Proficiency and Giftedness: The Role of Language Comprehension in Gifted Identification and Achievement

Abstract

English learners (ELs) are the fastest growing population of students in the United States and currently represent nearly 10% of public school enrollment; however, they also constitute less than 3% of gifted program enrollment in these schools. Although an increasing number of studies explore this underrepresentation, research that specifically examines the role of language proficiency in gifted identification is limited. This study explored the role of several factors on ELs’ time to reclassification (the point at which students are considered to have reached language proficiency and are no longer classified as ELs) and, in turn, being identified for gifted services. The findings suggested notable demographic and socioeconomic influences on the time to reclassification of ELs. Students who were reclassified earlier tended to be enrolled in schools with more gifted students and had a greater probability of being identified as gifted.

Concordance of Gifted Education Policy and Practices at the State, District, and Local Levels

“…Additionally, neither state nor any districts explicitly included the use of local norms in their identification processes. This finding, coupled with the infrequent use of universal screening processes at the district level as recommended by the outcomes of recent studies (Hamilton et al, 2020; Matthews and Rhodes, 2020; McBee et al, 2014; Mun et al, 2020; Olszewski-Kubilius and Clarenbach, 2012; Peters, 2022; Plucker and Peters, 2018), raises the question about what types of qualified students are being left behind with the use of outdated methods of identification. The use of local norms is a more mathematically complex practice and requires that school districts rely on internal calculations at the district and/or school level for appropriate implementation.…”

“…Failure to do so could mean missing students who are qualified for gifted education. For instance, research (Hemmler et al, 2022; Hamilton et al, 2020; Long et al, 2022; Peters, 2022; Peters et al, 2019; Peters and Engerrand, 2016) has clearly documented that students of color (Tatum, 2003) are underrepresented in gifted education, so it is plausible to posit that continued misalignment of recommended practices, which have been shown to identify greater numbers of students of color (e.g., Card & Giuliano, 2016) and policy implementation can risk perpetuating the view that gifted education is elitist and inequitable.…”

Inequality at the Starting Line: Underrepresentation in Gifted Identification and Disparities in Early Achievement

“…Raw disparities. Hamilton et al (2020) reported notable raw disproportionality rates by language status based on U.S. Dept. of Education Data.…”

Framing the education for gifted Lebanese and gifted refugees in Lebanon

“…In other words, these marginalized students fail to meet the traditional criteria for identification. Research showed that underrepresentation might be a result of misconceptions, teacher bias, as well as the use of screening techniques (e.g., nonverbal tests to identify non-native English speakers) that are inappropriate ( Hamilton et al, 2020 ). Researchers in gifted education advise employing a variety of techniques to identify individuals for gifted programs, such as alternative assessment measures, and multiple criteria adoption ( Ecker-Lyster and Niileksela, 2017 ; Dixson et al, 2020 ; Lee et al, 2022 ).…”