Identifying

Gifted and Talented

English Language Learners
Grades K-12
 Identifying
Gifted and Talented
English Language Learners
Grades K-12

Iowa Department of Education

The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development

2008

i
 State Board of Education
State of Iowa
Department of Education
Grimes State Office Building
400 E 14th St
Des Moines IA 50319-0146

State Board of Education

Rosie Hussey, President, Clear Lake
Charles C. Edwards, Jr., Vice President, Des Moines
Sister Jude Fitzpatrick, West Des Moines
Brian Gentry, Des Moines
Joan Jaimes, Marshalltown
Wayne Kobberdahl, Council Bluffs
Valorie J. Kruse, Sioux City
Max Phillips, Woodward
LaMetta Wynn, Clinton
Kameron Dodge, Student Member, Cambridge

Administration

Judy A. Jeffrey, Director and Executive Officer

of the State Board of Education
Gail M. Sullivan, Chief of Staff

Teaching and Learning Services

Jim Reese, Chief

Carmen Sosa, Ph.D., Director, ESL/Bilingual/Foreign/Title III
Rosanne Malek, Consultant, Gifted and Talented/Arts Education

It is the policy of the Iowa Department of Education not to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, national origin, gender, disability, religion, age, political party affiliation, or actual or potential parental, family or
marital status in its programs, activities, or employment practices as required by the Iowa Code sections 216.9 and 256.10(2),
Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d and 2000e), the Equal Pay Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 206, et
seq.), Title IX (Educational Amendments, 20 U.S.C.§§ 1681 – 1688), Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794),
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.).

If you have questions or grievances related to compliance with this policy by the Iowa Department of Education, please contact
the legal counsel for the Iowa Department of Education, Grimes State Office Building, Des Moines, IA 50319-0146, telephone
number 515/281-5295, or the Director of the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 111 N. Canal Street, Suite
1053, Chicago, IL 60606-7204.

ii
 The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center
for Gifted Education and Talent Development

600 Blank Honors Center

The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

Administration for English Language Learners (ELLs)

Nicholas Colangelo, Ph.D., Director, Belin-Blank Center

Susan G. Assouline, Ed.D., Associate Director, Belin-Blank Center
Megan Foley Nicpon, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Administrator
Principal Author of the Iowa Model (CD)

Belin-Blank Center Mission Statement

The Belin-Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development
empowers and serves the gifted community through exemplary leadership
in programs, research, and advocacy.

The University of Iowa prohibits discrimination in employment, educational programs, and activities on the basis of
race, national origin, color, creed, religion, sex, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
associational preference. The University also affirms its commitment to providing equal opportunities and equal
access to University facilities. For additional information, contact the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity,
319/335-0705.

iii
 Identifying
Gifted and Talented
English Language Learners
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

How to Use this Manual ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Section 1: Who are Gifted/Talented English Language Learners? Defining Our Terms .................................... 9

Section 2: What’s the Challenge? Recognizing Bias ....................................................................................... 15

Section 3: What Will We Do? Recommended Practices ................................................................................... 19

Section 4: How Do We Identify High Ability and Potential? Practical Implementation ................................. 29

Section 5: After Identification, Then What? Advocating For The Gifted And Talented
English Language Learners ...................................................................... 35

About the Arts: Recognizing the Artists ............................................................................................................ 39

Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 47

The CD-ROM includes:

Gifted/Talented English Language Learner Identification Programs Across The Nation

Limited English Proficiency Iowa Code, Administrative Rule
Gifted and Talented Education Legislation for the State of Iowa Resources for Educators
Sample Interview Scripts for English Language Learners
Sample Interview Scripts for Parent/Guardian of English Language Learners
Sample Interview Scripts for English Language Learners
Sample Interview Scripts for Parent/Guardian of English Language Learners
Additional Research
Forms for Duplication

iv
 Acknowledgements

Dr. Carmen Sosa

whose vision was for all Iowa educators to embrace all students as “Our Kids”
so that all Iowa children receive a world-class education.

Dr. Sosa served as the director for

English as a Second Language/Bilingual/Foreign Language Programs
at the Iowa Department of Education from 1998-2008.

Rosanne Malek, Consultant, Gifted and Talented/Arts Education, Teaching and Learning
Services, Iowa Department of Education

Haila Huffman, Administrative Assistant, Teaching and Learning Services, Iowa Department of
Education, for format and design

Jody Crane, Administrative Assistant, Division of PK-12 Education, Iowa Department of

Education, for editing

Dr. Jeanne Angel, ELL/ESL Consultant for the initial review and final rewrite

Dr. A. E. Souaiaia, University of Iowa translator of letter to Arabic

Dr. Nicholas Colangelo, Director of the Belin-Blank Center and Myron and Jacqueline Blank
Professor of Gifted Education

Dr. Susan Assouline, Associate Director of the Belin-Blank Center

Dr. Megan Foley Nicpon, Administrator for the Assessment and Counseling Clinic and principal
researcher

Ashot Vrdanyan, MA, Graduate student and project coordinator

S. Zachary Lewis, Doctoral student and the Belin-Blank Center graduate student for the ELL
project

Damien Ihrig, MA, Belin-Blank Center Administrator

1
CHESTER J. CULVER, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PATTY JUDGE, LT. GOVERNOR JUDY A. JEFFREY, DIRECTOR

October 10, 2007

Dear Educators:

Our aspiration is that this manual will help educators discover the true potential and talents of children who are
English Language Learners before they become proficient in English. The inspiration comes from the gifted
children who are in transition between two languages, two cultures, and the teachers who serve as their bridge.

We thank those who dedicated themselves to this project from both the Iowa Department of Education and the
Belin-Blank Center. They have made this a reality.

For the two of us, this was both a professional and personal project. We are both immigrants who know first hand
the challenges and richness of learning English and American culture while maintaining our historic roots. We are
indeed a nation of immigrants.

Carmen Sosa, Ph.D. Nicholas Colangelo, Ph.D.

Iowa Department of Education Belin-Blank Center

NC: rh

Helping Communities Meet the Learning Needs of All Their Children and Adults
CHESTER J. CULVER, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PATTY JUDGE, LT. GOVERNOR JUDY A. JEFFREY, DIRECTOR

Helping Communities Meet the Learning Needs of All Their Children and Adults
CHESTER J. CULVER, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PATTY JUDGE, LT. GOVERNOR JUDY A. JEFFREY, DIRECTOR

Helping Communities Meet the Learning Needs of All Their Children and Adults
CHESTER J. CULVER, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PATTY JUDGE, LT. GOVERNOR JUDY A. JEFFREY, DIRECTOR

:ϲΑήϤϟ΍ ωίϱίϱ

ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϥϮϠόΘϳ Ϣϫ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ϝΎϔσϼϟ ΔϴϘϴϘΤϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎϜϣϻ΍ϭ ΐϫ΍ϮϤϟ΍ ϑΎθΘϛ΍ ϲϓ ϞϴϟΪϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϙ ΪϋΎδϳ ϥ΍ ϰϨϤΘϧ
ϦϴΘϐϠϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϝΎϘΘϧϻ΍ ΩΪμΑ Ϣϫ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ϦϴΑϮϫϮϤϟ΍ ϝΎϔσϻ΍ Ϧϣ ϲΗ΄ϳ ϡΎϬϟϹ΍ .ϪϳΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϥΎϘΗ΍ ϞΒϗ - ΔϳΰϴϠΠϧϻ΍
.ϦϴΘϓΎϘΜϟ΍ϭ ϦϴΘϐϠϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ςΑήϳ ήδΟ ΔΑΎΜϤΑ Ϣϫ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ϦϴγέΪϤϟ΍ϭ ϦϴΘϓΎϘΜϟ΍ϭ

:ϚϧϼΑ-ϦϴϠΑΰϛήϣϭ ΍Ϯϳ΍ ΔϳϻϮϟ ϢϴϠόΘϟ΍ Γέ΍ίϭ Ϧϣ Ϟϛ Ϧϣ ωϭήθϤϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ ϢϬδϔϧ΍ ΍Ϯγήϛ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ϚΌϟϭ΍ ήϜθϧ ΎϧέϭΪΑ
.Δόϗ΍ϭ ΔϘϴϘΣ ωϭήθϤϟ΍ ΍άϫ ΍ϮϠόΟ ˯ϻΆϫ

ωϮϨΘϟ΍ϭ ΕΎϳΪΤΘϟ΍ ϥϮϓήόϳ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ϦϳήΟΎϬϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΎϧϼϜϓ .ϲμΨθϟ΍ϭ ϲϨϬϤϟ΍ ΪόΒϟ΍ :ϦϳΪόΑ ωϭήθϤϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ ΎϨϟ ΔΒδϨϟΎΑ
Ϧϣ Δϣ΃ ΎϘΣ ϦΤϧ .ΔϴΨϳέΎΗ έϭάΟ ϰϠϋ υΎϔΤϟ΍ ΏϮΟϮΑ ΎϨΘϋΎϨϗ ϊϣ ΔϴϜϳήϣϻ΍ ΔϓΎϘΜϟ΍ϭ ϪϳΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϢϠόΗ ϲϓ ϕϼΨϟ΍
. ϦϳήΟΎϬϤϟ΍

Carmen Sosa, Ph.D. Nicholas Colangelo, Ph.D.

Iowa Department of Education Belin-Blank Center

Helping Communities Meet the Learning Needs of All Their Children and Adults
 Introduction

Identification of Gifted and Talented English Language Learners Grades K-12 is based on the
proposition that broadening the scope of the methods used to identify English Language Learners
(ELLs) for gifted/talented programs will improve their opportunities to achieve academically. With
this proposition in mind, a practical process is introduced as a place to start when assessing the
academic potential of gifted/talented English Language Learners. It is our hope that this manual
will serve as the impetus for examining the countless ways that we, as educators, can help English
Language Learners succeed.

This manual seeks to be a resource for change by providing multimethod/multimeasure

indicators of gifted/talented student potential that will prove useful in the assessment of English
Language Learners. The suggestions are based on the assumption that the dimensions of gifted/
talented English Language Learner potential, while often masked by their limited English
fluency, do not differ from nonEnglish Language Learner English Language Learner gifted/
talented classmates. The challenge is that educators of gifted/talented English Language Learners
must be aware that they display their potential within the cultural context of learning a second
language. It is this awareness that will assist educators to confidently identify the English
Language Learners’ abilities and potential as they are uniquely exhibited in both their heritage
and host cultures.

Teachers and coordinators of gifted/talented programs and English Language Learner programs
have inherited and created processes accepted in past practice. The following proposed
identification process is different. Although Iowa Administrative Rule, Chapter 12, requires
“multiple selection criteria for identifying gifted and talented students from the total student
population,” the focus on standardized test scores; specifically the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
(ITBS) and Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED) has become the primary
identification criteria of choice by local school districts. While standardized assessments are
certainly a consideration, the information is incomplete if used in isolation. The process
outlined is intentionally designed to change the paradigm that identification of high ability and/or
potential talent is determined primarily by a specific score or cut-point on a standardized
assessment.

The success of identifying and serving high-ability English Language Learners relies upon the
establishment of formal channels of communication among teachers of gifted programming, teachers
of English Language Learner programs, and classroom teachers. Topics of discussion during its
implementation should include ways to: (1) maximize an English Language Learners’ ability to
express knowledge of content while minimizing their need to rely on English to express it, (2)
understand that the concept of giftedness within the boundaries of an English Language
Learner’s’culture may vary from the traditional meanings of gifted education as indicated by Iowa
Code (See CD-ROM), (3) resolve the individualistic identification of gifted/talented students
within cultural contexts that highly value group solidarity, and (4) overcome the discrimination
that results from believing limited English fluency indicates a lack of academic potential.

6
 How to Use this Manual
This manual and CD-ROM are the outcome of a collaboration between the Iowa Department of
Education and the Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education
and Talent Development at the University of Iowa. The project was funded by the U.S.
Department of Education as part of the Iowa Department of Education’s Our Kids initiative (Funds
for the Improvement of Education).

The primary goal of creating this manual and CD-ROM is to provide alternative procedures to better
ensure that English Language Learners who meet standards would benefit from gifted programming,
through identification. To assist educators in identifying eligible students, this document provides an
introduction to gifted and talented programming for English Language Learners in Iowa schools.

In Sections 1-5 the manual provides practical guidance for understanding and implementing English
Language Learners into gifted programming. The CD-ROM format provides additional support through
resources and research.

Section 1-Who are Gifted/Talented English Language Learners? Defining Our Terms presents
definitions essential to a productive discussion.

Section 2- What’s the Challenge? Recognizing Bias brings to light several potential, but
sometimes unrecognized, challenges in the process of identifying student abilities and needs.

Section 3-What Will We Do? Recommended Practices discusses the use of multiple criteria in
assessing the readiness of English Language Learners for gifted/talented programming.

Section 4-How Do We Identify High Ability and Potential? Practical Implementation

addresses the critically important collaboration among the teachers of English Language Learner
programs, gifted/talented programs, and classroom teachers, as well as teachers of art, music, and
physical education, and administrators in the identification process.

Section 5-After Identification, Then What? Advocating for the Gifted/Talented English
Language Learner suggests how to successfully advocate for gifted English Language Learners.

About the Art

The CD-ROM contains helpful tools and resources for educators, including brief synopses of
successful programs across the United States, Iowa Code for English Language Learner Programs and
Gifted Programming, student-interview-protocol additional research, interviews of English
Language Learners, and forms for duplication needs.

We are interested in your feedback regarding this material and are open to suggestions for revisions.
Please take the time to complete the Evaluation form included on the CD.

7
8
 Who are Gifted/Talented
Section 1

English Language Learners?

Defining Our Terms

Gifted and talented English Language Learners environment where the dominant language
are unique and challenging students. Like all is not English;
gifted and talented students, they are curious, • A migratory person whose heritage language is
creative, observant, and sensitive. All gifted and not English; or
talented students are the best and brightest of • A person who has difficulty speaking, reading,
any community in which they live, whether in writing, or understanding English, which denies
Iowa or abroad. They are members of our him/her the opportunity to learn effectively in
community and future leaders of their classes where instruction is in English.
generation.
The Council of Chief State School Officers
In order to have a respectful dialogue about (CCSSO)-leaders from each state department of
gifted and talented English Language Learners, education-defines an ELL as having “a language
it’s essential to define the basic terms we will be background other than English, and their
using in this document. The topic of gifted/ proficiency in English is such that the probability
talented students, and in particular, gifted/ of the students’ academic success in an English-
talented English Language Learners has few only classroom is below that of an academically
universally accepted definitions. successful peer with an English background.” In
other words, by definition, an ELL or LEP student
This section provides a starting point, as we is academically challenged because they are not yet
narrow the scope of our ideas about the able to understand, speak, read, and/or write
following Limited English Proficient (LEP) fluently in English.
terms:
• ELL (also Limited English Proficient) Closer to home, the Code of Iowa defines fully
student English proficient as a student who is able to use
• Gifted/talented student English to ask questions, to understand teachers and
• Gifted/talented ELL reading materials, to test ideas, and to challenge what
• ELL program options a teacher is asking in the classroom (see CD). The
four language skills contributing to proficiency
English Language Learners
include reading, listening, writing, and speaking.
Who is an English Language Learner? The
short answer, according to the U.S. It’s the Law
Department of Education is that any student The special needs of ELLs enrolled in public
whose home language is not English and and nonpublic schools have been defined in
whose English language proficiency is several federal legislative actions, beginning
considered limited. The Bilingual Education with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That was
Act defines an English Language Learner or followed by the Equal Educational
Limited English Proficient student as fitting Opportunity Act of 1974 and again by Titles I
any of the following criteria: and III of the 2001 reauthorization of the
• Not born in the United States and Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
whose heritage language is not English; 1965 (better known as No Child Left
• Of American Indian or Alaskan Behind). By law, ELLs have a right to
heritage and who comes from an education that specifically addresses their
unique learning needs.
9
The Path to Proficiency ELL Program Options
For a student to move from little or no Schools have several options for transitioning
understanding of English to being fully capable of students from their heritage language to
academic success is a long journey, usually taking English academic proficiency. Each option has
from four to 10 years. As we think about its advantages. Yet it also has its own set of
identifying gifted/talented students among our stressors for both the students and the teacher.
English Language Learner population, we need to Each school district must decide which type of
keep in mind Cummin’s two stages of language program, or combination of program, options
acquisition used by the Iowa Department of work best for their students, families, and
Education. (See Resources in back.) faculty. Regardless of the program option, all
programs must provide English language
The first stage is Basic Interpersonal development instruction for English Language
Communication Skills (BICS). Students at this Learners
level are using conversational English for “basic
survival.” This stage takes from one to three years Dual Language, or Two-Way Immersion (TWI),
to master. programs unite students from two native
language groups, such as native speakers of
The second stage, Cognitive Academic Language English and native speakers of Spanish. TWI
Proficiency (CALP), is highly significant to programs integrate language-minority and
educators; this is the stage of language proficiency language-majority students for all or part of the
at which a student can fully achieve academic school day. The goal of TWI is to promote
success. This stage takes an additional three to bilingualism and biliteracy as well as grade-level
seven years to master. As with any skill, the time academic achievement for all students. TWI is
needed to achieve proficiency varies according to considered by some to be an enrichment
factors such as the student’s background and model for both language-majority and
experiences; age; first-language proficiency; and language-minority students.
how much support the family, school, and
community provide. In English as a Second Language programs, most
Gifted and Talented Defined of the curriculum is taught in English with
pull-out or push-in classes. Instruction
Iowa and other states have developed definitions concentrates on improving the students’
of giftedness based on the work of several academic English language proficiency.
researchers whose findings identified the
characteristics of Gifted/Talented students. In bilingual programs, the entire curriculum is
taught in both English and the students’
Critically important to Iowa educators is the
heritage language(s).
definition stated in the Code of Iowa (see CD-
ROM). Iowa Code states that gifted and talented
students are “those identified as possessing • General intellectual ability
outstanding abilities who are capable of high • Creative thinking
performance and require appropriate instruction • Leadership ability
and educational services commensurate with their • Visual and performing arts ability
abilities and needs beyond those provided by the • Specific ability aptitude
reqular school program. Gifted and talented Attributes of Giftedness
children include those children with demonstrated
achievement or potential ability.” The Iowa Fortunately, many scholars and educators now
Code specifies that students with gifts and talents recognize that not all students will display their gifts
will demonstrate achievement or potential ability, through academic achievement and assessments.
or both, in any of the following areas or in For example, a 1995 review of the literature yielded
combination: 10 central attributes of the concept of giftedness.
10
 What We Have Learned about
Gifted Children

In 2004, the Gifted Development Center, as

• Motivation to learn a service for the Institute for the Study of
• Effective communication skills Advanced Development, summarized the
• Intense and sometimes unusual interests results of a 23-year study in which they
• Effective problem-solving strategies conducted 4,200 gifted/talented assessments.
• Creativity and/or imagination Their findings are summarized in 23 numbered
• Expansive memory paragraphs from “What have we learned
• Inquisitive about gifted children?” The following results
• High level of insight are excerpted from eight of those
• Logical approach to reasoning paragraphs:
• Ability to understand humor
• There are more exceptionally gifted
For each of these attributes of giftedness, students children in the population than anyone
manifested a variety of behaviors. Equally impor- realizes.
tant, these behaviors were noted to be influenced by • Mildly, moderately, highly,
the student’s cultural and environmental back- exceptionally, and profoundly gifted
grounds. children are as different from each
other as are other identified
Disagreement over Definitions subgroups, but the differences among
levels of giftedness are rarely
To successfully identify an English Language
recognized.
Learner for gifted programming, let’s first define
• Parents are excellent identifiers of
“giftedness.” What does it look like? How does
giftedness in their children.
the term apply to a student who is struggling to
• Over 60 percent of gifted children are
understand and speak the language we generally
introverted compared with 30 percent
use to measure it? There are numerous and
of the general population. Over 75
often nebulous definitions of what constitutes
percent of highly gifted children are
giftedness within our own society. So how do
introverted.
we determine what giftedness means for English
• Giftedness is not elitist. It cuts across
Language Learners from another culture?
all socioeconomic groups.
• Gifted children are asynchronous. Their
Research provides excellent resources for
development tends to be uneven, and
looking at giftedness and the factors involved
they often feel out-of-sync with age
in defining it. To investigate further, see
peers and with age-based school
references in bibliography. However,
expectations.
scholars find it hard to agree on what the term
“giftedness” means.

To date, there is no one theory or definition of

“gifted and talented.” Some scholars say that
giftedness is a psychological construct or mental
state that can’t be measured. Others argue that
what giftedness is, isn’t as important as how it
manifests; in other words, the important thing is
that we can measure the behaviors that result
from it.

11
Open Eyes and Open Minds
Project GOTCHA
Various lists provide samples of gifted
Galaxies of Thinking and Creative Heights of
characteristics described in literature. Most of these
Achievement.
lists include concepts such as inquisitiveness,
motivation, curiosity, memory, inquiry, imagination,
According to Project GOTCHA,
insight, reasoning, problem-solving,
the gifted/talented English Language Learner
communication, humor, creativity, and
demonstrates the following characteristics:
identifation of hobbies and project interests.
School Based
1. Is able to read in their native language
What educators must remember is that concepts
two grade levels above their current
such as these can look very different in individual
grade.
students. Curious children do not necessarily
2. Shows high ability in mathematics.
show us that they are inquisitive, and they may
3. Is advanced in creative domains
not appear to be motivated. A student who has
(fluency, elaboration, originality, and
remarkable ability in all academic areas may not
flexibility).
successfully complete advanced-level work. We
4. Is a leader in multiple settings
have to be open to the possibility that we may
(playground, home, clubs, etc.).
be overlooking talented students who don’t seem
to “fit the mold” because they do not
demonstrate stereotypical behaviors of native
Language Based
English speaking students.
1. Demonstrates language proficiency
The Gifted/Talented English levels that are above nongifted
Language Learners students who are also English
Although researchers agree that educators need to Language Learners.
know the characteristics of a gifted English 2. Learns multiple languages at an
Language Learner, there is disagreement—and accelerated pace.
little research—about these characteristics. 3. Shows the ability to code switch.
Research has described gifted English Language 4. Wants to teach others words from their
Learners as having varying degrees of the heritage language.
following characteristics: 5. Is willing to translate for others.
• acquires a second language rapidly , 6. Has superior knowledge of phrases and
• shows high ability in mathematics, heritage dialects along with the ability to
• displays a mature sense of diverse cultures translate meanings in English.
and languages, 7. Has a grasp on jokes related to cultural
• code switches easily (think in both differences.
languages),
• demonstrations an advanced awareness
of American expressions, Culture Based
• translators at an advanced level (oral) 1. Balances behaviors expected in both the
• navigates appropriate behaviors heritage and the new culture.
sucessfully within both cultures. 2. Is willing to share his/her heritage
culture.
The researchers may have derived these 3. Shows pride in his/her culture and
characteristics from their earlier work called ethnic background.
Project GOTCHA (Galaxies of Thinking and 4. Demonstrates a global sense of
Creative Heights of Achievement), which community and respect for cultural
emphasizes an English Language Learner’s unique differences.
creative abilities.
12
Historically Speaking 1995: In a survey of attitudes titled, Why do we
identify so few children from economically
The search to identify characteristics of gifted disadvantaged and LEP backgrounds?, in which
students from diverse populations is not new. 750 administrators, counselors, and teachers (65
What may be surprising to some of us is how percent elementary schools, 14 percent middle
little some things have changed in 30 years. schools, 23 percent high schools) responded,
We’ve come a long way, but we’re not there yet. survey participants perceived the following two
factors as primarily responsible for the under-
1974: A study of gifted Mexican-American representation of disadvantaged and LEP
students reported that they exhibited leadership, students:
acceptance of authority, self-control, and
advanced school performance. • Standardized tests are biased (70 percent).
• Teachers are unable to recognize indicators of
1983: When researchers investigated how potential giftedness in these pupils
teachers selected students for gifted/talented (62 percent).
programs, they found that in addition to scores
on intelligence and achievement tests, the Given these results, it is clear that educators were
teachers relied on socioeconomic status (SES), looking for ways to identify these children, but
race, ethnicity, attractiveness, good behavior, were often unsure how to do so.
and good grades. The study suggests that
educators within the recent past were more 2002: In a study that looked at the affective
likely to rely on stereotypical notions about SES, characteristics of children referred to gifted/
race, and ethnicity when identifying a student’s talented programs, researchers found that they are
potential. This would presumably happen even typically quiet, well behaved and well dressed,
more frequently in the absence of academic and get good grades. The researcher concluded
records, as is often the case with economically that by excluding the cultural or environmental
disadvantaged and minority students. influences on the ways in which students show
their giftedness and talent, we may be limiting
identification to particular cultural groups. Studies
such as these likely served as a catalyst for the
cultural diversity training that occurs in American
schools to a much larger extent today.
In the Context of Their Culture identification process for selecting high potential
English Language Learners for gifted/talented
What is different for English Language Learners programming.
is the emphasis on their gifts within the cultural
context of learning a second-language. In general, There’s little research to support that such lists
lists generated by various researchers suggest are reliable and valid ways of identifying gifted/
that gifted/talented English Language Learners talented ELLs. However, doing our best to
essentially display characteristics similar to those understand what a gifted/talented English
of English-speaking gifted/talented students. Language Learner looks and acts like, we are
more likely to recognize them in our schools.
If we keep this fact in mind, we can identify
English Language Learners whether they Once we recognize English Language Learners
demonstrate their gifts in the cultural as gifted, those of us who are entrusted with
environment of their heritage or in their new their future the caregivers in their homes, the
home. These observations can be a valuable teachers in their classrooms, and the
supplement to standardized test scores. In the administrators of the schools they attend can
end, we will have a more comprehensive be more effective as their advocates.
13
14
 What’s the
Section 2

Recognizing Bias

Challenge?
With passage of the Equal Education Opportunity Act But, when viewed by the student’s parents, that
(1974), Congress effectively declared that human same behavior may well be considered
academic potential exists within all groups of people. disrespectful.
Yet, even decades later, disproportionately few English
Language Learners are included in gifted/talented Of course, the opposite is also true.
educational programs. This section describes some of Behaviors that a teacher might devalue as
the factors that may be involved in these inequities for signs of conformity such as not correcting an
our English Language Learners. adult who has given inaccurate information
may be highly valued by the student’s
Reliance on Standardized Tests parents as serving the collective good of the
family.
Intelligence and academic achievement test scores are
most often used to recognize and identify, as well as
develop and evaluate, gifted/talented students’ National and State
potential. Many researchers urge caution, however. Data by Ethnicity
Heavy reliance on standardized tests results in diverse
groups of students being unequally represented, with Data provided by the National
greater concentrations in special education classes and Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS)
fewer concentrations in gifted/talented classrooms. shows that, while 7.9 percent of all
African American, 6.7 percent of all
This caution also applies when using standardized
Hispanic, and 2.1 percent of all
non-verbal intelligence tests. All tests assume a
Heritage American students surveyed
certain kind of language socialization, and students
were enrolled in gifted/talented
who lack this socialization are, by definition,
programs, a disproportionately high
disadvantaged. Even when the test is nonverbal,
17.5 percent of all Asian American
test administrators must use language to tell the
students what they are to do. Selecting tests that students and 9 percent of all white
students were enrolled.
reduce cultural and linguistic bias is not an easy
task, and it’s questionable whether any test is truly The 2006-2007 Iowa Public School data
“culture free.” of gifted students vs. total K-12
Cultural Context enrollment shows 4.6 percent African
American, 3.3 percent Hispanic,
When identifying gifted/talented students who are 3.25 percent American Indian students
culturally diverse, or have limited English were identified for gifted programming.
proficiency, we must do so within the context of Also, 12.4 percent Asian American and
their cultural background. We need to understand, 9 percent white students were identified
for example, that behaviors signaling giftedness in for gifted programming in Iowa public
one culture may signal disrespect in another. To a schools.
teacher, a student who provides information the
teacher doesn’t know may be viewed as precocious.

15
 When we do accept cultural differences, we still
Language Prejudice may not recognize or understand cultural
behaviors that are different from our own. We may
Even differences in English Language not even recognize giftedness if it is expressed in
Learner dialects have been found to ways other than those we are accustomed to
influence initial administrator and seeing. When parents, administrators, and teachers
teacher judgments. Such judgments are are able to recognize how the diverse expressions
critically important because they can of giftedness and talent are impacted by cultural
influence how administrators and and linguistic factors, we will be able to recognize
teachers view an English Language the indicators of potential.
Learner’s potential giftedness.
When intelligence, achievement, and ability test
If an educator stereotypes a certain scores are used as the criteria for admission to
culture as not valuing education, he or gifted/talented programs, African American,
she is not as likely to view a student from Hispanic, and Native American children are
that culture as bright. This attitude also disproportionately underrepresented. In some
may lead to fears that by admitting a cultures, the use of such test scores signals a lack
student from that culture into the gifted/ of respect for the families’ heritages and the ways
talented program, its quality will be in which giftedness may be expressed within
watered-down. them.
Professional development that raises
Steps to address these biases include conscious
cultural awareness may help refute these
and intentionally directed K-12 multicultural
stereotypes and result in more equitable
professional development, the choice of
representation in gifted/talented
culturally appropriate assessments, and the
programs by students of all cultures.
analysis and use of all data.

Cultural Bias
Classroom teachers or other school
personnel frequently refer students for
gifted identification and programming. A
particular challenge for educators who are
responsible for teaching gifted/talented
students who do not speak fluent English,
can be the lack of training in identifying
their gifted and talented abilities.

Research findings support that the

limited inclusion of English Language
Learners in gifted/talented programs is
sometimes based on discriminatory
attitudes. Although we may think we’re
aware of our own biases, we may have
stereotypes and prejudices that devalue
other cultures.

16
Caught Between Two Languages
For English Language Learners, learning and
living in two languages and cultures can be
especially challenging. Many parents of ELLs try
to transmit their cultural values by having their
children learn and speak their heritage language
at home. At the same time, English Language
Learners may be pressured to accommodate the
values of the school culture by being encouraged
to speak only English. This challenge places
many English Language Learners in the position
of having to simultaneously learn the values
inherent in two separate and distinct language
cultures.

What’s the Solution?

An Inequitable Standard
For many people, the concept of “giftedness” It’s clear that a variety of factors are responsible
equates to high academic achievement. For for the inequitable identification of English
English Language Learners who are not yet Language Learners for gifted/talented programs.
fluent in English, this is an inequitable standard. So now that we know some of the challenges,
It excludes English Language Learners, and what can we do about them? How can we ensure
minority children who do not do well on fairness in screening all students so that we can
academic assessments, but who have elevated provide them with services tailored for their
general abilities as measured by nonverbal ability particular combination of talent and intelligence?
assessments. Section 3 attempts to answer these question.

Instruments that can detect giftedness and

talent in English Language Learners are sorely
lacking, and inadequate assessment procedures
continue to contribute to the under
representation of English Language Learners
in gifted/talented programs. Recommendations
for assessment include the need for assessment
measures that do not rely on language and to
gather student information from multiple
sources.

Iowa Administrative Code, Chapter 12, states that

gifted and talented programming include multiple
selection criteria for identifying gifted and
talented students from the total student
population. Standardized assessments are not
required for identification in Iowa schools.

While some students show their gifts/talents in

the classroom, others may only show the
“potential for responding positively” to gifted
and talented programming not enough evidence
for program referral.
17
18
 What Will Recommended Practices
Section 3

We Do?
In this section, we’ll look at best practices for • Teacher and /or parent nominations, and
identifying and screening English Language Learners • Behavioral rating scales
who show exceptional strengths and talents.
How we use information from multiple sources
How Soon Do We Begin? is just as important as what information we use.
The following will provide some perspectives
Ideally, attempts to identify English Language to consider when using the various criteria to
Learners for inclusion into gifted/talented programs screen English Language Learners for gifted/
should begin when they first enroll in school, if such talented programs.
programming options are available at their grade
level. In this way, a student’s mastery of English is
Some Considerations
not a requirement for consideration.
When a student’s caregivers are not fluent in
The challenge lies in determining what assessment English, it’s important to provide an
tools to use. Any test written in English and given to interpreter, preferably a member of the case-
students at this stage is not a true indicator of ability, study team. Having a team member who can
but rather a reflection of their current exposure to communicate with the student’s parents will
the English language. increase the chance that the selection process is
Assessing Multiple Criteria sensitive to the student’s cultural and language
learning context. It will also help parents
The Iowa Department of Education requires multiple participate in the important discussion of their
selection criteria for identifying gifted and talented child’s educational future.
students from the total student population.
When an interpreter is not available, the
This approach involves obtaining student information selection team members should, at a minimum,
from several quantitative and qualitative sources, and is make their interpretations and
helpful in making accurate referrals. The multiple recommendations in light of what they know
criteria used to identify students for gifted/talented about the student’s language and culture.
programming may involve any combination of the
following:
• English language proficiency tests English Language Proficiency Tests
• Acculturation scales
• Input from the student’s cultural group Without understanding a student’s level of
• Prior academic performance in the child’s home English proficiency, any attempt at assessing
school, and their other abilities is premature.
• Parent interviews
English language proficiency tests are usually
In addition, it’s helpful to consider other factors, administered when a child first enters school, and
such as: then yearly with the Iowa-English Language
• Assessment data Development Assessment (I-ELDA) until the
• Student observations student reaches a level of English proficiency
• Dynamic-performance-based indicators that entitles them to exit the ESL/ELL
• Portfolio assessments program.
19
Students in different phases of English language
acquisition have inherently different A Sampling of Language Tests
educational needs; therefore, knowing a child’s Several language proficiency tests have been
English proficiency level is vital in deciding on developed and are widely used. Sources such as
their placement in a gifted/talented program. the Handbook of English Language Proficiency Tests
Results from English proficiency tests offer are excellent resources for discovering test
descriptors of the child’s English acquisition characteristics and reliability and validity
level that range from “nonproficient” to information. In general, English language
“superior” in the areas of listening, speaking, proficiency tests seek to measure a student’s
reading, and writing. reading, writing, listening, and speaking
proficiency in the English language.
Labels used on the Iowa English Language
Development Assessment to describe the levels In Iowa, school district personnel must assess
within each of the four domains and other language proficiency for placement within the first
commonly used descriptors are: prefunctional 30 days of a new school year or within two weeks
(also called nonEnglish proficient and of a student’s arrival if that is after the beginning
preproduction), beginning (early production of school. There are two assessments approved by
and speech emergence), intermediate, advanced, the Iowa Department of Education for this
and fully English proficient (superior). purpose: the IDEA Proficiency Tests (IPT) and the
Language Assessment Scales (LAS). These are
Considering a child’s level of English described in detail in the Educating Iowa’s English
proficiency when making decisions about Language Learners: A Handbook for Administrators and
placement in gifted/talented programming is Teachers which is available online at http://
not meant to be used as an exclusionary tool. www.iowa.gov/educate/content/blogcategory/
Instead, it should be used to provide insight 58/898/ and the assessments are available through
into the child’s educational profile and to each area education agency (AEA) and in many
complement other information provided to the districts.
case study team.
School district personnel in Iowa administer
For example, if a child is at the pre-production/ the Iowa English Language Development
non-proficient level of English acquisition, then Assessment (I-ELDA) annually during the late
it is not appropriate for the screening team to winter early spring testing window. This
consider scores from verbal domains on tests assessment is used to document English
written in English. Instead, it would be more Language Learner’s growth in academic
appropriate to assess the English Language language which is a requirement of federal and
Learner’s ability to verbally comprehend in state reports.
their own language and compare their level of
verbal skills to other students who also are pre-
production. In addition, the screening team Assessing in Three Domains
could observe their performance within other The following graphic illustration provides a visual
symbol systems (i.e., quantitative, nonverbal). representation of how the Iowa Department of
Education and the Belin-Blank Center propose that
Domains on tests are written in English. educators use the domains to document a student’s
Instead, it would be more appropriate to unique abilities.
assess the English Language Learner’s ability to
verbally comprehend in their own language Three overlapping circles (in Figure 1) represent the
and compare the level of verbal skills to other cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor/
students who also are “nonproficient.” In behavioral domains and their interrelatedness to one
addition, the screening team could observe another. In this model, no single domain is more
how the student performs within other symbol important than the other two, and none of them
systems (i.e., quantitative, nonverbal). stands alone. They are interconnected.
20
 x When testing quantitative achievement and
reasoning, use problems with “language free”
calculation-but be aware that not all cultures
use the same symbols for math operations.
x Avoid using timed tests, or requiring that test
be timed.
x Permit the use of a translation dictionary.
x Read the test directions for the student (for
nonreading tests); and/or offer word
Figure 1
pronunciations or meanings when this type
of assistance does not influence valid
assessment of the subject of skills tested.

Keeping in mind the essential relationship Educators should take all possible steps to
among these three facets of a student’s maximize a student’s ability to express knowledge
potential will assist in identifying giftedness of content while minimizing the need to rely on
even when a student is not fluent in English. English to express these ideas.
Use the model as a guide to describe and
At the same time, we should remember that, for
document academic potential and to
many English Language Learners, their culture and
construct a reliable and valid gifted/talented
experiences are very different from those of the
English Language Learner profile.
people who design and excel on assessment and
The Cognitive Domain ability tests. What that means is that testing itself
Academic assessments fall into the cognitive may not be fair.
domain, which encompasses a person’s
knowledge and their development of A Question of Equity
intellectual skills. Academic and ability Is it “fair” and “legal” to use different screening
assessments have historically been the most criteria for different groups of students?
frequently used factors when identifying
gifted/talented students, but reliance on a Yes, according to the attorney for the Iowa
single domain has its pitfalls, particularly Department of Education but with a caveat.
with a gifted/talented English Language
Learner. Because Iowa districts require multiple
measures of giftedness/talent, using different
Assessment Data: A MultiEdged Sword criteria for different groups does not violate
When an English Language Learner takes a Chapter 12.
test of academic content in English, they have
a dual challenge: First, the student must This is especially true because using multiple
understand the language, then respond to measures helps to remediate a problem that has
the content. The end result is that the existed for years: When a district only measures
student’s lack of English skills will likely with a single standard, the result has been to
affect their test performance. disproportionately eliminate minority students,
students with disabilities, and English
The Iowa Department of Education offers Language Learners.
the following suggestions:
x Provide an interpreter to answer questions. “As long as the criteria are clear and used
x Use visuals to help the student understand consistently, there should be no problem ...
what is being tested. [a] district could establish differing criteria for
x Employ test tasks such as drawing, certain groups of students as long as the
sequencing or matching pictures and/or criteria are consistently used with that
concepts and using graphic organizers. particular group of students.”
21
 Even when the tests are given in the heritage
Habla Español?
?
language, they may not accurately measure English
Some researchers advocate that a good Language Learner’s verbal abilities. Translated tests,
predictor for Hispanic/Latino students’ such as those mentioned on this page, still contain
ability to reason in English is their ability to items that may be misinterpreted due to the
reason in Spanish. For the Spanish-speaking translation process itself. In addition, geographic
English Language Learner population, variations in the student’s heritage language may
educators have a choice of several cause difficulty for English Language Learners
published tests of ability and academic whose regional dialect is not the language of the test.
achievement.
In most cases, children’s verbal abilities in their
Some examples follow: heritage language tend to decrease during the time
• Aprenda (1997) was designed to they are away from their heritage cultures and their
mirror the educational objectives heritage language is not taught at school. This
measured in the Stanford decrease often coincides with the time they are
Achievement Test Series, Eighth acquiring English in their U.S. schools. For students
Edition. such as these, nonverbal tests may be the most
• Logramos (2006 ed.), a group culturally fair way of measuring global ability.
administered achievement test
battery in Spanish was designed with When available, another option is to use an
content objectives that are parallel to interpreter. It’s critically important when selecting
those of the Iowa tests. an interpreter that they are fluent in the technical
language of testing (the terms used to instruct the
Other K–8 Assessments student on how to take the test), as well as the
• La Prueba (1984) child’s heritage language. It’s also key that the
• Spanish Assessment of Basic Education interpreter does not hesitate to ask for
(SABE) (1987) clarification when necessary.

Ability Tests Using Local Norms

• Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Even if a district decides to use academic
Ability - Revised, Spanish form assessments to screen all students for gifted/talented
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children programs, that doesn’t necessarily mean English
Fourth Edition (WISC-IV, Wechsler, Language Learners’ scores have to be compared to
2003), Spanish translation English-speaking students’ scores.

“If students have not had the opportunities to

Home Language Testing develop verbal or quantitative reasoning abilities in
Some educators argue that testing a child in the the same way that others have, then the solution is
heritage language will reduce assessment errors not to refrain from measuring these critical
and increase test validity. They suggest that tests aptitudes, but rather to compare students’ test scores
in the student’s home language may be free of the with others who have had similar learning
types of cultural differences and nuances that are opportunities.”
subject to misinterpretation.
In other words, compare students’ scores with other
Unfortunately, for English Language Learners students of the same age group who have had
whose heritage language is other than Spanish, similar language and acculturation experiences.
translated tests are rarely an option. Few, if
any, standardized measures of ability and Instead of using national norms to evaluate
achievement in languages such as Bosnian or giftedness it is recommended to use local norms
Vietnamese are available to Iowa’s school (which are available from many group-administered
districts. ability and achievement tests) to determine eligibility.
22
For example, while an English Language Learner’s will most likely be successful in school are those
score on the Verbal Reasoning subtest of the who are capable of reasoning verbally.
Cognitive Abilities Tests (CogAT) may not be
outstanding when compared to a heritage English But what should we do about the English
speaker’s Verbal Reasoning score, it may be Language Learners who have not been exposed
unusually high compared to other English to the English language enough to develop verbal
Language Learners in the school district, and reasoning skills? Waiting three to seven years for
should be regarded as evidence of talent. them to acquire English proficiency is hardly a
viable option.
There are still issues to consider, even when using
local norms. For one thing, test developers do not One solution is to assess students in all three
provide score distributions based on race, ethnicity, symbol systems of language: verbal reasoning,
or knowledge of the English language, and scores nonverbal/spatial reasoning, and quantitative
on tests such as verbal reasoning are likely to be reasoning. That is, nonverbal assessment should
influenced by an English Language Learner’s level not be used in isolation to identify
of English acquisition which varies widely among gifted/talented English Language Learners.
students.
We should also keep in mind that nonverbal
So, if an English Language Learner scores unusually reasoning ability is not the same as verbal or
high on the Verbal Reasoning test of the CogAT, is quantitative reasoning ability in any language. It
it because the student has relatively advanced English should never be used in isolation for admission
language acquisition, or is it because the student is into a gifted/talented program.
gifted in Verbal Reasoning? Resolving this issue is
complicated. Still, especially in very large districts in The use of nonverbal assessments in isolation
which local norming practices are within the realm may even be more likely to exclude a gifted/
of possibility, this option is valid and needs to be talented learner who excels in other areas that
considered. have greater bearing on school success. For these
reasons, screening for giftedness with non-verbal
NonVerbal Assessments tests should be used as “the test of last resort, not
Nonverbal assessments, by definition, do not rely the test of first resort.”
on language to complete, so some researchers are
convinced that these tests provide a more equitable Instead, we should measure all students in verbal,
method of identifying gifted/talented students from quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning, then pay
historically underrepresented populations. They particular attention to the highest scores within
may also be a more appropriate means of assessing each ethnic and/or ELL group.
bilingual students. But their suitability for English
Language Learners depends on their not having If an ELL who has been in a U.S. school for one
elaborate verbal directions written in English. year has a high score on the Naglieri Nonverbal
Not all scholars agree that nonverbal assessments Abilities Tests (NNAT) or the nonverbal subtest
are a good idea, however, claiming that students of the CogAT, they would also have to
should be assessed in the same academic area in demonstrate upperlevel accomplishment in the
which they will be receiving advanced instruction. particular subject area (such as math or reading)
When identifying students for a math enrichment in which they will be placed in gifted programming.
program, for example, students should take a In addition, they would have to have a high score
mathematics test not a more general test such as in comparison to other ELLs who had been in a
nonverbal reasoning ability. U.S. school for the same length of time.

They also argue that academic proficiency relies In this sense, the use of nonverbal scores adds to
on verbal and quantitative reasoning abilities, not the student’s portfolio, but does not make or
on nonverbal reasoning abilities. So students who break the admission decision.
23
 Testing Without Words
A variety of nonverbal tests is available, including the following:

Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Leiter R (Roid & Miller,
(NNAT) Test (UNIT) 1997)

Comprehensive Test of Test of Nonverbal The nonverbal subtest of

Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI) Intelligence, Third Edition the CogAT.
(TONI-3)

1. Emphasize fluency and complexity of response

Tests of Specific Academic Aptitude over speed of response;
The Purdue Academic Rating Scales were 2. Emphasize the ability to give several correct
developed to assess proficiency within the responses;
specific academic subject areas of mathematics, 3. Use dynamic assessment, or a pre-teaching
English, science, social studies, and foreign opportunity,
language. 4. Focus on high-level thinking and problem-solving
skills, and
The scales were created after gathering 5. Emphasize thinking on the process of arriving at
information from teachers working with answers.
talented students, and identify characteristics
specific to each of the five academic domains
they test. The scales have been used as a
supplement to academic achievement tests when
assessing students for admission into gifted/
talented programs.

Dynamic or Performance-
Based Assessment
With dynamic- or performance-based
assessments, students are initially tested on
material, receive an intervention, and then are
retested to see what improvements resulted Portfolio Assessment
from the intervention. In this sense, what they A portfolio is a collection of student information
are being tested on is their ability to use from a variety of sources and domains in order to
cognitive, rather than affective, strategies to obtain a holistic picture of the person’s academic
master new materials. potential. Students, or their teachers, compile work
Performance-based assessments are a series samples in various academic domains specific to the
of tasks a student completes in specific program in which they will be identified (e.g., art,
cognitive ability areas. The benefits of using photography, creative writing, etc.).
performance-based assessments with all
students are numerous. Performance-based Material in the portfolio can be completed in the
assessments: student’s heritage language, as well as in the
English language whichever is more comfortable
for the student.
24
The Affective Domain Since less acculturated students are often
Gathering information about the affective perceived as “less bright” than more acculturated
domain is very different than the cognitive students, obtaining acculturation scale results can
domain. This domain relates to values or help prevent educators from inadvertently
perceptions about value-laden issues. discriminating against certain groups of
Information gathered about an English students.
Language Learner within this domain includes
Like language proficiency tests, acculturation
other people’s perceptions of the student.
information should not be used in isolation, but
should serve to complement other data within
Acculturation Scales
the student’s profile.
In this context, acculturation refers to
individuals who have to learn rules and norms
Teacher, Parent, Peer, and Self-Referral
of a cultural environment that are different
from their heritage culture. Rather than relying on parent or teacher
nominations to screen for additional testing, we
For students entering U.S. schools from should use them as a complement to other data
another country, this often means learning the gathered through the multiple-measure approach.
rules that accompany being a student of the But nominations don’t have to come solely from
English language. It is, in a sense, understanding parents and teachers. Anyone in the child’s
the hidden codes that are involved in learning environment who believes that the particular
any language and culture. Acquiring this code- student has a gift or talent should be eligible to
breaking skill is more difficult for some students nominate that child, including peers or self-
than for others and influences how the student nominations.
will be perceived by their peers and teachers.

Knowing a student’s level of acculturation is

important when evaluating classroom performance.
Students who are slow to acculturate in U.S.
school settings may be perceived as not bright,
regardless of their ability. Obviously, this
perception serves as a barrier to inclusion in
gifted/talented programs.

One way to determine a student’s level of

acculturation is to use an acculturation scale,
described on the following page.

Several acculturation measurement tools have

been specifically designed for individuals from
various cultural groups (see Collier, 2005 for a
complete list). School districts considering the
use of acculturation scales in their identification
process should thoroughly review the body of
literature about their usefulness.

25
A Model Acculturation Scale

Acculturation scales can be helpful tools to supplement the identification of gifted English Language
Learners. In particular, the Acculturation Quick Screen (AQS) has many assets for use in Iowa’s schools:

1. It is not developed for any one language or culture.

2. It measures acculturation to the public school culture of the United States and Canada.

3. It is designed for educators.

4. It specifically measures adaptation to various academic settings.

5. It is a theoretically based way to predict successful integration.

If students are assessed with the AQS over time, their individual rates of acculturation can also
help track areas in which they may be having difficulty. Finally, information gathered from the
AQS can facilitate program changes required to address the needs of particular groups within the
school’s population.

Although the AQS was not specifically recommended for the identification of gifted students, the
scale author, Dr. Catherine Collier, suggests that school psychologists and educators can use the
AQS to supplement assessment information gathered from an English Language Learner.

The AQS is intended to be administered within the first month that a child enters the school
system, with yearly retesting at approximately the same time (i.e., early in the fall semester). This
way the child’s rate of adaptation to the school system is documented. The information
necessary in order for the AQS to be administered correctly includes:

• The amount of time the student has been residing in the United States.

• The amount of time the student has been enrolled in the current school and grade
level.

• The amount of time and frequency of assistance that the student has been enrolled in
bilingual or ESL classes.

• Language proficiency in the child’s heritage language. (This can help inform school
personnel what language would be appropriate for testing the child.)

• Language proficiency in English.

• Bilingual proficiency. (What is the proficiency that the student has in both the home
language and English?)

26
Psycho-Motor/Behavioral Domain They also emphasize that all forms should be
translated to the child’s home language and that
Within this domain, we look at a student’s work
the scales be tailored to the child’s grade level.
product and any information we can gather about
In assessing an English Language Learner for
the child’s prior school and life experiences.
giftedness/talent, it is good practice to gather
background information, such as the student’s
Rating Scales
heritage school grades, test scores, and work
Several rating scales are useful in helping
samples. This information often can be gathered
educators refer students for gifted/talented
by talking to the student’s parents with an
programs. One of the most commonly used is the
interpreter present, if necessary. Additional data
Scale for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior
of interest includes the student’s previous school
Students (SRBCSS), in which students are scored
setting, class schedule, and interests.
from 1 – 4 on items within the following
categories:
The parents’ educational levels and previous
• Learning • Music employment information can also assist educators
to gain a more holistic picture of the English
• Motivation • Dramatics
Language Learner. This practice is common in
• Creativity • Communication and precision many ESL programs. With consent from the
student’s parents, ESL teachers will have a wealth
• Leadership • Communication expressiveness of information to share with gifted/talented
educators to help with the screening process.
• Artistic • Planning
A Model Portfolio
Some rating scales have been created specifically
The Early Assessment for Exceptional Potential of
for diverse populations. One example is the Gifted
Young Minority and/or Economically Disadvantaged
Characteristics Checklist for Underrepresented
Students examined student work in terms of 18
Populations, developed and used by the school
primary identifiers, grouped into four
district of Palm Beach County, Florida.
categories:
Another example, by Callahan and McIntire • Exceptional learners;
(1994), is a menu of characteristics separated by • Exceptional user of knowledge;
domain (e.g., artistic, creative, leadership, etc.), • Exceptional generator of knowledge;
along with guidelines for how to use the menu. It is and
significant to note that these characteristics were • Showing exceptional motivation.
developed specifically for identifying gifted/
Educators learned to examine anecdotal
talented American Indian students and may not
records and work samples, observe the
directly translate into identifying gifted English
students during sample lessons, rate peer and
Language Learners.
self-nominations, and score a home-
The New South Wales, Australia, Department of community questionnaire in light of the 18
Education and Training (2004) advocates tailoring identifiers. This information was then used
nomination forms and student checklists to a to construct appropriate programming for
district’s particular school population, a suggestion each student. Although the author
expressed by others in the literature. recognized how time-consuming such an
identification process can be, he suggested
In doing so, they suggest beginning with a trait the importance of using multimodal
targeted by the program, then developing a assessment in order to provide relevant
question to see whether the trait is present. For programming to students of all racial/ethnic,
example, to identify “leadership ability,” educators gender, and socioeconomic status groups.
might ask parents, “Does your child hold any These same principles can be applied when
leadership roles?” assessing ELLs.
27
28
 Section 4

How Do We Identify High Practical Implementation

Ability and Potential?

Invitation to Change Seek to Understand
Teachers and coordinators of gifted/talented As in meeting any person for the first time,
programs and English Language Learner programs we ask appropriate questions to get to know
have inherited and created processes that have been them personally. The same is true for new
accepted past practice. The following proposed families entering the school system. For
identification process is different. Although Iowa English Language Learners it may be
Administrative, Chapter 12, requires “multiple necessary to provide forms with written
selection criteria for identifying gifted and talented translations and/or employ the use of an
students from the total student population,” the interpreter for a more personal interview. In
focus on standardized test scores; specifically ITBS/ addition to appropriate translations of the
ITED has become the primary identification criteria district’s required registration information, the
of choice by local school districts. While classroom teacher may desire more specific
standardized assessments are certainly a academic and affective information about the
consideration, they are biased if used in isolation. student. Sample interview forms are provided
The process outlined in this section is intentionally to gather prior educational information from
designed to change the paradigm that identification the student as well as parents (see CD-ROM).
of high ability and/or potential talent is determined Remember to retain a copy for the student’s
primarily by a specific score or cut-point on a file.
standardized assessment.

Identifying English Language Learnerss for

gifted programming begins with collaboration
among classroom teachers, gifted/talented
educators, and ELL educators. Formal channels
of communication between gifted/talented and
ELL teachers and coordinators are vital to
gifted/talented ELL success. Within this
relationship, educators should collarborate to:
• Maximize an ELLs ability to express
knowledge of content while minimizing
their need to rely on English to express it;
• Broaden the concept of giftedness, as Be Aware of Both
influenced by the unique circumstances of
an English Language Learners culture; In all cases, it is necessary to complete an
• Resolve the individualistic identification of English language proficiency assessment
gifted/talented students within cultural and evaluate results prior to any testing in
contexts that highly value group solidarity; English. Knowing a child’s level of English
and proficiency helps educators decide when
• Overcome the discrimination that to give various cognitive assessments, as
perpetuates when non-English fluency is well as how to interpret scores obtained.
equated with poor academic potential.
29
Next it is appropriate to administer and review
proficiency testing data about the student.
Understanding the student’s ease in acquiring
native language and academic abilities in their home
school system is an indication of their potential.
Information gathered in this section supports the
Iowa Administrative Rule, Chapter 12, requirement
for multiple selection criteria in identifying students
for gifted programming from the total
K-12 student population.

Start Spreading the News

So far in this process, the student and parent
interviews have been reviewed and teachers have
gathered student proficiency data and samples of
the student’s previous academic experience. This When evaluating any child for gifted/
is the time to inform the educators who currently talented programming, it makes sense to
have the student in class. Sharing the student’s look at the whole child: the cognitive, the
information with the classroom teacher(s), as well affective, and psycho-motor/behavioral
as specials and elective teacher(s), expands the domains. All domains should be
scope of observing and sharing the student’s social, investigated. No single domain is more
emotional, physical, and academic needs. Include important than the other two; and none of
school counselors, curriculum directors, and them stands alone. Iowa Administrative
building principals as appropriate. Creating a team Rule, Chapter 12, requires school districts to
of educators who are aware of English Language have a qualitatively differentiated program to
Learner abilities and potential provides a support meet the students’ cognitive and affective
system for student success. If the student’s course needs.
schedule changes, or there are changes in classroom
assignments at quarter and semester breaks,
remember to inform the receiving teachers about programming from the total students population.
the needs and potential of the English Language Add this information to the student’s Personal
Learner. Educational Plan (PEP) file.

Observe Through New Lenses The Cognitive Domain

Do not underestimate the power of acceptance The standardized tests commonly used in the state
through the arts or the student’s recognized abilities of Iowa to assess cognitive ability and specific
as part of a team effort. Music, art, and physical academic achievement are the Cognitive Abilities
education teachers will observe the students Test and the ITBS/ITED. Additional assessments
expressing and demonstrating their abilities and that a district may choose to administer include
interacting with peers and adults in various nonverbal ability assessments such as the Ravens
settings. These alternative classroom settings may Standard Progressive Matrices, the Naglieri
be the primary experience where ELLs feel Nonverbal Ability Test, or results from tests
accepted by their peers. Demonstrated work administered in the student’s heritage language.
and/or performance assessments in specials and Educators are encouraged to use “common sense”
elective classes that support the student’s needs or when assessing English Language Learners with
potential also support the Iowa Administrative standardized tests. While it is important to test
Rule, Chapter 12, requirement for multiple students in the cognitive domain, it is
selection criteria for identifying students for gifted recommended to pay greater attention to reasoning
ability than to academic achievement scores.
30
The Affective Domain although the family may not have them in their
immediate possession, they may be able to obtain
Evidence of the beliefs, values, attitudes, and information given time and assistance.
opinions that may be expected to influence the
If there is not an indication of need at this time,
assessment of gifted/talented English
determine a future date to review the information
Language Learners are to be listed in the
for reconsideration.
Affective Assessment Indicator section of the
profile (see CD-ROM). If student and parent responses indicate potential
for high academic needs, we need to continue
While these data are more difficult to obtain gathering information to determine the student’s
and evaluate, their inclusion will give merit to needs. When considering English Language
the factors that influence the expression of Learners for gifted/talented programming, it is not
cognitive and psycho-motor/behavior only important to gather current grades (average
potential. It is recommended these indicators at year end) and work samples, but it is also
be collected from those who are in a crucial that previous grades, test scores, and work
position to frequently observe the student samples be obtained for students who attended
in class, at home, and in the community school in their heritage country.
when determining whether the student
demonstrates the affective domain The interview information, copies of records, and
characteristics of gifted/talented English samples of work support the Iowa Administrative
Language Learners. It is also recommended Rule, Chapter 12, requirement for multiple selection
that measures of creativity and leadership be criteria for identifying students for gifted programming
included to determine if the student should from the total student population (see CD-ROM).
be earmarked for inclusion in gifted/talented Many school districts follow the best practice of
programs that develop these skills. creating Personal Educational Plans (PEP) for gifted
programming documentation. Remember to include
Assessing Creativity this information on your PEP forms.

Creativity is different than academic

achievement. Creativity tests are often less Personal Education Plans
reliable than academic tests, because having
smaller group differences makes identification A quality PEP includes, but is not limited
of gifted/talented students more challenging to:
when such instruments are used exclusively. • Relevant background
information and data.
These tests are nonlanguage-dependent and • Assessment of present needs.
scores obtained are based on norm-referenced • Projection for future needs.
criteria. Some districts have included the use • A chronology of all gifted and
of creativity tests such as the Torrence Tests of talented services rendered.
Creative Thinking in their multiple-method • Nature and extent of present
assessment approaches. services.
• Other supportive assistance
provided to the classroom
Psycho-Motor/Behavioral Domain teacher on behalf of adapting
the regular school program to
When inquiring about the student’s previous better address the student’s
schooling experiences, request hard copies of needs.
school records, grade reports, projects, and
homework samples. Keep in mind that

31
Compare English Language Learners
to English Language Learners A Self-Audit

Instead of using cut scores by native English 1. What is your current method for
language speakers to determine whether a score is identifying students for gifted
high enough to warrant admission into a gifted/ programming?
talented program, each English Language
Learner’s score should be considered in light of 2. What is your current method for
information gathered within the affective and identifying English Language
psycho-motor/behavioral potential domains Learners for gifted programming?
from other English Language Learners at the
same English proficiency level within the 3. Who is involved in establishing the
district. This allows English Language Learners’ criteria for identification?
potential to be estimated using multiple
measures and within an appropriate norm 4. Who is involved in the selection
group. process?

5. Have you made any modifications to

the curriculum for these students?

6. Are the parents of English Language

Learners knowledgeable about your
gifted programming?

Interview questions were adapted from

those of Bermudez & Rakow (1993).

32
33
34
 After Identification,
Section 5

Advocating For The Gifted/Talented ELL

Then What? • Hands-on units that address the needs of

In previous sections, we discussed the importance
of identifying talented and gifted English Language gifted/talented English Language Learners
Learners and looked at multiple methods for doing once they are admitted into
so. Once these students are identified, we are programming;
mandated by law to provide them with an equitable
education that meets their individual needs. • Classes in Spanish (or other heritage)
culture and rhetoric, as well as AP
How do we provide gifted/talented educational language classes in the English Language
services to students whose proficiency of English is Learner’s heritage language;
not complete? How can administrators and teachers
successfully advocate for gifted English Language • Translation of written class assignment
Learners? How do we build trust and involve instructions into the heritage language and
parents in school events when we don’t speak the more time to complete the assignments;
same language?
• Collaboration of ESL teachers to help
This section provides some ideas for districts to English Language Learners express their
consider. These are only a few of a wide variety of ideas verbally and in writing in their
potential answers to the questions raised here. For heritage language; and
additional information and ideas, consider attending
• Bilingual activities that involve English
the Iowa Culture and Language Conference held
Language Learners and native-English
annually, or contacting the AEA that serves your
speakers.
school district.

Room for All

Taken to Task
To meet all identified student needs, is to provide
Information gathered from a review of
multiple program options that serve a wide range
the literature, coupled with suggestions
of students, while staying within the district’s
offered by Iowa’s educators, points to
budget constraints. Some possible options for
the need for a special task force of
gifted/talented programming that welcome
administrators and teachers to serve as
English Language Learners include the following:
advocates for gifted English Language
• A curriculum that is inclusive of the Learners and their families. Creating a
students’ interests and allows them to make task force before problems arise can help
choices in what they want to learn, including ensure bright English Language Learners
a focus on cultural themes; will receive the gifted/talented
programming they are entitled to.
• Expansion beyond addressing intellectual
talent, by including leadership, creativity, and
art;

35
 When using a mentor program, be sure to
No Water Added identify the scope of the mentor relationship to
As gifted and talented classrooms become both students and to the parents of the
more culturally and linguistically diverse, mentored child. Doing so will help make this a
educators should take all possible steps to positive experience for all involved.
maximize a student’s ability to express their
knowledge of content while minimizing Joint Professional Development
the child’s need to rely on English to Formal communication between the English
express those ideas. Language Learner/English as a Second Language
and gifted/talented teachers is central to the
Content in gifted/talented programs success of identifying and serving English Language
should not be watered down to address Learners in gifted and talented programs. Such
the needs of students who are showing communication provides a more holistic student
academic potential rather than academic profile and facilitates identification of all potentially
achievement. Instead, teachers may need gifted ELLs. Collaboration among these
to modify the way that material is delivered educators will be especially important as the
in the classroom in order to make the students in Iowa’s schools become more diverse.
content more accessible for all students in
the program for both English Language One way to reach this goal is to hold ongoing
Learner and non-English Language professional development workshops with the gifted/
Learner. talented and English Language Learner staff. The
dialogue in the workshops might focus on issues
This can be accomplished in such as:
several ways including:
• Preventing/dealing with discrimination
• Pursue topics in depth and at a within the district;
pace that matches the students’
abilities and interests. • Understanding giftedness within the
boundaries of students’ various cultures,
• Allow creative exploration which may or may not vary from the
beyond rigid curriculum American concept of giftedness; and
guidelines and structured formats.
• Resolving the individualistic nature of
• Encourage students to question. identification of talent within the context of
cultures that value group solidarity.
• Explore areas of emotional
interest to each student, for Both English Language Learner and gifted and talented
example, by offering independent staff should regularly explore whether the district is
projects of their choosing. meeting the goal of identifying a truly representative
percentage of English Language Learners as gifted/
talented.
Mentor Programs
When multiple English Language Learners
are identified for the gifted and talented
program, an older student can serve as a
mentor for a younger student. The benefits
are greatest when the students share the
same cultural background. The older student
generally serves as a role-model of success
for the younger student.
36
Getting Parents Involved

Educators widely agree that it is beneficial to x Discuss ways in which they can support
involve parents in their children’s education and nurture their children’s particular gifts
and most parents are eager to be involved. or talents.
However, for the parents of English Language
x Teach them how to advocate for their
Learners, it’s not always easy.
children’s right to an equitable and
Educators need to be aware of several unique appropriate education.
issues that affect these parents’ participation
x When possible, communicate with the
and engagement. When asking parents of an
parents in their heritage language. Validating
English Language Learner to take an active role
their culture and language will increase their
in their child’s schooling, keep in mind the
willingness to participate in school-related
following questions:
activities.
x How long have they resided in the
United States?

x Would you need an interpreter to Check It Out

communicate with the parents?
If your district has English Language
x How supportive are the school and Learners of Hispanic/Latino heritage, the
community toward the parents and parent involvement model described by
their children? Gallagher (2002) provides a useful resource
worth exploring.
x What are the parents’ prior experiences
with schools in their heritage country
and in the United States?

x What is the parent work schedule and In the Comfort Zone

are there transportation
complications? One reason parents of English Language
Learners may not attend their children’s
school activities is because they feel
Workshops for Parents uncomfortable and isolated by the language
and cultural differences. We can overcome
One way to encourage parents of gifted/ that, at least to some extent, by being
talented English Language Learners to flexible, accommodating, and welcoming.
participate in their children’s education is to
provide workshops about topics that will be Consider these ideas about how to provide a
helpful. Focus the content on helping parents comfortable environment for the parents of
learn how to support their children’s gifts at gifted/talented English Language Learners:
school:
x Do not assume that parents of English
x Inform parents of the identification Language Learners know the purpose and
process so that they can be actively importance of parent/teacher conferences.
involved as their child is being considered Send information about conferences to
for gifted/talented programming. parents in their heritage language.
x Help parents become knowledgeable
x Have interpretors available during parent/
about the significance of their child
teacher conferences.
being identified as gifted/talented.
37
x Provide school social activities that Read on
have diverse cultural themes. For examples of effective programs being
used with English Language Learners across
x Offer a variety of ways for parents to
the United States, see the CD-ROM.
volunteer in the classroom.

x Provide opportunities for parents to As you develop or learn about other ideas,
attend workshops about gifted/talented we invite you to share them by sending the
characteristics they can look for in their evaluation form located on the CD-ROM
own children and about educational to:
opportunities to meet their children’s ESL/Gifted/Talented Consultant
unique needs. These workshops can also 400 E. 14th Street
help teach parents how to advocate for Grimes State Office Building
their children’s participation in gifted/ Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0146
talented programs.

x Help parents develop enriching learning

experiences for their children at home or
in the community.

x Introduce them to community services

that can assist them and their families.
Providing this information can help
position the school team as advocates for
the student and their family. Offer
parents of English Language Learners
positions on school councils or
committees.

38
About the
Recognizing The Artists

A rt

Grades K-12
39
 Kitzya Soto-Arra
“Alligator”
Age 6 Grade K
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Alonzo Zarate
Age 8 Grade 3
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

William Toj
Grade 9
Postville Community School
Postville, Iowa

40
 Miguel Gonzalez
Age 7 Grade 1
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Hanh Tran
Age 13 Grade 7
Williams Intermediate School
Davenport, Iowa

Lesley Mendoza
Age 8 Grade 2
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Edvin Perez
“Las Rosas”
Grade 10
Postville Community School
Postville, Iowa

41
 Bryan Villa
“The Dinosaur Birds”
Age 9 Grade 4
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Ricardo Morales
Age 6 Grade 1
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Manasses Martinez
Age 7 Grade 1
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

42
Alexis Macias
Age 8 Grade 2
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa Kely Toj
“Soloman’s Seal” chalk pastel
Grade 6
Postville Community School
Postville, Iowa

Jairo Chuy
“Jack-in-the-Pulpil”
chalk pastel
Grade 6
Postville Community School
Postville, Iowa

Luisa Aquino
“The Robot Femanda”
Age 11 Grade 4
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

43
 Jario Murillo
Age 8 Grade 2
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Eliza Lopez
“Colombine”
chalk pastel
Grade 6
Postville Community School
Postville, Iowa

Edwardo Medina
Age 8 Grade 2
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Xavier Montoya
“Self-Portrait”
Age 13 Grade 7
Jefferson Middle School
Dubuque, Iowa

44
 Miguel Gonzalez
Age 7 Grade 1
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Maritza Galdamez
“My Beautiful Land”
Age 8 Grade 3
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

Mary Le
Age 14 Grade 8
Williams Intermediate School
Davenport, Iowa

Fatima Calderon
“Red Volcano”
Age 9 Grade 3
Perry Elementary School
Perry, Iowa

45
Additional Art Submissions:

Perla Sanchez Emilio Gonzalez

Perry CSD Perry CSD

Bryan Catalan Wilmer Aldehir

Perry CSD Postville CSD

Edvin Perez Cesar Espinosa

Postville CSD Red Oak CSD

Artyom Adadjonov Jonter Gomez

Postville CSD Postville CSD

Wendy Razam Omar Ortiz

Postville CSD Postville CSD

Jenya Semenova
Postville CSD

46
 Resources

Aguirre, N., & Hernandez, N. E. (1999). Characteristics of Students Who Are

Linguistically and Culturally Diverse. Baton Rouge, LA: Modern Language
Services.

Aguirre, N., & Hernandez, N. E. (2002). Portraits of Success: Programs that Work.
In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Diaz (Eds.), Reaching New Horizons: Gifted and
Talented Education for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Aprenda: La prueba de logros en Español [Learn: The test of achievement in

Spanish] (1997). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Educational Measurement.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1979). Introduction to research in education
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Barkan, J. H., & Bernal, E. M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited
English proficient students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(3), 144-147.

Barrera, I. (1995). To refer or not to refer: Untangling the web of diversity, “deficit”
and disability. New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal,
10, 54-66.

Bermúdez, A. B., & Marquez, J. A. (1998). Insights into gifted and talented English
language learners. Intercultural Development Research Association
Newsletter, 25 (June – July).

Bermúdez, A. B., Rakow, S. J., Marquez, J. M., Sawyer, C., & Ryan, C. (1991).
Meeting the needs of the gifted and talented limited English proficient
student: The UHCL prototype. National Association of Bilingual Education:
Annual Conference Journal, 1990-1991, 115-133.

Bernal, E. M. (1974). Gifted Mexican American children: An ethno-scientific

perspective. California Journal of Educational Research, 25, 261-273.

Bernal, E. M. (1980). Methods of identifying gifted minority students. (Report No.

72). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Berry, J. W. (1986). Multiculturalism and psychology in plural societies. In L. H.

Ekstrand (Ed.), Ethnic minorities and immigrants in a cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 35-51). Berwyn, PA: Swets North America.

Blanning, J. M. (1980). A multidimensional inservice handbook for professional

personnel in gifted and talented. Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Department
of Education, Connecticut Clearinghouse for the Gifted and Talented.

47
Borland, J.H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted,

economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(4),
164-171.

Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, S. (1998). Universal nonverbal intelligence test

(UNIT). Chicago: Riverside.

Brown, L., Sherbenou, R., Johnsen S. (1997). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence

(TONI-3). AGS Publishing.

Brulles, D., & Castellano, J. (2004). Using cluster grouping to enfranchise and serve
gifted English Language Learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Association for Gifted Students, Salt Lake City, UT.

Burnette, J. (2000). Assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students for

special education eligibility. (Report No. E604). Arlington, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E604).

Callahan, C. M., & McIntire, J. A. (1994). Identifying outstanding talent in American

Indian and Alaska Heritage students. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Castellano, J. (1995). Revisiting gifted education opportunities for linguistically and

culturally diverse students. National Association for Bilingual Education
News, 18 (6), 27-28

Castellano, J. A. (1998). Identifying and assessing gifted and talented bilingual

Hispanic students. (Report No. EDO-RC-97-9). Charleston, WV: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Castellano, J. A. (2002). Renavigating the waters: The identification and assessment

of culturally and linguistically diverse students for gifted and talented
education. In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Diaz, (Eds). Reaching new horizons:
Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse
students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Castellano, J. A., & Diaz, E. I. (2002). Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented
education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home

and at school (6th ed). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Pearson.

48
Cofresi, N. I., & Gorman, A. A. (2004). Testing and assessment issues with Spanish-
English bilingual Latinos. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82,
99-106.

Cohen, L. (1990). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language
students. (Report No. BBB114445). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED321485).

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd Edition).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Coleman, L. J. (1994). Portfolio assessment: A key to identifying hidden talents and

empowering teachers of young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(2),
65-69.

Collier, C. (2000). Acculturation quick screen. Ferndale, WA: CrossCultural

Developmental Education Services.

Collier, C. (2005). The assessment of acculturation. In D. P. Frisby (Ed.), Handbook

of multicultural school psychology. Pre-publication edition.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1992). Recommendations for improving the
assessment and monitoring of students with limited English proficiency.
Alexandria, VA: Council of Chief State School Officers, Weber Design.

Cummins, J. (1991). The role of primary language development in promoting

education success for language minority students. In Schooling for language
minority students (pp. 3-49). Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education.

Cunningham, C. M., Callahan, C. M., Plucker, J. A., Roberson, S. C., & Rapkin, A.
(1998). Identifying Hispanic students of outstanding talent: Psychometric
integrity of a peer nomination form. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 197-208.

Damen, L. (1987). Cultural learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd Edition.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

del Vecchio, A., & Guerrero, M. (1995). Handbook of English language proficiency
tests. Albuquerque, NM: Evaluation Assistance Center.

49
Diaz, E. I. (2002). Framing a historical context for the education of culturally and
linguistically diverse students with gifted potential: 1850s to 1980s. In J. A.
Castellano & E. I. Diaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented
education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Dusek, J. B., & Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of teacher expectancies: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 327-346.

Feldhusen, J. F., Hoover, S. M., & Slayer, M. F. (1990). Identifying and educating
gifted students at the secondary level. Highett, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow
Education.

Florida Department of Education. (1999). Assessing limited English proficient (LEP)

students for eligibility for gifted programs [Online]. Available at:
http://sss.usf.edu/html/Professions/Psychology/leptap.htm

Ford, D. Y. (1998). The under-representation of minority students in gifted

education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of
Special Education, 32, 4-14.

Ford, D. Y. (2003). Equity and excellence: Culturally diverse students in gifted

education. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted
Education (3rd Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Frasier M. M., & Passow A.H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent
potential. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented, University of Connecticut.

Frasier, M. M., Garcia, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues
in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority
students. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented, University of Connecticut.

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Garcia, J. H., &
Martin, D. (1995). Educators’ perceptions of barriers to the identification of
gifted children from economically disadvantaged and limited English
proficient backgrounds (RM95216). Storrs, CT: The National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Garcia, J. H., Martin, D., &
Frank, E. (1995). An exploratory study of the effectiveness of the staff
development model and the research-based assessment plan in improving the
identification of gifted economically disadvantaged students (RM95224).
Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,
University of Connecticut.

50
Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Mitchell, S., Cramond, B., Krisel, S., Garcia,
J. H., Martin, D., Frank, E., and Finley, V. S. (1995). Core attributes of
giftedness: A foundation for recognizing the gifted potential of minority and
economically disadvantaged students (RM95210). Storrs, CT: The National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Fraiser, M. M., Martin, D., Garcia, J., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Krisel, S., & King, L.
L. (1995). A new window for looking at gifted children (RM95222). Storrs,
CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of
Connecticut.

Frasier, M. M. (1997). Multiple criteria: The mandate and the challenge. Roeper
Review, 20(2), A-4.

Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gallagher, R. M. (2002). A parent-family involvement model to serve gifted

Hispanic English-Language Learners in urban public school settings. In J. A.,
Castellano & E. I Diaz, (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented
education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Garcia, E. E. (1993). Language, culture, and education. In L. Darling-Hammond

(Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 51-98). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.

Garcia, J. H. (1994). Nonstandardized instruments for the assessment of Mexican-

American children for gifted/talented programs. Addressing Cultural and
Linguistic Diversity in Special Education: Issues and Trends. Division for
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners. Reston, VA: A
division of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Gillespie, M. & Dickins, E. (2002). Two-Way immersion: A Title III Program.

http://jep.csus.edu/journal2002/paper7.htm

Green, F., & Spivey, S. (2005). Our diversity, our treasure: Connecting
Worlds/Mundos Unidos Jacob K. Javits Grant Program. Tempo, 25(1), 1,
14-15.

Hagen, E. (1980). Identification of the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hammill, D.D., Pearson, N.A., Wiederholt, J. L. (1996). Comprehensive Test of

Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.

51
Hayes, S. C. (1999). Comparison of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test and the
Matrix Analogies Test – Short Form in an adolescent forensic population.
Psychological Assessment, 11, 108-100.

Hoge, R. D. (1989). An examination of the giftedness construct. Canadian Journal

of Education, 14(1), 6-17.

Iowa Code 257.44 Gifted and talented children defined, 89 Acts, ch 135, § 44

Iowa Department of Education (2005). Guidelines for developing English language

proficiency standards in Iowa. Des Moines, IA: Author.

Iowa Testing Programs (in press). Iowa Test of Language Learning (ITELL).
Iowa City, IA.

Jenkins-Friedman, R. (1982). Myth: Cosmetic use of multiple selection criteria.

Gifted Child Quarterly 26, (1), p.

Kaplan, S. N. (2005). Language development through the art of discussion. Tempo,

25(1), 6-8.

Kingore, B. (2001). Kingore Observation Inventory (2nd Edition). Austin, TX:

Professional Association Publishing.

Kirshenbaum, R.J., (1998). Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted
and talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42 (3), 140-147.

Kitano, M. K., & Espinosa, R. (1995). Language diversity and giftedness: Working
with gifted English language learners. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 18(3), 234-254.

Kloosterman, V. I. (1997). Building a bridge: A combined effort between gifted and

bilingual education. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Kogan, E. (2001). Gifted bilingual students. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Krisel, S. C., & Cowan, R. S. (1997). Georgia’s journey toward multiple-criteria

identification of gifted students, Roeper Review, 20(2).

Llanes, J. R. (1980) "Notes on a theoretical construct for Bilingual Education."

Bilingual Education in the United States, Ypsilanti, Eastern Michigan Press,
MI (R. Padilla editor) (pps. 1-4).

La pruebra Riverside de realización en Español [The Riverside test of completion in

Spanish]. (1984). Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.

52
Lohman, D. F. (2003). A comparison of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT)
and form 6 of the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT): Revised 9/1/2003
[Online]. Available at:
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/NNAT_vs_CogAT6_revised
2.pdf

Lohman, D. F. (2005). Review of Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri
Nonverbal Ability Test identify equal proportions of high-scoring white,
black, and Hispanic students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 19-28.

Lohman, D. F. (in press; a). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for

identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted,

Lohman, D. F. (in press; b). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying students
for participation in programs for the academically gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly.

Lohman, D. E., Hagen, E. P., (2001), Cognitive Abilities Test Form 6 (CogAT),
Itasca, Il: Riverside Publishing.

Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. (2004, November). Gifted today but not tomorrow?
Longitudinal changes in ITBS and CogAT scores during elementary school.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted
Children, Salt Lake City.

McLeod, J., & Cropley, A. (1989). Fostering academic excellence. New York:
Pergamon Press.

Mills C. J., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from
underrepresented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a
good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 209-271.

Naglieri, J. A., (1997), Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test- Mulitilevel Form (NNAT).
San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment Company

Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing Underrepresentation of Gifted

Minority Children Using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted
Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155.

Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in

gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 49(1), 29-36.

53
New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2004). Policy and
implementation strategies for the education of gifted and talented students:
Curriculum K-12 Directorate. Sydney, New South Wales: Author.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1998). Talent and diversity: the
emerging world of limited English proficient students in gifted education.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. H. (1981). The revolving door identification
model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J.S., Smith, L.H., White, A.J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R.K., Westberg,
K.L., Gavin, M.K., Reis, S. M., Siegle, D., & Sytsma, R.E. (2004). Scales for
Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS).
Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Resnick, D., & Goodman, M. (Fall, 1997). Northwest Education. Northwest

Educational Laboratory Resources.

Richert, E. S. (1991). Rampant problems and promising practices in identification of

disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(4), 149-154.

Richert, E. S. (2003). Excellence with justice in identification and programming. In

N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd
Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Roid, G. H., Miller, L.J. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised

(Leiter-R). Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Company.

Runco, M. A. (1997). Is every child gifted? Roeper Review, 19(4), 220-224.

Schack, G. D., & Starko, A. J. (1990). Identification of gifted students: An analysis

of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers
of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 346-363.

Scott, M. S., Perou, R., Urbano, R., Hogan, A., & Gold, S. (1992). The identification
of giftedness: A comparison of white, Hispanic and black families. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 36(3), 131-139.

Silverman, L. (2004). What we have learned about gifted children [Online].

Available at: http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/learned.htm

Smith, J., LeRose, B., & Clasen, R. E. (1991). Under-representation of minority

students in gifted programs: Yes! It matters! Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2),
81-83.

54
Spanish Assessment of Basic Education. (1987). Monterey, CA: McGraw-Hill.

Torrance, P. E. (1998). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL:

Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). USA Quickfacts [Online]. Available at:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using performance tasks
in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted
learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110 -
123.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Fourth Edition. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Woods, S. B., & Achey, V. H. (1990). Successful identification of gifted

racial/ethnic group students without changing classification requirements.
Roeper Review, 13(1), 21-26.

Wright L., & Borland, J. H. (1993). Using early childhood developmental portfolios
in the identification of young, economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted
students. Roeper Review, 15(4), 205-210.

Zurcher, R. (1998). Issues and trends in culture-fair assessment. Intervention in

School and Clinic, 34, 103-106.

55
 Identifying
Gifted and Talented
English Language Learners
Grades K-12