Running head: DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS

Disparities in Gifted Education Demographics among Public School Students

A.M. Washington
January 15, 2010

The College of William and Mary

DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  2 
 

In accordance with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine’s recent request that the Virginia

Department of Education (VDOE) research the disproportionate number of minorities in public

school gifted education programs (Hickey, 2009.), there has been an increase in discussion

regarding testing practices, selection criteria and opportunities available to minorities in these

programs.

The governor may have been propelled to make such a request by the statistics of the

communities surrounding the state’s capital. In a recent Richmond Times-Dispatch article

entitled “Goal: No Minorities Left Behind,” the author reports that last year in Chesterfield

County, African-American students made up 28 percent of the student body but less than 10

percent of the students in gifted education programs. In Hanover County, the same demographic

represented 10 percent of the population and only 3 percent of the gifted population (Prestige and

Meola, 2009.).

Governor Kaine’s request shines a new light on a long-standing problem in the

educational community, and further exposes a foundational flaw in the federal government’s

focus on education. In 2008 the federal government allocated only $7.5 million to research and

grants for the estimated 3 million gifted children in the United States (Big Disparities, 2009.),

which equates to roughly $2.50 per child.

DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  3 
 

The underfunding on the part of the federal government is moreover magnified by the

fact that the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988 is to date the

only federal legislation that supports the field of gifted education (Green, 2007.).

Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School director Fred Morton IV described reexamining the

admissions into the program as measure that would “broaden the opportunities and create a level

playing field” (Prestige et. al, 2009). Addressing this issue would likely reduce the disparity of

the gifted education statics, thus serving our clients, the students, more efficiently.

In order to best educate our gifted community, we must ensure that there is adequate

funding allocated to properly serve all of our students with the potential for exemplary

achievement. We must also ensure fair and equitable entry to these programs for all students

regardless of race, culture or socio-economic background.

James Borland, an education professor at the Teachers College-Columbia University,

states that identification is at the crux of the problem of under-representation (2009). Current

assessments for entry into Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) programs often include

vocabulary assessments and measure the ability to create word problems which are very difficult

for children who have limited English-language skills (Naglieri, 2002).

In the article, “Minority Children in Gifted Education: A Problem and a Solution,” Jack

Naglieri highlights the difference in what we should look for in identifying gifted students as
DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  4 
 

opposed to simply identifying students with a high level of attainment. He writes that “[a] test of

achievement measures what children have been taught by parents, siblings friends and

teachers…it measures how will they read, spell and do math.” (2002). He goes on to explain that

when testing for giftedness we should be testing for a student’s “ability or intelligence” which

measures a child’s ability to acquire information and skills. Testing for ability not achievement

will prevent children, who come from low-income families, areas with limited emphasis on

education and fundamental cultural barriers from being left behind. Testing along these

parameters will also work to remove the appearance of impropriety in the identification of

children to be served in the GATE community.

Nonverbal tests of general ability are designed specifically to measure intelligence

independently of language and math skills. (Naglieri, 2002). Tests such as the Naglieri

Nonverbal Ability Test and Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices employ the use of graphs and

limited verbal instructions to determine students reasoning and spatial abilities.

In an Interview for Duke Gifted Letter (2002), Linda Silverman supported the use of

nonverbal test as a means in “identifying gifted children from culturally diverse groups”. In that

same interview (2002), Donna Ford stated, “Tests that measure intelligence nonverbally are

likely to capture the strengths of, and not to penalize as low achievers, students who cannot read,
DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  5 
 

who have poor language skills, who are bilingual and so on.” These are the students that the “all

backgrounds” statement in Governor Kaine’s press release (2009) seeks to address.

Some in the education community disagree with the alternative forms of testing. In his

opposition to the use of nonverbal reasoning tests, David Lohman, PhD, Professor of Education

at the University of Iowa, argues that examinations such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices should

not be the primary instrument for identifying academically gifted students (Lohman, 2005). He

further contests, “selecting students on the basis of such tests would exclude most of the students

who would profit from advanced instruction…(Lohman 2005).”

This would be a valid point except for the fact that there is little research that seeks to

eliminate standardized GATE assessment, just to supplement with the use of nonverbal tests for

students without extensive academic training. Donna Ford (2002) an advocate of nonverbal

intelligence tests, remarks, “I do not recommend eliminating IQ tests, but I do recommend

decreasing considerably the power we grant them.” This is in an effort not to reverse the

disparity but to balance the statistics to ensure fair and equitable selection of our best and

brightest students. She maintains, “Traditional and nonverbal tests should be used along with

grades, projects and teacher family to make informed, responsible decisions about all

students…”(2002).
DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  6 
 

Lohman (2005) also argues that “Students who most need advanced academic instruction

are those who currently display academic excellence” which does nothing to address the students

who have the potential for academic excellence. This would leave all students who do not have

the benefit of adequate educational experiences or exposure to the English language behind. This

not only stifles the quest for equality, it contradicts the statistical need for an overhaul of our

practices in this realm of education.

In an interview with Duke Gifted Letter (2002), Linda Silverman combats an issue shared

by some school districts regarding nonverbal testing. Studies have shown children who do well

on Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices but do poorly on more verbally loaded intelligence

tests also do poorly in their gifted programs. Silverman draws attention to the fact that these

gifted programs are verbally loaded and brings forth the need for “program[s] more suited to

children who perform well on nonverbal measures.”(2002) An enhancement program to teach

students who have been selected through these alternative means would be necessary to raise the

target students to the level of the rest of the gifted community.

The students who would require alternative testing would also require individual,

enhanced study in order to accelerate them to the level of their peers within the program. A

gifted enhancement program would provide children with gifted ability specialized attention in

specific areas or subjects as suggested by the assessment.

DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  7 
 

A student who has demonstrated higher-level cognitive abilities but low verbal ability or

academic prowess would need enrichment suitable to their deficiency. At an interim, these

students will need remediation to develop language skills or become more familiar with the

academic coursework, which is shown through their individualized assessment. This is not a

measure designed to create additional coursework which may overwhelm the students and

prevent their success once in the GATE program, this is to supplement the current classroom

material until the student is able to function within the gifted community unassisted.

The depth and content of this enrichment curriculum must be assessed on an individual

basis as determined by the strengths and weakness of the individual student. Once the areas of

difficulty are identified, a modified instructional plan would need to be designed for that student.

This plan should provide a timeline of services to be provided and a strategic plan for eliminating

the students need for remediation through systematic instruction by trained professionals. Even

though this task may prove arduous at the onset, the benefit of increasing the number of honors

students graduating and attending schools of higher education is well worth the effort.

The need for reform and finance of our gifted education programs is overwhelming. As

educators we must adequately seek and identify gifted students regardless of race, prior
DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  8 
 

experience, and socio-economic status. Once we have accurately selected the students to receive

gifted services we must ensure that the program is geared toward their success.

A student’s command of the English language is not determinative of that student’s

ability to learn and process information. The goal of these tests is to measure a student’s ability

to learn and process information, not to test the intelligence level. The latter is the result of

training and experience. This is not an indicator of a student’s giftedness.

However, the goal of assessment in determining gifted students is very different.

Assessors are charged not with merely selecting students who have achieved, but students with

high cognitive abilities who we can provide specialized instruction so that they can achieve.

These students must have a fair and equitable access to these programs or we have failed as

educators to properly serve our shareholders, the students.

The nonverbal tests are an excellent way to determine overall ability as well as giftedness

in underrepresented students. However, changing the testing alone is not enough. Once we

select the gifted students who would not pass standardized testing, we must create a curriculum

that allows them to succeed in the gifted program. These programs are traditionally highly verbal

as well as technical and once these students pass the nonverbal exams and enter the programs

they must be able to succeed or the effort was in vein. There is no benefit to getting students into

programs where they cannot be successful.

DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  9 
 

Once we are able to properly edify our entire gifted community we will be the beneficiaries of a

more educated, productive society in which our schools thrive and we can truly say that no child

has been left behind.

DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  10 
 

References

Duke Gifted Letter (Interviewer), Silverman, L.K. & Ford, D. (Interviewee)

Nonverbal Intelligence Tests [Interview Transcript]. Retrieved from Duke

Gifted Letter-Articles-Volume 3/Issue 1 /Fall 2002 Web Site:

http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/vol3no1_ef.html

Green, N. (2007) Preface. Overlooked Gems: A National Perspective on Low-Income Promising

Learners. By VanTassel-Baska, J. & Stambaugh, T. ed. National Leadership Conference

on Low-Income Promising Learners. Washington, D.C National Association for Gifted

Children. Williamsburg, Virginia: College of William and Mary. 2007. Print

Hickey, G. (2009) Governor Kaine Orders Study of Gifted Education

Programs. The Official Website of the Governor of Virginia- News Releases

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/viewRelease.cfm?id=1

147

Lohman, D. (2005). How to Identify Academically Gifted Minority Students. Cognitively

Speaking. Volume 3. Retrieved from http://www.riverpub.com/products/group/

cogat6/pdfs/newsletters/CS_vol3_winter05.pdf

Naglieri, J.A. (2008). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test Person Education, Inc. Technical Report.
DISPARITIES IN GIFTED EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHICS  11 
 

Retrieved from http: //psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/F79BD2C3-

574D-4C3E-AFF3-00A3BBD48113/0/NNAT_TR.pdf

Prestige, H. & Meola, O. (2009). Goal: no minorities left behind. Richmond Times-Dispatch

Retrieved from http: //psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/F79BD2C3-

574D-4C3E-AFF3-00A3BBD48113/0/NNAT_TR.pdf