Teacher Ratings of Hispanic and Anglo Students on a Behavior Rating Scale.

The study was conducted with 115 Hispanic (53 Males, 62 Females) and 119 Anglo (61 males, 58 females) fifth grade students and 12 teachers (11 females, 1 male) in a public school district in the Southwest. The study was designed to determine teachers' nomination rates of Hispanic and Anglo students to gifted and talented programs and to establish if there were differences in teachers' ratings on the SRBCSS across ethnicity and gender groups for nominated and not nominated students. Results indicated that ethnicity was a factor in teachers' nomination rate and that these differences were more pronounced between Hispanic and Anglo females. Results also indicated that teachers' ratings on the SRBCSS for nominated Hispanic and Anglo students were similar, but that ratings for nonnominated students differed significantly by ethnic group.

Identification of gifted minority students is a continuous concern to educators and psychologists. The disparity in the number of racial/ethnic group students enrolled in public schools and their representation in gifted and talented programs is well-documented (Barkan & Bernal, 1991; Beck & Wingert, 1993; Chinn & Hughes, 1987; de Bernard, 1985; Frasier, 1987; Kantrowitz & Wingert, 1993; Mercer, 1973; Office of Civil Rights, 1984; Olague, 1993; Ortiz & Volloff, 1987; Richert, 1985; Scott, Perou, Urbano, Hogan & Gold, 1992; Strom, Johnson, Strom & Strom, 1990, 1992; Weaver, Dandridge & Matthew, 1993; Woods & Achey, 1990)

Various reasons for the disproportionately low number of Hispanic students in gifted and talented programs have been proposed. For example, the lack of an acceptable definition of giftedness (Hilliard, 1976; Richert, 1987), test bias (Barkan & Bernal, 1991), the use of a very narrow definition of giftedness (Masten, 1985), the oversimplification and conversion of giftedness into a single test score (Richert, 1987), and rigid policies and narrow testing practices (Hunsaker, 1994) have been cited. Other reasons include competition for resources (Richert, 1987), the low referral of gifted children by Hispanic parents because of their reserved nature and lack of knowledge of the referral process (Scott, Perou, Urbano, & Hogan, 1990), students' low socioeconomic level (McKenzie, 1986), students' lack of academic achievement (Buriel, 1983); students' gender (Read, 1991), and the students' lack of English-speaking skills (Barkan & Bernal, 1991). Finally, there are reasons that focus on the insensitivity and ill-trained assessment personnel that misunderstand Hispanic students' achievements (Barkan & Bernal, 1991; Bermudez & Rakow, 1990; Buriel, 1983; Fradd, Weismantel, Correa, & Algozzine, 1988; McCombs & Gay, 1988), and the inability of classroom teachers to identify gifted students who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Cohen, 1988; Cox & Daniel, 1983; McKenzie, 1986).

Because classroom teachers interact with students on a consistent basis, they play a key role in the identification of gifted and talented students (Read, 1991; Woods & Achey, 1990). However, Gear (1976) raised concerns about the accuracy of teacher nominations of students to gifted and talented programs. In addition, research has shown that teacher's expectations (Cohen, 1994; So, 1987) and reactions towards students are modified based on a number of variables, including gender, race, and social class background (Guskin, Peng, & Simon, 1992; Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974; Yee, 1968), ethnicity (Clifton, Perry, Parsonson, & Hryniuk, 1986; de Kanter and Frankiewicz, 1981; Demetrulias, 1990; High & Udall, 1983; Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; McCombs & Gay, 1988; Zucker, & Prieto, 1977), and language proficiency (Buriel, 1983). Research also indicate that teachers perceive Hispanic students' behavior as less favorable than they perceive Anglo students' behavior (Bahr, Fuchs, Stecker, & Fuchs, 1991; Prieto & Zucker, 1981; Roberts, Hutton, & Plata, 1985; So, 1987; Zimmerman, Khoury, Vega, & Gil, 1995), that teachers perceive Hispanics as having lower academic potential than Anglos (Buriel, 1982, 1983; McCombs & Gay, 1988; Olague, 1993), and that teachers interact less affirmatively with Hispanic students than with Anglo students (Buriel, 1982, 1983; Jackson & Cosca, 1974).

Not all research has found teacher judgment to be inaccurate in identifying gifted students. In their review of literature on teacher-judgment Hoge and Cudmore (1986) found that there was little basis for the negative assessments associated with these measures. Nutall (1970) found teacher ratings to be reasonably satisfactory criteria in selecting gifted students. Chambers, Barron, and Sprecher (1980) found that socioeconomic status or language background had no effect on teacher ratings in identifying gifted Mexican-American students. Gagne (1994) reanalyzed Pegnato and Birch (1959) data and strongly suggested that teachers are more effective in identifying gifted students than was initially indicated in the seminal study. Gear (1976) also noted that training would help offset criticism about the usefulness of teacher nominations. Gridley and Treloar (1984) recommended the use of rating scales in the nomination process to make teacher judgments more objective.

This study was designed to determine whether or not teachers nominate Hispanic and Anglo students to gifted and talented programs at different rates, and to investigate if there were significant differences in the rating scores on the Scales for Rating Behavior Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) (Renzulli, Hartman, & Callahan, 1971) across ethnicity and gender groups for nominated and not nominated students.

Method

Participants

One hundred fifteen Hispanic and 119 Anglo fifth grade students and twelve fifth grade teachers (10 Anglo females; 1 Anglo male; 1 African-American female) in a public school district in the Southwest volunteered to participate in the study. The school district's Anglo and Hispanic student population was approximately the same.

Fifth grade students were chosen over students in other grades for several reasons: they closely matched the grade level students used in the norming of the SRBCSS; all participants were on one school campus, thus, eliminating possible factors that would influence the study such as diverse class schedules and differences in campus environments; and all fifth grade classes followed the same class schedule, making it easier to manage research activities.

Research Design

Nomination data were analyzed using the chi-square statistical technique for independent samples. Analyses occurred across ethnic and gender groups. Teacher rating on the SRBCSS were analyzed by independent one-way analysis of variance. Teacher ratings were analyzed across four areas of giftedness for nominated and non-nominated ethnic and gender groups. An alpha level of .05 was selected to determine significance.

Instruments

The Learning, Motivation, Creativity, and Leadership scales of the Scales for Rating Behavior Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) (Renzulli, Hartman, & Callahan, 1971) were used in the study. These four scales were chosen because of their use to identify Hispanic gifted students (Elliott, & Argulewicz, 1983; Elliott, Argulewicz, & Turco, 1986). In their study Elliott and Argulewicz (1983) used the SRBCSS Learning, Motivation, Creativity, and Leadership scales with 523 students (492 Anglo, 31 Hispanic) and found these four scales useful in identifying gifted students from different ethnic backgrounds. In a study of third through sixth grade pupils, Elliott, Argulewicz, and Turco (1986) found the SRBCSS Learning, Motivation, Creativity, and Leadership scales useful in identifying gifted Hispanic students but not Anglo students. Argulewicz, Elliott, and Hall (1982) found significant differences in the ratings of Mexican-American and Anglo gifted students on the SRBCSS Learning and Motivation scales but not on the Creativity and Leadership scales. High & Udall (1983) found the Creativity, Motivation and Leadership scales useful in identifying Hispanic gifted students. Further, Argulewicz, Elliott, and Hall (1982) argued that the SRBCSS aids in understanding the nature of giftedness among both Mexican-American and Anglo students.

The reliability of the SRBCSS Learning, Motivation, Creativity and Leadership scales indicate acceptable inter-judge reliability, ranging from .77 to .91 (Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan, & Hartman, 1976). The Leadership scale was validated through sociometric teacher and peer ratings (Renzulli, et al., 1971). A study on the validity of the SRBCSS by Elliott, Argulewicz, & Turco (1986) indicated low to moderate correlations between ratings on the SRBCSS Learning, Creativity, Motivation, and Performance scales and scores on the Stanford Achievement Test for low and middle high SES Anglo American students. The Creativity scale was reported to compare favorably with the verbal subscores of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Renzulli et al., 1976). However, Argulewicz and Kush (1984) found not relationship between SRBCSS Creativity scale scores and student performance on the TTCT.

Two studies have tested the factor structure of the SRBCSS and found varying results. Gridley and Treloar (1984) factor analyzed the results of the Learning, Motivation and Creativity scales with 130 third and fourth grade potentially gifted candidates and found that the common variance among the variables of the SRBCSS is accounted for by only two factors--teacher judgment and general academic aptitude. However, Burke, Haworth, and Ware (1982) used the Learning, Motivation, Creativity, and Leadership scales with 368 fifth and sixth grade gifted students and found that these four scales assessed five dimensions--Learning, Creativity, Leadership, Motivation, and Resistance. Differences in the two studies by Gridley and Treloar (1984) and Burke, Haworth, and Ware (1982) may be explained by the heterogeneity of the samples and the use of different scales in the two studies.

Behavior rating scales have been suggested as an efficient and psychometrically sound method to identify gifted children (Argulewicz, Elliott, & Hall, 1982). Ashman and Vukelich (1983) found that, in comparison with other behavioral rating scales, the SRBCSS overlooked the smallest percentage of children in the identification process. However, they criticized the SRBCSS because of the amount of time required to complete the scales.

Procedure

Fifth grade teachers were given a brief explanation about the study and were asked to sign a consent form to participate in the study. They were advised that they would be debriefed at the end of the study.

The teachers were instructed to rate each of their students on the SRBCSS Learning, Motivational, Creativity, and Leadership scales. Specifically, they were instructed to mark their ratings on a four point scale labeled "seldom/never", "occasionally", "considerably", or "almost always". These rating options allowed the rating of students' behavior according to the teacher's perception of its frequency.

In a four-part question added to the SRBCSS, teachers were asked to indicate whether or not they would nominate each student to a gifted and talented program based on each of four areas of giftedness--intelligence, leadership, academic achievement, and creativity. The following instructions were provided the teachers: "Please mark a "Y" for "Yes" and an "N" for "No" if you WOULD nominate each student to a gifted program based on each of the four Categories of Giftedness, regardless of their past or current involvement in any gifted program. In other words, do you believe "this" student should be referred for assessment to see if he or she is eligible for admission to a gifted program?" By following this procedure each student received four responses from their teachers, one for each area of giftedness.

Results

Teacher nominations

Results in Table 1 indicate that Anglo students were nominated at a significantly higher rate than expected across the four areas of giftedness. Of students nominated based on the intelligence area of giftedness, 72.1% were Anglos and 27.9% were Hispanics; of those nominated based on leadership, 71.9% were Anglo and 28.1% were Hispanic; 69.4% of the Anglos and 30.6% of the Hispanics were nominated based on academic achievement, and 63.2% of the Anglos and 36.8% of the Hispanics were nominated based on creativity.

Table 1

Frequency of Hispanics and Anglo students
nominated and not nominated by teachers
based on areas of giftedness

                      Groups

               Hispanics    Anglos

Area of        Nominated   Nominated      Chi
Giftedness     Yes   No    Yes   No      Square

Intelligence   19    82    49    65    14.47(***)
Leadership     18    88    46    68    14.06(***)
Academic
Achievement    22    84    50    63    13.57(***)
Creativity     25    80    43    70     5.20(*)

(*) = p< .05 (***) = p< .001

Significant Chi Square values were found for frequency of teachers' nominations by ethnic groups in each area of giftedness--intelligence [[chi square] (1) = 14.47, p [is less than] .001], leadership [[chi square] (1) = 14.06, p [is less than] .001], academic achievement [[chi square] (1) = 13.57, p [is less than] .001], and creativity [[chi square] (1) = 5.20, p [is less than] .05]. There were no significant differences in the rate of teacher nominations based solely on gender.

A series of 2 x 2 Chi Square analyses were conducted on teachers' nominations of males and females across ethnic groups. Results in Table 2 indicate that classroom teachers nominated more Anglo males than Hispanic males based on two of the four areas of giftedness, leadership ([chi square] (1) = 5.32, p [is less than] .05) and academic achievement ([chi square] (1) = 5.57, p [is less than] .02). No significant differences were found in the frequency of teacher nominations of Hispanic and Anglo males based on intelligence ([chi square] (1) = 2.43, p [is less than] .20) or creativity ([chi square] (1) = .16, p [is less than] .70).

Table 2

Frequency of Hispanics and Anglo
males and females nominated and not
nominated by teachers

                      Males

               Hispanics    Anglos

Area of        Nominated   Nominated    Chi
Giftedness     Yes   No    Yes   No    Square
Intelligence   11    37    21    36   2.43
Leadership      8    40    21    36   5.32(*)
Academic
Achievement     8    40    21    35   5.57(*)
Creativity     14    33    19    38    .16

                      Females

               Hispanics    Anglos

Area of        Nominated   Nominated    Chi
Giftedness     Yes   No    Yes   No    Square
Intelligence   13    45    28    29   9.30(**)
Leadership     10    48    25    32   9.74(**)
Academic
Achievement    14    44    29    28   8.80(**)
Creativity     11    47    24    32   7.64(**)

(*) = p <.05; (**) = p <.01

Differences in classroom teachers' nomination rates of Hispanic and Anglo females were more pronounced than nomination rates of males. Significant differences beyond the .01 level were found in each of the four areas of giftedness in favor of Anglo females. Specifically, Anglo females were nominated with higher frequency than Hispanic females based on intelligence ([chi square] (1) = 9.30), leadership ([chi square] (1) = 9.74), academic achievement ([chi square] (1) = 8.80), and creativity ([chi square] (1) = 7.64).

In-depth analysis of the total number of teacher nominations across areas of giftedness indicated that classroom teachers nominated Anglo females most frequently followed by Anglo males, Hispanic males, and, finally, Hispanic females. Anglo females obtained 46.7% of the total number of nominations, Anglo males obtained 36.1%, Hispanic males 21.6% and Hispanic females 20.7% of the teacher nominations.

Teacher ratings

Ethnic groups. Results in Table 3 indicate that there were significant mean differences in teachers' ratings for Hispanic and Anglo students on the SRBCSS. Means for Anglo students were higher than for Hispanics and differences were significant beyond the .000 level.

Table 3

SRBCSS Scale Score Means and Standard
Deviations for Hispanics and Anglos

                  Hispanics               Anglos
SRBCSS
Scales       Means(*)   SD     N    Means(*)    SD    N

Learning       13.5     6.7   106     19.4     7.9   115
Motivation     16.7     6.3   106     21.4     7.4   114
Creativity     16.8     6.4   106     22.5     7.9   110
Leadership     23.7     7.0   102     28.2     7.8   114

(*) SRBCSS means between groups were significantly different beyond the .001 level.

Gender groups. All means for females in Table 4 were higher than means for males. Only one mean difference in the SRBCSS Leadership Scale was significant beyond the .01 level.

Table 4

SRBCSS Scale Score Means and Standard
Deviations for Hispanics and Anglos

                         Males                Females

SRBCSS
Scales           Means(*)    SD    N    Means(*)    SD    N
Learning           16.0     7.9   106     17.1     7.8   115
Motivation         18.3     7.2   106     19.9     7.2   115
Creativity         19.6     8.3   106     19.7     7.3   113
Leadership(**)     24.7     8.0   103     27.4     7.3   113

(**) F (1.214) = 7.07, p < .01

Nominated and non-nominated groups. Mean differences for nominated and non-nominated Hispanic and Anglo students found in Table 5 were dramatically different. Four of the sixteen (37.5%) mean differences for nominated students and all mean differences for non-nominated students were significant.

[TABULAR DATA 5 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

With the exception of the SRBCSS Leadership Scale, mean differences for non-nominated Hispanic and Anglo students were significantly different at or beyond the .01 level across all areas of giftedness. All mean differences between non-nominated students in the SRBCSS Learning Scale, three of the four mean differences in the SRBCSS Creativity Scale, and one-half of the mean differences in the SRBCSS Motivation Scale across all areas of giftedness were significant beyond the .001 level.

In comparison to non-nominated students, there were a limited number of significant differences in teacher ratings between nominated Hispanic and Anglo students on the SRBCSS. Most of these differences were at the .01 level and occurred in the Creativity area of giftedness across all scales of the SRBCSS. Significance at the .05 level was also found for mean differences in the SRBCSS Creativity Scale when nomination criterion were Leadership and Academic Achievement.

Means for nominated and non-nominated males and females are found in Table 6. Perusal of the data indicates that the number of significant mean differences were minimal in comparison to number of significant mean differences between ethnic groups in Table 5. Only four (12.5%) of the total mean difference comparisons between gender groups were significant, all occurring in the SRBCSS Leadership Scale. Only one mean difference was significant at the .01 level for nominated males and females when the nomination criteria was the Creativity area of giftedness. When the nomination criteria was the Leadership area of giftedness, significant differences between gender group scores was at the .01 level and at the .05 level of significance when the nomination criterion were Creativity and Academic Achievement.

[TABULAR DATA 6 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Discussion and Recommendations

Results of the study indicate that teacher nominations of students to gifted and talented programs differed along ethnicity lines; teachers nominated significantly more Anglos than Hispanics to gifted and talented programs. Hispanic females were nominated fewer times than any other group. Results also show that teacher ratings on the SRBCSS did not predict nomination rates. For example, even though Anglos were nominated at a significantly higher rate and were rated significantly higher than Hispanics overall, there were few significant SRBCSS mean differences between Hispanic and Anglo students who were nominated than for Hispanic and Anglo students who were not nominated. In other words, Hispanic and Anglo students who were nominated by teachers based on the four areas of giftedness were rated similarly on the SRBCSS. These finding indicate the teachers are using similar criterion for Hispanic and Anglo students whom they would nominated to gifted and talented programs. These perceived criterion may have been triggered by items found in the SRBCSS. If this is the case, findings in the present study are in agreement with suggestions by Argulewicz, Elliott, and Turco (1986) that the SRBCSS may aid in understanding the nature of giftedness among Mexican-American and Anglo students. Findings that teachers rated Hispanic and Anglo students are supported by Elliott and Argulewicz (1983) and Elliott, Argulewicz, and Turco (1986) who reported that the SRBCSS Learning, Motivation, Creativity, and Leadership Scales may be used in identifying gifted Hispanic and Anglo students. Results of the present study are also in agreement with Gagne's (1994) and Nutall's (1970) suggestions that teachers can be reliable in identifying students for gifted programs.

Zappia (1989) suggested that teachers base decisions to nominated students to gifted programs on students' school achievement. In the present study, this inference may be made based on results in Table 5 on the SRBCSS Learning and Motivation Scales when nomination criterion were Intelligence and academic achievement; both Hispanic and Anglo students who were nominated to gifted and talented programs were rated similarly. However, this is only an inference because the absence of academic achievement data in the present study made is impossible to compare the impact of students' actual school achievement on teacher nominations and teacher ratings.

As depicted in Table 5, teachers' ratings for non-nominated Anglo and Hispanic students were significantly different on all scales of the SRBCSS across the four areas of giftedness. These findings are supported by previous research that indicates teachers perceive Hispanic students' behaviors differently than they perceive Anglo students' behaviors (Bahr, Fuchs, Stecker, & Fuchs, 1991; Prieto & Zucker, 1981; Roberts, Hutton, & Plata, 1985; So, 1987; Zimmerman, Khoury, Vega, & Gil, 1995) and that teachers view Hispanics as having lower potential than Anglos (Buriel, 1982, 1983; McCombs, 1988; Olague, 1993). More research is needed to determine the reason(s) why classroom teachers view non-nominated Hispanic and Anglo students' behaviors significantly different.

The findings of this study regarding teacher ratings and teacher nominations for female students are an enigma. On the one hand, it is known that teachers award higher grades to females but that teachers have higher expectations for males than for females (Lindley & Keithley, 1991; Sadker & Sadker, 1986). If teachers make nomination decisions based on academic achievement as Zappia (1989) suggests, why did the teachers in the present study not nominate significantly more females than males to gifted programs or rate females significantly higher than males on the SRBCSS? On the other hand, if teachers have higher expectations for males, why did they not nominate significantly more males than females to gifted programs or rate males significantly higher than females on the SRBCSS? More research is needed to investigate the gender issue as it relates to the SRBCSS and teacher nomination of students to gifted and talented programs.

In addition to the gender issue, future studies involving teachers in selecting Hispanics for possible placement in gifted programs need to study variables that may negatively impact teachers' judgments about this special student population. Some of these variables could include Hispanic students' academic performance, level of acculturation, language proficiency, and students' attitude toward school. Other information that may be useful in interpreting teachers' decisions about student selection may include teacher ethnicity, expectations for these students, teaching experience in a heavily Hispanic populated school, and measures on cultural sensitivity. Finally, a control study in which teachers completed the nomination questionnaire prior to rating students on the SRBCSS would help determine the impact of nominations on SRBCSS ratings.

Hispanic students who are selected for placement in gifted and talented programs depend on school personnel to make appropriate decisions about students' educational potential without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, etc. Teachers, in particular, need to possess a thorough understanding of the students' sociocultural background (Barkan & Bernal, 1991; Bermudez, & Rakow, 1990; Cummins, 1984; Fradd, Bermudez, & Fernandez-Zeyas, 1989; Hunsaker, 1994; Mitchell, 1988; Passow & Frasier, 1996; Reyes, Fletcher, & Paez, 1996) and the knowledge of how acculturation influences teacher ratings.

To make the identification process more accurate, teachers may need assistance in recognizing talents in culturally diverse students. Guskin, Peng, and Simon (1992) found classroom teachers to be sensitive to under-represented groups in gifted and talented programs when they had the opportunity to observe and learn about the accomplishments and talents of these students. What teachers may need is explicit information about the unique experiences and abilities of Hispanic students, and how they may enhance students' skills, talents, traits, and/or values commonly attached to giftedness (Barkan & Bernal, 1991; Cohen, 1994; Culross, 1989; Ford, Grantham, & Harris, 1996; Harris, 1991; Passow & Frasier, 1996; Richert, 1985, 1987). Included in this training should be information about subtle influences that reinforce student behaviors, both positively and negatively.

Practices that afford Hispanics the opportunity to participate in gifted and talented programs so they can reach their full potential are imperative. Richert (1987) suggests that students with potential to become gifted be identified and placed in enrichment programs. Such practices may offset inequalities in serving potentially gifted students who are put at risk due to low teacher expectations (Rist, 1970), impoverished backgrounds (McKenzie, 1986), and/or inappropriate instruction stemming from a "hidden curriculum" (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).

O'Tuel (1994) reported success in using an identification procedure that followed Richert's suggestions. The top 25% of the students from each of several predetermined categories such as race/ethnicity, students at risk, learning disabled, and those receiving free lunches were selected and received enriched training. Preliminary results indicate that these selected students had increased attendance, fewer behavioral problems, had positive attitudes about themselves and their learning, and made gains in critical thinking and self-concept.

It is important to note, however, that successful instructional programs begin with a well defined and well executed assessment program that follows equal opportunity guidelines, least restrictive environment placement policies, and instructional procedures that are culturally sensitive. A culturally-congruent process for identifying, placing, and educating gifted and talented Hispanic students affords these students the opportunities to develop their talents. Armed with such talents Hispanic individuals join others in creating and applying novel approaches to solving society's ills, and in maintaining values, standards, and goals that promote cultural diversity and strengthen social unity.

REFERENCES

Argulewicz, E.N., & Kush, J.C. (1984). Concurrent validity of the SRBCSS creativity scale for Anglo-American and Mexican American gifted students. Educational and Psychological Research, 4, 81-89.

Argulewicz, E.N., Elliott, S.N., & Hall, R. (1982). Comparison of behavioral ratings of Anglo-American and Mexican-American gifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 469-472.

Ashman, S.S. & Vukelich, C. (1983). The effect of different types of nomination forms on teachers' identification of gifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 518-527.

Bahr, M.W., Fuchs, D., Stecker, P.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (1991). Are teachers' perceptions of difficult-to-teach students racially biased? School Psychology Review, 20, 599-608.

Barkan, J.H., & Bernal, E.M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited English proficient students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 144-147.

Beck, M., & Wingert, P. (1993). The young and the gifted: Are our schools nurturing talented kids? Newsweek, 121, 56-57.

Bermudez, A.B., & Rakow, S.J. (1990). Analyzing teachers' perceptions of identification procedures for gifted and talented Hispanic limited English proficient (LEP) students at risk. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 7, 21-33.

Buriel, R. (1982). Mexican- and Anglo American children's locus of control and achievement in relation to teachers' attitude. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 140, 131-143.

Buriel, R. (1983). Teacher-student interaction and their relationship to student achievement: A comparison of Mexican-American and Anglo-American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 889-897.

Burke, J. P., Haworth, C. E., & Ware, W. B. (1982). Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students: An investigation of factor structure. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 477-485.

Chambers, J.A., Barron, F, & Sprecher, J.W. (1980). Identifying gifted Mexican-American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 123-128.

Chinn P. C., & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of minority students in special education classes. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 41-46.

Clifton, R.A., Perry, R.P., Parsonson, K., & Hryniuk, S. (1986). Effects of ethnicity and sex on teachers' expectations of junior high school students. Sociology of Education, 1, 58-67.

Cohen, L.M. (1988). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language students: Issues and practices. New Focus, 8, 1-7.

Cohen, L.M. (1994). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 70-71.

Cox, J. & Daniel, N. (1983). Identification: Special problems and special populations. G/C/T, n 30, 54-61.

Culross, R. (1989). Measurement issues in the screening and selection of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12, 76-78.

Cummins, J. (1984). Assessment of bilingual exceptional students. (pp. 181-221) In J. Cummins Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

de Bernard, A. E. (1985). Why Jose' can't get in the gifted class: The bilingual child and standardized reading tests. Roeper Review, 8, 80-82.

de Kanter, E., & Frankiewicz, R. (1981). Measuring teachers' attitudes toward Mexican American students. NABE Journal, 6, 77-92.

Demetrulias, D.M. (1990). Ethnic surnames. Educational Research Quarterly, 14, 2-6.

Elliott, S.N., & Argulewicz, E.N. (1983). Use of a behavioral rating scale to aid in the identification of developmentally and culturally different gifted children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 179-186.

Elliott, S. N., Argulewicz, E. N., & Turco, T. L. (1986) Predictive validity of the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students for gifted children from three sociocultural groups. Journal of Experimental Education, 55, 27-32.

Ford, D.Y., Grantham, T.C., & Harris, J.J. (1996). Multicultural gifted education: A wakeup call to the profession. Roeper Review, 19, 72-78.

Fradd, S.H., Bermudez, A.B., & Fernandez-Zeyas, M. (1989). The impact of the Hispanic dropout cycle: A proposal for change. Southwest Journal of Educational Research into Practice, 3, 3-12.

Fradd, S.H., Weismantel, M.J., Correa, V.I. & Algozzine, B. (1988). Developing a personnel training model for meeting the needs of handicapped and at-risk language minority students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11, 30-38.

Frasier, M.M. (1987). The identification of gifted black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 155-180.

Gagne, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch's (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 24-126.

Gear, G. H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 478-489.

Gridley, B. E. & Treloar, J. H. (1984). The validity of the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students for the identification of gifted students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 65-71.

Guskin, S.L., Peng, C.Y.J., Simon, M. (1992). Do teachers react to multiple intelligences? Effects of teachers' stereotypes on judgments and expectancies for students with diverse patterns of giftedness/talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 32-37.

Harris, C.R. (1991). Identifying and serving the gifted new immigrant: Problems and strategies. Teaching Exceptional Children, 23, 26-30.

High, M.H. & Udall, A.I. (1983). Teacher ratings of students in relation to ethnicity of students and school ethnic balance. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6, 154-166.

Hilliard, A.G. (1976). Alternatives to IQ testing: An approach to the identification of gifted "minority" children. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, Special Education Support Unit.

Hoge, R.D., & Cudmore, L. (1986). The use of teacher-judgment measures in the identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 181-196.

Hunsaker, S.L. (1994). Adjustment to traditional procedures for identifying undeserved students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61, 72-76.

Jackson, G. & Cosca, G. (1974). The inequality of educational opportunity in the Southwest: An observational study of ethnically mixed classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 11, 219-229.

Jensen, M. & Rosenfeld, L.B. (1974). Influence of mode of presentation, ethnicity, and social class on teachers' evaluations of students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 540-547.

Kantrowitz, B., & Wingert P. (1993). Failing the most gifted kids. Newsweek, 122, 67.

Lindley, H.A & Keithley, M.E. (1991). Gender expectations and student achievement. Roeper Review, 13, 213-215.

Masten, W. G. (1985). Identification of gifted minority students: Past research, future directions. Roeper Review, 8, 83-85.

Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure among Mexican descent and Japanese-American students in California high schools: An ethnographic analysis. American Journal of Education, 95, 233-255.

McCombs, R.C.& Gay, J. (1988). Effects of race, class, and IQ information on judgments of parochial grade school teachers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 647-652.

McKenzie, J.A. (1986). The influence of identification practices, race, and SES on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 93-95.

Mercer, J. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded: Clinical and social system perspectives on mental retardation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mitchell, S.L. (1988). A strategy for the identification of the culturally different gifted/talented child. Roeper Review, 10, 163-165.

Nutall, E.V. (1970). Creativity in boys: A study of the influence of social background, educational achievement, and parental attitudes on the creative behavior of ten year old boys. Dissertation Abstracts International, 31 (1-A), 231-232.

Office of Civil Rights. (1984). Elementary and Secondary Civil Rights Survey, Washington DC: U.S. Printing Office.

Olague, D.O. (1993). Gifted and denied. Gifted Child Today, 16, 47-48.

Ortiz, V., & Volloff, W. (1987). Identification of gifted and accelerate Hispanic students. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 11, 45-55.

O'Tuel, F.S. (1994). APOGEE: Equity in the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 75-79.

Passow, A.H., & Frasier, M.M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198-202.

Prieto, A.G. & Zucker, S.H. (1981). Teacher perception of race as a factor in the placement of behaviorally disordered children. Behavioral Disorders, 7, 34-38.

Read, C.R. (1991). Gender distribution in programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 13, 188-193.

Renzulli, J. S., Hartman, R.K., & Callahan, C.M. (1971). Teacher identification of superior students. Exceptional Children, 38, 211-214, 243-248.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., and Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Reyes, E.I., Fletcher, R, & Paez, D. (1996). Developing local multidimensional screening procedures for identifying giftedness among Mexican American border population. Roeper Review, 18, 208-211.

Richert, E.S. (1985). Identification of gifted students in the United States: The need for pluralistic assessment. Roeper Review, 8, 68-72.

Richert, E.S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 149-154.

Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations. The self-fulfilling prophecy of ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411-451.

Roberts, T., Hutton, J., & Plata, M. (1985). Teacher ratings of Hispanic, Black, and Anglo students' classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 353-356.

Sadker, M.P. & Sadker, D.M. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 512-515.

Sadker, M.P. & Sadker, D.M. (1994). Teachers, schools, and society (3rd ed.). N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Scott, M.S., Perou, R., Urbano, R., Hogan, A., & Gold, S. (1992). The identification of giftedness: A comparison of white, Hispanic and black families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 131-139.

So, A.Y. (1987). Hispanic teachers and the labeling of Hispanic students. The High School Journal, 71, 5-8.

Strom, R., Johnson, A., Strom, S., & Strom, P. (1990). Talented children in minority families. International Journal of Early Childhood, 22, 39-48.

Strom, R., Johnson, A., Strom, S., & Strom, P. (1992). Educating gifted Hispanic children and their parents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14,383393.

Weaver, D., Dandridge, J., & Matthew, J.L. (1993). Identifying gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 18-19.

Woods, S.B. & Achey, V.H. (1990). Successful identification of gifted racial/ethnic group students without changing classification requirements. Roeper Review, 13, 21-26.

Yee, A. (1968). Interpersonal attitudes of teachers and advantaged and disadvantaged pupils. Journal of Human Resources, 3, 327-332.

Zappia, I.A. (1989). Identification of gifted Hispanic students: A multidimensional view (pp. 19-26). In C. J. Maker (Ed.). Critical Issues in Gifted Education, Vol. III. Austin: ProEd.

Zimmerman, R.S., Khoury, E.L., Vega, W.A., & Gil, A.G. (1995). Teacher and parent perceptions of behavior problems among a sample of African-American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 181-197.

Zucker, S.H. & Prieto, A.G. (1977). Ethnicity and teacher bias in educational decisions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 4, 2-5.

Maximino Plata is Professor of Special Education in the Department of Psychology and Special Education and Director, Student Assessment & Evaluation Office at Texas A&M University-Commerce. His research interests are in the education of Hispanic and other ethnic minority students. William Masten is Assistant Professor and Director, School Psychology Program, at Texas A&M University-Commerce. His research interests are in assessment of bilingual students.

Manuscript submitted July, 1996.

Revision accepted November, 1997.