For every dollar states spend on K–12 education, less than half a penny is earmarked for advanced learning. This surprising finding comes from our recent study of K–12 education spending in the U.S., generously supported by the Carina Initiative.
This low-level of support is ironic because, for the first time in recent memory, interest in advocating for advanced education feels on the rise. At both the state and federal levels, advocates are making the case that rigorous learning should be the norm and not the exception for our brightest students. From expanded AP and International Baccalaureate access to automatic enrollment policies in several states, the U.S. is experiencing an uptick in policy advocacy and activity with the goal of increasing opportunities for advanced learning. Perhaps not coincidentally, recent surveys provide evidence that a considerable majority of Americans believe students should have access to advanced opportunities (here, here, and here).
In light of these developments—and in the hope of encouraging additional efforts—the Carina Initiative approached our team with an important question: How much federal and state funding is directly targeted on advanced education programs? These figures can serve as a baseline for determining advocacy and policy success in the future.
Beginning in late spring 2025, we began estimating federal and state investment in gifted and advanced education over the past decade. We purposefully took an inclusive view of advanced learning, reflecting the many ways schools provide opportunities for learning outside standard grade level pathways. Rather than focus solely on funding for traditional gifted and talented programs, we also included Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs.
We acknowledge past efforts to estimate public investment in advanced education, but many of these efforts have encountered substantial data limitations. For this study, we used publicly-available data sources, with outreach to state education agency personnel to confirm data accuracy, and assembled what we believe to be the most complete picture of state and federal funding for advanced education.
Federal resources
The Javits Act remains the only dedicated funding mechanism for K–12 advanced education at the federal level. The program, currently funded at $16.5 million per year, is funded at its highest nominal level in history. However, when adjusted for inflation, the current funding sits below levels seen during the George H.W. Bush administration and first term of the George W. Bush administration. Not only does this represent a net decline in Javits funding, but it effectively represents nearly 0 percent of overall federal education spending.
We also attempted to estimate federal funding for AP programs, which were originally funded via a specific line item. But several such programs were combined into block grants for states under Title IV Part A, making it difficult to determine how much—if any—is being spent by states to support advanced education.
State resources
We reviewed state funding data beginning in 2015. Due to widespread differences in reporting across states, we developed a range of estimated funding rather than a single number.
Overall, states are making minimal investments in targeted support for advanced learning. As we stated in the opening paragraph: At best, for all state advanced programs (i.e., gifted education and AP/IB funding), our high-end estimate is that, on average, for every dollar states spend on K–12 education, less than half a penny is earmarked for advanced learning. The low-end estimate is less than a third of a penny of total state education revenue spent on advanced learning.
Education finance data are complex, and the data collected for this study were no exception: Data quality varied greatly among states, and the level of investment in advanced education reflected a broad range of investment. For example, North Carolina has a longstanding investment in advanced learning with significant capacity at the state level to monitor enrollment and funding over time. The state, for instance, fully covers the cost of AP exams for all students (over $16 million in 2025) and began covering International Baccalaureate and Cambridge exams this year. Yet other states—notably California and New York—do not provide any funding explicitly for gifted education to local districts.
Our analysis also suggests that state support for advanced learning is increasing more slowly than the rate of total education expenditures. According to federal data, state revenue for all K–12 education increased by over $400 per student over this eight-year period, yet our high-end estimate is that state K–12 advanced education spending increased by 17 cents per student over the same time period (our low-end estimate is that advanced spending decreased by a penny per student).
State financial support for AP and IB, primarily in the form of exam fee assistance, is widespread and appears to be increasing. Still, this funding represents a minuscule fraction of the overall education budgets even in states that support these programs at relatively generous levels. For example, Illinois added $500,000 for state-level AP support by 2023 (compared to $0 in 2015), which—while better than no support—was 0.003 percent of the $18.2 billion K–12 education revenue from state sources that year. The vast majority of states changed their funding for advanced education less than one-tenth of 1 percent between 2015 and 2023.
We acknowledge that assumptions made during the study could influence results. Not all states responded to our outreach, and we had to decide whether to treat missing data as zero funding or truly missing. In states that combine funding for gifted education with broader special education funding—notably, high-enrollment Florida—it is impossible to isolate gifted-specific funding using public data.
However, and we believe this is the key finding from the study, the federal and state investment in advanced education is so low that even making changes in our methodology do not produce substantially different results. The gap between a third of a penny and a half a penny per dollar spent on education does not justify meaningfully different interpretations about the lack of funding supporting gifted and advanced education.
Some states are increasing their funding
Our inquiry also revealed bright spots among generally low and stagnant funding for advanced education. In Alabama, a recent state-level school funding formula overhaul led to increased resources for gifted education linked to district enrollment and a competitive grant for additional support. North Carolina also provides significant resources to districts, including funding, expertise, and monitoring of services. In Washington State, legislators have doubled state support over the past decade. These investments signal a commitment to build capacity—at the school, district, or state level—to better serve talented students, and to invest in the future workforce in the states.
Limitations, conclusions, and recommendations
As we share our findings, one interesting reaction to this study has been to note that certain funding streams at the federal or state level were omitted. We are sensitive to these concerns and investigate any such omissions. But to date, all of the “missed” programs or line items either no longer exist, are immensely difficult to pin down based on current approaches to reporting, or are so small relative to total K–12 funding that including them does not appreciably change our estimates.
As with any study—especially studies of education finance!—we could write many paragraphs about the limitations of this work. K–12 finance data are complex, often opaque, and frequently incomplete. But given the many limitations and assumptions of this study, we believe our key findings will hold up to further scrutiny:
- State and federal resources devoted to advanced education are very limited, strongly suggesting that it is not a priority for policymakers. Advocates should help policymakers understand the popularity of advanced education services among both parents and the general public.
- Overall K–12 education spending has grown much faster than investments in advanced learning from FY15 to FY23. We acknowledge there needs to be a healthy debate about what constitutes an “adequate” level of advanced funding, but at the very least, funding for advanced education should keep pace with increases in overall education funding.
- When education funding is block-granted, we lose the ability to track whether the funding is used to support advanced education, and we suspect that little of it gets used to provide advanced learning opportunities to K–12 students. States should specifically delineate advanced education funding or, barring that, monitor district block grant funding to determine the extent to which public funds are (or are not) supporting advanced education.
