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.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (Eds.), (2015).A nation empowered, volume 2: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America's brightest students. University of Iowa Press.
3.
BakerB. D.Friedman-NimzR. (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
4.
BaldwinA. Y. (1984). The Baldwin identification matrix 2 for the identification of the gifted and talented: A handbook for its use. Trillium Press.
5.
BiddleB.BerlinerD. (2002). Unequal school funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 48–59.
6.
BrodersenA. V.CallahanC. M. (2021) Using teacher rating scales: Professional development. In: AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M. (eds). Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place-based interventions. Routledge, 50–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003017004-8.
7.
CallahanC. M. (2005) Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice44(2): 98–104. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_4.
8.
CallahanC. 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 Quarterly53(4): 239–241. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346826.
9.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2017) Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted40(1): 20–49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215.
10.
CardD.GiulianoL. (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
CoburnC. (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.
CoburnC. E.HillH. C.SpillaneJ. 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.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708321829
15.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. 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.
ColemanM. R.GallagherJ. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17(4), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553681
17.
DelcourtM. A. B.CornellD. G.GoldbergM. 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
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
21.
GallagherJ.ColemanM. 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
GentryM. (2018). Cluster grouping. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 213–224). Prufrock Press.
25.
GentryM.OwenS. 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.
HamiltonR.LongD.McCoachD. B.HemmlerV.SiegleD.NewtonS. D.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M. (2020) Proficiency and Giftedness: The Role of Language Comprehension in Gifted Identification and Achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted43(4): 370–404.
27.
HamiltonR.McCoachD. B.TutwilerS.SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.MunR. 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.
HarwellM. (2018) Don’t Expect Too Much: The Limited Usefulness of Common SES Measures and a Prescription for Change. National Education Policy Center.
29.
HemmlerV. L.AzanoA. P.DmitrievaS.CallahanC. M. (2022) Representation of Black students in rural gifted education: Taking steps toward equity. Journal of Research in Rural Education38(2).
30.
HonigM. I.CoburnC. (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.
HonigM. I.HatchT. 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/
LambK. N.BoedekerP.KettlerT. (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
LohmanD. F.GambrellJ. 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.
LohmanD. F.KorbK. A.LakinJ. 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.
LongD.McCoachD. B.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (2022). Inequality at the Starting Line: Under-Representation in Gifted Identification and Disparities in Early Achievement. Unpublished manuscript
39.
LongD.McCoachD. B.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (2022). Inequality at the Starting Line: Under-Representation in Gifted Identification and Disparities in Early Achievement. Unpublished manuscript.
MarlandS. 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.
MatthewsM. S.RhodesH. 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.
MatthewsM. S.ShaunessyE. (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.
McBeeM. 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.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.MillerE. 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.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.WatermanC. (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.
McBeeM. T.ShaunessyE.MatthewsM. 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.
McClainM. C.PfeifferS. (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.
McClartyK. 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.
McCoachD. B.O’ConnellA. A.LevittH. (2006) Ability grouping across kindergarten using an early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research99(6): 339–346. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.339-346.
51.
MoonT. R. (2013). Uses and misuses of matrices in identifying gifted students: Considerations for better practice. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 128–134). Taylor & Francis.
52.
MoonT. R. (2018). Uses and misuses of matrices in identifying gifted students: Considerations for better practice. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 116–124). Taylor & Francis.
53.
MunR. U.EzzaniM. D.LeeL. E.OttweinJ. 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
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 Associationfor Gifted Children.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices: Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. http://corestandards.org
59.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.ClarenbachJ. (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.
PetersS. 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.
PetersS. J.CarterJ.PluckerJ. 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.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. 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.
PetersS. J.GentryM.WhitingG. W.McBeeM. 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.
PetersS. J.MatthewsM. S.McBeeM. T.McCoachD. B. (2014) Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Prufrock Press.
65.
PetersS. J.McBeeM. (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.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (2014) Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children80(4): 390–406. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244.
67.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (2017) Special gifts and talents. In: KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P.PullenP. C. (eds). Handbook of special education. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, 428–444.
68.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (2021) The evidence base for advanced learning programs. Phi Delta Kappan102(4): 14–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978056.
69.
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
70.
ReddingC.GrissomJ. (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.
RenzulliJ. 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.
RinnA. N.MunR. U.HodgesJ. (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.
RobinsonA.ShoreB. MEnersenD. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education. Prufrock.
74.
ShoreB. M.CornellD. G.RobinsonA.WardV. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. Teachers College Press.
75.
SiegleD.PowellT. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103
76.
SiegleD.WilsonH. E.LittleC. 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.
SouthernW. T.JonesE. D.FiscusE. 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.
SpillaneJ. 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.
StephensK. R.KarnesF. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600206
StraussJ.CorbinA. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
82.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. 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.
SwansonJ. 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.
SwiatekM. 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.
TatumB. D. (2003). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and other conversations about race. Basic Books.
86.
TreffingerD. J.YoungG. C.NassabC. A.WittigC. V. (2004). Enhancing and expanding gifted programs: A levels of service approach. Prufrock Press.
87.
VaughnV. L.FeldhusenJ. F.AsherJ. 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.
WhitingG. (2009). Gifted Black males: Understanding and decreasing barriers to achievement and identity. Roeper Review, 31(4), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903177598
