The office for civil rights and non‐discriminatory testing, policies, and procedures: Implications for gifted education

Roeper Review

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 109-112

  Ford, Donna Y ^a   Trotman, Michelle Frazier ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007823502     PISSN: 02783193     EISSN: 1940865X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02783190009554077     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Armour-Thomas, E. & GoPaul-McNichols, S. (1998). Assessing intelligence: Applying a bio-cultural model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Callahan, C.M, Hunsaker, S.L., Adams, C.M., Moore, S.D., & Bland, L.C. (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
3. Ford, D.Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students. New York; Teachers College Press.
4. Ford, D.Y. (1998). The under-representation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14.
5. Frasier, M.M., Garcia, J.H., & Passow, A.H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
6. Frasier, M.M. & Passow, A.H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
7. Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8. Karnes, F.A. & Marquardt, R.G. (2000). Gifted children and legal issues: An update. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
9. Kaufman, A.S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-IU. New York: Wiley and Sons.
10. Keyes v. School District No. 1. 901 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colorado. 199)
11. National Association for Gifted Children. (1997). Position paper on the use of tests in the identification of gifted students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
12. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. Office for Civil Rights (1999a). “Education and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/hq43e4.html.
14. Office for Civil Rights (1999b). “Student Assignment and Title VI in Elementary and Secondary Schools.” www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/tviassgn.html.
15. Office for Civil Rights (1999, June 18). “Public Briefing: Prepared Statement of Arthur L. Coleman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights.”
16. www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/testm02.html.
17. Office for Civil Rights (1999, June 22). “Statement by Norma Cantu, Assistant Secretary to the Office for Civil Rights.” www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/testm01.html.
18. Simmons v. Board of Public Education. 843 F. Supp. 1296 (E.D. Arkansas, 1995)