Culturally Relevant Leadership in Gifted Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

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.

Equitable Access, Locale, Funding, and the Alignment to Performance Ratings in Texas Gifted Programs

“…Thus, the greater the proportion of students who are Black or Hispanic in a district, the more likely that district was to rate their gifted program lower than a similar district. This finding can be attributed to similar factors associated with achievement gap literature, as well as systemic biases held against students of color (e.g., racism, prejudice, institutional discrimination; Mun et al, 2020). Examples of factors considered to contribute to achievement gaps include unsafe school and community environments, fewer economic opportunities for families, lowered expectations of achievement, and less access to sufficient health, social, and academic resources (NEA, 2019; Worrell & Dixson, 2018).…”

“…Our results show a relative disconnect between what scholars believe to be a critical issue within gifted education and how school districts evaluate themselves. For decades, underrepresentation in gifted identification has been a critical issue, in which scholars have decried the lack of change in representation of Black and Hispanic students in gifted programs (e.g., Borland, 2004, 2014; Ford et al, 2018; Ford & Grantham, 2012; Lohman, 2005; Mun et al, 2020; Peters et al, 2019; Plucker et al, 2017; Worrell & Dixson, 2018; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). Representation of Black and Hispanic student populations has historically been low within the state of Texas, and our results indicate their representation in gifted programs does not collectively play a role in how districts rate their program performance to the state.…”

“…For future evaluations of performance, districts can use the revised Gifted Education Programming Standards (NAGC, 2019), that incorporate elements from the Culturally Responsive Equity-Based Bill of Rights for Gifted Students of Color (Ford et al, 2018), to better reflect issues of equity and inclusion for gifted programs. Furthermore, more collaboration between district leadership who are decision makers (e.g., superintendents, assistant superintendents, school board members) and gifted education advocates (e.g., coordinators, gifted education researchers) is needed to help address the disparities in demographic representation that continues within gifted programs (Mun et al, 2020; Park & Datnow, 2009; Peters et al, 2019; Plucker et al, 2017).…”

“…The historical underrepresentation of culturally, linguistically, economically, and ethnically diverse students within gifted and talented programs requires systemic evaluation of policies to help mitigate continued disparities in access (Ford, 2014; Ford & Whiting, 2007; Siegle et al, 2016). Although there are countless reasons underrepresentation and achievement gaps persist (National Education Association [NEA], 2019), scholars postulate that factors related to achievement gaps, structural biases within educational policies and practices, and a national history associated with “racism, ethnocentrism, classism, and lingualism” have contributed to barriers to equitable access (Mun et al, 2020, p. 10).…”

Developing a Strong Home–School Connection to Better Identify and Serve Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Gifted and Talented Students

“…Establishing a positive, open relationship with families can also help increase student attendance, boost family engagement within the school environment, and even support the use of effective differentiation practices in the classroom (Kronholz, 2016). Family–teacher relationships can also provide a better understanding of how to support students from at-risk environments in their classrooms (Meyer et al, 2011), which may help teachers develop cultural competence and empathy for students and also remove barriers to referral for gifted and talented services (Mun et al, 2020). As students progress, a strong home–school connection can help families who lack experience in higher education support their students in making informed decisions about college and career options (Seward & Gaesser, 2018).…”