A disproportionately low number of minority students have been identified and placed in programs for gifted students. The realities of the situation relate to the attitudes of planners and teachers, the identification process itself, inadequate research verifying the use of appropriate identification tools, and an inadequate picture of how a program should be designed.
Empirical research on identification and planning for the minority gifted child is sparse, but that which is available highlights the need for more extensive research in this area. Exploratory research using The Raven Matrices and chronometric devices as part of the identification process appear to hold promise for developing new hypotheses and proving or disproving those that are presently proposed. More flexibility of planning, more funding for research, more dissemination of information, and improved teacher training on how to recognize clues for identifying exceptional intellectual processing abilities are among the recommendations proposed here to alleviate the problem of discovering the gifted among minority populations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaldwinA. Y. (1977). Tests can underpredict: A case study.Phi Delta Kappan, 58(8), 620–621.
2.
BaldwinA. Y. (1984). Baldwin Identification Matrix 2 for the identification of gifted and talented.New York: Trillium Press.
3.
BaldwinA. Y. (1985). Programs for the gifted and talented: Issues concerning minority populations. In F. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.) The gifted and talented: developmental perspectives (pp. 223–249).
4.
BernalE., & ReynaJ. (1974). Analysis of giftedness in Mexican-American chidlren and design of a prototype identification instrument. Final Report, Contrct DEC-47-0621130307, USOE (Austin, Texas: Southwest Education Development Laboratory, 1974).
5.
BlackshearP. (1979). A comparison of peer nomination and teacher nomination in the identification of the academically gifted, black, primary level student. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
6.
BoothyP., & LacosteR. J. (1977). Unmined gold: Potentially gifted children of the inner city.San Antonio Texas: University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 154 076)
7.
BruchC. B. (1972). The ABDA: Making the Stanford-Binet culturally biased for black children. Unpublished manuscript. University of Georgia, Department of Education Psychology, Athens.
DabneyM. (1983, July). Perspectives and directives in assessment of the black child. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Atlanta, GA.
10.
DouglasJ. H. (1969, April). Strategies for maximizing the development of talent among the urban disadvantaged. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Denver, CO.
11.
DuBoisW. E. B. (1903). The talented tenth. In, The Negro Problem.New York, NY: James Pott Company.
12.
GallagherJ. (1985). Teaching the gifted child: 3rd Edition.Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
13.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.New York: Basic Books.
14.
FrasierM., & McCannonC. (1981). Using bibliotheraphy with gifted children.Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 81–85.
15.
FutrellM. (1986). Restructuring teaching: A call for research.Educational Researcher,15 (10), 5–8.
16.
HillardA. G. (1976). Alternative to IQ testing: An approach to the identification of the gifted “Minority” Children (Report No. 75 175). San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 009).
17.
MeekerM., & MeekerR. (1979). SOI Learning Abilities Test (rev. ed.). El Segundo, CA.: SOI Institute.
18.
MercerJ. R. (1971 September). Pluralistic diagnosis in the evaluation of black and chicano children: A procedure for taking sociocultural variables into account in clinical assessment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
19.
MuellerV., & McKeownM. (Eds.), (1986). The fiscal, legal and political aspects of state reform of elementary and secondary education. Sixth Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association.Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
20.
New York State African-American Institute of the State University of New York (1986). Dropping out of school in New York: The invisible people of color. (Available from [State University of New York, State University Plaza, Albany, NY]).
21.
PassowA. H. (1977). The gifted and the disadvantaged. In MileyJ., SatoI., LucheW., WeaverP., CurryJ., & PonceR. (Eds.), Promising practices: Teaching the disadvantaged gifted and talented (pp. 51–57). Ventura, CA: Office of the Superintendent of Ventura County Schools.
22.
RavenJ., & SummersB. (1986). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales research supplement no. 3: A compendium of North American normative and validity studies.San Antonio, TX.: The Psychological Corporation.
23.
StallingsC. (1970). Techniques for identification and development of potentials for gifted disadvantaged children. Unpublished manuscript.
24.
SternbergR. (1984). What should intelligence tests test: Implications for a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing.Educational Researcher,13 (1), 5–15.
25.
Today's numbers, tomorrow's nation. (1986, May). Education Week, p. 14.
26.
VernonP. (1986). Relationships between speed-of-processing, personality and intelligence.Personality, Cognition and Values.London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
27.
WashingtonB. T. (1971). Up from slavery: An autobiography. (rev. ed.)Williamstown, MA.: Corner House Publishers.
