Is Gifted Education a Bright Idea? Assessing the Impact of Gifted and Talented Programs on Students
Bui S, Craig S, Imberman S · 2014
grade Bquasi-experimentindependentreplicated
Sample
Regression discontinuity at gifted-eligibility cutoffs plus lottery-based admission to gifted magnet programmes
Population
US district students at the gifted-and-talented eligibility and magnet-admission margins.
Design
Two designs in one paper: a regression discontinuity at the district's gifted-eligibility index cutoff, and randomised magnet-school admission for gifted-eligible students. The second is the more interesting one — it isolates the effect of the gifted PEER ENVIRONMENT holding eligibility constant.
Key findings
Replicates the gifted-margin null in another district and adds the cost side: moving a marginal gifted student into a gifted magnet does not raise achievement and does lower grades and class rank. Being a small fish in a big pond is not free.
Genetic confound
Discontinuity and lottery variation; ability is held constant at the margin by design.
Replication notes
Independent confirmation, in a different district, of the Card & Giuliano gifted-margin null.
DOI / URL
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marginal gifted-eligible students (RD at the eligibility cutoff) | ES | ~0 on achievement | standardized | following grades | business-as-usual | unclear | domain-skill |
| Attending a gifted magnet programme (lottery) | effect | ~0 on achievement, with lower grades and lower class rank — the big-fish-little-pond cost of a stronger peer group | standardized | following grades | business-as-usual | unclear | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Ability grouping and tracking — four practices, four verdictsmoderate supportconf: highgc: low
- Acceleration and gifted programs — the label vs the contentmoderate supportconf: highgc: medium