The policy problem at hand

1
The policy problem at hand

• In what ways might we ensure more equitable
  distributions of adequate services for gifted and
  talented children both across and within states?

2
Reasons for New Approaches to Gifted Education
Policy

• Failure of legal frameworks to provide suitable
  recourse for children with high abilities
• In many cases equity problems can be solved via
  legal recourse (be it through state or federal
  statutes or constitutions). Equity problems for
  gifted children have, as of yet, been
  irresolvable through legal channels, and the
  future outlook remains pessimistic. (see Is a
  Federal Mandate the Answer?)
• Adequacy problems are difficult to address under
  legal frameworks to begin with. As a result,
  under the best case scenario, legal approaches
  can only guarantee equity but not adequacy, and
  often lead to equitable inadequacy.
• Lack of information regarding the effectiveness
  of present policies toward ensuring equitable
  distributions of adequate programming
  opportunities for gifted children

3
Policy Elements
Why we ignore federal policy? Federal education
policy is negligible (with the possible exception
of IDEA), even where federal involvement is
considered substantial, as in Title I. Title I
funding is approximately 8 billion of the 300
billion public education industry. Title VII
funding for bilingual education is much less
substantial. There is no reason to expect that
the federal government will ever play a
substantial role in gifted education policy.
4
Approaches to Policy Analysis

• Ex Ante
• Reviews, analyses and critiques of written policy
  inputs
• Ex Post
• Analyses of policy outcomes

5
Equity Framework

• Horizontal Equity
• Equal Treatment of Equals
• Vertical Equity
• Unequal Treatment of Unequals
• Vertical Equity as Individualized Adequacy
• Neutrality
• Availability of a given opportunity or resource
  should not be related to factors not directly
  related to educational need. For example, the
  availability of gifted and talented programs
  should not be related to the wealth of the
  community in which a child resides (unless we
  assume that more gifted children live in wealthy
  communities)
• Note A uniform system is neutral, but a neutral
  system is not necessarily uniform.

6
Measuring EquityInput vs. Outcome based

• Input based methods look only at the equity of
  distribution of a given set of inputs, like
  dollars allocated per pupil across schools or
  districts
• Outcome based methods look at the extent to which
  a given set of inputs (and the distribution of
  those inputs) might produce more equitable
  outcomes.
• For example, outcome based approaches to vertical
  equity might be based on the idea that it takes X
  dollars to achieve Y outcome with a child of A, B
  C needs, but X 1 dollars to achieve the same
  Y outcome for a child with A,B,C D needs.

7
Measuring EquityAbsolute vs. Marginal Outcomes
(benefits)

• Absolute outcomes are levels of performance,
  like benchmarks or state standards. Note that the
  marginal cost of getting a child to a standard,
  or absolute benefit he/she has already attained
  is 0 (or negative).
• Absolute benefit approaches to student outcome
  measurement are significantly problematic for
  gifted children, both pedagogically and in terms
  of vertical equity
• Marginal outcomes are gains or value added,
  or in simplest terms, learning something new
  every day.
• Where marginal outcomes are of interest, if a
  child is sitting in a classroom where the goal is
  to achieve a standard that child has already
  achieved, a supplemental resource (perhaps even a
  more advanced book or problem set) is required
  for that child to achieve marginal benefits.
  Similarly, other students with disabilities in
  the same classroom may need additional support to
  achieve appropriate progress toward the standard.

8
Measuring EquitySpending vs. Resource based

• Spending based methods look at prior spending
  behavior of schools, districts and/or states to
  determine how much might be needed in order to
  offer a certain type of program.
• For example, one researcher decided to determine
  the additional costs of educating gifted children
  by statistically testing whether districts with
  higher percentages of gifted children spent more
  money (indicating greater costs for serving
  gifted children). Note that this was done within
  the context of a multivariate model. Nonetheless,
  the researcher found no association between
  spending and percent gifted, and concluded that
  gifted education does not cost more.
• Resource based methods look at the resources
  required to provide appropriate educational
  services to a student with a given set of needs
  (ideally toward defined educational outcomes).
• Another researcher, using data from the same
  state in the same year found the resource costs
  of supplemental services for gifted children to
  range from 1,655 to 2,061 per pupil.

9
Cost curve generated by spending based
assessment of absolute outcomes
This generally accepted approach leads to the
assumption that the marginal cost of educating
the gifted child is 0, or even negative. This
approach was used in making policy
recommendations to Ohio, and subsequently
influenced policy recommendations to Maryland.
10
Cost curve generated by resource based
assessment of marginal outcomes
11
Summary of Equity Measurement with Respect to
Gifted Education

• There will be increased emphasis on outcome based
  measures
• GT advocates must shift present focus of
  education policymakers to marginal from absolute
  outcomes
• This means, however, that we must be able to show
  that gifted programs yield marginal benefits
• Resource based methods are a more effective means
  of determining costs of services for gifted
  children.
• However, we must be able to show that the
  services and supplemental resources identified
  are likely to yield marginal benefits.

12
Sources of Disparity in Locally Available
OpportunitiesAn Economic Framework

• Differences in ability, or fiscal capacity, to
  purchase opportunities (or resources required to
  provide opportunities)
• Policy remedy State aid (or federal aid, but
  less likely) to local districts to increase their
  capacity to purchase resources to provide
  opportunities (like providing aid per gifted
  pupil on a sliding scale according to district
  wealth)
• Differences in the price, or marginal price of a
  unit of the opportunity
• Policy remedy State aid to local districts in
  the form of price reductions of resources (like
  sharing the cost of purchasing gifted education
  personnel)
• Differences in local tastes, or preferences for
  the type of opportunity in question
• Policy remedy Laws or regulations that impose a
  preference for a particular service.

13
Applying Policy Remedies

• Equalized fiscal support (equalization of price
  or capacity) without mandates (standardized
  tastes)
• Should yield neutrality, but may not yield equity
  or uniformity
• Mandates without fiscal support
• May yield equity, but most likely will yield
  equitable inadequacy

14
Important Policy Questions (and some answers
from ex post analyses)

• How are gifted and talented programs distributed
  across and within states? (availability, equity,
  neutrality)
• Do state policies influence that distribution?
• What are the marginal costs and marginal
  benefits of providing appropriate services to
  gifted children (or for talent development)?
• Are state funding programs meeting those marginal
  costs? How can state funding programs be designed
  to help districts equitably meet those costs?