Addressing the Identification Process of the Gifted Minority Student at South Cobb High

Gifted Minority 1

Running head: IDENTIFCATION OF GIFTED MINORITY STUDENTS

Addressing the Identification Process of the Gifted Minority Student at South Cobb High.

Charles Alex Alvarez

ValdostaStateUniversity

Research Problem

Educational equity has remained an issue of concern for minority students (Valenzuela, Copeland, Huaqing, & Park, 2006). Minority youth represent a disproportionately large number of students served under special education yet a disproportionately small number of students identified as “gifted”. White students consistently outnumber all other subgroups in gifted identification for the United States (Ford, 1998). Possible explanations for this trend include a lack of uniform definition for the gifted student, lack of teacher training for gifted identification, and lack of a standard gifted referral process. Few studies have addressed these areas and as a result many gifted minority students may go unidentified and underserved. An increase in the number of identified minority gifted students through the development of a teacher-friendly referral and identification process may result in more minority students receivingappropriate educational services at all grade levels. In addition, school systems may lose full-time equivalent student count (FTE) funding due to disproportionate representation of gifted students within school systems.

Literature Review

Defining and identifying possible remedies for the underrepresentation of minorities in gifted programs have remained issues as the gap between identified gifted White students and minority students continues to remain disproportionate. Ford (1998) noted the reason why recruiting and retaining minority students in gifted programs remains unclear. AsUnited States (U.S.) schools have becomemore diverse, one is left to wonder if the trend of underrepresentation will continue or if educational institutions will work further towards ensuring educational equity and equality for minorities.

Multicultural education

The next forty years is expectedto bring increased diversity and population size. Schools in the U.S. are expected to reflect this increase as our nation grows older. Minority groups that are already on the rise are expected to have continued growth while the percentage of White students, once comprising 79 percent of total school enrollment in 1970, is expected to continue to decrease (Nieto & Bode, 2008). Nieto and Bode (2008) state, “These statistics have vastly changed: In 2003, 60 percent of students in the U.S. were White, 18 percent were Hispanic, 16 percent were African American and four percent were Asian and other races” (p.20). Interestingly, due to the resurgence of segregation, many schools are showing little to no diversity.

As diversity continues to increase, so has segregation in many U.S. school systems (Nieto, 2008). This occurrence has led to further segregation in gifted populations at various schools within a school district. The trend in Cobb County,Georgia involves more affluent areas containing higher percentages of White and Asian students. Gifted numbers are higher at these schools versus schools in other areas of the county with higher percentages of minority students. As an example, South Cobb High has an 83% minority student body of 2,200 total students. Less than one percent of the student body at South Cobb High has been identified as gifted. McBee (2006) revealed that this trend is common in Georgia through a descriptive analysis of data from the Georgia Department of Education in 2004 for elementary students (N = 705,074)from which it was found that White and Asian students accounted for 79% of all identified gifted students in the state. This disproportionate percentage yields cause for concern among the minority populations in Georgia and other states experiencing a similar pattern of gifted identification.

Teacher Expectations

The influence of teachers’ expectations in the classroom on the underrepresentation of minorities has led to research in the areas of teacher bias, cultural awareness, socioeconomic status (SES), and training. Elhoweris (2008) made reference to teacher bias as a major determining factor for the underrepresentation of gifted minorities. Teacher bias in regards to contextual factors has been further discussed in many areas of education.

Tenebaum and Ruck (2007) analyzed four decades of meta-analyses to address the research question of whether teachers’ expectations are different for racial minorities versus European Americans. The authors found a trend for lower teacher expectations for African American and Latino/a students. Further reasoning for teacher bias was based upon lower past performance on standardized tests by African American and Latino/a students (McBee, 2006; Tenebaum, 2007). Teachers aware of the lower standardized test performance trend for minorities may develop a subconscious bias for these students, causing further detriment to minority gifted identification.

Researchers have shown that lower SES is more prevalent among minority students, and therefore among students who are not part of gifted programs (McBee, 2006). The lower SES trend among minorities, linked with lower standardized test scores and the small percentage of students identified as gifted, requires researchers to take each of these areas into account when focusing upon maximum objectivity (Grantham, 2003). Bianco (2005)concluded that lower SES can have a major influence on student performance and teacher expectations by eliminating elementary schools withover 30% of students receiving free or reduced lunch from her research on the effects of disability labels on teachers’ referrals for gifted education.

The effect of disability or labels on teacher referrals for gifted programs and teachers' expectations for students with disability labels are other areas of concern for minorities. While the percentage of minorities in gifted programs is low, the percentage of minority students placed in general special education is high compared with the White student population (Ferri & Conner, 2005; Valenzuela, Copeland, Hauqing, & Park, 2006). Despite the paucity of empirical research in this area, Karnes, Shannessy and Bisland (2004) found that only 0.1% of students in Mississippi gifted programs also had one or more disability labels. The authors of the Mississippi study questioned whether teacher bias or lack of education in the areas of giftedness in diverse cultures and among students with disabilities was a causal agent for the underrepresentation issue. Valenzuela et al. (2006) suggested schools should take a closer look at the impact of stigmatizing disability labels.

Bianco (2005) further addressed teacher influence on gifted identification of students with disability labels including Learning Disability (LD) and Emotional and Behavioral Disorder (EBD). The author evaluated general education teachers and special education teachers for a comparison of likelihood of making gifted referrals for students with either an LD or EBD label. Data analysis revealed students with the LD and EBD labels were less likely to be referred to gifted programs by either general or special education teachers. Bianco (2005) also explained that special education teachers were less likely to refer any student to gifted programs versus general education teachers. The author further supported that teacher expectations can influence the number of gifted referrals for minority students who make up a disproportionately large percent of students placed in general special education or labeled with special education exceptionalities such as LD and EBD.

Definition for Giftedness and Alternative Assessments

Ford (1998) analyzed other areas of concern, including state variations for the definition of giftedness, variations in how students are identified, and how schools and teachersare prepared to retain the gifted minority student in the program once identified. ManyU.S. school systems have maintained various definitions for giftedness and narrow identification processes that focus mainly on cognitive ability test scores (Brown, Renzulli, Gubbins, Siegle, Zhang, & Chen, 2005). The lack of a single definition for giftedness has led to scrutiny for the existence of gifted programs (Besnoy, 2005). Other U.S. school districts have focused upon Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (MI) and using multiple criteria for gifted identification.

Georgia school districts have adopted the multiple criteria approach to gifted identification (McBee, 2006). During a survey of 3,000 Georgia teachers,Brown et al. (2005) found that urban school teachers and administrators favor the use of multiple criteria, such as a high level of task commitment, above-average general abilities and high levels of creativity for examining the gifts and talents of students. Sarouphim (2004)also supported the use of MI and multiple criteria assessments by providing significant data that revealed minority students who are not identified under a narrow cognitive definition of giftedness were identified as gifted using the MI assessment, Discovering Intellectual Strength and Capabilities through Observation while allowing for Varied Ethnic Responses (DISCOVER) gifted identification assessment. Sarouphim (2004)extended issues of concern for the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs to include the identification processes or assessments used in various states.

Sustaining Gifted Minority Students Once Identified as Gifted

Underrepresentation of minorities in gifted programs has been linked to inadequate teacher referrals, identification processes and the absence of a uniform definition for giftedness in U.S. school systems. Once a successfully gifted minority student has overcome all of the formerly mentioned concerns, another issue exists: how to sustain identified minorities in the gifted program. Teachers may lack training on how to adequately serve the gifted student, resulting in teacher turmoil and possible neglect of the student’s needs (Gaither, 2008).

Minority students identified as gifted may also feel turmoil and isolation when placed in more advanced courses dominated by White students. Freeman Hrabowski(Finney, 2009), shared his feelings of isolation while taking advanced science and math courses as he was usually the only African American in his classes. Bullying of gifted students may also discourage students to enter or remain in gifted programs. An empirical study by Peterson and Ray (2006) revealed that 67% of gifted students had experienced bullying by eighth grade, but the trend decreased as gifted students entered high school.

Gaither(2008) mentioned the prevalence of identified gifted students characterized as introverts. This presents further challenges for teachers to encourage students to excel in more advance coursework. Peterson (2006) discussed the prevalence of gifted youth who experience anxiety, and have phobias and intrapersonal problems outside of bullying, which could contribute to the student becoming an introvert. These concerns demonstrate the need for a support system for the gifted minority student once identified.

Teacher Referrals

The first step in identification of a minority student as gifted is the gifted referral. The gifted referral process in Georgiacan occur in various ways. It may bean automatic referral resulting from student performance in the 90th percentile or above on standardized tests; referrals from teachers, parents, the student, or peers; or from other sources reported through the school (McBee, 2006). Since Georgia uses a MI or multiple criteria approach for gifted identification, other referral methods outside of automatic referrals are commonly used and recognized.

Teacher referrals have received scrutiny since the 1959 Pignato and Birch study on teacher nominations. Teachers were described as having poor judgment when referring students for gifted identification, due to the lack of efficiency in actual student identification once referred by a teacher (McBee, 2006). A reevaluation of the Pignato and Birch study revealed flaws in data analysis and that teacher evaluations were useful in providing efficient gifted identification rates(Gagne, 1994). McBee (2006) found that teacher referrals and automatic referrals were the most valuable referral sources for gifted identification.

Despite the resurrection of confidence in teacher referrals for gifted identification, additional factors couldaffect the efficiency of gifted identification (Elhoweris, 2008). The formerly mentioned factors include teacher expectations, bias, lack of education on multicultural education and gifted education and lack of a uniform definition for giftedness. Developing a plan for schools to advocate for teachers to overcome these deficiencies and strive for maximum student identification for gifted programs can be a major step towards addressing the underrespresentation of minorities in gifted programs.

References

Bianco, M. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers’ referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28, 285-294.

Brown, S., Renzulli, J., Gubbins, E., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. The Gifted Child Quarterly. 49(1), 68-78.

Elhoweris, H. (2008). Teacher judgment in identifying gifted/ talented students. Multicultural Education,.15(3),35-38.

Ford, D. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education. 22, 4-14.

Gagné, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch’s (1959) study of theeffectiveness and efficiency of various identification

techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 124–126.

Gaither, J.M.E. (2008). A former student’s perception of not gifted just different: A case study. Gifted Child Today,30(4), 46-58.

Grantham, T. (2003). Underrepresented in gifted education: How did we get here and what needs to change? Straight talk on the issue of underrepresentation: An interview with Dr. Mary M. Frasier. Roeper Review, 24(2), 50-51.

Karnes, F.A., Shannessy, E., & Bisland, A. (2004). Gifted students with disabilities: Are we finding them? Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 16-21.

McBee, M.T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103-111.

Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.: Boston.

Peterson, J.S., & Ray, K.E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly,50(2), 148-168.

Sarouphim, K.M. (2004). DISCOVER in middle school: Identifying gifted minority students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 61-69.

Tenenbaum, H.R., & Ruck, M.D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253-273.

Valenzuela, J.S., Copeland, S.R., Huaqing, C., & Park, M. (2006). Examining education equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Council for Exceptional Children,72(4), 425-441.