Nevertheless, it was Francis Galton, who is credited with using the term “gifted” for these individuals (Ford, et al, 1996, p. 75). The perception amongst educators reveals that they remain critical of the ability of nonverbal tests to assess intelligence because it appears as a test for nonverbal students (students that cannot converse well). It is crucial that they understand that nonverbal tests can also measure of highlight intelligence (Distin, 2006, p. 85). More importantly, these tests provide an opportunity to students to demonstrate their intelligence and ability without linking their ability to perform on the test to the influence of language, vocabulary, and academic exposure. Consider the example of musically, creatively, and spatially gifted students and other students who manifest a great deal of practical and creative intelligence (Ford, et al, 1996, p. 75). These students are less likely to demonstrate the same degree of command over English language, grammar, vocabulary, and presentation, but the same does not translate into their non-giftedness. In fact, it remains the responsibility of educational institutions to identify and accommodate these students as well (Phillipson & McCann, 2007, p. 52). Nevertheless, it is important here to note that the inability of the tools employed at measuring giftedness to incorporate racial, income and ethnic differences. Even the first and the longest running longitudinal study concerning giftedness individuals, conducted by Lewis Terman, failed to take into account cultural differences amongst diverse population. In fact, this also represents that despite all the claims of equality and equal opportunity, United States is still far from achieving the status of a colorblind society (Ford & Trotman, 2001, p. 237). Furthermore, Terman study on giftedness, which began in 1921, also highlights other critical factors about giftedness that it is not correlated with high achievements. Several studies and researches in the recent future have also confirmed this fact. Terman cherry picked individuals for his study of gifted individuals and then continued to take deep interest within their lives (Pfeiffer, 2008, p. 97). He played the roles of a counselor, mentor, teacher, and friend for these people and did not hesitate to pull strings and write letters of recommendations for this student. The prime reason being that he wanted to ensure that these gifted students could live up to their potential. Interestingly enough, one of the most crucial conclusions derived from this study is the fact that achievement and giftedness are not correlated despite repeated attempts by Terman to influence the results of this sample (Ford, et al, 1996, p. 75). This finding is crucial to study multiculturalism within gifted students because there are many institutions, which factor the achievements and accomplishments of students to measure and identify their giftedness. Quite understandably, giftedness can allow individuals to achieve more than the average student population; this causation is not a necessity (Phillipson & McCann, 2007, p. 52). In fact, the insistence of institutions on factoring achievements to measure giftedness has also played a critical role in excluding minority populations from gifted students. In most cases, these minority students belong from lower income class families, where they fail to gather the same level of resources to assist them in standing out of the crowd.