Article 1 Review

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process

Pamela Peters, E. Jean Gubbins, Rashea Hamilton, D. Betsy McCoach, Del Siegle, and Jeb Puryear

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Current Definitions of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Overview of Identification Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Identification Issues: Disproportionate Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Research Spotlight on Three States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Pre-identification Strategies and Preparation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Research and/or Practice: Implications and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Structured Elements of Pre-identification Strategies and Preparation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Identification, Programming, Professional Development, and a Culture of Awareness . . . . . 16 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Abstract Gifted education programs across the globe struggle with the disproportionate representation of underserved populations. These groups include majority lan- guage learners, indigenous people, racial and ethnic minorities, and gifted stu- dents with disabilities. This underrepresentation leads to missed talent and

P. Peters · E. J. Gubbins (*) · D. B. McCoach · D. Siegle University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; del. [email protected]

R. Hamilton Washington Student Achievement Council, Olympia, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

J. Puryear ACS-Cobham International School, Hersham, UK e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 S. R. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_21-1

1

opportunity and lends support to claims of elitism in gifted programs. Research, however, has demonstrated that pre-identification strategies and preparation pro- grams might help to mitigate these problems. These programs are typically designed to prepare students for the identification process as well as for the advanced academic work that follows. This chapter provides an overview of recent research, including reports currently in preparation by the National Center for Research on Gifted Education, as well as information on types of programs that have been implemented featuring best practices.

Keywords Gifted students · Identification · Underserved populations · Pre-identification strategies · Preparation programs

The aims in this chapter are to: 1. Present current definitions of giftedness. 2. Provide an overview of identification systems. 3. Address identification issues, including disproportionate representation. 4. Share current findings from a research study of identification in three states. 5. Describe pre-identification strategies and preparation programs. 6. Highlight research and/or practice: Implications and future directions.

Introduction

Students with high potential live in both advantaged and disadvantaged communi- ties. Wyner, Bridgeland and Dilulio (2009) used the phrase “achievement trap” to highlight the status of 3.4 million children in the United States who do not live in economically advantaged homes, over 1 million of whom qualify for free and reduced-price (FRPL) lunch. Many of these students possess high potential for academic achievement. According to the Wyner et al. study, students caught in the achievement trap do not achieve academically at the same levels as their peers with similar potential, drop out of high school at higher rates, and may not pursue postsecondary opportunities. Students from low-income families, as well as those who are African-American, Latino, or Native American, are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs in the United States (Ford 2014; Siegle et al., 2016; Yoon & Gentry 2009). Similar patterns are found outside of the United States as well. Aboriginal children in Australia (Harslett 1996) and Maori children in New Zealand (Bevan-Brown 1999) are also underrepresented in gifted programs. Plucker, Burroughs, and Song (2010) described this situation as the excellence gap: the differences in high-level achievement between White students and those from other racial/ethnic groups as well as the differences between students from low- and high-income backgrounds. Plucker et al. referred to the Wyner et al. study and

2 P. Peters et al.

stated it “illustrates the immediate and long-term dangers posed by festering excel- lence gaps” (p. 30).

Ford (2014) posited that the disproportionate identification of students who are African-American, Latino, or Native American is caused by social inequality, deficit thinking, and colour-blindness, arguing that the underrepresentation of minority stu- dents is a form of segregation. Indeed, in the case of McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District–46 (2013), the court ruled that by having separate gifted programs for Hispanic students, the school district was breaking the law.

This form of “identification segregation” is a global problem. Bevan-Brown (2011) analysed indigenous conceptions of giftedness from Māori, Navajo (Diné), and Aus- tralian aboriginal perspectives and suggested that the underrepresentation of gifted minority students is related to identification practices influenced by low teacher expec- tations, low teacher referral, lack of cultural sensitivity, and narrow conceptions of giftedness. Bevan-Brown (1999) and Scobie-Jennings (2013) focussed solely on iden- tification issues related to Māori students and contended that the barrier to culturally responsive identification is the lack of teacher expertise and knowledge about the characteristics and behaviours of students from indigenous groups.

To combat these trends related to the underrepresentation of gifted students from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse communities and students with disabilities, it is important to focus on stages of talent development among students with obvious, emergent, and latent talents and abilities (Gubbins, 2005; Worrell & Erwin, 2011) as well as to use culturally appropriate assessment (Ford, 2014).

Current Definitions of Giftedness

The identification of gifted students in the United States is the subject of ongoing debate. Is identification an endpoint or a developmental process that occurs over time? Is it a matter of confirming the preexistence of manifest abilities or an approach that emphasises nurturing latent or emergent talents? The United States does not have a consistent conception of giftedness that guides an identification team’s decision-making procedures. Due to legislative initiatives, federal definitions morphed over time from the initial Marland (1971) Report to Congress to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015). Marland’s (1971) first definition emphasised categorical (singular or combinatory) identification by professionally qualified indi- viduals who select students with demonstrated or potential achievement, who therefore require differentiated programs and/or services:

Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realise their contribution to society.

Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential in any of the following areas, singly or in combination:

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 3

• General intellectual ability, • Specific academic ability, • Creative or productive thinking, • Leadership ability, • Visual and performing arts, or • Psychomotor ability. (pp. 20–21)

In 1978, Congress revised the earlier Marland definition and deleted any reference to psychomotor ability.

Currently, the federal definition under the ESSA (2015) addresses the importance of identifying students, children, or youth with documented achievement capability in one or more areas or fields that need services to develop abilities:

Gifted and talented, when used with respect to students, children, or youth, means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (ESSA, 2015, Title 1V Part F, SEC. 4644)

While the federal definition of giftedness provides guidance to states and local school districts, there is no federal law in the United States that requires identifica- tion of nor services for gifted students. Without a consistent definition of giftedness, each state determines its own definition and corresponding identification system. Survey results from the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG, 2015) indicated that of the 37 responding states’ definitions, the foci were intellectually gifted (n = 34), academically gifted (n = 24), performing/visual arts (n = 21), creatively gifted (n = 21), and/or specific academic areas (n = 20). Few states included populations such as “low SES [socioeconomic] (n= 9), ESL/ELL [English as a second language, English language learners], culturally or ethnically diverse (n = 8), gifted with a disability (n = 6), or geographically isolated/rural (n = 3)” (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015, p. 27). These results highlight the categorical approach to identification, as opposed to nurturing talents and abilities of students who live in challenging environments.

Unlike the United States’ decentralisation of specific educational policies related to identifying and serving gifted and talented students, Australia adopted Gagné’s (2008) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) with particular attention to nomenclature (Wellisch, 2016):

GIFTEDNESS designates the possession and use of outstanding natural abilities, called aptitudes, in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers.

TALENT designates the outstanding mastery of systematically developed abilities, called competencies (knowledge and skills), in at least one field of human activity to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers who are or have been active in that field. (Gagné, 2008, para. 7)

4 P. Peters et al.

Other scholars and psychologists offered definitions of giftedness. Roeper (1982) defined giftedness as “a greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and to transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experi- ences” (p. 21). She emphasised connections between the intellect and emotions. The focus on sensitivity and intensity was explored further by the Columbus Group (1991, cited in Morelock 1992) when they offered a development perspective:

Giftedness is Asynchronous Development in which advanced cognitive abilities and height- ened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in parenting, teaching, and counseling in order for them to develop optimally. (para. 10)

Despite the varying conceptions of giftedness, it is essential that definitions be codified, intentional, and reflective of the culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse populations in schools. As Gallagher (1975) stated:

. . . [F]ailure to help the gifted child is a societal tragedy, the extent of which is difficult to measure but which is surely great. How can we measure the sonata unwritten, the curative drug undiscovered, the absence of political insight? They are the difference between what we are and what we could be as a society. (p. 9)

Overview of Identification Systems

Typical identification systems have multiple phases. The first step is often deciding which students should be evaluated for gifted education programs. The multistage process continues with nomination—using formal or informal data collection through rating scales or naming of top students in one or more content areas followed by identification—reviewing existing data sources, and, perhaps, a request for further testing with an individual achievement or intelligence test. Placement is the final stage when professionally qualified individuals review all data sources and determine the students’ status as meeting/not meeting the qualifications or schedul- ing further assessment procedures (Gubbins et al., 2018).

This framework is utilised differently and at various grade levels across the United States. According to Hamilton (2017) and the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE, 2017), 1% of district survey respondents (n = 300) from three states with identification and programming mandates were identified as gifted and talented students in kindergarten, 3.33% in grade 1, 28.67% in grade 2, 51.67% in grade 3, 12.33% in grade 4, 1.33% in grade 5, and none of the higher- grade levels (1.67%). Some districts chose to screen all students at a particular grade level, commonly referred to as a universal screening. Districts in these three states also used a variety of measures as a screening tool. District survey respondents could select as many assessment options as appropriate. In the absence of a single, research-based approach to identification, it is important to note the ways that the

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 5

varied procedures affect students with high potential, particularly those from eco- nomically disadvantaged homes and those who have been traditionally under- identified.

Research-based identification systems reflect current thinking about how best to design and implement procedures sensitive to acknowledging demonstrated achieve- ment and uncovering potential achievement. According to the NAGC and CSDPG (2015) survey, 33 states specified their identification indicators, with 19 using multiple criteria models with a minimum of two types of data: achievement (n = 13), IQ scores (n = 13), and nominations/referrals (n = 12). Fewer states chose state assessments (n = 9), performance/portfolios (n = 8), or behaviours/ characteristics (n = 7). These data sources may be employed in different sequences.

Identification Issues: Disproportionate Representation

Peters and Engerrand (2016) noted that African-American, Hispanic, Native Amer- icans, English learners, twice-exceptional students (i.e., identification as gifted and special education status), and students from low-income families are underrepre- sented among identified, gifted, and talented populations. Gubbins et al. (2018) stated that underrepresented is a term used to:

describe the students’ proportional representation by race/ethnicity, EL status, gender, free and reduced-price lunch status, or twice-exceptionality (identification as gifted and special education status) in gifted programs compared to the proportions in the general student population at the national, district or state levels. (p. 1)

Peters and Engerrand (2016) asserted that the “current level of economic, racial, and ethnic inequality is a problem not only for political and advocacy reasons but also because students from these subgroups represent the fastest-growing segments of the K–12 population and many of their talents are going overlooked and under- developed....” (p. 159).

The NAGC and CSDPG (2015) attempted to collect demographic survey data (race/ethnicity, English learners, twice-exceptional students, and low-socioeconomic status) on identified gifted and talented students; typical responses included “data not collected” and “data not available.” If states and districts are not collecting demo- graphic data on proportionate representation of gifted students that mirror their local populations, then there is no recognition that a problem exists.

One available national data source about representation of identified gifted students by race/ethnicity is from the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014):

White and Asian-American students make up 70% of the students enrolled in gifted and talented education programs, compared to 55% of [W]hite and Asian-American enrolment in schools offering gifted and talented programs. Latino and [B]lack students represent 26% of the students enrolled in gifted and talented programs, compared to 40% of Latino and Black student enrolment in schools offering gifted and talented programs. (p. 3)

6 P. Peters et al.

The disproportionate representation of students enrolled in gifted and talented pro- grams by disability and English learner status also is evident in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014), 7.3% of the gifted and talented students are without disabilities, 1.4% with disabilities, 7.0% non-English learners, and 2.0% English learners. Identification systems that led to the results cannot be determined. However, the availability of these public data by and across states should prompt conversations: Who are our gifted students?

Research Spotlight on Three States

One approach to addressing disproportionate representation includes universal screening as a purposeful approach to evaluate students’ gifts and talents. Card and Giuliano’s research study (2015) of the effects of universal screening concluded:

With no change in the minimum standards for gifted status the screening program led to a 180% increase in the gifted rate among all disadvantaged students, with a 130% increase for Hispanic students and an 80% increase for [B]lack students. (p. 20)

The following quotation emphasises the importance of casting a wider net when identification systems are implemented: “Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor” (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, p. 3).

Data from the NCRGE district survey (2016) indicated that districts (n = 301) incorporated one or more of the following assessment tools for their universal screening procedure: group cognitive tests (n = 81), nonverbal cognitive tests (n = 26), achievement tests (n = 54), and teacher rating scales (n = 185). Of the respondents from reporting districts, 30.76% modified the identification process for students from underserved populations and 69.33% did not. Underserved is a term used to:

reference individuals or groups that have not had opportunities to learn at high levels or to be exposed to content, concepts, or skills to prepare them for challenging work. The lack of opportunities may be related to living in challenging economic communities or the inability to have access to multiple resources to promote learning. (Gubbins et al., 2018, p. 1)

According to the NCRGE district survey (2016) respondents, districts either always assessed English learners in their native language (16.44%), for common languages (19.8%), specific requests from parents or teachers (30.54%), or not at all (33.22%).

The NCRGE district survey (2016) respondents were asked if they modified the identification process for students from underserved populations, and 69.33% selected “yes,” while 30.67% selected “no.” Of those district respondents selecting “yes,” Table 1 documents the modification options.

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 7

For the respondents who chose “other” in reference to modification of identifi- cation options for underserved populations, responses included referring students to individual testing when there is a discrepancy between group scores and classroom observations, using a portfolio process, focusing on local norms, and conducting a case study of students’ talents and abilities.

Districts’ use of intentional and flexible strategies represents positive signs that educators attend to identification strategies. However, these findings are not univer- sal nor do they represent identification systems across the United States or elsewhere for that matter. For example, identification processes are used in many nations, such as Canada (e.g., Chaffey, Halliwell, & McCluskey, 2006; Chaffey, McCluskey, & Halliwell, 2005), Australia (e.g., Cooper, 2005; Garvis, 2006), New Zealand (e.g., Bevan-Brown, 1999), Taiwan (e.g., Wu, 2000), and Thailand (e.g., Anuruthwong, 2017). However, there is no consistency in using these procedures for identifying gifted students generally nor for identifying underrepresented gifted students across these nations, nor within these nations neither (Chaffey, Bailey, & Vine, 2003). Gentry, Hu, and Thomas (2008) and Mun et al. (2016) contend that traditional screening tools and strategies often fail to reveal the talents and abilities of students from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds.

While the underrepresentation of students who are English learners, come from low-income households, and/or are members of certain racial groups, has been well documented, research suggests that these students also tend to exhibit lower aca- demic achievement than their peers (Hamilton et al., 2018). Thus, it is possible that these traditionally underserved populations are underrepresented because of their lower achievement. Research from McCoach et al. (2016), however, suggests that these populations are underrepresented despite equivalent prior achievement.

Using data from three states that have state-level mandates to identify and serve gifted students, McCoach et al. (2016) examined the degree to which traditionally underserved students were under-identified as gifted. They conducted a series of three-level (student, school, district) logistic regression models, where students’ identification status at grade 5 was the outcome variable. These analyses enabled researchers to predict directly the probability that a student would be identified as gifted, after controlling for student-, school-, and district-level predictors.

Table 1 Modification of identification options for underserved populations

Variable No Yes Total

Evaluate English learners in native language 56 35 91

Use nonverbal assessment 25 66 91

Use a more flexible approach about qualifying scores 36 55 91

Use a talent pool approach 53 38 91

Give underserved students extra consideration 57 34 91

Use different weighting of identification data 66 25 91

Other 75 16 91

Total 368 269 637

8 P. Peters et al.

The models included student-level covariates such as underrepresented minority status, FRPL, and English learner status as well as students’ grade 3 math and reading achievement test scores. McCoach et al. (2016) also included several school- and district-level covariates: the percentage of students who were identified as gifted, the percentage of students who received FRPL, as well as school and district mean math and reading scores. They tested same level interactions among variables and included these in the final model. Continuous variables were group mean centered at levels 1 and 2 and grand mean centered at level-3. They dummy coded dichotomous variables at level 1.

Across all three states, African-American, Latino, and Native American students were between 0.5 and 0.67 times less likely to be identified as gifted, even after controlling for student achievement, FRPL status, and school and district variables (State 1: OR = 0.67; State 2: OR = 0.5; State 3: OR = 0.67).

In two of the three states, non-FRPL students were between 1.5 and 2 times more likely to be identified as gifted, after controlling for student achievement, under- served status, and school and district demographics (State 1: OR = 0.67; State 2: OR = 0.5). In State 3, FRPL was not a significant predictor of gifted identification after controlling for student, school, and district covariates. However, State 3 utilised a selection process that results in achievement scores being less predictive of gifted status than the other two states. State 3 offers an alternative pathway, which includes flexible test scores for students who qualify for FRPL or who are English learners.

It is important to note that the aforementioned findings apply to students who are members of only one underrepresented group (low-income or racial/ethnic minority). However, Figs. 1, 2, and 3 demonstrate how being members of both groups influences students’ probability of being identified. Across all three states, being both FRPL-eligible and belonging to a racial/ethnic minority were found to negatively affect a student’s likelihood for identification, albeit to a lesser extent in State 3.

Unlike race/ethnicity and FRPL status, proficiency in English is less of a clear predictor of gifted status. After controlling for achievement, race/ethnicity, and FRPL status, as well as school and district demographics, in one state, it positively predicted gifted identification; in another state, it negatively predicted identification status, and in another state, it did not predict identification (State 1: γ300 = �0.05, p = 0.36; State 2: γ300 = 0.25, p = 0.07; State 3: γ300 = �0.29, p = 0.04).

McCoach et al.’s (2016) findings suggest that traditionally underserved students are less likely to be identified as gifted, even when their achievement is on par with their peers. These results support previous studies that indicate the existence of excellence gaps or differences between subgroups of students performing at the highest levels of achievement (Plucker et al., 2010). McCoach et al.’s research, however, also suggests an even more disturbing trend: economically disadvantaged, English learners, and historically underprivileged minorities who score at the highest levels of achievement are still less likely to be identified for gifted programs than their reference peers, a phenomenon they call the “identification gap.” These find- ings may help to explain why the proportion of underserved high-achieving students decreases as they progress through school. When these high-achieving students do

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 9

not have appropriate opportunities to thrive and to develop their abilities, they are unable to keep pace with their more advantaged peers. One possible approach to providing opportunities for latent and emergent talents and gifts to develop is the creation of pre-identification strategies and preparation programs.

Pre-identification Strategies and Preparation Programs

Pre-identification strategies and preparation programs offer exposure and curricular extensions to students who may not have had similar opportunities to learn at the highest levels because of “the variability in the quality of education students receive once in K–12 schools is further exacerbated by the wide variation in their preschool, informal education experiences” (Peters & Engerrand, 2016, p. 161). These learning and achievement traps also extend to the lack of exposure to rich vocabulary and sophisticated language patterns. Hart and Risley (2003) determined that “In four years, an average child in a professional family would accumulate experience with almost 45 million words, an average child in a working-class family 26 million words, and an average child in a welfare family 13 million words” (p. 9).

The NCRGE district survey (2016) included a series of questions related to pre- identification strategies and preparation programs. Pre-identification strategies include selecting students for emergent talent experiences. Teachers used informal

0 .2

.4 .6

.8 1

P ro

ba bi

lit y

of C

hi ld

B ei

ng G

ift ed

in 5

th G

ra de

0 10 20 30 3rd Grade Math + Reading Score (Centered)

ref under_frl

Fig. 1 Probability of being identified as gifted after controlling for achievement in State 1

10 P. Peters et al.

and formal data in their search for talent potentials. These pre-identified students participate in preparation programs to extend and enhance current knowledge and academic skills to promote the development of talents that will provide a potential pathway to full participation in the district’s identification system in the future.

Of the NCRGE district survey respondents from three states, 92 districts (30.67%) offered special activities for potentially gifted elementary students from underrepresented populations to prepare them to be identified for the gifted program in later grades, while 208 districts (69.33%) did not provide similar opportunities. These programs were designed for students from low-income families, African- Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, English learners, and twice-exceptional students. Of the districts offering preparation programs, 45 implemented them during the school day within general education classrooms, 58 held them during the school day and in special classes outside of general education classrooms, and 35 occurred outside of the regular school day (e.g., before school, after school, during summer). In these districts, various types of evidence were used to determine which students should be involved in special enrichment and extension activities as part of preparation programs. Data sources included the following: teacher nomination/ referrals (n = 70), standardised tests (n = 46), observation tools or checklists (n = 44), and performance-based assessments (n = 42) (NCRGE district survey, 2016).

0 .2

.4 .6

.8 1

P ro

ba bi

lit y

of C

hi ld

B ei

ng G

ift ed

in 5

th G

ra de

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 3rd Grade Math + Reading Score (Centered)

ref under_frl

Fig. 2 Probability of being identified as gifted after controlling for achievement in State 2

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 11

Respondents from 92 districts with preparation programs were asked to indicate the degree to which specific activities were the focus based on the following scale (0 = Not a focus, 100 = Complete focus). Table 2 illustrates the varied foci of preparation programs with the highest cantering on process skills (mean 58.43, SD 34.61) and mathematics (mean 48.01, SD 31.10).

Research and/or Practice: Implications and Future Directions

The difficulty in identifying subgroups of students for gifted programming is not a new phenomenon (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Peternel, 2009). Gifted education

Fig. 3 Probability of being identified as gifted after controlling for achievement in State 3

Table 2 Focus of preparation programs

Mean SD

Reading/English language arts 42.63 33.48

Mathematics 48.01 31.10

Visual and/or performing arts 17.18 24.09

Process skills 58.43 34.63

General enrichment 44.79 35.55

Above grade-level content 42.84 35.50

Support services for students 20.94 30.72

12 P. Peters et al.

researchers and individual school districts have developed varied approaches in an attempt to mitigate this problem. Project GOTCHA (Galaxies of Thinking and Creative Heights of Achievements) was developed in the Broward County Public Schools, located in Fort Lauderdale, FL in the 1980s. Using multiple criteria such as informal observation, parent and peer nomination forms, Renzulli behaviour rating scales, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, and more, GOTCHA focussed on increasing the participation of English learners by identifying students in three stages: nomination, identification, and placement. Students in Broward County could be placed in full inclusion or pull-out programs.

Some districts have focussed on preparing underrepresented students for gifted programs or advanced academic work. Project EXCITE, a partnership between the Evanston, IL schools and the Center for Talent Development (CTD) at Northwestern University, was created with the goal of raising the achievement of gifted minority students so that they might qualify for and succeed in advanced programs and acceleration in high school mathematics and science programs (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006). Project partners used strategies focused on role models, parent support, teacher expectations, and enrichment opportunities. Students were eligible for the program beginning in grade 3. In a review of 14 program participants who had been in Project EXCITE for 6 years, Lee et al. (2009) found positive results, including academic outcomes, with 12 of the 14 students enrolled in accelerated mathematics courses and an increase in the number of students who exceeded standards on standardised testing from 3 in grade 3 to 10 in grade 8.

The Young Scholars Model, based in Fairfax, VA, is another example of districts preparing underrepresented students. Teachers work with groups of advanced young students who are clustered together. They provide advanced academic work in the classroom as well as in summer and/or after-school programs that provide additional opportunities for advanced material and enrichment (Horn, 2015). Students are chosen for this program using a number of assessments including nonverbal ability tests, achievement tests, portfolios, performance assessments, and observations/ conversations with the student, the teacher, family, or other parties. Program staff particularly focus on young students with high ability who lack access, affirmation, and/or advocacy (Lohman, 2005). Research on the Young Scholars Model is ongoing.

Project SPARK (Supporting and Promoting Advanced Readiness in Kids) is a current research project funded by the U.S. Department of Education under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act first authorised by Congress in 1988, focusing on identifying and serving students from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse communities and students with disabilities. Project SPARK is testing a scaled-up version of the Young Scholars Model. Researchers at the University of Connecticut are attempting to bring the Young Scholars Model to a state that has neither a mandate nor funding for gifted education programming but does require districts to identify gifted students. They are providing professional development, modelling classroom lessons, conducting parallel identification of students (identifying students separately from the typical process at each district, which is happening concurrently), and providing summer intervention programs to

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 13

students identified by the district and research staff. Project SPARK researchers hope that traditionally underserved students will develop readiness for advanced academic experiences and the knowledge and skills required for identification as they approach their districts’ formal gifted program identification process (Little, Adelson, Kear- ney, Cash, & O’Brien, 2018). A second goal of the program is to improve teachers’ understanding of the unique needs of gifted students from low-income families or underrepresented minority groups. Underrepresented groups include students from indigenous populations.

Cooper (2005) described a program in Western Australia to unmask potentials among aboriginal students. The program titled Moorditj Kulungar (“bright chil- dren”) included students ages 10–16 years old and focussed on increasing self- esteem and content knowledge, improving attitudes towards learning, and promoting aspirational educational goals. Aboriginal role models and school and community members served as mentors during the two-term program. Program content was “student-centered, abstract, and offered variety and constant challenge” (Cooper, 2005, p. 120). The program illuminated characteristics of Noongar gifted and talented students from Western Australia:

• the ability to freely explore their environment with peers and elders (to foster independence and cultural identity);

• to be very active and verbal; • to have a laugh (many had a good sense of humour); • to use symbols and numbers effectively in problem solving activities in a global

style; • demonstrated a good memory and creative abilities; • evidence of proficiency in non-verbal as well as verbal communication; • demonstrated physical prowess in well developed rhythm and movement; and, • a strong preference for group activities, especially in verbal contexts. (Cooper,

2005, p. 120)

As researchers are creating and evaluating models for programs that prepare students for gifted identification and academic rigour, individual districts and schools are developing programs with these same goals. Researchers from the NCRGE (2016) found that some of these programs were developing organically, within individual schools or districts. As part of the NCRGE study, research teams visited 13 schools in State 1 that specifically promoted the potential of historically underrepresented students in grades K–3. Research teams conducted focus group interviews with general education teachers, parents of gifted students, and gifted students themselves as well as individual interviews with administrators, gifted specialists, and school counsellors. While program details varied, most included similar structural elements.

14 P. Peters et al.

Structured Elements of Pre-identification Strategies and Preparation Programs

Many of the pre-identification strategies and preparation programs in the NCRGE study had three structural elements: push-in services, whereby gifted specialists work with students and general education teachers; pull-out services, whereby the gifted specialists work with small groups of students in another setting; and specific interventions with individuals or small groups of students that have not yet qualified for formal services. First, they began by having gifted specialists provide push-in services to all kindergarten and often grade 1 classrooms. Teachers would team- teach lessons with the general education teacher, typically focusing on creativity or critical thinking skills. During a focus group, one member of a school identification committee described these lessons:

They had some really deep discussions and it was challenging for them like you would watch a lesson and they might spend you know, the entire 40 minutes trying to put a shape and sorting the shape and why does your piece not match where you used it. Let’s say, you’re not right. Let’s think about it, pull back out, think some more, come back and so they were really in-depth lessons that got the kids really having to think about their thinking. And explaining their thinking and putting in a whole sentence and using the proper/language that they’re [going to] hear in the upper grades, you know. I mean I can think when they called them to the carpet, it wasn’t come sit on the edge of the carpet. It was sit on the perimeter. (Identification Committee member, A-1)

These push-in lessons would serve multiple purposes. All children would be exposed to this deeper level curriculum, providing all students with a basic level of gifted services. By team teaching with the general education teacher, gifted special- ists were also using the lesson as an opportunity for coaching these teachers on gifted identification. As part of the lesson debriefing, they would often discuss the chil- dren’s responses to the curriculum, facilitating the additional goal of looking for students who may benefit from additional services prior to the gifted identification testing that occurred in grade 3.

The second structural element, pull-out services, involved working with students who had been selected for preparation programs. Prior to universal screening, these students would be pulled out of the classrooms to work with the gifted specialist. Many of the schools used Primary Education Thinking Skills (PETS) or a similar curriculum that focussed on higher-level thinking. Students were exposed to new concepts and challenging curriculum, and teachers were able to monitor their progress. One gifted specialist commented:

Those who really stood out, whether it was convergent thinking, divergent thinking, whatever the lesson was about, or the lessons were geared towards. And so, we could, we could keep an eye on those children as they progressed to each grade. . .. Because I think you develop [italics added] the potential. (Gifted specialist, A-2)

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 15

Selection for these programs was flexible. Teachers could add students or adjust the composition of the groups as needed, with the goal of ensuring that all students who could benefit from preparation programs would receive them. This flexibility sometimes stimulated conversations with general education teachers, creating oppor- tunities for informal professional development.

The third structural element, included in many of the programs the NCRGE research team visited, was ongoing services and retesting for students who were not identified at the time of the universal screening. Schools opted to include these students in the pull-out or accelerated programming, realising that some students just missed the cut-off score on the universal screener and knowing that additional data supported their inclusion in this programming. As one general education teacher commented, “Even if . . . [the students] missed it on something else but really are so close you know they won’t label them, but they’ll . . . still group them with those higher-level students to maybe get them to that point” (General education teacher, D-1).

In addition to these structural elements, three broader themes emerged from the data: alignment, professional development, and culture of awareness.

Identification, Programming, Professional Development, and a Culture of Awareness

As the NCRGE researchers (2016) analysed the data, it became clear that the majority of schools visited in State 1 and a few of those visited in State 2 incorpo- rated pre-identification strategies and preparation programs, while none were reported in State 3. For the purposes of this analysis, researchers focused on the schools with pre-identification programs in State 1. Three themes emerged from analysis of the data from the schools visited in State 1. The first was the alignment between the pre-identification strategies and the identification process. These pro- grams should be viewed as part of the identification process, both in terms of curriculum and data collection. The most common curriculum utilised was the Primary Education Thinking Skills, which focuses on developing higher-level thinking skills such as divergent thinking, visual/spatial thinking, and evaluation. These skills build students’ readiness for the universal screening process.

Much of the data collection in these programs happens informally; however some teachers mentioned keeping lists of students whom they believe could be identified based on their experiences in the pre-identification program. School staff were also aware of the need for equity in the identification process. One gifted specialist explained:

Maybe [a child] doesn’t have an engineering forte in the beginning because he never built even with Legos or something because his parents couldn’t afford them. But after the experience, I come in and then they’re like yeah, you know then we’re going keep them in there. You got to do the exposure kind of thing and see what happens. (Gifted specialist, C-2)

16 P. Peters et al.

The second theme was professional development. While many schools planned professional development components as part of their programs, in most cases it also happened serendipitously. Conversations about whether or not a child should be referred to the preparation program turned into teaching opportunities. Gifted spe- cialists used these moments to discuss the characteristics of giftedness or how giftedness might present in different students:

Okay, and usually like this year there is a male here; he is very hyper I would say, but he is loveable; he is a Kindergarten student and last year we had him for Pre-K. Now this student here, because he is so hyper, well the last time he got in trouble a lot, and therefore—even one of my teachers said, “I don’t think I should recommend this student to you.” I said, “No, go ahead and recommend him”; I said, “I can handle students who have hyper problems; that just means that they have more information that they want to share.” She said, “Are you sure?” I said, “Yes ma’am, please give him to me.” (Gifted specialist, G-1)

General education teachers and the gifted specialist would debrief after push-in lessons, leading to conversations about extending curriculum or infusing critical thinking skills. One district gifted program coordinator explained:

We’ve done a lot with critical thinking through games, critical thinking through . . . innova- tive and creative projects and pieces like that, discovery, curiosity, thinking skills, those are the different things, once we hit that fourth and fifth grade we’re talking more content pieces, so we’re looking more of the metacognition at K-3 what do they know, . . . do they know how to learn, do they know they know how to learn, and how they move on from there. Okay, so that training is different in that is that we look at giftedness not content based, not accelerated, reading strategies, or accelerated math strategies, but how we’re thinking and how we’re thinking about our thinking. (District gifted program coordinator, I-1)

Finally, an overall culture of awareness was evident at many of these schools. Stakeholders were aware of the need for gifted services. Principals, general educa- tion teachers, and staff were aware of the gifted program and played an active role in the identification process, thinking about the characteristics of giftedness while interacting with students. Parents were offered information and sometimes coaching to help them understand the process and how to help their children. One gifted specialist explained that she would “pull parents in and talk to them about okay when they go in third grade this is what we need to be looking for and these are opportunities over the summer, these are things that you can be doing with them to help keep them moving and keep that ball rolling” (Gifted specialist, G-2).

Conclusion

Members of educated learning communities within and across continents in our culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse world must acknowledge that, “in an age of increasing global competitiveness, it is somewhat harrowing to imagine a future in which the largest, fastest-growing segments of the K–12 student population have almost no students performing at advanced levels academically” (Plucker,

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 17

Hardesty, & Burroughs, 2013, p. 29). Researchers and practitioners have the respon- sibility to ensure that they do not leave emergent and latent “talent on the sidelines” (Plucker et al., 2013) of our educational systems. It is the responsibility of the field of gifted education and talent development to find ways to ratchet up early learning experiences and grade-level opportunities for all students, including students who have been historically underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. It is critical to find ways to create and implement pre-identification strategies and preparation programs that promote the hidden or masked talents and abilities of students who have been underserved as they have been caught up in the “achievement trap” (Wyner et al., 2009).

Cross-References

▶ Identifying Gifted Learning in the Regular Classroom: Seeking Intuitive Theories ▶Multi-Processes in Identification for the Gifted and Talented in Thailand ▶ Self-Nomination in the Identification Process of Gifted and Talented Students in Mexico

Acknowledgements This research from the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE; http://ncrge.uconn.edu) was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depart- ment of Education PR/Award No. R305C140018.

References

Anuruthwong, U. (2017). Education for the gifted/talented in Thailand. Cogent Education, 4, 1332825. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2331186X.2017. 1332825?needAccess=true

Bevan-Brown, J. (1999). Special abilities: A Maori perspective. Implications for catering for gifted children from minority cultures. Gifted Education International, 14, 86–96. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/026142949901400110

Bevan-Brown, J. (2011). Indigenous conceptions of giftedness. Retrieved from http://www.aaegt. net.au/DEEWR%20Books/02%20Indig.pdf

Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (NBER working paper 21519). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chaffey, G. W., Bailey, S. B., & Vine, K. W. (2003). Identifying high academic potential in Australian Aboriginal children using dynamic testing. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 12(1), 42–55. Retrieved from http://www.aaegt.net.au/DEEWR%20Books/06% 20Indig.pdf

Chaffey, G. W., Halliwell, G., & McCluskey, K. W. (2006). Identifying high academic potential in Canadian Aboriginal primary school children. Gifted Education International, 21, 61–70.

Chaffey, G. W., McCluskey, K. W., & Halliwell, G. (2005). Using Coolabah Dynamic Assessment to identify Canadian Aboriginal children with high potential: A cross-cultural comparison. Gifted and Talented International, 20, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15332276.2005.11673453

Cooper, S. (2005). Gifted indigenous programs: Unmasking potential in minority cultures. Gifted Education International, 19, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940501900205

18 P. Peters et al.

Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Title IV, Part F, Section 4644: Supporting high-ability students, Public Law 114–95. Retrieved from http://www.ncea.org/NCEA/Lead/Public_Pol icy/Every_Student_Succeeds_Act__ESSA__.aspx

Ford, D. Y. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36, 143–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02783193.2014.919563

Gagné, F. (2008). Building gifts into talents: Overview of the DMGT. Retrieved from http://www. templetonfellows.org/program/francoysgagne.pdf

Gallagher, J. J. (1975). Teaching the gifted child (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Garvis, S. (2006). Optimising the learning of gifted aboriginal students. International Journal of

Pedagogies & Learning, 2(3), 42–51. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/ 11039772.pdf

Gentry, M., Hu, S., & Thomas, A. T. (2008). Ethnically diverse students. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 195–212). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Gubbins, E. J. (2005, Winter). NRC/GT offers a snapshot of intelligence. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter. Retrieved from https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newslet ters/winter051/

Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Hamilton, R., O’Rourke, P., Puryear, J., Peters, P., . . . McCoach, D. B. (2018). Exploratory study on the identification of English learners in gifted and talented programs. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.

Hamilton, R. (2017). National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE): District survey data. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.

Hamilton, R., McCoach, D. B., Tutwiler, M. S., Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., . . . Mun, R. U. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0016986217738053

Harslett, M. (1996). The concept of giftedness from an Aboriginal cultural perspective. Gifted Education International, 11, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142949601100207

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million gap by age 3. American Educator, 27(1), 4–9.

Horn, C. V. (2015). Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1076217514556532

Lee, S. Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Peternel, G. (2009). Follow-up with students after 6 years of participation in Project EXCITE. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0016986208330562

Little, C. A., Adelson, J. L., Kearney, K. L., Cash, K., & O’Brien, R. (2018). Early opportunities to strengthen academic readiness: Effects of summer learning on mathematics achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738052

Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of academ- ically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333–360. https://doi. org/10.1177/001698620504900203

Marland, S. P., Jr. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

McCoach, D. B., Siegle, D., Callahan, C., Gubbins, E. J., Hamilton, R., & Tutwiler, M. S. (2016, April). The identification gap: When just as good isn’t good enough. Poster session presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U–46, 5 C 0760. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/U-46%5FTrial%5FDecision.pdf

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 19

Morelock, M. J. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(3), 1, 11–15.

Mun, R. U., Dulong Langley, S., Ware, S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Callahan, C. M., . . .Hamilton, R. (2016, December). Effective practices for identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: A systematic review of literature. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.

National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014–2015 State of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

National Center for Research on Gifted Education. (2016). NCRGE district survey. Storrs: Univer- sity of Connecticut, Author.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). Addressing the achievement gap between minority and nonminority children: Increasing access and achievement through Project EXCITE. Gifted Child Today, 29 (2), 28–37.

Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identifica- tion of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165

Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010).Mind the (other) gap: The growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.

Plucker, J., Hardesty, J., & Burroughs, N. (2013). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center for Education Policy Analysis. Retrieved from http://webdev.education.uconn.edu/static/sites/cepa/AG/excel lence2013/Excellence-Gap-10-18-13_JP_LK.pdf

Roeper, A. (1982). How the gifted cope with their emotions. Roeper Review, 5, 21–23. https://doi. org/10.1080/02783198209552672

Scobie-Jennings, E. (2013). An investigation into the identification of Māori gifted and talented students in mainstream school. APEX: The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 18(1). Retrieved from https://www.giftedchildren.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Scobie- Jennings.pdf

Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., O’Rourke, P., Dulong Langley, S., Mun, R. U., Luria, S. R., . . . Plucker, J. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0162353216640930

United States Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing American’s talent. Washington, DC: Author.

United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014, March). Civil rights data collection: Data snapshot (college and career readiness). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/ about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-college-and-career-readiness-snapshot.pdf

Wellisch, M. (2016). Gagné’s DMGT and underachievers: The need for an alternative inclusive gifted model. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 25(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/ 10.21505/ajge.2016.0003

Worrell, F. C., & Erwin, J. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 319–340. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15377903.2011.615817

Wu, W.-T. (2000). Talent identification and development in Taiwan. Roeper Review, 22, 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554017

Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & DiIulio, J. J., Jr. (2009). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families (Rev. ed.). Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from http://www.jkcf.org/ news-knowledge/research-reports/

Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330564

20 P. Peters et al.

Pam Peters is a graduate student at the University of Connecticut pursuing a doctoral degree in Educational Psychology. She is also a Research Assistant with both the Renzulli Center for Creativity, Giftedness, and Talent Development and the National Center for Research on Gifted Education. Her research interests centre on issues of equity, including identification and excellence gaps, imposter syndrome in first-generation college students, and the development of parent/school partnerships to enhance gifted programming. Pam has spoken locally and nationally on parent partnership development and has consulted with school districts on both coasts of the United States.

Dr. E. Jean Gubbins is Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut. Through grants from the U.S. Department of Education for The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Dr. Gubbins implemented research studies on curricular strategies and practices. Currently, she is Associate Director for the National Center for Research on Gifted Education, focusing on exemplary practices in identification and programming for gifted and talented students from underrepresented groups. Her new federally funded grant entitled Thinking Like Mathematicians: Challenging All Grade 3 Students involves developing a pre- differentiated and enriched grade 3 unit on algebraic thinking, multiplication, and division.

Formerly, Dr. Rashea Hamilton was a Research Scientist for the National Center for Research on Gifted Education. Currently, Dr. Hamilton is the Assistant Director of Research for the Washington Student Achievement Council. Her work focuses on issues addressing access and equity across the educational pipeline, and she has over 10 years of research experience related to at-risk populations. Her primary areas of expertise include social inequality, parental engagement, and quantitative methodology.

Dr. D. Betsy McCoach is Professor in the Measurement, Evaluation, and Assessment program at the University of Connecticut, has extensive experience in structural equation modelling, longitu- dinal data analysis, hierarchical linear modelling, instrument design, and factor analysis. She is the lead Quantitative Research Methodologist for the National Center for Research on Gifted Education.

Dr. Del Siegle is Director of the National Center for Research on Gifted Education at the University of Connecticut, where he serves as Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development in the Neag School of Education. He is a past president of the National Association for Gifted Children, past president of the Montana Association of Gifted and Talented Education, past chair of the Research on Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent SIG of the American Educational Research Asso- ciation, and a former Editor of Gifted Child Quarterly and the Journal of Advanced Academics.

Dr. Jeb Puryear is a former Research Associate at the National Center for Research on Gifted Education. He has over 15 years of experience as a Classroom Educator—primarily teaching and leading in advanced academics settings—and currently works as the Highly Able Coordinator for ACS-Cobham International School in the United Kingdom. His research interests include para- digms in gifted education and their influence on stakeholder actions; the interactions and overlaps of giftedness and creativity research; underrepresentation and excellence gaps based on rurality, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity; and the practical applications of STEM research to gifted education.

Identifying Underrepresented Gifted Students: A Developmental Process 21