Development of an identification procedure for a large urban school corporation: identifying culturally diverse and academically gifted elementary students.

Urban schools typically have a high percentage of students who have been traditionally underserved in gifted programs. One of the major concerns in the field of gifted education is how to identify and serve culturally diverse and low socioeconomic (SES) students to increase their representation in gifted programs (Struck, 2003). Other concerns are teachers' attitudes toward identification of gifted students, as well as their reactions to who they think is "really" gifted. Research indicates that teachers develop their own conceptions of giftedness and tend to identify students who fit these conceptions (Campbell & Verna, 1998; Cashion & Sullenger, 1996).

Giftedness includes diversity; thus, the goals and practices of gifted education and multicultural education strive for the same outcomes, that is, helping all students reach their full potential (Briggs & Reis, 2004). Ford and Harris (1999) state that by 2020, minority students will comprise 46% of all public-school students. However, to date, in gifted education this increase in minority students has not been reflected in gifted-education programs, particularly in high-minority school systems. In his analysis of national surveys, Gallagher (2002) found that even though culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse students represented 33% of the school population, only 10% were performing at the highest levels. Parity in gifted programs is a major goal, but one that so far has been difficult to achieve.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the identification process of a Priority One Jacob K. Javits grant, Clustering Learners Unlocks Equity (Project CLUE), a university-school partnership which has resulted in an increase in minority representation in gifted programs. Because teachers often underestimate the abilities of minority students and fail to nominate them for gifted programs (Ford, 1998; Winfield, 1986), the second purpose of this paper is to describe teachers' reactions to the identification process after working with the gifted students identified through Project CLUE's screening process.

Literature Review

Identification of gifted students is often one of the most difficult elements of implementing a gifted program. Contributing to the problem are varying definitions of giftedness and commitments to publicly funded programs across states (Donovan & Cross, 2002). One significant problem that continually surfaces in the identification process is the lack of minority student representation. The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education has been well documented (e.g., Daniels, 1998; Ford & Harris, 1994; Fraiser, 1997; Morris, 2002). In a review of minority underrepresentation trends in gifted education, Ford (1998) found that over the past three decades, African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanic students have been consistently underrepresented in gifted programs, whereas White and Asian Americans have been consistently overrepresented.

Educators have proposed several explanations for the underrepresentation of minority students, including over-reliance on standardized tests, inequity in educational experiences, and cultural perceptions of, and attitudes toward, giftedness. Sarouphim (2002) noted that 90% of school districts rely on standardized achievement or aptitude tests for identification. Exclusive use of these instruments leads to underrepresentation of minority children and children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds for selection into gifted programs (Cornell, Delcourt, Goldberg, & Bland, 1995; Ford & Harmon, 2001; Maker, 1996).

In addition, educators have also noted the inequity in educational experiences as a contributing factor to underrepresentation of minorities in gifted programs. Ford (1998) noted that school districts with large minority populations often experience teacher shortages, and the schools are less likely to offer academically rigorous curricula. In addition, Ford highlighted that minority students are more likely to be placed in low-ability groups and non-college preparatory tracks. Collectively, these factors may contribute to underachievement among minority students. Ford concluded that poor educational experiences and underachievement negatively affect minority students' opportunities to participate in gifted programs because they may prevent students from developing quality products and work samples often used in the screening and identification process.

Finally, cultural perceptions and attitudes toward giftedness may also influence the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs. For example, Morris (2002) noted the African American peer group may negatively influence African American students' participation in gifted programs. Since the majority of the teachers and students in gifted programs are White, minority students may elect not to participate for fear of losing their culture. Educators may also hold preconceived notions of the abilities of minority students (Winfield, 1986), which prevent the educators from nominating these children for the identification and screening process. For example, minority students may have different cognitive and learning styles than White students. Therefore, teachers without training in gifted education may not recognize potentially gifted minority students who demonstrate different learning styles and behaviors as compared to those typically found in the dominant culture (Ford, 1998). Also, cultural prejudice and indifference to remedying the situation contribute to under-representation of minority students (Bracken, 2000; Ford, 1996; Passow & Frasier, 1996).

Educators have begun to respond to these issues contributing to underrepresentation by advocating for a more comprehensive identification/selection procedure that may better identify gifted minority students. Educators have called for a change in attitudes about giftedness, recognizing that giftedness is developmental, and that no single test can measure giftedness (Bernal, 1994; Cornell, Delcourt, Goldberg, & Bland, 1995; Donovan & Cross, 2002). They advocate for using alternative methods of identification, such as the use of nonverbal tests, authentic assessments, and multiple criteria, including parent and teacher nominations for identification. Researchers advocate the use of a nontraditional instrument to lessen cultural and social bias often found in standardized measures, to provide measures for ESL students, and to allow students to show evidence of potential in several ways (Callaban, Hunsaker, Adams, Moore, & Bland, 1995; Ford, 1994, 1996; Frasier, Garcia, & Passow, 1995; Frasier, Hunsaker, et al., 1995; Hiatt & Covington, 1991a, 1991b; Naglieri & Ford, 2003, 2005; Passow & Frasier, 1994). Alternative assessments, also referred to as authentic or performance-based assessments, typically simulate real-life situations and emphasize problem solving over knowledge-based problems (Sarouphim, 2002). Studies have found that minority students perform better on these alternative forms of assessment compared to traditional forms (Borland & Wright, 1994; Reid, Udall, Romanoff, & Algozzine, 1999).

Background

The Center for Gifted Studies and Talent Development (Center) at Ball State University (BSU) is composed of a group of 20 committed individuals who are focused on helping students realize their own talents academically, technologically, and artistically. Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) is a 41,087 student, urban-school corporation that has been challenged historically by factors that negatively influence urban education: negative perceptions of student potential, a poor sense of efficacy among many involved in the delivery of education services to children, the challenges of poverty, cultural bias, and lack of significant numbers of parents who are active partners in the educational process (Adams, Cross, Dixon, & Rice, 1998). Recently, a growing Hispanic population has added another layer of diversity to the corporation.

Over the last 6 years, IPS has initiated significant changes in its philosophy, belief structure, and implementation of gifted and talented education by embracing the belief that many children have gifts and talents, and that all schools must meet the needs of these students. IPS identifies academically talented and intellectually gifted students in keeping with Indiana's definition of giftedness. That is, a student who performs at, or shows the potential for performing at, an outstanding level of accomplishment when compared to other students of the same age, experience, or environment, and whose educational needs and/or individual academic growth cannot be met through grade level curriculum (Indiana Department of Education, 2003). Prior to the 2002-2003 academic year, each school served its gifted students in whatever manner it deemed appropriate. The types of services were inconsistent and varied from "clubs" to self-contained classes. Although there were individual identification plans implemented at each school, they were not based on current research, and the students identified by them did not reflect the diversity of the corporation.

Since 1994, BSU's Center has organized summer workshops for IPS, provided leadership at the monthly coordinators' meetings, offered endorsement classes on-site at IPS, and completed a prior Javits grant, Project GATE (Adams et al., 1998). We are continuing this educational collaboration, using 37 elementary sites, through Project CLUE. To identify gifted minority students, Project CLUE uses nontraditional instruments as recommended by Harris and Ford (1991). Once identified, the students are served in cluster groups within the regular classroom in grades 3, 4, and 5. The cluster teachers are provided with replacement units in mathematics and reading, which were chosen and/or modified by the Project CLUE mathematics and reading coordinators, to meet the needs of the identified gifted students. Teachers are trained to teach the units and are given all necessary materials to implement the curriculum and instructional activities. Each unit has a corresponding pretest and posttest. Project outcomes will incorporate new information that improves the capability of IPS and other schools to plan, conduct, and improve programs to identify and serve gifted and talented students from underrepresented groups. The project focuses on the content areas of mathematic and language arts, utilizes innovative teaching strategies, provides comprehensive ongoing professional development for staff, incorporates training for parents, and includes a comprehensive evaluation component.

An outcome of Project CLUE will include a research-based, multifaceted identification plan that provides a talent pool reflecting the diversity of the school corporation. One year prior to the grant award, we developed a new identification plan to increase the number of gifted and talented students who (a) are economically disadvantaged, (b) have limited English proficiency, and/or (c) may not be identified and served by traditional assessment methods. To develop this plan, Center personnel met monthly with IPS teachers and gifted coordinators to discuss characteristics of gifted students in general, characteristics of underrepresented groups of gifted students, characteristics that tend to screen students out of gifted programs, the identification process, and curriculum implications. During year one of Project CLUE, we evaluated and modified the plan.

Method

Pilot Study

During the spring of 2002, a small pilot study using Ravens Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM-C) was conducted with 48 IPS second-grade students to determine if using a nonverbal measure would identify additional minority and low-SES students for the gifted program. Data from a previous administration of the TerraNova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (TerraNova) were also collected for each student. The TerraNova assessments are a battery of multiple-choice tests and student-constructed, free-response formats that measure basic skills in reading, language arts, and mathematics. Students qualified for the program by one of three ways: (a) scoring at or above the 90th percentile on the Total Battery of TerraNova; (b) scoring at or above the 90th percentile on any two of the following subscores of the TerraNova: reading comprehension, math problem solving, or science; or (c) scoring at or above the 90th percentile on the CPM-C.

The ethnicity breakdown of the 48 students was 71% minority and 29% White; gender was evenly split. Seventy-one percent of these students qualified for free textbooks and lunch. Of the 48 students, 42% qualified by Criterion 1 or 2 but another 29% qualified by Criterion 3 only. Those qualifying by Criterion 3 were 64% minority, 57% female, and 64% had free textbooks and lunch, while the 42% who qualified by Criterion 1 or 2 were 55% minority, 45% female, and 70% had free textbooks and lunch. Thus, by using Criterion 3, a larger percentage of minority and female students would be included in the pool. This provided some evidence that including at least one more instrument, in particular a nonverbal one, would allow us to discriminate among students who may not have been identified through standardized testing alone.

Project CLUE Implementation

Participants. At the end of the 2001-2002 academic year, the total population of second grade IPS students was 58% African American, 30% White, 9% Hispanic, 3% Multiracial, and less than 1% American Indian and Asian and Pacific Islander. The gender breakdown was 49% female and 51% male. The socioeconomic breakdown was 57% on free lunch, 19% on reduced lunch, and 24% in neither category. Students from this population were identified for gifted services for the 2002-2003 academic year using the procedure that is described next.

Identification Procedure. Project CLUE uses a "sift-down model" of four criteria to cast the net widely as the talent pool of identified gifted second-grade students is formed. Criterion 1 is based on the use of existing test scores and provides an efficient way of making a first cut. Using the national norms associated with this test, those second graders scoring at or above the 90th percentile on the TerraNova achievement battery total score were automatically placed in the pool. Criterion 2 use the TerraNova assessments which are a battery of multiple-choice tests and student-constructed, free-response formats that measure basic skills in reading, language arts, and mathematics. The reliability coefficients are in the .80s to .90s range (Monsaas, 2001). Nitko (2001) indicates the "approach used to design and organize the TerraNova was thorough and careful," and considers it one of the better-developed achievement tests. Second-grade students who scored at or above the 90th percentile on any two parts of the test--reading comprehension, math problem solving, or science--were also placed in the pool.

For those second-grade students who were not identified through the corporation-wide standardized testing (Criterion 1 or 2), we used the CPM-C as Criterion 3, since research suggests minority and low SES students score higher on tasks that require fluid intelligence rather than crystallized intelligence, and/or spatial rather than verbal reasoning. It is a language-free, culture-fair measure that assesses a person's level of intellectual development and may be used to identify students from diverse populations, including students for whom English is their second language ([ESL]; Lewis, 2000; Mills & Tissor, 1995; J. Raven, J. C. Raven, & Court, 1998). The CPM-C may be group or individually administered, and it is norm-referenced. There are 36 matrices divided into 3 sets of 12. The age range is 5.0 to 11.0, but the CPM-C does not discriminate at the upper levels with children older than age 10. There is no time limit and it can be administered by teachers with training. No reading is required and it may be given without verbal directions. A split-half reliability estimate of .90 and test-retest values from .86 to .95 are reported in the test manual. Internal consistency is reported as ranging from .71 to .90 across several studies. One study reported a factor analysis showing One factor with three related facets. Additional studies reported a .91 correlation with the WISC, a .50 correlation with the Full WISC, and a .70 correlation with Performance WISC (J. Raven et al., 1998). Students scoring at or above the 90th percentile on the CPM-C were placed in the program. The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), a measure of nonverbal reasoning and problem solving independent of educational curricula and cultural or language background, was available as a secondary instrument for appeals (Naglieri, 1998); however, it was not necessary to use the NNAT to identify any students as no appeals were requested.

The Adams-Pierce Checklist (APC), the fourth criterion, was developed for the pilot study and is used to identify gifted minority, ESL, and low SES students who are gifted and are not identified through standardized testing. The APC is a research instrument similar to other identification checklists and is being validated as part of Project CLUE. It consists of 15 behaviors that teachers and parents might observe in the regular classroom or at home. Two sample behaviors listed on the APC are "Learns new material faster than other students" and "Often finds unusual solutions to math problems." This measure was translated into Spanish so that Hispanic parents might use it to nominate their children (Adams & Pierce, 2002). One point is scored for every behavior a teacher or parent checks as indicative of that child. Second-grade students scoring 8 points or higher on the APC were placed in the program.

The gifted coordinators at each school were responsible for implementing the necessary testing of second-grade students for gifted services. They collected data used to identify the students, such as the APC scores, the TerraNova scores, and the CPM-C scores. The data were returned to the corporation's gifted education office. The corporation's coordinator compiled a master list of all identified students and distributed it to the schools.

Professional Development. During the summer of 2002, a 5-day workshop was held to provide teachers with information about the principles of identifying gifted students particularly those from underserved populations, differentiated instruction, and various instructional strategies to assist them with meeting the needs of the gifted students in their classrooms, and implementing cluster grouping in the regular classroom. Five additional full day professional development workshops were held during the school year to provide support and encouragement, and to address teacher concerns about identifying or serving the gifted students in their clusters.

Teacher Interviews. The evaluation component of Project CLUE consists of several means of data collection including conducting interviews with teachers of students identified through Project Clue's screening process. Teachers had been placed into groups based on whether they received the Project CLUE curriculum and an equal number from each group was selected to be interviewed. Third grade teachers were selected at random and asked to participate in an interview focusing on their perceptions of the identification process and the children identified for gifted services based on this process. A total of 6 participants were interviewed by the project manager. All of these teachers had been teaching in the corporation prior to Project CLUE and were assigned to different schools. All the teachers were White and veterans of the teaching profession. The gender breakdown was five females and one male. These results are consistent with the general makeup of the cluster teachers, i.e., white, female, veteran teachers.

The process consisted of a semistructured interview with each of the participants. Three participants were interviewed during a summer workshop series and the other 3 were interviewed by telephone due to time constraints during the summer workshop. A semistructured interview consists of an interview guide highlighting specific topics to be covered in the interview. The interviewer, however, also maintains the freedom to alter the interview guide when appropriate. This method allows the interviewer the opportunity to explore a variety of topics, but also enables the participant to actively direct the content of the interview (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Semistructured interviews ensure consistency across interviews because the questions are asked in the same order for each of the participants. In addition, this type of interview enables interviewers to focus their attention on the participant, rather than dividing their attention between the participant and the need to develop a structure for the interview.

Data Analysis

The second-grade population in the IPS system for spring 2002 was 3,584. Based on the Project CLUE identification procedure, 296 second-grade students were included in the talent pool through standardized testing, Criterion 1 or 2. Any ESL or low SES student, as well as any other student recommended by a teacher, but not already identified for the program, was given the CPM-C; and this added 21 students to the talent pool by Criterion 3. An additional 5 students qualified for the talent pool by the APC, Criterion 4. Hence, the total number of students identified for gifted services was 322.

The talent pool consisted of 156 males and 166 females. The ethnic breakdown of the talent pool was 147 White, 117 African American, 41 Hispanic, 13 Multiracial, and 3 designated as Other. The ethnicity of one child was not designated. According to the IPS Corporation Coordinator, the SES breakdown of the talent pool was 62% on free lunch, 14% on reduced lunch, and 24% paid their own. Unfortunately, due to a change in the privacy laws in the state of Indiana, no SES data could be disclosed for individual students.

Results

Approximately 9% of the population of second graders was identified to participate in the program. Table 1 displays within-group distributions documenting the percentage of each ethnic or gender group identified through the four criteria. Table 2 contains a comparison of the ethnic breakdown for the total second-grade population versus those students identified for gifted services. Note ethnicity was not designated for one child.

Adding the CPM-C and the APC placed 26 students in the program who were not selected through standardized testing, accounting for roughly 8% of the final identified gifted population that would not have been included if using only the TerraNova. This group included 11% of the males, 5% of the females, 8% of the African American students, and 29% of the Hispanic students. A majority of the Hispanic students were designated as ESL. From this study, it appears that nonverbal measures may identify students who may not understand English well enough to score high on verbal measures. However, only 3% of the White and 8% of the African American students were identified using nontraditional measures, Criterion 3 or 4.

Discussion

Implications for Revisions

Several factors have spurred a modification of the original identification plan. As a result of the No Child Left Behind Act and Indiana Public Law 221 (1999), both of which address adequate yearly progress for all students, IPS decided to change from the TerraNova to the Northwest Evaluation Association's Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA) Level Tests. This instrument is given twice a year to measure the progress of the students in mathematics, reading, and language arts. A total battery score is not available. Thus, Criterion 1 was dropped from the identification procedure.

Another factor that caused a change in the identification plan was a change in Project CLUE. Originally, mathematics, language arts, and science were to be addressed in Project CLUE. On the advice of the personnel in charge of the Javits Grant program at the federal level, science was dropped so that Project CLUE could focus on mathematics and language arts. Hence, the science score from the standardized test was dropped as a part of Criterion 2.

The third factor was based on teacher and gifted coordinator input. Gifted coordinators, who were involved in the testing procedure using the CPM-C and APC, were often surprised to see that students whom they considered not gifted and possibly special needs students were identified as gifted through these measures. Even when students had all answers correct on the CPM-C, second-grade teachers were still hesitant, in some cases, to refer the student for gifted services. The third-grade teachers, who had no input into the identification procedure and received the identified students, perceived some of these as not "gifted." Data collected from the teacher interviews further supported this stance. When asked in interviews about the identification procedure used in IPS, the teachers had mixed reviews. They appreciated the usage of more than one criterion for identification. As one teacher commented, "to primarily use test scores, some [students] may slip through the cracks." Many expressed the need for more emphasis on teacher recommendations. As one teacher explained, "[Teachers] have worked with the child. They know the child better than the test does." They also felt that including teacher recommendations would provide a window into the classroom performance of the child which a test does not illustrate.

Teachers through their gifted coordinators expressed some additional concerns over the identification procedure. These concerns focused on (a) identifying students who had previously been retained, (b) identifying students with aptitude in only one area, (c) identifying students who lacked motivation, and (d) identifying students whose classroom performance and characteristics were not commensurate with giftedness.

Several teachers discussed their failure to understand how a child who was retained the prior year could now be identified as gifted. One teacher said she could understand this if a student were retained in the first grade, but not after that because too many skills would be missing. The teachers also expressed a frustration with students qualifying for the program on either their math or language arts and reading skills because those students had "difficulty handling some of the material presented" in the program. Most of the problems focused on students who scored high in math and science, but demonstrated low language and reading comprehension abilities. Sample comments include the following: "[He] excels more at math than anything. His writing ability is below grade level"; "[She] is a poor reader. She scored high on the TerraNova in math and science. She scored poorly in reading. She struggles with regular school work. She is also a very poor speller"; "This child is a very low reader. He cries often and becomes frustrated easily"; and "He decodes very slowly. [I] do not think he is gifted."

At the request of these teachers and the gifted coordinators, the identification procedure was significantly modified. First, it was decided the APC should be completed and recorded for every second grader. In addition, each student's NWEA scores for reading and math were recorded. It was also decided that the NWEA qualifying scores would be at or above the 90th percentile on reading with a math score of at least the 75th percentile or at or above the 90th percentile on math with a reading score of at least the 75th percentile. For those students who received a score of 8 or higher on the APC and qualifying NWEA scores were placed in the gifted pool. Students with an APC score of 8 or higher or qualifying NWEA scores or an ESL designation were given the CPM-C. Those students who scored at or above the 90th percentile on the CPM-C were also placed in the gifted pool. Table 3 highlights the differences between the original and revised identification procedures.

Final Thoughts

Due to the current controversy over the use of nonverbal ability and/or nontraditional tests to identify gifted students (e.g., Lohman, 2005a, 2005b; Naglieri & Ford, 2005), we revisited our data for students who were identified for gifted services through the CPM-C or APC. All of these authors endorse the use of nonverbal ability tests but in different ways. Lohman recommends that "high scores on the nonverbal test should always be accompanied by evidence of high (but not necessarily stellar) accomplishment in a particular academic domain or by evidence that the student's verbal or quantitative reasoning abilities are high relative to those in similar circumstances" (2005b, p. 131). Of the 26 students in our study who qualified by either CPM-C or APC, 77% met Lohman's assertion that high nonverbal-ability scores be accompanied by reasonably high accomplishment in an academic domain. Of the remaining 6 students, 4 were ESL students. For these students, the CPM-C or APC was the measure of last resort in keeping with Lohman's opinion (2005b).

Due to these substantial changes to the identification procedure as well as the continuing controversy over nonverbal tests and their use in identifying gifted students, we are currently analyzing the identification data from year two of Project CLUE. Our focus will be to determine if there is a significant difference in the numbers identified for gifted services and if the gender, ethnic, and/or socioeconomic breakdown differs significantly from the results found in the year one data. In addition, we will determine if there is further evidence to support Lohman's views and if another revision of the identification procedure is warranted. We also plan to analyze achievement gains for differences among students identified by each criterion. Such an important issue as the identification of culturally diverse students merits constant monitoring and continual research to ensure equal access to gifted services and an unbiased identification procedure.

REFERENCES

Adams, C. M., Cross, T. L., Dixon, F. D., & Rice, R. (1998). Project GATE: Gifted and Talented Enhancement. Proposal for Jacob K. Javits Grant. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/programs/ javits/9600abstracts.doc

Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2002). The Adams/Pierce Checklist. An instrument developed for Project CLUE. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.

Bernal, E. M. (1994, April). Finding and cultivating minority gifted/talented students. Paper presented at the National Conference on Alternative Teacher Certification, Washington, DC.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Borland, J. M., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.

Bracken, B. (2006, March). An approach.[or identifying underrepresented populations for G/T programs: The UNIT test. Presentation at the 64th Annual College of William and Mary Psychology Conference, Williamsburg, VA.

Briggs, C. J., & Reis, S. M. (2004). An introduction to the topic of cultural diversity and giftedness. In C. Tomlinson, D. Ford, S. Reis, C. Briggs, & C. Strickland (Eds.), In search of the dream: Designing schools and classrooms that work for high potential students from diverse cultural backgrounds (pp. 5-32). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Callahan, C. M., Hunsaker, S., Adams, C. M., Moore, S. D., & Bland, L. (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Campbell, J. R., & Verna, M. A. (1998, April). Messages from thefield: American teachers of the gifted talk back to the research community. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Cashion, M., & Sullenger, K. (1996, April). What it means to be gifted: Changing beliefs, changing practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association, New York.

Cornell, G. D., Delcourt, M. A. B., Goldberg, M, D., & Bland, L. C. (1995). Achievement and self concept of minority students in elementary school gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 189-209.

Daniels, V. I. (1998). Minority students in gifted and special education programs: The case for educational equity. Journal of Special Education, 32, 41-44.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ford, D. Y. (1994). The recruitment and retention of African American students in gifted education: Implications and recommendations. Charlottesville, VA: The Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Virginia.

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

Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14.

Ford, D. Y., & Harmon, D. A. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 141-148.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J., III. (1994). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J., III. (1999). Promoting achievement among gifted Black students: The efficacy of new definitions and identification practices. Urban Education, 29, 202-229.

Frasier, M. M. (1997). Gifted minority students: Reframing approaches to their identification and education. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 498-515). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Frasier, M. M., Garcia, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Mitchell, S., Cramond, B., Krisel, S., et al. (1995). Core attributes of giftedness: A foundation for recognizing the gifted potential of economically disadvantaged students. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Society's role in educating gifted students: The role of public polio, (RMO2162). Stows: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Harris, J. J., III, & Ford, D. Y. (1991). Identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted black American children. Journal of Negro Education, 60, 3-18.

Hiatt, E., & Covington, J. (1991 a, Fall). An update on the Javits Project: Identifying and serving disadvantaged gifted youth. Update on Gifted Education, 1, 21-26.

Hiatt, E., & Covington, J. (1991b, April). Identifying and serving diverse populations: Questions and answers. Update on Gifted Education, 1, 27-30.

Indiana Department of Education. (2003, November). Identifying students with high abilities in Indiana [ Flipchart]. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

Indiana Public Law 221. (1999). Accountability under Public Law 221-1999. Retrieved October 29, 2006, from Indiana Department of Education Web site: http://www.doe.state.in.us/p1221/welcome.html

Lewis, J. D. (2000, March). Language isn't needed: Nonverbal assessments and gifted learners. Paper presented at Growing Partnerships for Rural Special Education, San Diego, CA.

Lohman, D. F. (2005a). Review of the Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test identify equal proportions of high scoring White, Black, and Hispanic students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 19-28.

Lohman, D. F. (2005b). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111-138.

Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.

Monsaas, J. A. (2001). Review of the TerraNova. In B. S. Hake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The 14th mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1223-1226). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska, The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Mills, C., & Tissor, S. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from underrepresented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209-217.

Morris, J. E. (2002). African American students and gifted education. Roeper Review, 24, 59-63.

Naglieri, J. A. (1998, August). Testing diverse populations with the Naglieri Ability Tests. In J. A. Naglieri (Chair), Testing diverse populations with new nonverbal intelligence tests. Symposium conducted at the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155-160.

Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children's participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 29-36.

Nitko, A. J. (2001). Review of the TerraNova. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The 14th mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1226-1229). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska, The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198-211.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford. England: Oxford Psychologist Press.

Reid, C., Udall, A., Romanoff, B., & Algozzine, B. (1999). Comparison of traditional and problem-solving assessment criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 252-264.

Sarouphim, K. M. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 30-33.

Struck, J. (2003, April). A study of talent development in a predominantly low socioeconomic and/or African American population. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Winfield, L. F. (1986). Teacher beliefs toward academically at risk students in inner urban schools. The Urban Review 18, 253-268.

Manuscript submitted August 30, 2005.

Revision accepted November 1, 2005.

Rebecca L. Pierce, PhD, is an associate professor of Mathematical Sciences at Ball State University, teaching undergraduate and graduate statistics courses. Most recently, she has been an integral part of two Jacob K. Javits Grants. Her roles include serving as the Mathematics Curriculum specialist, providing professional development for teachers, and assisting in the statistical analysis of the data. E-mail: [e-mail]

Cheryll M. Adams, PhD is the director of the Center for Gifted Studies and Talent Development at Ball State University and Project Director for Project CLUE. She is the past President of the Indiana Association for the Gifted, a former member of the board of directors of NAGC, and a current member of the board of directors of TAG. Her interests include gifted students in science and math, curriculum development, and identification of gifted students. E-mail: [e-mail]

Kristie L. Speirs Neumeister, PhD is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Ball State University where she teaches undergraduate courses in educational psychology and graduate courses in gifted education. Her research interests include the psychosocial development of gifted individuals. E-mail: [e-mail]

Jerrell C. Cassady, PhD is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Ball State University. He is coeditor of The Teacher Educator and his specialties include research methodology, program evaluation, and processes of human learning. E-mail: [e-mail]

Felicia A. Dixon, PhD is an associate professor of Educational Psychology at Ball State University. Her research interests focus primarily on issues relevant to gifted and talented adolescents. E-mail: [e-mail]

Tracy L. Cross, PhD, George and Frances Bali Distinguished Professor of Gifted Studies, serves Ball State University as the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, Research and Assessment. For nine years he worked as the Executive Director of the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities. Dr. Cross is editor of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted and is editor emeritus of the Roeper Review, Gifted Child Quarterly, and the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. E-mail: [e-mail]

Table 1

Percentage Demographic Representations
for Different Identification Criteria

                                   1 or 2         3        4
                                 (TerraNova)   (CPM-C)   (APC)

Ethnicity
  White (n = 147)                    97%           3%       0%
  African American (n = 117)         92            5        3
  Hispanic (n = 41)                  71           24        5
  Multiracial & Other (n = 16)      100            0        0
Gender
  Female (n = 166)                   95          3.6      1.8
  Male (n = 156)                     89          9.6      1.3

Table 2
Percentage of Students by
Ethnic Breakdown: Total Population versus
Gifted Identification Strategies

                        Total       Standardized    Identified
                      population      testing         gifted
Ethnicity                          identification   population
                      (n = 3584)     (n = 296)      (n = 322)

White                    30%            48%             46%
African American         58             37              36
Hispanic                  9             10              12.7
Multiracial & Other       4              5               5

Note. Total population is entire second-grade student body ethnicity
distribution. Standardized testing identification refers to using only
TerraNova performance as an identifier (Criterion 1 & 2). Identified
gifted population refers to the pool acquired using all four criteria.

Table 3
Qualifying Level for Each Criterion:
Original versus Revised Identification
Procedures

Criterion           Original procedure     Revised procedure

Standardized test   90% or above on        90% or above on at
scores              total battery or two   least one reading or
                    area subscores         math subscore and
                                           75% or above on the
                                           other

Score nonverbal     90%' or above          90% or above
instrument

Checklist           8 or more but deter-   Initial screening for
                    mined only for stu-    all second grade
                    dents who didn't       students, 8 or more
                    qualify otherwise

Note. In the original procedure, the checklist was the final
screening measure. In the revised procedure, the checklist was
used in conjunction with the standardized test scores as an
initial screening measure. In both procedures, all ESL students
were given the nonverbal measure.