A Review of Gifted and Talented Education in the United States

Policy Brief

A REVIEW OF GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Rachana Bhatt Abstract Andrew Young School of Policy Gifted and talented education programs provide chil- Studies dren who have been identiﬁed as having high ability in Georgia State University some intellectual or creative characteristic with a sup- Atlanta, GA 30302-3992 plemental curriculum to their traditional coursework. [email protected] Despite the popularity of these programs, the literature lacks a comprehensive review of gifted education in the United States. This policy brief aims to ﬁll this void by providing national and state-level statistics on participation rates, funding appropriations, and policies on gifted education. Since many of the operational details of these programs are determined by local education agencies, data on a nationally representative sample of schools are then used to provide information on gifted curricula, instructor training and experience, and the selection process for admission. Finally, a review of the research on gifted education is provided. This research highlights that gifted programs vary widely and that further research on this topic can provide valuable information to policy makers and educators.

c 2011 Association for Education Finance and Policy 557

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION Gifted and talented education is a form of ability grouping that is commonly practiced in elementary and secondary schools around the United States; in 2006 there were over 3 million gifted students (6.7 percent of enrolled students) in public schools (Snyder and Dillow 2009). Like other forms of ability grouping or tracking, gifted programs are designed to improve the outcomes of participants by tailoring the traditional curriculum to better match the skill levels of students. Under standard tracking practices, children are grouped into either high-, middle-, or low-ability groups for single or multiple subjects. This separation is thought to be beneﬁcial to students because it enables teachers to alter the curriculum and pace of instruction in a way that is more effective for student learning and would generally not be possible in settings with more heterogeneous skill levels (Figlio and Page 2002). Gifted programs are unique because they focus only on high-ability children. These programs expose children to more advanced material than they would typically learn in class and are designed to challenge their critical thinking and analytic skills. Advocates for gifted education argue that special curricula are needed for high-achieving students so they do not become disinterested in school, which can lead to low achievement and poor work habits. For instance, a study conducted by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented found that many gifted students already knew 40−50 percent of the material covered under the standard curriculum, suggesting the importance of exposing these children to alternative material (Reis et al. 1993). In addition, organizations like the National Association for Gifted Children highlight the importance of having well-trained teachers and adequate funding in order to implement programs that are successful in motivating and engaging these students. Understanding the nature of gifted education is important to educators, policy makers, and researchers alike. First, interest lies in identifying the factors and practices that contribute to student achievement. Performance accountability pressures and the desire to produce students with the skills to succeed in an increasingly competitive and global economy have resulted in considerable focus being placed on identifying the practices in schools that improve children’s educational outcomes.1 As a result, it is useful not only to examine whether gifted participation has positive impacts on student outcomes, but also to analyze the driving mechanism(s) behind these results. For instance, it may be that gifted programs improve student achievement by

1. For instance, the Institute of Education Sciences evaluates research on educational practices and policies. These evaluations are meant to provide rigorous, scientiﬁc-based evidence about which practices in schools are and are not successful at improving student achievement.

558

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

exposing students to a more advanced curriculum of study or that students beneﬁt by having higher-quality teachers assigned to teach their gifted class. Finally, peer effects may play an important role; gifted students may be mo- tivated and challenged in a positive way by their high-ability classmates, but they may also feel discouraged as a result of no longer being at the “head of the class.”2 In addition, gifted programs may attract or retain students with “desirable” characteristics (i.e., high socioeconomic status) to schools, which may lead to improved peer quality and resource allocation (Epple, Newlon, and Romano 2002). In this way gifted education may have impacts not only on participating students but on all students through possible general equilibrium effects. Consequently knowledge of gifted programs with respect to their structure and organization, curricula, and training of instructors is critical for understanding how gifted education may affect students. Second, gifted education may impose extra costs on schools in the form of employing additional teachers and spending on auxiliary instructional resources.3 As is discussed below, gifted programs can vary widely in structure and scope; consequently there is no uniform estimate for the cost of providing gifted education that is representative of all programs. Most estimates that do exist are based on case studies of speciﬁc programs or represent the cost of resources used in these programs. For instance, Odden et al. (2006) estimated that the average expenditure in 2005 on gifted education in Wisconsin, where instructors traveled to schools and pulled children out of their normal classrooms, was $75–$100 per student. The budget proposal for educating close to six hundred students in a gifted and talented program in a southern California school district during 2006–7 was estimated at close to $51,000, or $85 per gifted student.4 Moreover, the cost of a computer software program that is commonly used in gifted and talented programs is priced at $40 per participating student (Odden et al. 2006; Odden, Goetz, and Picus 2008; Renzulli Learning Systems 2011).5 Although expenditures on these programs may seem small relative to other educational inputs, because federal funding for gifted programs is minimal—the National Association for Gifted Children (2008a) estimated that only .026 percent of the federal education budget in

2. For research on peer effects in nongifted contexts, see, for example, Sacerdote 2001, Zimmerman 2003, and Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner 2006. 3. Teacher salaries are generally based on salary schedules that depend on education level and experience (USDOE 2008). Consequently it is unlikely that teachers receive a wage premium for having special certiﬁcation in gifted education. 4. This budget includes expenses for coordinator and instructor salaries, resources (books, computer software, testing materials), and travel for students and professional development (South Pasadena Uniﬁed School District 2010). 5. The software, Renzulli Learning Systems, was developed by researchers at the Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talented Development. Although the cost is $40 per student, the minimum number of users for a site license is one hundred.

559

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

2007 was allocated for gifted education—states and local school districts cover the majority of program expenses. Budget shortfalls and financial pressures necessitate that schools routinely justify their expenditures, so knowledge of the costs and participation rates in these programs is helpful for estimating funding needs. Despite the popularity of these programs in the United States, the literature lacks a comprehensive description of gifted education with respect to the issues mentioned above. To that end, this policy brief describes national and state policies toward gifted education, including funding, mandates for providing gifted services, and identifying gifted students. In addition, trends in gifted participation over the last decade are reported.6 Since many of the operational details of gifted programs are determined at a more local level by schools and districts, data from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS), which surveys a nationally representative set of schools, are then used to describe the typical characteristics of gifted programs. Analysis of the NELS data suggests that gifted programs are heterogeneous in their instructional practices (including curricula taught and organization of students), teacher qualifications, and criteria used to identify gifted students. Finally, a review of the existing literature on gifted education is provided. Broadly speaking, previous research has examined program practices such as the identification of gifted students, the impact of participation on student achievement and psychological well-being, and whether gifted participation increases student retention. These studies have found that high-income students are more likely to remain in a school if they are in a gifted program, and the criteria used to admit students into gifted programs have interesting implications for the ultimate composition of students in these programs. There is mixed evidence on whether gifted participation harms the emotional well- being of students, and the degree to which participation improves academic achievement seemingly varies from program to program. While the scope of this previous research is broad and informative, a number of questions about gifted education still remain. Further research would provide useful information to the policy makers and educators who govern these programs. The remainder of the article is organized as follows: The next section provides a brief history of gifted and talented education, and documents trends in participation rates and gifted funding across states. This is followed by a description of the organization and structure of gifted programs using school- level data. I then discuss the research on gifted and talented education. The final section concludes.

6. As I discuss in the next section, systematic data on participation rates have only been collected at two-year intervals, beginning in 2000.

560

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION: HISTORY AND TRENDS History and Federal Involvement Gifted and talented programs in the United States date back to the mid-1800s when the first classes for high-ability children were integrated into Missouri public schools.7 By the first half of the twentieth century gifted programs had spread into schools throughout the United States. In 1958 the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was established to improve math, science, and foreign language competency among elementary and secondary students, and this is viewed as the first formal federal support of gifted education (Gallagher and Weiss 1979). In 1971, the first definition of a gifted child was established in the Marland Report to Congress and was modified to its current definition in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:8 “Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities” (NCLB 2001). There is no federal mandate regarding the identification or education of gifted and talented students, but there is some federal funding support for gifted education. In 1988, the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Edu- cation Act was established, which provides schools with strategies to educate gifted children and conducts research under the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. In 2002, the Javits Act was resanctioned under the No Child Left Behind Act and expanded to offer grants for gifted education (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; NCLB 2001). Priority funding is provided to gifted programs that serve students who are traditionally underrepresented in gifted education; however, funding is also provided to improve services for all gifted students. For the year 2009, fifteen awards worth close to a total of $7.5 million were awarded (USDOE 2009).9 Although a proposal was introduced to eliminate funding for the Javits Gifted and Tal- ented Fund during the 2011 fiscal year, under the current budget proposal this program retains its funding. Finally, although no specific component of the recent Race to the Top program targeted gifted and talented students, a number of states that received

7. For more information about the history of gifted education, see National Association for Gifted Children (2008b) and Murphy (2009). 8. The first federal definition of a gifted and talented child is similar to the current definition: “Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons . . . [and] require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided” (Marland 1971,p.8). 9. Similar amounts were awarded in prior years. For 2008 the amount was $7.46 million; 2007, $7.6 million; 2006, $9.6 million; 2005, $11 million;2004,$11 million;2003,$11.2million;2002,$11.3 million; 2001, $7.5 million; and 2000, $6.5 million.

561

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

awards included proposals for advancing education in STEM ﬁelds (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; these subjects are often empha- sized to gifted students) in their applications. For instance, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee proposed plans to improve STEM education, and in Florida two grants are reserved for rural school districts that plan to develop STEM programs at the high school level speciﬁcally for gifted and talented students (Florida Department of Education 2010).

State Involvement in Gifted Education: Policies and Funding Each state individually decides whether and to what extent it will provide gifted services, how it identifies gifted children, or whether it delegates this responsibility to local school districts and schools (Shaunessy 2003). Despite the lack of federal involvement, the majority of states have some mandate on providing gifted education to students. Table 1 documents these state policies for the 2008–9 academic year. Thirty states mandate that schools provide special services for gifted students. All but five states have a formal definition for a gifted and talented student; often these definitions are similar to the federal definition. In addition, eight states require general education teachers to have some sort of training or certification in order to teach in a gifted program. Finally, it is interesting to note that even though many states provide guidance on how to identify gifted students, many local education agencies (LEAs) are given the freedom to choose their own identification strategies and are not always monitored by the state.10 Funding for gifted education is similarly diversified across states. Aside from the federal support described above, programs are primarily funded from state and/or local appropriations from educational funds. There is limited his- torical data on gifted funding prior to the late 2000s, and what information does exist is largely based on individual case studies of states. For instance, Baker and Friedman-Nimz (2004) estimated expenditures on gifted education in 1993–94 for two states, Virginia and South Carolina. The authors estimate that South Carolina allocated $36.93 per enrolled pupil for gifted education, whereas Virginia allocated $17.27.11 This is in contrast to total per pupil expenditure in Virginia of $5,109 and in South Carolina of $4,761 during the same

10. See table 1 for more details on the data. All ﬁfty states plus the District of Columbia and Guam were surveyed regarding their gifted practices and policies. Some states and territories did not respond to all questions, however. 11. Baker and Friedman-Nimz calculated per pupil expenditure on gifted education using state revenue for gifted education divided by total enrollment. These amounts were then cost adjusted to account for differences in purchasing power across states. Baker and Friedman-Nimz note that funding for gifted education is usually distributed through funds dedicated to special education programs. The data were obtained from the School and Stafﬁng Survey 1993–94 and the Common Core of Data 1993–94. Although the authors single out South Carolina and Virginia, they also calculate gifted aid per pupil for other states where data were available.

562

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt State Provides LEAs Required to State Requires General State Definition Services Identification Identification on Identification G & T Training Programs State Has State Mandates State Mandates Guidance on Follow State Guidance Ed Teachers to Have Monitors LEA G & T State Policies and Funding for Gifted Education (2008–2009 Academic Year) AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCalifornia YesColoradoConnecticut No YesDelaware YesDistrict Yes of Yes ColumbiaFlorida Yes Yes Yes N/AGeorgia Yes YesHawaii Yes NoIdaho YesIllinois Yes No N/AIndiana Yes Yes Yes YesIowa No YesKansas Yes No YesKentucky Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes State Yes No and LEA policies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes State Yes N/A and Yes LEA Yes policies Yes State Yes and Yes No No LEA Yes Yes policies State and Yes LEA State policies Yes and Yes LEA policies Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes State and LEA policies N/A No Yes Yes No No If LEA applies Yes for Yes state funds Yes Yes N/A Yes No No No Yes No No N/A No No No No Yes No No N/A Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Table 1.

563

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION State Provides LEAs Required to State Requires General State Definition Services Identification Identification on Identification G & T Training Programs State Has State Mandates State Mandates Guidance on Follow State Guidance Ed Teachers to Have Monitors LEA G & T Continued. LouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusetts YesMichigan NoMinnesota Yes YesMississippi YesMissouri No N/AMontana No Yes Yes YesNebraskaNevada YesNew Hampshire Yes No Yes YesNew Jersey Yes Yes N/ANew Mexico Yes No Yes N/ANew No York YesNorth Yes Carolina Yes Yes No YesNorth No Dakota N/A YesOhio Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes NoOklahoma Yes Yes NoOregon Yes Yes State Yes and Yes No LEA N/A Yes policies Yes N/A Yes No Yes N/A No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No No Yes No N/A No No N/A Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes N/A No No Yes Yes N/A Yes No No No N/A No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No N/A No No No No N/A State and LEA policies No Yes No No N/A If LEA No applies No for state funds If LEA applies for state funds No No Yes Yes N/A No N/A Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Table 1.

564

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt , the policies hire, New Jersey, New Data on state policies on gifted and talented (G & T) education come from the National Association for Gifted Children (2008a, 2008b). Where available PennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennessee YesTexas N/A YesUtahVermontYesNoNoNoNoNoNo No YesVirginia Yes N/AWashington YesWest Virginia Yes NoWisconsin YesWyoming Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes State and LEA policies Yes No No No Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No N/A No N/A No State and No LEA policies Yes N/A Yes Yes No No Yes N/A No No No No No No No No If LEA applies for state funds No No No Yes Yes Yes No refer to data fromYork, 2008–9. Ohio, Data Oregon, on Rhode policies Island, and/or and funding South (table Dakota 2) are for from California, 2006–7. Connecticut, Data Florida, from Georgia, Tennessee Idaho, are Iowa, from Kentucky, 2007–8. New LEA Hamps denotes local education agency. Notes:

565

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

academic year, suggesting that gifted expenditure was less than 1 percent of total expenditures in both these states during that year (Snyder, Hoffman, and Geddes 1996). Funding data are available for most states in more recent years, and by coupling this with data on the number of gifted children in a state, funding on a per gifted pupil basis can be calculated. This is done in the ﬁrst column of table 2 for the 2008–9 academic year. The average (among reporting states, but unconditional on providing funding) is close to $185 per gifted pupil, although the range is anywhere from zero to a high of $700. The remaining columns display total gifted appropriations by state for the years 2006–9. In 2008–9, twelve states did not provide any state funds, and eleven appropriated $10 million or less.12 Finally, any state funding can be supplemented by private donations and fundraising efforts at the school level (Davidson, Davidson, and Vanderkam 2004).

Participation Rates Gifted participation rates by state and for various years are displayed in table 3. Data on participation rates have not been systematically collected by any organization prior to 2000, but starting in that year and continuing biennially, the Ofﬁce of Civil Rights at the Department of Education has collected this information.13 In 2006 Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, Okla- homa, South Carolina, and Virginia each had more than 10 percent of their elementary and secondary school students enrolled in gifted programs. In contrast, less than 1 percent of students in both Massachusetts and Vermont participated in gifted programs. Over time most states exhibit an increase in gifted enrollment, which may be the result of the increased popularity of these programs. The participation rates in table 3 refer to children in kindergarten through twelfth grade. No data exist to tease out participation rates for elementary and secondary school students separately. However, data from the 2003–4 School and Stafﬁng Survey (SASS), which surveys a representative set of schools in the United States, indicate that close to 70 percent of both elementary and secondary public schools, respectively, offer gifted/honors programs.14 In

12. It is more difﬁcult to obtain consistent and reliable data on the number of gifted students by state in previous years, hence the funding appropriations for the 2006–7 and 2007–8 academic years are not presented on a per gifted pupil basis. 13. These data are reported in the Digest of Education Statistics Series Reports (Snyder and Hoffman 1995, 2002; Snyder, Hoffman, and Geddes 1996; Snyder and Tan 2004; Snyder, Dillow, and Hoffman 2006; Snyder and Dillow 2009). Data for the most recent year, 2008, are not yet available. 14. The SASS asks school administrators if their school provides gifted and talented education and/or honors education, so it is not possible to separate the two. The SASS is administered every three years; data from the most recent wave, 2007–8, have been collected, but statistics on gifted/honors participation for that year have not been released yet.

566

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

Table 2. State Funding for Gifted and Talented Education

Funding Per Gifted Pupil Total Funding 2008–2009 2008–2009 2007–2008 2006–2007

Alabama 0.00 0 N/A 2,300,000

Alaska N/A N/A N/A N/A Arizona 41.79 3,200,000 3,200,000 3,200,000

Arkansas 579.49 24,800,000 34,100,000 33,200,000

California 0.00 N/A N/A N/A

Colorado 149.75 8,400,000 7,400,000 6,900,000 Connecticut 11.01 N/A N/A 100,000

Delaware 0.00 0 0 0

District of Columbia N/A N/A N/A N/A

Florida N/A N/A N/A N/A Georgia N/A N/A N/A N/A

Hawaii N/A N/A N/A 745,410

Idaho 29.77 1,000,000 1,000,000 500,000

Illinois N/A 0 0 0 Indiana 90.79 13,000,000 13,000,000 5,800,000

Iowa 705.29 33,204,910 32,042,202 30,885,376

Kansas N/A 28,760 28,200 24,275

Kentucky 41.78 6,836,640 7,121,500 7,121,500 Louisiana N/A 30,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000

Maine0.00000

Maryland N/A 0 0 0

Massachusetts N/A 521,000 N/A 740,000 Michigan N/A N/A N/A 285,000

Minnesota N/A 11,400,600 11,441,200 8,579,600

Mississippi N/A N/A N/A N/A Missouri N/A 0 0 0

Montana N/A 250,000 1,250,000 250,000

Nebraska 51.32 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000

Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Jersey N/A 0 0 0

New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A

New York N/A 0 0 0 North Carolina 413.61 66,949,383 60,965,069 51,789,577

North Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ohio 165.05 48,008,613 46,923,339 47,305,135

Oklahoma 528.18 56,646,607 55,818,787 49,401,405

567

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

Table 2. Continued.

Funding Per Gifted Pupil Total Funding 2008–2009 2008–2009 2007–2008 2006–2007

Oregon N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pennsylvania 0.00 0 0 0 Rhode Island N/A N/A N/A N/A

South Carolina 313.74 26,010,220 30,451,890 29,257,829

South Dakota N/A 0 0 0

Tennessee N/A 0 0 0 Texas 255.43 90,894,709 87,444,711 75,667,563

Utah 342.72 2,352,462 2,229,089 2,084,873

Vermont N/A 0 0 0

Virginia 172.39 45,534,868 44,757,259 27,685,985 Washington N/A 9,430,000 8,443,006 7,026,729

West Virginia N/A N/A N/A N/A

Wisconsin N/A 273,000 273,000 282,000

Wyoming N/A 2,422,205 2,302,763 2,209,362

Notes: Data on state funding for gifted and talented education come from the National Association for Gifted Children (2008a, 2008b). Column 1 provides estimates on a per gifted pupil basis for the years 2008–9, except for California, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, where the estimates are for 2006–7. Kansas funds gifted education on a teacher unit basis; consequently dollar amounts are given per teacher.

addition, the SASS data indicate that gifted/honors programs are more common in public schools: 69 percent of public schools offered gifted/honors programs in that year versus 28 percent for private schools. The lower offer rate at private schools may be the result of more advanced material being taught in traditional classrooms in private schools, thus eliminating the need for specialty programs. In addition, it could be that public schools offer gifted programs at a higher rate to attract and retain high-ability students. Finally, there is a slightly higher rate of gifted/honors programs at schools in suburban areas (75 percent) compared with urban (60 percent) and rural areas (67 percent) (USDOE 2004).

PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS The state policies presented in table 1 suggest that many of the operational details of gifted programs are governed at the local level. As a result, there can be considerable heterogeneity in the structure of these programs across districts and schools. In order to describe gifted programs in more detail, data on a nationally representative sample of schools from the 1988 NELS are used. The survey follows a cohort of students for twelve years at two-year intervals

568

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

Table 3. Percent of Enrolled Students in Gifted and Talented Programs (K–12)

2006 2004 2002 2000 1993–1994 1989–1990

United States 6.7 6.7 6.4 6.3 — — Alabama 5.5 4.8 4.5 3.5 2.4 2.5

Alaska 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.2

Arizona 6.3 5.9 6.3 10.5 — —

Arkansas 9.5 9.9 10.3 6.4 8.0 7.2 California 8.3 8.4 7.2 6.9 5.0 4.7

Colorado 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.5 — —

Connecticut 3.8 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.5c —

Delaware 5.6a 4.6a 5.5a 5.4 5.0 5.1 District of Columbia — — — — 9.0

Florida 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.4 3.5 3.4

Georgia 9.3 8.9 7.9 8.0 5.0 4.4

Hawaii 6.2 5.7a 6.8b 6.6 11.0 5.2 Idaho 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.8 1.3 —

Illinois 5.8 5.4 6.7 6.3 5d 7.9e

Indiana 7.9 7.1 7.1 6.3 8.9 4.7e

Iowa 8.2 8.5 8.6 8.1 4.0 4e Kansas 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 3

Kentucky 14.6 13.0 11.7 11.5 5.0 5e

Louisiana 3.4 3.9 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.4e

Maine 3.2 3.0 4.0 5.4 5.0 — Maryland 16.1a 13.8a 11.3a 12.0 12.0 8.6e

Massachusetts 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.2 — —

Michigan 3.4 3.9 3.8 3.6 14.0 11.6e Minnesota 8.8 8.1 6.3 7.3 7.2 5.4

Mississippi 6.1 6.0 6.4 5.6 4.3 3.6

Missouri 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.4 5.0 4.5e

Montana 5.2 5.6 4.9 5.6 — — Nebraska 11.4 11.4 11.8 11.3 10.0 9.2e

Nevada 1.9 1.9a 4.4a 3.5 2.0 3.4

New Hampshire 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.7 — —

New Jersey 7.0 6.9 7.6 7.8 — 11.4 New Mexico 4.0 10.7 3.8 3.8 — —

New York 2.9 2.2 2.3 3.3 6.0 5.8e

North Carolina 10.8 10.9 10.3 10.0 8.0 6.2

North Dakota 2.8 3.1 3.3 2.4 1.0 1

569

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

Table 3. Continued.

2006 2004 2002 2000 1993–1994 1989–1990

Ohio 7.3 7.4 6.7 5.5 13.0 3.7 Oklahoma 13.7 14.0 14.0 13.9 10.0 7.5

Oregon 6.9 7.1 7.5 7.7 8.5 —

Pennsylvania 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.9 4.6 4.9

Rhode Island 1.4 1.8 1.7 2.2 3.5–5.0 4.2e South Carolina 11.0 12.7 10.6 9.9 10.0 7.6

South Dakota 2.7 2.2 3.0 3.4 4.4 3.8

Tennessee 1.7 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.0 1.9

Texas 7.6 8.0 8.3 9.0 7.0 6.2 Utah 5.0 4.6 2.5 2.9 — —

Vermont 0.8 0.8 1.8 1.1 — —

Virginia 12.6 12.1 11.0 10.3 9.2 10.3

Washington 3.9 3.8 4.7 4.5 1.5 — West Virginia 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 3.5 3.7

Wisconsin 6.4 6.8 9.3 10.0 15.0 —

Wyoming 2.2 3.2 3.1 1.9 3.0 —

Notes: Data were obtained from the Digest of Education Statistics 2009, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1996, and 1995. aData are based on all schools and school districts in the state instead of samples. bState has only one school district but is sampled within the district. cGrades 2–6 only. dData for 1991–92. eEstimated by reporting state.

who were in eighth grade in 1988, until 1994, and then again in 2000. In the first survey wave, 24,599 children at 1,035 schools were interviewed. The NELS provides a good framework for studying gifted and talented programs because it asked principals, teachers, parents, and children a series of questions regarding gifted education when the students were in eighth grade.15 These responses provide detailed information on what material is taught in gifted programs, how gifted children are identified, what qualifications gifted instructors possess, and how the programs are organized. Principals of schools in the NELS were asked whether their school offered a gifted and talented program for eighth graders, along with which subjects were taught in the program, how the program was organized, and which criteria were used to select students for gifted admission. Table 4 documents the

15. One of the drawbacks of the NELS data is its age. While the statistics represented here are representative of gifted programs in the late 1980s, current gifted programs may look different. However, no other data set exists that offers such a wide range of information about gifted program characteristics.

570

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

Table 4. Gifted and Talented Program Characteristics (NELS)

School has G & T for 8th Graders

All 0.454 Private 0.169 [s.d.] [0.498] (N = 233) [0.376]

Public 0.654 (N = 802) [0.476] Gifted Curriculum:

Math 0.755 Computer Science 0.398 [0.431] [0.490]

Science 0.565 Music 0.261 [0.496] [0.439]

English/literature 0.742 Art 0.292 [0.438] [0.455]

Social studies 0.493 Other 0.234 [0.500] [0.424]

Foreign languages 0.214 [0.410]

Location & Organization:

Location: In School 0.912 [0.284] Organization Students taken from 0.392 In class 0.112 regular class [0.489] [0.316]

Grouped for all 0.168 Other 0.114 subjects [0.374] [0.318]

Grouped for some 0.215 subjects [0.411]

Factors Used for G & T Admission:

Scores on 0.949 Opportunity for 0.122 standardized exams [0.221] racial/ethnic group [0.328]

Additional test 0.736 Personal interview 0.240 results [0.441] [0.428]

Teacher or counselor 0.904 Student requests 0.258 referral [0.294] [0.438]

Parental requests 0.519 Other 0.065 [0.500] [0.247]

School grades 0.786 [0.411]

Notes: The sample size of schools is 1,035. Gifted characteristics are collected only for the 646 schools that have a gifted program. Because of nonresponse, the curriculum statistics are based on 639 schools, location (N = 644), organization (N = 641), and admission criteria (N = 642). Weighted means (using school weights) with their sample standard deviations are reported.

571

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

responses of these school administrators.16 Close to 45 percent of all schools offer a gifted program, and, similar to the SASS data, fewer private schools have gifted programs (17 percent of private schools versus 65 percent of public schools). In terms of the curricula taught, math and English are by far the most popular, followed by science, social studies, and computer science. A smaller but substantial percent (26 percent–30 percent) teach music or art. Aside from knowledge of the different subjects that are taught in gifted programs, there is no information about the actual activities that take place within these programs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that gifted activities can take a wide range of forms. Gifted children may be given the opportunity to work ahead in the textbook, work on an independent or group study project, or work on the same material as other students in the class but at a more in-depth level. For instance, while nongifted children in an elementary school math class learn grade-appropriate mathematics concepts, gifted students may be challenged to learn the same material and also be introduced to more advanced problems relating to probability and statistics. Some gifted programs develop linguistic centers within the classroom or school where gifted children are given the opportunity to read books or magazines, solve crossword puzzles, and work on computer software programs for writing (Shoplik 2004). More generally, many computer-based resources exist for educating gifted students on a wide variety of subjects, suggesting that computer use is an inte- gral part of many programs. For example, Renzulli Learning Systems software is a popular online educational program that is tailored to gifted students’ interests in a wide variety of subjects, such as reading, social studies, and science. Students can use this software to take virtual ﬁeld trips, watch educational DVDs, read books, visit educational Web sites, and solve critical thinking problems (Field 2009).17 Children in gifted programs may also take distance learning courses; for instance, Stanford University’s Education Program for Gifted Youth (2008) offers e-learning courses for gifted students. The majority of programs in the NELS are taught onsite at school. How- ever, the organization of children in these programs can vary. Forty percent of schools remove children from their normal class during times when the gifted program is taught, and close to 11 percent teach the program within the normal classroom setting. Presumably for the latter, teachers split their time between gifted and nongifted instruction, or another instructor is introduced into the classroom. This in-class instruction suggests the possibility that instructors

16. Averages are calculated using school-level sample weights. 17. A study by Field (2009) uses a randomized controlled trial among third- through eighth-grade students to examine the impact of this software on achievement. Children were allowed to use the software for two to three hours a week for sixteen weeks. The author ﬁnds that those children who were exposed to the software showed higher growth in test achievement than those who did not.

572

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

may include nongifted students in gifted instruction, but the extent to which this occurs is not observable. Seventeen percent of schools with gifted programs group all gifted students for all subjects, versus 21 percent that group them only for the subjects that are a part of the gifted curriculum. Methods for identifying gifted students vary across schools and often in- volve multiple levels of assessment. For instance, New Jersey currently requires that districts identify gifted students using combinations of achievement test scores, prior grades, and recommendations; however, districts are free to determine which mix of characteristics to use along with the cutoff for entry into the program (New Jersey Department of Education 2010). The lower half of table 4 displays the shares of schools in the NELS data that use particular criteria for gifted admission.18 Schools can choose any number of criteria on which to base admission, and the average among schools in the NELS is four. Ninety-five percent of schools use achievement on standardized tests to admit students into gifted programs, and 90 percent use teacher or counselor referrals. Past grades and scores on other tests are the third and fourth most popular criteria used. Twelve percent of schools use race or ethnicity to admit students who are traditionally underrepresented in gifted programs, and half of schools use parental requests. The NELS asks a series of questions to parents of gifted children about the perceived benefits of gifted participation and collects information on the training and experience of gifted instructors. Parent and teacher responses are displayed in table 5, along with the participation rate of students in gifted programs.19 Close to 19 percent of the student sample responded to being in a gifted program during their eighth-grade year, but only 13 percent of parents reported that their child had participated in the program. One reason for this discrepancy may be that parents are unaware of their child’s participation or that participation in a gifted program may be confused with participation in an accelerated or honors class. Parents who responded that their child was in a gifted program were asked how they thought gifted education would benefit their child; 98 percent indicated that it would broaden their child’s understanding of subjects and offer greater intellectual stimulation. Eighty- four percent thought that gifted programs offered opportunities for their child to associate with other high-ability students, indicating that peer effects are a strong point of interest for parents. Teachers who were surveyed were asked whether they also provided gifted instruction, and those who did were asked about their training and certification

18. There is no information in the NELS about whether these criteria were determined by the state, district, or school. 19. All averages for parents and children are calculated using student-level sample weights. No weights were used for the teacher responses because none are available.

573

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

Table 5. Participation Rates, Beneﬁts, Training, and Satisfaction with Gifted Programs (NELS)

Student Response

InG&T 0.194 [s.d.] [0.3957]

Parent Response

Important beneﬁts of gifted and talented (G & T) Child in G & T 0.1330 participation [0.3396] Child completes 0.286 school faster [0.452]

Gain deeper 0.977 understanding of subjects [0.149]

Child associates with 0.844 other high-ability students [0.363]

Greater intellectual 0.981 challenge [0.138]

Develop music 0.795 and art abilities [0.404]

Gifted Instructor Responses

Instructor training for G & T education Satisfaction with G & T program In service 0.542 Financial resources 0.628 [0.499] [0.484]

Undergraduate 0.108 Curriculum 0.773 [0.310] [0.419]

Training 0.220 Time for planning 0.479 [0.414] [0.500]

Continuing education 0.143 Student progress 0.824 [0.350] [0.381]

No special training 0.326 Admission procedure 0.560 [0.469] [0.497]

Special certiﬁcation 0.096 Time for teaching 0.708 [0.295] [0.455]

% of all class time spent on G & T 35.294 [27.063]

Notes: The sample size of students and parents is 20,935 (22,651 observations have student and parent data, but due to nonresponse on gifted participation, this sample is further restricted to 20,935). Only parents who responded that their child was in a gifted program (N = 2,815) were asked about the perceived beneﬁts of participation. Nonresponse to these questions limits the sample size to N = 2,687. Two teachers of each student were interviewed, but only N = 710 nonduplicated instructors taught in a G & T program and were asked about their training and satisfaction with the program. Nonresponse to these questions limits the sample to N = 706 for the training questions, N = 698 for G & T instruction time, and N = 664 for satisfaction with the program. Weighted averages for parent and child responses (using child weights) are given along with their sample standard deviations. Teacher responses were not weighted because teacher weights do not exist.

574

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

as well as their satisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program. Only 10 percent held a special certificate in gifted education, and close to 32 percent had no formal training for gifted education. Gifted instructors reported that on average they spent 35 percent of all their time on gifted instruction and planning. Finally, although 77 percent of instructors were satisfied with the curriculum taught in the program, only 56 percent were satisfied with the selection process.

DISCUSSION AND RESEARCH A number of studies exist on gifted education. These articles cover a broad range of topics, from evaluating the impact of gifted participation on student achievement and emotional well-being, to examining the identiﬁcation process for gifted students, to analyzing the effects of participation on the retention of high-income students. The main ﬁndings of each of these areas of research are described below.20

Identifying Gifted Students A large literature examines how a school’s choice of criteria for admitting students into a gifted program ultimately affects the composition of students in the program. Elhoweris et al. (2005) examine the role of teacher recommendations for gifted admission. In close to two hundred schools, the authors provided instructors with descriptions of children that included their race, and instructors were asked whether they would recommend the students for a gifted program. The authors found that white students received higher referral rates than their minority counterparts, despite having similar student descriptions. Figlio (2005) examines a related question using sibling data from Florida and ﬁnds some evidence that children with names that are associated with low socioeconomic status are less likely to be nominated by their teachers for a gifted and talented program. Walsh (2008) uses the NELS data to examine how parental involvement affects the gifted admission process. He ﬁnds that parent contact with the school increases a child’s chances of being admit- ted into a gifted program. Moreover, comparing the test score achievement of the lowest-achieving gifted students with the highest-achieving nongifted

20. Although gifted and talented programs are a form of ability tracking, for brevity this article omits a detailed description of the literature on tracking. Evidence on the effect of tracking is mixed; some research has found positive impacts of tracking for low-ability students (Figlio and Page 2002), while others ﬁnd no impact (Betts and Shkolnik 2000). Argys, Rees, and Brewer (1996) conclude that if a school de-tracks, this will beneﬁt low-ability students but harm high-ability students. Other research has highlighted the general equilibrium effects of tracking programs in schools: Figlio and Page (2002) suggest that the worst-performing teachers may get assigned to teach the lowest tracks, whereas Epple, Newlon, and Romano (2002) present results suggesting that a school that tracks can attract students with high ability and socioeconomic status, which may then actually increase the resources available to lower-ability students.

575

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

students, Walsh ﬁnds that the latter have better academic achievement, suggesting that parent involvement may actually crowd out high-ability students from gifted programs.

Program Impacts on Emotional and Academic Outcomes Previous research has examined the impact of being labeled “gifted” on the emotional well-being of students. Some educators argue that children who are placed in gifted programs may experience emotional difficulty if they go from being a top student to an average (or below-average) student in their gifted program. In addition, gifted students may be subject to social stigma by their peers for doing well. Evidence on the topic is mixed; Lytle and Campbell (1979) find that gifted children are accepted socially by their peers, and Konstantopoulos, Modi, and Hedges (2001) find that gifted children have high self-perception. In contrast, Vialle, Heaven, and Ciarrochi (2007) find that while teachers reported that gifted students were better adjusted and less likely to have behavior or emotional problems than nongifted students, the gifted children themselves reported having less social support and were more likely to feel sad than their nongifted counterparts.21 The literature that examines the impact of program participation on academic outcomes can be split into two categories. The first is composed of studies that utilize data from single school districts (Bui, Craig, and Imberman 2011; Davis et al. 2010; Murphy 2009). Studies from this group benefit from detailed knowledge of the specific program(s) in which children are enrolled; for instance, in many of these studies, performance on a standardized test is used to determine admission into the program, and the exact cutoff value for entrance is known. The second group of studies examines the participation of students in programs across the United States (Bhatt 2010; Murphy 2009), and by doing so provides useful information on how different program structures may have differential effects on achievement. For instance, in Bhatt (2010), outcomes for students who participate in gifted programs of varying intensity (i.e., in class, pullout, grouped for all or some subjects) are separately examined. A common theme across all these studies is the atten- tion devoted to identifying the causal effect of participation. That is, because gifted students may differ from their nongifted peers prior to enrollment in the gifted program, it is challenging to disentangle the effects of participation on outcomes from the effect of these preexisting differences on outcomes. These studies employ a variety of methods to identify the causal effects of program participation.

21. Bui, Craig, and Imberman (2011) highlight a number of other studies that examine the emotional well-being of gifted students.

576

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

In the first category of studies, Boi, Craig, and Imberman (2011) examine the impact of gifted program participation on achievement in a large urban school district. Students in this district were assigned to a gifted program if they earned a score above a predetermined cutoff on an index that was generated based on multiple student characteristics, including academic achievement, teacher recommendations, and socioeconomic status. Using a regression discontinuity design, the authors find that students who participated in a gifted program during sixth and seventh grade showed no significant improvements in math or reading achievement, and there was no impact on behavior or attendance. Murphy (2009) uses data from a single district in Florida to estimate the effects of participation. The detailed nature of the data allows the author to control for student, teacher, and school fixed effects, and the results indicate that on average gifted participation does not have a significant effect on math or reading achievement. However, Murphy (2009) does find that children whose gifted program took place onsite at school had higher math achievement, while those in pull-out programs experienced decreases. Davis et al. (2010) study the impact of gifted participation on student retention among public schools in a midsize urban school district. The authors hypothesize that public schools in urban areas may retain “desirable” students who would otherwise move to wealthy suburban districts by offering specialty programs like gifted education. Students in this district were assigned to a gifted program if their performance on an IQ test fell above a predetermined cutoff, although other factors could also play a role in admission. Using a modified regression discontinuity approach, Davis et al. find that program participation leads to higher retention of students who do not receive a free or reduced price lunch (i.e., wealthier students) and that there are no significant effects of participation on retention for students who do receive a free or reduced price lunch.22 The second category of articles use data drawn from programs in schools across the entire United States. Murphy (2009) uses data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class, which is a panel of children observed in kindergarten, first, third, fifth, and eigth grades. Murphy controls for student selection into the program by pooling all years of data and including student fixed effects in the model, and finds that participation is predicted to increase math achievement by close to 0.11 standard deviations, but no

22. Davis et al. (2010) ﬁnd evidence that students’ IQ scores can actually be manipulated such that a student who in reality falls below the IQ threshold cutoff is actually classiﬁed as falling above. Davis et al. come up with a novel approach to address this manipulation by predicting IQ score on the basis of other test achievement that is unlikely to be manipulated and use this predicted IQ in their regression discontinuity design.

577

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

significant effect is found for reading. Bhatt (2010) uses the NELS data to examine the effects of participation on academic and peer group outcomes (for instance, the number of friends who plan to attend college). To identify the effects of participation, Bhatt instruments for gifted participation and analyzes a sample of students who are homogeneous in ability level. Large and positive achievement effects in math (0.5–0.7 standard deviations) are found in the short run, but there is no evidence that these effects persist over time.23 There is no significant effect on peer group composition or on advanced class enrollment in future grades, but the author finds that students who were enrolled in programs where they were grouped together for all subjects showed the highest gains in short-term math achievement.

CONCLUSION Gifted and talented programs have been developed to service students who have already proven that they are capable of high achievement. The existence of these programs in schools begs the question: does gifted education make the brightest students brighter? Advocates for gifted education suggest that the needs of high-ability children may get neglected in the classroom as increasing accountability pressures on schools force teachers to place more effort on low- achieving students. Moreover, these high-ability students can often be bored and underchallenged in traditional classrooms because they have already mas- tered a significant portion of the material being taught. Consequently gifted education is thought to be an important tool for challenging and stimulating high-ability students and for attracting and retaining them in schools. Despite the lack of a federal mandate on gifted education, more than half of all states mandate the education and identification of gifted students. Even in states without official mandates, gifted education is popular; in the last decade there have been nonzero participation rates in gifted and talented programs in all states. States’ role in gifted education is largely limited to providing funding or highlighting criteria that should be used to evaluate students for admission. That leaves a substantial portion of the operational details of the programs to be determined by districts and schools. This has resulted in considerable heterogeneity in programs across schools with respect to curricula taught, methods for instruction, and criteria used for admission. Research on gifted education has examined many aspects of these programs, including the identification of gifted students and their emotional and social well-being. Other research has investigated the consequences of participation in gifted programs for the academic outcomes of students and the

23. Bhatt (2010) cautions that the instrumental variables approach may suffer from a weak instrument problem.

578

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

retention of students in schools. A common theme across these studies is that because gifted programs can vary along a wide variety of dimensions, caution should be exercised when extrapolating the results from any one program to another. Although the previous literature provides useful insights regarding gifted education, there are still a number of questions that remain open for future research. For instance, it would be interesting to examine the implications of gifted instructor experience and training on student outcomes, as well as whether the effects of participation differ by grade level and length of ex- posure. Further work on whether the existence of gifted programs attracts students to schools would also provide valuable information to educators who must consider whether to devote scarce resources to such a program. Finally, the effects of gifted programs for nongifted students is also an important consideration; if gifted programs improve average peer quality at schools but cause the lowest-quality teachers to be assigned to teach nongifted classes, the welfare-improving effects of such programs are debatable. A ﬁnal consideration for future research is the availability of data on gifted education. A thorough understanding of gifted programs requires detailed information on multiple aspects of these programs as well as schools and children. Thus as school districts and states move toward collecting increasingly detailed data on students and schools, further research on gifted and talented programs can provide policy makers and educators with valuable information for designing and implementing policies on gifted education.

I would like to thank Andriana Bellou for her comments on this policy brief, along with two anonymous referees and the editors for their helpful suggestions. This work has also beneﬁted from conversations with Julie Cullen, Gordon Dahl, Nora Gordon, Barry Hirsch, and Uta Schoenberg.

REFERENCES Argys, Laura, Daniel Rees, and Dominic Brewer. 1996. Detracking America’s schools: Equity at zero cost? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15(4): 623–45.

Baker, Bruce, and Reva Friedman-Nimz. 2004. State policies and equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26(1): 39– 64. Betts, Julian, and Jamie Shkolnik. 2000. The effects of ability grouping on student achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review 19: 1–15. Bhatt, Rachana. 2010. The impacts of gifted and talented education. Working paper, Georgia State University.

579

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

Bui, Sa, Steven Craig, and Scott Imberman. 2011. Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on achievement. Working paper, University of Houston.

Davidson, Jan, Bob Davidson, and Laura Vanderkam. 2004. Genius denied: How to stop wasting our brightest young minds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Davis, Billie, John Engberg, Dennis Epple, Holger Sieg, and Ron Zimmer. 2010. Eval- uating the gifted program of an urban school district using a modiﬁed regression discontinuity design. NBER Working Paper No. 16414. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Amended, Title V, Part D, Subpart 6; 20 U.S.C. 7253 et seq. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Elhoweris, Hala, Kagendo Mutua, Negmeldin Alsheikh, and Pauline Holloway. 2005. Effect of children’s ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education 26(1): 25–31. Epple, Dennis, Elizabeth Newlon, and Richard Romano. 2002. Ability tracking, school competition, and the distribution of educational beneﬁts. Journal of Public Economics 83: 1–48. Field, Gara. 2009. The effects of the use of Renzulli learning on student achievement in reading comprehension, reading ﬂuency, social studies, and science: An investigation of technology and learning in grades 3–8. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 4(1): 29–39. Figlio, David. 2005. Names, expectations and the black-white test score gap. NBER Working Paper No. 11195.

Figlio, David, and Marianne Page. 2002. School choice and the distributional effects of ability tracking: Does separation increase equality? JournalofUrbanEconomics51(2): 497–514. Florida Department of Education. 2010. Race to the top: Tools and support for teachers, principals, and LEAs. Available www.ﬂdoe.org/arra/pdf/sd.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2011. Gallagher, James J., and Patricia Weiss. 1979. The education of gifted and talented students: A history and prospectus. Council for Basic Education Occasional Paper No. 27.

Konstantopoulos, Spyros, Manisha Modi, and Larry Hedges. 2001.WhoareAmerica’s gifted? American Journal of Education 109(3): 344–82.

Lytle, William Grant, and Norma Jo Campbell. 1979. Do special programs affect the social status of the gifted? Elementary School Journal 80(2): 93–97.

Marland, S. P. 1971. Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States, volume 1. U.S. Congress Report 75-5020. Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Murphy, Ryan Patrick. 2009. Essays on gifted education’s impact on student achievement. PhD dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

National Association for Gifted Children. 2008a. Why we should advocate for gifted and talented students. Available www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=538. Accessed 22 April 2011.

580

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 Rachana Bhatt

National Association for Gifted Children. 2008b. The history of gifted and talented education. Available www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=607. Accessed 22 April 2011.

New Jersey Department of Education. 2010. Curriculum and instruction: Frequently asked questions gifted and talented services. Available www.state.nj.us/education/ genfo/faq/faq gandt.htm. Accessed 22 April 2011.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). 2001. Public Law 107-110 107th Congress. Title IX, Part A, Sec. 9101(22), Subpart 6—Gifted and talented students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Odden, Allan, Lawrence Picus, Sarah Archibald, Michael Goetz, Michelle Turner Mangan, and Anabel Aportela. 2006. An evidence-based approach to school ﬁnance adequacy in Wisconsin. Available http://cpre.wceruw.org/ﬁnance/wi sf adequacy report april 15 06.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2011.

Odden, Allan, Michael Goetz, and Lawrence Picus. 2008. Using available evidence to estimate the cost of educational adequacy. Education Finance and Policy 3(3): 374–97.

Reis, Sally M., Karen L. Westberg, Jonna Kulikowich, Florence Caillard, Thomas Hebert,´ Jonathan Plucker, Jeanne H. Purcell, John B. Rogers, and Julianne M. Smist. 1993. Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Research Monograph No. 93106. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Renzulli Learning Systems. 2011. Increase love of learning—and achievement. Available www.renzullilearning.com/default.aspx. Accessed 22 April 2011. Sacerdote, Bruce. 2001. Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(2): 681–704. Shaunessy, Elizabeth. 2003. State policies regarding gifted education. Gifted Child Today 26(3): 16–21. Shoplik, Ann Lupkowski. 2004. Gifted students in the regular classroom. C-MITES Information and Resources. Available www.cmu.edu/cmites/giftedstudents.html. Accessed 22 April 2011. Snyder, Thomas, and Sally Dillow. 2009. Digest of Education Statistics, 2009. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Snyder, Thomas, Sally Dillow, and Charlene Hoffman. 2006. Digest of Education Statistics, 2006. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Snyder, Thomas, and Charlene Hoffman. 1995. Digest of Education Statistics, 1995. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Snyder, Thomas, and Charlene Hoffman. 2002. Digest of Education Statistics, 2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Snyder, Thomas, Charlene Hoffman, and Claire Geddes. 1996. Digest of Education Statistics, 1996. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Snyder, Thomas, and Alexandra Tan. 2004. Digest of Education Statistics, 2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

581

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

South Pasadena Unified School District. 2010. GATE: South Pasadena Unified School District. Gifted and talented education program, 2007–2010 plan. Available http:// spms.spusd.net/ourpages/auto/2009/3/30/26550932/SPUSD%20GATE%20PLAN% 202007 2010.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2011. Stanford University Education Program for Gifted Youth. 2008. EPGY’s mission. Available http://epgy.stanford.edu/overview/index.html. Accessed 22 April 2011. Stinebrickner, Todd, and Ralph Stinebrickner. 2006. What can be learned about peer effects using college roommates? Evidence from new survey data and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Journal of Public Economics 90(8–9): 1435–54. U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). 2004. Table 10: Percentage of public schools that offered various programs, by state: 2003–04. Schools and Staffing Survey, 2003–2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). 2008. Table 2: Percentage of public school districts that had salary schedules for teachers and among those that had salary schedules, the average yearly teacher base salary, by various levels of degrees and experience and state: 2007–08. Schools and Stafﬁng Survey, 2007–2008. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). 2009. Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. Available www2.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html. Accessed 22 April 2011.

Vialle, Wilma, Patrick Heaven, and Joseph Ciarrochi. 2007. On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong youth study. Educational Research and Evaluation 13(6): 569–86. Walsh, Patrick. 2008. Are involved parents providing public goods or private goods? Public Finance Review 36(6): 678–705.

Zimmerman, David J. 2003. Peer effects in academic outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics 85(1): 9–23.

582

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00048 by guest on 26 September 2021