Microsystem

The microsystem consists of contexts that are directly experienced by an individual, and encompasses settings such as the home, school, or work. Young people who live in low socioeconomic situations occupy microsystems that have distinctive physical features, activities, people, and relationships (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), and these are generally qualitatively different from those occupied by young people from other socioeconomic circumstances. The impact of the direct setting in which gifted children from low socioeconomic backgrounds might live is related directly to the

interactions and nature of relationships with family, peers, school environments, community, and social supports (Levanthal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). The link

between childhood and later adult disadvantage is well established (e.g., Casciano & Massey, 2008). A lack of resources gives young people a much more limited range of educational opportunities, which in turn may restrict options in adulthood. They may also have limited exposure to more highly educated or successful adult role models, which can result in economic disadvantage that can carry over into the next generation.

The school setting provides a primary context for the production, transmission and accumulation of various forms of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1997; Brooker, 2002; Subotnik et al., 2003). Some writers assert that schools maintain privilege by taking the culture and knowledge of dominant or powerful groups and defining it as legitimate knowledge (Apple, 1982; Lareau, 1987). Individuals who are endowed with cultural and social capital early on in life, such as a respect for the value of education and hard work, or a network of strong social ties, are more likely to achieve in the school context (Brooker, 2002; Subotnik et al., 2003). In the area of talent development, schools typically and maybe inadvertently reward middle or upper class performance and presentation. Merton (1968) refers to this as the “Matthew effect”, or accumulation of advantage. For gifted young people from low socioeconomic circumstances, the lack of ‘acceptable’ cultural capital or early educational input may put them at a distinct disadvantage in terms of the recognition and development of their talent.

Families can play an integral role in the realisation of potential, regardless of socioeconomic status (Bloom, 1985; Bronfenbrenner, 2005c; Moon et al., 1998; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008). In the historic sense, a family’s generational history can affect the degree to which the family is able to assist with talent development (Albert, 1994; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008). For example, families who have a history of

involvement in a particular domain (e.g., dance) may pass this interest on or have networks that make involvement in specific domains more accessible. The accumulation of educational, social, and financial assets or resources across generations can also help facilitate talent development (Bourdieu, 1997). In the immediate setting, parents provide resources in the form of money and time, reflected in lessons and equipment, extracurricular educational opportunities, and providing transport to practices (Bloom, 1985; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008). They may also promote values that are conducive to talent development, such as aspirations to achieve, the value of education, and independence of thought or expression (Albert, 1994; Bloom, 1985; Moon et al., 1998).

Children who grow up in low-income families do not have access to financial

resources that their higher socioeconomic counterparts may have. There may also be aspects of family life that impact on the amount of time parents are able to spend focusing on the talent development of their children. Where parents from low socioeconomic backgrounds are able to spend time with their children, activities might be less cognitively stimulating and enriching compared to wealthier

counterparts (Evans, 2004). Vernon (1979) found that child ability was attributed more to parental education and intellectual stimulation than to material wealth. A lack of resources can be offset by parents optimising interactions with their children and facilitating quality opportunities for learning (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Involvement such as this can act as a form of social capital that may reduce the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage.

The quality of interactions within the family might also be compromised due to financial stress. When family relationships are functional, gifted young people are less likely to experience social or emotional maladjustment (Moon, 2003). Couples who are under financial pressure may suffer greater conflict and less support in their relationships (Evans, 2004). This stress has been found to impact on parenting styles,

and low-income households have sometimes been linked with harsher, disciplinary, and authoritarian styles of parenting (Evans, 2004; McLoyd, 1998). Psychological effects can also play a role in the talent development process (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008). Aspects such as gender or birth order can affect the way a young person is viewed and socialised by the family. Sibling relationships, perceptions, and experiences may also be impacted by giftedness (Moon, 2003). This can result in animosity, conflict, and the suppression of talent. More specifically, each of these factors can impact on whether or not talent is recognised within and beyond the family context (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008).

The peer group is also considered to play an important role in the development of gifts and talents. Parental influence is moderated by the peer group and other outside influences, particularly in middle and late adolescence (Harris, 1999; Steinberg, Darling, Fletcher, Brown, & Dornbusch, 2005). Rewards and recognition from peers will often provide the motivation to achieve (Bloom, 1985) and as children grow older, this motivation is, on occasions, stronger than that contributed by the family (Steinberg & Brown, 1989). These relationships serve to help gifted and talented children to view themselves in relation to their talent domain. Close friendships may also be formed as they aspire to the same goals. Bloom (1985) further suggests that, in later years, gifted young people will compare themselves with fellow students and position themselves accordingly.

Amongst the issues associated with the identification of gifted and talented young people are perceptions of disadvantage, egalitarian attitudes, and mixed expectations. Deficit or stereotyped thinking diminishes the ability and willingness of some

educators to recognise the potential in their students (Alton-Lee, 2003) and this is particularly relevant for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Deficit thinking impedes access to gifted and talented programmes for minority students, including those who are financially disadvantaged (Ford & Whiting, 2008). Some

educators interpret the differences that are sometimes seen in these children as deficits or dysfunctions and, consequently, many socioeconomically disadvantaged students are labeled ‘at-risk’. This label can perpetuate views that these children are dysfunctional, resulting in a focus on their shortcomings and weaknesses rather than their strengths (Seeley, 2003). It would seem logical to suggest that when stereotypic thinking persists, the outcome may well be underachievement.

As outlined earlier, young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds may reside in challenging neighbourhoods (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Involvement in enriching extracurricular activities has been shown to be advantageous to the

development of gifts and talents; however accessibility to these activities for children from low socioeconomic circumstances is often restricted. Social support in the form of mentors or role models has also been shown to play an important role in the lives of eminent individuals, and particularly for disadvantaged students (Clasen & Clasen, 1997). Limited access to the influence of adults or other significant people may restrict the development of a young person’s talent. Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee (2004) stress the importance of investigating aspects that might motivate, influence, or assist gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds to be involved in community activities, and how this involvement affects the development of their talent.

The factors operating within the person-environment system include biological, psychological, and social factors, and these change across time (Gottlieb, 1991). For example, individuals experience changes as a result of biological, cognitive, and emotional experiences. Environments alter as a result of societal changes, or actions that occur within and on the environment (Magnusson, 2005). A significant part of the ecological model refers to how the individual actively selects and constructs their own settings. Sternberg (2007) believes that individuals select new environments in the pursuit of personally-valued goals. Transactions that occur between an individual

and their environments result in individuals not only being shaped by their environments, but also adapting to and shaping their environments (Magnusson, 2005; Plomin & Price, 2003; Rutter, Champion, Quinton, Maughan, & Pickles, 1995; Sternberg, 2007).

Sternberg (2007) proposes that a successful transition will see the individual finding a balance between adaptations and shaping, or changing oneself as well as their

environment. He refers to this as ‘practical intelligence’ or ‘street smarts’, where individuals find a more optimal fit between themselves and the demands of the environments they are in. However, when individuals find it impossible to accomplish an optimal fit, he or she might decide to select a new environment altogether. Ambrose (2002) suggests that ‘street smarts’ can entail sophisticated thinking on par with that required of professionals, and that talented young people in deprived environments often learn to express their talents in the form of street survival endeavours, such as gang membership and activity. In these situations, a form of intelligence that is valued in one environment is undervalued in another, as practical intelligence or street smarts are often not recognised or valued in the school setting.