The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

• Narrow selection criteria including an over-reliance on IQ tests which are consideredincapable of accounting for the cultural differences that shape intelligence (Bernal, 2002;Fletcher & Massalski, 2003; Ford et al., 2002);• Tests that disadvantage and misdiagnose language-minority students (Belcher & Fletcher-Carter, 1999; Fletcher & Massalski, 2003; Frasier, Garcia, & Passow, 1995); and• Testing procedures that are unfamiliar to minority group children (Belcher & Fletcher-Carter,1999; Castellano & Diaz, 2002; VanTassel-Baska, Johnson & Avery, 2002).Additional reasons cited in the literature are shown in Table 3 below (Belcher & Fletcher-Carter,1999; Fletcher & Massalski, 2003; Frasier et al., 1995; Ford, 1996; Hunsaker, 1994; Maker, 1996;Sisk, 2003; Ford et al., 2002; Tonemah, 2003, VanTassel-Baska et al., 2002; Vasilevska, 2003).Table 3. Barriers to the Identification of Culturally Diverse Students with Special Abilities andQualities.Problems Associated with the Identification of Culturally Diverse Students• Low teacher expectation• Teacher bias• Low teacher referral rate• Inadequate teacher preparation in testing, assessment, multicultural and gifted education• Cross-cultural misinterpretations and misunderstandings• Inadequate home-school communication about gifted education opportunities• Narrow concepts of giftedness• Negative stereotyping of minority group children• Characteristics associated with cultural diversity that may obscure giftedness• Reluctance amongst parents of children from diverse minority cultures to identify their childrenas gifted and nominate them for gifted programmes• Children unmotivated to perform in test situations• Children inhibited by conditions of poverty or psychological stress• Geographic isolation• The pervasive deficit orientation that prevails in society and educational institutionsIdentification: SolutionsMultidimensional identification methods and procedures. The most frequently mentioned means offairly and accurately identifying gifted children from minority groups and thus overcoming underrepresentationis the use of multiple assessment measures and procedures sensitive to cultural valuesand practices (Barkan & Bernal, 1991; Frasier, 1997b; Frasier et al., 1995; Frasier & Passow, 1994;Ford, 1996; Ford et al., 2002; Harris & Ford, 1991; Hunsaker, 1994; Smutny, 2003; Worrell et al.,2001). A wide variety and combination of approaches are recommended. Fletcher and Massalski(2003), for example, suggest the use of: “nominations by parents, teachers, peers and communityleaders, grade point averages and portfolio evaluations. These are site specific determinants and areimportant when considering the cultural reality of the person, the school and community” (p. 163).Similarly, Martin et al. (2003) report that the identification of gifted and talented Native Hawaiianstudents for Na Pua No’eau programmes are “multisource, multimethod, multisetting and over time”(p. 191). Students are invited to participate in a range of enrichment programmes designed to providethem with opportunities to develop their interests and abilities. Those children who excel in initialprogrammes are encouraged to continue involvement and invited to subsequent programmes.Additional identification tools employed are consultation with peers, family and community members,culturally sensitive interviews and questionnaires, auditions, behavioural checklists which include bothmainstream and local interpretation characteristics, school achievement scores, product presentationsand performance on relevant problem-solving items.127