Mesosystem

The mesosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model describes the relations between immediate surroundings, or microsystems. It encompasses the links between two or more microsystems and the similarities and inconsistencies that occur between these contexts. For example, young people who are financially disadvantaged are more likely to live in low-income neighbourhoods and mix with peers from similar circumstances. Their exposure to beliefs and value systems that are believed to be established within these settings determines the nature of their cultural and social capital. As outlined earlier, beliefs, values, and behaviours that result from

immediate settings may not be appreciated or valued in other contexts. While there may be common comparisons between one context and another, for gifted individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds, differences between the environments they occupy can sometimes result in clashes.

Individuals learn how to act in different settings and around different people based on what behaviours they perceive are required in each context (Harris, 1999). For the gifted young person who lives in a financially challenging situation, disarticulation between settings is most likely to occur between home, school, and possibly peer groups. When these settings differ significantly, conflicting messages regarding appropriate ways to ‘act’ in each context can result (Baker, 1997). A sense of disconnectedness may also be felt when parents and siblings of gifted young people from low socioeconomic situations do not share their abilities or aspirations

due to their own educational experiences (Lareau, 1987), and this can create a distant relationship between home and school. Contradictory messages from home, peers, and school may serve to inhibit the development of a young person’s talent. Conversely, the conditions for talent development can be maximised when parents, peers, and school environments align (Subotnik et al., 2003).

It is likely that the most significant clashes between contexts for gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds occur between home and school. Baker (1997) refers to this as ‘home/school disarticulation’, where norms, values, and beliefs within the family unit differ from those of the education system. Constant moves from one context to another result in conflicting messages regarding behaviour in each setting, and this can lead to confusion in self and group identity. Behaviours that are viewed as positive in one setting may invoke negative responses in the other, and the interpretation of these responses shape further behaviour.

Negative past experiences at school may have resulted in parents developing

entrenched attitudes regarding the value of education. As well as being passed on to their children, these attitudes can result in the reluctance of parents to engage with a system that once might have failed them. For those parents who are committed to supporting their children to achieve, low paid jobs with long working hours can impact on quality time spent with their offspring (Lareau, 1987; McLoyd, 1998). In this case, gifted children may inadvertently learn that working for survival should take priority over the pursuit of personal interests. Parents approach relationships with schools with their own sets of social resources and these are often connected with social class. Schools expect specific types of behaviour from parents, regardless of class, and parents from lower class groups are not always able to meet these expectations, or may not share the same goals (Lareau, 1987).

Schools have a duty to identify and nurture children who may experience

disadvantage due to the environments they occupy. As mentioned earlier, aspects such as timing, depth, duration, and persistence of poverty all contribute to

educational outcomes (Burney & Beilke, 2008; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Fletcher & Dwyer, 2008; Kitano, 2007; McLoyd, 1998; St. John & Wynd, 2008). The difficulties that some of these children experience may well come down to the fact that the adaptive and contextually important skills they have developed in their home and community environments are not skills that are valued in school (Bourdieu, 1997; Sternberg, 2007). Gonzalez and Moll (2002) point out that learning is a social process that is impacted by larger ideological frameworks, which impact students’ lives. These authors suggest that what we see or notice is coloured by our own interests and experiences, and these have developed our knowledge system. Children who are limited by conditions associated with low socioeconomic circumstances may respond more positively to opportunities to demonstrate their potential that align more closely with their interests, knowledge, or experiences (Van Tassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery 2002).

Many writers in the field of giftedness have identified some of the risks and pressures that come with giftedness that might manifest as defensive or avoidant behaviours in talented young people (e.g., Davis et al., 2011; Neihart & Betts, 2010), and these can lead to underachievement. Rimm (2003) identifies three main categories of pressures that gifted young people feel. These are the need to be extraordinarily intelligent or perfect, the desire to be extremely creative or unique, and the concern with being popular amongst peers. In the home environment, gifted young people may live with extreme internal stress as a result of parental admiration of their accomplishments. The sometimes unintentional pressure to achieve that comes from parents can result in the individual ‘rebelling’ against their ability to reach high levels of attainment. Rimm also suggests that schools that do not value high achievement, or educators who set achievement outcomes which are too high for the gifted individual, can perpetuate the incidence of underachievement. In this case, the potential high

achiever may perceive their talent as unappreciated or give up exerting their best efforts when they constantly fail to meet the expectations of their teachers. Conversely, schools that do not provide challenge in their programmes foster underachievement, as academic and other work can be too easy for gifted young people. Peer expectations and the gifted individual’s perceptions about their peer relations can also impact on whether or not talents are displayed.

Some research on underachievers suggests that these young people consistently demonstrate low self-efficacy or poor self-concepts (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Reis & McCoach, 2000). Rimm (2003) stated that underachievement is likely to occur when the habits, efforts, and skills of talented young people cause them to lose their sense of control over educational outcomes. Research by Van Tassel-Baska, Olszewski- Kubilius and Kulieke (1994) proposed that socioeconomic status may be a more significant variable than ethnicity in impeding the achievement of gifted students. Their study indicated that young people who were socioeconomically disadvantaged perceived that they had less support from classmates, friends, parents, and teachers than their more advantaged peers. These young people also perceived themselves as less academically competent and less correct in social and behavioural conduct than advantaged students.