Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Achieving equity in gifted education requires districts to disrupt inequities. Professional learning (PL) is acknowledged as an effective tool to spark lasting change; however, the realities of implementing equity-driven PL often hinder its effectiveness. This case study provides the perspectives of a gifted coordinator on the obstacles to growing equity in a gifted and talented program following targeted ongoing, relevant, collaborative, online equity-driven PL provided as part of a university/district collaboration. The qualitative study sought to understand challenges the gifted coordinator faced as well as insights she gained after the university/district collaborative PL. The case study methodology involved an interview; data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed; and five themes and three key understandings are discussed, along with implications for future research and study limitations. Key understandings include the benefits of targeted PL, the need for timely change, and the need to balance between leadership and empowering teachers to be change agents.

Keywords

case study professional learning administration gifted university/district collaboration

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acar

Sen

Cayirdag

(2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 2(60), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438

Allen

(2017). Exploring the role teacher perceptions play in the underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted programming. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 77–86.

Blee

K. M.

Taylor

(2002). Semistructured interviewing in social movement research. In Klandermans

Staggenborg

(Eds), Methods of social movement research (pp. 92–117). University of Minnesota Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ExVgY9i53B4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA92&dq=benefits+of+semi+structured+interviews+in+qualitative+research&ots=VprzpOGR1R&sig=FDacKa-T2X-Uw6dH-vS4k-pErGU#v=onepage&q&f=false

Brigandi

C. B.

Gilson

C. M.

Miller

(2019). Professional development and differentiated instruction in an elementary school pullout program: A gifted education case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(4), 362–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219874418

Brulles

(2015). Building bridges and moving mountains: The gifted coordinator role. National Association for Gifted Children. https://www.nagc.org/blog/building-bridges-and-moving-mountains-gifted-coordinator-role

Carpenter

Hayden

(2018). Roles in gifted education: A parent’s guide. Parenting for High Potential, 7(3), 2–5. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1191457

Collins

C. S.

Stockton

C. M.

(2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.

Darling-Hammond

Hyler

M. E.

Gardener

(2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606741.pdf

10.

Darling-Hammond

Wei

R. C.

Andree

Richardson

Orphanos

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.

11.

DeCuir-Gunby

Marshall

McCulloch

(2011). Developing and using a codebook for analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10388468

12.

Dempster

(2001). The professional development of school principals: A fine balance [Paper presentation]. Griffith University Public Lecture SeriesCenter for Leadership and Management in Education, Queensland, Australia. https://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/61654/509878/file/Dempster_-_PD.pdf

13.

DuFour

Eaker

Many

T. W.

Mattos

(2016). Learning by doing. A handbook for professional learning communities at work (3rd ed.). Solution Tree Press.

14.

DuFour

Eaker

Mattos

Muhammad

(2021). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: Proven insights for sustained, substantive school improvement (2nd ed.). Solution Tree.

15.

Every Student . (2015). Succeeds act, 20 U.S.C.§ 6301. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177

16.

Flinders

D. J.

Mills

G. E.

(1993). Theory and concepts in qualitative research: Perspectives from the field. Teachers College Press.

17.

Gentry

Gray

A. M.

Whiting

G. W.

Maeda

Pereira

(2019). System failure: Access denied. Urgent! Systemic change required. Gifted education in the United States: Laws, access, equity, and missingness across the country by locale, title I school status, and race. Gifted Education Research & Resource Institute. https://www.education.purdue.edu/geri/new-publications/gifted-education-in-the-united-states/

18.

Gore

Rosser

(2020). Beyond content-focused professional development: Powerful professional learning through genuine learning communities across grades and subjects. Professional Development in Education, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1725904

19.

Gorski

P. C.

Swalwell

(2015). Equity literacy for all. Educational Leadership, 72(6), 34–40.

20.

Gray-Grant

(2017). Your complete guide to writing a better speech. Gray-Grant Communications. https://www.publicationcoach.com/ten-ways-to-write-a-better-speech/

21.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.

22.

Gubbins

E. J.

Siegle

Peters

P. M.

Carpenter

A. Y.

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Puryear

J. S.

Dulong Langley

Long

(2020). Promising practices for improving identification for English learners for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(4), 336–369.

23.

Gulamhussein

(2013). Teaching the teachers: Effective professional development in an era of high stakes accountability. The Center for Public Education. http://conference.ohioschoolboards.org/2017/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2016/07/1pm111317A114Job-embedPD.pdf

24.

Guskey

T. R.

(2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.

25.

Kendi

I. X.

(2019). How to be an antiracist. One World/Ballantine.

26.

Lewis

K. D.

Novak

A. M.

(2019). Identifying and supporting culturally, linguistically and economically diverse gifted learners: Guiding teachers through the four zones of professional learning. In Novak

A. M.

Weber

C. L.

(Eds), Best practices in professional learning and teacher preparation: Special topics for gifted professional development (pp. 133–158). Prufrock Press.

27.

Lewis

K. D.

Novak

A. M.

(2022). Empowering gifted educators as change agents: A playbook for equity-driven professional learning. Routledge.

28.

Long

Johnson

(2000). Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1054/cein.2000.0106

29.

Love

B. L.

(2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon.

30.

Makel

M. C.

Plucker

J. A.

(2015). An introduction to replication research in gifted education: Shiny and new is not the same as useful. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(3), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215578747

31.

Mizell

(2010). Why professional development matters . Learning Forward.

32.

Moon

T. R.

Park

(2016). Fidelity of intervention of English/language arts elementary curriculum for gifted students: An exploratory investigation in different service delivery models. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(1), 62–79. https://doi:10.1177/0162353215624161

33.

National Association for Gifted Children . (2014). Knowledge and skill standards in gifted education for all teachers. https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/knowledge-and

34.

National Association for Gifted Children, & Council for Exceptional Children. (2013). NAGC-CEC Gifted Education Teacher Preparation Standards. National Association for Gifted Children. https://dev.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/nagc-cec-teacher-0.

35.

Novak

A. M.

(2022). Not White saviors, but critical scholars: The need for gifted critical race theory. In Nyberg

Manzone

(Eds.), Creating equitable services for the gifted: Protocols for identification, implementation, and evaluation (pp. 246–262). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/not-white-saviors-but-critical-scholars/290604.

36.

Novak

A. M.

Lewis

K. D.

(2018). Tools of the trade: Finding the best fit for your professional learning needs. In Novak

Weber

(Eds), Best practices in professional learning and teacher preparation: Methods and strategies for gifted professional development (pp. 51–69). Prufrock Press.

37.

Novak

A. M.

Lewis

K. D.

(2022). A methodological approach to designing a theory: The journey of the four zone professional learning model. Roeper Review, 44(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.2005206

38.

Peters

S. J.

Engerrand

K. G.

(2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165

39.

Peters

S. J.

Jolly

J. L.

(2018). The influence of professional development in gifted education on the frequency of instructional practices. Australian Educational Researcher, 45(2), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0260-4

40.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2332858419848446

41.

Rinn

A. N.

Mun

R. U.

Hodges

(2020). 2018–2019 state of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://www.nagc.org/2018-2019-state-states-gifted-education

42.

Roberts

Dowell

Nie

(2019). Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(66), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y

43.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

44.

Scism

(2019). The 20-60-20 rule: A different take on the pareto principle for change management leaders. Pulse https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20-60-20-rule-different-take-pareto-principle-change-management/

45.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

46.

Texas Education Agency . (2019). Gifted/talented education: District level coding. [Slide deck saved as a pdf]. TEA https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/GT_District_Level_Coding_2019.pdf

47.

Weber

C. L.

Novak

A. M.

(2022). Professional learning: A new look. In Roberts

J. L.

Inman

T. F.

Robins

J. H.

(Eds), Introduction to gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 439–446). Routledge.

48.

Weber

C. L.

Novak

A. M.

Lewis

K. D.

(2018). What’s in a name? Professional development vs. professional learning. NAGC Insider, National Association for Gifted Children https://www.nagc.org/whats-name

Perceptions of a Gifted Coordinator on University/District Collaboration Providing Culturally Responsive Gifted Professional Learning: A Phased Analysis of the Four-Zone Equity-Driven Model of Professional Learning

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References