Predictors of Access to Gifted Education: What Makes for a Successful School?

Abstract

A wide research base has documented the disproportional enrollment in K-12 special education and gifted and talented services across racial and socioeconomic lines. This study extends that knowledge base by integrating multiple population-level datasets to better understand predictors of access to and enrollment in gifted and talented services and tested whether these variables remained predictive after controlling for state mandate to provide services, average district achievement, and average school achievement. Results showed that states varied, with some serving 20% of their students as gifted and others serving 0%. Similarly, within-district income segregation, income-related achievement gaps, and parental education were dominant predictors of a school offering gifted and talented services and the size of the population served, even after controlling for achievement and the presence of a state mandate. These findings suggest that gifted and talented programs are often made available based on school or community demographics rather than the needs of the students.

Keywords

equity gifted segregation talented

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Advanced Coursework Equity Act, S.1305, 117th Cong. (2021). https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s1305/BILLS-117s1305is.pdf

Brazile

(2019). WA schools to make advanced classes more accessible to students—but will it close the opportunity gap? Crosscut. https://crosscut.com/2019/05/wa-schools-make-advanced-classes-more-accessible-students-will-it-close-opportunity-gap

Calarco

J. M.

(2018). Negotiating opportunities: How the middle class secures advantages in school. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190634438.001.0001

Calarco

J. M.

(2020). Avoiding us versus them: How schools’ dependence on privileged “helicopter” parents influences enforcement of rules. American Sociological Review, 85(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420905793

Card

Giuliano

(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

Davis

Engberg

J. B.

Epple

Holger

Zimmer

(2010). Evaluating the gifted program of an urban school district using a modified regression discontinuity design. NBER Working Paper No. w16414. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16414

Domina

Pharris-Ciurej

Penner

A. M.

Penner

E. K.

Brummet

Porter

S. R.

Sanabria

(2018). Is free and reduced-price lunch a valid measure of educational disadvantage? Educational Researcher, 47(9), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18797609

Dougherty

Goodman

Hill

Litke

Page

(2015). Middle school math acceleration and equitable access to 8th grade algebra: Evidence from the Wake County Public School System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(1): 80S–101S. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0162373715576076

Farkas

Morgan

P. L.

Hillemeier

M. M.

Mitchell

Woods

A. D.

(2020). District-level achievement gaps explain Black and Hispanic overrepresentation in special education. Exceptional Children, 86(4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919893695

10.

Gentry

Gray

Whiting

G. W.

Maeda

Pereira

(2019). System failure: Access denied. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0lxzznnyh5u0jj1/Access%20Denied.pdf

11.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving student of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175

12.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

Bleiberg

J. F.

(2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Education Review, 89(3), 337–369. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337

13.

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Tutwiler

M. S.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

Callahan

C. M.

Brodersen

A. V.

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

14.

Hellevik

(2009). Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. Quality and Quantity, 43, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9077-3

15.

Hodges

Lamb

(2019). Washington’s high-ability programs during the no child left behind era. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(4), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219874422

16.

Hodges

Tay

Lee

Pereira

(2019). The influence of the great recession on the identification of students from non-White populations in the State of Texas. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(2), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19825802

17.

Lareau

(2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520949904

18.

Lohman

D. F.

(2009). Identifying academically talented students: Some general principles, two specific procedures. In Shavinina

L. V.

(Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 971–997). Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_49

19.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Miller

E. M.

(2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256

20.

Michelmore

Dynarski

(2017). The gap within the gap: Using longitudinal data to understand income differences in educational outcomes. AERA Open, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417692958

21.

Murray

Domina

Petts

Renzulli

Boylan

(2020). We’re in this together: Bridging and bonding social capital in elementary school PTOs. American Educational Research Journal, 57(5), 2210–2244. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220908848

22.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

Whiting

G. W.

McBee

M. T.

(2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic proportionality and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738

23.

Peters

S. J.

Makel

M. C.

Rambo-Hernandez

(2021). Local norms for gifted and talented student identification: Everything you need to know. Gifted Child Today, 42(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520985181

24.

Reardon

S. F.

A. D.

Shear

B. R.

Fahle

E. M.

Kalogrides

Jang

Chavez

Buontempo

DiSalvo

(2017). Stanford Education Data Archive (Version 3.0). http://purl.stanford.edu/db586ns4974

25.

Reich

Gelbach

Albers

C. J.

(2020). “Like upgrading from a typewriter to a computer”: Registered reports in education research. AERA Open, 6(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420917640

26.

Rinn

A. N.

Mun

R. U.

Hodges

(2020). 2018–2019 State of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://www.nagc.org/2018-2019-state-states-gifted-education

27.

Shapiro

(2019). Desegregation plan: Eliminate all gifted programs in New York. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/nyregion/gifted-programs-nyc-desegregation.html

28.

Shores

Kim

H. E.

Still

(2020). Categorical inequality in Black and White: Linking disproportionality across multiple educational outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 57(5), 2089–2131. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219900128

29.

Strand

Lindorff

(2021). Ethnic disproportionality in the identification of high-incidence special educational needs: A national longitudinal study ages 5 to 11. Exceptional Children, 87(3), 344–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921990895

30.

United States Department of Education (2020). CRDC 2017–2018 technical documentation. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/Data%20Notes%202017-18%20CRDC.pdf

31.

United States Government Accountability Office (2018). Discipline disparities for black students, boys, and students with disabilities. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690828.pdf

32.

United States Office of Civil Rights (n.d.). 2017–2018 Civil Rights Data Collection—School Form. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2017-18-crdc-school-form.pdf

33.

Walsh

(2008). Are involved parents providing public goods or private goods? Public Finance Review, 36(6), 678–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142107308298

34.

Warne

R. T.

Price

C. J.

(2016). A single case study of the impact of policy changes on identification for gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215624159

35.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, 2nd ed.

36.

Yoon

Gentry

(2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330564