The New Dreamkeepers: A Call for Critically Conscious,Culturally Responsive,and Creative Educators in Gifted Education

Abstract

The connection between culture and creativity is a more novel, an always existing concept. Although research and literature affirms this, less is known about how individuals’ implicit beliefs towards racial and ethnic subgroups influence their perceptions of creativity. This conceptual and praxis manuscript reviews key findings and recommendations from two interconnected empirical studies that examined the relationship between individual’s racial implicit bias, also referred to as a participant’s automatic association, toward Black and/or White individuals and their desirability of creative characteristics in students, particularly those of color. Findings indicated a significant correlation: educators with lower levels of implicit bias demonstrated higher valuations of creativity, both intrapersonally and in their desirability of student creative behaviors. From these finding emerged a new pedagogical identity introduced in this manuscript as the C³ educator: one who is critically conscious, culturally responsive, and teaches for creativity. The manuscript concludes with two recommendations for schools and districts to cultivate this identity within educators in every educational setting.

Keywords

creativity gifted education talent development teacher education underserved populations

Educators with lower levels of bias were more likely to recognize and value creative traits in students, particularly those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.”

From the north, I call

And from the south, I cry

From the west, I beckon

From the east, I beseech

Why won’t you honor me?

Why have you deprived me?

I, creativity, call unto you

Asking that you would cultivate me

Nurture me

Develop me within your scholars

For I am the key to their achievement

And the gateway to the identity

The generations of old recognize me

They know me by name and spirit

I, creativity, call unto you

To see me

To trust me

To cultivate me

To love me.

Introduction

Today’s classrooms are filled with educators committed to academic excellence, which has often come at the expense of nurturing creativity in the classroom (Chomsky & Robichaud, 2014; Gajda et al., 2017). To that end, educators can be well-versed and competent in their content areas while possessing non-affirming beliefs about the students they teach (Bouley & Reinking, 2021; Yeung, 2023). Research suggests that teachers consistently value academically aligned behaviors more than creative traits (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018; Bloom & VanSlyke-Briggs, 2019; Puryear & Lamb, 2024), but how does the presence of racial implicit bias affect their perceptions of racial representations of creative potential and identity? (Kapoor et al., 2024) More specifically, do teachers, even who are aware of their racial biases, unconsciously deprioritize creativity in the classroom, especially when it manifests in culturally distinct ways? Could this also be a culprit of the lack of culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse (CLED) student enrollment and participation in GATE programs—teachers not recognizing, nor desiring, the creative characteristics of students of color and in turn, not recommending those students for gifted evaluation and identification?

This conceptual and praxis manuscript includes a synthesis of seven major findings from two quantitative studies (Gray, 2025b, 2025c) exploring the relationship between racial implicit bias and educators’ perceptions of creativity in the classroom. The discussion of each finding concludes with recommendations for schools, districts, and teacher-preparation programs aimed at nurturing culturally responsive and critically conscious approaches to and perceptions of creativity in K-12 education.

Synthesis of Study Design

The empirical studies summarized in this manuscript pursued three core aims: (a) to examine the psychological state of perceived value, honor, and desirability in creative characteristics that current educators possess; (b) to assess the prevalence of racial implicit bias within educators; and (c) to explore the correlation between teachers’ racial implicit bias, specifically between Black and White individuals, and their desirability of student creative traits in the classroom. The participant population consisted of 173 pre- and in-service educators in the United States, the majority of whom resided in Georgia. Inclusion criteria for participation were consistent across both groups: (a) individuals had to be either pre- or in-service K-12 educators, and (b) they must have completed or been enrolled in a traditional or alternative teacher-preparation program. A traditional teacher-preparation program was defined as an educational program of study at a university leading to in-field certification, while an alternative teacher-preparation program consisted of pathways primarily leading to employment in schools, such as Teach for America, an employed school-based program in charter or independent schools, or an external educational provider with no connection to a university. Voluntary sampling was the primary source of recruitment for the studies.

The first study was a replication study which utilized the Teacher Survey of Student Characteristics (Kettler et al., 2018) to generally measure the participants desirability and perceptions of creative student behaviors. The second study measured participant’s automatic association, synonymous with implicit bias in this study, with the Race Implicit Association Task (IAT; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) and correlated those responses with the results the first study to examine the relationship between perceptions of creativity with racial implicit bias. Therefore, the data collection tool consisted of one survey broken into two parts, allowing participants to complete each survey in one sitting.

Participants also provided demographic information, including their race, age, and gender, along with professional background information, such as their teacher-preparation pathway, program of study, professional learning acquired, content area taught, and their experience with gifted evaluation and programming during their K-12 schooling experience.

Data from both studies were collected via Qualtrics. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including ANOVA and correlation analyses, were conducted to examine the relationship between implicit bias categories and creative-trait desirability ratings.

Results

To explore the various relationships between participant variables, perceptions of creativity, and implicit bias, a combination of analyses of variances (ANOVAs), t-tests, and multiple regression models was conducted. From these analyses produced seven major findings, all of which yielded unique recommendations for teacher professional learning and mentorship.

Finding 1: Lower Levels of Racial Implicit Bias are Associated with Greater Desirability of Student Creative Characteristics

A core objective of this study was to examine the relationship between educators’ racial implicit bias and their perceptions of creativity. Therefore, Harvard’s Race IAT (IAT; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) was used to measure participant’s automatic association, synonymous with implicit bias. In this study, automatic preference was defined as an individual’s unconscious, instinctive tendency to associate certain concepts together more quickly than others, revealed by their response time (Greenwald et al., 1998; Greenwald & Lai, 2020). This is the same instrument referred to throughout this manuscript.

Findings revealed a clear trend: participants who demonstrated either a slight or little to no automatic preference toward either Black or White individuals, as measured by the Race IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998), reported the highest levels of perceived personal creativity and exhibited the strongest preference for creative student traits among other automatic preference subgroups. Similarly, individuals with a slight automatic preference toward either racial group also rated creativity more highly than those with moderate or strong measured implicit bias. In contrast, participants with a strong automatic preference toward White individuals reported the lowest desirability for creative and non-creative student traits, suggesting a general tendency toward narrowed perceptions of student potential. These results support the notion that reduced racial bias is positively correlated with a more dynamic and inclusive view of creativity in both one’s self and students.

Several factors may explain this relationship. Individuals who engage in sustained self-reflection and anti-bias work are often more attuned to the diverse strengths, talents, and creative expressions of students from racial and cultural groups different from their own (DiAngelo, 2018; Singleton, 2015). This heightened cultural responsiveness often stems from intentional efforts to engage across different racial subgroups and ethnic boundaries, expand one’s self- and social awareness, and deconstruct destructive and deficit-based narratives and perspectives looming in the mind. Additionally, individuals with slight preferences may actively appreciate and seek out cultural contributions from both racial groups, such as Black or White poets, artists, scientists, musicians, inventors, and thought leaders, which can impact their understanding of creativity through a cultural lens. These culturally informed perspectives can influence how educators identify and nurture creative characteristics in students, especially those whose manifestations of creativity are rooted in lived experiences that differ from dominant norms (Abraham, 2025).

Finding 2: Racial Implicit Bias is Formed More by Demographic Identity than Educational Background

These studies revealed that racial implicit bias among educators is more strongly influenced by demographic variables, specifically race and age, than by educational factors such as teacher-preparation pathway, content area taught, or participation in professional learning opportunities. Participants’ automatic preferences toward Black and White individuals were assessed using Harvard’s Race IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998). While some researchers have scrutinized and critiqued the IAT for potentially measuring familiarity rather than bias (Blanton et al., 2009; Holroyd & Sweetman, 2016), it remains a widely accepted tool for gauging implicit associations and has informed extensive research across psychology, education, and social science fields (Kurdi et al., 2019; Nosek et al., 2007).

The results of this study confirmed that no participant received a neutral score (0.0), indicating that all participants held some level of implicit racial preference. However, statistically significant differences in IAT scores emerged only when comparing participants by race and age, not by professional or educational background. This suggests that engagement in culturally responsive training, formal teacher education programs, or content-specific instruction may have limited influence on developing or reducing implicit racial bias. Instead, such biases emerge based on one’s demographic identity and the early experiences accompanying it. To that end, research suggests that race is a core component of identity formation, particularly during childhood and adolescence (Helms, 1990; Tatum, 1997). In the United States, race has historically functioned as a mechanism of stratification and exclusion, from the displacement of Indigenous peoples to the enslavement of Africans and the institutionalized discrimination of the Jim Crow era (Alexander, 2012; Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Love, 2023). We reside in the residue of these legacies, which have contributed to the deeply embedded racial narratives that continue to influence individuals’ implicit beliefs, often below the level of conscious or cognitive awareness.

Finding 3: Educators Trained in Culturally Responsive Pedagogy are More Likely to Desire Creative Student Characteristics

Although most educators in this study demonstrated a stronger preference for academic traits over creative characteristics in students, a notable subset of participants (12%) reported the opposite—desiring creative characteristics above non-creative traits. Of these 27 educators, 92% had formal training in culturally relevant or responsive pedagogical frameworks. Despite variability across race, gender, content area, and years of experience, this group’s shared exposure to and engagement with culturally responsive pedagogical frameworks suggest a strong correlation between this form of training and educators’ valuation and validation of student creativity. Culturally relevant pedagogy, as theorized by Ladson-Billings (1995), and culturally responsive teaching, as outlined by Gay (2002), emphasize the importance of embedding students’ cultural identities into curricular and instructional design. These frameworks call for educators not to seek a checklist of actionable steps to follow nor merely acknowledge culture, but to reimagine teaching as a political and moral act that affirms diverse ways of knowing and being (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Therefore, these results quantitatively suggest that educators who are more open to creative expression, divergence of thought, and negatively perceived manifestations of creative behaviors; such as non-conformity, emotional intensity, and high levels of kinetic expression; are also more inclusive in their beliefs about students’ racial, ethnic, and cognitive composition, directly aligning with their dispositions on how every student will achieve in their classroom context.

Finding 4: Veteran Educators Exhibit a Stronger Desirability for Student Creative Characteristics

These studies also discovered that educators with more teaching experience, particularly those with 20 or more years in the classroom, reported significantly higher levels of preference for creative characteristics in students compared to their less-experienced peers. In contrast, pre-service teachers without formal teaching experience demonstrated the lowest preference for creative traits. Educators with fewer than five years of experience strongly preferred academically oriented traits, indicating a possible inverse relationship between teaching experience and the prioritization of conventional academic behaviors.

Several factors may account for this trend. Veteran educators have had extensive time to internalize curriculum content and instructional standards, freeing cognitive and creative bandwidth to innovate within their teaching practice. Rather than focusing on how to deliver content, experienced teachers often reflect on how to deliver it in engaging, imaginative, and meaningful ways, while emerging educators focus more on their classroom management and instructional practices (Lowe et al., 2019; Shank & Santiague, 2021). Additionally, their tenure has exposed them to multiple reiterations of educational reform, evolving standards, and pedagogical shifts, cultivating an adaptive and flexible instructional mindset and repertoire (Carrillo & Flores, 2017).

Some of these educators also entered the profession during a pre- and emerging digital era, prior to the somewhat instant rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and pervasive digital tools (Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001). Without access to algorithmic support or AI-generated content and recommendations, they developed resourcefulness, critical thinking, and creativity as core competencies in their teaching identity—skills that continue to influence their pedagogical and instructional approach. While AI can assist with instructional design and data analysis, it cannot replicate the relational intelligence, cultural sensitivity, or intuitive creativity cultivated through years of classroom experience (Pale, 2023; Singh, 2024; Siegle, 2023).

Finding 5: Believing that the Most Important Objective of Education is Either Thinking Critically or Creatively About the Content Yields Identical Levels of Desirability of Student Creative Characteristics

Participants in these studies were asked to rank five educational objectives based on their perceived importance. These objectives included (a) mastering knowledge and skills of the curriculum, (b) thinking critically about the content, (c) thinking creatively about the content, (d) communicating effectively about the content, and (e) problem-solving relative to the content. Participants were grouped according to their top-selected educational objective based on these rankings. While it was initially hypothesized that the most frequently selected objective would be mastery of content knowledge and skills, most participants prioritized critical thinking, followed by problem-solving. Notably, the objective selected least often was creative thinking. However, despite its lower ranking, results indicated nearly identical levels of desirability (a mean difference of <.01) between the subgroup of educators who prioritized “creative thinking” as a top objective and those who prioritized “critical thinking.” The difference between the two subgroups’ mean scores was a mere 0.01, indicating a parallel appreciation for creativity among educators prioritizing either form of student thinking and processing.

Finding 6: General and Special Education Teachers Prioritize Academic Traits over Creative Characteristics

Although no statistically significant differences were identified across content areas or programs of study, a noteworthy trend emerged: general education and special education teachers demonstrated a stronger desirability for academic, non-creative traits than any other subgroup, including those in the performing arts, mathematics, foreign languages, sciences, and social studies. In other words, these two subgroups of participants desired traits that were contradictive to creativity more than any other subgroup based on content area taught. Interestingly, general educators did express a relatively high valuation of creative traits; however, this group exhibited the third-largest standard deviation in creative-trait desirability, suggesting wide variability in perceptions amongst the participants within this subgroup.

One potential explanation for this pattern lies in the multifaceted responsibilities of general educators, particularly those in self-contained elementary classrooms. These educators are tasked with delivering instruction across multiple disciplines, often within time-constrained schedules and under the pressures of standardized testing mandates (Cohen et al., 2018; Markworth et al., 2016). As a result, instructional priorities tend to emphasize foundational academic skills, such as teaching students how to read, write, and compute, over how to think creatively and critically. This pragmatic orientation, while understandable, can inadvertently deprioritize the cultivation of creativity. Although creativity and the teaching of creativity may not be perceived as an essential skill and priority of today’s K-12 educational system, it is highly valued in the workforce, as creative thinking is highly desired among most, if not every, career paths (Watson & McMahon, 2024). Therefore, educators who do not cultivate creative thinking and behaviors in their classrooms are unintentionally doing their students a disservice by not preparing them for the anticipated unpredictable and inconsistent future in their chosen career and field (Corbett, 2024).

Finding 7: Impulsivity, a Trait Common Amongst Twice- and Thrice-Exceptional Students, was the Least Desired Student Characteristic

Among the 20 student characteristics evaluated in this study, students “who are impulsive” emerged as the least desired by participating educators. This finding is especially significant given that impulsivity is a commonly observed trait among twice-exceptional (2E) and thrice-exceptional (3E) students. 2E students demonstrate high academic or intellectual ability while also possessing a diagnosed learning disability or exceptionality (Foley Nicpon et al., 2011; Gallagher, 1988). When these students are also culturally and linguistically diverse, they are referred to as thrice-exceptional (Davis & Robinson, 2018; Sosland, 2022; Wright et al., 2020). The intersectionality of high ability, exceptionality, and cultural difference can amplify challenges in educational contexts, particularly where deficit-based perspectives dominate the identification and evaluation processes.

Historically, educators have idealized what Torrance (1963) termed the “ideal pupil,” a compliant, agreeable, academically capable, and behaviorally consistent student. This desire often excludes students who manifest traits such as impulsivity, non-conformity, or emotional intensity—traits that, while potentially disruptive in traditional classroom settings, are often markers of creative thinking and giftedness (Rizza & Morrison, 2003). Educators, burdened with roles beyond instruction, including mentorship, counseling, medical assistance, coaching, and behavior management, may favor students whose behaviors facilitate learning rather than challenge classroom norms and systems. As such, traits that are misaligned with behavioral expectations, including impulsivity, may be disregarded despite their potential connection to creative or high-ability thinking (Cramond, 1994). Twice- and thrice-exceptional students frequently demonstrate advanced verbal reasoning, critical thinking, humor, and curiosity, contributing to their creativity (Baum et al., 2017). However, they also often struggle with organization, emotional regulation, perfectionism, learned helplessness, low self-esteem, and impulsivity (Ruban & Reis, 2005). These challenges can obscure their strengths, leading educators to approach them from a deficit perspective and overlook their creative and cognitive abilities.

Recommendations

To explore the various relationships between participant variables, perceptions of creativity, and implicit bias, a combination of analyses of variances (ANOVAs), t-tests, and multiple regression models was conducted. From these analyses, a common trend along with an urgent call to action emerged: the field of education is in critical need of educators who are critically conscious, culturally responsive, and creative, collectively conceptualized in this manuscript as the C³ educator.

The C³ educator embodies three interdependent dimensions. They are critically conscious by critically examining the curriculum they select, critically evaluating their instructional strategies and habits, and critically reflecting on their interactions with every student in their classroom context (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Stillman & Palmer, 2024). They are culturally responsive in their unwavering belief that every child, regardless of any demographic information, can, must, and desires to achieve the highest possible levels of academic achievement, creative expression, and personal belonging (Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2014) Although cultural responsiveness does not consist of a checklist of teacher actions or specific assignments, these educators manifest their belief through instructional practices and decisions that actively embed students’ cultural identities, lived experiences, and personal interests into the daily curriculum (Fugate et al., 2021; Gray et al., 2026). Lastly, they are creative in their approach to teaching and learning, specifically in how they integrate students’ cultural identities and historical contexts with instructional practices that promote creativity (Gray, 2025a). The C³ educator must embody all three elements; critical consciousness, cultural responsiveness, and creativity; in a multiplicative manner, as strength of the model relies on the synergistic interaction of these components.

These seven findings collectively revealed patterns of reflection, professional learning, and creative pedagogy that informed the design of the C³ Educator Model. Each component of the model emerged directly from the empirical trends observed across the two studies (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The C³ educator model. Note. The C³ educator is critically conscious in how they design and evaluate the curricular resources implemented (the curriculum), culturally responsive in what they believe about the cultural identities of the students they teach (the pedagogy), and creative in how they deliver content and engage students in the creative thinking process (the instruction).

The C³ educator model emerged from these findings and is supported by seminal literature in the fields of gifted and general education. The goal of this model is to position educators as advocates and, as Ladson-Billings (2013) noted, “Dream Keepers,” in that they uphold the dream of creating academically advanced educational programs and experiences that are responsive and reflective of every child and make that dream come into fruition. The following two recommendations aim to support schools and districts in identifying, cultivating, and sustaining C³ educators across every educational setting, specifically in how each of the three core competencies can be actualized in teachers.

Recommendation 1: Reflective, Culturally Affirming, Historically Accurate, Creativity- and Content-based Professional Learning Models

Professional learning is a consistent component of every K-12 educational system, providing educators with relevant tools, strategies, resources, and insight to fulfill the mission and vision of their specific school and/or district (Breese et al., 2023; Comstock et al., 2023). However, the stark differences of academic achievement across the nation, including the emergence and sustained health of excellence gaps in American gifted education (Plucker et al., 2024) beckon those in the field to ponder a critical question: What are the essential components of effective professional learning for teachers, particularly those of high-ability students? Based on the findings from these studies and seminal literature in the fields of general and gifted education, effective professional learning spaces provide educators with opportunities to reflect on and address their biases to develop into culturally affirming educators whom create historically accurate and creativity-based educational experiences in the content areas (Gray et al., 2026; Mofield & Phelps, 2023; Stoll et al., 2006).

Reflective

Teaching is a reflective act, one that requires educators to reflect on the impact of their instruction, curricular tools, and pedagogical identity within the classroom, specifically in how this translates to the cultural identities of their students. It is important to note that implicit biases are deeply ingrained and cannot be easily or entirely eradicated. However, intentional and consistent efforts to interrogate and lessen these biases, such as professional learning opportunities built around active and consistent reflection on personal and professional racial encounters and experiences, can impact how educators perceive students’ creative abilities, behaviors, identity, and potential. To address this enduring issue, educators must be encouraged to identify, understand, and disrupt their own biases.

For instance, Harro’s (2000a, 2000b) Cycles of Socialization and Liberation are two valuable frameworks that explores what, how, when, where, and why an individual’s biases are formed and reinforced. These cycles explain how individuals are socialized into dominant cultural norms beginning at birth, through familial, institutional, and societal messaging and implied beliefs. Unless intentionally interrupted, the cycles perpetuate unconscious biases across a lifespan. Importantly, the cycle of socialization’s final phase, “direction for change,” provides a pathway for personal transformation by encouraging individuals to commit to lifelong reflection and learning, examine their assumptions, raise their critical consciousness, and commit to anti-oppressive action, which creates a pathway for individuals to engage with the cycle of liberation (Goode, 2022; Harro, 2000b). Educators should regularly engage in personal reflective practices, such as the Cycles of Socialization and Liberation, reflective journaling, seeking peer observation, reviewing student feedback, and other formal protocols discussed in academic contexts, to consistently challenge their existing beliefs about differing racial and ethnic demographic groups.

Culturally Affirming

Educators exuding culturally responsive pedagogy may be more attuned to varying manifestations of intellect and creativity among students of color, enabling them to recognize creative traits in students that may otherwise be dismissed or misunderstood. For instance, a C³ educator capitalizes and encourages humor in the classroom, even when it is on the edge of being inappropriate, because they understand that CLED students express their creativity through humor among other means (Baldwin, 2001; Ford, 2010b; Frasier, 1979; Torrance, 1970; Shao et al., 2019), while an untrained and unchallenged teacher with biases may punish instances of laughter and cracking jokes in the classroom. Those with lower levels of racial bias, or automatic association, are more likely to interpret student characteristics dynamically, viewing them through an affirming lens as evolving strengths rather than fixed attributes (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Hines et al., 2023), especially with twice- and thrice-exceptional students. Therefore, there must be a deliberate shift from deficit-based to dynamic, asset-based perspectives (Ford & Grantham, 2003) in teacher preparation and professional learning opportunities, as envisioned in Table 1.

Table 1.

Creative Characteristics: Deficit Perspective vs. Dynamic Perspective.

Characteristic	Deficit Perspective	Dynamic Perspective
Independent	Does not desire to be a part of the group and prefers isolation	Displays a high level of leadership skills
Takes chances	Does not follow directions or abide to the norms of the community	Avoids fear and pursues new opportunities
Individualistic	Does not desire to be an active member within the class community	Has a robust concept and awareness of self
Tries to do the impossible	Does not have realistic expectations	Believes that they are capable of going above and beyond
Experience deep emotions	Does not know how to manage and express their emotions	Has a heightened sense of empathy and a robust concept of self- and social awareness
Non-conformists	Does not follow directions or guidance from the teacher	Uniquely desire to defy the odds and be their authentic self
Autonomous or like to work alone	Does not desire collaboration or to work with classmates	Desires to work at their own pace and to not be in nor cause conflict amongst their classmates
Prefers ambiguity	Does not express themselves clearly and succinctly	Has a robust and efficient use of language while also having a high sense of flexibility
Impulsive	Does not think before they act	Has a high processing speed and excitement towards an engaging task
Make up their own rules as they go	Does not follow directions	Is innovative in their approach to solving problems, and display a high level of leadership skills

Note. The ten creative characteristics represented in the table were among the 20 student characteristics that participants rated as desirable in the study. Professional learning opportunities can include teachers identifying undesired traits, such as those in the table, and collaborate with their colleagues to reframe these as assets to cultivate and capitalize on these attributes in their educational setting.

An asset-based framework encourages educators to interpret all student characteristics, including those traditionally viewed as problematic, as potential strengths or developmental opportunities (Yosso, 2005). For example, impulsivity, typically defined as acting without forethought (Moeller et al., 2001), may instead indicate rapid cognitive processing or high engagement and enjoyment with a task. In 2E and 3E students, such behaviors reflect heightened intellectual curiosity and an eagerness to explore, particularly when the task is perceived as meaningful or stimulating. Trainings that shift teachers’ deficit-minded thoughts into asset-based perspectives position educators to identify their own implicit preferences for certain student traits and reinterpret undesirable behaviors through a critical, culturally responsive lens. When educators are trained to perceive and respond to traits, like impulsivity, through an asset-based framework, they become more capable of supporting the full range of student potential, especially in populations historically underrepresented or underserved in gifted education. Context and culture matter when perceiving creativity, cultivating intellect, and affirming culture.

Historically Accurate

Furthermore, these educators are more likely to question dominant, Eurocentric standards of giftedness and intelligence, those that are historically rooted in eugenic ideologies and exclusionary practices (Gould, 1996; Ford & King, Jr., 2014; Kearney & LeBlanc, 1993). For example, early models of giftedness developed by Francis Galton (1948) and Lewis Terman (1931) promoted narrow definitions of intelligence, with the ideal gifted child being one of European or White heritage. Centuries later, over 500,000 Black and Hispanic students remain underrepresented in gifted education programs across the United States (Ford, 2013). Culturally responsive gifted educators (Ford, 2010a; Fugate et al., 2021) actively resist this inequity by first understanding the history of both American and gifted education and then engaging in reflective, anti-deficit practices that seek to identify and nurture the diverse talents, including creative potential, of CLED students. Their commitment to equity is often grounded in historical awareness and a proactive vision for inclusive excellence.

Therefore, the recommendation outlined from this finding includes creating and incorporating a professional learning curriculum for staff members that merges concepts of culturally responsive pedagogy and creativity-based educational frameworks. Figure 2, Gray’s Cyclical Model for C³ Educator Development and Reflection, provides an universal professional development framework that schools and districts can use that synthesizes theoretical and practical insights from several foundational frameworks, including culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2002), multicultural education (Banks, 1989), multicultural gifted education (Ford, 2021), and culturally responsive gifted education (Fugate et al., 2021). Teachers are encouraged to engage with each stage of the model as a point of critical reflection and professional learning, using the stage names as thematic entry points for deepening their pedagogical practice and cultural consciousness. Regardless of the content and forum of these trainings, they should extend beyond surface-level understandings of culture and delve into the historical, structural, and ideological forces that have informed educational access and opportunity. Topics may and should include exploring how American schooling has both supported and silenced the cultural contributions of marginalized communities, critically examining one’s own biases, beliefs, and assumptions, power and cultural dynamics in the classroom, historical consciousness in curriculum design and instructional practice, culturally affirming classroom management approaches, and culturally responsive assessment practices.

Figure 2.

Gray’s cyclical model for C³ educator development and reflection. Note. The researcher developed the model presented and synthesizes theoretical and practical insights from several foundational frameworks in general and gifted education. The model should be responsive to the school community it is being applied to, allowing all teachers in any setting to apply theory to practice.

Creativity-Based

Creativity has been empirically linked to academic achievement (Akpur, 2020; Gajda et al., 2017); therefore, educators should consider leveraging academic content to foster creativity rather than treating creativity as a secondary or enrichment objective. To operationalize this shift, creativity-based instructional frameworks should be systematically embedded in all stages of teacher preparation and professional development. Rather than isolating creativity within the arts or relegating it to occasional project-based learning, traditional and alternative teacher education programs must integrate creativity as a foundational pedagogical practice across all content areas to ensure that every child is equipped and developed for the future that is their life.

When considering creativity-based instruction, it is recommended that schools and districts adopt curricular models that promote talent development through culturally responsive frameworks (Sternberg, 2023). One such model is culturally responsive creativity (CRC; Gray, 2025a), which “is the pedagogical amalgamation of culture and creativity as one concept, grounding teaching for creativity in students’ cultural and historical identities” (p. 74). CRC as an instructional framework consists of four conceptual components: priorities, parameters, promises, and pursuits that awaken and cultivate all students’ creative genius. As a pedagogical approach, CRC merges teaching for creativity (Sternberg, 2010; Torrance, 1987) with multicultural gifted education (Ford, 2021) to assist teachers with fostering individual and communal excellence in their classroom. Although this is an instructional practice designed to benefit all culturally and linguistically diverse learners, CRC is an ideal practice among CLED students, as its foundation draws from seminal theories in culturally diverse giftedness research. For instance, the pursuits, or student outcomes, of CRC are inspired by both Muhammad’s (2020) five pursuits of culturally and historically responsive pedagogy and Torrance’s creative positives (Torrance, 1968, 1970), creative traits Torrance discovered abound among Black children. These traits include:

• ability to express feelings

• ability to improvise with commonplace materials

• articulate in role playing, creative activities

• enjoyment and ability in art, drawing, painting, etc.

• enjoyment and ability in creative dramatics, dance, etc.

• enjoyment and ability in music

• expressiveness in speech

• fluency and flexibility in non-verbal media

• enjoyment and skills in group learning, problem solving

• responsiveness to kinesthetic

• expressiveness of gestures, body language, etc.

• humor

• richness of imagery in informal language, brainstorming

• problem-centeredness

• emotional responsiveness

• quickness of warm up (Torrance, 1970).

Furthermore, the parameters and promises of CRC are rooted in the unique social and emotional needs of CLED gifted and 3E students (Piske et al., 2022; Sosland, 2022), an abolitionist approach to accurate and affirming content and curriculum design (Love, 2023; Love & Muhammad, 2020), and culturally responsive instructional strategies for gifted students of color (Fugate et al., 2021).

While integrating this model, it is imperative for schools and districts to distinguish between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity through professional learning, particularly within the context of CRC. While often used interchangeably, these concepts represent distinct pedagogical approaches. Teaching creatively refers to the use of many times novel, non-traditional, engaging instructional strategies by educators to enhance student engagement and motivation during instruction (Gregerson et al., 2012). In contrast, teaching for creativity is a deliberate instructional and curricular approach that aims to engage students in the creative thinking process (Sternberg, 2010). The former emphasizes how educators deliver content, whereas the latter focuses on how students generate, apply, and express knowledge through creative cognition (Brinkman, 2010). Each approach, outlined in Table 2, offers unique contributions that can positively influence how the creative abilities and characteristics of students, particularly Black and other culturally diverse students, are recognized, valued, taught, and developed. When integrated thoughtfully, these frameworks can enrich the CRC model by simultaneously elevating teacher innovation and student creative development and engagement. By creating learning environments in which creativity is actively taught, affirmed, and linked to students’ cultural knowledge and lived experiences, schools can more effectively nurture the intellectual and creative potential of all students. In doing so, educators help cultivate more equitable, inclusive, and dynamic educational spaces where creativity is not only encouraged but deeply situated within students’ cultural identities.

Table 2.

Teaching Creatively vs. Teaching for (Culturally Responsive) Creativity Examples by Content Area

Content Area	Teaching Creatively	Teaching for Culturally Responsive Creativity
English/language arts	Teacher invites a local author to lead the class in a writer’s workshop lesson	Students create an artifact of their choice to assist individuals to discern the situations in which they should use a comma in their writing
History (social studies)	Teacher enters and exits out of a time machine to deliver lesson based on different time periods	Students analyze three primary sources and two secondary sources connected to their cultural identity to determine the connection between the different resources as the launch of the lesson
Math	Teacher transforms the classroom into a restaurant and students answer different word problems as they “visit different restaurants”	Students create and recite a poem to remember the rules for multiplying and dividing integers
Performing arts	Teacher teaches students to remember their lines in a script through a musically based technique	Students author a play or musical based on a cultural text or topic of interest covered in one of their core academic courses (i.e., math, history, reading, science, English/language arts)
Physical education	Teacher creates innovative, standards-aligned games for students to play	Students create an activity or a game that integrates three standards, or content outcomes, three major muscles, and at least one form of cultural expression of choice
Reading	Teacher transforms classroom into a book café, allowing students to read a sample of and cast their vote among three prospective books for the next instructional unit	Students rewrite an in-class text in the tone of one of their elders or relatives
Science	Teacher conducts a whole class experiment that launches students into the daily lesson	Students create a solution or product to purify water using household or common items
Visual arts	Teacher dresses up as a historical figure to deliver a lesson based on the work of that individual	Students reimagine the purpose and design of a common household object (i.e., water bottle) to create an original, modified, and novel product

Note. The listed examples cover an array of K-12 content area topics, emphasizing that the framework can be integrated in all educational settings and contexts.

Content-Based

Regardless of the grade-level or content-area taught, teachers should engage in consistent and regular professional learning about the subject matter that they teach. In relation to creating meaningful and culturally responsive learning experiences for high-ability students of color, all content-based instruction should be rooted in critical thinking and creative problem-solving.

Many educators commonly conflate creativity problem-solving with critical thinking. While related, they are conceptually distinct. Creative thinking involves the generation of novel and original ideas, often through divergent and associative processes (Mumford & McIntosh, 2017; Runco & Acar, 2012). In contrast, critical thinking emphasizes logical reasoning, evidence-based evaluation, and the ability to make sound judgments (Ennis, 2016; Facione, 1990). Educators who identify critical thinking as a central instructional goal may, consciously or not, also value the generative qualities of creativity, being that the two forms of thinking are inextricably linked (Ryans & Torrance, 1962; Torrance, 1972, 1987), thereby attributing equal desirability to traits associated with both constructs. Interestingly, participants who selected problem-solving as their top educational objective in the studies also reported the lowest overall valuation of creative characteristics. This may be due to a more procedural or utilitarian interpretation of problem-solving, where solving predefined or concrete problems is prioritized over the exploratory, open-ended nature of creative or critical inquiry (Jonassen, 2000; Laine, 2019). Such a view may reduce the perceived relevance of creative traits within the problem-solving process.

Therefore, it is also recommended that teacher preparation and professional learning sessions explicitly define and differentiate between critical and creative thinking in relation to content-based instruction, as both are vital components of every subject area. When educators understand the distinct cognitive processes involved in each, they can more effectively cultivate both forms of thinking within their students. Moreover, integrating these constructs into a unified instructional model can support the development of informed, comprehensive learners who are analytically rigorous, creatively adaptive, and robust problem-solvers. For instance, a universal model for content delivery could consist of a three-pronged approach to instruction: (a) conceptual understanding, (b) procedural application, and (c) creative expression. Within this guise, subject matter can be understood through reflection, application, and creative inputs and outputs.

To that end, teacher education programs and ongoing professional learning initiatives should incorporate instructional frameworks emphasizing the complementary nature of critical and creative thinking. Curriculum models and talent development programs should be designed to foster both, enabling students to engage in innovative, reflective, and strategic problem-solving. By acknowledging the nuanced relationship between critical and creative thinking and by equipping educators with the tools to teach both intentionally, schools can foster environments where creativity is not incidental but integral to the educational experience. Moreover, educators will be positioned to discourage an assimilation-based “one-size-fits-all” instructional environment (Bondie et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2004) by appreciating and cultivating the cultural implications that influence a student’s critical and creative thinking by connecting the theory they acquire and reflection they endure to the instructional practices they utilize.

Recommendation 2: The Mentor Teacher

A key component in cultivating C³ educators is providing them with C³ mentor teachers. Mentor teachers are veteran educators coach and assist novice, less-experienced teachers in developing their instructional craft and pedagogical identity (Driskill, 2023; Villani, 2009). Similar to the critical question which provided the foundation for the first recommendation, another question arose from the reviewed literature and data analysis: What are the components of selecting ideal C³ mentor teachers and what are their specific responsibilities?

Seamlessly Selecting C³ Mentor Teachers

Given the clear link between experience and desirability for creativity in the classroom, a key recommendation is to reimagine the roles of veteran educators within teacher development systems. Teachers with ten or more years of experience should be prioritized as mentor teachers for pre-service candidates and novice in-service educators. Research consistently affirms that mentorship is a crucial determinant of teacher success, notably when mentors embody responsive, reflective, and pedagogically robust practices (Fairbanks et al., 2000; Rowley, 1999; Wold et al., 2023). However, in many teacher preparation and induction programs, mentor roles are assigned to educators with limited experience, sometimes as little as three years, which diminishes the potential for meaningful professional modeling (Ellis et al., 2020). Considering the consistent teacher shortages throughout the country (Ingersoll, 2025), it is also acceptable that educators with at least five years of teaching experience serve as mentor teachers if schools and districts cannot identify an adequate number of educators with ten or more years of experience.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that individuals with lesser automatic association to different racial subgroups and those that have participated in culturally responsive and gifted pedagogical training value creativity more in students. Therefore, it is recommended that culturally responsive gifted pedagogy (Fugate et al., 2021; Gray et al., 2026) trained educators with little to no, or only slight, racial bias serve as mentor teachers, coaching and guiding younger educators and those with higher preferences toward one race. These individuals are well-positioned to support novice educators in identifying, mitigating, and reflecting on their implicit biases while modeling equitable and culturally responsive instructional practices. In particular, they can guide mentees in recognizing and valuing creative traits in CLED students through consistent coaching conversations, classroom observations and visits, and reflective tasks and activities (Aguilar, 2020) – shining a positive light on traits that are too often misunderstood or overlooked in conventional educational settings.

Renewed Roles and Responsibilities of C³ Mentor Teachers

Although the implementation of mentorship in education is an evidence- and research-based proven practice, many educational models and program providers do not utilize this framework to its fullest potential. Alternative certification pathways, such as Teach for America and independent school or charter-based residencies, frequently omit structured mentorship, instead relying on short-term training followed by thrusting educators into the classroom (Lampert & Dadvand, 2024). This ideology deprives novice educators of sustained, relational guidance at the most critical stage in their professional development. To address this gap, all teacher-preparation programs, whether traditional or alternative, should ensure that every educator is paired with a mentor with extensive teaching experience and a demonstrated commitment to culturally responsive pedagogy. This mentorship should span, at minimum, a full semester or more for pre-service teachers, allowing for deep engagement with instructional planning, classroom management, and student interaction. In-service educators should receive ongoing, non-evaluative feedback from experienced mentors through regular classroom visits, reflective dialogue, and co-observation opportunities. In addition, mentor relationships should be reciprocal. Mentees should also have structured opportunities to observe their mentors’ classrooms, with intentional reflection on how the mentor manifests their appreciation for creativity and how they encourage and cultivate the creative characteristics of CLED students in real-time. These observations can support mentees in developing their own instructional identities grounded in innovation and equity.

C³ mentor teachers should also be positioned as content instructors within teacher-preparation programs, including trainings on and pathways inclusive of gifted education. While university-based faculty provide essential theoretical and research perspectives and expertise, many have not taught K–12 students in recent years to the extent that their students will once they enter the profession (Goodwin et al., 2014). As such, their perspectives on the immediacy and contextual relevance needed to prepare new educators for today’s diverse and ever-changing classrooms may be inconsistent. Integrating current, practicing educators into teacher education faculties can serve as the bridge between theory and practice, offering teacher candidates both scholarly grounding and practitioner insight. To that end, schools can have their mentor teachers lead bi-weekly or monthly professional learning sessions on each of the five stages listed in Figure 2. The session format can include various forms of lecture-based learning to ensure a shared understanding among the staff is present, hands-on activities to allow teachers to process the information shared in the lesson, and structured time for individual and group reflection to begin bringing theory to practical action steps.

Finally, C³ mentor teachers should lead in helping novice teachers make informed decisions about technology integration, particularly AI, as it relates to nurturing creativity in the classroom. As digital tools become more embedded in the classroom, educators must apply them through a critically conscious and creative lens. Seasoned teachers, with their deep understanding of pedagogy and content knowledge, can guide newer colleagues in balancing technological innovation with instructional design that utilizes creative pedagogy.

In totality, this research affirms the value of teaching experience has in fostering a pedagogical orientation that embraces and elevates creativity. A universal mentorship model that values, leverages, and structures mentorship around this experience is better equipped to prepare teachers who can think and plan critically, teach responsively, and cultivate the full creative potential of their students. Table 3 outlines the criteria and responsibilities for C³ mentor teachers, providing a unified approach for school-based mentorship to cultivate C³ educators.

Table 3.

The Culturally Responsive, Critically Conscious, and Creative Mentor Teacher: Criteria and Responsibilities

Criteria	Responsibilities
10 or more years of teaching experience (five years is also acceptable)	Mentor pre-and/or in-service educators by conducting regular, non-evaluative observations and one-on-one coaching conversations
Certified in the content area of the mentee	Co-teach with the mentee on a consistent basis, while also inviting the mentee to observe their teaching
Certified and/or engaged in gifted and advanced educational training	Allow mentee to learn and practice instructional strategies rooted in creativity and gifted and advanced educational frameworks
Consistently engages in culturally relevant and responsive pedagogical training	Lead professional development, both at the school- and teacher-preparation level, based on integrating culturally responsive gifted education frameworks within educators’ daily instructional design
Has an identified racial implicit bias, or automatic preference, of slight to little to no automatic preference	Assist pre- and in-service educators with identifying and addressing their racial implicit biases on a consistent basis

Note. The criteria and responsibilities listed throughout the table are researcher-developed and informed by culturally responsive gifted education (Fugate et al., 2021) and multicultural gifted education (Ford, 2021).

Conclusion

Creativity is not solely the generation of novel, original, and effective ideas; it is also the process of a dynamic interaction among the individual (person), the problem or challenge (task), and the surrounding context (situation) (Sternberg, 2025; Tromp & Sternberg, 2022). As such, perceptions of creativity are shaped not only by internal cognitive processes but also by how individuals interpret creative behavior within particular sociocultural environments. This study affirms that there is an explicit connection between racial implicit bias and educators’ perceptions of creativity in students. The findings also suggest that perceptions of creativity, both one’s own and that of others, are influenced by the presence or absence of implicit racial bias. Educators with lower levels of bias were more likely to recognize and value creative traits in students, particularly those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. This correlation highlights the importance of critically examining how identity, bias, and sociocultural conditioning intersect with talent recognition and instructional practice.

To address these disparities, this manuscript offers a set of targeted recommendations, including the strategic selection of mentor teachers who demonstrate cultural responsiveness and low implicit bias; the development and integration of creativity-centered, culturally relevant frameworks into teacher-preparation programs; and the establishment of professional learning opportunities that emphasize creativity, criticality, and cultural consciousness. Collectively, these recommendations support the cultivation of what this study defines as the C³ educator: one who is culturally responsive, critically conscious, and teaches for creativity. The C³ educator recognizes all learners’ creative strengths and actively seeks to foster environments where those strengths are validated, expanded, and celebrated.

When educational systems intentionally invest in the preparation and professional development of C³ educators, classrooms become spaces of responsiveness, criticality, innovation, and joy. The C³ educator is culturally responsive in their beliefs about children, critically conscious in their instructional and curriculum design, and creative in their content delivery. As such, the primary role of the C³ educator is to teach for creativity through a culturally responsive and critical lens so that students can observe their cultural identity within the curriculum design, uncover and learn content at accelerated, developmentally appropriate paces, and express their content mastery in innovative methods. In such environments, every child, regardless of cultural background or perceived ability, is allowed and encouraged to create, to think freely, and to thrive authentically. Through the intentional, responsive, and targeted approach to professional learning, instructional practice, and curriculum design, the C³ model provides a natural yet necessary framework for ensuring that the creative potential and personality of all learners are recognized, rendered, and fully realized.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The New Dreamkeepers: A Call for Critically Conscious, Culturally Responsive, and Creative Educators in Gifted Education

Supplemental Material for The New Dreamkeepers: A Call for Critically Conscious, Culturally Responsive, and Creative Educators in Gifted Education by Corey J. Gray in Gifted Child Today.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Corey J. Gray

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abraham

(2025). Why the standard definition of creativity fails to capture the creative act. Theory & Psychology, 35(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543241290232

Aguilar

(2020). Coaching for equity: Conversations that change practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Akpur

(2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37(1), Article 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683

Alexander

(2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.

Baldwin

A. Y.

(2001). Understanding the challenge of creativity among African Americans. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 121–125. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2001-656

Banks

J. A.

(1989). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Allyn & Bacon.

Baum

S. M.

Schader

R. M.

Hébert

T. P.

(2017). To be gifted and learning disabled: Strength-based strategies for helping twice-exceptional students with LD, ADHD, ASD, and more (3rd ed.). Prufrock Press.

Bereczki

E. O.

Kárpáti

(2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research Review, 23(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003

Blanton

Jaccard

Klick

Mellers

Mitchell

Tetlock

P. E.

(2009). Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014665

10.

Bloom

VanSlyke-Briggs

(2019). The demise of creativity in tomorrow's teachers. Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education, 10(2), 90–111. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol10/iss2/5

11.

Bondie

R. S.

Dahnke

Zusho

(2019). How does changing “one-size-fits-all” to differentiated instruction affect teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 336–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18821130

12.

Bouley

T. M.

Reinking

A. K.

(2021). Chapter 3: Multicultural education: An antidote for implicit bias and microaggressions. In Implicit bias (pp. 29–42). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://doi.org/10.5771/9781475855890-29

13.

Breese

A. C.

Nickerson

A. B.

Lemke

Mohr

Heidelburg

Fredrick

Allen

(2023). Examining implicit biases of pre-service educators within a professional development context. Contemporary School Psychology, 27(4), 646–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-023-00456-6

14.

Brinkman

D. J.

(2010). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 48–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910903455785

15.

Carrillo

Flores

M. A.

(2017). Veteran teachers’ identity: What does the research literature tell us? Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(5), 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2017.1394982

16.

Chomsky

Robichaud

(2014). Standardized testing as an assault on humanistic and critical education. Radical Pedagogy, 11(1), 54–66.

17.

Cohen

Ruzek

Sandilos

(2018). Does teaching quality cross subjects? Exploring consistency in elementary teacher practice across subjects. AERA Open, 4(3), Article 2332858418794492. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418794492

18.

Comstock

Litke

Hill

K. L.

Desimone

L. M.

(2023). A culturally responsive disposition: How professional learning and teachers’ beliefs about and self-efficacy for culturally responsive teaching relate to instruction. AERA Open, 9(1), Article 23328584221140092. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221140092

19.

Corbett

(2024). Responding to unpredictable change. In Education workforce well-being (pp. 43–53). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83797-400-920241005

20.

Cramond

(1994). The relationship between attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and creativity. Roeper Review, 17(1), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553534

21.

Davis

J. L.

Robinson

S. A.

(2018). Being 3e, a new look at culturally diverse gifted learners with exceptional conditions: An examination of the issues and solutions for educators and families. In Kaufman

S. B.

(Ed.), Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties (pp. 278–289). Oxford University Press.

22.

DiAngelo

(2018). White fragility: Why it's so hard for White people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.

23.

Driskill

K. M.

(2023). The mentor teacher blueprint: Building effective clinical practice through school-university partnerships. Teachers College Press.

24.

Dunbar-Ortiz

(2014). An Indigenous peoples' history of the United States. Beacon Press.

25.

Ellis

N. J.

Alonzo

Nguyen

H. T. M.

(2020). Elements of a quality pre-service teacher mentor: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 92(1), Article 103072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103072

26.

Ennis

R. H.

(2016). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

27.

Facione

P. A.

(1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). American Philosophical Association.

28.

Fairbanks

C. M.

Freedman

Kahn

(2000). The role of effective mentors in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248710005100204

29.

Foley Nicpon

Allmon

Sieck

Stinson

R. D.

(2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210382575

30.

Ford

D. Y.

(2010a). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.

31.

Ford

D. Y.

(2010b). Multicultural issues: Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300308

32.

Ford

D. Y.

(2013). Multicultural gifted education: Rationale, models, strategies, and resources. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 427–437). Routledge.

33.

Ford

D. Y.

(2021). Multicultural gifted education. Routledge.

34.

Ford

D. Y.

Grantham

T. C.

(2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1353/tip.2003.0028

35.

Ford

D. Y.

King

R. A.

Jr. (2014). No Blacks allowed: Segregated gifted education in the context of Brown v. Board of Education. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.3.0300

36.

Frasier

M. M.

(1979). Rethinking the issues regarding the culturally disadvantaged gifted. Exceptional Children, 45(7), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297904500707

37.

Fugate

C. M.

Zentall

S. S.

Gentry

(2021). Addressing equity and excellence: A framework for culturally responsive gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 44(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520962954

38.

Gajda

Karwowski

Beghetto

R. A.

(2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000133

39.

Gallagher

J. J.

(1988). National agenda for educating gifted students: Statement of priorities. Exceptional Children, 55(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298805500202

40.

Galton

(1948). Classification of men according to their natural gifts, 1869. In Dennis

(Ed.), Readings in the history of psychology (pp. 231–247). Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://doi.org/10.1037/11304-028

41.

Gay

(2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003

42.

Gay

Kirkland

(2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_3

43.

Goode

(2022). Socialization and social justice. Prompt: A Journal of Academic Writing Assignments, 6(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.31719/pjaw.v6i1.92

44.

Goodwin

A. L.

Smith

Souto-Manning

Cheruvu

Tan

M. Y.

Reed

Taveras

(2014). What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114535266

45.

Gould

S. J.

(1996). The mismeasure of man (Revised & expanded). W. W. Norton & Company.

46.

Gray

C. J.

(2025a). Culturally responsive creativity: An instructional framework for gifted and advanced education. Roeper Review, 47(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2025.2466520

47.

Gray

C. J.

(2025b). Prepared to perceive: Teacher preparation programs, teacher professional learning, and teachers’ perceptions and desirability of creativity in the classroom. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia. [Manuscript submitted for publication].

48.

Gray

C. J.

(2025c). The invisible gate: A quantitative exploration of teachers’ racial implicit bias and perceptions of creativity. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia. [Manuscript submitted for publication].

49.

Gray

C. J.

Pineda Medina

Glass

(2026). LEAP education guidebook: Culturally responsive teaching for gifted and high-potential students. National Association of Gifted Children.

50.

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

(1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4

51.

Greenwald

A. G.

Lai

C. K.

(2020). Implicit social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050837

52.

Greenwald

A. G.

McGhee

D. E.

Schwartz

J. L. K.

(1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

53.

Gregerson

M. B.

Snyder

H. T.

Kaufman

J. C.

(2012). Teaching creatively and teaching creativity. Springer Science & Business Media.

54.

Harro

(2000a). The cycle of socialization. In Adams

Blumenfeld

W. J.

Castañeda

Hackman

H. W.

Peters

M. L.

Zuñiga

(Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 45–51). Routledge.

55.

Harro

(2000b). The cycle of liberation. In Readings for diversity and social justice (Vol. 2, pp. 52–58). Routledge.

56.

Helms

J. E.

(Ed.), (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Greenwood Press.

57.

Hines

E. M.

Ford

D. Y.

Middleton

T. J.

Fletcher

E. C.

Moore III

J. L.

Wright

B. L.

Grantham

T. C.

(2023). Good trouble, necessary trouble: Adding culture to transformational gifted and talented students and programs. Roeper Review, 45(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2023.2212370

58.

Holroyd

Sweetman

(2016). The heterogeneity of implicit bias. Implicit Bias and Philosophy, 1(1), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198713241.003.0004

59.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2025). Teacher shortages in the United States: 1990–2021. In Teacher shortage in international perspectives: Insights and responses (pp. 83–104). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-45398-5_5

60.

Jonassen

D. H.

(2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500

61.

Kapoor

Gurjar

Mahadeshwar

Rezaei

Kaufman

J. C.

(2024). Who’s the most creative of them all?: Art bias in laypersons’ explicit and implicit beliefs . Center for Open Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x4n86

62.

Kearney

LeBlanc

(1993). Forgotten pioneers in the study of gifted African‐Americans∗. Roeper Review, 15(4), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553504

63.

Kettler

Lamb

K. N.

Willerson

Mullet

D. R.

(2018). Teachers’ perceptions of creativity in the classroom. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446503

64.

Kurdi

Seitchik

A. E.

Axt

J. R.

Carroll

T. J.

Karapetyan

Kaushik

Tomezsko

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

(2019). Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 74(5), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000364

65.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

66.

Ladson-Billings

(2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003

67.

Ladson-Billings

(2013). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. John Wiley & Sons.

68.

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

69.

Laine

(2019). How to promote learning in problem-solving? In Implementation research on problem solving in school settings (pp. 3–18). WTM-Verlag Münster. https://doi.org/10.37626/ga9783959871167.0.01

70.

Lampert

Dadvand

(2024). Teachers at the speed of light: Alternative pathways into teaching and implications for social justice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2024.2323929

71.

Love

B. L.

(2023). Punished for dreaming: How school reform harms Black children and how we heal. St. Martin's Press.

72.

Love

B. L.

Muhammad

G. E.

(2020). What do we have to lose: Toward disruption, agitation, and abolition in Black education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(7), 695–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1753257

73.

Lowe

Gray

Prout

Jefferson

Shaw

(2019). Positive veteran teachers: Who are they, and where are they to be found? Issues in Educational Research, 29(3), 823–840. https://www.iier.org.au/iier29/lowe.pdf

74.

Markworth

K. A.

Brobst

Ohana

Parker

(2016). Elementary content specialization: Models, affordances, and constraints. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0049-9

75.

Moeller

F. G.

Barratt

E. S.

Dougherty

D. M.

Schmitz

J. M.

Swann

A. C.

(2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(11), 1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1783

76.

Mofield

Phelps

(2023). Coaching in gifted education: Tools for building capacity and catalyzing change. Routledge.

77.

Muhammad

(2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. Scholastic Incorporated.

78.

Mumford

M. D.

McIntosh

(2017). Creative thinking processes: The past and the future. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 317–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.197

79.

Murray

Shea

Harlin

(2004). Issues in education: Avoiding the one-size-fits-all curriculum: Textsets, inquiry, and differentiating instruction. Childhood Education, 81(1), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2004.10521291

80.

Nosek

B. A.

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

(2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(2), 265–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00017.x

81.

Pale

(2023). WHICH teachers should be replaced by AI. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 81(3), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/23.81.296

82.

Piske

F. H. R.

Collins

K. H.

Arnstein

K. B.

(2022). Critical issues in servicing twice exceptional students: Socially, emotionally, and culturally framing learning exceptionalities. Springer Nature.

83.

Plucker

J. A.

Rutkowski

(2024). Global trends in excellence gaps from 1995 to 2019. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 48(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532241301028

84.

Puryear

J. S.

Lamb

K. N.

(2024). Creativity knowledge of classroom teachers: Predictors and correlates. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 54(1), Article 101666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101666

85.

Rizza

M. G.

Morrison

W. F.

(2003). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities. Roeper Review, 25(2), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554204

86.

Rowley

J. B.

(1999). The good mentor. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 20–22.

87.

Ruban

L. M.

Reis

S. M.

(2005). Identification and assessment of gifted students with learning disabilities. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_6

88.

Runco

M. A.

Acar

(2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929

89.

Ryans

D. G.

Torrance

E. P.

(1962). Creative thinking of children. Journal of Teacher Education, 13(4), 448–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248716201300416

90.

Shank

M. K.

Santiague

(2021). Classroom management needs of novice teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 95(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2021.2010636

91.

Shao

Zhang

Zhou

Yuan

(2019). How does culture shape creativity? A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01219

92.

Siegle

(2023). A Role for ChatGPT and AI in Gifted Education. Gifted Child Today, 46(3), 211–219.

93.

Singh

(2024). Can artificial intelligence replace teachers? In Digital analytics applications for sustainable training and education (pp. 289–295). Apple Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781032713366-20

94.

Singleton

G. E.

(2015). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.

95.

Snoeyink

Ertmer

P. A.

(2001). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.2190/YDL7-XH09-RLJ6-MTP1

96.

Sosland

B. E.

(2022). Chapter 7: Thrice exceptional students’ challenges. In A call to action (pp. 61–70). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://doi.org/10.5771/9781475864298-61

97.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2010). Teaching for creativity. In Beghetto

R. A.

Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 394–414). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781629.020

98.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2023). Cultural creativity: A componential model. In Preiss

D. D.

Singer

Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.), Creativity, innovation, and change across cultures (pp. 363–387). Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28206-5_14

99.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2025). PTSI: A person x task x situation interaction theory of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(2), Article e70010. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.70010

100.

Stillman

Palmer

(2024). Teacher educators’ critical language awareness: Building toward transformation in critically conscious teacher education. International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 18(3), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2024.2367811

101.

Stoll

Bolam

McMahon

Wallace

Thomas

(2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8

102.

Tatum

B. D.

(1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. Basic Books.

103.

Terman

L. M.

(1931). The gifted child. In Murchison

(Ed.), A handbook of child psychology (pp. 568–584). Clark University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/13524-018

104.

Torrance

E. P.

(1963). The creative personality and the ideal pupil. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 65(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816306500309

105.

Torrance

E. P.

(1968). Finding hidden talents among disadvantaged children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12(3), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698626801200301

106.

Torrance

E. P.

(1970). Broadening concepts of giftedness in the 70’S. Gifted Child Quarterly, 14(4), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627001400401

107.

Torrance

E. P.

(1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(2), 114–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00923.x

108.

Torrance

E. P.

(1987). Teaching for creativity. In Isaken

S. G.

(Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 189–215). Bearly.

109.

Tromp

Sternberg

R. J.

(2022). Dynamic creativity: A person × task × situation interaction framework. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.551

110.

Villani

(2009). Comprehensive mentoring programs for new teachers: Models of induction and support. Corwin Press.

111.

Watson

McMahon

(2024). Career assessment and creativity: Potential complementarity or a contradiction in terms? In Art that tells the truth (pp. 140–151). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032629650-13

112.

Wold

Moon

Schwan

Neville

Outka

(2023). The importance of pairings in mentorship programs. Critical Questions in Education, 14(2), 120–139.

113.

Wright

B. L.

Ford

D. Y.

Kea

C. D.

(2020). Culturally responsive practices with gifted students who are culturally and linguistically diverse: An intersectional analysis. Gifted Child Today, 43(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519880584

114.

Yeung

(2023). Implicit bias, discipline, and academic disparities: Understanding white teachers’ perceptions of black students. In Proceedings of the 2023 AERA Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.3102/2015451

115.

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

The New Dreamkeepers: A Call for Critically Conscious,Culturally Responsive,and Creative Educators in Gifted Education

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Synthesis of Study Design

Results

Finding 1: Lower Levels of Racial Implicit Bias are Associated with Greater Desirability of Student Creative Characteristics

Finding 2: Racial Implicit Bias is Formed More by Demographic Identity than Educational Background

Finding 3: Educators Trained in Culturally Responsive Pedagogy are More Likely to Desire Creative Student Characteristics

Finding 4: Veteran Educators Exhibit a Stronger Desirability for Student Creative Characteristics

Finding 5: Believing that the Most Important Objective of Education is Either Thinking Critically or Creatively About the Content Yields Identical Levels of Desirability of Student Creative Characteristics

Finding 6: General and Special Education Teachers Prioritize Academic Traits over Creative Characteristics

Finding 7: Impulsivity, a Trait Common Amongst Twice- and Thrice-Exceptional Students, was the Least Desired Student Characteristic

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Reflective, Culturally Affirming, Historically Accurate, Creativity- and Content-based Professional Learning Models

Reflective

Culturally Affirming

Historically Accurate

Creativity-Based

Content-Based

Recommendation 2: The Mentor Teacher

Seamlessly Selecting C3 Mentor Teachers

Renewed Roles and Responsibilities of C3 Mentor Teachers

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The New Dreamkeepers: A Call for Critically Conscious, Culturally Responsive, and Creative Educators in Gifted Education

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Supplemental Material

References

Seamlessly Selecting C³ Mentor Teachers

Renewed Roles and Responsibilities of C³ Mentor Teachers