User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > The Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education > Volume 17 |  Issue 2 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Davidson Institute. (2006). Genius denied: How to stop wasting our brightest young minds—Gifted education policies. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from http://www.geniusdenied.com/Policies/StatePolicy.aspx?NavID=6_0.
  • Feldman, D. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9–33). 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.
  • 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 (No. RM95204). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Garcia, J. H., Martin, D., et al. (1995). An exploratory study of the effectiveness of the Staff Development Model and the Research-based Assessment Plan in improving the identification of gifted economically disadvantaged students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Gagné, 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, 124–126.
  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gear, G. H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 478–489.
  • Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Adjustments to traditional procedures for identifying underserved students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 72–76.
  • Hunsaker, S. L., Finley, V. S., & Frank, E. L. (1997). An analysis of teacher nominations and student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 19–24.
  • Kirschenbaum, R. J. (2004). Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted and talented populations. In A. Y. Baldwin & S. M. Reis (Eds.), Culturally diverse and underserved populations of gifted students (pp. 49–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Masten, W. G., Plata, M., Wenglar, K., & Thedford, J. (1999). Acculturation and teacher ratings of Hispanic and Anglo-American students. Roeper Review, 22, 64–65.
  • 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.
  • Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 48, 300–304.
  • Plata, M., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Teacher ratings of Hispanic and Anglo students on a behavior rating scale. Roeper Review, 21, 139–144.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Delcourt, M. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 20–33.
  • Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., & Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Westberg, K. (1991). Scale for Rating Students’ Participation in the Local Gifted Education Program. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
  • Sarouphim, K. M. (1999). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 244–251.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110–123.
  • Waters, T. J., & Clausen, S. (1983). Effectiveness of parent versus teacher nomination of gifted children. Southern Psychologist, 1, 189–191.
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 17
  •  Issue 2
  • Publication Date: Winter 2006



A Descriptive Analysis of Referral Sources for Gifted Identification Screening by Race and Socioeconomic Status

Matthew T. McBee

A dataset containing demographic information, gifted nomination status, and gifted identification status for all elementary school students in the state of Georgia (N = 705,074) was examined. The results indicated that automatic and teacher referrals were much more valuable than other referral sources. Asian and White students were much more likely to be nominated than Black or Hispanic students. Students receiving free or reduced-price lunches were much less likely to be nominated than students paying for their own lunches. The results suggest that inequalities in nomination, rather than assessment, may be the primary source of the underrepresentation of minority and low-SES students in gifted programs.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.