This qualitative study explored the role teacher perceptions play in the underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in gifted programming. Purposeful sampling was used to select six interview participants with at least 5 years of teaching experience. Each participant took part in two semistructured interviews over a 3-month period. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using Auerbach and Silverstein’s highly structured analytic method. The findings indicate that “the language barrier” and the overemphasis on standardized testing contribute to the underrepresentation of CLD learners in gifted programming. In addition, the researcher identified a need for increased collaboration among educators during the gifted referral and identification processes as well as professional development to raise awareness about the issue of underserved populations in gifted education.
Abellan-PagnaniL.HébertT. P. (2013). Using picture books to guide and inspire young gifted Hispanic students. Gifted Child Today, 36, 47-56.
2.
AuerbachC. F.SilversteinL. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York: New York University Press.
3.
BaldwinA. Y. (2003). Lost and found: Achievers in urban schools. In SmutnyJ. F. (Ed.), Underserved gifted populations: Responding to their needs and abilities (pp. 83-91). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
4.
BernalE. M. (2009). Multicultural assessment. In KerrB. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent ( Vol. 2, pp. 595-599). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
BronnerS. E. (2011). Critical theory: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
CahnmannM. (2006). Reading, living, and writing bilingual poetry as ScholARTistry in the language arts classroom. Language Arts, 83, 342-352.
7.
CastellanoJ. A.DiazE. I. (2002). Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
ComstockD. E. (1982). A method for critical research. In BredoE.FeinbergW. (Eds.), Knowledge and values in ethical and educational research (pp. 370-390). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
9.
CowheyM. (2006). Black ants and buddhists: Thinking critically and teaching differently in the primary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
10.
deMarraisK. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience In deMarraisK.LapanS. D. (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
FontanaA.FreyJ. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12.
FordD. Y. (2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
13.
FordD. Y. (2012). Ensuring equity in gifted education: Suggestions for change (again). Gifted Child Today, 35, 74-75.
14.
FordD. Y. (2013). Multicultural issues: Gifted underrepresentation and prejudice–Learning from Allport and Merton. Gifted Child Today, 36, 62-67.
15.
FordD. Y. (2014). Multicultural issues: Gifted education discrimination in McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46. Gifted Child Today, 37, 188-193.
16.
FordD. Y.ColemanM. R.DavisJ. L. (2014). Racially, ethnically, and linguistically different gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today, 37, 133-134.
17.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42, 217-225.
18.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74, 289-306.
19.
FrasierM.GarciaJ.PassowA. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students (RM Series No. 95204). Darby, PA: Diane Publishing Co.
20.
FreemanM.deMarraisK.PreissleJ.RoulstonK.St. PierreE. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25-32.
21.
FreireP. (2012). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International. (Original work published 1970)
22.
GonzalesV. (2002). Advanced cognitive development and bilingualism: Methodological flaws and suggestions for measuring first- and second-language proficiency, language dominance, and intelligence in minority children. In CastellanoJ. A.DiazE. I. (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students (pp. 47-75). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
GranthamT. C. (2014). Syllabus for EPSY 7270e: Recruitment and retention of ethnic minorities in gifted/advanced programs. Available from https://syllabus.uga.edu
24.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. I. Reason and the rationalization of society (McCarthyT. Trans.), Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981)
25.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. II. The theory of communicative action: Vol. II: A critique of functionalist reason (McCarthyT. Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981)
26.
HarrisB.PluckerJ. A.RappK. E.MartinezR. S. (2009). Identifying gifted and talented English language learners: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 368-393.
27.
HarrisB.RappK. E.MartinezR. S.PluckerJ. A. (2007). Identifying English language learners for gifted and talented programs: Current practices and recommendations for improvements. Roeper Review, 29(5), 26-29.
28.
KincheloeJ. L.McLarenP.SteinbergS. R. (2011). Critical pedagogy, and qualitative research: Moving to the bricolage. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 163-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
LeeJ. S.AndersonK. T. (2009). Negotiating linguistic and cultural identities: Theorizing and constructing opportunities and risks in education. Review of Research in Education, 33, 181-211.
31.
LevinsonB. A. U. (2011). Introduction: Exploring critical social theories and education. In LevinsonB. A. U. (Ed.), Beyond critique: Exploring critical social theories and education (pp. 1-24). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
32.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
MaxwellJ. A.MillerB. (2008). Categorizing and connecting strategies in qualitative data analysis. In LeavyP.Hesse-BiberS. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 461-477). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
34.
MillsG. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
35.
MilnerR.FordD. (2007). Cultural considerations in the underrepresentation of culturally diverse elementary students in gifted education. Roeper Review, 29, 166-173.
36.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of education: Section 1—Participation in education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011033_2.pdf
37.
NietoS. (2014). An exercise in challenging teachers’ assumptions about the way schools are. In ReynoldsL. (Ed.), Imagine it better: Visions of what schools might be (pp. 27-32). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
38.
OlthouseJ. (2013). Multiliteracies theory and gifted education: Creating “smart spaces” in the language arts classroom. Gifted Child Today, 36, 247-253.
39.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
PopkewitzT. S. (1999). Introduction. In PopkewitzT. S.FendlerL. (Eds.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
PrasadP. (2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
42.
ReyesA. L. (2004). The role of teachers in the identification of gifted and talented English language learners (Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 1419857)
43.
SiskD. (2003). Maximizing the high potential of minority economically disadvantaged students. In SmutnyJ. F. (Ed.), Underserved gifted populations: Responding to their needs and abilities (pp. 39-259). Cresskill: Hampton Press, Inc.
44.
ValdésG. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of young interpreters from immigrant communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
