Growing concerns about inequitable access have made public investment in gifted programs controversial in many school districts, yet advocates maintain that gifted services provide necessary enrichment for exceptional students to succeed at school. We provide evidence on whether the typical gifted program indeed benefits elementary students’ achievement and nonachievement outcomes, using nationally representative data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 2010–2011 kindergarten cohort. Leveraging within-school and within-student comparisons, we find that participating in a school’s gifted program is associated with reading and mathematics achievement for the average student, although associations are small. We find no evidence of a relationship between gifted participation and student absences, reported engagement with school, or student mobility. Black and low-income students do not see the academic gains that their peers experience when receiving gifted services.
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(1), 25–39.
2.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). Belin-Blank Center.
3.
BhattR. (2009). The impacts of gifted and talented education (Working Paper 2009-10-1). Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.
4.
BhattR. (2011). A review of gifted and talented education in the United States. Education Finance and Policy, 6(4), 557–582.
5.
BuiS. A.CraigS. G.ImbermanS. A. (2014). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on achievement. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(3), 30–62.
6.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2013). Status of elementary gifted programs: 2013. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. http://www.nagc.org
7.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 20–49.
8.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS.AzanoA. P.HaileyE. P. (2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted student. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 137–167.
9.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13678–13683.
10.
ChiangH.LinY. (2007). Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism. SAGE Publications, 11(6), 547–556.
11.
CrossT. L.AndersenL.MammadovS. (2015). Effects of academic acceleration on the social and emotional lives of gifted students. In AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). Belin-Blank Center.
12.
DavisB.EngbergJ.EppleD. N.SiegH.ZimmerR. (2013). Bounding the impact of a gifted program on student retention using a modified regression discontinuity design. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 111/112, 10–34.
13.
DelcourtM. A. B.CornellD. G.GoldbergM. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcome of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 359–381.
14.
DonovanM. S.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. National Academy Press.
15.
FordD. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4–14.
16.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289–306.
17.
FordD. Y.KingR. (2014). No Blacks allowed; Segregated gifted education in the context ofBrown vs. Board of Education. Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 300–310.
18.
FryerR. G.Jr.TorelliP. (2010). An empirical analysis of “acting White.”Journal of Public Economics, 94(5–6), 380–396.
19.
FugateC. M.ZentallS. S.GentryM. (2013). Creativity and working memory in gifted students with and without characteristics of attention deficit hyperactive disorder: Lifting the mask. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 234–246.
20.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J. (2009). The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 188–202.
21.
GoldhaberD.ÖzekU. (2019). How much should we rely on student test achievement as a measure of success?Educational Researcher, 48(7), 479–483.
22.
GoldringE. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organization frameworks for gifted students. The Journal of Educational Research, 23(6), 313–327.
23.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.
24.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25.
25.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC.BleibergJ. F. (2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Educational Review, 89(3), 337–369.
26.
GubbelsJ.SegersE.VerhoevenL. (2014). Cognitive, socioemotional, and attitudinal effects of a triarchic enrichment program for gifted children. Journal of Education of the Gifted, 37(4), 378–397.
27.
HarrisB.PluckerJ. A.RappK. E.MartinezR. S. (2009). Identifying gifted and talented English language learners: A case study. Journal for Education of the Gifted, 32(3), 368–393.
28.
HogeR. D.RenzulliJ. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Education Research, 63(4), 449–465.
29.
KellH. J.WaiJ. (2019). Right-tail range restriction: A lurking threat to detecting associations between traits and skill among experts. Journal of Expertise, 2(4), 224–242.
30.
KettlerT. (2016). Why are economists evaluating the impact of gifted education?Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2), 81–89.
31.
KingE. W. (2005). Addressing the social and emotional needs of twice-exceptional students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 16–20.
32.
KraftM. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253.
33.
LeeS.Olszewski-KubiliusP.MakelM. C.PutallazM. (2015). Gifted students’ perceptions of an accelerated summer program and social support. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 265–282.
34.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.KellH. J. (2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25, 2217–2232.
35.
MakelM. C.WaiJ. (2016). Does economic research in education work? For which studies?Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2), 73–80.
36.
MarshH. W.ChessorD.CravenR.RocheL. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 285–319.
37.
MillerD. L.ShenhavN.GroszM. Z. (2019). Selection into identification in fixed effects models with application to head start (NBER Working Paper No. 26174). National Bureau of Economic Research.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2008a). The history of gifted and talented education. www.nagc.org
40.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2008b). Why we should advocate for gifted and talented students. www.nagc.org
41.
ObguJ. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting White” in Black history, community, and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1–35.
42.
OsterE. (2019). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37(2), 1–18.
43.
ParkG.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2013). When less is more: Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM productivity among mathematically precocious adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 176–198.
44.
PluckerJ. A.MakelM. C.MatthewsM. S.PetersS. J.Rambo-HernandezK. E. (2017). Blazing new trails: Strengthening policy research in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 210–218.
45.
ReardonS. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In DuncanG. J.MurnaneR. J. (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–115). Russell Sage Foundation.
46.
RinnA. N.ReynoldsM. J.McQueenK. S. (2011). Perceived social support and the self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(3), 367–396.
47.
School Diversity Advisory Group in New York City. (2019). Making the grade II: New programs for better schools
48.
SolonG.HaiderS. J.WooldridgeJ. M. (2015). What are we weighting for?The Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 301–316.
49.
StambaughT.FordD. Y. (2015). Microaggressions, multiculturalism, and gifted individuals who are Black, Hispanic, or low income. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 192–201.
50.
Steenbergen-HuS.MakelM. C.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899.
51.
Steenbergen-HuS.MoonS. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39–53.
52.
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.
53.
TourangeauK.NordC.LêT.Wellaner-AllenK.Vaden-KiernanN.BlakerL.NajarianM. (2019). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-L:2011) user’s manual for the ECLS-K:2011 kindergarten-fifth grade data file and electronic codebook, restricted version (NCES-2019-101). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
54.
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.
55.
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.
56.
WattsT. W.DuncanG. J.ChenM.ClaessensA.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.. . . SusperreguyM. I. (2015). The role of mediators in development of longitudinal mathematics achievement associations. Child Development, 86(6), 1892–1907.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
