Using State Data to Conduct Research in the Field of Gifted Education

Abstract

State databases offer researchers the opportunity to conduct research using data collected by states. These databases contain financial, demographic, and accountability data. Accessing and acquiring data from these repositories, though, can offer challenges to scholars interested in conducting research. This brief describes the type of data collected by states, how to acquire this data, and includes potential limitations when using this data. Special consideration is given to concerns regarding acquiring state information on smaller populations of students, especially students identified as gifted and talented.

Keywords

state data gifted gifted education research design quantitative

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

B. D.

Srikanth

Weber

M. A.

(2016). School funding fairness data system. Rutgers Graduate School of Education/Education Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/data-download

California Department of Education. (2018). Gifted and talented education. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/

Cate

F. H.

Fields

D. A.

McBain

J. K.

(1994). The right to privacy and the public’s right to know: The “central purpose” of the Freedom of Information Act. Administrative Law Review, 46, 41-74.

Davidson Institute. (2018). Support for gifted programs vary greatly from state to state. Retrieved from https://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entryType/3

ESSA. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).

Family Compliance Office. (2012). Data de-identification: An overview of basic terms. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/data_deidentification_terms.pdf

Faraway

J. J.

(2016). Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Florida Department of Education. (2018). Education of gifted students in Florida. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7567/urlt/stategiftedplan.pdf

Florida Department of Education Statistics. (2017). Pk-20 Education information portal. Retrieved from https://edstats.fldoe.org/

10.

Gentry

Peters

S. J.

(2009). Effect sizes in gifted education research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 219-222. doi:10.1177/0016986209334976

11.

Gibbs

B. G.

Shafer

Miles

(2017). Inferential statistics and the use of administrative data in US educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40, 214-220. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2015.1113249

12.

Goings

R. B.

Ford

D. Y.

(2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 25-36. doi:10.1177/0016986217737618

13.

Greenberg

Goldstein

(2017). Baking common sense into the FERPA cake: How to meaningfully protect student rights and the public interest. Journal of Legislation, 44, 22.

14.

Hodges

(2018). Assessing the influence of No Child Left Behind on gifted education funding in Texas: A descriptive study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29, 321-342. doi:10.1177/1932202X18779343

15.

Hodges

Tay

Desmet

Ozturk

Pereira

(2018). The effect of the 2008 recession on gifted education funding across the state of Texas. AERA Open, 4(3). doi:10.1177/2332858418786224

16.

Hodges

Tay

Lee

Pereira

(2019). The influence of the Great Recession on the identification of students from non-White populations in the state of Texas. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30, 124-143. doi:10.1177/1932202X19825802

17.

Hodges

Tay

Maeda

Gentry

(2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 147-174. doi:10.1177/0016986217752107

18.

Indiana Access to Public Records Act. (2018). Retrieved from http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/0/8/2/b/082bff0b/TITLE5_AR14_ch3.pdf

19.

Iyengar

V. S.

(2002, July). Transforming data to satisfy privacy constraints. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 279-288). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13.2993&rep=rep1&type=pdf

20.

Klein

(2015, November). ESEA reauthorization: The Every Student Succeeds Act explained. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/11/esea_reauthorization_the_every.html

21.

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, 205-224. doi:10.1177/0016986219830768

22.

McBee

M. T.

Field

S. H.

(2017). Confirmatory study design, data analysis, and results that matter. In Makel

M. C.

Plucker

J. A.

(Eds.), Toward a more perfect psychology: Improving trust, accuracy, and transparency in research (pp. 59-78). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

23.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Search for public school districts. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/

24.

National Freedom of Information Coalition. (2018). State FOI. School of Journalism, University of Missouri. Retrieved from https://www.nfoic.org/

25.

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, 273-287. doi:10.1177/0016986219833738

26.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Plucker

J. A.

(2017). Should millions of students take a gap year? Large numbers of students start the school year above grade level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 229-238. doi:10.1177/0016986217701834

27.

Plucker

J. A.

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

(2017). Blazing new trails: Strengthening policy research in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 210-218. doi:10.1177/0016986217701838

28.

Reardon

S. F.

Kalogrides

Shear

Shores

Fahle

(2016). Stanford education data archive. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 3-9.

29.

South Dakota Department of Education. (2018). A statistical profile of education in South Dakota. Retrieved from https://doe.sd.gov/ofm/statdigest.aspx

30.

Texas Administrative Code. (2018). Office of the Secretary of the State. Retrieved from https://www.sos.state.tx.us/tac/index.shtml

31.

Texas Education Agency. (2018a). District type glossary of terms, 2012-13. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/acctres/analyze/1213/gloss1213.html

32.

Texas Education Agency. (2018b). Economically disadvantaged status reports. Retrieved from https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/adhocrpt/adstc.html

33.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Preliminary overview of programs and changes included in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/progsum/sum_pg2.html

34.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Programs. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/programs/landing?src=ln

35.

Wang

Ren

Lou

(2010, March). Privacy-preserving public auditing for data storage security in cloud computing. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: IEEE. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5462173

36.

Washington Highly Capable Program. (2018). Data, resources and support for highly capable programs. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/HighlyCapable/default.aspx