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 pro- cess 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 think- ing 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 ac- countability 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 equilib- rium 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

Load more