Assessing the Influence of No Child Left Behind on Gifted Education Funding in Texas: A Descriptive Study

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, sta...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of advanced academics 2018-11, Vol.29 (4), p.321-342
Main Author: Hodges, Jaret
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Achievement
Achievement tests
Budgets
Education policy
Educational Finance
Educational Legislation
Elementary Secondary Education
Federal Legislation
Federal Programs
Financial Support
Gifted
Gifted education
No Child Left Behind Act 2001-US
Outcomes of Education
Public Schools
Rural Schools
School Districts
Special Education
Standardized tests
Students
Suburban Schools
Urban Schools
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1932-202X
2162-9536
DOI:10.1177/1932202X18779343