Policy research in gifted education continues to maintain a relatively narrow focus, dealing primarily with policy inputs like the presence and design of written mandates or the existence or lack of state finding. Yet, little attention has been paid to the actual distribution of programming opportunities for gifted children. There continues to be a vast disconnect between policy analysts and gifted educators. The objective of this article is to help bridge that gap by (1) introducing a set of policy tools for measuring the outcomes of gifted education policies and (2) applying those tools to data on the distribution of gifted education spending and designated personnel in the state of Texas. According to generally accepted policy benchmarks, the analyses performed indicate (a) continued vast inequities across school districts in the availability of resources and (b) unacceptable correlations between student population characteristics, community wealth, and the availability of opportunity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, B. D. (1995). The economic health of gifted education in three northeastern states: An analysis of public school opportunities and private programs in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ED 419 321)
2.
Baker, B. D., & Richards, C. E. (1998). Equity through vouchers: The special case of gifted children. Educational Policy, 12, 363-379.
3.
Berne, R., & Steifel, L. (1984). The measurement of equity in school finance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brent, B. O., Roellke, C. F., & Monk, D. H. (1997). Understanding teacher resource allocation in New York State secondary schools: A case study approach. Journal of Education Finance, 23, 207-233.
6.
Chambers, J. G. (1995). Public school teacher cost differences across the United States: Introduction to a teacher cost index (TCI). In W. J. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance (pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
7.
Coleman, M. R., Gallagher, J., & Foster, A. (1994). Updated report on state policies related to the identification of gifted students. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, Gifted Education Policy Studies Program.
8.
Curley, J. (1991). Financing programs for education of the gifted in New York State. Journal of Education Finance, 16, 332-347.
9.
Gallagher, J., & Coleman, M. R. (1992). State policies on the identification of gifted students from special populations: Three states in profile. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, Gifted Education Policy Studies Program.
10.
Gallagher, J., & Coleman, M. R. (1994). Gifted education policy studies program final report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, Gifted Education Policy Studies Program.
11.
Hanushek, E. A. (1996). The quest for equalized mediocrity: School finance reform without consideration of school performance. In L. O. Picus & J. L. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 20-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12.
Harter, E. (1999). How educational expenditures relate to student achievement: Insights from Texas elementary schools. Journal of Education Finance, 24, 281-302.
13.
Laine, R. D., Greenwald, R., & Hedges, L. V. (1996). Money does matter: A research synthesis of a new universe of education production function studies. In L. O. Picus, & J. L. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 44-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14.
Monk, D. H. (1984). Stalking full fiscal neutrality: The distinction between school district wealth and tastes. Educational Theory, 34, 55-69
15.
Odden, A. R., & Clune, W. H. (1998). School finance systems: Aging structures in need of renovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 157-177.
16.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (1999) School finance: A policy perspective (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Parrish, T. B., & Wolman, J. (1999). Trends and new developments in special education funding: What the states report. In T. B. Parrish, J. G. Chambers, & C. M. Guarino (Eds.), Funding special education: Nineteenth yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (pp. 203-229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
18.
Passow, H. A., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1993). State policies regarding education of the gifted as reflected in legislation and regulation. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs. (CRS93302)
19.
Passow, H. A., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1994). Transforming policy to enhance educational services for the gifted. Roeper Review, 16, 271-275.
20.
Purcell, J. (1992). Programs for the gifted in a state without a mandate: An “Endangered Species.” Roeper Review, 15, 93-95.
21.
Purcell, J. (1995). Gifted education at a crossroads: The program status study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 57-65.
22.
Raudenbush, S. W., Fotiu, R. P, & Cheong, Y. F. (1998). Inequality of access to educational resources: A national report card for eighth-grade math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 253-267.
23.
Reis, S. M. (1999). Testimony of the National Association for Gifted Children: Hearing on elementary and secondary education act—Educating diverse populations. Subcommittee on early childhood, youth, and families. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved August 1, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nagc.org/Policy/testimon.html.
24.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 26-35.
25.
Reschovsky, A., & Imazeki, J. (1999). Does the school finance system in Texas provide students with an adequate education? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA.
26.
Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
27.
U. S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
