Gifted education policies, even the ones that received much governmental attention are confronting the obstacles of inequitable access and difficulties with student retention in gifted programs (Ford, Grantham, Whiting, 2008; Wright, Ford, and Young 2009).
According to Levin (2003), assumptions why some individuals or groups are more successful than others is heavily dependent on how much of the responsibility for success is placed on the individual learner. However, when some consider that innate differences in capacity are the key factor in participation and in outcomes, it is very challenging or even impossible to overcome them. Others might claim that discrepancies in the results are the outcomes of inadequate provision or societal barriers for certain minorities. Many
sociodemographic attributes may exacerbate disparities in access to quality education. These may be apparent in cultures and languages, religions and beliefs, mental and physical health, parents’ education and family income.
It is also noteworthy to mention that these discrepancies in social and economic
circumstances generally do not operate separately, and the amalgam of several dimensions can widen existing gaps even further (Morley & Lussier, 2009; UNESCO, 2008). For instance, the coexistence of poor academic achievement and low socioeconomic conditions among some ethnic minorities is considered a ubiquitous issue in the South African context. In the South Africa, the problem of increasing the number of students from diverse linguistic backgrounds is often times combined with inappropriate class sizes and scarcity of learning materials (Van der Westhuizen & Maree, 2006). Therefore, since 1994 and up to now, the South African gifted education policies have seen very little recognition and are viewed as “not
encouraging”, “dismal” and “the plight of the gifted learner seldom mentioned” (Kokot, 1998). In addition to this, to avoid the educational elitism, there is an increasing tendency of shifting from specialised schools for gifted children to more inclusive school models (Oswald
& Villiers, 2013).
In many highly developed countries, such as the UK, Finland, Canada and the USA, ethnicity and low socioeconomic status appear to be two of the main risk factors for
underachievement in schools and underrepresentation in gifted education programs.
In the US context, the main concerns of educational equity in gifted education
opportunities are primarily around the discrepancies in the ratio of white and black students. In a 1998 article, the author scrutinized the demographic features in the national gifted education program. He came to the conclusion that Black, Hispanic, and Native American students were always underrepresented in gifted education, and during particular eras their participation and
enrollment were even lower (Ford, 1998). It is worth highlighting that there was a strong legislative support and much effort has been put forth from the government. For example, in 1988, the U.S. Congress passed a law that was targeted to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds. According to this law, around half of the scholarships for gifted education were to be distributed to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Furthermore, the National Association for Gifted Children (1997) put into educators’ agenda the importance of using several placement tests in identification, assessment policies and procedures dealing with giftedness. Despite these governmental initiatives, a decade later, in 2016, the same tendency was observed in the summary report of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR). In the interim, Ford (1995, 1998) in his analysis of GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) programs, also calls to reconsider influential factors such as the
application of standardized tests in students selection procedures and teachers’ lack of ability in recognizing gifted children and their learning styles.
In a survey Pffeiffer (2016) investigated 64 gifted education experts who revealed that after the problems of misunderstanding of giftedness, student selection procedures and the validity of instruments used were the most pressing questions in the field of gifted education.
Indeed, relying on these tests is inappropriate for multiple reasons such as bias in the test, poor instruction and low level of preparedness that leads to poor results. This approach also
neglects the strengths of culturally and linguistically diverse students and their socio-economic backgrounds. What is more, academic achievement, if taken as a reflection of students’ higher abilities, does not consider the reality that not all gifted students are motivated to learn and show success in education because of inadequate educational policies, stereotypes, and negative peer pressure (Ford, 1996).
Another set of issues in gifted education can be related to the combination of low
socio-economic conditions and poor educational quality in rural schools. Thompson (2010) emphasizes that underrepresentation of rural children in gifted education programs is
problematic not due to the lack of gifted and talented pupils in remote areas but because of the unavailability of special support programs for highly able students in remote areas. According to Puryear and Kettler (2017), rural students’ abilities to compete with their urban counterparts may be constrained due to the limited subject choice and the shortage of school resources in rural settings. Even withstanding the fact of generally smaller class sizes in rural areas, this cannot guarantee teachers’ competence to identify and work with gifted students (OECD, 2019).
Co-occurrence of giftedness and special educational needs also can pose a barrier to the enrolment in the gifted education programs. Montgomery’s (2013) scrutiny of the literature reported that it was only in 1970s when the very first attempts to address the needs of gifted children with disabilities were made. However, there is still lack of knowledge on understanding these students’ learning peculiarities. According to Omdal (2015), a teacher who is working with twice exceptional students should also have a deep awareness on education for gifted and special needs students. The research of Reis (2014) also claims that the teachers’ perceptions on dual-exceptional students are directly linked with their awareness of the intersection between giftedness and disabilities. Aside from difficulties in identification and teaching procedures, Montgomery (2013) also comments that there should be effort made to overcome attitudinal barriers and dispel doubts and fear associated with including students with any mental or physical disorders in gifted education programs.