This article discusses the major problems in urban inner city schools in the U.S.A. It discusses the issue of the validity of the use of conventional psychometric tests to assess the abilities of disadvantaged pupils; and the writer justifies the use of alternative assessment procedures. She emphasises the importance of changing teacher attitudes toward the disadvantaged gifted since many teachers seek to identify high achievement in conventional school subjects rather than to identify pupils with a high potential for learning. The paper concludes with suggestions of how to nurture and develop the talents of disadvantaged youngsters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaconM. A. (1982). A matter of black and white. Gifted Child Newsletter, 3(11), 4.
2.
BaldwinA. (1973). Identify the disadvantaged. Paper presented at the First National Conference on the Disadvantaged Gifted, March, Ventura, CA.
3.
BoyerE. (1987). Early schooling and the nation's future. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 4–6.
4.
BruchC. (1973). The modification of procedures for identification of the disadvantaged gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 207–272.
5.
CattellR. B.CattellA. K. (1963). Test of “g” culture fair. IL: The Institute of Personality and Ability Testing.
6.
ClarkB. (1979). Growing up gifted. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Company.
7.
CoxJ. (1985). The Richardson study: A national investigation of educational opportunities for able learners. Forth Worth, TX: Texas Christian University press.
8.
FarrellP. (1973). Teacher involvement in identification. Paper presented at the First National Conference on Disadvantaged Gifted, Ventura, CA: March.
9.
FeuersteinR. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers. Baltimore: University Park Press.
10.
GallagherJ. (1985). Teaching gifted children. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
11.
HarrisD. B. (1963). Goodenough Harris drawing test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12.
HighM. H.UdallA. J. (1983). Teacher rating of students in relation to ethnicity of students and school ethnic balance. Journal of Education of the Gifted, Spring, 154–166.
13.
HillardA. (1979). standardization and cultural bias as impediments to the scientific study of intelligence. Journal of Research and Development, 12, 48–58.
14.
JenkinsJ. W. (1953). Jenkins intermediate non-verbal test. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
MarjoribanksK. (1972). Ethnic and environmental influences on mental abilities. American Journal of Sociology, 78(3), 323–337.
17.
MarjoribanksK. (1979). Ethclass, the achievement syndrome and children's cognitive performance. Journal of Educational Research, 327–333.
18.
MakerJ. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publications.
19.
McMillanD. (1975). Separate criteria: An alternative for the identification of disadvantaged gifted. Paper presented at the National Teacher Institute on Disadvantaged Gifted, Los Angeles, May.
20.
MeekerM. (1978). Nondiscriminatory testing procedures to assess giftedness in black, Chicano, Navajo and anglo children. Educational Planning for the Gifted: Overcoming Cultural, Geographic and Socioeconomic Barriers. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
21.
MercerJ.YsseldykeJ. (1977). Designing diagnostic intervention programs. In OaklandT. (Ed.), Psychological Assessment of Minority Children, New York: Brunner/Masel.
22.
PassowH. (1972). The gifted and the disadvantaged. The National Elementary Principal, 51, 24–31.
23.
RavenC.J. (1966). Standard progressive matrices. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
24.
SiskD. (1987). Creative teaching of the gifted. New York: McGraw Hill.
