SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 2

Gifted but Left Behind: Socioeconomic Barriers Facing Disadvantaged Gifted Children in Türkiye

Göz Ardı Edilen Özel Yetenekliler: Türkiye’de Dezavantajlı Çocukların Karşılaştığı Sosyoekonomik Engeller

Semra Uçar(ERCIYES UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4395-9081
Umut Haydar Coşkun(Adalet Bakanlığı)0000-0002-0892-8175
Pages
243–257
Publication Date
2026-06-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: The findings revealed that families have the most significant influence on children's participation in BILSEM, followed by factors related to the child, school, and teacher roles, as well as the structural attributes of BILSEM.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: This study examines the barriers faced by gifted children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families in Türkiye in gaining access to specialized talent development programs, specifically Science and Art Centers (BILSEM).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: The findings revealed that families have the most significant influence on children's participation in BILSEM, followed by factors related to the child, school, and teacher roles, as well as the structural attributes of BILSEM.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Addressing these barriers requires systemic interventions involving families, schools, and policy structures.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Özel yetenekli çocuklar · dezavantajlı çocuklar · sosyoekonomik engeller

Abstract

Introduction: This study examines the barriers faced by gifted children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families in Türkiye in gaining access to specialized talent development programs, specifically Science and Art Centers (BILSEM). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory provides the theoretical framework for understanding the multilayered challenges within children's environments. Method: In this study, we used a qualitative research design and conducted a reflexive thematic analysis. We collected data through semi-structured interviews with seven BILSEM teachers, seven classroom teachers, ten school counselors, and eight school principals working in schools serving low socio-economic communities. Results: The findings revealed that families have the most significant influence on children's participation in BILSEM, followed by factors related to the child, school, and teacher roles, as well as the structural attributes of BILSEM. Four overarching themes emerged: (1) The typical Family Profile (financial constraints, parental education, support, priorities, and awareness); (2) The child’s Perspective (academic readiness, environmental limitations, aspirations, and needs); (3) The school and Teacher Impact (engagement, school quality, teacher advocacy, and resources); and (4) The position of BILSEM (program image, costs, accessibility, intended audience, and selection procedures). Discussion: The interaction between systemic disadvantages and limited access to information or support significantly hinders the identification and development of gifted children in disadvantaged settings. Schools and institutions often unintentionally reinforce these inequalities. Conclusion: Socioeconomic disadvantage forms complex and layered barriers that restrict gifted children's identification and participation in BILSEM programs. Addressing these barriers requires systemic interventions involving families, schools, and policy structures.

Özet

Giriş: Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de sosyoekonomik açıdan dezavantajlı ailelerden gelen özel yetenekli çocukların, özellikle Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri (BİLSEM) gibi özel yetenek geliştirme programlarına erişimde karşılaştıkları engelleri incelemektedir. Bronfenbrenner’in ekolojik sistemler kuramı, çocukların çevrelerinde yer alan çok katmanlı zorlukların anlaşılması için kuramsal bir çerçeve sağlamaktadır. Yöntem: Araştırmada refleksif tematik analiz kullanılarak nitel bir araştırma deseni kullanılmıştır. Veriler, düşük sosyoekonomik düzeydeki bölgelerde görev yapan yedi BİLSEM öğretmeni, yedi sınıf öğretmeni, on psikolojik danışman ve sekiz okul müdürü ile gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Bulgular: Bulgular, çocukların BİLSEM’e katılımında en belirleyici etkenin aile olduğunu; bunu çocuğa, okula ve öğretmene ilişkin faktörlerin yanı sıra BİLSEM’in yapısal özelliklerinin izlediğini göstermiştir. Dört ana tema ortaya çıkmıştır: (1) Tipik aile profili (maddi kısıtlılıklar, ebeveyn eğitimi, destek, öncelikler ve farkındalık); (2) Çocuğun perspektifi (akademik hazırbulunuşluk, çevresel sınırlılıklar, beklentiler ve gereksinimler); (3) Okul ve öğretmen etkisi (katılım, okul kalitesi, öğretmen savunuculuğu ve kaynaklar); ve (4) BİLSEM’in konumu (programın imajı, maliyetler, erişilebilirlik, hedef kitle ve seçme süreci). Tartışma: Sistemsel dezavantajlarla bilgi ve destek kaynaklarına sınırlı erişim arasındaki etkileşim, dezavantajlı ortamlarda yaşayan özel yetenekli çocukların tanılanması ve gelişimini önemli ölçüde engellemektedir. Okullar ve kurumlar çoğu zaman farkında olmadan bu eşitsizliklerin sürmesine katkıda bulunmaktadır. Sonuç: Sosyoekonomik dezavantaj, özel yetenekli çocukların BİLSEM programlarında tanılanmasını ve katılımını sınırlayan karmaşık ve çok katmanlı engeller oluşturmaktadır. Bu engellerin giderilmesi, aileleri, okulları ve politika yapıcıları kapsayan sistemsel müdahaleleri gerektirmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uçar, S., Coşkun, U. H. (2026). Gifted but Left Behind: Socioeconomic Barriers Facing Disadvantaged Gifted Children in Türkiye. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 2, 243–257. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1741490

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (59)

  1. Abdu-Raheem, B. O. (2015). Parents' socio-economic status as predictor of secondary school students' academic performance in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and practice, 6(1), 123-128.
  2. Aktepe, V., & Aktepe, L. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde kullanılan öğretim yöntemlerine ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri: Kırşehir BİLSEM örneği. [Teaching Method Using Science and Technology Education On Students’ Aspects: The Example of Kırşehir BİLSEM]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 69-80.
  3. Archambault, J., Côté, D., & Raynault, M. F. (2020). Early childhood education and care access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds: Using a framework to guide intervention. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48, 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-01002-x
  4. Archard, D. (2023). Children’s rights. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 ed.). Stanford University.
  5. Basri, O. (2013). Turning the tables on history education in Singapore: The flipped classroom experiences in NUS high school of math and science. HSSE Online, 2(2), 62-69.
  6. Baykoç, D. N. (2005). Üstün yeteneklerin eğitimleri ve bilim sanat merkezleri. [Education of Gifted Students and BILSEM’s]. Çocuk Gelişimi ve Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1-2), 84-89
  7. Bolland, A. C., Tomek, S. E., Besnoy, K. D., & Bolland, J. M. (2018). Gifted ‘n the ‘hood: Gender and giftedness as predictors of social risk among low-income students. Exceptionality, 26(3), 190-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1355801
  8. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2012) Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
  10. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.32.7.513
  11. Buckingham, J., Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2014). Why poor children are more likely to become poor readers: The early years. Educational Review, 66(4), 428-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.795129
  12. Bussemakers, C., Kraaykamp, G., Schoon, I. & Tolsma, J. (2021). Household dysfunction and child development: Do financial resources matter? Advances in Life Course Research, 100447, 1-14.
  13. Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13678-13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113
  14. Coşkun, U. H. (2021). Dezavantajlı bireylerde ruh sağlığı hizmeti [Mental health services for disadvantaged individuals]. In S. Uçar (Ed.), Okullarda ruh sağlığı [Mental health in schools]. (pp. 62–88). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  15. Crawford, B. F., Snyder, K. E., & Adelson, J. L. (2019). Exploring obstacles faced by gifted minority students through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. High Ability Studies, 31(1), 43-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568231
  16. Çavuşoğlu, M., & Semerci, N. (2015). Anne babaların BİLSEM’e devam eden özel yetenekli çocuklarına ilişkin görüşleri (Bartın ili örneği) [The opinions of the parents about their children with special talents attending in the centre of science and art (Sample of Bartin province)]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 325-335.
  17. Demirel-Dingeç, Ş., & KirişçI, N. (2023). A critical review to gifted education in early childhood in Türkiye, Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 24(1), 470-488. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1201131
  18. Dietrichson, J., Bøg, M., Filges, T., & Klint-Jørgensen, A. M. (2017). Academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 243-282. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316687036
  19. El-Abd, M., Callahan, C., & Azano, A. (2019). Predictive factors of literacy achievement in young gifted children in rural schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(3), 298-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19843238
  20. Eurostat. (2024, May 30). Working time in the EU: People in Turkey worked the longest hours in 2023. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240530-1
  21. Gallagher, S. A. (2023). Reclaiming history: How the Marland Report addressed culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(1), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231166110
  22. 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
  23. Hamilton, R., McCoach, D. B., Tutwiler, M. S., Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., & Mun, R. U. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053
  24. Hartas, D. (2013). Families ’social backgrounds matter: Socio‐economic factors, home learning and young children's language, literacy and social outcomes. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 893-914. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.506945
  25. Jack, G. (2011). Using local areas data to improve the lives of disadvantaged children and families. Child & Family Social Work, 16(1), 61-70.
  26. Kaul, C. R., Johnsen, S. K., Witte, M. M., & Saxon, T. F. (2015). Critical components of a summer enrichment program for urban low-income gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556533
  27. Keller, T., & Elwert, F. (2023). Feasible peer effects: Experimental evidence for desk mate effects on educational achievement and inequality. Sociological Science, 10, 806–829. https://doi.org/10.15195/v10.a28
  28. Kornrich, S. (2016). Inequalities in parental spending on young children: 1972 to 2010. AERA Open, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416644180
  29. Koshy, V., Smith, C. P., & Brown, J. (2017). Parenting ‘gifted and talented’children in urban areas: Parents ’voices. Gifted Education International, 33(1), 3-17.
  30. Lewis, M. (2014). What is the impact of health on economic growth and of growth on health? Encyclopedia of Health Economics, 3, 490-494.
  31. Lincoln Y., Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  32. Meyer, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2022). What’s in a name? Rethinking “gifted” to promote equity and excellence. Gifted Education International, 38(3), 366-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211038988
  33. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2023). 2023–2024 Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri öğrenci tanılama ve yerleştirme kılavuzu. [2023–2024 Science and Art Centers student identification and placement guide]. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2023_12/25224910_25210631_20232024bilimvesanatmerkezleriogrencitanilamaveyerlestirmekilavuzu.pdf
  34. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2022, February 23). BİLSEM sayısı 279’a yükseldi. [The number of BİLSEMs increased to 279.] Retrieved from https://www.meb.gov.tr/bilsem-sayisi-279a-yukseldi/haber/25315/trinternet
  35. Montoya, R., Matias, C. E., Nishi, N. W., & Sarcedo, G. L. (2016). Words are wind: Using Du Bois and Bourdieu to ‘unveil ’the capricious nature of gifted and talented programs. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 14(1), 8-36.
  36. Mortensen, J. A., & Barnett, M. A. (2018). Emotion regulation, harsh parenting, and teacher sensitivity among socioeconomically disadvantaged toddlers in child care. Early Education and Development, 29(2), 143- 160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1371560
  37. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Corwith, S. (2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738015
  38. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2022). Response to Peters: Promising practices and a missing piece. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 110-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037968
  39. Parr, J., & Stevens, T. (2019). Challenges of equity and discrimination in the education of gifted children. In Quality education (pp. 1-12). Springer.
  40. Paulus, L., Spinath, F. M., & Hahn, E. (2021). How do educational inequalities develop? The role of socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, home environment, and self-efficacy along the educational path. Intelligence, 86, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101528
  41. Peters, S. J. (2022). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037967
  42. Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216629083
  43. Porter, L. (2005). Gifted young children (2nd ed.). Pen University Press.
  44. Renbarger, R., & Long, K. (2019). Interventions for postsecondary success for low-income and high-potential students: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(2), 178-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19828744
  45. Reynen-Woodward, K. E., Round, P., & Subban, P. (2025). Stories of inspiration and agency: messages from culturally diverse, gifted young adults living in low SES circumstances to the next generation. Gifted and Talented International, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2024.2447227
  46. Reynen-Woodward, K., Round, P., & Subban, P. (2023). Gifted, disadvantaged, unseen: A scoping study of giftedness, disadvantage and cultural difference in young adult learners. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 7(1), 100477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100477
  47. Rosinger, K. O., Sarita Ford, K., & Choi, J. (2021). The role of selective college admissions criteria in interrupting or reproducing racial and economic inequities. Journal of Higher Education, 92(1), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1795504
  48. Saloviita, T. (2015). Measuring pre-service teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education: Psychometric properties of the TAIS scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.003
  49. Sarıtaş, E., Şahin, Ü., & Çatalbaş, G. (2019). Velilerin gözüyle BİLSEM. [Science and art centers (SAC) According to the parents]. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(1), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.21482624.1.7c1s.5m
  50. Scharfen, J., Peters, J. M., & Holling, H. (2018). Retest effects in cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 67, 44-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.01.003
  51. Siddiqui, N. (2017). Socio-economic segregation of disadvantaged children between schools in Pakistan: comparing the state and private sector. Educational Studies, 43(4), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1277139
  52. Snyder-Hall, C. (2018). What’s the matter with college? Exploring white working-class resentment towards higher education. New Political Science, 40(3), 605-612.
  53. Stambaugh, T., & Ford, D. Y. (2015). Microaggressions, multiculturalism, and gifted individuals who are Black, Hispanic, or low income. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 192-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00195.x
  54. Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 473-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.652070
  55. Tobin G. A., & Begley C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 388-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x
  56. Worrell F. C., & Dixon D. D. (2018). Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students. In Pfeiffer S. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (2nd ed., pp. 209-226). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_13
  57. Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 551-576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846
  58. Wai, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Helping disadvantaged and spatially talented students fulfill their potential: Related and neglected national resources. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215621310
  59. Zangger, C. (2025). Assessing student preferences for quantitative methods courses using discrete choice experiments. Teaching Sociology, 53(2), 126-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X241283822