Latest / DiveIn: Diving into Special Education's Most Complex and Pressing Debates / The Disproportionality Series Part 3: A Conversation with Donna Ford

Transcript

The Disproportionality Series Part 3: A Conversation with Donna Ford · DiveIn: Diving into Special Education's Most Complex and Pressing Debates

0:08
From the Division of Research of the Council for Exceptional Children,
0:11
this is Dive In. I am your host, Federico Weitholler,
0:15
professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
0:22
Welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome to the 11th episode of the
0:26
third season of the Dive In. Today we will continue the Disproportionality
0:31
series. The purpose of this series is to bring different lenses and
0:34
perspectives into an unsettled debate. In prior
0:38
episodes we spoke with Dr. Paul Morgan, a special
0:42
education and health science professor, about whether students of color are under
0:46
or overrepresented in special educations and what research
0:50
evidence is the most fitted to address this issue.
0:53
In a following up episode we spoke with Rachel Fish, a sociologist
0:58
who provides alternative views to Dr. Morgan and what the evidence says
1:03
about disproportionality. In this episode
1:06
we discuss disproportionality in gifted and talented education.
1:11
And to do so we bring someone who has been in the field of gifted
1:15
and talented for decades. In this episode of Dive
1:19
in, we we chat with Donna Ford. Donna Ford
1:24
is an American educated, anti racist advocate, author and
1:28
academic. She's a distinguished professor of education and human ecology
1:33
and a faculty affiliate with the center of Latin America Studies
1:36
in the College of Arts and Sciences and the Kirwan Institute in the College of
1:41
Education and Human Ecology at Ohio State University.
1:46
Dr. Ford's research spans in gifted education and multicultural
1:50
urban education with a focus on understanding the achievement gap and recruiting
1:54
and retaining cultural diverse students in advanced courses.
1:59
In our conversation we discuss the trends and causes
2:03
of the underrepresentation of black and Latinx
2:07
students in gifted and talented programs and draw parallels to similar trends
2:11
in special education. Are you ready to continue the Disproportionality
2:15
series? Let's dive in.
2:20
Welcome to the show, Donna. Thank you so much for being with
2:25
us and sharing your wisdom. Well, thank you for the invitation.
2:29
I'm really feeling honored and blessed. I'm looking forward to speaking with
2:33
you. That's great. You know, we've been having a series on disproportionality.
2:38
That's one of the reasons that we, we want you to bring you in.
2:41
You were one of those scholars that I read in my doctoral years
2:46
and I'm not, I mean I haven't been for, for certain decades
2:50
in the field. So you've been around for a while. You have a lot of
2:54
experience and a longitudinal experience on this issue too. And we're
2:58
also excited to hear more about how issues of disproportionality plays
3:03
in with gifted student because I know a lot of your career has been dedicated
3:06
to to studying gifted education. So let me
3:11
start with this question. Can you tell us what the evidence says about students
3:15
of color in gifted education? I know we've been talking about a lot of special
3:19
ed, but I would love to hear. I would love to hear if there are
3:22
any parallels with gifted ed. Yeah, well, I think it's an
3:26
epidemic. It is just very bad.
3:30
My entire career, and I got my dissertation in 1991.
3:34
All right. But my entire career has been devoted
3:38
to recruiting and retaining black and then
3:42
Hispanic students in gifted and talented programs, which I'll call gate
3:46
G A T E. Okay. So I don't like to just
3:50
say gifted. I have to say gifted and talented. And if you want an explanation,
3:54
I can share that. But anyway, these two groups,
3:57
not Asian students, not Native American students,
4:00
but these two groups, blacks and Hispanics or some
4:05
people prefer, you know, Latinos know, have been consistently
4:09
underrepresented in gifted and talented programs.
4:12
I have never seen where they have been equitably represented,
4:17
proportionally represented. It's always been
4:21
underrepresentation. So for black students, it hovers around 50%,
4:26
if not a little higher. And for Hispanic
4:30
students it hovers around 50, 40%, sometimes a
4:34
little bit lower to 40% of what?
4:38
That's the percentage of what? Can you. Can you clarify that?
4:41
Okay, so, yeah, so, for example, black students are,
4:45
let's say, let's just say 19%,
4:49
19% of public schools, however,
4:52
only like 8% of gifted
4:57
programs. And then Hispanic students are, you know,
5:00
higher representation and something like, you know, say, let's 27%,
5:05
I believe, of US schools,
5:09
public schools, however, you know,
5:12
they're again, underrepresented about 40%. So it might
5:16
be like they might be 18%, but.
5:20
All right. Yeah, that explained it. Thank you, Donna.
5:23
So, you know, you should. We have here arguments on the show also
5:27
that students of color, including black and Latinx students,
5:31
are being actually under identified with disabilities once
5:37
you account for academic performance and clinical need. At the same
5:41
time, you are telling us that this group of students are also underrepresented
5:45
in gifted and talented education. Do you see any
5:49
connection that. Is there a common thread among that? How do
5:53
you interpret these findings? Well,
5:56
let me correct that. So in the United States,
6:00
black and Hispanic students are not underrepresented
6:04
in special education. They are overrepresented
6:09
in special education now, especially high
6:14
incidence disabilities. So if,
6:17
you know, viewers don't know the difference, there's the category
6:21
of high incidence and low incidence. Low incidence will
6:26
be like visual impairment. There's nothing subjective about that.
6:29
You know, hearing impairment, a physical disability.
6:33
That's very objective. All right? Your vision
6:37
is 2020 or something else. And it is precise.
6:42
It's not about an opinion. Okay? Now when
6:46
it comes to high incidence, there's more subjectivity and
6:51
there's more biased tests, biased instruments,
6:55
okay? Bias policies and procedures.
6:59
So we are overrepresented in
7:02
high incidents subjectivity, you know,
7:06
discretionary area. And that would be like learning
7:11
disabilities, all right, Emotional and behavioral disorders
7:15
and more. So. So let me push a little bit about that because
7:19
we have Dr. Morgan sharing some of his research and explaining
7:22
maybe the differences of why some people start over and under. And what his
7:27
research emphasized is that if you actually account for academic,
7:33
sorry, academic needs or, sorry, academic,
7:37
how academically situated are and actually
7:42
also how their clinical need, if you account for
7:45
that and compare similar situated students,
7:48
you actually see that there is underrepresentation. Well,
7:52
I completely disagree. And I have been talking about that for
7:57
years. I completely disagree. Okay, and let
8:01
me tell you why. First of all, his research is
8:06
not nationally represented.
8:10
We need to compare his small sample
8:14
size to the U.S.
8:18
department of Education Office of Civil Rights
8:22
data collection. And that is almost 100% of
8:25
schools. So we got, we got to, we got to look at 100% of
8:30
schools, and that is accurate compared to
8:33
the smaller sample sizes. And so,
8:37
no, his research is not accurate and I find
8:41
it racist. And it's been cited in Project
8:46
25, and that is not supportive
8:51
of minoritized populations. So. Absolutely not.
8:55
And it is, it really upsets me when, you know,
8:59
I hear people citing his work versus national
9:03
samples. So let me, let me see if we understand because
9:07
he is using some of the national level
9:11
surveys, right? He's doing, working with data sets that
9:16
are drawn from national level samples. That's my understanding of what being
9:21
discussing. You're saying that maybe those samples that he's using with
9:25
the surveys of teachers are not
9:29
correct, this is not national, and it's
9:34
not representative of the US Population,
9:38
is not representative of, of, you know, the demographics
9:43
of teachers and more. And so there's been a lot
9:47
of pushback against this research, and it's justifiable.
9:52
Hmm. You know, another things that we've been discussing
9:56
in the show is, you know, we also have Rachel Fish
10:00
talking about her research and we talk also about how
10:04
disability is socially constructed and can be operationalized in research
10:08
in that way. Do you think we can do similar arguments
10:13
about gifted and talented and where are the repercussions of that to
10:17
understand this underrepresentation? Yeah, absolutely.
10:20
It's socially constructed and is based on,
10:23
I'm talking about gifted education in particular, gifted and talented education gate
10:28
most of the definitions,
10:32
the characteristics, the criteria are not
10:36
just based on white populations, but upper income or white populations.
10:40
And so it, that is socially and
10:44
not culturally constructed.
10:50
What, what can you tell us about maybe state differences
10:55
on the underrepresentation of black and
10:59
Latin exclude students in gifted mentality education.
11:02
Are there differences? Do you see like some states occurring at more
11:06
rates than others? Oh, that's a wonderful question as well.
11:10
So years ago I did a state by state analysis
11:14
using my equity formula and it does
11:18
differ by state. So since there's no
11:22
federal, like there is a federal mandate for special education,
11:25
however, so you get, so to speak, consistency.
11:29
However, there is no federal mandate for gifted and
11:33
talented education. So it is not just state by state, it can
11:37
also be even district by district. So I
11:42
mean, so in some states, you know, the main way to get into
11:46
GATE could be, you know, what's your test score. In another
11:50
state it could be, you know, teacher referral.
11:53
So there's no consistency. All right, and the
11:57
criteria, you know, what should be your IQ score, what should be your
12:02
achievement scores or what should be your grade point average, you know, gpa,
12:06
et cetera, it varies state by state.
12:10
And I like to refer people to the
12:13
Davison Institute, you know, for gifted.
12:16
And then you can look at, you know, policies state
12:21
by state. And that includes those that states
12:25
not, not the nation, but states that mandate gate
12:30
and then those that, you know what the funding is.
12:33
So for example, you can have a mandate with funding,
12:37
you have a mandate with partial funding. And this is so
12:42
ironic, you can have a mandate with no damn funding.
12:46
Oh, and you, I mean there
12:50
are states where, you know, care caregivers get a letter saying
12:54
your child has been identified as gifted, but we're not going to, we can't provide
12:57
services. So there's no consistency
13:02
at all. Oh, and then, sorry, one more
13:06
report. The national association for Gifted Children does a
13:10
state by state report. I don't know if it's every year or
13:14
every two years, but that report, really, you need to
13:18
take a look at it. And it also will tell you whether
13:23
states even have pay attention to minoritized
13:28
students, you know, have, you know,
13:30
criteria that's equitable to make sure
13:34
that there's no underrepresentation of black and
13:38
Hispanic students in particular, as well as low income overall.
13:43
So let me ask a question. You know, we also had Catherine Bulgaria
13:48
talking about how states were responding to accountability measures for this proportionality
13:52
is there. It's part of that accountability includes
13:57
the underrepresented of gifted students, or there is no accountability
14:01
measure for it. I don't think there's a
14:04
lot of accountability for special education,
14:08
and I don't think there's not. I mean, there's not a lot of
14:12
accountability for gifted and talented education.
14:16
And that's what, you know, I've been trying to, you know,
14:20
require request, demand of policymakers,
14:25
decision makers, and that includes teachers.
14:28
That includes, you know, of course, administrators and school boards,
14:32
for example. So, I mean,
14:35
when you see the magnitude of underrepresentation in
14:40
a school building, in a certain section
14:45
of. Of your district, in your state
14:49
overall, then you need to do something
14:53
about it. And that means make changes.
14:56
And I, you know, look at your policies,
14:59
look at your instruments, look at your criteria, and I
15:04
have equity formula. All right, that was.
15:08
Is based on a. An actual court case,
15:12
McFadden versus Illinois School District U46,
15:17
which is in Elk, Illinois. And I use the
15:21
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 80%
15:26
rule in this court case, and this
15:30
one was based on Hispanics being underrepresented.
15:33
And so Judge gettleman said, well, Dr. Ford, we cannot have
15:36
a racial quota. All right? You know, so that means, for example,
15:40
Hispanics in that district were like, around 40%, and whites
15:44
were like, around 40%. So we can't have. You can't say,
15:47
well, Hispanics are 40% of the district, so they must be 40% of gifted
15:52
and talented. That's a racial. So he said.
15:55
He said, now what should be the representation within five years?
15:59
So I said, well, they're about 40%. So 40 times 0.8,
16:03
which is 80%, equals. What? All right,
16:06
so 40 times 8 equals.
16:10
Why am I having a problem, right, with my 360?
16:14
Yeah, 36%. All right, so no,
16:17
32%. Oh, that's right. That was nine. Look at me.
16:21
Not in between you and I. We cannot do simple multiplication. This is amazing.
16:25
So I don't know what made it this far in our career. Go figure.
16:29
Yeah, math is not my thing. But anyway, so equals,
16:34
you know, 32%. So that means, at minimum,
16:38
to be equitable, to hold districts and buildings
16:43
and states and the nation accountable, but in that
16:47
district should be a minimum of 32% of gifted and
16:51
talented education. Now, if they're 30%,
16:55
31%, 29%, anything under 32%,
17:00
then. Listen carefully, Frederico. That means that.
17:03
That this is beyond statistical chance and not just implicit
17:08
but explicit bias is operating in teachers
17:12
Minds as well as in tests and policies,
17:17
those kinds of things. So racism,
17:21
racial discrimination is existing,
17:25
explicit and implicit. But if you
17:29
don't meet that minimum, and hopefully you go up more. But if you don't meet
17:33
that minimum, that I argue that intentional
17:37
racism is operating. So,
17:41
so how. How you can, you know, from an empirical base, how you can.
17:45
How you can examine that. Right. We've been talking in the show
17:49
with different people about how you actually get to teacher bias. For example. Right.
17:52
Rachel Fish, Dr. Fish shows some of her studies
17:56
or some of the empirical work she was doing looking at decision making for
18:00
teachers. Is there anything similar to
18:04
gifted and talented students about really examining if this is a question of
18:09
structural issues at the policy level or this is an issue
18:13
of actual individual teacher bias? I mean, do we
18:17
have any kind of study that can tease that out?
18:19
Well, yeah, there are several studies, but one in
18:24
particular, I think gets the most attention. And it
18:28
gets the most attention because Grissom and Redding.
18:32
Grissom and Redding, 2016.
18:35
In their study, they matched black
18:39
and white students by income,
18:41
by grades and by test scores. And they
18:46
still found. And so mainly, so to speak, the only difference is
18:50
skin color. All right. And they found that even
18:54
when blacks had this. Oh, and family educational level.
18:58
So even when blacks had everything the
19:03
same as white students, teachers still under referred us.
19:08
Ew. So, you know, some people use excuse. Well,
19:11
you know, it's because blacks are low income, et cetera.
19:15
I said even when we have everything matching,
19:19
you know, basically everything matching, teachers still
19:23
underrefer. And it was a large study. I don't remember sample size, but it
19:27
was a large study. So Grissom and Redding. And before that,
19:31
I had looked at a number of studies on teacher referrals,
19:35
but it did not have this matching. All right, piece.
19:38
But, but in every study that's conducted on
19:42
white teachers referring black students for gifted and talented education
19:46
or were under referred. Hmm. And I
19:51
think it was like 50 and 50% of the studies,
19:53
Hispanic students were under referred.
19:57
Yeah. So let
20:02
me ask you this, because one of the issues here is. No. Is. Is the
20:04
accuracy of tests. Right. That's maybe that being used.
20:09
Right. I imagine. But what I understand and may. You may tell
20:13
me that I'm wrong. One of the main test to identify
20:17
students as gifted and talented would be an intelligent test. Right. An IQ test.
20:20
Is that correct? That's. That's the number one test used, type of test.
20:24
Are these tests accurate? Would you say to.
20:30
Okay, listen, I've been arguing for decades, and I'm not The only one
20:34
that tests our bias. I want your
20:37
viewers to understand this. In 2021,
20:42
the American Psychological Association,
20:46
APA, the American Psychological association,
20:50
finally issued an apology to people of color
20:54
for not admitting that tests were biased.
20:59
And they argued that they had been implicit in
21:03
not acknowledging this over,
21:07
you know, basically centuries. You know, but I'm going to say decades.
21:11
Okay, but these tests are biased and again,
21:14
they're biased in favor of not just whites,
21:17
but higher income whites. So the items
21:22
that are selected are those that are familiar with high
21:25
income whites, the language that is used,
21:29
the correct answer. All right, so for example,
21:33
in old, old item is, you know, how are work and
21:38
play alike? Well, if you're making millions of dollars, then they're
21:43
fun, they're good. But if you are unemployed or
21:47
underemployed, then and somebody says how I work and play alike, then they
21:52
are not the same because it's not fun. For example.
21:55
Okay, and then, you know,
21:59
there's another question. I mean, this probably got the most attention is like
22:03
when what? So I would ask you, Frederica, what should you do if
22:08
a boy smaller you starts to fight with you? And then if it's
22:12
a girl, you know, what should you do if a girl much smaller than you
22:14
starts to fight with you? So what's your answer? What would you do?
22:19
I going to be a good boy. And I say I will tell the teacher.
22:24
Okay, well, guess what? It's ironic.
22:27
That is what you would expect. But I believe
22:31
you get, if I remember correctly, you get either 1 or
22:35
0 points by telling the teacher and telling your, your parents,
22:39
okay, your caregivers, because you took no responsibility,
22:43
you put that on someone else. But isn't that what we tell kids? If someone
22:46
is bothering you, come tell us the teacher. Right.
22:49
Well, you're not going to get your two points. All right,
22:53
so you're going to get either one or zero. Now,
22:57
clearly. Yeah, yeah. Now if you say, oh,
23:01
I'm going to fight them back, you definitely going to get zero.
23:05
But if you say, well, I'm going to say, well, you know,
23:08
fighting is not good. That's one point. We need to be friends.
23:12
Then you get two points. But the way I grew
23:16
up, if someone starts to fight with you, then you defend
23:20
yourself and fight them back. All right?
23:24
And if you don't, then other students might say,
23:29
oh, well, let me make sure that I'm gonna go after Donna too.
23:32
So you got to show that you are brave and you can take
23:36
care of yourself so no one else will bother you. But period,
23:40
someone Starts a fight with me and I'm 63,
23:44
I'm not just going to just settle for that period.
23:47
And I, from what I'm taking from this interview, I don't think I'm going to
23:51
pick up a fight with you, Donna. Even if I sit in the comfort,
23:54
if I disagree with you, right? I, I think I'm going to pass. I got
23:57
to, I got to tell the teacher, if you pick on me, I love it.
24:02
That's great. But you know, this, this takes me to think, right? If, if IQ
24:06
are not accurate measure of assessment,
24:09
particularly when we try to apply or test it across different
24:14
cultures, different countries, what is
24:18
gifted and talent? What does it mean to be gifted and talent? How do we
24:22
measure? Is there a real construct or we should give it up and
24:27
try to have more classrooms where all differences and
24:31
abilities and capacities are being addressed
24:35
and included in the activity design? Well, first of
24:39
all, I think I got about two responses to this one is not
24:43
just iq. All right. It's what intelligence
24:47
test are you using? Okay. And it's traditional
24:51
tests and I just gave you a few examples. All right, that's former
24:55
old items. But traditional tests are the problem. Those are the
24:59
ones based on high income whites. But when it comes to
25:04
like my preference, non verbal tests like the
25:08
Naglieri nonverbal achievement Test, nnat,
25:11
although he's got newer tests that I get more familiar
25:16
with, but nonverbal measures in particular that 1nnat
25:22
students, no matter their race, no matter
25:26
their income, no matter their language,
25:29
remember nonverbal their language, we get basically the
25:33
same IQ score as white students. And that's why I
25:38
get upset set with this, like why the hell are you not using these nonverbal
25:42
measures? Is it, you know, we're going to get similar scores and
25:46
therefore we will be well represented,
25:48
equity represented, or you want to keep using
25:52
traditional tests in the scores so that we will be underrepresented.
25:58
So wt is specifically that because not all
26:02
nonverbals are the same. All right. Nonverbals are
26:05
the same. All right, so when is that particular instrument which there's
26:10
a lot of research on by, you know, Jack Nagel area, and I've written a
26:13
couple articles pieces with him then. And I'm not showing bias.
26:17
I'm going, oh, by the way, in that court case,
26:21
McFadden. Yeah, McFadden, you,
26:24
I, I made history as the first person
26:28
people said in, in the United States to
26:31
give an IQ test to the judge. So he kept saying, well, tell me
26:35
about this Naglieri instrument. I said, I thought you might ask that.
26:39
Let me give you some items. So, you know, I gave him some
26:43
elementary items. He got them right. I got him some, gave him a couple of
26:46
middle school items. He got them right. When we got to high school, he did
26:49
not get the answers right. And he was basically like, what?
26:53
I'm a cisgender white male, I'm a judge, I'm high income,
26:57
and I didn't get these items correct. I'm like, no, you didn't.
27:01
And he said, but Hispanics and blacks get them correct?
27:04
I said, yeah, they do. And he's
27:08
like, wow, I see what you are talking about. I mean, I literally,
27:11
you know, said, let me show you these non verbal
27:16
measures. And it was just a wonderful
27:20
experience for this judge to say. I see now why you are
27:24
supportive of the Naglieri nonverbal ability test specifically.
27:30
So explain very briefly. I want to go too much into that. What it
27:34
means that it's non verbal. Well, non verbal means that you don't
27:38
have. There's is visual. So you look
27:41
at, you know, you're looking at it. It's not asking you, you know,
27:45
questions. These illustrations are,
27:49
you know, how can I say this? I'm just gonna say
27:53
right now like they're, they're pretty neutral. So, you know, it'll be
27:58
like, you know, I'm making things up. I wish, you know, I had
28:02
pulled up a PowerPoint or something like that. But yeah, I know, and I know
28:05
I got you like disproven with the, with this question. That's okay.
28:09
But you don't have to have the language.
28:13
You can you give the instructions in the language
28:17
of the child, but they just look at, you know,
28:20
squares and circles and, you know, triangles and
28:25
some other kinds of. And then they, you know, they compare it,
28:28
you know, to, to something else as opposed,
28:32
as opposed to like the examples I gave earlier now.
28:35
But there, like I said, there are non verbals that test or
28:39
subtests that I still think are more like traditional,
28:43
you know, items. So for example, you know,
28:47
there's one where it is like a table
28:51
and then it has a tablecloth on it and then there's a
28:55
plane and then, you know, it has, you know, like a
29:00
sun and a rainbow and clouds and things like that.
29:04
And you're supposed to, you know, compare, you know, that table with
29:08
the tablecloth to this plane. And what? Well, what the hell? If children have never
29:12
flown, then how can they answer
29:16
that? Yeah, that's a non verbal only because,
29:20
you know, you don't have to speak, and there's no words there.
29:24
But still, those images and the context that
29:28
you put it in are problematic.
29:32
And there I want listeners to look at
29:37
Michael on. Oh, it's a
29:41
TV show I'm drawing a blank on right now. I'll come back to it.
29:45
Okay. A TV show from the 60s and
29:49
70s. And, you know, Michael on
29:53
this show is using the same kinds of examples that
29:58
I'm using in 2026.
30:01
Wow. So there's a TV show from the 60s and 70s
30:05
using the same kind of items that were still using back
30:09
in 2026. Yeah. And the reason I'm
30:13
having a hard time remembering it is I just watch the news more than anything
30:17
else. I don't really watch, you know, television. So I know
30:22
I'm just drawing a blank. Just blame it on my age right now.
30:27
I know what the hell I'm talking about. Yeah. So you
30:31
mentioned, you know, I'm trying to tease out some explanations for this underrepresentation
30:35
of gifted and talented students.
30:39
And you mentioned one could be, you know, we talk a little bit about
30:43
policies, we talk about the test itself that are biases, and we also talk
30:47
about teacher biases. Can you think of other explanations that may contribute to
30:52
this as well? Well, the main thing for me is not just
30:56
structural biases as we. As I've said, it is individual
31:00
biases, you know, of the decision makers. And. And so
31:06
what I do is I, like, I use a Venn diagram. So it'll be,
31:10
you know, here's everything we say about gifted students in terms of characteristics
31:16
and what instruments should be used, what criteria you know, should be
31:20
used. All right, what cutoff scores should be used, et cetera.
31:24
And then I'm like, okay, now here's a characteristic of, say, as a
31:27
black student, say as a Mexican student. I mean, be specific about
31:31
what their race and ethnicity is.
31:34
And so Donna is black.
31:38
And here is, I use a way,
31:42
Boykin's characteristics, all right, of Afrocentric black
31:46
culture. So Donna is black, and here are the characteristics.
31:50
Donna is also gifted. But here are these traditional characteristics.
31:54
So when you put these together, then it means that we are
31:59
looking at gifted and talented education through a cultural lens.
32:02
We are looking at black students, Hispanic students,
32:06
Mexican students, you know, Chinese students, through their
32:10
cultural lens. And then we are looking at, you know,
32:14
what is, you know, Yoso says is cultural wealth,
32:17
cultural assets instead of deficit
32:21
thinking. All right, so, for example, and this
32:25
goes to special education, too. One of the characteristics of black culture,
32:30
not using stereotypes, but using generalizations and research,
32:34
is being Ver vistic V e R V
32:38
I S T I c Verve. And it's high levels of energy.
32:41
But that could be misinterpreted as hypertension.
32:45
Well, it's not. It's normal in the black community,
32:49
okay? Another characteristic is language.
32:53
So, you know, one of the first characteristics that educators and families
32:57
think is. Is gifted and talented is, you know, their language,
33:01
all right? Speaking early, a large vocabulary. Okay?
33:04
Well, what if they are English language learners?
33:08
Okay? And so, yeah, they don't
33:12
speak US English, but they pick up English quickly.
33:16
That's a sign of gifted and talented to me, okay?
33:20
And when it comes to black populations,
33:24
the majority of us, over 80%,
33:28
and it does not matter what our zip code is, what our income is,
33:32
what our educational level is, the majority of black people,
33:35
usually it says around 80%, we speak black English.
33:40
And that includes Dr. Ford right here. All right? When I'm
33:44
not speaking to you and I could just, you know, relax and be
33:48
who I am, which I call Donna from Cleveland, then is black English.
33:52
All right? So. And black English is not just
33:56
a dialect. It is an official. I mean, it's a language, okay? It is
34:01
a language. It has rules, et cetera. So people need to start looking at us
34:05
as bilingual and give us the support that they give, you know,
34:09
like Hispanic students, Asian students, et cetera. So what
34:13
I'm saying is there's language. Now. Look at it through a cultural lens and,
34:17
you know, there's, you know, behavior. Look at it, you know,
34:21
through a cultural lens. The best definition,
34:24
federal definition, the best, the most equitable,
34:28
the most culturally responsive is in. Was from 1993.
34:33
And this is very important. It says gifted and
34:37
talented children, you know, well, it says children and youth.
34:41
It does not use the word gifted. I'm correcting myself. Children and youth with outstanding
34:45
talent or potential, you know,
34:50
show it in comparison to others of
34:54
their age, which we know. And experience and
34:59
environment. That's the first time experience and environment has
35:03
been used. It's the only definition whether the word gifted
35:07
is not used, because gifted is too often equated
35:11
with genetics, which is wrong. All right? But talent is like.
35:15
You're, like, you're born with it and there's nothing changed. But talent is.
35:19
You can change it, right? You can modify
35:23
it. It's environmental, it's social. You can
35:27
change it and modify it. And I'm just going to say educational levels,
35:31
you know, as well as home. All right? So that's why I said I like
35:35
to use the word gifted and talented, not just gifted.
35:39
So that we know that both. But again is when
35:44
compared with others, you don't compare black students who are low
35:47
income to white students who are high income. You don't
35:52
compare black students who are low income to white students who are low
35:55
income. We still don't have the same experiences and
36:00
opportunities. Okay, we still don't.
36:03
But again, you know, even thinking of Grissom and you
36:07
know, study. All right, Reading, study, we still,
36:11
even with that, you know, it's probably, you know, bias was found. But I'm saying
36:15
you compare those from the same background to
36:19
the same background. So you compare black urban students to black
36:22
urban students, not black suburban students.
36:27
Yeah, that makes sense. You know,
36:31
that makes me feel also that our next interview, maybe I should speak with my
36:35
Spanish from Argentina. You should speak like Donov, Cleveland and see what comes out of
36:39
it. Absolutely. I don't know what comes out. It's going to
36:43
be a very interesting conversation. Yeah, thank you for clarifying that.
36:47
You know, go ahead. I was about to ask you an implications
36:51
question, but go ahead. Well, I want to say this. Years ago I
36:56
created what was called, what is called the dirty dozens,
36:59
all right, in gifted and talented education.
37:02
But now I decided to apply it to special education as
37:07
well as to discipline because black students expect,
37:10
well, boys. Black boys and girls are the most overrepresented
37:16
when it comes to discipline too. And again, that's subjective.
37:20
All right, that's teacher discretion. But my dirty dozens list,
37:24
it falls into like three domains. So one is deficit
37:29
thinking and attitudes, which we've been talking. And so
37:33
that's low expectations, no expectations. You know,
37:36
it's not having understanding is having racial
37:41
and cultural stereotypes. All right. It's implicit and
37:46
explicit. Bias is not just individual, it's also,
37:50
you know, systemic and institutional. And all of that is compounding
37:55
and results in underrepresentation,
37:58
in gait and overrepresentation, specialization. The second
38:03
domain is, you know, these flawed assessments. All right,
38:06
and then the third one is, and that includes like high stakes
38:11
tests where, you know, we have these particular cutoff scores and more.
38:15
And then the third domain is just inequitable
38:19
policies and procedures. So like why do you, why do you only want to
38:23
use that one instrument? Why are you not going to have a variety of instruments?
38:27
Right. Why if you know now,
38:31
not if, since you know that educators under refer black
38:36
students and under referred Hispanic students, why do you
38:39
keep that as a policy? All right, why is it a policy?
38:43
And if you know, we don't do well on traditional tests, why don't
38:47
you use tests that we do well on.
38:50
Okay? And then just higher
38:54
education also, and even professional development. Not training
38:58
teachers to be equity minded, anti racist and culturally
39:03
responsive, because you're not. If your
39:07
views about black and Hispanic students don't change,
39:10
we will forever be overrepresented in special
39:14
education and discipline and underrepresented
39:18
in these advanced programs. So. I mean,
39:22
giftedness, talent exists in every
39:26
damn zip code, in every racial group, in every,
39:30
every income level and more so, you know,
39:34
I grew up and listening to a mind is a
39:38
terrible thing to waste. I don't know if you ever.
39:41
All right, But a mind is a terrible thing to waste from United Negro
39:45
College Fund. And that just motivated me to, you know,
39:49
just do well and. But I say a mind is a terrible thing to dammy
39:54
race. And that's what's happening. Not just
39:58
underrepresentation, but underachievement.
40:03
Yeah. You know, I was about to ask you what are the implications for policies?
40:06
But I think with these dirty docents, I think one can get pretty
40:11
clear clarity on like more anti bias teacher training,
40:14
changing assessments to those who are more favorable
40:18
and account for the strengths and needs of students of
40:23
color. Work diligently with standardized assessments
40:27
as well. Dax, keep going. Did you add anything else to that list?
40:31
Well, you know, so there's those three domains. So you know, when we go,
40:35
when I go back to it, that is like change mindsets.
40:39
All right, so then is fix the
40:43
tools, fix the measurements, all right? Select the most
40:47
equitable ones and then reform your policies.
40:50
I mean, we need a damn reform or revolution when it
40:54
comes to all of this. All right,
40:57
so you know, like, why did you.
41:00
Why would you have a test right after school
41:05
starts? Because there's summer loss. Not just Covid loss,
41:09
but there's summer loss, especially among, you know, blacks and children who live
41:13
in poverty. All right, it's not because we don't
41:17
care about education too many times we don't live by
41:21
libraries, for example, Maybe we can't afford the books,
41:26
okay? Maybe we not. Maybe since
41:30
we've not been in gate, we don't understand what we need to be
41:33
doing with our children. We want our kids to be
41:37
successful, okay? But we just too often don't have
41:42
the resources at home and resources because
41:46
there's the funding gap at schools. And just
41:50
we live in, you know, food deserts, book deserts,
41:54
library deserts, you know, those kinds of things.
41:57
So the whole context and setting is unjust.
42:02
And we need to be more compassionate and empathetic. And that's why
42:06
I also write about compassionate education.
42:10
Yeah, compassion, definitely. A mass. An empathy.
42:14
Right. And a mass skill for any teachers. Right.
42:17
We cannot develop that through teacher education programs. I don't
42:21
know. Well, I mean, but we can. We can. I definitely talk about
42:25
it in all of my classes. All right. I talk about it in
42:29
workshops, you know, presentations at conferences, when I'm doing
42:33
consulting. So. And right now,
42:37
with the current administration, we're in 2026,
42:41
you know, anti DEI here
42:44
in the U.S. then educators are. And that's in higher education.
42:49
And, you know, P to 12, you know, public school settings are just terrified
42:54
to talk about justice.
42:58
But I'm not. There's no president,
43:02
there's no policy that's going to stop me because
43:05
children matter. And I'm tired of seeing
43:10
the achievement gaps, the opportunity gaps and
43:15
underachievement being created. So I have
43:19
this quote that says black children, and it's Hispanic too,
43:23
come to school excited about learning. So we come to school as exclamation
43:27
points and question marks, asking a lot of questions. But we leave school as periods.
43:32
Yeah. No longer excited, no longer engaged,
43:37
no longer motivated. And that is because
43:41
of racial injustices not being
43:45
challenged like you need to be and more.
43:48
So that's why I said this is not. This is an epidemic.
43:54
Bigger than a crisis. It's an epidemic. And it's in every
43:58
country that I'm aware of too. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean,
44:02
and we see patterns of overrepresentation not just in the U.S. but, you know,
44:06
international research, always. You know, Australia with aboriginal students, in England,
44:10
in Spain, I mean, we can go a list of. In Austria,
44:14
in Germany with Turkish students. You know, so.
44:17
So there is definitely. It's an international
44:21
phenomenon. It's not a US based phenomenon. They may have
44:24
different flavors and circumstances and context,
44:28
but the outcomes are similar. You know,
44:32
I want to go back because I want to clarify something you say at the
44:35
beginning because it was a strong word. So I want to make sure that I
44:38
can push you back a little bit with that. You mentioned that the research
44:43
that it claims that students of color are underrepresented in
44:47
special education. You use the word there. Racist. That research
44:51
is racist. Can you expand on that to help us to explain
44:54
our audience how you think about that and what
44:59
you see there, what items, what aspects, what characteristics of
45:04
that research you associated as being racist?
45:07
Well, I'm just saying that we need to look at the national
45:11
data as well as selected samples,
45:15
selected districts, selected, et cetera. We need to
45:19
just keep looking at national data to get the large picture.
45:23
And when it's national. It means we're talking about all students,
45:26
not some students. So.
45:29
And when it's national, there's less subjectivity,
45:33
all right? There's more objectivity, and I
45:38
trust it more, rather than, you know, just people going around,
45:41
you know, doing these selective studies.
45:44
And so I just don't understand why Morgan and,
45:49
you know, a few others. But it's mainly. Morgan keeps
45:53
insisting that we, meaning blacks, are underrepresented
45:58
when we are not. We are. Our culture
46:02
is just too misunderstood, and there is deficit thinking
46:07
operating. So all the reasons that we
46:11
are underrepresented in GATE are the same
46:15
reasons almost, that we are overrepresented. And I'm still thinking about the
46:19
dirty dozens in special education and discipline.
46:23
So the national data. Let's go with the national data.
46:27
And I'm saying it's racist because it was
46:31
cited in Project 25. My work certainly
46:34
will never damn me cited in anything like
46:38
that. And what is Project 25
46:42
is very problematic.
46:45
Yeah, I mean, and we know it. I mean,
46:49
I want to play a little devil's advocate, because we know that
46:53
politicians are very good twisting research and utilizing
46:57
research for their own purposes, even though the researchers may not have intended.
47:02
But I see your coil in
47:06
that regard, you know, and the,
47:10
you know, an associated question with that. You know, there is. As I said,
47:14
there is. This is an subtle debate,
47:17
and there's a lot of divisions in our field around not just over
47:21
representation, but also how we see disability, how we see the issues of race
47:25
and culture in special education and gifted and talented. You know,
47:29
what do you think? How do you think we can move the field forward beyond
47:32
this? Divides. What Divides?
47:36
Divides around how we. Divides. Go ahead.
47:40
Divides. Divides. Yeah.
47:43
I mean, I just can't say it enough. To move the field forward.
47:47
We've got to be very unapologetic and very
47:51
empathetic and a
47:57
huge advocate, a huge advocate for
48:01
equity and justice, not just equality,
48:04
but when we are different, you got to do something damn different.
48:08
And you don't have to apologize for that. And we are
48:12
different by language. We are different. Excuse me, I'm sorry. We are different by
48:17
culture, okay? We're different by culture.
48:20
So therefore, you know, equity is when there are differences,
48:24
you do something different. So. And that goes Back to that
48:28
1993, you know, definition where you compare people from the same background.
48:32
All right? So I'm just saying we need to have this
48:36
training and make sure that
48:40
all of our classes do focus on anti racism,
48:44
anti classism, antisexism. All right?
48:48
But right now, we're talking about racism and that when we
48:53
have conferences, we're doing the same thing. When we have consulting
48:58
gigs, we professional development, we're doing the same
49:02
thing. But these situations are not going to
49:06
change until attitudes change, until deficit mindsets
49:10
change, period. So you can have a nonverbal
49:15
instrument like the Naglieri put in the mock used by someone
49:19
who still, you know, is racially discriminatory,
49:23
and then you will misuse that instrument with your
49:27
cutoff scores, with your policies and procedures, yet it's
49:31
the most equitable and culturally responsive measure that's out there. But your
49:35
mindset is in the wrong place.
49:38
So if your mind does not change, I don't care what
49:42
tools there are. All right, what the policy is,
49:46
you have the wrong mindset and
49:50
you are still not referring. And it's just not referral.
49:55
Federico. I was maybe one of the first persons to talk about we need
49:59
to recruit black and other students,
50:02
and then we need to retain them. So it's not just get us in
50:07
gifted education is make sure we stay there. So when there's
50:10
racism, you know, microaggressions, which I experienced
50:14
as a 10th grader at a private school that had
50:18
me. And I was on. I was an ABC student, a better chance.
50:22
I was living in East Cleveland, which is very low income,
50:26
very low income, and virtually all black then
50:30
and now. So Donna from East Cleveland,
50:34
too. Okay. And. But I mean, I was identified
50:38
as gifted and talented early on. But when I got
50:42
this scholarship and I went to this all girls white private school,
50:47
every time I did an assignment that where I performed
50:52
better than these white students who were wealthy,
50:55
not just high income, who were wealthy,
50:58
this one teacher in particular would say,
51:02
you know, Donna, who helps you? I'm like, I did this myself.
51:07
And then she would say, donna, did you use Cliff
51:11
Notes? And I'm like, who the hell is Cliff? And then I would get
51:14
in trouble because she thought I was being sarcastic.
51:18
I didn't know what no damn Cliff Notes were. But when I found out,
51:22
I started using them, Cliff and I became good friends.
51:25
Yeah, Dr. Notes. It was like Cliff Notes, Mr. Notes.
51:29
So I'm like, who is Cliff? My dad. I don't live with him.
51:33
His name is James. And this is all girls school. And I don't have
51:37
no male teacher. And blah, blah, blah, who am I? You know,
51:41
who is Cliff? So, I mean, sometimes I
51:45
remember one time, Federico, she. I was in tears.
51:49
She said, I know you didn't do this. And she
51:54
took that my paper and tore it up and gave me oh my
51:58
gosh. Gave me an F. And then time
52:02
we had to read the Scarlet Letter. And I wrote just,
52:06
you know, being introspective, that my scarlet letter was being black
52:10
because she had me convinced that being black was a problem.
52:14
You know, she undid all of this racial pride. And then she had me
52:18
ashamed of living in poverty. Okay. So I
52:22
was upset with my mother that we were poor.
52:26
So I mean, she undid all that.
52:30
My mother and the previous teachers had taught me that
52:34
I could be anything and do anything I wanted to. And this was
52:38
in less than a year. So a warning to your,
52:42
your listeners, your viewers. I became suicidal.
52:46
I was writing suicide notes and letters and
52:50
then my mother, then I would tear them up. And then my mother started,
52:53
you know, putting it back together, like thinking I was dating someone. She like,
52:57
who's these letters for? Thought I was writing love letters. And so then she put
53:01
it together. She's. She saw what was happening, so she had to pull out of
53:05
that school. And, and, you know, I would
53:08
end up going to a, you know, to the, the local high school which I
53:12
graduated from, Shaw High School. So it was just, it was less than a
53:16
year. Less than a year. All my racial pride,
53:20
everything I loved about being black, about being smart,
53:24
these teachers undid one
53:28
in particular. And that is still happening today.
53:31
And that was in 70s. Yeah. And it seems
53:35
like a lot of your, the research you have done also is validating or
53:40
not say. I don't know if it's worth the validating, but it's, it's reflecting also
53:43
what happened also in your own life. My own life. Right.
53:47
So I always say the research that I'm doing, the writing that I do,
53:51
which is a lot. I have almost 400 articles and chapters,
53:56
okay. And it is because
54:00
it's cathartic and I have to get this out and I have
54:04
to, you know, not. And I have to, you know,
54:07
make sure, or trying to make sure, do it every damn thing I can to
54:11
make sure, you know, that children of color don't go through this.
54:15
Don't go through this. And now I got compassion about, you know, just low income
54:19
children, period. All right? But I'm really talking about we. This is visible,
54:23
okay? When I walk into a room, you don't know that I'm Dr. Ford,
54:27
a distinguished professor. You know, you don't, you know,
54:32
you don't. I mean, no matter what setting I'm in,
54:35
they don't know that I go on a flight. You don't know that I'm Dr.
54:39
Ford. You know, I go shopping, I go buy a car,
54:42
whatever. All right? The first thing you see is, I'm damn
54:46
black. And then what do you start thinking? And this is Women's
54:50
History Month. Women's History Month. March. All right,
54:54
March. And I'm just saying in women's, we just went through.
54:58
Which should be 24, you know, seven, you know,
55:02
12 months. But we just, you know, went through Black History Month. Now we're into
55:06
Women's History Month. And here I am black, you know,
55:09
February. And here I am woman, you know, March. And I
55:13
have to deal with, you know, with both of those. Okay, so personal.
55:17
This is personal. Yep. Yeah, yeah.
55:20
You know, my last question, Donna, is that
55:24
I do. I give. Give these questions to all my interviewees. What would
55:28
you like to see happening in special education or gifted and talented education in
55:32
the next five years? You have to dream. This is. This is a question about
55:34
dreaming. What would you like to see in this field happen? My dream
55:38
is that every school district,
55:42
every state, every place in the world
55:47
would stop giving lip service to equity.
55:50
Oh, we're an equitable school district. I'm like, prove it. Let me see your numbers
55:54
and do the calculation and make sure that
55:58
you meet the minimum requirement to
56:02
make sure that underrepresentation, even if
56:06
it exists, is still equitable. Using the 80% formula.
56:10
Right. And then I meant to say this over representation
56:14
would be 120% or 1.2.
56:18
So you look at 40% and then you say time,
56:22
1.2. And then what is that? 48%. So if
56:26
we go over 48% in special education,
56:30
and I mean, let's look at the high incidence areas,
56:34
then if we go over that, then again,
56:37
intentional, not unintentional discrimination is
56:41
operating. We can't do 100%. All right? That's a quota.
56:44
But we're talking about 80% and then 100%.
56:47
So we need to be within this range. Don't go under.
56:51
Don't go over. All right?
56:54
And so I'm saying use the formula.
56:58
And, you know, I got it from a federal organization.
57:02
It's used in employment practices. Why the hell
57:06
can't we use it in education? All right, so use
57:11
it and do everything you can to look at the
57:14
mindsets, to look at the measures, to look at the policies and
57:19
procedures, okay? Look at the definitions, look at
57:22
the training to make sure that we meet
57:26
minimum for underrepresentation and maximum,
57:30
you know, don't go over to maximum for overrepresentation.
57:34
Yeah, and take care of those dirty dozens, too. I will.
57:38
I will. I would add, heck, yeah. Take care of the dirty,
57:41
dirty dozens. Yes. Well, thank you so much,
57:45
Donna, for being on the show. This has been great, and I'm very thankful for
57:49
your time. No, thank you for the invitation.
57:53
Thank you for listening. Listening to Dive in. I hope you learned
57:57
from this episode as much as I did. Please help us to spread
58:01
the word about the show. See you next time.