A Sociological Examination of Parenting Practices and Gifted Education

Abstract

This literature review uses a socio-cultural lens to explore how income, race, culture, and parenting practices interact to cause, complicate, and further exacerbate the gap in gifted student identification. The article reframes the aforementioned factors using Annette Lareau’s work on concerted cultivation and natural growth models as a theoretical explanation. The authors recommend the following to address gifted education enrollment inequity: enhanced preparation and training of gifted student identification for educators, education about culturally relevant teaching practices, and improvements to the curricula in schools serving minority and low-income students.

Keywords

literature review parenting styles gifted education

“To understand the implications and complexity around parental influence on educational outcomes, Annette Lareau’s two contrasting child-rearing practices, the concerted cultivation and natural growth models, offer guidance.”

“By investing in extensive culturally responsive training for pre-service teachers, teacher training programs can be an important equalizing agent in the lives of students.”

The United States holds distinctive political and social factors that have contributed to shaping our dynamic educational system. Specifically, social injustice and inequities within our educational system that have surfaced on a recurring basis challenge the constitution and require attention by our judicial branch. The national attention garnered by these cases has led to changes in several federal mandates, producing an educational system that is continually being reshaped and redefined.

Although tremendous progress has been made to close the equality gap in education (e.g., McFadden v. Elgin Illinois District U-46), inequity continues to plague the American educational system. This inequality is especially pronounced in the field of special education, and in particular, within gifted education programs. Even though special education programs were developed with the intent of improving educational opportunity for those with disabilities, inequality continues to exist, as evidenced by the disproportionately low representation of minority students within gifted education programs (e.g., Skiba et al., 2008; Wright et al., 2017). In 2014, prominent gifted education researcher Donna Ford noted that over the span of 20 years (1994–2014), relatively little progress has been made to address the elitism and inequities that have strongly affected access to academic enrichment opportunities, including gifted education services.

This disproportionate representation of minority students within gifted education is often referred to as the “excellence gap” (Plucker et al., 2010, 2017), and the gifted education literature offers many explanations and hypotheses around the cause of this problem. One such explanation is linked to the historical marginalization of racially diverse groups within the United States, which has created systemic barriers to accessing educational services (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Research around gifted education recruitment trends supports this theoretical explanation (Collins et al., 2020; Fish, 2017; Grissom & Redding, 2016; Worrell & Dixson, 2018). On average, White students are three times more likely to be identified and placed into gifted education than their Black,¹ Hispanic, and Native American peers (National Education Association, 2007). Unfortunately, the disproportionality problem continues even after underrepresented students are identified and given access to gifted programs. Research shows minority students are more likely to drop out of gifted programs than White students (Ford, 2012).

Understanding the historical influence and underpinnings that created our educational system is paramount to addressing the excellence gap. However, a more nuanced conversation around the ecological impact parenting practices may have on this issue is needed. To extend the conversation around the excellence gap, this article offers an alternative explanation for why this problem continues to persist within the United States’s educational system. This article utilizes Annette Lareau’s work surrounding parental practices as a potential driver of why minority and low-income students continue to be underrepresented in gifted education. Lareau is an American sociologist who studies family dynamics. Her seminal book, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life (Lareau, 2003), explored the ways in which social class affects child-rearing practices, and how these practices can facilitate or obstruct opportunities for children. This critical review uses Lareau’s framework as a guide to examine the intersections of race, socioeconomic status, and parenting practices as potentially confounding factors in understanding student access and success in gifted education.

A Brief Historical Overview

Inequalities that plague the gifted education system often fall along racial and socioeconomic lines, which often leads to disproportionality. Disproportionality exists when students’ representation in gifted education programs exceeds their proportional enrollment in a school’s general population (Peters, Gentry, et al., 2019). For example, Black students comprise 19% of the nation’s total school population, yet represent only 10% of students in gifted education programs (Henfield et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017). Similarly, Hispanic students account for 25% of the school population, and only 16% are in gifted programs (Henfield et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017). This disproportionality equates to more than 500,000 Hispanic and Black students who are undereducated in the United States (Wright et al., 2017). Understanding disproportionality at the national level is just one step to remediating this issue, scholars encourage practitioners to utilize the gifted representation index drawing upon data at the local level (Peters, Gentry, et al., 2019). This representation index compares the district enrollment rates with the relative gifted enrollment rates. This metric provides a more sensitive metric than traditional aggregate-level data (Peters, Rambo-Hernandez, & Makel, 2019). Prior to exploring the potential role that parenting practices may play in the current levels of disproportionality seen within gifted education, a brief historical examination of the impact of race and income on educational access is warranted.

The Impact of Race on Disproportionality

Research suggests that race-specific explanations play an integral part in explaining the excellence gap (Collins et al., 2020; Peters, Gentry, et al., 2019; Wildhagen, 2011). A well-known and documented racially based explanation of inequalities in academic performance is the concept of stereotype threat (N. A. Lewis & Sekaquaptewa, 2016). Steele (2003) describes stereotype threat as the threat of being viewed as an example of a negative stereotype or the fear of doing something that would unintentionally confirm that stereotype. Stereotype threat is further perpetuated when students are exposed to social messaging about what it means to be “smart” or belong in gifted placements. For example, if a Black student sees a predominately White gifted education program at their school, it may challenge their salient belief that being “smart” and “Black” are two incompatible constructs. As a result, many non-White students feel like they do not belong in gifted education (Wright et al., 2017). When these beliefs are held by a student, this can invoke stereotype-based expectations of poor performances, which if true, may compromise their ability to achieve the necessary criterion cut score on the standardized assessment used to determine eligibility and access to gifted services.

Another popular racially based explanation of the excellence gap is the idea that being identified as a gifted student is associated with conforming to White standards. More specifically, the “acting White” hypothesis put forth by Ogbu (2004) provides a historical perspective and explanation for the intricate role of racial identity’s impact on educational aspirations. This hypothesis suggests that “acting White” is associated with higher academic achievement and taking advanced level courses, whereas “acting Black” is related to lower academic achievement (Durkee et al., 2019). A historical analysis of the identity struggle of Black populations from emancipation to current day highlights a resistance to what is perceived to be White, middle-class norms (e.g., Beasley et al., 2016; Becknell, 1987; Ogbu, 2003). This resistance often creates a pressure among Black students to not act White or to avoid fitting in with mainstream White culture (Ford et al., 2008). While there has been a significant body of literature devoted to this framework, it is important to note that the “acting White” hypothesis has received criticisms for the limited empirical evidence around its efficacy in predicting academic achievement (Neal-Barnett et al., 2010; Wildhagen, 2011).

Finally, recruitment and screening practices are often influenced by racial factors. Issues around the vernacular and messaging used to describe, advertise, and recruit students into gifted programs may be in opposition of family’s personal and cultural beliefs about what it means to be “gifted” (Christensen, 1991). Implicit bias is another issue that may affect disproportionate rates of minority students gaining access to gifted education. Implicit bias held by teachers have been found to affect the gifted identification rates of minority students (Card & Giuliano, 2016; Fish, 2017; Gunderson, 2017). Deficit thinking may also be one reason why minority students are less likely to receive teacher referrals (Swanson, 2006). Deficit thinking occurs when students from culturally diverse backgrounds are viewed by educators and administrators as deficient, deprived, or lacking in some way that leads to their academic failures (Ford, 2014). Finally, a substantial body of research highlights the issues around racial bias associated with the screening instruments and assessment used for gifted identification. A full discussion around the issues and concerns surrounding standardized assessment is beyond the scope of this article (see the following articles for a deeper discussion on the topic: Ecker-Lyster & Niileksela, 2017; Grissom & Redding, 2016; Lakin & Lohman, 2011; Naglieri & Ford, 2003; Olszewski-Kubilius & Thomson, 2003).

The Intersection of Race and Income

Race and income are two of the most influential constructs within the educational inequality equation. While these two constructs each have a robust body of literature devoted to examining their individual impacts on the excellence gap, a substantial body of work focuses on the cyclic relationship between race and socioeconomic status (e.g., Darby & Saatcioglu, 2015; Wilson, 2011). Be it political, economic, or cultural forces, it is undeniable that non-White students have a higher chance of living in communities with concentrated poverty, deteriorating public schools, and a lack of educational resources (Darby & Saatcioglu, 2015; Massey & Denton, 1993). Because race and socioeconomic status have been so intimately intertwined throughout history, it is crucial that educational inequalities are examined using a multifaceted lens to provide the most robust understanding of the issues around disproportionality.

In general, research demonstrates that high-income students are more likely to receive referrals for gifted education programs compared with students from low-income backgrounds, 15.49% and 4.15% referral rates, respectively (McBee, 2010). The discrepancies among income levels are further pronounced when you control for race. For example, Black students from low-income backgrounds are 5 times less likely to be identified for a gifted program compared with Black students from higher income families, whereas lower income White students are only 3.8 times less likely to be identified for a gifted program compared with their higher income White peers (McBee, 2010). Overall Black and Hispanic students are far less likely to be identified for gifted status, but being low-income and non-White significantly adds to the under-identification epidemic (McBee, 2010).

As demonstrated in the examples above, low-income, minority students are far less likely to be recruited, identified, and selected for gifted education than their more affluent, White peers. While there are several hypothesis to explain why this disproportionality continues to exist (e.g., Card & Giuliano, 2016; Ford, 2014; N. A. Lewis & Sekaquaptewa, 2016; Ogbu, 2003; Wright et al., 2017), the complexity surrounding this phenomenon is still under investigation. Research suggests that perhaps parenting practices may be unintentionally contributing to this issue. For example, parents could lack awareness of how they can advocate on behalf of their children to secure placement in a gifted program, which could decrease students’ chances of gaining access to these services. Research has found, on average, parent referrals for gifted education tend to be low overall; however, these types of referrals are significantly lower for low-income students compared with high-income students, and the lowest parental referrals for gifted programming were for low-income Black students and low-income Native American students (McBee, 2006). To further our understanding of the convergent effects of race, income, and education, the following section of this article examines the role and influence of parenting practices. Specifically, the next section of this article proposes the application of a conceptual framework that centers on the intersection of socioeconomic status and parenting styles as a primary driver of educational inequalities within gifted education.

Parenting Practices and Gifted Education

The primary recipients of gifted education tend to be students from well-educated and affluent families. The majority of parents of students in gifted education hold college degrees, with approximately 50% of parents who have a graduate and/or professional degree, and 40% who have a bachelor degree (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2014). Individuals who earn a college degree, on average, tend to have higher earning potential, and more stable employment (Singh, 2017). The benefits of the higher earning potential extend beyond the economic impact and into the classroom as well. Empirical evidence suggests there is a strong correlation between income and academic achievement. Brown and Park (2002) found socioeconomic status explained between 15% and 20% of the variance in academic achievement. Research also suggests that college educated parents tend to be more involved in their children’s education (Kriegbaum et al., 2016). This finding holds true when you compare parents of gifted children with parents of non-gifted children (Karnes et al., 2000). Olszewski-Kubilius (2008) outlined several steps parents could take to encourage and foster talent development and academic achievement in their children. Specifically, the authors recommended exposing children to a variety of cultural enrichment events, providing access to specialized lessons (e.g., piano lessons, foreign language), intervening in school issues, providing books and educational resources, adopting a family-oriented approach to the home–school partnership, and setting high expectations. While all of these activities have been shown to increase parent involvement, they are not always possible for all families. The majority of the suggestions provided within the educational literature require free time, money, and knowledge; discouragingly, many lower income families have limited or no access to some or all these resources (Lareau, 2015). To understand the implications and complexity around parental influence on educational outcomes, Annette Lareau’s two contrasting child-rearing practices, the concerted cultivation and natural growth models, offer guidance.

Concerted Cultivation and Natural Growth Models

Lareau’s case study offers an alternative way of looking at the issues of inequity in gifted designation. By examining the behaviors of middle- and lower income families, Lareau created a framework that can be applied to understand the influence of social and cultural capital as a driving force of the identification and designation of gifted status. Lareau’s (2002) concepts of concerted cultivation and natural growth allow us to better understand the impact of child-rearing practices on students’ experiences in a K-12 setting. Lareau notes that child-rearing practices that promote leadership skills and independence are more closely aligned to the behavioral expectations of K-12 education. In addition to child-rearing practices, Lareau (2000) also stresses that parents who are comfortable interacting and advocating within an educational institution create a competitive edge for their children. The findings highlighted below provide a blunt contrast in child-rearing and advocacy practices observed among middle- and lower income families.

Lareau labeled the child-rearing style practiced by middle-class families as concerted cultivation. Within this style, the family intentionally creates educational and social opportunities for their child to better prepare them for institutional interactions later in life (Lareau, 2002). These practices are in direct alignment with the recommendations made by Olszewski-Kubilius (2008) with regard to fostering talent development and academic achievement. In addition, concerted cultivation represents child-rearing practices where parents encourage students to take an active role in interactions with authority figures. This style of engagement with authority figures (e.g., teachers) has been identified as a leadership trait that is often cited by many teachers as a qualifying characteristic for a recommendation for gifted education (Marland, 1972; Stephens & Karnes, 2000; Zhbanova et al., 2015). Lareau found that children from middle-class families asked more questions when interacting with authority figures compared with children from low-income families, and these interactions were more child-directed. Parents who used a concerted cultivation style of child-rearing tended to model this behavior for their children by being active participants in the customization of their child’s educational experiences. This form of child-rearing can result in major differences in educational placement (e.g., parents encouraging their child to take advanced classes vs. regular classes).

In the second part of this model, Lareau examined child-rearing practices among lower income parents and found a different approach she characterized as a natural growth style of parenting. Lareau (2002) observed that parents who apply a natural growth style of child-rearing tend to suggest to their children that they are to be compliant, and occasionally distrustful, in their interactions with authority figures. This style of parenting demonstrates hesitance in encouraging their children to interact with institutions outside of family and religion (Lareau, 2002). Lareau notes that children in her study who were reared with a natural growth style inherited their parents’ hesitance in interactions with authority, which in turn resulted in what she calls “emerging signs of constraint” in children’s interactions with authority. Furthermore, children from low-income families did not exhibit the same types of leadership, motivation, and initiative behaviors seen among children from middle-income families. When considering placement in upper tracks such as gifted education and Advanced Placement (AP) courses, Lareau’s model would suggest that students from low-income families are at a significant disadvantage due in large part to the differences in parental involvement and child-rearing practices. Empirical evidence supports this assumption, as research has found that lower income students are less likely to purse these types of educational opportunities (e.g., Ford, 2014; McBee, 2010; Plucker et al., 2017). Unfortunately, these differences have little to do with actual cognitive ability, or the creative nature of the child, and more to do with the alignment of these desired behaviors and expectations with middle- and upper-class attitudes and norms typically required by K-12 education.

Lareau’s conception of institutional interaction demonstrates that middle-class families are aware of the benefits of customization of their child’s educational path and the ways in which they can coach their children to display desired educational skills, including leadership, initiative, and motivation. These behaviors are what Lareau calls “emerging signs of entitlement,” which refers to the child’s ability and insistence on advocating for themselves by being vocal and curious about their surroundings (Lareau, 2002). With definitions of gifted designation being so diverse across states and districts, the ability to advocate for yourself could play a large role in which children are identified and selected into gifted programs. Another key factor is the direct educational involvement of parents, which can take many forms, with one being suggestions to the school that their child might be a good candidate for gifted education.

Just as middle- and upper-class families are aware of the benefits to be had by their children through the involvement in extracurricular activities, low-income families are unaware of the ways in which they might lobby for a tailored experience for their children (Lewis-McCoy, 2014). Middle-class parents understand their parental rights and are more likely to seek out interactions with school administrators as a method to advocate on behalf of their child (A. E. Lewis & Diamond, 2015). This practice opens the dialogue with key school personnel and often leads to a placement for their children in upper level courses, even when the student may fall below the testing cut off for gifted placement (Lyken-Segosebe & Hinz, 2015).

Current Educational Research on Lareau’s Models

Although researchers have not directly tested Lareau’s (2002) theoretical model in relation to academic success or giftedness, studies have found associations between parental involvement behaviors and student academic achievement. The parental involvement behaviors that promote academic achievement match the child-rearing practices of concerted cultivation found in middle- and upper-class families. For example, researchers have found evidence that supports the association between parental practices and academic achievement favoring higher socioeconomic status families (Lee & Bowen, 2006). More specifically, Lee and Bowen (2006) reported that high levels of parental involvement (measured by participation in school events and volunteering), high levels of parent–child educational discussions, and high parental aspirations for their child predicted higher academic achievement overall. These parenting practices were more common in middle- and upper-class families and matched the parenting practices outlined by Lareau. A meta-analysis on parental involvement found similar results, an investigation of 52 studies found that overall parental involvement and parental participation in school activities predicted higher academic achievement, but the effect size was smaller for families of lower socioeconomic status (Jeynes, 2007).

Based on these findings, it appears that parental practices do not have the same level of influence on academic achievement for low-income families as they do for higher income families. These findings indicate that even if low-income families have high aspirations for their children, they may still lack the other capital necessary to aid their children in accessing and navigating educational systems. Low-income parents may have difficulties implementing parenting practices that match the educational aspirations they have for their children due to work demands (e.g., working odd shifts, working more than 40 hr/week), finances, and higher stress compared with higher income parents (Spera, 2005).

Empirical evidence also suggests that there are differences in parental beliefs about the value of gifted education. Roda (2017) examined parenting practices among White, Black, and Hispanic parents in juxtaposition to the educational era of high-stakes testing. The results from the study revealed significant differences between the racial groups with regard to their beliefs on what is best for their children’s education. It is important to note that this study also contained differences in socioeconomic status among the groups. The White parents in the study were more socially and economically advantaged compared with the Black and Hispanic parents. The findings revealed that White parents placed a greater value on gifted education than the Black and Hispanic parents. The White parents in the study indicated that paying for test prep to ensure their child scored high enough on the standardized assessments to secure a gifted education placement was symbolic of being a good parent. The Hispanic and Black parents, on the contrary, did not associate getting their child into gifted education as a marker of success with regard to being a good parent. Furthermore, these parents said they did not necessarily want their child to be placed into gifted education because it would be likely that their child would be one of the few minority students within the class. White parents reported feeling pressured by their family and friends to secure a gifted placement for their child, whereas Black and Hispanic parents did not feel these pressures from their social network. Finally, Black and Hispanic parents did not view gifted education as being a source of extra advantage to their child in terms of future schooling opportunities. These findings highlight the stark differences in perceptions and value of gifted education among parents of varying racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Overlaying the results from the Roda (2017) study with Lareau’s parenting theory would suggest that the affluent, White parents within the study would likely subscribe to a concerted cultivation parenting model. This group of parents placed a higher value of gifted education, and were willing to intentionally create opportunities (i.e., paying for test prep) to ensure their child was able to secure access to this educational placement. Based on Lareau’s theory, it is likely that these parents believed that participating in a gifted education program would lead to enhanced educational and social opportunities in the future. In other words, they believed that gifted education would give their child a leg up on their climb to the top of the proverbial ladder of success. The Hispanic and Black parents, on the contrary, did not assign the same value to gifted education. In fact, this group of parents believed that placement in gifted education could be detrimental to their child’s overall well-being because they would likely be one of the only minority students within the class. Another clear distinction seen within the Roda study was the pressure each group of parents reported feeling from their friends and family. As would be expected based on Lareau’s theory, the Black and Hispanic parents said they did not feel pressure to get their child into gifted education from their friends and family. Assuming these parents practiced a natural growth model of child-rearing, it would explain why these parents did not feel this pressure. Within a natural growth model, parents believe that children will successfully enter into adulthood with little need for highly structured involvement from the parents. In other words, it is not worth the effort or energy to worry about getting your child into an advanced or more exclusive educational placement because they will successfully progress through childhood and adolescence naturally within the general educational placement.

Finally, the implications of differential capital among various racial/ethnic groups is a concern. Researchers examining differences among race and ethnicity in regard to parenting practices and academic achievement found that Black and Hispanic parents have high aspirations for their children (Lee & Bowen, 2006; Spera, 2005). However, research indicates that Black and Hispanic children tend to have lower academic achievement, are less likely to attend college, and have higher high school and college drop-out rates compared with their White peers (Lee & Bowen, 2006; Spera, 2005). Multiple scholars point to differences in types of capital activated by minority parents and students, which are not directly aligned with the capital required to navigate the U.S. educational system (Ladson-Billings, 1999; Lopez, 2003; Yosso, 2005). In particular, research demonstrates differences in parental perceptions of key characteristics of giftedness. Michael-Chadwell (2008) found that Black parents tend to perceive high levels of independence and social skills as key indicators of giftedness, whereas White parents placed more emphasis on intelligence and academic achievement. These differences in perceptions between Black and White parents accentuates the disparities within gifted education. Yosso’s (2005) work further suggests that there are many different forms of cultural wealth in communities of color that are not as valued by educational institutions as traditional forms of cultural capital (e.g., Navigational Capital, Linguistic Capital, Aspirational Capital). Elevating levels of these forms of capital must align with the policies in place in the schools for students from minority backgrounds to reap the institutional labeling benefits such as a gifted designation. The demonstration of traditional forms of cultural capital seen in Lareau’s model of concerted cultivation allows for parents of middle-class, majority White families to take advantage of the systems in place (Calarco, 2018; Lareau, 2002; Lareau et al., 2018).

Discussion

To address the problems associated with the excellence gap, school districts must look beyond traditional indicators of academic success. Administrators must do a better job preparing and training educators to see potential and cultural wealth where they do not naturally look for these “talents” (Wright et al., 2017). Research shows that teachers often view giftedness as a fully developed talent that manifests in the form of high achievement on tests scores (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014). This narrow view of giftedness precludes teachers from identifying students with the potential to achieve, but have not yet had to the opportunity to demonstrate this ability. There are not only individual-level inequities in gifted identification, but also school-level issues (Hamilton et al., 2018). In alignment with Lareau’s theory, this suggests that environmental factors greatly influence the number of students with access to gifted services. With this degree of variation in the manifestations of academic excellence, Olszewski-Kubilius and Corwith (2018) suggest employing geographically specific methods to gauge student giftedness, which would in turn elevate the number of underrepresented students who are identified as gifted. Each school’s staff have intimate knowledge of the population they serve, and therefore are best positioned to suggest specific variations to the method of designation for their student body. It is worth noting that school staff should engage parents in these conversations to fully illicit the best approaches to measuring giftedness. As discussed throughout this article, variations in parenting practices, including perceptions and values of education, can significantly affect a child’s educational trajectory. It is important that school staff have an intimate understanding of how variations in parenting practices can affect how parents choose to engage with their child’s school. Staff should be sensitive to these variations and should employ a variety of strategies to solicit parent voice with regard to the customization of policies and practices around gifted programming.

Teachers and administrators must recognize that some students come to school with high levels of already-developed talent because they were afforded opportunities outside of the school system (Lareau, 2002). Other students, such as those from low-income backgrounds, were not provided with the same academically enriching experiences, consequently limiting their chances of being identified as a gifted student earlier in their academic careers (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014). Having noted this, the field must work to dispel negative stereotypes and inaccurate perceptions about the promise and potential of underrepresented student populations (Grissom & Redding, 2016).

Culturally responsive teaching practices are one potential solution to move the field forward to close the excellence gap. Culturally responsive teaching is a pedagogical approach to education that recognizes and honors differences in students’ cultural beliefs (Ladson-Billings, 1990, 2014). This teaching practice recognizes the importance of multiple forms of motivation and achievement. In the original model, Ladson-Billings identified three major domains: academic success, cultural competence, and sociopolitical consciousness. Academic success refers to the intellectual growth that students experience as a result of classroom instruction and learning experiences. Cultural competence is an educator’s ability to help students appreciate their culture, while respecting and learning about other cultures. Sociopolitical consciousness is an educator’s ability to take learning beyond the traditional confines of the classroom and extend learning into real-world problems (Ladson-Billings, 2014). This model encourages the educator to meet students where they are, and may provide a more even-playing field for identification of students into gifted programs, regardless of the preferred child-rearing practices used at home.

As a result of limited culturally relevant pre-service training, teachers may not have the necessary skills needed to modify curriculum and instruction to meet the increasing need for culturally relevant standards (Pierce et al., 2007; Szymanski & Shaff, 2013). Wright and colleagues (2017) postulate that educators who lack cultural competence risk undermining the educational experiences of historically underrepresented student populations, and will continue to exacerbate the excellence gap. Adopting culturally relevant teaching practices may require substantial training for teachers, which must be provided by the school district. Unfortunately, there are major discrepancies across states with regard to the pre-service training and credentials required to provide gifted education services. These discrepancies often create pronounced inconsistencies in the quality of teacher education and cultural competence. The literature on pre-service training for gifted educators suggests that the degree to which gifted education teachers are trained in culturally relevant teaching practices is concerning. Although most teaching programs require pre-service teachers to complete a course on multicultural education, many do not include rigorous curriculum surrounding the necessary field of culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2018; Howard, 2016). This curriculum can include courses on pedagogical approaches to teaching students from diverse linguistic, racial, and even LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) backgrounds, and provide practical experiential learning in this field prior to licensure that would contribute to teachers and school staff’s understanding of their diverse student body (Gay, 2018). This is especially important given the disproportionately homogeneous teacher workforces across the United States of majority White, young, and female staff (Howard, 2016).

By investing in extensive culturally responsive training for pre-service teachers, regardless of the demographics of students they intend to teach, teacher training programs, as well as those who oversee school district professional development, can be an important equalizing agent in the lives of students who might not fit the mold of the traditionally identified gifted student. Recognizing the complexity and working to understand differences in social, cultural, and economic capital between our lowest and highest income families opens the door to celebrate the influence that different cultures and experiential perspectives can bring to the field of gifted education.

Conclusion

As a whole, the field of gifted education has made tremendous strides establishing itself as an important part of the American educational system. However, if we hope to close the excellence gap that currently exists, more work needs to be done. The excellence gap is caused by a number of factors including lack of rigor in curricula in schools serving Black students, less access to technology-assisted instruction, having fewer qualified teachers, having fewer experienced teachers, and lower levels of feeling safe at school (A. E. Lewis & Diamond, 2015). Furthermore, there are several social factors (Ford et al., 2008) that must also be considered as contributing variables to the excellence gap. This article offers an extension of the literature by proposing the adaptation of Lareau’s models of parenting styles as a vehicle for understanding the disproportionality within gifted education. School districts and building administration must take these factors into account when looking at the wide range of acceptable criterion for gifted designation, and the flexibility for parental intervention into this process. This information can be used to better tailor their selection criteria based on culturally relevant indicators of giftedness, while understanding how families from different backgrounds interact with the educational institution itself. Through highlighting several key socio-cultural considerations, this article can be used by school districts to better understand their gifted programming and to ensure that it is open and accessible to all qualified students, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Meghan Ecker-Lyster

Notes

Bios

Meghan Ecker-Lyster, PhD, is the director of Research, Evaluation & Dissimination at the Center for Educational Opportunity Programs at the University of Kansas.

Lauren Coleman-Tempel, PhD, is an associate researcher at the Center for Educational Opportunity Programs at the University of Kansas.

Sabrina Gregersen, PhD, is an associate researcher at the Center for Educational Opportunity Programs at the University of Kansas.

Jamie Snyder, MS, is a graduate student in the University of Kansas educational psychology department.

References

Beasley

S. T.

Chapman-Hilliard

McClain

(2016). Linking the emancipatory pedagogy of Africana/Black studies with academic identify outcomes among Black students attending PWIs. Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, 9(8), 9–25.

Becknell

C. E.

(1987). Blacks in the workforce: A Black manager’s perspective. Horizon Communications.

Brown

Park

. (2002). Education and poverty in rural China. Economics of Education Review, 21(6), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00040-1

Calarco

J. M.

(2018). Negotiating opportunities: How the middle class secures advantages in school. Oxford University Press.

Card

Giuliano

(2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(48), 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113

Christensen

R. A.

(1991). A personal perspective on Tribal-Alaska Native gifted and talented education. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(1), 10–14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i24396373

Collins

K. H.

Joseph

N. M.

Ford

D. Y.

(2020). Missing in action: Black girls in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Gifted Child Today, 43(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519880593

Darby

Saatcioglu

(2015). Race, inequality of opportunity, and school choice. Theory and Research in Education, 13(1), 56–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515572288

Durkee

M. I.

Gazley

E. R.

Hope

E. C.

Keels

(2019). Cultural invalidations: Deconstructing the “acting White” phenomenon among Black and Latinx college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(4), 451–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000288

10.

Ecker-Lyster

Niileksela

(2017). Enhancing gifted education for underrepresented students: Promising recruitment and programming strategies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686216

11.

Fish

R. E.

(2017). The racialized construction of exceptionality: Experimental evidence of race/ethnicity effects on teachers’ interventions. Social Science Research, 62, 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.007

12.

Ford

D. Y.

(2012). Culturally different students in special education: Looking backward to move forward. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800401

13.

Ford

D. Y.

(2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.919563

14.

Ford

D. Y.

Grantham

T. C.

Whiting

G. W.

(2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302

15.

Gay

(2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

16.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175

17.

Gunderson

(2017). Analyzing racial bias in selecting students for gifted classes. Chicago Policy Review (Online). Retrieved from https://www2.lib.ku.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/analyzing-racial-bias-selecting-students-gifted/docview/1890269269/se-2?accountid=14556

18.

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Tutwiler

M. S.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

Callahan

C. M.

Brodersen

A. V.

Mun

R. U.

(2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053

19.

Henfield

M. S.

Woo

Bang

N. M.

(2017). Gifted ethnic minority students and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216674556

20.

Howard

G. R.

(2016). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. Teachers College Press.

21.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2007). The relationship between parental Iivolvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818

22.

Karnes

F. A.

Stephens

K. R.

Whorton

J. E.

(2000). Certification and specialized competencies for teachers in gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 22(3), 201–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554035

23.

Kriegbaum

Villarreal

V. C.

Heckhausen

(2016). Parents still matter: Patterns of shared agency with parents predict college students academic motivation and achievement. Motivation Science, 2(2), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000033

24.

Ladson-Billings

(1990). Like lightening in a bottle: Attempting to capture the pedagogical excellence of successful teachers of Black students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(4), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839900030403

25.

Ladson-Billings

(1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211–247. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167271

26.

Ladson-Billings

(2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

27.

Lakin

J. M.

Lohman

D. F.

(2011). The predictive accuracy of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning tests: Consequences for talent identification and program diversity. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 595–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400404

28.

Lareau

(2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Rowman & Littlefield.

29.

Lareau

(2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in Black families and White families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747–776. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088916

30.

Lareau

(2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.

31.

Lareau

(2015). Cultural knowledge and social inequality. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414565814

32.

Lareau

Weininger

Cox

(2018). Parental challenges to organizational authority in an elite school district: The role of cultural, social, and symbolic capital. Teachers College Record, 120(1), n1.

33.

Lee

Bowen

N. K.

(2006). Parental involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002193

34.

Lewis

A. E.

Diamond

J. B.

(2015). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrives in good schools. Oxford University Press.

35.

Lewis

N. A.

Sekaquaptewa

(2016). Beyond test performance: A broader view of stereotype threat. Current Opinions in Psychology, 11, 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.002

36.

Lewis-McCoy

R. H.

(2014). Inequality in the promised land: Race, resources, and suburban schooling. Stanford University Press.

37.

Lopez

(2003). Parental involvement as racialized performance. In Interrogating racism in qualitative research methodology (Vol. 195, pp. 71–95). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED479264

38.

Lyken-Segosebe

Hinz

S. E.

(2015). The politics of parental involvement: How opportunity hoarding and prying shape educational opportunity. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2015.988536

39.

Marland

S. P.

(1972). Education of the gifted and talented, volume 1: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. U.S. Government Printing Office.

40.

Massey

D. S.

Denton

N. A.

(1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press.

41.

McBee

M. T.

(2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686

42.

McBee

M. T.

(2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel analysis path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210377927

43.

Michael-Chadwell

S. D.

(2008). Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions concerning the underrepresentation of gifted African American students: A phenomenological study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix].

44.

Naglieri

J. A.

Ford

D. Y.

(2003). Addressing the underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700206

45.

National Education Association (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education. https://fdocuments.in/document/disporportionality-truth-in-labeling.html

46.

Neal-Barnett

Stadulis

Singer

Murray

Demmings

(2010). Assessing the effects of experiencing the acting white accusation. The Urban Review, 42(2), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-009-0130-5

47.

Ogbu

J. U.

(2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Routledge.

48.

Ogbu

J. U.

(2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting White” in Black history, community, and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:urre.0000042734.83194.f6

49.

Ogbu

J. U.

Simons

H. D.

(1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155–188. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1998.29.2.155

50.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2008). The role of the family in talent development. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 53–70). Springer Science + Business Media.

51.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Clarenbach

(2014). Closing the opportunity gap: Program factors contributing to academic success in culturally different youth. Gifted Child Today, 37(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514520630

52.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Corwith

(2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738015

53.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Lee

Thomson

(2014). Family environment and social development in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214526430

54.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Thomson

(2003). Gifted education programs and procedures. In Reynolds

W. M.

Miller

G. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational Psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 487–510). John Wiley.

55.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

Whiting

G. W.

McBee

M. T.

(2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738

56.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

(2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446

57.

Pierce

R. L.

Adams

C. M.

Neumeister

K. L. S.

Cassady

J. C.

Dixon

F. A.

Cross

T. L.

(2007). Development of an identification procedure for a large urban school corporation: Identifying culturally diverse and academically gifted elementary students. Roeper Review, 29(2), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554394

58.

Plucker

J. A.

Burroughs

Song

(2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K-12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University Bloomington.

59.

Plucker

J. A.

Peters

S. J.

Schmalensee

(2017). Reducing excellence gaps: A research-based model. Gifted Child Today, 40(4), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517723949

60.

Roda

(2017). Parenting in the age of high-stakes testing: Gifted and talented admissions and the meaning of parenthood. Teachers College Record, 119(8), 1–53. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1143659

61.

Singh

(2017). Post-graduation starting salary analysis [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University].

62.

Skiba

Simmons

A. B.

Ritter

Gibb

A. C.

Rausch

M. K.

Chung

(2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400301

63.

Spera

(2005). A Review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1

64.

Steele

(2003). Stereotype threat and African-American student achievement. In Perry

Steele

III Hilliard

(Eds.), Young, gifted, and black: Promoting achievement among African-American students (pp. 109–130). Beacon Press.

65.

Stephens

K. R.

Karnes

F. A.

(2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600206

66.

Swanson

J. D.

(2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000103

67.

Szymanski

Shaff

(2013). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students. Gifted Children, 6(1), 1–27. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol6/iss1/1

68.

Wildhagen

(2011). Testing the “acting White” hypothesis: A popular explanation runs out of empirical steam. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(4), 445–463. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41341152

69.

Wilson

W. J.

(2011). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. Vintage.

70.

Worrell

F. C.

Dixson

D. D.

(2018). Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 209–226). Springer.

71.

Wright

B. L.

Ford

D. Y.

Young

J. L.

(2017). Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence and equity for under-represented students of color in gifted education. Global Education Review, 4(1), 45–60. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137997.pdf

72.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

73.

Zhbanova

Rule

Stichter

(2015). Identification of gifted African American primary grade students through leadership, creativity, and academic performance in curriculum material making and peer-teaching: A case study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0628-z