Concordance of Gifted Education Policy and Practices at the State,District,and Local Levels

Abstract

Gifted education policies vary across the United States. Previous studies have demonstrated a disconnect between these policies at state and district levels, but alignment of school-level practices with state and/or district policies is unknown. To further examine these relationships, we examined via qualitative document analysis state and district-level gifted policies and district and school-level reported practices in two states’ gifted services. Although state and district policies reflected fairly close alignment with recommended practices, district and school reported practices reflected only partial alignment. We discuss implications of these findings for gifted programs and policy at the state and local levels.

Keywords

Qualitative document analysis gifted education gifted education policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altheide

D. L.

Schneider

(1996). Qualitative media analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985536

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

VanTassel-Baska

Lupkowski-Shoplik

(Eds.), (2015).A nation empowered, volume 2: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America's brightest students. University of Iowa Press.

Baker

B. D.

Friedman-Nimz

(2004). State policies and equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001039

Baldwin

A. Y.

(1984). The Baldwin identification matrix 2 for the identification of the gifted and talented: A handbook for its use. Trillium Press.

Biddle

Berliner

(2002). Unequal school funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 48–59.

Brodersen

A. V.

Callahan

C. M.

(2021) Using teacher rating scales: Professional development. In: Azano

A. P.

Callahan

C. M.

(eds). Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place-based interventions. Routledge, 50–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003017004-8.

Callahan

C. M.

(2005) Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice 44(2): 98–104. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_4.

Callahan

C. M.

(2009) Myth 3: A family of identification myths: Your sample must be the same as the population. There is a“ silver bullet” in identification. There must be “winners” and “losers” in identification and programming. Gifted Child Quarterly 53(4): 239–241. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346826.

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

(2017) Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 40(1): 20–49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215.

10.

Card

Giuliano

(2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(48), 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113

11.

Coalition for Evidence-based Policy . (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user-friendly guide. http://coalition4evidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/PublicationUserFriendlyGuide03.pdf

12.

Coburn

(2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023002145

13.

Coburn

C. E.

Hill

H. C.

Spillane

J. P.

(2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The common core state standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080

14.

Coburn

C. E.

Russell

J. L.

(2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708321829

15.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M. U. M.

(2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.

16.

Coleman

M. R.

Gallagher

J. J.

(1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17(4), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553681

17.

Delcourt

M. A. B.

Cornell

D. G.

Goldberg

M. D.

(2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306320

18.

Drill

Miller

Behrstock-Sheratt

(2012). Teachers’ perspectives on educational research. Brock. Education Journal, 23(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v23I1.350

19.

Edgerton

Polikoff

Desimone

(2017, May 11). How is policy influencing classroom instruction. Bookings Report. https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-is-policy-affecting-classroom-instruction/

20.

Fullan

(2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

21.

Gallagher

Coleman

M. R.

(1992). State policies on the identification of gifted students from special populations: Three states in profile (ED 349748). Office of Educational Research and Improvement. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED349748.pdf

22.

Gallagher

Coleman

M. R.

(1994). A Javits project: Gifted education policy studies. Final report (ED 371499). Department of Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED371499.pdf

23.

Gallagher

J. J.

(1998, April 15). Education, alone, is a weak treatment. Education Week, 17(42). https://doi.org/10.1177/004005999202400402. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1998/07/08/42gallag.h17.html

24.

Gentry

(2018). Cluster grouping. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 213–224). Prufrock Press.

25.

Gentry

Owen

S. V.

(1999). An investigation of the effects of total flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(4), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629904300402

26.

Hamilton

Long

McCoach

D. B.

Hemmler

Siegle

Newton

S. D.

Gubbins

E. J.

Callahan

C. M.

(2020) Proficiency and Giftedness: The Role of Language Comprehension in Gifted Identification and Achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 43(4): 370–404.

27.

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Tutwiler

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. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053.

28.

Harwell

(2018) Don’t Expect Too Much: The Limited Usefulness of Common SES Measures and a Prescription for Change. National Education Policy Center.

29.

Hemmler

V. L.

Azano

A. P.

Dmitrieva

Callahan

C. M.

(2022) Representation of Black students in rural gifted education: Taking steps toward equity. Journal of Research in Rural Education 38(2).

30.

Honig

M. I.

Coburn

(2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307067

31.

Honig

M. I.

Hatch

T. C.

(2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016

32.

Institute of Educational Sciences . (2018). About IES: Connecting research, policy and practice. https://ies.ed.gov/aboutus/

33.

Kulik

J. A.

Kulik

C. C.

(1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600204

34.

Lamb

K. N.

Boedeker

Kettler

(2019). Inequities of enrollment in gifted education: A statewide application of the 20% equity allowance formula. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219830768

35.

Lavrakas

P. J.

(2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods (Vols. 1-0). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947

36.

Lohman

D. F.

Gambrell

J. L.

(2012). Using nonverbal tests to help identify academically talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428194

37.

Lohman

D. F.

Korb

K. A.

Lakin

J. M.

(2008). Identifying academically gifted English- language learners using nonverbal tests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321808

38.

Long

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

Callahan

C. M.

Gubbins

E. J.

(2022). Inequality at the Starting Line: Under-Representation in Gifted Identification and Disparities in Early Achievement . Unpublished manuscript

39.

Long

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

Callahan

C. M.

Gubbins

E. J.

(2022). Inequality at the Starting Line: Under-Representation in Gifted Identification and Disparities in Early Achievement . Unpublished manuscript.

40.

Lynch

(2014, October 2). Poverty and school funding: Why low-income students often suffer. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-poverty-and-school-funding-why-low-income-students-often-suffer/2014/10

41.

Marland

S. P.

(1972). Education of the gifted and talented - volume 1: Report to the congress of the United States by the U. S. commissioner of education (ED 056243). Office of Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED056243.pdf

42.

Matthews

M. S.

Rhodes

H. A.

(2020). Examining identification practices and services for young advanced and gifted learners in selected North Carolina School Districts. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(4), 411–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20908878

43.

Matthews

M. S.

Shaunessy

(2010). Putting standards into practice: Evaluating the utility of the NAGC pre-K–grade 12 gifted program standards. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209356708

44.

McBee

M. T.

(2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210377927

45.

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

46.

McBee

M. T.

Peters

S. J.

Waterman

(2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794

47.

McBee

M. T.

Shaunessy

Matthews

M. S.

(2012). Policy matters: An analysis of district-level efforts to increase the identification of underrepresented learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(4), 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12463511

48.

McClain

M. C.

Pfeiffer

(2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757

49.

McClarty

K. L.

(2014). Life in the fast lane: Effects of early grade acceleration on high school and college outcomes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214559595

50.

McCoach

D. B.

O’Connell

A. A.

Levitt

(2006) Ability grouping across kindergarten using an early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research 99(6): 339–346. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.339-346.

51.

Moon

T. R.

(2013). Uses and misuses of matrices in identifying gifted students: Considerations for better practice. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 128–134). Taylor & Francis.

52.

Moon

T. R.

(2018). Uses and misuses of matrices in identifying gifted students: Considerations for better practice. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 116–124). Taylor & Francis.

53.

Mun

R. U.

Ezzani

M. D.

Lee

L. E.

Ottwein

J. K.

(2020). Building systemic capacity to improve identification and services in gifted education: A case study of one district. Gifted Child Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220967376

54.

National Association for Gifted Children . (2010). Pre-K to grade 12 gifted programming standards. http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12

55.

National Association for Gifted Children . (2019). Pre-K to grade 12 gifted programming standards (revised). http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education

56.

National Association for Gifted Children & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted . (2015). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2014-2015 . National Association for Gifted Children.

57.

National Center for Education Statistics . (2016). Search for schools and colleges. https://nces.ed.gov/globallocator/

58.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices: Council of Chief State School Officers . (2010). Common core state standards. http://corestandards.org

59.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Clarenbach

(2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high ability students (ED 537321). National Association for Gifted Children. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537321.pdf

60.

Peters

S. J.

(2022). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535

61.

Peters

S. J.

Carter

Plucker

J. A.

(2020/2021, December/January). Rethinking how we gifted” students, identify. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(4), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978055

62.

Peters

S. J.

Engerrand

K. G.

(2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165

63.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

Whiting

G. W.

McBee

M. T.

(2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738

64.

Peters

S. J.

Matthews

M. S.

McBee

M. T.

McCoach

D. B.

(2014) Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Prufrock Press.

65.

Peters

S. J.

McBee

(2019, November). Implementing local norms: A step-by-step guide. Session presented at the annual meeting of the national association for gifted children (NAGC). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JBASV

66.

Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(2014) Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children 80(4): 390–406. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244.

67.

Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(2017) Special gifts and talents. In: Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

Pullen

P. C.

(eds). Handbook of special education. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, 428–444.

68.

Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(2021) The evidence base for advanced learning programs. Phi Delta Kappan 102(4): 14–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978056.

69.

Plucker

J. A.

Peters

S. 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

70.

Redding

Grissom

(2021). Do students in gifted programs perform better? Linking gifted program to achievement and non-achievement outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. First published online April 26, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211008919

71.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1984). The triad/revolving door system: A research-based approach to identification and programming for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628402800405

72.

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

73.

Robinson

Shore

B. M

Enersen

D. L.

(2007). Best practices in gifted education. Prufrock.

74.

Shore

B. M.

Cornell

D. G.

Robinson

Ward

V. S.

(1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. Teachers College Press.

75.

Siegle

Powell

(2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103

76.

Siegle

Wilson

H. E.

Little

C. A.

(2013). A sample of gifted and talented educators’ attitudes about academic acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12472491

77.

Southern

W. T.

Jones

E. D.

Fiscus

E. D.

(1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628903300105

78.

Spillane

J. P

(1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035001033

79.

Stephens

K. R.

Karnes

F. A.

(2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600206

80.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1984). Toward a triarchic theory of human intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 269–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044629

81.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

82.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

83.

Swanson

J. D.

(2007). Policy and practice: A case study of gifted education policy implementation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(2), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-679

84.

Swiatek

M. A.

(2002). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. Roeper Review, 24(3), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554162

85.

Tatum

B. D.

(2003). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and other conversations about race. Basic Books.

86.

Treffinger

D. J.

Young

G. C.

Nassab

C. A.

Wittig

C. V.

(2004). Enhancing and expanding gifted programs: A levels of service approach. Prufrock Press.

87.

Vaughn

V. L.

Feldhusen

J. F.

Asher

J. W.

(1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629103500208

88.

Whiting

(2009). Gifted Black males: Understanding and decreasing barriers to achievement and identity. Roeper Review, 31(4), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903177598