Equity in Gifted/Talented (G/T) Education

Skip navigation and go to main content

Identification

Some factors to consider in designing an identification process include:

Defensibility Procedures should be based on the best available research and recommendations.
Advocacy Identification should be designed in the best interest of all students. Students should not be harmed by the procedures.
Equity
  • Students from all groups should be considered for representation according to their demographic representation in the district so that no one is overlooked.
  • The civil rights of students should be protected.
  • Strategies should be specified for identifying the disadvantaged gifted/talented.
  • Avoid cut-off scores. High scores should be used to include students, but if students meet other criteria, then lower test scores should not be exclusionary.
Pluralism The broadest defensible definition of gifted/talented should be used.
Comprehensiveness As many learners as possible with gifted/talented potential should be identified and served.
Pragmatism Whenever possible, procedures should allow for the cost effective modification and use of available instruments and personnel.

Teacher Perception vs. Teacher Recommendation

Teacher recommendation instruments evoke personal bias in individuals. Some teachers may refuse to “recommend” a student because of behaviors manifested in the regular classroom. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers’ perceptions, rather than recommendations, be sought. Teachers’ perceptions are controlled, in large part, by their previous G/T training, as well as their own personal biases and backgrounds. Students from poverty often manifest their giftedness in negative ways that are misunderstood or misinterpreted by teachers who come from middle class backgrounds. The Slocumb-Payne Teacher Perception Inventory is designed to measure both middle-class students and students from poverty. A sample from that instrument follows.

Teacher Perception vs. Teacher Recommendation PDF