Abstract
Effective program models are needed for low-income youth. This article describes one successful summer enrichment program, University for Young People’s Project Promise, and outlines three key components of a Partnership for Promoting Potential in Low-Income Gifted Students (Partnership Model), which is based on Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Peternel’s model. The Partnership Model provides a multi-generational perspective and framework for designing and enhancing summer enrichment programs.
It definitely opened me up to the idea of attending a university at a very early age, which caused me to work harder towards one day going to college. I can definitely say that I would not be where I am if it wasn’t for [Project Promise].
Through my participation, I was pushed to broaden my horizons. I believed my experiences through UYP and Project Promise have made me the person I am today.
The students’ comments above echo VanTassel-Baska’s (1984) report of positive academic, social, and personal benefits resulting from participation in summer gifted education programs. Many higher education institutions offer summer programs to gifted and talented students (Center for Talent Development, 2014; William & Mary, 2014; Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth, 2013; Purdue College of Education, 2014). Although these programs are prevalent, “the literature reports almost no formal evaluations” of talent development programs (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011, p. 23). As many summer talent development programs are generally cost-prohibitive for most low-income students, the National Summit of Low-Income, High Ability Learners concluded that research was essential to identify program models that were effective specifically with this population and other underrepresented groups from different cultures, races, and geographical locations (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). Gifted children, especially from low-income homes, benefit from using a talent development framework that focuses on providing opportunity and direction in assisting in identification of potential and emerging talent (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thompson, in press). When effective programs for economically disadvantaged students are found, evaluation of the impact of specific interventions and replication of the program should occur to inform future gifted programming and policies (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012; Stambaugh, 2007). Therefore, this article describes the critical components of an evidence-based model that has demonstrated long-term positive effects in the lives of gifted students from low-income backgrounds.
“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.”
Consistent with a talent development framework, the highlighted program emphasizes exposure to a variety of subjects, offering greater opportunity for identification of a child’s potential across a wide variety of domains. Abilities and talents in children from low-income homes may be obscured because of a lack of stimulation and opportunity in their younger years; therefore, these students’ emerging potential is maximized by providing exposure, opportunity, practice, and guidance to nurture growth (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thompson, in press). Talent development is especially important for those from educationally malnourished backgrounds, such as poverty, who would otherwise have low access to talent development opportunities (Subotnik et al., 2011). All gifted children benefit from social supports to encourage them to pursue a less traveled path than their peers (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thompson, in press); however, low-income children may have a greater need for the unique psychology of the talent development framework as they are often forging into unknown territory with few social or cultural supports to assist their trek. These developmental and psychosocial considerations have been addressed in the following program.
The University for Young People’s (UYP) Project Promise Program
The UYP is a university-based summer enrichment program designed to enhance talent development of gifted students in Grades 4 to 12. For more than 30 years, UYP has provided a summer day program to students from homeschool, private school, and over 60 public school districts. Tuition-paying students may elect to take one or more courses for one or more sessions based on their interests. All participants must be identified as gifted by either their local school district and/or the UYP alternative identification process, which considers parent and teacher surveys, recent achievement and aptitude scores, a student product sample, and/or demonstrated potential in a domain. Students who perform in the top 15% on one or more of these assessments are accepted in the program.
Project Promise students are a subset of UYP students who are identified as gifted and meet Housing and Urban Development (HUD) federal low-income eligibility requirements (HUD User Economic and Market Analysis Division, 2014), as the project is funded by that federal agency. Once admitted, Project Promise students receive annual scholarships until the summer before their senior year of high school, providing the family’s income remains within federal financial limits. Project Promise students attend all day, every day, for the entire 3- to 4-week duration of the program. Approximately one third of the students who attend UYP annually are Project Promise students (i.e., 55-65 students of the total 120-170 student population).
Project Promise Components
Project Promise’s overarching goal is to develop students’ aspirations and readiness for higher education. Project Promise summer enrichment program consists of three key components: courses that match the students’ interests, support to parents and families, and development of interpersonal relationships with mentors and peers.
Courses that match student interests
Consistent with talent development framework practice, course content is determined by students’ interests, strengths, and their career goals. Subjects taught by specifically trained gifted educators serve to broaden exposure, deepen knowledge, and provide a venue for a student’s talents to emerge and be fueled. University professors or local gifted education teachers typically teach Summer UYP classes. Examples of 90-min classes offered over a 1- to 2-week period include choices related to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; robotics, astronomy, computer game design, math, criminal science), fine arts (painting, drama, sculpture, music appreciation, video design), liberal arts (geography, logic, history, literature, poetry appreciation, chess), or life skills (cooking, public speaking, leadership, school safety, emergency life plan, money management). Both Project Promise students and tuition-paying gifted students are intermixed in the courses.
Support to parents and families
At the beginning and conclusion of the summer program, Project Promise families are invited to meetings and to observe UYP activities. At the meetings, parents are educated about colleges and universities and the importance of encouraging their child(ren) to select rigorous courses in school and have high expectations for their children. Additional practical provisions to support the Project Promise low-income students include complimentary lunch in university dining halls as well as daily transportation back and forth between a student’s home and Baylor University. Annually, as openings occur, Project Promise siblings who meet identification criteria are given priority in enrolling in the program.
Development of interpersonal relationships with mentors and peers
A key feature of Project Promise is the organization of the students into small groups of 10 or 11 similarly aged peers under the supervision of one mentor. The cohort group and mentor walk to classes together, eat lunch together in the residence hall dining facilities, participate in organized recreational programming, and contribute to small group discussions. Mentors stress and support positive and encouraging peer interactions. Mentors are handpicked undergraduate and graduate students who demonstrate maturity and an ability to connect with youth; most are also pursuing their state certification in gifted education. Prior to the start of UYP, mentors are provided with 2 days of training where they learn about the characteristics of gifted students, talent development, multicultural understanding, behavior management, program goals, mentor responsibilities, and ways to connect with the students. Serving as role models, mentors encourage and assist students in aspiring to higher education. Daily self-evaluation dialogue journals are used as a vehicle for the mentor to maintain ongoing communication with a student through journal prompts and free writing. Daily journal writing is scheduled for approximately 10 min after lunch. Mentor questions may inquire, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” “Where do you see yourself in 10 years?” or “What is something special and different about you?” Other mentor responsibilities include preparing weekly reflection logs, conducting separate student and parent interviews, and collecting teacher evaluations and samples of the student’s work from UYP courses. Weekly mentor reflection logs incorporate their observations about how the student responded to different activities; related to peers, mentors, and instructors; initiated leadership roles; developed interests and met UYP course goals; and student or parent interview responses. This summative data serve not only to highlight student attitudes toward Project Promise activities and relationships but also to provide a window into the student’s world, allowing for a rich glimpse into the student’s and parents’/guardians’ perceptions of home life and family relationships, barriers to achievement, student interests, educational/career goals, and school experiences. These formal and informal interactions provide mentors with an ongoing source of information that will hopefully make a long-term difference in each student’s life.
Research About Project Promise
Over the past 10 years, researchers have examined factors influencing participation and retention in Project Promise and its longitudinal effects.
Participation and Retention
Feuerbacher’s (2004) cross-case study analysis research compared case studies of students who continued (n = 68) with those who discontinued (n = 63) their participation in Project Promise. Overall, the primary differences were related to student interest (i.e., 32% left because of decreased interest) and attachment to the program. This attachment appeared to be related to level of participation as Woods (2005) reported in a later study. Woods examined the demographic, academic, social, and intellectual differences between high- and low-level participants (n = 71 total) who had attended Project Promise for 2, 3, or 4 years. The earlier a student started in Project Promise, the longer they stayed in the program, and the more likely that student would return the following year (Woods, 2005). Specifically, Johnsen, Feuerbacher, and Witte (2007) reported that social relationships with peers, instructors, mentors, and parents had the greatest impact on Project Promise student participation and retention rates. Project Promise students reported that they formed friendships with like-minded peers who also valued growth in learning (Feuerbacher, 2004). These relationships appeared to nurture retention with more returning students demonstrating connected relationships with peers than non-returning students (74% vs. 54%). Ongoing participants also had more positive comments regarding their teachers and received more positive feedback from their teachers than former participants (Feuerbacher, 2004). Mentors who took a personal interest in the students’ outside activities and family and positively reaffirmed the students’ abilities developed the most connected relationships with attendees. Not surprisingly, as parent support enhanced commitment, returning Project Promise participants reported higher parental involvement (85%) in their lives than non-returning students (61%). Overall, the positive influence of social factors and learning support described by Project Promise ongoing participants is consistent with previous research that social and academic support are necessary components for nontraditional students to remain in gifted programs (Worrell, Szarko, & Gabelko, 2000).
Along with social factors, positive self-perception also correlated with Project Promise retention (Johnsen et al., 2007). Ninety-one percent of ongoing participants expressed positive self-perception; in contrast, 36% of former students reported negative self-perception. Retained students reported mastery in enrichment classes and other experiences that led them to feel confident in their abilities to perform in academics or artistic areas. Participants also described other positive self-perceptions such as having future goals/direction, the ability to discern positive factors in negative situations, and a perceiving themselves as role models.
Longitudinal Effects
Recently, longitudinal effects of participation in Project Promise (Kaul, 2014) were investigated through use of a survey based on Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Peternel’s (2009) Model of Influences and Effects in Special Programs for Minority Gifted Students. Lee et al.’s (2009) research focused on the effects of Project EXCITE, a 6-year enrichment program at Northwestern University, for academically talented minority students. This project prepares students in Grades 3 through 8 for high school advanced math and science programs and uses a multi-faceted approach, which includes tutoring, parent support education, and more than 400 hr of summer and weekend enrichment programs. Admission into Project EXCITE does not require income restrictions, but most students are from low- or moderate-income backgrounds. After 6 years of participation, parent and eighth-grade student interviews were conducted with 14 of the original cohort of 17 (Lee et al., 2009). A majority of students reported that the overall experience was fun or challenging, and six students commented on new learning or advanced learning compared with their peers at school. Students (n = 13) were willing to sacrifice other activities to be part of EXCITE because they believed that their participation would lead to a stronger academic future. Most parents (n = 11) identified educational benefits as the most beneficial aspect of the program. As a result of EXCITE, they (n = 12) had higher academic expectations for their child and perceived their child’s attitudes as more positive toward math and science. All of the student participants and all of the parents strongly recommended Project EXCITE to other families and their students. Additional results from this program included gains in reading and math on the Illinois Standard Achievement Test, scores well above the districts’ same ethnic group averages on the eighth-grade EXPLORE exam, and 70% of EXCITE students completed 1 or 2 years high school math prior to ninth grade (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). Their research and model suggested that special programming resulted in academic, social, and affective benefits.
Kaul’s (2014) Project Promise research investigated similar effects as well as career and generational effects. Former Project Promise students who were 18 to 28 years old and had attended 3 or more years were contacted to assess longitudinal effects of participation. Although updated contact information could not be obtained for 13% (n = 17) of former students, 70% (n = 89) of the total sample population (n = 128) completed the survey. Respondents reported positive effects in the following four categories: educational/career, social relationships, personal (affective), and generational (Kaul, 2014).
Education and career effects
Project Promise courses had positive long-term effects with regard to education and careers for participants. Academically, 100% of participants demonstrated successful completion of high school and almost all had either enrolled (81%, n = 72) or planned to enroll (9%, n = 8) in higher education in 2014. The 8 pending graduates intended to proceed directly to community college (n = 5) or to a university (n = 3). Eighty-nine percent (n = 72) of those who completed high school (n = 81) attended one or more institutions of higher education. The greatest number of participants (n = 49) attended community college, often for the purpose of earning university transfer credits (n = 32), including 4 who earned their associate degree and 4 others who intended to graduate in 2014. Nine participants attended technical college, including 4 graduates and 2 who transferred to a university. Half (n = 44) of the participants attended a university or college, including 13 bachelor’s degree graduates and 8 pending 2014 graduates. Graduate school was the destination for 5 participants including 2 master’s degree earners. Almost all of those who enrolled in a university or who had earned their bachelor’s degree (34 out of 36) reported that they planned to attend or would consider attending graduate school. Participants additionally reported that Project Promise courses prompted them to select more challenging courses in middle and high school, prepared them for higher education, and influenced their decision to attend higher education. With respect to their careers, the Project Promise courses broadened their career options.
Social relationships effects
Interestingly, Project Promise participants indicated that it was not the courses that had the strongest impact but the relationships resulting from involvement in the program (Kaul, 2014). Project Promise relationships with peers, instructors, and mentors all had positive social, emotional, and academic effects on participants. Students made close friends with other Project Promise peers. High expectations from peers, instructors, and mentors motivated academic achievement. Consistent with previous research, mentors had the highest impact on participant’s lives (Feuerbacher, 2004; Johnsen et al., 2007). Three fourths of participants indicated they maintained contact or desired to maintain contact with one or more of their former mentors.
Personal effects
Project Promise had a positive effect on participants’ self-esteem, helped them better understand their strengths, and fostered confidence in their ability to succeed academically (Kaul, 2014). Participants reported that they were motivated to work and study harder to achieve as a result of Project Promise, which supports Lee et al.’s (2009) model showing that special programs influence minority students’ perceptions of themselves as talented achievers, increase their commitment to work and study harder, and ultimately raise their expectations regarding how far they can go in school. Lee et al. (2009) also asserted that a unique need for minority gifted students is confidence that they can compete with non-minority peers academically. As Project Promise participants attended summer enrichment classes with other gifted students representing multiple school districts and socioeconomic status (SES) demographics, they were affirmed in their ability to compete academically in their school and in higher education.
Generational effects
Project Promise participants’ families were supportive of their experiences with the program and may have been the most significant underlying reason for positive effects. Parent support of participation in Project Promise was the individual question with the highest rating. Project Promise participation also led to their parents’ higher expectations for academic achievement, which was consistent with Lee et al.’s (2009) model. Parental comments to participants affirmed the social, emotional, and academic benefits of the program, including spurring increased student motivation to achieve academically. Siblings were additionally supportive of one another and were influenced to aspire to higher education. The practice of giving priority to Project Promise siblings (who are identified as gifted or exhibited potential) also contributed to overall family support and unification. Although only 21% of participants (n = 19) had one or more children, and 13% (n = 12) were married, participants affirmed that their Project Promise involvement inspired them to have higher goals for their own children and influenced how they will academically support their own children. Along with other studies, this research suggests that a relatively short, 1-month annual investment can produce long-term dividends.
Important Keys to an Effective Summer Enrichment Model
Project Promise research findings were integrated with Lee et al.’s (2009) model, and Kaul (2014) proposed a model for summer enrichment programs specifically for developing the talent of low-income gifted students. Figure 1 shows this integration in the Partnership for Promoting Potential in Low-Income Gifted Students Model: The Three Key Components and Generational Effects of Participation in Special Programs. This model outlines the most crucial components of effective talent development of low-income gifted students and describes benefits to students and their families that can result from participation.
Partnership for promoting potential in low-income gifted students model: The three key components and generational effects of participation in special programs.
The top section of the model outlines the three key components in a summer program serving gifted low-income students: program, parents, and people (see Figure 1). A well-designed program provides support for students and their families and selects key people to enrich the students’ lives. The program’s investment in the gifted student’s family and in identifying qualified people to support talent development results in benefits to the gifted student, his or her parent(s) and sibling(s), and ultimately to the gifted individual’s descendants.
Program
The program is central to the model; gifted educators must consider how to best develop each student’s talents while addressing his or her interests. Exposure to a broad range of topics is especially important for children from low-income homes as it is an avenue to identify potential in domains that students’ may not have been previously made aware of. Moreover, the program must provide support to the economically disadvantaged gifted student’s family, caring instructors and mentors, and activities that cultivate friendships with their high potential peers. By considering the needs of the family, the program builds trust and facilitates a greater likelihood for short- and long-term participant involvement.
Program administrators should also attend to the context of the program. Effective programs must not merely exist for a few years and then disband when the short-term grant or the program visionary discontinues participation but must secure locations, funding, and a plan for long-term investment. Because many aspects of low-income youth’s lives are unstable, long-term program stability is an important program component (Clasen, 2006). Program funding, leadership, and vision need to be obtained and continued for long periods of time (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2007). Enhanced trust is fostered by demonstrated long-term commitment, resulting in stronger parental and school support for gifted programming for economically disadvantaged students (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2010). Serving this population requires a long-term investment and commitment. It is further suggested that gifted programming on a college/university campus during breaks from school provides the greatest long-term benefits and minimizes potential negative peer influence from school classmates. Out-of-school programs lessen tension with school friends and are less stigmatizing for minority populations, yet cultivate peer support with other high achievers (Lee et al., 2009; Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2010).
Clasen (2006) suggested smaller programs may be more effective for long-term goals. Instructors can interact with fewer students leading to individualized and personalized instruction. Furthermore, a concept of community is more likely to be established with small to mid-sized groups, leading to a network of friendships. Project Promise has operated for 15 years, yet the fact that there are only 128 participants with 3 or more years’ attendance highlights that the program is small. Considering the suggestions above, when replicating Project Promise, size should be considered so that intimacy and a sense of community are not lost.
Parents/Families
In addition to providing parents financial scholarships for their child(ren) to attend the enrichment programming, practical needs such as the provision of necessary materials, transportation, and meals are vital. “The family is the crucial element” that differentiates which economically disadvantaged gifted children demonstrate success and which do not (Borland, Schnur, & Wright, 2000, p. 29) and is the most important support to the student (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2007). Henderson and Mapp’s (2002) synthesis of research reported 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. “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). Provision for attendance of siblings who are gifted or demonstrate potential benefits the family, serves to foster familial unity, and has a multiplicative influence on positive effects. It is proposed that all of these factors unite to foster parental familiarity, trust, and appreciation.
People
Another key component is the expansion of supportive peer networks and the provision of supportive mentors. These relationships enhance student motivation for achievement. By allowing students to participate annually for many years, participants build a long-standing connected community through ongoing proximity and familiarity. It is helpful if supportive networks are part of a larger, more diverse group. Benefits of these networks include a broader exposure to diverse individuals (Clasen, 2006; Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth, n.d.) and increased confidence in one’s ability to academically compete with advantaged or non-minority peers (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2010). The practice of sibling priority may also contribute to a family atmosphere, with sibling friendships further intertwining and connecting the group together.
Mentors have a significant impact on students’ positive development. White-Hood (1993) observed that economically disadvantaged students who were mentored displayed increased social skills, enhanced personal development, made greater academic progress, and set goals that included cultivation of a future orientation. 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, which was corroborated by Kaul’s (2014) research on Project Promise.
Results of Participation in Special Programs
Long-term commitment and investment can result in long-term dividends. A gifted special program can positively affect three or more generations. Not only does the individual student benefit but also by-products of involvement are positive effects on parents, siblings, and students’ future descendants. Parents develop an increased interest in their child’s academic performance and have higher expectations for their child’s achievement as a result of participation. When practical and financial provisions are expanded to include multiple children, family unity is increased, which fosters trust and commitment to the program. Students’ benefits from participation in gifted programming are multi-faceted including academic, career, social, emotional, and generational. Students form friendships with similar ability peers, develop higher self-esteem, understand their strengths, build confidence in their ability to be successful academically, increase motivation to work and study harder, and are more likely to attend higher education options after graduation from high school. Finally, by developing and changing the academic and career trajectory for participating students, the program facilitates higher expectations, goals, and aspirations for the participants’ children. The emphasis in gifted education possibly has been too narrow and shortsighted, focusing primarily on the gifted student. Especially with low-income learners, it must be considered how to address families and entire social systems. Additional research may be helpful in gaining momentum and understanding how to impact generational poverty and create a future filled with more opportunities for many.
Conclusion
With generational implications, it is important that low-income students be provided opportunities to nurture their gifts and broaden their academic and vocational trajectories. Fifteen years ago, VanTassel-Baska (1998) suggested that low-income gifted students had the most pressing need for services to develop their potential, yet were the most likely to be overlooked in gifted education. Ceci and Papierno (2005) argued that investing educationally in the top 10% of underrepresented students has the greatest overall benefits to individual students and to the society as those with higher cognitive aptitudes demonstrate the greatest positive effects from intervention. Programs such as the UYP’s Project Promise have demonstrated positive longitudinal academic, career, emotional, social, and generational effects on low-income gifted students. Expanding on Lee et al.’s (2009) model, the Partnership for Promoting Potential in Low-Income Gifted Students Model (Kaul, 2014) outlines critical program components and positive multi-faceted effects of participation in summer gifted enrichment programming, specifically for low-income students. Investing time and energy in quality programs benefits not only gifted students but also their families and our communities.
The Partnership for Promoting Potential model provides an avenue for developing talent in low-income students that is consistent with components of the talent development framework. First, students are exposed to various subjects, allowing for opportunity and practice; giftedness is “doing” is emphasized and individual talents to move along the continuum from potential to competence (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thompson, in press). Correspondingly, participants reported that Project Promise prepared them for developing competence in selected talent areas by encouraging them to select more challenging courses in high school, influenced their decision to attend higher education, and broadened their career options. Furthermore, the model and reported results reflect that key psychosocial skills were taught and developed through friendships with mentors, instructors, and other motivated peers. Accordingly, Project Promise participants cultivated psychosocial skills that supported high achievement, including increased self-confidence, increased motivation and perseverance to work to achieve. “Although considerable resources are needed to provide these students with the supports they need throughout their early educational and career paths, the benefits to society of that investment cannot be overestimated” (Subotnik et al., 2011, p. 37). The challenge is great, but engendering interest and cultivating motivation to achieve in gifted individuals (Olszewski-Kubilius & Thompson, in press) need not be limited to merely one individual and one generation.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Bios
Corina Kaul is a graduate student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.
Susan K. Johnsen, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, where she directs the PhD program and programs related to gifted and talented education.
Mary M. Witte, EdD, is a senior lecturer in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, where she directs the Center for Community Learning and Enrichment.
Terrill F. Saxon, PhD, is the chair of the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University in Waco, Texas where he directs the master’s programs.