1037705
research-article2021
GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211037705Gifted Child QuarterlyBarnes
Commentary
The Inherent Racism of (Gifted)
Education
Keishana L. Barnes1
Regarding the work toward achieving equity in public gifted
education (GiftedEd) programs, I aim to challenge two of
the underlining assumptions that persist in GiftedEd
research, in GiftedEd programming, and in the target article.
Peters (2021) writes, “But the field of gifted education
should avoid false dichotomies: the existence of dispropor-
tionality does not make gifted services inherently racist, nor
should ongoing inequity be seen as acceptable” (p. 10). In
contrast, if we, as GiftedEd scholars and practitioners are to
authentically commit to pursuing, establishing, and main-
taining equity in public GiftedEd programs, we must do so
with (a) the understanding that the type of racial dispropor-
tionality that persists in GiftedEd is indeed an example of
systemic racism, and (b) solving the disproportionality
problem will not allow us to proclaim we have reached
equity in GiftedEd.
GiftedEd as a Racist System
Peters (2021) acknowledges that students of color are under-
represented in GiftedEd, emphasizes the current work being
done around equity, and explicitly connects that this under-
representation is both disproportional, inequitable, and con-
nected to their race. This means there exists a critical mass of
students who are not receiving the educational services they
need. Oswald et al. (1999) defined disproportionality as “the
extent to which membership in a given (ethnic, socioeco-
nomic, linguistic, or gender) group affects the probability of
being placed in a specific disability category” (p. 198). Yet,
Peters (2021) contends that this reality is not one that is
inherently racist. As GiftedEd educators and researchers, we
must call this disproportionality what it is. It is racist for the
very reasons outlined in the target article.
This disproportionality has led to intellectually gifted
Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students being systemati-
cally excluded from receiving gifted services, and there-
fore, has disadvantaged them, while those students of races
who are overrepresented presumably gain advantages and
power. The existence and reality of this disproportional rep-
resentation does indeed make gifted education, as a whole,
racist—and racist at its core, its founding, and its continu-
ance. If we apply the lens of critical race theory (CRT) to
this phenomenon, we can begin to understand the resistance
to explicitly categorize this reality as racist. CRT reminds
us that racism is woven so deeply into the fabric of our
Gifted Child Quarterly
2022, Vol. 66(2) 119­–120
© 2021 National Association for
Gifted Children
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037705
https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037705
journals.sagepub.com/home/gcq
society that it is often unrecognizable, that Whiteness is
property, and racist systems are only challenged by those in
power when they have something to gain (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2017). Why would GiftedEd be any different? If
we do not take a “Full Stop” and take the steps of collec-
tively recognizing this disproportionality as racist, and
therefore GiftedEd as a whole, then we will be unable to
make impactful changes.
Unacceptable Inequity
At its roots, GiftedEd was not designed for every type of
intellectually gifted student. In the target article, Peters
(2021) concludes with a reminder that positive changes
regarding identification of intellectually gifted students
have occurred and will hopefully continue. After recogniz-
ing this reality of disproportionality as racist, we must
continue to examine and improve educational services spe-
cifically. What if we are able to solve the problem of under
identifying children from low-socioeconomic status back-
grounds, children from immigrant families, Black students,
and twice-exceptional students? Are the GiftedEd programs
they would be entering into equitable? Are students from
these backgrounds receiving appropriate services from their
overall schooling experiences, including GiftedEd pro-
grams? Are our GiftedEd pedagogies intersectional? Or cul-
turally responsive and sustaining?
Current literature would tell us the answer to these ques-
tions would mostly likely be “no.” Therefore, we must define
equity as more than proportional representation. If we are to
achieve equity in GiftedEd, we must confront any educa-
tional services that might be foundationally designed only
with White, middle class, English as a first language, cisgen-
der, heterosexual, able-bodied, neurotypical students as its
model. In order to become more inclusive, more appropriate,
and yes, more equitable for all the students who identify as
intellectually gifted, GiftedEd must work toward a type of
“cross-pollination” (Thorne, 2008), interchanging various
1
University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Keishana L. Barnes, University of Memphis, 3798 Walker Avenue,
Memphis, TN 38111, USA.
Email: klbrnes1@memphis.edu
120 Gifted Child Quarterly 66(2)
theories and frameworks to successfully deconstruct its ori-
gins and confront the reality that racist educational systems
there are certain students for whom GiftedEd was never
designed for in the first place. Noted GiftedEd scholar Donna
Ford, who was referenced in the target article as someone
who has focused her career advocating for more equitable
education experiences for marginalized students in GiftedEd,
argues for creating true culturally responsive classrooms
(CRCs; Ford & Kea, 2009). In this quest to achieve equity
in gifted education, classrooms and educational spaces serv-
ing intellectually gifted students from marginalized back-
grounds, should work to become CRCs in that they
are student centered and, by design and default, culture
centered. A student-centered classroom does not exist if
culture is ignored or disregarded in any way. Stated differently,
as with gender, language, and socioeconomic status (SES),
race must not be ignored, minimized, trivialized, or
disregarded. In every classroom, culture matters, race matters,
gender matters, language matters, and SES matters. (Ford &
Kea, 2009, p. 5)
Concluding Thoughts
Finally, if gifted programs do not work toward these
changes, we must consider the various ways participation
in GiftedEd programs may actually limit and cause harm to
certain students. Although there is value in interrogating
each part of a failing system, we must challenge ourselves
to dig deeper, connect historical and present-day realities,
and to even look within ourselves as educators and research-
ers for any harmful roles we may have played and continue
to play. We must confront any deficit thinking in our
GiftedEd teachers, as well as proactively work to tackle
possible negative implications of the intersectional identity
of being Black and intellectually gifted that the dispropor-
tionality in gifted education has helped to create and
perpetuate.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Open Science Disclosure Statement
This commentary is not data based and as such there are no data,
protocols, code, or newly created materials to share.
ORCID iD
Keishana L. Barnes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3200-9611
References
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An intro-
duction. New York University Press.
Ford, D., & Kea, C. (2009). Creating culturally responsive instruc-
tion: For students’ and teachers’ sakes. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 41(9), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.17161/fec.v41i9.6841
Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N. N.
(1999). Ethnic representation in special education: The influ-
ence of school-related economic and demographic variables.
Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 194-206. https://doi.org
/10.1177/002246699903200401
Peters, S. J. (2021). The challenges of achieving equity within public
school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly.
Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169
862211002535
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Mediating technologies and second language
learning. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu
(Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 417-449).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Author Biography
Keishana L. Barnes is an educator, wife, and mother based in the
United States. She works as a Special Education Clinical Instructor
at the University of Memphis where she is also pursuing a PhD
in Educational Psychology and Research with an emphasis on
Qualitative Methodology. Her research interests include narrative
inquiry, autoethnography, critical discourse analysis, school experi-
ences of Intellectual Gifted children of color, self-advocacy in chil-
dren, African American mothering, culturally sustaining pedagogy,
creativity in teaching, critical race theory, and history of schools.
Manuscript received: June 14, 2021; Accepted: July 20, 2021.