Equity in Gifted Education: The Importance of Definitions and a Focus on Underachieving Gifted Students

The underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students in public school gifted and talented programs is an unresolved issue for school systems and the field of gifted education around the world. Peters (2021) has provided a thoughtful, well-researched, and defensible overview on the topic, that outlines possible reasons for the underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students, along with multiple useful proposals for action in the future. In this commentary, two additional courses of action are described that may complement the proposals of Peters (2021). Arguably, one qualifies as “low-hanging fruit” that may be actionable immediately by school systems, while the second may require effort and action over the longer term.

The first proposal relates to an issue that was not covered by Peters (2021)—a reexamination of the definitions of giftedness and talent that guide our identification processes and educational interventions. Although multiple different definitions of giftedness and talent are simultaneously being used in different parts of the world, most do not appear to be very inclusive of under-represented subgroups of gifted students. Therefore, one approach to address the inequity in gifted education may be to go beyond Peters’ (2021) suggestion of “reframing” what it means to be gifted, by the adoption of alternative definitions of giftedness that better and more explicitly acknowledge the characteristics, circumstances, and needs of disadvantaged gifted students. One such definition is the definition proposed by Gagné (2009, 2013), which makes a clear distinction between high level ability (i.e., giftedness) and high level achievement (i.e., talent), explicitly acknowledges possible environmental and intrapersonal factors (i.e., environmental and intrapersonal catalysts) that may positively or negatively influence the development of both ability and achievement, and gives recognition and status to highly able individuals who do not necessarily translate their abilities into corresponding achievements. Essentially, Gagné recognizes the phenomenon of underachievement, which is commonly understood to be a substantial discrepancy between one’s level of ability and achievement.

Although the definitions and models proposed by other scholars acknowledge both ability (e.g., Renzulli, 1988) and environmental factors in the development of giftedness or talent (e.g., Tannenbaum, 2003), they do not go as far as Gagné (2009, 2013). Some examples of the specificity and elaboration given to ability and environmental factors by Gagné (2009, 2013) include the acknowledgment of maturation and learning processes that lead to the development of abilities, the role of socioeconomic status, the presence/absence of caregivers, the influence of significant others in one’s social environment, access to learning resources, and the availability of educational interventions. The adoption of definitions of giftedness and talent that clearly acknowledge possible positive and negative life experiences (e.g., poverty/wealth, childhood experiences, and parental expenditure on education), and therefore the possible differences in access to and opportunity for education-related experiences, may be conducive to fairer and more equitable identification and programming decisions for all gifted students.

Related to Gagné’s (2009, 2013) definitions of giftedness and talent, the second proposed addition to Peters’ (2021) suggested courses of action is the active promotion of the identification of gifted underachievers, and the provision of appropriate interventions for gifted underachievers. In response to Peters’ (2021) observation that many efforts that have been made to address inequity may have focused on the “wrong issues,” this proposal suggests that there may be value in introducing an additional focus on the identification of, and support for, the large numbers of gifted students who qualify as underachievers (Morisano & Shore, 2010).

Many gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those associated with low socioeconomic status, ethnic/racial minority status, unfavorable family circumstances, and nonurban locality, have been identified to be at risk of underachievement (Morisano & Shore, 2010; W. A. M. Peters et al., 2000), for reasons such as low learning goal orientations, low motivation, poor academic self-perceptions, negative attitudes toward teachers and school, low self-regulation, and low perceptions of parental support for education (Gilar-Corbi et al., 2019). Although various environmental and intrapersonal factors (and the interactions between these factors) may mean that the measured levels of ability and achievement for these students may be somewhat compromised, the shift in the target group from gifted/talented students in general to underachieving gifted students may allow for the identification of some members of a distinct cohort of gifted students with unique needs who may previously have gone unrecognized.

Fortunately, the latest research provides some solid guidance on the optimal methods to identify underachieving gifted students. Specifically, Jackson (2017) suggested that among the commonly used methods (i.e., absolute split method, nomination method, regression method, and the simple difference method), the simple difference method, which requires the calculation of the difference between standardized expected and actual achievement measures of individual students, may be ideal. The identified students will need to be provided with appropriate educational and therapeutic interventions, which scholars suggest should involve independent and authentic activities that give students control over learning, the use of elaborative and metacognitive learning strategies, the development of strong student-teacher relationships, personal goal setting, the demonstration of the relevance of school, and the promotion of supportive home environments (Gilar-Corbi et al., 2019; Jackson, 2017; Morisano & Shore, 2010; Rubenstein et al., 2012). As the provision of such interventions may go beyond the educational interventions that are typically offered by trained gifted education practitioners, and may have some resemblance to the frontloading of educational opportunities recognized by Peters (2021), they may not be as readily implementable as a change to the definition of giftedness, and are likely to involve additional commitments in terms of training, resources, organization, and time.

It is acknowledged that neither of the aforementioned proposals directly address the underlying issues of inequity of opportunity or institutional racism that may be at the heart of the underrepresentation of disadvantaged subgroups in gifted education today (Peters, 2021). Nevertheless, when implemented in conjunction with the proposals of Peters (2021), we hope that they contribute, in some way, to a more effective and efficient means by which greater equity is achieved in gifted education.