Identifying What Works: Can We Teach Cross Cultural Talent Recognition?

In gifted education, we have spent a great deal of time and money addressing the “gifted gap”: underrepresentation in gifted programs by demographic subgroups including students of color, special needs, and lower socio-economic status (**cite). We know what the problem is, but we don’t have a solid strategy to solve it.

One of the frequently cited causes of underrepresentation in gifted programs is teacher bias, i.e. the majority of teachers are white and implicit bias works against their attempts or ability to see talent clearly. But aren’t there teachers working in this space who have successfully recognized talent? Yes. In their paper featured in the latest issue of Gifted and Talented International, Worley and Hines consider those teachers who have undercovered talent in underrecognized subgroups. They explain that, “… paucity of research exists regarding culturally competent teachers who have taken a critical stance against their biases” (pg. 1). They seek to learn what is working in this area and whether or not it can be taught or replicated.

Five defining factors allowing teachers to successfully recognize talent in all students, regardless of background:

Humanism: The teachers who successful navigated “cross-cultural talent recognition” (pg. xx) had a theory of education based in humanism. Recognizing that student voices are valid and having a relationship-based approach to teaching are both examples of a humanist approach.
Culture Shock: Each teacher had been exposed more than once to situations which de-centered their experiences as the norm. For instance, one teacher went from a small, predominantly white Christian school to a mission in Honduras, a college experience in South Africa and student teaching in Kenya, allowing her to develop the skill of being “comfortable in other cultures” (p. 6). Other participants had similar experiences with friends, new schools, or travel growing up where their background was not in the majority.
Individual approaches: “All three took an individual approach where they acknowledged that every student needs to be known personally and catered to singularly,” Worley and Hines wrote. Although as I read the paper, especially this final section on defining giftedness, I could see major gaps in their school’s policies and definition of giftedness, this individual approach makes sense when we seek to identify students who don’t fit the majority norm — or as one participant said, the “goody two shoes” in the classroom (p. 7).

Unsurprisingly, the authors recommend that these characteristics are sought out and developed for teachers working in majority Black and Brown districts or schools.

In their final recommendation, the authors suggested that a key factor in identifying and supporting our underrecognized gifted learners is working outside of the system’s limitations to advocate for the child. Teachers need to know how the gifted identification process works in their own school, and if that limits the students, look further! While one participant’s school did not have a gifted program, she could have looked for other opportunities such as summer programs or virtual classes.

“Instead, Jessica spent her time more focused on filling time and keeping these students from becoming disruptive than helping them develop their talents. This speaks to the idea of teacher preparation in gifted education and helping teachers not only understand how to adjust instruction and curriculum for high ability students, but also helping them to develop their abilities to advocate for these bright students in their experiences in and out of school.”
– Worley and Hines (p. 9)

This final recommendation applies to students in many schools who might not fit the mold or have the resources to develop their potential. As gifted advocates, this is an important reminder — just because your local context is limited, that doesn’t mean you are. Make something happen for those students who aren’t being challenged by their schools. Perhaps you have often heard “no” when you try to launch a new program or connect with a new opportunity. While the answer might be “no” today, that doesn’t mean we won’t be creative about finding another opportunity tomorrow.

Identifying What Works: Can We Teach Cross Cultural Talent Recognition?

Share this: