Eligibility of Historically Underrepresented Students Referred for Gifted Education in a Rural School District: A Case Study

Abstract

This case study describes a rural school district's efforts to identify historically underrepresented gifted students (HUGS) more effectively than in the past. The district developed new policy; disseminated the policy with lists of characteristics of HUGS; provided a workshop for first-grade teachers to encourage early referrals; and provided alternative tests to students who were referred for evaluation and who scored at least one standard deviation above the mean on an individually administered comprehensive intelligence test, but who did not score high enough to qualify for placement according to state regulations. Of the historically underrepresented children referred for testing, 29% qualified for placement in the gifted program. The county's efforts appeared to increase placement of HUGS; however, the new policy excluded some HUGS who would have been identified under the old policy. Consequently, the county made a decision to combine elements of the new and old policies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baldwin

A. Y.

(1984). The Baldwin Identification Matrix I for the identification of the gifted and talented: A handbook for its use. Unionville, NH: Trillium Press

Bernal

(2003). Evaluating progress toward equitable representation of historically underserved groups in gifted and talented programs. In Castellano

J. A.

(Ed.), Special populations in gifted education: Working with diverse gifted learners (pp. 177–186). Boston: Pearson Education

Birch

J. W.

(2000). Is any identification procedure necessary? In Renzulli

J. S.

(Ed.), Introduction to the identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 1–10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (Original work published 1984)

Borland

J. H.

Schnur

Wright

(2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13–32

Borland

J. H.

Wright

(1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164–171

Dirks

Quarfoth

(1981). Selecting children for gifted classes: Choosing for breadth vs. choosing for depth. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 437–449

Ford

D. Y.

(1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising programs and practices. New York: Teachers College Press

Fox

L. H.

Brody

Tobin

(Eds.). (1983). Learning disabled/gifted children: Identification and programming. Baltimore: University Park Press

Frazier

M. M.

(1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 234–245

10.

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, 103–111

11.

Morris

J. E.

(2002). African American students and gifted education [Electronic version]. Roeper Review, 24, 59–62

12.

Pegnato

C. W.

Birch

J. W.

(1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 48, 300–304

13.

Sapon-Shevin

(2003). Equity, excellence, and school reform: Why is finding common ground so hard? In Borland

J. H.

(Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 127–142). New York: Teachers College Press

14.

Salvia

Ysseldyke

(2000). Assessment (8th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin

15.

Slocumb

P. D.

Payne

R. K.

(2000). Removing the mask: Giftedness in poverty. Highlands, TX: RFT

16.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). State and county quick facts: West Virginia. Retrieved October 17, 2003, from http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/54000.html

17.

West Virginia Department of Education Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities Policy 2419 (2003)