Gifted and Talented Education

¶ … gifted and talented education for minority students. The writer explores the screening process for gifted and talented programs and the various problems that screening process causes when it comes to locating and educating minority students. The writer also explores the societal mindsets and the urban areas that play a part in the overlooking of minority gifted students. The bulk of the exploration is done with a literature review on previous studies, research and decisions regarding the screening and education of minority gifted students. There were ten sources used to complete this paper.

Each day across the nation millions of students sit in classrooms and are educated. The classrooms contain a large number of students and the lessons are designed and geared to reach the largest students in each setting. This means that for the most part the lessons are aimed at the average intellect and average abilities student. Within the context of these students there are a few students in each group who are above average in ability and in intellect. These students are often recognized because of their advanced thought process, their advanced abilities and their thinking outside of the box. Students who meet a pre-set criteria in certain areas are labeled as gifted or gifted and talented. Gifted and talented screening varies across the nation but in many cases it includes standardized testing to decide who meets the criteria and who does not. The students who are screened are sometimes chosen by teachers or administrators. Other times they are located because parents have requested a screening. In recent history there has been some focus on whether or not the screening techniques pass over qualified gifted minority students. Through the use of research and studies it appears that the screening process used for the gifted and talented education criteria in American schools negatively affects minority student populations.

Students who are gifted are often ahead of their classmates in ability and achievement. Many times they know the answers before the questions are done being asked. They finish their work quickly, or they become bored and do not complete it at all, yet they perform well on the test about the subject matter. Across the nation many school districts provide G.A.T.E. (Gifted and Talented Education) programs. The programs have a designed and necessary criteria for the students to meet before they are allowed to enter the program. In most cases the criteria includes standardized tests, and IQ tests and achievements in their academic classes. The GATE program has many political connotations as well because it is considered by many to be a coupe to get in. Parents often pressure the school to give their children access to the program. Parents sometimes view the program as a bragging rights club if their children are asked to enter. The children who are in the program are often challenged in ways that the regular classes could not do because of the number of average ability students in the classes. The students in GATE are provided with higher level thinking skills projects as well as advanced academic work in the areas that they are strong in. In addition the programs often offer field trips and other activities that are designed to promote the higher level thinking that gifted students are known for. For a child who is gifted and bored in the regular classroom the GATE program can be the difference between eventually dropping out of school, and excelling in the top percentage of the class.

Currently there is no set standard for the gifted programs that various states screen for and implement. Different states place the need for gifted education at different levels of importance (Bower, 1995).

Florida spends $58 million a year on gifted education;

Oklahoma spends about $57 million;

Texas $50 million.

Missouri spends a little more than $16 million,

Illinois spends about $19.7 million (Bower, 1995).."

It is important to access and locate the gifted children of the nation because of the potential for dropping out. According to research the percentage of high school drop outs that are gifted is 40% (Bower, 1995).. The number of gifted children who are of minority populations and drop out may be higher according to research. Minority students are often passed over for gifted programs because the screening process is geared to locate and identify white gifted students.

The tests that are normally used to screen for gifted children often present a biased, uneven and skewed view of gifted populations (Shah, 1999). Minority children are often passed over for the program because they do not perform at the correct standards on the standardized tests. One district recently began throwing out the standardized achievement test requirements and instead began giving the Charlotte/Discover test. With this test in place a full 16% of the district's kindergarten and second grade population proved to be gifted. More importantly a much larger base of those deemed gifted came from minority populations. The new ratios were a close representation of the general student population demographic (Shah, 1999).

There are many things that qualify students for a gifted program including teacher recommendations, standardized testing and IQ tests. Recent history has focused on the fairness and equality of the measurements being used on minority students. Students who use English as their second language, as well as students who culturally have not been exposed to the same experiences as white children have will answer questions on standardized and IQ tests differently than their white classmates will (Shah, 1999). The cultural and family style differences create a barrier to the identification of minority gifted students according to some experts who are calling for different screening measures to be developed for minority student populations in America's public school system.

In the one district that used the Charlotte/Discovery test the conclusion was drawn that the former screening methods being employed were in fact passing over gifted minority students, not because of their ability, but because of the language and cultural differences that prevented them from performing at their optimum level on the entrance screenings to the gifted programs.

The district that used a different method than the standardized tests found that providing students with alternate ways to display their abilities changed the outcome significantly.

The new test evaluated kids in the same skill areas as the old one: linguistic, logical/mathematical and spatial intelligence. St. Paul hired 65 people to serve as observers, and the Charlotte / Discover creator flew in from Arizona to train them. They visited classrooms to watch students follow teacher instructions. The kids told stories. They used tangrams, puzzle exercises that require the student to make different forms using different shapes. Interpreters were on hand to help kids who speak primarily Hmong, Spanish and other languages. All the while, the observers recorded their findings. "What they're looking for is something that goes beyond the norm," Willard said (Shah, 1999).."

Charlotte/Discover exam

3,398 second-graders were assessed, as of Dec. 18, 1998

White

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Native

American 1%(Shah, 1999). "

The concerns about how recruiting and screening students for the gifted program has spread to a nationwide problem. The school systems want to locate their gifted students and provide them with a challenging and adequate educational opportunities.

One of the most persistent, troubling, and controversial issues in education is the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education, including gifted education. The concerns over recruiting and retaining minority students in gifted education programs have persisted for several decades (Ford, 1998). One of the earliest articles to address the under identification of minority students (specifically, African-American students) as gifted was written by Jenkins (1936). Since that time, other authors have focused on the under representation of African-American, Hispanic-American, and American Indian students in gifted education, primarily addressing assessment issues (Ford, 1998)."

This study is conducted through the use of a literature review to answer the question as to whether screening methods for the gifted and talented programs in public schools are unfairly weighted in favor of non-minority students.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Throughout the years there have been several studies conducted about gifted education and minority students. The conclusion in the majority of those studies has been that minority students are underrepresented in gifted and talented education programs across the nation. This literature review will ascertain whether or not the under representation is caused by the screening methods being used for the purpose of locating gifted students. While there have been studies conducted on this topic there have not been many and answering the question based on the studies that have been conducted might assist in future decision making for minority gifted students.

One recent study was designed to assess the recruiting and the retaining of minority students in gifted education programs throughout the country. The study was commissioned because of the concern that the minority students were being passed over by the standard methods of recruitment and retention of gifted students (Ford, 1998).

One of the most persistent, troubling, and controversial issues in education is the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education, including gifted education (Ford, 1998). The concerns over recruiting and retaining minority students in gifted education programs have persisted for several decades (Ford, 1998)."

The study presented evidence of the passing over of the issue of minority students in gifted education by pointing out the ERIC database that produced almost 10 thousand published articles about gifted education, and only 7 hundred of them had to do with minority students and gifted education.

A breakdown of those articles indicates that 1.1% focused on Hispanic-American students (n = 110), 1.3% on American Indian students (n = 132), 5% on African-American students (n = 491), and 6% on Asian-American students (n = 62). "

Further analysis of the topic on gifted minority students and their screening pointed to a further under-representation of them in the school gifted programs. The figures drawn during the analyzation of published studies concluded that:

1,412,011 students were identified as gifted (5.7%) (Ford, 1998)"

5% were American Indian, 7% were Asian-American, 7.9% were Hispanic-American, 12.1% were African-American, 72.4% were White. Table 3 shows trends in minority representation from 1978 to 1992 and reflects the underrepresentation of students of color in gifted education programs nationally. In 1992, African-American students represented 21.1% of the school population but 12% of gifted education -- an underrepresentation of 41%. Further, Hispanic-American students were underrepresented by 42%, and American Indians were underrepresented by 50%. Conversely, Asian-American students were overrepresented by 43% and White students were overrepresented by 17%(Ford, 1998). "

This article discusses several possible reasons for the under representation of minority students in gifted programs. One of the chief reasons mentioned was the screening process by which participants are chosen.

Even though other explanations were given then majority of the reasons had to do with the very screening processes to gain entrance including:

recruitment issues screening identification definitions instrumentation policies procedures personnel issues teacher training teacher expectations (Ford, 1998)"

One of the issues according to the study was the use of standardized testing to recruit and locate the gifted students for the program. Using standardized achievement tests creates a problem according to the study because minority students often have not only language barriers but also cultural barriers.

Minority students are also likely to be placed in lowability groups and noncollege preparatory tracks, which decreases the likelihood that these students will be identified as gifted (Ford, 1998). Oakes and Guiton (1995) found that schools with a large percentage of minority students are less likely than other schools to offer academically rigorous curricula, high-ability groups, and academic tracks (e.g., advanced placement, honors courses) (Ford, 1998). "

One of the reasons the above may hold true is the teacher input that is often included in the decision about who to test and who to accept into the gifted and talented programs.

The study concluded that the screening process used for many gifted and talented programs excludes minority students who are in fact gifted students.

Studies that have been conducted to test the screening and retention of minority students in programs for the gifted and the conclusions have overwhelmingly supported the idea that there is an unleveled playing field (Daniels, 1998).

Inequities in education perpetuate disproportionality. Reform should stress the reexamination of policies and practices that produce these inequities. Variables affecting disproportionate minority representation in gifted and special education programs are addressed, including the definition of ethnicity, disability categories, and special education knowledge producers (Daniels, 1998). Historical research synthesis providing an in- depth chronology of past reform efforts, current trends, proposed solutions, legislation and litigation, and statistical outcomes for various minority groups is stressed (Daniels, 1998)."

The issue of underrepresentation of minorities within the school system has been studied for many years.

Language barriers have not been proven to be the biggest obstacle in the screening process of minority students for the gifted programs. Studies have shown that African-American students are the most under-represented group in the gifted programs by percentages.

The study measured the cultural differences that may have caused the lower number of AAs and other minorities in the gifted program and concluded that the true problem is the screening process. Using IQ tests that have been under fire in recent years are an unfair measure for minority students. For many years now the public has clamored for the standardized IQ tests to be less geared to white students and more equally designed to accommodate and account for the many cultural and lifestyle differences that minority students encounter.

Obviously, enormous obstacles must be overcome before equitable policies, mandates, guidelines, and practices can be implemented. Reform of our present education structure, which governs the criteria (formula) for placement in gifted education programs, will be difficult. However, we must persist in our attempts to clarify our educational goals and practices by structuring an education system that lends itself to educational equity for all American students, regardless of ethnicity, cultural background, socioeconomic status, or ability level (Daniels, 1998)." number of studies have recommended changes in the process for screening minority students for various gifted and talented programs, though few districts in the nation have affected any change. "Perhaps what is needed is a historical research synthesis that not only provides a chronology of past reform efforts and trends in special education and gifted education, but also highlights proposed recommendations and solutions, reform efforts that have resulted in legislation and litigation, and statistical outcomes for various minority groups (Daniels, 1998)."

Another study was conducted to determine why the same minority population that is so underrepresented in the gifted programs are overrepresented in the area of other special education. The study looked at the assessments and screening tools that are used to place students into resource programs at their schools (MacMillan, 1998). The study concluded that the minority language barriers as well as the cultural differences in students can cause them to be falsely identified as needing special education. The same can apply to the gifted education question.

A study conducted in 1996 investigated the abilities and needs of 150 children who were in grades second through fourth (MacMillan, 1998).

In the present investigation, 150 children in Grades 2 through 4 who had been recommended for prereferral interventions were compared on a number of cognitive/achievement and behavioral scales in order to test whether those children referred differed as a function of ethnicity, and/or gender. Of interest was the hypothesis that the behaviors that prompt referral may differ by domain or by degree for children of different ethnicity or gender (MacMillan, 1996)."

This study used children from Southern California. There were a total of five school districts that agreed to allow their students to participate. The students who became part of the study were referred by the teachers in their classrooms.

The total study ended up using 24 different elementary schools as well as cooperating districts. Six of those who became participants were Hispanic students that had limited English skills (MacMillan, 1996). The language barriers were shown in the study to have a negative impact on the student's ability to demonstrate his or her academic knowledge and ability. This study can be instrumental to the screening process study of gifted and talented students because they may be closed out of a program due to language difficulty as opposed to not being gifted.

One of the problems with the use of standard test techniques for the purpose of screening for gifted and talented educational programs is the fact that the tests are orally administered. IQ tests are given one on one with the administrator and the student. Studies have shown that African-American students have a more difficult time reading the facial expressions than their white counter parts have reading the administrators faces (Collins, 2001).

Many times a student can pick up clues about the content and direction of a problem or question is by reading the facial expressions of the adult who is presenting the information (Collins, 2001).

Emotions, nuances and other things that assist a student in following directions that are given orally are important factors in the administration of standardized testing. When a student is being given standardized tests for the purpose of admittance to the gifted and talented program at their school or in their district it is important that they are able to perform at their optimum potential and ability. This will provide the administrators with a more clear idea about the ability of the student who is being tested.

The inability to identify emotions in others' nonverbal behaviors or to express one's own emotions nonverbally has been called "dyssemia" (dys = inability; semia = sign) by Nowicki and Duke (1992b). Nowicki and Duke suggest that in addition to interfering with the identification of emotional states of participants and their turn-taking processes, dyssemias can negatively affect interpersonal interactions because nonverbal communication is more continuous, takes place more out of a person's awareness (in that the individual does not pay as much conscious attention to it), and is more likely to have a negative emotional impact on others than verbal communication (Collins, 2001). "

The study used 84 participants of African-American heritage. They were all elementary school aged and they were evenly divided by boys and girls. The school used was a private school in a suburb of a large metropolitan area.

The school that the AA's attended was predominantly filled with white students that were from middle class socioeconomic backgrounds (Collins, 2001).

The average age of the children was 10 years I month, with a standard deviation of 5 months (Collins, 2001)."

The study used four tests to determine the children's ability to ascertain emotions and expectations from the facial expressions of those who were administering the test.

The support for this study was validated through a previous study in which the actors said they were leaving the room and would be back later. From that statement the 1000 children had to state whether the actor was happy, sad, excited, or mad with the communication they received with that sentence. The study concluded the AA children could not determine emotion from the facial expression of the actors.

For this study the African-American students were tested individually. The testing took place during the school day and the students were told only that they would be looking at faces in photographs.

They would also hear the person in the photo make statements and they would guess whether the person was happy, sad, angry or fearful.

The results of this study were conclusive in that the African-American children had a harder time determining emotion from the facial expressions or the inflections of the voices of those speaking (Collins, 2001).