Date of Completion

6-23-2017

Embargo Period

6-23-2017

Keywords

gifted identification; school mobility; underrepresented gifted; poverty; state policy; ELL

Major Advisor

Del Siegle

Associate Advisor

Catherine A. Little

Associate Advisor

D. Betsy McCoach

Associate Advisor

Gilbert N. Andrada

Associate Advisor

E. Jean Gubbins and Eric Loken

Field of Study

Educational Psychology

Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Open Access

Open Access

Abstract

Educators and policy makers are interested in understanding the impact of school mobility, which is often associated with negative outcomes including declines in academic achievement and increases in behavioral and discipline problems. Changing schools also puts students at risk of not having their academic needs recognized and met. For high ability, academically gifted students, this means that moves involving school changes may be associated with barriers that limit access to gifted identification. Lack of identification for students with gifted education needs limits the ability to advocate for or gain access to gifted education services within or beyond the school, ultimately contributing to the ongoing underrepresentation of homeless and highly mobile (HHM) students in gifted education programs. In Connecticut, state law requires gifted identification in K-12 public schools. While gifted identification is required, services are not. Schools may, but are not required to, provide gifted programs. In the absence of strong accountability, schools that do not offer gifted services may not identify gifted students at the same rates as schools that do offer services, so the likelihood of a student being identified gifted may vary based on the characteristics of the school and district in which the student is enrolled. Findings of the study indicated that about 42% of districts in the state are minimal identifiers, reporting 0.5% or less of their students as gifted. For the more than 30% of HHM students enrolled in these districts, this means that these students have virtually no chance of gifted identification. While there was some evidence that these districts on average tend to have slightly higher poverty and slightly lower reading and mathematics achievement than districts that identify gifted students, HHM students were not found to be disproportionately represented in districts that did not identify gifted students. Within districts that identify gifted students, no significant differences were found between the proportions of identified gifted students among HHM and non-HHM groups when those students were matched on district, race, English language proficiency, special education status, eligibility for lunch subsidies, and reading and mathematics achievement levels.

Download

Share

COinS