4.6 Review

Reducing Excellence Gaps: A Systematic Review of Research on Equity in Advanced Education

Journal

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.3102/00346543221148461

Keywords

excellence gaps; gifted education; equity; systematic review; thematic analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Unequal access to advanced learning opportunities is a complex issue in American K-12 schools. This systematic review identified 80 empirical research studies that focused on strategies for reducing excellence gaps. The analysis suggests a revised approach to equitable, advanced education.
Unequal access to advanced learning opportunities is among the most complex and controversial issues in American K-12 schools. Interventions that address policy, programming, and instruction can provide opportunities for students with advanced learning needs in school systems that prioritize minimum grade-level standards. Excellence gaps are differences in advanced performance among student subgroups that result from inequities in education and society. In this systematic review of the literature, the authors identified 80 empirical research studies on strategies for reducing excellence gaps published between 2010 and 2021 and identified themes related to the seven facets of the Excellence Gap Intervention Model (K-12 school accountability support, teacher professional learning, expanded advanced learning opportunities, universal screening with local norms, frontloading, flexible ability grouping, psychosocial interventions). This analysis revealed substantial evidence of intervention development over the past decade and suggests a revised approach to equitable, advanced education that begins with preparation (e.g., teacher professional learning, student frontloading) and is followed by placement, evaluation, and adjustment as students' learning needs change.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available