User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Gifted Child Today > Volume 28 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Associated Press. (2004, December 19). Report: Poor get least-fit teachers. The Gainesville Sun.
  • Bireley, M. (1995). Identifying high ability/high achievement giftedness. In J. L. Genshaft, M. Bireley, & C. L. Hollinger (Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students: A resource for school personnel (pp. 49–65). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  • Boatman, T. A., Davis, K. G., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). Best practices in gifted education. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III, (pp. 1083–1096). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January 1). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1. Retrieved February 9, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.
  • DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBox, G. R. (1985). Public policy and advocacy on behalf of the gifted and talented. In F. D. Horowitze, & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 409–435). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Heller, K. A. (1986). Introduction. In K. A. Heller, & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted: An international perspective (pp. 19–32). Lewiston, NY: Hans Huber Publishers.
  • Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Habadank, L. (1995). Developing local norms for problem solving in the schools. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology III (pp. 701–716). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
  • Herrnstein, R. J., and Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: The Free Press.
  • Heward, W. L. (2000). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey NJ: Merrill.
  • Information Center on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (2002). GT—Legal issues. Retrieved December 11, 2004, from http://ericec.org/faq/gt-legal.html.
  • Information Center on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (2003). GT—Minority identification. Retrieved December 11, 2004, from http://ericec.org/faq/gtminor.html.
  • Jensen, A. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: The Free Press.
  • Kamphaus, T., & Lozano, R. (1984). Developing local norms for individually administered tests. The School Psychology Review, 13, 491–498.
  • Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113–142). New York: Guilford.
  • Lee, J. (1998). State policy correlates of the achievement gap among racial and social groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24,137–152.
  • Maker, C. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, and problem solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9(2), 68–77.
  • Mansfield, W., & Farris, E. (1992). Office for civil rights survey redesign: A feasibility survey. Retrieved February 5, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs92/92130.pdf.
  • Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing House.
  • National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2001). National assessment of educational progress achievement levels: 1992–1998 for reading. Retrieved December 12, 2004, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/readingbook.pdf.
  • National Association for Gifted Children. (2004). Javits program description. Retrieved December 11, 2004, from http://www.nagc.org/policy/javitsprogramdescription.html.
  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Scholastic Assessment Test score averages, by state: 1987–88 to 2000–01. Retrieved February 4, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt137.asp.
  • National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 (2001).
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: Author.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 180–184.
  • Rosenfield, S. (1983). Assessment of the gifted child. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology: Vol. III (pp. 141–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Sattler, J. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications. San Diego, CA: author.
  • Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policies regarding gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 16–21.
  • Shore, B. M, Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.
  • Stewart, L. H., & Kaminski, R. (2002). Best practices in developing local norms for academic problem solving. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 737–752). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
  • Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
  • Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Title IV, Part B. [Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988], Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1988, 20 U.S.C. º 3061 et seq.
  • United States Census Bureau. (2001a). Overview of race: Census 2000 brief. Washington, DC: Author.
  • United States Census Bureau. (2001b). Percent of persons who are foreign born: 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 28
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Fall 2005



A 21st-Century Model for Identifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs in Light of National Conditions: An Emphasis on Race and Ethnicity

Thomas Oakland and Eric Rossen

Schools began providing services for gifted and talented (GT) students in the 1860s (DeLeon & VandenBox, 1985). However, GT programs in public schools did not become common in the United States (U.S.) until about 100 years later. Terman’s (1925) scholarship helped establish standards for GT programs when he identified intelligence as an important, perhaps the most important, marker of gifted students, and he suggested they should score among the top 2% on nationally standardized intelligence tests. These standards for identification continue in many locations. For example, 73% of school districts rely on standardized measures of cognitive abilities when identifying GT students (Heward, 2000).


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.