Running Head: IDENTIFICATION of GIFTED MINORITY STUDENTS

Running head: IDENTIFICATION OF GIFTED MINORITY STUDENTS 1

Addressing the Identification of the Gifted Minority Student.

Charles Alex Alvarez

ValdostaStateUniversity

Addressing the Identification of the Gifted Minority Student

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 they comprise a disproportionately small number of students identified as gifted. White students consistently outnumber all other subgroups in gifted identification inthe 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 sound gifted referral process.

Reviewof the Literature

Identifying possible remedies for the underrepresentation of minorities in gifted programs has remained an issue as the gap between identified gifted White students and minority students remains disproportionately large. Ford (1998) noted the reason why recruiting and retaining minority students in gifted programs is unclear. As United States (U.S.) schools have become more 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 40 years is expected to 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 experience continued growth while the percentage of White students, once comprising 79 % of total school enrollment in 1970, is expected to continue to decrease (Nieto & Bode, 2008). Nieto and Bode (2008) stated, “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 de facto segregation, many schools are showing little to no diversity.

As diversity in the U.S. population continues to increase, so has segregation in many U.S. school systems (Nieto & Bode, 2008). This occurrence has led to further segregation in gifted populations at various schools within a school district. The trend in the large urban school system where this research study was conducted involves more affluent areas containing higher percentages of White and Asian students when compared to less affluent areas. The number of gifted students is higher at these schools versus schools in other areas of the county with higher percentages of minority students. As an example, the high school that served as the research sitefor this study had an 83% minority student body of 2,200 total students. Less than one percent of the student body at the research site had been identified as gifted. McBee (2006) revealed that this trend was common in Georgia through a descriptive analysis of data from the Georgia Department of Education in 2004. McBee (2006) revealed that White and Asian students accounted for 79% of all identified gifted students attending Georgia elementary schools (N = 705,074). This disproportionate percentage yielded cause for concern about the minority populations in Georgia and other states experiencing a similar pattern of gifted identification.

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 teachers are prepared to retain the gifted minority student in the program once identified. Many U.S. school systems have maintained various definitions for giftedness and narrow identification processes that focus mainly on cognitive ability test scores (Brown, et al., 2005). The lack of a single definition for giftedness has led to scrutiny of 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 favored 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 were not identified under a narrow cognitive definition of giftedness, but 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.

Teacher expectations. 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 by teachers with inconsistent 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 regardto contextual factors has been further discussed in many areas of education.

Tenebaum and Ruck (2007) analyzed four decades of research in meta-analyses to address the research question of whether teachers’ expectations are different for racial minorities versus European Americans. The authors found a trend of lower teacher expectations for African American and Latino/a students. 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 toward 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 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) eliminated 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, and concluded that lower SES can have a major influence on student performance and teacher expectations.

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 percent of placements from the White student population (Ferri & Conner, 2005; Valenzuela, et al., 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 in an inclusive setting to gifted programs versus general education teachers. The researcherconcluded 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.

Teacher referrals. The first step in identification of a minority student as gifted is the gifted referral. The gifted referral process in Georgia can occur in various ways. It may be an automatic referral resulting from any of the following: 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 could affect the efficiency of gifted identification.

Purpose Statement

Few empirical studies have addressed the areas of teacher expectations, referrals and awareness of the definition and criteria for giftedness in Georgia and as a result many gifted minority students can go unidentified and underserved.The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of increased teacher education on giftedness in Georgia to the number of gifted referrals for minority students at an urban high school. This study addressed the following research questions:

1.How does providing professional development on an urban school system’s and state of Georgia approved criteria for giftedness and referral checklists for teachers relate to the number of teacher gifted referrals for minorities at metro high school?

2.How does providing professional development on an urban school system’s and state of Georgia approved criteria for giftedness and referral checklists for teachers affect teacher attitude toward making a gifted referral for identification?

Methods

References

Besnoy, K. (2005). Using public relations strategies to advocate for gifted programming in your school. Gifted Child Today. 28(1), 32-37.

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.

Ferri, B., & Conner, D. (2005). In the shadow of “Brown”: Special Education and overrepresentation of students of color. Remedial and Special Education. 26(2), 93-100.

Finney, J. (2009). Identifying talent and nurturing its success: An interview with Freemen Hrabowski. Change. 38, 36-41.

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.

Appendix A

Attachment B

COBBCOUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT

Applicant Agreement: Access to Confidential Data

Research Applicant _Charles Alex Alvarez______

Research Project Title_Addressing Identification of the Gifted Minority Student at South Cobb.

Home Address __954 Alloway Place SE_____

City/State/Zip __Atlanta/ GA / 30316______

Employer ___CobbCountySchool/ South Cobb High School______

Telephone:Work__770-819-2611__Home_229-630-2345___

___

I understand that any unauthorized disclosure of confidential information is illegal as provided in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1973 (FERPA) and in the implementing federal regulations found in 34 CFR Part 99. I understand that participation in a research study by students, parents, and school staff is strictly voluntary.

In addition, I understand that any data, datasets or outputs that I, or any authorized representative, may generate from data collection efforts throughout the duration of the research study are confidential and the data are to be protected. I will not distribute to any unauthorized person any data or reports that I have access to or may generate using confidential data. I also understand that students, schools, or the district may not be identified in the research report. Data with names or other identifiers (such as student numbers) will be disposed of when their use is complete.

I understand that acceptance of this request for approval of a research project in no way obligates the CobbCountySchool District to participate in the research. I also understand that approval does not constitute commitment of resources or endorsement of the study or its findings by the school system or by the Board of Education.

If the research project is approved, I agree to abide by standards of professional conduct while working in the schools. I understand that failure to do so could result in termination of the research study.

I agree to send a copy of the study results to the Chief Accountability and Research Officer after completion of the study for any future use to the CobbCountySchool District. I understand that the study is not complete until this report has been provided to CobbCountySchool District.

Research Applicant Signature Date

Signature of Faculty or Staff Sponsor of Research Project Date

______

Name of Sponsoring Agency (University or Institution) Phone Number

COBBCOUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT

Applicant Agreement: Access to Confidential Data

Research Applicant _Charles Alex Alvarez______

Research Project Title_Addressing the Identification of the Gifted Minority Student at South Cobb.

Home Address __954 Alloway Place SE_____

City/State/Zip __Atlanta/ GA / 30316______

Employer ___CobbCountySchool/ South Cobb High School______

Telephone:Work__770-819-2611__Home_229-630-2345___

___

Research Applicant Signature Date

Signature of Faculty or Staff Sponsor of Research Project Date

______

Name of Sponsoring Agency (University or Institution) Phone Number

APPLICATION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH IN

COBBCOUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT

Researcher __Charles Alex Alvarez______

Title of Proposed Research Study

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

Proposed Project Starting Date __November 2009______

Proposed Project Ending Date ___June 2010______

Purpose of the Study

1. Collect teacher data through the use of the Teacher Questionnaire on Giftedness.

2. Review the four areas of giftedness recognized in Georgia and the CobbCounty gifted referral process.

3. Teachers and students will be encouraged to participate in gifted screening for possible identification.

4. If identified as gifted, the student will be eligible for gifted services.

Action Research _x___ Dissertation _____ Thesis _____Grant Evaluation ______

If other explain______