Investigating the Intersection of Poverty and Race in Gifted Education Journals: A 15-Year Analysis

Abstract

Using a two-phase content analysis approach, this study examined how education scholars have discussed the intersection of giftedness, race, and poverty in gifted academic journals from 2000 to 2015. Specifically, the authors explored the following questions: (a) What are the characteristics of studies published that explore the intersection of giftedness, poverty, and students of color? (b) How do scholars discuss and theorize about how to recruit and retain gifted students of color who come from families living in poverty? (c) In what ways do scholars discuss the intersection of race and poverty for gifted students of color? Findings indicated that while studies were focused on students of color, there was limited discussion about the impact of race and poverty on the recruitment and retention of gifted students of color who come from families living in poverty. Implications and future research are discussed.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217737618
Gifted Child Quarterly
2018, Vol. 62(1) 25 –36
© 2017 National Association for
Gifted Children
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0016986217737618
journals.sagepub.com/home/gcq
Article
Despite the United States’ image of being the land of oppor-
tunity, for many children living in poverty, access to gifted
education opportunities is often limited. For instance, Kena
et al. (2016) found that approximately 20% of school-aged
children come from families living in poverty, a 5% increase
from 2000. Moreover, 14 states and the District of Columbia
had poverty rates higher than the U.S. average. While the
national picture provides one side of poverty trends, when
looking at the data by race/ethnicity, it becomes more appar-
ent which groups of students are disproportionately living in
poverty. In 2014, Black (38%), American Indian/Alaska
Native (35%), Hispanic (32%), and Pacific Islander (27%)
students came from families living in poverty compared with
12% of White and Asian students (Kena et al., 2016).
Although living in poverty does not define a child’s ability to
succeed in school, it can certainly have a significant impact
on school performance and outcomes (Ford, Grantham, &
Frazier-Trotman, 2007).
While Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska
Native serve as the majority of students attending schools
who come from families living in poverty, they are vastly
underrepresented in gifted and talented programs (Ford,
2013). Most recent data from the Office of Civil Rights
Data Collection (2015) for the 2011-2012 school year show
that Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native
students comprise 8.9%, 16.8%, and 1% of students in
gifted and talented programs, respectively, compared with
59.9% of White students who, conversely, are overrepre-
sented in gifted education programs. For nearly 80 years,
scholars have discussed in great detail the underrepresenta-
tion of Black and Hispanic students in gifted education
regardless of their income level (see Baldwin, 1987; Ford,
2013; Ford, Whiting, Goings, & Alexander, 2017; Frasier,
1989; Jenkins, 1939).
More recently, scholars have begun to discuss educational
access and outcomes for students who come from families
living in poverty; seldom is this focus on students who are
gifted. As a result, little is known about gifted students who
live in poverty and even less is known about gifted students
of color who come from low-income families (Ford,
Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Stambaugh & Wood, 2015;
VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2007). Without this infor-
mation, educators and families are challenged to identify and
support this specific student population. Moreover, while
scholars have advocated for the representation of gifted stu-
dents living in poverty (Grantham, 2003; VanTassel-Baska,
Johnson, & Avery, 2002; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh,
2007), it is important to take a macro view of the field of
gifted education to analyze the ways in which scholars dis-
cuss the experiences of gifted students of color who live in
737618GCQXXX10.1177/0016986217737618Gifted Child QuarterlyGoings and Ford
research-article2017
1Loyola University Maryland, Timonium, MD, USA
2Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Ramon B. Goings, Department of Education Specialties, School of
Education, Loyola University Maryland, Timonium Graduate Center, 26B,
2034 Greenspring Drive, Timonium, MD 21093, USA.
Email: rbgoings@loyola.edu
Investigating the Intersection of Poverty
and Race in Gifted Education Journals:
A 15-Year Analysis
Ramon B. Goings1 and Donna Y. Ford2
Abstract
Using a two-phase content analysis approach, this study examined how education scholars have discussed the intersection of
giftedness, race, and poverty in gifted academic journals from 2000 to 2015. Specifically, the authors explored the following
questions: (a) What are the characteristics of studies published that explore the intersection of giftedness, poverty, and
students of color? (b) How do scholars discuss and theorize about how to recruit and retain gifted students of color who
come from families living in poverty? (c) In what ways do scholars discuss the intersection of race and poverty for gifted
students of color? Findings indicated that while studies were focused on students of color, there was limited discussion about
the impact of race and poverty on the recruitment and retention of gifted students of color who come from families living in
poverty. Implications and future research are discussed.
Keywords
poverty, giftedness, race, students of color, gifted education, content analysis

26 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(1)
poverty because this research informs gifted education prac-
titioners about best practices for supporting and advocating
for them. Importantly, while these students share needs asso-
ciated with living in poverty, there are possibly different
needs based on race and culture; thus exploring the body of
research in this area will provide insight into these nuances.
The purpose of this article is to explore how education
scholars have discussed the intersection of giftedness, race,
and poverty in gifted academic journals from 2000 to 2015.
Specifically, we focus on the following journals as they are
solely devoted to gifted education: Gifted Child Quarterly,
Roeper Review, Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
Journal of Advanced Academics (titled Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education prior to 2006), and Gifted Child Today.
Our aim is to address the following research questions:
1. What are the characteristics of studies published that
explore the intersection of giftedness, poverty, and
students of color?
2. How do scholars discuss and theorize about recruit-
ment and retention of gifted students of color who
come from families living in poverty?
3. In what ways do scholars discuss the intersection of
race and poverty for gifted students of color?
Significance to the Special Issue
This special issue calls for articles that examine the intersection
of high academic potential and the impact poverty can have on
students bringing their potential to fruition. Exploring how
scholars have discussed the intersection of giftedness, race, and
poverty will provide insight into the field’s understanding of
how students with the highest academic potential succeed
while coping with and/or overcoming the impact of poverty.
More important, we seek to push the conversation in the field
to ensure that educators discuss gifted students living in pov-
erty, especially students of color, from an asset-based perspec-
tive. Given that our research informs pedagogical practices of
gifted education professionals, it is important to examine how
we discuss poverty, how we write about coming from poverty,
and how this influences current trends in the recruitment and
retention of gifted students of color who live in poverty.
Methodology
This study is centered on the content analysis of articles in
five gifted education journals (Gifted Child Quarterly,
Roeper Review, Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
Journal of Advanced Academics [titled Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education prior to 2006], and Gifted Child Today).
While this journal list is not comprehensive of all the outlets
that publish articles on topics and students in gifted educa-
tion, these particular journals were selected given that their
specific aims and scope are exclusively focused on gifted
education. Moreover, these journals have been used in
previous syntheses of the field; thus, we deemed them appro-
priate for selection in this study.
Article Selection Process
To secure potential articles, we went to the physical or online
version of each of the selected journals, searching each vol-
ume published from 2000 to 2015. The following article
selection criteria were used:
1. The article must be empirical/data based (e.g., quan-
titative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research
design).
2. The article must discuss students of color who are
gifted and live in poverty.
During the initial search, we copied the titles and abstracts
of potential articles that fit our search criteria (N = 44).
Through our initial analysis, we noticed that poverty was not
always used in the title of the article or abstract; thus, we
modified our search to include other keywords such as “low-
socioeconomic status,” “economically disadvantaged,” and
“rural.” In addition, it is worth noting that the race of partici-
pants was not always stated in the title and/or abstract. As a
result, we included keywords such as “culturally and linguis-
tically diverse.” We then reviewed each abstract to determine
if the study met our search criteria. Articles that did not fulfill
both search criteria were eliminated from our analysis which
led to 22 articles being included in this study. Eleven articles
were published in Gifted Child Quarterly, six articles in
Journal of the Education of the Gifted, three articles in
Roeper Review, and one article in both Journal of Advanced
Academics (titled Journal of Secondary Gifted Education
prior to 2006) and Gifted Child Today.
Data Analysis
The content of the articles was analyzed via a two-phase
approach. Phase 1 consisted of quantitatively exploring the
characteristics of the articles that met search criteria. Thus, to
address the first question about the characteristics of articles
published in gifted education journals on the intersection of
poverty and race, we developed a survey via SurveyMonkey,
which allowed us to create survey questions for each aspect
of the article being examined. We then searched each journal
article to determine the theoretical/conceptual framework,
methodology, race of participants, grade level(s), and setting
where the study took place (urban, suburban, rural) and
recorded it in our survey. Table 1 presents a more detailed
account of the information mentioned above, along with
each article’s purpose as derived from the abstract.
Phase 2 used a qualitative approach to explore how schol-
ars theorized about students of color who were gifted and
living in poverty. More specifically, we used Harper’s (2012)
content analysis approach through conducting a qualitative

27
Table 1. Comprehensive Table of Studies Analyzed.
Author(s) and year
of publication Purpose
Methodology and theoretical/
conceptual framework (TCF) Race of participants included in study
Grade level and setting
of article
Bland, Coxon,
Changler, and
VanTassel-Baska
(2010)
This study investigates how Project Clarion engages
urban gifted students in science.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary school,
urban setting
• Hispanic
• Asian/Pacific Islander
• Multiracial
• Native American
• White
• Other (race unknown to authors)
Borland, Schnur, and
Wright (2000)
This study explores the experiences of five
economically disadvantaged gifted minority students
who were placed in a school for gifted students.
Mixed-methods, Ogbu’s
cultural ecological theory
• African American Elementary school,
urban setting
• Hispanic
• Multiracial
Carman and Taylor
(2010)
This study explored the relationship between
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and Naglieri
Noverbal Ability Test (NNAT) for identifying gifted
students.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary school,
suburban
• Hispanic
• Native American
• Asian
Cotabish and
Robinson (2012)
This study explored the impact of peer coaching
on gifted administrators knowledge and ability to
increase access to programs for culturally diverse
and low-income gifted learners.
Quantitative, peer coaching • African Ameircan Elementary, middle, and
high school, urban and
rural settings
• White
T. L. Cross and
Burney (2005)
This study explores the experiences of school
counselors who are being trained to work with
high-ability rural students.
Qualitative, Ruby Payne
theory of poverty
• Race of participants unknown Middle school, rural
setting
Daugherty and
White (2008)
The purpose of this study was to explore Vygotsky’s
notion of private speech as a cognitive self-
regulatory process and how it related to creativity
measures among at-risk children.
Quantitative, Vygotsky’s
notion of private speech
• African American Preschool, urban setting
• White
Grantham (2003) This study shares findings from an advocacy event
in Pulaski County, Arkansas which was aimed to
desegregate their gifted programs and include more
Black students specifically.
Qualitative, Gifted Program
Advocacy Model
• African American Elementary, middle, and
high school, urban
setting
Hallett and Venegas
(2011)
Explores the connection between increased access
and academic quality of AP (Advanced Placement)
courses in low-income schools and how this
influenced students’ performance on AP exams and
their experiences.
Mixed-methods, funds of
knowledge framework
• African American Postsecondary, urban
setting
• Hispanic
(continued)

28
Author(s) and year
of publication Purpose
Methodology and theoretical/
conceptual framework (TCF) Race of participants included in study
Grade level and setting
of article
Harmon (2002) This study explores the experiences of gifted African
American inner-city students.
Qualitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary school,
urban setting
Hébert and Beardsley
(2001)
This study explores the experiences of a gifted Black
child living in rural poverty.
Qualitative, critical theory • African American Elementary school, rural
setting
Howley, Pendarvis,
and Gholson (2005)
Examined the mathematics experiences of talented
children in an impoverished rural school district.
Qualitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary and middle
school, rural setting
• White
• Other (race unknown to authors)
Kitano and Lewis
(2007)
Examined the relationship of tutoring in specific
reading comprehension strategies to gains in
reading achievement for children enrolled in self-
contained classrooms for gifted students from
low-income, culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary school,
urban setting
• Latino
• Asian/Pacific Islander
• Multiracial
• White
Moon and Callahan
(2001)
An investigation of the efficacy of mentoring, parental
involvement, and multicultural curricula on the
academic achievement of primary grade students
from low-socioeconomic environments.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary school,
urban setting
• Latino
• Asian/Pacific Islander
• Multiracial
• White
Morales (2010) This study explores the protective factors that foster
resilience in urban gifted students.
Qualitative, resilience theory • African American Postsecondary, urban,
suburban, and rural
settings
• Hispanic
Peters and Gentry
(2010)
This study explores the use of the HOPE scale in
identifying gifted elementary students.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary school,
urban, suburban, and
rural settings
• Latino
• Asian/Pacific Islander
• Multiracial
• White
Reis, Colbert, and
Hébert (2005)
This study compares the protective factors that
foster resilience between gifted students who
achieved academically and those who were
underachievers.
Qualitative, resilience theory • Race of participants unknown, but
labeled as ethnically diverse
High school, urban
setting
Table 1. (continued)
(continued)

29
Author(s) and year
of publication Purpose
Methodology and theoretical/
conceptual framework (TCF) Race of participants included in study
Grade level and setting
of article
Robinson, Lanzi,
Weinberg, Ramey,
and Ramey (2002)
Explored family factors associated with the academic
success of gifted head start students.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Preschool, urban setting
• Latino
• Asian/Pacific Islander
• Native American/Alaskan Native
• White
• Other (race not specified)
Swanson (2006) This study explores Project Breakthrough program
with teachers in South Carolina to train them
to identify and support high-ability low-income
minority students.
Mixed-methods, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary school,
urban and rural
settings
• White
Tomlinson and Jarvis
(2014)
Investigating how teachers and schools contributed
to the academic success of minority students of
high potential from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds.
Qualitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary, middle, and
high school, urban
setting
• Hispanic
VanTassel-Baska,
Feng, and de Brux,
(2007)
Comparison of trends for performance task-
identified gifted students, traditionally identified
gifted students, and nonidentified gifted students.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary school,
urban and rural
settings
• Hispanic
• Native American
• Asian Pacific/Islander
• Multiracial
• White
VanTassel-Baska,
Feng, and Evans,
(2007)
This study tracks the profile data of identification
for gifted students in South Carolina, where a new
performance-based dimension of identification has
been employed, during a 3-year period and targeted
to identify low-income and minority students.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary and middle
school, urban and
rural settings
• Hispanic
• Native American
• Asian Pacific/Islander
• Multiracial
• White
• Other (race unknown to authors)
VanTassel-Baska,
Johnson, and Avery,
(2002)
This study explores the impact of a performance-
based assessment on the identification of
economically disadvantaged and minority students
into gifted programs.
Quantitative, TCF not
specified
• African American Elementary and middle
school, urban and
rural settings
• Other (non-African American
students labeled low-income
were acknowledged, but their
race was not disclosed)
Table 1. (continued)

30 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(1)
analysis of the discussion and implications section from each
article. The first step in this process consisted of copying
both the discussion and implication sections from the articles
and pasting this into individual Word documents. This pro-
cess yielded 82 singled-spaced pages of text. We then
uploaded each document into NVivo (a qualitative data man-
agement software), which allowed us to analyze the texts and
develop themes. Initially, we conducted several line-by-line
readings of each text to develop an overall understanding of
the text. Given the research questions, our initial qualitative
coding process consisted of reading through each individual
text and highlighting sentences and phrases that were related
to the following three categories: (a) explanations of recruit-
ment and retention strategies for gifted students of color; (b)
discussions of poverty; and (c) discussions of race. After the
first author engaged in the initial coding, it was discovered
that the words race/racism were only mentioned and theo-
rized in two articles; thus, we decided to group the discussion
of poverty and race into one categorical code. Finally, we
utilized an inductive constant comparative approach to ana-
lyze the data, which generated four subcodes related to the
recruitment and retention strategies for gifted students of
color and five subcodes related to the discussion of poverty
and race. Table 2 provides a list of the generated codes, our
definitions of the codes, and their respective theme.
Findings
Characteristics of Articles Published on
Giftedness, Race, and Poverty
When examining the methodology breakdown of the 22
studies, 50% (n = 11) were quantitative, 36.36% (n = 8) were
qualitative, and 13.63% (n = 3) used a mixed-methods
design. Only 40.90% of articles presented a theoretical
framework as guiding the study. Moreover, only one article
(T. L. Cross & Burney, 2005) used a theoretical or concep-
tual perspective that was centered on poverty (i.e., Ruby
Payne) and four articles (Borland et al., 2000; Hébert &
Beardsley, 2001; Morales, 2010; Reis et al., 2005) used a
framework that centered on the experiences of students of
color and/or challenged dominant ideology about race, gift-
edness, and poverty, such as critical race theory and cultural
ecology theory (see Table 2 for detail on the theoretical
frameworks used).
When analyzing the race of participants in the studies,
90.90% of articles (n = 20) had African American students as
a part of the dataset. Hispanic students were part of the sam-
ple in 54.45% of studies (n = 12), while Asian/Pacific
Islander, multiracial, and Native American participants were
represented in 36.36% (n = 8), 31.81% (n = 7), and 22.72%
(n = 5) of studies, respectively. Despite articles having a
focus on the needs of students of color, in 50% of the studies
(n = 11), White students were also included as a part of the
participant sample. The inclusion of White students occurred
in quantitative studies where all racial groups were com-
pared. However, in qualitative studies, researchers explored
an analysis of non-White racial groups independently.
In the articles we focused on, interesting trends emerged
in the analysis of the grade level of students. We found that
elementary school students (Grades K-5; n = 16) were the
most used sample population followed by middle school
grades (6-8; n = 7), high school grades (9-12; n = 4), pre-
school (n = 2), and postsecondary institutions (n = 2).
Last, we analyzed the articles to determine the setting
where the studies occurred. Eleven studies (50%) had a focus
Table 2. List of Codes, Code Definitions, and Respective Qualitative Theme.
Codes Code definitions Qualitative theme
• Ways to diversify gifted programs Recommendations/suggestions on how to diversify
gifted and talented programs
Success factors and identification
strategies for gifted students of color
living in poverty
• Success factors/barriers Discussion of the success factors and barriers for
student success in gifted and talented programs
• Importance of culture How culture influences recruitment and retention
• Suggestions to circumvent impact
of poverty
Discussion of how students of color living in
poverty can overcome living in poverty
• Poverty impact Discussion of how poverty affects the identification
of gifted students of color
• Deficit thinking Discussion about students that is framed from a
deficit perspective
Limited discussion of race and poverty
and challenging deficit thinking
• Challenging deficit thinking Discussion that challenges deficit perspectives
about gifted students of color
• Impact of racism Discussion about the impact of racism on the
student experience
• Focus on individuals and not the
system
Discussions based on critiquing the individual (e.g.,
students lacking resilience) rather than the system
(e.g., how schools create environments that are
not conducive to the needs of students of color)

Goings and Ford 31
exclusively in urban settings, three focused on rural areas
exclusively (13.63%), and one focused on a suburban set-
ting. Seven studies (31.81%) compared students in some
combination of urban, rural, and suburban setting settings
(see Table 1 for greater detail).
Success Factors and Identification Strategies for
Gifted Students of Color Living in Poverty
Many articles (14 of the 22 studies) discussed the factors of
success for students of color in gifted education who live in
poverty in their discussion and implication sections. One
particular success factor frequently discussed (n = 10) was
that students of color had access to caring and supportive
family members and other adults who pushed the children to
strive for excellence. For instance, two studies provided the
following insights:
The findings in this [study] highlight the importance of strong
emotional support and understanding from adults who
understand and value creativity in young children. (Hébert &
Beardsley, 2001, p. 97)
[Parents’] child-rearing practices, their support of children’s
school achievement, and their management of their own family
resources appear in large part to relate to the children’s high
achievement. (Robinson et al., 2002, p. 288)
Along with caring families, several studies found that for
gifted students to be successful, teachers had a strong influ-
ence (Harmon, 2002; Robinson et al., 2002; Swanson, 2006).
In particular, findings indicated that teachers recognized and
found ways to integrate students’ home culture into school
(Borland et al., 2000; Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2014). As a result,
there was also some discussion regarding the need for teach-
ers to become more culturally competent. For example,
Harmon (2002) posited, “When dealing with African
American students, teachers must participate in the process
of becoming culturally competent, a process including sig-
nificant contact with diverse groups of students and that can
best occur in teacher education programs” (p. 75).
Along with the discussion of success factors, researchers
advocated for various identification strategies for gifted stu-
dents of color who live in poverty (n = 11). Many of the stud-
ies acknowledged that current identification procedures are
not adequate in identifying gifted students of color who come
from low-socioeconomic households (Grantham, 2003). For
instance, Borland et al. (2000) stated, “we need to adopt non-
traditional, rigorously validated identification methods that
are more sensitive to expressions of potential giftedness in
environments outside the mainstream, in which this field has
usually operated” (p. 30). Among the studies reviewed, sev-
eral different nontraditional strategies were discussed,
including the use of nonverbal assessments (Carman &
Taylor, 2010; VanTassel-Baska, Feng, & de Brux, 2007;
VanTassel-Baska, Feng, & Evans, 2007), lowering of stan-
dardized test score thresholds (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2002)
and use of assessments that incorporate more of students of
color lived realities (Howley et al., 2005).
Limited Discussion of Race and Poverty and
Challenging Deficit Thinking
In the discussion and implication sections of articles
reviewed, authors often focused on giftedness and ways to
better identify gifted students, but did not necessarily pro-
vide an in-depth discussion about the ways poverty and race
affected the recruitment, retention, and experiences of gifted
students of color. Often words such as “alternative” or “non-
traditional” were used to describe potential methods to
ensure students of color who live in poverty are identified
and served as gifted. In a few cases (n = 4), scholars argued
about the importance of focusing on both access and reten-
tion of students. Hallett and Venegas (2011), for example,
explained that “Increasing access alone will not resolve the
inequities experienced by students in many urban educa-
tional environments” (p. 485). While text from the studies
stated that inequities existed, such as the aforementioned
example, there tended to be minimal discussion and descrip-
tion of specific inequities. As a result, few studies provided
discussion about the intersection of race and poverty. Borland
et al. (2000) asserted,
Poverty and racism, although they diminish us all as a society,
do singular damage to the most vulnerable, especially children,
who are their direct victims. To believe otherwise is to ignore the
evidence of our most appalling failure. (p. 28)
In addition to the limited discussion about poverty, race, and
giftedness, we found several studies (n = 9) used a deficit
thinking approach to describe gifted students of color living
in poverty. This is defined as thinking that “holds that poor
schooling performance is rooted in students’ alleged cogni-
tive and motivational deficits, while institutional structures
and inequitable schooling arrangements that exclude stu-
dents from learning are held exculpatory” (Valencia, 1997,
p. 9). For example, some studies presented conclusions
which indicated that students should learn to better adapt to
the schooling environment rather than suggesting how the
schooling environment could be more responsive to the cul-
tural needs of the students. Reis et al. (2005) stated the fol-
lowing about the factors that affect the development of
resilience for underachieving gifted students:
A careful analysis of the data suggests that the risk factors that
may have thwarted the development of resilience were the
absence of positive peer support (peers who achieved in school);
siblings who dropped out of school or were involved in substance
abuse; absence of positive parental role models or at least one
supportive adult; and lack of involvement in an elementary or
middle school gifted program. (p. 117)

32 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(1)
While the aforementioned study provided suggestions about
potential risk factors, these recommendations point more to
factors related to students’ home lives, which perpetuates a
deficit narrative about the families and communities students
of color who live in poverty come from rather than acknowl-
edging that schools are often spaces where students of color
are subjected to racism and racial microaggressions (Ford,
Trotman Scott, Moore, & Amos, 2013; Stambaugh & Ford,
2015) that could affect the ways in which they developed
resilience and succeeded in school.
Along with not acknowledging the school’s role in foster-
ing gifted students of color who come from economically
disadvantaged communities, some researchers used deficit-
oriented language in their recommendations for teachers and
school counselors on how to support such students. For
instance, T. L. Cross and Burney (2005) provided the follow-
ing recommendation for school counselors to work with
rural gifted students of color: “Be especially encouraging to
high-ability girls. Encourage them to think outside the box.
At a minimum, help them consider advanced education in
fields that are compatible with family responsibilities. Enlist
the support of the mother” (p. 155). These types of comments
are troubling as the authors imposed deficit-oriented assump-
tions about gifted students of color. For instance, while
mothers do have a strong role in their child’s education, only
stating that the support of the mother should be enlisted
could suggest that students of color who live in poverty come
from mother-led homes, which is not always the case, or that
fathers are not involved in their children’s lives. To contextu-
alize this example, the authors also did not provide any sug-
gestions for supporting high ability boys in their
recommendations and advice for how school counselors can
work with fathers. Moreover, the authors did not account for
the complexity and richness of the lives of students who live
in poverty. This is critical as Howell (2013) argued that
because many people truly know so little about rural students
they report to stereotypical depictions of rural students that
equates them with “poverty, ignorance, shrinking industry,
and religious fundamentalism” (p. 5).
Although some of the discourse was centered on deficit
language, other scholars took the opportunity to theorize
about the importance of challenging deficit thinking
(Morales, 2010; Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2014). These authors
articulated the need for teachers, school counselors, school
administrators, and other school personnel to foster environ-
ments of success. For instance, Tomlinson and Jarvis (2014)
reported the importance of having
teachers and schools who operate from a strengths perspective
rather than a deficit view of cultural difference and poverty, who
help students navigate the world of academic achievement
without sacrificing their cultural identities, who provide both the
support and challenge required for students to succeed at high
levels, and who are flexible in response to individuals and
groups of students rather than expecting students to fit rigid
programs or profiles. (p. 216)
These authors provided recommendations that acknowledge
that schools should be spaces where students of color have the
opportunity to flourish without giving up any part of their
identity, and it is the role of the school to provide the resources
for gifted students of color to achieve academically.
Limitations of the Study
There are two limitations that must be acknowledged. First,
this article only explored empirical studies. We did not
include relevant books, literature reviews, theoretical papers,
and reports on this topic (e.g., J. R. Cross & Dockery, 2014;
Ford, 2003, 2013; Kitano & Lewis, 2005; Robinson, 2003;
Stambaugh & Wood, 2015; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh,
2007). Second, because our analysis focused on journals
with an exclusive focus on gifted education, other relevant
studies published in general education, special education,
and more interdisciplinary outlets were not included.
Discussion and Implications
The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics
of gifted journal articles that explored the intersection of race
and poverty. Moreover, this study explored scholars’ com-
mentary on strategies to recruit and retain gifted students of
color and investigated how scholars theorize about gifted
students of color in their empirical work. We found that
while a majority of studies focused on P-12 settings, there
was a paucity of studies focused on postsecondary settings
for gifted students of color who come from low-income com-
munities. Thus, although we have some understanding of
how these students navigate their P-12 schooling experi-
ences, we know little about what happens to these students
when they attend college (Rinn & Plucker, 2004). This is a
critical void given that finances often serve as a barrier to
college completion for low-income students (Engle & Tinto,
2008), particularly when they are Black (The Journal of
Blacks in Higher Education, 2017). More research is needed
to gain knowledge on how gifted students of color from low-
income families secure funding for college.
Our findings confirm research that explains the paucity of
knowledge about Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American,
and multiracial gifted students, as most of the studies focus
on Black and Hispanic students (Davis & Moore, 2016;
Ford, Whiting, & Goings, 2016). Furthermore, approxi-
mately half of studies (all quantitative) in this review used
White students who are low-income as a comparison group
in their analyses. Some studies also used the entire sample of
students from poverty that included students of color, to
compare with groups of gifted students not living in poverty.
Thus, poverty was the variable of greatest interest in some of
these studies, not students of color. Given that these studies
focused on some aspect of the recruitment and identification
process for gifted students, we understand the need to com-
pare all students in schools. However, based on the findings

Goings and Ford 33
in these studies and other research, students of color are still
vastly underidentified as gifted (Ford, 2012, 2013). Hence, it
is important for researchers to develop studies that delve
deeper into the experiences of gifted students of color who
come from low-income families. From these nuanced inves-
tigations, we can begin to better understand how these stu-
dents navigate gifted programs and how schools can develop
systemic, systematic, and targeted initiatives to recruit and
retain these students.
In Rank, Yoon, and Hirschl’s (2003) critique of research
on poverty, they argued that scholars place more emphasis on
“who loses out at the economic game, rather than addressing
the fact that the game produces losers in the first place” (p. 3).
In other words, scholars have focused on how individuals are
affected by poverty rather than focusing on the structures
(e.g., education system, government) that have created these
inequities in the first place. Similar, to Rank et al.’s (2003)
argument, through our analysis, we found that while all of the
studies selected had a focus on gifted students of color who
live in poverty, there was a lack of discourse in the findings or
implication sections about the impact that poverty and race
had on students of color’s identification and their experiences
in gifted programs. In essence, we found that poverty and race
were treated as a variable to control for in studies rather than
discussed as central issues that affect which students are iden-
tified and placed in gifted and talented programs. Moreover,
in many ways, the studies analyzed followed the advice of
Robinson (2003) who recommended that to disrupt inequities
in gifted education, schools should consider increasing their
socioeconomic diversity as the primary goal, and race/ethnic-
ity as their secondary goal. Despite the influence socioeco-
nomic status has on the trajectory of students of color, without
acknowledging “racism as real” (Harper, 2012, p. 25) in
gifted program recruitment and identification—and develop-
ing ways to address this issue—we will continue to see the
same inequities and underrepresentation of gifted students of
color. Thus, from our perspective, gifted education stakehold-
ers (e.g., teachers, counselors, administrators, researchers)
must be willing to critically examine how racism affects
gifted education and then work to dismantle such injustices in
the field through developing culturally responsive curricula
while also training and supporting gifted education teachers
to develop a sociopolitical consciousness, which is often a
missing but vital component of culturally responsive peda-
gogy (Royal & Gibson, 2017). This will require not only
practitioners in the field to change but also the professors who
prepare future practitioners (Fasching-Varner & Dodo-Seriki,
2012). Without truly engaging in this revolution, students of
color and low-income students will continue to suffer the
consequences.
Findings from this study provided some evidence that
deficit thinking and pathologizing were prevalent in the
descriptions of gifted students of color (e.g., T. L. Cross &
Burney, 2005). While deficit thinking was utilized in several
studies, scholars also took the opportunity to directly
challenge these narratives (e.g., Morales, 2010; Tomlinson &
Jarvis, 2014). Given that research influences practice, there
must be a concerted effort to debunk deficit perspectives
because they can influence educators’ perceptions of stu-
dents of color. For example, Grissom and Redding (2016)
found that even when Black students performed like White
students, teachers underreferred them for gifted programs.
Although numerous scholars have written extensively about
the underrepresentation of students of color in gifted pro-
grams (e.g., Baldwin, 1987; Ford et al., 2008; Frasier, 1989;
Henfield, Woo, & Bang, 2017), there is a need for more stud-
ies that use a critical lens to examine teacher and school lead-
ers’ beliefs and attitudes about students of color who live in
poverty (Ford, 2003, 2013). Given the power teachers have
in recommending who gets placed in gifted programs (e.g.,
Grissom & Redding, 2016), as researchers we must not only
continue to write about these issues, but work with teachers
and school personnel to train them on how to identify gifted-
ness among (a) students who live in poverty, (b) students of
color, and (c) students of color who live in poverty.
In 2007, the National Leadership Conference on Low-
Income Promising learners provided the space for an impor-
tant conversation about how to ensure our students who
come from economically disadvantaged communities are
still recognized for their ability to succeed academically.
Moreover, in the edited conference proceedings volume
titled Overlooked Gems: A National Perspective on Low-
Income Promising Learners (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh,
2007), scholars from around the country provided a holistic
perspective on why we continue to see inequities of repre-
sentation in gifted programs for students from low-income
families. In the conference proceedings, Kitano (2007)
explained that children living in poverty are
A highly diverse group with respect to the severity, timing, and
duration of poverty; race, ethnicity, and primary language;
country of origin; geographic region, mobility; family structure
(e.g., single or teen parent, foster care); parental employment
status; and level of education. (p. 31)
Given the heterogeneity of students living in poverty, we con-
tend that research must also examine the intersection of gifted-
ness, poverty, and race in diverse settings. In particular, while
our analysis found that a majority of studies focused on stu-
dents in urban and rural settings, we know very little about the
experiences of students in suburban settings who live in pov-
erty. While students of color are more populated in urban set-
tings, there are many in suburban settings and as a result, it will
be paramount that educators in all settings have the tools and
dispositions to identify and work with gifted students of color.
Conclusions and Final Thoughts
In many ways, our experiences reflect the students’ reali-
ties in the studies analyzed for this piece. The first author,

34 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(1)
an African American male, grew up in a low-income home.
Although identified as gifted in elementary school, due to
a lack of knowledge about the opportunities afforded in
gifted programs, he never formally participated in his
school district’s gifted and talented program. Despite neg-
ative perceptions about his academic ability from teachers,
his family always pushed him to succeed academically.
The second author, an African American female, has
devoted more than 20 years to writing about gifted educa-
tion inequities relative to race and income. She was for-
mally identified as gifted in elementary school and
experienced many challenges in the late 1970s that many
gifted Black students experience today. She has been
unapologetic about challenging the field of gifted educa-
tion to be equity minded.
We present our experiences here to underscore our rela-
tionship to this topic and how it potentially influenced our
content analysis and interpretation of findings. We sought to
explore the discourse about the intersection of poverty, race,
and giftedness; therefore, we wanted our analysis to focus on
what has been written versus who wrote it. Given that some
of this work includes that of colleagues, we seek to open up
an honest conversation about how students at the intersection
of poverty, race, and giftedness have been discussed to
ensure that these assets are incorporated into research and
practice.
Using the game of baseball as an analogy for life, T. L.
Cross (2013) explained that for students living in poverty,
their path around the bases to home plate is filled with bar-
riers, including the lack of many resources (e.g., bat) that
other students who come from more affluent households
have. T. L. Cross further explains that “Where we have
failed is actually moving past our allegiance to financial
blindness that guarantees their staying in their place—in
the dugout with no bat” (pp. 264-265). While the studies
reviewed provide a foundational understanding of the inter-
section of poverty, race, and giftedness, we urge scholars to
address, critique, and provide viable solutions for the sys-
temic inequities that affect the recruitment and retention of
gifted students of color who live in poverty. In essence, we
want to see students of color who live in poverty equipped
with resources (e.g., sociopolitically conscious teachers,
culturally responsive curriculum, less biased testing instru-
ments) so that their gifts can be recognized and cultivated.
As knowledge generators and professionals, it is our duty to
continue to lead this charge.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
References marked with an asterisk (*) were included in the
article analysis.
Baldwin, A. (1987). I’m Black but look at me, I am also gifted.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 180-185.
*Bland, L. C., Coxon, S., Chandler, K., & VanTassel-Baska,
J. (2010). Science in the city: Meeting the needs of urban
gifted students with Project Clarion. Gifted Child Today, 33,
48-57.
*Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically
disadvantaged students in a school for the academi-
cally gifted: A postpositivist inquire into individual and
family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13-32.
doi:10.1177/001698620004400103
*Carman, C. A., & Taylor, D. K. (2010). Socioeconomic status
effects on using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT)
to identify gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 75-84.
doi:10.1177/0016986209355976
*Cotabish, A., & Robinson, A. (2012). The effects of peer coach-
ing on the evaluation knowledge, skills, and concerns of gifted
program administrators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 160-170.
doi:10.1177/0016986212446861
Cross, J. R., & Dockery, D. D. (2014). Identification of low-income
gifted learners: A review of recent research. Lansdowne, VA,
Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
Cross, T. L. (2013). On the social emotional lives of gifted stu-
dents: Using a baseball metaphor to illustrate the opportunities
of gifted students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Gifted Child Today, 36, 263-265.
*Cross, T. L., & Burney, V. H. (2005). High ability, rural, and poor:
Lessons from Project Aspire and implications for school coun-
selors. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 148-156.
doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-483
*Daugherty, M., & White, C. S. (2008). Relationship among pri-
vate speech and creativity in head start and low-socioeconomic
status preschool children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 30-39.
doi:10.1177/0016986207311059
Davis, J. L., & Moore, J. L., III. (Eds.). (2016). Gifted children of
color around the world: Diverse needs, exemplary practices,
and directions for the future. Bingley, England: Emerald.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College suc-
cess for low-income, first-generation students. Washington,
DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED504448.pdf
Fasching-Varner, K., & Dodo-Seriki, V. (2012). Moving beyond
seeing with our eyes wide shut: A response to “There is no
culturally responsive teaching spoken here.” Democracy and
Education, 20, 1-6.
Ford, D. Y. (2003). Two wrongs don’t make a right: Sacrificing
the needs of diverse students does not solve gifted education’s
unresolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
26, 283-291.
Ford, D. Y. (2012). Racially, ethnically, and linguistically dif-
ferent students in special education: Looking backward
to move forward. Exceptional Children, 78, 391-405.
doi:10.1177/001440291207800401
Ford, D. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different
students in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Goings and Ford 35
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Frazier-Trotman, M. (2007).
Diamonds in the rough: Identifying and serving low income
students. Understanding Our Gifted, 19(3), 12-14.
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,
289-306. doi:10.1177/001440290807400302
Ford, D. Y., Trotman Scott, M., Moore, J. L., III, & Amos, S. O.
(2013). Gifted education and culturally different students:
Examining prejudice and discrimination via microaggressions.
Gifted Child Today, 36, 205-208.
Ford, D. Y., Whiting, G. W., & Goings, R. B. (2016). Biracial and
multiracial gifted students: Looking for a grain of rice in a box
of sand. In J. L. Davis & J. L. Moore III (Eds.), Gifted children
of color around the world: Diverse needs, exemplary practices,
and direction for the future (pp. 121-135). Bingley, England:
Emerald.
Ford, D. Y., Whiting, G. W., Goings, R. B., & Alexander., S. N.
(2017). Too much, too little, but never too late: Countering the
extremes in gifted and special education for Black and Hispanic
students. In K. Fasching-Varner, L. L. Martin, R. W. Mitchell,
K. Bennett-Haron, & A. Daneshzadeh (Eds.), Understanding,
dismantling, and disrupting the school to prison pipeline (pp.
21-42). New York, NY: Lexington Press.
Frasier, M. M. (1989). Poor and minority students can be gifted,
too! Educational Leadership, 46(6), 16-18.
*Grantham, T. C. (2003). Increasing Black student enrollment in
gifted programs: An exploration of the Pulaski County Special
School District’s advocacy efforts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47,
46-65. doi:10.1177/001698620304700106
Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and dispropor-
tionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achiev-
ing students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2, 1-25.
doi:10.1177/2332858415622175
*Hallett, R. E., & Venegas, K. M. (2011). Is increased access
enough? Advanced placement courses, quality, and success in
low-income urban schools. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 34, 468-487. doi:10.1177/016235321103400305
*Harmon, D. (2002). They won’t teach me: The voices of gifted
African American inner-city students. Roeper Review, 24, 68-
75.
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education
researchers minimize racist institutional norms. Review of
Higher Education, 36, 9-29.
*Hébert, T. P., & Beardsley, T. M. (2001). Jermaine: A critical case
study of a gifted Black child living in rural poverty. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 45, 85-103. doi:10.1177/001698620104500203
Henfield, M. S., Woo, H., & Bang, N. M. (2017). Gifted ethnic minor-
ity students and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 6, 3-19. doi:10.1177/0016986216674556
Howell, A. M. (2013). Raised up down yonder: Growing up Black
in rural Alabama. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
*Howley, A., Pendarvis, E., & Gholson, M. (2005). How talented
students in a rural school district experience school math-
ematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 123-160.
doi:10.1177/016235320502900202
Jenkins, M. D. (1939). The mental ability of the American Negro.
Journal of Negro Education, 8, 511-520.
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. (2017). The large racial
wealth gap can hinder Black families’ ability to pay for higher
education. Retrieved from https://www.jbhe.com/2017/06/the-
large-racial-wealth-gap-can-hinder-black-families-ability-to-
pay-for-higher-education/
Kena, G., Hussar, W., McFarland, J., de Bray, C., Musu-Gillette,
L., Wang, X., . . . Ossolinski, M. (2016). The condition of
education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Kitano, M. K. (2007). Poverty, diversity, and promise. In J.
VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems:
A National perspective on low-income promising learners.
Proceedings from the National Leadership Conference on
Low-Income Promising Learners (pp. 31-35). Washington,
DC: National Association of Gifted Children.
Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R. B. (2005). Resilience and coping:
Implications for gifted children and youth at risk. Roeper
Review, 27, 200-205. doi:10.1080/02783190509554319
*Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R. B. (2007). Examining the relation-
ship between reading achievement and tutoring duration and
content for gifted culturally and linguistically diverse students
from low-income backgrounds. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 30, 295-325. doi:10.1177/016235320703000302
*Moon, T. R., & Callahan, C. M. (2001). Curricular modifica-
tions, family outreach, and a mentoring program: Impacts on
achievement and gifted identification in high-risk primary stu-
dents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 305-321.
doi:10.1177/016235320102400402
*Morales, E. E. (2010). Linking strengths: Identifying and explor-
ing protective factor clusters in academically resilient low-
socioeconomic urban students of color. Roeper Review, 32,
164-175. doi:10.1080/02783193.2010.485302
Office of Civil Rights Data Collection. (2015). State and national
estimations of students in gifted education programs. Retrieved
from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/
*Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2010). Multigroup construct validity
evidence of the HOPE scale: Instrumentation to identify low-
income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 54, 298-313. doi:10.1177/0016986210378332
Rank, M. R., Yoon, H-S., & Hirschl, T. A. (2003). American pov-
erty as a structural failing: Evidence and arguments. Journal of
Sociology & Social Welfare, 30, 3-29.
*Reis, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Hébert, T. P. (2005). Understanding
resilience in diverse, talented students in an urban high school.
Roeper Review, 27, 110-120. doi:10.1080/02783190509554299
Rinn, A. N., & Plucker, J. (2004). We recruit them, but then what?
The educational and psychological experiences of academi-
cally talented undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 54-
67. doi:10.1177/001698620404800106
Robinson, N. M. (2003). Two wrongs do not make a right:
Sacrificing the needs of gifted students does not solve society’s
unsolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26,
251-273. doi:10.4219/jeg-2003-307
*Robinson, N. M., Lanzi, R. G., Weinberg, R. A., Ramey, S. L., &
Ramey, C. T. (2002). Family factors associated with high academic
competence in former head start children at third grade. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 46, 278-290. doi:10.1177/001698620204600404
Royal, C., & Gibson, S. (2017). They schools: Culturally relevant
pedagogy under siege. Teachers College Record, 119, 1-25.
Stambaugh, T., & Ford, D. Y. (2015). Microaggressions, multicul-
turalism, and gifted individuals who are Black, Hispanic, or

36 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(1)
poor: Cultural and economic considerations for counseling.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 192-201. doi:10.10
80/02783193.2014.919563
Stambaugh, T., & Wood, S. M. (Eds.). (2015). Serving gifted stu-
dents in rural settings. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
*Swanson, J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-
income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50,
11-25. doi:10.1177/001698620605000103
*Tomlinson, C. A., & Jarvis, J. M. (2014). Case studies of success:
Supporting academic success for students with high potential
from ethnic and minority and economically disadvantage back-
grounds. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 191-219.
doi:10.1177/0162353214540826
Valencia, R. R. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking.
In R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational
thought and practice (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Routledge.
*VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & de Brux, E. (2007). A study
of identification and achievement profiles of performance
task-identified gifted students over 6 years. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 30, 7-34. doi:10.4219/jeg-2007-517
*VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L. (2007). Patterns
of identification and performance among gifted students identi-
fied through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 46, 218-231.
*VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using
performance tasks in the identification of economically disad-
vantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project
STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110-123.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (Eds.). (2007). Overlooked
gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learn-
ers. In Proceedings from the National Leadership Conference
on Low-Income Promising Learners, Washington, DC.
Author Biographies
Ramon B. Goings, EdD, is an assistant professor of educational
leadership at Loyola University Maryland. His research inter-
ests are centered on exploring the academic and social experi-
ences of gifted/high-achieving Black males PK-PhD, nontradi-
tional student success, diversifying the teacher and school
leader workforce, equity and access to gifted programs for stu-
dents of color, and investigating the contributions of histori-
cally Black colleges and universities. He is Research Lead for
the Center for Innovation in Urban Education at Loyola
University Maryland.
Donna Y. Ford, PhD, is Cornelius Vanderbilt Endowed Chair and
Professor of Education with joint appointments in the Department of
Special Education and in the Department of Teaching and Learning
at Vanderbilt University. She conducts research primarily in gifted
education and multicultural/urban education. Specifically, her work
focuses on (a) recruiting and retaining culturally different students in
gifted education, (b) multicultural and urban education, (c) achieve-
ment gaps, (d) minority student achievement and underachievement,
and (e) family involvement. She consults with school districts, edu-
cational, and legal organizations in the areas of gifted education,
Advanced Placement, and multicultural/urban education.