Examining the Effects of Gifted Programming in Mathematics and Reading Using the ECLS-K

Abstract

This study examined the average effects of schools' third through fifth grade gifted programming policy in mathematics and reading on overall school achievement, on gifted students' achievement and academic attitudes and on nongifted students' achievement and academic attitudes. Data and results represent a broad, national look at school personnel-reported programming without distinction as to type, length, or degree of programming. No detrimental effects were found at the overall school level or for nongifted students. However, the results also indicated that, on average, the diverse programs reported in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1988-1989 (ECLS-K) database had no effect on gifted students' achievement or academic attitudes. Considered in light of prior research indicating benefits of specific programs and existing inconsistent policies and programs, this suggests the need for future research to determine effective program characteristics and suggests that policy makers, educators, and parents actively must seek research-based practices to use with gifted children.

Ninth‐grade students' perceptions of the factors that led them to major in high school science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines

“…H1b: Participation in advanced science programs—Based on the previous research (Adelson et al, ; Hattie, ; Steenbergen‐Hu et al, ), we would hypothesize that this variable will not significantly predict the decision to major in STEM disciplines. However, given that such programs have been implemented over the last decade and that no findings have been reported, we will refrain from making any hypothesis.…”

“…First, research indicated that such practices often limited educational opportunities for disadvantaged students thereby worsening educational and social inequalities (Oakes, ). Second, a great deal of research, synthesized in meta‐analyses, also indicated that the effects of ability grouping on 1st–12th‐grade students' achievement were negligible (Adelson, McCoach, & Gavin, ; Hattie, ; Steenbergen‐Hu et al, ). However, since the turn of the century, the implementation of ability grouping throughout the United States has increased markedly (Loveless, ).…”

High‐Ability Grouping: Benefits for Gifted Students’ Achievement Development Without Costs in Academic Self‐Concept

“…It is important to note, however, that these findings do not necessarily generalize to the grouping of gifted students. Although some studies found no effects of ability grouping on gifted students' achievement development (e.g., Adelson, McCoach, & Gavin, 2012), many studies reported positive effects for achievement outcomes (Adelson & Carpenter, 2011;Hattie, 2002;Rogers, 2007;Tieso, 2005). Kulik and Kulik (1992) identified 25 studies of special programs for the gifted and found that ability grouping had a positive effect (Cohen's d = 0.41) on the achievement of gifted elementary school children.…”

Child temperamental regulation and classroom quality in Head Start: Considering the role of cumulative economic risk.

“…There is a need for experimental work that may more precisely tease apart the mechanisms by which certain classroom processes and regulation-focused interventions may be effective for improving children's learning. Third, effect sizes from this study are small, as is typical of classroom-based research (e.g., Bulotsky-Shearer, Dominguez, & Bell, 2012;Hamre & Pianta, 2005;Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012) as well as with studies of specific subsets of children from large representative samples (e.g., Adelson, McCoach, & Gavin, 2012). Fourth, although our measure of cumulative economic risk included the most robust indicators of economic disadvantage (i.e., income below poverty and mothers' education below high school; Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010), research suggests that there are other indicators related to economic risk, such as food insufficiency or household density, that may add meaningfully to our understanding of the impact of cumulative risk on children's outcomes (e.g., Burchinal, Vernon-Feagans, Cox, & Key Family Life Project Investigators, 2008).…”