University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How teacher participation in the identification process impacts the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs

(USC Thesis Other)

How teacher participation in the identification process impacts the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOW TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS IMPACTS
THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF MINORITY STUDENTS IN GIFTED
PROGRAMS

by
Afia Nini Hemphill

______________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Afia Nini Hemphill

ii

DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to my father, Charles L. Hemphill, my mother, Doris M.
Hemphill and my sister Cynthia L. West for their unwavering love, support and
encouragement through this process. I want to further extend a special dedication to my
father who was with me when I began this endeavor to pursue my doctorate but could not
complete the journey to see the fruits of my labor; I will always love you Daddy.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my committee members, Dr. Reynaldo Baca, Dr. Sandra Kaplan,
and Dr. Linda Fischer for their time, invaluable input and advice. Dr. Baca, as the
chairperson for this dissertation, I am thankful for your guidance, support and most of all
your patience in helping me to complete this project.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………......vi
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………...1
Gifted Programs in Metropolitan Unified School District………………..............3
Statement of the Problem ………….……………………………………………..6
Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………….......7
Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………7
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………….9
Methods and Procedures ………………………………………………….............9
Data Collection and Analysis ……………………………………………............10
Limitations ……………………………………………………………………....10
Organization of the Dissertation …………………………………………….......11

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE …………………………………………...12
General Overview of the Research ……………………………………………...12
Defining Giftedness ……………………………………………………..15
California Law for the Gifted ………………………………………….. 18
California Standards for the Gifted ……………………………………..19
Theories of Intelligence and Concepts of Giftedness …………………………...22
Traditional Theories of Intelligence …………………………………….22
Spearman’s Two-Factor Theory ………………………………...23
Thorndike’s Theory of Intelligence ……………………………. 24
Contemporary Theories of Intelligence ………………………………... 25
Theory of Multiple Intelligence ………………………………... 25
Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence …………………...28
Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness ………………29
Figure 1. Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness …….30
Characteristics of the Gifted …………………………………………….31
Underachievement and the Gifted ……………………………………............... 33
Motivational Factors …………………………………………………… 34
Expectancy-Value Theory ……………………………………... 34
Attribution Theory ……………………………………………... 35
Social Cognitive Theory ……………………………….............. 37
Home Culture-School Culture Incongruity …………………………….. 38
Teacher Training and Preparation ……………………………………………… 43
Multicultural Education and Teacher Preparation ……………………... 44

v

Gifted and Talented Education and Teacher Preparation ……………… 45
Teacher Perceptions and Expectations of Minority Student Performance ...…....48
Teacher Perceptions and Stereotypes …………………………………...49
Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies …………..............50
Summary ………………………………………………………………………. 54

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ……………………... 55
Description of Research Sites ………………………………………………….. 56
Objective of the Study …………………………………………………………. 57
Data Collection ………………………………………………………………… 57
Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………...59

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS………………………………………………………………..60
Gateway Elementary School…………………………………………………… 62
Gateway Elementary School Findings…………………………………..63
Vista Elementary School………………………………………………………...79
Vista Elementary School Findings………………………………………80

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY……………………………………………………………...91
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………….. 91
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………..91
Research Questions…………………………………………………………….. .92
Methodology……………………………………………………………………. 92
Selection of Sites………………………………………………………...94
Findings……………………………………………………………………….....94
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….... 98
Recommendations for Practice and Policy………………………………………99

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………...101

APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………112
Appendix A: Teacher Interview Protocol…………………………. ………… 112
Appendix B: Research Questions/Interview Protocol Correlation Grid….........115
Appendix C: Teacher Letter…...………………………………...……………..116
Appendix D: Permission to Contact……………..……………………………. 117
Appendix E: Interview Information Sheet…….………………………………..118

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. California Enrollment and Gifted Population Comparison Chart ………. 2

Table 2. MUSD Enrollment and Gifted Population Comparison Chart …………...5

Table 3. Gardner’s Eight Intelligences ………………………………………….. 26

Table 4. Learning Styles’ Comparison ………………………………………….. 42

Table 5. Summary of Findings…………………………………………………….96

vii

ABSTRACT
In previous decades, the nation was concerned with identifying the “best and the
brightest” and providing them with the best education possible. However, little has been
done to ensure that children from diverse backgrounds are fairly represented in programs
for the gifted. This study investigates the teachers’ role in sustaining the under-
representation of minority students in gifted programs based on their inability to
effectively nominate such students for gifted programs. The findings will help inform
educators of how critical personal ideologies, lack of proper training and limited focus
and support from school leadership can influence the decisions for recommendations of
diverse children for gifted programs.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
The underrepresentation of economically disadvantaged and culturally,
linguistically, and ethnically diverse (CLED) students in gifted programs has been a topic
of debate for decades. A U.S. Department of Education report (1993) contributed to the
controversy of this condition by calling it a “quite crisis”. The report brought attention to
the underrepresentation of students who encapsulated the potential for artistic, leadership
and academic excellence. Gifted and talented education programs continue to be the most
segregated programs of educational opportunity following Brown versus the Board of
Education of Topeka, Kansas of 1954 ( Ford, 1995; Ford & Webb, 1994).
In previous decades, the nation showed its concern with identifying the “best and
the brightest” and providing them with the best education possible. However, there has
been little progress to ensure that participation in gifted and talented programs is
inclusive of children from diverse backgrounds. Dramatic changes in the demographics
of the American landscape have called for researchers and educators to reexamine
practices that have historically excluded certain groups of people from having access to
programs and services that heighten and enrich learning experiences.
By 2010 ethnic and racial minority groups will comprise 50% of the total school
population (USDE, 2003). Currently, African-American students account for roughly
17% of the total public school enrollment in the U.S. and represent only about 8% of the
total gifted population (NCES, 2003). Latino students are a part of the fastest growing
culturally and linguistically diverse group in the United States. They comprise roughly

2

19% of the total U.S. school enrollment. However, only about 8% of all students
identified for gifted programs are Hispanic and for CLED students from low socio-
economic backgrounds it is far less (NCES, 2003). According to a report published by the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 2001 called A
Call for Action in Education, 64% of the total enrollments in U.S. schools are white
students. They in turn, make up nearly 77% of the total student participation in gifted
programs. The NAACP further requested that states address concerns in this report
related to issues of racial disparity in education by developing a 5-year plan. According
to their estimates twenty-three states submitted plans to reduce racial disparity in their
schools by 50%, ten states refused to join in and seventeen states were unresponsive to
the organization’s request.
Hispanic students fare better in California. 48% of the total state enrollments are
Hispanic children (see Table 1). Based on the statistics in the state’s database, Hispanic
children make up about 29% of the identified gifted population while African American
children account for a mere 4% of the identified gifted students.

Table 1

California Enrollment and Gifted Population Comparison Chart 2006-2007

Ethnicity/Race Total Enrollment Total GATE % of Total % of Total
Enrollment GATE

American Indian/ 48,383 3,185 .77 .6
Alaskan

3

Table 1: Continued

Asian 510,499 89,675 8.12 17

Pacific Islander 38,732 2,723 62 .3

Filipino 165,480 21,259 2.63 4.1

Hispanic/Latino 3,026,956 144,943 48.15 29

African American 477,766 21,423 7.6 4.1

White 1,848,078 221,973 29.41 43

Multiple/
No Response 170,038 7,517 2.70 1.4

Source: California Department of Education

California has defined gifted on the state level as:
….a pupil enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school who is identified as
possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high
performance capability.”, and has achieved a measured intelligence quotient of
150 or more points on an assessment of intelligence administered by qualified
personnel or has demonstrated extraordinary aptitude and achievement in
language arts, mathematics, science, or other academic subjects as evaluated and
confirmed by both the pupil’s teacher and principal (CDE, 2005).

Although there is a state endorsed definition for gifted, there is no state law in
California mandating any type of credentialing or program requirements. Districts are
responsible for instituting such guidelines in public schools.
Gifted Programs in the Metropolitan Unified School District
The Metropolitan Unified School District began its first implementation of a
program for the gifted about 57 years ago (MUSD, 2007). It has become a pivotal
program assuring the enrollment of the “best and brightest” in the public school system in

4

Metropolitan county. Due to a 2003 Board of Education resolution, the District developed
a plan to oversee the minority under-representation as well as develop a plan for their
retention in gifted programs. In addition, the resolution called for schools to restructure
programs to prepare CLED students for access to gifted programs. The plan called for the
use of culturally relevant and responsive teaching strategies to affect positive student
achievement. The plan sets a directive that the district does not exclude or isolate
minority students from gifted classes (MUSD, 2006).
Complying with the Office of Civil Rights’ Title IV guidelines, the District has
pledged to ensure that programs are accessible to those groups of students who had been
historically excluded from gifted programs. The MUSD district altered its policy and
procedures in response to recommendations from the available research on minority
representation in gifted programs (MUSD, 2006). For example, a single test score is not
sufficient evidence for a recommendation to the gifted program in the Metropolitan
Unified School District. Besides test scores (standardized, standards-based, norm-
reference), stakeholders can use various sources (teacher, self-referral, parent, community
member) to refer students to gifted programs. However, the referral must pass a screening
team comprised of the school principal or designee, child’s teacher, and another member
with knowledge of the cultural/ethnic, linguistic, and economic issues specific to the
candidate. The team reviews the referral and other supportive documentation before
recommending assessment by the school psychologist (MUSD, 2006).
Educators can refer students to a gifted program around four general domains,
including intellectual ability, high achievement ability, specific academic ability, and

5

performing arts ability or visual arts ability (MUSD, 2006). There are other domains such
as creative ability, leadership ability, and other abilities not previously mentioned.
Schools must submit an additional proposal to consider students in these categories.
Regarding the four general categories, high achievement and specific academic abilities
require students to display mastery through report card grades and standardized test
scores. Auditions and portfolios can confirm performing and visual arts abilities. The
domain of intellectual ability does not require test scores or report card grades. Instead,
teacher recommendations, student work samples and products provide corroborating
evidence (MUSD, 2006).
Though the Metropolitan Unified School District has recognized the limited
minority presence in gifted programs, the problem persists according to the latest data
complied by the California Department of Education in Table 2.
Table 2

MUSD Enrollment and Gifted Population Comparison Chart 2006-2007

Ethnicity/Race Total Enrollment Total GATE % of Total % of Total
Enrollment GATE

American Indian/ 2, 228 219 .3 .3
Alaskan

Asian 25, 966 8, 048 3.7 12.9

Pacific Islander 2, 117 216 .3 .3

Filipino 15, 652 3, 015 2.2 4.8

Hispanic/Latino 515, 450 30, 555 72.8 49

6

Table 2: Continued

African American 79, 157 4, 371 11.2 7

White 62, 995 15, 886 8.9 25.4

Multiple/
No Response 4, 061 13 .6 .02

Source: California Department of Education

At first glance the information in Table 2 does not show glaring disparities.
However, a closer examination reveals that while Hispanics/Latinos comprise almost
50% of the total identified gifted population, those students only represent about 5.9% of
their total presence in the District. The trend is similar for African-American students, the
identified gifted are about 5.5% of their total presence in Metropolitan Unified School
District. For identified students of Asian descent, they make up 31% of their total
population while white gifted students account for roughly 25% of their total make up in
the school district.
Statement of the Problem
Because of more flexible requirements in the intellectual ability domain, CLED
students may have access to gifted program if classroom teachers can identify their
capacity for excellence. The problem I have addressed in this study deals with the
teachers’ role in contributing to minority student under-representation gifted programs
based on teachers’ inability to reliably nominate students for gifted programs.
Teachers vary in their personal characteristics, philosophical beliefs, and
professional dispositions which in turn affects how they teach, relate, respond, and

7

support students in their classroom (Iskander, 2006; Nicely, Small, & Furman, 1980;
Whitmore, 1986). These differences are made worse when there is no mandated gifted
education training for teachers, no consistent theory of intelligence or definition of
giftedness. Other confounding factors are the potential for underachievement of gifted
students, teacher expectations for minority student achievement and the absence of clear
instructional priorities for gifted programming at the school site.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to look at the impact of teacher-initiated referrals
on minority under-representation in gifted programs. With this study I attempted to
understand how teacher participation in the identification process can function as a gate-
keeping mechanism. Because of my research I hope to articulate ways to mediate the
systems and/or ideologies that have constantly impeded access to this program for
particular groups of students.
Significance of the Study
With the ever-increasing populations of students from diverse ethnic and racial
backgrounds in our schools, concern of how to best educate these children has been at the
forefront of education research. Effective education for all students in the United States is
pertinent to the continued success and prosperity of the nation. Identifying the “best and
the brightest” and placing them on the path higher education is crucial. The question
remains, are we overlooking a critical mass of gifted children because they do not display
dominant cultural characteristics of intellectual ability and talent?

8

Research on the persistent and pervasive under-inclusion of CLED students has
amply documented and suggested flaws in the procedure and process of identification.
Individual states and school districts are left on their own to develop protocols to recruit
students into gifted programs (Bonner, 2000; Clark, 2000; Coleman & Gallagher, 1995;
Comer, 1988; de Wet, 2006; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ford, 1995; Ford & Webb, 1994;
Ford & Grantham, 2003; Ford, Grantham & Harris, 1998; Ford & Harris, 1999) . This
self-reliance has resulted in several procedural inconsistencies and lead to a lack of
representation of CLED students in gifted programs. African-American and Latino
students are severely under served in these specialized programs which hinder their
ability to take part in a multitude of progressive educational opportunities.
Uncovering and understanding a core cause for the lack of minority student
participation will have important implications for many urban schools in the Metropolitan
Unified School District where students who are culturally, linguistically and ethnically
diverse are consistently under-identified. The overarching goals of this study are to
inform educators of the characteristics of gifted children, how critical personal ideologies
influence their decisions for recommending CLED students to gifted programs, and to
make teachers aware of continual practices of under-identifying CLED students for gifted
programs.

9

Research Questions
The following research questions served as the guides for data collection:
1. Do teachers hold one dimensional or multi-dimensional notions of intelligence
with respect to identifying African-American and Latino students for gifted
programs?
2. What attributes and/or evidence do teachers take into account when identifying
African-American and Latino students’ giftedness?
3. Does the school’s context (leadership, programs, resources, etc.) affect
teachers’ willingness to identify?
4. How do teachers’ perceptions of African-American and Latino students impact
their assessment of their achievement and giftedness?
5. How does teacher participation in the gifted identification process affect the
under-representation of African-American and Latino students in gifted
programs?
Methods and Procedures
The nature of the problem to be addressed by this study required a qualitative
research approach. Case study research methods were instituted in looking at how
teachers impacted the under-representation of culturally, linguistically, and economically
diverse (CLED) students in gifted programs at two, urban, high minority elementary
schools. According to Gall, Borg and Gall (1996, p. 535), “the in-depth study of the
phenomenon in its natural context from the perspective of the participants involved in the
phenomenon” is what establishes a case study. A cross-case analysis (Miles &

10

Huberman, 1994) was utilized to examine the common patterns and/or themes apparent
in the data collected from the various participants.
Data Collection and Analysis
In qualitative research, data is collected from an array of sources and in a
multiplicity of ways which enable the researcher to make sense of a complex
phenomenon (Patton, 2002). For this study, data was collected from one central source,
teacher interviews. Ten teachers of grades second through fourth from two school sites
were selected to participate in the study. The schools were selected based on the current
total enrollment of students in the gifted program resulting in one school with high
enrollment of gifted students compared to one school with a significantly lower
population.
Data analysis was done using three levels of coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990): (a)
open coding, (b) axial coding, and (c) selective coding. During the stage of open coding,
the collected information was sorted in order for comparison and contrasting which
enables the data to be further categorized and conceptualized. In the second stage, axial
coding, the categories derived in open coding were synthesized to further establish the
relationships. In the final stage of selective coding, the core category was identified and
systematically related to the other categories. This process validated relationships and
areas of refinement were manifested (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Limitations
Due to time constraints and availability of resources, this study utilized the
responses from teachers of grades 2-4 at two school sites resulting in ten participants.

11

Due to this small sample size, the information provided is likely not representative of
teachers locally or nationally and therefore not generalizable.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is presented in five chapters. Chapter one represented the
introduction to this study. In chapter two, an overview of research that is pertinent to the
teachers’ role in under-representation of CLED students in gifted programs is presented.
Methods and procedures are discussed in depth in chapter three. Chapter four presents
details of the school environment, participants and the analysis of the results of the study.
Finally, chapter five will provide a discussion of the findings as well as present
implications for future research.

12

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter examines the areas of literature which are relevant to teachers’
ability to refer and nominate minority students to gifted programs. The chapter begins
with a section which details what the available literature deems as the main causes of the
lack of representation of minority students in gifted programs. The second section
discusses past and contemporary theories of intelligence followed by the section which
examines the underachievement phenomenon with gifted students. The fourth section
describes the limits of teacher preparation and training for gifted education. The final
section focuses on the existing literature on teacher expectations and perceptions of
minority student performance.
General Review of the Research
Programs to educate gifted children have been around since the superintendent of
public schools in St. Louis, William Torrey Harris decided to set up a systematic program
in 1868. Since then, psychologists and educators became intrigued with defining,
measuring and shaping the human intellect which has lead to several theories of
intelligence and testing instruments to evaluate the construct. The nation’s response to the
Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik 1957 sparked the Gifted and Talented Education
(GATE) programs in public schools that we know of today. This event caused the United
States to view human capital in a different light. The United States stressed the sciences,
mathematics, and technology to systematically cultivate the minds, skills and abilities of

13

the nation’s brightest (Ford, 1995, Ford and Webb, 1994; Harris & Ford, 1991; NAGC,
2007).
Traditionally, the students identified and selected to take part in these programs by
in large reflected the white-middle class majority. As demographics in the country
changed, the ethnic and racial make-up of the school system also shifted and the
underlying expectation was that the populations of students receiving programs and
services available in public schools would also mirror society. This has not been the case
for many programs and services in the nation’s public school and in particular the gifted
education program. After the Supreme Court (Brown vs. The Board of Education, 1954)
ended school segregation, Gifted and Talented Education programs still preserved their
position as one of our most segregated education programs (Bonner, 2000; Ford, 1995;
Ford, 2005; Ford and Webb, 1994; Grantham, 2002; Harris & Ford, 1991).
A review of the literature on this “quiet crisis” has revealed more limitations than
revelations. Less than 2% of the research on gifted and talented education takes on the
topic of minority under-representation in these prestigious public education programs
(Ford & Grantham, 2003; Harris and Ford, 1999). According to Donovan and Cross
(2002), a database to reflect the proportions of students in gifted programs by
race/ethnicity is severely limited and inadequate to shape policy. The Office of Civil
Rights is the only federal agency to report statistics on gifted and talented education. The
lack of a concrete federal definition of giftedness limits their data sets. This results in
extreme variance in how researchers and school agencies define gifted across the country.

14

This diversity in defining this construct makes it difficult to be accurate using OCR data
at best impossible to interpret (Donovan & Cross, 2002).
Though the data in its impreciseness may appear useless, it does however, glean
some important patterns about minority presence in gifted programs. In 1976 the OCR
data identified less than 1% of all children as gifted or talented; by 1998 the numbers had
grown significantly to 6.2%. This implies a steady increase in identification over the last
few decades. From 1998 African-American students represented about 3% of the gifted
population while Latino students represented about 3.6%. Native Americans made up
about 4.9% while Asian and whites represented about 10% and 7.5% respectively
(Donovan & Cross, 2002). The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted
stated in 1999; “it is quite apparent that complete, reliable data about gifted student
education within states are not readily available” and “comprehensive information about
gifted education throughout the United States is most difficult to produce” (pg. 9).
Research accounting for the under-representation of ethnically and linguistically
diverse youth is mostly anecdotal. Even so, the discussion deserved attention. Research
cites several reasons for this under-representation. These include a lack of consistent,
inclusive definitions of giftedness as well as a heavy reliance on teacher
recommendations. Moreover, the literature suggested a lack of appropriate training of
teachers on giftedness and intelligence, a lack of acknowledgement of the effect of
culture on learning, and the use of biased standardized testing and assessment tools
(Bonner, 2000; Ford, 1995; Ford & Grantham, 2003; Ford & Webb, 1994; Frasier et al.
1995b; NAGC, 2006; USDE, 1993).

15

This dissertation focuses on the teacher’s role in contributing to and maintaining
the under-representation of minority students in gifted programs. It calls into question the
heavy dependence on teacher recommendation given the impact teacher perceptions and
attitudes toward minorities may have on the process. In addition, this dissertation probes
the probable lack of adequate training, knowledge and understanding of intelligence, and
gifted underachievement those teachers may hold.
Defining Giftedness
Issues contributing to the under-representation of minority students in gifted
programs span from the how “gifted” is defined globally to the use of subjective
processes and procedures to identify them (Bonner, 2000; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ford
& Grantham, 2003). The federal definition of gifted has experienced many revisions to
allow for a more “all-inclusive” meaning. The definition has moved from defining a
specific trait that may be inherent in an individual to one that the individual can develop.
Between the years 1972 and 1993, three official federal definitions of gifted have
been drafted, each time to be more inclusive of the range of gifts and talents that research
shows. The Marland Report of 1972 included the first official federal definition. Sidney
Marland, commissioner of education then, set up a task force to examine the state of
gifted education in America. The Marland Report stated that:
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified
persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance.
These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or
services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program to realize
their contribution to self and society. Children capable of high performance
include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the
following areas, singly or in combination: (1) general intellectual ability, (2)

16

specific academic aptitude, (3) creative or productive thinking, (4) leadership
ability, (5) visual and performing arts, (6) psychomotor ability. (p. 64)

With a federal definition in place, problems identifying students from diverse
backgrounds persisted. This problem continued because of the federal definition’s failure
to address issues of cultural influences, and non-intellectual factors.
In 1978, the US Department of Education revised the federal definition. Ford
(1994, 1995) called the revamped explanation promising because it stressed the
potentiality of the talents, an effort to recognize students whose gifts had yet to appear.
The definition stated that gifted and talented students are:
….identified at the preschool, elementary or secondary level as possessing
demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance
capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, specific academic, or leadership
ability or in the performing and visual arts, and who by reason thereof require
services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school.

In 1988, as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization,
Congress passed the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. This act
provided financial support, about $10 million annually, to districts and institutions of
higher learning committed to developing research and demonstration programs to
improve gifted and talented education. The act further provides that half of the federally
funded programs dedicate their projects to the service of disadvantaged, gifted youths
(Ford, 1994; NAGC, 2007; USDE, 2007). In 2002, Congress again reauthorized the
Jacob Javits Act as part of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). With the
reauthorization came an expansion of competitive financial opportunities for education
programs serving gifted children traditionally under-represented in gifted programs,

17

children from low socio-economic backgrounds, English Language Learners, and
disabled children (USDE, 2007).
The 1993 U. S. Department of Education National Excellence report addressed
the issue of the lack of representation of minority students in gifted programs. With the
report’s recommendations for improvement came yet another federal definition of gifted.
Now the phrase “talented youth” replaced “gifted”. The 1993 definition of gifted
purports:
Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show 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 capacity in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, and
unusual leadership capacity, or excel in 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. 2)

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2002) as reauthorized by No Child Left
Behind states includes the current definition:
Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in
areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific
academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by
the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.

Despite efforts to redefine “gifted” and legislation to support programs for diverse
students to participate in these programs, the under-representation of students of color
continues. The problem that has evolved because of this newer, more generalized federal
definition is the diversity in the scope and range of how individual states have elected to
define and identify students as gifted. Coleman and Gallagher (1995) found that 49 states
include intelligence and achievement in their definitions. 40 states espoused creativity in

18

their definition, while 34 states include artistic ability and 28 states included leadership
ability. 15 states delineate critical thinking and 10 states include psychomotor ability in
their definitions. As definitions vary, so do the policies, procedures and tools used for
identification differ from state to state and district to district (Donovan & Cross, 2002).
California Law for the Gifted
California currently defines the gifted and talent child as a “pupil enrolled in a
public elementary or secondary school who is identified as possessing demonstrated or
potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability”. The state further
described highly gifted pupils as “a gifted and talented pupil who has achieved a
measured intelligence quotient of 150 or more points on an assessment of intelligence
administered by qualified personnel or has demonstrated extraordinary aptitude and
achievement in language arts, mathematics, science, or other academic subjects as
evaluated and confirmed by both the pupil’s teacher and principal” (CDE, 2005).
In 1961 California legislated the Mentally Gifted Minor Program, its first
legislated program for gifted children. Some 20 years later, roughly 454 school districts
participated in this program, supporting more than 160, 000 children. These programs
selected students based on their performance on intelligence tests. With Assembly Bill
1040 passed in 1980, districts were then able to develop their own programs for gifted
children and set up criteria for admittance.
In 2000, two bills passed the State Assembly and modified the state’s Education
Code related to gifted education. Assembly Bill 2313 altered Education Code 52200. It
required districts to plan and organize gifted programs as a differentiated learning

19

experience during the regular school day. In addition, the State Assembly established a
gifted and talented education program funding formula based on the average daily
attendance of all students in the school district. Assembly Bill 2207 amended Education
Code 48800 allowing identified students the option to attend classes at postsecondary
institutions regardless of age or grade level. There are roughly 6.3 million students in
California. About 513,000 of them are identified gifted students, generating upwards of
$48 million in funding for gifted programs in the state (NAGC, 2008). Though these two
bills mark important steps for services to students in gifted programs, there are still no
mandates regarding teacher training, preparation and /or credentials in gifted education.
California Standards for the Gifted
In 2001 the California state board of education developed and approved of gifted
and talented program standards. In July of 2005 the standards were revised and are
currently used as a basis for a 3-year cycle of approval for school districts across the
state. The standards consist of eight sections as follows:
1. Program Design – Districts are directed to provide a comprehensive
program which directly responds to the needs abilities and interests of
identified gifted students. Districts must develop a written goal and
philosophy for the programs with information readily available for parents
and community members. This standard further supports the
implementation of a gifted and talented education advisory committee
representative of district stakeholders as well as a dedicated district level
coordinator for the program. The standard provides guidance on the

20

groupings and structure of the program which may include but not limited
to cluster grouping, special schools, and special day classes.
2. Identification – Districts must ensure the procedures for identifying
students are “equitable, comprehensive, and ongoing” (p. 3). Training in
the process must be provided to teachers and administrators. The District
must implement a “search and serve” process which seeks referrals from
both classroom teachers and parents. Active parent participation must be
encouraged by the provision of permission for program participation,
orientations and informational meetings.
3. Curriculum and Instruction – This standard mandates identified students
be provided a differentiated curriculum which is responsive to their
interest and needs and based on available strategies and theories outlined
in academic research. The instruction must be provided on a regular basis
and utilize flexible grouping strategies from small group to independent
study opportunities
4. Social and Emotional Development – Plans must be established to
support students’ affective development and at-risk intervention.
Counseling services must be available and parents, teachers and
administrators should be trained and knowledgeable in the areas regarding
the social and emotional development issues facing gifted children.
5. Professional Development – Teachers are encouraged to participate in
trainings related to gifted education as part of their professional growth

21

plan. Districts are expected to provide a process to qualify teachers to
teach gifted students as well as have designated, qualified support
personnel for teacher guidance and school program support.
6. Parent and Community Involvement– Districts are expected to gain
active and consistent participation and support from parents and
community members. Suggested forums are orientations, regular advisory
meetings, display and advertisement of gifted students’ achievements,
utilization of local business and organizational partnerships, etc.
7. Program Assessment – District must conduct regular formative and
summative evaluations for program effectiveness. Data collected from
measures of student performance should be used to examine the impact of
the program and to ultimately improve service delivery.
8. Budgets – District budgets must directly support the standards for gifted
programs by funding professional development, direct student services,
district level coordination, and the student identification process.
Just as the states in the union have varying definitions to describe gifted and
talented individuals, laws and standards; so has the community of academia has had
differing perspectives on how to theorize intelligence. The proceeding section examines
the prevailing theories of intelligence which have been instrumental in one form or
another in shaping practicing classroom teachers’ view in looking for gifted potential in
students.

22

Theories of Intelligence and Concepts of Giftedness
Acknowledging the low representation of minority students in gifted programs
reflects attention on two prevailing schools of thought on intelligence: nature versus
nurture. Those who adhere to the “nature” perspective of intelligence believe that it is
static and a genetic function, heredity (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Ormrod, 2004; Pintrich
& Schunk, 2002). Proponents of the “nurture” view of intelligence subscribe to the notion
that intelligence is more dynamic, amendable, and malleable. From this view, intelligence
is a function affected by the environment and social context. Experiences and
opportunities can mold, shape, and develop intelligence (Ford & Grantham, 2003;
Ormrod, 2004; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;).
The nurture perspective of intelligence is highly affiliated with concepts of
intelligence that consider the environmental context (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Sternberg,
2004). It is buttressed by the implications of the complexity of intelligence. Intelligence
is not a unitary entity but essentially pluralistic in its conception as discerned in more
contemporary approaches to intellectual capacity and is immensely difficult to measure
by quantifiable means. In direct opposition, the nature perspective is reflective of more
traditional point of views; that is, intelligence is a single variable that can be discretely
identified and quantitatively measured (Flanagan, Genshaft, & Harrison, 1997; Ford &
Grantham, 2003; Pawlik & d’Ydewalle, 2006).
Traditional Theories of Intelligence
Psychometric perspectives drive prominent traditional concepts of intelligence.
Psychometric approaches to intelligence are responsible for the advent of intelligence

23

quotient (I.Q.) testing where a correlation is established that purports to indicate a
relationship between ability and the potential to perform (Flanagan, Genshaft, &
Harrison, 1997). Psychometric models outline intelligence as representative of the whole
range of one’s cognitive capabilities.
Spearman’s Two-Factor Theory
In 1904 psychologist, Charles Spearman developed a statistical technique still
widely used called factor analysis. In examining data to perfect factor analysis, he
uncovered what he believed to be undisclosed sources accounting for individual
differences in the variations in test performance. Through further analysis, Spearman was
able to detect two distinct factors responsible; a general factor common to all tests and a
specific factor unique to each test (Pawlik & d’Ydewalle, 2006; Spearman, 1904).
From this discovery, Spearman (1927) asserted that individuals inherently hold
one basic factor which accounts for the entire capacity of their mental ability; the general
factor (g). In addition, there lies a specific (s) factor in each human which is responsible
for ability and/or performance on a specific task. According to this theory, individuals
vary in their degree of general factor and also in the quality of specific factors. Therefore,
people with a high (g) factor are deemed to be of high intelligence or mental ability.
However, those same individuals could be low in their (s) factors which accounts for how
humans can have specific strengths and weaknesses in various areas and disciplines
(Dembo, 1994; Spearman, 1927).

24

Thorndike’s Theory of Intelligence
Edward Thorndike spent several years trying to debunk Spearman’s theory of
intelligence. He subscribed to the notion that intelligence was far too complex to be
encapsulated by a single factor. Thorndike (1921) early on, considered the impact of
individual differences and experiences on intelligence. In contrast to Spearman, he
asserted that several specific abilities which are different in nature make up intelligence.
He identified three types of intelligence; abstract, mechanical and social. Abstract
capacity refers to having the faculty to work with symbols and ideas. Mechanical
intelligence is the capability to manipulate concrete things and spatial concepts. Social
ability described the capacity to relate to others (Thorndike, 1920).
Traditional theories have plagued modern views of intelligence by reinforcing the
notion that high cognitive capacity is attributed to a single, innate entity. In addition,
these theories have further cultivated the belief that performance in the linguistic and/or
logical-mathematical domains is the sole expression of intelligence. Thus, educators tend
to refer students who have demonstrated mastery in those areas in the classroom and on
standardized tests. Traditional theories ignore the plausibility of intelligence being
divergent and affected by the culture and environment of the individual. Contemporary
perspectives, however, recognize the complicatedness of the intellectual structure and the
impact of the social-cultural context (Flanagan, Genshaft, & Harrison, 1997; Pawlik &
d’Ydewalle, 2006; Sternberg, 2003).

25

Contemporary Theories of Intelligence
Modern perspectives of intelligence run the gamut from information processing to
a systems approach. The information processing models attempt to examine the
underlying mental processes that contribute to individual differences in intelligence; how
information is interpreted, represented, transformed and acted upon (Gross, 1985;
Sternberg, 1987b). The systems view of intelligence claims that intellectual capacity is
the result of a set of systems that coalesce with one another resulting in diverse forms of
intelligence (Flanagan, Genshaft, & Harrison, 1997).
Theory of Multiple Intelligences
Gardner and his associates reviewed literature in several areas related to an
extensive catalog of empirical data on cognitive development. They examined research
on individuals with brain damage involving the loss of cognitive functioning, the
cognitive development of normal children, and abilities in special populations of
children. They also engaged in cross-cultural studies to examine research on how
intelligence is manifested and valued in other cultures (Flanagan, Genshaft & Harrison,
1997; Gardner & Hatch, 1989). The results from this survey of research led to Gardner’s
demarcation of a theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983).
The overall premise of this pluralistic view of intelligence is that one’s ability to
solve problems, develop products or produce outcomes that are valued in a particular
cultural context should be considered a potential of intelligence. Essentially, problems
can effectively be solved in a multiplicity of ways. How problems are solved is indicative
of the intellectual strength influenced by the cultural setting in that particular domain.

26

Gardner (1983, 1993) initially proposed seven types of intelligences and later added the
eighth: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual/spatial, body/kinesthetic, musical,
interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist.
Table 3

Gardener’s Eight Intelligences

Intelligences End States Core Competencies

Logical-Mathematical Scientist Sensitivity to, and capacity to
Mathematician discern logical or numerical patterns;
ability to handle long chains of
reasoning.
Linguistic Poet Sensitivity to the sounds, rhythms,
Journalist and meanings of words; sensitivity to
the different functions of language.
Musical Composer Abilities to produce and appreciate
Violinist rhythm, pitch and timbre;
appreciation of the forms of musical
expressiveness.
Spatial Navigator Capacities to perceive the visual-
Sculptor spatial world accurately and to
perform transformations on one’s
initial perceptions.

27

Table 3: Continued

Bodily-Kinesthetic Dancer Abilities to control one’s body
Athlete movements and to handle objects
skillfully.
Interpersonal Therapist Capacities to discern and responds
Salesman appropriately to the moods,
temperaments, motivations, and
desires of other people.
Intrapersonal Person with Access to one’s own feelings and the
detailed, ability to discriminate among them
accurate and draw upon them to guide
self-knowledge behavior, knowledge of one’s own
strengths, weaknesses, desires, and
intelligences.
Naturalist Farmer Abilities to observe patterns
Botanist in nature and understand
natural and human-made
systems.

Source: Gardner & Hatch, 1989; Santrock, 2007

28

Gardner’s position was that rather than to subscribe to a unitary view of
intelligence that had been underscored in past theories, intellectual capacity is multi-
dimensional (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). However, in the school setting emphasis on the
heightened ability in the domains of linguistic and logical-mathematical symbolization
continues to be the measure of success.
Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence
Sternberg proposed a systems approach to intelligence; that is, there are multiple
facets of intelligence that are interrelated to one another and integrative with the world
producing a functional system (Flanagan, Genshaft & Harrison, 1997). Sternberg (1986)
proposed three types or sub theories of intelligence: componential, experiential, and
contextual.
Individuals who have a high ability to analyze, judge, evaluate, compare and
contrast manifest componential intelligence. These individuals are more likely to be
identified and accepted into gifted programs through more traditional processes of
identification. These students are more analytical and view things in more abstract
fashion which allows them to perform well on standardized tests.
Individuals with the capacity to invent, design, create and imagine creatively
demonstrate experiential intelligence. According to Sternberg’s theory (1986, 2003,
2004), these learners perform well in situations of novelty and when they are able to
express themselves in creative ways. These learners find it difficult to function in the
context of strict rules and guidelines (Ford & Grantham, 2003).

29

Contextual intelligence is used in practical instances. It is the ability to carry out,
apply, and put ideas into practice that assist in the successfully navigating a given
context. These individuals are highly able to adapt and have the unique ability to
recognize factors in their environment leading to goal attainment. They will adapt to or
reshape their context to be successful (Sternberg 1986, 2003, 2004).
Current research has supported the notion that intelligence cannot be fully
understood apart from culture (Sternberg, 2004, 1999b, 1997). Sternberg (1985) asserted
that various cultures view intelligence in ways not always coherent with the traditional,
mainstream, middle-class American viewpoint. He cautions that educators must be
careful in attempting to diagnose intelligence not in the face of their view of intelligence
but in the view of the subject’s culture. In essence, what one culture values as a high level
of intelligence may not be of prominent regard in another culture.
Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness
Renzulli (1986) conducted extensive research on what he called “creative-
productive individuals”. These are people who have achieved significant recognition
because of their unparalleled accomplishments and contributions. From his examination,
Renzulli was able to decipher that these individuals encompassed a well-defined set of
interactive traits. These traits or clusters of abilities include above average ability, task
commitment, and creativity.

30

Figure 1. Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness

Source: Renzulli, 1986

Above average ability encompasses both general ability (applied across all
domains) and specific ability (ability to perform in specialized domain). Task
commitment refers to a form of motivation that characterizes the energy spent on a
specific area of performance or problem. The third and final cluster is creativity.
Renzulli asserts that each trait is important in cultivating gifted behaviors and the
interaction of the three clusters is responsible for “creative-productive” accomplishments.
His research has been essential in providing evidence that giftedness is expressed in ways
much more dynamic than looking at intellectual capacity in isolation resulting in
educators recognizing students’ potential gifts.
Sternberg and associates (1981) conducted a study in which they examined the
differences and similarities of the conceptions of intelligence among experts in the field
and laypersons. They found that two distinct groups of individuals had well-formed
models or ideals of intelligence that were congruent. These well formed conceptual
models were proven to be closely related to certain traditional psychological theories of
intelligence, and that the prototypes are used in the assessment of one's own and others'
intelligence. The authors were able to conclude from these findings that Western notions

31

of intelligence emphasize a speedy mental process of information, social competence,
verbal ability and practical problem solving. These are not often shared by other cultures
(Pawlik & d’Ydewalle, 2006; Sternberg et al., 1981).
Bonner (2000) states that broadly accepted theories and definitions of intelligence
and giftedness that fail to recognize the influence of culture and behavior on intelligence
are no longer acceptable. Giftedness cannot be fully understood without taking the socio-
cultural context into account. Language, culture and environment do not determine gifted
potential but have a direct influence on the expression of giftedness. There exists a
differentiation of cultural acceptance and value of intelligence that must further be
understood. Without this understanding, we cannot accurately and fairly determine an
individual’s potential for success. Cultural merits of intelligence should invariably be
endorsed and accepted in the mainstream context of American public schools (Gardner,
1994; Sternberg et al, 1981).
Characteristics of the Gifted
Like the inconsistency in defining giftedness in the United States and the lack of
agreement on how to theorize intelligence, identifying the characteristics of gifted
children have been difficult to pinpoint. In 2005, the California Association for the Gifted
(CAG) published a position paper on this issue for the purpose of providing information
to improve education for gifted children. CAG drew their descriptions of the
characteristics from the work of Clark (2002), Davis and Rimm (2004), Karnes and Bean
(2001) and Frasier and Passow (1994) who compiled their literature from decades of
research.

32

The characteristics are divided into four main areas; cognitive, affective,
physical/sensory, and intuitive. Some traits in the cognitive area include an increase in
learning strength, comfortable with high levels of abstraction, ability to learn new
concepts quickly, and persistence. The affective area is demonstrated by heightened
emotional sensitivity, empathy, high expectations, highly attuned to the environment,
high moral thinking, and a sense of justice/fairness. The physical/sensory area is
characterized by high energy levels (may be misinterpreted as attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder), zealous, and avoidance of physical activity preferring
academic pursuits. Implementing creative approaches to problem solving, exhibition of
deep understanding with ability to make connections among ideas and concepts,
inquisitiveness, appreciation for aesthetic qualities, and goal oriented all describe the
intuitive area.
The California Association for the Gifted further provides additional attributes
which can be classified into areas of work habits and cooperation. The following
characteristics, CAG cautions, may be misconstrued and inhibit gifted children from
being identified because many teachers may believe they are incongruous with
giftedness. They maintain that some gifted children may appear unorganized,
argumentative, lack respect for authority, frequently daydream, fail to complete tasks,
shrewd sense of humor, and lack planning and focus.
CAG maintains that the characteristics mentioned in this section are not all
inclusive that is, all students may not exhibit all descriptors. They do state that these

33

children do demonstrate high levels of functioning in the cognitive, affective,
physical/sensory, and intuitive areas to some degree.
More than cultural effects on intelligence are concerns of the lack of task
persistence or commitment as related to performing in academic settings. Lack of
performance by no means suggests lack of capacity to perform but is often misinterpreted
as such rather than an issue of motivation. A significant phenomenon in gifted education
is the underachievement of gifted children (Harris & Ford, 1999; Milner & Ford, 2005).
This occurrence has definitively had an impact on minority nomination to gifted
education and will be discussed in depth in the following section.
Underachievement and the Gifted
The literature has primarily defined underachievement in two ways: a disparity
between student execution on standardized measures of achievement and the
inconsistency between a teacher’s expectations and a student’s performance output
(Davis & Rimm, 1989; Ford 1992; Ford & Harris, 1994, 1992; Ford & Webb, 1994;
Raph, Goldberg, & Passow, 1966; Tomlinson, Callahan, & Lelli, 1997). Though current
available data is limited, it is estimated that anywhere from 15%-40% of identified gifted
students are at-risk for school failure or severely underachieve (Seely, 1993). These
estimations have severe implications for high-potential students who go unidentified due
to early onset underachievement (Ford & Harris, 1994, 1992; Frasier et al., 1995a). This
lack of demonstration of learning and skills by certain groups of minority students has
been attributed to motivation factors. Additionally, the incongruity that exists between

34

the mainstream system of schooling and the cultural systems in the homes of students has
also been pegged as a contributing factor to low performance.
Motivational Factors
Pintrich and Schunk (2002) define motivation as “the process whereby goal-
directed activity is instigated and sustained” (p. 5). They emphasize that motivation is an
unseen process rather than a product which is manifested through the active choice, effort
and persistence exerted on tasks by an individual. Motivation is believed to be at the crux
of what influences individuals to learn (Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Ormrod, 2004; Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002). Several theories of motivation have been accepted that attempt to explain
the function of motivation particularly in academic contexts however; they provide little
relevance in examining of minority underachievement (Ford & Harris, 1992; Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002). This is due in part to the theories falling short of accounting for the
impact cultural influences may have on learning and motivation on culturally,
linguistically, ethnically, and diverse students (Ford & Harris, 1994, 1992). Three central
theories of motivation will briefly be discussed in the following section to provide a basis
for understanding how the various ideologies of motivation and learning operate in
individuals.
Expectancy – Value Theory
The expectancy-value theory of achievement is predicated upon two core
inducements that purportedly predict an inclination to achieve in a given situation:
expectancy for success and value for the task. Expectancy corresponds to an individual’s
beliefs about future success or failure because of learning and prior achievement or

35

failure in previous situations (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
According to this theory, high expectations for success have a high relationship to
positive achievement behaviors. Value refers to the worth or importance the individual
assigns to the task. Therefore, if the person attributes a high value to a task or goal, they
will exert the choice, persistence and effort necessary for success (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
Effects of ethnic and racial differences on expectancies and values have been
deemed more complex to understand due to the confounding factor of socio-economic
status. However, Graham (1994) extracted one significant phenomenon related to race
and ethnicity. In her narrative review, Graham (1994) highlighted 14 experimental
studies which examined the predictors for expectancy for success for African-American
children compared to Whites. She found that in 12 of the experimental studies, African-
Americans generally had higher expectations for success than Whites despite lower levels
of performance. Research on how ethnic and racial differences affect the expectancies
and values of individuals is scarce and requires more theoretically based studies to be
conducted (Graham, 1994; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002)
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory is a cognitive theory which explains the causes people assign to
previous success or failure and how those perceived causes influence emotions and
behaviors. Essentially, what one has attributed previous success or failure will have
implications for their expectancy for future achievement or failure. Attributions, do not
themselves, motivate and individual rather, how they motivate is explained through their

36

causal structure which includes three dimensions – locus of causality, stability and
controllability (Dweck et al., 1999; Ford & Harris, 1992; Pintrinch & Schunk, 2002;
Weiner, 1986).
Locus of causality refers to the judgment of whether the cause is internal, or
rooted within the individual such as traits, behaviors or ability or external, a result of
something outside the individual such as environmental or external variables. Stability
dimension which plays a significant role in expectations and predictions for future
success, concerns the constancy of the cause being stable rather, persist across time or
unstable which is short term. Controllability refers to the amount of control the individual
perceives to have over the cause (Pintrinch & Schunk, 2002; Reyna, 2000; Weiner,
1986).
Attributional patterns of diverse populations is an area needs further research
(Graham, 1994, 1991; Pintrich & Schuunk, 2002). Pintrich and Schunk (2002). However,
there is emerging research related to two conceptual similar constructs; locus of control
and locus of controllability. The locus of control theory assumes that internal beliefs are
more adaptive than external mindsets. This line of early research purports that,
particularly African-Americans, are likely to attribute success and failure to external
forces which is in direct opposition to Whites who hold internal beliefs (Pintrich &
Schumk, 2002). Graham (1994) reviewed and summed up 63 studies of ethnic
differences on locus of control and confirmed the pattern of external beliefs among
African-Americans based on most of the studies’ findings. However, her analysis did not

37

find negative implications for the externality of beliefs but she emphasizes a need for
further research in this area.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory is a derivation of social learning theory which places
emphasis on how the individual interacts with their environment. It essentially purports
that individuals learn from observing others and that they will in turn act based on their
thoughts, goals, values, and beliefs (Grendler, 2005; Ormrod, 2006; Pintrich & Schuunk,
2002). The theory further claims that learning is an internal process which may or may
not lead to a transformation in behavior. Further, the theory affirms that behavior is
directed to achieving goals and behavior becomes regulated over time. As a result of the
learning through observations of models, they can exercise the learned skills and
strategies when motivated and when appropriate (Grendler, 2005; Ormrod, 2006; Pintrich
& Schunk, 2002).
A fundamental concept in social cognitive theory is modeling. Pintrich and
Schunk (2002) describe modeling as “the behavioral, cognitive, and affective changes
that result from observing one or more models” (p. 150). The concepts of self-efficacy
and self-regulation are also products of social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy describes
one’s judgment of their capability to perform and is believed to directly impact choice,
persistence and effort executed on activities. For example, if an individual is confident in
their ability to perform successfully, they will have a high self-efficacy and are motivated
to act or engage (Grendler, 2005; Ormrod, 2006; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Bandura,
1986).

38

Self-regulation is the process in which individuals rouse and continue behaviors,
cognitions, and affects that are directed toward goal achievement. It is implied that the
behavioral, cognitive, and/or affective strategies are intentionally chosen to aid in goal
attainment. Self-regulation is believed to increase as individuals age (Bandura, 1986;
Grendler, 2005; Ormrod, 2006; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Zimmerman, 1989).
There is no research that reflects that reflect the direct impact racial and ethnic
differences have on the core aspects of social cognitive theory (modeling, self efficacy
and self-regulation). Yet, Bandura (1986) notes that effective models must be perceived
to be similar and credible by the observer. This may have implications for culturally,
linguistically and ethnically diverse students who are more likely to engage in the
behaviors of models whom they perceive to be similar and valid (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002). Bandura (1986) further asserts that one’s development and level of efficacy for
learning is contingent upon prior experiences, personal factors, and social support. These
factors may have a direct relationship to the self-efficacy of students from diverse
backgrounds. Ormrod (2006) proposes the lack of outside role models who display
appropriate regulatory strategies is a significant factor in the reduction or absence of self-
regulation in students from diverse backgrounds.
Home Culture-School Culture Incongruity
Though the body of research related to this area is anecdotal, it reveals serious
issues about the barriers of minority achievement and subsequent under-representation in
gifted programs. Available research has attributed possible causes of minority student
underachievement to lie not within the students and their families as previously thought,

39

but in the discontinuity that exists between the cultures of the home and school. The
research asserts it is the responsibility of the school to identify the elements that create
the disconnection. Schools must make pedagogical, organizational, and curriculum
adjustments to eradicate the differences (Bandura, 1986; Bonner, 2000; Boykin, 1994;
Gay, 2000; Hillard, 1979, 1974; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Slocumb & Payne, 2000;
Spindler & Spindler, 1994). The misalignment exists because the culture of the American
education system is drastically different from the culture that students who are culturally,
linguistically and economically diverse embody. Slocomb and Payne (2000) suggested
that in the effort to make schools and programs equal for all children, those same
organizations and services are inequitable. This occurs as a result of treating all students
the same without accounting for the crucial factors that contribute to the differences in
the students.
The inconsistencies between home and school impact the achievement of diverse
students in various ways. The manner in which students are accustomed to process
information intellectually, present and share learned information, and perform tasks are in
direct contradiction to what American school culture expects and demands. The school
system emphasizes, promotes and esteems a dominant Eurocentric culture in order to
achieve. Students must fully understand how to successfully participate and navigate the
system (Au, 1980; Banks & Banks, 2004; Cadzen, John & Hymes, 1985; Gay, 2000;
Holliday, 1985; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Shade, 1982; Slocumb & Payne, 2000; Spindler,
1987; Spring, 1995). Further, the opportunities and resources available to students via
their home environment have a great impact on their performance in schools. The

40

opportunities and resources of the traditional, educated American middle-class household
provide children with access and practice with abstract processes which are highly
compatible with schooling. However, for culturally and economically diverse households,
the experiences and resources cultivate children to think and function in more concrete
processes that may bet incompatible with schooling (Slocumb & Payne, 2000). By
understanding home environments and the absence and/or presence of opportunities and
resources, culturally, linguistically and economically diverse children will also be able to
successfully engage in and maneuver the system of education. Additionally if further
appreciation and attention would be given to the incorporation of values, beliefs, work
habits, learning styles, and experiences that are representative of the culture of students in
their educational settings, this would assist in reversing patterns of failure (Gay, 2000).
Ford and Harris (1992, 1994) outline social, cultural, and psychological variables
which they believe account for minority student underachievement. The social factors
stem from the perpetuation of social inequalities in the external society in the internal
confines of the classroom. In essence, higher value is place on the culture, practices and
beliefs of the mainstream resulting in a devaluing of dissimilar cultures (Giroux, 1983;
Glasser, 1975; Hillard, 1990; Ogbu, 1987).
Psychological variables such as the sense of feeling unconnected, not belonging
or feeling different often result in low self-concept or low self-esteem. Thus, the social
implications which are revealed in poor relationships with peers in addition to stress and
worry ultimately decrease motivation and performance. Additionally, gifted minority

41

children will experience psychosocial challenges by electing to underachieve to eliminate
feeling isolated from peers (Gross, 1985; Ford & Harris 1992, 1994).
Students from diverse backgrounds often have to operate in two conflicting
cultural systems. This can result in the undermining of academic achievement as revealed
in suppressing ability and challenging behaviors (Comer, 1990, 1988; Ford & Harris,
1992, 1994). For example, research has provided evidence that African-American
students often feel obligated to underachieve to preserve their cultural identity and not
appear to be “acting white” (Fordham, 1988,1996; Goto, 1997; Ogbu, 1990, 1982; Ogbu
& Fordham, 1986).
Underachievement of minority students in school may have implications for
pedagogical domains of teaching. According to Shade (1982), the delivery of instruction
and expectations for exhibiting performance in schools are also misaligned with learning
styles and preferences of culturally, linguistically and ethnically diverse students.
Learning styles refer to the characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychological
behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact, and
respond to the learning environment. These preferred modes of learning generally
accepted by minority students lie in direct opposition of the styles of learning valued in
American schools (Bonner, 2000; Gay, 2000; Hillard, 1979, 1974; Shade, 1982). In table
2, Hillard (1974) specifically outlines the contraposition of the learning styles valued in
traditional school culture to the preferred modes of learning of students from diverse
backgrounds.

42

Table 4

Comparison of Learning Styles

Learning Styles Valued by Learning Styles Valued by
the Traditional School Culture some Minority Cultures

Standardized and rule driven Variation accepting and improving
Deductive, controlled, egocentric Inductive, expressive, sociocentric
Low movement expressive context High movement expressive context
View environment in isolated parts View environment as a whole
Precise concepts of space, number and time Approximate concepts of space,
Number and time
Respond to object stimulus Respond to people/social stimulus
Dominant communication is verbal Non-verbal as well as verbal
Long concentration span Shorter concentration span
Emphasis on quiet Emphasis on rich verbal interplay
Emphasis on independent work Responds to collaborative effort
Cognitive Affective
Emphasis on written work Verbal expression preferred
Communication focused Interaction focused

Source: Hillard, 1974

43

Culturally, linguistically and ethnically/economically diverse students bring
values, beliefs and norms that are not always in alignment with the cultural norms of the
American school system (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Mainstream education system norms
are believed to be vastly different from the norms of behavior, language usage, and
cognitive styles of minority students. These differences hinder schools from providing
optimal learning experiences for these children (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001; Shade,
1982). According to Gay (2000), an individual’s race, culture, ethnicity, and
intellectuality are not separate entities but are all intertwined with which one can not be
ignored and another be regarded. These are all issues better served in the multicultural
components of teacher preparation programs. The next section deals with the roles
multicultural competence and gifted education preparation play in the teacher referral
process.
Teacher Training and Preparation
The ability to teach and serve students of color has been a raging debate for
decades. Expecting teachers to have the ability to also anticipate and identify the potential
for giftedness in these same children further complicates the initial argument. This due in
part to a two-fold issue: (1) the adequate preparation of teachers about cultural sensitivity
and empathy (2) teachers having the ability to understand and ultimately recognize gifted
potential. In other words, we could attribute the lack of representation of minority
students in gifted programs to the lack of effective multicultural education and gifted
preparation and training for classroom teachers.

44

Multicultural Education and Teacher Preparation
The demographics of students in American schools are changing dramatically to
become more ethnically and linguistically diverse while the general demographics of the
teaching force has remained relatively the same as a majority middle-class, female,
European American profession. Traditional teacher education programs that place little
emphasis on culturally, linguistically, and ethnically/economically diverse students have
trained most of our teaching force.
The lack of preparation for diversity evades the responsibility that all educators
must assume in teaching students. Teacher education programs and in-service education
programs must prepare teachers to be fair, empathetic and well-versed in instructional
strategies to bring about the best academic performance in all students (Brown, 2002;
Ford, Grantham, & Harris, 1998; Ford & Harris, 1999, 2000). Teachers ill-prepared to
work with students from diverse backgrounds often misinterpret cultural differences as
deficits (Ford, 1996; Ford & Grantham, 2003; Howard, 2001; Storti, 1989, 1998).
Further, the cultural mismatch among teachers and students result in stereotypical
preconceptions based on teachers’ limited experiences with culturally, linguistically, and
ethnically diverse students (Gay, 2000; Graham, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 2002).
Teachers not properly prepared to work with students from diverse backgrounds are
unaware of culture’s impact on learning. This can result in various learning styles and
ways of knowing that are often contradistinctive to the mainstream system of educating
children (Ford & Webb, 1994; Fraiser, 1987; Gay, 2000; Hillard, 1992; Shade, 1982;
Woods & Achey, 1990). All of this may lead these teachers to search for behavioral and

45

personality characteristics of gifted children that are more similar to those of mainstream
students. Students from diverse backgrounds may not always display these characteristics
resulting in their exclusion from gifted programs (Ford & Webb, 1994; Grossman, 1995).
Gollnick & Chin (1998) described multicultural education as a strategy for using
the students’ cultural backgrounds to drive and dictate classroom instruction and school
environments. As stated previously, culturally, linguistically and ethnically/economically
diverse students bring values, beliefs and norms that are not always in alignment with the
cultural norms of the American school system (Banks & Banks, 1993, 2004; Gay, 2000;
Hollins, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 1995). As a result, to teach the whole child educators
must be well versed in and understand their students’ cultures. Embracing the culture and
using it as the foundation for intellectual development rather than having students
subconsciously disregard their culture will impact academic success (Hollins, 1993).
Multicultural education and diversity training are instrumental. They provide teachers
with the tools to establish a communication style and understanding which is more
culturally compatible with students and their families (Cummins, 1986; Foster, 1997;
Gay, 2000; Irvine, 1989, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Gifted and Talented Education and Teacher Preparation
Over the last 15 to 20 years, multicultural education and diversity training has
become a mandatory portion of most urban teacher credentialing programs (Gay, 2000;
Garcia, 2002). However, in many states teacher credential and in-service programs
continue to relegate gifted and talented education preparation and training to a list of
elective coursework. In 2005, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

46

reported that only 21 states offer gifted and talented education teaching credentials.
Twenty-three states required teachers of gifted students to be certified accordingly with
total certification hours ranging from 6 to 24 hours. Three states mandated that all
teachers complete staff development hours in gifted education. In 11 states, staff
development is a decision left for individual school districts to determine. California
specifically, does not mandate training or professional development in the understanding
of gifted children for general education teachers (NAGC, 2008). This disparity in training
and development across the country has implications for most classroom teachers. Often
they are responsible for the initial nomination of students to gifted programs but with
little to no training. They are generally ill-prepared to make such important
determinations. Often, teachers recommend students to gifted programs on the basis of
ancillary behaviors which are not necessarily tied to intellectual or talent capacity or
potentiality (Cox et al., 1985; Grossman, 1995).
In 1996 the University of Connecticut’s National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented (NRC/GT) conducted research on the type and scope of professional
development related to gifted education in schools across the nation. The study showed
that school districts spend about 4% of the monies earmarked for professional
development on gifted education. Further, collaboration among teachers and those with
gifted education training or certification is rare. Westberg et al. (1998) further confirmed
that professional development opportunities for teachers about gifted programs were
scarce.

47

Taylor (2001) studied the attitudes pre-service teachers held toward gifted
students. She found that these teachers viewed gifted children as productive and eager to
please them. Miller (2006) found that teachers expected gifted students to have the
following qualities: leadership ability, analytical, creative, self-motivated, exceptional
intellectual capacity, high achieving, and precocious, inquisitive, independent, and
supportive family. Hunsaker (1994) conducted a qualitative study of teachers’
perceptions of giftedness. He found that teachers characterized the gifted as students with
divergent and convergent thinking abilities and potential, academically superior and
persistent to tasks. Even so, he concluded that work habits, higher-order thinking ability,
fast learning, advanced scores on tests and leadership ability influenced the teacher
referral process (de Wet, 2006). In 2003, Rowley compared teachers trained in gifted
education, those in the process of being trained and untrained teachers to assess their
effectiveness in instructing gifted students. Her findings were that teachers adequately
prepared and those in the process of being prepared were more effective in their
classroom climate and the use of higher-order thinking skills than those teachers not
trained.
All individuals come to the table with notions of how a group of people behaves
or functions based on their experience with other individuals from that group. The aim of
multicultural education training for teachers is to instill a sense of fairness, justice and
empathy. However, the level to which these traits are imbued may depend on how
engrained these preconceived ideas and stereotypes are in the minds of perspective

48

teachers. The final section of this chapter examines the effects teacher perceptions and
expectations of minorities have on student performance.
Teacher Perceptions and Expectations of Minority Student Performance

Given teachers’ pivotal role in the referral process, it is crucial to examine the
literature on teacher perceptions and expectations of minority student achievement. In
2005, the National Association of Gifted Children reported that of the 47 reporting state
directors of gifted education, 20 confirmed that as a result of teacher referrals students
were assessed for gifted programs. In 21 other states they affirmed that student
identification “usually” followed teacher referrals (de Wet, 2006). With this heavy
reliance on teacher judgment of students’ potentiality for giftedness, it is erroneous to
assume that their perceptions and attitudes toward CLED students did not impact the rate
of referrals to gifted programs.
Frasier and associates (1995b) conducted a study to identify what educators
believe to be barriers to minority participation in gifted programs. They surveyed 750
participants in a national field test study. Of those educators surveyed, 62% believed a
significant barrier included the teachers’ inability to identify academic potential in
students from culturally, linguistically and ethnically/economically diverse backgrounds.
About 42% of participants believed that teachers’ biased attitudes were a major
hindrance. Less than 39% held the ideal that the presence of intellectual ability in a large
number of students from minority and impoverished backgrounds was impossible.
Teachers are not adequately equipped and primed to work with students from diverse
backgrounds. Hence, they bring to bear stereotypes and misperceptions that impede their

49

ability to correctly decipher the strengths of students who may behave contradistinctively
to mainstream expectations (Ford et al., 2002).
Teacher Perceptions and Stereotypes
Teacher beliefs, perceptions and attitudes guide how they behave toward and
interact with students (Brophy, 1983; Brophy & Good, 1974; Ferguson, 2003; Juissm &
Harber, 2005; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001; Rist, 1970). Due to the beliefs, perceptions and
attitudes embraced by teachers, there is a tendency to attribute low academic achievement
of minority students to causes inherent in the individual or the circumstance. Researchers
label this mode of analyzing the lack of student success as a deficit perspective (Berman
et al., 1999; Delpit, 1995; Ford et al., 2002; Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Menchaca, 1997;
Valencia, 1997;).
Working under a deficit orientation shifts the focus away from the deficiencies
and inadequacies in the educational setting and blames the lack of cognitive and/or
motivational success on the students and their families (Valencia, 1997). This deficit
view of culturally, linguistically, ethnically/economically and diverse students influences
the procedures, policies and social relationships at the school further perpetuating the
external world’s social order inside the school setting (Ford et al. 2002, Irvine, 1990; ,
Menchaca, 1997; Valencia, 1997).
These perceptions of stable innate deficiencies if held over time become
stereotypes (Ferguson, 2003; Reyna, 2000). Reyna (2000) notes that stereotypes serve a
descriptive and explanatory function. They are descriptive in that they serve as a
generalizeable picture of a social group’s composition. Stereotypes are explanatory in

50

how they explain the whys of social groups’ behaviors, attitudes and beliefs. Reyna
(2000) further defines stereotypes as “beliefs about a nature or quality of a person or
group that are summarily applied to group members and are thought to reflect predictable
characteristics and behaviors of that group” (p. 92). Stereotyping is a way an individual
makes the complex social environment more organized, simplistic and predictable. They
impact expectations and affect the way teachers and others treat individuals in academic
settings (Aronson, 2004; Ferguson, 2003; Fiske, 1998; Reyna, 2000).
Slocumb and Payne (2000) purport that the instructional context drives or shapes
the teachers’ perceptions. They outline two examples, in a classroom that does not
embrace creativity or originality a highly creative student may not appear to be so. Also,
in a teacher-centered classroom in which the teacher does the bulk of the talking may not
perceive an outspoken student to be highly verbal but rather a discipline problem.
Slocumb and Payne imply that teachers have difficulty perceiving giftedness in CLED
because their gifts and talents are not shrouded in middle-class norms or values causing
them to be indistinct.
Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Beliefs held by teachers lead to differential expectations and treatment based on
race, ethnicity, socio-economic status and even gender (Brophy & Good, 1970; Pohan &
Aguilar, 2001; Rist, 1970). Guttman and Bar-Tal (1982) conducted studies that
examined how the stereotypic views held by teachers influenced their expectations and
evaluations of students. One study enlisted 101 female elementary school teachers. The
researchers presented them gender and ethnic background information about random,

51

hypothetical students and asked that the participants rate their expectations for the
students’ performance. The results showed that teachers’ expectations and judgments
vary depending on the information provided on the students’ ethnicity. The second study
examined teacher evaluation and attributions following a review of information about
student performance. In this study, the teachers were asked to grade a written essay
composed by students they had reviewed in the first study. The researchers asked them to
explain the reasoning behind their grade assignment and to predict future student
achievement. They consistently graded students of Asian or African heritage lower than
those from a European-American background. Further, they rated students of European-
American heritage were rated as having a higher predictability of future academic
success. The results of this study showed that teachers’ knowledge of the ethnic/racial
backgrounds of students impacts their grading. These results demonstrate that teachers
hold differential expectations for achievement. Furthermore, teachers convey these
contrasting beliefs to students and ultimately students behave in ways that correspond
with these preset expectations (Bar-Tal, 1979; Guttmann & Bar-Tal, 1982; Rist, 1970).
Researchers assert that teacher expectations can serve as self-fulfilling prophecies
(Brophy, 1983; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Rist, 1970). According to Merton (1948), self-
fulfilling prophecies occur when false expectations and beliefs become true. Research on
teacher expectations’ correlation to self- fulfilling prophecies became a well sought out
topic of discussion following the seminal work by Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968),
Pygmalion in the Classroom. In this publication, the Oak School experiment confirmed
the authors’ hypothesis that teacher expectations have a strong effect on student

52

performance and therefore may be the key to educational disparities among minority and
white students. In this experimental study, researchers gave a non-verbal intelligence test
to students in grades kindergarten through fifth grade. Based on test results, the
researchers informed the teachers of the 20% of students (randomly selected) who
demonstrated the potential to grow intellectually. This information fueled teachers’
expectations of future achievement by these children. The researchers administered the
same tests two more times in the next two years. This resulted in the students deemed
“late bloomers” experiencing intellectual gains over the control group and hereby
provided empirical evidence that expectations feed self-fulfilling prophecies. There have
been countless attempts to replicate this study’s findings to no avail bringing into
question whether teacher expectations function as self-fulfilling prophecies (Brophy,
1983; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Rosenthal, 1976; Rosentahal & Jacobsen, 1968).
Brophy (1983) conducted an extensive review of the available literature on this
topic. He pointed to the research of West and Anderson (1976), Brophy and Good (1974),
Dusek (1975), Cooper and Good (1983), Rist (1970). They all essentially conclude that
though teacher expectations initiate self-fulfilling prophecies, the impact in typical
classroom settings is relatively small. The results revealed a difference of 5-10% in
values for student performance. However, Brophy (1983) is careful to point out that
teacher expectations do have the potential to function as self-fulfilling prophecies when
they “involve sustained, systematic over- or underestimates of students’ actual
achievement potential” (p. 636).

53

Some 20 years later, Jussim and Harber (2005) took another extensive look at the
research done on teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies over the last 35
years. They came to the same conclusion as Brophy (1983). Based on the available
evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies, self-fulfilling prophecies do
occur and derive from teacher expectations but the effects continue to be of little to no
consequence. The research has suggested that this is due to the overall accuracy of
teacher judgments about student performance outcomes (Brophy, 1983; Brophy & Good,
1974; Jussim, 1991; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Madon, Jussim, & Eccles, 1997; Merton,
1948). However like Brophy (1983), Jussim and Harber (2005) also point out that certain
stigmatized groups are more susceptible to the self-fulfilling prophecy. This is due, in
part, to moderators such as academic ability, socio-economic status, and race/ethnicity.
In a study to examine such moderators, Madon et al. (1997) surveyed 98 teachers
and 1,539 students in a sixth grade math class to gain insight to the perceptions of
teaching and students held by teachers and students’ self-concepts and motivation in
math. The results of the study showed that teacher expectations were a stronger tool to
enact self-fulfilling prophecies among low achievers with an effect size of about .30
versus .10 for high achievers. Additionally, a study by Jussim et al. (1996) which also
examined teachers and students in math classes concluded that teacher expectations’
influence on self-fulfilling prophecies are powerful for African-American students with
effect sizes ranging from .4 - .6.

54

Summary
The purpose of this study will be to examine how the heavy reliance on teacher
referrals function as an impediment to gifted programs for minority children. Though
teachers are privy to students’ academic and behavioral functions in the classroom, their
ability to judge potentiality of giftedness may be flawed due to their unidimensional
perspectives (Gagne, 1994; Hadaway & Marek-Schorer, 1992; Sternberg, 1988). The
gifted traits they often seek are not always applicable to the behavioral, expressive, and
cognitive function of minority children. Teachers often function on limited information
when serving these students and have little to no understanding of the depth of impact
culture has on their learning and motivation (Grossman, 1995; Woods & Achey, 1990).
Subsequently, teachers are able to define the giftedness construct based on their personal
experience and theories which results in variability among teacher nominations (Hoge &
Cudmore, 1986; Powell & Siegle, 2000). This makes relevant the fact that dependence on
teacher referrals may be an unreliable source for recommendations to gifted programs.
No concrete definition, multiple theories of intelligence, student motivational
issues, lack of cultural competence and understanding, no formal training, stereotypical
perceptions and low expectations are all issues that can infringe on teachers’
determination to refer students (particularly those from culturally, linguistically and
economically diverse backgrounds) to gifted education programs. Yet, teacher
nominations continue to hold a significant role in the process of selecting students for
gifted programs (Alvino et al., 1981; Marland, 1972; Renzulli & Vasser, 1967;
Silverman, 1986).

55

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research design, sample, instrumentation, and
methodology for data collection and analysis utilized in this study. The purpose of this
study was to understand how teacher participation in the gifted program’s identification
process contributes to the under-representation of culturally, linguistically and
economically diverse students in such programs. The following research questions were
the guides for this study:
1. Do teachers hold one dimensional or multi-dimensional notions of intelligence
with respect to identifying African-American and Latino students for gifted
programs?
2. What attributes and/or evidence do teachers take into account when identifying
African-American and Latino students’ giftedness?
3. Does the school’s context (leadership, programs, resources, etc.) affect
teachers’ willingness to identify?
4. How do teachers’ perceptions of African-American and Latino students impact
their assessment of their achievement and giftedness?
5. How does teacher participation in the gifted identification process affect the
under-representation of African-American and Latino students in gifted
programs?
Based on the purpose of this study, qualitative research methods were employed.
Merriam (1998) outlines five distinct characteristics of qualitative inquiry. First, the focus

56

of the researcher is on deciphering the meaning the participants in the setting have
constructed about “their worked and the experiences they have in their world” (p. 6). The
researcher is interested in understanding the phenomenon present in the setting however,
it is explained by from the perspective of the participants rather than the researcher.
Second, the primary instrument of data collection and analysis is the researcher
(Merriam, 1998). As a result, the researcher has the opportunity and flexibility to adapt
techniques in response to the events and processes occurring in the environment. The
third characteristic of qualitative research is the reliance on fieldwork. Essentially,
themes, patterns and relationships are developed from the data collected (Patton, 2002).
The fifth and final characteristic of qualitative research is that the end product is very
descriptive and rich in the information about the context and its events.
Description of Research Sites
Based on the Metropolitan Unified School District’s policy, it is possible that
every school would have an active gifted program provided there are identified students
enrolled. In this study, two elementary schools will be examined both having high
minority, high poverty populations. However, one school has an active gifted and
talented program while the other no operative program at this time.
Gateway Elementary School has a Hispanic population of about 55%, African-
American students are comprised of 15% while Asian students represent 15%, 5% are
Filipino and White students make up approximately 10%. It is a Title I school meaning
students receiving free or reduced lunch is more than 51% of the total student body.

57

Currently there are 44 identified gifted students on campus 60% of which are Hispanic,
9% are African-American, 13% Asian, 6% Filipino, and 12% are White students.
Vista Elementary School is also a Title I school and has a Hispanic student
population of 64%, 35% of the students are African-American, .6% are Asian/Pacific
Islander and .4% are White. Currently, Vista Elementary School has 1 African American
student is identified as gifted.
Objective of the Study
The objective of this study was to glean from the data collected; the impact
teacher participation has on the gifted identification process for minority children. By
examining two schools with obvious differences in the active nomination of students for
gifted programs, the researcher was able to compare and contrast how teachers at both
schools view or define giftedness/intelligence. Also how they understand
underachievement of potentially gifted children, are trained and prepared to identify and
teach gifted students as well as their perceptions and attitudes toward nominating students
from culturally, linguistically and ethnically/economically diverse backgrounds was also
analyzed.
Data Collection
Ford and Trotman (2001) suggest that the major obstacle to minority students’
referral and entrance into gifted programs lies with in the walls of the classroom. The
classroom teacher plays a significant role in the initial referral of students to the program.
So, it is very important to get a sense of how the teacher theorizes and functions as a key
participant in the identification process. The most effective way to do this was to get

58

“inside the minds” of the teacher to capture their emotions and thoughts and therefore,
data collected came from focused interviews. According to Malloy (2002), interviews are
a common source of data in descriptive and interpretive studies and have become
prominently used in educational research (Tierney & Dillard, 2002). The interviews were
structured with some open-ended questions. The questions were formulated in a way to
get at the teachers’ core interpretations of gifted children, minority student performance,
intelligence and the impact of culture on learning and behavior.
I conducted individual interviews with teachers at the two research sites. I
expected that the individual interviews would bring out information not easily shared in
the presence of peers. The data gathered from the individual interviews was combined to
give the researcher a sense of how the culture or shared values and beliefs at each school
affect the identification process.
Since this study is qualitative in nature, it lends itself to a sample which is small
in size. The small sample set allowed me to go in depth to further understand the problem
and offer researched based approaches to solving them. For this study, a purposeful
sampling strategy was initiated. Selected study participants were teachers of grades 2-4.
At each site I randomly selected 5 teachers representative of that grade span resulting in a
total of 10 participants for this study.
The grade span was selected because those are the grade levels in which students
are typically nominated for program participation. This is due to students having
developed some type of academic history including one year of standardized test scores

59

and students who had not blossomed academically by second grade usually do by grades
3 or 4.
Limitations of the Study
Due to the small sample size, findings from this study may not be indicative of
practices of teachers across schools and therefore are not generalizeable. In addition,
participant responses to interview questions may not have been completely forthcoming
due to the sensitive nature of the topic.

60

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter presents the findings of my study on how teacher participation
impacts the gifted education referral process for children from culturally, linguistically,
and economically diverse backgrounds. I collected data for this study through ten semi-
structured interviews of teachers. Qualitative interviewing provides “a framework within
which respondents can express their own understandings in their own terms” (Patton,
2002). Essentially, the interview process allows me to capture how the study participants
perceive and experience the world in which they work (in this case) and reveals their
organizational vocabulary and how they make evaluations and judgments.
Five of the teachers were from Gateway Elementary School, a school in which
minority students are well represented as participants in the gifted education program. At
that time of this study, 69% of the students identified as gifted at this school site were
from minority groups traditionally under-represented in the gifted programs. Another five
teachers were from Vista Elementary School, a school in which students from diverse
backgrounds are severely under-represented in the gifted education program. The
students were not represented to the degree that at the time of this study, there essentially
was the absence of an official program for gifted students as there was one African-
American student identified as gifted.

61

The interview protocol I used for this study addressed these five guiding research
questions:
1. Do teachers hold one-dimensional or multi-dimensional notions of intelligence
on identifying African-American and Latino students for gifted programs?
2. What attributes and/or evidence do teachers take into account when identifying
African-American and Latino students’ giftedness?
3. Does the school’s context (leadership, programs, resources, etc.) affect
teachers’ willingness to identify?
4. How do teachers’ perceptions of African-American and Latino students impact
their assessment of their achievement and giftedness?
5. How does teacher participation in the gifted identification process affect the
under-representation of African-American and Latino students in gifted
programs?
For each research question, I developed several interview questions to address to
address the over-arching research inquiry. I collected the data over a two-month period.
Once I completed interviews at Gateway Elementary School, I reviewed the recordings
and field notes before transcribing the recorded responses. I used content analysis
(Patton, 2002) to examine the transcribed responses, to code, and to articulate recurring
concepts and themes for the teachers at Gateway Elementary School. Once this procedure
was complete with the information gathered at Gateway Elementary School, I began the
process again in Vista Elementary School by collecting data, conducting interviews,
reviewing, transcribing, and analyzing results. I coded pertinent data from both sites was

62

paced the results in a comparative chart/table separated by school, respondent and by
interview question to allow for ease of accurate reporting for this study.
Each school’s information is presented separately in the following sections. At the
beginning of each division, student demographic data for each site is reported as well as a
brief summary of demographic information for each teacher who participated from that
site. Following this descriptive information is a presentation of the data by research
question. A synopsis of the content of the interview questions posed follows each
research question and then the actual respondent results are presented. The study
participants’ responses presented in a summary format for common themes or concepts as
well as quotes to serve as evidence of the commonalities or a view which is oppositional
in nature.
Gateway Elementary School

Gateway Elementary School has a Hispanic population of about 55%. African-
American students make up 15% while Asian students represent 15%. 5% are Filipino
and 10% are White students. It is a title I school where 51% of the students receive free
or reduced lunch. Currently there are 44 identified gifted students on campus 60% of
whom are Hispanic, 9% are African-American, 13% Asian, 6% Filipino, and 12% are
White students.
Five teachers from Gateway Elementary School took part in this study. All of
them were fully credentialed teachers. Experience ranged from four years to twenty-eight
years in the teaching students from diverse backgrounds. Interestingly, all the participants
have only taught at this one school.

63

One will notice from the data collected from the interviews with the teachers at
Gateway Elementary School, similar themes and ideas in the teachers’ responses. They
often used similar language and phrasing when describing the behaviors and
characteristics of gifted children. Though there were different ideas about the school
district’s procedures for identification, they were all very aware of the local school site
process for referring students. Other similarities emerge from the conversations with the
teachers and are documented in the proceeding section.
Gateway Elementary School Findings
Research Question 1: Do teachers hold one dimensional or multi-dimensional
notions of intelligence with respect to identifying African-American and
Latino students for gifted programs?
Participants were asked questions related to their beliefs about the foundations of
intelligence, either being genetically based or something developed over time. Further
questions concerned their ideas about IQ testing and its relevance in measuring
intelligence. Finally, the participants were asked questions to find out how intelligence is
manifested in the behaviors of children from diverse backgrounds.
All the participants’ responses pointed to intelligence being a more dynamic
entity encompassing genetic predispositions as well environmental influences. This
makes it difficult to evaluate completely based on a single test or product and appears
differently in children according to their personal experiences and individual
personalities. One teacher states:

64

“Part of it is genetic; they are born that way and inherit those genes but what we
do in the environment to nurture what they have is what’s important. If you do
absolutely nothing to encourage or challenge that child, they’re not going to ever
reach their full potential.”

In this same vein another teacher said:

“I think it’s a combination of both (genetics and nurturing). Some people have a
natural propensity toward doing certain things well and others are developed into
doing things just as well.”

All five participants at Gateway Elementary School believe that intelligence is a
combined formula of genetics and nurturing. In essence they feel an individual can have a
natural ability to do well in some areas however, they can develop advance skills and
abilities with proper support and motivation. As one participant stated:
“I do believe that if you’re born from very intelligent parents there’s probably
going to be a chance you’re going to be intelligent. Think about it if you have
very intelligent parents, the likelihood of them investing their time in their
children is a lot higher so probably it has more to do with the environment than
genetics and heredity but I do think genetics/heredity play a small part. Again it
starts more at home because so much of the intellect is developed in the first 4
years and that’s when the school is not involved. The school can still help but
honestly I don’t think they can have as great a hand in molding the child at the
start. So, the parents really need to be involved if they want their child to love
learning and to have this understanding of how to make connections and go above
and beyond in school. For the most part, minority students at our school are low
SES (socio-economic status) and their parents work a lot and just don’t have the
time.”

Another respondent shared:

“I think intelligence can be developed and shaped. Yes, of course with some
people it is genetic, they have an inherit ability to achieve but I think that is
actually rare. More commonly in my experience, students that show a higher level
of intelligence often have had someone who has taken an interest in their
academic achievement and have just provided them with support and
opportunities for growth in learning. Many times it was a teacher and that’s what
we need to aspire to do for our students.”

65

Another teacher shared from her own experience:

“I believe it can be developed and shaped because that is what happened to me. I
was raised in abject poverty with a mentally ill mother. My grandmother lived
next door and believed a good education was everything. She furnished me with
opportunities to go places, see different things, go to the library and just guided
my education every step. That kind of support really enriched my life because
with my background, I should have never gotten this far.”

Teachers at Gateway Elementary School expressed a common belief that
intelligence cannot be easily measured. Some of their comments stated:
“I hate to think we’re all the sum of one number for one point in time. I don’t
think anybody should be evaluated this way….some people test well while others
get nervous and flustered.”

“I’m not knocking IQ testing or gifted testing. I don’t think just because you have
this big number on an IQ test means you’re the smartest person in the world. I
think there are different kinds of smart and that’s also for gifted students – they’re
all smart in different ways.”

By in large the teachers from Gateway Elementary School do not subscribe to a
unilateral belief about how giftedness/intelligence is manifested through the behaviors
children exhibit. They believe giftedness/intelligence is very individualized with some
exhibiting more traditionally accepted behaviors and while others do not. A couple of the
teachers shared:
“I believe there’s a wide range of characteristics for the gifted; you can’t just put
them into a box you have to go case by case.”

“The extreme has been amazing…there are students who are not highly
motivated, have oppositional behaviors and so on but are gifted and others that are
very motivated, and well prepared. You kind of have to look at the whole
package.”

66

During the interviews, the teachers rarely acknowledge race or ethnicity as a
factor; instead, they emphasized individuality. For example on teacher simply stated, “I
don’t think it appears differently in minority students. I’ve had many minority students
who were GATE (gifted and talented education) students and I see the exact same thing.”
Another respondent said, “I think it is more about personality than to do with being a
minority.” The teachers at Gateway Elementary School shared a common view that
intelligence was a multidimensional characteristic coming about in different ways in
different people. For them intelligence warranted a more dynamic process to evaluate its
latency.
Research Question 2: What attributes and/or evidence do teachers take into
account when identifying African-American and Latino students’ giftedness?
Interview questions designed to address this research question emphasized the
teacher experience working with gifted children. Teachers were asked to relay their
impressions of or evaluations of gifted children’s behaviors and how they would be the
same or different for minority students. Teachers were asked to describe in detail
characteristics of gifted as well as what could be done to broaden traditional perceptions
of gifted children to make the program more inclusive of minority children.
All the teachers at Gateway Elementary School had prior experience teaching
students identified as gifted. One teacher described some of her former gifted students:
“I remember this one student would never get his work done, goofed off, failed
everything but was absolutely brilliant; we just couldn’t get him to do anything.
Others have been extremely articulate, bright and eager; then there were those
always searching for the easy way. They were all different and ran the gamut.”

67

Another teacher recalled her former students this way:

“Some were a challenge and others were good citizens. Their work habits were all
different – some finished work and projects while others lost focus and would get
off task. When they got interested or involved they were really involved. There is
a whole spectrum of what those students were like.”

Their descriptions of gifted characteristics though different, included many
common themes. All the teachers referred to these students as those who learn easily and
make connection quickly, “think outside the box” and on a level higher than the average
students, able to decipher patterns, and have a thing or idea for which they are sincerely
intrigued or fascinated. For example, some comments were:
“Intellectually they can really make those connections and they do it casually. It
doesn’t seem like they are striving and really trying hard to put the puzzle pieces
together. They are usually very interested in something and want to know
everything about it.”

“They approach tasks and academics different than other children. They come up
with new ideas and concepts even I haven’t thought of and they learn new things
quickly and easily.”

“They can either be fascinated with words or numbers. They detect and assemble
patterns quickly. They have a natural curiosity and are fascinated with bits of
trivia; they usually have an obsession.”

Three of the teachers stated that these students often resist routines and can be
impulsive. They stated:
“Some of these students, because they just get it and catch on, they tend to blurt
out answers; they get really excited. They often resist your routine and want to do
their own.”

“Some have been extremely difficult students who act out, lack focus and just
insist on doing what they want to do.”

“Some are extremely confident, extremely vocal – they ask lots of questions,
unfocused, unmotivated and the like. Some of them rank up there with the most
challenging students to work with in my experience.”

68

One teacher shared that some of the students are outgoing while the others are
completely reserved. All the teachers felt the gifted students were often more comfortable
connecting with adults than peers and often approach tasks in different ways than typical
students. However, only two of the teachers ever attributed a difference in these
characteristics in students from diverse backgrounds and it was related to those children
with limited English proficiency. The teacher cited it as a fault of hers to not adjust
expectations for a student she knew had the intellectual capacity but exhibited limitations
in language to express ability effectively.
The teachers all had differing opinions on why minorities were under-represented
in gifted programs as well as how to ensure accessibility for all students. Again, none of
the teachers referred to race or ethnicity as significant factors however three of the
teachers cited a lack of cultural congruity with typical American ideals about education
as a factor. For example, one teacher stated, “we really do not understand every facet of
their cultures and behaviors. We often misinterpret what they are trying to produce in the
classroom….children have very different experiences in life.” Another teacher stated that
“teachers need to look outside the box because certain things are not always as they
appear…we must look deeper.” Another colleague shared, “some home cultures (not
because of color of their skin) just don’t put an emphasis on education as others ……so
you grow up and it’s not as important as friends or other things.”

69

Two teachers attribute the disparity with minority students in gifted programs to a
socio-economic issue.
“I believe SES (socio-economic status) is the cause (of why minority presence is
limited in gifted programs) more than race. The parents have limited education
and that lessens the chance the child will grab full hold of the school experience.
They don’t take advantage of opportunities because survival is the priority.”

“I believe it is due to primarily their economic situation. If you are of a lower
SES then you probably have parents that are – if you’re lucky you have 2 parents
and they’re both working probably more jobs than they should. So, they are not
going to have time to sit around and make sure their children are doing their
homework correctly, making sure their children are going and getting tutoring
(frankly they probably don’t have the money for tutoring). If you’re of a lower
SES typically, not always, you haven’t had higher education so you’re not going
to be able to help your child especially when they get in the higher grades in
school.”

They felt that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds lack the parental
support necessary to develop to their full potential not because they do not care but
because the parents are working to survive. Therefore experiential stimulus is limited
when these children enter school and they start off at a disadvantage. However, both of
these teachers point to themselves as “filling the gaps” as much as possible and providing
the platform for all students to work up to full potential.
Based on the responses from the participants, the teachers at Gateway Elementary
School examine students on a case by case basis to decide if a referral to the gifted
program is warranted. They appear to have a pliable understanding of how gifted students
demonstrate their abilities. They are not set in a rigid notion of how it should appear and
this could be attributed to all of their experience teaching students previously identified.
In terms of articulating causes for under-representation of minority students in gifted
programs, no consensus is available at this site. Part of the participating teachers point to

70

the socio-economic status of the students and the other part places the blame a home
culture where education is believed to not be the principal focus.
Research Question 3: Does the school’s context (leadership, programs,
resources, etc.) affect teacher willingness to identify?
Interview questions crafted to generate responses to answer this research question
focused mainly on the teachers knowledge and experience of the referral process. A solid
understanding of the procedures that under gird the identification process across
participants at one site may imply there is something about that school’s culture,
leadership, and/or resources that contribute to the familiarity of the program.
Additionally, interview questions generated sought to discern the level of emphasis and
attention placed on identifying gifted students at a school site.
All the teachers at Gateway Elementary School gave different interpretations of
the identification process. The teachers that had the most experience were the closest in
accuracy to the actual process. All five participants were aware that their role in having
students identifying students was significant because they spoke of their evaluation or
monitoring of a child’s academic history as a trigger to the referral. There was consensus
that test scores from the statewide testing program playing a significant part in their
evaluation but that they could make a case for a student with lower achievement on
standardized tests. Four of the five participants had successfully referred children to the
program in the past. The one teacher that had not nominated a child was a fourth grade
teacher who stated,” I’ve never actually nominated one; usually students come to me
already identified in the lower grades.” Another teacher stated that she monitors children

71

after they have moved up to the next grade and refer them at a later date if her
impressions are confirmed after consulting with the next teacher.
The level of awareness of the District’s process and procedure to nominate
children to the gifted programs was low. However, the participants were knowledgeable
of certain aspects of the process. They all knew that at some point the school
psychologist had to evaluate the nominees. Also, students with high test scores on the
statewide test were automatically nominated. Most teachers interviewed had personally
nominated students at some point in their career but all stressed race and ethnicity is
never the issue it was all about performance.
“I’ve nominated students for various reasons. I’ve nominated some because of
parent requests or their previous teacher asked me to do it. I’ve nominated others
because they were high achieving, making connections and so on. Others I
nominated not because they were high achieving but they had shown some
interesting intellectual advances. I’ve never said oh I need to nominate you
because you’re African-American.”

“The ones I have nominated I have observed that in language arts, they question
things from a completely different angle. When they approach math problems, as
a rule they have unique ways of solving these problems.”

“Those I have nominated I observed they caught on quickly with their work and
they also had a lot of thought processes going on. I just use observation mainly, I
really don’t like to look at (standardized) test scores – I just observe them in the
classroom.”

All five teachers shared the same feeling about their school being sufficiently
prepared to provide services to gifted students in the way of training and instructional
support. Some of their responses were as follows:
“I think we do a pretty god job at this school trying to address the needs of gifted
students……we’re supposed to be giving our gifted students some additional
teaching time and attention and we do that here.”

72

“I think that our school is more than adequately prepared to provide services. The
teachers here are more than happy to provide services.”

“There’s a lot of interesting things going on in the classroom. All the teachers are
always trying to differentiate.”

All participants expressed an emphasis on continual nomination of students and
that the school principal spearheaded the referral process. Some of the responses about
the school leadership were:
“At this school the principals have always had high expectations for teachers and
students; they’ve always pushed us to identify. The administrator sets the tone and
the bar. Teachers will follow good leadership.”

“I like the fact that our administrator always keeps it (the gifted program
nominations) at the forefront; she reminds me and that’s a good thing because we
have to be reminded.”

“It’s part of what we do. Nominating students is important to me because for one
it’s a focus of the school but also it identifies a need for children that must be met.
The culture of the school affects my decision because it’s one of the programs that
is a focal point at this school and you can’t help but to nominate children every
year.”

“The principal requests nominations every year. It’s important to me but honestly
if it weren’t for her asking I probably wouldn’t think to do it. I think that’s how
the culture affects me; it prompts me to do it.”

“The principal stays on top on us with the paperwork and getting students in.”
Research Question 4: How do teachers’ perceptions of African-American
and Latino students impact their assessment of their achievement and
giftedness?
To aid in investigating a response to this research question, interview questions
were designed to gain an understanding of how teacher expectations, perceptions, and
attitudes affected student performance and, perhaps, their low presence in gifted

73

programs. Also, the respondents were asked to describe their role in promoting minority
students to gifted programs and discuss the evidence they feel would help them in the
selection process. Additionally, teachers were asked to share their opinion on the existing
process and procedure for student nomination and if it could be deemed a barrier for
students from diverse backgrounds who are potentially gifted.
Teachers from Gateway Elementary School were asked questions related directly
to their view of how teacher expectations, perceptions and attitudes affected the
performance of children. Collectively, the participant responses pointed to teacher
expectations, perceptions and attitudes having significant power to shape student
performance; as clearly stated by one teacher:
“I think it’s very important for a teacher to have high expectations for their
students because even if you don’t voice it I really strongly feel students know
you don’t really believe in them; so I believe that if you are somebody who comes
in this profession and have basically a bigoted view of someone saying their
particular race cannot achieve that child is going to read it somehow and will not
live up to your expectations. I think it is best to expect the best from everybody;
try as best as possible to let every student know their worth everything.”

One teacher spoke of how teachers’ perceptions create categories which are based
predetermined ideas about a group. She shared:
“A lot of teachers have perceptions about students because of the category you
want to put them in and a lot of teachers do that. They kind of already have put
them in categories. I think that attitudes do play a part of it though because a lot of
people think they’re a minority student they’re not going to be able to do as well
but if you have expectations that are across the board whether they are a minority
students or not and they meet them than that kind of blows that out of the water.
But your perceptions can affect how you teach that child because if you already
have this preconceived notion that they’re going to be this way. . . . then you’re
going to teach that child in a different way and you may not ever realize you’re
doing it.”

74

Another teacher discussed the importance of expectations at the school administration
level, noting a trickledown effect to the classroom thus impacting the students’
opportunity to be in the gifted programs;
“. . . also depends on the expectations and attitude of the principal. At this school
the principals have always had high expectations for teachers and students;
they’ve always pushed us to identify. The administrator sets the tone and the bar.
Teachers will follow good leadership.”

The teachers at Gateway Elementary School did not address their specific role in
promoting minority children to gifted programs. Instead, they all state in one form or
another, that race and ethnicity does not factor in to their determinations nor does the
evidence they seek differ based on race or ethnicity. As one teacher stated:
“I don’t think of my children and what race they are when I think of putting them
in the program. I honestly just look at their intellectual ability or performance
academically. We are a very diverse school anyway so the children I nominate are
usually from a diverse background.”

Another teacher commented:

“I don’t look specifically for minorities. I listen for their obsession, a deep
knowing inside them, awareness – curiosity, a need or drive to communicate their
obsession. I need to pay attention to parents and the home experience more; be
extra sensitive, aware.”

Whether the criteria and procedures for identification act as a barrier for children
from diverse backgrounds to be in the gifted program was posed to teachers at Gateway
Elementary School. Four of the five teachers thought the criteria and process were fair
and inclusive. One teacher describes the criteria as “colorless” while another describe it
as “fairly okay”. Due to some aspects of the identification process relying on
standardized test scores from the state testing program, one teacher felt this could be
contributing factor in preventing some minority students from participating in the

75

program. The reason she gave was that often the test is “filled with questions about
experiences, the children from other cultures that are fairly new to this country can’t
answer.”
The probe to answer research question 4 revealed that for the most part at
Gateway Elementary School, they understand teacher expectations, perceptions and
attitudes to have a strong impact on student learning. Yet, they also they point to the
expectations of the school administrator as having a significant effect. All the teachers
view promoting students to gifted programs in general as their main role and not a focus
on race or ethnicity in doing so. As far as the criteria and process impeding minority
participation in gifted programs, most participants from Gateway Elementary School
view the criteria as all inclusive.
Research Question 5: How does teacher participation in the gifted
identification process affect the under-representation of African-American
and Latino students in gifted programs?
This question drives this study in that it seeks to answer if teacher participation in
the process of identification in fact has a significant on impact. If their participation does
matter, to what degree does their influence and input in the process provides access or
denies students from culturally, linguistically, ethnically diverse backgrounds the
opportunity to partake in the gifted education program. In analyzing this question,
identifying appropriate questions for the interview protocol was difficult. Questions
developed focused on the affect of diversity training, opinions related to culture and its

76

influence on learning, teacher training and preparation, and views on the cause for the
under-representation of minority children in gifted programs.
Participants generally found their multicultural/diversity training, a mandatory
component of the California teacher credentialing process, to be somewhat useful in their
ability to teach CLED students. However, actual experience seems to be the best teacher
either directly or indirectly by collaborating with peers. One participant at Gateway
Elementary School stated:
“It was mostly useful because they gave ideas of how to easily incorporate
students and make them feel at ease.”

Another participant said:

“It is beneficial in teaching diverse populations but you learn about those
populations from teaching those kids; you learn by doing. It’s more on the job
training and you learn a lot from your peers.”

Yet another participant shared:
“It helped to be able to articulate with other adults from other cultures. The class
itself didn’t make me any more or less sensitive.”

Regarding cultural influences on learning, all teachers at Gateway Elementary
School acknowledge the influence culture has on learning but they all see a culture of
poverty having a greater impact than racial or ethnic cultural influences. Two teachers
also pointed to a distinction in cultures embracing and putting priorities on successful
school achievement:
“I believe culture does influence. I don’t know if it strongly influences it but it
does have some hand in influencing your learning. I do think that some cultures
put more emphasis on learning and going to school and doing good and being
successful than other cultures do. I don’t think it’s all of it though. If you come
from a culture that doesn’t put as much emphasis on school you can still do well
anyway.”

77

“It really depends on, in my opinion, on the family and how much they latch on to
their culture. I do feel some students are not as responsive to the educational
system and it is due to their culture. But yet I can have students from the exact
same culture and background but still value education that’s because their parents
have not gone along with the mainstream beliefs. Mostly it belongs in the home
and what the parents teach them.”

The teachers interviewed from Gateway Elementary School all agree that proper
teacher training in teaching gifted children is essential. Two of the five participants felt
the training should be a “compulsory” part of the credential. However, at Gateway
Elementary School all teachers interviewed had been trained to teach and identify gifted
children in some capacity whether it was local/school site training or training provided
through college courses or District level professional developments. This level of training
on a staff speaks to how giftedness is defined across Gateway Elementary School’s
participants. Although each teacher offered their own view of how giftedness should
appear in children and the root cause of intelligence, the similarities among their
responses were too frequent to ignore. For example, the teachers stated they could
identify potentially gifted students because they make connections quicker, they are very
curious, some skills and/or concepts are learned with more ease. Teachers say these
students tend to have an obsession with something, connect with adults, and they often
bring new and innovative ideas to the table. One particular teacher stated her observation
of potentially gifted students this way:

78

“A lot of the gifted are ‘old souls’; they say things way beyond their years. They
can either be fascinated with words or numbers. They can discern and assemble
patterns quickly. They’re the first to blurt out answers. They have a natural
curiosity and are fascinated with bits of trivia. A lot of gifted children have an
obsession. They can be either extremely shy or extremely outgoing; its not about
color at all. They are quick to correct you or add to what you’re saying. Though
they can have good peer relations, they always want to connect with
adults/teachers.”

Ideas about the reasons for low minority participation in gifted programs were
sought from the respondents at Gateway Elementary School. Three of the five teachers
reluctantly attributed it to an issue of culture. The word reluctantly is used here because
those interviewees often qualified their answers by stating “it might be a cultural issue or
thing”, or “we may misinterpret what they are trying to produce in the classroom” and
“maybe culturally, certain things may be preventing them.” Another teacher discussed
socio-economic status as a deciding factor because as she stated;
“I believe it is due to primarily their economic situation. If you are of a lower SES
then you probably have parents that are – if you’re lucky you have 2 parents and
they’re both working probably more jobs than they should. So, they are not going
to have time to sit around and make sure their children are doing their homework
correctly, making sure their children are going and getting tutoring (frankly they
probably don’t have the money for tutoring). If you’re of a lower SES typically,
not always, you haven’t had higher education so you’re not going to be able to
help your child.”

Yet another participant had several reasons that she believes contribute to this silent crisis
as stated below;
“(1) The kids are put in school too early. (2) In nursery school, they are learning
how to tune out before they have learned how to tune in. Most parents don’t know
how vital is the first 3-4 years of a child’s life. (3) The limited experience the
parents have given the child to stimulate the brain. (4) Legislation – California is
1 of 3 states that does not make kinder mandatory and allows children in school
before the age of 6. (5) Teachers need the class requirement for gifted.”

79

Vista Elementary School

Vista Elementary School has a Hispanic population of about 64%. African-
American students make up 35% while Asian students represent .6%. White students are
roughly .4%. It is also a Title I school with most students on the free or reduced lunch
program. Currently there is one identified gifted student on campus, an African-American
student.
Five teachers from Vista Elementary School participated in this study; three of
whom were fully credentialed teachers in the state of California and two with Preliminary
teaching credentials on path to becoming fully credentialed. Most teachers had
experience ranging from two and a half years to seven, with one teacher having roughly
27 years experience. For all participants Vista Elementary School has actually been their
second or third site of experience. The most years teaching at this current site was six
years.
In contrast to Gateway Elementary School, the responses from the teachers at
Vista Elementary School reveal significant inconsistencies in how teachers describe and
define giftedness in children. Further differences were noted in the knowledge of the
school district’s processes and procedures for nominating potential students.
Additionally, it appears, based on information provided by the respondents, there is a lack
of a local site procedure as well. In the following section these issues are revealed as well
as other divergent ideas and themes.

80

Vista Elementary School Findings
Research Question 1: Do teachers hold one-dimensional or multi-dimensional
notions of intelligence with respect to identifying African-American and
Latino students for gifted programs?
The interview questions posed were the same questions presented to participants
at Gateway Elementary School. To generate data to answer the first research question,
participants at Vista Elementary School were asked to share their ideas on how
intelligence is produced in an individual; by nature or nurture. Additionally, they were
questioned on their thoughts about the ability to measure intelligence through testing
measures and how those that are highly intelligent function behaviorally in the classroom
setting.
Three of the five participants believed intelligence is an entity that can be
developed if the right opportunity, resources and motivation are available to the child.
One teacher states:
I think intelligence is nurtured; I mean, there has to be the right mix of familial
support and proper school instruction. The family supports by providing their
child with a lot of learning experiences and stimulation before they even begin
school. From there, the school joins in and adds to that with rich learning
experiences in class that not only teaches new stuff but extends what they came
with.

The other two participants thought it to be a mesh of innate ability and external
development. For example a teacher explained:
“You have to be naturally able to do some things, kids copy what they’ve seen
and they learn that way but they have to have ability for the learning to latch on.”

81

There was consensus at Vista Elementary School on the issue of intelligence
being measured by tests. All teachers believed it was not possible to fully assess one’s
intellectual potential or capacity. Teachers stated:
“I don’t think it can be measured; it’s something that is developed over time and
through more experience and more resources and just living life then can
intelligence be decided upon. “

“I don’t think it should be measured by a test and you’re intelligent in more than
one way. So, that test may not capture exactly what your strengths are.”

The five teachers interviewed agreed that it is possible for gifted children to
display behaviors that may be viewed as undesirable characteristics in individuals with a
high level of intellectual or creative capacity. They all spoke to the behaviors being
attributed to individual personality rather than collective ability. Some comments were:
“In my opinion, not all intelligent people are organized; they can be the most
unorganized because their thoughts are all over the place. But you can’t put
people in a box like that because it’s all individual and organization or any other
behaviors has nothing to do with how smart you are or are not.”

“I don’t think you can tie the two together – behavior and intelligence. Yes there
will be some generalizations but you can’t predict how intelligent or gifted
someone is on the basis of how they behave. Their behavior is a choice – how
they choose to act is up to them and influenced by the home.”

“I don’t think that because a child is determined to be gifted it means they will be
the perfect student. It just doesn’t work that way in my opinion; it’s all up to the
person.”

Research Question 2: What attributes and/or evidence do teachers take into
account when identifying African-American and Latino students’ giftedness?
As stated in the previous section, interview questions constructed to obtain
responses to answer this research question emphasized teachers’ experience working with
gifted children. Teachers were asked to explain their beliefs about typical gifted

82

behaviors and how they may appear in children from minority backgrounds. Teachers
were also asked to describe in detail their notions of the characteristics of gifted and what
could be done expand more classical definitions and/or perceptions of gifted children to
make the program more inclusive.
Two of the respondents at Vista Elementary School had never taught a gifted
child while one participant had very limited experience, having taught at least two or
three children (in a different school setting). The remaining two discussed having a bit
more experience though it was not at their current school setting and had been some time
since they had that exposure with that population of students. They shared their
impressions of what the students were like; these teachers stated:
“….they usually finished their work quickly, they wanted all their questions
answered, they were always getting the right answer, and their grades were
always high. They did like to have a challenge but would get frustrated if it was a
subject that did not come easy.”

“Most of them were kids who were very anxious, finished work quickly.
Generally, I would say they were male; some were passive while others
aggressive. They are the kids that work ahead of the teacher. Their hands were
always raised up to share, participate. They were always the kids with high
attendance, never absent.”

“They were those kids that if you didn’t keep them busy you could see them
zoning out, not really acting out.”

Due to lack of experience working with gifted children, one participant declined
to answer interview questions that intended to delve deep into one’s understanding of
gifted children’s behavioral and intellectual characteristics and how it may appear in
minority students. The other two teachers with little to no experience attempted to answer

83

those questions based on what they believed these children to be like. Some of their
comments were:
“I think maybe if a student is gifted and the student is getting bored in the
classroom and is finishing early or just getting up from his/her seat, maybe that
should tell us to go back and see if the student is gifted or something. They might
appear differently in some kids. I’ve seen it especially in the Latino community
because we come from a culture where we have to be respectful to the teacher and
sitting down most of the time. Most of the students even if they’re gifted might
not be standing up or cause trouble, but trying to get something else to do.”

“…in some ways they understand things that other children don’t. They think
beyond their years but in other ways they have emotional difficulties. Obviously
their grades are high, they finish faster, get bored easily. They get frustrated; they
want to hang out with older kids and adults because they want to be on the same
level intellectually. The only difference I would see in minority children would be
the home life – they use a certain vocabulary, may not have experience at home so
they may not have the vocabulary already.”

The two teachers which had more involvement with gifted children in the past

described their impressions of gifted children the following way:

"I think some behaviors depends if they’re minority children. Sometimes what
happens in a low socioeconomic school, they’re in classes with children not at
their same level. I think they always finish quickly and the way they speak
sometimes; through the types of words they use, they elaborate more when
answering naturally. They think outside the box, there are interests. They know
more worldly things than their peers. Because they are minority, their knowledge
is limited by their experience.”

“I think this is the more mature student. They know how to exercise self-control.
They’ve got higher order thinking skills down pat. They have an immense
vocabulary and have great conversations with adults. I just don’t think it appears
differently in children from diverse homes.”

Their impressions of students from culturally, linguistically and economically
diverse backgrounds limited presence in the gifted program fell along three distinct lines
of thought. Three of the five participants charged the disparity of minority participation to
teachers being unqualified to identify. One of these teachers shared:

84

“…the teachers are really under-prepared to identify students and those that think
they are prepared go by the well-behaved, productive, organized old criteria that
people usually attribute to gifted children and that’s not always going to be the
case.”

Another teacher had a different viewpoint. She pointed out a lack of cultural
congruity between the norms of the school environment and the home. Her point was that
the American school system was not developed with competing cultural values in mind
and therefore children from minority homes come to school and must learn a new way of
being and conducting themselves.
In the same line as the previous thought, the remaining teacher blames the low
presence of minority students in gifted programs on the lack of information being
provided for parents and the lack of influence they have on schools. She stated:
“…the parents in neighborhoods where there are these populations, they don’t
know their rights or their not pushing for the program, that’s the honest part of it. You
know I’ve worked in diverse settings for years and I’ve also worked in settings with
mostly Caucasian students and in these neighborhoods they are always pushing for the
gifted. In schools like this, they don’t even think about it. The program is not being
pushed at the school itself but the parents, sometimes they’re dealing with other
languages and issues they don’t – it just doesn’t occur to them.”

Research Question 3: Does the school’s context (leadership, programs,
resources, etc.) affect teacher willingness to identify?
The focus for this research question was on the teachers’ understanding and
experience with the referral process. Familiarity with the process and a demonstrated
understanding of District policy regarding the identification of gifted students may imply
a strong emphasis on the program at the school. Additionally interview questions were
geared to assess the level of preparedness and focus the school has overall as it relates to

85

referring and providing proper academic differentiation to meet the needs of potentially
gifted children on the campus.
None of the teachers at Vista Elementary School expressed any knowledge of the
formal process and procedures for nominating and identifying students for Gifted
Programs. Each participant alluded to a procedure to refer students implemented locally
by their new principal. Comments such as, “I can tell you what we do here” and “What
we do here in our school” were common phrases. Their local process consisted of a
submission of a list of names to their coordinator of those students the teachers felt have
potential. Four of the five participants admit that prior to a recent submission of names;
they had never referred students in their career. The one participant who had experience
nominating students stated it occurred at a previous work location but not in this current
setting.
Responses from all participating teachers from Vista Elementary School
suggested a consensus on the issue of the local site not being adequately equipped to
meet the needs of these students, though this idea would not impede any of the teachers
interviewed from referring children to the program. One teacher commented:
“I think…..we will have a gifted program where children can excel. I will
definitely continue to nominate children anyway because it may eventually get to
the right place or in the hands of the right person. I don’t want to be the reason
any child gets held back from such an opportunity.”

All the teachers expressed that electing students to participate in gifted programs is
important to them personally. Teachers expressed there was a positive shift in the
emphasis on gifted programs due to the focus of the new administrator but however they

86

have not sensed an equally positive shift in the overall embedded culture of the school in
terms of gifted education. One of these teachers stated:
“My administrator is looking to diversify what we do here at our school. GATE
students need to have an opportunity to be proud of that and an opportunity to
show. But, the school culture here is what it is. It is like it was when I got here,
it’s going to be like that when I leave here depending on what the neighborhood
turns into; who the administrator is doesn’t matter. “

Research Question 4: How do teachers’ perceptions of African-American
and Latino students impact their assessment of their achievement and
giftedness?
To address this research question, participants were asked questions that would
bring to light their understanding of how teacher expectations, perceptions, and attitudes
affected student performance thus contributing to their low presence in gifted programs.
Also, the teachers interviewed were asked to relay their role in the promotion of minority
students to gifted programs and the evidence they feel would be pertinent for selection.
Additionally, respondents were asked to share their view on the existing process and
procedure for student nomination and if it constituted a barrier for students from diverse
backgrounds who are potentially gifted.
With respect to the impact of teacher expectations, perceptions and attitudes on
student performance, all five participants believed that the effect is significant. They all
find it necessary to have and maintain high expectations for student achievement as well
as a positive attitude and perceptions with all children regardless of color or ethnic
background. However, two respondents shed light on how these aspects play out in their

87

school in increasing the nomination rates for students from culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse. They stated:
“So, a lot of what a teacher expects and perceives and their attitude has a
lot to do with how these kids perform. I don’t know if those particular
expectations, perceptions and attitudes necessarily play or have an effect
on being included or not included. It’s more so, I think there are many
teachers that just don’t know how to spot a gifted student and then if you
are working in an underserved area, then you’ve got those people who
really don’t know because they don’t know. It’s not because their teaching
black kids or Latino kids in my opinion.”

“I think that the low performing schools are so busy trying to get students
up to level that they know there’s gifted children but as far as working on
the program, that’s kind of put in last place because of a time and staff
issue. I think if teachers did have more training maybe they would
recognize that there are more gifted students. I don’t hear a lot of teachers
here using that terminology.”

With respect to how they perceive their role in referring minority students to
gifted programs, all participants had different responses but all their answers pointed to
them taking action. On respondent declared to be “vigilant” while another says they plan
to “notice and be actively looking”. Others stated that they would be “widening the
perspective, looking at other areas, not just academics” and “not just going to look at
color or ethnicity but their potential to perform”.
Two of the five teachers interviewed believed that the existing process and criteria
for submitting students to be identified as gifted is a barrier. They state that from where
they stand the process is “unclear and lacks focus” or “can be culturally biased”. The
other three participants did not see the existing criteria and process as a barrier. Rather
they pointed issues such as, “we are just not informed well” or “lack sufficient

88

knowledge of the whole process” and “at this school, things are just not followed up on –
no priority.”
Taken together the responses to the interview questions that help us answer
research question 4. The teachers at Vista Elementary School do believe that the
expectations, perceptions and attitudes have an effect on student performance but do not
acknowledge a connection to minority representation in gifted programs. They all see
they have a role to promote students but differ on how they will exercise that
commitment. Finally, they split on pointing to the criteria, process, and procedure as a
significant barrier to minority participation in gifted programs.
Research Question 5: How does teacher participation in the gifted
identification process affect the under-representation of African-American
and Latino students in gifted programs?
As stated in the previous section, this question is central to this particular
investigation of teachers’ impact on the under-representation of minority children in
gifted programs. If their participation is significant in the exclusion of students from
culturally, logistically, and economically diverse backgrounds we need to get to the core
causes. To properly address this research question the interview protocol was structured
to inquire about the teachers’ beliefs about training, cultural influences on learning as
well as the phenomenon of minority under-representation if gifted programs.
Although all teachers acknowledged some form of training in multicultural
education, one teacher did not find the training beneficial. She shared that it only

89

confirmed what she knew from prior life experience in school and college but added no
new understanding that helped her as a classroom teacher. She stated;
“My experiences in school – high school and college exposed me to multicultural
backgrounds so by the time I got to the teacher methods courses, they explained
all the multiculturalism I had lived.”

The others teachers’ responses ranged from very beneficial to mostly useful. Some of
their statements were:
“It (the training) was useful but it’s not something you can learn that easily in a
book you need to work with those students hands-on.”

“Definitely most of it has come in to great use – examining those hidden aspects
of culture really help me to understand my students more."

“If nothing else the classes were beneficial because they peaked my awareness
that people are different from me and students will come to school from
backgrounds and experiences that I have not shared and I need to be sensitive to
those issues.”

All teachers believed that training in gifted education for all teachers is essential.
One teacher commented, “We really don’t know what to look for.” Another participant
stated, “….teachers don’t really know how to identify gifted; I don’t think they are
familiar with the problems that gifted students can have.” Four of the five teachers
interviewed at Vista Elementary School have not had any type of formal training in gifted
education. The one teacher that had some training stated she had been to a couple of
conferences in part because two of her biological children are designated as gifted. They
all spoke of it being mentioned in a faculty meeting by the school principal who it seems
is attempting to get teachers to nominate students for the program. Two teachers
specifically shared concerns that about District trainings not being widely publicized or
available to all teachers.

90

Three participants acknowledged that culture influences learning but had three
very different takes on how it connects with the learning process. One teacher talked
about “respecting their cultures” as putting students at an advantage. Another teacher
talked about the use of diversity in curriculum through vocabulary and storylines to be
familiar for minority students. Yet another teacher talked about how the American school
system is not considerate of the cultural norms and beliefs with which students come to
school.
The two remaining participants indicated socio-economic status having more of
an impact on learning than anything else. One of them said, “I think poverty is not just a
state of your bank account but it’s also a state of mind and minority students are more
affected by poverty of the mind than anything else in my opinion.” The other teacher
said, “Students from low SES families come to school with limitations other kids don’t
have regardless of color or ethnic background. They limited resources all around;
financial, educational, psychological, cultural, familial; you name it. Those limitations
limit what they can do in the classroom.”
Those interviewed were asked to share their beliefs as to why the disparity in
gifted program participation exists. Three participants hinted on the lack of teacher
preparedness to identify and instruct properly. One teacher talked about cultural
disharmony with educational institution. The other respondent believed that the gap could
be blamed on not only uninformed teachers but parents as well. She was certain to point
out it is the school’s responsibility to provide all parents with this type of information.

91

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY

Statement of the Problem

Because of more flexible requirements in the domain of intellectual ability, it
appears this is the area in which CLED students may have access to gifted programs if
the classroom teacher can identify the capacity for excellence in these students. The
problem I have addressed in this study deals with the teachers’ role in contributing to the
under-representation of minority students in gifted programs based on their inability to
effectively nominate students for gifted programs.
Teachers vary in their personal characteristics, philosophical beliefs, and
professional dispositions which in turn affects how they teach, relate, respond, and
support students in their classroom (Iskander, 2006; Nicely, Small, & Furman, 1980;
Whitmore, 1986). These differences are further exacerbated when there is no mandated
gifted education training for teachers, no consistent theory of intelligence or definition of
giftedness. Other confounding factors are the potential for underachievement of gifted
students and teacher expectations for minority student achievement.
Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the impact of teacher-initiated
referrals on the minority under-representation in gifted programs. The secondary purpose
of this study was to suggest some remedies that could be applied to identification policies
and procedures for identification. With this study I attempted to understand how teacher
participation in the identification process can function as a gate-keeping mechanism. On

92

the basis of my research I hope to articulate ways to mediate the systems and/or
ideologies that have perpetually impeded access to this program for these students.
Research Questions

The following research questions served as the guides for data collection:
1. Do teachers hold one dimensional or multi-dimensional notions of intelligence
with respect to identifying African-American and Latino students for gifted
programs?
2. What attributes and/or evidence do teachers take into account when identifying
African-American and Latino students’ giftedness?
3. Does the school’s context (leadership, programs, resources, etc.) affect
teachers’ willingness to identify?
4. How do teachers’ perceptions of African-American and Latino students impact
their assessment of their achievement and giftedness?
5. How does teacher participation in the gifted identification process affect the
under-representation of African-American and Latino students in gifted
programs?
Methodology

Ford and Trotman (2001) suggest that the major obstacle to minority students’
referral and entrance into gifted programs lies in the classroom. The classroom teacher
plays a significant role in the initial referral of students to the program. So, it is important
to get a sense of how the teacher theorizes and functions as a key participant in the
identification process. The most effective way to do this was to get “inside the minds” of

93

teachers to capture their emotions and thoughts. Hence, data collected came from focused
interviews. According to Malloy (2002), interviews are a common source of data in
descriptive and interpretive studies and have become prominently used in educational
research (Tierney & Dillard, 2002). The interviews were structured with some open-
ended questions. The questions were formulated in a way to get at the teachers’ core
interpretations of gifted children, minority student performance, intelligence and the
impact of culture on learning and behavior.
I conducted individual interviews with teachers at the two research sites. I
expected that the individual interviews would bring out information not easily shared in
the presence of peers. The data gathered from the individual interviews was combined to
give me a sense of how the culture or shared values and beliefs at each school affect the
identification process.
Since this study is qualitative in nature, it lends itself to a small sample. The small
sample set allowed me to further my understanding of the problem and offer research-
based approaches to solving them. For this study, a purposeful sampling strategy was
initiated. Selected study participants were teachers in grades 2-4. At each site I randomly
selected 5 teachers representative of that grade span resulting in 10 participants for this
study.
The grade span was selected because these are the grade levels in which students
are typically nominated for program participation. This is due to students having
developed some type of academic history including one year of standardized test scores

94

and students who had not blossomed academically by second grade usually do by grades
3 or 4.
Selection of Sites
In this study, two elementary schools were compared both having high minority, high
poverty populations. However, one school has an active gifted and talented program
while the other had no operative program at the time.
Gateway Elementary School has a Hispanic population of about 55%, African-
American students are comprised of 15% while Asian students represent 15%, 5% are
Filipino and White students make up roughly 10%. It is a Title I school meaning students
receiving free or reduced lunch is more than 51% of the total student body. Currently
there are 44 identified gifted students on campus 60% of which are Hispanic, 9% are
African-American, 13% Asian, 6% Filipino, and 12% are White students.
Vista Elementary School is also a Title I school and has a Hispanic student
population of 64%, 35% of the students are African-American, .6% are Asian/Pacific
Islander and .4% are White. Currently, Vista Elementary School has 1 African American
student identified as gifted.
Findings
This study was conducted to examine the local issues associated with the under-
representation of minority students in gifted programs. To gain in-depth insight, two
school sites, both located in the southern portion of Los Angeles were selected which had
an extreme disparity in students being identified for gifted programs.

95

To prepare for the collection of data, a review of the available literature on the
same topic assisted me in identifying key elements that may impede or progress the
successful nomination of students from diverse backgrounds. Those elements were
instrumental in the formulation of the guiding research questions as well as the interview
protocol devised to collect actual data from teachers from both school sites.
Table 5 summarizes the prevailing areas of thought in relation to the research
questions that guided this study. Areas that emerged as being significant in analyzing the
cause of the low participation rates of minorities were related to the following:
Attributes and/or Evidence to Support Nomination of Students
In the school with the high levels of minority participation and nomination (Gateway
Elementary School), all the teachers had experience working with gifted children. They
all shared common understandings of characteristics of GATE students whereas in the
school with low student participation and identification (Vista Elementary School), the
reverse was true.
Effects of School Leadership, Programs, and/or Resources on the Identification Process
Gateway Elementary School had invested in professional development for all the
teachers and the school principal had a distinct focus and agenda to promote the program
at the school. At Vista Elementary School, though they have a new principal who is
attempting to make the program a priority at the school. The past culture still prevails and
the teachers lack training and awareness about the program and its benefits for students.

96

Teacher Participation and its Impact on the Under-representation of Minority Students in
Gifted Programs
Teachers at both Gateway and Vista Elementary Schools believe that properly
trained and informed teachers can have a positive impact on increasing the numbers of
diverse students nominated for the gifted program.
Table 5

Summary of Findings

Research Questions Gateway Elementary Vista Elementary
School School

1. Do teachers hold one-
dimensional or multi-
dimensional notions of
intelligence on identifying
African-American and
Latino students for gifted
programs?

All five participants
believed intelligence to be a
dynamic entity and a
combined formula of
genetics and nurturing.
Three of the five
participants believed
intelligence is formed with
the right opportunity;
resources and motivation
are in tact. Two of the five
believed it to be a mesh of
innate ability and external
development.
2. What attributes and/or
evidence do teachers take
into account when
identifying African-
American and Latino
students’ giftedness?

All five teachers had
experience teaching
students already identified
which served as the back
drop of their ability to
answer this question. All
stated these students make
connections quickly, think
outside the box, able to
decipher patterns, and have
a significant passion/or
interest. Two of the teachers

Two of the respondents had
actual experience teaching
gifted students. They
described them as students
who finish work quickly,
always getting the right
answer, requiring their
questions be answered,
good grades, easily
frustrated with things that
didn’t come easily, anxious,
eager to participate, good
attendance.

97

Table 5: Continued

cited a difference in
attributes in correlation to
ethnicity and it deal with
English language
proficiency.

One of the teachers did not
want to respond to this
question because of no
experience and the other
two answered based on
what they “believed” these
children would be like.

3. Does the school’s context
(leadership, programs,
resources, etc.) affect
teachers’ willingness to
identify?

All five participants had
some level of awareness of
the GATE referral process
as a result of professional
development provided for

all staff members.
Additionally, all five
participants describe he
principal as the one who
keeps the notion of
identifying students at the
forefront.

None of the teachers
expressed any formal
knowledge of the GATE
identification process. All
expressed that the GATE

program has not been a
priority in their school
however, the new principal
is beginning to bring it to
their attention.
4. How do teachers’
perceptions of African-
American and Latino
students impact their
assessment of their
achievement and
giftedness?

All participants believed
that expectations,
perceptions and attitudes
have a tremendous impact
of student performance.
However, they also
acknowledge that the
principal must also have
high expectations, accurate
perceptions and positive
attitudes towards students.
They further believe the
criteria for identification is
fair and inclusive
The participants at the site
agree that expectations,
perceptions and attitudes
have a significant effect on
students’ ability to perform.
However, the issue at their
site is the lack of
knowledge in what to look
for in identifying students
and further, the focus at the
school is getting students to
be proficient in the core
areas. Also, the teachers
believe the criteria for
identification may be
barrier for certain groups of
students.

98

Table 5: Continued

5. How does teacher
participation in the gifted
identification process affect
the under-representation of
African-American and
Latino students in gifted
programs?

Teachers at this site indicate
that their participation is
essential provided they have
been properly trained to
identify potentially gifted
children.

Teachers believe with
proper training and
information, their
participation could increase
program participation for
minorities. However,
informed parents would be
an even more powerful tool
in closing the divide

Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the data collected the major issue associated with the
numbers of minority students nominated and participating in gifted programs from one
school site to another is teacher preparation and the focus of school leaders. Teachers
who have been properly and consistently trained (provided with the same information and
training on a regular basis) were better equipped to discern and note giftedness in
children. A study by Gainous (1985) supports this notion. In the study is was shown that
teachers ability to nominate students effectively was improved with appropriate training
about gifted children. Feldhusen and Jarwan (2000) further proved that when all staff
members involved in referral procedures have been prepared, the overall process is
enhanced for the better. Couple trained, knowledgeable teachers with a school leader who
makes nomination of students one of the instructional priorities will result in increased
numbers of students being sought for nomination. As Bolman and Deal (2002) pointed
out, effective leaders are continually aware of opportunities to move the organization and
its members in the best direction. Through all the issues, problems and complexities that

99

may get teachers and other staff members off kilter, an effective principal will guide the
organization and its members in addressing the major priorities for success for all
students.
Recommendations for Practice and Policy
My recommendations for future practice and policy are based on the issues and
concerns manifested during this study. The following may assist schools in creating an
instructional initiative that will lead to an increase in the participation of students from
culturally, linguistically and economically diverse backgrounds in gifted programs:
• Prospective teachers in university programs need explicit training and instruction
on identifying and teaching gifted children. Additionally, they must have the
opportunity to study in-depth, how giftedness may manifest differently in children
from diverse backgrounds.
• Practicing teaching professionals must be provided with timely, consistent and
on-going professional development on identifying and instructing all potentially
gifted children with a focus on students from diverse backgrounds. They must be
provided practical information and strategies to guide their decisions to nominate
and provide instruction to this group of children.
• School districts must publicize the gifted education program and provide
sufficient support to aid schools in establishing a program at all sites.
Additionally, school districts must hold principals responsible for making gifted
identification and programs as much a priority as other specialized and
intervention programs common to many school sites. Principals must make a

100

concerted effort to build gifted education identification programs into the school
culture.
• Allocation of resources to implement and support enrichment programs outside
the school day (after-school programs, field trips etc.) should hold equal
prominence with the designation of funding for academic intervention programs.

101

REFERENCES
Alvino, J., McDonnel, R., & Richert, E. (1981). National survey of identification
practices in gifted and talented education. Exceptional Children, 48(2), 124-132.

Aronson, E. (2004). The social animal. (9
th
ed.). New York: Worth

Au, K. H. (1980). Theory and method in establishing the cultural congruence of the
classroom speech events. (ERIC Document, Reproduction Service No. ED 204
465).

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. (1993). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. Eds.). (2004). Multicultural education: Issues and
perspectives (5
th
ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Bar-Tal, D. (1979). Interactions of teachers and pupils. In I. H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tal, & J. S.
Carroll (Eds.), New approaches to social problems: Applications of attribution
theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berman, P., Chambliss, D., & Geiser, K.D. (1999). Making the case for a focus on equity
in school reform. Emeryville, CA: RPP International.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2001). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bonner, F. A., III (2000). African American giftedness: Our nation’s deferred dream.
Journal of Black Studies, 30 (5), 643-663.

Boykin (1994). Afrocultural expression and its implications for schooling. In E. R.
Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations:
Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 243-256). Alban: State University of
New York Press.

Brophy, J.E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 631-661.

Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations
for childrens’ classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of
EducationalPsychology, 61, 365-374.

102

Brophy, J.E. & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and
consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

California Association for the Gifted (2005). Characteristics of gifted children. A
position paper.

Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted. (6
th
ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall

Coleman, M. R. & Gallagher, J. S. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students
from special populations. Roper Review, 17(4), 268-275.

Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259(5), 42-48.

Cooper, H. & Good, T. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in the expectation
communication process. New York: Longman.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students. Harvard Educational
Review, 56(1), 18-36.

Cox, J., Daniels, N., & Boston, B. (1985). Educating able learners. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.

Davis, G. A. & Rimm, S. B. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented (2
nd
ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Davis, G. A. & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5
th
ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:
The New Press.

Dembo, M.H. (1994). Applying educational psychology (5
th
ed.). New York: Longman
Publishing.

de Wet, C. F. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically
divesre gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Connecticut.

Donovan M. S. & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted
education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

103

Dusek, J. (1975). Do teachers bias children’s learning? Review of Educational Research,
45, 661-684.

Dweck, C. S. & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Series
Ed.) & E. M. Heatherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4
Socialization, personality, and social development (4
th
ed., pp. 643-691). New
York: Wiley.

Feldhusen, J. F. & Jarwan, F. A. (2000). Identification of gifted and talented youth for
educational programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F.
Subotnik, (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent. (pp. 271-282).
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Ferguson, R. F. (2003). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test
score gap. Urban Education, 38(4), 460-507.

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4
th
ed.,
pp. 357-411). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flanagan, D. P., Genshaft, J.L., & Harrison, P. L. (1997) (ed.). Contemporary
intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues. New York: Guilford Press.

Ford, D. Y. (1992). The American achievement ideology as perceived by urban African-
American students: Explorations by gender and academic program. Urban
Education, 27(2). 196-221.

Ford, D. Y. (1995). Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet. Journal of Negro
Education, 64(1), 52-62.

Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising
practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D. Y. & Webb, K. S. (1994). Desegregation of gifted programs: The impact of
Brown on the underachieving children of color. Journal of Negro Education,
63(3), 358-375.

Ford, D. Y. & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted
students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 217-225.

Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Harris, J. J., III (1998). Multicultural gifted education: A
wakeup call to the profession. Roeper Review, 19, 72-78.

104

Ford, D. Y., Harris, J. J., III, Tyson, C. A., & Trotman, M. F. (2002). Beyond deficit
thinking: Providing access for gifted African-American students. Roeper Review,
24(2), 52-58.

Ford, D. Y. & Harris, J. J., III (1991). Identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted
Black American children. Journal of Negro Education, 60(1), 3-18.

Ford, D. Y. & Harris, J. J., III (1992). The American achievement ideology and
achievement differentials among preadolescent gifted and nongifted African-
American males and females. Journal of Negro Education, 61(1), 45-64.

Ford, D. Y. & Harris, J. J., III (1994). Promoting achievement among gifted black
students: The efficacy of new definitions and identification practices. Urban
Education, 29(2), 202-229.

Ford, D. Y. & Harris, J. J., III (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Ford, D. Y. & Trotman, M. F. (2001). Teachers of gifted students: Suggested
multicultural characteristics and competencies. Roeper Review, 23(4), 235-239.

Fordham, S. & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the
“burden of ‘acting white’”. Urban review, 18(3), 176-206.

Foster, M. (1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York: New Press.

Fraiser, M. M. (1987). The identification of gifted Black students: Developing new
perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 155-180.

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. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented.

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Garcia, J. H., & Martin,
D. (1995b). Educator’s perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted
children from economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient
backgrounds. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented.

Frasier, M. M. & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent
potential. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,
University of Connecticut.

105

Gagne, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch’s
(1959) study of the effectiveness and efficacy of various identification techniques.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 124-126.

Gainous, E. C. (1985). Effects of the training program, identification of the potentially
gifted, on teachers’ accuracy in the identification of intellectually gifted children.
Dissertation Abstracts Ibternational, 46, 1140A.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6
th

ed.). NY: Longman Publishers.

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45-56.

Garcia, G. E. (2002). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the
challenge (3
rd
Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Garcia, S. B. & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with
educators to create more equitable environments. Education and Urban Society,
36(2), 150-168.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.

Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational
implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18,
4-10.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of
education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257-293.

Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (1998). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society
(5
th
ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Goto, S. T. (1997). Nerds, normal people, and homeboys: Accommodation and resistance
among Chinese American students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 28(1),
70-84.

106

Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational
Psychology Review, 3, 5-39.

Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research,
64, 55-117.

Grantham, T. C. (2002). Straight talk on the issue of underrepresentation: An interview
with Dr. Mary Frasier. Roeper Review, 24(2), 50-51.

Grendler, M. (2005). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. Columbus, OH:
Pearson Prentice Hall.

Gross, T. (1985). Cognitive development. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Grossman, H. (1995). Special education in a diverse society. Boston, MA: Allyon and
Bacon.

Guttmann, J. & Bar-Tal, D. (1982). Stereotypic perceptions of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 519-528.

Hadaway, N. & Marek-Shroer, M. F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted
minority student. Roeper Review, 15(2), 73-74.

Harris J. J., III & Ford, D. Y. (1991). Identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted
black students. Journal of Negro Education, 60(1), 3-18.

Harris J. J., III & Ford, D. Y. (1999). Hope deferred again: Minority students
underrepresented in gifted programs. Education and Urban Society, 31(2), 225-
237.

Hillard, A. G. (1992). The pitfalls and promises of special education practice.
Exceptional Children, 59(2), 168-172.

Hoge, R. D. & Cudmore, L. (1986). The use of teacher-judgment measures in the
identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 181-196.

Holliday, B. G. (1985). Towards a model of teacher-child transactional processes
affecting Black children’s academic achievement. In M. B. Spencer, G. K.
Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective
development of Black children (pp. 117-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hollins, E. R. (1993). Assessing teacher competence for diverse populations. Theory Into
Practice, 32(2), 93-99.

107

Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Adjustments to traditional procedures for identifying undeserved
students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 72-76.

Irvine, J.J. (1990). Black students and school failure: Policies, practices, and
prescriptions. New York: Greenwood.

Iskander, E. A. (2006). The relationship between interest and attainment values and
perceptions of teachers’ preparation for gifted instruction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Southern California.

Jacobs K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act. 20 U.S.C. 3061et seq. (1988).

Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model.
Psychological Review, 98, 54-73.

Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perceptions, social stereotypes, and
teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling
prophecy. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281-387.

Jussim, L. & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies:
Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131-155.

Karnes, F. A. & Bean, S. M. (2001). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted.
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Metropolitan Unified School District (2006). Planning gifted/talented programs, 2006-
2007. Metropolitan: Publication No. MEM-1886.2.

Metropolitan Unified School District (2007). Gifted/Talented programs introduction.
Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://sfpc.lausd.k12.ca.us/GATE/intro.html.

Madon, S., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1997). In search of the powerful self-fulfilling
prophecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 791-809.

Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the congress of the
United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.

108

Menchaca, M. (1997). Early racist discourses: Roots of deficit thinking. In. R. R.
Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice (pp. 13-40). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Merton, R. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.

Miles M. B. & Huberman A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, E. M. (2006). Characteristic centrality in the perceptions of giftedness as a
predictor of the pattern of nomination of students for placement in gifted
programming (Pilot study). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Virginia

Milner, H. R. & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Racial experiences influence us as teachers:
Implications for gifted education curriculum development. Roper Review, 28(1),
30-36.

National Association of Gifted Children (2005). State of the states: Gifted and talented
report, 2003-2004. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences.

National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Overview of public elementary and
secondary schools and districts: School year 2001-2002. Washington DC

Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human Learning (4
th
ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.

Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (6
th
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers

Pawlik, K. & d’Ydewalle, G. (2006). (ed). Psychological concepts: An international
historical perspective. New York: Psychology Press.

Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in research: Theory, research, and
applications (2
nd
ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Pohan, C. & Aguilar, T. E. (2001). Measuring educator’s beliefs about diversity in
personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal,
38(1), 159-182.

109

Powell, T. & Siegle, D. (2000). Teacher bias in identifying gifted and talented students.
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, 13-15.

Renzulli, J. S. (1979). What makes giftedness: A reexamination of the definition of the
gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools
Office.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model
for creative productivity. In J. S. Renzulli & S. M. Reis (Eds.). The triad reader.
Mansfiels Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Renzulli. J. S. & Vasser, W. G. (1967). The gifted child in Connecticut. Hartford:
Connecticut State Department of Education.

Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attribution
information in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 85- 110).

Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy
in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411-451.

Rohrer, J. C. (1995). Primary teacher conceptions of giftedness: Image, evidence, and
nonevidence. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 269-283.

Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research (2
nd
Ed.). New York
Irvington.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teachers’
expectations and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Rowley, J. L. (2003). Teacher effectiveness in the education of gifted students: A
comparison of trained, trainee and untrained teachers of gifted and talented
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Wales
(Australia).

Santrock, J.W. (2007) Lifespan development t(11
th
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Seely, K. R. (1993). Gifted students at risk. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.). Counseling the
gifted and talented. (pp. 263-276), Denver: Love Publishing.

Shade, B. J. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style: A variable in school success?.
Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 219-244.

110

Silverman, L. K. (1986). The IQ controversy: Conceptions and misconceptions. Roeper
Review, 8(3), 136-140.

Slocumb, P. D. & Payne, R. K. (2000) Removing the mask: Giftedness in poverty.
Highlands, TX: RFT Publishing.

Spearman, C. (1904) General intelligence: Objectively determined and measured.
American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. New York:
Macmillan.

Spindler, G. D. (Ed.). (1987). Educational and cultural process: Anthropological
approaches (2
nd
ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (Eds.) (1994). Pathways to cultural awareness: Cultural
theraoy with teachers and students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Spring, J. (1995). The intersection of cultures: Multicultural education in the United
States. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond I.Q.; A triarchic theory of intelligence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Teaching intelligence: The application of cognitive psychology
to the improvement of intellectual skills. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: Freeman.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New
York: Viking.

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59(5), 325-338.

Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People’s
conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1),
37-55.

Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (ed.) (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Storti, C. (1989). The art of crossing cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Storti, C. (1998). The art of crossing cultures (2
nd
ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.

111

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227-235.
Thorndike, E. L. (1921). On the organization of the intellect. Psychological Review, 28,
141-151.

Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., & Lelli, K. M. (1997). Challenging expectations:
Case studies of high-potential culturally diverse young children. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 41(2). 5-17.

U. S. Department of Education (1993). National excellence: A case for
developing America’s talent. Washington DC: U. S. Government.

Valencia, R.R. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking. In. R. R. Valencia
(Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 13-
40). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

West, C. & Anderson, T. (1976). The question of preponderant causation in teacher
expectancy research. Review of Educational Research, 46, 613-630.

Westberg, K. L., Burns, D. E., Gubbins, E. J., Reis, S. M., Park, S., & Maxfield, L. R.
(1998). Professional development practices in gifted education: Results of a
national survey. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
Newsletter, 3-8.

Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Woods, S. B., & Achey, V. H. (1990). Successful identification of gifted racial/ethnic
groups students without changing classification requirements. Roeper Review,
13(1), 21-26.

Zhang, L. & Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. New Jersey
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning
.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

112

APPENDIX A

Teacher Interview Protocol

Background
1. What type(s) of credential(s)/certification(s) do you hold?

2. How long have you been a teacher? How long at this school site?

3. Have you, for the most part, taught students from diverse backgrounds?

4. To be credentialed in California, it is mandatory to have multicultural/diversity
preparation/training. In your experience, have you found it beneficial in teaching students
from diverse populations? Please explain.

Teacher Perceptions/Expectations
5. Some people believe that culture strongly influences learning and therefore minority
students are at a disadvantage in the culture of American schools. Others believe culture
is irrelevant to the learning process and minority students have an equal opportunity to be
successful in American schools. What do you believe? Can you give me some examples?

6. Some people believe that teacher training and preparation for gifted is essential to the
proper identification of students, particularly those from diverse populations. They
further believe it should be a mandatory part of the teacher credentialing process. Others
believe teachers can effectively identify potentially gifted students and training and
preparation should continue to be and elective or optional addition to the teaching
credential. What do you believe? Can you give me some examples? What types of
training does the District offer/provide?

7. Some people believe teachers hold differential expectations, perceptions and attitudes
toward minority students which impact their performance resulting in them not being
recommended for gifted programs. Others believe that the expectations, perceptions and
attitudes of teachers toward minority students have little to no affect on classroom
performance and their under-inclusion in gifted programs is due to their inability to
perform at high levels. From your perspective, how do teacher expectations, perceptions
and attitudes affect student performance? Can you give me some examples?

Understanding the Gifted
8. Have you ever taught students already identified as gifted? Describe what they were
like?

9. Have you had formal training in teaching gifted and talented students? Please describe.

113

10. What characteristics (e.g. behavioral, intellectual, etc.) do you feel are typical of
gifted children in general? Do you believe they would appear differently in minority
children?

11. Some people believe that intelligence is a function of genetics and heredity. Others
believe that intelligence can be developed and shaped. What do you believe? Can you
provide some experiences from your experience?

12. Some people believe that intelligence (the ability and potential to perform) can be
measured, hence the IQ. Others believe that intelligence is a more dynamic entity. What
do you believe?

13. Some people believe giftedness/intelligence can be detected in the behaviors of a
child. For example, gifted/highly intelligent children are organized, highly motivated,
skilled, productive, well-behaved, and demonstrate a high level of academic achievement
as evidenced in their work products, test scores, etc. Others believe that while gifted
children can exhibit those previously stated characteristics, there is a population of gifted
children that may demonstrate behaviors in direct opposition to those previously stated.
What do you believe? What has been your experience? Can you give me some examples?

14. Students from culturally, linguistically, and economic diverse backgrounds are by in
large under-represented in gifted programs (particularly Hispanics, African-Americans,
and Native Americans). What, in your opinion could be the cause(s) for this
phenomenon? Can you give me some examples? What, if any, actions do you think you
have taken or would undertake to help overcome those barriers?

Gifted Program Procedures
15. Are you aware of how a child is nominated for evaluation for the gifted program?
What are the procedures entailed in the evaluation process? What happens if a child lacks
sufficient test scores?

16. Have you ever nominated a child for gifted evaluation? Why or why not? Do you
believe it is important to nominate children for gifted programs? Why or why not?

17. How would you describe your role in promoting minorities to the gifted program?
What kinds of evidence would you look for?

18. Some believe it is the procedures and processes that impede minority access to gifted
programs. Do you find that the criteria you are expected to use creates the barrier in
preventing these students from being nominated for gifted programs? Why or why not?
Please explain.

114

19. In your opinion, do you believe your school is adequately prepared to provide
services to students identified as gifted? Does your belief affect your decision to
nominate children in any way?

20. How important is nominating students for gifted programs for your school site? How
important is nominating students for gifted programs to you? Does the school culture
affect your decision to nominate in any way?

115

APPENDIX B

Research Questions/Interview Protocol Correlations Grid

Research Question #1
Do teachers hold one dimensional or multi-dimensional notions of intelligence with respect to identifying
African-American and Latino students for gifted programs?
11. Some people believe that intelligence is a function of genetics ……..
12. Some people believe that intelligence (the ability and potential to perform) can be measured……..
13. Some people believe giftedness/intelligence can be detected in the behaviors of a child. For example, gifted/highly
intelligent children are organized ………..

Research Question #2

Research Question #3
Does the school’s context (leadership, programs, resources, etc.) affect teacher willingness to identify?
15. Are you aware of how a child is nominated for evaluation fir the gifted program? What are the procedures…
16. Have you ever nominated a child for gifted evaluation? Why or why not?
19. In your opinion, do you believe your school is adequately prepared to provide services to students? Does this affect...
20. How important is nominating students for your school? To you? Does school culture affect?

Research Question #4

Research Question #5
How does teacher participation in the gifted identification process affect the under-representation of African-
American and Latino students in gifted programs?
4. To be credentialed in California, it is mandatory to have multicultural/diversity preparation………
5. Some people believe that culture strongly influences learning and therefore minority students are at a disadvantage in
the culture of American schools……
6. Some people believe that teacher training and preparation is essential…What do you believe?
14. Students from culturally, linguistically, and economic diverse backgrounds are by in large under-represented in gifted
programs (particularly Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans). What, in your opinion …………

What attributes and/or evidence do teachers take into account when identifying African-American and Latino
students’ giftedness?
8. Have you ever taught students already identified as gifted? Describe what they were like.
10. What characteristics (e.g. behavioral, intellectual, etc.) do you feel are typical …..
14. Students from culturally, linguistically, and economic diverse backgrounds are by in large under-represented in
gifted programs (particularly Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans). What, in your opinion …………

How do teachers’ perceptions of African-American and Latino students impact their assessment of their
achievement and giftedness?
7. Some people believe teachers hold differential expectations, perceptions and attitudes toward minority students which
impact their performance resulting in them not being recommended ……….
17. How would you describe your role in promoting minorities ………..
18. Some believe it is the procedures and processes that impede minority access to gifted programs. Do you find that the
criteria you are expected to use creates……

116

APPENDIX C

Teacher Letter

May 23, 2008

Dear Teacher,

I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California in the Educational
Psychology Department. I am preparing to conduct research on teacher participation in
the gifted program identification process as it relates to minority students and I need your
assistance; I need to interview five classroom teachers per school site. Participation is
strictly voluntary and the interview is expected to last a total of 45-90 minutes. Written
notes will be taken and the interview will be audio recorded for the purpose of accurate
data collection. Information obtained during the course of the interview will be held in
the strictest confidence and no personal identifying information will be attached. The
information you provide will be beneficial in identifying possible changes that may be
necessary in the identification of gifted minority students.

I would greatly appreciate your participation in this study. I understand your time is
valuable and your schedule is busy therefore interviews may be conducted on days and
times most convenient for you. Enclosed in this packet is an interview contact form on
which you can indicate days and times you will be available. Also included is a detailed
Information Sheet about the study that can be referenced now and will be discussed later
before the interview. Please return the interview contact form in the self-addressed
stamped envelope or you can e-mail me the information. I will follow-up with you via
phone or e-mail to confirm a day and time for us to meet.

Thank you in advance for participating in my doctoral study. If you should have any
questions, please feel free to call me at (310) 704-4008 or e-mail me at
anhemphi@usc.edu.

Thank you,

Afia Hemphill
Researcher
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

117

APPENDIX D

Permission to Contact

Your participation in a research study regarding teacher participation in the
identification process for gifted minorities has been requested. Your participation is
voluntary and all information you share will be held in the strictest of confidence. Your
participation is limited to one audio recorded interview which is expected to last 45-75
minutes. Please see the enclosed Information Sheet for more information or contact Afia
Hemphill at (310) 704-4008 or e-mail me at anhemphi@usc.edu
Yes, I am interested in participating in the study. Please contact me to schedule
and confirm an interview time.

No, I do not wish to participate in the study.

If willing to be contacted, please provide the following information:

Name: _______________________________________ (can provide first name only)

Grade: _______________________________________

Phone: _______________________________________

E-mail: _______________________________________

Availability (Days/Times):
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

***Please return by May 15, 2008 in the envelope provided or return via e-mail.

118

APPENDIX E

Interview Information Sheet

Name: _______________________________________ (can provide first name only)

Grade: _______________________________________

Phone: _______________________________________

E-mail: _______________________________________

Availability (Days/Times):
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In previous decades, the nation was concerned with identifying the “best and the brightest” and providing them with the best education possible. However, little has been done to ensure that children from diverse backgrounds are fairly represented in programs for the gifted. This study investigates the teachers’ role in sustaining the under-representation of minority students in gifted programs based on their inability to effectively nominate such students for gifted programs. The findings will help inform educators of how critical personal ideologies, lack of proper training and limited focus and support from school leadership can influence the decisions for recommendations of diverse children for gifted programs.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Gifted Spanish speaking English learners' participation in advanced placement programs

PDF

The placement and participation of gifted African American students in advanced academic services: a case study

PDF

Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices

PDF

Teachers in continuation high schools: attributes of new teachers and veteran teachers in urban continuation high schools

PDF

The role of the principal in new teacher development under the California Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment Program

PDF

The under-referral of African American boys to gifted programs

PDF

The impact of Upward bound on first generation college students in the freshman year of college

PDF

The big revival: how improved career training programs generate new opportunities for high school students

PDF

Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...

PDF

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Impact of required parental involvement on African American male students and families: a qualitative study of the USC-NAI program

PDF

Defining the mobilization of social capital for low-SES minority youth participants in the Summer Bridge program by program leaders

PDF

Equity and access: the under-identification of African American students in gifted programs

PDF

Underrepresented minorities in medicine in the United States: an innovation study to develop an effective holistic admissions process for the New School of Medicine

PDF

The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college

PDF

How is an undergraduate engineering program uniquely positioned to create a diverse workforce through the recruitment of African American students? A faculty perspective

Asset Metadata

Creator Hemphill, Afia Nini (author)

Core Title How teacher participation in the identification process impacts the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Psychology)

Publication Date 10/20/2009

Defense Date 09/08/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag gifted minorities,nomination,OAI-PMH Harvest,referral,teacher,under-representation

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee chair), Fischer, Linda A. (committee member), Kaplan, Sandra (committee member)

Creator Email anh3319@lausd.net,anhemphi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2662

Unique identifier UC1501610

Identifier etd-Hemphill-3274 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-269426 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2662 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hemphill-3274.pdf

Dmrecord 269426

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hemphill, Afia Nini

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu