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

Abstract

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.

Parent Engagement in Identifying and Serving Diverse Gifted Students: What Is the Role of Leadership?

“…District student demographic data may be found in Table 1. The data are part of a larger study of the same school district to examine the identification process and services of its gifted program following a district wide GT reform equity initiative (Ezzani et al, 2021; Mun et al, 2021). It is important to note that the reform was a work-in-progress at the time of our study.…”

“…This study forms part of a larger research study of the same school district. Because some members of our research team had previously worked with the data as part of their study of another aspect of the case (Ezzani et al, 2021; Mun et al, 2021), phase I and phase II data analyses were conducted concurrently to accommodate the varying degrees of coders’ familiarity with the data. This process encompassed multiple meetings of the research team.…”

Disentangling Inequity in Gifted Education: The Need for Nuance in Racial/Ethnic Categories, Socioeconomic Status, and Geography

“…There is consensus among scholars in gifted education on the need to address educational equity for marginalized groups based on racial/ethnic categories (Peters et al, 2019), socioeconomic status (Hamilton et al, 2018), and geography (Hodges, 2018). Marginalization exists in terms of identification for services (Mun et al, 2021;Peters et al, 2019) and the extent of those services (Hodges, 2018). Less clear, however, are the complexities of the subgroups who comprise those marginalized groups.…”

A Renewed Call for Disaggregation of Racial and Ethnic Data: Advancing Scientific Rigor and Equity in Gifted and Talented Education Research

“…For decades, researchers (Connery et al, 2019;Erwin & Worrell, 2011;Ezzani et al, 2021;Ford & Thomas, 1998;Hodges et al, 2018;Mun et al, 2020Mun et al, , 2021 have investigated the inequities in GATE programs across the United States. Representation data of minoritized populations, with the exception of Asian Americans, are frequently compared to enrollment numbers of the dominant racial group (White).…”