This study employs critical content analysis to investigate school districts’ identification process of gifted Emergent Bilinguals (EBLs) in North Texas. Despite the diverse population and significant presence of EBLs in Texas, this group is notably underrepresented in gifted programs. In order to uncover the inequities for gifted EBLs, this study examined 156 school districts’ websites in North Texas (Regions 10 and 11) to gather data. A thematic analysis approach was used to create a research-based rubric with 18 criteria for effectively identifying gifted EBLs. By specifically evaluating the random samples (34 school districts) and the commonly used identification tools in North Texas, three themes emerged from the content analysis: (a) selection process, (b) assessment, and (c) standardized assessment tools. These themes highlighted both effective practices and inequities in the identification process. The study concludes by offering recommendations for improving and creating a more equitable identification for gifted EBLs.
AbediJ. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033001004
2.
AbediJ. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education eligibility. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108(11), 2282–2303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00782.x
3.
AcarS.SenS.CayirdagN. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438
4.
AganzaJ. S.GodinezA.SmithD.GonzalezL. G.Robinson-ZañartuC. (2015). Using cultural assets to enhance assessment of Latino students. Contemporary School Psychology, 19(1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-014-0041-7
BrullesD.LansdowneK.NaglieriJ. A. (2022). Understanding and using the Naglieri General Ability Tests: A call for equity in gifted education. Free Spirit Publishing.
7.
CampbellM. C. (2021). Identifying and supporting gifted English language learners. Routledge.
8.
CardD.GiulianoL. (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
9.
CarmanC. A.WaltherC. A. P.BartschR. A. (2018). Using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 nonverbal battery to identify the gifted/talented: An investigation of demographic effects and norming plans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097
10.
ChinM.QuinnD.DhaliwalT.LovisonV. (2020). Bias in the air: A nationwide exploration of teachers’ implicit racial attitudes, aggregate bias, and student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937240
11.
ChrispeelsJ. H.RiveroE. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119–169. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje7602_7
12.
CimerS. O. (2011). The effect of portfolios on students’ learning: Student teachers’ views. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.552183
13.
CochranW. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). Wiley.
14.
CordrayD.PionG.BrandtC.MolefeA.TobyM. (2012). The impact of the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) program on student reading achievement. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537982.pdf
15.
CoronadoJ. M.LewisK. 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
DeCuir-GunbyJ. T.BindraV. G. (2022). How does teacher bias influence students?: An introduction to the special issue on teachers’ implicit attitudes, instructional practices, and student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 78(1), 101523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101523
18.
ErlingE.FoltzA.SiwikF.BrummerM. (2022). Teaching English to linguistically diverse students from migration backgrounds: From deficit perspectives to pockets of possibility. Languages, 7(3), 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030186
FisherR. A. (1949). The design of experiments (5th ed.). Oliver & Boyd.
21.
FordD. Y. (2003). Equity and excellence: Culturally diverse students in gifted education. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 388–402). Pearson Education.
22.
FordD. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Routledge.
23.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. 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
24.
FordD. Y.ScottM. T. (2013). Culturally responsive response to intervention: Meeting the needs of students who are gifted and culturally different. Routledge.
25.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bergin & Garvey.
26.
GarcíaO.KleifgenJ. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
27.
GentryM.GrayA.WhitingG. W.MaedaY.PereiraN. (2019). Access denied/system failure. Gifted education in the United States: Laws, access, equity, and missingness across the country by locale, Title I school status, and race. Report cards, technical reports, and websites. Gifted Education Research & Resource Institute, College of Education, Purdue University.
28.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
29.
GrissomJ. A.RodriguezL. A.KernE. C. (2017). Teacher and principal diversity and the representation of students of color in gifted programs: Evidence from national data. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 396–422. https://doi.org/10.1086/690274
30.
HalleT.HairE.WandnerL.McNamaraM.ChienN. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early vs. later English language proficiency among English Language Learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004
31.
HamiltonR.McCoachD. B.TutwilerM. S.SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.MunR. U. (2017). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053
32.
HarrisB.PluckerJ. A.RappK. E.MartínezR. 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
33.
HarrisB.RappK. E.MartínezR. S.PluckerJ. 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
34.
HodgesJ.GentryM. (2021). Underrepresentation in gifted education in the context of rurality and socioeconomic status. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(2), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20969143
35.
HodgesJ.TayJ.MaedaY.GentryM. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107
36.
HodgmanM. R. (2014). Using authentic assessments to better facilitate teaching and learning: The case for student portfolios. Journal of Studies in Education, 4(3), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v4i3.6149
37.
Iowa Department of Education (2008). Identifying gifted and talented English language learners. Author.
JohnsenS. K. (2022). The assessment standard in gifted education: Identifying gifted students. In JohnsenS. K. (Ed.), NAGC pre-k–grade 12 gifted education programming standards (pp. 94–127). Routledge.
40.
JungJ.JacksonR.TownendG.McgregorM. (2022). Equity in gifted education: The importance of definitions and a focus on underachieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 149–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037945
41.
KimK. H. (2011). The APA 2009 division 10 debate: Are the Torrance tests of creative thinking still relevant in the 21st century?Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021917
42.
KingoreB. W. (1990). The Kingore Observation Inventory (KOI). Leadership Publishers.
43.
KingoreB. (2001). Kingore observation inventory (2nd ed.). PA Publishing.
44.
LakinJ. M. (2012). Assessing the cognitive abilities of culturally and linguistically diverse students: Predictive validity of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal tests. Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 756–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21630
45.
LeeH.KarakisN.Olcay AkceB.Azzam TuzgenA.KaramiS.GentryM.MaedaY. (2021). A meta-analytic evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring its validity evidence and effectiveness in equitably identifying gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986221997800
46.
LeeL. E.RinnA. N.Rambo-HernandezK. E. (2024). What happens after nomination? Evaluating the probability of gifted identification with the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231222886
47.
LohmanD. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900203
48.
LohmanD. F. (2012). Cognitive Abilities Test Form 7: Research and development guide. Riverside.
49.
LohmanD. F. (2013). Cognitive Abilities Test Form 7 Score interpretation guide Version 2. Riverside.
50.
LohmanD. F.KorbK. A.LakinJ. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321808
51.
LongD.McCoachD.SiegleD.CallahanC.GubbinsE. (2023). Inequality at the starting line: Underrepresentation in gifted identification and disparities in early achievement. AERA Open, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231171535
52.
MatthewsM. S. (2014). Advanced academics, inclusive education, and English language learners. In MatthewsM. S.CastellanoJ. A. (Eds.), Talent development in English language learners (pp. 11–14). Prufrock Press.
53.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.MillerE. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256
54.
MunR. U.HimmlerV.LangleyS. D.WareS.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (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
55.
MunR. U.LangleyS. D.WareS.GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.McCoachD. B.HamiltonR. (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
56.
NaglieriJ. A. (2008). Naglieri nonverbal ability test (2nd ed.). NCS Pearson.
57.
NaglieriJ. A. (2018). NNAT3 special report: NNAT lower levels 2018 updated norms. Pearson.
PetersS. J. (2021). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
62.
PetersS. J.GentryM.WhitingG. W.McBeeM. 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
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2017). Schools are places for talent development: Promoting creative productive giftedness. In PluckerJ. A.RinnA. N.MakelM. C. (Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 32–51). Routledge.
67.
RinnA. N.MunR. U.HodgesJ. (2022). 2020–2021 State of the States in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://nagc.org/page/state-of-the-states-report
Short, K. G. with the Worlds of Words Community (2019). Critical content analysis of visual images. In JohnsonH.MathisJ.ShortK. (Eds.), Critical content analysis of visual images in books for young people: Reading images (pp. 1–22). Routledge.
70.
SteltenpohlC. N.LustickH.MeyerM. S.LeeL. E.StegengaS. M.ReyesL. S.RenbargerR. L. (2023). Rethinking transparency and rigor from a qualitative open science perspective. Journal of Trial & Error, 4(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr7
TorranceE. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual (Research Edition). Personnel Press.
82.
TorranceE. P. (1969). Creativity. What research says to the teacher. National Education Association.
83.
TorranceE. P. (1974). Norms technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking. Ginn and Co.
84.
United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights (2015). Dear colleague letter: English learner students and limited English proficient parents. Author.
85.
UrestiR.GoertzJ.BernalE. (2002). Maximizing achievement for potentially gifted and talented and regular minority students in a primary classroom. Roeper Review, 25(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554194
YoonS. Y.GentryM. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330564
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.
