Equity-Based Gifted and Talented Education to Increase the Recruitment and Retention of Black and Other Underrepresented Students

Colorblind Racial Ideology Among Teachers of Gifted Students and Its Relationship With Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

“…In the gifted education literature, racial colorblindness has been associated with fostering deficit thinking that poses barriers to the equitable identification and implementation of culturally responsive pedagogy (Ford, 2014; Ford et al, 2011; Ford & King, 2014; Wright et al, 2017). Within the context of gifted education, Ford (2010) described colorblindness as occurring “when educators/individuals intentionally or unintentionally suppress the importance of and role of culture in learning, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and expectations” (p. 32).…”

“…Insufficient teacher training on both culturally responsive pedagogy and the needs of gifted students has been cited as a contributor to the adoption of deficit perspectives (Ford, 2014; Ford et al, 2011; Ford & King, 2014). In the 2015 report on the State of the States in Gifted Education , the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) noted that only five states require general education teachers to complete gifted-specific training.…”

A Bioecological Perspective of Emotional/Behavioral Challenges for Gifted Students of Color: Support Needed Versus Support Received

“…In addition to reconceptualizing special education, it is also essential that we address the long-standing assumptions within the field of gifted education which have led to the significant underrepresentation of Black/African American, Latinx, Indigenous Peoples, socio-economically disadvantaged students, and students who are twice exceptional (2e) within advanced educational options (Ford, et al, 2021; National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2020). These assumptions stem from early conceptualizations of intelligence as fixed, unified, and easily measured, which were influenced by the racist eugenics movement (Terman & Ogden, 1947).…”

“…We must also attend to multicultural concept-based teaching and learning, designing or redesigning our curriculum to incorporate culturally responsive topics, themes, and activities. Several supporting theoretical frameworks are part of the discourse of curriculum redesign, including human, cognitive, and skill development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006;Bloom et al, 1956; see also Krathwohl et al, 1964;Simpson, 1972;Tomlinson, 2001); multicultural curriculum reform (Banks, 1997;1999); multicultural gifted education (Ford, 2011; see also Ford et al, in press;Trotman Scott, 2014); inclusive academic, identity, and talent development (Coleman, 2016;Collins, 2018;Varelas et al, 2013); and blended course quality assurance (Quality Matters, 2018).…”

“…This can be done using the Blooms-Bank matrix, which was first conceptualized by Ford and Harris III (2000), highlighting the components of Bloom et al's (1956) taxonomy and Banks' (1999) four approaches to curriculum reform as its criteria as a starting point. Using Bloom's revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), Ford (2011) later adapted it as a framework for teaching conceptual thinking and addressing racial topics in multicultural texts and literature. Trotman Scott (2014) and Wright et al ( 2017) then reintroduced it with a color-coded multi-level quadrant (4) approach for differentiated lesson planning, pacing, and mastery of content.…”