Using proprietary data collected prior to the establishment of the public Universal Prekindergarten program in New York City, this study finds statistically significant differences in test-taking rates for the city’s Gifted & Talented (G & T) program between two matched samples of students—those who attended a public prekindergarten (pre-K) program and those who did not—for each of four cohorts from 2008 to 2011, favoring the public pre-K group. Results also demonstrate that access to information about the G & T program is a plausible mechanism underlying the higher test-taking rates among the public pre-K group, especially for underrepresented groups. With the establishment of the Universal Prekindergarten in New York City in 2015, our results highlight the importance of instituting new policies for promoting the dissemination of information regarding the G & T admissions process within the public school sector. If targeted to address diversity in G & T, such policies could help reduce inequality in gifted education.
AizerA. (2007). Public health insurance, program take-up, and child health. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 400-415. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.89.3.400
3.
AustinP. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavior Research, 46(3), 99-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
4.
BaileyD.DuncanG. J.OdgersC. L.YuW. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1), 7-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459
5.
BakerA. (2013, January13). Gifted, talented and separated. The New York Times, MB.1.
CardD.GiulianoL. (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
CooperC. W. (2009). Parent involvement, African American mothers, and the politics of educational care. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(4), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903228389
13.
CorcoranS. P.JenningsJ.CohodesS. R.Sattin-BajajC. (2018). Leveling the playing field for high school choice: Results from a field experiment of informational interventions (NBER Working Paper #24471). https://www.nber.org/papers/w24471. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24471
FarkasG.DuffetA. (2008). High achieving students in the era of NCLB: Results from a National Teacher Survey. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
17.
FordD. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among Black students: Promising practices and programs. Teachers College Press.
18.
FordD. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699803200102
19.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302
20.
FordD. Y.HarmonD. A. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 141-147. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2001-663
21.
Friedman-KraussA. H.BarnettW. S.WeisenfeldG. G.KasminR.DiCrecchioN.HorowitzM. (2018). The state of preschool 2017: State preschool yearbook. National Institute for Early Education Research.
22.
GoldhaberD.BrewerD. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In FowlerW. (Ed.), Developments in school finance (pp. 197-210). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
23.
GootmanE. (2007, October30). Schools raise bar for classes for the gifted. The New York Times, B.1.
24.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2015). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
25.
HardingJ. F.PaulsellD. (2018). Improving access to early care and education: An equity-focused policy research agenda. Mathematica.
26.
HastingsJ. S.WeinsteinJ. M. (2008). Information, school choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(4), 1373-1414. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.4.1373
HodgesJ.TayJ.DesmetO.OzturkE.PereiraN. (2018). The effect of the 2008 recession on gifted education funding across the state of Texas. AERA Open, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418786224
29.
HodgesJ.TayJ.MaedaY.GentryM. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107
HurleyK.ShenJ. Z. (2016). Bringing it all home, problems and possibilities facing New York City’s family child care. Center for New York City Affairs Report. http://www.centernyc.org/bringing-it-all-home
32.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2012a). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr013
33.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2012b). Multivariate matching methods that are monotonic imbalance bounding. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(493), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2011.tm09599
KoonceD. A.HarperW. (2005). Engaging African American parents in the schools: A community-based consultation model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16(1-2), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2005.9669527
LeuvenE.SianesiB. (2017). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing (White paper). http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s432001
40.
LohmanD. F.Foley NicponM. (2012). Ability testing and talent identification. In HunsakerS. L. (Ed.), The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 287-386). Prufrock.
41.
LovelessT. (2008). High achieving students in the era of NCLB: An analysis from NAEP data. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
42.
LuY.WeinbergS. L. (2016). Public pre-K and test-taking for the NYC gifted and talented programs: Forging a path to equity. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 36-47. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633441
43.
MeyerR. H. (1999). The effects of math and math-related courses in high school. In MayerS. E.PetersonP. E. (Eds.), Earning and learning: How schools matter (pp. 169-204). Brookings Institution Press.
NealD.SchanzenbachW. S. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.2010.12318
PenaE. D.QuinnR. (1997). Task familiarity: Effects on the test performance of Puerto Rican and African American children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28(4), 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2804.323
50.
PhillipsM. (1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 633-662. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034004633
51.
PhillipsM. (2013). Ethnic and social class disparities in academic skills. In StulbergL. M.WeinbergS. L. (Eds.), Diversity in American higher education: Toward a more comprehensive approach (pp. 7-24). Routledge.
52.
PhillipsM.ChinT. (2004). School inequality: What do we know? In NeckermanK. M. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 467-519). Russell Sage Foundation.
53.
PluckerJ. A.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K-12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
54.
PluckerJ. A.HardestyJ.BurroughsN. (2012). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass (White paper). http://www.cepa.uconn.edu/research/mindthegap/
55.
PluckerJ. A.PetersS. J. (2018). Closing poverty-based excellence gaps: Conceptual, measurement, and educational issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738566
ReardonS. F.PortillaX. A. (2016). Recent trends in income, racial, and ethnic school readiness gaps at Kindergarten entry. AERA Open, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416657343
59.
RebackR. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1394-1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.05.003
60.
ReeseL.BalzanoS.GallimoreR.GoldenbergC. (1995). The concept of educación: Latino family values and American schooling. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(1), 57-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(95)93535-4
61.
ReidJ. L.MelvinS. A.KaganS. L.Brooks-GunnJ. (2019). Building a unified system for universal pre-K: The case of New York City. Children and Youth Services Review, 100(May), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.030
62.
RenzulliJ.ReisS. (2012). Defensible and doable: A practical multiple-criteria gifted program identification system. In HunsakerS. (Ed.), The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 287-386). Prufrock.
63.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (1998). Teachers, schools and academic achievement (NBER Working Paper No. 6691). https://doi.org/10.3386/w6691
64.
RodaA. (2015). Inequality in gifted and talented programs: Parents choices about status, school opportunity and second-generation segregation. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137485403
65.
RosenbaumP. R. (2005). Observational studies. In EverittB. S.HowellD. C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vol. 3, pp. 451-1462). John Wiley.
66.
RosenbaumP. R. (2013). Observational studies (2nd ed.). Springer.
67.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
ShapiroA.MartinE.WeilandC.UntermanR. (2019). If you offer it, will they come? Patterns of application and enrollment behavior in a universal pre-kindergarten context. AERA Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848442
70.
SimonH. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
71.
StuartE. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313
72.
TachL.FarkasG. (2006). Learning-related behaviors, cognitive skills, and ability grouping when schooling begins. Social Science Research, 25(1), 1048-1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.08.001
ValantJ. (2014). Better data, better decisions: Informing school choosers to improve education markets (Working Paper). American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
von HippelP. T.WorkmanJ.DowneyD. B. (2018). Inequality in reading and math skills forms mainly before kindergarten: A replication, and partial correction, of “Are schools the great equalizer?”Sociology of Education, 91(4), 323-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040718801760
YorkB.LoebS.DossC. (2019). One step at a time: The effects of an early literacy text-messaging program for parents of preschoolers. Journal of Human Resources, 54(3), 537-566. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.54.3.0517-8756R
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
