The Disproportional Representation of English Language Learners in Gifted and Talented Programs in Texas

Abstract

The U.S. public K-12 student population experienced a significant increase in the number of English language learners (ELLs) since 2010. Public schools responded to this change in demographics by increasing their services for ELLs; however, many were not initially prepared for this change. Within the field of gifted education, there is a concern that the numbers of identified gifted ELLs has not increased in proportion to the total student population of English language learners. According to the 1971 "Marland Report to Congress," the identified gifted population should be representative of the total student population and any subgroups, including ELLs. This study examined the 2015-2016 student data in Texas, and findings indicate a disproportional representation of ELLs in gifted and talented programs across the state.

The Gifted Gap, STEM Education, and Economic Immobility

“…Extensive research conducted over 40 years reveals that regardless of socioeconomic status, race plays a significant role in gifted education identification and retention (Coronado & Lewis, 2017; Ford, 1995, 2011; Goings & Ford, 2018; Grissom & Redding, 2016; McBee, 2010; Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005; Wright et al, 2017). Contributing factors to racial disproportionality include identification of students for gifted education programs based on narrow criteria and a lack of knowledge regarding the concept of giftedness on the part of teachers (Darity & Jolla, 2009; Ford, 1995; Ford, 2016; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Jordan, Bain, McCallum, & Bell, 2012; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2018; Patton, 1992; Payne, 2010).…”

Identifying and Serving English Learners in Gifted Education: Looking Back and Moving Forward

“…ELs are still very much underidentified and underrepresented in GT programs across the nation (e.g., Adler, 1967; Callahan, 2005; Coronado & Lewis, 2017; Hodges et al, 2018). Yoon and Gentry (as cited in Pereira & Gentry, 2013) analyzed Office for Civil Rights data and found an overrepresentation of Asian and Anglo-Americans and an underrepresentation of Hispanics, Blacks, and Native Americans in GT programs across the United States.…”

“…English learners (ELs) are the fastest growing population of K–12 students in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). 1 In spite of this increase, EL representation in gifted and talented (GT) programs continues to lag behind not only traditional populations of learners (Adler, 1967; Callahan, 2005; Coronado & Lewis, 2017; Hodges et al, 2018) but all underserved populations, including twice-exceptional, rural, Hispanic, Native American, and Black students (M. S. Matthews, 2014; Siegle et al, 2016).…”

Underrepresentation of English-Language Learners in Gifted Education and the Influence of Gifted Education Policy

“…Although educational practitioners have access to various research-based gifted identification measures for students, discrimination theory (Farkas, 2003;Mickelson, 2003) suggests that one reason why ELLs are not identified at the same rate as non-ELLs is inappropriate identification procedures (California Association for the Gifted, n.d.). Gifted identification procedures have the potential of marginalizing students who are from different cultures, linguistic backgrounds, or low socioeconomic status (Coronado & Lewis, 2017). Furthermore, tests, educators, administrators, and parents can show bias during the identification process which can put ELLs at risk (Coronado & Lewis, 2017).…”

“…Gifted identification procedures have the potential of marginalizing students who are from different cultures, linguistic backgrounds, or low socioeconomic status (Coronado & Lewis, 2017). Furthermore, tests, educators, administrators, and parents can show bias during the identification process which can put ELLs at risk (Coronado & Lewis, 2017). Moreover, teachers and administrators may have lower expectations for diverse students, all of which stem from negative stereotypes, assumptions, and other beliefs about these students (Ford & Grantham, 2003).…”