Project Promise

Abstract

“Overlooked gems” is the term used in gifted education to describe high-potential, low-income students who are unable to excel because of significant barriers in their homes, environments, and educational systems. To address these barriers, educators have offered enrichment and other types of talent development programs to this at-risk group of students. Using a retrospective survey, this study examined the perceptions of 89 low-income gifted students who participated in a summer enrichment program for 3 or more years and reports their impressions regarding social, emotional, motivational, academic, career, and generational benefits of participation. These findings expand the extant literature related to identifying components perceived as most beneficial and offer insight into potential multigenerational benefits.

Keywords

research survey quantitative low-income students gifted programming enrichment program summer programs

“Overlooked gems” is the metaphor VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2007) have used to describe the raw potential of low-income gifted students who are underrepresented in programs for gifted students. This underrepresentation has been corroborated over the past 25 years by other researchers in the field (see Baldwin, 2002; Brown, 1997; Gallagher & Courtright, 1986; Richert, 1987; Worrell, Szarko, & Gabelko, 2000). They have noted that being raised in a low-income home places these students at risk for reaching upper achievement levels. Discrepancies in student achievement between higher and lower income students are demonstrated early and continue to expand throughout childhood and adolescence (Wyner, Bridgeland, & DiIulio, 2007). Of additional concern, economically disadvantaged high achievers’ performance regresses as they progress through school (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012; Wyner et al., 2007), widening the achievement gap between students from higher income and lower income backgrounds (Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010). This growing gap negatively affects high school completion rates, admission to selective college rates, and persistence in college for gifted students from low-income families (Barton & Coley, 2009). The identification and enrichment of talent is vitally important for economically disadvantaged students to spur and maintain their motivation for high levels of achievement.

Review of Related Research

Many higher educational institutions provide summer enrichment for local and/or residential students (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). However, in spite of their prevalence, the literature reports almost no formal evaluations (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011) with scant research, if any, to determine which program elements are most effective (Clasen, 2006; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996). The National Summit on Low-Income, High-Ability Learners concluded that research was essential to identify effective program models for economically challenged students from different cultures, races, and geographic locations (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012).

A few researchers have conducted long-term follow-up studies (i.e., over a period of 5 years or longer) of enrichment programs with a summer component for economically disadvantaged students. The overarching goals of these programs, Project STREAM and Project EXCITE, were to address the underrepresentation of gifted minority students and to close the achievement gap. Both of these talent development programs that are described in the literature used multiple assessments to identify students who might benefit from participation.

Project STREAM

Project STREAM (Support, Training, and Resources for Educating Able Minorities) targeted middle school students to increase their rates of high school graduation, college enrollment, and college retention (Clasen, 2006). Program components included summer academic acceleration and enrichment courses, Saturday classes, and a visit to an institution of higher learning. Follow-up quantitative and qualitative data were collected when participants were on average 22 years old (Clasen, 2006). School records or contact persons were located for more than 75% of participants (n = 158 of original 204). Results indicated that 68% (n = 107 of 158) of the participants graduated from high school. Of the confirmed high school graduates, 60% (n = 64) had enrolled in an institution of higher learning. Forty-two percent of those who enrolled in college graduated (n = 27) and 13% were pursuing advanced degrees (n = 8). Higher levels of Project STREAM participation correlated with a greater likelihood of graduating from high school and continuing to college. Eighty-five percent of respondents reported that the program was “very important” to their school success, and 88% ranked the program as “important” or “very important” regarding their career decisions. Interviews with students, school liaisons, staff, and parents (n = 24) identified the stability of the program, the sense of community, challenging curriculum, and the university campus experience as most meaningful program components. Unfortunately, due to a lack of funding, Project STREAM has been discontinued.

Project EXCITE

Project EXCITE at the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University targeted academically talented, low-income Hispanic and Black students in the third through eighth grades (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Peternel, 2009; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2007; Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2010). Their research examined students who participated for 6 years in more than 400 hours of summer programs, Saturday classes, and afterschool science and math enrichment programs. Additional services included tutoring and services to support parents.

Researchers reported that EXCITE students’ reading and math achievement met or exceeded White students’ scores in the school district, 70% of EXCITE students completed 1 or 2 years of high school math prior to ninth grade and scored well above the same ethnic group averages in their district on the eighth-grade EXPLORE exam (ACT, 2014; Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). After 6 years of participation, the researchers interviewed 14 students and their parents from the original cohort of 17 (Lee et al., 2009). They found that the participants described the program as (a) challenging and fun and were willing to sacrifice other activities to be a part of EXCITE, (b) leading to improved academic performance, (c) increasing their academic self-confidence, and (d) developing social networks with intellectual peers who supported high achievement (Lee et al., 2009). Parents appreciated their children’s increased interest and motivation for academic pursuits. All participants and parents strongly recommended Project EXCITE to other families.

EXCITE research resulted in a Model of Influences and Effects of Participation in Special Programs for Minority Gifted Students (Lee et al., 2009). The model proposes that out-of-school activities have academic, social, and affective benefits for children and parents. Academic benefits include increased knowledge, skills, and interest in subject content leading to better preparation for future academic endeavors. Social benefits include positive peer support for achievement, and affective benefits include increased confidence, perseverance, and enhanced self-perception as an achiever. These factors influenced students positively by creating a higher commitment to study and a willingness to select more difficult courses, as well as creating expectations and fostering a belief that higher achievement is obtainable. Positive effects for parents that resulted from participation in special programs were higher achievement expectations, increased homework monitoring, greater interest in education, and greater involvement with school. Project EXCITE’s follow-up study (Lee et al., 2009) served as a model for the current research examining Project Promise.

Heeding the call for additional research evaluating the impact of specific interventions on economically disadvantaged students (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012; Stambaugh, 2007), the purpose of the present retrospective survey was to examine the participants’ perceptions of Project Promise, a talent development program for low-income urban students. Using Lee et al.’s (2009) model, we examined the participants’ perceptions regarding academic, social, and personal benefits and added a new component—the potential benefit of the program on their families and future generations (Kaul, 2014; Kaul, Johnsen, Witte, & Saxon, 2015). Four primary research questions guided our investigation.

Research Question 1: To what degree did participants perceive that Project Promise influenced their educational and career decisions?

Research Question 2: To what degree did participants perceive that their peers, instructors, and mentors influenced their development?

Research Question 3: To what degree did participants perceive that Project Promise influenced their personal development?

Research Question 4: To what degree did participants perceive that Project Promise had a generational influence on their lives?

Project Promise Program

For more than 30 years, Baylor University’s summer enrichment program for gifted students, University for Young People (UYP), has served rising fourth- through 12th-grade students from homeschools, private schools, and more than 60 central Texas public school districts. Students seeking admission to UYP must have either been identified as gifted by their local school district or by the UYP identification process that includes the examination of parent and teacher checklists, recent achievement and aptitude scores, and a student product sample. The UYP identification process considers all assessments equally and includes students who have strengths in one or more of the following ability areas: intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, or specific academic subjects.

A subset group of all of the UYP attendees, Project Promise students are from a local public school district and must meet the federal low-income eligibility requirements to receive scholarships through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-funded program (HUD User Economic and Market Analysis Division, 2014). Similar to the Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) guidelines (Texas Department of Agriculture, 2014), HUD low-income eligibility takes into account the number of individuals in the student’s family and their household income. For example, according to HUD, the household income for a family of four must be less than 80% of the city residents’ median income. Households with four or more people who meet reduced income eligibility for FRL in Texas would also be eligible under HUD criteria. To date, more than 300 low-income, fourth- through 12th-grade gifted students have received scholarships to attend UYP summer enrichment classes. Generally, 30% to 50% of the 120 to 170 UYP summer students are Project Promise participants. Project Promise students remain eligible to receive annual scholarships to attend UYP through 12th grade provided their household income is within the federal income limits.

Project Promise’s overarching goal is to prepare students for higher education opportunities. This preparation is accomplished through exposure to the sponsoring university’s campus, enriching course content, mentoring, and socializing with peers of similar abilities. A key feature of Project Promise is the organization of the students into groups of 10 or 11 students. Each of these groups has a mentor who assists students and who actively develops relationships with the students as they gather to eat, play, and participate in team-building activities together. Both Project Promise students and tuition-paying gifted students are intermixed in the courses.

A typical day for a Project Promise participant begins at approximately 8:00 a.m., when the bus arrives to transport the students from home to the university campus. Arriving at the campus by 9:15 a.m., students are greeted by their mentors, socialize with friends, and are escorted to their first class by 9:45 a.m. During each 2-week session, students attend two self-selected talent enrichment courses on topics such as STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), fine arts, liberal arts, or life skills. One class period meets before lunch, and the other meets afterward. During the 2-hour lunch break, mentors coordinate students’ daily journal writing, lead small-group discussions, eat with students at a university dining hall, and join them for 1 hour of organized recreation. At 3:00 p.m., Project Promise students board the bus for the return trip home.

Method

Participants

The population for this study included all Project Promise participants who were born prior to March 1, 1996, and had attended Project Promise for 3 or more years. Of the 128 participants who met these criteria, current contact information was available for 111. Of these 111, 89 completed the online survey, reflecting an 80% response rate for those contacted and a 70% participation rate from the eligible 128. Demographic characteristics of the population and sample participants are represented as frequencies and percentages in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1, the majority of the participants were minorities, and all of the participants were aged above 18 years. The sex, race, and age percentages of survey respondents were representative of the overall sample population within ±4 percentage points.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Participant Population.

Demographic characteristics	Totaln	Population%	Participantn	Sample%
Sex
Male	58	45	39	44
Female	70	55	50	56
	n = 128		n = 89
Race
Hispanic	64	50	46	52
Black	40	31	26	29
White	19	15	13	15
Asian	2	2	2	2
Other/not reported	3	2	2	2
	n = 128		n = 89
Age (as of March 1, 2014)
Unknown	2	2	0	0
18 years	14	11	11	12
19 years	12	9	12	13
20 years	11	9	9	10
21 years	7	5	6	7
22 years	14	11	10	11
23 years	12	9	7	8
24 years	14	11	7	8
25 years	19	15	13	15
26 years	14	11	9	10
27 years	7	5	4	5
28 years	2	2	1	1
	n = 128		n = 89

Instrument

In addition to collecting the students’ general demographic data, an online questionnaire was designed to examine the participants’ perceptions of the potential educational, career, social, personal, and generational benefits of Project Promise. This five-part questionnaire consisted of 67 items (including 28 demographic queries) and was based on Lee et al.’s (2009) special program participation model (Kaul, 2014). Table 2 demonstrates alignment between Lee et al.’s model, present research questions, and questionnaire items.

Table 2.

Alignment of Research Questions and Questionnaire Items With Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Peternel’s (2009) Model.

Model categories (Lee et al., 2009)	Research questions by category	Questionnaire items by category
Academic	Participant’s perceptions regarding:
	(a) Education	(a) #15–#45, #51–#52
	(b) Career	(b) #46–#50, #51–#52
Social	Participant’s perceptions regarding social relationships with:
	(a) Peers	(a) #53–#54
	(b) Instructors	(b) #55–#56
	(c) Mentors/counselors	(c) #57–#59
Affective	Personal development perspectives:
	(a) Student’s self-perception	(a) #60–#61
	(b) Family’s stated perception	(b) #62–#63

Note. Categories in italics were added in the present study. In addition, a “Generational” category was added in the present research.

The survey instrument measured the participants’ perceptions regarding the influences of Project Promise’s courses, peers, instructors, and mentors on themselves and their present and future families, and recollections of their parents’ comments regarding the personal and potential generational benefits of participation. Each question was rated using a 6-point ordinal Likert-type scale: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), slightly disagree (3), slightly agree (4), agree (5), and strongly agree (6).

Content validity was addressed by using Lee et al.’s (2009) research and model, researching similar survey instruments, and obtaining three professional reviews by gifted educators and researchers. Seven former Project Promise students also reviewed the questionnaire to address face validity and ensure that each question avoided specialized vocabulary that may have been unfamiliar to the respondents. Multiple drafts incorporated all of the suggestions into the final questionnaire. Following the administration of the survey, a Cronbach’s alpha was conducted using all participant data on all items. An overall .92 Cronbach’s alpha (for all 39 questions) reflected a high level of internal consistency for the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alpha per area (e.g., educational, career, social, personal, and generational) ranged from .83 to .95.

Procedure

Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained for the survey instrument and the research process before attempting to contact participants primarily through a Project Promise Facebook© page created for the research. We gained additional updated contact information for other target participants from those who were willing to participate. Up to five weekly requests that included the link to the survey were sent via private Facebook© messages or e-mail inviting participants to complete the online Qualtrics questionnaire. For any participant who lacked updated contact information or who had not responded after 1 month of Facebook© contacts or e-mail requests, we called their phone numbers listed in the UYP database. If parents or Project Promise siblings were reached by e-mail or phone, they were asked to encourage the participant to complete the survey. The online survey was available for 2 months.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, as well as measurements of central tendency, variability, relative position, and relationships, were used to report the survey research quantitative results. After a visual inspection of individual responses in Microsoft Excel, Qualtrics data were downloaded to SPSS software to analyze statistical results. Cronbach’s alpha measurements were used to measure internal consistency of questions within each area.

Findings

Participants reported positive benefits in academic, career, social, personal, and generational areas. The mean scores for the seven areas ranged from 4.98 to 5.72 (on a 6-point Likert-type scale), demonstrating that participants “agreed” to “strongly agreed” that (a) Project Promise courses broadened career options and influenced and prepared them to attend higher education; (b) Project Promise peers, mentors, and instructors impacted them positively; (c) their participation benefitted them socially, emotionally, and academically; (d) their siblings were influenced to aspire to higher education; and (e) they were inspired and influenced to support their own children academically (see Table 3). The smallest standard deviations of the mean were reported for mentors’ effects (SD = 0.52) and parents’ comments regarding Project Promise (SD = 0.54), and the greatest variability was found among participants’ responses to the courses’ effects (SD = 0.86).

Table 3.

Mean Scores by Area.

Area	n	M	SD
Project Promise courses	88	4.98	0.86
Project Promise peers	89	5.47	0.59
Project Promise instructors	89	5.59	0.55
Project Promise mentors	88	5.72	0.52
Project Promise on you personally	89	5.51	0.61
Parents’ comments about Project Promise	88	5.57	0.54
Project Promise on your family	87	5.32	0.78

Note. The 6-point ordinal Likert-type scale provided for each question was strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), slightly disagree (3), slightly agree (4), agree (5), and strongly agree (6).

Education and Career

Five questions addressed how participants viewed Project Promise’s influence on their educational and career decisions. In addition to participants’ reports of success in education and employment in the demographic information, participants “agreed” that their participation in Project Promise courses affected their educational and career decisions positively (M = 4.98, SD = 4.98; see Table 3). Specifically, participants “agreed” to “strongly agreed” that the courses influenced them to select more rigorous coursework in middle school and high school (M = 5.11, SD = 0.98), influenced their decision to attend higher education (M = 5.19, SD = 1.16), and prepared them for higher education (M = 5.23, SD = 1.01). Participants only “slightly agreed” (M = 4.15, SD = 1.52) that they pursued an interest or career that they learned about through Project Promise participation; however, they “agreed” to “strongly agreed” that the courses broadened their career options (M = 5.26, SD = 0.98). The standard deviations for all of these items indicate greater variability among the participants’ perceptions about how Project Promise influenced their educational and future career decisions compared with the other areas studied.

Educational attainment

All participants successfully completed high school, having earned a high school diploma (n = 88) or a general equivalency diploma (n = 1). Overall, most participants reported they were presently attending a higher education institution or had completed their degree.

Ninety percent (n = 80) of participants attended one or more institutions of higher education. The greatest number of participants (n = 54, 61% of total participants) had attended or were attending community college, including those whose purpose was to earn university transfer credits (n = 33, 61% of n = 54). Five participants earned their associate degree by the end of 2014. A total of nine participants attended technical college. Matriculation to a university or 4-year college was reported by 53% of the total participants (n = 47), including 28 of these respondents who were enrolled at the time of the survey. In spite of the fact that only 46% (n = 41) of the respondents were 23 years old or older, 20 (43% of university participants; 49% of participants ≥ 23) had earned a bachelor’s degree by the end of 2014. Five participants enrolled in graduate school, including two who earned their master’s degree. Almost all of the participants (94%, n = 34 out of 36) who were enrolled in a university or who had earned their bachelor’s degree planned to attend or would consider attending graduate school.

Employment status

Most Project Promise participants reported gainful employment. More than 75% of respondents (n = 67) were employed, including 37 part-time workers and 30 full-time workers.

Social Relationships

Peers

Within this area, Project Promise participants responded to seven questionnaire items. Respondents “agreed” to “strongly agreed” that Project Promise peers were a positive influence (M = 5.47, SD = 0.59; see Table 3). Participants reported making close friends with Project Promise peers (M = 5.55, SD = 0.81) who positively influenced them socially (M = 5.62, SD = 0.61), emotionally (M = 5.52, SD = 0.79), and academically (M = 5.43, SD = 0.75). Specifically, they had high expectations for one another (M = 5.44, SD = 0.71) and tended to motivate one another academically (M = 5.45, SD = 0.72).

UYP instructors

Participants “agreed” to “strongly agreed” that UYP instructors positively influenced them (M = 5.59, SD = 0.55; see Table 3) on five survey instrument items. Participants perceived that UYP instructors had high expectations for them (M = 5.64, SD = 0.57), motivated them academically (M = 5.58, SD = 0.65), and had a positive influence on them socially (M = 5.58, SD = 0.62), emotionally (M = 5.53, SD = 0.68), and academically (M = 5.61, SD = 0.63).

Mentors

Of all of the areas, mentors received the highest overall score, with a mean of 5.72 (SD = .52; see Table 3) on five questionnaire items. Project Promise participants strongly agreed that their mentors positively influenced them socially (M = 5.73, SD = 0.52), emotionally (M = 5.69, SD = 0.61), and academically (M = 5.69, SD = 0.58). Participants also perceived that mentors had high expectations (M = 5.76, SD = 0.57) that contributed to their motivation for academic achievement (M = 5.75, SD = 0.55). Almost one third of the participants reported that they remained in contact with one of more of their mentors (n = 26, 29%); an additional 44 respondents (49%) reported that although they had not remained in contact with mentors, they would like to do so. These ratings underscore how participants viewed their mentors, given 78% expressed a desire for an ongoing relationship with their previous mentor(s).

Personal Benefits

Project Promise participants perceived that the program also had personal benefits (M = 5.51, SD = 0.61; see Table 3). On the six questions in this area, participants responded that Project Promise positively affected their self-esteem (M = 5.52, SD = 0.74), helped them better understand their strengths (M = 5.60, SD = 0.67), and served to foster confidence they could succeed academically (M = 5.58, SD = 0.65), ultimately helping them have confidence in their ability to compete academically with other students in higher education (M = 5.47, SD = 0.79). They also agreed that participation helped them set goals and work to complete them (M = 5.44, SD = 0.81), and motivated them to work and study harder to achieve (M = 5.43, SD = 0.78).

Parents

Participants were asked to recall comments their parent(s)/guardian(s) made about their participation in Project Promise. Project Promise participants perceived their parent(s)/guardian(s) as strongly supporting their participation in Project Promise, as this individual question received the highest mean score in the entire survey (M = 5.87, SD = 0.38). Participants were also asked to reflect on comments that their parent(s) or guardian(s) made concerning the overall impact of Project Promise participation on them. Participants recalled, “My parent(s)/guardian(s) commented that my participation in Project Promise had a positive impact on me socially” (M = 5.46, SD = 0.71), “on me emotionally” (M = 5.36, SD = 0.80), “on me academically” (M = 5.61, SD = 0.65), and “on my motivation to achieve academically” (M = 5.60, SD = 0.67). Participants’ recollections of their parents’ comments were similar to their personal ratings and potentially reinforced the participants’ perceptions. In addition, participants “strongly agreed” to “My parent(s)/guardian(s) commented that they had higher expectations for me because of my participation in Project Promise” (M = 5.53, SD = 0.74).

Generational Impact

Because there is a significant generational component of ongoing poverty, the researchers felt that it was important to consider how Project Promise participants viewed the program’s influence on siblings, parents, and participants’ children.

Parents and siblings

The concluding section of the questionnaire assessed participants’ perceptions of how Project Promise influenced their nuclear/family of origin and their descendants. The respondents “agreed” to “strongly agreed” (M = 5.32, SD = 0.78; see Table 3) that their participation positively influenced their family of origin and future family. Specifically, respondents agreed that their siblings were supportive of their involvement in Project Promise (M = 5.53, SD = 0.66), and that “My participation in Project Promise had a positive influence on my sibling(s) to aspire to higher education” (M = 5.13, SD = 1.18). However, the question in the generational area with the comparatively lowest mean was, “My participation in Project Promise had a positive influence on my parent(s) to aspire to higher education” (M = 4.75, SD = 1.55).

Descendant children

Although only 21% of participants (n = 19) had one or more children and 13% (n = 12) were married, participants perceived that Project Promise might influence how they will parent their child(ren). Participants strongly agreed that “My participation in Project Promise has or will have a positive influence on how I will support my own children academically” (M = 5.64, SD = 0.65), and “My participation in Project Promise inspires me or will inspire me to have higher goals and aspirations for my own children” (M = 5.61, SD = 0.75).

Summary and Discussion

This research suggests that gifted students from low-income backgrounds perceived that an annual summer enrichment program had educational, vocational, social, personal, and generational benefits. Responding from a retrospective vantage point, adult participants reflected on their former participation in Project Promise when they were in elementary, middle, and/or high school.

Academic and Career

To what degree did participants perceive that Project Promise influenced their educational and career decisions? Corroborating Lee et al.’s (2009) findings, participants perceived that their participation in Project Promise courses influenced them to select more rigorous coursework in middle and high school. Respondents suggested that participation also influenced their decision to attend higher education, prepared them for higher education, and broadened their career options. Academically, all of the Project Promise participants demonstrated successful completion of high school and almost all had enrolled (90%, n = 80) in higher education by the end of 2014. These results compare favorably to the National Center for Education Statistics, which reported that in 2012, 81% of public high school students graduated on time, but only 76% of Hispanics and 68% of Black students graduated within 4 years (Kena et al., 2014). Furthermore, only 52% of graduates from low-income families proceed directly to higher education (Kena et al., 2014).

Project Promise participants demonstrated higher high school graduation rates (100% vs. 68%) and higher education attendance (90% vs. 60% of high school graduates) than Project STREAM participants. Those attending Project STREAM for 5 to 6 years demonstrated similar percentages to those attending Project Promise for 3 years (e.g., 97% high school graduation rate; 88% higher education attendance; Clasen, 2006). Although education is not the only way to measure success, it does frame an individual’s trajectory in life. Those who lack high school diplomas by age 20 are 7 times more likely to be persistently poor young adults compared with high school graduates (Ratcliffe & McKernan, 2012). Moreover, almost half of children growing up in low-income homes will become low-income earning adults (Corak, 2006). Although education is not a singular measure of success, the ability to escape from poverty is strongly correlated with educational attainment (Adair, 2001).

Social Relationships

To what degree did Project Promise participants perceive that their peers, instructors, and mentors influenced their development? Participants perceived that their relationships with Project Promise peers, mentors, and instructors had social, emotional, motivational, and academic benefits.

Peer friendships formed during Project Promise were perceived as having positive influences on the participants’ social, academic, emotional, and personal development (M = 5.47, SD = 0.59; see Table 3). These results support Lee et al.’s (2009) Participation in Special Programs Model, which suggested that gifted programming for minorities serves to increase peer social support for achievement and enhances a supportive network of high-ability peers.

Project Promise participants also viewed the UYP instructors and mentors as playing an important role in their development. These findings corroborated Hébert and Olenchak’s (2000) case study research, specifically on underachieving gifted males. They reported that a significant caring mentor aided children emotionally, socially, and academically by nurturing their strengths and thereby increasing motivation and effort. Similarly, White-Hood (1993) observed that economically disadvantaged students who were mentored displayed increased social skills, enhanced personal development, and greater academic progress, and set goals that included cultivation of a future orientation.

Personal Development

To what degree did participants perceive that Project Promise influenced their personal development? Participants viewed Project Promise participation as affecting their self-esteem positively, helping them better understand their strengths and set goals, and fostering motivation and confidence in their academic abilities. Self-efficacy is the core belief that one has the ability to produce the desired outcomes that are reflected in academic goals and performance (Bandura, 1997). Not only do individuals with higher self-efficacy demonstrate higher motivation and performance than those with lower self-efficacy but also an individual’s changes in efficacy levels affect performance attempts and outcomes (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Ford and Thomas (1997) have found similar results with gifted minority students whose beliefs regarding their academic potential affect both their self-esteem and underachievement. Therefore, enrichment programs for gifted students from lower income backgrounds and different cultures need to consider ways of developing participants’ perceptions of their efficacy.

These results also supported Lee et al.’s (2009) model regarding personal development. Specifically, special programs result in reinforcing minority students’ self-perceptions as talented achievers and increase their commitment to work and study harder, ultimately raising their expectations regarding how far they can progress in school. A unique need for minority gifted students is confidence that they can compete with nonminority peers academically (Lee et al., 2009). Because Project Promise participants attended summer enrichment classes with other gifted students representing multiple school districts and socioeconomic demographics, participants believed that they had the ability to compete academically in their school and in higher education. Other literature also parallels the reported personal development effects. Setting higher academic goals and preparation for college were significant short-term effects of low-income youths’ participation in the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University (Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth, 2010). Similarly, Project EXCITE participants became more willing to sacrifice present desires to meet long-term goals, prioritizing study over play (Lee et al., 2009).

Parents

Participants recalled their parents’ comments positively affirming the social, emotional, and academic benefits from their participation in Project Promise. Researchers have reported that family support and emphasis on academics often correlates with student achievement and higher educational pursuit. Henderson and Mapp’s (2002) synthesis of research found that when parents were involved with their child’s academic career, the child was more likely to take challenging courses, earn higher grades, and pursue higher education. Sampson’s (2002) study of poor, urban Black families revealed that differences in achievement correlated with the home environment: the parents of high-achieving children were more involved in school activities, provided discipline, supported schooling, and emphasized preparing for the future compared with the parents of lower achieving children. Strong parental connections and support were reported in Project EXCITE research as well (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2010). The participants’ perceptions of strong parental support may be a key factor in sustaining Project Promise attendance, overall academic success, and higher educational pursuit.

Generational Impact

To what degree did participants perceive that Project Promise had a generational influence on their lives? Participants reported their siblings were supportive of participant involvement with Project Promise and that their participation in Project Promise influenced their siblings to aspire to higher education. Participants further suggested that Project Promise involvement positively influenced how they might support their children academically and inspired higher goals for their own present or future children.

Limitations

Most of the limitations of the current study are inherent to the research method. Survey research lacks a comparison group needed for experimental research and, therefore, cannot establish causation or disentangle potential multiple factors contributing to responses. Although relatively small, the loss of contact over time resulted in a 13% (n = 17) attrition rate. Also intrinsic to survey research, self-selection should also be considered as 17% (n = 22) failed to respond to requests. Despite a high response rate (70%, n = 89), it is possible that the nonrespondents may have provided significantly different responses. Another potential inherent limitation of survey research is that answers are given only to the questions asked. Moreover, previous Project Promise research by Feuerbacher (2004) and Woods (2005) noted differences in students who persist in attendance. Students who persisted in their attendance had stronger English language and reasoning skills, a stronger connection to the program, and a higher self-esteem than the former attendees. Approximately one third of total previous Project Promise attendees who were aged above 18 years discontinued after 1 or 2 years of participation, and were, therefore, not included in the survey research; if contacted, they may have had different perspectives.

Future Considerations

Given that this research suggests that participants perceived many multifaceted benefits from Project Promise participation, the obvious questions were, “Why?” “How?” and “Can the program be replicated for others?” Although this survey methodology was not specifically designed to answer those questions, previous research about enrichment programs for low-income youth may shed some light on the topic. As a point of comparison, Table 4 compares the common program components for Project STREAM, Project EXCITE, and Project Promise (Clasen, 2006; Kaul et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2009). This comparison suggests some possible components to consider when designing programs for low-income students. It should be noted, however, that even though these components are similar across programs, they may not be essential to the program’s effects on participants. Further research would need to be conducted that would systematically vary each of these components to determine the relative significance of each one.

Table 4.

Comparison of Key Components of Enrichment Programs With a Summer Component for Low-Income, High-Ability Learners.

	Project STREAM	Project EXCITE	Project Promise
Program goals	College readiness	Enhance achievement	College readiness
Participants	Grades 6–12From four school districts	Grades 3–8From two school districts	Grades 4–12From one school districtIncluded siblings
Identification	Multiple assessments across a variety of talent areas	Multiple assessments in academic areas	Multiple assessments across a variety of talent areas
Academic development and support	University facultyEnrichment and accelerated academic classesBiannual visit to a college	Gifted education teachersAccelerated academic classes	University faculty and gifted education teachersEnrichment and accelerated academic classes
Social development and support	Cohort generally by grade level	Cohort by grade levelIntegrated with tuition-paying students starting in fifth grade	Small-group, mentor-led cohortIntegrated with tuition-paying students
Collaboration	With local school teachers for identificationLocal schools and three universitiesMeetings with parents	With local schools for identificationMeetings with parents	With local schools for identificationMeetings with parentsParents may submit for identification
Material support	Tuition	TuitionHome computers (four cohorts)	TuitionDaily transportation
Location	University setting	Predominately university setting	University setting
Course delivery	Saturday classesResidential summer session	Saturday sessionsVaried summer sessions	One-month nonresidential summer-only session
Longevity	1990–2003	2000 to present	1999 to present

First, one of the greatest obstacles to a program’s success is its stability. Program funding, leadership, and vision must be obtained and continued for long periods of time (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2007). This consideration may be especially important to economically disadvantaged youth because many other aspects of their lives are unstable (Clasen, 2006). Enhanced trust may be fostered by demonstrated long-term commitment, resulting in stronger parental and school support for gifted programming for disadvantaged students (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2010). Therefore, serving this population may require a long-term investment of time, funding, and commitment.

Second, persistence in program attendance appears to matter. Project Promise and Project STREAM research suggest that students who participate for longer periods of time may be different and have better educational outcomes than those who participated for 2 years or less. Clasen (2006) also found that greater program involvement was correlated with better educational outcomes; for example, 88% of participants with 5 or more years of Project STREAM participation attended college compared with 5% of those who dropped after one or two activities. Woods (2005) investigated factors that correlated with persistence in attendance and degree of involvement in Project Promise and found that the likelihood of persisting was greatest for those who were (a) younger upon program entry, (b) from two-parent households, (c) from larger families from the lowest income level, (d) Hispanic males, or (e) possessed stronger English language and reasoning skills. Ongoing Project Promise participants also reported a stronger attachment to the program, more positive peer relationships, greater parental support, and a higher self-esteem than those students who discontinued (Feuerbacher, 2004; Johnsen, Feuerbacher, & Witte, 2007).

Third, the location of the program may give students a sample of college life and may prompt consideration of the type of campus setting and location they prefer (Ware, 1990). This exposure may allow students and their parents to become comfortable with university life (Clasen, 2006). A preview of college life through programming on a college campus may be especially critical for gifted, first-generation college attendees’ motivation and adjustment to college (Olszewski-Kubilius & Limburg-Weber, 1999).

Fourth, Lee et al. (2009) suggested that the ideal program components for reducing the achievement gap should include family support. “Parents and families are among the most important influences on children’s academic performance, particularly in families most at risk for school failure based on poverty” (Kitano, 2003, p. 298). Project Promise assisted parents by not only funding participation but also by providing meals on campus and daily transportation. The practice of allowing Project Promise siblings (who are identified as gifted or exhibited potential) priority in enrollment may have also contributed to overall family support because rather than fragmenting the family, it unified siblings in one program and created shared experiences. It is probable all these factors united to foster parental familiarity, trust, and appreciation.

Fifth, Ford (1998) asserted that students who are isolated socially are less likely to persist in gifted programming. Another possible key component of Project Promise therefore was the placement of participants in small groups with a mentor, which may have resulted in their positive perceptions of supportive social relationships. By allowing students to participate annually from Grades 4 to 12, participants may have been more likely to build a long-standing connected community with peers through ongoing proximity and familiarity. Participants strongly agreed that mentors and instructors had a significant impact on their positive development. Stambaugh (2007) asserted educational success, self-efficacy, and social skills were positively impacted through counselors’ and teachers’ ongoing mentoring relationships, providing support for students and their families.

Sixth, it appears to be helpful if supportive networks are part of a larger, more diverse group. Project Promise students attended UYP classes with other gifted students from different socioeconomic levels and backgrounds. Benefits of this include broader exposure to diverse individuals (Clasen, 2006; Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth, 2010) and increased confidence in one’s ability to academically compete with advantaged or nonminority peers (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2010).

To summarize, six factors are presented for consideration when developing enrichment programs for low-income students. Program stability and ongoing participation may be the most essential factors, but location, family support, and developing supportive peer and mentor networks are also important components in program design. Furthermore, the program framework may need to consider interpersonal factors such as hiring and training supportive instructors and mentors as well as fostering peer networks within a diverse environment to enhance self-efficacy. Project STREAM, Project EXCITE, and Project Promise share most of the program components including stability for over a decade, ongoing attendance, a university campus location, family support, and social support (see Table 4). Project Promise differs from the other programs in two potentially noteworthy components. Mentors were strongly perceived by participants as positively influencing them socially, emotionally, and academically. This component, along with the participants’ placement in small cohort groups, may have influenced the participants’ longevity in the program and their subsequent success. Sibling involvement and parental support may have also enhanced commitment and individual outcomes.

Project Promise participants perceived benefits in academic, career, social, personal, and generational areas. This research expanded the existing literature related to summer enrichment programs, identified possible beneficial components, and offered insight into potential multigenerational benefits. Additional research is needed to investigate each of these components systematically to determine which are most essential for not only developing talents among gifted education’s most underrepresented groups but also for sustaining their interest so that they may access a future filled with more opportunities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Project Promise is funded by a contract between the City of Waco, Texas, and Baylor University as a sub-recipient of the Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Author Biographies

Corina R. Kaul, MA, received her BS degree from the University of Oregon, her master’s from Baylor University, and is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University where she is specializing in gifted education. Her current research interests focus on low-income gifted students, gifted first-generation students, and affective needs of gifted learners.

Susan K. Johnsen, PhD, is professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She directs the PhD program and programs related to gifted and talented education. She has written more than 200 articles, monographs, technical reports, and books related to gifted education.

Terrill F. Saxon, PhD, is the chair and a professor of educational psychology at Baylor University where he teaches courses in research methods, child development, and multicultural education. His research interests include cognitive and language development and cross-cultural studies in education.

Mary M. Witte, EdD, is a senior lecturer at Baylor University and the director of the Center for Community Learning and Enrichment in the School of Education, which annually hosts a summer gifted enrichment program and a fall GT conference. She teaches courses in the undergraduate Early Childhood to Sixth Grade and Gifted and Talented dual certificate program.

References

ACT. (2014). It’s time to EXPLORE. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/explorestudent/

Adair

V. C.

(2001). Poverty and the (broken) promise of higher education. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 217–240. Retrieved from http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/labor/documents/AdairHarvardEducationalReviewArticle.pdf

Baldwin

A. Y.

(2002). Culturally diverse students who are gifted. Exceptionality, 10, 139–147. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX1002_7

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura

Locke

E. A.

(2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87

Barton

P. E.

Coley

R. J.

(2009). Parsing the achievement gap II: Policy information report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505163.pdf

Brown

C. N.

(1997). Legal issues and gifted education. Roeper Review, 19, 157–160. doi:10.1080/02783199709553813

Clasen

D. R.

(2006). Project STREAM: A 13-year follow-up of a pre-college program for middle- and high-school underrepresented gifted. Roeper Review, 29, 55–63. doi:10.1080/02783190609554385

Corak

(2006). Do poor children become poor adults? Lessons from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility (IZA Discussion Papers, No. 1993). Retrieved from http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/33437/1/514190388.pdf

10.

Feuerbacher

S. A.

(2004). An examination of enrichment program participation: A cross-case study comparison (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/docview/305223931?accountid=7014

11.

Ford

D. Y.

(1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4–14. doi:10.1177/002246699803200102

12.

Ford

D. Y.

Thomas

(1997). Underachievement among gifted minority students: Problems and promises (ERIC Digest, E544). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED409660.pdf

13.

Gallagher

J. J.

Courtright

R. D.

(1986). The educational definition of giftedness and its policy implication. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 93–111). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Hébert

T. P.

Olenchak

F. R.

(2000). Mentors for gifted underachieving males: Developing potential and realizing promise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 196–207. doi:10.1177/001698620004400307

15.

Henderson

A. T.

Mapp

K. L.

(2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family & Community Connections With Schools. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf

16.

HUD User Economic and Market Analysis Division. (2014). FY 2014 income limits documentation system [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il2014/2014summary.odn

17.

Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth. (2010). The benefits of CTY summer programs: CTY 30 years. Retrieved from http://cty.jhu.edu/research/docs/pub/Benefits%20of%20CTY%20Summer%20Programs.pdf

18.

Johnsen

S. K.

Feuerbacher

Witte

M. M.

(2007). Increasing the retention of gifted students from low-income backgrounds in university programs for the gifted: The UYP project. In VanTassel-Baska

(Ed.), Serving gifted learners beyond the traditional classroom (pp. 55–79). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

19.

Kaul

C. R.

(2014). Long-term effects of a summer enrichment program on low-income gifted students (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1566278)

20.

Kaul

C. R.

Johnsen

S. K.

Witte

M. M.

Saxon

T. F.

(2015). Critical components of a summer enrichment program. Gifted Child Today, 38, 32–40. doi:10.1177/1076217514556533

21.

Kena

Aud

Johnson

Wang

Zhang

Rathbun

. . . Kristapovich

(2014). The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

22.

Kitano

M. K.

(2003). Gifted potential and poverty: A call for extraordinary action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 292–303. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ787899.pdf

23.

Lee

S.-Y.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Peternel

(2009). Follow-up with students after 6 years of participation in Project EXCITE. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 137–156. doi:10.1177/0016986208330562

24.

Levine

Nidiffer

(1996). Beating the odds: How the poor get to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2007). Working with promising learners from poverty: Lessons learned. In VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 43–46). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494579.pdf

26.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Clarenbach

(2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537321.pdf

27.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Limburg-Weber

(1999). Options for middle school and secondary level gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 4–10.

28.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Thomson

D. L.

(2010). Gifted programming for poor or minority urban students: Issues and lessons learned. Gifted Child Today, 33(4), 58–64. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ898573.pdf

29.

Plucker

J. A.

Burroughs

Song

(2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Retrieved from https://www.iub.edu/~ceep/Gap/excellence/ExcellenceGapBrief.pdf

30.

Ratcliffe

McKernan

S. M.

(2012). Child poverty and its lasting consequence: Low-income working families (Paper 21). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544342.pdf

31.

Richert

E. S.

(1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 149–154. doi:10.1177/001698628703100403

32.

Sampson

W. A.

(2002). Black student achievement: How much do family and school really matter? Lanham, MD. Scarecrow Press.

33.

Stambaugh

(2007). Next steps: An impetus for future directions in research, policy, and practice for low-income promising learners. In VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 83–88). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494579.pdf

34.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056

35.

Texas Department of Agriculture. (2014). Income eligibility guidelines. Retrieved from http://squaremeals.org/Publications/IncomeEligibilityGuidelines.aspx

36.

VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(Eds.). (2007). Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494579.pdf

37.

Ware

(1990). Discovering interests and talents through summer experiences (ERIC Digest, E491). Retrieved from http://www.casenex.com/casenex/ericReadings/DiscoveringInterests.pdf

38.

White-Hood

(1993). Taking up the mentoring challenge. Educational Leadership, 51, 76–78. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA14773975&v=2.1&u=txshracd2488&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=f83b53fe284c8e5d99f2a3ee4e768c69

39.

Woods

M. B.

(2005). Factors affecting the degree of participation among enrichment program attendees (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/docview/305027793?accountid=7014

40.

Worrell

F. C.

Szarko

J. E.

Gabelko

N. H.

(2000). Multi-year persistence of nontraditional students in an academic talent development program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 12, 80–89. doi:10.4219/jsge-2000-646

41.

Wyner

J. S.

Bridgeland

J. M.

DiIulio

J. J.

Jr. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503359.pdf