Gifted and talented education (GATE) exemplifies racial and economic hierarchies that exist in our society, with historically marginalized (HM) students significantly less likely to be identified as gifted, and subsequently receiving gifted services, than their peers (Grissom et al., 2019). Peters (2021) advanced the dialogue around inequities by attempting to not only highlight their existence but to also offer insights into the barriers to overcoming inequity. Although we agree with Peters on his thorough analysis of the complex factors, we challenge the assertion that investigating alternative identification methods wastes effort on solving the wrong problem because traditional standardized tests play a critical role in perpetuating, and often amplifying, systemic inequities in education. Grounded in the University of California (UC) system’s effort to reduce bias in their admissions decisions, Peters (2021) asserts that the inclusion of traditional standardized tests promotes racial and economic diversity in educational programs. However, the report from the UC task force tells a more nuanced story (University of California Academic Senate, 2020). Although test scores produced more equitable results than other achievement metrics, namely high school GPA, this approach was far from demonstrating equity. Prior to dropping standardized tests, 37% of California residents in the UC student body were HM students, whereas 59% of the state’s high school graduates were HM students. Moreover, the task force found substantial performance differences among demographic groups on the SAT and the ACT, noting that these tests alone would have precluded many HM students from gaining admission to the UC system. The advantage of including standardized test scores was due to a comprehensive review of them that allowed for varying thresholds based on students’ context. Although traditional standardized tests may not universally exacerbate existing disparities, it is clear that they are not equitably identifying students for admission. Consistent with the UC findings, the College Board itself reports gaps in SAT performance as a function of racial and economic demographics, with discrepancies as large as 15% to 20% for Black and Latinx students compared with White and Asian students (College Board, 2014, 2020). When considering the intersection of race and family income, the results are even more striking: The effect of family income on SAT performance is almost twice as large for Black students than for White students (Dixon-Román et al., 2013). Similar performance discrepancies exist across other common tests used for university admissions (e.g., ACT, 2020) such as intelligence quotient and achievement tests commonly used for gifted identification (e.g., Kena et al., 2016; Silverman, 2009). One interpretation of these scores is that different groups have different levels of ability, but these assessments are largely testing past achievement. Although these may be historically good predictors of college success among those with equal opportunity, one must question how to address these discrepancies in light of opportunity gaps when trying to identify students who will thrive in college (or GATE programming). Local norms (e.g., selecting based on score distributions within subgroups) offer one solution to score discrepancies across demographics (e.g., Peters, 2021). However, when applied at the demographic level, this is equivalent to saying that some groups require a lower bar. Although at the point of college admissions, the cumulative effects of opportunity gaps may necessitate some adjustments in admissions requirements, norms associated with demographics still send the message that one group is inherently more capable than another. For GATE, if we start from the premise that highability students come from every background, the conclusion must be that the bar does not need to be lowered; it needs to be changed. Measuring ability/potential rather than achievement may be essential in GATE, where advanced learning programs could help combat opportunity gaps. This is where alternative/complementary methods come into play. Alternative solutions need not involve eliminating testing; tests come in a wide variety, including tests of fundamental skills and aptitudes that likely reflect capacity for advanced learning (Lohman, 2005). By focusing more directly on what we actually want to measure, alternative methods can not only help identify larger numbers of HM students for gifted services (Lohman, 2005) but also help build more comprehensive, inclusive, and accurate conceptualizations of academic ability. As such, alternative 1046394 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211046394Gifted Child QuarterlyFlynn and Shelton research-article2021

中文翻译：

---

解决正确的问题：在资优教育中需要替代识别措施

资优教育 (GATE) 体现了我们社会中存在的种族和经济等级制度，与同龄人相比，历史上被边缘化 (HM) 的学生被认定为有天赋的学生以及随后接受有天赋的服务的可能性要小得多（Grissom 等人，2019 年） ）。Peters (2021) 推进了围绕不平等的对话，不仅试图强调不平等的存在，而且还提供了对克服不平等障碍的见解。尽管我们同意彼得斯对复杂因素的透彻分析，但我们质疑这样一种说法，即研究替代识别方法会浪费精力来解决错误的问题，因为传统的标准化测试在使教育中的系统性不平等长期存在并经常放大方面发挥着关键作用。基于加州大学 (UC) 系统努力减少录取决定中的偏见，彼得斯 (2021) 断言，传统标准化考试的纳入促进了教育项目中的种族和经济多样性。然而，加州大学特别工作组的报告讲述了一个更微妙的故事（加州大学学术委员会，2020 年）。尽管考试成绩比其他成绩指标（即高中 GPA）产生了更公平的结果，但这种方法远未证明公平。在放弃标准化考试之前，加州大学学生群体中 37% 的加州居民是 HM 学生，而该州 59% 的高中毕业生是 HM 学生。此外，工作组发现人口群体在 SAT 和 ACT 上的表现存在显着差异，注意到仅这些测试就会阻止许多 HM 学生进入 UC 系统。包含标准化考试成绩的优势在于对它们的全面审查，允许根据学生的背景设置不同的阈值。尽管传统的标准化考试可能不会普遍加剧现有的差距，但很明显，它们并不能公平地确定学生的入学资格。与加州大学的调查结果一致，大学理事会本身报告了 SAT 成绩的差距作为种族和经济人口统计的函数，与白人和亚裔学生相比，黑人和拉丁裔学生的差异高达 15% 到 20%（College Board，2014 , 2020)。当考虑种族和家庭收入的交集时，结果更加惊人：黑人学生的家庭收入对 SAT 成绩的影响几乎是白人学生的两倍（Dixon-Román et al., 2013）。用于大学录取的其他常见测试（例如，ACT，2020）也存在类似的表现差异，例如通常用于天才识别的智商和成就测试（例如，Kena 等人，2016；Silverman，2009）。对这些分数的一种解释是，不同的群体有不同的能力水平，但这些评估主要是在测试过去的成就。尽管这些在历史上可能是机会均等的人中大学成功的良好预测指标，但在试图确定将在大学（或 GATE 计划）中茁壮成长的学生时，必须质疑如何根据机会差距解决这些差异。当地规范（例如，基于子组内的分数分布进行选择）提供了一种解决人口统计数据差异的解决方案（例如，Peters，2021）。但是，当应用于人口统计层面时，这相当于说某些群体需要较低的标准。尽管在大学录取时，机会差距的累积影响可能需要对录取要求进行一些调整，但与人口统计相关的规范仍然传达出一个群体天生比另一个群体更有能力的信息。对于GATE来说，如果我们从高能力学生来自各个背景的前提出发，结论一定是门槛不需要降低；它需要改变。在 GATE 中衡量能力/潜力而不是成就可能是必不可少的，其中高级学习计划可以帮助消除机会差距。这就是替代/补充方法发挥作用的地方。替代解决方案不需要取消测试；测试种类繁多，包括可能反映高级学习能力的基本技能和能力测试（Lohman，2005）。通过更直接地关注我们真正想要衡量的内容，替代方法不仅可以帮助识别更多的 HM 学生获得优等服务（Lohman，2005），而且还有助于建立更全面、包容和准确的学术能力概念化。因此，替代 1046394 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211046394Gifted Child QuarterlyFlynn and Shelton research-article2021 包括可能反映高级学习能力的基本技能和能力测试（Lohman，2005 年）。通过更直接地关注我们真正想要衡量的内容，替代方法不仅可以帮助识别更多的 HM 学生获得优等服务（Lohman，2005），而且还有助于建立更全面、包容和准确的学术能力概念化。因此，替代 1046394 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211046394Gifted Child QuarterlyFlynn and Shelton research-article2021 包括可能反映高级学习能力的基本技能和能力测试（Lohman，2005 年）。通过更直接地关注我们真正想要衡量的内容，替代方法不仅可以帮助识别更多的 HM 学生获得优等服务（Lohman，2005），而且还有助于建立更全面、包容和准确的学术能力概念化。因此，替代 1046394 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211046394Gifted Child QuarterlyFlynn and Shelton research-article2021 以及对学术能力的准确概念化。因此，替代 1046394 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211046394Gifted Child QuarterlyFlynn and Shelton research-article2021 以及对学术能力的准确概念化。因此，替代 1046394 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211046394Gifted Child QuarterlyFlynn and Shelton research-article2021