The Inherent Racism of (Gifted) Education

GiftedEd as a Racist System

Peters (2021) acknowledges that students of color are underrepresented in GiftedEd, emphasizes the current work being done around equity, and explicitly connects that this underrepresentation is both disproportional, inequitable, and connected to their race. This means there exists a critical mass of students who are not receiving the educational services they need. Oswald et al. (1999) defined disproportionality as “the extent to which membership in a given (ethnic, socioeconomic, linguistic, or gender) group affects the probability of being placed in a specific disability category” (p. 198). Yet, Peters (2021) contends that this reality is not one that is inherently racist. As GiftedEd educators and researchers, we must call this disproportionality what it is. It is racist for the very reasons outlined in the target article.

This disproportionality has led to intellectually gifted Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students being systematically excluded from receiving gifted services, and therefore, has disadvantaged them, while those students of races who are overrepresented presumably gain advantages and power. The existence and reality of this disproportional representation does indeed make gifted education, as a whole, racist—and racist at its core, its founding, and its continuance. If we apply the lens of critical race theory (CRT) to this phenomenon, we can begin to understand the resistance to explicitly categorize this reality as racist. CRT reminds us that racism is woven so deeply into the fabric of our society that it is often unrecognizable, that Whiteness is property, and racist systems are only challenged by those in power when they have something to gain (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Why would GiftedEd be any different? If we do not take a “Full Stop” and take the steps of collectively recognizing this disproportionality as racist, and therefore GiftedEd as a whole, then we will be unable to make impactful changes.

Unacceptable Inequity

At its roots, GiftedEd was not designed for every type of intellectually gifted student. In the target article, Peters (2021) concludes with a reminder that positive changes regarding identification of intellectually gifted students have occurred and will hopefully continue. After recognizing this reality of disproportionality as racist, we must continue to examine and improve educational services specifically. What if we are able to solve the problem of under identifying children from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds, children from immigrant families, Black students, and twice-exceptional students? Are the GiftedEd programs they would be entering into equitable? Are students from these backgrounds receiving appropriate services from their overall schooling experiences, including GiftedEd programs? Are our GiftedEd pedagogies intersectional? Or culturally responsive and sustaining?

Current literature would tell us the answer to these questions would mostly likely be “no.” Therefore, we must define equity as more than proportional representation. If we are to achieve equity in GiftedEd, we must confront any educational services that might be foundationally designed only with White, middle class, English as a first language, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied, neurotypical students as its model. In order to become more inclusive, more appropriate, and yes, more equitable for all the students who identify as intellectually gifted, GiftedEd must work toward a type of “cross-pollination” (Thorne, 2008), interchanging various theories and frameworks to successfully deconstruct its origins and confront the reality that racist educational systems there are certain students for whom GiftedEd was never designed for in the first place. Noted GiftedEd scholar Donna Ford, who was referenced in the target article as someone who has focused her career advocating for more equitable education experiences for marginalized students in GiftedEd, argues for creating true culturally responsive classrooms (CRCs; Ford & Kea, 2009). In this quest to achieve equity in gifted education, classrooms and educational spaces serving intellectually gifted students from marginalized backgrounds, should work to become CRCs in that they

are student centered and, by design and default, culture centered. A student-centered classroom does not exist if culture is ignored or disregarded in any way. Stated differently, as with gender, language, and socioeconomic status (SES), race must not be ignored, minimized, trivialized, or disregarded. In every classroom, culture matters, race matters, gender matters, language matters, and SES matters. (Ford & Kea, 2009, p. 5)

Concluding Thoughts

Finally, if gifted programs do not work toward these changes, we must consider the various ways participation in GiftedEd programs may actually limit and cause harm to certain students. Although there is value in interrogating each part of a failing system, we must challenge ourselves to dig deeper, connect historical and present-day realities, and to even look within ourselves as educators and researchers for any harmful roles we may have played and continue to play. We must confront any deficit thinking in our GiftedEd teachers, as well as proactively work to tackle possible negative implications of the intersectional identity of being Black and intellectually gifted that the disproportionality in gifted education has helped to create and perpetuate.