vol. 37 ■ no. 3 GIFTED CHILD TODAY

169

Features

Abstract: This article proposes a strength-based response to intervention (RTI) model for developing and identifying gifted potential in English language learners (ELLs). In the recent years, much has been written about RTI; however, the potential of RTI for meeting the needs of gifted ELLs has not yet been explored. This article seeks to address this void by proposing a multi-tiered system of supports designed to meet the unique learning needs of gifted, Spanish-speaking ELLs.

Keywords: response to intervention, English language learners, gifted

Much has been written about response to intervention (RTI) before and since the

2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEA). RTI, a multi-tiered system of supports, is traditionally conceptualized in a three-tier pyramid representing increasing levels of supports. Tier 1 activities include all students, and most students will respond adequately to the core curricula provided at this level (about 85%-90% of students). However, some students will need more frequent assessment and more intense intervention that will occur at Tier 2 (about 5%-10% of students). Students who continue to struggle in Tier 2 will receive even more frequent assessment and intense intervention at Tier 3. All of these services take place within the general education setting, with an effort to prevent significant academic difficulties at the first indication of a potential issue (IDEA, 2013).

RTI has been studied and discussed among scholars in the field of special education (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) and researchers interested in exploring how a culturally responsive RTI model

might help decrease the over-representation of English language learners (ELLs) receiving special education (Klingner & Bianco, 2006). More recently, scholars in the field of gifted education have begun to explore RTI’s utility for gifted learners (see Coleman & Johnsen, 2013) including twice-exceptional students (Crepeau-Hobson & Bianco, 2013) and gifted learners from culturally different backgrounds (Ford & Trotman Scott, 2013). To date, however, the utility of this model has not been explored for gifted ELLs. This article seeks to address this void by proposing a strength-based RTI model designed to nurture gifted potential and meet the unique learning needs of ELLs.

Underrepresented gifted populations, including ELLs, must be considered as educators move toward implementing a strength-based RTI model for developing and identifying gifted potential. When educators have an intentional focus on students’ culture, linguistic abilities, interests, needs, and strengths, they have a significantly lower risk of perpetuating a flawed system in which disproportionate numbers of culturally different students remain unidentified and underserved in gifted programs.

We begin with a brief review of the literature that helps provide a context

for understanding why ELLs, or more specifically Latino/a ELLs, are underrepresented in gifted and AP programs. To better understand this context, we ask questions similar to those raised by Ford (2012). That is, how are ELLs not being served in our schools? And, to what extent are ELLs being miseducated and denied opportunities to have their gifts and strengths nurtured?

Underrepresentation of Gifted Latino/a Spanish-Speaking ELLs

Between 1980 and 2009, the number of school-age children in the United States (children ages 5-17) who spoke a language

530115GCTXXX10.1177/1076217514530115Gifted Child TodayGifted Child Todayresearch-article2014

Strength-Based RTIDeveloping Gifted Potential in Spanish-Speaking English Language LearnersMargarita Bianco, EdD1 and Bryn Harris, PhD1

DOI: 10.1177/1076217514530115. From 1University of Colorado Denver. Address correspondence to: Margarita Bianco, EdD, University of Colorado Denver, 1201 5th street, Campus Box 106, Denver, CO 80021, USA; email: Margarita.Bianco@ucdenver.edu.For reprints and permissions queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.Copyright © 2014 The Author(s)

“One does not

need to speak English in order to be

gifted or academically

talented.”

Bianco_Harris2 (article ID 530115)_canstockphoto2211735.

171

vol. 37 ■ no. 3 GIFTED CHILD TODAY

other than English at home rose from 4.7 (10%) to 11.2 (21%) million. Of these students, more than 85% identify as being of Latino origin (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Although it is understood that the ELL population is a very heterogeneous group, Spanish-speaking ELLs will be highlighted throughout this article due to the size of the population, growth projections within U.S. school systems, and their underrepresentation in gifted programs. Although the Latino student population in the United States comprises of various cultural groups from around the globe with differing values and customs, there are some factors that bind them: a common language, similar experiences with educational inequities, high-poverty rates (Aud et al., 2013), and their underrepresentation in Gifted and Talented (GT) and AP programs (Castellano, 2003, 2011; Ford, 2011, 2013;Torres & Fergus, 2012).

For decades, researchers have explored the dramatic educational inequities and underachievement experienced by Latinos (Burciaga, Pérez Huber, & Solorzano, 2010; Soza, 2007). Most of the inequity experienced by Latinos is also shared with other culturally different populations, especially in communities where poverty and diversity coexist. Although a socioeconomic variation exists among Latinos in the United States, the poverty rate is disproportionately high—hovering at about 30% (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2010). Latino students are the most likely ethnic population to attend high-poverty elementary and secondary schools in both urban and suburban communities (Aud et al., 2013). There is a failure across American public schools to effectively educate Latino students. According to Ginorio and Huston (2001), “roughly 70% of Latina/o high school students are enrolled in classes that will not prepare them for college” (p. 4).

In addition to the educational inequities experienced by many Latino ELLs, they must also combat deficit views that teachers and others have of them based on a lack of English language mastery. As Castellano (2002) clearly states, “One does not need to speak English in order to be gifted or academically talented” (p. 96). Despite the fact that being able to speak two (or more) languages requires keen cognitive ability, bilingualism is frequently treated as a handicap in need of remedial efforts rather than a strength that requires enrichment (Valdés, 2003). Clearly, many Latino ELLs are not well served in our schools and are systematically denied opportunities to have their gifts and strengths nurtured.

Culturally Responsive, Strength-Based RTIScholars in the field of gifted education have recently joined

the RTI conversation. Coleman and Hughes (2009) explored how gifted education and the needs of gifted learners may fit within the RTI educational reform. Bianco (2010) presented a strength-based model and case study where RTI was conceptualized as a multi-tiered system for developing gifted potential. This model encourages practitioners to capture the strengths and value cultural beliefs and practices within ELLs without the overreliance on traditional assessment practices. A

strength-based RTI model provides a culturally responsive curriculum and pedagogy with increasing levels of differentiation, enrichment, and acceleration and is discrepant from a traditional model that focuses on student deficits. Thus, this model provides opportunities for students to investigate, develop, and demonstrate their interests, strengths, and talents.

Similar to Bianco (2010), Ford and Trotman Scott (2013) explored an RTI model for culturally and linguistically different learners. A strength-based RTI model centers on teachers’ abilities to provide culturally responsive, a high-quality curriculum and instruction that nurture children’s capacities to learn and excel (Ford & Trotman Scott, 2013). Although RTI holds promise in developing and nurturing gifted potential among culturally and linguistically different learners, there are significant challenges that must be addressed in the coming years. The success of a strength-based RTI model for identifying and developing potential among gifted ELLs largely depends on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of classroom teachers (Bianco, 2010; Ford & Trotman Scott, 2013).

Above all, school practitioners need to make a radical shift away from deficit perspectives of ELLs. Even with a strength-based model of RTI for gifted learners, teachers must be willing to challenge their deficit-based assumptions about the culturally different students they serve. As Ford and Grantham (2003) note, “ . . . until deficit thinking becomes dynamic thinking, the unnecessary underrepresentation of diverse students in gifted education will continue” (p. 217). In this proposed model, we move away from deficit-based RTI and conceptualize a fluid and flexible tiered system of supports so that students can simultaneously access interventions that support their English language learning while also building on their gifted potential.

An RTI Model for Developing GT Potential for ELLsThe following conceptualization of an RTI model for

developing gifted/talented potential in ELLs is presented as an invitation for teachers and other school professionals to rethink RTI for ELLs from a deficit model to one that focuses on higher level thinking skills and students’ strengths, interests, culture, and native as well as English language development. The proposed model draws heavily from the work of Bianco (2010), Ford (2011), and Ford and Trotman Scott (2013). We expand upon and complement this work to include a specific focus on ELLs.

By now most school practitioners are familiar with the three-tiered pyramid model graphically depicting multiple levels of intervention. We have modified this pyramid to illustrate two important concepts: First, we added an outer layer encircling the pyramid that identifies essential components of a strength-based RTI model for ELLs, that is, attention to students’ interests, strengths, culture, and native and new language development. Second, informed by the Ford–Harris matrix (see Ford, 2011; Ford & Harris, 1999, for a detailed description), the interior portion of the triangle represents the tiered intervention of higher level thinking skills and increasingly sophisticated levels of multicultural

172

July 2014GIFTED CHILD TODAY

appreciation and social action (see Figure 1). The Ford–Harris matrix combines Bloom’s (1956) cognitive taxonomy (i.e., knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) with the four levels of Banks’ (1993) multicultural infusion model (i.e., contributions, additive, transformation, and social action). The intersection of these frameworks results in a curricular model that is both rigorous and culturally relevant (Ford, 2011). Each tier is explained below.

Tier 1. Tier 1, a school’s core curriculum, must provide a culturally and linguistically responsive, high-quality curriculum and instruction that allow ELLs’ gifted potential to emerge. The focus for ELLs is to provide varied opportunities for students to use both their native (L1) and new language (L2) to explore, develop, and demonstrate their interests, strengths, and talents. This includes finding ways to maximize students’ ability to demonstrate their knowledge or mastery of content while also minimizing their need to rely solely on English to express it. School professionals can foster emerging gifted potential by incorporating higher level thinking skills along with allowing for linguistic flexibility. For ELLs, it is very important to develop linguistic abilities in both L1 and L2.

Having a strong and intellectually challenging multicultural curriculum is a critical aspect of Tier 1. Here we suggest that teachers attend to a high-quality multicultural curriculum that promotes critical thinking skills by incorporating elements of the Ford–Harris matrix (Ford, 2011; Ford & Harris, 1999). For example, applying the highest level of Bloom’s taxonomy (e.g., evaluation) and Banks’ multicultural model (e.g., social action) could result in having students investigate and evaluate both sides of the recent ban of ethnic studies in Arizona. Following

their evaluation, students would advocate for one side or the other and write letters of support to elected officials or students affected by the ban.

Universal screening is an essential component of Tier 1 and can be used to identify those ELLs who are achieving at high levels within the general education classroom. Screening tools must show students’ strengths and advanced abilities across multiple domains (including all areas of giftedness), and they should be culturally and linguistically sensitive. Practitioners should consider using assessments in the native language, above grade-level screening, and nontraditional assessment methods (such as dynamic assessments), as well as utilizing existing data (such as work samples) and reducing language loading in the assessment process (Brown & Abernethy, 2009). Data from the universal screening will help school professionals determine whether providing strength-based interventions will be appropriate for certain students, which would occur at Tier 2.

In addition to monitoring students’ progress, we suggest that teachers monitor their own progress with their abilities to attend to the cultural, linguistic, cognitive, and affective needs of their students. Without such self-monitoring and reflection, teachers run the risk of making decisions based solely on students’ levels of responsiveness to the curriculum and instruction that might be incompatible with their cultural and linguistic needs. Posed another way, if the curriculum and mode of instruction are not culturally and linguistically responsive, perhaps teachers are really measuring students’ responsiveness to cultural and linguistic insensitivity.

We suggest that school professionals continuously ask themselves a series of questions and monitor their responses for measured growth. Using Figure 1 as a visual prompt, teachers and other school professionals should reflect on the following:

•• Do I attend to and include students’ various cultures in my curriculum, instruction, and assessment?

•• Do I challenge all my students by including higher level thinking skills and incorporate their interests, strengths, and learning styles as I plan instruction?

•• Do I find ways to maximize my students’ ability to demonstrate their knowledge while also minimizing their need to rely solely on (standard) English to express it?

Do I regularly reflect on my own biases, stereotypes, assumptions, and privileges, and examine how these may affect my instructional planning, delivery, assessment, and referral to gifted programs?

Teachers and other school professionals may need multicultural education resources to help with their understanding of cultural differences and/or to assist with instructional planning. Table 1 provides a brief list of print and Internet resources to support teachers so that they can meet their students’ needs.

Tier 2. Tier 2 interventions can exist within the general education classroom and are most effective when planned in

Figure 1. RTI model for developing gifted and talented potential for English language learners.Note. RTI = response to intervention.

173

vol. 37 ■ no. 3 GIFTED CHILD TODAY

Table 1. Diversity and Multicultural Education Resources for Educators.

Print resources Internet resources

EdChange book resources: http://www.edchange.org/publications.html

National Association for Multicultural Education teaching resources: http://nameorg.org/resources/teaching-resources/

Gorski, P. (2005). I don’t want to live without them: Twenty-five web sites for educational equity. Multiple Perspectives, 7(3), 24-27. http://www.edchange.org/handouts/25-web-sites.pdf

Teaching tolerance: http://zinnedproject.org/about/

Rethinking schools, book resources: http://www .rethinkingschools.org/publication/index.shtml

Zinn education projects: http://zinnedproject.org

Ford, D. Y. (2011). Multicultural gifted education: Rationale, models, strategies, and resources (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

EdChange, Critical Multicultural Pavilion Teachers Corner: http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/teachers.html

Ford, D. Y. (2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students: Theory, research

and practice (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rethinking schools: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/index.shtml

Ford, D. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

National Education Association (NEA), Resources for addressing multicultural and diversity in your classroom: http://www.nea.org/tools/resources-addressing-multicultural-diversity-issues-in-your-classroom.htm

Davis, J. L. (2010). Bright, talented, and black: A guide for families of African American gifted learners. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

NEA, Bilingual Booklist-Lectura Recomendada: http://www .nea.org/grants/29504.htm

Castellano, J., & Frazier, A. D. (2011). Special populations in gifted education: Understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

EdChange: http://www.edchange.org

Mathews, M. S., & Castellano, J. (2014). Talent development for English language learners: Identifying and developing potential. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Northern Arizona University, Teaching indigenous languages: English and language links: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/Links_ESL.html

Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum and teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Electronic magazine of multicultural education: http://jonah .eastern.edu/emme/current.html

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Integrating New Technologies Into the Methods of Education (INTIME), Multicultural Education Introduction: http://www .intime.uni.edu/multiculture/intro.htm

Wallace, B., & Eriksson, G. (2006). Diversity in gifted education: International perspectives on global issues. New York, NY: Routledge.

National Association for Gifted Education: http://www.nagc .org

Torrance, E. P., Goff, K., & Satterfield, N. B. (2005). Multicultural mentoring of the gifted and talented. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Colorín Colorado, Multicultural Education: http://www .colorincolorado.org/article/c43/

Ford, D. Y., & Milner, R. (2005). Teaching culturally diverse gifted students: Practical strategies series in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Diversity council: http://www.diversitycouncil.org/index.shtml

174

July 2014GIFTED CHILD TODAY

collaboration with various stakeholders including the general education teacher, the family, the school or district’s gifted education specialist, the ESL or bilingual education specialist, and the school psychologist. Tier 2 interventions allow students to explore the core curriculum (at or above grade level) in greater depth or at an accelerated pace by offering differentiated instruction and enrichment opportunities. In addition, Tier 2 interventions may include utilizing outside resources by involving community resources such as mentorship programs, internships, and apprenticeships.

Gifted ELLs require a dually differentiated curriculum—programming that considers the full range of students’ abilities. Within this model, Tier 2 interventions must also incorporate native language support as well as valuing the native language and cultural background. Interventions can be created with family and student input to determine what the student is passionate about. School professionals must remember that Tier 2 interventions, like all tiers, should be culturally and linguistically responsive. That is, practitioners need to evaluate materials for their commitment to multicultural education, align tasks with language abilities, and create a climate of inclusion and community among all students. As Tier 2 interventions are a supplement to the core curriculum, the family should receive substantial information regarding these services (Davis, 2013).

Interestingly, students may receive more than one set of targeted, Tier 2 interventions, one for helping them meet their need for accelerated learning (strength-based RTI model) and the other for supplemental instruction because adequate progress was not achieved at Tier 1. For example, a gifted ELL who excels in mathematics, yet is not making adequate progress in literacy, may receive strength-based Tier 2 interventions consisting of a curriculum compacting in mathematics, while also receiving targeted Tier 2 interventions in vocabulary development. In a strength-based RTI model, the goal is to increase expectations and challenge the student by providing Tier 2 or 3 interventions for an indefinite period of time. Conversely, the primary goal of Tier 2 in the traditional RTI model is to provide short-term remedial interventions so that students who respond to intervention can be reintegrated into the traditional curriculum.

Tier 3. Tier 3 interventions in a strength-based RTI model are warranted when high-achieving students’ needs are unfulfilled within Tier 2 interventions. Coleman and Hughes (2009) recommend that, with parent involvement, gifted programming identification should be considered at this level. Although gifted identification practices should be based on established protocols, greater flexibility is warranted for ELLs especially since additional data collection may be necessary. Hughes and Rollins (2009) provide three examples of Tier 3 interventions: (a) intensive acceleration such as grade skipping, (b) early AP classes, or (c) early college entrance. The following example illustrates the potential RTI holds for nurturing ELLs’ GT potential.

Tier 1: Developing GT potential in the general education classroom. Example of Tier 1, Balam is one of several Spanish-speaking

ELLs in Ms. Grove’s fourth-grade class. Ms. Groves has noticed that despite Balam’s emerging proficiency with the English language, his work is consistently creative and imaginative. Balam has an intense interest in his Mexican heritage—more specifically about his Mayan ancestry. In fact, it is because of this interest, knowledge, and desire to be connected to his Mayan roots that he recently asked his parents to stop calling him by his birth name, Javier. He is now called Balam, the Mayan language name for jaguar.

Balam is extremely knowledgeable about the Mexican history including the history of indigenous civilizations. According to Balam’s parents, before immigrating to the United States and leaving their extended family behind, Balam’s favorite pastime was sitting with his abuelo (Spanish for grandfather) and listening as abuelo would tell stories about the history of Mexico and its indigenous ancient cultures. Balam loves to read the history of his ancestors and can spend many hours creating detailed drawings of various Mayan gods and creation stories. Balam prefers the company of adults and is easily frustrated when his peers do not share his interests. Balam’s parents report that he spends most evenings doing homework and writing or illustrating short stories (in Spanish and English) about Mayan culture.

The Classroom ContextMs. Groves is a third-year general education teacher who is

enthusiastic about teaching, loves her students, and is creative in her approach to meeting students’ needs. Because of her limited knowledge and experience of teaching ELLs, she has worked closely with the school’s English language arts (ELA) specialist to better understand the developmental stages of second language acquisition and effective strategies to meet her students’ needs. Although Ms. Groves plans her interdisciplinary history unit built around the fourth-grade content standards (e.g., identify different ways of dating historical sources to understand historical context), she consults with the ELA teacher to make sure that she is providing the kinds of language support her students need. Ms. Groves also meets with small groups of students to explore their assignment interests and available options for their final products.

Balam chooses to work independently and wants to focus his project on the Mayan history and artifacts. Building on specified learning objectives, Balam will use books (in English and Spanish), the Internet, and videos to research his project. Balam will also call and interview his abuelo as a resource for his unit. His final product will be a visual display illustrating and explaining the ancient Mayan artifacts that have been discovered and why this history is important for all students to know. Ms. Groves is constantly considering Balam’s ever-changing English acquisition and provides him many ways to express his abilities, especially in visual and nonverbal manners.

In this brief example, Ms. Groves has incorporated many aspects of the culturally and linguistically responsive, high-quality curriculum. She differentiated instruction in ways that provide multiple opportunities for students to explore, develop,

175

vol. 37 ■ no. 3 GIFTED CHILD TODAY

and demonstrate their interests, strengths, and talents while honoring Balam’s cultural history. Furthermore, by encouraging Balam to communicate with his abuelo as a resource, Ms. Groves demonstrated her attention to his affective needs—something critically important for students who have recently arrived in the United States and may feel the loneliness and frustration of leaving all they knew behind them (Rance-Rooney, 2004). By incorporating aspects of students’ languages and cultures into educational planning, teachers will be strengthening their students’ ethnic identities and also meet the affective needs of students by valuing their heritage, experiences, and memories (Rance-Rooney, 2004).

What might Tier 2 look like for Balam?. Ms. Groves recognizes that Balam’s sophisticated interest and performance is above grade level in history. Ms. Groves compares Balam’s performance with his ELL grade-level peers and discusses these comparisons with veteran teachers as well as the GT teacher and ELA specialist. Along with Balam’s parents, the school professionals meet to discuss and plan what Tier 2 interventions can keep Balam challenged and engaged. Balam’s parents agree to plan frequent trips to the library and local history museums. The gifted education teacher suggested that they incorporate real world problems and authentic assessment into Balam’s plan, as well as explore the possibility of finding an expert professional (e.g., university professor or museum curator) to act as his mentor. Because the school has an English-only curriculum, Balam’s parents are encouraged to maintain his native language development, including reading and writing, in Spanish.

Balam is aware that many young children, including those with Mexican heritage, have little knowledge of Mexico’s rich history. With the help of his teachers, Balam will create a survey to learn what his peers know, do not know, and what they would like to learn about Mexico. Balam will use his survey data to research and develop a multimedia presentation to share with his peers. Furthermore, this encourages Balam to address a social problem he has identified—that is, what he perceives as a lack of interest and knowledge of Mexican history among his peers.

Investigating real world problems and using authentic assessment can evaluate students’ abilities in “authentic,” real world contexts. Students use analytical skills and demonstrate concepts they have learned by engaging in a variety of activities. As a result, the assessment method lends itself well to using students’ strengths, an ideal alternative to traditional assessment for ELLs. Also, by incorporating the investigation of a social problem, this Tier 2 intervention includes key multicultural aspects of the Ford–Harris matrix (Ford, 2011; Ford & Harris, 1999).

What might Tier 3 look like for Balam?. Based on continued progress monitoring of Tier 2 interventions, Balam may require more intense and individualized services (in his area of strength) beyond what can be provided in the general

education setting. Tier 3 for Balam may be formal nomination for gifted/talented identification and services.

Potential Challenges With a Strength-Based RTI Model

A strength-based RTI model holds promise for developing and nurturing gifted potential among ELLs; however, there are many challenges that must be addressed. First, as a foundation to the general curriculum, teachers must provide a culturally and linguistically responsive, high-quality curriculum and instruction that attend to students’ strengths and interests, their linguistic abilities in L1 and L2, and allow gifted potential to emerge. This requires knowledge of relevant pedagogical models and sophisticated skills in differentiating instruction and curriculum. Regrettably, researchers have acknowledged that classroom teachers lack the knowledge and skills to effectively differentiate the curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of gifted learners (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). Furthermore, teachers must move away from deficit views of ELLs and embrace, celebrate, and nurture their students’ multilingual status. Because of their training and expertise in looking for students’ strengths, gifted education specialists are well positioned to help school and district personnel in shifting their perceptions away from perceived limitations. Last, for RTI to be an effective model for developing gifted potential among ELLs, gifted education specialists must collaborate with general education teachers and the ESL/bilingual education specialist. Without such a collaborative approach to meeting students’ needs, professionals will remain in their silos and students’ gifted potential will remain hidden.

Despite decades of calls for change, programs serving gifted learners remain racially, culturally, and linguistically segregated (Ford, 2013). A culturally and linguistically responsive, strength-based RTI model holds promise for responding to the needs of all learners—including gifted ELLs. As RTI evolves, gifted education researchers and advocates need to be part of the dialogue and explore the possibilities of developing a tiered system of supports that is culturally and linguistically responsive and incorporates students’ strengths and interests while including higher level thinking skills.

Conflict of InterestThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ReferencesAud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X.,

& Zhang, J. (2013). The condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

176

July 2014GIFTED CHILD TODAY

Banks, J. A. (1993). Approaches to multicultural curricular reform. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bianco, M. (2010). Strength-based RTI: Conceptualizing a multi-tiered system for developing gifted potential. Theory Into Practice, 49, 323-330. doi:10.1080/00405841.2010.510763

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I. Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Wiley.

Brown, E. F., & Abernethy, S. H. (2009). Policy implication at the state and district level with RTI for gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 52-57.

Burciaga, R., Pérez Huber, L., & Solorzano, D. (2010). Going back to the headwaters: Examining Latina/o educational attainment and achievement through a framework of hope. In E. Murillo, S. Villenas, R. Galván, J. Muñoz, C. Martínez, & M. Machado-Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 422-437). New York, NY: Routledge.

Castellano, J. A. (2002). Renavigating the waters: The identification and assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students for gifted and talented education. In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Diaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons (pp. 94-116). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Castellano, J. A. (2003). The browning of American schools: Identifying and educating gifted Hispanic students. In J. A. Castellano (Ed.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 29-44). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Castellano, J. A. (2011). Hispanic students and gifted education: New outlooks, perspectives and paradigms. In J. A. Castellano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 249-272). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Coleman, M. R., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted students within an RTI framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 14-17.

Coleman M. R., & Johnsen S. K. (Eds.). (2013). Implementing RTI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and issues. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Crepeau-Hobson, F., & Bianco, M. (2013). Response to intervention: Promises and pitfalls for gifted students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 142-151. doi:10.1177/1053451212454005

Davis, J. (2013). The importance of family engagement. In M. R. Coleman & S. K. Johnsen (Eds.), Implementing RTI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and issues (pp. 47-66). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2010). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population reports, pp. 60-239). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Ford, D. Y. (2011). Multicultural gifted education (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Ford, D. Y. (2012). Ensuring equity in gifted education: Suggestions for change (again). Gifted Child Today, 35, 74-75. doi:10.1177/1076217511429672

Ford, D. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42, 217-225.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J., III. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D. Y., & Trotman Scott, M. (2013). Culturally responsive response to intervention: Meeting the needs of students who are gifted and culturally different. In M. R. Coleman & S. K. Johnsen (Eds.), Implementing RTI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and issues (pp. 209-228). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 95-99.

Ginorio, A., & Huston, M. (2001). ¡Sí, Se Puede! Yes, We Can: Latinas in school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Hughes, C. E., & Rollins, K. (2009). RTI for nurturing giftedness: Implications for the RTI school-based team. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 31-39.

IDEA. (2013). Q and A: Questions and answers on response to intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C

Klingner, J. K., & Bianco, M. (2006). What is special about special education for culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities? In B. Cook & B. Schirmer (Eds.), What is special about special education? (pp. 37-53). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). English language learners. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96

Rance-Rooney, J. A. (2004). The affective dimension of second culture/second language acquisition in gifted adolescents. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 73-86). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Soza, R. A. (2007). Pathways to prevention: The Latino male dropout crisis. Phoenix: Arizona State University Center for Community Development and Civil Rights.

Torres, M., & Fergus, E. (2012). Social mobility and the complex status of Latino males. In P. Noguera, A. Hurtado, & E. Fergus (Eds.), Invisible no more: Understanding the disenfranchisement of Latino men and boys (pp. 19-40). New York, NY: Routledge.

Valdés, G. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 211-217.

BiosMargarita Bianco, EdD, is an associate professor in the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Colorado Denver.

Bryn Harris, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Colorado Denver.