Great6 - Gifted Child Quarterly http/

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon Gifted Child Quarterly DOI: 10.1177/001698620504900104 2005; 49; 29 Gifted Child Quarterly Jack A. Naglieri and Donna Y. Ford Increasing Minority Children’s Participation in Gifted Classes Using the NNAT: A Response to Lohman The online version of this article can be found at: Published by: On behalf of: National Association for Gifted Children can be found at: Gifted Child Quarterly Additional services and information for Email Alerts: Subscriptions: Reprints: Permissions: Citations by Katherine Prammer on April 21, 2009 Downloaded from
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Before we offer one perspective, express one opin- ion, or argue one point, it is important for the reader to know who we are and what goals we have on behalf of gifted children. First, it is obvious that one of us is the author of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT; Naglieri, 1997) and a psychologist who has examined the role intelligence tests can play in the identification of diverse populations of gifted children. Second, it is also well known that the other author is an educator who has worked more broadly within the area of gifted education to address the persistent problem of minority student underrepresentation. Both of us have worked to increase representation of minority children in classes for the gift- ed and have provided many research papers, conceptual papers, and presentations on this topic. Our positions and goals are clear. First, we find the fact that minority children are underrepresented in classes for the gifted (U.S. Department of Education, 1993) to be unacceptable. Second, we call for continued study of the ways current identification methods, including tests, contribute to the disproportional representation of minority children in programs for the gifted. Third, we urge expanded efforts to determine ways to increase the diversity of children who are in need of gifted programs and services. Fourth, we challenge the field to meet the needs of gifted minor- ity children who, despite being “intellectually gifted” (e.g., children who demonstrate high scores on a nonver- bal test of intelligence), may not have a history of strong academic achievement and, therefore, are not nominated for inclusion in gifted programs. Finally, we reject limit- ing the definition of gifted to those who demonstrate “academic giftedness” as described by Lohman (2005). Instead, we support the notion of potential and believe, as does the U.S. Department of Education (1993), that some students demonstrate their gifts and talents while others show the potential for responding positively to gifted education services. That is not to say we reject the concept that gifted children are those who demonstrate high academic achievement, but that we also accept that a child may be intellectually gifted but
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/07/2009 for the course EDP 300 taught by Professor West during the Spring '09 term at West Chester.

Page1 / 9

Great6 - Gifted Child Quarterly http/

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online