Understanding the Experiences of Bilingual, Latino/a Adolescents: Voices From Gifted and General Education

By Shaunessy, Elizabeth; McHatton, Patricia Alvarez; Hughes, Claire; Brice, Alejandro; Ratliff, Mary Ann

Eight gifted and eight general-education students engaged in discussions regarding their observations of, experiences in, and recommendations for education. Six categories emerged through qualitative analysis of their conversations. These categories include: problem solving, task commitment, self-perceptions, education, communication, and discrimination. Content within each category provides a glimpse into the students’ perceptions of their schooling experiences. The roles of ethnic identity development, identification with majority culture, adolescence, and giftedness are examined and recommendations for future research are provided.

Adolescence is a critical developmental period. The relationship middle-school students’ feel toward their school communities, including those with peers and teachers, can greatly affect their sense of belonging, which can, in turn, affect their academic performance (Eccles, Early, Frasier, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997; National Research Council, 2003). When adolescents are children of immigrants, speak two languages, and have educational needs and talents that are unrecognized or devalued, the challenges of adolescence may be increased.

Role Identity Theory

While autonomy and individualism are important components of identity development during adolescence (Bonfenbrenner, 1989; Erickson, 1968; Marcia, 1980), the needs for connection and belonging are central considerations (B. M. Newman & P. R. Newman, 2001). Identification with an ethnic group provides individuals with group norms and mores that help define the individual as a group member. Multiple variables affect ethnic group membership, including beliefs, values, race, and norms (B. M. Newman & P. R. Newman). Both intrinsic and extrinsic experiences of ethnicity affect an individual as she/he strives to make meaning of his/her internal feelings and external interactions with society. The formation of a group identity is not based upon specific rules, nor is an individual limited to affiliation or identification with one group, as individuals may identify with multiple groups, informed by their social, familial, political, economic, and educational interactions. Thus, multiple dimensions of identity may be formed as an individual recognizes himself/herself connected with various groups (Sheets, 1999).

Extending Erickson’s work, others have explored the development of identity roles; Hogg, Terry, and White (1995) define this construct as the way individuals see themselves in particular roles or social groups. Such roles are prioritized by the individual based on the value attributed to each, with more highly regarded roles occupying the uppermost positions in this hierarchy, and those least valued occupying lower hierarchical positions (Callero, 1985). These role-identity values are dynamic and may be elevated or lowered as situations warrant (Florez-Gonzales, 2002). Changes in role- identity values stem from political or social forces, including recognition, awareness, positive or negative reinforcement, and support (FlorezGonzales; Marcus & Nirius, 1987; McCaIl & Simmons, 1978; Thoits, 1991).

Latino ethnicity, or Latinismo (Padilla, 1984), has been defined as “an intergroup identity reflecting consciousness of a collective uniqueness derived from shared cultural characteristics such as language and awareness of being different from other social groups in the United States” (p. 653). The adoption of this identity is a conscious choice based on social or political circumstances. Donning ethnic identity is situational and connected to the attainment of power and privilege (Bell, 1975; Padilla).

Academic and social connections to the school climate are of great importance for the success of all students, but especially learners from Latino/a1 backgrounds who may feel culturally alienated due to their status as minority students in predominantly White schools (Martin & Chiodo, 2004). This alienation may result in negative academic outcomes. Recent statistics suggest that further consideration of the educational needs of these learners is warranted. Latino/as are retained at a much greater rate than their White peers (13% versus 9%; National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2003a). Their dropout rate is much higher than that of White or African American students (NCES, 2003b); thus, their highschool completion rate (64%) is much lower than that of African Americans (84%) and Whites (92%) (NCES, 2003c). These statistics indicate that the educational experiences and outcomes of many of our nation’s Latino/a learners are markedly different from the experiences of the majority culture.

The underrepresentation of Latino/a students in gifted programs also remains an issue for educators. Although the rates of identification for gifted programming among all ethnic groups has increased over the last three decades, the overall placement of students in these programs “is still heavily weighted toward Asians and Whites” (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 52). The most recent data on ethnic representation in programs for the gifted show Latino/a students represented a very small portion of the overall gifted population at 8.64% (Donovan & Cross), even though they accounted for 15% of the overall public-school enrollment for the same year (U.S. Department of Education [U.S. DOE], 2001). Nearly equal to these figures was the representation of African American students who made up 17.1% of the overall population but only 8.4% of programs for gifted students. As the data indicate, both groups were greatly underrepresented in programs for the gifted when contrasted with the percentage of White students, who accounted for 75.53% of the gifted program and 69% of the total school population.

The identification of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in programs for gifted learners has garnered attention recently, as support for innovative programs for these and other underrepresented students in gifted programs has been provided at the federal level through the Jacob K. Javits Grant (U.S. DOE, 2005). The importance of identifying LEP students for gifted programs for the gifted has also received special attention at the national level, as documented in a U.S. DOE report about LEP students in gifted education (1998).

Research about the identification of children and youth for gifted programming has addressed the inherent biases of educators in the screening and identification of Latino/a students (Fernandez, Gay, Lucky, & Gavilan, 1998; Masten, Plata, Wenglar, & Thuedford, 1999; Peterson & Margolin, 1997). General education teachers’ conceptions of giftedness have been found to reflect the ideals and beliefs of the dominant culture. In a study by Peterson and Margolin, teachers placed great value on verbal skills and fluency as indicators of giftedness. This is shown by the fact that none of the few Latino/a students recommended for gifted program services were served in programs for English-Language Learners (ELL). Further, no evidence of giftedness as a culturally determined construct was indicated by the participants.

Language has also been identified as a characteristic that may manifest itself differently among various populations of gifted learners; gifted bilingual learners may have a language skill set that allows them to process and express ideas in multiple languages for many audiences (Fernandez et al., 1998). Despite this rich repertoire of abilities, bilingual learners may not be recognized for their complex skill set because their teachers are monolinguals and may not recognize the potential or advanced abilities of these students, some of whom may be more skilled in their native language than English. Additionally, teachers’ perceptions of learners may be complicated by the teachers’ biases about language.

Pressures from teachers and administrators to assimilate into mainstream culture can lead culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students to feel a disconnect between home life and life outside the home, including school. These feelings may be exacerbated for students who are LEP, and can have a profound impact on their educational success (U.S. DOE, 1998). These CLD students, many of whom may be gifted, feel no connection to the school or curriculum, and may lose interest in completing their education, often leading them to fail or drop out of school entirely. Students who are CLD or LEP and are academically engaged may not be afforded opportunities to participate in advanced course work. The educational system rarely provides opportunities for the development of higher-level thinking skills for students who lack English proficiency; such students are more often relegated to lowlevel classes (U.S. DOE).

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of bilingual, Latino/a adolescents in gifted and general education settings. This investigation was a secondary analysis of data collected for a project about language use among bilingual Latino/a learners in gifted and general education. Whereas the previous study considered linguistic nuances, the current stu\dy centers on the content of the conversations – what students said -not how they said it.

Method

Participants

Participants were 16 middle-school students from Donald Middle School, a public urban school in the southeastern United States, serving students in grades 6 through 8. The school is located in one of the 10 largest districts in the nation. Nearly half (47%) of the students in the district, and 37% of the students in this middle school, were eligible for free or reduced-price meals (Florida Department of Education, 2002). The school employed 82 teachers: 61 females and 21 males. Sixty-eight of the teachers are White (83%), 11 are African American (13%), and 3 are Hispanic (4%). Latino/as comprised approximately 22% of the state’s population, approximately 25% of the K-12 student population in this district, and nearly 36% of the school population (see Table 1). As in most districts in the nation, culturally and linguistically diverse students represent a small portion of the total population of gifted students.

Students in gifted and general education who were Latino/a, bilingual, and had taken part in a program for English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), were eligible to participate in the study. State identification requirements for the program for intellectually gifted students included three criteria: (a) referral by parent, teacher, peer, or self; (b) a minimum score on a teacher-checklist of characteristics of gifted children; and (c) an intelligence quotient of 130 or higher on an individually administered intelligence test. The district also offers a statedepartment- approved alternative identification plan for students with limited English proficiency or low socioeconomic status. The gifted students who participated in the study met the state wide, standard gifted identification criteria rather than the alternative identification requirement. All gifted learners who had been served in ESOL at one time were solicited for participation; ultimately, 8 parents from this group gave consent for their children to participate. Participation was then solicited from a sample of general education learners who were previously part of the ESOL program (see Table 2). An effort was made to balance the grade distribution in both groups to allow for representation of different developmental levels. By the end of the selection process, consent was obtained from a total of 16 students from gifted (n = 8) and general education (n = 8). While not a criterion for participation, all 16 students were first- generation Americans.

Initial Investigation

For data collection purposes in the initial pragmatics investigation, students were placed into two groups according to the school services that they had received-gifted education (GT) or general education (GE). The data collection began with a social- interaction activity to allow students to interact with each other. During the remainder of the data collection period, students convened with the facilitator for group discussions. The groups met separately over 5 consecutive days for 1 -hour conversations in the school media center; the sessions were videotaped for later transcription and analysis. One of the researchers served as facilitator for the discussions, while the other functioned as a participant observer. To encourage students to speak both languages in this setting, the facilitator (i.e., a fluent Spanish and English speaker) conversed with students in Spanish and English. Despite this modeling, several students sought permission to speak Spanish. After receiving repeated encouragement from the bilingual facilitator, most students spoke both languages during the discussions. Student-initiated conversations were also encouraged.

Findings from the initial investigation indicated that GE students spoke Spanish more frequently during the discussions than their GT counterparts (27% of conversation vs. 10%), but the GT learners employed code switching (language alternation across sentence boundaries) and code mixing (language alternation within a sentence) more frequently than the GE students (15% vs. 9% of conversation).

Secondary Analysis

Following the initial study, a new investigation was launched to more closely examine the discourse beyond language construction (pragmatics). Analysis involved the use of grounded-theory methodology (Charmaz, 2000; Strauss & Corbin, 1998)-an exploratory, open-ended, emergent process to understand a situation. This type of analysis involves multiple iterations during which meaning is attributed and codes are assigned. Coding is ongoing and continues until satiation is achieved. Trustworthiness or interrater reliability is obtained through comparison of coded results and discussion by the researchers.

Through a sampling process, a total of 6 hours of video was viewed in its entirety and independently coded. Researchers then exchanged codes and interpretations, and compared relationships until it was determined that further coding would not enhance the analysis, or data saturation was achieved. Codes were collated based on shared meanings, and then categorized into core groups (see Table 3). One hundred percent interrater agreement was achieved when the researchers concurred upon the nature of the codes.

Findings

Self-perceptions

The GT students (a) enjoyed being grouped in classes with others who had similar academic abilities, and (b) viewed themselves as intellectually gifted. Lizette, an eighth-grade student, shared her preference for being grouped with other gifted learners: “I liked sixth grade because we were surrounded by others like us -all gifted together.” Additional comments about abilities and experiences in gifted classes emerged in subsequent conversations. Students were cognizant of their giftedness, especially their ability to acquire knowledge rapidly and work above grade level on most tasks. Malena, a gifted girl, shared her experience: “We are learning at the ninth- grade level [though we are in eighth grade]; our lessons are ahead of other, regular classes.”

They recognized that their teachers had confidence in them and in their ability to learn, and felt that their teachers held high expectations of them, which was evident to them in the challenging tasks assigned in class. They also believed that as Latino/as they were even more distinct as gifted learners. Malena also emphasized her gifts and her language abilities: “When you are gifted and bilingual, you know more than others [who are monolingual].” Eduardo shared his views of being gifted and Latino/a:

You’re already special enough [because you are bilingual], but you are extra special because you are also gifted. You’re better [than the natives]; well, not better, but you are excelling higher than [the Whites in general education]. Latino/as are not supposed to do well in school, and that’s the expectation. So if you are gifted and Latino/a, then you’ve exceeded expectations. You feel a sense of pride, because you are doing better than even the Americans are doing and you aren’t even from here.

Although a lengthy discussion about school achievement of Latino/ as was initiated by the students in GT programs, the only comment about achievement by the students in GE surrounded one student’s feelings of inadequacy for her label as a “slow learner.”

Education

The category of education contained two subcodes: academic success and educational environment. Academic success deals with current school experiences, and educational environment addresses beliefs about ideal settings for learning. Discussions between the two groups varied greatly. The GE learners spent much less time addressing this topic compared to the GT learners. Additionally, a portion of the dialogue among the GT students involved the issue of identification of bilingual students for gifted education.

Academic Success. GE and GT students discussed different concerns about their academic success. GE students worried about not being promoted to the next grade level because some had been held back in previous years. They attributed this failure to their lack of English-language proficiency and their cultural background. Giselle believed she was not promoted “because [she is] Cuban.” While the GT students also indicated concern about academic success, they were more focused on their performance in a particular course than on retention. All GT students participated in an accelerated mathematics course; some were experiencing academic challenges and had lower grades than they had previously earned in other courses, which was a source of anxiety for them. They also indicated that their parents held high academic expectations, and feared these low grades in math would disappoint them.

School environment. When asked about the ideal school environment for optimal learning, both GE and GT students said they would prefer to be educated in a school with a diverse population. While they appreciated the multiethnic student population in their current school setting, both groups indicated that they would prefer a more ethnically diverse school staff. As the discussion of the ideal school continued, GE and GT students shared insights about teachers in their school. One student in GE felt, “some teachers need more training [in how to teach effectively]; some treat [ethnic groups] differently.” A discussion of educational climate ensued, wherein students discussed the role of classroom management. In this discussion several GE students indicated that they performed better in classes with “tough, strict teachers.” However, these students didn’t feel like they were supported or nurtured as learners. Another GE student shared his frustration with a less-than-ideal learning situation in which a long-term substitute wrote daily assignments on the board and instructed students to copy them without any additional instruction or activities to supplement the learning. One student als\o recalled that “[teachers] yell at us if we ask too many questions.”

GT students did not provide critiques of their teachers’ instructional management strategies, but they did discuss the teaching methods with which they were most familiar. Juan, a sixth- grade, gifted student said, “Our math teacher tries to do fun activities with us since we’re gifted.” Andrew stated that his math teacher usually provided one or two mathematics problems to demonstrate a concept, and then allowed students to work independently to complete assignments: “Our math teacher gives us some examples on the board to teach us, and then we work independently.” Occasional individual support from the teacher was provided, but for the most part he and other students said the teachers left them to “teach themselves from the book.” Several GT students expressed pride in being allowed to work independently on class work and not needing the teacher’s instruction to learn the content.

In the conversation among GT learners, the discussion about the school environment focused more on the role of the student than that of the teacher. Although Lizette and Eduardo differed in their views of learning, they both saw the successful student as an active participant in the learning process. Lizette stated, “It is the student’s responsibility to behave and learn. School is a right, not a privilege.” For Eduardo, however, “Learning is a privilege.” He further explained that students who want to socialize and not learn should be warned that they will lose this privilege if they don’t shape up. This group of students also felt that only motivated students should be allowed to remain in school, and “slackers should not [be allowed to stay in school].” Additionally, Eduardo stated, “Students who slack off should not receive passing grades when other students work hard to get [good] grades.”

The GT learners also engaged in a discussion about the identification of Latino/a students for gifted education programs. Gabriel asserted that he was identified for the program because of his strengths in English (though he, nevertheless, was placed in ESOL for 6 years): “I spoke English first; Spanish is my second language. I know [Spanishonly speakers] who would be in gifted if they spoke English; they could be if we had a Spanish gifted class.” A GT student also offered his perspective about identification: “A lot of people are really smart that I know, and I know [italics added] they would be in gifted if they spoke English.” The discussion of the importance of speaking English well was further underscored when a student stated, “It would be difficult to be identified as gifted if you didn’t speak English; I am in gifted because I speak English well.” It was then suggested by the students that schools test Latino/a students for giftedness in Spanish, “then, [Latino/as] could be in gifted.”

Communication

Communication included two categories: language style and use of Spanish. Both subcodes yielded descriptive information about each student group.

Language style. The GT students demonstrated a more adult tenor and style in their conversations. Learners were patient, took turns, responded to ideas of others, provided in-depth responses, and explored topics at length throughout the discussion. There was also more discussion building by the participants; students initiated new tangents, but demonstrated active listening by situating their responses in the assertions of their peers. Students in GT programs spoke with less emphasis on words and with a more monotone vocal intonation pattern. GE students’ communication style was more representative of Latino/a exchanges (Brice, 2002); there were often multiple speakers, and discussions were punctuated with boisterous giggles, exaggerations, enthusiastic challenges, humorous exchanges, and a style that communicated verve and vitality.

Use of Spanish. Similarities and differences in the use of Spanish, the native language for all but one learner, were apparent between both groups. Both GE and GT students shared that they spoke Spanish at home and in the community. Carlos indicated that he spoke English at home but spoke Spanish with his grandparents. One young, gifted student mentioned her acquisition of both languages: “I knew Spanish from speaking it at home first, then I learned English and forgot Spanish, but then I learned it again.” This same girl mentioned her pride in being bilingual, and her ability to assist customers who didn’t know English and needed help from the English- speaking sales people in stores. Despite this understanding and use of Spanish, these learners acknowledged that they felt less competent with their mother tongue than with English. One girl’s parents had purchased Spanish workbooks to help her relearn the language and acquire knowledge beyond a conversational understanding.

Students in both groups were interested in increasing their fluency in Spanish. The GE students pursued Latino/a peers who were fluent in Spanish as mentors to help them reacquire their native language proficiency. However, while GE students sought Spanishspeaking school peers, GT students indicated that the majority of their school mates were not Spanish speakers, and they did not actively seek Latino/a peers for support in Spanish language development or for other social interactions. One GT girl mentioned that she “loves to speak Spanish,” but only gets to do so at home because she doesn’t have any bilingual peers at school.

While both groups acknowledged their interest in staying connected to Spanish, both GE and GT students were aware of the social repercussions of speaking Spanish in school and the community. One GT learner stated “You don’t dare use Spanish at school after [you've been] disciplined,” because a teacher may think that the student was talking about him/her, leading to additional negative consequences. Other GT students recounted a recent student assembly in which the Principal announced to the student body that she was pleased to hear all students “speaking the ‘right’ language” (Alvarez McHatton, Shaunessy, Brice, Hughes, & Rail iff, in press). The GT students explored multiple interpretations of this statement, including the idea that the principal might have meant “standard” or “proper” English; however, they eventually concluded that the principal had made a racist comment by suggesting that Spanish was not the right language.

The two groups communicated very different feelings about using Spanish in school. For example, John, a sixth-grade GE student said, “I only speak Spanish in my Spanish class; I speak English to my friends because when I speak Spanish, they don’t understand, and it feels like I am saying nothing [italics added]” (Alvarez McHatton et al., in press). Conversely, Edward, a GT student, professed to never feeling “left out” in the community or in school since he “can speak both languages.” A GE student explained her choice not to speak Spanish, “In school, I mostly talk in English unless I’m talking to my friends.” Another GE student continued this thought, “[I] speak Spanish with Spanish friends. With Whites [I] talk White, and with my teachers I’m straight [speak Standard American English]” (Alvarez McHatton et al.).

Additional probing revealed that both groups claimed to enjoy interacting in Spanish. The GE students used Spanish as a means to connect with their Latino/a peers or to establish relationships that were not available with majority students. Students in GT programs expressed a greater sense of connectedness to their classmates in this discussion group and toward their school; however, they were less likely than GE students to use Spanish to connect with Latino/ a school peers.

Use of Spanish for translation purposes was cited by both groups, but more frequently mentioned among the GE students, particularly as a service to the community. One GE student shared her positive feelings about this skill:

You are proud of yourself [because] you know two languages and you can help people who don’t know Spanish. In my first grade and third grade classes, I always had to help [with translating]. Like when I was coming down to the office, this lady didn’t know how to speak English, and they were like, “Does anybody speak Spanish?” And I was like, “I do.” I always help people. (Alvarez McHatton et al., in press)

Discrimination

Discrimination, an “umbrella term referring to beliefs, attitudes, and practices that denigrate individuals or groups because of phenotypic characteristics or ethnic group affiliation” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001, p. 38), also emerged as a central theme in the discussions. Each group recalled varying levels of discrimination,

Discrimination – which students “attributed to academic ability, ethnicity, English-language proficiency, academic ability, or a combination of these characteristics-had been experienced by all of the GE students. One learner from GE recalled an experience with a majority-culture bus driver who expressed her contempt for a Latino/ a student who had not been promoted, suggesting that she did not support that student’s education and wished other non-English- speaking students were not afforded opportunities to achieve in school. Students also recalled how their parents are viewed by society as “stupid” because of their lack of English-language proficiency. John, a GE learner whose first language is English (but who was nevertheless placed in ESOL), described his experience as a Spanish speaker:

My mom, she had to learn English in a special class, through ESOL…she wanted me to be normal [italics added], so that’s why she didn’t talk to me in Spanish. She talked to me in English to make me learn English. And then when I learned English, she talked to me in Spanish.” (Alvarez McHatton et al., in press)

Likewise, GE students did not feel accepted by White teachers or White students, \both of whom made disparaging comments to them about their ethnicity.

These students also interpreted school policies to be culturally restrictive, since their gregarious, enthusiastic communication style had been misconstrued as an indicator of escalating behavior for which they had been reprimanded. Among the GE students, only Maria, Lizette, and Gabrielle described discriminatory experiences they attributed to both their ethnicity and English-language proficiency. Maria’s experience of being threatened for speaking Spanish in class was documented earlier in this paper. Lizette, who consistently defended White authority figures-even those who denigrated Latino/a students-mentioned that teachers treat her differently if she is grouped with Latino/as rather than gifted peers, particularly when changing between classes. “If I am in a group with other Latino/as, teachers yell all the time. If I am with a group of gifted kids [most of whom are White], they don’t yell at me.” Gabriel, the only GT student who took pride in expressing his Latino/a heritage publicly-more so than his peers in this GT group- and who seemed to have an “in-your-face” approach to displaying his ethnicity, was also the only student who recalled multiple experiences of discrimination. He felt that authority figures in both school and the community perceived him as a troublemaker. Hence, he is cautious in his use of Spanish due to fears that authority figures will erroneously conclude he is “plotting some delinquent activity.”

Summary of Findings

Although there were many similarities between the two groups, there were distinct differences in several of the categories. Students in GT programs were cognizant of their academic abilities and characteristics as gifted learners, and could elaborate on the issues that emerged during the discussions. They were clinical in their descriptions of their educational environments, and did not provide many examples of discrimination. The GE students, in contrast, had less confidence in their academic abilities and did not elaborate to a great degree on issues in the discussions; however, these students were more vocal about their educational experience, and they targeted their comments to specific teacher behaviors and experiences of discrimination.

Discussion

A limitation of this study is the small sample size; however, the selected school was the only one in the district with a concentrated group of gifted, Latino/a, bilingual learners. Other schools served gifted students who are Latino/a and bilingual, but none had a sufficient number of students for the purposes of this study. Another limitation is the amount of data collected (a few hours) and the technical challenges that were presented through videotaping, such as noise, sound quality, and disruptions (e.g., school bells and announcements).

Differences in student-initiated dialogue were evident. The GE students were passive in their approach to the discussions, appearing to wait for prompting from the facilitator. But the GT learners were more actively involved in moving the discussions forward, often generating discussions about related issues and furthering conversations without the same level of prompting by the facilitator. Differences between the two groups were also evident in the depth and complexity of discussions.

Distinctions about learning were “evident between the GT and GE learners. GT students felt that the student should be an active seeker of knowledge who honors education with hard work, dedication, and considerable effort. These beliefs seem contrary to those of typical 21st century adolescents, but may be representative of first- generation immigrants who highly value education (Stein, 1981). While limited positive comments were made about the teachers by both GE and GT learners, the GT students made positive statements about one majority-culture teacher who responded in a nonpunitive manner when students spoke Spanish in class. It is noteworthy that this educator was identified by the learners because of her classroom reactions to Spanish language. Likewise, one of the most negative associations with school personnel was made with the mention of the principal’s suggestion that English is the correct language. The Latino/a learners deduced that she was also saying that Spanish is the incorrect language, a message that was received as a negative valuation of Latino/a culture. The only people on staff with whom the students felt culturally connected were the lunch ladies- because they spoke Spanish. When these comments are considered, the central roles that language, respect for diversity, and support of multiple perspectives play in the connection of Latino/a students to school personnel are greatly underscored.

Based on the GT students’ discussion of the identification process for gifted programming, we learned that they were not assessed in their native language or were not aware of the use of Spanish-language intelligence tests with bilingual or Spanish-only speakers. To follow up on their mention of potentially gifted Spanish-speaking peers, schools may want to consider using peer nominations for screening. Though not a new practice in the screening and identification process (Cunningham, Callahan, & Plucker, 1998), peer nominations may be more helpful in identifying culturally diverse students for these services than previously thought.

Compared to GE learners, the participants from GT programs held different self-perceptions with regard to academics, social skills, and their place in the educational community. GT students indicated positive feelings about their accomplishments, school success, and recognition by teachers for having special gifts. While all of the GT students expressed pride about their ethnic heritage, this feeling was not manifested in their outward expressions. In other words, their behavior indicated a marked degree of assimilation with the majority culture, as they seemed to adopt rulegoverned behavior in their appearance and expressions. This finding supports the work of Masten et al. (1999) who found that acculturated Latino/a students were more likely to be identified for gifted programming by their teachers.

Students who exhibit teacherpleasing behaviors such as not speaking out of turn, following directions, being polite, and getting good grades (Gross, 1999) and who are from the same cultural and economic background as the recommending teacher are often the students that teachers recommend for gifted programming (Clark, 2002; Fernandez et al., 1998; Peterson & Margolin, 1997; Shade, 1978). Expanding the cultural conceptions of giftedness, and increasing teachers’ awareness of multiple expressions of giftedness may increase the number of students recommended for gifted programming from culturally diverse groups-although serving these learners in programs that cater to students through a single conception of giftedness is another challenge facing gifted programs.

Issues of discrimination were experienced differently by each group of learners. GT students were not unaware of ethnic stereotypes and discussed issues of disparate treatment, but did not respond to those instances in the same way that GE learners responded to such challenges. The GE students had a heightened awareness of discrimination in multiple settings (both school and community) and had become acutely aware of the societal messages conveyed about nonmajority students by their teachers, peers, and communities-an awareness that made them more vocal in their discussion about discrimination. The few comments by the GT students that may be attributed to disparate treatment were not personalized to themselves or to their ethnicity, so their discussions about these were much more observational and detached than the anecdotal experiences shared by the GE students.

GE students engaged in several discussions about the implications of ethnic expression, including the social repercussions of being Latino/a and speaking Spanish at school. They recounted numerous instances of social inequality in both personal and familial contexts. They internalized these experiences and modified their behaviors accordingly; the GE students were cautious about where and when they spoke Spanish, were careful how they interacted with the majority culture (especially authority figures), and had a heightened awareness of the implications of their ethnic expression. Only one student in the GT group expressed these same understandings -and he was the only student who recounted specific personal instances of discrimination at home and in the community.

The GT learners in this study appeared to project a different ethnic expression than their peers in GE by choosing not to speak Spanish at school and not to seek Latino/a friends. Their choice not to engage in lengthy discussions about discrimination of Latino/as is in keeping with behaviors that seem to distance them from their ethnicity at school.

The degree of assimilation by GT learners may explain their lack of discussion about discrimination as well as the framing of observations about disparate treatment in a neutral (rather than discriminatory) light. Their mention that the only people at school with whom they could speak Spanish were the lunch ladies was not conveyed with contempt, but the lack of Spanishspeakers in other administrative and teaching positions may project to the GT students a devaluation of Spanish-speakers in the school’s personnel.

The group affiliations for the GE and GT students also provide information about their social needs. Adolescence has been characterized as a time to become autonomous (Bonfenbrenner, 1989; Erickson, 1968; Marcia, 1980); however, research has shown that group affiliation is equally important during this developmental stage (B. M. Newman & P. R. Newman, 2001). These students have identified with very different peers in the school an\d community. For the most part, the GT students have found solidarity with peers similar in ability; the GE students, who do not view themselves as academically able or part of the majority culture, have found solidarity with their Latino/a peers. The choices each group makes with respect to social roles and ethnic identity are consistent with prior research (FloresGonzales, 2002; Padilla, 1984). The gifted learners in this study, who represent a minority in the gifted program, may have selected to elevate their social roles as achievers because of the positive reinforcement this role garners from people whose opinion they value-White gifted learners, teachers, and their parents. The students in general education chose Latinisme as their dominant social role because they also want social approval from people they deem important (in this case, Latino/a students), and because they see this affiliation with other Latino/as as a means toward gaining power in a school and community in which they are outnumbered by White students and teachers.

Based on the discussions of these two groups, it appears that GT and GE learners experience school in very different ways. The educational environment seems to be more supportive for GT learners than for GE learners. GT students have developed an academic identity, but the GE students spent very little discussion time examining issues pertaining to schooling and instead developed an identity focused on their culture. When asked to describe their “ideal school,” the GE students discussed issues related to the ethnic composition of the student body and the idea that their ideal school would be “fun,” (but with strict teachers), though specific examples of what this would entail were not provided, even after prompting to expand the discussion of this ideal. Based upon the discussion time GT students allotted to issues about school, education was one of the central priorities in their lives. In contrast, education did not receive the same attention from GE students, which may reflect the value GE students placed on school or how connected (or disconnected) they felt to school. Perhaps, however, these beliefs mirror the messages they have received from all levels of educational services including bus drivers, lunch ladies, teachers, librarians, administrators, and majority peers- about their place in the educational system.

Recommendations for Research and Practice

Based on the findings of this study, several areas requiring additional research have been identified. There is a need for additional research in GE and GT education regarding the needs of Latino/a, bilingual adolescents due to the increased representation of these students in our schools and the lack of empirical information about best practices and instructional strategies appropriate for their educational and affective needs.

Investigations of larger groups of bilingual, Latino/a learners from various locales are needed to provide information about the social connections of gifted and general education adolescents. This information is critical to understanding how bilingual, Latino/a students understand and experience school, and how educators and administrators can better plan for the instruction of these students. Few investigations have explored the schooling experiences of Latino/a youth, particularly those in gifted education. Due to the increased representation of Latino/as in our schools, it is important that researchers gather information that can assist educators in becoming more knowledgeable about the cultural and curricular needs of Latino/a students in gifted and general education.

Investigations into the identification of bilingual and Spanish- speaking learners for gifted programming continue to be a challenge. The importance of understanding more about the ethnic identification of gifted students cannot be understated. Based on the few gifted students in this investigation, ethnicity is not a social dimension that these students identified with at school. Learning more about the referral of bilingual, Latino/a students, the characteristics noted by the referring teachers, and whether more acculturated students are recommended for gifted programs than peers with stronger ethnic affiliations are an important considerations for the field of gifted education. Teachers have historically recommended students who are members of the referring teacher’s ethnic and social group and who exhibit teacher-pleasing behaviors (Davis & Rimm, 2004). To address this concern, researchers should build upon the work of Bernai ( 1979) to investigate the effectiveness of peer- nominations with underrepresented populations of the gifted.

Conclusion

Adolescence is a challenging time in human development, and the additional stress placed upon Latino/a, bilingual students may intensify this emotional period, particularly when these students are educated in schools that send messages that Latino/as and Spanish-speakers are not welcome. This study found that the participating bilingual, Latino/a, gifted students had vastly different schooling experiences than their bilingual, Latino/a peers in general education. To what extent did assimilation play a role in the identification process and other academic outcomes? Did the gifted learners recognize the messages from school, community, and society regarding the value of ethnic expression in schools, and cast off their public expression of ethnicity?

School leaders and educators should consider the implications of their actions and words carefully, as these messages convey powerful statements about attitudes toward ethnicity and ability. Such messages may negatively or positively affect the social connectedness of learners and greatly impact their academic success and long-term educational performance. These messages also serve to include or exclude ethnic groups from school and community, and can greatly impact the future social relations between cultures in our ever-changing ethnically diverse country. Will learners be relegated to assimilate in order to receive academic recognition, or will they suffer social consequences in school for being Latino/a and overtly expressing their ethnicity?

Findings from this study reveal that there is still a great deal of work to be done if we are to ensure that all children are included within the school culture. These two groups of Latino/a learners experience school in very different ways; the perceptions of their place within the school community indicate that one group feels marginalized for expressing themselves as Latino/a. Children experience school differently. For children who are linguistically and culturally diverse, there are additional factors that affect how they experience school. A lack of sensitivity to these factors and a lack of understanding of one’s bias may impair an educator from appropriately identifying and serving culturally and linguistically diverse gifted learners. In addition, for learners who are not gifted, such understanding can lead to a sense of marginalization that negatively affects their educational outcomes. If these considerations are not taken into account, assimilation will become a prerequisite for identification for gifted programs.

Manuscript submitted July 22, 2005.

Revision accepted February 14, 2006.

Endnote

1 The participants in this study and/or their parents are from Mexico, Centra/ and South America, or the Caribbean. Thus, we are using the term Latino/a throughout the paper (Rodriguez & Morrobel, 2004) while acknowledging that the term may be interchangeable with Hispanics.

REFERENCES

Alvarez McHatton, P. A., Shaunessy. E., Brice, A., Hughes. C.. & Ratliff, M. A. (in press). You gotta represent! Ethnic identity development among Hispanic adolescents. Multicultural Perspectives.

Bell. D. (1975). Ethnicity and social change. In N. Glazer & D. P. Moynihan (Eds.), Ethnicity: Theory and practice (pp. 141-74). Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Bernai, E. M. (1979). The education of culturally different gifted. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented (pp. 395^00). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Bonfenbrenner, LJ. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187-249.

Callera, P. L. (1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly. 48, 203-215.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Clark, B. (2002). Crowing up gifted (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River. NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Cunningham, C. M.. Callahan, C. M., & Plucker, J. A. (1998). Identifying Latino/a students of outstanding talent: Psychometric integrity of a peer nomination form. Exceptional Children. 64. 197- 209.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, National Research Council Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, M. S. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E.. & McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of connection, regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 263-286.

Erickson. E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Fernandez, A. T., Gay, L. R., Lucky, L. R, & Gavilan, M. R. (1998). Teacher perceptions of gifted Latino/a limited English proficient students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 335-351.

Florez-Gonzales, N. (2002). School kids/street kids: Identity development in Latino students. New York: Teachers College.

Florida Department of Education. (2002). School Advisory Council Repons 2001-2002. Retrie\ved March 23, 2005, from http:// info.doe.state.fl.us/school_reports_ 0102/ school_report.pl?school=29108002

Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Educational Information and Accountability Services. (2004a). Membership in Florida Public Schools 2003-2004. Retrieved May 10, 2005. from http:/ /www.firn.edu/doe/eias/eiaspubs/briefs.htm

Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Educational Information and Accountability Services. (2004b). Profiles of Florida School Districts 2002-2003. Retrieved May 10.2005, from http://www.firn.edu/ doe/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/ssdata02-03.pdf

Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Small poppies: Highly gifted children in the early years. Roeper Review, 21, 207-214.

Hogg, M., Terry, D., & White, K. ( 1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-269.

Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley.

Markus. H.. & Nirius, P. (1987). Possible selves: The interface between motivation and the self-concept. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 157-172). Chichester. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Martin, L. A., & Chiodo, J. J. (2004). Ethnic identity among Latino/as: A reassessment of previous development models. Multicultural Perspectives, 6(1), 36-42.

Masten, W. G., Plata, M., Wenglar, K.. & Thedford, J. (1999). Acculturation and teacher ratings of Latino/a and Anglo-American Students. Roeper Review, 22, 64-65.

McCaIl, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. ( 1978). Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life. New York: The Free Press.

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2003a). Status and trends in the education of LaIino/as. Grade retention, suspension, and expulsion. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from http:// nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003008.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003b). Status and trends in the education of Latino/as. Drop out rates. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003008.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003c). Status and trends in the education of kitino/as. High school completion. Retrieved January 16. 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/ 2003008.pdf

National Research Council. (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science.

Newman, B. M..& Newman, P. R. (2001). Group identity and alienation: Giving the we it’s due. Joumctl of Youth and Adolescence, 30. 515-538.

Padilla, F. (1984). On the nature of Latino ethnicity. Social Science Quarterly 65, 651-664.

Peterson, J. S., & Margolin, L. ( 1997). Naming gifted children: An example of unintended reproduction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 21, 82-100.

Rodriguez, M. C., & Morrobel. D. (2004). A review of Latino youth development research and a call for an asset orientation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 107-127.

Shade, B. J. (1978. April). Social-psychological success of black youth: The impact of significant others. Journal of Black Studies, 14, 137-150.

Sheets. R. H. ( 1999). Human development and ethnic identity. In R. H. Sheets & E. R. Hollins (Eds.). Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development (pp. 91-101 ). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Strauss, A.. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thoits. P. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101-112.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Digest of Education Statistics. 2000 (NCES 2001-034). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Jacob K. Javits gifted and talented students education program. Retrieved April 27. 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1998). Talent and diversity: The emerging world of limited English proficient students in gifted education (Report No.: ORAD 98-1100). Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/ PDFDocs/talentdiversity.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Mental health: Culture, race, and ethnicity-A supplement to mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General.

Elizabeth Shaunessy, PhD, NBPTS, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education, and serves as the Coordinator of the Gifted Education Program at the University of South Florida, where she teaches courses in gifted education. Her research interests include culturally diverse gifted learners, the use of technology in gifted education, teacher preparation, and public policy in gifted education. E-mail: shaunessy@coedu.usf.edu

Patricia Alvarez McHatton, PhD, NBPTS, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education and the Undergraduate Program Coordinator at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include preparing culturally competent educators, experiential learning and service learning, perceptions of school belonging by culturally and linguistically diverse students, and issues of stigma and discrimination for culturally and linguistically diverse families and students. E-mail: mchatton @ tempest, coedu. usf. edu

Claire E. Hughes, PhD, is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Rhode Island. Her research interests include preparing teachers for increasingly diverse communities, twiceexceptional students, and curriculum development in both special education and gifted education. E-mail: cehl2x@cox.net

Alejandro Brice, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the University of Central Florida. His research has focused on issues of transference or interference between two languages in the areas of phonetics, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics related to education and pedagogy. E-mail: abrice@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu

Mary Ann Ratliff, EdD, recently retired from Hillsborough County Public Schools, Tampa, Florida. She was the K-12 Supervisor of Gifted Education. Currently she is the Grants Manager for the Educator Preparation Institute at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida. E-mail: MAR5319610@aol.com

Copyright Roeper Review Spring 2007

(c) 2007 Roeper Review. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.