Researchers have consistently pointed to teacher deficit views, inequitable identification of policies and practices, and differential access to resources to explain the dearth of traditionally underserved learners in gifted programs across the nation. Culturally relevant leadership is one way to remedy this problem through systemic educational reform at the district and school levels. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of the literature on leadership, systemic reform, and identification and services in gifted education for culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) K–12 students in the United States. Drawing from this literature, we report what we know to date on systemic district reforms and their consideration of minoritized populations in gifted education through five themes: systemic bias; equity and excellence; deficit thinking; hiring practices, training, and professional development; and parent and community networks. We then reflect on the potential for equitable systemic reform efforts inclusive of CLED students.

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.

Debates over identification procedures for gifted and talented students dominate the field and serve as the topic of many of its internal and external debates. We believe this is due to a lack of commonly accepted criteria for how to evaluate identification procedures. In this article, we present the Cost, Alignment, Sensitivity, and Access (CASA) criteria, a framework to evaluate identification systems according to their cost, alignment to services, sensitivity, and access. We believe these criteria would facilitate more productive conversations over identification and continued growth and improvement for the field as a whole.

No abstract

No abstract

As the expectations for including creativity in K–12 education continually grow, creative process skills equip students with thinking strategies to generate and evaluate ideas. This systematic review explored existing research on elementary and secondary gifted classroom environments that promote creative process skills. A database search yielded peer-reviewed literature, empirical and practitioner-focused, for systematic evaluation. A critical examination of literature published from 2011 to 2019 identified characteristics of educational environments that foster creative processes and highlighted key themes, including integrating creative process skills, adaptive environments, reflective classroom culture, and challenges to implementation. Implications for classroom application and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The imposter phenomenon is characterized as difficulty internalizing success due to feelings of inauthenticity or phoniness despite contrary evidence of competence. Academically talented students in undergraduate honors programs could be more vulnerable to the imposter phenomenon as compared with other undergraduates because of experiences surrounding perfectionism and participation in highly selective programs. In this study, researchers examined the relationship between gender, honors program participation, perfectionism, and the imposter phenomenon among undergraduates. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis indicate that socially prescribed perfectionism and honors program participation relate to higher levels of imposter feelings in an undergraduate sample. Implications and practical recommendations for researchers, educators, school counselors, and college administrators are discussed.

Discussions around transparency in open science focus primarily on sharing data, materials, and coding schemes, especially as these practices relate to reproducibility. This fairly quantitative perspective of transparency does not align with all scientific methodologies. Indeed, qualitative researchers also care deeply about how knowledge is produced, what factors influence the research process, and how to share this information. Explicating a researcher’s background and role allows researchers to consider their impact on the research process and interpretation of the data, thereby increasing both transparency and rigor. Researchers may engage in positionality and reflexivity in a variety of ways, and transparently sharing these steps allows readers to draw their own informed conclusions about the results and study as a whole. Imposing a limited, quantitatively-informed set of standards on all research can cause harm to researchers and the communities they work with if researchers are not careful in considering the impact of such standards. Our paper will argue the importance of avoiding strong defaults around transparency (e.g., always share data) and build upon previous work around qualitative open science. We explore how transparency in all aspects of our research can lend itself toward projecting and confirming the rigor of our work.