A Social Justice Approach to Developing Equity and Diversity in Gifted Programming

This chapter encourages educators to expand boundaries and build new, innovative approaches to increasing equity and diversity in gifted programming. Using a social justice approach to gifted programming, the authors describe methods for overcoming barriers that have historically, and continue, to suppress access to appropriate services for underserved populations in gifted education. This chapter provides an impetus for educators to reflect on ways to build upon and improve existing structures to adopt and adapt practices that embrace an inclusive approach to gifted identification and programming.

Gifted Programming Identification Procedures: A Hidden Curriculum

<p>Monocultural notions of intelligence are crippling the field of gifted education and often, whether explicitly or implicitly, perpetuate inequity and disproportionality in both theory and practice, especially regarding <i>how</i> children are identified as gifted (Cross, 2021; Owens et al., 2018). This paper briefly examines the history of the conceptualization of giftedness and posits that gifted programming identification procedures represent a unique and dangerous hidden curriculum. Drawing from theory on critical hope and positionality, two tables are presented; one to examine hokey versus critical gifted programing practices, and one to examine dehumanizing versus humanizing gifted identification procedures. These tables are intended to generate discussion on what happens when new ways of conceptualizing giftedness meet old ways of understanding, informing, and ordering the field of gifted education. </p> @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

Gifted Programming Identification Procedures: A Hidden Curriculum

<p>Monocultural notions of intelligence are crippling the field of gifted education and often, whether explicitly or implicitly, perpetuate inequity and disproportionality in both theory and practice, especially regarding <i>how</i> children are identified as gifted (Cross, 2021; Owens et al., 2018). This paper briefly examines the history of the conceptualization of giftedness and posits that gifted programming identification procedures represent a unique and dangerous hidden curriculum. Drawing from theory on critical hope and positionality, two tables are presented; one to examine hokey versus critical gifted programing practices, and one to examine dehumanizing versus humanizing gifted identification procedures. These tables are intended to generate discussion on what happens when new ways of conceptualizing giftedness meet old ways of understanding, informing, and ordering the field of gifted education. </p> @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

Using a creativity test standardized on a Hungarian sample to identify high creative abilities of socially disadvantaged students

Although there is no consensus about the nature of the connection between creativity and divergent thinking, divergent thinking is an important indicator of creative abilities. Creativity is an important characteristic of the diversity of giftedness that contains general and domain specific manifestations. The MONDALK Test measuring divergent thinking was developed in Hungary utilizing and furthering the principles of Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests (WKCT) and standardized on a representative sample of 1219 students aged 7-18. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis show that the A and B versions of the three subtests of the test measure a unified construct of the related visual, linguistic and productivity focused domains that also differ in domain-specific characteristics. In gifted identification, test bias against socially disadvantaged students and students at the risk of school dropout can only be eliminated if we use an 80th percentile cut-off point of originality and quality of originality measures instead of the usual 90th percentile cut-off point.

Assessing the Universality of the Zero Originality Lists of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)-Figural: An Examination With African American College Students

Originality is scored based on standard zero-originality lists (ZOLs) in the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). The applicability of those ZOLs to diverse groups has not been examined. We examined the consistency of TTCT-Figural’s sample-based (SB) ZOLs and the published ZOLs based on a sample of predominantly African American college students ( n = 464 and n = 493 for Forms A and B, respectively). Then, we scored 193 forms using SB-ZOLs and published ZOLs. Compared with the old ZOLs, the updated ZOLs yielded more consistent results with the SB-ZOLs when a 3% cutoff is used for Activity 3. However, the new ZOLs made more improvement in Form A than Form B and in Activity 2 than Activities 1 and 3. Further studies are needed to determine if the inconsistencies stem from cultural differences or the method of updating the ZOLs. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for gifted identification.

Local Norms for Gifted and Talented Student Identification: Everything You Need to Know

Conversations over who should be identified as gifted continue perpetually both within the field and in the popular media. In this article, we focus on the use of local norms as one approach to gifted identification that can increase the equity of advanced educational programs and services while also better achieving their stated purpose of providing additional challenge to those students who need it. In this article, we define local norms, explain their purpose, provide examples of schools that have used local norms, discuss common challenges, and provide a tutorial and external resources on how schools can begin to use local norms as part of their gifted identification process.

Gatekeepers in Gifted: A Case Study of the Disproportionality of Gifted Black Youth in Elementary Programs

Gifted identification and services, like many aspects of education, are inequitable and disproportionate in favor of White students. Obama Elementary School serves 421 students: 29% are Black and 58% are White; the school’s gifted program is 10% Black and 86% White. Rebecca Johnson, the gifted teacher, brings this to the attention of her principal, who has Rebecca present to the school improvement team. Rebecca receives pushback from a culturally unresponsive and equity-illiterate group. This case study provides teaching notes on gifted identification and services as well as cultural proficiency and equity literacy, and is framed in both gifted education and anti-racism.

Making space for spatial talent

Spatial reasoning — the ability to mentally visualize, transform, and recognize symbolic information — is known to predict long-term success in many educational and occupational areas, including in STEM. Despite this, spatial reasoning measures are virtually absent in K-12 tests. Thus, such strengths are not prioritized in gifted identification and talent development. Joni Lakin and Jonathan Wai discuss why spatial reasoning matters for finding and developing talent, services schools might provide for students with these strengths, and how understanding spatial reasoning can help education leaders expand access to gifted education.

Building Systemic Capacity to Improve Identification and Services in Gifted Education: A Case Study of One District

The problem of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) student underrepresentation in gifted programs demonstrates a need to examine systemic processes, including the building of systemic capacity at the district and school levels where policies for gifted programs are formed and implemented. To examine the effects of this process on one diverse district’s gifted identification and services, we conducted 10 focus group interviews with 61 participants including gifted coordinators, teacher leaders, and gifted facilitators in the middle of a district initiative aimed at improving equitable identification and services in its gifted program. Data were analyzed using the six-phase approach of Thematic Analysis, which included (1) familiarization, (2) coding, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and then (6) writing our report. Three overarching themes emerged from the in-depth analysis: (1) building systemic capacity, (2) shifting conceptions of giftedness, and (3) equitable identification practices and inclusive programming. Findings indicated the importance of systemic capacity building in teachers for improved CLED student identification into gifted programs and services. Essentially, building systemic capacity and shifting conceptions of giftedness share a reciprocal relationship in leading to more equitable gifted identification practices and inclusive programming. Moreover, implementing flexible and nuanced policy that takes into consideration school climate and culture is critical to building systemic capacity while working toward goals of equity. Recommendations are provided for researchers and practitioners based on these major findings.