Equity and Inclusion for Multilingual Learners in Rural Gifted Education

• In Event: Rethinking Inclusivity, Equity, and Diversity for Rural Multilingual Learners

Abstract

The challenges related to gifted education in rural schools have been well-documented, including (1) limited opportunities to learn (Kettler et al., 2015); (2) inequitable identification processes (Authors, 2017, 2021; Stambaugh, 2015); (3) the pervasive exclusion of Black students (Davis et al., 2020; Ford, 2015; Lewis et al., 2018; Novak & Jones, 2020), English learners (Coronado & Lewis, 2017; Hodges et al., 2018; Matthews, 2014; Siegle et al., 2016), economically disadvantaged students (Latz & Adams, 2011; Plucker & Peters, 2018), and students with disabilities in gifted programming (Authors, 2016); and (4) a lack of gifted education resource teachers and other personnel (Author, 2014; Floyd et al., 2011; Lewis & Boswell, 2020).
English learners (EL) are the fastest growing population of K-12 students in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013), yet they remain proportionately less represented in gifted and talented programs than students traditionally identified for gifted education (Coronado & Lewis, 2017; Hodges et al., 2018) and other underserved populations. ELs from diverse and/or low-income backgrounds are even less likely to be identified for gifted services (e.g., Peters & Engerrand, 2016; Siegle et al., 2016) and often face additional barriers even when referred for gifted programming by a teacher (Gottfredson, 2003), such as implicit biases about intelligence, giftedness, socio-economic status, language ability/linguistic knowledge, achievement, standardized testing, and work ethic.
In addition to teacher beliefs, the types of assessments often used for gifted identification disadvantage ELs. Even though some of these assessments, particularly cognitive ones, might aim to supplement a more traditional teacher nomination system, they can also represent a hurdle to gifted identification due to the linguistic and cultural factors inherent in them (e.g., Esquierdo & Arreguín-Anderson, 2012; Ford et al., 2008). As a result, many scholars have called for the use of local rather than national norms when evaluating student scores (Peters & Engerrand, 2016), culturally and linguistically relevant screening tools (Bianco & Harris, 2014), and multiple and/or alternative means of assessment for identification that present a more complete picture of a student, such as non-verbal tests or dynamic or performance-based assessments (even though there is debate in the field over the effectiveness of these tools; e.g., Lidz & Macrine, 2001; Sarouphim, 1999, 2000; Sarouphim & Maker, 2010). Such means would be utilized either in addition to or in place of more traditionally used tools, which could potentially lessen the risk of the giftedness of ELs being masked or overlooked (e.g., Lohman et al., 2008). Once ELs are identified for gifted education, it is vital that they are also served appropriately, as simply being placed in a gifted program is not enough (Pereira & de Oliveira, 2015). This support can take the form of dual, heritage, or English-language courses for students and support (dual language or otherwise) for teachers from administrators, district coordinators, and parents (e.g., Horn, 2015; Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014).
This presentation will include an overview of the challenges and innovative responses to barriers for rural English learners in gifted programs.

Author

• Amy Price Azano, Virginia Tech
  Presenting Author