Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Students from homes where a language other than English is used—formally known as non–English-language background (NELB) students in schools—have historically been viewed as an “at-risk” group. Their persistent underrepresentation in gifted programs warrants research on their intellectually gifted (IG) representation to ensure that they receive the necessary support regardless of language backgrounds. We describe NELB students’ IG representation and explore their likelihood of IG representation (2006–2019) by language status (Current English learner [EL], Former EL, and Never EL). Results showed variability in IG representation and placement likelihood. Notably, compared with native English speakers (NES), (1) Never ELs were consistently more likely to have IG status, (2) Former ELs were generally similarly or less likely to have IG, and (3) Current ELs consistently less likely to receive IG services. Findings contribute to the understudied area of NELB students’ representation in IG programs and offer nuanced insight by language status.

Plain Language Summary

Representation of Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted and Talented Services in Schools: 2006–2019 Tennessee Trends

Some students grow up speaking a language other than English at home. In schools, these students are often called non–English-language background (NELB) students. In the past, schools have sometimes seen these students as needing extra help, and many of them have not been included in gifted programs. Gifted programs are special classes or services for students who learn quickly and show strong academic skills. Our study looked at how often NELB students were chosen for gifted programs between 2006 and 2019. We grouped students based on their English-language proficiency. Some were still learning English (Current English learners [ELs]), some had been determined English proficient (Former ELs) and no longer needed additional English-language support, and some never needed English-language support (Never ELs) even though they spoke another language at home. We found that Never ELs were more likely to be chosen for gifted programs than native English speakers. Former ELs were about as likely or slightly less likely to be in gifted programs. Current ELs were much less likely to be chosen for gifted services. These results show that the way schools decide who gets into gifted programs can be different depending on how well students know English. Schools need to make sure all students, no matter what language they speak at home, have a fair chance to be in gifted programs if they have strong academic abilities.

Keywords

logistic regression English-language learners equity gifted

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

J. K.

(2017). Exploring the role teacher perceptions play in the underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted programming. Gifted Child Today, 40(2) 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517690188

Antoniou

(2019). The advantages of bilingualism debate. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5(1) 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011820

Bacon

C. K.

(2018). “It’s not really my job”: A mixed methods framework for language ideologies, monolingualism, and teaching emergent bilingual learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(2) 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118783188

Barton

Peat

J. K.

(2014). Medical statistics: A guide to SPSS, data analysis and critical appraisal (2nd ed.). John Wiley.

Bianco

Harris

(2014). Strength-based RTI: Developing gifted potential in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Gifted Child Today, 37(3) 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514530115

Borland

(2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED485164.pdf

Borland

J. H.

(2014). Identification of gifted students. In Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 323–342). Prufrock Press.

Borland

J. H.

(2021). The trouble with conceptions of giftedness. In Sternberg

R. J.

Ambrose

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 37–49). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_3

Briggs

C. J.

Reis

S. M.

Sullivan

E. E.

(2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2) 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208316037

10.

Bright

Filippi

(2019). Editorial: Perspectives on the “bilingual advantage”: Challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01346

11.

Calero

M. D.

Belen

G. M. M.

Robles

M. A.

(2011). Learning potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2) 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.025

12.

Callahan

R. M.

Jiang

Núñez

A.-M.

(2022). EL policy and immigrant politics: State and federal policy and ever-EL students’ postsecondary pathways. Educational Policy, 37(5), 1467–1505. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/08959048221103802

13.

Card

Giuliano

(2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21519

14.

Card

Giuliano

(2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48) 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113

15.

Chang-Bacon

C. K.

(2020). Monolingual language ideologies and the Massachusetts sheltered English immersion endorsement initiative: A critical policy analysis. Educational Policy, 36(3) 479–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820901465

16.

Coleman

M. R.

Shah-Coltrane

(2015). Children of promise: Dr. James Gallagher’s thoughts on underrepresentation within gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(1) 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214565556

17.

Contreras-Vanegas

A. L.

Lara-Alecio

Tong

Irby

B. J.

Pollard-Durodola

(2012). The inter-rater reliability of the Hispanic bilingual gifted screening instrument (HBGSI). National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 25(3) 1–13. http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Contreras,%20Alma%20The%20Inter%20Rater%20Reliability%20AERJ%20V25%20N3%202012.pdf

18.

Coronado

J. M.

Lewis

K. D.

(2017). The disproportional representation of English language learners in gifted and talented programs in Texas. Gifted Child Today, 40(4) 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517722181

19.

Crosson

A. C.

Silverman

R. D.

(2021). Impact of COVID-19 on early literacy instruction for emergent bilinguals. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1) 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.456

20.

Cuba

Tefera

A. A.

(2024). Contextualizing multilingual learner disproportionality in special education: A mixed-methods approach. Teachers College Record, 126(1) 29–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681241233877

21.

Davis

J. L.

Ford

D. Y.

Moore

J. L.

Floyd

E. F.

(2020). Black and gifted in rural America: Barriers and facilitators to accessing gifted and talented education programs. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2002.v10n2p85-100

22.

Dentella

Masullo

Leivada

(2024). Bilingual disadvantages are systematically compensated by bilingual advantages across tasks and populations. Scientific Reports, 14, 2107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52417-5

23.

Division of Special Populations and Student Support. (2018). Defining significant disproportionality in Tennessee: Revisions to the calculation. Tennessee Department of Education. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-education/idea/idea_sig_disp_calc_rpt.pdf

24.

Esquierdo

J. J.

Arreguín-Anderson

(2012). The “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students: A current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1) 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211432041

25.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 USC § 7801 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

26.

Foley-Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

(2013). Twice-exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3) 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490021d

27.

Ford

D. Y.

Grantham

T. C.

Whiting

G. W.

(2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3) 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302

28.

Ford

D. Y.

Harris Tyson

C. A.

Trotman

M. F.

(2002). Beyond deficit thinking. Roeper Review, 24 52–59.

29.

Frasier

M. M.

Passow

A. H.

(1994). Towards a new paradigm for identifying talent potential [Research Monograph 94112]. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED388020

30.

Gallagher

Coleman

(1994). A Javits project: Gifted education policy studies program. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gifted Education Policy Studies Program. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED371499.pdf

31.

Gonzalez

(2006). Profiles of cognitive developmental performance in gifted children: Effect of bilingualism, monolingualism, and socioeconomic status factors. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5(2) 142–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192705285467

32.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving student of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1) 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175

33.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

Bleiberg

J. F.

(2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Educational Review, 89(3) 337–369. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337

34.

Gubbins

E. J.

Siegle

Hamilton

Peters

Carpenter

A. Y.

O'Rourke

Puryear

McCoach

D. B.

Long

Bloomfield

Cross

Mun

Amspaugh

Langley

S. D.

Roberts

Estepar-Garcia

(2018). Exploratory study on the identification of English learners for gifted and talented programs. National Center for Research on Gifted Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602388.pdf

35.

Gubbins

E. J.

Siegle

Peters

P. M.

Carpenter

A. Y.

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Puryear

J. S.

Langley

S. D.

Long

(2020). Promising practices for improving identification of English learners for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(4) 336–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220955241

36.

Harris

Plucker

J. A.

Rapp

K. E.

Martínez

R. S.

(2009). Identifying gifted and talented English language learners: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3) 368–393. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2009-858

37.

Harris

Rapp

K. E.

Martínez

R. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2007). Identifying English language learners for gifted and talented programs: Current practices and recommendations for improvement. Roeper Review, 29(5) 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2007.11869221

38.

Hodges

(2020). Using state data to conduct research in the field of gifted education. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(1) 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19881436

39.

Hodges

Gentry

(2020). Underrepresentation in gifted education in the context of rurality and socioeconomic status. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(2), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20969143

40.

Hodges

Tay

Maeda

Gentry

(2018). A meta‑analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2) 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107

41.

Horn

C. V.

(2015). Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38(1) 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556532

42.

Jiménez-Castellanos

García

(2017). Intersection of language, class, ethnicity, and policy: Toward disrupting inequality for English language learners. Review of Research in Education, 41, 428–452.

43.

Johnson

(2020). Within-year academic achievement gains for English learners [EdWorking Paper: 20-337]. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610251.pdf

44.

Kangas

S. E.

Cook

(2020). Academic tracking of English learners with disabilities in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 57(6) 2415–2449. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220915702

45.

Kettler

Laird

(2020). Underrepresentation of English-language learners in gifted education and the influence of gifted education policy. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d5evs

46.

Lakin

J. M.

(2016). Universal screening and the representation of historically underrepresented minority students in gifted education: Minding the gaps in Card and Giuliano’s research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2) 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x16630348

47.

Leo

Wilcox

K. C.

(2023). Beyond deficit and determinism to address the Latinx attainment gap. Journal of Latinos and Education, 22(2) 729–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2020.1815537

48.

Lidz

C. S.

Macrine

S. L.

(2001). An alternative approach to the identification of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse learners: The contribution of dynamic assessment. School Psychology International, 22(1) 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343010221006

49.

Little

C. A.

(2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7) 695–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21621

50.

C. O.

Porath

(2017). Paradigm shifts in gifted education: An examination vis-à-vis its historical situatedness and pedagogical sensibilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4) 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722840

51.

Lohman

D. F.

Gambrell

J. L.

(2012). Using nonverbal tests to help identify academically talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1) 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428194

52.

Luria

S. R.

O’Brien

R. L.

Kaufman

J. C.

(2016). Creativity in gifted identification: Increasing accuracy and diversity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1) 44–52.

53.

Masullo

Dentella

Leivada

(2024). 73% of the observed bilingual (dis)advantageous effects on cognition stem from sociolinguistic factors: A systematic review. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 27, 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000664

54.

Matthews

M. S.

Kirsch

(2011). Evaluating gifted identification practice: Aptitude testing and linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(2) 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.565281

55.

McBee

M. T.

(2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2) 103–111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686

56.

Mun

R. U.

Hemmler

Langley

S. D.

Ware

Gubbins

E. J.

Callahan

C. M.

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

(2020). Identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: Looking back and moving forward. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(4) 297–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220955230

57.

Mun

R. U.

Langley

S. D.

Ware

Gubbins

E. J.

Siegle

Callahan

McCoach

D. B.

Hamilton

(2016). Effective practices for identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: A systematic review of literature. National Center for Research on Gifted Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602387.pdf

58.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226%2F24677

59.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2011). Position statement: Identifying and serving culturally and linguistically diverse gifted students. https://www.nagc.org/identifying-gifted-children-from-diverse-populations

60.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools (The Condition of Education 2024, Indicator CGE, pp. 1–6). Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2024/cge_508c.pdf

61.

National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10128

62.

O’Hara

Bollmer

(2021). Equity requirements in IDEA. IDEA Data Center. https://www.ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2021-07/EquityInIDEA.pdf

63.

Office for Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of COVID-19 on America’s students. United States Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf

64.

Office of Research and Education Accountability. (2021, March) Student attendance in Tennessee (Snapshot). https://comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/advanced-search/2021/StudentAttendanceSnapshot.pdf

65.

M. H.

Mancilla-Martinez

(2021). Elementary schoolteachers’ bilingual development beliefs and English learners’ English reading comprehension achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 122(2) 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1086/716899

66.

Park

O’Toole

Katsiaficas

(2017). Dual language learners: A demographic and policy profile for Tennessee. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/DLL-FactSheet-TN-FINAL.pdf

67.

Park

Zong

Batalova

(2018). Growing superdiversity among young U.S. dual language learners and its implications. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/SuperDiversityAmongDLLs_FINAL.pdf

68.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

Whiting

G. W.

McBee

M. T.

(2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4) 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738

69.

Peters

S. J.

Johnson

(2023). Where are the gifted English learners and students with disabilities? (EdWorkingPaper No. 23-742). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/hrtx-gs04

70.

Petersen

(2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4) 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002

71.

Reed

C. F.

(2007). We can identify and serve ESOL GATE students: A case study. Gifted Child Today, 30(2) 16–22. https://doi.org/10/4219/gct-2007-29

72.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4) 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012

73.

Ruiz de Castilla

August

(2017). Identification of gifted and talented English learner students in grades K-5 in Texas: Lessons from student-level data. The University of Texas at Austin Education Research Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED615502.pdf

74.

Sarouphim

K. M.

(1999). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(4) 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629904300403

75.

Shapiro

(2014). “Words that you said got bigger”: English language learners’ lived experiences of deficit discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(4) 386–406. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201425159

76.

Shaunessy

McHatton

P. A.

Hughes

Brice

Ratliff

M. A.

(2007). Understanding the experiences of bilingual, Latino/a adolescents: Voices from gifted and general education. Roeper Review, 29(3) 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554406

77.

Stein

J. C.

Hetzel

Beck

(2012). Twice exceptional? The plight of the gifted English learner. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(2) 36–41. http://www.deltakappagamma.org/NH/Winter%202012_Diverse%20Learners-FINAL.pdf#page=37

78.

Stinson

Mumpower

J. E.

(2021). Gifted education in Tennessee. Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury: Office of Research and Education Accountability. https://comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/advanced-search/2021/GiftedBrief.pdf

79.

Sugarman

(2016). Funding an equitable education for English learners in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/US-Funding-FINAL.pdf

80.

Sullivan

A. L.

Bal

(2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4) 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900406

81.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2010). Tennessee state plan for the education of intellectually gifted students. https://ajgunne.com/pdf/TN%20DOE%20Gifted%20Manual.pdf

82.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2017). Standards for special education evaluation & eligibility. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-education/eligibility/se_eligibility_intellect_gift.pdf

83.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2018a). Intellectually gifted evaluation guidance. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-education/eligibility/se_intellectually_gifted_evaluation_guidance.pdf

84.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2018b). Supporting all English learners across Tennessee: A framework for English learners. https://content.schoolinsites.com/api/documents/39d376898177460d951302d52f7b7e34.pdf

85.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2019). Consolidated planning & monitoring data manual. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/cpm/cpm_data_manual.pdf

86.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2024a, November). English as a second language: Identification and screening for English learners guidance (Tennessee State Board Rule, 0520-01-1903). ePlan. https://eplan.tn.gov/documentlibrary/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentKey=2159191&inline=true

87.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2024b). Overview of testing in Tennessee. https://www.tn.gov/education/districts/lea-operations/assessment/testing-overview.html

88.

Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). Special education evaluation & eligibility. https://www.tn.gov/education/families/student-support/special-education/special-education-evaluation-eligibility.html

89.

Tennessee Initiative for Gifted Education Reform & Tennessee Association for the Gifted. (2003). Gifted education in Tennessee: Background, recent legislative activity, and recommendations [Issue Brief]. http://www.tngifted.com/uploads/8/3/2/5/8325963/issuebrief_gifted03.pdf

90.

Tennessee State Board of Education. (2017). English as a Second Language (ESL) program policy 3.207. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/stateboardofeducation/documents/meetingfiles/8-25-17_III_D_ESL_Program_Policy_3_207_Attachment_Clean_Copy.pdf

91.

Tran

B. T. N.

Wai

McKenzie

Mills

Seaton

(2022). Expanding gifted identification to capture academically advanced, low-income, or other disadvantaged students: The case of Arkansas. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 45(1) 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532211063936

92.

Umansky

(2020). COVID-19’s impact on English learner students: Possible policy responses [Commentary]. Policy Analysis for California Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/newsroom/covid-19s-impact-english-learner-students

93.

Umansky

Dumont

(2019). English learner labeling: How English learner status shapes teacher perceptions of student skills & the moderating role of bilingual instructional settings [EdWorking Paper: 19-94]. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. http://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai19-94

94.

U.S. Department of Education, & Office of English Language Acquisition. (2017). English Learner tool kit (2nd Rev. ed.).

95.

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection, data snapshot: College and career readiness. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-college-and-career-readiness-snapshot.pdf

96.

VanTassel-Baska

(2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the nonnegotiables? Theory into Practice, 44(2) 90–97.

97.

Villegas

Pompa

(2020). The patchy landscape of state English learner policies under ESSA. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/state-english-learner-policies-essa

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

Representation of Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted and Talented Services: 2006–2019 Tennessee Trends

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material