Gifted children in the current policy and fiscal context of public education: A national snapshot and state-level equity analysis of texas

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 229-250

  Baker, Bruce D ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035603895     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737023003229     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Archambault, F. X., Kelly, G. P., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1992). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph No. 93102). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
2. Baker, B. D. (1995). The economic health of gifted education in three Northeastern states: An analysis of public school opportunities and private programs in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 419 321)
3. Baker, B. D. (2001). Measuring the outcomes of state policies for gifted education: An equity analysis of Texas school districts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 4-15.
4. Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. C. (2001). State policy influences governing equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Cincinnati, OH.
5. Baker, B. D., Keller-Wolff, C., & Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (2000). Two steps forward, one step back: Race/ethnicity and student achievement in educational policy research. Educational Policy, 14(4), 511-529.
6. Baker, B. D., & Richards, C. E. (1998). Equity through vouchers: The special case of gifted children. Educational Policy, 12(4), 363-379.
7. Baum, S. (1988). High ability/learning disabled students: How are they different? Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3).
8. Bergstrorn, T., & Goodman, R. (1973). Private demands for public goods. American Economic Review, 63(3), 380-397.
9. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1984). The measurement of equity in school finance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1999). Concepts of school finance equity: 1970 to present. In H. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Bratton, S. E., Horn, S. P., & Wright, S. P. (1996). Using and interpreting Tennessee's Value-Added Assessment System: A primer for teachers and principals. Knoxville, TN: Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
12. Brent, B. O., Roellke, C. F., & Monk, D. H. (1997). Understanding teacher resource allocation in New York State secondary schools: A case study approach. Journal of Education Finance, 23(2), 207-233.
13. Chall, J. S., & Conrad, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier or harder textbooks. New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Chambers, J. G. (1995). Public school teacher cost differences across the United States: Introduction to a teacher cost index (TCI). In W. J. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in School Finance (NCES No. 96-344r, pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
15. Chambers, J. G. (1999). Patterns of expenditures on students with disabilities: A methodological and empirical analysis. In T. B. Parrish, J. G. Chambers, & C. M. Guarino (Eds.), Funding special education: Nineteenth annual yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (pp. 89-123) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
16. Coleman, M. R., Gallagher, J., & Foster, A. (1994). Updated report on state policies related to the identification of gifted students. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Gifted Education Policy Studies Program: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.
17. Council for State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (1996). State of the states gifted and talented education report.
18. Curley, J. (1991). Financing programs for education of the gifted in New York State. Journal of Education Finance, 76(3), 332-347.
19. Delcourt, M., Loyd, B., Cornell, D., & Goldberg, M. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes (Research Monograph No. 94108). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
20. Downes, T. A., & Pogue, T. F. (1994). Adjusting school aid formulas for the higher cost of educating disadvantaged students. National Tax Journal, 47 (1), 89-110.
21. Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (1998). School finance reform: Aid formulas and equity objectives. National Tax Journal, 239-262.
22. Gallagher, J., & Coleman, M. R. (1992). State policies on the identification of gifted students from special populations: Three states in profile. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Gifted Education Policy Studies Program: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.
23. Gallagher, J., & Coleman, M. R. (1994). Gifted education policy studies program final report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Gifted Education Policy Studies Program: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.
24. Imber, M. (1990). A typology of discrimination in education. In Readings on equal education: Critical issues for a new administration and Congress (Vol. 10). AMS Press, Inc.
25. Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1997). The fragmented legal framework of legal protection for the gifted. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3 & 4), 166-179.
26. Kirst, M. W. (1982). How to improve schools without spending more money. Phi Delta Kappan 64, 6-8.
27. Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (1999). The allocation of resources to special education and regular instruction in New York State. In T. B. Parrish, J. G. Chambers, J. G. & C. M. Guarino, (Eds.), Funding special education: Nineteenth annual yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (pp. 147-175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
28. Levin, H. M. (1983). Cost effectiveness: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
29. Levin, H. M. (1994). Accelerated schools. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Making Schools Work: Improving performance and controlling costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30. Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
31. Minorini, P. A., & Sugarman, S. D. (1999). School finance litigation in the name of educational equity: Its evolution, impact, and future. In H. F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and J. S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives, pp. 34-71. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. Odden, A. R., & Clune, W. H. (1998). School finance systems: Aging structures in need of renovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 157-177.
33. Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2000). School finance: A policy perspective (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
34. Parrish, T. B., & Wolman, J. (1998). Trends and new developments in special education funding: What the states report. In T. B. Parrish, J. G. Chambers, & C. M. Guarino (Eds.), Funding special education: Nineteenth yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (pp. 203-229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
35. Passow, H. A., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1993). State policies regarding education of the gifted as reflected in legislation and regulation (CRS93302). National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
36. Passow, H. A., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1994). Transforming policy to enhance educational services for the gifted. Roeper Review, 16(4), 271-275
37. Purcell, J. (1992). Programs for the gifted in a state without a mandate: An "endangered species." Roeper Review, 15(2), 93-95.
38. Purcell, J. (1993). The effects of elimination of gifted and talented programs on our most able students and their parents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 177-187.
39. Purcell, J. (1995). Gifted education at a crossroads: The program status study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 57-65.
40. Raudenbush, S. W., Fotiu, R. P, & Cheong, Y. F. (1999). Inequality of access to educational resources: A national report card for eighth-grade math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 253-267.
41. Reis, S. M. (1999). Testimony of the National Association for Gifted Children: Hearing on Elementary and Secondary Education Act - Educating Diverse Populations. Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, House Committee on Education and the Workforce [On-line] Available: http://www. nagc.org/Policy/testimon.html
42. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
43. Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.) (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
44. Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
45. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
46. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26-35.
47. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd. ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
48. Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., & Reis, S. M. (1982). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted students. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 185-194.
49. Reschovsky, A., & Imazeki, J. (1999). Does the school finance system in Texas provide students with an adequate education? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA.
50. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995). Educational assessment reassessed: The usefulness of standardized and alternative measures of student achievement as indicators for the assessment of educational outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 3(6).
51. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247-256.
52. Seligman, M. E. P. (1998, November). The gifted and extraordinary: President's column. Monitor: American Psychological Association.
53. Smith, J. (1996). Does an extra year make a difference? The impact of early access to algebra on long-term gains in mathematics attainment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2), 141-154.
54. Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219-238.
55. U.S. Department of Education (1994). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.