Equitable Access, Locale, Funding, and the Alignment to Performance Ratings in Texas Gifted Programs

Abstract

Self-assessments utilizing designated, objective standards are critical in program evaluation. Although 2013–2014 Texas policy mandated districts self-assess their gifted programs using the community and student engagement performance rating system, little is known about how districts determined their self-assessment ratings. Following gifted program evaluation guidelines from the Texas State Plan for Gifted/Talented Students and the National Association for Gifted Children Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards, researchers used logistic ordered regression to examine Texas districts’ 2014–2015 locale, proportional representation, and budgetary allotments in relation to gifted program self-assessed performance ratings. Results indicate proportional representation of Black and Hispanic students in gifted programs did not influence school district self-assessed ratings. On the contrary, locale, proportion of Black and Hispanic students to the overall district population, and budget allocation did relate to self-assessed ratings of gifted programs. Future research directions and implications for the use of self-assessments within gifted program evaluation are discussed.

State Policy and Funding in Gifted Education

“…In states where gifted education is part of special education, funding follows relevant parameters. Hodges, et al (2021) examined budgetary allotments in relation to gifted program self-assessed performance rating and found a relationship between budget allocation and ratings. Some states have examined incentives through opportunities for innovative programs (Ed Build, n.d.).…”

“…These policies and practices will be explored for four states across the United States: Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas. These states have been selected because of their explicit policies related to funding, professional learning, and/or professional practices and representation of a variety of settings, including urban, suburban, and rural as documented in the literature (Callahan et al, 2014; Hodges et al, 2021; Lockhart et al, 2021; NAGC, 2019b; Wheatley, 2022).…”

“…Texas policy dictates that all independent school districts must identify students to participate in gifted education programs as well as provide open access to identification for all populations within their school districts (Texas Education Agency, 2019 as cited in Hodges et al, 2021, p. 9). According to Subchapter D (1995) of the Texas Education Code, a gifted student may be someone who: (1) exhibits high performance capability in an intellectual, creative, or artistic area; (2) possesses an unusual capacity for leadership; or (3) excels in a specific academic field.…”

“…Within states, gifted education services may vary widely across districts and individual schools (Lockhart et al, 2021). States emphasize the role of school and district leadership in supporting gifted education programs, providing services beyond basic mandated expectations, and facilitating corresponding faculty and staff professional development (Hodges et al, 2021; Lockhart et al, 2021). The following descriptions include district-level policy examples from Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas.…”

A Content Analysis of Selected State Plans for Gifted and Talented Education

“…On one hand, some ambiguity at the state level allows local education agencies and individual schools to make the decisions they believe are best for their local contexts (Plucker & Barab, 2005). On the other hand, vague state plans coupled with local control of gifted education services can lead to inconsistent interpretation of the guidelines, which has the potential to exacerbate inequities and present challenges for accountability (Hodges et al, 2021). Local control can be problematic if educators and policymakers hold all students to the same academic standards, rather than ensuring that every learner has the opportunity to maximize their own academic potential (Brown & Garland, 2015;Peters et al, 2017;Plucker & Peters, 2016).…”