The purpose of this investigation into local level implementation of state policy for the identification of gifted students was to gain insight into how local school districts interpret the state department of education policy. Using the mutual adaptation model (Berman, 1980; McLaughlin, 1987, 1991), data from school districts were analyzed to determine the relative degree to which school districts were programmed in their implementation of state guidelines and to develop a beginning understanding of how state policy and guidelines for the identification of gifted students are understood at the local level.
School districts are in compliance with state department of education guidelines and use a programmed approach to implementation when identifying students for gifted programs. They understand them as a defined format which must be followed with mandated and prescribed guidelines. These are not viewed as a framework but as a prescription. Implemented as a prescription, policy translation across districts is very uniform in consideration of individual school district differences.
Implications for the field of gifted education include constructing identification processes at the local level that take into account the inherently subjective nature of determining who and what is “gifted”; implementing an identification process which acknowledges differences and diversity of school districts; and moving forward to a multi-dimensional process of assessment and identification to select students based on need.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbeelL.CallahanC. M.HunsakerS. (1991). The use of published instruments in the identification of gifted students. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented: Charlottesville, VA.
2.
AlvinoJ.McDonnelR. C.RichertS. (1984). National survey of identification practices in gifted and talented education. Exceptional Children, 48, 124–132.
3.
BermanP. (1978). The study of macro- and micro-implementation. Public Policy, 26, 157–185.
4.
BermanP. (1980). Thinking about programmed and adaptive implementation: Matching strategies to situations. In IngramH. M.MannD. E. (Eds.), Why policies succeed or fail (pp. 205–325). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
5.
CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC.PizzatP., (Eds.) (1994). Contexts of promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students. Charlottesville, VA.: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
6.
ColemanM. R.GallagherJ. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17, 268–275.
7.
CraigJ. (1990). Comparative African experiences in implementing educational policies. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327–435.).
8.
EvansK. (1995a) Policy implementation and interpretation, Lincoln School District. Umpublished raw data.
9.
EvansK. (1995b) Policy implementation and interpretation, Lincoln School District. Umpublished raw data.
10.
FrasierM. M. (1989). Identification of gifted Black students: Developing new perspectives. In MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (Eds.). Critical issues in gifted education. Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (pp. 213–225). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
11.
GallagherJ. J.ColemanM. R. (1992, August). State policies on the identification of gifted students from special populations: Three states in profile. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 349–748.).
12.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
13.
HadawayN.Marek-SchroerM. F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the minority gifted students. Roeper Review, 15, 73–77.
14.
HarbinG. L.GallagherJ. J.EcklandJ.LillieT. (1991). The prediction of state progress in the implementation of PL99–457, Part H. Early Education and Development, 2, 321–333.
15.
HarrisJ. J.IIIFordD. Y. (1991). Identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted black children. Journal of Negro Education, 60, 3–18.
16.
HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17.
LaRocqueL. (1986). Policy implementation in a school district: A multiperspective approach. Canadian Journal of Education, 11, 486–508.
18.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
19.
MakerC. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence and problem solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9, 68–77.
20.
MakerC. J.SchieverS. W., (Eds.) (1989). Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic groups. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
21.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178.
22.
McLaughlinM. W. (1991). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. In OddenA. R. (Ed.), Education Policy Implementation (pp. 185–196). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1994). Administrative manual and guidelines. State-assisted programs for gifted students.
25.
Missouri School Directory. (1995). Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
26.
MitchellP. B. (1994). State policy issues in the education of gifted and talented students. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, D.C. (Eric Document Reproduction Service ED 372–583).
27.
PassowA. H.RudnitskiR. A. (1993). State policies regarding education of the gifted as reflected in legislation and regulation. (Research Monograph CRS93302). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
28.
RenzulliJ. S., (Ed.) (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
29.
ShakleeB. D.BarbourN.AmbroseR.RohrerJ.WhitmoreJ. (1993). Early assessment of exceptional potential in young minority and/or economically disadvantaged students. In CallahanC.TomlinsonC.PizzatP. (Eds.), Contexts of promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students, (pp. 22–42) Monograph. Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
30.
SpickerH. H.SouthernW. T.DavisB. (1991). The rural gifted child. In Jenkins-FriedmanR.RichertE. S.FeldhusenJ. F. (Eds.), Special populations of gifted learners, a book of readings (pp. 92–98). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.
31.
StakeR. E. (1994). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
32.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E., (Eds.) (1986). Conceptions of Giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
TimarT. B. (1989). A theoretical framework for local responses to state policy: Implementing Utah's career ladder program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 329–341.
34.
Tyler-WoodT.CarriL. (1993). Verbal measures of cognitive ability: The gifted low SES student's albatross. Roeper Review, 16, 102–105.
35.
Virginia Department of Education (1993). Regulations governing services for gifted students. Richmond, VA: author.
36.
U. S. Department of Education (1993). National excellence. A case for developing America's talent. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
37.
U. S. Department of Education (1994). Identifying outstanding talent in American Indian and Alaska native students. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
38.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research. Design and methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
