This Issue

IN 1993, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT Education proposed its most recent definition of giftedness. This definition was groundbreaking, because it represents the most proactive, inclusive, student-centered, and humanistic definition, thus far. According to the definition, children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. The definition also included the critically important idea that giftedness can be found in all socioeconomic groups and in all racial and cultural groups. This definition, therefore, calls on educators and policy makers to leave no child or group ignored in searching for gifts and talents.

Unfortunately, many students from particular demographic backgrounds are not being identified as gifted or receiving gifted education services (Ford & Harris, 1999; Ford & Moore, 2004; Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005). In turn, these children and youth--especially ethnic minority and low-income students--are being left behind in schools that fail to recognize their strengths and, thus, fail to meet their educational needs. Although there is no standard pattern of talent or academic ability among gifted students, the research clearly indicates that White, middle-class students are overrepresented in gifted education programs, and that students of color (i.e., African Americans, Hispanic Americans, etc.) are underrepresented (Baldwin, 2004; Ford & Harris, 1999).

   There is no more varied group of young people than
   the diverse group known as gifted children and adolescents.
   Not only do they come from every walk of
   life, every ethnic and socioeconomic group, and every
   nation, but they also exhibit an almost unlimited range
   of personal characteristics in temperament, risk taking
   and conservatism, introversion and extroversion,
   reticence and assertiveness, and degree of effort invested
   in reaching goals (Robinson, 2002, p. xi).

Stated differently, outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and all areas of human endeavor (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). How we define and perceive giftedness is critical for all students, especially underrepresented groups. The federal definition is significantly different from previous definitions in several ways: (a) it focuses on the notion of developing talent and potential in students, (b) it recognizes the importance of considering how experience and environment influence development, (c) it recognizes the need to compare students by experience and environment, and (d) it urges educators to be mindful that outstanding talents are present in all groups; thus, no child should be denied gifted education services--left behind, that is--based on race, socioeconomic status (SES), or other sociodemographic variables. Despite this bold and inclusive definition, we have yet to resolve a persistent issue in gifted education--the underrepresentation of ethnic minority and low-income students in programs and services for gifted students. That is, one of the major issues of contention in the field of gifted education is the persistent and pervasive underrepresentation of certain groups of students in gifted education. Moreover, few educational professionals (e.g., teachers, school counselors, and administrators), even those with formal training in gifted education, have been trained to work with gifted students who differ from middle-class, White students. Thus, school districts frequently hold professional development workshops in an attempt to better prepare these educational professionals to work more effectively with these groups.

This special theme issue is designed to provide teachers, school counselors, and administrators with an overview of the field of gifted education with the primary focus being on assisting these educational professionals in the broad areas of: (a) recommended assessment practices and (b) recommended services in gifted education. Each article focuses on a specific group of gifted students (i.e., underachievers, ethnic minorities, low-income students, and those with special education needs) relative to identification, assessment, and services. With its focus on these special populations of gifted students, this special theme issue addresses an important piece of educational legislation--No Child Left Behind. Although this legislation is not the primary focus of the theme issue, philosophically and conceptually, it lays the foundation for the theme. With our focus on identifying and serving underrepresented groups, we are urging educators--teachers, school counselors, and administrators--to leave no child behind and to otherwise promote the gifts and talents of all children and youth.

In the first article, Renzulli presents a model for schools that infuses talent development strategies throughout the curriculum. More specifically, the model includes specific strategies for increasing student effort, enjoyment, and performance, and it integrates an array of advanced-level learning experiences and thinking skills in all curricular areas. When such models are used, Renzulli suggests that schools can become places where students can develop and enhance their talents. In the second article, VanTassel-Baska focuses on the "nonnegotiables" of gifted education programs and services. She emphasizes the importance of offering appropriately differentiated curriculum, instruction, materials, and assessment procedures. In addition, VanTassel-Baska stresses the need for quality teaching and collaborative support between the home and school for gifted students. In the third article, Callahan examines the longstanding dilemma of identifying underrepresented students (e.g., ethnic minorities, children from low SES environments, and students with limited English speaking ability) for gifted education programs and services. In addition, she presents concrete solutions for the many problems (e.g., definitions of giftedness, the use of one-shot paper-and-pencil assessments, the inherent biases in policies and procedures, and the lack of coordination of curriculum with identification and placement procedures) associated with identification and underrepresented students in gifted education. Next, Baldwin suggests that culturally diverse, ethnic minority students are consistently underrepresented in gifted education. Drawing from the research literature, she not only discusses the prevailing issues centered on this topic, she also presents recommended changes and creative solutions. In the fifth article, Ruban and Reis examine the pitfalls of gifted students with learning disabilities. The two authors also assert that many of these gifted students are not being identified for dual exceptionalities (e.g., with giftedness and a learning disability). In their article, Ruban and Reis review current identification and assessment practices with this special population and further recommend that researchers and practitioners collaborate in choosing the best methods to identify students with dual exceptionalities. In the next article, Ford, Moore, and Harmon raise a number of questions about multiculturalism and gifted education. More specifically, the three authors suggest that culturally relevant content is often lacking in gifted education programs around the country. As a wax] of infusing multiculturalism throughout the gifted education, the three authors offer a model for enriching the curriculum. In the seventh article, Grantham, Frasier, Roberts, and Bridges suggest that parents play a critical role in reversing the underrepresentation of culturally diverse students in gifted education. To better assist parents with advocating for their children, the authors present a Gifted Program Advocacy Model. In the eighth article, Reis and Ruban present a discussion of the intervention services offered to gifted students with disabilities. Throughout the article, the authors stress the importance of developing a wide range of compensation strategies for these students, attending to their students' social and emotional needs, identifying supportive learning environments for them, and providing these students with learning opportunities to develop their interests. In the ninth article, Tomlinson suggests that both curriculum and instruction should be aligned with gifted learners' learning capacities. Moreover, she emphasizes that good curriculum and instruction are the key ingredients for responding to gifted learners' individual readiness levels, interests, and modes of learning. In the final article, Moore, Ford, and Milner present an overview of common social and psychological barriers that impede academic outcomes for gifted students of color. As a way of reversing these challenges for gifted students of colors, the authors provide specific recommendations to various educational professionals who have the means and power to change practice and to otherwise make a difference (e.g., teachers, school counselors, etc.).

When it comes to federal legislation, particularly mandates for identification and services, gifted students are often left behind. Philosophically, we seem to recognize that gifted students have academic or educational needs that differ from other students. In practice, some of these needs are met, legally or legislatively. However, we offer gifted students few assurances and little protection. In essence, many ethnic minority and low-SES gifted students are being left behind by virtue of not being identified and then served. The authors in this special theme issue of Theory Into Practice attempt to address such benign neglect.

References

Baldwin, A. Y. (Ed.). (2004). Culturally diverse and underserved populations of gifted students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J., III. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D. Y., & Moore, J. L., III. (2004). The achievement gap and gifted students of color: Cultural, social, and psychological factors. Understanding Our Gifted, 16, 3-7.

Moore, J. L., III, Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Recruiting is not enough: Retaining African-American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 49-65.

Robinson, N. M. (2002). Introduction. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (xi-xxiv). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Author.

Guest Editors Donna Y. Ford James L. Moore III

COPYRIGHT 2005 The Ohio State University, on behalf of its College of Education
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group