There is consensus among scholars in gifted education on the need to address educational equity for marginalized groups based on racial/ethnic categories (Peters et al., 2019), socioeconomic status (Hamilton et al., 2018), and geography (Hodges, 2018). Marginalization exists in terms of identification for services (Mun et al., 2021; Peters et al., 2019) and the extent of those services (Hodges, 2018). Less clear, however, are the complexities of the subgroups who comprise those marginalized groups. Understanding the nuances of racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic designations is a critical component of closing gaps in equity within K-12 gifted and talented services. In the proposed solutions to address these equity gaps outlined by Peters (2021), we argue that success is more likely if these nuances are considered. Aggregating students into broad racial/ethnic categorizations occurs at the federal and state level, affecting how students are labeled in schools. The U.S. Department of Education (2008) recognizes seven racial/ethnic categories: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, and two or more races. Within those seven categories, though, is an immense amount of variation and nuance with differing levels of economic (e.g., money, property), social (e.g., social networks, connections), and cultural (e.g., education, knowledge, training) capital (Marcucci, 2020). For example, the categorization American Indian or Alaska Native represents not a single monolithic culture but a plethora of diverse peoples with distinct cultures and languages. The categorization Black represents not only individuals who are descendants of African slaves in the United States. but also a diverse group of immigrants from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean (Mwangi, 2014). Peters (2021) briefly describes this understanding in his description of the Hmong community in rural Wisconsin. Students who are Asian are considered well represented in gifted education programs (Peters et al., 2019), but it is unlikely that representation extends to all groups of students who would be classified as Asian (e.g., the Hmong). For example, a scholar would likely be met with skepticism for stating that gifted identification for children of Burmese refugees is the same as that for children of highly educated East Asian immigrants. Yet stating that students who are Asian are well represented is common within the field of gifted education (Peters et al., 2019). What Peters (2021) does not discuss is the nuance within socioeconomic status, geography, or their intersection with race/ethnicity. Like the nuanced differences within racial/ ethnic categories, children within differing socioeconomic status and geographic groups vary as well. The field would be well served to consider how this variability is related to gaps in equity in gifted education. Socioeconomic status groups are not monolithic entities. Poverty and its consequences are felt differently across individuals. Although levels of economic capital may be similar, there may be stark differences in social and cultural capital between families living in generational poverty and those in transient poverty, for example, that a graduate student experiences. A child born into a family from generational poverty is likely to have reduced cultural capital compared with a child of the educated graduate student whose family’s poverty is only a temporary stop to higher economic and social status. That said, both children would qualify for federal meal subsidies and so benefit from gifted identification policies that provide provisions for children who qualify for federal meal subsidies. Sakamoto et al. (2021) found that immigrants from Nigeria have comparable or greater educational and economic attainment in comparison with individuals who are Asian or White in the United States. By the second generation (the children of those immigrants) gaps in educational and economic outcomes were erased. The experiences of a family that recently immigrated from Africa in transient poverty are likely different from a family descended from slavery in generational poverty due to their varying amounts of cultural and social capital. Thus, an important distinction in describing the intersection between race/ethnicity and poverty is considering whether poverty is generational or transient. 1040533 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211040533Gifted Child QuarterlyHodges et al. article-commentary2021

中文翻译：

---

解开资优教育中的不平等：种族/民族类别、社会经济地位和地理上的细微差别的需要

天才教育学者们一致认为，需要根据种族/民族类别（Peters 等人，2019 年）、社会经济地位（Hamilton 等人，2018 年）和地理（Hodges，2018 年）来解决边缘化群体的教育公平问题。 ）。边缘化存在于服务识别（Mun 等人，2021；Peters 等人，2019）和这些服务的范围（Hodges，2018）方面。然而，不太清楚的是构成这些边缘化群体的子群体的复杂性。了解种族/民族、社会经济和地理名称的细微差别是缩小 K-12 有天赋和有才华的服务中公平差距的关键组成部分。在彼得斯（2021 年）概述的解决这些公平差距的建议解决方案中，我们认为，如果考虑到这些细微差别，成功的可能性更大。在联邦和州一级将学生归为广泛的种族/民族分类，这会影响学生在学校的标签方式。美国教育部 (2008) 承认七个种族/民族类别：美洲印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民、亚洲人、黑人或非裔美国人、西班牙裔、夏威夷原住民或其他太平洋岛民、白人以及两个或更多种族。然而，在这七个类别中，随着经济（例如，金钱、财产）、社会（例如，社交网络、联系）和文化（例如，教育、知识、培训）资本的不同水平，存在着巨大的变化和细微差别（马库奇，2020）。例如，美洲印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民的分类代表的不是单一的单一文化，而是具有不同文化和语言的众多不同民族。黑人类别不仅代表美国非洲奴隶后裔的个人。还有来自非洲、拉丁美洲和加勒比地区的多元化移民群体（Mwangi，2014 年）。彼得斯 (2021) 在他对威斯康星州农村苗族社区的描述中简要描述了这种理解。亚裔学生在天才教育项目中被认为有很好的代表性（Peters 等人，2019 年），但这种代表性不太可能扩展到所有被归类为亚裔的学生群体（例如苗族）。例如，如果一位学者声称缅甸难民子女的天赋鉴定与受过高等教育的东亚移民子女的鉴定相同，可能会遭到质疑。然而，在资优教育领域中，亚裔学生的代表性很普遍（Peters et al., 2019）。彼得斯 (2021) 没有讨论的是社会经济地位、地理或其与种族/民族的交集之间的细微差别。就像种族/民族类别之间的细微差别一样，不同社会经济地位和地理群体中的儿童也各不相同。该领域将很好地考虑这种可变性如何与天才教育中的公平差距相关联。社会经济地位群体不是单一的实体。贫困及其后果因人而异。尽管经济资本水平可能相似，但生活在世代贫困中的家庭和处于暂时贫困中的家庭之间的社会和文化资本可能存在明显差异，例如，一个研究生的经历。与受过教育的研究生的孩子相比，出生在世代贫困家庭的孩子可能会减少文化资本，后者的家庭贫困只是暂时停止更高的经济和社会地位。也就是说，这两个孩子都有资格获得联邦膳食补贴，因此受益于为有资格获得联邦膳食补贴的儿童提供规定的天才识别政策。坂本等。(2021) 发现，与美国的亚裔或白人相比，来自尼日利亚的移民具有相当或更高的教育和经济成就。到第二代（这些移民的孩子），教育和经济成果方面的差距被消除了。由于文化和社会资本的数量不同，一个最近从非洲移民到暂时贫困的家庭的经历可能与一个世代贫困的奴隶后裔家庭的经历不同。因此，描述种族/民族与贫困之间的交叉点的一个重要区别是考虑贫困是世代相传的还是暂时的。1040533 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211040533Gifted Child QuarterlyHodges 等。文章评论2021 1177/00169862211040533Gifted Child QuarterlyHodges 等。文章评论2021 1177/00169862211040533Gifted Child QuarterlyHodges 等。文章评论2021