Running head: UNDERRPRESENATION IN TALENTED AND GIFTED PROGRAMS FOR MINORITIES

Underrepresentation in Talented and Gifted Programs for Minorities

ED 380
Megan Kalina
Eastern Oregon University CUESTE Program, Coos Bay

Introduction
Alan has high grades, high scores on standardized tests, and aptitude tests. What happens
when a student has these characteristics? Teachers will usually nominate this individual to be
tested for the Talented and Gifted Program. What about Maria who is an English Language
Learner but is an amazing creative thinker? Or what about Tyrone an African American student
who has shown time and time again that he has strong leadership capabilities? Or Vincent who is
receiving Special Education services but has the vocabulary of a well-educated adult? This leads
me to my question: Why are minorities underrepresented in Talented and Gifted programs?
Definition
I think it is important to define what a Talented and Gifted student is according to law. (I
will be using the acronym TAG throughout this paper for the term Talented and Gifted.) It
will in-turn make it easier to see why students like Maria, Tyrone, and Vincent deserve a
placement in a TAG program.
Children deserve a placement in a TAG program if they meet the following the criteria.
According to the Oregon Department of Education (2012) there are five distinct categories
that children may fall into to qualify for the program. These categories cover a variety of
talents. 1. General intellectual ability. 2. Unusual academic ability in one or more subject
areas. 3. Creative ability. 4. Leadership ability. 5. Ability in the visual or performing arts. A
sixth category has been added by the National Society of Talented & Gifted (2013) and that
is psychomotor ability. Many students whom have creative, leadership, psychomotor, visual
or performing arts ability are being overlooked in our education system.

White students represent close to 68% of the TAG programs in the United States. Why is
that? This goes against the outcome of the 1954 Brown v. the Board of Education Topeka,
Kansas. The court declared that, Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal
(Robison, 2005). The Jacob J. Javitz Gifted and Talented Students Act of 1988 provides financial
assistance to state and local education agencies and gives highest priority to students from
diverse ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, and
students with disabilities (Elhoweris, 2008). The underrepresentation still persists.
Currently all TAG programs are suffering due to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The
NCLB is focused on closing the achievement gap between low and high performing students. In
order to close this gap, the primary focus has been placed on the lower performing students. The
funds allocated to TAG programs are less than adequate. Florida is the only state that is
providing sufficient and equitable support for TAG programs (Baker, 2003). Many are referring
to this as the Robin Hood effects. The Robin Hood effect refers to the saying where you take
from the rich to give to the poor. In this case, TAG students are being overlooked while the focus
is being put on the lower performing students. What does this mean for our minority TAG
students? More underrepresentation.
In a study done by Sharon Michael-Caldwell (2011) on examining the underrepresentation in
TAG programs for African American students, she came up with many potential reasons for
minorities being underrepresented. The common themes that were found in this study were
misperceptions regarding a students race and ability, the lack of parental education on these
programs, the need for professional development training in regards to serving gifted minority
students, and issues with the identification process.

The misperceptions that teachers and administrators have on minority students are
astonishing. Clearly, the one required multi-cultural education class required for licensure is not
enough to clear up these misperceptions. A look into an educators own education program may
allow us to see the gaps and fix them for future teachers going into the field.
Identification
Upon seeing the statistics for the number of white students in TAG programs, my mind
instantly went to how are these students being identified? It was quite obvious to me that there
was a bias in the way these students were being evaluated. There are a few standard ways in
which TAG students are identified. The most common way is through a recommendation from
the students teacher. The students teacher will see a strength, usually academic and request that
this student be tested for TAG services. These tests include intelligence tests and aptitude tests.
A very small percentage of parents request that their child be tested.
Studies have found that teachers are more likely to choose students from upper
socioeconomic status compared to students from lower economic status (Elhoweris, 2008).
Teachers have to want to become more culturally sensitive. This will require deliberate action
upon the teacher.
Characteristics
There are characteristics that define a Talented and Gifted student. The characteristics
encompass a broad set of skills and talents that most teachers overlook. The different categories
were briefly mentioned earlier in this paper. We will revisit these categories and add important
characteristics that accompany these categories.

According to the National Society for the Gifted & Talented (2013) these are the key
categories and the characteristics for each of those categories.
Creative Thinking

Independent thinker

Exhibits original thinking in oral and written expression

Comes up with several solutions to a given problem

Possesses a sense of humor

Creates and invents

Challenged by creative tasks

Improvises often

Does not mind being different from the crowd

General Intellectual Ability

Formulates abstractions

Processes information in complex ways

Observant

Excited about new ideas

Enjoys hypothesizing

Learns rapidly

Uses a large vocabulary

Inquisitive

Self-starter

Specific Academic Ability

Good memorization ability

Advanced comprehension

Acquires basic skill knowledge quickly

Widely read in special interest area

High academic success in special interest area

Pursues special interest with enthusiasm and vigor

Leadership

Assumes responsibility

High expectations for self and others

Fluent, concise self expression

Foresees consequences and implications of decisions

Good judgment in decision making

Likes structure

Well-liked by peers

Self-confident

Organized

Psychomotor

Challenged by difficult athletic activities

Exhibits precision in movement

Enjoys participation in various athletic opportunities

Excels in motor skills

Well coordinated

Good manipulative skills

High energy level

Visual/ Performing Arts

Outstanding in sense of spatial relationships

Unusual ability in expressing self, feeling, moods, etc., through dance, drama, music,
etc.

Good motor coordination

Exhibits creative expression

Desire for producing own product (not content with mere copying)

Observant

These six categories cover a broad range of talents or skills. The most common TAG
child to be identified are those who perform well academically. The students in the other
categories are less likely to be identified. The majority of our minorities fall into one of these
other categories such as psychomotor, leadership, visual or performing arts, and etc.
There are students such as English language learners or students with special needs that
are indeed deficient with certain skills. However, they may be shining in another area. Due to the
fact that these students are labeled ELL or special needs, it leads the teacher to assume that they
are lacking in all skill areas. It is important to spend some time on the characteristics that these
students may show because they do differ from their peers.
Students with special needs but also show TAG characteristics are called twiceexceptional students. These students receive special education services at their school. A student
may have Aspergers syndrome but be extremely well versed on a particular topic. This is

common with students with Aspergers as they tend to be very fluent on one topic. The fact that
this child has special needs overshadows their talent.
English language learners are also severely underrepresented in TAG programs.
Communication is the barrier for these students and the students families. Parents of ELL
students are often not capable of being advocates for their child. Teachers see the language
deficiency and overlook other possible talents due to the fact that they do not appear to fit the
standard TAG student. If the ELL student makes it through this process and is referred, they
almost always do poorly on the test. The tests are written for white middle class students. The
big red flag is these tests are written in English. This student could be very intelligent and
capable of the content in their native language but can not show this skill due to the lack of
speaking English proficiently.
Both of these types of students present a different and unique set of challenges.
Appropriate programming can be made available to these students. Failure to provide necessary
educational services, including more challenging work may lead to an overall underachievement
amongst these groups of students (Castanello & Diaz, 2002).

Changing the Identification Process

School districts, states, and the government want more minorities to be in TAG programs. It
comes up frequently. It is not that white children are more skilled or smarter than minorities. The
problem lies within the way we are identifying these children. We must demand the best effort
and performance from all students, whether they are gifted or less able, affluent or
disadvantaged, whether destined for college, the farm, or industry (National Commission on

Excellence in Education, 1983). In order to have more minority children qualify for TAG,
teachers need to be looking for other qualities. Once referred, these students need to be tested
with something other than intelligence or aptitude tests. There currently is not an explicit
identification policy on identifying TAG students from minority groups (Harris, 2009).
The Chadwell Transformative for Gifted Program Reform was developed from the
Michael-Chadwell study (2011). In this CTFGPR model includes three key recommendations. 1.
Federal government definition for talented and gifted students needs to be implemented at the
state level. 2. Assess the nomination, identification, and placement procedures. 3. Create staff
and professional development programs that target K-12 educators to teach them about the TAG
program and nominations. In this model the three recommendations are interrelated. One change
can not happen in hopes of changing the whole system. It is not a linear process but a constant
state of balance.
Conclusion
From my research I have found that minorities are underrepresented in TAG programs
because there is a lack of knowledge about what characteristics a Talented and Gifted student
may possess. In order to change the representation in TAG programs there needs to be
awareness. The awareness needs to start at a level that is higher up than our teachers,
administration, or state. Once there is awareness then there will be change.
A talk needs to begin on a Federal level. A definition needs to be adopted for all states as the
CCSS has done. Once this definition has been developed then there needs to be professional
development meetings to teach our educators about Talented and Gifted programs and the
referral process. The testing and referral process also need to be addressed because the tests are

10

no longer fitting the needs of our current population. The programs also need to be changed in
order to fit the needs of the students who will now be considered eligible for these new
programs.

11

References
Baker, B. D., & McIntire, J. (2003). Evaluating State Funding for Gifted Education Programs.
Roeper Review, 25(4), 173-79.
Bracey, G. W. (2008). NCLB: Achievement Robin Hood?. Principal Leadership, 9(3), 47-49.
Castellano, J. A., & Diaz, E. I. (Eds.). (2002,). Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented
education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Elhoweris, H. (2008). Teacher Judgment in Identifying Gifted/Talented Students. Multicultural
Education, 15(3), 35-38.
Harris, B., Plucker, J. A., Rapp, K. E., & Martinez, R. S. (2009). Identifying Gifted and Talented
English Language Learners: A Case Study. Journal For The Education Of The Gifted,
32(3), 368-393.
Michael-Chadwell, S. (2011). Examining the Underrepresentation of Underserved Students in
Gifted Programs from a Transformational Leadership Vantage Point. Journal For The
Education Of The Gifted, 34(1), 99-130.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Society for Talented & Gifted. (2013). Characteristics/Signs for Gifted Children.
Retrieved from http://www.nsgt.org/giftedness-defined/#4
Robinson, M. W. (2005). Brown: Why we must remember. Marquette law review, 89, 537.