missing pieces commentary

1. Resolving the Conflict in Gifted Education: The Missing Piece in Discussions of Inequity of
Identification, Service, and Achievement for Advanced Learners
Abstract
I begin this commentary by placing myself within the context of gifted education and society- a place in
which, I admittedly hold privilege and have been the beneficiary of the classist and racist structures that
hold back true equity and inclusion. The content that Dr. Peters presents in the article is straightforward,
and well-researched, and there is little to quibble with in the overall theme. This theme could be
summarized, in my reading of the article, as inequity exists in gifted education, because it is a microcosm
of a larger society in which structural and institutionalized racism are prevalent. These injustices will
take large and revolutionary changes to the foundations of our society to change, (and change they
must), but we can start with some concrete and fundamental steps to begin the work for more
equitable gifted programs. This commentary is about what is missing from this piece, primarily the voice
of those who are most affected by the inequity of these programs. As a quantitative researcher, I was
trained to think about data devoid of context, statistics as unbiased, and randomized double-blind
control group studies as the gold standard of research. However, this approach ignores the very
concepts that Dr. Peters brings up in his article, that the larger society is built upon structures of racism
and classism, designed from the beginning to privilege some groups of people above others. Thus, the
research, or more finely put, the interpretations of the data and statistical tests, may also be susceptible
to the structural biases inherent to those in society with more privilege. Therefore, I urge that we also
bring forth the voices of the communities that are so often left out of our gifted programs. Without
including the lived experiences of people of color, we will not move forward as a field.

2. Resolving the Conflict in Gifted Education: The Missing Piece in Discussions of Inequity of
Identification, Service, and Achievement for Advanced Learners
“Statistics are human beings with the tears wiped off” (Brodeur, 1985).
In the tradition of the qualitative researchers that come before me (e.g., Bourke, 2014), I will
begin with a statement of my positionality. As a white member of the upper-middle class, I admittedly
hold privilege and have been the beneficiary of the classist and racist structures that hold back true
equity and inclusion. Therefore, it is my intention in this piece, not to speak for those who hold less
privilege and power in our society, but to use my position to advocate for the inclusion of those voices
that are less heard in our discourses.
The article (Peters, 2021), The Challenges of Achieving Equity Within Public School Gifted and
Talented Programs, presents a strong and reasonable argument that clearly outlines the statistics and
background of inequity in gifted education in the United States. The content that Dr. Peters presents in
the article is straightforward, and well-researched, and there is little to quibble with in the overall
theme. This theme could be summarized, in my reading of the article, as inequity exists in gifted
education (and for advanced learners as a result), because it is a microcosm of a larger society in which
structural and institutionalized racism are prevalent. These injustices will take large and revolutionary
changes to the foundations of our society to change, (and change they must), but we can start with
some concrete and fundamental steps to begin the work for more equitable gifted programs.
As a quantitative researcher, I was trained to think about data devoid of context, statistics as
unbiased, and randomized double-blind control group studies as the gold standard of research.
However, this approach ignores the very concepts that Dr. Peters brings up in his article, that the larger
society is built upon structures of racism and classism, designed from the beginning to privilege some
groups of people above others. Thus, the research, or more finely put, the interpretations of the data
and statistical tests, may also be susceptible to the structural biases inherent to those in society with
more privilege.
We are left with a question about what is missing from the Peters (2021) article, primarily the
voices of those who are most affected by the inequity of these programs. This missing piece is the
foundation of the conflict that we have experienced in our field. As we grapple with our difficult past,
considering the origins of intelligence theory with figures as Lewis Terman, the history of gifted
programs being used to propagate segregation of education, and dominance of our current field of
white researchers, we must lift marginalized voices. Without their voices prominent in our
conversations, we can not have full discourse, and the conflict will continue to fester and remain
unresolved.
In the world of academia, structures of racism and classism, hierarchy and access, remain
fundamental to practice. Therefore, it is not necessarily straightforward to include more people of color
and people from less affluent and privileged backgrounds into our research discourse. We must first
systemically make a place and honor those who speak with the rich experiences and observations that
can illuminate the issues, not from the cold context of numbers and graphs, but from the tears and hurt
of years of oppressions, lost humanity, and aggressions of the lived experiences of underrepresented

3. groups. We must make a place for the voices of those who did not have the opportunities to study
advanced statistics from elite universities, those who were systematically excluded from academic
spaces, and those who may not feel welcome, even now, in our spaces of discourse.
However, it is not enough just to bring those voices to the table and into our discourse. We must
then listen. It is all too easy for those of us in academia with more privilege to use our education as a
way to exclude others, building a wall around our ivory tower, rather than to use it as a bridge to reach
populations different from our own. This means that we may not be the experts in the room, because
how can a middle-class white woman with an advanced degree know the pressures and circumstances
that keeps talented Black and Latinx children from gifted programs?
In searching for solutions to inequity, and resolutions to the conflicts, our field must be willing to
set aside our own academic privileges, and go to the communities to which we wish to serve. We can
not come into those communities as colonists, ready to change and create a new way of doing things,
but as facilitators, willing to use what we have to lift and empower communities, removing the barriers
that have structurally limited their potential within our society.
Therefore, I urge that we bring forth the voices of the communities that are so often left out of
our gifted programs. Without including the lived experiences of students and people of color, we will
not move forward as a field, heal from the wounds of the past, and develop a society that nourishes all
talent into fruition.
References
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the research process. Qualitative Report, 19(33). doi:
10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026
Brodeur, P. (1985). Outrageous misconduct: The asbestos industry on trial. Pantheon Books.
Peters, S. J. (2021). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs.
Gifted Child Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0016986211002535
Word Count: 911