Equity through vouchers: The special case of gifted children

Educational Policy

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 363-379

  Baker, Bruce D ^a   Richards, Craig E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22044443981     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904898012004001     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Borland, J. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(4), 164-171.
2. Broadley v. Board of Education. (1994). West's Educational Law Reporter, 90, 265.
3. Connecticut State Department of Education. (1994). Budget brief. Hartford: State of Connecticut Board of Education.
4. Corazza, L. (1992). 1992 academic programs report: A brief history of CTY's academic programs. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth.
5. Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1987). The 1987 state of the states gifted and talented education report. Topeka: Kansas State Department of Education.
6. Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1994). The 1994 state of the states gifted and talented education report. Austin: Texas Education Agency.
7. Curley, J. (1991, Winter). Financing programs for education of the gifted in New York State. Journal of Education Finance, 16, 332-347.
8. Hess, K. (1990). The status of gifted education in New Jersey. Trenton: New Jersey State Department of Education.
9. Lankford, H., & Wykoff, J. (1996). The allocation of resources in New York school districts: 1979-80 to 1993-94. In R. Berne (Ed.), Study on cost effectiveness in education: Final report. Albany: New York State Board of Regents.
10. Levin, H. (Ed.). (1983). Educational choice and the pains of democracy. In Public dollars for private schools. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
11. Levin, H. (1994). Accelerated schools. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Making schools work: Improving performance and controlling costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
12. Mills, C. J., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 209-217.
13. Missouri State Census Data Center. (1990a). STF3 Extract Report. Connecticut: Author.
14. Missouri State Census Data Center. (1990b). STF3 Extract Report. New Jersey: Author.
15. Missouri State Census Data Center. (1990c). STF3 Extract Report. New York: Author.
16. National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). NCES historical trends: State education facts 1969 to 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
17. National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Digest of education statistics 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
18. National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). Digest of education statistics 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
19. National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Digest of education statistics 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
20. Pearsall, S. (1994, June 26). Best students' needs regaining attention. The New York Times (Connecticut Weekly), pp. 1-5.
21. Purcell, J. H. (1993). The effects of the elimination of gifted and talented programs on participating students and their parents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 177-187.
22. Purcell, J. H. (1994). The status of programs for high ability students (CRS94306). National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
23. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26-35.
24. Richards, C. E., & White, R. E. (1989, Spring). Are vouchers more efficient? The case of New Jersey's funding system for private providers of special education. Journal of Education Finance, 484-499.