School District Equity Initiatives That Impact Access to Accelerated and Advanced Learning

Abstract

Equity and access to advanced learning opportunities have been issues of concern for educators in the field of gifted education for decades. Gifted programs are noted as some of the most segregated learning environments in schools today. This study was designed to investigate how school districts have addressed educational equity through the lenses of school district administrators. Researchers conducted semistructured 1-hr interviews with 32 superintendents or their designees (e.g., gifted coordinator, Director of Equity, etc.) about school district initiatives designed and implemented to improve equity and access to advanced and accelerated learning opportunities, with a focus from 2015 to early 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were asked about the definition of educational equity in their district, targeted equity initiatives in highly capable programs, challenges or barriers they encountered when they implemented change, and their experiences with diversifying their work force and professional development. Findings included changes in curriculum and improving access to advanced learning opportunities while addressing persistent challenges in school funding and diversifying the workforce. The findings of this study addressed a significant gap in gifted education research: actions taken by school district administrators that went beyond changes in identification processes to increase equity and access to advanced learning opportunities.

Keywords

educational equity gifted education school district administration educational policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achinstein

Ogawa

R. T.

Sexton

Freitas

(2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 71–107. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309355994

Banaji

M. R.

Greenwald

A. G.

(2016). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Bantam Books.

Buckley

L. A.

(2010). Unfulfilled hopes in education for equity: Redesigning the mathematics curriculum in a US high school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270903148065

Burns

J. R.

(2020). McCleary v. State and the Washington State supreme court’s retention of jurisdiction—A success story for Washington public schools? https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=sulr_supra

Clandinin

D. J.

Connelly

M. F.

(1994). Personal experience methods. In Denzin

N. K.

Guba

Y. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 413–427). Sage.

Cowan

Goldhaber

(2015). How much of a “Running Start” do dual enrollment programs provide students? The Review of Higher Education, 38(3), 425–460. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2015.0018

DeCuir

J. T.

Dixson

A. D.

(2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31.

Dougherty

S. M.

Goodman

J. S.

Hill

D. V.

Litke

E. G.

Page

L. C.

(2015). Middle school math acceleration and equitable access to eighth-grade algebra: Evidence from the Wake County Public School System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 80–101. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715576076

Farkas

Morgan

P. L.

Hillemeier

M. M.

Mitchell

Woods

A. D.

(2020). District-level achievement gaps explain Black and Hispanic overrepresentation in special education. Exceptional Children, 86(4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291989369

10.

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

11.

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

12.

Gage

N. A.

Whitford

D. K.

Katsiyannis

Adams

Jasper

(2019). National analysis of the disciplinary exclusion of Black students with and without disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 1754–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01407-7

13.

Gagnon

D. J.

Mattingly

M. J.

(2016). Advanced placement and rural schools: Access, success, and exploring alternatives. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(4), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16656390

14.

Gentry

Gray

Whiting

G. W.

Maeda

Pereira

(2019). Gifted education in the United States: Laws, access, equity, and missingness across the country by locale, Title I school status, and race. Purdue University. https://www.education.purdue.edu/geri/new-publications/gifted-education-in-the-united-states/

15.

Gregory

Fergus

(2017). Social and emotional learning and equity in school discipline. The Future of Children, 27(1), 117–136. http://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0006

16.

Grissom

J. A.

Rodriguez

L. A.

Kern

E. C.

(2017). Teacher and principal diversity and the representation of students of color in gifted programs: Evidence from national data. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 396–422. https://doi.org/10.1086/690274

17.

Halvorsen

A. L.

Lee

V. E.

Andrade

F. H.

(2009). A mixed-method study of teachers’ attitudes about teaching in urban and low-income schools. Urban Education, 44, 181–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318696

18.

Heitin

(2016). Two in five schools don’t offer Physics, analysis finds—Smaller schools least likely to offer subject. Education Week, 36(1), Article 6. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/08/24/2-in-5-high-schools-dont-offer.html

19.

Hitt

D. H.

Meyers

C. V.

(2018). Beyond turnaround: A synthesis of relevant frameworks for leaders of sustained improvement in previously low-performing schools. School Leadership & Management, 38(1), 4–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1374943

20.

Hodges

(2018). Assessing the influence of No Child Left Behind on gifted education funding in Texas: A descriptive study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(4), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18779343

21.

Hodges

Ottwein

J. K.

(2021). Spending floors in gifted education services. The Rural Educator, 42, 32–45. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.35608/ruraled.v42i1.1106

22.

Hodges

Tay

Maeda

Gentry

(2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107

23.

Howley

Rhodes

Beall

(2009). Challenges facing rural schools: Implications for gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 515–536. http://jeg.sagepub.com.libdata.lib.ua.edu/content/32/4.toc

24.

Kendi

I. X.

(2019). How to be an antiracist. Random House.

25.

Kolluri

(2018). Advanced placement: The dual challenge of equal access and effectiveness. Review of Educational Research, 88(5), 671–711. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318787268

26.

Lamb

K. N.

Boedeker

Kettler

(2019). Inequities of enrollment in gifted education: A statewide application of the 20% equity allowance formula. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219830768

27.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

28.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Public school district file. School Locations & Geoassignments. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/data/EDGE_GEOCODE_PUBLICLEA_1718.zip

29.

Office for Civil Rights. (n.d.). About OCR. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html

30.

Office of Superintendent Public Instruction. (2021a) Consollidated Equity and Sustainabilty (CES) Dual Credit Grant Form Package 154. https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/ossi/k12supports/pubdocs/Consolidated%20Equity%20and%20Sustainability%20Dual%20Credit%20Grant%20Package.pdf

31.

Office of Superintendent Public Instruction. (2021b). Washington State report card. https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/103300

32.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Corwith

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

33.

Oluo

(2018). So you want to talk about race? Seal Press.

34.

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

35.

Puryear

J. S.

Kettler

(2017). Rural gifted education and the effect of proximity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217690229

36.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012

37.

Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 28A.185.020. (2017). Highly capable students. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.185&full=true

38.

Russo

C. J.

Talbert-Johnson

(1997). The overrepresentation of African American children in special education: The resegregation of educational programming? Educational and Urban Society, 29(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245970290020

39.

Saldaña

(2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In Leavy

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 1–45). Oxford University Press.

40.

Sandelowski

(2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4%3C334::aid-nur9%3E3.0.co;2-g

41.

SocioCultural Research Consultants. (2018). Dedoose (8.0.35) [Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data].

42.

Stein

M. K.

Kaufman

J. H.

Sherman

Hillen

A. F.

(2011). Algebra: A challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 453–492. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311423025

43.

van den Bergh

Denessen

Hornstra

Voeten

Holland

R. W

. (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 497–527. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209353594

44.

Williams

J. A.

III. Persky

F. D.

Johnson

J. N.

(2018). Does longevity matter? Teacher experience and the suspension of Black middle school. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 14, 50–62. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1195960

45.

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.

46.

Yaluma

C. B.

Tyner

(2018). Is there a gifted gap? Gifted education in high-poverty schools. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

47.

Yoon

S. Y.

Gentry

(2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330564

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

0.01 MB