Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

Implications of Socioeconomic Status and Race on Identification of Gifted Students

Amy L. Zimmermann
St. Bonaventure University

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

Abstract
In this literature review, I discuss the implications of race and socioeconomic status on the
identification and representation of our nations students in gifted and talented programs. A case
is built as to why low-socioeconomic status, African-American students are underrepresented in
gifted programming due to family and cultural background, teacher referral, and testing for
giftedness. Suggestions are offered as means to increase the number of low-socioeconomic,
African-American students being identified as gifted and subsequently being placed in gifted
educational programs.

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

Background
Socioeconomic status (SES) is often measured as a combination of education, income,
and occupation. It is commonly conceptualized as the social standing or class of an
individual or group. When viewed through a social class lens, privilege, power, and
control are emphasized. Furthermore, an examination of SES as a gradient or continuous
variable reveals inequities in access to and distribution of resources. (American
Psychological Association, 2014, p. 1)
In terms of education, low-SES figures are often rooted in the number of free and reduced
lunches supplied by a certain state, city, or district. For example in New York State, a child may
receive free lunch if his or her family is at 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.
Reduced lunches are obtained if the childs family is at 185 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines (Department of Commerce, 2014).
According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey,
47.7 million people or 14.3 percent of the United States population had income below the
poverty level. By race, the highest national poverty rates were American Indians and
Alaska Natives (27.0 percent) and Blacks or African Americans (25.8 percent). The
2007-2011 national poverty rates for Whites was 11.6 percent and most states (43) as
well as the District of Columbia had poverty rates lower than 14.0 percent for this group
(United States Census Bureau, 2013, p. 2).
The correlation between race and low-SES is its reflected in our nations gifted and
talented programs. Poor children, minority children, and poor minority children are
underrepresented in gifted programs. This is especially pronounced within the major urban
3

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

school districts of the U.S. Research has indicated that most of the students who qualify and are
placed in gifted programs are predominately Asian or White students. Black students are
estimated to be underrepresented by as much as 55 percent in such programs (OlszewskiKubilius & Thomson, 2010).
Implications of Family and Culture
Many research attempts have been made in order to offer an explanation for this
phenomenon. Culture, social attitudes, and family structure are often cited when discussing the
lack of inclusion of African Americans and other minority groups in programs for gifted
students.
There are a number of specific parental practices linked to early achievement.
Monitoring school progress, reading to the child, and parental involvement in school are all
beneficial actions that correlate positively with early academic success. Its also suggested that
early parental teaching, enriched home environments, a focus on providing cultural enrichment,
support for extra lessons, monitoring of practice, modeling persistence, and encouragement of
risk taking are ways in which families support the development of skills and attitudes associated
with high achievement. These facets of education are often provided by high-SES parents to
their children. Low-SES parents, on the other hand, are often preoccupied with necessary dayto-day matters and a lack of financial resources. This makes it difficult for these parents to
support their talented children in the same way that more advantages families can (OlszewskiKubilius & Thomson, 2010).
White mothers, in general, have more socioeconomic resources than Black mothers; they
are more likely to have incomes above the poverty limit, more likely to own a car, less likely to
4

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

have children from a prior relationship, and more likely to report living in a safe neighborhood.
Access to health care and child care follows a similar pattern (Hummer & Hamilton, 2010).
With this being the case, it seems near impossible for African-American children to get the
support, guidance, and nourishment they need in order to become high achievers in todays
schools. Teachers must understand that the home lives of students are just that, home lives. Its
not something that most teachers have control over. A student wakes up in the morning at that
home and when leaving school for the day, thats where the student is going. What a teacher
does have control over however is the environment, structure, attitude, and effect of her
classroom and teaching on her students. This is supported by an interview with a third grade
teacher.
The assumption is made that if we understand to a greater degree the characteristics of
gifted students from culturally different groups and the contexts in which these characteristics are
developed and exhibited, we will be better able to identify gifted students (Hunsaker & Others,
2007).
In one model, nine characteristics of cultural style are identified as being pervasive in
African-American culture. Spirituality, harmony, oral tradition, affect, verve, communalism,
movement, social, time perspective, and expressive individualism are all key components of
African-American cultural style. Movement refers to many African-Americans being tactile and
kinesthetic learns who would prefer to be involved in their learning experiences. These active
learners may be easily distracted if not physically and psychologically involved. Harmony refers
to and ability to read the environment well and to read nonverbal behaviors proficiently.
Because of this, students recognize if they are unwanted in class and may become disinterested

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

in their learning. Communalism refers to a cooperative style of learning where students would
rather collaborate with friends than compete against them (Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005).
With this knowledge, teachers can make better choices as to how to engage their high
achieving African-American students in the classroom. Placing children in small group settings
allows for cooperation. Teaching through song or chants and allowing students to express their
knowledge through skits, oral presentations, or debates will aid in the achievement of orally
expressive students. Even simple tactics such as playing background music or offering choice in
instruction will help students reach their academic potential.
Implications of Teacher Referral and Identification
Teacher referral practices have also been cited as a chief factor in the underrepresentation
of low-SES, African-American students in gifted and talented education programs. A number of
reasons have been highlighted as to why teachers fail to refer such students. Bias against certain
minority groups, lower expectation for these students, and unfamiliarity with the unique
characteristics of giftedness that may manifest in different minority groups are all possible
explanations as to why our low-SES, African-American students are not being referred or
identified for gifted programs. Furthermore, its been stated that teachers are less likely to notice
abilities and more likely to focus on problems for minority and disadvantaged students.
(Neumeister & Others, 2007).
In one study, paid lunch students received more than three times as many referrals for
gifted programs than free or reduced lunch students. In the same study, almost 25% of Asian
students in a specific school were nominated for gifted programming while only 5% of African
Americans received a nomination. And when low-SES, African American Students were
6

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

referred, the actual identification of these students after a screening test was less accurate than
that of high-SES non-minority groups (McBee, 2006).
Teachers often do not take into account that giftedness is culturally defined. As one
researcher stated, giftedness results from the interplay of culture, language, world-view,
conceptual style, values and personality. Intelligence is a difficult thing to recognize outside of
cultural context. Because of this, it is imperative that teachers consider the cultural context of
their students when interpreting their abilities if a change is to be made in the representation of
low-SES, African American students in gifted programs (Neumeister & Others, 2005).
Professional development has been recommended as a way to remedy this. The purpose
of the professional development would be to train teachers to recognize how core attributes of
giftedness may manifest in economically disadvantaged students. Its also advocated that
training is put into place to facilitate teacher awareness and referral practices of underrepresented
students for gifted programs. Opportunities for teacher reflection and revision on their own
beliefs should be an essential part of professional development as well.
Testing
As a rule, low-SES, African American students do worse on gifted screening and
standardized tests than their high-SES, non-minority peers. This is partially due to cultural
learning styles, but its also a result of the set of experiences that culturally diverse students live
through. It creates a different mental processing ability in testing situations. Because of this,
basing gifted identification solely on IQ scores is seen as outdated and unfair to minority
populations. Many alternative tests, matrices, and in-class approaches have been proposed as
alternative assessments for gifted identification and programming.
7

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

In the Baldwin Identification Matrix, standardized and non-standardized assessment

strategies are combined with human qualities of school and non-school achievements to form a
more encompassing representation of talent for high achieving students. Dynamic assessment
techniques are also supported as a way to identify and classify gifted students. The Advanced
Ravens Progressive Matrix is a test that asks students to find the missing piece of several
complex puzzles. This test is recommended as a screening device of intellectual ability for
culturally diverse students. The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test uses a similar method and is
gaining popularity as a reliable assessment for the identification of diverse students who might
have not been identified using traditional screening methods.
In-class methods are being promoted as a starting place for identification as well. Peer
nominations and self-nominations have seen varied success, but the idea is that if academically
responsible students are able to choose a gifted program after knowing the objectives and
requirements of that program, the students will be better able to assess their own abilities and
motivation. Teachers can also be attentive to several factors of early identification. Open-ended
tasks and verbal tasks with familiar concepts and vocabulary should be provided with the
mindset that gifted students can be located through kindergarten. Teachers should also be
looking for students that have the ability to meaningfully manipulate symbols, think logically,
reason by analogy, and apply previous knowledge to new situations. By employing these
strategies, teachers can help to promote gifted education for low-SES, African American students
(Baldwin, 2005).

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

Closing Thoughts
Underrepresentation of low-SES, African American students in gifted programs is a
highly complex issue that affects our entire country. Teachers arent able to identify gifted
students from this population for several reasons discussed in this literature review, students
arent given the opportunity to reach their full academic potential, and our nation is losing out on
countless gifted minds that could be making a world of difference. Its a poignant issue that
seems to be either unknown or not important enough to be brought to the forefront of our
education system. From several personal observations and conversations, this was made clear to
me. I attended a ten day professional development series throughout which hundreds of
strategies were proposed to make the school and the students better. Gifted education was not
mentioned once. I asked several teachers, with years of experience raging from 1-18 years, if
they had ever seen a gifted program in a school. All of the answers were no.
Gifted, low-SES, African American students need an advocate for their fair chance in
education. Teachers must be educated on the facts of underrepresentation and taught how to
identify and support gifted students from this population so that they can become high achieving,
gifted adults. If the effort is made, the future holds much promise for our nation.

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

References

Baldwin, A. Y. (2005). Identification Concerns and Promises for Gifted Students of Diverse
Populations. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 105-114.
DeVillo, M. (2014). Federal register: income eligibility guidelines (12467-12469). Retrieved
from U.S. Department of Commerce website:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-04788.pdf
Education & Socioeconomic Status. (2014). Retrieved from the American Psychological
Association website: http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheeteducation.aspx
Hamilton, E. R., & Hummer, R. A. (2010). Race and Ethnicity in Fragile Families. Future of
Children, 20(2), 113-131.
Hunsaker, S. L., Frasier, M. M., King, L. L., Watts-Warren, B., Cramond, B., & Krisel, S.
(1995). Family Influences on the Achievement of Economically Disadvantaged Students:
Implications for Gifted Identification and Programming (RM95206). Retrieved from The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented website:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/hunsfra2.html
Macartney, S., Bishaw, A., & Fontenot, K. (2013, January). Poverty Rates for Selected Detailed
Race and Hispanic Groups by State and Place: 2007-2011. Retrieved from United States
Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

10

Running head: IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND RACE ON IDENTIFICATION

OF GIFTED STUDENTS

Mcbee, M. T. (2006). A Descriptive Analysis of Referral Sources for Gifted Identification

Screening by Race and Socioeconomic Status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 17(2), 103-111.
Moore, J. L., Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Underachievement Among Gifted Students of
Color: Implications for Educators. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 167-177.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. L. (2010). Gifted Programming for Poor or Minority
Urban Students: Issues and Lessons Leraned. Gifted Child Today, 33(4), 58-64.
Spears Neumeister, K. L., Cheryll M. Adams, Rebecca L. Pierce, Jerrell C. Cassady, and

11