2010 oagc summer journal - ohio association for gifted children

Peer-Reviewed Journal of the

Ohio Association for Gifted Children

www.oagc.com

Volume 1 • Number 1June 2010

Editorial Review Board

Laurence Coleman, Ph.D., University of Toledo

Jane Piirto, Ph.D., Ashland University

Susan Rakow, Ph.D., Cleveland State University

Yasmin Sharif, Ph.D., Antioch University

Editorial Staff

Susan Rakow, Ph.D., Co-EditorMary Rizza, Ph.D., Co-Editor

Beth Pratt, Layout EditorRick Huard, Proofreader

Ann Sheldon, Executive Director - OAGC

OAGC Summer JOurnAl

OAGC Summer Research Journal Submissions Guidelines

Articles should be no more than 5,000 words in length. If the paper exceeds this length, the consent of the editors is required for publication. Articles should include the research aim and tasks, detailed methodology (quantitative, qualitative, or a combination), literature overview on the research object, substantiation of the achieved results and findings, conclusion(s), and a list of references. Teacher- and school-based action research is welcome. Manuscripts should be arranged in the following order of presentation.

Cover page: Title (no more than 10 words), running head (working title), autobiographical note (the author’s full name, academic affiliation, telephone, fax, and e-mail address and full interna-tional contact). Respective affiliations and addresses of coauthors should be clearly indicated. Please also include approximately 50 words of biographical information on each author.

Second page: A self-contained abstract, summary, or resume of up to 150 words, describing the research objective and conclusions. Whenever appropriate, describing theory to practice or research to practice conclusions and implications is requested. Up to five keywords, which encapsulate the principal subjects covered by the article.

Subsequent pages: The main body of the text with headings, footnotes, a list of references, ap-pendices, tables and illustrations.

Manuscripts are subjected to blind peer review. Authors are requested to prepare for blind review by submitting manuscripts with identifying information on only the cover page. The running head should appear on all subsequent pages. Accepted submissions must conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th edition.

Manuscript pages, including reference lists, should be double-spaced, using one-inch margins. Use an easily readable serif font (such as Palatino, Courier, or Times New Roman) in 12-point size. Figures should be camera ready (saved as JPG, TIFF, or EPS files; Microsoft Application Files are acceptable for vector [line] art). Tables and figures should be used to present informa-tion which is also discussed in text.

1

Contents

Introductionmary g. rizza and susan rakow

2

The Importance of the Use of the WISC-IV General Ability Index (GAI) IQ Score for Identification of Gifted Students

sylvia rimm3

Moving Beyond IdentificationProviding Opportunities for the Twice-Exceptional

mary g. rizza and william f. morrison11

Acceleration in OhioAn Analysis of Statewide Survey Data

colleen boyle, julie mcdonald, gloria komar, susan rakow, sue amidon, and ann sheldon

18

Gifted Students and English as a Second Language A Review of the Issuesbecky elkevizth

28

Contributors42

2

IntroductionBy Mary G. Rizza and Susan Rakow

it is with great pleasure that we launch this first summer research issue of the OAGC Review. It is our hope that this publication will become an annual part of the service and support we provide to gifted educators throughout Ohio and the broader gifted community. Although there are only four articles in this issue, we believe that they highlight significant concerns in our field. In the past few years, districts around the state were required to adopt an acceleration policy. The ODE funded a study of how these policies were being implemented which revealed important and disturbing trends, obstacles, and practices as well as positive outcomes from this initiative. This report provides evidence for data-based decision making needed by administrators and coordinators who are attempting to meet the needs of some of our most advanced students. Twice-exceptional students continue to challenge us to be more innovative in how we identify their gifts and how we serve them in our schools. The Rizza and Morrison article reviews the literature on this topic and provides some guidelines for how we might improve school practices and do a better job of meeting these students’ needs. Along similar lines, Elkevizth reviews the literature on ESL/gifted and provides suggestions for ways we can examine and revise our views and behaviors with regard to this underidentified and underserved group of gifted students. Finally, the invited article by Rimm addresses questions about individual IQ scores that were originally asked on Ohiogift. Dr. Rimm draws on her work with the NAGC task force and their culminating position paper, her professional practice here in Ohio, and ODE guidelines to clarify issues around the WISC subtest scores that can help us do a better job of understanding not just placement and identification of gifted students, but aspects of giftedness itself. When the 2008 volume Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education: What the Research Says (Prufrock Press) was released, one of the immediate responses was that for many of our issues and practices, solid research support was lacking. In February 2010, the APA published Methodologies for Conducting Research on Giftedness edited by Bruce Thompson and Rena Subotnik. While many of the chapters deal with advanced techniques (factor analysis, mixed data collection, etc.) and complex analyses (hierarchical linear modeling, how to handle missing data, etc.), there is a great deal of valuable information about how we (especially masters and doctoral students) can design research and fill in some of the gaps in the field’s understanding of gifted and talented individuals. We hope you find this issue useful and illuminating. And for those readers who are graduate students, teachers and researchers in colleges and universities, or classroom teachers conducting action research, we wholeheartedly invite you to submit your work for consideration for next year’s summer research issue. Guidelines for submissions are provided. If you would like to serve as an editor or reviewer for the next issue, please contact Dr. Mary Rizza ([email protected]) or Dr. Susan Rakow ([email protected]). We would also like to receive your feedback on this first research issue.

3

The Importance of the Use of the WISC-IV General Ability Index (GAI) IQ Score for Identification of Gifted Students

By Sylvia Rimm, Ph.D., Clinical Professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, and Director of the Family Achievement Clinic

gifted students, especially those with attention problems or disabilities, may be at a disadvantage for identification for gifted programming in our state. It is time for psychologists whose expertise is working with gifted children to join together to communicate this problem to school districts, but some practitioners may not be aware of certain changes in the interpretation of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) for identification of gifted children. State law specifies the requirements for identification of gifted children, and the interpretation of that law is the responsibility of the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). The state law for identification of Superior Cognitive (SC) Ability is paraphrased as follows: Student scores two standard deviations (SD) above the mean, minus the standard error of measurement (SEM), on an approved individual standardized intelligence test administered by a licensed psychologist. Nothing in the law designates the Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) as the only score that can be used. ODE consultants inform districts that the General Ability Index (GAI) is acceptable for use in identification but suggest that districts review previously tested students to apply the same considerations. Identification for Creative Thinking requires a test score only one SD minus SEM above the mean (plus a creativity scale). Use of the GAI is also acceptable for the IQ score part of that identification. Psychologists should consider using the GAI IQ score for identification of students for both the Superior Cognitive and Creative Thinking categories when an IQ score is required.

Ohio’s Law on Identification of Gifted Children

ohio law mandates identification of gifted children in four areas of giftedness: Superior Cognitive Ability, Specific Academic Ability in a field, Creative Thinking Ability, and Visual or Performing Arts Ability (ODE, 2008). For two of these categories, Superior Cognitive Ability and Creative Thinking Ability, IQ test scores are mandatory. For Superior Cognitive Ability, the only exception to the requirement of an IQ test score of two SD minus SEM above the mean is an overall total achievement score in the 95th percentile or above. That exception has been useful for some children, but not for some very gifted students with slightly uneven achievement. For Creative Thinking Ability, highly creative children who “march to the beat of a different drummer” often are excluded from programs because of low Working Memory or Processing Speed Index scores. The two boys whose test scores are shown in figures 1 and 3 are both highly intelligent and highly creative, but their respective school districts assumed that they need not identify them as gifted because their FSIQ scores fell short of the cutoff point, although their GAI IQ scores easily met the criterion. Furthermore, the Verbal IQ test score of Male #1 met the criterion; both the Verbal and Perceptual IQ test scores of Male #2 also met the criterion. See figures 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Summer 2010 Journal • 4

Figure 1. Summary of Assessment

Name: FAC Male #1Age at Testing: 12:8

Assessment: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-4th Edition (WISC-IV)Results: Verbal Comprehension: 132 Very Superior Perceptual Reasoning: 121 Superior Working Memory: 113 Above Average Processing Speed: 106 Average Full Scale IQ: 125 Superior General Ability Index: 129 Superior Verbal Comprehension Perceptual Reasoning Similarities: 16 VS Block Design: 13 AA Vocabulary: 15 S Matrix Reasoning: 13 AA Comprehension: 15 S Picture Concepts: 14 S Working Memory Processing Speed (Digit Span: 4 BA) Coding: 7 BA Letter-Number Seq. 11 A Symbol Search: 15 S Arithmetic 14 A

Scale Score 16 and up: Very Superior 14 and 15: Superior 12 and 13: Above Average 9, 10, 11: Average 8 and below: Below Average



Assessment: GIFFI II - Group Inventory for Finding Interests 99th percentile

Dimensions Scores Stanine ScoreCreative Writing & Arts 7Challenge-Inventiveness 3Confidence 9Imagination 7Many Interests 9

Creative Writing & Arts—High scorers enjoy creative arts, stories, poetry, and music. Low scorers do not enjoy involvement in the arts.

Challenge-Inventiveness—High scorers are risk takers. They enjoy difficult tasks and inventing and thinking of new ideas. Low scorers tend not to persevere and prefer easier tasks with less risk.

Confidence—High scorers find school easy and believe they have good ideas. They are more inde-pendent of peer pressure and willing to try new opportunities. Low scorers have a poorer self-image and find it important to be like their peers.

Imagination—High scorers are curious, enjoy questioning, aloneness, and travel. They like new and imaginary ideas. Low scorers are more literal and realistic and less curious.

Many Interests—High scorers have many hobbies and are interested in drama, literature, life in other countries, the past, the future, and many other topics. Low scorers have few interests and hobbies.

Score Rating 1–3 Below Average 4–6 Average 7–9 Above Average

5 • The Importance of the Use of the WISC-IV General Ability Index (GAI) IQ Score for Identification of Gifted Students



Assessment: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-4th Edition (WISC-IV)Results: Verbal Comprehension: 141 Very Superior Perceptual Reasoning: 129 Superior Working Memory: 117 Above Average Processing Speed: 81 Below Average Full Scale IQ: 124 Superior General Ability Index: 143 Very Superior

Verbal Comprehension Perceptual Reasoning Similarities: 18 VS Block Design: 13 AA Vocabulary: 18 VS Matrix Reasoning: 16 VS Comprehension: 14 S Picture Concepts: 16 VS

Working Memory Processing Speed Arithmetic 16 VS Coding: 6 BA Digit Span: 10 A Symbol Search: 7 BA

Scale Score 16 and up: Very Superior 14 and 15: Superior 12 and 13: Above Average 9, 10, 11: Average 8 and below: Below Average



Assessment: GIFFI II - Group Inventory for Finding Interests 89th percentile

Dimensions Scores Stanine Score Creative Writing & Arts 7 Challenge-Inventiveness 4 Confidence 8 Imagination 6 Many Interests 5

Creative Writing & Arts—High scorers enjoy creative arts, stories, poetry, and music. Low scorers do not enjoy involvement in the arts.

Challenge-Inventiveness—High scorers are risk takers. They enjoy difficult tasks and inventing and thinking of new ideas. Low scorers tend not to persevere and prefer easier tasks with less risk.

Confidence—High scorers find school easy and believe they have good ideas. They are more independent of peer pressure and willing to try new opportunities. Low scorers have a poorer self-image and find it important to be like their peers.

Imagination—High scorers are curious, enjoy questioning, aloneness, and travel. They like new and imaginary ideas. Low scorers are more literal and realistic and less curious.

Many Interests—High scorers have many hobbies and are interested in drama, literature, life in other countries, the past, the future, and many other topics. Low scorers have few interests and hobbies.

Score Rating 1–3 Below Average 4–6 Average 7–9 Above Average


A Gold Standard

individual iq tests administered by qualified, licensed psychologists have long provided the gold standard for assessing children’s intellectual strengths and weaknesses for both special education and giftedness (VanTassel-Baska, 2008). Individual tests have always been considered more reliable and valid than group tests. Some school districts use group tests for screening. But because of the great disadvantage of the timing requirement, children with slow processing speed, disabilities or attention problems often don’t complete the test. Group tests don’t provide opportunities to probe the child’s thinking through further questioning, as individual tests do for some items. Anxious, less confident, and even creative children are at a disadvantage. Historically, individual IQ tests have been considered ideal tools for identification and programming for gifted students, but recent revisions of the two most frequently used individual tests, the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler tests, have caused new, unanticipated problems.

Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition

The Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition (SB5), was released in 2003 and was designed to assess five areas of ability: Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. Each area is assessed both verbally and visually, resulting in 10 subtests. Like its predecessor, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Form L-M (SBL-M), the SB5 is untimed: this is often helpful for gifted students who are reflective thinkers. Although the Stanford-Binet test has long been a mainstay for identifying gifted children, FSIQ scores for gifted children are significantly lower in this new edition than in other past and present tests. Lovecky, Kearney, Falk, and Gilman (2005) found that the SB5 would have missed 17 of the 47 children in a gifted program whose cutoff for identification was 130. Accordingly, the authors of that study recommended that a score of 120 be used when the SB5 is administered. Because Ohio state law mandates a cutoff of 127, many gifted children would not qualify using this revision of the Stanford-Binet test. It is an ineffective instrument for retesting when a parent contests a score achieved on a group test. An SB5 IQ score will likely be lower than the group test score and thus defeats the purpose of a parent appeal.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition

The Wechsler IQ scales have always provided excellent interpretations of children’s strengths and weaknesses and are now the most popular individual IQ tests for identification of giftedness. The latest revision of this test, the WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003), incorporates changes that have a great negative impact on the selection of gifted students. It differs tremendously from its predecessors because the old Verbal IQ and Performance IQ scores have been eliminated and replaced with four index scores: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. The Verbal Comprehension Index IQ score is an excellent indicator of verbal abstract reasoning ability, conceptual thinking, and language. Children who score in the gifted range on this portion (including the core subtests of Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension) are well-prepared for gifted programs that emphasize advanced concepts, discussion, and debate. A subtest on Information is offered as an alternative test. Gifted students usually


enjoy this subtest, since cultivating information on a variety of topics is a frequent hobby for them; inclusion of this alternative is recommended for potentially gifted children. The Perceptual Reasoning Index IQ score (Block Design, Picture Concepts, and Matrix Reasoning) measures nonverbal reasoning, visual abstract reasoning, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition, and it locates children with strong visual-spatial abilities—individuals long overlooked in gifted programs (Dixon, 1983; Lubinski, 2003). Both the Verbal Comprehension Index and Perceptual Reasoning Index scores are excellent indicators of superior cognitive abilities. Block Design is the only timed subtest among the six core subtests in these two areas. The Verbal Comprehension Index and Perceptual Reason-ing Index now include only three core subtests because the new edition of the test has added core subtests to the Working Memory Index and Processing Speed Index. Because of these additions and deletions, the indexes now assess significantly different abilities than the earlier editions. They are also assigned different weights in the calculation of the FSIQ score, which is the crux of the problem for gifted students. The weighting of processing skills (Working Memory and Processing Speed) has doubled from 20 percent to 40 percent, and the weighting of the more critical verbal and perceptual skills has been reduced from 80 percent to 60 percent. Processing skills are often weak areas for gifted children (Reams, Chamrad, & Robinson, 1990), especially for boys, and they do not relate as well to general intelligence (g) as do the Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning subtests (see table 1). As Willis and Dumont (2002) point out, even with the earlier Wechsler scales, wise psychologists often prorated scores to exclude processing tests with such poor g loadings as Coding to avoid the so-called Mark Penalty. They recognized even then that the effect of a visual perception disability or small muscle coordination problem could disguise the students’ high cognitive abilities. As a result of the new weighting of the WISC-IV, many Ohio children identified as gifted by the WISC-III no longer meet the IQ criteria for gifted programs in their schools. Although ODE Technical Assistance indicates that there is no provision in Ohio law to “un-identify” or “re-identify” a student (ODE, 2008, p. 1), some schools do use new scores to cancel identified status. Furthermore, new students in need of gifted programming are missed because of faulty identification. This could prevent schools from serving thousands of gifted children who legitimately should have services.

Table 1. Relationships of

WISC-IV Subtests to

General Intelligence (g)

Good Measures of g

Vocabulary (.82)

(Information) (.79)

Similarities (.79)

(Arithmetic) (.74)

(Word Reasoning) (.70)

Comprehension (.70)

Fair Measures of g

Matrix Reasoning (.68)

Block Design (.67)

(Picture Completion) (.63)

Letter-Number Sequencing (.60)

Symbol Search (.58)

Picture Concepts (.57)

Digit Span (.51)

Poor Measures of g

Coding (.48)

(Cancellation) (.25)

(Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, p. 309)


Research on the GAI IQ Score. Studies conducted by the Gifted Development Center (GDC) in Denver, Colorado (Gilman & Kearney, 2004; Silverman, Gilman, & Falk, 2005), and the Family Achievement Clinic (FAC) in Cleveland, Ohio (Rimm, 2006), found great disparities in the index scores of individuals tested at these clinics, as shown in table 2.

Even more important, Flanagan and Kaufman (2004) advise against the use of the FSIQ score as a global estimate of ability when the disparity between index scores is equal to or greater than 1.5 standard deviations (23 points). In such cases, they state, the FSIQ is not a unitary construct and is, therefore, not interpretable. In 79 percent of GDC cases and 74 percent of FAC cases, the FSIQ score was not interpretable because of extreme discrepancies (> 23 points) between index scores. Flanagan and Kaufman argue that in those cases, the General Ability Index IQ score provides a better overall indicator of the child’s reasoning abilities. Test scores for a large percentage of gifted children in Ohio display significant disparities among the four indexes of the WISC-IV. Thus, the FSIQ score does not yield a valid global estimate of ability for these children and should not be required for admission to gifted programs. The GAI IQ score combines the scores of the Verbal Comprehension Index and Perceptual Reasoning Index, eliminates the Working Memory Index and Processing Speed Index (Raiford, Weiss, Rolfhus, & Coalson, 2005), and is a better estimate of children’s superior cognitive abilities. Use of the GAI IQ score increased the identification of children for gifted programs (with scores > 130) and particularly for highly gifted programs (with scores > 145). The GDC identified 44 children with FSIQ scores of 130, whereas the GAI identified 61 children with scores of 130 or higher. The percentage increased from 43 to 59. The differential was not as great for the FAC’s sample: 19 children were identified as gifted by FSIQ score and 22 by GAI IQ scores, a change from 45 percent to 52 percent. Greater differences were found for highly gifted students, however. The GDC identified only eight with FSIQ scores of 145 or higher, compared to 21 children with GAI IQ scores of 145 or higher (a change from 8 percent to 20 percent). At the FAC, using GAI IQ scores identified five times as many children as gifted (a change from 5 percent to 24 percent). The GDC study found only four children who scored 130 or above on the visual-motor tasks that measure Processing Speed, and the FAC found only two (Silverman, Gilman, & Falk, 2004; Gilman & Falk, 2005). The emphasis on physical development seems to be a throwback to the earliest IQ measurement attempts by Francis Galton (1883). Considering the struggle with handwriting that so many highly intelligent boys suffer, identification of giftedness will actually hurt boys more than girls.

The Importance of g. The relationship between tasks on an individual IQ test and general intelligence (g) has been experimentally determined. Strong measures of g predict school and life success and most effectively locate children in need of gifted programming. Table 1 shows all of the WISC-IV subtests as they relate to g.

Table 2. Comparative WISC-IV Index Scores

Gifted Development Center Family Achievement Clinic (n = 103) (n = 42)

Verbal Comprehension 131.7 130.0

Perceptual Reasoning 126.4 126.7

Working Memory 117.7 119.9

Processing Speed 104.3 111.9


While administration of the Working Memory and Processing Speed subtests, which have lower g-loadings, provide helpful diagnostic information (e.g., a child may need computer accommodations or extended time for test completion), subtests with the highest g-loadings, primarily Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning, best identify the gifted. As two subtest substitutions are allowed in different indexes, substituting Arithmetic for Letter-Word Identification is preferable for gifted children (Gilman & Falk, 2005). Arithmetic has the fourth-highest g-loading of all subtests, is a meaningful Working Memory test, suggests mathematical talent, and was the second-highest-scoring subtest for the gifted group in the normative study. Also note in figures 1 and 3, shown earlier, the dramatic contrast between the Arithmetic and Digit Span subtests. This difference shows itself so frequently that one wonders whether Working Memory is a unitary construct. On the earlier editions of the Wechsler test, Digit Span was not included in the FSIQ score calculation. It provides important diagnostic information for guiding students but has a lower relationship to g than most other subtests.

The Position Paper of the National Association of Gifted Children

psychologists, gifted educators, and researchers initially brought the problem of the disproportionate weighting of the Working Memory Index and Processing Speed Index to the attention of Harcourt Assessment (now Pearson Assessments), the publishers of the test. The test publishing company responded by issuing Special Report #4 (Raiford et al., 2005). A former president of National Association of Gifted Children (NAGC), Joyce VanTassel-Baska, subsequently appointed a task force to determine the best use of the WISC-IV scores for identification of gifted students. The members of the task force collected and analyzed the data presented in table 2 and wrote the position paper that was accepted by the NAGC, which is excerpted in figure 5. It is not in contradiction to Ohio state law or in contradiction to the ODE’s interpretation of that law to use the Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, or General Ability Index IQ scores of the WISC-IV to identify gifted students in our state, thus bringing our state to the new national standards for interpretation of the WISC-IV.

Figure 5. Excerpt from NAGC Position StatementRecommendations for Use of the WISC-IV in Identification for Gifted Programs

Either the General Ability Index (GAI), which emphasizes reasoning ability, or the Full Scale IQ Score (FSIQ) should be acceptable for selection to gifted programs. The GAI should be derived, using the table provided on the Pearson Assessments Web site (Technical Report No. 4) http://pearsonassessments.com. The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) and the Per-ceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) are also independently appropriate for selection to programs for the gifted, especially for culturally diverse, bilingual, twice-exceptional students or visual-spatial learners. It is important that a good match be made between the strengths of the child and the attributes of the program. Students who have special learning needs should be admitted to gifted programs, provided that there are other indications of giftedness and instructional modifications are made to fit the needs of the students (NAGC, 2008).

Full NAGC position statement available online at www.nagc.org.


References

Dixon, J. (1983). The spatial child. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Gilman, B., & Falk, R. F. (2005, August). Research-based guidelines for use of the WISC-IV in gifted assessment. Paper presented at the 16th biennial conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, New Orleans, LA.

Gilman, B., & Kearney, K. (2004, November). From conceptual to practical: Making gifted testing relevant. Paper presented at the 51st annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Salt Lake City, UT.

Lovecky, D. V., Kearney, K., Falk, R. F., & Gilman, B. J. (2005, August). A comparison of the Stanford-Binet 5 and the Stanford-Binet Form LM in the assessment of gifted children. Paper presented at the 16th biennial conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, New Orleans, LA.

Lubinski, D. (2003). Exceptional spatial abilities. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 521–32). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) (2008). Position statement: Use of the WISC-IV for gifted identification. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org.

Ohio Department of Education (ODE) (2008). Operating standards for identifying and serving gifted students: Technical assistance manual. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.oh.us.

Raiford, S. E., Weiss, L. G., Rolfhus, E., & Coalson, D. (2005). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition: General Ability Index. (Technical Report No. 4). Retrieved from https://www.pearsonassessments.com/.

Reams, R., Chamrad, D., & Robinson, N. M. (1990). The race is not necessarily to the swift: The validity of WISC-R bonus points for speed. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 108–10.

Rimm, S. (2006, November). Breaking the ceiling scores for profoundly gifted children using the WISC-IV. Paper presented at the 53rd annual convention of the National Association of Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC.

Silverman, L. K., Gilman, B. J., & Falk, R. F. (2004, November). Who are the gifted using the new WISC-IV? Paper presented at the 51st annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Salt Lake City, UT.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2008). Using performance-based assessment to document authentic learning. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Critical issues in equity and excellence in gifted education series: Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 285–308). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Wechsler, D. (2003). The WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Willis, J. O., & Dumont, R. P. (2002). Guide to identification of learning disabilities (3rd edition). Peterborough, NH: Authors.

11

Moving Beyond IdentificationProviding Opportunities for the Twice-ExceptionalBy Mary G. Rizza, Ph.D., Creative Connections Group,

and William F. Morrison, Ed.D., Bowling Green State University

Introduction

according to the National Education Association (NEA), no statistics are kept on identification rates for students who are twice-exceptional (NEA, 2006). While the literature is replete with suggestions for identification, schools often hesitate to identify students as twice-exceptional. One impediment to identification may be a lack of knowledge about how to provide services that adequately address the needs of the student who has both gifts and disabilities. Service plans for the twice-exceptional must include an understanding of the student’s academic needs and take into account his or her lived experiences (Baum, Cooper, & Neu, 2001; Nielsen, 2002; Reis & Ruban, 2002; Weinfeld, Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz, 2002). These students’ tolerance for stressors and reaction to situations are based on a combination of factors related to their giftedness, area of disability, and stage of development. In addition to these personal factors, they face other pressures in the various spheres in their lives: for example, school, home, and community. Separating these spheres of influence is a difficult task because of the overlap of issues among them. Any discussion of academic pressure, for example, must include the influence of the school and home spheres. The purpose of this review is to investigate these issues and outline the components necessary for successful programming.

Review of Literature

the twice-exceptional have needs that are similar to, yet different from those of every other category of students. The very dichotomy of the abilities that make up their exceptionality sets them apart from their peers in regular, gifted, and special education. Misdiagnosis often adds to the problem of understanding, leading to inappropriate placement in school (Brody & Mills, 2004; Webb et al., 2005). Anticipating all the possible needs for this complex group of students is impossible because each is, in actuality, three students rolled into one. Educators and parents must keep in mind the stressors that each student may face and should approach intervention from a problem-solving perspective that addresses the specific needs of the individual. School is often a negative experience for the twice-exceptional student. Identification remains a problem, causing an underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students in schools (Baum & Owen, 2003; Brody & Mills, 2004; Johnson, Karnes, & Carr, 1997). The increasing cognitive demand as a student progresses through school may also cause problems with academic achievement and motivation. Many gifted students with disabilities are not properly identified because of the interactive regression effects of their abilities and disabilities (Baum & Owen, 2003;


Webb et al., 2005). Misdiagnosis of abilities is a problem for students whose abilities and disabilities mask each other. All too often, previously achieving students are viewed as underachievers. An equally precarious situation occurs when abilities and disabilities counterbalance each other in a regression-to-the-mean effect that results in average performance on tests and grade reports. Lack of understanding of the student’s true abilities can result in improper programming decisions and a failure to provide services. The issue of identification is not a simple yes-or-no question, but one that clearly specifies the needs of the individual student. Twice-exceptional students require special consideration with regard to their social and emotional functioning. Specifically, the twice-exceptional are at greater risk for social isolation and peer rejection. The very nature of their dual diagnosis can cause identity confusion because they may not feel fully accepted by any of their peer groups. Participation in the gifted program has been shown to cause isolation from regular peers. A student with a disability may not feel fully accepted among gifted peers, yet may also feel isolated while in special education because he or she is not fully integrated with that group, either. Fitting in with peers is essential to social functioning in school; not having a clearly defined peer group may cause issues with emotional health. Motivation is a key ingredient for learning for every student. Motivation, according to Deci & Ryan (2000), includes a need for control, competence, and a sense of belonging. These factors may be missing for the twice-exceptional student who is facing a crisis of identity. Confusion over abilities is a common characteristic of the twice-exceptional, as is the feeling of disconnection from both gifted and special education peers (Baum & Owen, 2003; Brody & Mills, 1997). McCombs (1994) takes the definition of motivation a step further and posits that it is heightened when students are engaged in activities that are interesting and attainable and that include adequate outside support, respect, and encouragement. For twice-exceptional students, the factors that influence motivation are often missing. For example, all too often the students are separated from the learning process; that is, programs are designed for them, not with them, and the students may have little input in their own education. When the problems of finding appropriate placement for both the remediation and giftedness are factored in, the individual student may be left with a program that meets neither need. Educators must find ways to engage these students and provide them with a supportive environment that also addresses social and emotional factors. Early on, Birely (1991) warned that concentration on the disability area without regard for gifted training may result in students who assume the role expected of them because of their area of identification. The risk for underachievement is greatly increased when expectations are lowered in students who are struggling. Motivation to succeed is tied to students’ views of themselves as learners and the support they perceive from the environment. Self-efficacy, or the perception of one’s ability to be successful at a task, has been tied to motivation and ultimately to academic success, but teacher expectations also play a role (Bandura, 1997). Students who have low self-efficacy may give up more easily because of self-deprecating perceptions of their own ability. Likewise, previously successful students who suddenly find themselves struggling with academics may become confused about how they define the self. Problems with self-esteem may also ensue when attributions for success are based on uncontrollable factors. If children’s entire self-worth is based on a false sense of self that is tied into a label of being “smart,” the image may be shattered when they encounter difficulty because of a learning disability. They no longer believe themselves to be smart because they have difficulties learning. For many gifted students who have never had to expend effort on their academics, the first time they are challenged can be confusing. For the twice-exceptional student, the remedy is not simply working harder or employing rudimentary study skills. The difficulties are often rooted in a lack of basic skills that can cause frustration in students and adults who believe that the skills should have been learned earlier. For

13 • Moving Beyond Identification

example, during middle school, there is a higher demand on students to be proficient in reading and writing. In the case of the twice-exceptional student with expressive language delays, these demands can be overwhelming despite the student’s understanding or mastery of the content area material. The stress and frustration may be turned inwardly or expressed outwardly. Internalized stress may manifest itself in perfectionism, underachievement, depression, or learned helplessness. In each case, the stress and anxiety are turned inward, and there is considerable loss of self-esteem. Students report feelings of alienation, isolation, and general disconnectedness. Many times, their fear of failure results in learned helplessness and a sense that nothing they do can change the situation, so they give up. Procrastination, a by-product of perfectionism, is the result of fear of failure as well. On the other hand, stress may cause externalizing behaviors that are equally destructive. Acting out, absenteeism, seeking out inappropriate peer groups, and general antisocial behaviors may result when students fail to see the value of school. On the brighter side, stress in school may cause some to redouble their efforts and invest more energy in academics. Research has shown that programs for the twice-exceptional cannot ignore the explicit social and emotional needs of the students (Baum, & Owen, 2003; Nielsen & Higgins, 2005; Weinfeld et al., 2005). Schools and districts must keep in mind that academic progress for the twice-exceptional student requires understanding of the specific cognitive and social needs of that student. Each student is different and requires a slightly varied set of interventions. Current trends in high-stakes testing can have a serious impact on the programming decisions made for all students, but the implications for the twice-exceptional can be devastating. Current pressures on school funding directly affect the programming for students who are struggling. While this may be appropriate for a small portion of this population—that is, those who struggle with standardized testing—many twice-exceptional students are caught up in the rush for remediation with little regard for their gifted needs. For example, a student who struggles with reading will be provided many opportunities for remediation to ensure that test scores do not suffer. Such a heavy focus on problems leaves little time in the schedule for a challenging curriculum that addresses the student’s gifted needs. Overreliance on advanced curriculum, on the other hand, may do little to provide students with the necessary coping strategies to learn. The balance between teaching basic skills and challenging a student’s abilities is not easily achieved. The added pressure of current legislation that holds school funding in jeopardy will continue to encourage the overreliance on remediation despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary (Baum & Owen, 2003; Brody & Mills, 2004; Nielsen, 2002). A review of the research on programming models for the twice-exceptional reveals a wide array of findings. Some researchers offer helpful recommendations based on anecdotal evidence or single-subject design projects (Bisland, 2004; Coleman, 2005; Reis & Ruban, 2005; Winebrenner, 2003). While these are helpful in understanding the needs of individual students, projects based on schoolwide or districtwide implementation provide the most comprehensive descriptions for programming. For example, early models like Project High Hopes incorporated problem solving and enrichment activities for students with emotional disabilities who also demonstrated signs of giftedness (Baum, 1997; Baum, Cooper, & Neu, 2001; Gentry & Neu, 1998). The goal of Project High Hopes was to ensure that each child was able to maximize his or her potential, and the curriculum designed was based on talent development as a means for accommodating skill deficits. The Montgomery County Public Schools model provides services to the twice-exceptional on the premise that curriculum must be focused on student strengths and be appropriately differentiated to accommodate the individual goals of each student (Shevitz, Weinfeld, Jeweler, & Barns-Robinson, 2003; Weinfeld, Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz, 2002, 2005). According to this model, instruction must be interesting and challenging but also flexible. The Montgomery County


model employs a case management approach that ensures appropriate accommodation of all needs. Accommodations for the twice-exceptional include strength-based instruction that differentiates content, process, and product as well as includes interventions to provide access to the curriculum (Montgomery County Public Schools, n.d.). Similarly, the Twice-Exceptional Child Projects in New Mexico have culminated in an integrated and interdisciplinary programming model that adds choice and compassion to the curriculum (Nielsen & Higgins, 2005). Allowing students a variety of avenues to acquire information and to show proficiency is the first step toward success. The curriculum is based on the premise that middle and high school already place high demands on students in the traditional skills of reading, writing, and note taking. Accommodations, therefore should be designed to alleviate the stress of these tasks. In addition, the anxiety encountered by the twice-exceptional over grades and standardized testing are real and can have a direct impact on the students’ educational future. A compassionate curriculum, therefore, is one that incorporates social and emotional support for the student in safe environments that allow students free expression of needs. Nielsen (2002) also recommends a continuum of services based on the needs of the student. The accommodations are classified according to environment, from modifications to the general education program on one end to a self-contained classroom on the other. Each option is clearly tied to the needs of the student and identifies the least restrictive environment necessary to provide appropriate educational services. The key component of this model is the tie to special education, which is imperative for appropriate programming since this population of students requires intervention for areas of disability.

Recommendations for Programming

the primary goal for any school or district seeking to design a program model for serving twice-exceptional students is to identify the best practices and to decide how to apply them to the specific requirements of that school or district. The first step is to identify a continuum of services. A true continuum of services should be dictated by the specific needs of the individual student. Asking what is best for the student may initiate debate over funding and policy. All too often, the needs of the administration outweigh the needs of the student, and programs reflect policy rather than best practices for learning. The continuum of services should include accommodations for all settings in which the student will be enrolled. Students, regardless of their identification category, spend the majority of the day in the regular education classroom. Inclusion programs help students with special needs to be more successful in the regular education setting when the curriculum is adjusted to meet their specific needs. The duration of the intervention will be dictated by the educational plan set up for that individual student. Each set of services—gifted and special education—should be coordinated, and the educational plans synchronized to ensure seamless integration. According to the NEA (2006), the classroom teacher must be concerned with five issues when providing instruction for the twice-exceptional student:

accommodating academic strengths/gifts•accommodating academic weaknesses/disabilities•providing direct instruction to support classroom success•addressing social/emotional issues•addressing behavioral issues•

15 • Moving Beyond Identification

While these components have been proven effective, the realities of implementation can be overwhelming for schools and programs. First, there must be an understanding that the student requires intervention for both giftedness and remediation. Next, all decisions made regarding the student must involve personnel from all spheres of influence for the child: that is, regular, gifted, and special education. Plans for service and curriculum cannot be designed in isolation. The most efficient model for implementation, therefore, is one based on consultation and collaboration. It is unrealistic to expect that any one teacher will be responsible for all components of a student plan. Success can be assured only when teachers work collaboratively, each bringing his or her own expertise to the situation. Students who are twice-exceptional require curriculum to be modified in all classroom situations. Just as a student doesn’t stop being gifted simply because he or she is in the regular classroom, so that same student does not stop having a learning disability because he or she is gifted. The final component is providing social and emotional support. Educating the student on what it means to be gifted and the ramifications of having a learning disability are critical components to ensure this sort of social and emotional support. Self-knowledge will also enable the student to understand how he or she learns best, as well as the best method to apply when learning. For example, study-skills training is an effective strategy, but only when the correct intervention is identified. Without self-knowledge on learning styles, directly keyed into abilities, students are reduced to a hit-or-miss approach to learning.

Conclusion

students who are twice-exceptional have both abilities and disabilities. Educators, therefore, must be aware of the various ways in which these differences affect these students and their experiences in the classroom. First, they must truly acknowledge the learning differences of all their students. Next, they must be reflective in their instructional practices and honestly evaluate how their teaching matches or, more often, doesn’t match the learning needs of their students. Finally, they must provide learning support and challenging curriculum to all students in the classroom. Each and every student can benefit from interventions that support learning, but for those who truly need the accommodations, the impact on success will be exponential.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Baum, S. (1997). Project HIGH HOPES: Final evaluation report. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Baum, S., Cooper, C., & Neu, T. (2001). Dual differentiation: An approach for meeting the curricular needs of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 477–90.

Bisland, A. (2004). Using learning-strategies instruction with students who are gifted and learning disabled. Gifted Child Today, 27, 52–58.

Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (2004). Linking assessment and diagnosis to intervention for gifted students with learning disabilities. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities: Identification, assessment, and outcomes (pp. 73–94). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Coleman, L. J., & Sanders, M. D. (1993). Understanding the needs of gifted students: Social needs, social choices and masking one’s giftedness. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 22–25.


Coleman, M. R. (2005). Academic strategies that work for gifted students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 28–32

Deci, R. M., & Ryan, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Gentry, M., & Neu, T. (1998). Project High Hopes Summer Institute: Curriculum for developing talent in students with special needs. Roeper Review, 20, 291–95.

McCombs, B. L. (1994). Strategies for assessing and enhancing motivation: Keys to promoting self-regulated learning and performance. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr., & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 49–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Montgomery County Public Schools (n.d.). A guidebook for twice exceptional students: Supporting the achievement of gifted students with special needs. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.

National Education Association (NEA) (2006). The twice-exceptional dilemma. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Nielsen, M. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 93–111.

Nielsen, M. E., & Higgins, L. D. (2005). The eye of the story: Services and programs for twice-exceptional learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 8–15.

Reis, S., & Ruban, L. (2005). Services and programs for academically talented students with learning disabilities. Theory into Practice, 44, 148–59.

Shevitz, B., Weinfeld, R., Jeweler, S., & Barnes-Robinson, L. (2003). Mentoring empowers gifted/learning disabled students to soar. Roeper Review, 26, 37–40.

Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. (2002). Academic programs for gifted and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 24, 226–33.

Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. (2005). What we have learned: Experiences in providing adaptations and accommodations for gifted and talented students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 48–54.

Winebrenner, S. (2003). Teaching strategies for twice-exceptional students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 131–37.

18

Acceleration in OhioAn Analysis of Statewide Survey Data

By Colleen Boyle, Julie McDonald, Gloria Komar, Susan Rakow, Sue Amidon, and Ann Sheldon

This article is supported by a grant from the Ohio Department of Education.

Abstract

the effectiveness of acceleration as an educational technique to serve gifted students has long been supported by research. Yet the value of this service remains hotly debated. Current acceleration practices across the state were reviewed via self-reported survey data, a general online survey, and case studies of eight public school districts that have implemented acceleration policies. Findings indicated the importance of communication and gifted education training for those in positions of leadership or gifted service and the importance of access to advanced curricular resources for accelerated students. Additionally, concerns over the impact of acceleration practices on state accountability and data collection systems, state assessment use, and conflicting procedures within current laws remain to be resolved.

Introduction

the effectiveness of acceleration as an educational technique to serve gifted students has long been supported by research. Yet the value of this service remains hotly debated. In general, people are either strongly in favor of this option for advanced learners or staunchly against it for fear of possible future damage to the child. In 2005, Ohio adopted a statewide law (Ohio Rev. Code § 3324.10) and subsequent policy requiring districts to afford capable students the opportunity to accelerate their learning in various ways. The current project sought to examine the implementation of this policy. Of particular interest were factors that influenced the use of acceleration as an option and potential means of aiding future policy implementation. Over the years, the literature on acceleration has continued to grow, as has support for accelerative options (Gross, 2006; Neihart, 2007: Rimm & Lovance, 2004; Rogers, 2007; Tsai, 2007). The landmark repository of acceleration research, A Nation Deceived (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004), provided a body of evidence related to the academic and, as available, social and emotional outcomes from various forms of acceleration, including whole grade, single subject, early school entrance, and early graduation. Overall, the literature indicated acceleration is an academically beneficial practice with either no impact or a positive impact on social and emotional development. Information from that report has been freely distributed in print and electronic forms nationwide in order to refute long-held myths about potential harm from acceleration options. Southern and Jones (2005) conducted a study, with support from the Ohio Department of Education’s Office for Exceptional Children (ODE-OEC), to assess policies and practices used to make accelerative options available to gifted students in Ohio at that time. Using a mix of policy reviews, survey data, and case studies, the authors found several issues across the state. In the case studies, decision making often occurred under the direction of one individual, and preferably

19 • Acceleration in Ohio

on the basis of concrete data. Once placements occurred, all parties were generally satisfied with the outcomes of the acceleration decision. Despite the positive outcomes of acceleration placements, however, continuation of the placement sequence was problematic at times because of concerns about future achievement, poor record keeping, or logistical problems, such as building arrangement. Additionally, overall attitudes toward the practice were negative. Discrepancies in referral and placement rates were found based on ethnicity as well as economic and gender demographics. A review of district self-reported data from 2004 showed that the number of grade-advanced students was small (n = 498): many districts reported no accelerated students at all. The most students reported by any one district was nine. Content, or subject, acceleration was more widely employed (n = 16,005). This number included students taking algebra in eighth grade or studying a foreign language. No significant differences were observed when considering district size or type. The work of Southern and Jones (2005) indicated that Ohio districts have been slow to embrace this educational practice, even though it has been found to be instructionally effective and, in many cases, cost efficient. In 2005, the state mandated that each school district develop an acceleration policy based on the state model policy or adopt the state model in total. The intent of the mandate was to increase the adoption of acceleration practices throughout Ohio’s school districts. The current study sought to determine the effectiveness of that mandate in changing district acceleration practices two years after its adoption. The project focused on two goals: (a) identifying local factors that have facilitated or inhibited successful use of acceleration since the adoption of statewide acceleration legislation in 2005 and (b) identifying additional action steps that may be needed to ensure successful implementation of research-based acceleration policies and areas in which additional policy action may be necessary. Each spring, in fulfillment of legislative mandate (ORC § 3324.01–.07), school districts across Ohio complete a self-report of gifted identification, services, and professional development. Following the adoption of the state model acceleration policy in 2006, the self-report survey included questions regarding acceleration practices. These questions highlighted the number and sources of referrals for four types of accelerated placements: early entrance to kindergarten and first grade, whole-grade acceleration, single-subject acceleration, and early graduation.

Data Collection

this study began with an analysis of the annual district self-report information on acceleration as gathered by the ODE in the spring of 2008. Next, a survey of acceleration experiences and practices was created, and requests for participation were sent to school representatives and to educators and families statewide. In order to add depth to the analysis, eight respondent school districts were selected for in-depth case studies. Those case studies included a review of district policy documentation, surveys of individuals within each district, and follow-up interviews with select district personnel. Policy implications are discussed to inform decision making about the impact of current acceleration policies and procedures and the future direction of such policy.

Data Analysis

each district in the state is classified by type, using a 0 through 8 numbering system. Descriptions of each classification are provided in table 1. In the spring of 2008, 464 out of 614 districts, or 75.6 percent, completed the self-report. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences in the rates of acceleration referrals and placements based on district type (see table 2). It revealed no significant differences in the rate of referrals, F(6, 601) = .85, p = .53, among the different typologies. Also, an ANOVA revealed no significant differences in the rate of accelerated placements based on Average Daily Membership (ADM), F(6, 601) = .66, p = .68.

Table 1. Description of District Typology (Quoted from Ohio Department of Education, 2007)

Typology Definition

0 These districts have special circumstances or are geographically isolated on an island. Thus, they are extremely small.

1 Rural/agricultural—high poverty, low median income. These rural agricultural districts and tend to be located in the Appalachian area of Ohio. As a

group they have higher-than-average poverty, the lowest average median income level, and the low-est percentage of population with a college degree or higher compared to all of the groups. N = 96, approximate total ADM = 160,000.

2 Rural/agricultural—small student population, low poverty, low to moderate median income. These tend to be small, very rural districts outside Appalachia. They have an adult population

that is similar to districts in Group 1 in terms of education level, but their median income level is higher and their poverty rates are much lower. N = 161, approximate total ADM = 220,000.

3 Rural/small town—moderate to high median income. These districts tend to be small towns located in rural areas of the state outside of Appalachia.

The districts tend to have median income levels similar to those of Group 6 suburban districts but with lower rates of both college attendance and managerial/professional occupations among adults. Their poverty percentage is also below average. N = 81, approximate total ADM = 130,000.

4 Urban—low median income, high poverty. This category includes urban (i.e., high population density) districts that encompass small or me-

dium size towns and cities. They are characterized by low median incomes and very high poverty rates. N = 102, approximate total ADM = 290,000.

5 Major urban—very high poverty. This group of districts includes all of the six largest core cities and other urban districts that

encompass major cities. Population densities are very high. The districts have very high poverty rates and typically have a very high percentage of minority students. N = 15, approximate total ADM = 360,000.

6 Urban/Suburban—high median income. These districts typically surround major urban centers. While their poverty levels range from low

to above average, they are more generally characterized as communities with high median incomes and high percentages of college completers and professional/administrative workforce. N = 107, approximate total ADM = 420,000.

7 Urban/suburban—very high median income, very low poverty. These districts also surround major urban centers. They are distinguished by very high income

levels and almost no poverty. A very high percentage of the adult population has a college degree, and a similarly high percentage works in professional/administrative occupations. N = 46, ap-proximate total ADM = 240,000.

8 Joint vocational school districts.


Referral Source and Outcomes Analysis

Means and standard deviations of each type of acceleration referral and accelerated placement are reported in table 3. Single-subject acceleration was the most common type of referral (M = 7.21, SD = 27.16) and the most common placement (M = 8.01, SD = 44.16), as well. However, the variance among districts for the number of single-subject acceleration referrals and placements was extremely high. Whole-grade acceleration referrals were the least common (M = 1.17, SD = 3.06), followed closely by early graduation referrals (M = 1.55, SD = 7.58). Early entrance placements were the least common (M = .61, SD = 1.51), and whole-grade acceleration placements were only slightly more common (M = .81, SD = 2.71). The overall rate of referrals correlated significantly with districts’ rates of gifted identification, r = +.09, n = 463, p = .05, two-tailed; however, total referrals did not correlate significantly with the rate of gifted services provided. Table 4 provides descriptive statistics for acceleration referrals and placements by source. Parents, on average, made the greatest number of referrals (M = 4.63, SD = 10.26), although that statistic also varied the most among the districts. Students made the fewest number of referrals for acceleration consideration (M = .21, SD = 1.75). Gifted coordinators’ referrals most often resulted in an acceleration placement, at a mean rate of .81 (SD = .36). Thirty single-subject acceleration referrals were

Table 2. Rate of Reported Acceleration Referrals and Placements per ADM

Typology Referrals Accelerated Placements

M (percent) SD M SD

1 .33 .96 .26 .93 2 .25 .62 .19 .50 3 .37 1.22 .30 1.18 4 .27 .52 .19 .38 5 .25 .47 .31 .63 6 .44 1.07 .35 1.05 7 .47 .44 .32 .34 Total .33 .84 .25 .79

Table 3. Means of Referrals and Placements by Acceleration Type

Acceleration Type Min Max M SD

Early Entrance Referrals 0 58 2.60 5.69 Placements 0 13 .61 1.51

Whole Grade Referrals 0 52 1.17 3.06 Placements 0 46 .81 2.71

Single Subject Referrals 0 447 7.21 27.16 Placements 0 772 8.01 44.16

Early Graduation Referrals 0 102 1.55 7.58 Placements 0 102 1.5 7.47

Total Referrals 0 586 12.54 35.36 Placements 0 798 10.93 48.32


included in the “other” referral source and placement categories, despite actually coming from educators. These referrals were reportedly made collaboratively among gifted intervention specialists and regular education teachers. This resulted in slightly inflated numbers for “other” referral sources and slightly deflated numbers for gifted intervention specialists and regular education teachers.

Summary of Findings

based upon information provided in the 2008 self-report survey collected by ODE, acceleration referrals and placements, when controlled for ADM, do not vary by district typology. However, districts that reported a higher rate of gifted identification also reported a higher rate of acceleration referrals. Single-subject acceleration was the most commonly made referral and placement, and whole-grade acceleration was considered least often. Parents were more likely than any other group to make referrals for acceleration placements, and students were least likely to make referrals. Referrals made by gifted coordinators most often resulted in acceleration placements. In February 2009, the research team invited a broad range of individuals to complete an online survey, created and administered through SurveyMonkey, regarding the methods used to develop, implement, and communicate acceleration policies across the state. Calls to complete the survey went out through online discussion boards for the state’s gifted advocacy group, various gifted coordinator e-mail lists, and word of mouth. Responses from 168 individuals provided insight into the perceptions of parents, school administrators, teachers, and gifted specialists. Participants classified their districts as urban, suburban, or rural based on their own definitions of those terms. Fifty-two responses came from members of rural districts, 101 responses from suburban districts, and 12 responses from urban districts. Nearly 64 percent of the districts represented have an ADM between 1001 and 5000 students, which was distributed nearly equally between the 1001 to 2500 and 2501 to 5000 population bands, n = 50 and n = 58, respectively. It is possible that multiple responses may encompass the implementation of the state acceleration policy in a single district.

Table 4. Mean Referrals and Placements by Referral Source

Referral Source Min Max M SD

Parents Referrals 0 88 4.63 10.26 Placements 0 41 2.58 5.41 Rate of Placements 0 1.00 .59 .38

Administrators Referrals 0 9 .33 1.14 Placements 0 5 .30 .94 Rate of Placements 0 1.00 .71 .42

Students Referrals 0 20 .21 1.75 Placements 0 20 .35 2.07 Rate of Placements 0 1.00 .29 .46

Regular Education Teachers Referrals 0 58 1.88 7.59 Placements 0 48 .93 4.67 Rate of Placements 0 1.00 .69 .42

Gifted Coordinators Referrals 0 62 .72 5.66 Placements 0 27 .48 2.91 Rate of Placements 0 1.00 .81 .36

Gifted Intervention Specialists Referrals 0 7 .23 .90 Placements 0 7 .23 1.04 Rate of Placements 0 1.00 .45 .50

Others Referrals 0 107 .66 5.40 Placements 0 55 .59 5.58 Rate of Placements 0 1.00 .21 .43

Total Referrals 0 586 12.54 35.36 Placements 0 798 10.93 48.32 Rate of Placements 0 1.00 .79 2.80


The majority of respondents were gifted coordinators, n = 72, the role most associated with managing acceleration evaluations in school districts. Gifted intervention specialists were the next-most-frequent responders, n = 36. Together, these two groups comprised nearly 64 percent of all individuals who completed the survey. These respondents may have a great deal of knowledge, but it is possible that they do not represent the full diversity of perspectives in a district. Thirty-three parents completed the survey, which totaled 19.5 percent of the responses. Just over 8 percent of those completing the survey were teachers, n = 13, and 2.4 percent were principals, n = 4. One superintendent, one counselor, and one school psychologist answered the survey questions, as did two students and three others not classified. The responses of the gifted educators and parents far outweighed other points of view in the survey. For the reasons described above, the findings of this statistical analysis are not construed to represent the entire state. Rather, the findings provided a basis for exploring certain topics in greater depth during a qualitative analysis of district choices and actions. The results of the study have been categorized according to the survey questions.

Perceptions about Acceleration

Reported perceptions about acceleration were generally favorable. For all types of acceleration, more than half of the participants answered that the acceleration option was appropriate for at least some, if not all, students. The most positive attitudes were expressed about subject acceleration, which had zero negative perceptions selected. The role of the respondent seemed to be related to his or her perceptions about accelerations. Chi-square analyses were used to determine the impact of role on perception regarding acceleration options. Differences were found regarding attitudes about early entrance to kindergarten or first grade, χ2(22, n = 151) = 46.29, p < .01: gifted coordinators were more likely to view early entrance as appropriate for some students, and parents were more likely to believe it was an appropriate option for all students. Role also was related to perceptions about whole-grade acceleration, χ2(24, n = 156) = 58.51, p < .001. Middle school teachers were more likely than expected to believe that such an option was not appropriate for any student. Attitudes toward early graduation were also related to the role of the respondent, χ2(20, n = 147) = 49.19, p < .001. In this situation, middle school teachers looked upon early graduation more favorably than expected, and parents looked upon it less favorably. However, in both the whole-grade and early graduation analyses, differences between expected and actual outcomes were numerically small because of the paucity of respondents in those roles. There were no significant differences in perceptions about subject acceleration according to the role of the respondent.

Policy Development and Communication

About one-fifth of participants, n = 34, did not know what acceleration policy model had been adopted by the local district. Of the remaining 119 responses to this survey item, nearly half, 48.3 percent, n = 69, stated that their districts had adopted the state’s model acceleration policy. Another 3.5 percent, n = 5, explained that the state model policy had been slightly modified before the local board of education adopted it. Fourteen districts, 9.8 percent, adopted the acceleration policy written by NEOLA, an organization that serves primarily as a mechanism for writing school board policies and procedures with legal oversight. Finally, 20 districts, 14 percent, developed their own policies. Gifted coordinators were most frequently cited as participating in policy development, n = 101. Superintendents, curriculum coordinators, elementary principals, and gifted intervention specialists reportedly contributed to the development of policy in 25 to 35 instances. All other individuals, including other school support staff, teachers, parents, students, and secondary principals, were documented as contributing to the development of policy in less than 20 percent of the responses to the survey.


Participants listed the methods used to communicate the adopted acceleration policies to members of the school community. District meetings were the most popular method for sharing the policies with district administrators, who most often received information about the policies. Principals and school support staff generally learned about the policy through district meetings or special trainings, n > 55 in all cases. That method was also most popular for teachers and support staff, although the frequency of such meetings was not as great as for district-level officials. Parents and students received the least amount of targeted communication about adopted acceleration policies and procedures, and that information was often delivered via the student handbook or school newsletter, n between 10 and 20 for each case. This may explain the number of “I don’t know” responses among parents and classroom teachers, which was significantly greater than that reported by gifted coordinators and instructional specialists, as identified by a one-way ANOVA, F(13, 153) = 3.52, p < .001. Less than one-third of respondents documented any particular type of professional development or support offered to encourage acceleration or to inform individuals about the adopted policy. Access to acceleration materials and active communication were most frequently reported as means of encouraging acceleration, n = 44 and 49, respectively.

Implementation of Acceleration Policies

Implementation of the acceleration policies adopted by districts included multiple actions. Provisions for soliciting referrals from school personnel were reported by 40 percent to 60 percent of respondents for each school staff role. According to respondents, parents were also asked for referrals about 40 percent of the time. However, students were reportedly asked to make acceleration referrals in less than 20 percent of the described districts. More than half of the participants reported the existence of a district acceleration committee; more than 28 percent of respondents, however, did not know whether such a committee existed in their districts. Once acceleration placements were made, only 73.5 percent of respondents documented the creation of written acceleration plans (WAPs) as required in the state model policy. An additional 10 percent stated that WAPs were created in some cases, and 6 percent said that WAPs were not created at all. Transportation provisions, which can be a barrier when subject-area acceleration crosses buildings, were not significantly related to the policies adopted by districts. District type, however, did relate significantly to the transportation options available to students. Buses were more likely to be available to shuttle students between elementary and middle schools in suburban districts and less likely to be available in rural districts, χ2(3, n = 167) = 25.97, p < .001. Large districts (> 5000 students), as well, were more likely to provide bus transportation than were small districts (< 5000 students), χ2(6, n = 159) = 13.61, p = .03. The same relation was found on the basis of community type, χ2(3, n = 167) = 36.34, p < .001, and district size, χ2(6, n = 159) = 17.49, p < .01. This pattern may be explained by a lesser need for special transportation arrangements in small or rural districts; such districts are more likely to have single-site campuses. Rural districts are also more likely to encounter physical or spatial limits that prevent cross-building accelerations, for example, long distances between campuses. Nearly a third of respondents did not know how the number of accelerations had changed in districts following the adoption of an acceleration policy. The percentage of respondents who documented no change in the number of accelerated placements or in the utilization of educational options or post-secondary enrollment options was greater than that of respondents who documented increases. The sole exception was single-subject acceleration, which was most frequently reported as having increased, n = 53. There were no reports of any type of accelerated placement occurring less often after the adoption of the acceleration policies.


Participants were asked to convey their feelings about the acceleration processes adopted by their districts. Almost 61 percent reported it to be mostly or always a positive process. Another 25 percent said that the process was both positive and negative. Finally, less than 3 percent stated that the process was mostly negative.

Outcomes from Acceleration

Dissent to acceleration is often related to opinions and concerns regarding students’ academic and social-emotional success. When asked what percentage of students were academically successful in acceleration placements, the majority of respondents, 67.8 percent, stated that at least 90 percent of accelerated students were academically successful. Less than 5 percent of participants stated that less than 75 percent of accelerated students experienced academic success after placement. Slightly less success was reported in the social-emotional realm following accelerated placements. Nearly 50 percent of participants stated that more than 90 percent of students were successful socially and emotionally after acceleration. Almost 8 percent said that less than 75 percent of students were successful. A chi-square analysis revealed that the role of participants was significantly related to their evaluations of accelerated students’ academic success, χ2(54, n = 117) = 123.64, p < .001, and social-emotional success, χ2(40, n = 118) = 98.70, p < .001. Gifted coordinators were more likely to report higher rates of success in both areas, and parents were more likely to report a lack of knowledge about these topics. The type of acceleration policy implemented also seemed to be connected to the academic success, χ2(30, n = 116) = 81.47, p < .001, and social-emotional success, χ2(20, n = 117) = 58.05, p < .001, reported following accelerated placements. Respondents from districts that adopted the state model policy or the state model policy with only minor modifications reported greater academic and social-emotional success than expected. Longitudinal progress was not consistently reported by participants. While one-third of respondents stated that their districts do track the progress of accelerated students over time, another 38 percent said that such evaluation occurs only occasionally, and nearly 30 percent said that it does not occur at all. Although the existence of longitudinal tracking of student progress was not connected to the respondents’ perceptions about acceleration options, it was related to participants’ opinions about the acceleration process in general, χ2(128, n = 113) = 30.21, p < .001, with a more favorable opinion held by those in districts with procedures for monitoring long-term student progress. Such tracking mechanisms were related to reports about academic success, χ2(12, n = 116) = 27.89, p < .01, and social-emotional success, χ2(8, n = 117) = 19.15, p = .01, following an acceleration. In both cases, success was reported for more than 90 percent of students more often than expected in districts that observe longitudinal student progress following an acceleration. Participants from districts that monitor long-term student progress only occasionally or not at all reported not knowing the success rate of students more frequently than expected.

Policy Implementation: Barriers and Supports

Survey respondents listed several factors as important potential barriers to acceleration. The two issues most frequently ranked as “most important” or “important” were lack of support from classroom teachers (n = 73) and lack of a gifted coordinator presence (n = 68). The factors most frequently ranked as “important” (n = 27 to 51) included lack of available training, limited fiscal and support resources, lack of support for the policy from administrative and auxiliary professionals, transportation issues, lack of parent support, and conflicting laws and state regulations, such as Carnegie unit requirements. Accountability issues were also considered an important barrier, although respondents ranked the related issue of confusion over state test levels for subject-accelerated students as “important,” “somewhat important,” or “not important” equally as often. Responses did not vary significantly based on the district community type as reported by those surveyed.


When respondents ranked factors supporting the use of acceleration, the single most important influence was availability of training related to acceleration (n = 19). Support from administrators, including principals, superintendents, and gifted coordinators, was often cited as “important” or “most important” (n = 22 to 38). Parent involvement was ranked as “important” (n = 11) more often than it was ranked in other categories, although it was viewed as less important than the support of school personnel. The exception was support from school psychologists or counselors, which was ranked less often than other factors. Again, there was no statistically significant variation in responses from respondents on the basis of district community type. However, differences in responses related to the value of support from counselors and school psychologists neared significance, χ2(3, n = 17) = 7.53, p =.057; individuals from suburban districts and educational service centers ranked support from counselors and psychologists as “important” less often than did individuals from urban and rural districts. This may be due to the differences in the number of counselors and school psychologists hired and differences in the issues with which they deal in different types of school communities. When asked what additional resources would be most helpful, the issue of training arose once again. Seventy individuals indicated that additional training would further aid in the use of acceleration in their districts, a response that echoed the rankings of factors supporting acceleration. Some respondents also indicated a desire for model forms or procedures (n = 44) or for additional technical assistance from ODE (n = 25).

Summary and Discussion of Findings

perceptions and attitudes toward acceleration in general and toward district acceleration processes specifically, both of which seemed to be tied to the role of the respondent, may have been skewed by the distribution of roles played by individuals who responded to the survey. Participation on an acceleration committee was similarly related to perceptions and judgments, which may be due to the frequency with which gifted educators, a category encompassing the two most numerous types of survey respondents in this study, are participants on acceleration committees. Gifted educators have likely had more training and conversations about acceleration than other district stakeholders and more experience in working directly with accelerated students. That background—or the lack of that background for others—could influence reported opinions, as well as differences in and the basis for perspectives held by a variety of school community members with influence over the number of acceleration referrals made and subsequent placement decisions. Similarly, when considering this survey’s reported academic and social-emotional outcomes of accelerated placement, one must remember that the concept of “success” was not specifically defined. Instead, it relied on the notions of academic and social-emotional success held by each participant. These judgments were related to the role of the participant and to the existence of tools for monitoring long-term progress following an acceleration placement, including how school community members define success and how it is measured and tracked over time. The differences in the amount of communication about acceleration policies to district-level educators and gifted specialists versus other school community members may be a reflection of the involvement of district administrators and gifted educators in policy development and first-level implementation. Follow-up surveys might explore the communication plans implemented to share the acceleration policy with all school community members. Finally, subject acceleration, which was regarded most favorably by survey respondents, is used more frequently and has increased in frequency more than other acceleration options according to survey and self-report data. While whole grade acceleration and early entrance placements have increased more than early graduation according to survey participants, early graduation is still more commonly used as reported on the self-report survey, many factors having led to a more rapid implementation and more favorable perception of some acceleration strategies over others.


References

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 404–31.

Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330–41. doi: 0.1177/0016986207306319.

Ohio Department of Education. (2007). Typology of Ohio school districts. Ohio Department of Education: Accountability. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://education.ohio.gov.

Rimm, S. B., & Lovance, K. J. (2004). The use of subject and grade skipping for the prevention and reversal of underachievement. In L. E. Brody (Ed.), Grouping and acceleration practices in gifted education (pp. 33–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press and NAGC.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about education the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–96. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324.

Southern, W. T., and Jones, E. D. (2005). Acceleration policy study. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.

Tsai, D. (2007). Differentiating curriculum for gifted students by providing accelerated options. Gifted Education International, 23(1), 88–97.

28

Gifted Students and English as a Second LanguageA Review of the Issues

By Becky Elkevizth

Abstract

the purpose of this review is to discuss how students of English as a second language (ESL) may show signs of giftedness. It will touch upon methods for assisting these students in capitalizing on their talents while maintaining their cultural identity. The paper explores the history of ESL gifted education, discusses the educational and social needs of ESL gifted students, and culminates with recommendations on finding the right programs for these students, from involving their parents in the educational community to caring for their social and emotional needs and from implementing proper identification procedures and instructional practices to tips on career counseling and focusing on these students’ future accomplishments.

• • •

gifted students who are English language learners share many of the same traits as their English-speaking peers, but the interpretation of those traits varies greatly. This paper explores the educational, social, and emotional needs of gifted students who are English language learners in an attempt to influence identification and programming. For the purposes of this review, the term “ESL student” will be used to refer to any learner who communicates at home in a language other than English and who enters a school system in which the majority of staff and students speak English. Many other versions of this phrasing have been used, including “culturally and linguistically diverse,” “limited English proficient,” and “English language learners” (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). Since this review will focus on language as an outlet for students’ cultural expression and learning outcomes, the broader term “ESL” will be used to subsume all other categories of students who show diversity in their language use and acquisition. Likewise, the term “bilingual” will be used to denote that the person in question is proficient in a first language other than English and knows enough English to be productive in an English-only school (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). When referring to students as “gifted and talented” (G/T), the federal definition (U.S. Department of Education, 1993) will be used:

Children and youth who perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, create, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in the specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (p. 26)

29 • Gifted Students and English as a Second Language

English as a Second Language Learners

castellano and diaz (2002) report that in this country the population of minority students in K–12 settings is at 10 million and growing, and that most of these students speak Spanish at home. Frasier et al. (1995a) state that these students, historically, have not participated in programs for the gifted and talented students at rates commensurate with their presence in the general school population. Kloosterman (1999) reports that most teachers in the United States of America are Caucasians (86 percent), and that only slightly over 13 percent represent other races. Within that 13 percent, the majority (9 percent) are African American, with much smaller numbers of Hispanic and Asian teachers. Not having access to teachers who truly understand the circumstances of these students’ lives may be partly to blame for underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs. As far back as the famous Terman studies (1947), it has been found that “[n]o race has any monopoly on brains.” Terman stated that “[t]he non-Caucasian representation in our gifted group would certainly have been larger than it was but for handicaps of language environment and educational opportunities.” (Terman also pointed out that schools that served only Chinese and Japanese students were not canvassed for the study.) Castellano and Diaz (2002) reaffirm the presence of gifted and talented persons in all cultural and socioeconomic groups, although bilingual students are typically underrepresented. Kerr and Cohn (2001) report that although the term “gifted” may “carry with it terms of elitism . . . , gifted children are present in all colors, from all social classes, and from all countries and all faiths.” They explain that “[i]f research on gifted children or gifted education practices have been used in the service of racist or elitist politics, then that is the fault of the policy makers, not the gifted children.” It is possible that the quality of schools in the areas typically inhabited by ethnic minorities and families of low socioeconomic status has exacerbated underrepresentation of these groups in gifted programs. Kloosterman (1999) offers support for the proposition that Hispanic students often attend underachieving schools with fewer resources, less-challenging curricula, and fewer opportunities. In completing 12 case studies of Hispanic students in a K–5 setting, Kloosterman finds that the school that the ESL students attended consisted of 44 percent culturally diverse students and had the highest percentage of Hispanic students of all 11 elementary schools in the district. Only two staff members—one classroom teacher and one art teacher—were Hispanic (only one of whom was bilingual), and the school’s scores on the state mastery test were the lowest in the district. Borland (2004) added that “the problem of under-representation of poorer children in gifted programs is part of a larger national problem of inequities in the provision of public educational resources, which results in inadequate services being provided to schools serving low-SES children” (pp. 5–6). Some behaviors and attitudes that separate gifted children from the typical population include recognition of material that is considered new to most students; drive, curiosity, energy, powerful concentration, and empathy; strong memory for feelings and experiences, but trouble with rote memorization; heightened perceptions of reality; and divergent thinking (Vail, 1987). Logically, students who have received fewer educational opportunities in poorer-quality schools will be less likely to display these characteristics and, likewise, will be less likely to be identified for gifted programs.

Laws and Movements in Bilingual Gifted Education

Throughout the 1800s, diversity in both culture and language was quite common. In fact, because local communities controlled education, they determined what would be taught. Therefore, there were German-speaking schools in


Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado; Spanish-speaking schools in New Mexico; and French-, Italian-, and Chinese-speaking schools elsewhere. It wasn’t until the Americanization movement took root, partially as a result of ever-growing stereotypes of immigrants as criminally minded and excessively poor, that schools began to stress an all-English curriculum (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). Between 1850 and 1900, there were several important developments regarding bilingualism in the field of education. During this period, compulsory attendance was first mandated. There was a decline in native-tongue instruction and a concomitant introduction of special classes and differentiated classrooms. During this period, professionals also took an interest in studying the construct of intelligence. As the 1950s drew near, the industrial world strengthened social class divisions and the dependency of the masses on “racial diversity of labor,” elevating white Anglo-Saxons above other cultural groups and, thus, moving even further toward English-only instruction. World War II only added to anti-immigration sentiments, although it also led to a search for civil rights, as many minority groups fought in the armed forces (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). The civil rights movement led to the reemergence of foreign-language education, especially in areas of national defense, and to the current period in the field of giftedness, which, according to Borland (2004), calls for a more equitable approach to identification and service of gifted students. The 1964 Civil Rights Act led to Title I for low socioeconomic students, to Title VII through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and to the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968. The BEA allotted federal funds for ESL students from low-income families. It encouraged “innovative” programs but did not mandate, or even sufficiently guide, bilingual education. This policy was mostly a reaction to the failure of the “sink or swim” approach and did not accomplish much. In 1974, however, the enactment of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) mandated that no state could refuse equal opportunity of instructional programs to any student based on his or her color, race, sex, or national origin due to failure to take appropriate steps to overcome those barriers. Then, in 1988, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of education turned the BEA into a more political, rather than practical, piece of legislation. The act was reauthorized as part of the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Act (HSESSIA); the main amendments were a three-year maximum enrollment for students in any bilingual program, an emphasis on training teachers to meet the needs of these students, and an increase in funding for Special Alternative Instructional Programs. The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Educational Act of 1988 also came about through the HSESSIA. It was aimed at providing national leadership in identifying and serving gifted and talented students—with a strong focus on those who came from minority backgrounds—through the expansion and improvement of programs for those students. The Javits Act led to the development of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented and to funding for research grants, many of which have supported educational reform for students from minority and ESL backgrounds. In 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) included reauthorization of the BEA, as well as a Foreign Language Assistance Act that promoted bilingual proficiency as having a positive impact “on the U.S. capacity for economic competition, national security, and global understanding.” The Javits Act was also reauthorized in 1994, designating gifted and talented students as a national resource, whose potential in aiding national interest will be lost if their needs are not met (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). Borland (2004) cautions that while almost all students find some parts of school to be dull and meaningless, students who want to be successful in a school setting (typically those from families who encourage education and who condition their children to deal with the difficulties of the school years in order to reap the benefits upon graduation) are willing to endure. However, minority students who do


not have support systems in place at home or who are otherwise unable to focus upon the future benefits of earning a quality education may underachieve or even drop out of school rather than work through adversity to reach their potential Again, the poor quality of the schools that these students often attend may be a factor in their decision to choose an alternative path. In 1999, the BEA continued its emphasis on high academic standards for ESL students and maintained priority in funding for programs that develop proficiency in more than one language. There were some changes as well, including (1) giving priority to school districts with recent rapid growth and little experience and to grant applicants with currently effective programs and standards; (2) consolidating grant activities; (3) adding new requirements to baseline data in program evaluations, with a focus on professional development and teacher training; and (4) terminating programs at the end of a three-year period if no progress has been shown. Such a termination could result in issues arising in other areas of education, as schools may set other programs aside so that they can focus on their ESL programs (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). The Gifted and Talented Children Act of 1999 (which preserved most of the Javits Act of 1994) required the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented to focus its efforts on schools with high populations of minority students in an effort to place more minority children in gifted programs. It authorizes, rather than mandates, evaluations of these programs (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). Kloosterman (1999) adds that the nation is becoming increasingly aware that there are no appropriate measures in place for identifying students of all ethnic, language, socioemotional, and socioeconomic backgrounds. While there is still a great need for growth and improvements, these movements at least show a nascent concern for underrepresentation of minority students, including ESL students.

ESL and Gifted Education

according to Castellano and Diaz (2002), gifted and talented programs and bilingual programs share many attributes. Both are vulnerable to changes in social and political priorities: there is no federal mandate for service. Both couple a strong demand with a short supply and a lack of collaboration across programs. Both suffer from unfavorable social views, from serious mistakes in reasoning, and from manipulation of results in limited available research. Both also have ambivalent classification systems (Kloosterman, 1999). Labels of any sort make people at the ends of a spectrum more likely to be judgmental about the appropriateness of the classification system and its implications. There are, however, a few more positive correlations. Kloosterman (1999) states that both bilingualism and giftedness are multidimensional, involving cognitive, affective, cultural, environmental, and situational factors. She supports her view of bilingualism as a cognitive process by explaining that when students translate from one language to another, they are “manifesting their knowledge of words, concepts, and grammatical structures” (p. 17). Further, she states that students’ abilities in two languages appeared to positively influence their cognitive flexibility, quick thinking, and sociocultural skills. Both bilingualism and giftedness also require risk-taking, intrinsic motivation, openness to new ideas, and curiosity. Why, then, are so few ESL students referred for gifted and talented services? Piirto (2007) summarizes the issues with bilingual giftedness by explaining that students often do not receive ESL instruction because they are picking up English too rapidly to qualify for remediation, yet their English skills are not advanced enough to allow them to show their true potential. This partially explains their underrepresentation in most G/T programs. Frasier et al. (1995a) add that aspects of giftedness may vary depending on the society or culture in which they are manifested.


In other words, what one society may identify as giftedness may not be nurtured, or even valued, in another culture. Add to this the lack of a common definition of giftedness among the states, and the problem is exacerbated. In some cases, students may be identified as gifted in one state, but when they move across borders, they may not meet gifted identification requirements in another state. This may be an issue in identifying gifted students from certain ethnic and minority backgrounds; even if certain aspects of giftedness are identified under a given state’s definition, families may refuse service on cultural grounds. As Valencia and Suzuki (2001) suggest, it may simply be that in a nation where “gifted children in general received such meager consideration in their schooling, . . . gifted minority children were doubly short-changed” (p. 215).

Possible Reasons for Underrepresentation in G/T Programs

there are many methods for identification of gifted and talented students. One of the most common, and one previously used almost exclusively in many schools, is the IQ test. Kerr and Cohn (2001) say that identifying students solely by IQ is “inaccurate and unfair” (p. 41). Although IQ may accurately predict who will do well in school, IQ levels do not necessarily predict who will develop into talented adults. This is because IQ tests do not measure areas such as interpersonal skills, leadership, or creativity, among others. Kerr and Cohn also point out that, even when carefully administered, IQ tests may not properly estimate the level of abilities of children whose worldview differs from that of the test maker. Students for whom English is not a first language may be inhibited by a lack of verbal ability in English. Some more recent tests attempt to make up for these differences, but they still rely on a child’s motivation to do well, although many students have no such desire. Valencia and Suzuki (2001) add that “the lack of an agreed upon definition of intelligence, and the historical separation of theory and psychometric test development, has proved to be problematic in the understanding of ‘intelligence’ as a unified construct” (p. 26). In other words, IQ does not equate with all definitions of intelligence. Ford (2004) provides an example to explain why mere numbers are insufficient. What if a school district chooses to cut off admission to gifted programs on the basis of an IQ test score of 130? When “within the same school district, school building P may have an average IQ of 90; in building G, the average IQ may be 115,” it is clear that students in building P who have an IQ of 120, or even only 115, may benefit from the added challenge of gifted programming, whereas, in building G, perhaps only those students whose IQs are above 140 would require the extra challenge. She cautions further that it is necessary to consider the validity, reliability, and accuracy of scores on IQ (and other) tests, especially when life and educational opportunities will be affected. A child’s reading ability, for example, may influence his or her math scores. Is it fair to tell a child that he or she cannot take part in a gifted program for math, despite high performance and predictive behaviors, simply because he or she was not able to read the directions on the test? Vail (1987) supports these conclusions, stating that “finding out what people are good at is more important than looking at numbers.” Frasier et al. (1995b) found several barriers to the identification of strengths of minority children in a study of various ethnic groups in both urban and suburban schools across the United States of America, including the bias of standardized tests, the inability of teachers to recognize indicators of potential giftedness, limited and nonstandard English proficiency, differences in language experiences and levels of stimulation within the environment, prejudicial attitudes of teachers toward ethnic groups, lack of value of intellectual giftedness within certain cultural groups, teachers’ fears of lessening program quality through inclusion of ethnic students, and beliefs


that fewer gifted children come from low-socioeconomic and ESL backgrounds. They point out that teachers are more likely to refer students for gifted programs if the children have a strong grasp of the English language and that “opinions about dialect and about English language proficiency may not only affect initial judgments about the abilities of children, but also affect how these children will be grouped for instruction” (p. 8). This may also affect identification, since students who are not exposed to quality instruction may be less likely to develop their potential in academic fields. Kogan (2001), focusing on barriers of identification through standardized testing, states that students’ low motivation, poor reading skills (even in their native language), poor test-taking skills, and/or different learning and thinking styles may prevent high achievement. There may be problems with lack of background knowledge, lack of experience with materials or testing procedures, and/or lack of understanding of English. It is important to keep in mind, as well, that straight translations do not solve all of the problems: students may know a dialect different from that used on the test, the test may not have been adjusted for cultural differences, and there may be words and/or ideas that do not translate into a student’s native language. Ford (2004) offers the following example of an issue with language: asked to define “crib,” a student may respond with an answer that would be correct in his or her own culture or dialect (“Crib” is slang for “house” for some African American populations) but that may not be correct according to the definition expected by the test creator or examiner (“a baby bed” or “a place for keeping corn”). Piirto (2007) found that standardized testing was not successful in identifying gifted Hispanics, African Americans, and American Indians. She also found that cutoff scores for standardized tests are too high and do not account for the need of students to function in two languages for much of the test; that poverty-related issues may mask predictive behaviors in minority students; that mainstream American achievement lends itself to underachievement; that teachers don’t understand the needs of their ESL students and that their expectations, therefore, are not appropriate; and that there are differences in learning styles. Valencia and Suzuki (2001) add that there are few tests to assess cognitive ability that are not based on the English language and cultural background. (They stress that as the demographics of the U.S.A. change, the need for development in this area will continue to grow.) Returning to teacher bias, Castellano and Diaz (2002) found that teachers consistently appear to have lower expectations for ESL students and to “view minority students as homogeneous with all members sharing the same set of values, beliefs, and characteristics.” This “all or nothing” mentality presents a clear picture of why teachers would have a difficult time referring ESL students for G/T programs. Frasier et al. (1995a) suggest that teachers may not be aware of the fact “that differences are not necessarily deficits; they are simply differences” (p. 13). Gifted ESL students may not be proficient in their own tongue (Kogan, 2001). On the other hand, ESL students may be verbally gifted, albeit not necessarily in English, and their abilities may be displayed only in the barrio through survival skills, as grades and test scores are deemed unimportant (Passow & Rehage, 1979). In order to maximize appropriate representation, identification efforts should focus on superior potential rather than judged superior performance (Kogan, 2001).

Appropriate Identification Procedures for ESL Gifted Students

Castellano and Diaz (2002) suggest that assessments should include several appropriate techniques and criteria to show above-average cognitive ability as well as above-average task commitment and creativity. A “bilingual talent portfolio” could be one such method, with an emphasis on collecting examples of students’ strengths over time while also compiling


data on students’ status and actions throughout their school experiences. Using other formal and informal means would add to the likelihood of appropriate representation of ESL students in G/T programs. Some possibilities include (1) standardized tests for measuring aptitude, achievement, and creativity in students’ native language or in English; (2) nominations by teachers, students, parents, community groups, and so on; (3) multiple observations in various places over a period of time; (4) performance-based evaluations (portfolios, writing samples); (5) records of past performance in schools; and (6) parent interviews. Frasier et al. (1995b) add that encouraging educators to identify a “prototype” of the typical gifted child, determining which qualities and characteristics he or she should possess, may enable the identification process to achieve a clearer purpose and, thus, reduce underrepresentation of all groups. It must be understood that the purpose of identification procedures is to enter each student into the program in which he or she will most develop his or her potential (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). Therefore, as Piirto (2007) suggests, students should have opportunities to be identified on the basis of their development in understanding their new culture’s mores and habits or in displaying artistic, mathematical, musical, and/or athletic prowess. Frasier et al. (1995b) add that students’ motivations, learning styles, and interests should also be considered. Unbiased analyses show that problems with identification lie less with the student and more with the “system” (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). There are positive developments, however, as Kerr and Cohn (2001) have found that procedures that do not rely on language for identification are being developed. Teacher awareness of cultural and linguistic groups is imperative in continuing this development, as is awareness of the fact that many ESL students are found in poorer school districts, where G/T programs may not exist or may be run by inexperienced teachers. Refusal to base decisions that will affect a student’s entire life on standardized test score cutoffs that do not accurately represent the knowledge and skill of students is another key (Ford, 2004). Identification is only one difficulty that ESL students face. They may be identified but refuse services. They may enter services only to drop out when they find that the programs are not what they expected or do not fit their cultural values. They may continue through the program without ever criticizing its lack of truly challenging and enriching curriculum because it is not appropriate to do so in their culture. The following sections discuss some needs of ESL students that may affect their participation in G/T tracks.

Needs of ESL Students

Each culture develops and values different abilities in different ways. For example, Mexican Americans value pragmatism, alertness, leadership, and other interpersonal skills, including bilingual fluency. While completely valid, these areas are not identified or nurtured in schools. American Indian students in the deserts of the southwestern United States and Puerto Ricans in New York City would certainly list other characteristics as being highly valued (Passow & Rehage, 1979). Why, then, do schools routinely compare all minority students to one another? Perhaps because there are some commonalities among minority students. It is helpful to consider stereotypes, as they often do come from a factual base, but it is also imperative to remember that all students, whether from the same nationality or from opposite sides of the world, are individuals and should be treated as such.

Barriers Faced by Bilingual Students upon Entering Schools

When students who have grown up speaking languages other than English at home enter a school system in which they are asked to speak and to learn in English, they are facing dyssynchrony not only in language but also in their previous experiences and background knowledge. Assumptions of limited English proficiency as a “deficit to be


overcome” (Castellano & Diaz, 2002) downplay the obvious benefits of knowing how to use two languages effectively. Kloosterman (2003) agrees, stating that biliteracy and a rich linguistic background from another culture rarely are considered to be assets in academia. Further, in a qualitative study of ESL students, Kloosterman (1999) found that ESL students may face other barriers:

(1) Schools may place students and their families in specific cultural categories, which may not capture all of the traditions and customs of an individual group. (For instance, not all Hispanics celebrate Cinco de Mayo.)

(2) While parents of ESL students often consider bilingualism to be an asset, they may feel that their students are not receiving appropriate, quality instruction in Spanish, for example, at school. Therefore, they may prefer that students receive English instruction at school while continuing education in the first (cultural) language at home. Interestingly, many teachers also opposed bilingualism in schools, but it seemed to be because they felt that students needed to learn English as quickly as possible in order to be successful.

(3) School personnel may feel that parents of ESL families are not involved in school activities because they do not care about their children’s education, while parents may perceive a lack of time to do so, a lack of information about school activities, a lack of welcome for them and their cultures at the school, and a lack of acceptance of their ideas and opinions.

(4) Teachers may feel that they are adequately challenging students, while parents may be frustrated by the lack of opportunities for their children, by the poor quality of instruction, and by low expectations. Parents also may feel that when they do complain or request changes, there is little to no response by the school.

(5) Parents of ESL students do not care for some aspects of the school’s curriculum, including multi-age grouping.

Niehart et al. (2002) suggest other issues, such as the fact that parents of immigrant children may not know about gifted programs or that their culture may prevent aggressive advocacy for their children. Others may simply be so happy to have a free public school to attend that they consider it improper to complain about any inadequacies. Campbell (1995) also points out that some immigrant children are illiterate in their native languages and struggle with the same issues in English. This does not imply that these children cannot be gifted. Kerr and Cohn (2001) state that gifted African American boys who succeed are not those who become “raceless,” but those who take advantage of the strengths of their community. Niehart et al. (2002) expand upon this idea, stating that “[f]inding acceptance among intellectual peers at school does not imply that one has rejected one’s other subcultures, even when those subcultures fail to appreciate high academic motivation and attainment.” That is, they may choose to improve their academic selves through use of programs at school, while still developing the characteristics valued by their native culture. Schools could extend this idea to their gifted programs, focusing on the strengths of those involved in order to build a more inclusive G/T culture.

What We Can DoSocial and Emotional Growth

Gifted children need to be challenged and richly stimulated if they are to develop into active, well-adjusted learners who trust their teachers, parents, and the outside world. They need both male and female role models, and they should be encouraged to advocate for their own rights and for involvement in appropriate programs and scholarships (Kerr & Cohn, 2001).


Kids need true information; not just copying, mimicking, or memorizing, but analyzing and developing thoughts. While process is also important, students cannot be expected to learn processes if they are not given content appropriate to their backgrounds and learning styles. Students also need to learn that “the world doesn’t end over a mistake or two” (Vail, 1987, p. 26). Given a free, supportive, and encouraging learning environment that allows all students to have a voice and to make attempts at learning without fear or ridicule for errors, talents and gifts will blossom. Programs should emphasize social and emotional needs as well, allowing students to develop their identities. Teachers should be mindful of their own tendencies toward the following behaviors and do their best to avoid them: (1) feeling competitive or threatened by students’ abilities; (2) focusing on students’ weaknesses and vulnerabilities; (3) feeling the need to put students “in their place”; (4) refusing to accept students’ defense systems; (5) judging or evaluating students’ behaviors, comments, and the like; (6) probing to uncover details about students’ home or family lives; (7) pretending to know more than the students about their world and what they are going through; (8) focusing on a performance-based or academic orientation (Peterson, 2008). This can be accomplished in several ways, including professional development in dealing with socioemotional needs of students, heightened awareness in students’ cultural backgrounds, and observation of veteran teachers who have met with success in these areas.

Staff Development

In order for teachers to do their best in identifying and nurturing gifted ESL students, they must be properly trained. They must be taught to realize that a student may need to be in both ESL and gifted programs, that multiculturalism is a necessary part of the curriculum, that students of all backgrounds have different learning styles and preferences, that it is important to promote expressions of diversity in the classroom throughout the year (not just on special occasions), that “high expectations and a challenging curriculum are essential contributors to the creation of a positive educational atmosphere” (Kloosterman, 1999, p. 63), and that an interdisciplinary approach is key to reaching students from culturally diverse backgrounds. Administrators must realize that educators need time to have meaningful discussions regarding the evaluation and implementation of appropriate educational programs for ESL, gifted, or ESL gifted students. Also, information encouraging proper assessment, programming, and evaluation of programs, which will enable educators to determine the appropriate path for gifted ESL students, should be made available (Kloosterman, 1999). Teachers also must be educated is in identification of gifted students. Ford (2004) suggests that teachers must be made to acknowledge that they hold certain preconceptions about their students, both negative and positive. By recognizing that these conceptions exist (whether they are accurate or not) and accepting that these perceptions affect their assessments, teachers may be better able to overcome bias in identification for gifted programming. Borland (2004) concurs, going so far as to say that “assumptions about giftedness, race, and class held by the founders of the field [of gifted education] . . . continue to influence us today, despite our repugnance when openly confronted by them” (p. 2) and that the position of educators today is the result, not of natural forces that could not be curbed, but of conscious decisions made over time by professionals in the field. To overcome these hurdles, they must be seen for what they are. Frasier et al. (1995a) suggest a complementary plan for staff development, which calls for (1) educating teachers and administrators about the proper use of standardized tests; (2) encouraging teachers to share the wealth of information that they possess about individual children that cannot be gained through testing; (3) helping teachers develop a common frame of reference about attributes of giftedness and how these attributes may be expressed


in various cultural backgrounds; (4) informing educators about the needs and processes of families found in low socioeconomic status and ESL contexts; (5) allowing teachers time to alter items on referral checklists so that parents are more likely to understand them; and (6) encouraging teachers to fulfill their roles in the identification process beyond suggesting names for testing.

Parent Involvement

According to Castellano and Diaz (2002), parent involvement leads to higher attendance levels, more completion of homework, and generally higher test scores and grades. It also increases the performance and quality of the school. The Florida Department of Education (1998) adds that “[e]ducation is a shared responsibility of the home and educational community. To maximize school-based programs for students, a strong communication network must be established between the home and the school” (p. 2). They emphasize that schools are responsible for making sure that parents are aware of referral and evaluation processes for entrance into gifted programs and for explaining that parents (or teachers) are typically the first people to notice gifted tendencies. Because it is not appropriate to wait until a student has mastered English before including him or her in the gifted program, parents and teachers must have clearly defined behaviors to determine students’ potential. In other words, rather than marking “good vocabulary” as the major trait (which an ESL student may be incapable of showing, having a language barrier to overcome), parents and teachers should be given a description that encompasses rapid acquisition of vocabulary, such as high-level observation skills that allow a student to see and understand more of his or her surroundings than many other students. Frasier et al. (1995a) support education of parents, suggesting that they are in a position—one unattainable by schools—to support and encourage their children to develop intellectual gifts and talents. In order to ensure that parents understand what they are looking for and what they can do about getting their children included in the gifted programs, the Florida Department of Education (1998) suggests informing them, both in writing and orally, in their native language. They should be interviewed about their child(ren)’s history in previous school settings and their development at home (acquisition of language, first steps, and so on), and they should be given the chance to show their child(ren)’s high performance in language and in other tasks that do not rely on English proficiency, such as mathematical computations, complex puzzles, and acquiring social cues as behavior guides. A child’s family should be given the opportunity to develop an understanding of difficult concepts on which the child is working (so that they can help at home) and to be a constant presence in the child’s school (Frasier et al., 1995a). Kloosterman (1999) supports involvement of the family, as “[t]he family is the first emotional and cognitive context in which a child can develop his or her potential bilingualism” (p. 16). Since language growth and meaning, during the early childhood years especially, connect to cognitive and socioemotional development, it is important that families be aware of how they can best promote their child(ren)’s growth in positive ways.

Identification

Kloosterman (2003) points out that because our nation has gradually become aware of the “absence of appropriate identification procedures and the lack of programs for culturally and linguistically diverse students” (p. 114), professionals have slowly begun to consider aspects of culture, ethnicity, and language in terms of their roles in both “theoretical and operational definitions of giftedness” (p. 114). With that in mind, it is clear that IQ testing cannot be considered the sole appropriate measure for identification of gifted students. Instead, Kloosterman (2003) suggests using a variety of indicators, all of which must be sensitive to students’ cultural backgrounds and linguistic


preferences. These may include traditional school performance indicators (grades, achievement data), parent surveys, interviews, student talent portfolios, autobiographies, student journals and other writing samples or performance-based products, peer nominations, classroom observations, and enrichment activities. The specific instruments used should be determined based on the individual student’s needs. Ford (2004) contends that the process should not be undertaken in a way entirely objective and “color-blind.” She suggests that “ignoring and minimizing the role of social variables and culture in testing” (p. 38) does little to deter underrepresentation of cultural groups in gifted programs and adds that “interpreting test performance—high or low—based on one test or measure must be avoided due to the limited data provided from a single score” (p. 15). Borland (2004), having collected information from a variety of sources, adds to these ideas his opinion, based on his experiences with Project Synergy, that certain features of an identification process will make it more effective in properly identifying diverse students. He suggests that there should be an emphasis on a child’s best performance, rather than on averaging scores and ratings, that the identification process should be based on the school’s curriculum (after all, it is the curriculum in which children may need to be challenged through added breadth, depth, or acceleration), that assessment should be dynamic and portfolio-based, that teachers’ referrals should be open-ended, and that it be considered a process rather than an event. Identification procedures should be crafted to compensate for common barriers to identification of ESL students, including test bias and teachers’ inability to recognize students’ potential because of a lack of understanding of certain cultural groups. Use of a language other than English, differences in experiences, lack of a stimulating home environment, and narrow screening processes, as well as beliefs about ESL students’ failure to value gifted education programs may also cause problems in identification. Teachers should be encouraged to recognize indicators of giftedness in these populations, while minimizing their own prejudices and misconceptions about such students. They should also give students an opportunity to be a part of a rich and stimulating school environment that, whether a child has a stimulating home environment or not, enables the student to develop his or her potential (Frasier et al., 1995a).

Instruction

Instruction for ESL students should be focused on strengths rather than deficits. If possible, education should occur in both English and a child’s native language. When instruction takes place in English, it should not be with a “drill and kill” mentality, but with the goal of moving students toward critical thinking in English (Piirto, 2007). Additive bilingualism, defined by Castellano and Diaz (2002) as “preserving the first language, while acquiring a second” (p. xiv), should also be a goal of ESL instruction. As mentioned previously, bilingualism has several benefits to both our country and individual students. Padilla (1998, cited in Castellano & Diaz, 2002) also points out the unfairness of steering a student away from his or her native tongue. While the U.S.A. mandates foreign language courses for college-prep students in high school, “Those for whom a foreign language is not foreign are forbidden from mastering it” (p. xx). Although they come in knowing their native language, they are not given the opportunity to develop it, even though they may be required to learn it later for graduation and college entrance exams. Moreover, knowing more than one language is beneficial on several levels, including linguistic, social, and academic. With that in mind, Schall (1997) states that ESL education should attempt to reach the following goals: (1) value, respect, and promotion of personal, cultural, and linguistic diversity, as well as diversity in expressions of giftedness; (2) provision of a high-end, creative, and accepting learning environment; (3) support of students’ self-


image and motivation; and (4) empowerment of students in political, social, and economic endeavors. He suggests several ways of reaching these goals. Teachers can get to know their students’ cultures, customs, and background experiences and can show value of these things by displaying cultural artifacts, maps, family trees, and other examples of cultural diversity around the room. They can create and share personal history books throughout the school year, offering students chances to share their life experiences with their classmates while also working on language skills. They may use bilingual-friendly cooperative learning groups and can set students up with mentors who will be able to teach them the unwritten rules and procedures of the school. As there are many differences among gifted and typical students, so are there differences among minority students. Therefore, there should be a broad range of available programs for their education, as well as differentiation throughout schools (Castellano & Diaz, 2002) Kloosterman (1999) states that multicultural instruction is a must, especially in schools with diverse populations. The school should create a safe school environment, including before- and after-school care for those students whose parents work, allow for flexible grouping within classrooms, according to needs of individual students, and offer English support for any student who needs it. Specific instructional strategies that may be beneficial include learning centers, grouping according to instructional level for reading and math instruction, and schools of talent (enrichment opportunities). It is also helpful if teachers of ESL students are bilingual or, at least, have some understanding of the cultural and linguistic background of the students. Various examples of activities that might benefit ESL students include conversation circles, playback of recorded conversations, reversed role playing, and reflection through journals, portfolios, and group work (Castellano & Diaz, 2002). Borland (2004) states that whatever the methods, educators should worry “less about who is ‘truly gifted’ and more about making curriculum and instruction truly differentiated for all students” (p. 19), including placing students in transitional programs if necessary.

Career Development

According to Niehart et al. (2002), a relationship with a caring adult is the most powerful predictor of resilience in students. Therefore, setting students up with mentors, especially with successful adults from students’ own cultural backgrounds, would be helpful in promoting success in minority students. Kloosterman (1999) adds that students’ role models are often parents or significant family members. It is also important to remember that career counseling should focus on personal respect and constant adjustments, based on students’ development and changes in life goals. Students should be active members in the career counseling process. Throughout their education, they should be given clear, specific, and timely feedback. Rather than offering help when it has not been requested (giving students the impression that they are incapable of doing things themselves), teachers must encourage students to put forth strong efforts and to attempt activities that are just beyond their present abilities: “Only with high goals will there be high accomplishment” (p. 76). Students who expect that they will meet with success in such situations will be more likely to continue working through adversity (Niehart et al., 2002). Opportunities for students to achieve success should be provided in a variety of outlets, including special classes, focusing on manual abilities, the arts, music, and dance (Kloosterman, 1999).

Conclusion

to be successful in a system or organization, one must possess certain prerequisite skills (understanding the system, fitting in with the system, mastering the system). Minority students typically feel separated from the school culture,


as though they don’t understand, or don’t fit into, the system. When that culture is something that they value (in other words, when they understand why they are learning “this stuff ”), students are more likely to make an effort to improve motivation, understanding, and general behavior. For this to occur, students must have both choice and control (Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, as cited in Niehart et al., 2002). They must learn that “there are ideas worth falling in love with, that there are values worth living for” (Kerr & Cohn, 2001, p. 120). It is also important for educators to remember that negative outcomes for G/T ESL students rarely result from “inherent vulnerabilities,” but from a “lack of fit” with their often unchallenging environment. In addition, Borland (2004) asks educators to consider whether it is fair that in a nation that professes to offer free education to all, some students receive substandard education—decrepit buildings, poor quality teachers and textbooks, few supplies, and few or no arts courses—simply because of where they were born. Castellano and Diaz (2002) suggest that the fastest-growing population of G/T students are ESL. Overcoming skepticism and developing feelings of empowerment are keys to providing inclusive gifted education for ESL students. Educators must begin locally and commit to the long-term social benefits of expanding gifted programs to include minority students. School systems must provide adequate teacher training so that educators are prepared to appropriately meet the needs of students. Communities must “commit the human and economic resources to make schools places where all of our children have opportunities to learn the kinds of skills in math, science, language, thinking, and problem solving that are in demanded [sic] today” (Kloosterman, 2003, p. 58). Each student must have the chance to see his or her values, thoughts, and feelings appreciated in the educational system. “A multicultural approach does not mean simply adopting a week-long unit on China or India around the holidays, or a month’s unit on black history. It must include every student’s voice in every subject we teach every day” (Fu, 1995, p. 212).

References

Borland, J. H. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups (RM04186). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved on April 19, 2010, from http://www .gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/frashun1.html.

Campbell, J. R. (1995). Raising your child to be gifted. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Castellano, J. A., & Diaz, E. I. (Eds.). (2002). Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cohn, S. J., & Kerr, B. A. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for meaning. Phoenix, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Florida Department of Education (1998). Assessing limited English proficient (LEP) students for eligibility for gifted programs. Retrieved on March 13, 2009, from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/faq/gt-esl.htm.

Ford, D. (2004). Intelligence testing and cultural diversity: Concerns, cautions, and considerations (RM04204). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved on April 19, 2010, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/frashun1.html.

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Garcia, J. H., & Martin, D. (1995a). Educator’s perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient backgrounds (RM95216). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved on April 19, 2010, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/frashun1.html.

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Mitchell, S., Cramond B., Krisel, S., Garcia, J. H., Martin, D., Frank, E., & Finley, V. S. (1995a). Core attributes of giftedness: A foundation for recognizing the gifted potential of minority and economically disadvantaged students (RM95210). Storrs, CT:


National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved on April 19, 2010, from http://www .gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/frashun1.html.

Fu, D. (1995). My trouble is my English. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Kloosterman, V. (1999). Socio-cultural contexts for talent development: A qualitative study on high ability, Hispanic, bilingual students (RM99142). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved on April 19, 2010, from http://www .gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/frashun1.html.

Kloosterman, V. (Ed.). (2003). Latino students in American schools: Historical and contemporary views. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kogan, E. (2001). Gifted bilingual students: A paradox. New York: Peter Lang.

Niehart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, S. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The Social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Washington, DC: Prufrock Press.

Passow, A. H., & Rehage, K. J. (Eds.). (1979). The Gifted and the talented: Their education and development: The 78th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part I, ed. 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Peterson, J. S. (2008). Essential guide for talking with gifted teens. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Piechowski, M. M. (2006). Mellow out, they say. If only I could: Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison, WI: Yunasa Books.

Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia. New York: Riverhead Books.

Terman, L. M. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Genetic studies of genius, a 25-year follow-up of a superior group. Vol. 4. Stanford, CA: Oxford University Press.

Vail, P. (1987). Gifted, precocious, or just plain smart: A story for puzzled parents. Rosemont, NJ: Programs for Education.

Valencia, R. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2001). Gifted Children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42

Contributors

Colleen Boyle is the Gifted Coordinator for Licking County Educational Service Center. Boyle has been involved in gifted education for over 15 years as a teacher, gifted coordinator, and academic director for a summer program for gifted students. She is currently finishing her doctorate in educational psychology at Walden University, and she holds masters degrees in gifted/special education from the University of North Texas and in educational administration from the University of Nebraska. Her areas of interest include assessment, twice-exceptional students, and the social-emotional aspect of the “gifted child experience.”

Becky Elkevizth is the middle child, and only girl, of five. She grew up in Medina, Ohio, earned her undergraduate degree in early childhood education, with a psychology minor, at Mount Union College in Alliance, Ohio, and completed the masters program in curriculum and instruction: gifted and talented education in the summer of 2010 at Ashland University. Prior to spending two years as a teacher for gifted and talented students in primary grades at Mansfield City Schools, Elkevizth taught English as a second language as a family literacy instructor for Prospect Park Families for Learning Center through Literacy-AmeriCorps.

Willam F. Morrison, Ed.D, is Associate Professor of Intervention Services at Bowling Green State University, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in special education. Morrison’s research interests include understanding the needs of the twice-exceptional and exploring innovative uses of assistive technology. His current interests include cross-cultural perspectives on instructional design for students with special needs.

Sylvia Rimm is a psychologist, directs the Family Achievement Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, and is a clinical professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. She has authored many articles and books, including How to Parent so Children Will Learn, Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades—And What You Can Do About It, Raising Preschoolers, See Jane Win®, How Jane Won, See Jane Win® for Girls, and Growing Up Too Fast: The Rimm Report on the Secret Lives of America’s Middle Schooler. See Jane Win® was a New York Times Bestseller and was featured on the Oprah Winfrey and Today shows and in People Magazine. Her book, Rescuing the Emotional Lives of Overweight Children, was a finalist for the Books for a Better Life Award. Rimm also writes a parenting column syndicated nationally through Creators Syndicate.

Mary G. Rizza, Ph.D., is the Director of the Creative Connections Group, an educational consulting firm serving the needs of gifted students and their families. A certified school psychologist, her practice includes identification of gifted and twice-exceptional students. Rizza conducts workshops and seminars on gifted education for district personnel and parent groups across the state. Her research has been published and presented to local, national, and international audiences.

2010 oagc summer journal - ohio association for gifted children

Documents