This article tests hypotheses by examining variations in the percentage of elementary and middle schools offering gifted and talented programs as well as gifted student participation and representation between 2012 and 2016. Using the Office of Civil Rights and the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) Common Core data, we find that between 2012 and 2016, the percentage of schools with gifted programs declined slightly. Crucially, gifted participation is increasing faster in low-poverty schools than in high-poverty schools. Furthermore, suburban schools became more likely to have gifted programs than urban, rural, or town schools. However, gifted participation by urbanicity decreased across all four locales. Using only 2016 data, we show that students who are Black and Hispanic continue to be statistically underrepresented. We conclude with a brief discussion and policy implications.

No abstract

Student removal became an increasingly utilized form of discipline since the implementation of zero-tolerance policies during the early 1990s. Evaluative studies have consistently found negative relationships between student removal and academic success. Majority of cases regarding student removal are for minor and non-violent offenses and literature in this field suggests that teachers’ biases and cultural misreadings widen racial disparities in school discipline and academic performance. Our study estimates the effects of suspensions, school-related arrests, and expulsions under zero-tolerance by exploiting within-school variation in school mean proficiency rates of Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White racial subgroups over a 3-year period. Our findings reaffirm consistent evidence that exclusionary policies have negative effects on academic outcomes. We also find evidence of differential effects by racial subgroup. The paper concludes with a discussion and policy implications.

<p>This study uses panel data (2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16) from three sources—the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core Data (CCD), and the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) school report cards. These data were then merged using a common key to create one large dataset. OCR and CCD data have a common school identification key that was readily available. Data from ODE contained Building and District identification numbers that were concatenated to create a school ID that was identical to the one in the other two datasets.</p>

<p>This study uses panel data (2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16) from three sources—the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core Data (CCD), and the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) school report cards. These data were then merged using a common key to create one large dataset. OCR and CCD data have a common school identification key that was readily available. Data from ODE contained Building and District identification numbers that were concatenated to create a school ID that was identical to the one in the other two datasets.</p>