Challenges related to gifted education in rural schools have been well-documented and include limited curricular opportunities and resources; inequitable gifted identification processes; the pervasive exclusion of students of color, multilingual learners (MLs), economically disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities in gifted programming; and a lack of gifted education resource teachers in rural schools. MLs are the fastest growing population of K-12 students in the United States, yet they remain proportionately less represented in gifted and talented programs than both students traditionally identified for gifted education as well as those from other underserved populations. Rural MLs are even less likely to be identified for gifted services and often face additional barriers even when referred for gifted programming by a teacher. This article includes an overview of the challenges and innovative responses to barriers for rural MLs in gifted programs, focusing especially on rural Latine multilingual populations.
AllenJ. K. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517690188
3.
AzanoA. (2011). The possibility of place: One teacher's use of place-based instruction for English students in a rural high school. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(10), 1–12.
4.
AzanoA. P. (2014). Gifted rural students. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 297–304). Prufrock Press.
5.
AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (2021a). Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place-based interventions. Routledge.
6.
AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (2021b). Place as context and content: Project design. In AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place based interventions (pp. 28–38). Routledge.
7.
AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.CaugheyM. (2017). Responding to the challenges of gifted education in rural communities. Global Education Review, 4(1), 62–77.
8.
AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M.KuehlR. (2021). Challenges and innovative responses in rural gifted education. In AzanoA. P.EppleyK.BiddleC. (Eds.), Bloomsbury handbook of rural education in the USA (pp. 294–303). Bloomsbury.
9.
AzanoA. P.FlowersJ.CoadyM.BiddleC. (2025). Trends influencing the future of rural and remote education. In JohnsonJ.HarmonH. (Eds.), International handbook on rural and remote education (pp. 451–462). Edward Elgar.
10.
AzanoA. P.MissettT. C.CallahanC. M. (2016). Poetry and fairy tales: Language arts units for gifted students in Grade 3. [CLEAR]. Prufrock.
11.
BassE. L. (2021). Place-conscious writing tasks. In AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place-based interventions (pp. 165–175). Routledge.
12.
BassE. L.AzanoA. P. (2024). Reading and writing place: Connecting schools and communities. Lexington Books.
13.
BassE. L.AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (2020). A place for writing: Examining a place based curriculum for high-performing rural writers. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(2), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2020.v10n2p11-25
14.
BiancoM.HarrisB. (2014). Strength-based RTI: Developing gifted potential in Spanish speaking English language learners. Gifted Child Today, 37(3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514530115
15.
BiddleC.AzanoA. P. (2016). Constructing and reconstructing the “rural school problem”: A century of rurality and rural education research. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 298–325. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16667700
16.
BorlandJ. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press.
17.
CallahanC. M.AzanoA. P. (2021). Developing a place-based identification process. In AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place based interventions (pp. 41–49). Routledge.
18.
CallahanC. M.DmitrievaS.ParkS.HullM. F.AzanoA. P. (2021). Impact: Student outcomes. In AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place-based interventions (pp. 152–164). Routledge.
19.
CallahanC. M.MissettT. C.AzanoA. P.CaugheyM.BrodersenA. V.TackettM. (2017). Fiction and nonfiction: Language arts units for gifted students in Grade 4. [CLEAR]. Prufrock.
20.
CarrS.KefalasJ. (2009). Hollowing out the middle: The rural brain drain and what it means for America. Beacon Press.
21.
CoadyM. R. (2019). Connecting school and the multilingual home: Theory and practice for rural educators. Multilingual Matters.
22.
CoadyM. R. (2020). A review of rural English learner education: Call for a focused national research agenda. Educational Researcher, 49(7), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20931505
CoadyM. R.GolombekP.MarichalN. (Eds.). (2023). Educating multilingual students in rural schools: Illuminating diversity in rural communities in the United States. Brill.
25.
CoadyM. R.MarichalN.OlszewskaO.AnkenyR.LongA.ShafieiH.ChakrabortyR. (2023). “It’s like fuel”: Rural educator professional development for English learners. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 39(1), 1–18.
26.
CoronadoJ. M.LewisK. D. (2017). The disproportional representation of English language learners in gifted and talented programs in Texas. Gifted Child Today, 40(4), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517722181
27.
CostelloA. M. (2017). Exploring English learners’ learning opportunities in gifted programs. National Teacher Education Journal, 10(2), 31–44.
28.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
29.
CroftL. (2015). Rural teachers of the gifted: The importance of professional development. In StambaughT.WoodS. M. (Eds.), Serving gifted students in rural settings (pp. 341–362). Prufrock.
CrumbL.ChambersC.AzanoA.HandsA.CuthrellK.AventM. (2023). Rural cultural wealth: Dismantling deficit ideologies of rurality. Journal for Multicultural Education, 17(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-06-2022-0076
32.
DavisJ. L.FordD. Y.MooreJ. L.FloydE. F. (2020). Black and gifted in rural America: Barriers and facilitators to accessing gifted and talented education programs. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2002.v10n2p85-100
33.
DmitrievaS. (2022). The relationship between stereotype threat vulnerability and academic engagement among gifted elementary students in rural schools [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Virginia.
34.
EsquierdoJ. J.Arreguín-AndersonM. (2012). The “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students: A current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211432041
35.
FloydE. F.McGinnisJ. L.GranthamT. C. (2011). Gifted education in rural environments. In CastellanoJ. A.FrazierA. D. (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 27–46). Prufrock Press.
36.
FordD. Y. (2015). Gifted Black and Hispanic students in rural settings. In StambaughT.WoodS. M. (Eds.), Serving gifted students in rural settings (pp. 71–90). Prufrock.
37.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. 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
38.
GayG. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839022000014349
39.
GentryM. (2018). Cluster grouping. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 213–224). Routledge.
40.
GorskiP.SwalwellK. (2023). Fix injustice, not kids: And other principles for transformative equity leadership. ASCD.
41.
GottfredsonL. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 24–40). Allyn & Bacon.
HamiltonR.McCoachD. B.TutwilerM. S.SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.MunR. U. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053
44.
HarradineC. C.ColemanM. B.WinnD. C. (2013). Recognizing academic potential in students of color: Findings of U-STARS∼PLUS. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213506040
45.
HemmlerV.AzanoA. P.DmitrievaS.CallahanC. M. (2022). Exploring representation of Black students in rural gifted education: Taking steps toward equity. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 38(2), 1–25.
46.
HighM. H.UdallA. J. (1983). Teacher ratings of students in relation to ethnicity of students and school ethnic balance. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6(3), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328300600303
47.
HodgesJ.TayJ.MaedaY.GentryM. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107
48.
HornC. V. (2015). Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556532
49.
HowleyC. (2009). The meaning of rural difference for bright rednecks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(4), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903200405
50.
HowleyA.RhodesM.BeallJ. (2009). Challenges facing rural schools: Implications for gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(4), 515–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903200404
51.
JungJ. Y.TownendG.HayP. K.SmithS. R. (2022). The state of knowledge in rural gifted education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.11f77/1932202X221076385
52.
KettlerT.RussellJ.PuryearJ. S. (2015). Inequitable access to gifted education: Variance in funding and staffing based on locale and contextual school variables. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215578277
53.
KitanoM. K.PedersenK. S. (2002). Action research and practical inquiry teaching gifted English learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320202600204
54.
KuehlR. (2020a). A place for reading: Leveraging mentor texts with middle grade rural readers. Journal of Literacy Innovation, 5(2), 5–23.
55.
KuehlR. (2020b). Fourth-grade narrative fiction writing: Using content analysis to examine the intersection of place, high ability, and creativity [Doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Tech. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/97918
56.
KuehlR. (2021). Rural families from the eyes of fourth-grade fiction writers. In AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place-based interventions (pp. 176–185). Routledge.
57.
KuehlR.AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (2020). Gifted rural writers explore place in narrative fiction stories. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(2), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2020.v10n2p26-45
58.
KuehlR.CallahanC. M.AzanoA. P. (2022). The forgotten many: Rural gifted learners. In NybergJ. L.ManzoneJ. A. (Eds.), Creating equitable services for the gifted: Protocols for identification, implementation, and evaluation (pp. 150–170). IGI Global.
59.
KuehlR.SnyderJ. D. (2023). Partnering and place: Teaming up to build sustainable gifted programming in Appalachian schools. Teaching for High Potential, Nov 2023, 18–21.
60.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
61.
LakinJ. M. (2018). Making the cut in gifted selection: Score combination rules and their impact on program diversity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752099
62.
LatzA. O.AdamsC. M. (2011). Critical differentiation and the twice oppressed: Social class and giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(5), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211417339
LewisK. D.NovakA. M.WeberC. L. (2018). Where are gifted students of color? Case studies outline strategies to increase diversity in gifted programs. The Learning Professional, 39(4), 50–53. 58.
65.
LewisK. D.NovakA. M.WeberC. L. (2020). Using case studies to develop equity driven professional learning for gifted educators. Gifted Child Today, 43(4), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520940736
66.
LichterD. T.JohnsonK. M. (2020). A demographic lifeline? Immigration and Hispanic population growth in rural America. Population Research and Policy Review, 39, 785–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-020-09605-8
67.
LohmanD. F. (2009). Identifying academically talented students: Some general principles, two specific procedures. International Handbook on Giftedness, 971–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_49
68.
LohmanD. F. (2013). Identifying gifted students: Nontraditional uses of traditional measures. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 112–127). Routledge.
69.
LohmanD. F.KorbK. A.LakinJ. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English language learners using nonverbal tests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321808
70.
LohmanD. F.RenzulliJ. (2007). A simple procedure for combining ability test scores, achievement test scores, and teacher ratings to identify academically talented children. Unpublished manuscript.
71.
MatthewsM. S. (2014). Advanced academics, inclusive education, and English language learners. In MatthewsM. S.CastellanoJ. A. (Eds.), Talent development for English language learners (pp. 11–14). Prufrock Press.
72.
MatthewsM. S.AzanoA. P.RasheedM. (2021). Case study in rural Appalachia. In AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place based interventions (pp. 186–204). Routledge.
McCoachD. B.GambinoA. J.PetersS. J.LongD.SiegleD. (2023). How much teacher is in teacher rating scales? EdWorking Paper, 23-828.
75.
MillerM.BrigandiC. (2020). Exploring gifted education programming and practice in rural Appalachia. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2020.v10n2p101-118
76.
MissettT. C.AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (2016a). Research and rhetoric: Language arts units for gifted students in Grade 5. [CLEAR]. Prufrock.
77.
MissettT. C.AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M.LandrumK. (2016b). The influence of teacher expectations about twice-exceptional students on the use of high quality gifted curriculum: A case study approach. Exceptionality, 24(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2014.986611
78.
MollL.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzálezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
79.
Mora-FloresE. (2022). Diversity and differentiation for gifted English learners. In NybergJ. L.ManzoneJ. A. (Eds.), Creating equitable services for the gifted: Protocols for identification, implementation, and evaluation (pp. 135–149). IGI Global.
80.
MunR. U. (2016). Identifying and assessing highly capable students. Washington Educational Research Association Educational Journal, 8(2), 14–17.
81.
MunR.HemmlerV. L.Dulong LangleyS.WareS.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2020). Identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: Looking back and moving forward. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(4), 297–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220955230
82.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm (Position Paper).
83.
NovakA. M.JonesK. D. (2020). Gatekeepers in gifted: A case study of the disproportionality of gifted Black youth in elementary programs. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 24(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458920976736
84.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F. (2022). Response to Peters: Promising practices and a missing piece. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 110–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037968
85.
ParisD. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
86.
ParisD.AlimH. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
87.
PereiraN.de OliveiraL. C. (2015). Meeting the linguistic needs of high-potential English language learners: What teachers need to know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915569362
88.
PetersS. J. (2022). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
89.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. 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
90.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2010). Multigroup construct validity evidence of the HOPE Scale: Instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210378332
91.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2012). Group-specific norms and teacher-rating scales: Implications for under-representation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12438717
92.
PetersS. J.JohnsonA. (2024). Where are the English learners and students with disabilities in gifted education?AERA Open, 10, 23328584241258480. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241258480
93.
PetersS. J.Rambo-HernandezK.MakelM. C.MatthewsM. S.PluckerJ. A. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446
94.
PetersonJ. S. (1999). Gifted—Through whose cultural lens? An application of the postpositivistic mode of inquiry. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(4), 354–383.
PluckerJ. A.PetersS. J. (2018). Closing poverty-based excellence gaps: Conceptual, measurement, and educational issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738566
97.
PuryearJ. S.KettlerT. S. (2017). Rural gifted education and the effect of proximity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217690229
98.
Rambo-HernandezK. E.BrigandiC.AminS.SpillaneN. (2023). Who gets identified? The consequences of variability in teacher ratings and combination rules for determining eligibility for gifted services for young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 46(2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532231162612
99.
RasheedM. (2019). Context and content in rural gifted education: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19879174
100.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H.WhiteA. J.CallahanC. M.HartmanR. K.WestbergK. L.GavinM. K.ReisS. M.SiegleD.SytsmaR. E. (2013). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Prufrock Press.
101.
SewardK.GentryM. (2022). Protocols for identification: Increasing equity for underrepresented groups. In NybergJ. L.ManzoneJ. A. (Eds.), Creating equitable services for the gifted: Protocols for identification, implementation, and evaluation (pp. 1–10). IGI Global.
102.
ShowalterD.HartmanS.EppleyK.JohnsonJ.KleinB. (2023). Why rural matters 2023: Centering equity and opportunity. National Rural Education Association. https://www.nrea.net/why-rural-matters
103.
SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.O’RourkeP.LangleyS. D.MunR. U.LuriaS. R.LittleC. A.McCoachD. B.KnuppT.CallahanC. M.PluckerJ. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930
104.
SojaE. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.
105.
StambaughT. (2015). Identification of rural gifted students. In StambaughT.WoodS. M. (Eds.), Serving gifted students in rural settings (pp. 97–110). Prufrock.
106.
SteinJ. C.HetzelJ.BeckR. (2012). Twice exceptional? The plight of the gifted English learner. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(2), 36–41.
107.
StoneA. N.SerrataC. (2023). How Latina students’ experiences of transitioning to campus are shaped by their rural community. In HallmarkT.ArdoinS.MeansD. R. (Eds.), Race and rurality: Considerations for advancing higher education equity (pp. 155–169). Routledge.
108.
TiekenM. C. (2014). Why rural schools matter. University of North Carolina Press.
109.
TiekenM. C. (2017). The spatialization of racial inequity and educational opportunity: Rethinking the rural/urban divide. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(3), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2017.1324662
110.
TiekenM. C.Auldridge-RevelesT. R. (2019). Rethinking the school closure research: School closure as a form of spatial injustice. Review of Educational Research, 89(6), 917–953. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877151
111.
VamosS. R.SerraS. (2023). The piñata that the farm maiden hung. Charlesbridge.
112.
WestbergK. L. (2012). Using teacher rating scales in the identification of students for gifted services. In HunsakerS. L. (Ed.), Identification: The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 363–389). Prufrock Press.
113.
WhittenC. D. (2024). Identity and place: Exploring the complexities between rural education, community, and queerness [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech]. Virginia Tech Electronic Dissertations and Theses.
114.
WrightB. L.FordD. Y.MooreJ. L. (2022). Hidden in plain sight: Increasing equitable representation of underrepresented groups in gifted and talented education. In NybergJ. L.ManzoneJ. A. (Eds.), Creating equitable services for the gifted: Protocols for identification, implementation, and evaluation (pp. 11–19). IGI Global.
