Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students∗

Learning Potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted children

“…The use of dynamic assessment in the context of giftedness originates with studies by Boling and Day (1993) and Passow and Frasier (1996). Their approach was based on the fact that dynamic tests had proved to be valid for the identification of children of low intellectual level and/or with learning difficulties, and for planning subsequent intervention (Strong & Delgado, 2005;Swanson, 1995).…”

Increasing Native American Indian involvement in gifted programs in rural schools

“…A persistent concern in the field of gifted education is the widespread underrepresentation of minority students in programs designed to meet the needs of students who are gifted (Ford & Harris, 1990, 1999Frasier, 1997;Passow & Frasier, 1996). Underrepresentation of native American Indian students 1 is attributed to several factors: need for appropriate measures (George, 1987), need for cultural responsiveness (Montgomery, 1989), need for appropriate language and relevant cultural characteristics (Peacock, 1979), need to accommodate the predominantly rural nature of schools providing educational options for Indian children and youth (Spicker, Fletcher, Montgomery, & Breard, 1993), and a need to address alternative learning styles (McCarty, Lynch, Wallace, & Benally, 1991).…”

A five year follow‐up study of the Nebraska project:Still a long way to go...

“…The project was developed on a Vygotskian theory that proposed context as being very important to children's development and, therefore, to the identification of giftedness by viewing giftedness as being expressed or developed auspiciously within developmentally-appropriate educational opportunities or interventions. Griffin's (director of the Nebraska Project) remarks quoted in Passow and Frasier's (1996) article well explain this aspect:…”

“…Problems noted in numerous studies include the varied definitions and criteria developed by using these identification procedures and the persistent inappropriate and biased uses of instruments and assessment procedures (Alvino, McDonnel, & Richart, 1981;Cox & Daniel, 1983;Frasier & Passow, 1994;Gallagher, 1994a;Maker, 1996;Ormrod, 1985;Passow & Frasier, 1996;Richart, 1985;Ross, 1993;Shaklee, 1992). As a result, programs for gifted and talented students often have an underrepresentation of special populations, specifically, culturally different and economically disadvantaged students.…”