this is a very interesting article, and a problem that we often wrestle with here in NC, it is a bit deceptive to use the figures given for student-to-counselor ratios. While the state average is 391:1 and Wake county comes close to that at 393:1, this makes it seem like many districts must be similar, but they’re not. My own school (Chapel Hill High School) has a 93:1 ratio, with the district as a whole being well below the 250:1 level.
LikeLike