Expanding Gifted Identification to Capture Academically Advanced, Low-Income, or Other Disadvantaged Students: The Case of Arkansas

Abstract

We examined the state of Arkansas, empirically testing how focusing on high-achieving students using state tests might expand the pool of gifted identified students. From a broader sample of 173,133 students, we compared the degree to which students who were academically talented in the top 5% on third-grade state literacy and math assessments were identified as gifted in Arkansas. Across five independent cohorts, we replicated the finding that roughly 30% of the students in the top 5% on both third-grade literacy and math were not identified as gifted. Logistic regression ( N = 3992) indicated that high-achieving students participating in the federal Free/Reduced Lunch program were 50% less likely to be identified. These findings suggest that using state math and literacy assessments as universal screening tools could improve gifted identification of high-achieving students, many from low-income or other disadvantaged backgrounds.

Income, Inequity, and Intersectionality: Reaching Students that are Gifted and Talented and Living in Poverty

“…Students from low-income households are not identified in equal proportions to their medium or high-income counterparts (Hamilton et al, 2018;Hodges & Gentry, 2021;Tran et al, 2022). Moreover, school poverty can predict the percentage of students identified as gifted in the school: "Whereas students of poverty are generally less likely to be identified for gifted services, poor students in poor schools are even less likely to be identified as gifted" (Hamilton et al, 2018, p. 6).…”

“…School-and/or district-level policies should include policies and programs supporting students experiencing poverty and economic inequities ( Myers et al, 2014;Gorski, 2019).Specifically, programs should focus on supporting school attendance and/or initiatives decreasing school mobility and change ( Myers et al, 2014) as these were significant factors noted in testing gaps. Additional recommendations from the research cited above Kaul et al, 2015;Card & Giuliano, 2016;Kaul et al, 2016;Kaya et al, 2016;Plucker et al, 2017;Plucker & Peters, 2018;Grissom et al, 2019;Morgan & O'Brien, 2019;Yaluma & Taylor, 2021;Novak & Lewis, 2022;Tran et al, 2022) are targeted for gifted and talented students, including instructional options, advocacy strategies, and identification-based suggestions.…”

“…It acknowledged the historical racism on which intelligence tests were created, stating in the resolution, "WHEREAS eugenicists focused on the measurement of intelligence, health, and capability, concepts which were adopted by the field of psychology and used systemically to create the ideology of White supremacy and harm communities of color" (American Psychological Association, 2021, p.2). As a solution, some researchers have recommended the use of non-verbal batteries (Naglieri & Ford, 2003;Kaya et al, 2016) while others (e.g., Tran et al, 2022) report on the successful use of state math and/or literacy tests over ability or aptitude tests.…”

Top Achievers in Mathematics in the End of Upper Secondary School

“…That represents 2.9% of all matriculation graduates and 1.4% of the entire age cohort. Researchers [84][85][86] have defined that students who score in the top five percent of standardized academic tests are high achievers. Heller [87] has suggested that the best 6-10% of an age cohort are referred to as academically gifted, the best 3-5% as highly gifted, and the top 1-2% as extremely gifted.…”

What Longitudinal Research and Large-Scale Population Representative Studies Can Tell Us About Gifted Students and Education Policy 50 Years After the Marland Report

“…The policy debate at the national level is unlikely to change anytime soon and has become even more polarized by partisanship, which has historically always driven the policy discussion (Greene & McShane, 2018; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Perhaps seeking change incrementally by engaging state and local education agencies is the most actionable approach (e.g., Tran et al, 2020). The United States may eventually have another Sputnik-level moment, where the pendulum may swing back in support of gifted kids (Benbow & Stanley, 1996), but that would require a large shift in the priorities of U.S. educators, policymakers, and advocates.…”