Underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic Students in Gifted Education: Impact of Social Inequality, Elitism, and Colorblindness

Ford, Donna Y.

doi:10.1108/s0270-4013_2014_0000026005

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reality is identifying students for gifted programs and services in public schools is one of the most controversial and contested aspects of gifted and talented education because the process results in some students labeled as gifted while others are not (Borland, 2003; de Wet & Gubbins, 2011). This is particularly controversial when the students are from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) populations (Castellano & Díaz, 2002; Ford, 2014; Ford & Grantham, 2003; Ford & Whiting, 2008; Kitano, 2003; Plucker & Callahan, 2014; Worrell, 2014).…”

Section: Background Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Promising Practices for Improving Identification of English Learners for Gifted and Talented Programs

Gubbins

Siegle

Peters

et al. 2020

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The underrepresentation of English learners (ELs) in gifted and talented programs is a societal and research problem that merits investigation. Three state departments of education and their state directors of gifted programs supported our access to 16 schools across nine districts. In these three states with gifted identification and programming mandates, ELs were proportionally represented in gifted and talented programs in the 16 schools we visited. Interview data from 225 participants revealed four themes: adopting universal screening procedures, creating alternative pathways to identification, establishing a web of communication, and using professional learning as a lever for change.

show abstract

Section: Background Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Promising Practices for Improving Identification of English Learners for Gifted and Talented Programs

Gubbins

Siegle

Peters

et al. 2020

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Identifying a student as GT is controversial as it results in some students being labeled as GT while others are "left behind" (Borland, 2014, p. 323). Unfortunately, those from low-income and culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) populations-which typically include ELs-are more often left behind (Borland, 2003;Ford, 2014;Mun, 2016;Peters & Engerrand, 2016;Siegle et al, 2016;Worrell, 2014). Even if referred for GT programming, such students may face barriers in testing, as differences in average scores for identification have been observed among various populations (Gottfredson, 2003).…”

Section: Factors Affecting Gt El Underrepresentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mun

Hemmler

Langley

et al. 2020

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the number of English learners (ELs) in the United States continues to increase, this population remains underserved by gifted and talented (GT) education programs across the nation. This underrepresentation represents a societal and research dilemma for reasons we address in this systematic review of the most effective practices documented to identify and serve ELs for GT programs. We examine 50 theoretical and empirical articles according to four major themes: nomination, screening/assessment, services, and identification models. We discuss identification recommendations, including outreach and professional learning to foster stakeholder recognition of GT potential in all ELs, an equitable referral process based on a multiple-lens approach, and observation of students completing problem-solving tasks. Finally, we address perceived best practices in serving GT ELs, including making accommodations for ELs in GT programs.

show abstract

“…A lack of such cohesion has been connected to the long-standing disparities in advanced academic representation and educational performance of CLED students (Goings & Ford, 2018; Peters et al, 2014; Plucker & Peters, 2016). Cultural deficit views, racism, differential access to resources, biased standardized assessments, use of rigid cutoff scores, and a lack of culturally relevant professional development have been noted as potential contributors to low representation of CLED populations in gifted programs (Ezzani & Brooks, 2019; Ford, 2014; Lockhart & Mun, 2020; Mun, 2016; Mun, Hemmler, et al, 2020; Siegle et al, 2016; Valencia, 2012). System leaders are urged to implement culturally relevant policies and practices to build systemic capacity and produce equitable reform (Horsford et al, 2011).…”

Section: Leadership For Systemic Change In Gifted and Talented (Gt) Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2016, nearly 14% or 43.7 million people living in America were foreign-born (Radford & Budiman, 2018); and, according to demographic projections based on the 2010 U.S. census, more than half of American children will come from racially and ethnically diverse populations in 2020 (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Despite this growth, and the recognition from the federal government that “outstanding talents” (p. 3) are present in culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) students (United States Department of Education, 1993), their representation in gifted programs lags far behind comparable rates for White students, dominant language speakers, and students from middle to high-income families (Card & Giuliano, 2016; Ford, 2014; Hamilton et al, 2018; Siegle et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Systemic Capacity to Improve Identification and Services in Gifted Education: A Case Study of One District

Mun

Ezzani

Lee

et al. 2020

Gifted Child Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problem of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) student underrepresentation in gifted programs demonstrates a need to examine systemic processes, including the building of systemic capacity at the district and school levels where policies for gifted programs are formed and implemented. To examine the effects of this process on one diverse district’s gifted identification and services, we conducted 10 focus group interviews with 61 participants including gifted coordinators, teacher leaders, and gifted facilitators in the middle of a district initiative aimed at improving equitable identification and services in its gifted program. Data were analyzed using the six-phase approach of Thematic Analysis, which included (1) familiarization, (2) coding, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and then (6) writing our report. Three overarching themes emerged from the in-depth analysis: (1) building systemic capacity, (2) shifting conceptions of giftedness, and (3) equitable identification practices and inclusive programming. Findings indicated the importance of systemic capacity building in teachers for improved CLED student identification into gifted programs and services. Essentially, building systemic capacity and shifting conceptions of giftedness share a reciprocal relationship in leading to more equitable gifted identification practices and inclusive programming. Moreover, implementing flexible and nuanced policy that takes into consideration school climate and culture is critical to building systemic capacity while working toward goals of equity. Recommendations are provided for researchers and practitioners based on these major findings.

show abstract

Underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic Students in Gifted Education: Impact of Social Inequality, Elitism, and Colorblindness

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Promising Practices for Improving Identification of English Learners for Gifted and Talented Programs

Promising Practices for Improving Identification of English Learners for Gifted and Talented Programs

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

Building Systemic Capacity to Improve Identification and Services in Gifted Education: A Case Study of One District

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About