View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Interrupted Programming: The Impact of School Shutdown on Gifted Student Identification and Services

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Interrupted Programming: The Impact of School Shutdown on Gifted Student Identification and Services
Language: English
Authors: Debbie Dailey (ORCID 0000-0002-6692-2919), Alicia Cotabish (ORCID 0000-0003-1291-9877), Michelle Buchanan (ORCID 0000-0003-3188-0621), Laura Marshall
Source: Journal of Advanced Academics. 2024 35(2):263-289.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: COVID-19, Pandemics, School Closing, Gifted Education, Academically Gifted, Talent Identification, Disproportionate Representation, Financial Support, Administrator Role, Access to Education, Faculty Workload, Barriers, Teaching Conditions, Learner Engagement, Student Behavior, Equal Education, Minority Group Students, Low Income Students, Racism
Geographic Terms: Arkansas
DOI: 10.1177/1932202X241232724
ISSN: 1932-202X
2162-9536
Abstract: This mixed-methods study investigated the pandemic's impact on gifted identification among Arkansas's demographic groups and gifted services. The provision of gifted services during the pandemic varied, leading to differences in instructional practices and technology access. Nomination and identification processes were disrupted, hindering the recognition of giftedness, especially among underrepresented populations, and this was reflected in the identification numbers. Participants indicated that the pandemic has led to decreased funding for gifted programs, reduced administrator support, less time for students to participate in gifted classes, and increased responsibilities for gifted teachers. These factors have left teachers feeling overwhelmed and resulted in decreased student engagement, more behavioral issues, and academic struggles. The diversion of resources and priorities away from gifted education further exacerbated the inequities in gifted programs.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1421373
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEz3AB1G0d2BlUp8lZUUKl5AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA-HAA6yn6T_pk_4uAIBEICBm27UGylHNDQoc5qQAm8KAsutNvxCZ4OUi8BszADfLadU-OhLKMXXcshtMgRe2PWgodkjgkPWZNhg5q93e7XfaYOeEZcMCAeS8maJ3DmC_J7HApz-LtiKyFF_hinF-2YgWrQiVixBdlPk_uazqTcJxXtIOa9Eh9_A2v3UCi-dC3hsArnGX5Dh881q0aDikSfQvYSf97cfV2tjDWGh
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176652332;[261p]01may.24;2024Apr19.05:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176652332-1">Interrupted Programming: The Impact of School Shutdown on Gifted Student Identification and Services </title> <p>This mixed-methods study investigated the pandemic's impact on gifted identification among Arkansas's demographic groups and gifted services. The provision of gifted services during the pandemic varied, leading to differences in instructional practices and technology access. Nomination and identification processes were disrupted, hindering the recognition of giftedness, especially among underrepresented populations, and this was reflected in the identification numbers. Participants indicated that the pandemic has led to decreased funding for gifted programs, reduced administrator support, less time for students to participate in gifted classes, and increased responsibilities for gifted teachers. These factors have left teachers feeling overwhelmed and resulted in decreased student engagement, more behavioral issues, and academic struggles. The diversion of resources and priorities away from gifted education further exacerbated the inequities in gifted programs.</p> <p>Keywords: gifted identification; gifted programming and services; equity gap; underrepresented populations; pandemic; mixed-methods study</p> <p>Long before the pandemic, identifying vulnerable and marginalized high-ability K-12 students for gifted education services has been a persistent and nagging issue for the field. The Office of Civil Rights' Civil Rights Data Collection, which provides data on leading civil rights indicators related to educational opportunity in America's public schools from preschool through 12th grade, indicated glaring differences in students' academic opportunities among marginalized groups. Despite ongoing efforts, existing educational policies and practices contribute to the underrepresentation of marginalized students in gifted programs ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]). According to the most 2017–2018 federal data ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]), 58% of students in gifted education are white, compared to 47% of public school enrollment overall. Black students, in contrast, made up 8.2% of students in gifted education, although they were 15% of the overall student population. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>] examined the intersection of student race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) in predicting the receipt of gifted services. Their findings indicate that Black and Hispanic students are less likely to be identified as gifted and talented when they come from low SES families than their White and Asian-American counterparts, contributing to an exacerbated gap between races. Multiple factors contribute to this issue, such as a shortage of teachers from diverse backgrounds, biased methods used in student identification for these programs, and systemic and institutional biases inherent in the identification processes ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]). Additionally, a deficiency in specialized teacher training and the absence of culturally sensitive identification protocols further compound the challenges ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>]). These preexisting disparities set the stage for understanding how the pandemic has further amplified inequities in gifted education.</p> <p>Additional, equally pervasive problems, for these special populations, exist at the secondary level. For example, a recent report by the Office for Civil Rights ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>]) highlighted the magnitude of the issue. Although Black students represented 14.2% of all public high school seniors in 2020, they accounted for only 8.3% of students nationwide who sat for an AP exam—an increase of only 1.3% since 2006. These disparities, characterized by limited access to advanced, rigorous curricula taught by well-qualified educators, have resulted in dire consequences, including diminished academic achievement, decreased college attendance rates, and reduced acquisition of specialized skills necessary for higher education or employment.</p> <p>Unfortunately, these trends are not new. The same report found disparate opportunity gaps among high school course offerings, including classes that are building blocks for STEM careers. In 2015–16, for instance, while 50% of all high schools offered a course in Calculus and 60% offered a course in Physics, those figures dropped to 38% and 51%, respectively, in schools serving many Black and Hispanic students ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]). These disparities are especially stark for Black students, who during that same period accounted for 8% of Calculus enrollment nationwide while representing 16% of total high school enrollment. Differences in earlier math enrollment are also evident. Though accounting for 17% of 8th-grade enrollment, only 11% of Black students were enrolled in Algebra I and 9% of those who completed the course.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-2">Interrupted Learning: The Pandemic Effect</hd> <p>During the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown, the education landscape rapidly transitioned to online learning. However, the provision of gifted services during this period varied across different states and school districts, with some considering them optional ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>]). As a result, noticeable variations emerged in instructional practices, including choices between synchronous or asynchronous learning as well as independent or collaborative work ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>]). Furthermore, the availability of technology to support student learning varied significantly between districts and among individual families, leading to disparities in the quality of instruction for each student ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref11">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The disparity of instruction had a profound impact on students from low-income backgrounds, amplifying existing educational inequities. A report by the [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>] highlighted the early effects of interrupted learning, revealing that the pandemic intensified well-documented opportunity gaps that disadvantaged low-income students relative to higher-income peers. One of the most critical opportunity gaps that surfaced was the uneven access to technology and WiFi critical to online learning. This digital divide made it challenging for some students to learn during the pandemic. For example, in a study conducted by [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref13">22</reflink>], teachers in schools with majority Black students reported that 66% of their students lacked the essential technology required for virtual instruction.</p> <p>Furthermore, the pandemic imposed added burdens on parents who were supporting their children's education on top managing challenges during this stressful time. However, parents from underserved communities often faced more obstacles in fulfilling this role due to work obligations or limited resources ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref14">33</reflink>]). Moreover, a substantial disparity in access to teachers was observed, with family income strongly influencing the level of support available to students ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]). This lack of adequate support intensified the difficulties experienced by gifted students in underserved communities during the pandemic shutdown.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-3">Testing and Identification of Gifted Students: The Pandemic Effect</hd> <p>The disruptive effects of the pandemic shutdown were observed across numerous school districts, significantly impacting students' nomination, testing, and placement for gifted programming. In a study by [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>], participants reported that screening and identification protocols for gifted services were in flux. Several respondents mentioned relying exclusively on achievement tests for screening and identification and expressed concerns about test validity and reliability. Participants shared apprehension about the impact of the evolving protocols on social justice, equity, and the overall development of gifted individuals.</p> <p>The reliance on achievement tests for identification raises multiple concerns, particularly emphasizing the adverse effects on underprivileged students. The pandemic intensified the shortcomings of standardized tests, which disproportionately benefit students with a narrow range of skills and those with access to specialized instruction due to their socioeconomic advantages ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]). Implications of such tests could overwhelm or label children when they need diagnostic and needs-based assessments that measure where they are across a range of domains and what they need going forward.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref18">30</reflink>] examined 3rd-grade test scores among demographic groups in a recent Thomas Fordham Institute flypaper, focusing on the transition from pre-pandemic to post-pandemic. As predicted, the scores declined after the pandemic due to <emph>unfinished learning</emph>. In particular, Peters and Langi highlighted the work of [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref19">23</reflink>], who reported a dip of 3–4 percentile rank points in reading and 5–10 percentile rank points in math from the Spring 2019 and Spring 2022 MAP scores. They found the decrease was more pronounced in Black and Hispanic students, with overall declines in reading (6 percentile points) and mathematics (10 percentile points). When specifically highlighting the demographic representation of the top 10% of students, Peters and Langi found that Black student representation dropped by 20% and Hispanic student representation dropped by 15% from 2019 to 2022. From these findings, Peters and Langi discussed the effect of this decline in scores on Black and Hispanic students who need gifted programming services. If program placement relies on predetermined cut scores or normative percentiles, many students, especially from disadvantaged populations, will be overlooked, and the inequity in gifted identification will increase. Additionally, the findings on the MAP test are probably indicative of findings from other assessments ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-4">Nurturing the Whole Child: The Pandemic Effect</hd> <p>Students with gifts and talents often exhibit social, emotional, and psychosocial needs stemming from their ability to think beyond their years, heightened responsiveness, a diverse array of interests, distinct personality traits, and unique conflicts, which differentiate them from their peers ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]). Giftedness introduces a layer of complexity to individuals, which can either facilitate or hinder their overall well-being and adjustment. To proactively support and nurture the whole child, educators need to expand their focus beyond academic achievement and recognize the unique characteristics and experiences that shape a child's identity. According to [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>], cognitive, intellectual, and academic abilities and domain-specific talents develop alongside social and emotional developmental milestones and abilities.</p> <p>Numerous empirical studies support the notion that, as a collective group, children with gifts and talents exhibit better overall adjustment compared to their typically developing peers, owing to their enhanced ability to comprehend themselves and others ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>]). For instance, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>] conducted a study involving 1,206 gifted and nongifted elementary students to evaluate the identification of emotional and behavioral risk as assessed by teachers and parents through a comprehensive, multi-informant approach. The results indicated that gifted students showcased superior academic performance regardless of their risk level, suggesting that higher cognitive abilities may serve as one of the protective factors mitigating the development of social, emotional, and behavioral concerns. However, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>] posited that gifted children are potentially more susceptible to psychological issues due to their heightened sensitivity to interpersonal conflicts and experiences of alienation and stress. The authors emphasize the pivotal role of social and emotional attributes, highlighting how interactions with others shape these aspects and illustrate the social construction of concepts such as self, identity, and achievement. Notably, gifted students have been particularly susceptible to heightened distress amid the pandemic.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>] emphasized that interactions with others cultivate social and emotional characteristics. The shutdown, however, imposed restrictions on personal interactions, limiting the opportunities for gifted students to develop these important aspects. A study by [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref27">9</reflink>] examined the effects of COVID-19 and school closures on the well-being and perceptions of distance (online) learning among gifted students. The findings revealed that gifted students experienced anxiety and increased family tension due to the pandemic. Furthermore, they identified changes in psychological well-being linked to the absence of valuable instruction, limited academic opportunities, reduced student engagement and interaction, and negative attitudes toward online learning. In addition to grappling with social isolation, elevated stress levels, and general uncertainty stemming from the pandemic, students from underserved communities faced additional stressors related to social unrest, racial trauma, and the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on their communities ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-5">Purpose of the Study</hd> <p>Numerous challenges have emerged regarding gifted education during and after the pandemic. To shed light on some of these concerns, we investigated the changes in gifted identification numbers among diverse populations in Arkansas since the onset of the pandemic, as well as the subsequent impact on gifted programming. Arkansas was selected as our sample population for two primary reasons: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) gifted education services are mandatory in Arkansas, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) we serve as an educational preparation provider within the state of Arkansas.</p> <p>We used the Arkansas Department of Education Data Center to investigate gifted identification trends from 2013 to 2023. Additionally, we conducted two focus groups to explore the changes in gifted programming during and since the pandemic. The following research questions guided the study.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How have the racial demographics of students enrolled in gifted programming changed from 2013 to 2023?</item> <p></p> <item> How has the school shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic influenced gifted programming and the provision of services?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0176652332-6">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176652332-7">Background</hd> <p>Like most of the nation, Arkansas must build its capacity to support local identification protocols for overlooked, low-income and students of color and improve gifted student identification and services. Although a funded mandate for identifying and serving gifted and talented students in Arkansas exists, an equity gap is still present and should be addressed. Arkansas Department of Education Rules for Gifted and Talented defines gifted and talented children and youth as... "those of high potential or ability whose learning characteristics and educational needs require qualitatively differentiated educational experiences and/or services. Possession of these talents and gifts, or the potential for their development, will be evidence though an interaction of above average intellectual ability, task commitment and/or motivation and creative ability" ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>], p. 4). As a result, state mandates require schools to offer differentiated educational experiences and/or services to identified gifted students, with their participation documented in the state database. Nevertheless, inadequate identification measures may lead to the oversight of potentially gifted students, failing to recognize those who would benefit from gifted education services. Moreover, in Arkansas, teachers of the gifted must hold an add-on endorsement in gifted education. This entails acquiring a gifted education certification from an approved higher education institution and passing the gifted education Praxis assessment.</p> <p>Arkansas has about 475,000 public school students. Concerning gifted programs serving traditionally underserved students, Arkansas gifted programs are primarily White (70%) compared to 58% of Arkansas public school enrollment overall. Black students, in contrast, make up 12.4% of students in gifted education, although they represent 19.2% of the overall student population in Arkansas. Hispanic students (14.7%) are also underrepresented as compared to their overall enrollment (10.1%) ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-8">Design</hd> <p>Employing a mixed-method sequential explanatory design, we initially gathered and analyzed quantitative data, followed by conducting focus groups to collect qualitative data ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]). To address question 1, the quantitative data were collected through correlational research, as we were not influencing any variables ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]). The findings in the quantitative data prompted us to delve deeper into the pre- and post-pandemic dynamics of gifted programming, with the objective of understanding how these changes might have influenced identification procedures and program services during and after the shutdown period. Therefore, to address question 2 and gain a more comprehensive understanding of participants' viewpoints ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]), we collected qualitative data through focus groups.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-9">Research Question 1: Quantitative Data</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176652332-10">Data Collection</hd> <p>To answer question 1, we used the publicly accessible site, Arkansas Department of Education Data Center, to retrieve gifted student population data from 2013 to 2023 across demographic groups. Arkansas provides data for various subgroups identified as gifted, including two or more Races, Asian-American, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Native Hawaiian, White, Male, and Female. We opted to exclude the subgroup consisting of individuals identifying with two or more races from our analyses. This decision was made to mitigate inflated numbers resulting from the availability of more comprehensive self-identification options. In 2013, 2.63% (2.06% gifted) of Arkansas students identified as two or more Races, and in 2022, this figure increased to 18.49% (13.22% gifted). Furthermore, the inclusion of gender identification, poverty indicators (free and reduced lunches), and individuals identifying with two or more races would lead to students being cross-represented in multiple groups. Consequently, we opted not to include these subgroups in our analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-11">Data Analysis</hd> <p>We conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine whether there were significant differences in growth rates among the demographic groups ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]). We determined the percent change for each demographic group by subtracting the previous year's population from the current year's population, dividing the difference by the previous year's population, and multiplying by 100 to obtain the percentage ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>]). Before the analysis, we assessed the distribution of the dependent variable (growth rate) using box plots for each demographic group. We identified one outlier and temporarily removed it from the analysis. However, upon re-running the ANOVA, we found that excluding the outlier did not alter the overall results. Therefore, we reintegrated the outlier into the analysis ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]). To evaluate the assumption of normality, we performed the Shapiro–Wilk test ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref39">24</reflink>]). All six independent variables met the normality assumption. We also examined the homogeneity of variance using Levene's test, which indicated a violation of this assumption (<emph>p</emph> =.002). Consequently, we employed the Welch ANOVA to interpret the results and conducted the Games–Howell post hoc test for multiple comparisons ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-12">Research Question 2: Qualitative Data</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176652332-13">Participants</hd> <p>To address research question 2, we organized two focus groups involving gifted coordinators (<emph>N</emph> = 35) during their monthly meetings within two separate educational cooperatives. These cooperatives, operating in both rural and suburban areas, extend support to numerous schools by facilitating the exchange of programs and services and provide professional development opportunities to member school districts. Arkansas is divided into 15 educational cooperatives; each represents distinct geographic areas and comprise 15–30 or more school districts. The coordinators in these focus groups were licensed teachers, certified in gifted education as mandated by the state or on an additional licensure plan to secure certification. We chose the two cooperatives because of their close proximity to our university.</p> <p>Most gifted coordinators hold dual responsibilities, both as instructors within the gifted education program and as program coordinators, tasked with making programming decisions. All gifted coordinators within a given educational cooperative are invited and encouraged to attend monthly meetings, hosted by the educational cooperative and the cooperative's gifted specialist. To engage with the coordinators, we reached out to the gifted specialists via email, requesting time to meet during their regular monthly gathering. The gifted specialist then informed all participants through email that they were invited to participate in a focus group during their monthly meeting. During the meeting, we provided lunch and conducted the focus groups, which consumed approximately 75 minutes of their day-long session. All coordinators voluntarily participated in the focus group voluntarily. Following our session, the coordinators resumed their meeting agenda.</p> <p>It is important to note that we deliberately abstained from collecting specific demographic and experience-related information from the participants. This decision was made to guarantee anonymity, enabling every participant to openly express their opinions, especially since some individuals had expressed negative views regarding their own schools or school districts. Our Institutional Review Board (IRB) granted approval upon the stipulation that we abstain from collecting demographic information to safeguard participant anonymity. We acknowledge this as a limitation to providing descriptive information for transferability in our study.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-14">Researchers as Participants</hd> <p>In this study, the research team comprised four educational researchers and practitioners, all affiliated with the same university. These researchers—Dailey, Cotabish, Buchanan, and Marshall—are white females with a shared background as former K-12 gifted educators. This homogeneity in their experiences, both in K-12 education and as white female educators, gives shared background with the study participants, but may also present a risk of confirmational bias which could influence the study's results.</p> <p>The study's design and focus group questions were developed by Dailey and Cotabish, who also organized the focus groups with educational cooperatives. Cotabish and Dailey alternated roles as facilitators for the focus groups, with Cotabish leading the first and Dailey the second. Marshall consistently served as the recorder in both groups. The initial coding of data was conducted by Dailey, Cotabish, and Marshall, while Buchanan was responsible for the second coding cycle.</p> <p>The study's structure, influenced by the researchers' similar backgrounds, presents potential limitations in data collection, question formulation, and interpretation. To counteract these biases, we employed reflexivity, regularly examining our roles and potential biases throughout the research process. Additionally, we involved a different researcher (Buchanan) in the second coding cycle to introduce a fresh perspective in data analysis, aiming to uncover diverse themes and interpretations. These measures were taken to ensure a more balanced and credible research outcome.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-15">Data Collection</hd> <p>The focus group questions were semistructured and open-ended to allow for a range of responses and encourage discussion and exploration of the questions. Moreover, this process enabled us to understand the connection between the gifted coordinators' unique perspective on the phenomenon and gifted programing and services. Focus group questions were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Describe how GT services were conducted during the shutdown (instruction, assessment/identification, enrichment, differentiation, social–emotional learning, student support in classrooms).</item> <p></p> <item> How has gifted programming changed since the pandemic? (positive and negative)</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent and in what ways have high-potential culturally diverse students in your school been adversely affected by the pandemic? Has the academic and opportunity gap widened or decreased?</item> <p></p> <item> As the gifted and talented professional in your school/district/co-op, what steps are being taken to offset the effects of the pandemic, and what results do you expect?</item> <p></p> <item> How has the national teacher shortage impacted your work as a gifted teacher and gifted education services? Is there a district/co-op plan in place to protect your work as a gifted educator?</item> </ulist> <p>The focus group began with a handout for participants to give their written informed consent if they agreed to participate in the study. Facilitator 1 directed participants to listen to the questions (presented one at a time) and record their responses on a note card. This process allowed participants to share their initial reactions to the question rather than be influenced by other group members. After the facilitator presented each question, the individuals from the group read their responses while one facilitator 2 recorded their responses on chart paper to ensure accurate interpretation ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]). Once each member had the opportunity to share their initial responses, a group discussion took place to verify perceptions. The entire question and answer process took less than 75 min.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-16">Data Analysis</hd> <p>First, the focus group responses were organized by each question on a spreadsheet. To establish initial codes, we first coded the transcripts using constant comparative analysis with descriptive and simultaneous coding ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>]). We coded data into discrete units, examining individual statements to compare responses across all questions. Rather than relying on researcher-generated codes, we directly extracted terms and concepts from the transcripts to capture participants' identified significance ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>To ensure consistency, we compared codes for interrater agreement. We thoroughly discussed any disparities in coded responses until a consensus was reached. For instance, in the case where two researchers had conflicting views on the codes "lack of funding" and "resources," they revisited the participants' original words from the focus group discussion. This step aimed to ensure an accurate interpretation of the participants' meaning. Through this iterative process, the researchers reached an agreement on the code "resources," recognizing its ability to better capture the participants' expressed sentiments and facilitate the identification of pertinent categories. Our determination was that "resources" was a more comprehensive term as it encompassed not only financial aspects but also technology, teachers, and community partners.</p> <p>We collated codes, resulting in the emergence of a coding frame ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]). This coding frame systematically organized raw data, grouping codes into categories and revealing patterns that conveyed the content of each category and the emergence of themes. An excerpt of the coding frame is found in Table 1. For example, codes such as more <emph>ELLs</emph> [English-Language Learners] <emph>identified</emph>, <emph>fewer Black students identified, overidentification, underidentification</emph> were grouped in the category of <emph>GT Identification</emph>. Themes were revealed across similar categories and in this case, the theme <emph>Program Changes</emph> was identified.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Coding Frame.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Codes</th><th align="left">Category</th><th align="left">Theme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>More ELLs identified</td><td rowspan="4">GT Identification</td><td rowspan="7">Program Changes</td></tr><tr><td>Fewer Black students identified</td></tr><tr><td>underidentification</td></tr><tr><td>overidentification</td></tr><tr><td>Teachers pulled to do other tasks</td><td rowspan="3">GT Services</td></tr><tr><td>Combined GT with RTI</td></tr><tr><td>Less money for program</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After the first cycle of coding, we conducted a second round of qualitative coding. For this round, we used NVIV 13 (2002, R1.7.1) to analyze each set of transcripts corresponding to the specific questions from the focus group sessions. This inductive coding approach allowed us to examine the data for each question in detail rather than looking at the data as a whole as we did in the first cycle. We then compared the codes from this second round of coding to identify a second set of themes.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-17">Methodological Integrity</hd> <p>The methods employed were rigorous, consistent, and aligned with the goals of the study. We upheld methodological integrity throughout the research process, exemplified by purposeful participant selection grounded in their experiences teaching gifted education. Ethical approval was secured from the IRB, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring adherence to ethical standards. Data collection procedures were standardized across both focus groups, and coding was executed consistently, involving collaborative efforts to reach consensus on any discrepancies during coding cycles. Ongoing reflexivity was integral to our approach, involving a conscientious acknowledgment of our individual perspectives, biases, and potential impacts on the research process.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176652332-19">Quantitative</hd> <p>While we examined data for all other racial groups, our study primarily focused on the two most substantial subgroups within the gifted population—Black and White students. First, we examined the trends during the 10-year period and then we focused specifically on the pandemic years (2019–2020 through 2021–2022). Table 2 provides the population changes by group across the years. Table 3 provides the growth rate by group and across years.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Population by Demographic Group and Year (2013–2023).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Groups</th><th align="center">2013–2014</th><th align="center">2014–2015</th><th align="center">2015–2016</th><th align="center">2016–2017</th><th align="center">2017–2018</th><th align="center">2018–2019</th><th align="center">2019–2020</th><th align="center">2020–2021</th><th align="center">2021–2022</th><th align="center">2022–2023</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n (gifted)</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Asian American</td><td>1066</td><td>1060</td><td>1062</td><td>1139</td><td>1214</td><td>1213</td><td>1187</td><td>1144</td><td>1222</td><td>1230</td></tr><tr><td>Black</td><td>7475</td><td>7467</td><td>7462</td><td>7480</td><td>7218</td><td>6828</td><td>6597</td><td>5969</td><td>5521</td><td>5180</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>2800</td><td>2944</td><td>3147</td><td>3407</td><td>3619</td><td>3738</td><td>3852</td><td>3595</td><td>3696</td><td>3833</td></tr><tr><td>Native American</td><td>220</td><td>221</td><td>219</td><td>200</td><td>180</td><td>194</td><td>191</td><td>168</td><td>160</td><td>159</td></tr><tr><td>Native Hawaiian</td><td>60</td><td>62</td><td>65</td><td>88</td><td>99</td><td>97</td><td>104</td><td>90</td><td>103</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>33387</td><td>32618</td><td>31947</td><td>31378</td><td>31218</td><td>30671</td><td>30293</td><td>27879</td><td>28192</td><td>27989</td></tr><tr><td>Total Gifted Students</td><td>45759</td><td>45158</td><td>44787</td><td>44681</td><td>44636</td><td>43863</td><td>43417</td><td>40020</td><td>40214</td><td>39956</td></tr><tr><td>Total School Population (all students)</td><td>474995</td><td>476083</td><td>476049</td><td>477268</td><td>479258</td><td>478318</td><td>479432</td><td>473004</td><td>473861</td><td>476579</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Growth Rate by Demographic Group and Year (2013–2023).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">R/E</th><th align="center">2013–2014</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2014–2015</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2015–2016</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2016–2017</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2017–2018</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2018–2019</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2019–2020</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2020–2021</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2021–2022</th><th align="center" colspan="2">2022–2023</th><th align="center">Overall</th></tr><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center"><italic>% of Gifted</italic></th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center">% Change</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td>2.33</td><td>2.35</td><td>0.85</td><td>2.37</td><td>.85</td><td>2.55</td><td>7.59</td><td>2.72</td><td>6.7</td><td>2.78</td><td>2.21</td><td>2.73</td><td>−1.80</td><td>2.86</td><td>4.76</td><td>3.04</td><td>6.29</td><td>3.08</td><td>1.32</td><td>32.2</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>16.3</td><td>16.5</td><td>1.23</td><td>16.7</td><td>1.21</td><td>16.7</td><td>0</td><td>16.2</td><td>−2.99</td><td>15.6</td><td>−3.70</td><td>15.2</td><td>−2.56</td><td>14.9</td><td>−1.97</td><td>13.7</td><td>−8.05</td><td>13.0</td><td>−5.38</td><td>−20.2</td></tr><tr><td>H</td><td>5.7</td><td>6.4</td><td>12.2</td><td>6.93</td><td>8.3</td><td>7.52</td><td>8.5</td><td>8.11</td><td>7.85</td><td>8.52</td><td>5.06</td><td>8.87</td><td>4.1</td><td>8.98</td><td>1.24</td><td>9.19</td><td>2.34</td><td>9.60</td><td>4.46</td><td>68.4</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>.48</td><td>.49</td><td>2.1</td><td>.49</td><td>0</td><td>.45</td><td>−8.2</td><td>.40</td><td>−11.1</td><td>.44</td><td>10.0</td><td>.44</td><td>0</td><td>.42</td><td>−4.5</td><td>.40</td><td>−4.76</td><td>.40</td><td>0</td><td>−16.7</td></tr><tr><td>NH</td><td>.13</td><td>.14</td><td>7.7</td><td>.15</td><td>7.1</td><td>.20</td><td>33.0</td><td>.22</td><td>10.0</td><td>.22</td><td>0</td><td>.24</td><td>9.1</td><td>.22</td><td>18.2</td><td>.26</td><td>18.2</td><td>.29</td><td>11.5</td><td>123.1</td></tr><tr><td>W</td><td>73.0</td><td>72.2</td><td>−1.1</td><td>71.3</td><td>1.25</td><td>70.3</td><td>−1.4</td><td>69.9</td><td>−.57</td><td>69.9</td><td>0</td><td>69.77</td><td>−.19</td><td>69.66</td><td>−.16</td><td>70.1</td><td>.63</td><td>70.05</td><td>−.57</td><td>−4.04</td></tr><tr><td>T</td><td>9.63</td><td>9.49</td><td>−1.15</td><td>9.40</td><td>−.95</td><td>9.36</td><td>−.43</td><td>9.31</td><td>.50</td><td>9.17</td><td>−1.50</td><td>9.06</td><td>−1.20</td><td>8.44</td><td>−6.84</td><td>8.49</td><td>.59</td><td>8.38</td><td>−1.25</td><td>−11.7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> % of Gifted = % of each demographic group in the state in gifted programs; Total Gifted = % of the state school population in gifted programs. R/E = Race/Ethnicity; A = Asian American; B = Black; H = Hispanic; NA = Native American; NH = Native Hawaiian; T = Total.</p> <p>Initial results from the state data website found a decrease in overall gifted program enrollment from 2013 to 2023. In the academic year 2013–2014, 9.6% of the state's school population received gifted services. This number decreased to 8.4% in 2023–2024. During the pandemic years, the gifted population decreased slightly from 9.1% (2019–2020) to 8.5% (2021–2022). It is significant to highlight that the Arkansas school population experienced a 8% decline in both White and Black students during this time frame, while the overall population increased by 0.04%.</p> <p>In the academic year 2013–2014, 16.3% of students identified as gifted were Black. However, by 2023–2024, this percentage had declined to 12.4%. In comparison, during the same period in 2013–2014, 73.0% of students identified as gifted were White. In the academic year 2023–2024, the composition shifted slightly, with the gifted population consisting of 69.7% White students. Nevertheless, White and Black students remain the predominant groups in Arkansas schools, making up the largest number of students in gifted programs, closely followed by the Hispanic population.</p> <p>In analyzing the pandemic years, the proportion of Black students identified as gifted decreased from 15.2% in 2019–2020 to 13.7% in 2021–2022. The downward trend persisted, with the representation of Black students in the gifted population consistently decreasing, reaching 12.4% in 2023–2024. On the other hand, the percentage of White students identified as gifted remained relatively stable during the pandemic years, ranging from 69.8% in 2019–2020 to 70.1% in 2021–2022. The other demographic groups remained relatively unchanged except for the gifted population's percentage of Hispanic students. The percentage of Hispanic students in gifted education increased from 2013 (5.7%) to 2023 (9.6%). From 2013 to 2023, Arkansas's Hispanic school population increased by 36%. Table 4 presents the percentages of each demographic group within the school population.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Overall School Population Percentage.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center" /><th align="center">Asian American</th><th align="center">Black</th><th align="center">Hispanic</th><th align="center">Native American</th><th align="center">Native Hawaiian</th><th align="center">White</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2013–2014</td><td>1.51</td><td>20.78</td><td>10.47</td><td>.65</td><td>.6</td><td>63.37</td></tr><tr><td>2014–2015</td><td>1.54</td><td>20.74</td><td>11.7</td><td>.64</td><td>.63</td><td>62.66</td></tr><tr><td>2015–2016</td><td>1.57</td><td>20.55</td><td>12.14</td><td>.64</td><td>.68</td><td>62.12</td></tr><tr><td>2016–2017</td><td>1.64</td><td>20.35</td><td>12.59</td><td>.64</td><td>.75</td><td>61.6</td></tr><tr><td>2017–2018</td><td>1.64</td><td>20.22</td><td>13.02</td><td>.64</td><td>.82</td><td>61.08</td></tr><tr><td>2018–2019</td><td>1.66</td><td>19.97</td><td>13.18</td><td>.63</td><td>.87</td><td>60.88</td></tr><tr><td>2019–2020</td><td>1.7</td><td>19.77</td><td>13.46</td><td>.61</td><td>.93</td><td>60.43</td></tr><tr><td>2020–2021</td><td>1.75</td><td>19.73</td><td>13.65</td><td>.59</td><td>.97</td><td>59.82</td></tr><tr><td>2021–2022</td><td>1.76</td><td>19.43</td><td>13.91</td><td>.59</td><td>1.01</td><td>59.46</td></tr><tr><td>2022–2023</td><td>1.79</td><td>19.25</td><td>14.23</td><td>.59</td><td>1.03</td><td>58.85</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To determine if any of these changes were statistically significant, the results from the Welch ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in growth rates among demographic groups (Welch's <emph>F</emph>(5,19.919) = 10.43, <emph>p</emph> <.001). The analysis yielded a substantial effect size, with a partial eta squared (<emph>η</emph>²) of 0.541, indicating a large impact. These findings suggest that the observed growth rate variations can be predominantly attributed to the differences between the demographic groups. Further analysis using the Games–Howell post hoc test found statistically significant differences in growth rates between the following demographic groups: Native American and Native Hawaiian (<emph>p</emph> =.017), Asian American and Black (<emph>p</emph> =.016), Black and Native Hawaiian (<emph>p</emph> =.010), Black and Hispanic (<emph>p</emph> =.001), Native Hawaiian (<emph>p</emph> <.027), and White and Hispanic (<emph>p</emph> <.005). Refer to Table 5 for the growth rate mean, standard deviation, and confidence interval. Table 6 provides the statistically significant results from the Games–Howell post hoc test.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 5. Mean, Standard Deviation, and Confidence Interval for Groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="(" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Demographic group (<italic>n</italic> = 8 years)</th><th align="center"><italic>M(SD)</italic></th><th align="center">Confidence interval</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>American Indian</td><td>−1.83(6.20)</td><td>[−6.6 to 2.9]</td></tr><tr><td>Asian American</td><td>3.20(3.24)</td><td>[0.71 to 5.69]</td></tr><tr><td>Black</td><td>−2.47(3.06)</td><td>[−4.82 to −0.115]</td></tr><tr><td>Native Hawaiian</td><td>12.76(9.43)</td><td>[5.50 to 20.00]</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>6.01(3.47)</td><td>[3.33 to 8.68]</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>−0.23(0.82)</td><td>[−0.86 to 0.393]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 6. Statistically Significant Multiple Comparisons (Mean Difference, Standard Error, and Significance).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="(" /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Group comparison</th><th align="left">Mean difference (standard error)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Native American-Native Hawaiian</td><td>−14.58(2.41)</td><td>.017</td></tr><tr><td>Asian American-Black</td><td>5.661(1.49)</td><td>.016</td></tr><tr><td>Black-Native Hawaiian</td><td>−15.22(3.30)</td><td>.010</td></tr><tr><td>Black-Hispanic</td><td>−8.47(1.54)</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>White-Native Hawaiian</td><td>−12.99(3.15)</td><td>.027</td></tr><tr><td>White-Hispanic</td><td>−6.24(1.19)</td><td>.005</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0176652332-20">Qualitative</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176652332-21">Themes from Coding Frame</hd> <p>When analyzing the data, two main categories emerged: those pertaining to the period during the shutdown and those relevant to the period after the shutdown. Then, we looked for patterns in the data, and two themes emerged from the data for the time period during the shutdown: varied class meeting formats and engagement (coded as <emph>Class Meetings</emph>) and delayed gifted testing and identification (coded as <emph>Testing</emph>). For the time period after the shutdown, when school resumed in-person, two additional themes emerged: changes to student instruction and engagement (coded as <emph>Student Changes</emph>) and changes in gifted program priorities, identification, and services (coded as <emph>Program Changes</emph>). Table 7 provides the themes, categories, and codes.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-22">Class Meetings</hd> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 7. Focus Group Themes, Categories, and Codes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="5"><bold>During the shutdown</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Theme</bold></td><td><bold>Category</bold></td><td><bold>Codes</bold></td><td colspan="2"><bold>Subcodes</bold></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="9">Theme 1: Class Meetings</td><td rowspan="4">Virtual</td><td>Synchronous</td><td colspan="2" rowspan="2">ZoomGoogle MeetGoogle Classroom</td></tr><tr><td>Asynchronous</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Merged with General Classroom</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Paper Packets</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Focus</td><td colspan="3">SEL</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Enrichment</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Lack of Participation</td><td>Resources</td><td colspan="2">Especially in Subpopulations</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Priority</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Communication</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Theme 2: Testing</td><td rowspan="4">Process of GT Identification</td><td colspan="3">None/Postponed Until In-Person</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Some Referrals</td><td colspan="2">Zoom</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Lost</td></tr><tr><td>State Testing Canceled</td><td colspan="2">Some sought alternatives</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><bold>Category 2: After the Shutdown</bold></td></tr><tr><td><bold>Theme</bold></td><td><bold>Category</bold></td><td colspan="3"><bold>Codes</bold></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Theme 3: Student Changes</td><td rowspan="5">Behaviors</td><td colspan="3">Lazy/unmotivated</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Immature</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Lack of creativity/critical thinking</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Increase in SEL support</td></tr><tr><td>Increased absences</td><td colspan="2">Especially in Subpopulations</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Academics</td><td>Students behind in learning/Drop in test scores</td><td>Learning gaps increased between LSES & regular</td><td>Related to lack of resources during the pandemic</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Number of students willing to take AP decreased</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in tech/programs for engagement</td><td colspan="2">Hands-on activities preferred over tech</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="16">Theme 4: Program Changes</td><td rowspan="7">GT Identification</td><td colspan="3">More ELL students identified</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Fewer Black nominations and referrals</td></tr><tr><td>Overidentified</td><td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Lack of data</td></tr><tr><td>Underidentified</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Moved identification to higher grade level</td></tr><tr><td>Improvements</td><td colspan="2">Universal Screening</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">No changes in identification</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">GT Teachers</td><td>Exhausted</td><td colspan="2">Pulled to do other things plus GT</td></tr><tr><td>GT not a priority</td><td colspan="2">Lack of administrative support</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">GT Services</td><td colspan="3">Combined GT with RTI</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Less time for GT Class</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">More enrichment with whole groups</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Focus more on SEL and Family Services</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Less money in the program</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" rowspan="2">Using hybrid classes</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The <emph>Class Meeting</emph> theme represents how class was conducted during the shutdown. The code groupings from the class <emph>Class Meeting</emph> theme included virtual, focus, and lack of participation. The data identified virtual learning platforms for class meetings, with synchronous online meetings as the most prominent method (see Table 7 for additional codes mentioned by participants). For example, stated they "used Google Classroom to share videos, virtual field trips, etc." (group interview, 10/7/2022) and "[I] created packets of low prep/low supplies for enrichment activities" (group interview, 9/21/2022) to adapt their teaching during the pandemic. Additionally, participants remarked on the focus during the class, such as enrichment or social emotional learning. One participant stated, "Student motivation has also decreased and has made a huge impact in student learning and behavior" (group interview, 10/7/2022). Another participant stated that by adding more SEL strategies in their lessons, they have seen an improvement in student leadership, "It is positive that more SEL is understood and supported" (group interview, 9/21/2022). Participants discussed a lack of student participation, in particular, referencing communication skills during class meetings. One participant indicated, "Trying to get students to meet and participate was very hard and not guaranteed" (group interview, 10/7/2022). Overall, the data highlighted teachers' use of virtual learning platforms, the adoption of diverse instructional methods, and the challenges faced during the shutdown. The focus on enrichment and SEL indicates a holistic approach to education, but concerns about decreased student motivation and communication challenges underscore the complexities of virtual learning. The positive impact of incorporating more SEL strategies reflects an acknowledgment of the importance of addressing students' emotional well-being during challenging times.</p> <p> <emph>Testing.</emph> The <emph>Testing</emph> theme represents the measures that were used (or not used) to determine student placement in gifted programs during the shutdown (code: process of GT identification). Focus group participants discussed that GT identification testing was largely absent or delayed during the pandemic shutdown and remained so until in-person schooling resumed. For example, one participant stated that "no students were tested or referred for services" (group interview, 10/7/2022) and "no testing until in-person—too hard" (group interview, 10/7/2022). Some district representatives indicated that they had some referrals. One participant stated, "When we did test, [there was] a considerable lack of data [for referral]" (group interview, 9/21/2022) While state testing was canceled, a few participants mentioned seeking other alternatives such as "young students to be tested have been virtual [in] K-1st grades" (group interview, 10/7/2022). This data revealed disruptions and challenges in the GT identification process during the pandemic shutdown. The absence and delay of testing, coupled with a lack of data for referrals, highlight the impact on the traditional methods of identification. However, the mention of seeking alternatives, especially for younger students, suggests an adaptive response to the limitations imposed by the cancellation of state testing. This information underscores the need for flexibility and innovative approaches in the face of unexpected disruptions to the testing and identification processes.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-23">Student Changes</hd> <p>The <emph>Student Changes</emph> theme denotes when students and teachers resumed in-person classes at brick-and-mortar schools. The first code grouping from the focus group data under student changes was behaviors. Participants discussed that students were lazy or unmotivated in their classrooms. One participant indicated, "Students do not want anything to do with anything extra. They have gotten lazy" (group interview, 9/21/2022). Additionally, participants discussed students' need for an increase in SEL support. For example, "Available resources—knowing about them. SEL focus (leadership)" (group interview, 10/7/2022). A second code grouping under the coded theme of student changes was academics. Focus group participants noted an increase in learning gaps—especially between lower SES (LSES) and non-LSES gifted students that were related to a lack of resources during the pandemic. For example, "I feel the academic gap has widened during the pandemic mainly due to the lack of resources for the student, on top of no teacher contact or lessened teacher contact" (group interview, 10/7/2022) Participants also remarked on an increase in the use of technology or programs for engagement. One participant indicated, "larger incorporation of technology—Students utilizing outside resources & being creative with finding answers because they have done so much on their own virtually" (group interview, 10/7/2022). In summary, the data revealed shifts in student behaviors, a recognized need for increased SEL support, concerns about widening academic gaps, and a positive adaptation to technology for engagement. These findings highlight the multifaceted impact of the pandemic on students and the gifted education system, emphasizing the importance of addressing both behavioral and academic challenges while leveraging technology for positive outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-24">Program Changes</hd> <p>Focus group discussions revealed perceptions of multiple shifts gifted program priorities, identification, and services divided into three code groupings, <emph>GT identification</emph>, <emph>GT Teachers</emph>, and <emph>GT Services</emph>. Under the <emph>GT Identification</emph> code, some gifted coordinators mentioned improvements such as the inclusion of universal screening and an increase in the number of ELL students identified for gifted services, while others lamented a drop in African American nominations and referrals. For example, one participant indicated, "There are more Hispanics being referred and fewer black students and white students" (group interview, 10/7/2022). They also commented that some programs overidentified students since the shutdown while others said they underidentified students for GT. For example, one participant said, "Referrals ready but no identification when pandemic began" (group interview, 10/7/2022) while another said, "We overidentified" (group interview, 10/7/2022).</p> <p>Within the <emph>GT Teachers</emph> code, participants indicated they were exhausted, have less support, and are pulled to do other things. For example, participants stated, "We have less time; we are less important" and "[My] elementary principal is not a fan of GT. Doesn't think it's important—pulling GT students 30 min daily during RTI" (group interview, 9/21/2022). Gifted coordinators also expressed perceptions that GT was not a priority, and a lack of administrative support. One participant indicated, "There are more expectations of me. No one else is helping me to protect my GT services. If anything, it's being taken away because I am being pulled for other duties" (group interview, 9/21/2022). Within the <emph>GT Services</emph> code, participants discussed receiving insufficient time to meet with students, thereby failing to meet the required time mandated by the state. They were providing more whole group enrichment with a focus on SEL and family services, and they combined GT with Response to Intervention (RTI). For example, one participant stated, "I am focusing on RTI/interventions rather than GT or enrichment" (group interview, 10/7/2022). In summary, these quotes reveal a complex set of challenges faced by teachers and program coordinators of gifted education, including exhaustion, perceived decreased importance, lack of support, increased expectations, potential erosion of GT services, and a shift in focus toward interventions. These issues underscore the need for advocacy, support, and a reevaluation of priorities to ensure the continued effectiveness of GT education.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-25">Themes from Secondary Coding, Inductive Coding, and Thematic Analysis</hd> <p>Based on the first data analysis stage, we proceeded to the second stage of qualitative coding using a selected induction coding method and analyzing each participant's response separately to identify key words from each response. As the same statements were repeated, these were grouped together. This coding process was completed for each question separately. After all of the codes were identified, commonalities were found to exist between Questions 2 and 3 and between Questions 4 and 5. Four resulting themes emerged in this round of analysis and confirmed the findings from the first qualitative coding round (e.g., <emph>COVID-19 affected how teachers taught/teach; negative changes in student participation, behavior, and academic performance; and gifted teachers were and are overwhelmed</emph>). We also noted a new theme in this analysis, <emph>The pain and saving grace of technology</emph>. Table 8 provides the themes and their corresponding codes from this second round of analysis.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 8. Themes and Codes from Second Cycle of Coding.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Themes</th><th align="left">Codes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>COVID-19 affected how teachers taught/teach.</td><td>Virtual learning; Enrichment activities; SEL; Lack of participation; Teachers overwhelmed; Identification</td></tr><tr><td>There was a negative change in student participation, student behavior, and academic performance.</td><td>More use of technology; SEL; Increase in negative behavior; Learning loss; Lack of participation; Teachers overwhelmed; Identification</td></tr><tr><td>The pain and saving grace of technology.</td><td>Technology issues; Widened gap; Lack of participation; Language barriers</td></tr><tr><td>Gifted teachers were and are overwhelmed.</td><td>Enrichment time; Enrichment opportunities; SEL; No change; Teachers overwhelmed; Enrichment time increased; Extra duties; Lack of district-level support; No plan</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The first question asked gifted coordinators to describe how GT services were conducted during COVID-19, and the first analysis (theme: <emph>varied class meeting formats and engagements</emph>) did not provide a strictly positive or negative assessment of this question. The second coding analysis corresponds with the first, as both datasets delve into changes in instructional delivery from face-to-face to virtual. The theme <emph>COVID-19 affected how teachers taught/teach</emph> emerged during this secondary analysis cycle. One participant noted that "more social-emotional learning and activities are being utilized since the shutdown" (group interview, 9/21/2022). Another stated, "GT is both classroom and virtual now even after the shutdown" (group interview, 9/21/2022). These quotes convey a narrative of adaptation and evolution in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Gifted coordinators had both positive and negative assessments of instructional delivery and program services during COVID-19 pandemic distance learning. These changes also reflect the flexibility and resilience of educators in navigating the complexities of teaching during a global health crisis.</p> <p>In the analysis of the second question, which asked how gifted programming has changed since the pandemic, we noted a theme emerge that also correlated with the first coding cycle (theme: <emph>changes to student instruction and engagement</emph>), which was participants' perceptions of <emph>negative changes in student participation, behavior, and academic performance</emph>. One participant noted, "kids don't want to work and many are behind" (group interview, 10/7/2022). Another added that students had a, "lazy attitude about learning" (group interview, 9/21/2022). These teachers' quotes suggest a decline in student motivation and progress, which are a negative shift in students' view toward education. A gifted coordinator indicated "their ability to communicate and problem solve was negatively affected" (group interview, 9/21/2022). This quote suggests that the impact of the pandemic on students goes beyond mere academic performance, affecting crucial skills such as communication and problem-solving.</p> <p>In addition, a new theme around technology emerged from this question during the second coding cycle: <emph>The pain and saving grace of technology</emph>. The data illuminated the extent to which teachers were comfortable, or not, employing technology creatively with the GT students. This theme extended into the analysis of the third question, which asked about the extent to which high-potential culturally diverse students have been adversely affected by the pandemic. For example, a gifted coordinator said, "we are all more comfortable with using multiple forms of technology" (group interview, 9/21/2022). This quote suggests a positive aspect of technology integration, indicating that teachers have become more adept and at ease with utilizing various forms of technology in their instruction. The mention of increased comfort implies a potential improvement in the use of technology as a tool for education. However, this was not the only view of technology use. One participant remarked that students would "look forward to hands on more than technology. I think technology just burned them out" (group interview, 9/21/2022). This quote reflects a negative perception of technology among students, suggesting that they may have experienced fatigue or disengagement due to excessive reliance on technology in their learning experiences during the pandemic. The juxtaposition of these quotes highlights a nuanced perspective on the role of technology during the pandemic. While some educators have become more comfortable with diverse forms of technology, there are concerns raised by participants about potential burnout and a preference for hands-on experiences among students. This suggests a need for balance in integrating technology creatively, taking into account both its advantages and potential drawbacks in the context of gifted education.</p> <p>The fourth question asked gifted coordinators what steps were being taken to offset the effects of the pandemic. The theme <emph>gifted teachers were and are overwhelmed</emph> aligns with the various program changes identified in the first coding cycle (theme: <emph>changes in gifted program priorities, identification, and services</emph>). These changes encompass shifts in GT identification procedures, modifications to GT teachers' job descriptions, and adjustments to the provision of GT services to students. Gifted coordinators expressed feelings of weariness and overwhelm, saying "there are more expectations of me" (group interview, 10/7/2022); "I am being pulled to cover other areas" (group interview, 9/21/2022); and "I have two full time responsibilities" (group interview, 9/21/2022). The common thread in these quotes is the overwhelming nature of the changes and increased expectations placed on gifted coordinators and teachers. They suggest that the pandemic brought about not only alterations in program priorities but also an additional burden on the individuals responsible for overseeing gifted education. The expressed weariness and feelings of being pulled in different directions underscore the challenges faced by gifted coordinators in adapting to the evolving landscape of gifted programming amid the pandemic.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-26">Trustworthiness</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176652332-27">Credibility</hd> <p>To enhance the accuracy and depth of the data collected, our approach began with each participant individually recording and reflecting on the questions posed. This initial step was crucial for ensuring that every voice was heard and considered, laying a foundation for a richer, more informed group discussion later on. During the focus group, participants shared their prerecorded thoughts, fostering a comprehensive dialogue enriched by these preliminary reflections ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]). Throughout the discussion, a designated recorder captured key insights, jotting them down on chart paper. This visual representation, along with the individual notecards used during the reflection phase, formed the basis of our qualitative analysis, providing a multifaceted view of the participants' perspectives and experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-28">Transferability</hd> <p>To enhance the transferability of our findings, we utilized quotes that accurately represented the codes identified in our data analysis. This approach ensures that the insights we present are firmly rooted in the actual responses of our participants. Additionally, we have included detailed descriptions of gifted programs in Arkansas, along with the state mandates that govern these programs. These specifics provide a contextual framework that aids in understanding the broader applicability of our findings within similar educational settings.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-29">Dependability</hd> <p>To strengthen the dependability of our study, we adopted a transparent approach throughout the research process. This included providing the semistructured questions used during data collection, detailing our coding framework, and explicitly outlining our data analysis methodology. By openly sharing these components of our research, we aimed to ensure clarity and reproducibility, allowing others to understand and potentially replicate our study under similar conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-30">Confirmability</hd> <p>To ensure the confirmability of our study and maintain its objectivity, we employed a method of external verification for our findings. This included engaging a different coder to conduct a second analysis, who was subsequently added as an author to acknowledge her contribution. We have documented all data, encompassing raw transcripts, our coding procedures, and analytical notes, making them readily available for review. This level of transparency in our methodology provides other researchers with the means to trace our analytic journey and validate the reliability of our results.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-31">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of the quantitative analysis revealed notable trends within the gifted population in Arkansas, indicating variations among different demographic groups. While most groups have rebounded from the decline in gifted student identification following the pandemic, the Black student population continues to experience a decline. Between 2013 and 2023, the number of gifted Black students decreased by 20%, whereas the decrease among White students was only 4%. It is worth noting that some numbers within smaller populations were exaggerated, such as the Hawaiian group, which witnessed an increase of 55 students, reflecting a substantial 123% growth.</p> <p>The overall decrease in identification of gifted students in Arkansas can be attributed to various factors consistent across other states ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref47">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref49">37</reflink>]). One significant factor is the suspension of gifted education identification processes during the 2019–2020 school shutdowns, as indicated by the focus groups in our study. This interruption disrupted the identification pipeline, hindering the recognition of giftedness in students, including those from underrepresented populations. Additionally, the lack of available enrichment programs and missed opportunities for frontloading further contributed to the decline in identification among these students ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref50">20</reflink>]). These missed opportunities were particularly detrimental to students from underserved populations due to the disparity in resources available in their homes ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref51">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>The decline in Black student identification is further supported by qualitative data obtained from participants, such as increased rates of absenteeism among Black students and decreased referrals and nominations. Another possible contributing factor to the decrease in identification among Black students is the diminished priority placed on gifted programs since the pandemic's onset and the additional responsibilities placed on gifted program directors.</p> <p>Before the pandemic, numerous schools in Arkansas were actively addressing the lack of diversity in gifted programs and implementing multiple measures to mitigate bias in identification and placement (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref53">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]). However, since the pandemic, qualitative data suggest that funding for gifted programs has decreased, administrator support has waned, time allocated for gifted classes has been reduced, and gifted teachers have often been assigned additional roles beyond their responsibilities as facilitators or directors, leaving them feeling overwhelmed. Furthermore, during the pandemic, schools were primarily focused on ensuring students received basic educational needs, resulting in limited attention given to gifted programming or even gifted students. The diversion of resources and priorities away from gifted education hindered efforts to address the underrepresentation of marginalized students in these programs ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref56">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additional findings suggested that student engagement, behavior, and academic performance have faced challenges since the pandemic ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref57">9</reflink>]). On a positive note, the focus groups highlighted some encouraging trends. Teachers have come to appreciate technology, gaining new technological skills, and students have developed a greater appreciation for hands-on, nondigital learning experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-32">Significance</hd> <p>The pandemic has significantly impacted educational systems, including gifted programming. This study highlights shifts in identification trends among gifted students in Arkansas, with particular attention to variations among demographic groups, including Black students, and the ongoing dynamics of recovery. This situation further exacerbates the long-standing issue of underidentifying and underserving non-White students in gifted education.</p> <p>The identified disparities in gifted education originate from persistent biases entrenched in existing practices. Biased identification methods and unequal distribution of resources contribute to an environment where specific demographic groups encounter obstacles in accessing and benefiting from gifted programs. The lack of culturally responsive identification protocols, coupled with the dearth of representation among educators, amplifies these biases, perpetuating a cycle that disadvantages students of color. The ramifications of the identified disparities extend far beyond the immediate decline in gifted program enrollment. These disparities could lead to a loss of valuable skills and talents, holding back the development of untapped potential and limiting diverse contributions to society.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-33">Recommendations</hd> <p>As equity, access, and academic excellence continues to be at the forefront in gifted education, the importance of strategic interventions is increasingly evident. The Covid-19 pandemic amplified the persistent disparities in the identification and provision of gifted services among racial groups in Arkansas and throughout the nation ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]). In response to these findings, we encourage state policy makers and educators to adhere to the 2019 Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards and establish identification protocols that are anchored in a commitment to equity. Specifically, protocols should incorporate strategies and assessments that mitigate bias. This can involve incorporating practices such as frontloading experiences, implementing universal screening, applying local norms, and utilizing assessments in a language suitable for children from diverse populations ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Equally crucial is aiding educators in identifying gifts and talents among students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. This may involve implementing specific professional development initiatives for educators, with a focus on culturally responsive teaching and the identification of giftedness within diverse populations. Ideally, teacher preparation programs should provide comprehensive coverage of gifted education, as opposed to the current practice where most teacher candidates receive only a module or less on diverse gifted learners. Finally, policy makers and educators should advocate for equitable resource allocation, ensuring that schools in underserved communities have access to the necessary tools, technologies, and materials to support gifted education. Addressing resource disparities is crucial for fostering an environment where all students can thrive academically.</p> <p>These recommendations are rooted in the need for systemic changes and informed policy decisions to create a more inclusive and equitable landscape for gifted education. Maintaining the status quo signifies a lack of progress. As highlighted in the data from our study, Arkansas initially made strides in the identification of gifted Black students, but this progress was disrupted by the pandemic. Subsequently, the numbers have consistently decreased. It is imperative that we address these issues promptly.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-34">Limitations</hd> <p>Transferability in this study faces limitations primarily stemming from the absence of detailed participant demographic information. The lack of specifics regarding participants' experiences, exact roles in school districts beyond being gifted coordinators, and their individual demographics within the state of Arkansas restricts the broader applicability of the findings. It is noteworthy that the context of gifted education, including mandates, identification procedures, and demographics, exhibits significant variability across states, diminishing the transferability of results to contexts beyond Arkansas. Additionally, while sample size itself is not a limitation of qualitative studies as the goal is to provide rich and detailed exploration of the topic, the qualitative aspect of the study relies on insights gathered from two focus groups of gifted coordinators, which may not capture all perspectives within the gifted education community (e.g., teachers, parents, students). Finally, the complexity of the pandemic may not comprehensively capture the myriad of factors contributing to changes during this time period, such as racial unrest and economic instability.</p> <hd id="AN0176652332-35">Conclusion</hd> <p>As we grapple with the implications of our findings, it is crucial to recognize that the journey toward equity is ongoing. This study provides a foundation for future research, policy advocacy, and collaborative initiatives aimed at reshaping the landscape of gifted education. Embracing a collective responsibility to dismantle institutional biases and foster inclusivity, stakeholders can pave the way for a system where the identification of giftedness truly reflects diverse talents and potential. In conclusion, the identified disparities in gifted education demand not only our attention but also concerted efforts to address the root causes. By acknowledging and confronting institutional and structural biases, we embark on a transformative journey toward a more equitable and inclusive future for gifted education.</p> <ref id="AN0176652332-36"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> ADE. (2009). Rules: Gifted and talented: Program approval standards. https://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/Files/20201223145241_2009_GT_Revised_Program_Approval_Standards.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> ADE Data Center. (2023). Gift & talented by state. ADE. https://adedata.arkansas.gov/statewide/ReportList/State/GiftTalented.aspx?year=33&search=&pagesize=10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref45" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bauer M. W., Gaskell G. (Eds.). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook for social research (pp. 131–206). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209731</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref43" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Charmaz K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed., pp. 150–161). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Coleman L. J., Micko K. J., Cross T. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students' voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref59" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Corwith S., Johnson S., Lee C., Cotabish A., Dailey D., Guilbault K. (2019). Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. National Association for Gifted Children Professional Standards Committee. https://<ulink href="http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/Intro">www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/Intro</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref53" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cotabish A., Robinson A. (2014). The effects of a statewide evaluation initiative in gifted education on practitioner knowledge, concerns, and program documentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(4), 349–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14549356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref54" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dailey D., Jackson N., Cotabish A., Trumble J. (2018). STEMulate engineering academy: Engaging students and teachers in engineering practices. Roeper Review, 40(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434709</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref27" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Duraku Z. H., Hoxha N. (2020). The impact of COVID-19, school closure, and social isolation on gifted students' wellbeing and attitudes toward remote (online) learning. In Duraku's Z. H. (Ed.), Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education and wellbeing (pp. 130–169). University of Prishtina. ISBN 978-9951-00-292-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Economic Policy Institute (2020, September 10). COVID-19 and student performance, equity, and U.S. education policy: Lessons from pre-pandemic research to inform relief, recovery, and rebuilding. https://files.epi.org/pdf/205622.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eklund K., Tanner N., Stoll K., Anway L. (2015). Identifying emotional and behavioral risk among gifted and nongifted children: A multi-gate, multi-informant approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fawcett W. (2017). Effects of participation status in the Arkansas AAIMS Program by gender, race, and SES on AP calculus achievement [Doctoral dissertation]. Harding University, Harding University Scholar Works. https://scholarworks.harding.edu/hu-etd/9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed., pp. 385–421). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francois S., Blakey J., Stevenson R., Walker T., Davis Jr C. (2023). Navigating COVID-19 and racial trauma as a Black student at predominantly White institutions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–12. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goings R. B., Ford D. Y. (2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217737618</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grissom J. A., Redding C., Bleiberg J. F. (2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Educational Review, 89(3), 337–369. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grissom J. A., Rodriguez L. A., Kern E. C. (2017). Teacher and principal diversity and the representation of students of color in gifted programs: Evidence from national data. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 396–422. https://doi.org/10.1086/690274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilbault K. M., JohnBull R. M., McCormick K. M. (2022). District gifted education coordinators' leadership roles and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 45(4), 352–380. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/dua2s</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haderlein S. K., Saavedra A. R., Polikoff M. S., Silver D., Rapaport A., Garland M. (2021). Disparities in educational access in the time of COVID: Evidence from a nationally representative panel of American families. AERA Open, 7, https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211041350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huck C., Zhang J. (2021). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 education: A systematic literature review. New Waves-Educational Research and Development Journal, 24(1), 53–84 (EJ1308731). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1308731.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivankova N. V., Creswell J. W., Stick S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft M. A., Simon N. S. (2020). Teachers' experiences working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Upbeat. https://education.brown.edu/sites/default/files/2020-06/Upbeat%20Memo%20-%20Kraft.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhfeld M., Lewis K. (2022). Student achievement in 2021-2022: Cause for hope and continued urgency. Collaborative for Student Growth. Brief. NWEA. https://<ulink href="http://www.nwea.org/uploads/2022/07/Student-Achievement-in-2021-22-Cause-for-hope-and-concern.researchbrief-1.pdf">www.nwea.org/uploads/2022/07/Student-Achievement-in-2021-22-Cause-for-hope-and-concern.researchbrief-1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laerd Statistics (n.d.). SPSS statistical tutorials and statistical guides. https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/index.php</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan H. (2019). The lack of minority students in gifted education: Hiring more exemplary teachers of color can alleviate the problem. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 92(4-5), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2019.1645635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neihart M., Pfeiffer S. I., Cross T. L. (Eds.). (2016). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238928</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neihart M., Yeo L. S. (2018). Psychological issues unique to the gifted student. In Pfeiffer S. I., Shaunessy-Dedrick E., Foley-Nicpon M. (Eds.), APA Handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 497–510). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of COVID-19 on America's students. United States of America Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Civil Rights. (2023). 2017-18 State and national tables. Civil Rights Data Collection. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/estimations/2017-2018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters S., Langhi M. (2023, January 5). The typical gifted program is likely to become even less equitable. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/typical-gifted-program-likely-become-even-less-equitable#:∼:text=Given%20the%20decrease%20in%20overall,populations%20compared%20to%20prior%20years</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rinn A. N. (2020). Social, emotional, and psychosocial development of gifted and talented individuals (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238058</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaeffer K. (2021). What we know about online learning and the homework gap amid the pandemic. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/10/01/what-we-know-about-online-learning-and-the-homework-gap-amid-the-pandemic/">www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/10/01/what-we-know-about-online-learning-and-the-homework-gap-amid-the-pandemic/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stringer E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed., pp. 135–163). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (2023). Consumer price index: Calculating percent change. https://<ulink href="http://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/calculating-percent-changes.htm#:∼:text=To%20find%20the%20percent%20change,multiply%20the%20result%20by%20100">www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/calculating-percent-changes.htm#:∼:text=To%20find%20the%20percent%20change,multiply%20the%20result%20by%20100</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VanTassel-Baska J., Feng A. X. (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Prufrock Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolfgang C., Snyderman D. (2022). An analysis of the impact of school closings on gifted services: Recommendations for meeting gifted students' needs in a post-COVID-19 world. Gifted Education International, 38(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211054262</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0176652332-37"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Debbie Dailey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6692-2919 Alicia Cotabish https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1291-9877 Michelle Buchanan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-0621</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Debbie Dailey; Alicia Cotabish; Michelle Buchanan and Laura Marshall</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Debbie Dailey, Ed.D associate professor, University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Dailey is the chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning and coordinator of the gifted education program.</p> <p>Alicia Cotabish, Ed.D professor, University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Cotabish is the director of the Ph.D. program in the College of Education.</p> <p>Michelle Buchanan, Ph.D clinical instructor II, University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Buchanan teaches in the M.A.T. program in the Department of Teaching and Learning.</p> <p>L aura Marshall, visiting clinical instructor, University of Central Arkansas. Ms. Marshall is a Ph.D. student at the University of Central Arkansas and a new faculty member in the Department of Teaching and Learning.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref55"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1421373
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Interrupted Programming: The Impact of School Shutdown on Gifted Student Identification and Services
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Debbie+Dailey%22">Debbie Dailey</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6692-2919">0000-0002-6692-2919</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alicia+Cotabish%22">Alicia Cotabish</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1291-9877">0000-0003-1291-9877</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michelle+Buchanan%22">Michelle Buchanan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-0621">0000-0003-3188-0621</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Laura+Marshall%22">Laura Marshall</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Advanced+Academics%22"><i>Journal of Advanced Academics</i></searchLink>. 2024 35(2):263-289.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Closing%22">School Closing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gifted+Education%22">Gifted Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academically+Gifted%22">Academically Gifted</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Talent+Identification%22">Talent Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disproportionate+Representation%22">Disproportionate Representation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Financial+Support%22">Financial Support</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Role%22">Administrator Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Workload%22">Faculty Workload</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Conditions%22">Teaching Conditions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income+Students%22">Low Income Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racism%22">Racism</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Arkansas%22">Arkansas</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/1932202X241232724
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1932-202X<br />2162-9536
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This mixed-methods study investigated the pandemic's impact on gifted identification among Arkansas's demographic groups and gifted services. The provision of gifted services during the pandemic varied, leading to differences in instructional practices and technology access. Nomination and identification processes were disrupted, hindering the recognition of giftedness, especially among underrepresented populations, and this was reflected in the identification numbers. Participants indicated that the pandemic has led to decreased funding for gifted programs, reduced administrator support, less time for students to participate in gifted classes, and increased responsibilities for gifted teachers. These factors have left teachers feeling overwhelmed and resulted in decreased student engagement, more behavioral issues, and academic struggles. The diversion of resources and priorities away from gifted education further exacerbated the inequities in gifted programs.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1421373
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1421373
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/1932202X241232724
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 263
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Closing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gifted Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academically Gifted
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Talent Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disproportionate Representation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Financial Support
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Workload
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Conditions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Arkansas
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Interrupted Programming: The Impact of School Shutdown on Gifted Student Identification and Services
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Debbie Dailey
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alicia Cotabish
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michelle Buchanan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Laura Marshall
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1932-202X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-9536
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 35
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Advanced Academics
              Type: main
ResultId 1