Researchers consider the underrepresentation of Black, Hispanic, and Native American students is largely due to the use of traditional methods of identification (i.e., IQ and standardized achievement tests). To address this concern, researchers created novel non-traditional identification methods (e.g., non-verbal tests, student portfolios, affective checklists). This metaanalysis of 54 studies, consisting of 85 effect sizes representing 191,287,563 students, provides evidence that non-traditional identification methods, while able to narrow the proportional identification gap between underrepresented (Black, Hispanic, and Native American) and represented (Asian and White American) populations, are still unable to address the issue of education inequity. An overall risk ratio of .34 was calculated for non-traditional methods of identification in comparison to a .27 risk ratio for traditional methods. While the non-traditional methods help identify more underrepresented students as gifted, the results of this meta-analysis show that better identification methods are needed to address inequities in identification.

Concerns about the conduct of research are pervasive in many fields, including education. In this preregistered study, we replicated and extended previous studies from other fields by asking education researchers about 10 questionable research practices and five open research practices. We asked them to estimate the prevalence of the practices in the field, to self-report their own use of such practices, and to estimate the appropriateness of these behaviors in education research. We made predictions under four umbrella categories: comparison to psychology, geographic location, career stage, and quantitative orientation. Broadly, our results suggest that both questionable and open research practices are used by many education researchers. This baseline information will be useful as education researchers seek to understand existing social norms and grapple with whether and how to improve research practices.

Sex differences in cognitive ability level and cognitive ability pattern or tilt (e.g., math > verbal) have been linked to educational and occupational outcomes in STEM and other fields. The present study examines cognitive ability tilt across the last 35 years in 2,053,221 academically talented students in the U.S. (SAT, ACT, EXPLORE) and 7,118 students in India (ASSET) who were in the top 5% to 0.01% of cognitive ability, populations that largely feed high level STEM and other occupations. Across all measures and samples, sex differences in ability tilt were uncovered, favoring males for math > verbal and favoring females for verbal > math. As ability tilt increased, so did sex differences in ability tilt. Additionally, sex differences in tilt increased as ability selectivity increased. Broadly, sex differences in ability tilt remained fairly stable over time, were consistent across most measures, and replicated across the U.S. and India. Across time, exceptions to the general trend were females increased their verbal tilt advantage over males, on the EXPLORE, males increased their math tilt advantage over females, and in the top 0.01% of ability on the SAT, the male math tilt advantage decreased over time. Such trends should be carefully monitored given their potential to impact future workforce trends.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has defined the past 15 years of public K-12 education. An incentive structure built around adequate yearly progress created an environment that was not aligned with gifted education. Texas, with over 11% of the total identified gifted population in the United States, state funding for gifted, and incentivized identification policies, made an ideal case study to analyze the ramifications of NCLB on gifted education. This article explores how Texas responded to NCLB and that response's influence on district-level funding for gifted education. In total, 16 years of financial and enrollment data were analyzed for the 1,025 public school districts in Texas using the frame work of a longitudinal mixed model. Results indicated that there was an annual decline in the percentage of budget allocated to gifted education of 0.04 percentage points for rural school districts, 0.08 for suburban, 0.07 for town, and 0.05 for urban.

Discussions of how to improve research quality are predominant in a number of fields, including education. But how prevalent are the use of problematic practices and the improved practices meant to counter them? This baseline information will be a critical data source as education researchers seek to improve our research practices. In this preregistered study, we replicated and extended previous studies from other fields by asking education researchers about 10 questionable research practices and 5 open research practices. We asked them to estimate the prevalence of the practices in the field, self-report their own use of such practices, and estimate the appropriateness of these behaviors in education research. We made predictions under four umbrella categories: comparison to psychology, geographic location, career stage, and quantitative orientation. Broadly, our results suggest that both questionable and open research practices are part of the typical research practices of many educational researchers. Preregistration, code, and data can be found at https://osf.io/83mwk/.