In their National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper, “Does Gifted Education Work? For Which Students?” Card and Giuliano (C&G) made an enormous splash in not just gifted education but also the world (e.g., The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Five Thirty Eight). In this commentary, we highlight what we think C&G have done well, what they could have done better, and what the field can learn from their economic perspectives and approaches to the evaluation of gifted education.
AdelsonJ. L.McCoachD. B.GavinM. K. (2012). Examining the effects of gifted programming in mathematics and reading using the ECLS-K. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 25-39. doi:10.1177/0016986211431487
2.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2014). National survey of gifted programs. Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
6.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimetnal designs for research on teaching. In GageN. L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
7.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2014). Does gifted education work? For which students? (NBER Working Paper No. 20453). Retrieved from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20453
8.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
9.
FergusonC. J. (2015). “Everybody knows psychology is not a real science”: Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. American Psychologist, 70, 527-542. doi:10.1037/a0039405
10.
GallagherJ. J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 5-12. doi:10.1177/001698620004400102
11.
HattieJ. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
12.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425. doi:10.3102/00346543054003409
13.
LiY.AlfeldC.KennedyR. P.PutallazM. (2009). Effects of summer academic programs in middle school on high school test scores, course-taking, and college major. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 404-436. doi:10.1177/1932202X0902000303
14.
LohmanD. F. (2005). How to identify academically gifted minority students (Cognitively Speaking, Vol. 3). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
15.
LubinskiD.HumphreysL. G. (1990). A broadly based analysis of mathematical giftedness. Intelligence, 14, 327-355. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(90)90022-L
Steenbergen-HuS.MoonS. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39-53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155
18.
TettJ. (2015). The silo effect. New York: Simon & Schuster.
19.
Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.SteigerJ. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860-871. doi:10.1037/a0019454
21.
WattsT. W.DuncanG. J.ChenM.ClaessensA.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.. . . SusperreguyM. I. (2015). The role of mediators in the developments of longitudinal mathematics achievement associations. Child Development, 86, 1892-1907. doi:10.1111/cdev.12416
22.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
