Consequences of Implementing Curricular-Aligned Strategies for Identifying Rural Gifted Students

Abstract

Analysis of assessment data from an initial pool of second-grade students ( n = 4549) in low-income rural communities and a subgroup of students identified from that pool for gifted services ( n = 524) provided evidence for the validity of a curricular-aligned process including universal screening and local norms for identifying rural students in high-poverty schools as gifted. We first compared identification data on a group identified with existing, more general identification strategies to data on students identified specifically in language arts using universal screening and local norms as part of the identification criteria, providing staff development focused on indicators of rural giftedness prior to teacher ratings of students, and using a profile in decision making. This comparison confirmed the hypothesis that talent in rural students from low-income areas may manifest in ways that are not captured by more generic identification processes. Despite concerns about the implementation of identification processes using local norms, students identified through the project’s alternative approach scored higher on a measure of verbal aptitude and scored as well on postintervention assessments as students identified using the district-identification process. This outcome provides evidence that students identified with local norms in a specific academic domain reach similar or higher levels of achievement as students identified using national norms and more general means of assessment.

The Importance of Identifying Spatial Skills in Talented Students

“…Differentiation on ability profiles or cognitive strengths is not the same as the recommendations that might be associated with learning styles (Lohman, 2005). Instead of aligning instruction to students' cognitive strengths, teachers should find ways to use those strengths to build up all areas of students' academic development (Callahan et al, 2022;VanTassel-Baska et al, 2007).…”

Identification Policy: Addressing Equity and Excellence for Advanced Learners

“…In some cases, advanced academic programming may need to be adjusted to scaffold learning so that students can move toward national norms on achievement measures; however, those concerns may not always be warranted. Callahan et al (2022) noted that alternative identification processes aligned with domain-specific curriculum not only identified a more diverse group of students for gifted services in rural schools with high levels of economic insecurity, but those students were also "capable of equally high (or even higher) levels of achievement as students identified by existing school procedures" (p. 19). Asset-based, sociocultural approaches suggest that even when there are differences in academic achievement between students identified through traditional and alternative pathways, those differences can decrease over time with continued exposure to advanced learning experiences and responsive instructional support to prepare students for competitive postsecondary talent development contexts (e.g., Plucker et al, 2021).…”

“…Combination rules also dictate whether qualification is based on national norms or local norms, and whether local norms are set at the district-level or building-level. An identification policy that allows students to qualify for gifted services using either national norms or building-level local norms on any one criterion ("or" rules) can support the proportional representation of students from diverse backgrounds in gifted and advanced academic programs (Callahan et al, 2022;Carman et al, 2018Carman et al, , 2020Lakin, 2018;Peters et al, 2019b).…”

“…Although there may be other gatekeepers to advanced academic services, universal screening can eliminate some of the barriers (e.g., nominations, referrals) that can contribute to the underrepresentation of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students in gifted and talented programs (Callahan et al, 2022; McBee et al, 2016; Wai & Lakin, 2020). One key advantage to universal screening is that it ensures every student in a grade level is screened to determine whether they have advanced learning needs that are not already being met in their grade-level academic placements.…”

“…Policies should address the alignment between identification practices and programming (Callahan et al, 2022; Lee et al, 2020). For example, if students are identified using nonverbal assessments, it would be illogical to provide services in advanced humanities courses that rely heavily on verbal skills to engage with the course content and demonstrate mastery.…”