The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) has long been committed to ensuring equal access to a high-quality education for students of all races.  Experience and common sense indicate that outstanding talents are present in children from every racial and ethnic group.  Unfortunately, however, talented African-American and Latino students are disproportionately under-represented and under-served in gifted education throughout Virginia.  In the 2008-09 school year, for instance, the statewide public school enrollment was 26% African-American and 9% Latino whereas the gifted student population was only 12% African-American and 5% Latino.  In virtually every school division, disparities are also pronounced.  For instance, in Chesterfield County during the 2008-09 school year the rates were below even the troubling statewide average: African Americans made up 28% of the student body but less than 10% of the gifted students; Latinos were 7% of the student population, but less than 2% were included in gifted education.

This disproportionality is a major roadblock to ensuring educational excellence and equity and to narrowing well-documented achievement gaps based on race.  Inclusive gifted education programs in grades K-12 are essential to create a pool of students equipped for success at Virginia’s elite colleges and universities, which are pipelines to leadership at the local and national levels. 

We support those amendments proposed by the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) to the Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students that may help mitigate the unjustifiably disproportionate under-representation of African-American and Latino students in gifted education programs, including mandating that the screening process occur at least annually, and requiring that assessment materials be evaluated for racial or cultural biases.  But in order to achieve measureable and significant gains, VDOE must adopt more stringent requirements that are directly calculated to correct the existing racial disparities.  We therefore support the campaign spearheaded by the Chesterfield County, Virginia NAACP Branch and other NAACP branches throughout Virginia to address racial disproportionality in access to and participation in gifted programs.  In particular, we offer four specific policy recommendations, each supported by scholarly literature and informed by comparative analysis of gifted education requirements in other states.  Although these steps alone may not solve the problem of disproportionate access entirely, without them Virginia cannot begin to make progress toward a complete solution.

Recommendation 1:   Require school divisions to conduct a holistic review to identify gifted students, using at least four assessment measures, two of which must be qualitative.

Both the current regulations and VDOE’s proposed revisions define giftedness expansively, consistent with recent scholarship that has recognized intelligence as a broad concept that extends beyond language and logic to include a wide range of human abilities.  VDOE’s proposed revisions, however, unjustifiably take a significant step backward from the existing regulations in defining the process that school divisions must use to ensure identification of students who demonstrate diverse gifted attributes. 

The overwhelming consensus among experts in gifted education is that any process for identifying gifted students should include multiple criteria—both quantitative and qualitative—in order to ensure that talented students of all backgrounds benefit from these programs.  But, whereas the current regulations require school divisions to consider at least four measures in their gifted identification processes, the proposed revisions would permit consideration of only three. 

This change is not research-based and conflicts with current best practices.  If VDOE’s proposed revisions were to go into effect, a school division could fully comply by considering only an aptitude test, a student’s GPA, and any “additional valid and reliable measure,” which could also be a quantitative measure.  Moreover, although the regulations prohibit use of any single criterion to deny admission to a gifted program, they do not mandate how much weight should be placed on each criterion.  As a result, school divisions may lawfully rely primarily on standardized tests.  In this way, the proposed revisions undermine the important goals contemplated by VDOE’s gifted education policies.

It bears emphasis that LDF does not contend that VDOE should prohibit any use of properly validated tests in the gifted education identification process.  But scholarly research establishes that standardized tests and other quantitative measures do not fully capture the wide range of intellectual capacities and abilities that are indicators of giftedness, especially among students of color and those from low-income backgrounds. 

Thus, in addition to retaining the existing requirement that school divisions use at least four measures in their gifted identification processes, VDOE should expressly require that at least two of the four criteria be qualitative measures, such as interviews with students, evaluation of a student’s portfolio or previous work, and classroom observation.  Qualitative measures are particularly useful in identifying factors such as motivation, personality, persistence, and concentration that impact greatly on success in gifted education programs as well as creative productivity throughout life. 

Finally, LDF urges VDOE to revise the gifted identification process to encourage school divisions to conduct a holistic, individualized review to determine whether a student is eligible for gifted education.  Research shows that gifted identification processes select students with more diverse forms of talent if conducted according to an individualized method that relies on human judgment rather than a mechanical approach, such as a predetermined matrix, checklist, or rigid point system.  Moreover, individualized review allows for consideration of students’ previous opportunities to learn.  Schools will overlook many gifted students of color if they fail to recognize that many such students have had inadequate opportunities to develop and perform at high academic levels, though they have the capability to do so.

Although no state has a comprehensive approach to addressing disparities in gifted education, certain innovative aspects of other states’ regulations inform our recommendation for a more comprehensive approach in Virginia.  For instance, other states, such as Texas and Maryland, explicitly require that identification be based on both quantitative and qualitative criteria.  And California mandates consideration of two factors that provide a more individualized perspective on students’ gifted potential: (1) “studies of the factors contributing to a pupil’s underachievement and studies of a pupil’s underachievement resulting from handicapping or disadvantaged conditions” and (2) “the economic, linguistic, and cultural characteristics of the pupil’s background.”

Recommendation 2:  Require school divisions to train teachers to identify gifted students from all backgrounds and to promote parent and student engagement in the identification process.

Neither the current regulations nor the proposed revisions mandate any training for regular classroom teachers on identifying giftedness.  This is a significant oversight. Teachers are key gatekeepers in the gifted identification process.  Their referrals of potentially gifted students are an important resource, and teachers provide input to and serve on the identification and placement committees that make eligibility determinations.  Thus, teachers have the potential to be advocates for children from under-represented populations in the nomination, screening, and identification of gifted students.

            Yet it is well-documented that teachers across the country fail to refer African-American and Latino students, even those with high scores on standardized tests, at rates proportionate to their referral of white students.  Too often, teachers retain stereotypes and misperceptions that lower their expectations for African-American and Latino students; as a result, teachers tend to focus on these students’ shortcomings instead of recognizing their diverse talents.  To overcome this referral bias, teachers of all races need training to better recognize the different learning styles and behavior that gifted students may display.  Appropriate training increases the likelihood that teachers will make more reliable, more informed, and therefore more equitable referrals of students from all backgrounds. 

In addition to more rigorous and evidence-based teacher training, LDF urges VDOE to require school divisions to promote early, active, and ongoing parent and student engagement in the gifted identification process.  While both the current regulations and the proposed revisions permit parent, peer, and self referrals, many parents and students, especially in communities of color, have limited information about gifted programs.  Moreover, referral forms can be confusing and cumbersome.  VDOE should require school divisions to conduct outreach, hold workshops, and disseminate information to ensure that families are aware of the diverse characteristics of gifted students, the nature of the division’s gifted educational offerings and their benefits, the stages of the gifted identification process, and how placement decisions are made.   

Recommendation 3:  Require school divisions to collect, disaggregate, and publish detailed school- and division-wide data on gifted programs. 

It is essential for Virginia to adopt uniform and robust data collection and reporting requirements for all school divisions’ gifted programs.  Currently, the VDOE publishes only statewide data on the students referred to, identified for, and participating in gifted education, disaggregated by race and grade-level.  This is entirely inadequate.

More specific data collection at the school- and division-levels is essential to hold school divisions accountable for fair access to gifted programming.  LDF urges that the gifted regulations be further amended to require school divisions to annually collect and report to VDOE demographic data on student referral to, screening and identification for, and participation and retention in gifted education programs.  Data should be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status, for each school, grade level, and type of service (e.g., school-based gifted services, center-based gifted services, pull-out programs, etc.).  Data collection requirements should provide uniform definitions of service type to facilitate comparison across divisions.  VDOE should be required to make such data publicly accessible through publication on its website, and ensure it is regularly updated and presented in a format that is easy to understand.

Recommendation 4:  In any school division where there is significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity in the identification or participation of students in gifted programs, the division must adopt an effective strategy for, and dedicate resources to, reducing the disproportionality. 

Neither the current regulations nor the proposed revisions require school divisions to develop strategies to address severe and long-standing disproportionality based on race and ethnicity in the identification and participation of students in gifted programs.  LDF therefore proposes that Virginia’s gifted regulations be further amended to require school divisions to take certain actions if there is a significant under-representation of students of a particular race or ethnicity in gifted programs in the division overall or in a particular school, grade level, or type of service.  First, the division should be required to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, and evidence-based strategy for a substantial reduction in the level of disproportionality.  Second, the division should be required to target an appropriate portion of its gifted education budget to implement this strategy.  Third, the school division should be required to publicly report on its progress in reducing the disproportionality. 

If the disproportionality persists, VDOE should review and require revisions, as appropriate, to the division’s gifted education policies and procedures.  For instance, if African-American and Latino students consistently and disproportionately perform poorly on a selected assessment instrument, VDOE should require rigorous scrutiny of the school division’s rationale for continued use of that instrument.  VDOE should also be required to report annually to the governor on its own efforts and those of school divisions to mitigate any identified disproportionality. 

This approach should not be difficult for either school divisions or VDOE to implement because it draws heavily upon existing federal requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  By statute, IDEA mandates that local educational agencies develop similar strategies, and reserve funding, to reduce the over-identification or disproportionate representation by race or ethnicity among students with disabilities.  VDOE could adapt its regulations implementing these IDEA disproportionality requirements as a model for revisions to its gifted regulations. 

Adopting comparable regulatory frameworks for reviewing and redressing disproportionality in both the gifted and special education contexts makes good sense.  Throughout the nation, the same school districts that disproportionately exclude African-American and Latino students from gifted programs for high achievers also typically inappropriately channel these students into special education. 

*          *          *

We strongly urge VDOE to adopt these further revisions to its regulations in order to address long-standing disparities in access to and participation in gifted education throughout the Commonwealth.  By taking these important steps, Virginia can begin to ensure that each of its classrooms reflects the diversity of its residents and help close the race-based achievement gaps that continue to plague our nation’s schools.

[A full copy of our letter to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Patricia I. Wright, including citations to the relevant research is available on our website, at http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1549]