#CritEdPol: Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies at
Swarthmore College
&74<5.
A
::<. 9;2,4.
<6.
Not what, but who: Controlled choice in gi!ed
education programs in the United States
Robert T. Zipp ,' 18
Swarthmore College9@288:>*9;1579..-<
7447>;12:*6-*--2;276*4>793:*; 1D8:>793::>*9;1579..-<,92;.-874
!*9;7/;1. 2C.--<,*;27675576:
B2:9;2,4.2:+97<01;;7?7</79/9..*6-78.6*,,.::+?'793:;1*:+..6
*,,.8;.-/7926,4<:2762692;-!747<96*47/92;2,*4-<,*;276!742,?
#;<-2.:*;#>*9;1579.744.0.+?*6*<;[email protected]*-5262:;9*;797/'793:
79579.26/795*;27684.*:.,76;*,; .5*?790:>*9;1579..-<
".,755.6-.-2;*;276
)288"7+.9;$7;>1*;+<;>1776;9744.-,172,.2602C.-.-<,*;27689709*5:26;1.%62;.-#;*;.: #CritEdPol:
Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies at Swarthmore College&74::9;2,4.
(
=*24*+4.*; 1D8:>793::>*9;1579..-<,92;.-874=742::
Not what, but who: Controlled choice in gifted
education programs in the United States
Robert T. Zipp
Swarthmore College
Abstract
Gifted education’s most pressing problem, according to its critics, is a lack of
racial, cultural, and socioeconomic diversity. This lack of diversity can be at-
tributed to the fractured nature of gifted education’s historical development,
and the also fractured development of its very independent and numerous
stakeholders. By the 20th century, these factors caused an overreaching reg-
ulatory structure to be practically infeasible. This policy proposal attempts
to push back against historical precedent and begin a process of implement-
ing overarching guidelines for gifted education programs in the United States
based on a Controlled Choice model of admissions for gifted and talented pro-
grams that receive federal funding. The new federal Special Task Force on
Equity in Excellence will be tasked with enforcing and overseeing this policy
change.
Keywords: Gifted education, education policy, gifted education policy,
controlled choice, diversity education, Every Student Succeeds Act, Javits
Act
Gifted and talented education is arguably the most controversial realm of
education policy, theory, and practice because it appears, on a first glance, to
be a simple and generally beneficial field when it is complicated and messy in
reality. Controversies can occur when this public perception of gifted educa-
tion as a universal good conflicts with the harsher realities of implementing
such policies, which might be leaving the most deserving students behind.
1. Unpacking “Gifted” and “Talented”
Gifted and talented education is arguably the most controversial realm of
education policy, theory, and practice because it appears, on a first glance, to
Preprint submitted to Critical Education Policy Studies June 3, 2016
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
be a simple and generally beneficial field when it is complicated and messy in
reality. Controversies can occur when this public perception of gifted educa-
tion as a universal good conflicts with the harsher realities of implementing
such policies, which might be leaving the most deserving students behind.
On the one hand, designing and implementing programs to support what
Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Talented Youth calls “. . . nurturing the
bright young people who will go on to make significant contributions to our
world” seems like a democratic and patriotic goal (2015). Educating our best
and brightest students, as argued by Johnathan Wai in the National Review,
“. . . [has] a long-term impact on GDP,” suggesting that gifted education is
a topic of national importance (2016). With this in mind, it is not hard
to imagine that the next Albert Einstein or the child who will eventually
grow up to cure cancer may be sitting in a classroom right now, becoming
disinterested in the sciences because of policymakers’ failure to advocate for
their unique educational needs.
On the other hand, huge questions loom over the entire field of gifted
education. Critics ask whether the entire system may be reinforcing struc-
tures of privilege and oppression in ways that no scholar, teacher, or poli-
cymaker would articulate as a part of the original goal of gifted education.
For example, Donna Y. Ford, James L. Moore III, and Deborah A. Harmon
(2005) argue in their work “Integrating Multicultural and Gifted Education:
A Curricular Framework” that the lack of multiculturalism in gifted educa-
tion hinders learning for many students of color in American public schools.
Educational inequities are part of a larger system of inequity that stretches
across many sectors, from public health to urban planning and beyond. But
failing to address these shortcomings in access to specialized educational pro-
gramming for students of color is particularly problematic because increasing
levels of education, as argued by Ron Haskins (2008), have been shown to
boost the mobility of children and directly affects lifetime earnings. Mak-
ing access to educational programs equitable will produce a more equitable
society, in the long-term.
Rather than being simply a facet of a larger nexus of problems plagu-
ing gifted education policy, attempts at addressing the inequity of gifted
education as a whole are simultaneously the most pressing and the hardest
to rectify. The field is currently scattered across an array of different pol-
icyscapes at the local, state, and federal levels, and managed by different
entities in different geographic areas, and is exceptionally difficult to reg-
ulate standards of practice and even harder to ensure admissions policies
Page 54
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
are diverse and inclusive of traditionally marginalized populations. If Johns
Hopkins and the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) cannot
agree on a common definition of what a gifted student is, how can they agree
on what an inclusive gifted education policy agenda looks like?
This paper attempts to answer that question by presenting guidelines
for inclusive policies for all institutions working with any students classified
as “gifted” or “talented” in the United States. The policy recommendation
set forth in this paper is simple: any program that works with gifted and
talented youth that receives federal funding should update their admissions
policies to reflect a controlled choice model, as exemplified by Cambridge
Public Schools.
2. The History of Gifted Education Policy in the United States
Gifted education policy in the United States began alongside the invention
of intelligence testing and the founding of the discipline of psychology in the
early 20th century. However, as time progressed, gifted education as a field
became more interested in student advocacy work, spearheaded by NGOs and
followed by the federal government when it became politically advantageous
for such advocacy to take place. The current gifted education policyscape has
become fragmented in the wake of recent neoliberal education reform efforts
and is primarily driven by special policy reports, scarce provisions for gifted
and talented programs embedded into reauthorizations of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, and the creation or continued action of non-
governmental organizations. This fragmentation is particularly important
when discussing multicultural gifted education, because it obfuscates the
very stark realities of inequity in gifted education. In other words, having
many different players in the gifted education policy arena makes it more
difficult for any one group to gain a clear sense of the problems affecting the
system as a whole.
In December 1908, psychologist Robert Goddard published The Binet
and Simon Tests of Intellectual Capacity, a scale of intelligence based on
the findings of French psychologist Alfred Binet. Goddard began using it as
a benchmark assessment for the students of both the New Jersey Training
School for Feeble-Minded Girls and Boys and local public school children in
Vineland, N.J (Ludy, 2009). The Binet test quickly became popular, and by
1914 Goddard was the first psychologist to include results from it in a court
of law.
Page 55
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
However, the foundations for the academic field of gifted education did
not arise until Lewis Terman revised and updated the Binet test with his
colleagues at the Stanford Graduate School of Education (Leslie, 2000). The
Stanford-Binet, as the newly revised test was called, measured cognitive abil-
ity and academic potential and presented the concept of intelligence as a
single number, called an “Intelligence Quotient”, or IQ. By 1916, Terman’s
new test was being administered to public schoolchildren across California.
Those that scored unusually highly were invited to participate in a longitu-
dinal study of gifted and talented children at Stanford. While inconclusive
and marred with design flaws, Terman’s study is still in progress today with
the few surviving subjects.
By 1954, the field of gifted education shifted away from studies of general
intelligence and crystallized into more of a student advocacy apparatus with
the founding of the National Association of Gifted Education (NAGC) by
Ann Isaacs (2015). According to their website, the organization is devoted
to pushing policy agendas that cater to gifted and talented youth from across
the racial and socioeconomic spectra (2015).
The federal government lagged behind non-governmental organizations in
the support and advocacy for programs for gifted and talented students and
did not begin to allocate substantial resources until after the Soviet Union
launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957. After Sputnik, which scared many
policy stakeholders into believing that U.S. was beginning to fall behind in
math, foreign language, and science education, the U.S. government began
to support programs for advanced learning in STEM fields, but it continued
to neglect the needs of exceptional students in the humanities. These math-
and science-centric initiatives were codified into the language of the National
Defense Act of 1958.
The Office of the Gifted and Talented within the federal Department
of Education was given formal status in 1974, and after that point gifted
education policy at the federal level can be categorized into three distinct
realms: the publication of special reports such as National Excellence: The
Case for Developing America’s Talent (1993) which detail the state of federal
gifted education policy, provisions for gifted and talented programs embed-
ded into reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
and the creation of separate non-governmental institutions like the National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (1990) and The Johns Hopkins
University’s Center for Talented Youth (1979).
The history of gifted education policy in the United States sheds light on
Page 56
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
how the policyscape arrived at its current state. Different organizations and
groups each have their own goals for gifted education and their own metrics to
define giftedness because they have worked independently from one another
for such a long time in history. JHU’s Center for Talented Youth does not in-
teract with state-level policies on gifted education in schools extensively, and
the National Association for Gifted Children (2016) is primarily interested in
supporting and development, staff development, advocacy, communication,
and collaboration with other organizations. Therefore, the very nature of
gifted education policy makes it very hard to regulate, but recommending
policies that affect the admissions practices of all gifted education programs
is a manageable first step in the road to meaningful reform.
3. Pre-Existing Policies
Currently, the federal Department of Education articulates almost no
direct policy initiatives for the education of gifted and talented students,
preferring to leave the decisions up to the states. The Jacob Javits Gifted
and Talented Students Education Act, originally passed as a part of the
1988 reauthorization of ESEA and expanded to included competitive grants
for states to complete gifted education policy initiatives in 2002, offers al-
most nothing in terms of actual recommendations for action other than a
definition of giftedness. As of the 2002 iteration, giftedness is defined by
the federal government as “students, children, or youth who give evidence of
high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic,
or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services
and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop
those capabilities” (2015).
This vague definition provided by the federal Department of Education
fails to include any concrete metrics to assess giftedness. This failure has
helped to preserve the most pressing policy question in the field of gifted
education: the lack of consensus on what giftedness really is, and different
stakeholders define the term in various ways. One of the metrics provided
by the Center for Talented Youth at Hopkins is “. . . Achievement at the 95th
percentile or higher on one or more subtests of a nationally normed stan-
dardized test,” while the state of Oklahoma considers ”. . . identified students
who score in the top three percent (3%) on any national standardized test of
intellectual ability” as gifted (as quoted in National Association for Gifted
Children, 2015).
Page 57
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
Concrete policy initiatives on gifted education in general are clearly lim-
ited, but initiatives on diversity and inclusion within gifted education are
even sparser. The lack of specific initiatives related to racial diversity is
exemplified by the current admissions policies of the Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Center for Talented Youth (CTY). CTY (2016) states on its website that
“. . . Applicants to and employees of [CTY]. . . are protected under Federal law
from discrimination on the [basis of] race,” but the application process for the
CTY Talent Search (the method by which CTY selects students to label as
“ . . . talented”) or its student programming does not mention this language.
Rather, the only mentions of diversity and inclusion are in relation to student
with disabilities or in relation to a more general diversity, which CTY believes
“. . . is part of the educational experience the program provides, and [they]
encourage students to embrace the opportunity to learn from others who are
different from them.” While CTY contains several smaller scholarship funds
to promote access to its programming for students from under-represented
groups, like their Goldman Sachs Scholars Program, by no means are their
inclusion policies comprehensive, and much more work remains to be done.
CTY’s programming exemplifies the gifted education policyscape’s general
stance toward these types of policies: while a handful of targeted initiatives
exist, the presence of comprehensive structures to promote racial equity re-
mains lacking.
4. Current Stakeholders in Gifted Policy
As previously stated, the stakeholders acting in the gifted education pol-
icy landscape are diverse and each occupy a distinct niche that adds to the
policymaking nexus. This variance causes problems when attempting to im-
plement a policy agenda across all groups because each operates on a different
policy level with a different scope and different goals for the gifted students
they serve. However, it will become clear through an outline of the different
stakeholders that the federal government is the best route to an effectively
implemented policy proposal.
Nonprofit organizations like the NAGC, the Center for Talented Youth,
and the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented make up the
first group of stakeholders. These organizations conduct research and/or
advocate for the advancement of policies specifically for gifted and talented
students in the policyscape. Their work most directly informs legislators and
lawmakers at the state, local, and federal level, and they may or may not
Page 58
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
directly interact with gifted and talented students. With this lack of direct
involvement in mind, attempting to change their perceptions of multicultur-
alism in gifted education will be especially challenging.
The second group of stakeholders is only a single constituent: the federal
Department of Education (2004), which has taken a fairly hands-off approach
to gifted education policy in its enactment of Subpart 6 of Part D of Title V
of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), informally known as the Jacob
K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 2001. According
to the US Department of Education’s (2015, paragraph 1) website, the Jacob
K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program is designed to
allocate grant money to states to support their work with populations typ-
ically underrepresented in gifted education, but so far only 11 states have
been awarded funding under this program. What the Javits Act fails to do is
to provide the states with any guidance as to what sort of gifted and talented
programs they should propose grant money for in the first place. Because of
this strange and tenuous relationship, the US Department of Education de-
serves to be categorized in a group of its own. It alone has the power to unify
the other stakeholders across the United States with national policy initia-
tives, despite its historical unwillingness to do so. It is also original in this
discussion of stakeholders because it is connected to gifted and talented pro-
grams in individual school districts, but only through the mediation of state
Departments of Education. Thus, it is noteworthy because it neither fails to
interact nor directly interacts with gifted and talented students, making it
occupy a unique space in the gifted education policyscape.
Third, state-level Departments of Education can be classified as their
own group of stakeholders. They are charged with creating and implement-
ing their own gifted education policies under the provisions of the Javits
Act, with no direct guidance from the federal government on policies to im-
plement across the range of policies affecting gifted and talented students,
much less multiculturalism in gifted and talented education. According to
a report released by the NAGC (2015), 14 states did not provide any fund-
ing to local districts for gifted children as of the 2012–13 school year, and
as mentioned above, only 11 states received federal grant money under the
provisions of the Javits Act. Clearly, not all states are taking the steps to
allocate funds specifically for gifted and talented students. This level of poli-
cymaking accounts for the greatest amount of inconsistency in the education
policy landscape and thus, the most difficult place for change to take place.
Individual school districts can be seen as the fourth stakeholder group.
Page 59
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
Their position varies depending on location, size, and demographic makeup of
their student bodies. They have the most direct control over gifted education
policy, as they exist on the “front lines” of policy implementation. School
districts, under the oversight of a state Department of Education, are directly
responsible for providing services to gifted and talented students and their
families. This means that because they are the only governmental apparatus
that directly implement gifted and talented programming (alongside non-
governmental organizations), they deserve separate classification.
Respectively, the fifth and sixth stakeholder groups are gifted students
and their families, who naturally would want special resources allocated for
themselves, and students and families of students not traditionally labeled as
gifted, who, according to Gallagher, Coleman, and Nelson (2004), are more
likely to believe that better resources and “the best teachers” are allocated
to gifted students disproportionately. As private individuals, students and
families can choose to participate in the public education system’s gifted
and talented programs, where available, or exit the public school system
and pursue alternative education strategies like private schooling or home-
schooling. Thus, these two related stakeholders in the policyscape will not be
subject to the same regulatory practices as the other stakeholders outlined
in this paper.
After a careful discussion of the stakeholders involved in this policyscape,
it becomes clear that the federal government is the best route to implement
a lasting change through a policy proposal. It is the only stakeholder that
has access to students in all 50 states while being removed enough to effec-
tively administer and evaluate such a policy. A state-by-state initiative or an
attempt to push policy through non-governmental organizations would not
make sense for this proposal because it would fail to change the system as a
whole, which—as ambitious as it sounds—is the necessary route for lasting
change.
Policy Proposal
As argued by the Center for Social Inclusion (2003), race and poverty are
inextricably linked in the United States. With this fact in mind, this policy
proposal attempts to address the inconsistencies in diversity and inclusion
that currently present across the gifted education policyscape via a secondary
indicator of inequality: free-and reduced-lunch program participation rates.
In order to ameliorate the situation outlined above, the proposed solution
Page 60
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
requires public and private organizations that selectively admit students to
“gifted” and “talented” programs that receive federal funding to implement
“controlled choice” admissions processes. Controlled choice originally began
in Cambridge Public Schools in a Boston suburb in 1980 and emphasizes
the creation of balanced, equitable schools by matching students from di-
verse backgrounds (measured by free-and reduced-lunch eligibility) within
the district to each school in the district. In order to ensure compliance,
organizations would be required to regularly report their admissions statis-
tics in a “Gifted Education Common Data Set”, modeled after the Common
Data Set (CDS) initiative in higher education.
Management of Policy
This policy could be managed as a joint project of the Civil Rights Di-
vision of the federal Department of Justice and the Office of the Gifted and
Talented within the federal Department of Education. A 7-person Special
Task Force on Equity in Excellence will be formed from the staff within the
two offices, led by a Liaison that would act as the primary interlocutor be-
tween the two offices. The Liaison will also act as the executive of the Special
Task Force while it is in session.
The task force would be responsible for implementing all aspects of the
policy outlined below, and will stand for a minimum of two years before being
evaluated for renewal.
Elements of Proposal
Effective as soon as possible, any program public or private that claims
to work with “gifted” or “talented” youth that receives any source of federal
funding would be required to implement a Controlled Choice-based admis-
sions policy, modeled on the policies created by Cambridge Public Schools
(2015). The two main groups tasked with operating and maintaining admis-
sions for gifted and talented programs currently are non-governmental orga-
nizations and local school districts (through the oversight of a state DoE).
Controlled Choice policies are aware of an applicant’s status as a participant
of the student’s current school’s Free & Reduced Lunch program and, in this
case, any gifted and talented program receiving federal funding would be
tasked with admitting a population of students on Free & Reduced Lunch
programs that is representative of the applicant pool to a given program.
For example, if 56% of the applicant pool for a gifted and talented program
in a given school district participates in the district’s Free & Reduced Lunch
Page 61
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
program, the number of students admitted to a potential district-wide gifted
and talented program should be reflective of that percentage.
Choosing to report Free & Reduced Lunch participation status when
applying to a gifted and talented program will remain optional, as is currently
the case in Cambridge Public Schools. As defined on their website:
“When families [apply for such a program], they are asked to vol-
untarily disclose whether or not they qualify for the Free & Re-
duced Lunch program. This question establishes the family’s as-
signment category. If a family discloses that they qualify for this
benefit, their child’s application is categorized as “Free/Reduced
Lunch.” If they do not qualify, or choose not to share this informa-
tion, their application is assigned as “Paid Lunch.” By voluntarily
disclosing whether or not they qualify for this program, families
help our system be more equitable,”(2015.)
These programs must keep record of their number of applicants, and be able
to provide information regarding the Free & Reduced Lunch participation
rates for both the applicant pool and actual participants in the program for
any given fiscal year after this policy would be implemented. These data must
be made publicly available on a regular basis, in a format similar to that of
the Common Data Set (CDS) initiative used by colleges & universities.
If a given program is not compliant with the terms set forth above, then
similarly to how state Departments of Education must meet make “adequate
yearly progress” or AYP in the improvement of standardized test scores un-
der the policy initiatives of No Child Left Behind, the program must make
AYP towards accurate Free & Reduced Lunch participation status reflec-
tion in the admitted student population. This would not affect gifted and
talented programs that already admit a reflective percentage of students on
Free- and Reduced-lunch from the applicant pool. Rather, gifted and tal-
ented programs that admit fewer students on Free & Reduced lunch into
their programs than the percentage of that program’s applicant pool will be
evaluated as “non-compliant” with the terms of this policy by the Special
Task Force on Equity in Excellence and will be instructed to make the nec-
essary changes in their admissions policy so that their admitted student pool
matches the Free & Reduced Lunch participation status of the applicant pool
to the program in a reasonable time frame.
Programs that do not meet AYP are in jeopardy of losing federal funding
streams, even those beyond what is designated as specifically for gifted and
Page 62
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
talented education under the Javits Act, if applicable. The Special Task
Force on Equity in Excellence is responsible for evaluating whether or not
programs are meeting AYP.
Funding
This policy requires no additional funding for any parties involved, other
than the costs associated with reporting racial background during the appli-
cation process, which are considered negligible by this proposal.
Policy Evaluation
As mentioned above, Special Task Force on Equity in Excellence is re-
sponsible for evaluating whether or not programs are meeting AYP.
Plan of Action
This policy shall be introduced as a bill to the House of Representatives
of the United States Congress, where it shall be debated and amended and
eventually become law. The provisions of this law shall be in effect for a five-
year time frame, at which point Congress must re-evaluate the policy and,
using the data from the reports provided by the Task Force, decide whether
or not this policy should be renewed.
Conclusion
This policy proposal will begin putting the pieces of the fractured gifted
education policyscape back together. This policy will be the first in a series
of practices designed to provide greater coherence and much-needed stan-
dardization in a field that has been plagued by intellectual and ideological
silo-ing. In the future, the federal DoE should be tasked with creating a
universal (and inclusive) definition of what giftedness is, so that all parties
involved in gifted education can be on the same page. Additionally, current
allocations set aside for gifted and talented programs at the state and federal
level should be significantly increased. But to begin the work that needs to
be done, this policy proposal will serve as a way for gifted education advo-
cates to push back against critics who argue that gifted education is currently
an inherently inequitable system. In other words, this policy proposal will
begin the long road towards equity. By no means is this policy exhaustive,
Page 63
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
all-inclusive, or a panacea for all of the problems afflicting gifted education;
but it is an absolutely necessary start.
Page 64
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
.
References
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. “The Birth of American Intelligence Testing.” Amer-
ican Psychological Association. 2009. Accessed December 14, 2015.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/01/assessment.aspx.
Borland, James H. “The Death of Giftedness: Gifted Education without
Gifted Children.” In Rethinking Gifted Education, edited by James H.
Borland, 115. New York: Teachers College Press, 2003.
California Department of Education. ”Resources.” - Gifted & Talented Ed-
ucation (CA Dept. of Education). Accessed December 14, 2015. http :
//www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/re/.
Cambridge Public Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved March, 2015, from http :
//www.cpsd.us/departments/frc/making your choices/about control
led choice
Ford, Donna Y. “Desegregating Gifted Education: Seeking Equity for Cul-
turally Diverse Students.” In Rethinking Gifted Education, edited by
James H. Borland, 148. New York: Teachers College Press, 2003.
Ford, D. Y. (2005). Integrating Multicultural and Gifted Education: A Cur-
ricular Framework. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 125-137.
Gallagher, James J., Mary Ruth Coleman, and Susanne Nelson. “Perceptions
of Educational Reform by Educations Representing Middle Schools, Co-
operative Learning, and Gifted Education.” In Public Policy in Gifted
Education, edited by James J. Gallagher, 56. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, 2004.
Haskins, R. (2008). Wealth and Economic Mobility. Getting Ahead or Losing
Ground: Economic Mobility in America. Retrieved April 29, 2016, from
http : //www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2008/02/economic−mo
bility − sawhill
House of Representatives, State of Oklahoma. “Education of Gifted and
Talented Children Act.” 1994. doi:10.4135/9781473931954.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. “Mission & History.” Ac-
cessed December 14, 2015. http : //cty.jhu.edu/about/mission/.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. Disability Services for CTY
Programs. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2016, from http : //cty.jhu.edu/di
sability
The Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. “Who Can Participate.”
http : //cty.jhu.edu/talent/about/who.html.
Page 65
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
The Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. “Welcome.” Retrieved March,
2016, from http : //cty.jhu.edu/welcome/.
Johns Hopkins University. Why work at JHU? (n.d.). Retrieved March,
2016, fromhttps : //jobs.jhu.edu/jhujobs/index.cf m.
Leslie, Mitchell. “The Vexing Legacy of Lewis Terman.” Stanford Magazine.
July/August 2000. Accessed December 14, 2015. https : //alumni.stan
ford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article
i
d = 40678.
National Association for Gifted Children. “A Brief History of Gifted and Tal-
ented Education.” Accessed December 14, 2015. http : //www.nagc.org/
resources − publications/resources/gif ted − education − us/brief −
history − gifted − and − talented − education.
National Association for Gifted Children. “Who We Are.” Accessed Decem-
ber 14, 2015. https : //www.nagc.org/about − nagc/who − we − are.
National Association for Gifted Children. “The State of the Nation’s Health.”
The American Naturalist 80, no. 789 (February 15, 1946): 204. Accessed
December 14, 2015. http : //www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Advo
cacy/State%20of%20the%20Nation.pdf.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2004, September 15). Sub-
part 6-Gifted and Talented Students. Retrieved November, 2015, from
http : //www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg72.html#sec5461.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2015, November 20) Jacob
K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. Retrieved
November, 2015, from http : //www2.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.ht
ml.
The Tides Center. (August 7, 2003.) Education Iinequity In Mississippi.Center
for Social Inclusion. Retrieved March, 2015, from http : //www.centerfor
socialinclusion.org/wp−content/uploads/2012/08/Education−Inequity
− in − Mississippi.pdf.
United States Congress. “National Defense Education Act.” Govtrack.us,
September 2, 1958. Accessed December 14, 2015. https : //www.govtrac
k.us/congress/bills/85/hr13247.
Wai, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2016, March 22). How Gifted, Low-Income Kids
Are Left Behind. Retrieved from http : //www.nationalreview.com/arti
cle/433058/gifted − low − income − students − test − them.
Page 66
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/pencil-sharpener-notebook-paper-918449/
Author
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Edwin Mayorga for the
continued support he offered throughout this endeavor. To Prof. Jill Glad-
stein, Maggie Christ, Ava Shafiei, and the rest of the team at #CritEdPol,
I thank you for your help and support for making this happen. I would also
like to thank Swarthmore College and the Johns Hopkins Center for Tal-
ented Youth for giving me the education requisite to take on this endeavor.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert Zipp,
Department of Educational Studies, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA
19081. Contact: rzipp1@swarthmore.edu
Page 67
