Exploratory Study on the

Identification of English Learners for

Gifted and Talented Programs

http://ncrge.uconn.edu

i
National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE)
English Learners Expert Panel

Kathy Escamilla, Professor of Walter Secada, Professor of Teaching

Education in the Division of Social, and Learning and Senior Associate
Bilingual and Multicultural Foundations Dean of the School of Education at the
at the University of Colorado—Boulder University of Miami

Sylvia Linan-Thompson, Rena Subotnik, Director of the Center

Associate Professor at the University of for Gifted Education Policy at the
Oregon American Psychological Association

Nancy M. Robinson, Professor Emerita

of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
at the University of Washington

This project was completed by the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE) at the University of
Connecticut under a contract with the United States Department of Education, Office of English Language
Acquisition (OELA).

The content of this report is based on the NCRGE’s research on the identification of gifted English learners (ELs)
and the views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department. No
official endorsement by the Department of any identification procedures, practices, and instruments mentioned
in this report is intended or should be inferred. Nor does a description of state, district, or school practices in this
report mean that these practices comply with federal laws, regulations, and other applicable requirements, or
that the Department approved these practices.

Designed by Siamak Vahidi and Del Siegle, based on an original design by Alan Duda
Photographs & Art Design courtesy of Freepik (www.freepik.com) - page 3 (Asierromero), page 22 (zaozaa09),
and page 24 (creativeart); www.pexels.com - pages 14, 18, & 21; www.pixabay.com - pages 5, 8, 12, & 20;
www.pxhere.com - pages 16 & 25.

Published by the National Center for Research on Gifted Education, University of Connecticut

June 2018
Final Report

National Center for Research on Gifted Education

University of Connecticut
2131 Hillside Road, Unit 3007
Storrs, CT 06269-3007
http://ncrge.uconn.edu

ii
 Exploratory Study on the
http://ncrge.uconn.edu

Identification of English Learners for

Gifted and Talented Programs
E. Jean Gubbins
Del Siegle
Rashea Hamilton
Pamela Peters
Ashley Y. Carpenter
Patricia O’Rourke
Jeb Puryear
D. Betsy McCoach
Daniel Long
Emma Bloomfield
Karen Cross
Rachel U. Mun
Christina Amspaugh
Susan Dulong Langley
Anne Roberts
William Estepar-Garcia

ncrge.uconn.edu

Suggested APA Citation: Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Hamilton, R., Peters, P., Carpenter, A. Y., O’Rourke, P., . . . Estepar-
Garcia, W. (2018, June). Exploratory study on the identification of English learners for gifted and talented programs.
Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.

iii
iv
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. ix
Exploratory Study on the Identification of English Learners for Gifted and Talented Programs ....................................... 1
Need for the Study ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Historical Background Related to Demographics and Identification Challenges............................................................... 2
Lack of Inclusive Definitions of Giftedness ............................................................................................................... 2
Identification of ELs for Gifted and Talented Programs ........................................................................................... 3
NCRGE EL Research Study Questions .................................................................................................................................. 4
NCRGE EL Theory of Change...................................................................................................................................... 5
Research Question 1: Patterns of Underrepresentation for ELs by State and Grade Level .............................................. 6
Descriptive Analyses................................................................................................................................................... 6
Multilevel Analyses ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Qualitative Methods............................................................................................................................................................... 8
Research Question 2: Identification Procedures, Practices, and Instruments for EL Gifted
and Talented Students .................................................................................................................................................. 10
EL Parental Input ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Research Question 3: Personnel Involved in Identification Processes............................................................................ 13
Professional Development Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 14
Research Question 4: Assessment and Identification Challenges of ELs for Gifted and
Talented Programs......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Screening ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
Nomination .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Identification ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
Placement ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Research Question 5: NCRGE EL Theory of Change: Deductive Analysis Mapping ........................................................ 19
Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 20
Recommendations: Adopting Universal Screening Procedures ............................................................................ 20
Recommendations: Creating Alternative Pathways to Identification .................................................................... 21
Recommendations: Establishing a Web of Communication ................................................................................. 21
Recommendations: Viewing Professional Development as a Lever for Change.................................................. 22
NCRGE Four-phase Model for Improving Identification of ELs for Gifted and Talented
Programs ............................................................................................................................................................... 22
Looking Forward ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
References ............................................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix A Selection of Districts and Schools ....................................................................................................... 29
Appendix B NCRGE Gifted English Learner Theory of Change (2016) .................................................................. 30
Appendix C Results of Multilevel Analyses .............................................................................................................. 31
Appendix D NCRGE English Learner Codebook and Qualitative Methods ............................................................ 32
Appendix E EL Research Study Interview Questions .............................................................................................. 37
Appendix F Identification Tools by Number of Schools by State and Across Schools .......................................... 40
Appendix G Descriptions of Cognitive Ability, Achievement, Rating Scales, and
Creativity Assessments......................................................................................................................... 41

v
 List of Tables
Table 1 Overall Percentage of Selected Subpopulations ............................................................................................. 6
Table 2 Percentage of Gifted Population From Selected Subpopulations .................................................................. 6
Table 3 Percentage of Subpopulations Identified as Gifted ........................................................................................ 7
Table 4 Gifted Representation Index (RI) ...................................................................................................................... 7
Table 5 Likelihood of Identification for Selected Subgroups ....................................................................................... 7
Table 6 Demographics of the Selected Schools by State, District, and School .......................................................... 9
Table 7 District Identification Procedures, Practices, and Instruments by State and
Number of Districts ........................................................................................................................................ 11

vi
 List of Figures
Figure 1 Percentage of High Achieving EL and non-EL Students Identified as Gifted ................................................... 8
Figure 2 Four Phases for Improving Identification of ELs for Gifted and Talented Programs .................................... 23
Figure 3 Web of Communication Process for Improving Identification of ELs for Gifted and Talented Programs .... 23

vii
viii
Exploratory Study on the
Identification of English Learners
for Gifted and Talented Programs
Executive Summary
English learners (ELs) are the fastest growing population of learners in the United States (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2013). However, despite the growing numbers of ELs, their representation in gifted identification and programming
continues to lag behind not only traditional populations of learners from advantaged communities (Callahan, 2005), but also
other underserved populations of learners (Iowa Department of Education, 2008; Matthews, 2014). The United States
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2014) indicated that 2% of ELs are enrolled in gifted and talented programs,
as compared to 7% of non-ELs. Historically, there is an underrepresentation 1 of students from culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse (CLED) communities in gifted and talented programs.

A comprehensive literature review on gifted ELs (Mun et al., 2016) determined that identification procedures and policies
have been cited as the crux of the problem. To further investigate this issue and seek solutions, a preliminary theory of
change for EL gifted education (including the four phases of pre-identification, preparation, identification, and placement) was
developed and tested by the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE, 2016).

A quantitative analysis of data from three states with mandated gifted identification policies confirmed that ELs were
generally underrepresented in gifted and talented programs, even in states with mandates.

With funding from the Office of English Language Acquisition at the U.S. Department of Education, NCRGE then embarked on
a systematic, qualitative study to better understand the following:

1. What are the patterns of underrepresentation in gifted and talented programs for ELs by grade level?
2. What procedures, practices, and instruments are used to assess and identify ELs for gifted and talented programs?
3. What are the roles, backgrounds, and qualification of district and school personnel involved in the assessment and
identification of ELs for gifted and talented programs?
4. What challenges do districts and schools encounter in the assessment and identification of ELs for gifted and
talented programs?
5. To what extent do the findings from the qualitative study map onto the preliminary NCRGE EL Theory of Change?

The researchers visited 16 elementary and middle schools across the three states, selected because they were exemplary in
their identification of gifted ELs. The NCRGE team conducted group and individual interviews with a total of 225
administrators; district gifted coordinators; gifted specialists; classroom teachers; parents/guardians/caretakers; and school
psychologists or counselors, yielding a total of 84 transcripts. Group and individual interviews were transcribed, coded, and
analyzed.

The research findings led to the following recommendations for review and reflection for stakeholders involved in designing
and implementing gifted and talented programs. (Note: these recommendations are detailed in the full report).

• Adopt a policy of universal screening of all students in one or more grade levels for the identification process.
• Create alternative pathways to identification, allowing schools to use a variety of different assessment instruments
(including native language ability and achievement assessments and reliable and valid nonverbal ability
assessments) and to apply flexible criteria to ensure that students’ talents and abilities are recognized.
• Establish a web of communication to ensure that all stakeholders (administrators, district gifted coordinators,
classroom teachers, gifted specialists, psychologists, multilingual teachers, and parents/guardians/caretakers) are

1 Typically, underrepresentation is a term used to describe the students’ proportional representation by race/ethnicity, EL status, gender, free or
reduced-price lunch (FRPL) status, or twice-exceptionality (identification as gifted and special education status) in gifted and talented programs
compared to the proportions in the general student population at the national, district, or state levels.
ix
 aware of the identification system in its entirety and are empowered to interact with one another in all components
(i.e., screening, nomination, identification, and placement).
• View professional development as a lever for change, providing information to gifted specialists, classroom teachers,
psychologists, and parents/guardians/caretakers on identifying giftedness in multiple ways and creating a school
climate with the goal of identifying students’ strengths rather than weaknesses.

Future studies involving other states with gifted and talented identification and programming mandates and different cohorts
may yield additional insights and recommendations for addressing the underrepresentation of ELs in gifted and talented
programs.

x
Exploratory Study on the
Identification of English Learners
for Gifted and Talented Programs
not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully
Need for the Study develop those capabilities. (Section 8101(27))

English learners (ELs) are the fastest growing population The federal definition of gifted and talented is categorical
of learners in the United States (National Center for and need based, while the federal definition of ELs is
Education Statistics, 2013). However, despite the growing more explicit as it addresses native languages, mobility
numbers of ELs, their representation in gifted patterns, reading, writing, and speaking skills in English,
identification and programming continues to lag behind and the students’ potential to be successful in classrooms
not only traditional populations of learners from where the instruction is in English. The definition follows:
advantaged communities (Callahan, 2005), but also other
underserved 2 populations of learners (Iowa Department of English learner—The term “English learner,” when
Education, 2008; Matthews, 2014). The United States used with respect to an individual, means an
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2014) individual—
indicated that 2% of ELs are enrolled in gifted and (A) who is aged 3 through 21;
talented programs, as compared to 7% of non-ELs. (B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an
Historically, there is an underrepresentation 3 of students elementary school or secondary school;
from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (C)(i) who was not born in the United States or whose
(CLED) communities in gifted and talented programs. native language is a language other than English;
Identification procedures and policies have been cited as (ii) (I) who is a Native American or Alaska
the crux of the problem (Card & Giuliano, 2015; Hodges, Native, or a native resident of the
Tay, Maeda, & Gentry, 2018; Mun et al., 2016). outlying areas; and
(II) who comes from an
Prior to exploring the identification of ELs for gifted and environment where a language
talented programs, it is important to present current other than English has had a
definitions of terms. The Elementary and Secondary significant impact on the
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every individual's level of English
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA 2015), defines gifted and language proficiency; or
talented as follows: (iii) who is migratory, whose native language
is a language other than English, and
Gifted and talented, when used with respect to who comes from an environment where
students, children, or youth, means students, a language other than English is
children, or youth who give evidence of high dominant; and
achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, (D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or
creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific understanding the English language may be
academic fields, and who need services or activities sufficient to deny the individual—
(i) the ability to meet the challenging State
academic standards;
(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in
2 The term “underserved” is used to reference individuals or groups classrooms where the language of
that have not had opportunities to learn at high levels or to be instruction is English; or
exposed to content, concepts, or skills to prepare them for (iii) the opportunity to participate fully in
challenging work. The lack of opportunities may be related to living in
challenging economic communities or the inability to have access to society. (United States Department of
multiple resources to promote learning. Education, 2016, ESEA Section
3 Typically, underrepresentation is a term used to describe the 8101(20), p. 43)
students’ proportional representation by race/ethnicity, EL status,
gender, free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) status, or twice- In the United States, educational policies reside at the
exceptionality (identification as gifted and special education status)
in gifted and talented programs compared to the proportions in the
state and local levels (Stephens, 2008). How ELs are
general student population at the national, district, or state levels. identified and served might differ by state and district
1
educational policies, which further complicates the issue 1990 and 2005, with a 47% increase since 1990 of the
of identifying gifted ELs. Additionally, there is no federal number of U.S. residents above age 5 that speak a
mandate to identify nor serve gifted learners (Castellano & language other than English at home (Rong & Preissle,
Matthews, 2014). How gifted and talented students are 2009). Many of the new immigrants are of Asian and Latin
defined, identified, and served depends on the state, American descent (Grieco et al., 2012), but immigrants
district, and school (National Association for Gifted and their children are an increasingly diverse group with
Children and Council of State Directors of Programs for over 350 different languages being spoken, according to
the Gifted, 2015). Students considered gifted in one the U.S. Census data collected through 2013 (American
district may not be identified in another (Borland, 2005; Community Survey, 2015). New immigrants also are more
Coleman & Cross, 2005; J. R. Cross & T. L. Cross, 2005; likely to experience poverty than are native-born families,
Hertzog, 2009). with 23% of current immigrant households living in
poverty compared to 13.5% of native-born households in
The field of gifted education has been perceived by many 2010 (Camarota, 2012).
as an elitist program mainly serving students from
privileged backgrounds (e.g., White, high socioeconomic
status [SES] (Borland, 2003; Sapon-Shevin, 2003).
Lack of Inclusive Definitions of
Students with advantages are perceived as gaining even Giftedness
more advantages by enjoying the benefits of gifted
pedagogy, smaller classrooms, and more skilled teachers, Academic achievement of ELs in comparison to non-ELs is
which runs counter to the ideals of egalitarianism (Sapon- found to vary by the length of time in an English language
Shevin, 2003; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, acquisition program and the assessment for gifted
2011). services. In an overview of EL research findings, K-3
students typically scored lower than their non-EL
Plucker and Callahan (2014) asserted that for gifted counterparts until later elementary, middle, and high
education to advance and thrive, the field “needs to take school when their educational outcomes matched or
several bold steps to shrink excellence gaps—and to do so exceeded their non-EL counterparts (Genesee, Lindholm-
by raising the achievement levels of underachieving Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005). Hakuta, Butler, and
groups, not by allowing already high-performing groups to Witt (2000) found that “even in districts that are
slip” (p. 400). Part of that advancement requires more considered the most successful in teaching English to ELs,
research in the field of EL gifted education since what is oral proficiency takes 3 to 5 years to develop, and
known is quite limited (Granada, 2003). Some have academic English proficiency can take 4 to 7 years” (p.
suggested that the achievement gap at the top begins 13). Thus, it is important that the identification of ELs for
with an identification gap in selecting students for gifted gifted and talented programs be viewed as an ongoing
and talented programs (McCoach, Siegle, Callahan, process across all grade levels. As gifted ELs’ language
Gubbins, & Hamilton, 2016). The underrepresentation of skills improve, they become more successful
ELs in gifted and talented programming is both a societal academically, and their giftedness is revealed.
and research problem that merits a thorough
investigation. The first step in this research is to How children are identified for gifted and talented
investigate what practices are being successfully programs in public schools is one of the most
implemented to identify gifted ELs. controversial and contested aspects of programming
because the process results in some students being
labeled as gifted and others not being labeled as such.
Historically, students who were not identified as gifted
Historical Background were frequently from CLED communities (Borland, 2003;
Ford, 2014; Ford & Whiting, 2008; Kitano, 2003; Worrell,
Related to Demographics 2014).
and Identification Teachers may have “deficit thinking” biases about dual
language and/or culturally diverse students, which may
Challenges result in fewer referrals for students from CLED
communities (Castellano, & Díaz, 2002; Ford & Whiting,
The percentage of ELs in public schools in the United 2008). The starting point of any effective gifted
States was “higher in school year 2014-15 (9.4 percent, identification model for ELs should begin with the
or 4.6 million students) than in 2004-05 (9.1 percent, or acknowledgment that gifted potential exists in all groups
4.3 million students)” (National Center for Education of children regardless of ethnicity, race, language, culture,
Statistics, 2017, p. 1). These ELs may include foreign-born or socioeconomic status (SES, Melesky, 1985; United
immigrants (also called first generation immigrants), States Department of Education, 1993). De Wet and
native-born children with immigrant parents (second Gubbins (2011) found that teachers generally believed
generation immigrants), and native-born children of that above-average abilities existed in all populations
native-born parents. regardless of ethnicity, SES, and culture; that IQ tests
were not accurate indicators of giftedness in students
With the Immigration Act of 1990, the foreign-born from CLED communities; and that gifted and talented
population in the U.S. doubled to 35.2 million between programs would benefit from their inclusion.

2
 Many scholars have advocated for using multiple criteria
Identification of ELs for Gifted and in the identification of students to increase effectiveness
Talented Programs in identifying students from CLED communities (Davis,
Rimm, & Siegle, 2010; Granada, 2003; Kogan, 2001; Obi
The NCRGE conducted a comprehensive literature review et al., 2014; Pfeiffer & Blei, 2008; Reis & Renzulli, 1984;
(Mun et al., 2016) for the United States Department of Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997, 2014; Rimm, Siegle, &
Education (USDE), Office of English Language Acquisition Davis, 2018). Multiple measures and alternative
(OELA), and the Institute of Education Science (IES). To assessments include, but are not limited to, nonverbal
provide context for the reader, we have included ability tests, intelligence tests in the students’ own
information from the literature review. For the full languages, dynamic and authentic procedures, classroom
literature review please go to: observations, checklists and rating scales, portfolios,
[https://ncrge.uconn.edu/wp- parental input, and self-identification (Ford, Grantham, &
content/uploads/sites/982/2016/01/NCRGE_EL_Lit- Whiting, 2008; Gonzalez, 1974; Harris, Rapp, Martinez, &
Review.pdf]. Plucker, 2007; Melesky, 1985; Stein, Hetzel, & Beck,
2012).
Recent movements in educational literature have
emphasized focusing on strengths rather than deficits How and when multiple measures and alternative
(Aldridge, 2008; Ford & Grantham, 2003) and various assessments are used are important considerations in the
forms of capital (e.g., cultural, social) that students from overall identification process for gifted and talented
CLED communities bring with them (J. S. Coleman, 1988; programs. Universal screening of all students in one or
Noguera, more grade levels may include standardized tests of IQ,
2004). For ability or aptitude, and achievement. For ELs, these
example, cognitive assessments represent one of the greatest
funds of barriers to gifted identification if they are not culturally
knowledge is sensitive. Researchers have long asserted that ELs will
the view that not perform as well on cognitive assessments with verbal
all people components in English due to linguistic and cultural
accumulate factors (Bernal, 2002; de Bernard & Hofstra, 1985;
bodies of Esquierdo & Arreguin-Anderson, 2012; Ford et al., 2008;
knowledge Gonzalez, 1974; Harris et al., 2007; Melesky, 1985).
and skills for
functioning In one study, the implementation of a universal screening
and well-being program for all grade 2 students in a large, urban school
over time and district with no change in the minimum standards of gifted
bring those to identification led to a “180% increase in the gifted rate
the learning among all disadvantaged students, with a 130% increase
context (Moll, for Hispanic students and an 80% increase for [B]lack
Amanti, Neff, students” (Card & Giuliano, 2015, p. 20). Access to the
& Gonzalez, universal screening results is one component of the
1992). Using identification process; nomination is often another
this component of the gifted and talented program
framework, identification process.
ELs can be
viewed as Overall, teachers make the most nominations (McBee,
possessing a 2006). They work closely with students in the classroom,
wealth of and they have the advantage of observing students’
previous critical thinking skills, reasoning abilities, content
knowledge, knowledge, subject interest, and social emotional
ability, skill, regulation. Therefore, professional development related to
and fluency in the identification of gifted and talented students from
multiple languages, as demonstrated in code switching CLED communities is essential (Bernal, 2002; Esquierdo
(Hughes, Shaunessy, Brice, Ratliff, & McHatton, 2006) or & Arreguin-Anderson, 2012; Ford et al., 2008; Harris et
“alternating use of two languages on the word, phrase, al., 2007; Melesky, 1985; Stein et al., 2012). Implicit
clause, or sentence level” (Valdés-Fallis, 1978, p. 6). Early beliefs related to intelligence, giftedness, SES, and
fluency at code switching is considered a possible language ability may influence how teachers view the
characteristic of giftedness (Brulles, Castellano, & Laing, abilities and potential of ELs in their classrooms. Cultural
2011). For ELs, there are additional indicators that bias may also be embedded in teacher rating scales.
educators should acknowledge, such as speed of English Items such as being assertive, initiating activities, asking
language acquisition (while retaining sophistication and questions, and contributing in class represent behaviors
acuity in the dominant language), strengths in leadership, valued in Anglo-American culture, but are not necessarily
creativity, visual and performing arts, and even rapid rates culturally appropriate for some children who may be
of acculturation (Granada, 2003). raised in a Hispanic family that values a collectivist

3
culture. Furthermore, students who are still learning
English may not yet feel comfortable expressing 1. What are the patterns of underrepresentation in
themselves verbally in the classroom (A. Brice & R. Brice, gifted and talented programs for ELs by grade
2004). These behavioral skills are not necessarily related level?
to academic giftedness but reflect social skills that can be 2. What procedures, practices, and instruments are
taught. used to assess and identify ELs for gifted and
talented programs?
Simply using multiple criteria for gifted and talented 3. What are the roles, backgrounds, and
identification is not enough—how districts choose to qualification of district and school personnel
weight and combine or not combine scores from each involved in the assessment and identification of
criterion also matters (McBee, Peters, & Waterman, ELs for gifted and talented programs?
2014). If there are minimum requirements for each 4. What challenges do districts and schools
criterion (e.g., GPA, standardized achievement test, encounter in the assessment and identification
cognitive ability test), ELs who perform very well on two of of ELs for gifted and talented programs?
those measures will still fail to be identified due to the
third measure, despite their strong potential. We added research question 5 to determine the extent to
Tannenbaum (2003) argued for widening the diagnostic which inductive findings reflected the four-phase NCRGE
net so as not to exclude any potentially gifted young EL Theory of Change (2016, Pre-Identification,
students; along similar lines of reasoning, Reis and Preparation, Identification, and Acceptance of Placement)
Renzulli (1984) and Renzulli and Reis (1985, 1997, in Appendix B.
2014) recommended identifying a larger talent pool of 15-
20% of the student population with above average 5. To what extent do the findings from the inductive
abilities, creativity, and talent commitment. Through this analyses map onto the preliminary NCRGE EL
broadened conception of giftedness, students in the Theory of Change?
talent pool receive an array of enrichment experiences.
The way students respond to these experiences As the findings related to these research questions are
determines the type of advanced enrichment and presented, it is important to understand that identifying
acceleration opportunities they experience (Renzulli & gifted and talented students is a multi-stage process
Reis, 1985, 1997, 2014; Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981). reflecting state laws, regulations, and guidelines. Given
that procedures associated with this process vary, it is
Bernal (2002) was adamant about the need to gather helpful to define terms, such as screening, nomination,
data about successful identification approaches and identification, and placement, and to separate the
student success. He argued that “no meaningful changes components for explanatory purposes.
in the identification process will take place in very
traditional, very middle-class-based GT programs unless • Screening refers to a purposeful approach to
good data can be used to justify the outcomes of an determining students’ gifts and talents. The spring
alternative selection system” (p. 85). Our study is one step of grade 2 or grade 3 is often the designated time
in that direction, as the overall goal was to identify best for group administration of a reasoning and
practices resulting in increased identification of ELs for problem solving test (e.g., Cognitive Abilities Test
gifted and talented programs. [CogAT]) or a nonverbal ability test (e.g., Naglieri
Nonverbal Ability Test [NNAT]). CogAT measures
verbal, nonverbal, and quantitative abilities; NNAT
NCRGE EL Research measures nonverbal ability. Achievement tests
(e.g., Iowa Tests of Basic Skills [ITBS]) are
Study Questions sometimes used as part of the screening process.
The term “universal screening” is used when data
The United States Department of Education, Office of are collected on all students at one or more grade
English Language Acquisition (OELA), commissioned a levels.
study on the identification of English learners (ELs) in • Nomination involves naming students to be
gifted and talented programs to be conducted by the considered for gifted services. This involves
National Center for Research on Gifted Education collecting informal or formal data about students
(NCRGE). The NCRGE research team was implementing a who perform above grade level or demonstrate
large-scale study in three states with mandates for potential strengths and abilities. Potential
identifying and serving gifted and talented students under respondents include administrators; district gifted
a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), coordinators; gifted specialists; classroom
which made this specific study of identification of ELs in teachers; parents/guardians/caretakers; students;
gifted and talented program possible. In addition, the or community members. One example of an
state departments of education in these three states informal process involves requesting student
NCRGE was studying agreed to share achievement and names based on state or local definitions of
demographic data for students entering grade 3 in 2011 giftedness. Formal processes may include
and completing grade 5 in 2014. Details on how schools disseminating a list of behavioral characteristics to
were selected are provided in Appendix A. The following guide the respondents’ ratings or requesting
research questions guided this study: completion of standardized nomination/rating
4
 scales consisting of close-ended items. Responses o Definition: Any screening process that sorts
to open-ended items may require the inclusion of subgroups of students for preparation
real-life examples of behavioral characteristics services.
associated with gifted and talented students. o Special Issue for ELs: Gifted and talented
• Identification may involve one or more of the students from EL populations may have had
following approaches: fewer or different opportunities to acquire the
a. The first approach is reviewing existing student background knowledge and academic skills
data from formal and informal sources and necessary to be recognized as gifted.
determining eligibility and need for • Preparation
programming. o Purpose: Provide opportunities for talent to
b. If a “screener” was used initially, which emerge.
includes samples of item types, the second o Definition: Any organized set of activities, often
approach includes administering the full test for EL populations, which are designed to
battery. Depending on the test, district gifted enhance the knowledge and academic skills
coordinators, gifted specialists, classroom necessary for a student to be recognized as
teachers, school psychologists, or counselors gifted.
would conduct the assessment. o Special Issue for ELs: Gifted and talented
c. The third approach includes requesting parent students from EL populations may not have
permission for the administration of an the support and resources to participate in
individual IQ test by a school psychologist. preparation activities.
Resulting data are then presented to the
decision-making team and
parents/guardians/caretakers.
Persons composing the decision-making team may
include administrators, district gifted coordinators,
gifted specialists, classroom teachers, school
psychologists, or counselors. The team reviews
quantitative data and may apply specific cut scores
on ability tests, achievement tests, or
nomination/rating scales. Students’ profiles are
reviewed within or across schools to determine the
need for special services.
• Placement is the final component of the process • Identification
when decisions are made about the students’ status o Purpose: Identify gifted and talented students
as meeting the qualifications and demonstrating a and match students to appropriate services
need for programs and services, not meeting the (curriculum and grouping options), including
qualifications, or requiring further testing or support and bridge services.
consideration. o Definition: The processes and procedures used
to select students to receive services beyond
The next sections of this report focus on the development those offered in the general education
of the preliminary NCRGE EL Theory of Change (2016), curriculum.
school selection and demographics, and qualitative o Special Issue for ELs: Gifted and talented
methods. students from EL populations can exhibit their
giftedness in different ways that are detectable
with selected district tools. Additionally,
NCRGE EL Theory of Change educators’ perceptions of the students’ ability
to function in their native language and English
We based the preliminary NCRGE EL Theory of Change are critical to identification.
(2016, see Appendix B) on our review of literature for this
• Acceptance of Placement
study (Mun et al., 2016) and the professional expertise
o Purpose: Communicate accurate information
and experiences of our research team. The process of
to parents/guardians/caretakers about
creating the NCRGE EL Theory of Change capitalized on
programming and services in a trustworthy
these human and material resources as each variable was
manner.
vetted for inclusion under one or more phases. The
o Definition: The processes and procedures used
General Education Program influenced the first three
to communicate to
phases (i.e., Pre-Identification, Preparation, Identification),
parents/guardians/caretakers about
while the fourth phase (i.e., Placement) was the overall
programming and services.
goal or outcome of the theory:
o Special Issue for ELs: Gifted and talented
students from EL populations may need to
• Pre-Identification continue receiving support to develop their
o Purpose: Identify students who would benefit academic English skills. They may also need to
from an emergent talent experience. change classrooms or leave their home school
to be involved in programming and services.

5
 For this question, we focused on determining patterns of
Research Question 1: underrepresentation in gifted and talented programs for
ELs by grade level. We analyzed data for each of our three
Patterns of states from cohorts of students who entered grade 3 in
2011 and completed grade 5 in 2014.
Underrepresentation for
ELs by State and Grade Descriptive Analyses
Level First, we utilized descriptive analysis to examine the
extent to which ELs were represented in programs for
We selected three states using a deliberate process with individuals identified as gifted. We conducted a series of
defined criteria for research question 1. The first set of cross-tabulations to compare proportions of EL and non-
criteria follow: ELs that were and were not identified as gifted. We also
utilized cross-tabulations to examine the proportions of
• The state mandates identification and services for gifted and talented students that did and did not have EL
gifted and talented students. status during the 3-year study period.
• The state has data sets that allow identification of
important student-level outcomes for gifted and As presented in Table 1, EL students represented
talented students in general and historically between 12.1% and 21.7% of the student population
underserved gifted and talented students in across the three states. Therefore, if EL students were
particular. proportionally represented in programs for the gifted, the
• The state data sets contain student achievement percentages of EL students that were identified as gifted
over time, whether a student had been identified should be similar to the overall percentage of students
as gifted, which school the student attended, and that were identified as gifted. However, as noted in Table
student demographics. 2, the proportion of EL students that were identified for
• The state may require districts to provide plans gifted services by fifth grade ranged from 3.8% to 14.4%
describing how they serve gifted and talented across the three states. Overall, across the three states,
students. Program plans were available from two of EL students were not proportionally represented in the
the three states gifted population. Further, when compared to White and
Asian students in particular, smaller percentages of EL
• The state director of gifted education approved the
students were identified for gifted services (see Table 3).
proposed research.

Table 1
Overall Percentage of Selected Subpopulations

State 1 State 2 State 3

Identified as Gifted 17.4% 10.5% 10.5%
FRPL-eligible 60.9% 50.6% 67.1%
Black/African American 24.6% 4.8% 21.9%
Hispanic 15.7% 33.3% 30.6%
EL 12.1% 20.1% 21.7%
White 51.6% 54.6% 40.9%
Asian 2.9% 3.4% 2.8%

Table 2
Percentage of Gifted Population From Selected Subpopulations

State 1 State 2 State 3

% of Gifted that is FRPL-eligible 28.5% 30.2% 42.4%
% of Gifted that is Black/African American 9.1% 2.5% 8.8%
% of Gifted that is Hispanic 7.3% 21.2% 26.6%
% of Gifted that is EL 3.8% 14.4% 13.9%
% of Gifted that is White 73.0% 66.5% 53.9%
% of Gifted that is Asian 6.0% 5.3% 6.6%

6
Table 3
Percentage of Subpopulations Identified as Gifted

State 1 State 2 State 3

% of FRPL-eligible Identified 8.2% 6.2% 6.6%
% of Black/African American Identified 6.5% 5.6% 4.2%
% of Hispanic Identified 8.0% 6.5% 9.1%
% of EL Identified 5.5% 7.4% 6.3%
% of White Identified 24.6% 12.8% 13.8%
% of Asian Identified 36.7% 16.7% 24.9%

Based on these data, we created a representation index (RI; Kitano & DiJiosia, 2002) to demonstrate each subpopulation’s
likelihood for identification. A group’s RI represents the actual proportion of the group being identified in the school divided by
the expected proportion of that subpopulation, given the proportion of gifted students and the subpopulation in the school. A
value of ‘1’ indicated that the subpopulation was proportionately represented in the gifted and talented programs. A value
less than ‘1’ indicated that the subpopulation was proportionally underrepresented and a value greater than ‘1’ indicated that
the subpopulation was proportionally over-represented in gifted and talented programs, when compared to the base rate of
the subgroup within the population. In Table 4, we present each group’s RI. The EL student representation index was lower
than ‘1’ suggesting that EL students were proportionally underrepresented across all three states.

Table 4
Gifted Representation Index (RI)

State 1 State 2 State 3

FRPL-eligible RI 0.47 0.60 0.63
Black/African American RI 0.37 0.54 0.40
Hispanic RI 0.46 0.63 0.87
EL RI 0.32 0.70 0.63
White RI 1.41 1.22 1.32
Asian RI 2.11 1.59 2.37
NOT FRPL, Black/African American, Hispanic, Native American RI 1.77 1.37 1.84

In Table 5, we present each group’s likelihood for identification. We calculated this number by dividing the proportion of the
subgroup that were gifted by the proportion of non-subgroup members that were identified. For example, the likelihood for
identification for FRPL students is calculated by dividing the proportion of FRPL students that are identified as gifted by the
proportion of non-FRPL students that were identified as gifted. EL students were less likely to be identified for gifted services
in each of the three states. Depending on the state, EL students were slightly over one-quarter to slightly over one-half as
likely to be identified as gifted as their non-EL peers.

Table 5
Likelihood of Identification for Selected Subgroups

State 1 State 2 State 3

Likelihood of identification for FRPL students 0.26 0.42 0.36
Likelihood of identification for Blacks/African Americans 0.31 0.52 0.35
Likelihood of identification for Hispanics 0.42 0.53 0.82
Likelihood of identification for ELs 0.29 0.65 0.55
Likelihood of identification for Whites 2.53 1.67 1.69
Likelihood of identification for Asians 2.18 1.63 2.47

Likelihood of identification for students NOT FRPL, Blacks/African 6.12 2.73 3.42
Americans, Hispanics, or Native Americans

7
 statistically significant difference when academic
Multilevel Analyses achievement is controlled (model 2). (See Appendix C for
more details.)
Next, we utilized multilevel modeling to examine student
representation after controlling for achievement. In States
Figure 1 further demonstrates the role of achievement in
1 and 3, there is a statistically significant
the identification of EL students. In States 1 and 3, EL
underrepresentation of EL students in gifted and talented
students with achievement that was a standard deviation
programs both in models without academic achievement
above the mean were still less likely to be identified for
measures (model 1) and models with academic
gifted services than non-EL students with similar
achievement measures (model 2). For State 2, there is
achievement. In State 2, this was not the case.
statistically significant underrepresentation for EL in a
model without academic achievement (model 1) but no

60% 57%
51%
50%

40%

30%
23%
19%
20% 16%
13%
10%

0%
State 1 State 2 State 3

Not EL, High Math and Reading Achievement (Mean +1 S.D.)

EL, High Math and Reading Achievement (Mean +1 S.D.)

Figure 1. Percentage of high achieving EL and non-EL students identified as gifted.

Although these results suggest that ELs were underrepresented in gifted and talented programs, schools that we visited did
not follow this trend. Using state data, we intentionally selected districts and schools in which the percentage of EL students
identified for gifted and talented programming was proportionally representative of the overall population of EL students in
the school.

Now that we addressed research question 1 quantitative results, the next section provides a brief overview of the qualitative
methods.

Qualitative Methods
We visited 16 schools including 14 elementary schools
and two middle schools. Middle schools were included in
visits as part of a specific request by OELA. Upon selection
and approval, schools and districts where ELs were
proportionally represented in their gifted and talented
programs were selected for school site visits in this study.
All three states provided us with all students’ reading and
mathematics academic achievement outcomes across
grades 3-5; student demographics, including
race/ethnicity, free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) status,
gifted status; the school students attended, and their
grade level. (See Appendix A for more details.)

Additionally, OELA stipulated the inclusion of nine

purposively-selected districts with no more than two public
schools from one district. Further, at least five of the

8
districts would have a large number of ELs and at least psychologists or counselors (n=9). Some of the same
three would have smaller but growing EL populations. This participants were also part of identification committee
sample included districts that used different processes for interviews. We analyzed comments from these 225 key
identifying all students, including ELs, as qualifying for persons, which yielded 84 transcripts, to address
gifted and talented programs (USDE, OELA, 2014). Based research questions 2-5. (See Appendix D for information
on these criteria, nine districts and 16 schools were about qualitative methods and the NCRGE EL codebook.)
selected: State 1: three districts, five schools; State 2: The following sections of this report highlight qualitative
three districts, five schools; and State 3: three districts, six findings related to research questions 2-5.
schools.
Table 6 includes various school-level characteristics for
A two-member research team spent one day at each the schools visited including cohort percentage of
school between March 8, 2016 and September 15, 2016 Black/African American, Hispanic, and Native American
to collect data, along with specific school documents. At students (UNDER); cohort designated as FRPL eligible
these schools, we conducted group and individual students; cohort percentage of English learners (EL);
interviews with key persons (N=225) most knowledgeable cohort percentage of gifted and talented students; cohort
about identification practices, including administrators percentage of gifted UNDER students; cohort percentage
(n=30), district gifted coordinators (n=15), gifted of gifted FRPL students; expected cohort percentage of
specialists (n=25), classroom teachers (n=75), gifted ELs; and the actual cohort percentage of gifted ELs.
parents/legal guardians/caretakers (n=71), and school

Table 6
Demographics of Schools Selected for Visits by State, District, and School

Cohort %
Under
(Black/
African Actual
American/ Cohort Cohort Cohort
Hispanic, Cohort % % % Expected
Native Cohort Cohort % Gifted Gifted Gifted Cohort %
State District School American) % FRPL % EL Gifted Under FRPL EL Gifted EL
1 1 A 84% 97% 38% 7% 5% 5% 3% 2.7%
1 1 B 84% 97% 59% 14% 14% 14% 9% 8.3%
1 2 A 68% 83% 30% 20% 13% 11% 6% 6.0%
1 3 A 89% 95% 36% 16% 14% 13% 5% 5.8%
1 3 B 96% 98% 38% 9% 9% 7% 4% 3.4%
2 1 A 96% 99% 69% 24% 23% 24% 20% 16.3%
2 1 B 97% 97% 77% 26% 23% 26% 21% 19.9%
2 2 A 41% 55% 19% 15% 9% 5% 5% 2.8%
2 2 B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2 3 A 87% 98% 59% 7% 5% 6% 5% 3.9%
3* 1 A 79% 80% 29% 14% 7% 12% 2% 4.0%
3* 1 B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
3* 2 A 99% 99% 60% 14% 14% 14% 9% 8.2%
3* 2 B 77% 65% 40% 18% 15% 10% 9% 7.2%
3* 3 A 33% 47% 11% 20% 7% 8% 4% 2.2%
3* 3 B 67% 79% 39% 13% 6% 11% 6% 5.0%
Note: *Because of limited data availability during the site selection phase, schools in State 3 were selected using alternative achievement state data.
n/a: Despite visiting both elementary and middle schools, we were only provided data on schools we visited that offered grades 3 through 5.

9
 place of the test scores. (District gifted coordinator
Research Question 2: interview, 3-3-A, 6/1/2016)
Identification Procedures, Despite the consistent use of standardized cognitive and
achievement assessments along with performance
Practices, and Instruments assessments, variability in identification procedures
occurred across states and districts most often when
for EL Gifted and Talented practices specific to the identification of ELs were
involved. Table 7 indicates that the majority of districts in
Students State 2 and State 3 utilized flexible identification policies
related to choice of instruments, cutoff scores,
Research question 2 focused on determining the districts’ observation data, and the students’ need for challenging
procedures, practices, and instruments used to assess learning experiences to accommodate students from
and identify ELs for gifted and talented programs. underrepresented populations, including EL students.
Researchers used a semi-structured interview protocol for These districts use multiple measures to identify gifted EL
each individual or participant group (see Appendix E). students. For example, in State 1, District 3, a member of
Participants described multiple components and several the identification team commented on the use of multiple
instruments involved in the overall process of screening measures:
and identifying gifted and talented students. The level of
detail about each component was dependent on We look at the teacher’s recommendation as well; we
information shared during group and individual interviews look at several different test batteries with the
as well as the review of available district and school classwork and observation, so we try and compile a
documents. Identification procedures and practices are lot of different things to get the whole picture of the
highlighted next. child, so it’s not just test scores or it’s not just this or
that, to try and really widen that scope of who are
Procedures and practices for identification varied across identified. (Identification committee focus group, 1-3-
states but included similar basic components. Table 7 B, 9/15/2016)
indicates the use of universal screeners, nonverbal
assessments, cut scores, speed of language acquisition, Gifted specialists also expressed how they approached
and talent pool/watch list was evident in most districts. All their search for students with gifts and talents who many
states and districts used cognitive ability and not have full command of English. One specialist in State
achievement tests as part of the identification process. 2, District 2 described the “hunt” for students with high
The gifted specialist in State 1, District 2 described ways potential.
assessments were used to increase access to the gifted
and talented program: Maybe having someone that’s in a position that my
job is to be on the hunt–kind of at all times, so
So, we give an aptitude test, an achievement test, knowing the scores of my students at my school and
and there is a group test, and once those come back being the one that says, “Wait a minute, this person
we look at that and if they’ve got a high aptitude got ninety-nine percent on the nonverbal; . . . might
score but not so high on the achievement then we have gotten thirty percent on the verbal scores on the
can give them additional tests like Woodcock CogAT or the quantitative scores but look at the
Johnson. If it’s the other way around where nonverbal.” So, we’ve got a language barrier here but
achievement is high and aptitude is not, then we’ll they’re obviously able to think at a higher level, so
give them either the [Reynolds Intellectual Screening let’s start getting the data. (Gifted specialist focus
Test] RIST or the Raven’s. (Gifted specialist interview, group, 2-2-A, 5/11/2016)
1-2-A, 4/19/2016)
Additionally, the majority of districts in State 2 and State 3
In addition to standardized assessments, eight of the nine utilized native language evaluations or instructions (see
districts included performance assessments, such as Table 7). For example, a group of administrators in State
portfolios, work samples, and grades as a component for 3, District 2 were asked if the assessment and
identification. For example, State 3, District 3 initiated a identification process varied for ELs, and one commented:
new practice to collect information for student portfolios,
which was used to provide a complete picture of a Yes and no. No, because procedurally it is the same,
student’s abilities. The district gifted coordinator for State it’s the same paperwork, the same checklist, the
3, District 3 described the portfolio procedures: same thing we send. The only thing that would differ
is if they truly do not speak any English.
And the portfolio would be at least three products . . .
people on a team who would independently look at We give the Aprenda. We have [an alternative
those products. Then they get together. They come to pathway] also that we follow which is a slightly
consensus on the reading of those products that different set of criteria in terms of IQ score. We’re
would demonstrate creativity, motivation, leadership very lucky, as [another administrator] was saying that
and or advanced academics. And that can be used in we have many bilingual people in our system so we
have bilingual assessors.

10
 That’s necessary we have that and bilingual get response since it’s an oral test and he came to
assessments but otherwise the procedure is the me and he said, “I think that I need to work with this
same. . . . [W]e had one student, in fact, earlier this child again another day with a bilingual assessment.
year who, we had an outside psychologist because Do you mind if I come back?” And he came back two
our psychologist was just very overloaded with cases or three days later did a different assessment and
so they sent an outside psychologist to assess and, sure enough she qualified. (Administrator focus
luckily, . . . he was bilingual as well and he sat down group, 3-2-B, 5/26/2016)
with the child and she was not doing well. He couldn’t

Table 7
District Identification Procedures, Practices, and Instruments by State and Number of Districts

Procedures/Practices State 1 State 2 State 3

Districts
n=3 n=3 n=3
Universal screener 2 2 3
Nonverbal assessments 3 2 3
Cut scores 3 2 2
Identification categories/pathways 2 1 1
Flexible identification policies 0 2 3
Native language evaluations or instructions 1 2 3
Speed of language acquisition 2 3 1
Talent pool/watch list 3 3 1
Identification Tools
Category Instruments State 1 State 2 State 3
Districts
n=3 n=3 n=3
Cognitive ability or aptitude Test NNAT; CogAT; TOMAGS; WPPSI; KBIT; 3 3 3
RIST; RIAS; Raven’s; OLSAT; Bateria III
Woodcock-Muñoz; DAS; WISC Spanish;
Slosson Full Range Intelligence Test

Achievement test State Test; MAP; PARCC; Star Reading 3 3 3

and Math; ITBS; Bateria III Woodcock-
Muñoz; Aprenda; SAT; Logramos

2nd Language assessment ACCESS; CELLA 0 1 1

Performance assessments Work samples; observation tools; 2 3 3

checklists; observations; grades

Nominations Teacher; parent; student 1 3 3

Behaviors/characteristics District rating scales; Slocumb-Payne 2 1 1

Teacher Perception Inventory; SIGS;
SRBCSS; interest surveys; reports

Rating scales KOI; GES; GRS 1 2 1

Interviews Parents/guardians/caretakers; teachers 0 1 0

Creativity assessment CAP 0 0 2

Notes: Appendix F includes a complete listing of the Identification Tools by Number of Schools by State and Across Schools.
Appendix G includes Descriptions of Cognitive Ability, Achievement, Rating Scales, and Creativity Assessments.

Another practice noted in the majority of districts in State coordinator in State 2, District 2 reflected on students’
1 and State 2 was the focus on speed of English language mastery of reading, writing, listening, and speaking in
acquisition among ELs. As noted earlier, it may take 3-5 English as an indicator of their abilities:
years for students to develop oral English proficiency and
4-7 years for students to develop academic English So, with English Language Learners we collect an
proficiency (Hakuta et al., 2000). When asked if the additional data set around the ACCESS test. . . .
identification systems varied for ELs, the district gifted Standards, like how quickly the students are

11
 progressing from Level-I to Level-VI become testing. The gifted specialist commented: “I’ve had maybe
significant when we’re talking about a potential gifted five or six parent requests this year. And they were basically
student. (District gifted coordinator, 2-2-A, 5/11/16) first graders. First and second,” (Gifted specialist interview,
2-1-B, 3/9/2016), which included referrals from EL
Students who made such progress may have parents.
demonstrated their intellectual and academic abilities in
multiple ways prior to their formal assessment in English. Across three states and four districts, rating
The resulting data from the ACCESS test extended scales/surveys were mentioned as ways of involving
information available during the screening, nomination, parents/guardians/caretakers in the identification
identification, and placement procedures. process. For example, in State 1, District 2,
parents/guardians/caretakers were invited to complete
Additionally, a gifted specialist in State 1, District 3 the Parent
explained that consultation with EL teacher was essential: Observation
Checklist in
We also encourage our specialists to talk to their EL English and
teachers at their schools if they have a child who is Spanish.
progressing very rapidly through those language The
acquisition levels, and then we want to know about checklist
them and how can we use that as part of our requires
identification. (Gifted specialist, 1-3-B, 9/15/2016) parents/
guardians/
Examining behaviors or characteristics associated with caretakers
giftedness occurred less commonly across states (see to review 33
Table 7). A classroom teacher in State 3, District 2 closed-
mentioned behavior as a component of identification: ended items
and to
You see by their behavior, their actions in the class, determine if
that’s how you can really tell, cause like I always say a the
test doesn’t always tell you what a child can or cannot behavior is Not Observed or Observed. State 3, District 2
do. (Classroom teacher focus group, 3-2-B, provided the Parent Nomination Form for Gifted Programs
5/26/2016) in English, Spanish, and other languages. Items are
clustered by four categories with a 3-point response scale
To gather data on students’ behaviors, classroom (i.e., Hardly Ever, Sometimes, Often). And finally, State 2,
teachers in State 3, District 3 conducted observations District 2 adapted the Kingore Observation Inventory
using a locally-developed rating scale of gifted (KOI), and it was available to
characteristics and the Creativity Assessment Packet parents/guardians/caretakers in English and Spanish.
(CAP). The inventory is based on seven clusters of academic and
behavioral characteristics: Advanced Language, Analytical
Of note, locally-developed rating scales were used to Thinking, Meaning Motivation, Perspective, Sense of
gather student data from administrators; teachers; Humor, Sensitivity, and Accelerated Learning. This
parents/guardians/caretakers; students; and community statement follows each cluster: “Examples from above of
members. At the 16 schools, locally-developed teacher things student said.” Parents/guardians/ caretakers are
(n=8, 50%), parent (n=6, 38%), and student (n=5, 31%) required to provide real-life examples based on their
rating forms were used rather than published scales that observations.
typically document procedures to determine reliability and
validity. One district gifted coordinator explained how the district
supported parents/guardians/caretakers:
EL Parental Input We have a very strong cultural liaison department
here and so they are both cultural liaisons and
The nine district-level procedures in three states
interpreters. So, what can also happen is that in a
documented the components of identifying gifted EL
context of a regular parent/teacher conference the
students, choices for instruments, and decision-making
parents can bring that up using the interpreter to say
processes. Of the 16 schools in 9 districts, all declared
you know I think I have a really bright child. (District
that parental input was a source for the identification
gifted coordinator, 2-2-A, 5/11/2016)
system through one or more of the following: written
communication with parents/guardians/caretakers;
Finally, in State 3, District 2, the school psychologist
nominations; cultural liaisons; surveys/rating scales; or
discussed the importance of gathering additional data
conferences.
from parents/guardians/caretakers:
We also like to get some background information
In State 2, District 1, the gifted specialist explained that a
from the parent when we’re screening such as you
letter was sent home at the beginning of the year in English
know, “Did your child begin to read at an early age? Is
and Spanish explaining the program and asking if
he a precocious child? What exactly makes you think
parents/guardians/caretakers want to refer their child for
12
 that maybe your child is beyond maybe the typical working on earning gifted education endorsements or
[milestones]? Activities as well, what is the child degrees in gifted and talented education. “All GT teachers,
involved in after school? Is this a book smart type of so anyone in the district that has a GT position is required
child or is this child also musically inclined? . . . Are to either be endorsed in Gifted Education, which is the
they learning to play an instrument? Do they play state
chess?” What other kinds of activities would endorsement, or
potentially lead us to believe that maybe there’s to have their
some additional spark there for that particular child Master’s or So, our ESL teacher,
and then the parents can be the ones to originate the higher in Gifted
request? So, although here in the school system, Education” our teachers that teach
most of the time, it comes from performance so we (District gifted
usually have the teachers identifying the students or coordinator in Spanish, when they
the administration or someone who’s come into
contact with that child or that child’s data. However,
interview, 2-1-B,
5/6/2016). have a kiddo that’s
we do have times where the parents are the ones
that believe that their child should have the Gifted specialists above grade level or
opportunity and then we screen for that because a lot
of parents of course, they think their children are
were frequently
responsible for whatever, then they go
exceptional. (School psychologist/counselor
interview, 3-2-B, 5/26/2016)
providing
informal training
tell her. . . [gifted
Parent involvement in identification processes varied by
to classroom
teachers, which specialist]
district. In some cases, there were formal processes was important as
requiring parental input, while other classroom
parents/guardians/caretakers approached districts teachers often made the initial referrals/nominations for
informally. Some parents/guardians/caretakers were assessment. After this initial referral step, these
reticent to contact the school about their children’s classroom teachers were often not part of the process.
giftedness; others were not. If one child had been Some schools involved their EL teacher in the referral
identified as gifted, parents/guardians/caretakers were and/or assessment process as well.
more likely to talk with the schools about a second child.
So, our ESL teacher, our teachers that teach in
In summary, the district-level identification procedures Spanish, when they have a kiddo that’s above grade
included multiple components to gather more information level or whatever, then they go tell her. Like, this kid
about students using a variety of instruments. Advocacy, might not come out in the standardized test as high
proactive searches for students of promise, and flexibility but doing really well in Spanish. (Administrator focus
in how identification criteria for gifted and talented group, 2-1-B, 5/6/2016)
programs were applied were important components of the
process to ensure students were not overlooked. The goal Schools with identification committees generally
was to determine students’ obvious gifts and talents and attempted to include gifted specialists, school
their potential to achieve at high levels. Instruments used psychologists or counselors, administrators (usually a
in this process varied within and across districts. The principal or assistant principal), and classroom teachers
classification as gifted was a decision based on evidence on the committee.
from multiple sources.
. . . [G]ifted teachers are going to [determine]
Now that EL identification procedures, practices, and eligibility, they’re writing the [Education Plans] (EPs).
instruments have been explored, the next section of this If it’s an English language learner, the EL resource
report presents information about personnel involved in teacher is involved, and then my guidance counselor
identification processes. will set up those meetings . . . and then of course the
classroom teacher. Those are the people that would
be involved. (Administrator interview, 3-3-B,
Research Question 3: 6/2/2016)
Personnel Involved in So, it’s [the gifted specialist], myself, and then the
teacher of record of the students that are being
Identification Processes identified, and that’s it. Three to four [people].
Because in second through fifth grade we
Research question 3 determined the roles, backgrounds, departmentalize. So, they’re going to have at least
and qualifications of district and school personnel two teachers, so a math teacher and a reading
involved in the assessment and identification of ELs for teacher . . . our assistant principal . . . she’s part of
gifted and talented programs. District gifted coordinators that process as well, but we’re sort of one and the
and/or gifted specialists were centrally involved in the same. (Administrator interview, 1-2-A, 4/19/2016)
assessment and identification processes, both within and
outside of the classroom. They generally had or were

13
 Well the psychologist . . . he’s the most important backgrounds, and responsibilities; and sought alternative
person. . . . Generally, the general education [teacher] measures, when possible, to make informed decisions.
is present, the teacher of the gifted is present,
psychologist, and a representative from the Professional Development
district . . . so they are there to make sure that
everything is well organized. (Gifted specialist focus Opportunities
group, 3-2-A, 5/25/2016)
Interview participants described approaches to
To ensure accountability, district personnel were involved professional development on assessing, identifying, and
in the process as well. In cases where schools did not serving ELs specifically. Personnel at five schools
have an identification committee, the district gifted discussed professional development opportunities about
coordinator or gifted specialist was generally the person gifted ELs, some of which took place outside of the
who ultimately made the final identification determination. academic school year. “Every summer the . . .
In general, the same personnel were responsible for department . . . we have . . . boot camp weeks . . . usually
assessing and identifying both EL and non-Els for gifted gifted is represented . . . . So, we get information on
and talented programs. However, some schools made an compliance and current trends in gifted education . . . and
effort to ensure their identification committees were as what we can do to ramp up our program” (Administrator
diverse as possible. focus group, 3-2-B, 5/26/2016). Personnel at another
five schools mentioned this as a goal for the future.
In thinking about the committee, we tried to have Personnel from three schools mentioned that courses for
mixed abilities in the diverse group, so some of the gifted and talented education endorsements were their
teachers you talked to today have [gifted education] only training. Professional development in these areas
certification, have worked in [gifted education] for was more common for gifted specialists, counselors, EL
years, have played a role in the classroom . . . as well. personnel, and school psychologists or counselors. Often
So, we tried to include teachers like that. There are these training opportunities were targeted towards one
also teachers who don’t have much experience in specific group of school personnel at a time. For example,
[gifted education] and we’re trying to pull them in and one school offered identification training for gifted
get them involved because they also have valuable specialists focused on recognizing biases.
input that we need to hear about, so that’s something
we’re thinking about. (Gifted specialist interview, 1-3- We just did a training about a month ago on bias and
B, 9/15/2016) how bias impacts the work that we do with our GT
kids and especially around identification because we
When there are know if it’s very teacher-driven and we’ve got those
several ELs who biases that we want to make sure that that is—so that
share a common is actually going to be an ongoing thread through our
language with EL PD training next year. (District gifted coordinator
personnel, the interview, 2-1-B, 5/6/2016)
identification
process is more At another school, the school psychologist mentioned
efficient. “So, we training specifically focused on identification and selecting
have a lot of assessment instruments that matched the students’
bilingual staff. So, characteristics.
they're able to seek
out students that Most of the times those trainings [are] for us
are EL” psychologists. So, for instance, we’ll go to trainings to
(Administrator look at gifted identification and let’s say the child that
interview, 3-1-A, maybe gets overlooked because they’re quiet, they’re
5/4/2016). Of the reserved. So, they’re not as vocal and the teacher just
schools with kind of thinks oh they’re okay. The child may be
multilingual extremely bright but just socially, they’re not
personnel, they demonstrating it or that behavior problem child that’s
referred mostly to Spanish/English multilingual school all over the place [because] he’s so bored. He has
psychologists assisting in this process. “We do use, if the done his work and it’s not that he’s really a behavior
student is EL, then . . . they’re tested by a bilingual problem. It’s just that he’s not being challenged. So,
psychologist” (Administrator interview, 3-1-A, 5/4/2016). we have those type of trainings to discuss a lot of that
There was also mention of using an interpreter/translator and then sensitivity with instruments, knowing which
during assessment, as needed, in at least one school. instruments are maybe more sensitive to
populations . . . so, part of completing our job is to be
Personnel involved in identifying ELs for gifted and very sensitive to that particular child’s needs so that
talented programs had knowledge of the characteristics of we choose an instrument that’s really [going to] tap
gifted and talented students; understood the importance into the most or the best components of that child’s
of assembling a group of educators from various roles, abilities versus giving them an instrument that maybe
based on their language background or just based on

14
 their social interaction would maybe limit them. checklist for . . . what we should be looking for and
(School psychologist/counselor interview, 3-2-B, things that we should consider before we either look
5/26/2016) at going the [special education] route or the [gifted
and talented] route so that we’re not kind of
Within this topic of professional development, the funneling these kids in the wrong direction just
frequency and format varied significantly across schools. because they don’t have a second language. . . . [O]ur
Professional development frequency was described as bilingual psychologist will come to our training or
ranging from ongoing to yearly. sometimes we have different professional
development training and it includes how to identify
Our GT teachers do have ongoing support . . . there’s EL students or advocating for our EL students who
been professional development every month, now the also will be tested or looking for any characteristics of
exact topics I’m not sure of. (Administrator interview, our EL so that they too have the opportunity to get in
2-2-A, 5/17/2016) the gifted program. (Gifted specialist interview, 3-3-B,
6/2/2016)
They get PD, if you’re a gifted cluster teacher in this
district now, you have to come to see me every I mean, I know when I go to my meetings they talk
month. So, we have about two and half to three hours about, because I go to EL meetings, and once a year
of PD every month. That’s just simply a requirement. we do have the bilingual psychologist that comes in,
(District gifted coordinator interview, 2-3-A, and talks to us about you know, identifying your
5/17/2016) students and what you could do and things we should
look at, but they’re not any different than things we
So, I know as would look out for in
counselors we get general, so it’s not, it’s
probably once or just reminding us that
twice a year every So, part of completing our job is to just because they may
year and not be completely fluent
sometimes if we’ve be very sensitive to that particular in English does not mean
been here for a
while the same child’s needs so that we choose an they cannot be gifted, so
that’s kind of what they
information and
sometimes it instrument that’s really [going to] say to us, but it’s nothing
like they’re saying, this,
changes a little bit,
but that’s where I tap into the most or the best these particular things
have to occur it’s just
know our
department gets it.
components of that child’s these are the things we
look at in general for
(Gifted specialist
interview, 3-3-B, abilities . . . . gifted and talented
students. (Classroom
6/2/2016) teacher focus group, 3-3-
A, 6/1/2016)
In terms of format of professional development, there
were online and in-person options. Spreading this professional development about identifying
gifted and talented EL students to the entire school
Well, there is in one of the prerecording trainings that community at large was not always a priority. When
I’ve done. It’s there. It goes to the process. I also do professional development related to identifying gifted and
training like live trainings for teachers on talented students who may or may not be EL occurred, the
identification and paperwork and so on and we briefly formats included ongoing to yearly sessions, online and in-
go through the portfolio process. But what I find is person options, gifted and talented education
they don’t remember it until they need to use it. endorsement classes, outside the academic year, or an
(District gifted coordinator interview, 3-3-A, informal, just-in-time basis. However, outcomes observed
6/1/2016) in one school suggested that formal, collaborative
professional development between English Language
One final aspect of professional development for Acquisition and gifted specialists may result in substantial
consideration was that several schools offered increases in EL student identification for gifted education
professional development opportunities that included programs.
people from different specialty areas to collaborate.
That was six years ago we had a joint meeting
I know with the guidance counselors at the beginning between as many [English Language Acquisition]
of every year when we’re having our preplanning or teachers as could be there and as many [Gifted and
sometimes those meetings that we have at the Talented] GT teachers that could be there and we sat
beginning of the year [the district coordinator] comes as a school team and we looked at data and at first
out and she again gives us the guidelines. We just time I started getting really embarrassed because we
had a meeting because I came back to her with some walked into that room and four children in our entire
paperwork more for the EL and they gave us like a district were identified as gifted Els and I think they

15
 were all probably exited, at least momentarily, right. parents/guardians/caretakers; and other stakeholders in
We left that room with forty-five students ready to referring ELs for evaluation. This hesitation can delay or
identify. So, think of that like in terms of percentage outright prevent the identification of ELs as gifted and
of increase. Then the following year we thought well talented and may be found at all grade levels and across
let’s get everyone in the same room, so we had a students with any native language other than English. The
really cool meeting that was [English Language problem diminished as students gained English language
Acquisition] . . . and [Gifted and Talented] GT. . . . I mastery. In the words of a district gifted coordinator:
paid for a substitute from the GT budget and then we “Sometimes teachers are quick to dismiss those kids
actually had a smaller team that would go out and because of the language barrier, like they don’t recognize
support schools. So, we would go out in subsets with it because they’re so focused on them learning their lack
the . . . team and meet their principals, like “Hey, let’s of knowing the language that maybe they don’t recognize
talk about your data.” That team asked some very the other areas” (District gifted coordinator, 1-1-A,
hard questions like “Hey principal, when we look at 3/8/2016).
your data we’ve noticed it’s a lot easier if you’re a
Hispanic male to be identified as special education
than to be identified as gifted?” (District gifted
coordinator interview, 2-2-A, 5/11/2016)

Although professional development related to identifying

ELs for gifted and talented programs was not a
requirement for all administrators and teachers, interview
participants shared various strategies to inform educators
and the community at large about identification
procedures, practices, and instruments. Both formal and
informal approaches to providing professional
development were evident during the group and individual
interviews, which ultimately affect current and future
decisions about identifying and serving EL gifted and
talented students.

In the next section of this report, challenges to assessing

and identifying ELs for gifted and talented programming
are highlighted.

Research Question 4: The most common strategy to combat this challenge was
the utilization of a universal screening process, which
Assessment and involved evaluating all students at grade 2 or 3. When
everyone participates in the initial assessment for
Identification Challenges giftedness, issues of bias, awareness, and understanding
are diminished in comparison to systems in which
of ELs for Gifted and teachers and other school personnel are gatekeepers. “I
think the universal screening has helped at, not only at
Talented Programs our Title 1 schools but at our affluent schools for the kids
who don’t exhibit those behaviors that people think are
Research question 4 focused on the challenges districts gifted characteristics but aren’t necessarily” (District
and schools encounter in the assessment and gifted coordinator interview, 3-1-A, 5/4/2016). Of the
identification of ELs for gifted and talented programs. As schools we visited, 14 of the 16 used some form of
stated earlier, the identification process can be divided universal screening, most often an ability test such as the
into four components: screening, nomination, CogAT or the NNAT. Two schools used achievement test
identification, and placement. Each component presents data as their universal screening tool. Universal screening
different challenges related to identifying gifted ELs. appeared to be a successful strategy at our schools, but
Interview participants described the challenges in this many interview participants acknowledged that it could
process, shared potentially beneficial strategies, and not entirely mitigate screening challenges. Students who
noted suggestions for additional interventions and are not identified at the time of the screening for gifted
strategies. and talented programs, or who move into the district at
other grade levels, must have a way to access the
Screening evaluation process, which most often involves
administrator, teacher, or parent/guardian/caretaker
The goal of this first component of the system was to referrals.
determine which students should be evaluated for gifted
and talented services. The major challenge in this Teachers who are thinking about individual student
component was a general hesitation by teachers; referrals may have trouble assessing the depth of an EL

16
student’s knowledge. One parent commented: “The to increase the number of multilingual personnel or
challenge? It’s because of the language. They cannot languages available. One gifted specialist explained:
express all that they are thinking and that limits the ability
of the teachers to realize how much they know” (Parent Considering that this district in particular is eighty-five
focus group, 3-1-A, 5/4/2016). Building teacher percent or higher Latino Hispanic. I think in order to
awareness regarding the intersection of EL student needs get more parent involvement and more, I think they
and giftedness was mentioned. We found professional need to have someone who speaks the language and
development for teachers that specifically addressed is a native [speaker]. (Gifted specialist focus group, 2-
giftedness and ELs used at five schools and mentioned as 3-A, 5/17/16)
potentially helpful by stakeholders at seven others. One
gifted specialist articulated the need by stating: “I think a As described above, interview participants shared
lot of education needs to happen beyond just gifted different approaches to mitigating challenges related to
teachers. I think classroom teachers need to be able to screening EL students for gifted and talented programs.
recognize the characteristics” (Gifted specialist interview, The next phase of the identification process involves
1-1-B, 3/9/2016). nominations from persons who are most knowledgeable
about students’ talents and abilities.
Another challenge is that parents/guardians/caretakers
often did not have sufficient information about gifted and
talented programming, as illustrated by the comments
Nomination
below:
Teachers were responsible for the nomination process
because they worked closely with students in the
They never asked me how is he at home or do you
classroom, and they had the advantage of observing
think he would fit into the program, like it wasn’t
students’ critical thinking, reasoning abilities, content
questions asked as a parent. It was more the
knowledge, subject interest, and social emotional
teachers identifying [and] testing them. . . . We
regulation. As noted earlier, locally-developed teacher,
received only information at the meeting, at the
parent, and student rating scales were used more often
conference. . . . With all the results and everything.
than published instruments, which raises questions for
(Parent focus group, 3-1-A, 5/4/2016)
the researchers about the reliability, validity, and
research-based evidence about characteristics of gifted
As one identification committee member noted EL
and talented students. There are several issues related to
parents/guardians/caretakers may not be familiar with
reliability and validity:
gifted identification procedures:

You know a lot of our parents grow up in other • It is important to offer professional development
countries and may or may not have a gifted program, related to administering rating scales.
you know, they might think their child is really smart, • Rating scales may yield varied results if
he’s doing the best in his class, but that’s the end of administered at different times of the year due to
the story and they might not know there is this whole students’ learning growth and maturity.
other enrichment opportunity that could be available • Educational terminology related to gifted and
to them. (Identification committee member focus talented education may be unfamiliar to persons
group, 1-1-B, 3/9/2016) completing the rating scales.
• Rating scales may reflect the possible biases or
To address this challenge, two schools conducted misconceptions of persons involved in their
outreach specifically aimed at educating their parent development.
communities about the gifted and talented programming
that is available. One district gifted coordinator has Identification
recently begun this type of outreach and commented:
The third component of the identification process was the
I think as we get better interacting with our review of the data and determination of identification
communities, with our parents, that this process is status. Interview participants discussed two challenges.
going to become normal and something we just look The first, and more commonly discussed of the two was
to, of course we would do this; why wouldn’t we do the set of policies determining who can and cannot be
this? I think we’re not very good at that yet. (District identified and admitted into gifted and talented programs.
gifted coordinator, 2-2-A, 5/11/2016) Some of the states or districts in this study have set cut
scores below which students cannot be identified for
To foster awareness, schools also utilized their gifted and talented programs. Individual schools within
multilingual personnel to communicate with those states or districts have struggled to meet the needs
parents/guardians/caretakers or send home written of ELs because of the noted difficulties with test-taking
communications translated into the family’s home and assessment and have developed strategies to work
language, whenever possible. These language within the system.
intervention strategies were used at seven schools, and
nine schools, including some of the original seven, In some cases this led to alternative pathways to
indicated that this would be helpful to either start using or identification—typically including ELs. One state has a
17
specifically designated alternative pathway to talked about the balance between flexibility in testing and
identification. In other cases, this has been done at the rigor in services, stating:
school level. In addition, interview participants from six
schools talked about alternative pathways; other Are we flexible? Maybe a child is not fully ready . . .
participants talked about using multiple measures for but . . . show signs of again, like a high level of
gathering data. If students scored poorly on one test, thinking and so forth; that’s really the biggest thing
another test or assessment might be used. Identification for me. That really sticks out to me with the EL
team members noted the importance of cultural students, because again, they have to navigate a lot,
awareness when evaluating students from varied two languages, two cultures. . . . (Administrator
backgrounds. “So, when it comes to identifying students interview, 1-3-B, 9/15/2016)
for gifted they are automatically thinking of all of the
different aspects of that child’s life, so I think it gives them As with other components, parents/guardians/caretakers
more of an objective and open-minded feel” (Identification may have difficulty navigating the complex logistics. In
committee focus group, 1-2-B, 9/15/2016). some areas, gifted and talented programming is offered at
magnet locations, requiring a student to switch schools to
Another strategy schools take advantage of the
used was to create a services. “The other
talent pool or watch list challenge was the
of students who were
close but did not meet
Another strategy schools used program at one time was
just at one of the other
the identification criteria
to attend the gifted and
was to create a talent pool or magnet sites . . . so then
you’re added another
talented program. One
gifted specialist
watch list of students who were challenge with the child
changing schools” (Parent
commented, “there is
nothing in the rules that
close but did not meet the focus group, 2-1-B,
5/6/2016).
our folks provide that
says I can only pull a
identification criteria. . . . Ultimately, in addition to
group of gifted identified the challenges, it can also
students” (Gifted be difficult to accurately
specialist interview, 1-3-B, 9/15/2016). In other words, assess the number of ELs identified for gifted and
state and/or district policies outlined who can be talented programs due to changing classifications related
identified, but schools could provide services for to the level of language acquisition. As one district gifted
additional students. coordinator said:

The second challenge interview participants had about You know where the state looks at our numbers and
this component of the identification process was the lack says you have this percentage of EL kids who are
of communication and coordination between the EL and gifted, it’s always wrong. Because it’s like a leaky
gifted education departments when they shared, or sieve. These kids are going from LY [enrolled in
potentially shared, the same students. Interview classes for ELs] to LF [exited from English to speakers
participants at 13 of the 16 schools mentioned this topic. of other languages
One school formed an EL advisory committee to work with program and
the gifted specialists, while others conducted or would like followed up for 2
to conduct professional development sessions for EL and years] when they
gifted specialists together on topics relevant to both pop out as LZ
departments, such as how ELs who are gifted might [exited from English
present themselves in the classroom. to speakers of other
languages program
and 2 year follow
Placement up-period
completed] they’re
The final component of the identification process was the
no longer
placement decision. Members of the identification
considered an EL
committee made the final decision and sought approval
gifted kid even
from the students’ parents/guardians/caretakers. Both
though they may
school personnel and parents/guardians/caretakers
have been
expressed concerns about the mismatch between testing
identified when they
in a native language and gifted services provided in
were LY or LF. . . .
English. In the words of one parent, “Services are only
(District gifted
offered in English and so when kids are advanced or they
coordinator
have different needs when they’re in Kindergarten and
interview, 3-3-A,
First Grade there is nobody who can provide those
6/1/2016)
services for them in the language that they’re learning in”
(Parent focus group, 2-1-B, 5/6/2016). One administrator
18
In the three states, screening, nomination, identification, at various levels of mastering reading, writing, speaking,
and placement policies were the same for EL and non- and listening skills in English or even their own native
ELs. However, within each component of the process, languages, and they may be dealing with other challenges
there were differences in practice used to reduce the related to immigration, socioeconomic status, or the
impact of English proficiency on gifted identification. existence of disabilities masking their strengths. Universal
These practices included nominations by EL teachers screening “uncovered” students’ emergent abilities. Of
based on speed of English language acquisition, the nine districts, eight had policies related to universal
assessments or directions in Spanish, nonverbal screening in grades 2 or 3, and several had procedures
assessments, and talent pool lists. Personnel also used for conducting assessments at earlier grades, especially
parental input in the identification process, which when English language acquisition or math skills were
included nomination and behavioral characteristics input. advancing quickly.
Potential challenges to participation by
parents/guardians/caretakers of ELs included lack of The theme of Creating Alternative
knowledge about gifted and talented programs and Pathways to Identification
challenges related to the nature of written materials and
parental literacy levels in English or native languages. The
emerged from the qualitative
analysis, which allowed I really just
involvement of translators or cultural liaisons helped to
mitigate these challenges to identifying gifted ELs.
identification teams to use
flexible criteria based on student
waved my
Now that research findings related to patterns of
readiness and the need for
challenging learning
pirate flag too
underrepresentation; assessment procedures, practices,
and instruments; roles, backgrounds, and qualifications of
opportunities. sometimes
district and school personnel; and assessment and
identification challenges have been documented, it is time
The results of Pre-Identification
and Identification data signaled
and said, “This
to map them onto the preliminary NCRGE EL Theory of the importance of helping kid is gifted
Change. underrepresented students gain
requisite skills. Some schools and whether
created organized sets of
Research Question 5: activities to enhance knowledge that score
and academic skills necessary
NCRGE EL Theory of for students to be recognized as says it or not.”
gifted in the future. These
Change: Deductive learning activities qualified as
Preparation programs, as they were intentional enriched
Analysis Mapping and accelerated learning opportunities. Identification as a
singular event became a process of “developmental
The inductive qualitative analysis of research questions 2- identification,” in which educators strategically planned
4 included a selective coding process, which required ways to enhance students’ knowledge and academic
exploring the story line and asking questions such as: skills.
What was most informative about practices related to
identifying ELs as gifted? What story does the data tell? The last phase of the NCRGE EL Theory of Change,
This process led to the emergence of four themes: Placement, overlapped with the earlier themes and
integrated two additional themes: Establishing a Web of
• Adopting Universal Screening Procedures Communication and Viewing Professional Development as
• Creating Alternative Pathways to Identification a Lever for Change. Repeated calls for effective
• Establishing a Web of Communication communication techniques and opportunities for
• Viewing Professional Development as a Lever for professional development were evident. Both themes
Change required human, material, and financial resources.
Ultimately such investments led to awareness of how
The next step was to address research question 5: To characteristics of gifted and talented students are
what extent do the findings from the inductive analyses presented and how advocacy takes many forms:
map onto the preliminary NCRGE EL Theory of Change
(see Appendix B)? We reviewed the purposes, definitions, I really just waved my pirate flag too sometimes and
and special issues that may be related to underserved said, “This kid is gifted and whether that score says it
populations in our four-phase NCRGE EL Theory of or not.” I know based on all these things that this
Change: Pre-Identification, Preparation, Identification, and child is. (Gifted specialist focus group, 2-2-A,
Placement. 5/11/2016)

The theme of Adopting Universal Screening Procedures This exploratory study on the identification of ELs for
was critical to Pre-Identification and Identification phases gifted and talented programs was the first check on the
because it provides increased opportunities for all preliminary NCRGE EL Theory of Change (see Appendix B).
students to display their abilities and achievements. Interview and focus group participants spoke about the
Gifted and talented students from EL populations may be importance of several variables within each phase. The

19
deductive mapping on Pre-Identification revealed that the
definition of giftedness and data collection strategies Theme 1, Adopting Universal Screening Procedures,
were important components of determining which points to the importance of adopting universal screening
students would benefit from intentional talent procedures to assess students’ academic and reasoning
development opportunities. skills. Eight of the nine districts employed universal
screening
Definitions of giftedness, procedures. All
cultural awareness and students were
sensitivity, alternative screened for
manifestations of giftedness, inclusion in the
and the availability of testing gifted and talented
materials and procedures in program and had
other languages do make a opportunities to
difference in the screening, display their abilities
nomination, identification, and and achievement.
placement procedures. It is Rather than
important for identifying students’
parents/guardians/caretakers deficits to prevent
to have access to testing, them from receiving
identification process, and services, school
program specifics so they, too, personnel sought
can be talent scouts for their evidence of
own children. students’ strengths
from a variety of
Placement typically involves a formal meeting with district sources. These schools recognized that giftedness could
and school representatives, and manifest in different ways and thus the identification
parents/guardians/caretakers to discuss identification process extended across grades.
results procedures and to determine students’ eligibility
for gifted and talented programs. Trustworthiness of
communicators, awareness and responsiveness to the
Recommendations: Adopting
culture, accessibility of program information, location of Universal Screening Procedures
programming, and the cultural implication of being
labelled as gifted and talented can make a difference to • Adopt a policy of universal screening of all students
identification and placement procedures. How, where, and in one or more grade levels for the identification
who shares results about the screening, nomination, process.
identification, and placement procedures can make a • Select assessment instruments that are culturally
difference in ensuring that EL students’ gifts and talented sensitive and account for language differences.
are recognized, addressed, and supported. • Assess the speed of English language acquisition
and monitor the rate of mastering reading, writing,
listening, and speaking skills in English.
• Consider including reliable and valid nonverbal
Discussion and ability assessments (e.g., Cognitive Ability Test
Recommendations (CogAT, nonverbal subtest), Naglieri Nonverbal
Ability Test [NNAT], Raven’s Progressive Matrices,
Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence
We present the four themes that emerged from the
[CTONI], Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test
qualitative data analyses for research questions 2-5 and
[UNIT]) as part of the overall identification process.
offer recommendations to be considered by state and
• Use other identification tools (e.g., nominations,
local decision makers responsible for the screening,
rating scales, portfolios) to supplement results of
nomination, identification, and placement of gifted and
universal screening.
talented ELs in programs.
Theme 2, Creating Alternative Pathways to Identification,
Although ELs continue to be underrepresented in gifted
follows universal screening and allows schools to use a
and talented programs, their underrepresentation was not
variety of different assessment instruments and apply
universal among the three states with mandates for
flexible criteria to ensure that students’ talents and
identification and programming of gifted and talented
abilities are recognized. In our study, schools avoided a
students. We were able to locate schools in which the
deficit model that blocks students from services and
percentage of EL students identified for gifted and
implemented practices that sought to identify students’
talented programming was proportionally representative
strengths. School district personnel recognized the value
of the overall population of EL students. In these schools,
of using native language abilities and achievement
four themes prevailed. Each theme is presented followed
assessments to determine students’ academic strengths,
by a brief discussion and recommendations based on the
and they also ensured that multilingual school
qualitative data from group and individual interviews.
psychologists were the assessors.
20
 program.
In some schools, students with academic potentials that Parent/guardian/
were not fully developed were invited to participate in caretaker involvement
preparation programs or placed on a talent pool list for was important but not
further observation. These preparation programs, which always consistent
often included an emphasis on creative and critical within or across
thinking skills, further developed the students’ skills. schools. Without this
These opportunities also enabled program personnel to web of communication
serve as talent scouts who recognized students’ strengths among administrators,
in learning environments that differed from the students’ district gifted
general education classroom experiences. These coordinators,
experiences not only met the students’ learning needs, classroom teachers,
but also helped develop the knowledge and academic gifted specialists,
skills necessary to later be identified for official gifted and multilingual teachers,
talented program services. and
parents/guardians/caretakers, the observations of
individuals with first-hand knowledge of ELs’ gifts would
Recommendations: Creating have been lost.
Alternative Pathways to
Identification Recommendations: Establishing a
• Use native language ability and achievement
Web of Communication
assessments as indicators of potential giftedness,
when available. Ability tests are available in • Establish an identification committee that includes
Spanish (e.g., Bateria III Woodcock Muñoz, representatives who have key responsibilities in
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children [WISC] various roles (e.g., administrators, classroom
Spanish). Achievement tests are also offered in teachers, gifted specialists, district gifted
Spanish (e.g., Aprenda, Logramos). Typically, coordinators, EL teachers, multilingual personnel,
standardized, norm-referenced tests are limited to school psychologists or counselors, special
Spanish only. education personnel) and departments.
• Maintain a list of multilingual school psychologists • Focus on the development and implementation of
who are qualified to administer assessments in intentional outreach to the school community,
Spanish. particularly parents/guardians/caretakers. This
• Establish a preparation program prior to formal process should utilize multiple pathways in
identification procedures that provides students languages appropriate to the population, such as
with learning opportunities to enhance knowledge clearly written program information available via
and academic skills necessary for a student to be the district or school website, video segments
recognized. posted to school websites and made shareable via
• Create a talent pool list of students who exhibit social media, information and community-building
high potential but are not yet enrolled in gifted and nights held at the school or in conjunction with
talented programs. Observations, daily interactions community groups, and regularly distributed
between teachers and students, informal newsletters.
assessments, and formal assessments provide • Emphasize collaboration within and across
multiple opportunities to gauge students’ learning specializations/departments (e.g., general
progress. education, English as a second language [ESL],
special education) regarding identification
Theme 3, Establishing a Web of Communication, ensures processes. Educators can offer their perspectives
that all stakeholders are aware of the identification on the gifts and talents of ELs in various
system in its entirety and are empowered to interact with educational environments.
one another in all components (i.e., screening,
nomination, identification, and placement). School Theme 4, Viewing Professional Development as a Lever
personnel in our study established a Web of for Change, points to the importance of establishing an
Communication where everyone served as talent scouts ongoing plan to disaggregate district demographic and
and interacted with each other to identify ELs’ talents. achievement data to study the proportionality of students
Multilingual instructors were an essential component of identified as gifted by underrepresented groups and to
the web. For some schools, they were the first persons at offer professional development opportunities focused on
the school to recognize ELs’ advanced skills and the ensuring equitable representation (Borland, 2004).
speed at which an EL was acquiring English, which is a Personnel in this research study used, or wanted to use,
characteristic of giftedness. Multilingual personnel’s professional development as a lever for change.
interactions with the gifted specialists and their Educators and parents/guardians/caretakers who
participation with gifted identification teams increased the understood that giftedness can be revealed in different
number of ELs considered for the gifted and talented ways and who were knowledgeable about the process of

21
second language acquisition were more likely to identify nomination, identification, and placement
ELs as gifted and talented. The challenge these schools procedures.
faced was how to provide the necessary professional
development to share this understanding with all These recommendations associated with the four themes
stakeholders. Schools provided information about from the qualitative analyses provide “lessons from the
identifying ELs to the gifted specialists or they extended field” about procedures, practices, and instruments
opportunities to classroom teachers and school related to identifying gifted ELs. Interview participants
psychologists. Parents/guardians/caretakers would shared what they learned and acknowledged that
benefit from opportunities to learn about the challenges still exist. Their lessons may provide guidance
characteristics of for other district and school personnel who are examining
students with gifts and the representation of ELs in their gifted and talented
talents. Schools that programs.
were able to provide
professional The resulting data from this exploratory study and the
development created a extent to which it reflected our preliminary NCRGE EL
school climate where the Theory of Change prompted further discussions, resulting
goal of gifted and in a revised four-phase model for improving identification
talented identification of ELs for gifted and talented programs based on the
was to identify students’ qualitative themes.
strengths, rather than
using weaknesses to
serve as identification NCRGE Four-phase Model
roadblocks. In this
climate, personnel for Improving Identification
viewed having more than
one language as an of ELs for Gifted and
asset, rather than a
deficit. As one Talented Programs
administrator asserted:
“Bi-literacy does not just Initially, we posited a host of variables as potentially
provide the academic important to the NCRGE EL Theory of Change that would
language, it provides the confidence. It provides a belief in determine how the general education program may
one’s self; it provides a culturally responsive educational influence Pre-Identification, Preparation, Identification,
experience, identity . . .” (AI, 2-3-A, 9/7/2016). and Placement of ELs in gifted and talented programs.
Qualitative data identified specific variables within each
phase, while the relevance of other potential variables of
Recommendations: Viewing interest was not available. As this study occurred in three
Professional Development as a states with gifted and talented identification and
programming mandates and focused on a cohort of
Lever for Change students entering grade 3 in 2011 and completing grade
5 in 2014, these results provide preliminary evidence.
• Provide professional development opportunities for
school personnel about effective policies and We modified our NCRGE EL Theory of Change to improve
practices to support equitable representation of identification of ELs for gifted and talented programs (see
ELs in gifted and talented programs. Figure 2). We also outlined the Web of Communication
• Develop a systematic approach to analyzing district process for improving identification of ELs for gifted and
and school demographics (e.g., race/ethnicity, talented programs (see Figure 3). Our model retains the
FRPL, ELs) and the status of students four phases of Pre-Identification, Preparation,
identified/not identified for gifted and talented Identification, and Acceptance of Placement from the
programs, along with goals for ensuring equitable original NCRGE EL Theory of Change. Successful programs
opportunities to participate in such programs. identify students who will benefit from an emergent talent
• Promote efforts to diversify the teaching corps so experience. They provide opportunities for these students’
that the adult community of a school reflects the talent to emerge. This enables them to better identify EL
student population and includes members who are students for gifted and talented services. Finally,
multilingual, as they can assume proactive roles in successful programs communicate information to
advocating for ELs during the screening, parents/guardians/caretakers about program services in
a trustworthy manner.

22
 Four Phases for Improving Identification of ELs for Gifted and Talented Programs

Figure 2. Four phases for improving identification of ELs for gifted and talented programs.

Figure 3. Web of Communication process for improving identification of ELs for gifted and talented programs.

Pre-Identification. Successful gifted and talented limited staffing and material resources, which, in addition
programs identify students who will benefit from an to limited material, are a location to conduct the
emergent talent experience. They apply a broadened preparation program and the time to conduct it.
definition of giftedness and use formal as well as informal
data sources to identify these students. They involve the Identification. Schools identified greater numbers of gifted
extended school community and EL students when they applied universal screening that
parents/guardians/caretakers in the process of considers all students to avoid overlooking talented
identifying students. students. Using a broadened definition of giftedness with
alternative identification pathways beyond a single IQ
Preparation. The success of preparation programs is score, providing professional development that creates
dependent on a school’s staffing and human resources. cultural sensitivity and awareness of special issues
Often gifted specialists provided the service; however, this related to identifying EL students for gifted and talented
limits other gifted education services they provided. The programs, and using culturally appropriate assessments,
greatest threats to providing a preparation program are such as testing in the student’s native language, improve

23
identification practices. Frequent screening is necessary teacher and parent capacities for supporting equitable
to identify gifted EL students whose talents may manifest representation in gifted education. This evolution in
later. Finally, all stakeholders (e.g., administrators, district practice originated in the daily work of teachers, school
gifted coordinators; gifted specialists; personnel, and administrators committed to recognizing
parents/guardians/caretakers; EL specialists, classroom and serving the needs of students, across differences that
teachers, school psychologists, or counselors) create a include language-acquisition, immigration, and
web of communication through which they serve as talent socioeconomic status. In a nation where one in five
scouts. residents speaks a language other than English in the
home (Batalova & Zong, 2016), it has become incumbent
Acceptance of Placement. Parents/guardians/caretakers on all educators to reflect on how to support
are more likely to place their identified gifted EL students multilingualism and multiculturalism, which is the explicit
in gifted and talented programs when the program goal of culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012). The
demonstrates cultural awareness and sensitivity to issues integration of knowledge from the fields of multicultural
surrounding students being labelled as gifted and education, which encompasses culturally sustaining
talented, when support services exist to ensure student pedagogy, and gifted education offers new possibilities for
success in the program, when scheduling and the equitable practices in developing the gifts and talents of
program location do not place undue hardship on all students.
students’ families, and when
parents/guardians/caretakers are involved throughout Many of the practices in this study are examples of ways
the identification process and have developed a trusting in which educators have sought to include alternative
relationship with program personnel. tests, flexible cutoff scores, and advanced learning
opportunities using their current district policies. These
We also found similar processes to the web of are all important remedies in the systems that have been
communication (see Figure 3) that support the four in place, and all educators should have access to
phases described in Figure 2 occurred across our information about how to utilize them to benefit the
research sites. In schools that successfully identified EL students they serve. However, there is an unavoidable link
students for gifted and talented programs, administrators, between these practices and the monocultural, deficit-
district gifted coordinators; gifted specialists; based thinking that has contributed to imbalances in
parents/guardians/caretakers; EL specialists, classroom representation in gifted and talented programs and relying
teachers, and school psychologists, or counselors work on them to attain equitable representation has not proved
together to form a web of communication. Through this successful.
web of communication, all stakeholders assume
responsibility for Language diversity exists in
identifying and many different forms across
developing students’ states, districts, and schools,
talents. The web of and programs that serve one
communication results community well are not
in impactful professional transferrable to all other sites.
development. Through In addition, with over 350
professional languages spoken in the U.S.
development all of the (Batalova & Zong, 2016), it
stakeholders become will not always be possible to
aware of gifted have fulltime teachers or
identification issues for personnel who speak the
EL students. This native languages of their
resulted in changes in students, and new programs
identification practices are not implemented
and modifications in overnight. Nieto and Bode
program services. These (2012) offered some
modifications increase essential capacities that all
trustworthiness in schools can seek to build
communication among stakeholders and improve through professional development and hiring practices to
acceptance rates and placement of ELs in the gifted and support ELs:
talented program.
• Familiarity with first- and second-language
acquisition
Looking Forward • Awareness of the sociocultural and sociopolitical
context of education for language minority students
The evidence documented here reflects new and growing • Awareness of the history of immigration in the
awareness, knowledge, and skills for addressing historical United States, with particular attention to language
and persistent patterns of underrepresentation of ELs and policies and practices throughout that history
other groups in gifted and talented programs. It illustrates • Knowledge of the history and experiences of
that there are no uniform solutions, but rather developing specific groups of people, especially those who are
24
 residents of the city, town, and state where one is underrepresented groups. This is supported by the
teaching effective collection and use of data to ensure that goals
• The ability to adapt curriculum for students whose for equitable representation are included at every level of
first language is other than English decision-making processes.
• Competence in pedagogical approaches suitable
for culturally and linguistically heterogeneous To make more than incremental progress toward these
classrooms goals for ELs, educators must examine underlying
• Experience with teachers of diverse backgrounds philosophical beliefs about predominantly monolingual
and the ability to develop collaborative approaches to education and the existence of gifts and
relationships with them to promote the learning of talents across all populations in creating professional
language-minority students development and hiring practices to build cultural
• The ability to communicate effectively with parents competence. Recognizing that students’ cultural and
of diverse language, cultural, and social class linguistic identities are inseparable from their academic
backgrounds (p. 232) identities, it is essential to provide a welcoming and
inclusive school climate for all students and their families.
The historic patterns of underrepresentation in gifted and Parent/guardian/caretaker, and community involvement
talented programs illustrated in this study can be provides connection between students’ home and school
disrupted through recognizing the barriers of current and experiences, fostered by the types of district and school
historic practices to equitably serving all of our students communication practices recommended in this study. The
and pursuing new culturally sustaining approaches. As future of culturally and linguistically-sustaining gifted
demonstrated by group and individual interview education in the U.S. is one that will reflect the diversity of
participants, this begins with evaluating and changing our student population across all differences, measured
current practices that function as barriers to recognizing at the local level in every school building.
and serving the advanced learning needs of students in

25
References
Aldridge, J. (2008). Among the periodicals: What’s Castellano, J. A., & Díaz, E. I. (2002). Introduction. In J. A.
happening in special education? Childhood Castellano & E. I. Díaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons:
Education, 84, 180-182. Gifted and talented education for culturally and
doi:10.1080/00094056.2008.10523003 linguistically diverse students (pp. xii-xxvi). Boston,
American Community Survey. (2015). Census bureau MA: Allyn and Bacon.
reports at least 350 languages spoken in U. S. homes Castellano, J. A., & Matthews, M. M. (2014). Legal issues
(Release No. CB15-185). Washington, DC: Author in gifted education. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A.
Batalova, J., & Zong J. (2016, November 11). Language F. Rotatori (Eds.), Gifted education: Current
diversity and English proficiency in the United States. perspectives and issues (pp. 1-19). Bingley, England:
Retrieved from Emerald Group Publishing.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/language- Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of
diversity-and-english-proficiency-united-states human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
Bernal, E. M. (2002). Three ways to achieve a more S95-S120.
equitable representation of culturally and Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in
linguistically different students in GT programs. school: An introduction to development, guidance,
Roeper Review, 24, 82-88. and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
doi:10.1080/02783190209554134 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative
Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted research: Techniques and procedures for developing
education without gifted children. In J. H. Borland grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
(Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105-124). New Cross, J. R., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Social dominance,
York, NY: Teachers College Press. moral politics, and gifted education. Roeper Review,
Borland, J. H. (2004). Issues and practices in the 28, 21-29. doi:10.1080/02783190509554333
identification and education of gifted students from Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2010). Education of
under-represented groups (RM04186). Storrs: the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
University of Connecticut, The National Research Pearson.
Center on the Gifted and Talented. De Bernard, A. E., & Hofstra, U. (1985). Why José can’t get
Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted in the gifted class: The bilingual child and
children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In standardized reading tests. Roeper Review, 8, 80-82.
R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of doi:10.1080/02783198509552939
giftedness (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Cambridge De Wet, C. F., & Gubbins, E. J. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs
University Press. about culturally, linguistically, and economically
Brice, A., & Brice, R. (2004). Identifying Hispanic gifted diverse gifted students: A quantitative study. Roeper
children: A screening. Rural Special Education Review, 33, 97-108.
Quarterly, 23, 8-15. doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.554157
doi:10.1177/875687050402300103 Esquierdo, J. J., & Arreguin-Anderson, M. (2012). The
Brulles, D., Castellano, J. A., & Laing, P. C. (2011). “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students: A
Identifying and enfranchising gifted English language current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal
learners. In J. A. Castellano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 35-47.
Special population in gifted education: Understanding doi:10.1177/0162353211432041
our most able students from diverse backgrounds Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Title VIII, Part A,
(pp. 305-313). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Section 8101(22): Definitions, Public Law 114-95.
Callahan, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from Retrieved from
underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice, https://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-
44, 98-104. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4402_4 1965.pdf
Camarota, S. A. (2012). Immigrants in the United States: Ford, D. Y. (2014). Underrepresentation of African
A profile of American’s foreign-born population. American and Hispanic students in gifted education:
Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies. Impact of social inequality, elitism, and
Retrieved from colorblindness. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A. F.
http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2012/ Rotatori (Eds.), Gifted education: Current
immigrants-in-the-united-states-2012.pdf perspectives and issues (pp. 101-126). Bingley,
Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening England: Emerald Group Publishing.
increase the representation of low income and Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for
minority students in gifted education? (Working paper culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to
No. 21519). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42, 217-225.
Economic Research. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4203_8

26
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Kogan, T. (2001). Gifted bilingual students: A paradox?
Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted New York, NY: Peter Lang.
education: Recruitment and retention issues. Matthews, M. S. (2014). Advanced academics, inclusive
Exceptional Children, 74, 289-306. education, and English language learners. In M. S.
doi:10.1177/001440290807400302 Matthews & J. A. Castellano (Eds.), Talent
Ford, D. Y., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Recruiting and development in English language learners (pp. 11-
retaining underrepresented gifted students. In S. I. 14). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral
293-308). New York, NY: Springer. sources for gifted identification screening by race and
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Christian, D. (2005). English language learners in Education, 27, 103-111. doi:10.4219/jsge-2006-
U. S. schools: A review of research findings. Journal of 686
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 363-385. McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Waterman, C. (2014).
doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1004_2 Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment
Gonzalez, G. (1974). Language, culture, and exceptional systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child
children. Exceptional Children, 40, 565-570. Quarterly, 58, 69-89.
Granada, J. (2003). Casting a wider net: Linking bilingual doi:10.1177/0016986213513794
and gifted education. In J. A. Castellano (Ed.), Special McCoach, D. B., Siegle, D., Callahan, C., Gubbins, E. J., &
populations in gifted education: Working with diverse Hamilton, R. (2016, December). The identification
gifted learners (pp. 1-16). Boston, MA: Allyn and gap: When just as good isn’t enough. Poster
Bacon. presented at the 2016 Institute of Education
Grieco, E. M., Trevelyan, E., Larsen, L., Acosta, Y. D., Sciences Principal Investigators Meeting, Washington,
Gambino, C., de la Cruz, P., . . . Walters, N. (2012). DC.
The size, place of birth, and geographic distribution of Melesky, T. J. (1985). Identifying and providing for the
the foreign-born population in the United States: Hispanic gifted child. The Journal for the National
1960 to 2010. Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau. Association for Bilingual Education, 9, 43-56.
Retrieved from doi:10.1080/08855072.1985.10668498
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992).
/working- papers/2012/demo/POP-twps0096.pdf Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory
it take English learners to attain proficiency? Into Practice, 31, 133-141.
Stanford: University of California Linguistic Minority Mun, R. U., Langley, S. D., Ware, S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle,
Research Institute. D., Callahan, C. M., . . . Hamilton, R. (2016). Effective
Harris, B., Rapp, K. E., Martinez, R. S., & Plucker, J. A. practices for identifying and serving English learners
(2007). Identifying English language learners for in gifted education: A systematic review of the
gifted and talented programs: Current practices and literature. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National
recommendations for improvement. Roeper Review, Center for Research on Gifted Education.
29, 26-29. National Association for Gifted Children and Council of
doi:10.1080/02783193.2007.11869221 State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015).
Hertzog, N. B. (2009). The arbitrary nature of giftedness. 2014-2015 state of the states in gifted education:
In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on Policy and practice data. Washington, DC: National
giftedness (pp. 205-214). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for Gifted Children.
Springer. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). English
Hodges, J., Tay, J., Maeda, Y., & Gentry, M. (2018). A language learners. Retrieved from
meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96
procedures. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 147-174. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017, March).
doi:10.1177/0016986217752107 English language learners in public schools.
Hughes, C. E., Shaunessy, E. S., Brice, A. R., Ratliff, M. A., Retrieved from
& McHatton, P. A. (2006). Code switching among https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
bilingual and limited English proficient students: National Center for Research on Gifted Education. (2016).
Possible indicators of giftedness. Journal for the National Center for Research on Gifted Education
Education of the Gifted, 30, 7-28. English learner theory of change. Storrs, CT: Author.
doi:10.1177/016235320603000102 Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming diversity: The
Iowa Department of Education. (2008). Identifying gifted sociopolitical context of multicultural education.
and talented English language learners. Des Moines, Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
IA: Author. Noguera, P. A. (2004). Social capital and the education of
Kitano, M. K. (2003). What’s missing in gifted education immigrant students: Categories and generalizations.
reform? In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted Sociology of Education, 77, 180-183.
education (pp. 159-170). New York, NY: Teachers doi:10.1177/003804070407700206
College Press. Obi, S. O., Obiakor, F. E., Obi, S. L., Banks, T., Warner, S., &
Kitano, M. K., & DiJiosia, M. (2002). Are Asian and Pacific Spencer, N. (2014). Giftedness as it relates to
Americans overrepresented in programs for the culturally and linguistically diverse students. In J. P.
gifted? Roeper Review, 24, 76-80. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Gifted

27
 education: Current perspectives and issues (pp. 71- H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp.
100). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing. 127-142). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed Stein, J. C., Hetzel, J., & Beck, R. (2012). Twice
change in stance, terminology, and practice. exceptional? The plight of the gifted English learner.
Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(2), 36-41.
doi:10.3102/0013189X12441244 Stephens, K. R. (2008). Applicable federal and state
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Blei, S. (2008). Gifted identification policy, law, and legal considerations in gifted
beyond the IQ test: Rating scales and other education. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness
assessment procedures. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), in children (pp. 387-408). New York, NY: Springer.
Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 177-198). Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative
New York, NY: Springer. research: Techniques and procedures for developing
Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Research on grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C.
and considerations for the future. Exceptional (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A
Children, 80, 390-406. proposed direction forward based on psychological
doi:10.1177/0014402914527244 science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1984). Key features of 12, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
successful programs for the gifted and talented. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of
Educational Leadership, 41(7), 28-34. giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Handbook of gifted education (pp. 45-59). Boston,
Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for MA: Allyn & Bacon.
educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: United States Department of Education. (1993). National
Creative Learning Press. excellence: A case for developing America’s talent.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Washington, DC: Author.
Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational United States Department of Education. (2016,
excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative September). Non-regulatory guidance: English
Learning Press. learners and Title III of the Elementary and Secondary
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every
Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for talent Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from
development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitle
Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. H. (1981). The iiiguidenglishlearners92016.pdf
Revolving Door Model: A new way of identifying the United States Department of Education Office for Civil
gifted. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 648-649. Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection, Data
Rimm, S. B., Siegle, D., & Davis, G. A. (2018). Education of snapshot: College and career readiness. Retrieved
the gifted and talented (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, from
NJ: Pearson. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crd
Rong, X. L., & Preissle, J. (2009). Educating immigrant c-college-and-career-readiness-snapshot.pdf
students in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Thousand Valdés-Fallis, G. (1978). Code switching and the
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. classroom teacher. Language in Education: Theory
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative and Practice, 4, 3-31.
researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Worrell, F. C. (2014). Ethnically diverse students. In J. A.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Equity, excellence, and school Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and
reform: Why is finding common ground so hard? In J. practices in gifted education (pp. 237-253). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.

28
 Appendix A
Selection of Districts and Schools
Upon selection and approval, selected states provided us with all students’ reading and mathematics academic achievement
outcomes across grades 3-5; student demographics, including race/ethnicity, FRPL status, gifted status; the school students
attended, and their grade level.

Schools and districts where ELs were proportionally represented in their gifted and talented programs were selected for
school visits in this study. To select schools, we conducted analyses using a school level data file that contained counts of the
students classified as EL (EVER_ELL), students identified as gifted by grade 5 (GIFT5), and students classified as both
(GIFT5*EVER_ELL) variables for the grade 5 data within the school. Our school level data file contained the actual proportion
of GIFT5*ELs in the school. To estimate the expected proportion of gifted ELs in the school, we computed the product of the
GIFT5 and the EVER_ELL variables. We then created a variable that we called the proportionality ratio (or RATIO). The
proportionality ratio represents the actual proportion of gifted ELs being identified in the school divided by the expected
proportion of gifted ELs, given the proportion of gifted and talented students and the proportion of ELs in the school. A value
of 1 indicates the ELs are proportionately represented in the gifted and talented programs—there are as many gifted ELs as
would be expected based on the number of gifted and talented students and the number of ELs in the school. A value less
than 1 indicates ELs are underrepresented and a value greater than 1 indicates ELs are better represented than would be
expected. We used .90 as our cut-off for proportional representation. In other words, the actual proportion of GT-ELs had to be
at least 90% of the expected proportion for us to consider the school as “proportionally identifying GT-ELs.” Because the
denominator of the expression becomes very small when there are either relatively few ELs in a school or relatively few gifted
and talented students in a school, it would be a mistake to assume that higher proportionality ratios are always better. Ratios
of approximately 1 or more are good, and ratios closer to zero are certainly worse than larger ratios. However, some schools
with very few gifted or very few ELs end up with computed ratios well above 1. Therefore, rather than simply taking the
schools with the highest ratios as our schools of interest, we generated inclusion criteria:

1. At least 3 GT/ELs in the cohort

2. At least 10 students in the cohort
3. The proportionality ratio for Gifted EL was >=.90.
4. Proportion of EVER_ELL students was at least .10

29
 Appendix B
NCRGE Gifted English Learner Theory of Change (2016)

30
 Appendix C
Results of Multilevel Analyses
Table C1 below presents the results from a multilevel model that estimates the level of underrepresentation of EL students in
gifted and talented programs. In States 1 and 3 there was a statistically significant underrepresentation of EL students in
gifted and talented programs both in models without academic achievement measures (model 1) and models with academic
achievement measures (model 2). For State 2, there was statistically significant underrepresentation for EL in a model
without academic achievement (model 1) but no statistically significant difference when academic achievement is controlled
(model 2). State 2, model 2 shows that this State 2 differs notably from the other two, in that the estimated statistically
significant estimates of EL underrepresentation become statistically insignificant when academic ability is controlled.

Table C1
Underrepresentation of English Learners and Academic Ability: A Multilevel Model of the Odds of Being Identified as Gifted
and Talented

State 1 State 2 State 3

Model 1 Model 2: Model 1 Model 2: Model 1 Model 2:
(Model 1 (Model 1 (Model 1 +
+Achievement) +Achievement) Achievement)
English Learner 0.28 * 0.80 * 0.56 * 1.26 0.48 * 0.76 *
Academic Ability- Math 1.23 * 1.01 * 1.04 *
(Grade 3)
Academic Ability- ELA 1.18 * 1.01 * 1.05 *
(Grade 3)
Note: * = Statistically significant at a p <.01; sample sizes: State 1=95,587, State 2=58,154, State 3= 168,184. These
models are estimated with a logistic multilevel models using the HLM statistical package.

31
 Appendix D
NCRGE English Learner Codebook and Qualitative Methods
We developed the document entitled NCRGE Development of English Learner Codebook for Transcripts (August 14, 2016)
using multiple techniques, including reviewing the main study codebook entitled NCRGE Development of Codebook for
Transcripts (July 27, 2016), studying the research questions, conducting a preliminary analysis of English learner (EL) parent
transcripts, and analyzing the extant research literature summarized in early iterations of Effective Practices for Identifying
and Serving English Learners in Gifted Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature (Mun et al., 2016).

The NCRGE EL Codebook includes two Parent Codes based on the NCRGE Main Study Codebook. Subcodes referring to nine
Child Codes and 70 Grandchild Codes were customized for the NCRGE EL Study as needed.

I. Screening, Nomination, Identification, & Placement (5 Child Codes; 39 Grandchild Codes)

II. Infrastructure & Resources (4 Child Codes; 31 Grandchild Codes)

For each Parent Code, we created definitions for Child Codes and Grandchild Codes. We added sample text using verbatim or
edited phrasing from the group and individual interview transcripts with administrators; gifted program coordinators; gifted
specialists; school psychologists; parents/guardians/caretakers; and identification committee members to clarify the
meaning of the codes. We also added exclusion criteria to guide the application of the code, when necessary. Figures D1-D3
present a visual overview of the Parent and Child Codes.

Figure D1. Parent codes–EL study.

32
Figure D2. I. Screening, nomination, identification, and placement child codes–EL study.

33
Figure D3. II. Infrastructure and resources child codes–EL study.

Figure D4 presents the complete EL codebook.

34
Figure D4. EL codebook.

35
 Qualitative Methods
On August 11, 2016, we conducted training on using the EL codebook and working with Dedoose for six qualitative research
team members; four of these team members conducted site group and individual interviews. Several sections of transcripts
were used to experiment with assigning codes on paper, comparing results of codes, and discussing terminology and code
definitions. Then we practiced coding sample sections of transcripts using Dedoose. Throughout the process of coding
transcripts, we met weekly to share and discuss potential patterns and themes. We selected a subset of transcripts to check
intercoder agreement, which “requires that two or more coders are able to reconcile through discussion whatever coding
discrepancies they may have for the same unit of text” (Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, & Pedersen, 2013, p. 297). As we
discussed coding results and coding discrepancies, we re-visited the codebook, clarified interpretations of definitions, and
added more examples of text from transcripts that reflected definitions.

To analyze transcripts for group and individual interviews, we used Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) and Corbin and Strauss’s
(2008) stages of open, axial, and selective coding for research questions 1-4. Brief descriptions of these stages follow:

• Open Coding: breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing data by labeling phenomena, discovering
categories, or developing categories; asking questions such as: What is this? What does it represent?
• Axial Coding: making connections between categories; drawing an axis through the codes; asking question such as:
What actions do people take with respect to this category?
• Selective Coding: selecting the core category or theme by exploring the story line and relating other categories; using
both inductive and deductive thinking; asking questions such as: What was most informative about practices related
to identifying ELs as gifted? What story do the data tell?

The coding of the 84 transcripts yielded: 2,207 excerpts; 6,278 total code applications; 208 total axial codes; four selective
codes or themes. The final stage of selective coding process functioned “like an umbrella that covers and accounts for all
other codes and categories formulated thus far in grounded theory analyses” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 223). The goal was to find
one or more themes that explained the data. A theme “consists of all the products of the analysis condensed into a few words
that seem to explain what ‘this research would be all about’” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 146).

The analysis of qualitative for research question 5 involved deductive analysis, as our goal was to determine the extent to
which our data mapped on the preliminary NCRGE EL Theory of Change. The theory of change included four phases related to
the identification of Els for gifted and talented programs: pre-identification, preparation, identification, and acceptance of
placement. Research team members checked and re-checked the qualitative data from group and individual interviews to
determine if variables listed under each phase of the theory of change was supported by interviewees. These analyses led to
a four-phase model for improving identification of ELs for gifted and talented programs.

References
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of
unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 294-320.
doi:10.1177/0049124113500475
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mun, R. U., Langley, S. D., Ware, S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Callahan, C. M., . . . Hamilton, R. (2016). Effective practices for
identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: A systematic review of the literature. Storrs: University of
Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.
National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE). (2016, August 14). NCRGE development of English learner
codebook for transcripts. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.
National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE). (2016, July 27). NCRGE development of codebook for transcripts.
Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

36
 Appendix E
EL Research Study Interview Questions
Q1. Gifted education defined: Will you please describe how your district/school carries out the identification of gifted and
talented students? (All Informants)

What do you think about the identification of gifted and talented students? (Classroom Teacher, District Gifted
Coordinator)

Q2. Gifted education process: Will you please describe how you first learned that your child was gifted?
(Parent/Guardian/Caretaker)

How were you involved in the process of getting your child identified as gifted? (Parent/Guardian/Caretaker)

Q3. Gifted education process: Will you please describe how your district/school assesses and identifies students for gifted
programming? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Does this process vary by . . .

student grade level? If so, in what way? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

language group? If so, in what way? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

level of English language proficiency (e.g., does not speak English, limited English proficient)? If so, in what
way? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Does this process vary at all for English learners? If so, in what way? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist,
School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Are alternative methods, special efforts, and/or special strategies used to assess and identify English learners for
gifted programming? If so, what are they? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

How are parents/guardians/caretakers involved in the identification process, if at all? Does this process vary at all
for English learners? If so, in what way? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Q4. Gifted education process: Based on your experience, how involved are parents/guardians/caretakers of English learners
in the identification process? (Classroom Teacher)

Q5. Gifted education challenges: What do you perceive as the biggest challenges to assessing English learners for gifted
programming? What do you perceive as the biggest challenges to identifying English learners for gifted programming?
(Parent/Guardian/Caretaker)

Do you believe these challenges vary across student grade level, language group, and level of English language
proficiency? If so, in what way? (Parent/Guardian/Caretaker)

Possible prompts include: bias in teacher referrals, preference toward certain behaviors, restrictive
identification procedures, student/parent concerns over participating in G&T, peer pressure on academic
expectations, automatic cut score, single criteria must be met before other criteria considered, lack of
translation services to communicate with parents/guardians/caretakers, timing of parent, guardian, or
caretaker meetings to discuss gifted education for their child, etc. (Parent/Guardian/Caretaker)

What do districts and schools use to overcome these challenges? (Parent/Guardian/Caretaker)

What else could they do? (Parent/Guardian/Caretaker)

Q6. Gifted education challenges: What do you perceive as the biggest challenges to assessing English learners for gifted
programming? What do you perceive as the biggest challenges to identifying English learners for gifted programming?
(Classroom Teacher)

37
 Possible prompts include: bias in teacher referrals, preference toward certain behaviors, differential performance on
IQ and achievement tests, restrictive identification procedures, student/parent concerns over participating in G&T,
peer pressure on academic expectations, automatic cut score, single criteria must be met before other criteria
considered, lack of interpretation services to communicate with parents/guardians/caretakers, timing of
parent/guardian/caretaker meetings to discuss gifted education for their child, etc. (Classroom Teacher)

Do you believe these challenges vary across student grade level, language group, and level of English language
proficiency? If so, in what way? (Classroom Teacher)

What do you see districts and schools use to overcome these challenges? (Classroom Teacher)

What else could they do? (Classroom Teacher)

Q7. Gifted education personnel: Who is involved in the assessment and identification of students for gifted programming?
(District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

What are the roles, backgrounds, and qualifications of personnel involved? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted
Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Do the personnel involved vary for English learners? If so, in what way? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist,
School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Do you provide professional development to personnel involved in assessing, identifying, and serving English
learners? If so, what type? How often? Who is involved? Who provides the professional development? (District Gifted
Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Q8. Wrapping up: Is there anything else that you think is important for me to know before I leave about your experience with
the assessment and identification of your child as gifted? (Parent/Guardian/Caretaker)

Q9. Wrapping up: Is there anything else that you think is important for me to know before I leave about the assessment and
identification of English learners for gifted programming in your classroom or school? (Classroom Teacher)

Q10. Acceptance of placement: What factors may foster or inhibit parents/guardians/caretakers’ decisions about agreeing to
place their identified child in the gifted program? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Possible prompts from Theory of Change include: Accessibility of information to parents/guardians/caretakers on

identification and programming (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor,
Administrator)

Accessibility to programming due to location, family obligations, timing, finances, or scheduling (Coordinator, G/T
Teacher, School Psychologist, Administrator)

Trustworthiness of the communicator (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor,
Administrator)

Awareness of and responsiveness to the (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Cultural responsiveness of curriculum and programming (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Perception of the program as accepting, useful, and responsive (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Q11. Gifted education challenges: What do you perceive as your biggest challenges to assessing English learners for gifted
programming? What do you perceive as your biggest challenges to identifying English learners for gifted programming?
(District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Are there policies, procedures, or practices that staff perceive as delaying the identification of English learners for
gifted programming? If so, what is the evidence to support that perception? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted
Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

38
 Do these challenges vary across student grade level, language group, and level of English language proficiency? If
so, in what way? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Possible prompts include: bias in teacher referrals, preference toward certain behaviors, differential performance on
IQ and achievement tests, restrictive identification procedures, student/parent concerns over participating in G&T,
peer pressure on academic expectations, automatic cut score, single criteria must be met before other criteria
considered, lack of interpretation services to communicate with parents/guardians/caretakers, timing of parent
guardian/caretaker meetings to discuss gifted education for their child, etc. (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted
Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

What strategies do districts and schools use to overcome the challenges related to the assessment and
identification of English learners for gifted programming? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

What additional tools and approaches do you believe would help improve schools and districts’ abilities to identify
those English learners who could qualify for gifted and talented? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist,
School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Q12. (Middle School Only) What services are provided to gifted and talented students at the middle school level? (District
Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

What are the identification procedures? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist, School
Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

Q13. Wrapping up: Is there anything else that you think is important for me to know before I leave about the assessment and
identification of English learners for gifted programming in your district/school? (District Gifted Coordinator, Gifted Specialist,
School Psychologist/Counselor, Administrator)

39
 Appendix F
Identification Tools by Number of Schools by State and Across Schools
# of Schools Total*
by State
Cognitive Ability/Intelligence Tests 1 2 3
CogAT Cognitive Abilities Test 5 4 0 9
NNAT Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test 2 4 2 8
KBIT Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2 1 2 5
OLSAT Otis Lennon School Ability Test 2 0 2 4
Bateria III Woodcock Muñoz 2 0 1 3
WISC Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 1 1 1 3
Raven’s Progressive Matrices 2 0 1 3
RIAS Reynolds Intellectual Assessment System 1 0 1 2
DAS Differential Ability Scales 0 0 2 2
CTONI Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 2 0 0 2
S-FRIT Slosson Full Range Intelligence Test 0 0 2 2
RIST Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test 1 0 0 1
WPPSI Wechsler Preschool Primary Scale of Intelligence 0 1 0 1
TOMAGS Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students 0 1 0 1
KABC Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 0 0 1 1
WISC Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Spanish 0 0 1 1
UNIT Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test 0 0 1 1
Achievement Tests
ITBS Iowa Tests of Basic Skills 3 0 4 7
MAP Measures of Academic Progress 0 2 2 4
State Comprehensive Assessment Test 0 0 3 3
PARCC Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers 0 2 0 2
State End of Grade Tests 2 0 0 2
State Standards Assessment 0 0 2 2
District Assessment Test 0 0 2 2
Woodcock Johnson Achievement Test 2 0 0 2
SAT Stanford Achievement Test 0 0 2 2
Aprenda (SAT in Spanish) 0 0 2 2
State Assessment Program 0 1 0 1
ACT American College Test 0 1 0 1
Aspire ACT 0 1 0 1
State Measures of Academic Success 0 1 0 1
Star Reading and Math 0 1 0 1
Logramos 0 0 1 1
i-Ready 1 0 0 1
Rating Scales
Teacher rating 0 2 6 8
Parent rating 0 2 4 6
Student rating 0 1 4 5
Gifted Behaviors Characteristics Checklist 0 0 4 4
Slocumb-Payne Teacher Perception Inventory 2 1 0 3
KOI Kingore Observation Inventory 0 2 0 2
Creative Thinking 2 0 0 2
CAP Creativity Assessment Packet 0 0 2 2
SIGS Scales for Identifying Gifted Students 0 1 0 1
SRBCSS Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics
of Superior Students 0 1 0 1
GES Gifted Evaluation Scale 0 1 0 1
GRS Gifted Rating Scales 1 0 0 1
Administrator rating 0 1 0 1
TOPS Teacher’s Observation of Potential in Students 1 0 0 1
Note. Sixteen schools participated in this EL identification research study.

40
 Appendix G
Descriptions of Cognitive Ability, Achievement, Rating Scales, and
Creativity Assessments
Table G-1
Cognitive Ability/Intelligence Tests
Cognitive Ability/Intelligence Tests
Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz The Batería III Woodcock- Muñoz is a norm-referenced,
individually administered intelligence/general aptitude
assessment for individuals, ages 2 to 90+ who are Spanish-
language dominant. It is comprised of 32 tests that measure
broad and narrow cognitive abilities and aspects of executive
functioning.

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) The CogAT is a norm-referenced ability assessment that
evaluates a student’s reasoning and problem solving skills
utilizing verbal, visual, and spatial symbols. The CogAT is
administered in a group setting to students in grades K-12.

Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence The CTONI is an individually administered, norm-referenced

(CTONI) intelligence/general aptitude test for individuals ages 6 through
89. The assessment reports a Full Scale IQ, Geometric Scale, and
Pictorial Scale (mean 100 and standard deviation 15) and
percentile ranks.

Differential Abilities Scale (DAS) The DAS is a norm-referenced individually administered

assessment of cognitive ability and basic academic skills. It is
comprised of 17 cognitive subtests and 3 achievement subtests.
Cluster scores are reported in Verbal, Nonverbal, and Spatial
skills. A General Conceptual Ability Score is also reported.

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children The KABC is a norm-referenced, individually administered
(KABC) assessment of intelligence/general ability for children ages 3 to
18. It is comprised of 23 subtests with composite scores in
Sequential Processing, Simultaneous Processing, Mental
Processing, Achievement, Nonverbal, and Fluid-Crystallized
Intelligence (mean 100 and standard deviation 15). The
nonverbal index and subtests may be utilized for hearing
impaired, non-English-speaking students, and student with
speech and language disorders.

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT) The KBIT is a norm-referenced, individually administered
intelligence assessment comprised of three subtests that yield a
verbal, nonverbal score, and IQ composite score. The assessment
may be administered to individuals ages 4 to 90. The subtests
are comprised of Verbal Knowledge, Riddles, and Matrices and
scores are reported using standard scores (mean of 100 and
standard deviation of 15).

Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) The NNAT is a norm-referenced, group-administered nonverbal
assessment of ability for students in grades K-12. Matrices of
increasing difficulty are grouped in four clusters (Pattern
Completion, Reasoning by Analogy, Serial Reasoning, and Spatial
Visualization) and are scored producing a Nonverbal Ability Index
score with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.

Otis Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) The OLSAT is a norm-referenced, group-administered
intelligence/general aptitude assessment. A Verbal Index Score,
Nonverbal Index Score, and a Total Score are reported. A School
41
Cognitive Ability/Intelligence Tests
Ability Index is also reported with a mean of 100 and standard
deviation of 16.

Raven’s Progressive Matrices The Raven’s is a norm-referenced, group-administered

assessment of nonverbal abilities. It is comprised of three levels
of matrices (Coloured Progressive Matrices, Standard Progressive
Matrices, and Advanced Progressive Matrices). Within levels, the
matrices incrementally increase in complexity.

Reynolds Intellectual Assessment System The RIAS is a norm-referenced, individually administered

(RIAS) intelligence/general aptitude assessment for individuals ages 3
to 94. It is comprised of four indices: (a) Verbal Intelligence Index;
(b) Nonverbal Intelligence Index; (c) Composite Intelligence Index;
and (d) Composite Memory Index. It should be noted that the
Nonverbal Index requires verbal responses.

Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test (RIST) The RIST is the screening portion of the Reynold’s Intellectual
Assessment. It provides three scores: Guess What, Odd-Item Out,
and a Total RIST index score.

Slosson Full Range Intelligence Test (S-FRIT) The S-FRIT is an individually administered, intelligence/aptitude
test given to individuals ages 5 through 21. It provides a full-
range IQ score (mean 100 and standard deviation 15) as well as
the following index scores: Rapid Cognitive, Best g, Verbal,
Abstract, Quantitative, Memory, and Performance). Subdomains
are reported using a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 16.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children The WISC is a norm-referenced, individually administered
(WISC) intelligence/general aptitude assessment for students, ages 6 to
16. It is comprised of five indices (Verbal Comprehension, Visual
Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing
Speed). The WISC reports a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) and a
Generalized Ability Index (GAI) that does not account for working
memory and processing speed.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children The WISC–Spanish is a norm-referenced, individually

(WISC)–Spanish administered intelligence/general aptitude assessment for
students, ages 6 to 16 who are Spanish-language dominant. It is
comprised of four indices (Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual,
Working Memory, and Processing Speed). The WISC–Spanish
reports a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) and a Generalized Ability Index (GAI)
that does not account for working memory and processing speed.

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of The WPPSI is a norm-referenced, individually administered
Intelligence (WPPSI) intelligence/general aptitude assessment for students, ages 2-6
to 7-7. It is comprised of five indices (Verbal Comprehension,
Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing
Speed). The WPPSI reports a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) and a
Generalized Ability Index (GAI).

42
Table G-2
Achievement Assessments
Achievement Tests
American College Test (ACT) The ACT is a nationally normed, college entrance examination
that is administered 5 times per year. The assessment is
comprised of five parts (a) English usage; (b) mathematics usage;
(c) social studies reading; (d) science reading; and (e) writing.
Scores range from 1 to 36 on reading, mathematics, English, and
science and between 1 and 12 on writing. Score reports also
include percentile rankings.

ACT Aspire ACT Aspire assessments are periodic, interim, or summative

assessments that monitor the progress of students in grades K
through 10 in reading, mathematics, science, and English.
Growth is recorded and ACT predicted scores are given based on
9th and 10th grade assessments.

Aprenda The Aprenda is group-administered achievement test designed

specifically to assess the academic skills of Spanish-speaking
students in grades K-12. The content is based on the Stanford
Achievement Test.

Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz The Batería III Woodcock- Muñoz test of achievement is designed
for ages 2 to 90+. The subtests measure Reading, Oral
Language, Mathematics, Written Language, and Knowledge.

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) The ITBS is both a group-administered, norm- and criterion-
referenced achievement assessment for students in grades K
through 9. It is comprised of tests in reading, language arts,
mathematics, social studies, science, and information sources.
Scores are reported using raw scores, standard scores, and
percentile rankings.

i-Ready i-Ready is an adaptive, computerized assessment based on the

Common Core Standards for students in K-12.

Logramos Logramos is a group-administered achievement assessment for

Spanish-speaking students in grades 1 through 8. Content areas
include reading, language, math, social studies, and science. It
has been adapted from the Iowa Assessments.

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) The MAP is a computer-administered, norm-referenced

achievement assessment given to a group of students in grades
2 through 12. The assessment adapts to the student and
provides scores in reading, language usage, mathematics, and
science. Scores are reported using standard scores and
percentile ranks.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for The PARCC assessment is a standardized, annual, year-end
College and Careers (PARCC) assessment based on the Common Core State Standards that is
given to students in grades 3 through 8. It measures reading
language arts/literacy and mathematics.

Star Reading and Math The Star Reading and Math assessments are norm-referenced
computerized, adaptive achievement tests for students in grades
3 through 12. Scores are reported using percentiles and grade
equivalencies.

43
 Achievement Tests
Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) The SAT is a norm-referenced, group administered achievement
test for students in grades K-12. It assesses reading, language,
spelling, study skills, listening, mathematics, science, and social
science. Scores are reported using scaled scores, percentiles,
grade equivalents, and normal curve equivalents.

State Assessments Include end-of-year state mandated testing in English language

arts, reading, math, science, and social studies.

Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted The TOMAGS is a norm-referenced assessment that identifies
Students (TOMAGS) students, ages 6 through 12, as gifted in mathematics. It is
comprised of two levels: primary and intermediate. It provides a
score (with a mean 100 and standard deviation 15) and scores
of 125 or above are indicative of giftedness in mathematics.

Woodcock Johnson III Achievement Test The Woodcock Johnson Achievement test is a norm-referenced
for individuals between the ages of 2 and 90+. Cluster cores are
reported in the following areas: Broad Reading, Oral Language-
Standard, Broad Math, Math Calculation Skills, Broad Written
Language, Written Expression, Academic Skills, Academic
Fluency, Academic Applications, and Total Achievement. Scores
are reported using standard scores and percentile rankings.

Table G-3
Rating Scales
Rating Scales
Administrator Rating Scale District created rating scale for administrators.

Gifted Behaviors Characteristics Checklist School district created rating scale.

Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES) The GES is an individually administered rating scale for students
ages 5 through 18 that teachers or other school personnel
complete. It contains six subscales (Intellectual, Creativity, Specific
Academic Aptitude, Leadership Ability, Performing and Visual Arts,
and Motivation) with scores reported as standard scores and
percentiles.

Gifted Rating Scales (GRS) The GRS is an individually administered rating scale for students
ages 6 through 13. It is designed to identify observable behaviors
that indicate giftedness. The GRS evaluates the following domains:
Intellectual, Academic, Motivation, Creativity, Leadership, and
Artistic Ability.

Kingore Observation Inventory (KOI) The KOI is a rating scale for students in grades K through 8 that is
used to identify students with potential giftedness. It includes
teacher and parent forms. Seven categories categorize gifted
behaviors and performance: Advanced Language, Analytical
Thinking, Meaning Motivation, Perceptive, Sense of Humor,
Sensitivity, and Accelerated Learning.

Parent Rating Scale District created rating scale for parents.

Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS) The SIGS is an individually administered rating scale for students
ages 5 through 18. It assesses across seven domains: general
intellectual ability, language arts, mathematics, science, social
studies, creativity, and leadership. It includes a home rating scale
and school rating scale.

44
Rating Scales
Scales for Rating the Behavioral The SRBCSS is an individually administered rating scale for
Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) students in K through 12. Teachers rate students across 14
domains: Learning, Creativity, Motivation, Leadership, Artistic,
Musical, Dramatics, Communication (Precision), Communication
(Expressiveness), Planning, Mathematics, Reading, Technology,
and Science.

Slocumb-Payne Teacher Perception Inventory The Slocumb-Payne Teacher Perception Inventory is a rating scale
that is focused on assessing students from diverse backgrounds.
It includes both positive and negative attributes of giftedness.

Student Rating Scale District created rating scale for students.

Teacher Rating Scale District created rating scale for teachers.

Teacher’s Observation of Potential in Students Teachers review multiple items organized categorically: Learns
(TOPS) Easily (12 items), Shows Advanced Skills (16 items), Displays
Curiosity & Creativity (14 items), Has Strong Interests (9 items),
Shows Advanced Reasoning & Problem Solving (14 items).
Compared to children of the same age, teachers check each
appropriate descriptor to determine if the student would benefit
from gifted and talented programs and services.

Table G-4
Creativity
Creativity Assessments
Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP) The CAP includes the Williams Scale, The Test of Divergent
Thinking, and the Test of Divergent Feeling. It is group
administered creativity test given to students’ ages 6 through 17.

45
National Center for Research
on Gifted Education
University of Connecticut
2131 Hillside Road Unit 3007
Storrs, CT 06269-3007
http://ncrge.uconn.edu
Dr. Del Siegle, Director
Dr. E. Jean Gubbins, Associate Director
Dr. D. Betsy McCoach, Research Director
RESEARCH GROUP

Dr. E. Jean Gubbins

Dr. Rashea Hamilton
Dr. Daniel Long
Dr. D. Betsy McCoach
Dr. Christopher Rhoads
Dr. Del Siegle

Dr. Annalissa Brodersen

Dr. Carolyn M. Callahan

NCRGE is funded by the Institute of Education Sciences,

U.S. Department of Education PR/Award R305C140018

http://ncrge.uconn.edu
46