This study focused on the analysis of a large-scale data set (N = 326,352) collected by the Georgia Department of Education using multilevel path analysis to model the probability that a student would be identified for participation in a gifted program. The model examined individual- and school-level factors that influence the probability that an individual would be identified. The probability of being identified as gifted depended strongly on student race and socioeconomic status and varied strongly across schools.
Putting the Research to Use
This study provides a comprehensive examination of racial and socioeconomic disparities in gifted program participation in one state mandating gifted education and an identification scheme designed to increase participation among traditionally underrepresented groups of students. In spite of these policies, identification rates still varied widely across race and socioeconomic status. The study found that race still exerted strong effects on the probability of identification even after socioeconomic status was controlled. Furthermore, the study found that schools varied widely in the gifted identification rate even when some student characteristics were controlled. This study suggests that much work remains to be done in terms of ensuring that all students, regardless of background, have access to advanced educational programs.
Bernie, V.H., & Beilke, J.R. ( 2008). The constraints of poverty on high achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 295-321.
2.
Bollen, K.A. ( 1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
3.
Brown, R.T., Reynolds, C.R., & Whitaker, J.S. (1999). Bias in Mental Testing since Bias in Mental Testing. School Psychology Quarterly , 14, 208-238.
4.
Curby, T.W., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., & Ponitz, C.C. ( 2009). Teacher-child interactions and children’s achievement trajectories across kindergarten and first grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 912-925.
5.
Duncan, G.J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Development, 71, 188-196.
6.
Edwards, O.W., & Oakland, T.D. ( 2006). Factorial invariance of Woodcock-Johnson III scores for African Americans and Caucasian Americans. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 358-366.
7.
Enders, C., & Bandalos, D. ( 2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457.
8.
Entwisle, D.R., & Alexander, K.L. (1992). Summer setback: Race, poverty, school composition, and mathematics achievement in the first two years of school. American Sociological Review, 57, 72-84.
9.
Everson, H.T., & Millsap, R.E. ( 2004). Beyond individual differences: Exploring school effects on SAT scores. Educational Psychologist, 39, 157-172.
10.
Ford, D.Y. ( 1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14.
11.
Ford, D.Y. ( 2008). Intelligence testing and cultural diversity: The need for alternative instruments, policies, and procedures. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 107-128). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
12.
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, 52-58.
13.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. ( 1986). Black students’ school success: The burden of "acting White." Urban Review, 18, 176-206.
14.
Frasier, M.M. ( 1997). Gifted minority students: Reframing approaches to their identification and education. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), The handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 498-515). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
15.
Frasier, M.M., & Passow, A.H. ( 1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential (Research Monograph No. 94112). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut .
16.
Gordon, R.A. ( 1987). Jensen’s contributions concerning test bias: A contextual view. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Arthur Jensen: Consensus and controversy (pp. 77-154). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.
17.
Hardin, J.W., & Hilbe, J.M. ( 2007). Generalized linear models and extensions (2nd ed). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
18.
Harmon, D. ( 2002). They won’t teach me: The voices of gifted African American inner-city students. Roeper Review, 24, 68-75.
19.
Hershberger, S.L. ( 2006). The problem of equivalent structural models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
20.
Hess, R., & McDevitt, T. ( 1984). Some cognitive consequences of maternal intervention techniques: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 55, 1902-1912.
21.
Hunsaker, S.L., Finley, V.S., & Frank, E.L. ( 1997). An analysis of teacher nominations and student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 19-24.
22.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. ( 2000). Racial and gender bias in ability and achievement tests: Resolving the apparent paradox. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 151-158.
23.
Jensen, A.R. ( 1980). Bias in mental testing. New York, NY: Free Press.
24.
Kaplan, D. ( 2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions . Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
25.
Kennedy, E. ( 1992). A multilevel study of elementary male Black students and White students. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 105-110.
26.
Kline, R.B. ( 2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lewis, J.D., Decamp-Fritson, S.S., Ramage, J.C., McFarland, M.A., & Archwamety, T. (2007). Selecting for ethnically diverse children who may be gifted using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices. Multicultural Education, 15(1), 38-42.
29.
Long, J.S. ( 1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
30.
MacKinnon, D.P. ( 2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Maggi, S., Hertzman, C., Kohen, D., & D’Angiulli, A. (2004). Effects of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics and class composition on highly competent children . Journal of Educational Research, 98, 109-114.
32.
Maker, C.J. ( 1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.
33.
Masten, W.G., Plata, M., Wenglar, K., & Thedford, J. ( 1999). Acculturation and teacher ratings of Hispanic and Anglo-American students. Roeper Review, 22, 64-65.
34.
McBee, M. ( 2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103-111.
35.
Merola, S.S. ( 2005, August). The problem of measuring SES on educational assessments . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA.
36.
Mills, B.C. ( 1983). The effects of socioeconomic status on young children’s readiness for school. Early Child Development & Care, 11, 267-273.
37.
Mills, C.J., & Tissot, S.L. ( 1995). Identifying academic potential in students from under-represented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209-217.
38.
Moon, T.R., & Brighton, C.M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447-480.
Naglieri, J.A., & Ford, D.Y. ( 2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155-160.
41.
Naglieri, J.A., & Ford, D.Y. ( 2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in Gifted Classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 29-36.
42.
Naglieri, J.A., & Jensen, A.R. ( 1987). Comparison of Black-White differences on the WISC-R and the K-ABC: Spearman’s hypothesis. Intelligence, 11, 21-43.
43.
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. ( 2001). Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect on mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 407-432.
44.
Peterson, J.S. ( 1999). Gifted: Through whose cultural lens? An application of the postpositivistic mode of inquiry. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 354-383.
45.
Plata, M., & Masten, W.G. ( 1998). Teacher ratings of Hispanic and Anglo students on a behavior rating scale. Roeper Review, 21, 139-144.
46.
Portes, A., & MacLeod, D. ( 1996). Educational progress of children of immigrants: The roles of class, ethnicity, and school context. Sociology of Education , 69, 255-275.
47.
Quay, L.C. ( 1989). Interactions of stimulus materials, age, and SES in the assessment of cognitive abilities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 401-409.
48.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. ( 2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Reid, C., Romanoff, B., Algozzine, B., & Udall, A. ( 2000). An evaluation of alternative screening procedures. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 379-396.
50.
Reis, S.M., Westberg, K.L., Kulikowich, J.M., & Purcell, J.H. ( 1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-129.
51.
Ryan, J.J., & French, J.R. ( 1976). Long-term grade predictions for intelligence and achievement tests in schools of differing socioeconomic levels. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 36, 553-559.
52.
Sarouphim, K.M. ( 1999). Discover: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly , 43, 244-251.
53.
Scott, M.S., Perou, R., Urbano, R.C., & Hogan, A. ( 1992). The identification of giftedness: A comparison of White, Hispanic and Black families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 131-139.
54.
Siegle, D., & Powell, T. ( 2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21-29.
55.
Taylor, S.A., & Harris, K.C. ( 2003). School integration and the achievement test scores of Black and White students in Savannah, Georgia. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 301-309.
56.
Tyler-Wood, T., & Carri, L. ( 1993). Verbal measures of cognitive ability: The gifted low SES student’s albatross. Roeper Review, 16, 102-106.
57.
West, C.A. ( 1985). Effects of school climate and school social structure on student academic achievement in selected urban elementary schools. Journal of Negro Education, 54, 451-461.
58.
Woods, C.M. ( 2006). Careless responding to reverse-coded items: Implications for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, 189-194.
59.
Worrell, F.C., Szarko, J.E., & Gabelko, N.H. ( 2001). Multi-year persistence of nontraditional students in an academic talent development program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 80-89.
