Gifted Education Coordinators’ Perceptions and Experiences With Equity Focused Practices

Abstract

The field of gifted education in the United States faces an existential crisis due to well-founded charges that many school programs fail to identify students who reflect the diversity of the overall student population. In this study, we used a mixed methods light approach to explore gifted education coordinators’ perceptions of equity and underrepresentation in their school districts as well as their experiences with practices used for gifted identification and programming. Overall, findings aligned with prior research: Gifted education coordinators reported Black and Latinx students as the most underrepresented groups in their school districts. Universal screening, referrals, and teacher rating scales were the most commonly used practices reported. However, gifted education coordinators also perceived referrals and teacher rating scales as contributors to underrepresentation. Qualitative data provided insight into participants’ closed-ended responses and revealed salient themes. Important implications for research and practice are also discussed.

Keywords

gifted education equity gifted education coordinator identification teachers

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barnard-Brak

Filderman

M. J.

(2022). Factors impacting years of service: A survey of special education directors in the United States. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 35(1), 50–60. https://www.casecec.org/journal

Barnard-Brak

Johnsen

S. K.

Pond Hannig

Wei

(2015). The incidence of potentially gifted students with a special education population. Roeper Review, 37(2), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1008661

Behrens

W. A.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(2021). Acceleration: It's about time!. In Robins

J. H.

Jolly

J. L.

Karnes

F. A.

Bean

S. M.

(Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (5th ed., pp. 231–257). Routledge.

Benedek

Karstendiek

Ceh

S. M.

Grabner

R. H.

Krammer

Lebuda

Silvia

P. J.

Cotter

K. N.

Martskvishvili

Kaufman

J. C.

(2021). Creativity myths: Prevalence and correlates of misconceptions on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 182, 111068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111068

Birks

Chapman

Francis

(2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254

Boedeker

Lamb

K. N.

Kettler

(2022). Simulation evaluating disproportionality-based indicators of inequitable practices into advanced academic programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(4), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221106463

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Hooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (Vol. 2, pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

Briggs

C. J.

Reis

S. M.

Sullivan

E. E.

(2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208316037

10.

Brulles

(2020). Gifted coordinators: Collaborating with school administrators. In Robins

J. H.

Jolly

J. L.

Karnes

F. A.

Bean

S. M.

(Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (5th ed., pp. 395–417). Routledge.

11.

Bryan

Ford

D. Y.

(2014). Recruiting and retaining black male teachers in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 37(3), 156–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514530116

12.

Callahan

C. M.

(2009). Myth 3: A family of identification myths: Your sample must be the same as the population. There is a ‘silver bullet’ in identification. There must be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in identification and programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 239–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346826

13.

Callahan

C. M.

Azano

Park

Brodersen

A. V.

Caughey

Dmitrieva

(2022). Consequences of implementing curricular-aligned strategies for identifying rural gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(4), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221082064

14.

Callahan

C. M.

Renzulli

J. S.

Delcourt

M. A. B.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(2018). Identification of gifted and talented students. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 85–93). Routledge.

15.

Card

Giuliano

(2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(48), 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113

16.

Carman

C. A.

Walther

C. A. P.

Bartsch

R. A.

(2018). Using the cognitive abilities test (CogAT) 7 nonverbal battery to identify the gifted/talented: An investigation of demographic effects and norming plans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097

17.

Carman

C. A.

Walther

C. A. P.

Bartsch

R. A.

(2020). Differences in using the cognitive abilities test (CogAT) 7 nonverbal battery versus the Naglieri nonverbal ability test (NNAT) 2 to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(3), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220921164

18.

Collins

K. M. T.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Jiao

Q. G.

(2006). Prevalence of mixed-methods sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation & Research in Education, 19(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.2167/eri421.0

19.

Crabtree

L. M.

Richardson

S. C.

Lewis

C. W.

(2019). The gifted gap, STEM education, and economic immobility. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(2), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19829749

20.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

21.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

22.

Dekker

Lee

N. C.

Howard-Jones

Jolles

. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429

23.

Dixson

D. D.

Peters

S. J.

Makel

M. C.

Jolly

J. L.

Matthews

M. S.

Miller

E. M.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

Rinn

A. N.

Robins

J. H.

Wilson

H. E.

(2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(4), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978057

24.

Edmonds

W. A.

Kennedy

T. D.

(2017). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage.

25.

Ezzani

M. D.

Mun

R. U.

Lee

L. E.

(2021). District leaders focused on systemic equity in identification and services for gifted education: From policy to practice. Roeper Review, 43(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1881853

26.

Fahle

E. M.

Reardon

S. F.

Kalogrides

Weathers

E. S.

Jang

(2020). Racial segregation and school poverty in the United States, 1999–2016. Race and Social Problems, 12(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-019-09277-w

27.

Floyd

C. B.

(2022). Organizational barriers to equity: Stories from Virginia gifted education coordinators. Roeper Review, 44(4), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/027831193.2022.2115177

28.

Floyd

C. B.

(2023). Essential leadership: The work of Virginia gifted education coordinators to promote equity. Roeper Review, 45(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2023.2172753

29.

Ford

D. Y.

Grantham

T. C.

Harris

J. J.

III (1997). The recruitment and retention of minority teachers in gifted education. Roeper Review, 19(4), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553832

30.

Ford

D. Y.

Whiting

G. W.

(2011). Beyond testing: Social and psychological considerations in recruiting and retaining gifted black students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(1), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003400106

31.

Ford

D. Y.

Wright

B. L.

Trotman-Scott

(2020). A matter of equity: Desegregating and integrating gifted and talented education for under-represented students of color. Multicultural Perspectives, 22(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2020.1728275

32.

Gentry

Desmet

O. A.

Karami

Lee

Green

Cress

Chowcase

Gray

(2021). Gifted education’s legacy of high stakes ability testing: Using measures for identification that perpetuate inequity. Roeper Review, 43(4), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1967545

33.

Gentry

Gray

A. M.

Whiting

G. W.

Maeda

Pereira

(2019). Gifted education in the United States: Laws, access, equity, and missingness across the country by locale, title I school status, and race. https://education.purdue.edu/geri/new-publications/gifted-education-in-the-united-states/

34.

Gershenson

Hansen

Lindsay

(2021). Teacher diversity and student success: Why racial representation matters in the classroom. Harvard Education Press.

35.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. Aera Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175

36.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

Bleiberg

J. F.

(2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Education Review, 89(3), 337–369. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337

37.

Grissom

J. A.

Rodriguez

L. A.

Kern

E. C.

(2017). Teacher and principal diversity and the representation of students of color in gifted programs: Evidence from national data. Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 396–422. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/690274 https://doi.org/10.1086/690274

38.

Guilbault

K. M.

JohnBull

R. M.

McCormick

K. M.

(2022). District gifted education coordinators’ leadership roles and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 45(4), 352–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532221124144

39.

Hafenstein

N. L.

Boley

Lin

(2022). State policy and funding in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 45(4), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221110938

40.

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Tutwiler

M. S.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

Callahan

C. M.

Brodersen

A. V.

Mun

R. U.

(2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053

41.

Henderson

Jarvis

(2021). More than passion: The role of the gifted education coordinator in Australian schools. In Smith

S. R.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 1221–1244). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3041-4_60

42.

Hertzog

N. B.

Lamb

K. N.

Balatico

(2023). School district equity initiatives that impact access to accelerated and advanced learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231186669

43.

Heyder

Bergold

Steinmayr

(2018). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717725493

44.

Hodges

Mun

R. U.

Jones Roberson

Flemister

C. T.

(2021). Educator perceptions following changes in gifted education policy: Implications for serving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(4), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211023796

45.

Hodges

Tay

Maeda

Gentry

(2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107

46.

Horn

C. V.

Little

C. A.

Maloney

McCullough

(2021). Young scholars model: A comprehensive approach for developing talent and pursuing equity in gifted education. Routledge.

47.

Hughes

T. L.

Hess

Jones

Worrell

F. C.

(2020). From traditional practice to tiered comprehensive services for all: Developing a responsive school culture for the future. School Psychology, 35(6), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000410

48.

Johnsen

(Ed.) (2018). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (3rd ed.). Routledge.

49.

Lakin

J. M.

(2016). Universal screening and the representation of historically underrepresented minority students in gifted education: Minding the gaps in Card and Giuliano’s research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16630348

50.

Lakin

J. M.

(2018). Making the cut in gifted selection: Score combination rules and their impact on program diversity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752099

51.

Lakin

J. M.

(2021, March 26). Ending testing for New York City’s gifted program may be another blow to Black and Latino students. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ending-testing-for-new-york-citys-gifted-program-may-be-another-blow-to-black-and-latino-students-157381

52.

Lakin

J. M.

(2022, August). Service-driven identification practices: Why the services you offer must drive identification decisions. Teaching for High Potential. https://nagc.org/page/Teaching-High-Potential

53.

Lamb

K. N.

Boedeker

Kettler

(2019). Inequities of enrollment in gifted education: A statewide application of the 20% equity allowance formula. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219830768

54.

Lamb

K. N.

Hertzog

N. B.

(2024). Voices of families of color: Navigating white spaces in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241281892

55.

Lamb

K. N.

Jolly

J. L.

Lakin

J. M.

(2022). Asset-based decision making to address inequity in gifted education services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211042910

56.

Lee

Karakis

Olcay Akce

Azzam Tuzgen

Karami

Gentry

Maeda

(2021). A meta-analytic evaluation of Naglieri nonverbal ability test: Exploring its validity evidence and effectiveness in equitably identifying gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986221997800

57.

Lee

L. E.

Ottwein

J. K.

Peters

(2020). Eight universal truths of identifying students for advanced academic intervention. In Robins

J. H.

Jolly

J. L.

Karnes

F. A.

Bean

S. M.

(Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (5th ed., pp. 61–79). Routledge.

58.

Lee

Seward

Gentry

(2022). Equitable identification of underrepresented gifted students: The relationship between students’ academic achievement and a teacher-rating scale. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(3), 400–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X221088816

59.

Leech

N. L.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2007). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3

60.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

61.

Lohman

D. F.

(2005). Review of Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri nonverbal ability test identify equal proportions of high-scoring White, Black, and Hispanic students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900103

62.

Long

L. C.

Barnett

Rogers

K. B.

(2015). Exploring the relationship between principal, policy, and gifted program scope and quality. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215578279

63.

Long

D. A.

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

Callahan

C. M.

Gubbins

E. J.

(2023). Inequality at the starting line: Underrepresentation in gifted identification and disparities in early achievement. AERA Open, 9(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231171535

64.

Weinberg

S. L.

McCormick

(2020). Test-taking for gifted and talented kindergarten: Underscoring the importance of outreach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220941587

65.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

Assouline

S. G.

Lange

(2022). Whole-grade acceleration: From student to policy. Gifted Child Today, 45(3), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221091856

66.

Matthews

M. S.

Rhodes

H. A.

(2020). Examining identification practices and services for young advanced and gifted learners in selected North Carolina school districts. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(4), 411–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20908878

67.

McBee

M. T.

(2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686

68.

McBee

M. T.

Makel

M. C.

(2019). The quantitative implications of definitions of giftedness. AERA Open, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419831

69.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Miller

E. M.

(2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256

70.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Waterman

(2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794

71.

McClain

M. C.

Pfeiffer

(2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757

72.

McCoach

D. B.

Peters

Gambino

A. J.

Long

Siegle

(2024). Who are we measuring? Teacher effects in gifted and talented teacher rating scales. Exceptional Children, 90(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029241247035

73.

Meyer

M. S.

Shen

Plucker

J. A.

(2023). Reducing excellence gaps: A systematic review of research on equity in advanced education. Review of Educational Research, 94(1), 33–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221148461

74.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

75.

Moon

T. R.

(2018). Uses and misuses of matrices in identifying gifted students: Considerations for better practice. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 116–124). Routledge.

76.

Moore

J. L.

III Ford

D. Y.

Milner

H. R.

(2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining African American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900106

77.

Mun

R. U.

Ezzani

M. D.

Lee

L. E.

Ottwein

J. K.

(2021). Building systemic capacity to improve identification and services in gifted education: A case study of one district. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220967376

78.

Naglieri

J. A.

Ford

D. Y.

(2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900104

79.

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (2013). Advanced standards in gifted education teacher preparation. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/Advanced%20Standards%20in%20GT%20%282013%29.pdf

80.

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (2019). Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards. https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standardsgifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12

81.

Novak

A. M.

Jones

K. D.

(2020). Gatekeepers in gifted: A case study of the disproportionality of gifted black youth in elementary programs. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 24(2), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458920976736

82.

Novak

A. M.

Lewis

K. D.

(2023). Perceptions of a gifted coordinator on university/district collaboration providing culturally responsive gifted professional learning: A phased analysis of the four-zone equity-driven model of professional learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 46(3), 276–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532231180903

83.

Novak

A. M.

Lewis

K. D.

Weber

C. L.

(2020). Guiding principles in developing equity-driven professional learning for educators of gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 43(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520915743

84.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. J.

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

85.

Office for Civil Rights (OCR). (2014). Compliance review resolution letter (Case No. 09-11-5002). https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/09115002-a.pdf

86.

Office for Civil Rights (OCR). (2017). Compliance review resolution letter (Case No. 07-14-5001). https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/07145001-a.pdf

87.

Olmos-Vega

F. M.

Stalmeijer

R. E.

Varpio

Kahlke

(2022). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research. AMEE Guide No. 149 , Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287

88.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2023). Front-loading STEM enrichment to prepare learners for STEM pathways. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1520(1), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14948

89.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Corwith

(2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738015

90.

Pereira

Knotts

J. D.

Roberts

J. L.

(2015). Current status of twice-exceptional students: A look at legislation and policy in the United States. Gifted and Talented International, 30(1–2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2015.1137463

91.

Peters

S. J.

(2022). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535

92.

Peters

S. J.

Carter

J. S.

III . (2022). Predictors of access to gifted education: What makes for a successful school? Exceptional Children, 88(4), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221081092

93.

Peters

S. J.

Engerrand

K. G.

(2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165

94.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2019). Effects of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446

95.

Plano Clark

V. L.

Ivankova

N. V.

(2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341

96.

Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244

97.

Plucker

J. A.

Peter

S. J.

(2016). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Harvard Education Press.

98.

Plucker

J. A.

Wells

Meyer

M. S.

(2022). Identification policy: Addressing equity and excellence for advanced learners. Gifted Child Today, 45(4), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221110942

99.

Redding

(2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student–teacher racial/ethnic matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853545

100.

Rinn

A. N.

Mun

R. U.

Hodges

(2020). 2018–2019 State of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://www.nagc.org/2018-2019-state-states-gifted-education

101.

Rinn

A. N.

Mun

R. U.

Hodges

(2022). 2020–2021 States of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://nagc.org/page/state-of-the-states-report

102.

Rothstein

(2019). The myth of de facto segregation. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(5), 35–38. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/26614879 https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719827543

103.

Starck

J. G.

Riddle

Sinclair

Warikoo

(2020). Teachers are people too: Examining the racial bias of teachers compared to other American adults. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912758

104.

Steinmeyer

Scott

(2022). Promising practices for equity and inclusion: A portrait of six Illinois schools. Illinois Association for Gifted Children. https://www.iagcgifted.org/resources/Documents/Final%20Report%20Promising%20Practices%20for%20Equity%20%20Inclusion%20Ocotober%2017%202022.pdf

105.

Sundler

A. J.

Lindberg

Nilsson

Palmér

(2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing Open, 6(3), 733–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.275

106.

Tran

McKenzie

S. C.

Wai

(2022). Local norms and gifted and talented identification in Arkansas: Can it help improve student diversity? Arkansas Education Report, 19(7), 1–23. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/oepreport/90

107.

VanTassel-Baska

(2019). The role of evaluation in gifted program development. Gifted Child Today, 42(4), 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519862323

108.

Vidergor

H. E.

(2015). The role of the gifted and able coordinator. In Vidergor

H. E.

Harris

C. R.

(Eds.), Applied practice for educators of gifted and able learners (pp. 57–76). Sense Publishers.

109.

Warne

R. T.

Larsen

R. A. A.

(2022). School integration limits the ability of local norms to diversify gifted programs: A mathematical analysis with implications related to the achievement gap. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(2), 275–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X211069078

110.

Wells

(2021). Achieving equity in gifted programming: Dismantling barriers and tapping potential. Routledge.

111.

Wolf

Z. R.

(2003). Exploring the audit trail for qualitative investigations. Nurse Educator, 28(4), 175–178. https://journals.lww.com/nurseeducatoronline/fulltext/2003/07000/exploring_the_audit_trail_for_qualitative.8.aspx https://doi.org/10.1097/00006223-200307000-00008

112.

Worrell

F. C.

Dixson

D. D.

(2022). Achieving equity in gifted education: Ideas and issues [special issue]. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 79–81. https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/toc/gcqb/66/2 https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211068551

113.

Worrell

F. C.

Erwin

J. O.

(2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.615817

114.

Worrell

F. C.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Dixson

D. D.

(2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846

115.

Wright

B. L.

Ford

D. Y.

Young

J. L.

(2017). Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence and equity for under-represented students of color in gifted education. Global Education Review, 4(1), 45–60. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1137997

116.

Yaluma

C. B.

Tyner

(2018). Is there a gifted gap? Gifted education in high poverty schools. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED592389.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.37 MB