This study estimates the effects of New York City’s (NYC) Gifted and Talented (G&T) program on students’ absenteeism and academic achievement. Leveraging a longitudinal student-level dataset and a staggered difference-in-differences approach, we provide evidence on middle and high school absence and achievement outcomes for students who entered G&T in grades 1 through 3. For students in G&T, we find modest but consistent effects on attendance and academic outcomes (middle school grade-level math and English Language Arts proficiency), with effects accumulating over time and reaching 0.11 to 0.18 standard deviations for students entering in grade 3. The results hold even during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting the program’s resilience in supporting attendance despite external disruptions. Overall, the findings indicate that G&T participation supports long-term improvements in attendance and academic achievement for students who enter in elementary grades.
AcarS.SenS.CayirdagN. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438
2.
ArchambaultF. X.Jr.WestbergK. L.BrownS. W.HallmarkB. W.ZhangW.EmmonsC. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329301600203
3.
AucejoE. M.RomanoT. F. (2016). Assessing the effect of school days and absences on test score performance. Economics of Education Review, 55, 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.08.007
BakerA. C.LarckerD. F.WangC. C. (2022). How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates?Journal of Financial Economics, 144(2), 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.01.004
BalestraS.SallinA.WolterS. C. (2023). High-ability influencers?: The heterogeneous effects of gifted classmates. Journal of Human Resources, 58(2), 633–665. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.58.2.0518-9553R4
8.
BalfanzR.ByrnesV. (2012). The importance of being in school: A report on absenteeism in the nation’s public schools. The Education Digest, 78(2), 4.
9.
BalfanzR.ByrnesV. (2018). Using data and the human touch: Evaluating the NYC inter-agency campaign to reduce chronic absenteeism. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 23(1–2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1438898
10.
BauerL.LiuP.SchanzenbachD. W.ShambaughJ. (2018). Reducing chronic absenteeism under the every student succeeds act (pp. 1–31). Brookings Institution.
11.
BorusyakK.JaravelX.SpiessJ. (2024). Revisiting event-study designs: Robust and efficient estimation. Review of Economic Studies, 91(6), 3253–3285. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdae007
12.
BrewerD.ReesD. I.ArgysL. M. (1996). “The reform without cost? A reply to our critics” and “Detracking America’s schools: The reform without cost.” In SchafferS. (Ed.), Gifted students and inclusion: Exploring the tracking debate (pp. 111–120). Center for Evaluation Development and Research. Phi Delta Kappa.
13.
BuiS. A.CraigS. G.ImbermanS. A. (2011). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on achievement (No. w17089). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17089
14.
CaetanoC.CallawayB. (2024). Difference-in-differences when parallel trends holds conditional on covariates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15288. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.15288
15.
CallawayB. (2023). Difference-in-differences for policy evaluation. In ZimmermanK. F. (Ed.), In Handbook of labor, human resources and population economics (pp. 1–61). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_352-1
CardD.GiulianoL. (2014). Does gifted education work? For which students? (No. w20453). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20453
18.
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113
19.
ChinJ.KocksG. (2025). Sorting or supporting? The effect of gifted education on achievement and access [Job market paper]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
20.
CorcoranS. P.JenningsJ. L. (2019). Information and school choice. In BerendsM.PrimusA.SpringerM. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 365–378). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351210447-24
21.
CropperC. (1998). Fostering parental involvement in the education of the gifted minority student. Gifted Child Today, 21(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621759802100105
22.
CrossC. T.DonovanM. S. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10128
23.
De ChaisemartinC.d’HaultfoeuilleX. (2023). Two-way fixed effects and differences-in-differences with heterogeneous treatment effects: A survey. The Econometrics Journal, 26(3), C1–C30. https://doi.org/10.1093/ectj/utac017
24.
Ecker-LysterM.Coleman-TempelL.GregersenS.SnyderJ. (2021). A sociological examination of parenting practices and gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 44(4), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175211031349
25.
ElhowerisH.MutuaK.AlsheikhN.HollowayP. (2005). Effect of children’s ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260010401
26.
FaghaniH.VanOmmerenS. (2025). Staggered difference-in-differences estimation for antitrust analysis: A review of literature and recommendations for practitioners. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 21(1), 44–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhae018
27.
FahleE. M.KaneT. J.PattersonT.ReardonS. F.StaigerD. O.StuartE. A. (2023). School district and community factors associated with learning loss during the COVID-19 pandemic. Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.
28.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42, 217−225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_8
29.
FrasierM. M.PassowA. H. (1994). Towards a new paradigm for identifying talent potential. University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
30.
FruchterN. (2023). The spoils of whiteness: New York City’s gifted and talented programs. VUE (Voices in Urban Education), 52(1), 106−110. https://doi.org/10.35240/vue.100
GarnA. C.MatthewsM. S.JollyJ. L. (2010). Parental influences on the academic motivation of gifted students: A self-determination theory perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210377657
33.
GershensonS.JacknowitzA.BranneganA. (2017). Are student absences worth the worry in U.S. primary schools?Education Finance and Policy, 12, 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00207
GoodmanJ. (2014). Flaking out: Student absences and snow days as disruptions of instructional time (No. w20221). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20221
GottfriedM. A. (2010). Evaluating the relationship between student attendance and achievement in urban elementary and middle schools: An instrumental variables approach. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 434–465. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209350494
38.
GottfriedM. A. (2014). Chronic absenteeism and its effects on students’ academic and socioemotional outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19(2), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.962696
39.
GottfriedM. A.GeeK. A. (2017). Identifying the determinants of chronic absenteeism: A bioecological systems approach. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900704
40.
GottfriedM. A.HuttE. (Eds., 2019). Absent from School: Understanding and Addressing Student Absenteeism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
41.
GottfriedM. A.KirkseyJ. J. (2022). Exploring the effects of full-day kindergarten on school absenteeism for children with disabilities: Evidence from state policy mandates in the United States. Exceptional Children, 88, 263-82.
42.
GreiferN.StuartE. A. (2021). Matching methods for confounder adjustment: An addition to the epidemiologist’s toolbox. Epidemiologic Reviews, 43(1), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxab003
43.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2015). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 2332858415622175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
44.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC.BleibergJ. F. (2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Educational Review, 89(3), 337–369. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337
45.
HamD. W.MiratrixL. (2024). Benefits and costs of matching prior to a difference in differences analysis when parallel trends does not hold. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 18(3), 2096–2122. https://doi.org/10.1214/23-AOAS1867
46.
JordanP. W.MillerR. (2017). Who’s in: Chronic absenteeism under the every student succeeds act. FutureEd at Georgetown University.
47.
KhoA.ZimmerR.McEachinA. (2022). A descriptive analysis of cream skimming and pushout in choice versus traditional public schools. Education Finance and Policy, 17(1), 160–187. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00328
48.
KimM. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216630607
49.
KirkseyJ. J. (2019). Academic harms of missing high school and the accuracy of current policy thresholds: Analysis of preregistered administrative data from a California School District. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419867692
50.
KirkseyJ. J.GottfriedM. A. (2021). Does the “where” matter? Serving “breakfast-after-the-bell” meals and its effect on student absenteeism. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373721989398
51.
KirkseyJ. J. (2024). Weeks after the raid: The immediate and sustained changes in student attendance rates following immigration arrests. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737241238006
52.
KuhfeldM.LewisK.PeltierT. (2023). Reading achievement declines during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from 5 million U.S. students in grades 3–8. Reading and Writing, 36(2), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10345-8
53.
LeeH.KarakisN.Olcay AkceB.Azzam TuzgenA.KaramiS.GentryM.MaedaY. (2021). A meta-analytic evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring its validity evidence and effectiveness in equitably identifying gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220979347
54.
LittleC. A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 695–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21621
LohmanD. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(3–4), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2005-341
57.
LongD. A.McCoachD. B.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (2023). Inequality at the starting line: Underrepresentation in gifted identification and disparities in early achievement. AERA Open, 9, 23328584231171535. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231171535
58.
LovelessT.ParkasS.DuffettA. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of NCLB. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
59.
LuY.WeinbergS. L. (2016). Public pre-K and test taking for the NYC gifted-and-talented programs: Forging a path to equity. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15624915
60.
LuY.WeinbergS. L.McCormickM. (2020). Test-taking for gifted and talented kindergarten: Underscoring the importance of outreach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220937685
61.
MarcusM.Sant’AnnaP. H. (2021). The role of parallel trends in event study settings: An application to environmental economics. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 8(2), 235–275. https://doi.org/10.1086/711509
62.
MartinA. J. (2015). Motivating the gifted and talented: Lessons from research and practice. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(2), 52–60.
63.
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686
64.
MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. Oxford University Press.
65.
NeuzilK. M.MellenB. G.WrightP. F.MitchelE.GriffinM. R. (2002). Illness among schoolchildren during influenza season. JAMA Pediatrics, 10, 986–991. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.156.10.986
66.
NicholasM.SkourdoumbisA.BradburyO. (2024). Meeting the needs and potentials of high-ability, high-performing, and gifted students via differentiation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231220808
67.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS. Y.NgoiM.NgoiD. (2004). Addressing the achievement gap between minority and nonminority children by increasing access to gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(2), 127-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320402800202
68.
OzenZ.PereiraN.KaratasT.Castillo-HermosillaH.MaedaY. (2025). A meta-analytic evaluation: Investigating evidence for the validity of the Cognitive Abilities Test. Gifted Child Quarterly, 69(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241285593
69.
PatrickH.GentryM.MossJ. D.McintoshJ. S. (2021). Understanding gifted and talented adolescents’ motivation. In DixonF. A.MoonS. M. (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 185–209). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235415-10
70.
PetersS. J.LangiM.KuhfeldM.LewisK. (2025). Unequal learning loss: How the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the academic growth of learners at the tails of the achievement distribution. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 48(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532241293296
PluckerJ. A.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K-12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
73.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244
74.
RaoofK.ShokriO.FathabadiJ.PanaghiL. (2024). Unpacking the underachievement of gifted students: A systematic review of internal and external factors. Heliyon, 10(17), Article e36908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36679
75.
ReddingC.GrissomJ. A. (2021). Do students in gifted programs perform better? Linking gifted program participation to achievement and nonachievement outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 520–544. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211000020
76.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012
77.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.KulikowichJ. K.CaillardF.HébertT. P.PluckerJ.PurcellJ. H.RogersJ. B.SmistJ. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut (Research Monograph 93106).
78.
RobinsonC. D.LeeM. G.DearingE.RogersT. (2018). Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting parental beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1163–1192. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218772274
79.
RodaA. (2017). Parenting in the age of high-stakes testing: Gifted and talented admissions and the meaning of parenthood. Teachers College Record, 119(8), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900808
80.
RyanA. M.KontopantelisE.LindenA.BurgessJ. F.Jr. (2019). Now trending: Coping with non-parallel trends in difference-in-differences analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 28(12), 3697–3711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280218814570
81.
SantibanezL.GuarinoC. M. (2021). The effects of absenteeism on academic and social-emotional outcomes: Lessons for COVID-19. Educational Researcher, 50(6), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20970852
82.
StakeJ. E.MaresK. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1065–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10001
83.
StricklandK. J.ChanW.GottfriedM.HuangJ.HildrethD. (2024). Exploring the impact of New York City’s gifted and talented program: A matched comparison study. AERA Open, 10, 23328584241299346.
84.
StuartE. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313
85.
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
86.
SunL.AbrahamS. (2021). Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. F. (2021). An analysis of gifted education curriculum models. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 107–138). Routledge.
89.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.JrDobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
90.
WingC.YozwiakM.HollingsworthA.FreedmanS.SimonK. (2024). Designing difference-in-difference studies with staggered treatment adoption: Key concepts and practical guidelines. Annual Review of Public Health, 45, 485-505. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-061022-050825
91.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2021). Two-way fixed effects, the two-way mundlak regression, and difference-in-differences estimators. SSRN 3906345. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3906345
92.
ZimmerR.GillB.BookerK.LavertuS.WitteJ. (2009). Do charter schools “cream skim” students and increase racial-ethnic segregation. In BerendsM.CannataM.GoldringE. (Eds.), School choice and school improvement: Research in state, district and community contexts (pp. 215–232). Harvard Education Press.
