Enhancing Equity in Gifted Education: A Critical Content Analysis of Identifying Emergent Bilinguals in North Texas

Abstract

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.

Keywords

gifted education emergent bilinguals identification underrepresentation critical content analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abedi

(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

Abedi

(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

Acar

Sen

Cayirdag

(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

Aganza

J. S.

Godinez

Smith

Gonzalez

L. G.

Robinson-Zañartu

(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

Anastasi

Urbina

(1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.

Brulles

Lansdowne

Naglieri

J. A.

(2022). Understanding and using the Naglieri General Ability Tests: A call for equity in gifted education. Free Spirit Publishing.

Campbell

M. C.

(2021). Identifying and supporting gifted English language learners. Routledge.

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

Carman

C. A.

Walther

C. A. P.

Bartsch

R. 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.

Chin

Quinn

Dhaliwal

Lovison

(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.

Chrispeels

J. H.

Rivero

(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.

Cimer

S. 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.

Cochran

W. G.

(1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). Wiley.

14.

Cordray

Pion

Brandt

Molefe

Toby

(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.

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

16.

National Association for Gifted Children & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted . (2015). 2014–2015 state of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. https://cdn.ymaws.com/nagc.org/resource/resmgr/state_of_the_states_report/2014-2015_state_of_the_state.pdf

17.

DeCuir-Gunby

J. T.

Bindra

V. 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.

Erling

Foltz

Siwik

Brummer

(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

19.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat.1177 (2015-2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177

20.

Fisher

R. A.

(1949). The design of experiments (5th ed.). Oliver & Boyd.

21.

Ford

D. Y.

(2003). Equity and excellence: Culturally diverse students in gifted education. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 388–402). Pearson Education.

22.

Ford

D. Y.

(2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Routledge.

23.

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

24.

Ford

D. Y.

Scott

M. T.

(2013). Culturally responsive response to intervention: Meeting the needs of students who are gifted and culturally different. Routledge.

25.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bergin & Garvey.

26.

García

Kleifgen

J. A.

(2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

27.

Gentry

Gray

Whiting

G. W.

Maeda

Pereira

(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.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(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.

Grissom

J. A.

Rodriguez

L. A.

Kern

E. 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.

Halle

Hair

Wandner

McNamara

Chien

(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.

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Tutwiler

M. S.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

Callahan

C. M.

Brodersen

A. V.

Mun

R. 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.

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

33.

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

34.

Hodges

Gentry

(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.

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

36.

Hodgman

M. 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.

38.

Iowa Testing Programs. (n.d.). Iowa testing programs. https://education.uiowa.edu/research/research-centers-and-research-initiatives/iowa-testing-programs

39.

Johnsen

S. K.

(2022). The assessment standard in gifted education: Identifying gifted students. In Johnsen

S. K.

(Ed.), NAGC pre-k–grade 12 gifted education programming standards (pp. 94–127). Routledge.

40.

Jung

Jackson

Townend

Mcgregor

(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.

Kim

K. 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.

Kingore

B. W.

(1990). The Kingore Observation Inventory (KOI). Leadership Publishers.

43.

Kingore

(2001). Kingore observation inventory (2nd ed.). PA Publishing.

44.

Lakin

J. 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.

Lee

Karakis

Olcay Akce

Azzam Tuzgen

Karami

Gentry

Maeda

(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.

Lee

L. E.

Rinn

A. N.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. 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.

Lohman

D. 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.

Lohman

D. F.

(2012). Cognitive Abilities Test Form 7: Research and development guide. Riverside.

49.

Lohman

D. F.

(2013). Cognitive Abilities Test Form 7 Score interpretation guide Version 2. Riverside.

50.

Lohman

D. F.

Korb

K. A.

Lakin

J. 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.

Long

McCoach

Siegle

Callahan

Gubbins

(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.

Matthews

M. S.

(2014). Advanced academics, inclusive education, and English language learners. In Matthews

M. S.

Castellano

J. A.

(Eds.), Talent development in English language learners (pp. 11–14). Prufrock Press.

53.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Miller

E. 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.

Mun

R. U.

Himmler

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

55.

Mun

R. U.

Langley

S. D.

Ware

Gubbins

E. J.

Siegle

Callahan

C. M.

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

56.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2008). Naglieri nonverbal ability test (2nd ed.). NCS Pearson.

57.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2018). NNAT3 special report: NNAT lower levels 2018 updated norms. Pearson.

58.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2011). Position statement: Identifying and serving culturally and linguistically diverse gifted students. https://cdn.ymaws.com/nagc.org/resource/resmgr/knowledge-center/position-statements/Identifying_and_Serving_Cult.pdf

59.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Definitions, terms & FAQs. https://nagc.org/general/custom.asp?page=definition-terms-faq

60.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2013). English language learners. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96

61.

Peters

S. 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.

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

63.

Plake

B. S.

(1979). The interpretation of norm-based scores from individualized testing using the Iowa tests of basic skills. Psychology in the Schools, 16(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197901)16:1<8::AID-PITS2310160103>3.0.CO;2-6

64.

Region 10 ESC. (n.d.). Accessible R10 regional map. https://www.region10.org/about-us/r10-regional-map/accessible-r10-regional-map/

65.

Region 11 ESC. (n.d.). Region 11 school districts. https://www.esc11.net/Page/5380

66.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2017). Schools are places for talent development: Promoting creative productive giftedness. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

M. C.

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 32–51). Routledge.

67.

Rinn

A. N.

Mun

R. U.

Hodges

(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

68.

Riverside Insights. (2023, March). CogAT: Testing time, number of items per subtest and completion criteria. https://support.riversideinsights.com/support/solutions/articles/70000585558-cogat-testing-time-number-of-items-per-subtest-and-completion-criteria-

69.

Short, K. G. with the Worlds of Words Community (2019). Critical content analysis of visual images. In Johnson

Mathis

Short

(Eds.), Critical content analysis of visual images in books for young people: Reading images (pp. 1–22). Routledge.

70.

Steltenpohl

C. N.

Lustick

Meyer

M. S.

Lee

L. E.

Stegenga

S. M.

Reyes

L. S.

Renbarger

R. 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

71.

Texas Education Agency. (2022, August 5). 2022 accountability manual for Texas public school districts and campuses. https://tea.texas.gov/texas-schools/accountability/academic-accountability/performance-reporting/2022-accountability-manual-full.pdf

72.

Texas Education Agency. (2015). Student assessment. https://www.texasgtresource.org/student-assessment/

73.

Texas Education Agency. (2019, April). Texas state plan for the education of gifted/talented students. https://tea.texas.gov/academics/special-student-populations/gifted-and-talented-education/gtstateplan20191.pdf

74.

Texas Education Agency. (2022, April 1) Gifted talented education. https://tea.texas.gov/academics/special-student-populations/gifted-and-talented-education

75.

Texas Education Agency. (2023, April). Emergent bilingual students in Texas. Fact sheet #1. https://www.txel.org/media/hxcfzvqe/factsheet1-statistics.pdf

76.

Texas Education Agency. (n.d.a). Education service centers map. https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/other-services/education-service-centers/education-service-centers-map

77.

Texas Education Agency. (n.d.b). Gifted English language learners. https://gtequity.tea.texas.gov/gifted-english-language-learners

78.

Texas Education Agency. (n.d.c). STAAR resources. https://tea.texas.gov/student-assessment/testing/staar/staar-resources

79.

Texas Education Code §29.121. (2021). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm#29.121

80.

Texas Education Code, §5.001(4). (2021). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.5.htm#5.001

81.

Torrance

E. P.

(1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual (Research Edition). Personnel Press.

82.

Torrance

E. P.

(1969). Creativity. What research says to the teacher. National Education Association.

83.

Torrance

E. 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.

Uresti

Goertz

Bernal

(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

86.

U. S. Department of Education (2020). Ensuring English learner students can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-el-students-201501.pdf

87.

White

Marsh

(2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053

88.

Yoon

S. Y.

Gentry

(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.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB