Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: recruitment and retention issues

Exceptional Children, Spring, 2008 by Donna Y. Ford, Tarek C. Grantham, Gilman W. Whiting

A persistent dilemma at all levels of education is the underrepresentation of African American, American Indian, and Hispanic/Latino students in gifted education and advanced placement (AP) classes. Research on the topic of underrepresentation has tended to focus on African American students, starting with Jenkins's (1936) study, which found that despite high intelligence test scores African American students were not formally identified as gifted. For over 70 years, then, educators have been concerned about the paucity of Black students being identified as gifted. During this timeframe, little progress has been made in reversing underrepresentation. This lack of progress may be due in part to the scant database on gifted students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD). In 1998, Ford reviewed trends in reports on underrepresentation spanning 2 decades and found that African American, Hispanic/Latino American, and American Indian students have always been underrepresented in gifted education, with underrepresentation increasing over the years for African American students. (Unlike African American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian students, Asian American students are well represented in gifted education and AP classes. For example, as of 2002, Asian American students represented 4.42% of students in U.S. schools but 7.64% of those in gifted education; see Table 1). Regardless of the formula used to calculate underrepresentation (see Skiba et al., 2008), the aforementioned three groups of CLD students are always underrepresented, and the percentage of underrepresentation is always greater than 40%. Also, as noted by Ford (1998), less than 2% of publications at that time focused on CLD gifted groups, resulting in a limited pool of theories and studies from which to draw.

The most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR; see Table 1) indicate that as of 2002, African American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian students remain poorly represented in gifted education, especially CLD males. Further, CLD students seldom enroll in AP classes (The College Board, 2002), the main venue for gifted education at the high school level. In both programs, underrepresentation is at least 50%--well beyond statistical chance and above OCR's 20% discrepancy formula stipulation (Ford & Frazier-Trotman, 2000). Several OCR Annual Reports to Congress (2000, 2004, 2005) and publications by Karnes, Troxclair, and Marquardt (1997) and Marquardt and Karnes (1994) indicated that discrimination against CLD students continues in school settings and in gifted education. Karnes et al. examined 38 complaints or letters of findings in gifted education, falling into four categories: (a) admission to gifted programs; (b) identification of gifted students; (c) placement in gifted programs; and (d) procedures involving notification, communication and testing of gifted students. Of these 38 complaints or letters, almost half (n = 17) pertained to discrimination against CLD students. Likewise, Marquardt and Karnes reported that most of the 48 letters of findings they reviewed related to discrimination against CLD students, mainly involving lack of access to gifted programs. They concluded that "unless a school district is constantly vigilant in monitoring its procedures for minority students identification and admission to gifted programs, minorities report underrepresentation" (p. 164).

Compared to special education, gifted education is a small field; fewer publications are devoted to this area of study. And unlike special education, gifted education is not federally mandated, leaving much room for differences in definitions, identification, and programming across districts and states. Only 6 states fully mandate gifted education, and 10 states have neither funding nor a mandate (Davidson Institute, 2006). Proponents of gifted education argue that gifted students have exceptional or special needs, as do children in special education classes; without appropriate services, gifts and talents may be lost or not fully developed. Accordingly, the Javits Act of 1994 recognized this potential loss of talent, specifically among economically disadvantaged and CLD students. The major goal of the Javits Act is to support efforts to identify and serve CLD students and low socioeconomic status (SES) students.

This article first focuses on recruitment and retention issues (acknowledging that most of the scholarship has concentrated on recruitment) and then offers specific recommendations to guide educators in eliminating barriers and opening doors to gifted education for CLD students. We examine the education literature regarding the various conditions that hinder the representation of CLD students in gifted programs nationally, relying heavily on publications and studies that address the impact of perceptions on behavior, such as teacher expectancy theory and student achievement and outcomes (Merton, 1948; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). We suggest that deficit thinking and the use of traditional tests (especially IQ tests) and lack of teacher referral of CLD students for gifted education screening and placement are the primary contributing factors to underrepresentation. In the process of reviewing the literature, we attend to the larger question of the impact of testing instruments and policies and procedures (particularly teacher referrals) on underrepresentation. Further, we consider what school personnel (teachers, school counselors, and administrators) can do to both recruit and retain CLD students in gifted education.