A Guide To State Policies in Gifted Education 2016 2

A Guide to State Policies
in Gifted Education
Second Edition
E.WayneLord
JulieDingleSwanson
Editors
A Guide to State Policies in
Gifted Education
(2nd edition)
E. Wayne Lord and Julie Dingle Swanson, Editors
A Service Publication of the National Association for Gifted Children
2016, National Association for Gifted Children, Washington, DC www.nagc.org

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................................. .i
FOREWORD ..............................................................................................................................................ii
Chapter One: Advocating for Gifted Education PolicyWhat Do You Need to Know? ... 1
Policy Essentials Related to Identification ................................................................................. 9
Policy Essentials Related to Program and Curriculum ............................................................ 12
Policy Essentials Related to Personnel Preparation ................................................................. 14
Policy Essentials Related to Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation ......................... 15
References ................................................................................................................................ 20
Chapter 2: State Policies Related to Identification ........................................................................ 23
Identification Policy Examples: Operational Definition ......................................................... 26
Identification Policy Examples: Multiple Criteria .................................................................. 29
Identification Policy Examples: Underrepresented Students .................................................. 33
Identification Policy Examples: Match between Definition and Processes to Identify .......... 36
Identification Policy Examples: Match between Who and How Served ................................ 40
Identification Policy Examples: Varied Domains of Giftedness............................................. 46
Identification Policy Examples: Identification is Connected to Service Models .................... 55
Identification Policy Examples: Screening and Identification Process ................................... 59
Identification Policy Examples: Appeals Process ................................................................... 65
Policy to Practice ...................................................................................................................... 67
Questions for Reflection on Identification Policy .................................................................... 67
References ................................................................................................................................ 69
Chapter 3: State Policies Related to Program and Curriculum ............................................... 71
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Grouping/Placement Arrangements .................. 75
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Contact Time ..................................................... 77
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Curricular Options, Higher Order Thinking, Link
to Standards .............................................................................................................................. 80
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Student Growth Assessed through Curriculum
Outcomes .................................................................................................................................. 83
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Program Modifications for At-Risk and Highly
Gifted ........................................................................................................................................ 86
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Social-Emotional Supports, Guidance and
Counseling ................................................................................................................................ 89
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Local Advisory Committee ............................... 91
Theory to Practice: One States Story ...................................................................................... 93
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 93
Questions for Reflection on Program and Curriculum Policy ................................................. 94
References ................................................................................................................................ 95
Chapter 4: State Policy Related to Personnel Preparation ....................................................... 96
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: University-Based Coursework ............................. 100
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: Professional Development Linked to National Gifted
Standards ................................................................................................................................ 104
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: Professional Requirements for Gifted Education
Leaders ................................................................................................................................... 107
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: Ongoing Professional Development .................... 110
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: Professional Development in Gifted Education for
All Educators .......................................................................................................................... 114
Theory to Practice .................................................................................................................. 116
Reflection Questions .............................................................................................................. 118
References .............................................................................................................................. 119
Chapter 5: State Policies Related to Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation
................................................................................................................................................................................. 122
Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation Policy Criterion 1: ...................................... 125
Program Management Policy Examples: State Review of LEA Gifted Program Plans ....... 127
Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation Policy Criterion 2: ...................................... 130
Program Management Policy Examples: Key Components of Gifted Program Plan ........... 131
Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation Policy Criterion 3 ....................................... 136
Program Management Policy Examples: Regular Onsite Visits for All Districts ................ 136
Program Management Policy Criterion 4:.............................................................................. 138
Theory to Practice .................................................................................................................. 141
References .............................................................................................................................. 143
Chapter 6: Leveraging General Education Policies to Support Gifted Education ........ 144
Seat Time Waivers in Conjunction with Alternative or Innovative Programs....................... 145
Credit by Demonstrating Mastery .......................................................................................... 146
Early Entrance to Kindergarten .............................................................................................. 147
Linking Gifted to a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework ............................................ 148
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) .............................................. 149
State Adoption of Common Core Academic Learning Standards ......................................... 150
Teacher-Evaluation Measures ................................................................................................ 151
Online, Virtual, or E-learning Required for High School Graduation ................................... 152
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Diploma Incentive Programs .......... 153
Policy to Practice .................................................................................................................... 154
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 154
Questions for Reflection for Leveraging General Education Policies ................................... 155
References .............................................................................................................................. 156
Final Thoughts .......................................................................................................................... 157
References .............................................................................................................................. 160
ABOUT THE AUTHORS ........................................................................................................ 161
ABOUT THE EDITORS .......................................................................................................... 162
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The editors wish to thank the authors of the first edition of A Guide to State Policies in Gifted
Education (2007), Pam Clinkenbeard, Penny Kolloff, and Wayne Lord, upon whose work
this guide is built. We would also like to acknowledge the work and contributions of
graduate assistants, Dan Horgan, Augusta University, and Alicia Pica, The College of
Charleston, whose assistance was invaluable. We want to thank Joyce VanTassel-Baska and
Julia Link Roberts as advisors to this revision and to Jane Clarenbach and Carolyn Kaye at
the NAGC national office for assistance in finalizing the guide for distribution.
i
FOREWORD
If you had a magic wand and could change one thing that would ensure the availability of quality
gifted education services for gifted students in your community, what would it be? A state mandate?
More funding? A wide array of service requirements based on what we know about giftedness and
best practice for promoting the development of high-ability learners?
In the absence of a magic wand, I might suggest that the next best thing is a robust state policy related
to gifted education. Gifted education policies provide a framework for identification, services, teacher
preparedness, accountability for student learning and program evaluation, which together should
define comprehensive, equitable opportunities for high achieving and high-potential students. A
coherent set of state policies not only define issues and practices that are essential to the delivery of
quality programs and services for gifted students, they also provide parents, teachers and other
gifted education advocates with leverage to demand appropriate services for gifted and talented
students in their communities. Well-crafted state policies also serve as tools for local policy
development, assisting Boards of Education, educational leaders and parent advocates as they seek
to improve their own policies.
In my career as a gifted education professional at the classroom, district, and state levels, I have seen
the impact of policy on school and classroom practice. When the Georgia Association for Gifted
Children spearheaded an effort to change both state law and State Board of Education Rules related
to gifted education, I learned first-hand the value and need for well-informed groups and individuals
to advocate for strong, comprehensive policies to support high-quality gifted education programs
and services. Oh, how I wish I had had this excellent publication then!
In the revised Guide to State Policies in Gifted Education, the authors have provided practical guidance
and a variety of examples in essential policy areas specific to gifted education. Additionally, they have
included chapters that will help those who support gifted education understand the increasingly
complex interaction of gifted education, general education and special education, e.g., accountability
models, standards, and policies related to twice-exceptional students.
I am pleased that NAGC provides this guide, one that can be adapted for policy environments and
needs that vary widely between states. I urge state directors, state gifted association leaders, and
other advocates for advanced learning to use the Guide to advance the needs of gifted and talented
students in your state.
Dr. Sally C. Krisel

NAGC President-Elect
Director of Innovative and Advanced Programs, Hall County Schools, Gainesville, GA
Former State Director of Gifted Education, Georgia Department of Education
ii
STATE POLICY IN GIFTED EDUCATION
Chapter One
Advocating for Gifted Education PolicyWhat Do
You Need to Know?
E. Wayne Lord and Julie D. Swanson
In the May 1991 issue of Educational Leadership Carl Glickmans article (Pretending Not to
Know What We Know) posed this in your face challenge: We know what we should be
doing in education; we just enjoy pretending not to know. While writing about the task of
restructuring (decentralization, deregulation, site-based decision making), Glickman
espoused that confronting our professional knowledge was the first task in restructuring as
well as the catalyst for the courage to act. We might consider that confronting our
professional knowledge should be the first task in all of our work in education. Why would
we want to pretend not to know what we know?
The development of policies for gifted programs cannot be initiated without confronting
our professional knowledge. Many leaders in gifted education would argue that a primary
challenge facing the field is the need for states to develop, implement, and support policies
based on what research tells us and what best practices suggest.
Glickmans insight is relevant for all who guide policy development, regulations, and rules
in state education agencies. For those who work at a state education agency with
responsibility for gifted programs or lead a state membership group for gifted education,
acknowledging what we know and using that knowledge to implement changes in state
policy is an arduous and significant task.
At the 11th Wallace Research and Policy Symposium on Talent Development (March 2014),
several presenters called for building a bridge between practice and policy. This appealing
metaphor resonates with a common educational thememoving from theory to practice.
But what does this bridge look like if it is to span the gap between practice and policy?
What materials and resources would be used to construct this bridge? What design would
this bridge have? Is this bridge research? How simple or complex must this bridge be to
serve its purpose? Who is going to build this bridge?
In a national survey of gifted programs, Callahan, Moon, and Oh (2014) found limited
transfer, if any at all, of the work of experts (research and theory development) into the
field of practice (p.10). This finding supports Plucker (2012) who wrote: The field does
1|P a g e
have very solid research bases on selected topics (e.g., acceleration), yet often finds itself
on the wrong side of conventional wisdom and education policy in schools (p. 222).
Policy represents our foundational commitment for assuring gifted children have access to
a quality gifted education. Such policy supports our standing firm when compromise would
undermine the impact of doing what we know we should do. Legislative mandates,
components of mandates, such as regulations and rules, and state aid to local districts
contribute to a more equitable and more SES-neutral distribution of opportunities. Thus,
the presence of state policy for gifted education is a significant equalizer of opportunities. If
changes in the education of gifted and talented learners are to occur, existing rules,
regulations, and standards must change not only in response to educational reform but also
in concert with the knowledge base of the field (Gallagher, 2013; Ambrose, VanTassel-
Baska, Coleman, & Cross, 2010).
When thinking about gifted education policy from the perspective of the states, one might
argue it is always a work in processadvocating, strategically positioning gifted education
to be at the table and not on the menu, struggling to fit or align with the latest state or
federal reform efforts, responding to economic challenges. Process is and should be a focus
area for research on gifted education policy. Understanding how contexts and stages of
development contribute to policy process is important. (Gilbert & Terrell, 2005).
Product is a second lens through which policy may be studied. Process usually leads to
product such as rules or regulations that guide development of programs. In crafting these
rules or regulations, choices must be made. The product dictates what you can and cannot
do. Understanding the values, theories, or frameworks that shape policy products is
important.
But what about progress: how could state gifted education policy become a work in
progress? Progress suggests forward movement, satisfactory development, continuous
improvement. Progress reflects the performance of policy when it takes on life and is
translated into actions. Through research we can learn how well policy fulfills its purpose.
Understanding the effects, effectiveness, and efficiency of gifted education policy is
important.
Process, product, and progress address different types of policy challenges and what we
learn may be applicable in different ways.
Because the educational policy environment is more like what Epstein (2004) calls a
tangled weba convoluted governance of federal, state, and local voicesa mix of diverse
stakeholders (elected officials, district and school administrators, community members,
parents, students, business leaders)so tangled a web that pointing a finger at any level or
stakeholder as truly being in charge is a challenge.
2|P a g e
As VanTassel-Baska (2006) stated, The structure that holds gifted programs together is
nested in the policies that individual states have enacted. The direction and continuity of
the field, at the grassroots level, are heavily influenced by the state one resides in and the
strength of policy initiatives in that state (p. 250).
Educational policy sets rules or standards for providing gifted education and thus frames
the major elements of gifted programs. In order to create a strong support system for gifted
students, advocates and educators must understand, guide, and utilize policy. Gallagher
(2013) provided us with another important reminder: Understanding the political issues
and debate surrounding the education of gifted students is based on the recognition that
educational policy (including rules, regulations, financial allocations, etc.) reflects social
policy (p. 458).
So, what are the challenges for advocates of gifted policy development even if we are
willing to face what we know?
The Federal Voice in Gifted Education Policy

It is not as if the federal government has been silent on the topic of gifted and talented
education. The federal voice on the need for talent development and support for high-
ability learners does appear regularly; almost in cycles (Tannenbaum, 1983). The first
significant federal action followed Russias launch of Sputnik in 1957.
Fearful that American schools were not preparing students in science, math, and foreign
languages, the National Defense Act Education (1958) provided funding to states to identify
and educate more of the talent of our nation. Funding was directed not only for building
stronger academic programs but also to support guidance counseling and testing to
identify the most able students.
As the nation moved into the decade of the 1960s, the civil rights movement and the
Vietnam War captured the attention of the nation. This initial commitment by the federal
government to talent development began to wane.
In 1972, The Marland Report (Marland, 1972) rejuvenated the federal education
conversation on special services for gifted learners and led to the first national legislation
on gifted. The report established a federal definition for giftedness with six specific areas.
This definition (or elements from it) still appears in many state definitions today. Financial
support for gifted and talented programs served as a catalyst for states to consider the
need for gifted education policy.
Approximately ten years later (noticing a pattern yet?), A Nation at Risk (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) revitalized the fear that the academic
achievement of Americas students was placing the country in jeopardy. This report did not
3|P a g e
specifically address gifted education; however, attention did return to gifted and talented
students.
In 1988 the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (2015), was added
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Federal funding to support a
national research center, national leadership development, and research demonstration
projects focused on under-represented gifted students was provided. While no specific ties
to state policy are found in this initiative, many research projects as well as the national
research center began to address policy concerns. Advocates struggled to maintain support
for this federal program. No new awards were made in 2009, and between 2010-2014
there was no funding available. A grant competition returned in fiscal year 2013 with
funding of $5 million. Funding was increased in fiscal years 2014 ($10 million), 2015 ($11
million), and 2016 ($12 million).
A second major national report appeared in 1993: National Excellence: A Case for
Developing Americas Talent (Ross, 1993). The theme of how gifted and talented students
are a national interest returned with seven specific recommendations: (1) set challenging
curricular standards; (2) establish high-level learning opportunities; (3) ensure access to
early childhood education; (4) increase learning opportunities for disadvantaged and
minority children with outstanding talents; (5) broaden the definition of gifted to include a
wider range of gifted students and to move away from the notion that intelligence is fixed
and can be measured by one test; (6) encourage appropriate teacher training and technical
assistance; and (7) match world performance.
In January 2001, President George W. Bush announced his education reform initiative: No
Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002). The revisions to ESEA included a reauthorization of the
Javits Act and a slightly revised definition of giftedness. The new law created an
accountability system for improving student achievement, narrowing the achievement gap,
and increasing graduation and college enrollment rates. The laser-like focus on struggling
learners, however, left gifted and talented students languishing in many areas of the
country. The federal engagement with gifted learners began another decline.
On the heels of NCLB A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back Americas Brightest
Students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004) was released. While not a federal initiative,
the report addressed the disconnect between what research says on acceleration and the
practices and policies in place. In response to the call for the development of policies to
support academic acceleration, many states assessed their acceleration practices.
While racing to the top and leaving no child behind, the federal policy voice remained silent
on gifted education for more than a decade.
The Congress finally included gifted and talented students in the most recent
reauthorization of ESEA. In December 2015 president Obama signed the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) into law. The new law requires increased local and state data
4|P a g e
on students achieving at the advanced level. It also requires attention to the needs of gifted
learners when using federal professional development funds and retains the Javits research
program. ESSA also specifically allows districts to use their Title I funds to identify and
serve low-income gifted and talented students, a 180-degree turn from the policies
implemented in the Obama Department of Education. The provisions added to ESSA
originated in bipartisan legislation --To Aid Gifted and High-Ability Learners by Empowering
the Nations Teachers (TALENT Act, 2015) -- that the gifted education community had been
promoting for a number of years.
Dont Think You Are a Pioneer

While there has been little federal action in gifted education, leaders in the field have
advocated for and strongly supported the importance of state policy. State policy in gifted
education is not an unexplored territorymaybe untended, but not unexplored.
With no specific mandate or guidelines for gifted programs at the federal level, states
assume responsibility for meeting the needs of gifted students, thus elevating the need for
strong state policy that is informed by research and best practice. A review of the 2012-
2103 State of the States in Gifted Education (National Association for Gifted Children
[NAGC] and Council of State Directors of Programs for Gifted [CSDPG], 2015) and the
Davidson Institute for Talent Development website
(http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/StatePolicy.aspx) identified 36 states with a mandate
related to identification and/or services for gifted and talented and 14 states with no
mandates. In states with mandates, state funding to districts to implement identification
and services ranges from full funding to no funding.
Mandate for Gifted Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,

and Talented Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
No Mandate for California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Gifted and Talented Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont,
In 1993 all 50 states had formulated policies (legislation, regulations, rules, or guidelines)
in support of gifted education (Passow & Rudnitski, 1993). The study portrayed state policy
as uneven and called for a re-examination of present policies in light of research,
experience, and developments in education, psychology, organization, and related fields.
Further support for this reexamination included the climate of school reform and
restructuring, the changing environment of society and schooling, and the diverse ways
that local districts interpret and implement state rules. These findings still resonate today.
5|P a g e
A survey of legislative and policy trends in gifted education (Landrum, Katsiyannis, &
DeWard, 1998) echoed the conclusion that legal and state policy mandates to ensure
appropriate educational opportunities for gifted learners remained limited.
Gallagher (2002, 2013) reminded us that the major elements of programs are determined
by policies, and these policies become the boundaries within which we decide how to act.
He posed four questions that require a policy response:
1. Who receives special resources?
2. Who delivers the resources?
3. What are the resources to be delivered?
4. What are conditions under which the resources are to be delivered?
This work also identified five policy areas for improvement (identification, placement,
differentiated programming, program evaluation, and professional support systems) and
suggested that professional organizations have a role in the review of existing policies.
Dont Underestimate Your Power to Affect Change

The power to affect change for gifted students in states with a mandate for gifted education
may be obvious. However, many states do not require identification of or services for gifted
and talented students; therefore, gifted programs exist at the pleasure of the school district.
While state policies for gifted education often exist according to the respective mandates
for identification and/or service, the lack of a mandate should not be seen as a reason to
neglect the presence of gifted policies at the state level. The lack of a mandate should not be
an excuse for complacency.
Fullan (2001) has written extensively about educational change and the leadership needed
to affect change. He proposed a framework for leadership in a culture of change in which
five particular mindsets or actions are needed by leaders.
Understand the change process,
Build productive relationships,
Gain deeper knowledge, which includes awareness of structural and cultural
barriers,
Make coherence for consistency, and
Demonstrate deep commitment to moral purpose while holding to demanding
expectations.
Fullans ideas can serve well those who engage in policy development.
Initiating and guiding changes in state policy are opportunities for state educational
agencies to partner with state gifted education organizations. It is true that states with no
mandate experience significant challenges not only in establishing policy but also in
6|P a g e
providing resources for gifted programs. Lacking a mandate for gifted education should not
discourage state education agencies from assuming guidance and leadership. Nor should
the economic or political climate of a state keep state groups from advocating for guidance
in the development and implementation of gifted programs and services.
Dont Ignore What Research and the Field Say

What should state policies in gifted education address and what criteria should be used in
developing these policies? A 2005 analysis of state policy by Stambaugh and colleagues
(Stambaugh, Worley, VanTassel-Baska, & Brown, 2005) found that the literature does not
specifically or comprehensively identify the elements of gifted education that should be
addressed by states or the criteria that these policies should include. Baker and Friedman-
Nimz (2004) noted that state policy for gifted education is relatively idiosyncratic, and
lacks geographic, legislative, educational, or philosophical pattern.
In responding to this dilemma, states might take several different approaches. The Council
of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG) and NAGC biannually prepare a State
of the States in Gifted Education report (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015), the most comprehensive
examination available of gifted education policy and practice at the state level. Divided into
nine key areas, the most recent report (2015) addresses funding, definition and
identification, mandates, programs and services, personnel preparation, accountability, and
related policies and practices. Since the content of this report is guided by input from state
education agency personnel responsible for gifted education, in cooperation with NAGC, it
may be assumed that these nine areas represent topics that are valued and seen as critical
by state leaders of gifted education programs.
The NAGC Pre-KGrade 12 Gifted Programming Standards (NAGC, 2010) address six
program elements: learning and development, assessment, curriculum planning and
instruction, learning environments, programming, and professional development. These six
areas might be considered a blueprint for policies in gifted education.
Additionally, if one considers the guiding principles for the development of the NAGC
programming standards, states would be hard-pressed not to embrace these same
principles to guide gifted policy development.
While there is not a wealth of studies regarding the impact of gifted policies, the few that do
exist suggest that state policy in gifted education exerts positive influence on gifted
programs. Perhaps a more succinct approach to the components of state policies can be
found in the image of a four-legged policy table (VanTassel-Baska, 2005): identification;
program, curriculum, and service; personnel preparation; and program management
through assessment and evaluation.
It is easy to see how the programming elements found in the NAGC standards (2010), the
categories from the State of the States (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015), elements identified by
7|P a g e
Passow and Rudnitski (1993), Gallagher (2002, 2013), and initiatives addressed in the
National Excellence Report (Ross, 1993) could be collapsed into these four broad categories.
These sources have a common history; they represent the work of leaders in the field; there
is consistency among them; and existing state policies address elements of them in varying
degrees. Table 1 below graphically represents the four commonalities found across these
sources.
Table 1.1. Critical Components of Gifted Education Drawn from Seminal Sources.
Source of Critical Critical Critical Component 2 Critical Critical
Seminal Work Component 1 Component 3 Component 4
Related to
Critical
Components
Van Tassel- Identification Program Curriculum and Personnel Program
Baska (2005) Service Preparation Management,
Assessment and
Evaluation
NAGC Assessment Learning and Professional Programming;
Pre-K Grade Development; Development Assessment
12 Curriculum Planning and
Programming Instruction; Learning
Standards Environments;
(2010) Programming
NAGC & CSDPG Definition and Programs and Services Staffing and Accountability
(2015) Identification for Gifted Personnel
State of the Preparation
States Report
Gallagher Who receives? What are the resources Who delivers? Under what
(2002, 2013) to be delivered? conditions are the
resources to be
delivered?
Passow & Identification State mandated services; District plans for
Rudnitski procedures; Programs for the gifted; the gifted;
(1993) definitions of differentiated curriculum Program
gifted and and instruction; evaluation; state
talented counseling and other funding for the
support services gifted
National Broaden the Challenging curriculum; Teacher Match world
Excellence definition of challenging opportunities development performance by
Report (Ross, giftedness to learn; access to early making gifted
1993) childhood gifted students globally
education; opportunities competitive
for disadvantaged and
minority
If there is agreement that state policy should address, at minimum, identification,

curriculum and program services for identified students, the professional staff that
interacts with identified students, and the management and evaluation of gifted programs,
what then are the essential criteria that would guide legislation or rules and regulations?
8|P a g e
An examination of existing state policies, as well as the body of literature in gifted

education, offers criteria that states may use to craft or assess their own language. For
purposes of this resource, 26 elements have been drawn from existing research, resources,
and recommendations. A brief elaboration of each criterion follows. These elements, called
policy essentials, are organized under one of the four policy areas: 1) identification, 2)
program and curriculum, 3) personnel preparation, or 4) program management. Following
the description of each areas policy essentials is a list of research and literature for further
information to guide and inform your understanding.
Policy Essentials Related to Identification

1. Includes an operational definition of gifted and talented
While several federal reports have suggested definitions of this population, a state
definition is critical. An operational definition becomes the foundation for screening
and placement, planning for curriculum and services, selecting and training
personnel, and evaluating the impact of services.
2. Cites multiple criteria
As gifted education has evolved, the use of multiple criteria for identification has
become crucial. The present accountability pressures for schools around student
performance on a single test should more than highlight the need for a variety of
criteria to inform identification decisions.
3. Addresses the use of assessment tools that are sensitive to inclusion of
underrepresented groups such as low SES, racial and ethnic minorities, children with
disabilities, and English learners
Finding and including underrepresented groups depends on selecting and providing
access to instruments that are technically adequate. Acknowledging that inequities
may exist when traditional assessments and measures are used with atypical
populations, policies should attend to the needs of potentially gifted learners from
underrepresented groups.
4. Ensures identification processes that match the operational definition
A close review of the identification processes should reveal a strong congruence
with the operational definition of gifted and talented. The openness of the processes
should reflect the intent of the operational definition to either cast a wide net or to
limit access to services. Identification processes should be addressed for each of the
abilities and aptitudes included in the operational definition.
5. Allows for placement options that match the operational definition
The operational definition should be the context for guiding placement options for
services. The menu of program services should be representative of the diverse
needs of the defined populations as well as the needs of at-risk and twice-
exceptional learners who may be identified. Placement options should respond to
and support the individual differences of learners.
6. Addresses the arts and other specific domains
General abilities and specific aptitudes should be included in the definition and
9|P a g e
identification processes. The work of Guilford, Gagn, Gardner, Sternberg, and

others suggest that there are numerous ways to be gifted.
7. Calls for a connection between identification, curriculum, and service
Without coherence among the identification processes, curricula, and services,
learners will likely fail to reach their full potential. Moreover, justification for
acceleration, whether grade skipping, subject skipping, telescoping, or other
options, becomes difficult to defend. The dynamic relationship among these major
elements calls for detailed strategies to ensure alignment. Guidelines related to
identification, curriculum, and service cannot be considered in isolation.
8. Outlines a general process for decision making concerning screening, identification,
and service
It is important that the process for reviewing data collected during the screening
and for making identification/placement decisions be explicit in order to promote
integrity in the identification process and to ensure equity. The responsibility for
making judgments based on the data collected should rest with an informed, trained
team. At least one member of the team should have competency in using assessment
data, rating scales, observations, and any other measures included for making
placement decisions.
9. Provides for an appeals process
To promote fairness and to protect the rights of all, an appeals process should be
articulated.
For research and literature that support these elements of IDENTIFICATION, consider the
following sources.
Bernal, E. M. (1994). Finding and cultivating minority gifted/talented students. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 391345).
Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically
disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164171.
Cassidy, J., & Hossler, A. (1992). State and federal definitions of the gifted: An update. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 15, 4653.
Castellano, J. A. (1998). Identifying and assessing gifted and talented bilingual Hispanic
students (Report No. EDO-RC-97-9). ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and
Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 423104).
Cohen, L. M. (1990). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language students.
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children and ERIC Clearinghouse on
Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED.
321485).
Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). Report on state policies related to the identification
of gifted students. Chapel Hill, NC: Gifted Education Policy Studies Program.
Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from
special populations. Roeper Review, 17(4), 268275.
10 | P a g e
Feldhusen, J. F. (2003). Beyond general giftedness: New ways to identify and educate gifted,
talented, and precocious youth. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education
(pp. 4660). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Frasier, M. M., Garca, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted
education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students (Vol. 95204).
Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented.
Frasier, M. M., Martin, D., Garca, J. H., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Krisel, S., & King, L. L. (1995). A
new window for looking at gifted children (Vol. 95222). Storrs: University of
Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Gagn, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103112.
Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Societys role in the educating gifted students: The role of public policy
(Vol. 02162). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Gubbins, E. J. (2006). Constructing identification procedures. In J. H. Purcell & R.D. Eckert
(Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability learners (pp. 4961).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.). (2011). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Johnsen, S., & Ryser, G. (1994). Identification of young gifted children from lower income
families. Gifted and Talented International, 9, 6268.
Kitano, M. K., & Espinosa, R. (1995). Language diversity and giftedness: Working with gifted
English language learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 234254.
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to the Congress of the
United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Moon, S. (2006). Developing a definition of giftedness. In J. H Purcell & R. D. Eckert (Eds.),
Designing services and programs for high-ability learners (pp. 2331). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1994). Toward improving identification of talent potential
among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18(3), 198202.
Passow, A. H., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1993). State policies regarding the education of the gifted
as reflected in legislation. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center
on the Gifted and Talented.
Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new
century. Exceptionality, 10(2), 6775.
Ross, P. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing Americas talent. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED359743.pdf
11 | P a g e
Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Identification and assessment.
In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis
(pp. 4273). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited.
Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219238.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Ed.) (2006). Conceptions of giftedness. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the
identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings
from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110123.
Policy Essentials Related to Program and Curriculum

1) Includes specific grouping arrangements to match the program and to meet the needs
of gifted learners
Specific grouping arrangements provide a range of options for diverse gifted
learners such as resource room/pullout, special class, and special school models.
2) Specifies a minimum number of minutes per week of contact time for gifted
program/service
Elements one and two address opportunity to learn. Specific grouping arrangements
and minimum contact time increase the likelihood that gifted learners have access
to differentiated curriculum in a responsible manner that supports the unique
characteristics of gifted learners and reflects a serious commitment to their
continuous progress and growth.
3) Describes appropriate curriculum options
Curriculum is central to how gifted learners realize their potential and strengths.
While promoting flexibility in curriculum options, policies can promote attention to
the learning rate and style and encourage inquiry, critical and creative thinking, and
the development of research skills.
4) Links gifted curriculum to existing state content standards
Standards affect curriculum, instruction, and assessment. They cannot be ignored in
gifted programs, and the expectation for gifted curricula to reflect state standards as
appropriate should be clearly stated in policy.
5) Embeds higher level thinking processes within content areas
With the standards-based environment, it is critical that higher level thinking
processes be addressed in a conscious and purposeful manner. Almost all curricula
for gifted learners stress the importance of such skills as reasoning, problem
solving, creativity, metacognition, and inquiry.
6) Acknowledges program modifications for at-risk and highly gifted learners
Flexibility in the curriculum and support systems for twice-exceptional gifted
learners, culturally and linguistically diverse gifted learners, precocious readers,
and other domain-specific gifted areas should be addressed to ensure that gifted
learners are not viewed as a homogenous group when making curriculum and
instructional decisions.
12 | P a g e
7) Social and emotional needs and guidance

Attention to social-emotional support as part of program service is critical. Gifted
learners may fail to reach their potential when their affective needs are ignored. A
proactive approach that focuses on prevention rather than remediation is
encouraged. Appropriate guidance and counseling services related to academic and
career planning are needed for gifted learners in order to support their smooth
transition from grade to grade as well as from secondary school to college and
career.
8) Shared leadership
State and local advisory committees are necessary to sustain gifted programs.
Ideally, a state advisory committee supports the work of the state education agency,
and local advisory committees ensure that services, processes, and programs
remain current with best practices and recent research. These committees provide
for continuity of programs when leadership changes occur.
For research and literature that support these elements of PROGRAM, CURRICULUM, and
SERVICE, consider the following sources.
Borland, J. A. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. G. (2000). Counseling gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J.
Mnks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness
and talent (pp. 595608). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Cross, T. L. (2005). The social and emotional lives of gifted kids: Understanding and guiding
their development. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Ford, D. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted blacks: Promising practices. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 36, 7377.
Neihart, M. (2006). Services that meet social and emotional needs of gifted children. In J. H.
Purcell & R. D. Eckert (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability
learners (pp. 112124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Neihart, M., Pfeiffer, S., & Cross, T. L. (Eds.). (2016). The social and emotional development of
gifted children: What do we know? (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Reis, S. M. (2006). Comprehensive program design. In J. H. Purcell & R. D. Eckert (Eds.),
Designing services and programs for high-ability learners (pp. 7386). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (Eds.). (2007). Best practices in gifted education:
An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Rogers, K. B. (2006). Connecting program design and district policies. In J. H. Purcell & R. D.
Eckert (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability learner (pp. 207223).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rogers, K. B. (1998). Using current research to make good decisions about grouping.
NASSP Bulletin, 82(595), 3846.
13 | P a g e
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. 2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.).
Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Policy Essentials Related to Personnel Preparation

1) Requires teachers who work directly with gifted learners to complete university-based
coursework in gifted education
Teachers matter. The quality of teaching has the most significant influence on
student learning. If program services and curriculum are to be delivered effectively,
it is necessary to employ teachers with specific knowledge and skills in gifted
education.
2) Links gifted coursework to national gifted standards
The field has worked diligently to identify and develop national teacher preparation
and programming standards in gifted education. The standards explicitly define the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for teachers of the gifted. Connection
to these standards is essential to ensure that highly qualified professionals work
with gifted learners.
3) Addresses coursework in educational leadership for gifted program leaders
Persons responsible for leading gifted programs need a foundation in gifted
education. Specific training and experiences in providing educational leadership are
critical for administering gifted programs and managing the implementation of state
policies at the local level.
4) Calls for ongoing, comprehensive professional development for program
administrators and teachers of the gifted
Program administrators and teachers of the gifted require regular, planned
professional learning opportunities. These learning experiences should support
continuous growth in their knowledge and skills to best serve gifted learners.
5) Provides regular professional development in gifted education for all school personnel
Professional development that is meaningful in terms of increasing knowledge,
skills, and beliefs related to gifted children, including those with high potential,
should be planned for and delivered to all teachers and administrators so that a
comprehensive approach to talent development exists. A meaningful professional
development plan is systematic and connects to locally identified needs that directly
affect student learning.
For research and literature that support these elements of PERSONNEL PREPARATION,
consider the following sources:
Imbeau, M. B. (2006). Designing a professional development plan. In J. H. Purcell & R. D.

Eckert (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability learners (pp.183
194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14 | P a g e
Leppien, J. J., & Westberg, K. L. (2006). Roles, responsibilities, and professional

qualifications, of key personnel for gifted education services. In J. H. Purcell & R. D.
Eckert (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability learners (pp. 161
182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming
standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-
gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12
National Association for Gifted Children. (2014). Knowledge and skill standards in gifted
education for all teachers. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-
publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-
education/knowledge-and
Policy Essentials Related to Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation

1) Includes regular state review of local education agency (LEA) gifted education plans
2) Requires that LEA plans address:
a. screening, identification, and referral processes
b. program provisions employed at each grade level, K-12
c. goals and student outcome assessment process for each program model
d. contact time for each service model
e. pupil-teacher ratios for classes
f. gifted teacher planning time
g. professional development plans for gifted staff and other school personnel
h. counseling and guidance
i. program evaluation design
3) Describes a state education agency (SEA) monitoring plan that involves all districts
and requires regular onsite visits
4) Requires LEAs to submit an annual progress report to the SEA containing program
and student evaluation data
Much has been written about the importance of and need for gifted program evaluation. In
order to assess programs, there must be processes for regularly collecting, summarizing,
and analyzing data. Evaluation procedures are required to document program quality and
impact as well as to inform policy, rule, and regulation revisions. A comprehensive
assessment of critical program elements may be managed in a variety of ways so as to
minimize the demands made on local programs. Program management:
assessment/evaluation cannot be effectively conducted without summative and formative
data sources to guide decisions. Relevant, specific, and useful data can often be obtained by
using technology and modifying existing reporting requirements.
For research and literature that support these elements of PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION, consider the following sources.
15 | P a g e
Callahan, C. M. (Ed.). (2004). Program evaluation in gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Callahan, C. M. (2006). Developing a plan for evaluating a program in gifted education. In J.
H. Purcell & R. D. Eckert (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability
learners (pp.195206). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Matthews, M. S., & Shaunessy, E. (2010). Putting standards into practice: Evaluating the
utility of the NAGC Pre-K Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 54, 159-167.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming
standards. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-
publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-
grade-12
Purcell, J. H., & Eckert, R. D. (Eds.). (2006) Designing services and programs for high ability
learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. X. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted
program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
What Does the Literature on Gifted Education Policy Tell Us?

Several policy areas tend to dominate research in gifted education: identification,
curriculum, and instruction. As a field, we have been criticized for the lack of empirical
studies that support the work we do. That criticism definitely applies to publications
related to gifted education policies. While there is collection of conceptual, theoretical,
position papers, and guidelines related to policy to be found, there is a dearth of
quantitative and/or qualitative research. A recent review of the literature related to gifted
education policy yields several themes of interest to policy makers, leaders, and advocates.
Of the 25-30 policy-related manuscripts found in the literature since 2000, less than half of
those are research-based papers. These studies of gifted education policy are categorized
broadly into research related to funding and research related to state policy
implementation and are discussed below. A review of non-empirical literature follows the
discussion of empirical studies.
Funding
There is a cluster of studies about funding and policy, led by Bruce Baker. Bakers study on
funding and equity in Texas (2001a) looked at funding and program availability as related
to student and school characteristics. He argued that data point to a problem in how gifted
education is funded. Baker (2001b) explored whether differences in available resources
exist for gifted children in different types of school districts. His analysis revealed funding
differences related to an equity gap. Findings show that wealthier schools and districts get
more dollars for their gifted students than do poorer ones. Baker and McIntire (2003)
investigated the major methods for funding gifted education programs across the United
States and evaluated the effectiveness of the different means of allocating these funds.
16 | P a g e
Their results point to Virginia and Florida as models of how to fund. Baker and Friedman-
Nimz (2004) examined state policy as it relates to funding and equity. Two significant
findings indicate that (1) schools with local and state mandates are able to serve more
gifted students, and (2) schools with a higher percentage of low income students are less
likely to offer funding and equity for gifted learners. This group of studies offers policy
advocates research-based findings and evidence related to funding disparities and
equitable access to gifted education.
State Policy Implementation

These studies focus on various aspects of state policy implementation. Some focus on one
or a small group of states; others are national in scope. These studies range from a focus on
several policy issues to a focus on one issue. For example, Brown, Avery, VanTassel-Baska,
Worley, and Stambaugh (2006) conducted a five-state study on gifted policy implemen-
tation; Swanson (2007), investigated drivers of change in one state, a case study of gifted
education policy evolution over 25 years; McBee, Shaunessy, and Matthews (2012)
examined how one states identification policies used district plans to study the
effectiveness of alternative identification processes used to identify African American and
low-income students. Two national studies (Paul, 2010; Shaunessy, 2003) offered broader,
more comprehensive analyses of policy. Shaunessy (2003) conducted a national study of
state policy using the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) as a lens, examining policy
issues such as mandates for gifted education and Individulized Education Programs (IEPs)
as a requirement. Paul (2010) conducted a national study on state policy related to
program evaluation.
Theory, Position, and Opinion

What are the best minds recommending? The majority of reviewed publications are
applied research and theory, i.e., conceptual papers, position papers, and opinion papers.
Topics addressed in these non-empirical papers are valuable and explore a range of topics,
such as issues related to policy, laws related to gifted education, the who and what of gifted
education, and policy related to special populations.
Highlights from key theoretical, position, and opinion papers follow as a guide for thinking
about and exploring policy related issues. Many of these resources are written by gurus in
the field and offer insight into relevant areas.
Conceptual foundations and definitions. There are several resources for advocates and
policy makers seeking to comprehend policy from a big picture perspective. Gallagher
(2002, 2013) and VanTassel-Baska (2009) articulate key foundational concepts regarding
policy, e.g., who receives the resources, who delivers the resources, what resources are
delivered, under what conditions, and how (Gallagher, 2013, p. 458). Concerns with
inconsistent gifted education policies across the U.S. and the causal link of lack of strong
17 | P a g e
policy to the difficulties in establishing national reform are discussed as VanTassel-Baska

(2009) suggests that research is needed to establish stronger policies for gifted education.
Swanson and Lord (2013) combine two cases to illustrate drivers of gifted education
policy.
Clarenbach and Eckert (2013) offer a comprehensive discussion of the range of definitions
of giftedness and the reasons surrounding the complexities and importance of policy
definitions in gifted education (p. 29) and argue for a common policy definition to ensure
that gifted students receive the support they need. Reis (1989) concept paper on what
giftedness is and how the lack of common understanding impacts policy supports this
argument. Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2012) discuss the concept of talent
development and policy implications for a conceptual shift in the field.
Policy-related issues. A range of issues related to policy is found in the literature, from
specific issues such as Response to Intervention (RtI) and acceleration, to general topics
such as legal issues and areas of influence. Assouline and colleagues (2015) and Colangelo
and colleagues (2010) offer guidelines for acceleration policy development. Zirkel (2005)
provides an analysis of legal issues, an overview of state legislation with recommendations
of how to best use laws to support gifted education. Stephens (2000) explores federal
legislation from the perspective that lack of federal legislation supportive of gifted
education reflects a key issue in the field. Mayfield (2012), too, discusses the lack of federal
policy, leaving decision-making in hands of local and state educational agencies. Pluckers
(2012) issues-based paper argues for outcomes-based discussions as the most promising
route to influence policy and those who make it. Brown and Abernethy (2009) offers a
discussion of RtI and its implications for gifted education policy development. Coleman,
Gallagher, and Job (2012) and Mayfield and Young-Eun (2012) explore policy and the link
with culturally, and linguistically diverse gifted students and the issue of
underrepresentation. Mattai, Wagle, and Williams (2010) describe strong teacher
preparation and development policy as key to addressing underrepresentation. Olszewski-
Kubilius and Clarenbachs (2012) review of research on programs and policies that support
low income, high-ability students development shows a path forward.
This overview summary provides guidance for those interested in deeper understanding.
We use this venue to add our voices in a call for research on policy that is valued in the
same way that identification and curriculum are in our field. The snapshot of the literature
shows there is more work to be done.
Dont Think We Have All the Answers

Components of state policy in gifted education and critical elements of each are drawn from
studies of effective state policy and are aligned with best practices in gifted education.
While some states might consider these too limiting or restrictive, other states might see
them as opportunities for refining and elevating program and service expectations in gifted
18 | P a g e
programs. These policies can be viewed as tools for local policy development as they
research, craft, justify, and evaluate their own policies.
As Gallagher said, if we want a support system for gifted students, we must create one
through changes in policy (2006). It is appropriate to expect districts and schools to use
policies that are founded on professional knowledge and understanding of gifted learners.
It is also appropriate to expect state agencies and state gifted education membership
associations to communicate, collaborate, and cooperate in order to facilitate the
development and implementation of exemplary state policy for gifted programs. Also,
VanTassel-Baska (2003) articulated the significance of policy: successful policy
implementation rests on a foundation of policy development (p. 175).
Changes in policy will only be appropriate and right if they result in improved quality of
gifted education and gifted learners increased access to services that facilitate their
reaching their full potential. Thus, with all policies there must be a process for
disseminating information, supporting implementation, and monitoring the impact of the
policiesnot only at the local level but also at the state level.
This resource can guide state educational agencies and state associations for gifted
education in reflection on current policies, in conversations regarding strengths and
weaknesses, in debate over refining and refreshing policy language, and in visioning a
future for state policy in gifted education.
Lets commit to use what we know to guide our policy efforts. The bridge from theory to
practice must be built through research. To understand the power and effectiveness of
policy implementation, studies are needed at the state level. While research at the local
level on policy impact is we are building policy, we must be building the bridge.
19 | P a g e
References
Ambrose, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., Coleman, L., & Cross, T. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or
fractured, porous, contested, gifted education? Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 33,
453-476.
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015). A nation
empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back Americas brightest students. Iowa
City: University of Iowa, Belin and Blank International Center for Gifted Education and
Talent Development.
Baker, B. D. (2001a). Gifted children in the current policy and fiscal context of public education: A
national snapshot and state-level equity analysis of Texas. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 23 (3), 229-250. doi:10.3102/01623737023003229
Baker, B. D. (2001b). Measuring the outcomes of state policies for gifted education: An equity
analysis of Texas school districts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 4-15.
doi:10.1177/001698620104500102
Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004). State policy influences governing equal opportunity: The
example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 39-64.
doi:10.3102/01623737026001039
Baker, B. D., & McIntyre, J. (2003). Evaluating state funding for gifted education programs. Roeper
Review, 25(4), 173-179. doi:10.1080/02783190309554225
Brown, E. F., & Abernethy, S. H. (2009). Policy implications at the state and district level with RTI
for gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 52-57. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ849375.pdf
Brown, E., Avery, L., Van Tassel-Baska, J., Worley, B. B. II., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five-state
analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11-23.
doi:10.1080/02783190609554379
Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2014). National surveys of gifted programs: Executive
summary. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014%20Survey%20of%2
0GT%20programs%20Exec%20Summ.pdf
Clarenbach, J., & Eckert, R. D. (2013). Policy-related definitions of giftedness: A call for change. In C.
M. Callahan, & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering
multiple perspectives (pp. 26-35). New York, NY: Routledge.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back
Americas brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa, Belin and Blank International
Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Marron, M. A., Castellano, J. A., Clinkenbeard, P. R.,
Rogers, K., & Smith, D. (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy:
National work group on acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(2), 180-203.
doi:10.1177/1932202X1002100202
Coleman, M. R., Gallagher, J. J., & Job, J. (2012). Developing and sustaining professionalism within
gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 27-36. doi: 10.1177/1076217511427511
Epstein, N. (Ed.). (2004). Whos in charge here? The tangled web of school governance and policy.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (2015). Pub. L. 114-95.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Societys role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy. Storrs:
University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
20 | P a g e
Gallagher, J. J. (2006, April). Future prospects for gifted education. Presented at Javits Grantee
Meeting. Hartford, CT.
Gallagher, J. J. (2013). Political issues in gifted education. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis
(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 458-469).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2005). Dimensions of social welfare policy. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn &
Bacon.
Glickman, C. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 410.
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. (2015). Pub. L. 114-95, section 4644.
Landrum, M. S., Katsiyannis, A., & DeWarrd, J. (1998). A national survey of current legislative and
policy trends in gifted education: Life after the national excellence report. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 21, 35271.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United
States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. (Government Documents Y4.L 11/2: G36).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Mattai, P. R., Wagle, A. T., & Williams, J. M. (2010). An often-neglected issue in consideration of
gifted African American millennial students: Implications for school planning and policy.
Gifted Child Today, 33(2), 26-31.
Mayfield, S. (2012) Providing Gifted Education Services for Diverse Students: Policy-Related Issues.
Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 5(1), 22-30.
Mayfield, K., & Young-Eun, S. (2012). Providing gifted education services for diverse students:
Policy-related issues. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 5, 22-30.
McBee, M. T., Shaunessy, E., & Matthews, M. S. (2012). Policy matters: An analysis of district-level
efforts to increase the identification of underrepresented learners. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 23(4), 326-344. doi:10.1177/1932202X12463511
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming standards.
Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-
standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12
National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the
Gifted [CSDPG]. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state/2014-2015-state-states-
gifted-education
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
National Defense Education Act. (1958). Pub. L. 85-864; 72 Stat. 1580.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. (2002). Pub. L. 107-110, 115, Stat. 1425.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high
achievement of low-income, high ability students. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/Unlocking%20Emergent%
20Talent%20%28final%29.pdf
Paul, K. (2010). A national study of state policy for fostering local gifted program evaluation: Content
analysis and recommendations for policy development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Passow, A. H., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1993). State policies regarding the education of the gifted as
reflected in legislation. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the
Plucker, J. A. (2012). Positively influencing gifted education policy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 221-
223.
21 | P a g e
Reis, S. (1989). Reflections on policy affecting the education of gifted and talented students: Past
and future perspectives. American Psychologist, 44, 399-408. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.44.2.399
Ross, P. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing Americas talent. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED359743.pdf
Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policies regarding gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 16.
doi: 10.4219/gct-2003-103
Stambaugh, T., Worley, B., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. (November, 2005). Analysis of state
gifted education policy self-assessment forms: Results from the NAGC state policy workshop.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children.
Stephens, K. R. (2000) Gifted education and the law. Gifted Child Today, 23(1), 30-37.
doi:10.4219/gct-2000-713
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Nurturing the young genius. Scientific
American, 23, 50-57. doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1112-50
Swanson, J. D. (2007). Policy and practice: A case study of gifted education policy implementation.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31 (1), 131-164. doi: 10.4219/jeg-2007-679
Swanson, J. D., & Lord, E. W. (2013). Harnessing and guiding the power of policy: Examples from
one states experiences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 198 - 219. DOI
10.1177/0162353213480434
TALENT Act: To aid gifted and high-ability learners by empowering the nation's teachers act (114th
Congress; S.512 & H.R. 2338). (2015).
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum policy development for gifted programs: Converting issues
in the field to coherent practice. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005, Fall). Looking forward: Presidents commentary. Compass Points, 2-4.
Washington, DC: NAGC.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). State policies in gifted education. In J. H. Purcell & R. D. Eckert (Eds.),
Designing services and programs for high-ability learners: A guidebook for gifted education
(pp. 249-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2009). United States policy development in gifted education: A patchwork
quilt. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness (pp. 1295-1312).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
Zirkel, P. A. (2005) State laws for gifted education: An overview of the legislation and regulations.
Roeper Review, 27(4), 228232. doi:10.1080/02783190509554323
22 | P a g e
Chapter 2
State Policies Related to Identification
Julie Dingle Swanson
Who are gifted and talented students and how do states identify these students? This
question is the starting point for building a framework of policies for gifted and talented
education and is typically the most controversial aspect of gifted programs in the public
schools (Borland, 2014, p. 322). The process of identification and selection of students for
participation in gifted programs draws a box around who is and who is not gifted, and in
doing so creates disagreement among parents, educators, scholars, and others. Borland
contends that, because there is no consensus as to what giftedness is, how it reveals
itself, or what it is composed of (p. 324), judging the effectiveness of how we identify
gifted and talented students is difficult.
This chapter discusses identification policy essentials and offers a range of examples from
states to illustrate application of these essentials. Comprehensive state policy in
identification should address each of the following criteria:
1. Includes an operational definition of gifted and talented

2. Cites multiple criteria
3. Addresses the use of assessment tools that are sensitive to inclusion of
underrepresented groups such as low SES, racial and ethnic minorities, children
with disabilities, and English learners
4. Ensures identification processes that match the operational definition
5. Allows for placement options that match the operational definition
6. Addresses the arts and other specific domains
7. Calls for a connection between identification, curriculum, and service
8. Outlines a general process for decision making concerning screening, identification,
and service
9. Provides for an appeals process
Acknowledging the lack of agreement in the field on the construct of giftedness, it is

noteworthy that several similar national definitions exist and can be found in the Marland
Report (Marland,1972), the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (1988), The
National Excellence Report (Ross, 1993), and No Child Left Behind (2002). These definitions
broaden from early use of a single test score to identify individualsa limited approach
that fails to identify those whose gifts are not measurable by one test. Those for whom a
test score does not reflect the nature or extent of their abilities or those whose
backgrounds have not prepared them to score well on traditional measures of ability are
overlooked when single test scores are the only criterion for identification.
23 | P a g e
Since the 1972 Marland Report to Congress, considerable state and local attention has
focused on a more expansive view of giftedness. States employ more equitable and
appropriate techniques and procedures for the identification of those who need
educational intervention (Ross, 1993). Elements of high quality state policy in the area of
identification have been noted in several reports and papers (Brown, Avery, VanTassel-
Baska, Worley & Stambaugh, 2006; Stambaugh, Worley, VanTassel-Baska, & Brown, 2005;
VanTassel-Baska, 2006). These elements establish specific criteria that guide the
development of this chapter.
The identification of gifted and talented learners has been of concern to educators and
policy makers for decades. Identification is an area where educators and parents seek clear,
comprehensive, and accurate information. For most states, establishing a definition is the
starting point for policy development. In the State of the States report (NAGC & (CSDPG),
2015), 37 of the responding 39 states have a state definition of gifted/talented found either
in statutes or state rules and regulations. In those states that have a definition, most LEAs
are required to use the state definition. Schools in 33 states were required to use specific
criteria and/or methods to identify gifted and talented students, and the criteria/methods
were completely or partially determined at the state level in 12. (p. 11). State definitions
of gifted and talented encompassed multiple areas, with almost all including intellectually
gifted (34) and most including academically gifted (24), performing/visual arts (21),
creatively gifted (21), and/or specific academic areas (20) (p.27).
Once a state resolves definitional issues, comprehensive identification policy must reflect
best practice. Recognition that giftedness occurs in all groups requires that policies
explicitly address the use of tools and methods that are sensitive to underrepresented
groups, including, but not limited to, low income, minority, twice-exceptional, and English
Language Learners. Far fewer state definitions included specific populations of
gifted/talented students, such as low SES (9), ESL/ELL (8), culturally or ethnically diverse
(8), gifted with a disability (6), or geographically isolated/rural (3). Some states address
other factors such as Arkansas including task commitment and high potential (NAGC &
CSDPG, 2015, p.27).
Another important criterion of comprehensive state policy is the use of multiple criteria to
identify the gifted. Most states report the use of a variety of identification methods with
many going beyond test scores to incorporate such approaches as nomination, interview,
and portfolio. Additionally, policy language should explicitly state that the operational
definition matches both the process for identification and the specific placements available
to identified students.
Further, it is important that policy language describes processes for identification and
placement of students whose gifts warrant specific attention beyond the standard school
program. Policy language should outline a process that comprises screening, identification,
and placement for service(s), and that includes an appeals process.
24 | P a g e
Discussion of the specific identification policy criteria follows, with several examples of
actual language from existing policies, rules, and regulations of representative states. Users
are reminded that the authors have in no way intended or attempted to make value
judgments regarding the included examples. The goal is to present different ways to craft
language that incorporates critical aspects of gifted education policy.
Identification Policy Criterion 1:

A comprehensive state policy related to identification includes an operational definition of
giftedness.
Key Words and Phrases

Operational definition means to put something into operation, to make it specific,
accessible, and comprehensible to others. An operational definition takes a
theoretical notion and makes it functional. An operational definition of giftedness
means that giftedness is defined in terms of characteristics, a set of criteria, a
process, and a procedure that can be understood and used by others. The
operational definition explicates who the gifted are and how they are determined to
be in the gifted group.
Related Questions and Issues

What purpose does an operational definition serve?
Why is having an operational definition significant for state policy?
What are the possible consequences when there is not an operational definition in
state policy?
Content
NAGCs Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standard 2 states that quality programming
requires that All students in grades PK-12 have equal access to a comprehensive
assessment system that allows them to demonstrate diverse characteristics and behaviors
that are associated with giftedness (NAGC, 2010). A comprehensive state policy includes
an operational definition of giftedness. Renzulli (2002) suggested three criteria of an
operational definition. The definition (1) is taken from best available research on
characteristics of gifted; (2) guides selection and development of identification
instruments, assessments, and procedures, and (3) gives direction to programming that
supports the gifted learner. Operationalized definitions guide assessment and directly or
indirectly describe ability, potential, talent, and programming (Johnsen, 1997). Borland
(2014) describes the tension between how states, i.e., practitioners and policy makers,
address defining giftedness and how the field or researchers, scholars, and theorists
might define it. Recognizing the tensions and distinctions between theoretical constructs
and operational definitions is important. Clarenbach and Eckert (2013) advocate for a
common, clear, and purposeful policy-related definition of giftedness (p. 34) as a way to
improve gifted education by establishing clarity around expected student outcomes. This
25 | P a g e
clarity frees gifted education from charges of bias and perceived elitism. A review of the
several state policy examples that include an operational definition suggests that states
have been responsive to the 1972 federal definition offered in the Marland Report
(Marland,1972) and National Excellence: The Case for Developing Americas Talent (Ross,
1993). Phrases such as possessing potential, demonstrating potential, or shows
potential are often used to expand the definition beyond students already excelling or
performing at a high level to students who show evidence of the potential for high
performance.
Identification Policy Examples: Operational Definition

The following represent a range of examples of state language in operational definition.
Iowa
Iowa state code provides a definition of gifted and talented: "Gifted and talented children"
are those identified as possessing outstanding abilities who are capable of high
performance. Gifted and talented children are children who require appropriate
instruction and educational services commensurate with their abilities and needs beyond
those provided by the regular school program. Gifted and talented children include those
children with demonstrated achievement or potential ability, or both, in any of the
following areas or in combination:
1. General intellectual ability
2. Creative thinking
3. Leadership ability
4. Visual and performing arts ability
5. Specific ability aptitude
Citation: Iowa Code sec. 257.44

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IC/LINC/Section.257.44.pdf
Kentucky
Kentucky regulation language includes within the definition of "exceptional children" a
category of "exceptional students" who are identified as possessing demonstrated or
potential ability to perform at an exceptionally high level in general intellectual aptitude,
specific academic aptitude, creative or divergent thinking, psychosocial or leadership skills,
or in the visual or performing arts.
KRS 157.224(1) commits the state to a comprehensive educational program for its
exceptional school-aged children.
KRS 157.230 requires all school districts to operate programs for resident exceptional
children, primary - grade twelve (12). This administrative regulation establishes the
requirements for programs for gifted and talented students.
26 | P a g e
Citation: 704 KAR 3:285. Programs for the gifted and talented.
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/704/003/285.htm
Texas
Texas Education Code offers the following definition.
Sec. 29.121. DEFINITION. In this subchapter, "gifted and talented student" means a child
or youth who performs at or shows the potential for performing at a remarkably high level
of accomplishment when compared to others of the same age, experience, or environment
and who:
(1) exhibits high performance capability in an intellectual, creative, or artistic area;
(2) possesses an unusual capacity for leadership; or
(3) excels in a specific academic field.
Citation: Texas Education Code Chapter 2 sec. 29.121

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm#29.121
Arizona
Arizona Revised Education Statutes provide language defining gifted education and gifted
pupil.
1. "Gifted education" means appropriate academic course offerings and services that
are required to provide an educational program that is an integral part of the
regular school day and that is commensurate with the academic abilities and
potential of a gifted pupil.
2. "Gifted pupil" means a child who is of lawful school age, who due to superior
intellect or advanced learning ability, or both, is not afforded an opportunity for
otherwise attainable progress and development in regular classroom instruction
and who needs appropriate gifted education services, to achieve at levels
commensurate with the child's intellect and ability.
ARTICLE 3. CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

R7-2-406. Gifted Education Programs and Services
A. Governing boards shall adopt policies for the education of gifted students which shall
include:
1. Procedures for identification and placement of students to be placed in gifted
programs.
a. Students shall be served who score at or above the 97th percentile on
national norms in any one of three areas - verbal, nonverbal, or quantitative
reasoning - on any test from the State Board-approved list. Students who
score below the 97th percentile also may be served.
27 | P a g e
b. Local educational agencies (LEAs) shall accept, as valid for placement, scores
at or above the 97th percentile on any State Board-approved test submitted
by other LEAs or by qualified professionals.
c. LEAs shall place transfer students as soon as they have verified eligibility.
Citation: Arizona Revised Statutes. Title 15. Education. Chapter 7. Instruction, Article
4.1.
https://www.azed.gov/gifted-
education/files/2012/10/arizonagiftededucationstatutesadministrativecode.pdf
Summary
Some qualifiers within an operational definition include beyond their age peers or
significantly beyond the age or when compared to others of the same age. Operational
definitions often include modifiers such as remarkably high (TX), exceptionally high
(KY) significantly beyond (KY), consistently outstanding (KY), which are not explicitly
defined. Some states may clarify the use of these phrases in other sections of rules or in
guideline documents. For example, Connecticut uses extraordinary learning ability or
outstanding talent and provides definitions for those descriptors. On their own, these
phrases are open to range of interpretation, and if not clarified, those varied
interpretations may impact who is identified as gifted.
Most states include in their operational definition particular categories for giftedness:
general intellectual, specific academic, artistic (Visual and Performing Arts, Creative Arts),
Creative/Divergent Thinking, Psychosocial/Leadership, extraordinary learning ability. The
extent to which states explain these categories varies from a few words (ME), to several
sentences (KY), to no elaboration (TX). Maine defines gifted and talented children and cites
three categories of giftedness. The categories are defined and a percentage of school
population to be considered in each category is set. The percentages also address the highly
gifted.
States that place gifted programs administratively under exceptional/special education

might include language that reinforces the context for gifted as being within special
education: a category of exceptional students (KY), requiring special education (CT), or
may be provided through special education (CT). Where states place programs under
general education or curriculum/instruction, comparative language making a distinction
between a gifted student and others, such as a remarkably high level of accomplishment
when compared to others of the same age, experience, or environment (TX).
28 | P a g e

A comprehensive state policy related to identification cites multiple criteria to identify
students.

Multiple criteria: the use of three or more varied identification means in the
identification of giftedness and talent in an individual. Multiple criteria typically
includes subjective and objective measures to identify giftedness and talent.

Why is use of multiple criteria important in identification policy?
How does the use of multiple criteria relate to the operational definition of
giftedness and other key criteria?
In what ways does use of multiple criteria link to NAGC P-12 programming
standards?
What are pitfalls of single criterion use for identifying gifted students?
Content
Multiple criteria is defined as the use of three or more varied assessment tools in the
identification of giftedness and talent in an individual. Many experts in the field (e.g.,
Frasier, Garcia, & Passow, 1995; Piirto, 2007; Renzulli & Reis, 1997; VanTassel-Baska,
2006) agree that the use of an identification model based upon multiple means to identify
gifted and talented students is more equitable than the use of a single measure and should
be part of comprehensive state identification policy. To address equity issues and the
increasingly diverse student population, use of multiple means is critical. NAGC
Programming Standard 2.2 on Assessment (NAGC, 2010) explicitly states the need for the
use of multiple assessments Educators select and use multiple assessments that measure
diverse abilities, talents, and strengths. Student diversity requires that we look at
students in different ways, over time, to assess their potential giftedness or talent. NAGC
Standard 2 calls for both qualitative and quantitative measures from a variety of sources
(NAGC, 2010). Use of multiple criteria goes beyond test scores to include varied methods
that assess exceptional potential and performance such as nominations, interviews,
performance assessments, and portfolios. Of the states (n=39) providing responses in the
State of the States report (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015) on how gifted and talented students were
identified, one quarter (n=10) indicated that multiple criteria were used. The types of
assessments reportedly used were IQ scores, achievement data, nominations, state
assessments, and portfolios (p.29).
Identification Policy Examples: Multiple Criteria

The following examples illustrate language used by states that employ multiple criteria.
29 | P a g e
Ohio
Ohio defines superior creative thinking ability and multiple means for recognizing it
through performance and potential.
INTENT: To define criteria for gifted identification in the creative thinking area.
REQUIREMENT(c) A child shall be identified as exhibiting "creative thinking ability"
superior to children of a similar age, if within the previous twenty-four months, the child
scored one standard deviation above the mean, minus the standard error of measurement,
on an approved individual or group intelligence test and also did either of the following:
(i) Attained a sufficient score, as established by the department of education, on an
approved individual or group test of creative ability; or
(ii) Exhibited sufficient performance, as established by the department of education,
on an approved checklist by a trained individual of creative behaviors.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Instruments for measuring intelligence and creative behavior

may be found on the ODE Chart of Approved Assessment Instruments for Gifted Screening
and Identification. Users can access the list by searching the phrase Chart Approved
Assessments on the ODE Web site.
Testing for creativity requires the assessment of behaviors that may not appear on a
traditional test. Educators are to use the checklist is [sic] to further describe the talent
exhibited by the student. Students may exhibit creativity in a variety of ways and in any
domain.
It should also be noted that the behavior checklist for this category should be completed by
someone who is well acquainted with the student being evaluated.
Citation: OAC 3301-51-15 I (1) (c)

http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Gifted-Education/Rules-Regulations-
and-Policies-for-Gifted-Education
Hawaii
Hawaii state regulation language shows how multiple criteria are described in that state.
8-51-4 Authority. The principal and district superintendent shall provide students who are
gifted and talented an appropriate public education in accordance with this chapter and
within available funding, or other resources.
8-51-5 School committee for gifted and talented.

(a) Each school shall have a school committee for gifted and talented composed of at least
three members, one of whom shall be a school administrator or designee. The principal
shall appoint its members from among teachers, parents, department of education
administrators, counselors, and professional experts.
30 | P a g e
(b) Responsibilities of the committee shall include the following:

(1) Reviewing the student profiles of the eligible candidates;
(2) Rating each candidate using an individual student rating matrix form, or case
study form;
(3) Recommending the selection of student for placement in a gifted and talented
program; and
(4) Periodically reviewing gifted and talented students progress for possible
revision of their program.
8-51-6 Identification procedures. Gifted and talented students shall be identified by the
schools in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) The school shall initially screen its student enrollment for gifted and talented students
by using multiple factors, including test scores, nominations, students products, and past
records;
(2) The school shall administer additional assessment instruments as needed to those
students so identified;
(3) The school shall compile data on these students by using a matrix or case study form;
(4) The school committee for gifted and talented shall review the data and recommend to
the principal or designee the selection of students for participation in an appropriate gifted
and talented program; and
(5) The principal or designee shall make the selections and obtain consent for placement of
students in a gifted and talented program.
8-51-7 Criteria for selection. Students who participate in programs for gifted and talented
shall meet the following two criteria:
(1) Demonstrate, or show potential for, superior achievement through available
assessment instruments, observations, and rating scales in one of the following areas of
giftedness and talent:
A. Specific academic ability;
B. Intellectual ability
C. Specific academic ability
D. Creative ability;
E. Leadership capability;
F. Psychomotor ability; or
G. Performing and visual arts ability; and
(2) Meet the standards and requirements of the schools gifted and talented programs
through additional factors and measures.
Citation: Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 51, 8-51-5

http://gt.k12.hi.us/files/CHAPTER_51.pdf
31 | P a g e
Summary
The state policy examples show different types of language for consideration of
identification policy development or revision. The policy example of specific, multiple
criteria for identification of giftedness in several areas of giftedness (Ohio) is seen in one
example. Ohios identification policy specifies areas of giftedness (intellectual, specific
academic, creativity, visual/performing arts) and uses specific language such as ...
superior academic ability defined as scoring two standard deviations above the mean and
ability superior to that of other children of similar age... at or above the ninety-fifth
percentile on standardized achievement test. The Ohio policy example illustrates state
identification policy that would apply multiple criteria in the same way across all districts
in the state. Hawaii offers examples of multiple criteria applied to a broad range of areas of
giftedness and talent, including psychomotor, academic ability, leadership, intellectual
ability, and creative ability.

A comprehensive state policy related to identification addresses the use of assessment tools
that are sensitive to inclusion of underrepresented groups.

Assessment tools are valid, reliable measures used to ascertain evidence of
giftedness and talent. Tools should include both qualitative and quantitative
assessments that link back to the operational definition. Qualitative tools use
words to describe and understand an individuals strengths and/or other
characteristics and quantitative tools use numbers to describe and understand an
individuals strengths and/or other characteristics (Ryser, 2011, p. 24). Portfolios,
nomination checklists, observations, and interviews are examples of qualitative
assessment tools. Quantitative assessment tools include norm-referenced and
criterion-referenced tests.
Sensitive to inclusion means that attention is paid to potential bias of assessment
tools as well as the validity and reliability of those assessments. Inclusion means
that a wider net is used in an effort to ensure equitable access for hard to recognize
gifted students.
Underrepresented groups refers to gifted learners from groups that historically have
been difficult to find in gifted programs, such as low income students, students who
are English learners, Hispanic students, African American students, and Native
American students. Students from underrepresented groups may underperform on
traditional quantitative assessments, such as norm-referenced tests of aptitude or
achievement.

Which groups are considered underrepresented?
Which assessment tools are sensitive to inclusion of underrepresented groups?
32 | P a g e
Is there a unique scoring methodology or percentage of the population set-aside for

these underrepresented groups?
Content
Assessment tools used in identification should be varied, provide different types of
evidence of ability and/or potential, and be valid, reliable, and as bias-free as possible.
Renzulli (2005) advocates for use of a local talent pool to determine the gifted and talented
identification criteria over using a state-determined criteria. Lohman (2013) offers ideas
for how to apply local interpretation to traditional measures of intelligence, reinterpreting
existing data given the local context. For example, his ideas include developing local norms
for ability and achievement tests already administered, how to obtain local norms from
testing companies and why local norms are important in finding diverse gifted learners,
and how to develop and use subgroup norms to gain a more accurate picture of student
ability within underrepresented groups (p. 112).
Students receiving gifted and talented services should reflect a school districts diversity.
NAGC pre-K-12 gifted programming standards (NACG, 2010) states in Standard 2,
Educators select and use non-biased and equitable approaches for identifying students
with gifts and talents, which may include using locally developed norms or assessment
tools in the childs native language or in nonverbal formats. Some states allow for local
control in establishing identification criteria, while other states set statewide criteria. Some
states recommend using an alternate set of criteria or using more culturally and
economically sensitive assessments. Others do not.
Identification Policy Examples: Underrepresented Students

These examples illustrate sensitivity to underrepresentation.
Florida
Florida explicitly defines who the under-represented groups are and how their
participation in gifted program services will occur.
1. For the purpose of this rule, under-represented groups are defined as groups:
a. Who are limited English proficient, or
b. Who are from a low socio-economic status family.
2. The Department of Education is authorized to approve school district plans for
increasing the participation of students from under-represented groups in special
instructional programs for the gifted, provided these plans include the following:
A district goal to increase the percent of students from under-represented groups in

programs for the gifted and the current status of the district in regard to that goal;
a. Screening and referral procedures which will be used to increase the number of
these students referred for evaluation;
33 | P a g e
b. Criteria for determining eligibility based on the students demonstrated ability

or potential in specific areas of leadership, motivation, academic performance,
and creativity;
c. Student evaluation procedures, including the identification of the measurement
instruments to be used;
d. Instructional program modifications or adaptations to ensure successful and
continued participation of students from under-represented groups in the
existing instructional program for gifted students;
e. An evaluation design which addresses evaluation of progress toward the
districts goal for increasing participation by students from under-represented
groups.
3. Procedures for student evaluation. The minimum evaluations for determining
eligibility are the following:
a. Need for a special instructional program,
b. Characteristics of the gifted,
c. Intellectual development, and
d. May include those evaluation procedures specified in an approved district plan
to increase the participation of students from under-represented groups in
programs for the gifted.
Citation: Florida State Board of Education, State Department of Education, Division of

Special Education Services, Administrative Code. Chapter 290-8-9. Special Education
Services.
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?id=6A-6.03019
West Virginia
West Virginia includes a section in their regulations on students historically under-
represented and suggests ways to screen those students for eligibility.
Special Considerations
Intellectual Ability. If the students general intellectual ability score is unduly affected by
performance in one or more composite scores, the evaluator may use, for purposes of
eligibility, an alternate general ability index or an individual composite measure as
permitted in the test manual or other technical reports. The evaluator must include a
statement in the report indicating which score is the better indicator of the students
intellectual abilities and the supporting reasons for this determination.
Historically Under-represented Gifted Population. Historically Underrepresented Gifted

Populations are those students whose giftedness may not be apparent due to low
socioeconomic status, a disability in accordance with this policy, or a background that is
linguistically or culturally different. If it is determined that the eligibility criteria and/or
assessment instruments discriminate against a student because the student belongs to a
historically under-represented gifted population, eligibility for gifted services shall be
34 | P a g e
based upon criteria that complement the definition and eligibility for gifted as described in
this policy. To determine whether a student demonstrates the potential for intellectual
giftedness when the student does not meet the eligibility criteria as described in this policy,
the eligibility committee must consider all data gathered by the multidisciplinary
evaluation team. These date include, but are not limited to, individual achievement, group
achievement, classroom performance, teacher input, inventories, scales, checklists, rubrics
and parent information.
The following lists different procedures that the eligibility committee may use in
determining eligibility of a student who belongs to a historically under-represented
population. This is not an exhaustive list.
Using an alternative assessment to identify giftedness in minority students.
Using a matrix to get a total picture.
Using parent, student, and teacher rating scales to give added information.
Citation: West Virginia Department of Education Policy 2419: Regulation for the Education
of Exceptional Students
https://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/giftedguidelines-3a.htm
Summary
Some states offer cautions about underrepresented groups and the use of assessments,
which may be biased to some of these groups. Florida has different standards for
identification in some underrepresented groups, including English learners and low socio-
economic status. Policy language examples to ensure sensitivity and access from West
Virginia are included, with a list of suggested procedures to employ with underrepresented
populations.

A comprehensive state policy related to identification ensures identification processes that
match the operational definition.

Identification processes are the formal and informal assessments used to provide
evidence or data relative to the individual students areas of giftedness and/or
talent. Many states establish accepted processes that enable LEAs to find those
students who will benefit educationally from gifted program services.
Match means that the formal and informal assessments used for each type or
categories of giftedness as stated in a states operational definition. For example, a
mismatch is evident if a state operationally defines gifted students as those
creatively gifted and then specifies a set of assessments such as questionnaires
designed to assess leadership characteristics, observations or behavior checklists
specific to leadership ability, and portfolios with evidence of leadership qualities.
35 | P a g e

Does the how students are identified match the definition of who the gifted and
talented are?
Do the formal and informal assessments match the desired outcomes, according to
the definitions? That is, do the assessments identify the gifted students a state or
LEA is seeking?
Are there clear connections between the assessments and processes used for gifted
and talented operational definitions?
Content
The various components of a definition should lead to independent, distinct identification
procedures (Callahan, Renzulli, Delcourt, & Hertberg-Davis, 2013, p. 84). The translation
of the operational definition into a process for identification should utilize assessment tools
that are appropriate for the construct of giftedness as defined. For example, tests of verbal
intellectual ability are not appropriate for assessing specific academic abilities in
mathematics (Callahan et al., 2013, p. 84). Further, NAGC pre-k-grade 12 gifted education
programming standard 2.2 (2010) states, Each student reveals his or her exceptionalities
or potential through assessment evidence so that appropriate instructional
accommodations and modifications can be provided. The match among operational
definition of who the gifted are and how they are identified must be clearly linked since
services are designed to develop the talents in those identified.
Local school districts in 33 states are required to use specific criteria and/or methods
identify gifted students (NAGC & CDSPG, 2015). Only 12 states have criteria/methods
determined by the state. Examination of assessment and processes used by states show
formal assessments such as grades, aptitude, achievement, IQ, and proficiency tests, as well
as informal assessments such as behavior checklists, observations, parent interviews, and
portfolios. Piirto (2007) notes that often the assumption is made that tests are reliable
indicators of giftedness but cautions that tests measure different things and selection of
instruments that assess what is intended to be measured is key. Tyler-Wood and Carri
(1991) found that the specific tests used to identify gifted students matter because
different tests identify different students.
Identification Policy Examples: Match between Definition and Processes to Identify

These examples offer language to illustrate match between definition and identification
processes.
Kentucky
Kentucky regulations illustrate varied areas of giftedness and have matched processes for
finding those exceptional students in varied areas.
NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: KRS 157.200(1)(n) includes within the

definition of "exceptional children" a category of "exceptional students" who are identified
36 | P a g e
as possessing demonstrated or potential ability to perform at an exceptionally high level in

general intellectual aptitude, specific academic aptitude, creative or divergent thinking,
psychosocial or leadership skills, or in the visual or performing arts. Sample language
describing identification procedures below:
Section 3 (12) To qualify as a gifted and talented student in grades four (4) through twelve
(12), the following criteria shall be met in one (1) of these gifted and talented categories:
(a) General intellectual ability shall be determined by a student score within the ninth
stanine on a full scale comprehensive test of intellectual ability. If a student scores low on
formal group measures of intellectual ability, yet other documentation shows potential, the
district shall administer an individual mental ability test. Evidence of general intellectual
ability also may include:
1. High performance on additional individual or group intellectual assessment;
2. Observation of applied advanced reasoning ability; or
3. Checklist inventories of behaviors specific to underachieving or disadvantaged
gifted learners.
(b) Specific academic aptitude shall be determined by composite scores in the ninth stanine
on one (1) or more subject test scores of an achievement test. If a student scores low on a
formal group measure of academic strength, yet other documentation shows potential, the
district shall administer another standardized normed achievement test. Evidence of
specific academic aptitude also may include:
1. High performance on an additional individual or group test of academic aptitude;
2. Student awards or critiques of performances;
3. Off-level testing;
4. Portfolio of high academic performances; or
5. Student progress data.
(c) Creativity shall be determined through the use of informal or formal assessment
measures of a child's capacity for originality of thought, fluency, elaboration, and flexibility
of thought. Documented evidence of creative thinking ability also may include:
1. Creative writing samples;
2. High scores on tests of creative ability (e.g., Williams or Torrance, etc.);
3. Behavioral checklists or observations specific to creative behavior; or
4. Observation of original ideas, products or problem-solving.
(d) Leadership or psychosocial abilities shall be determined by a variety of informal
measures and the documentation of the willingness of a student to assume leadership roles
in class, in a student organization, and in a community activity. Evidence of psychosocial or
leadership ability also may include:
1. Socio-grams (i.e., questionnaires designed to assess leadership characteristics);
2. Peer recommendations;
3. Behavioral checklists or observations specific to leadership behavior;
4. Portfolio entries which display leadership qualities; or
5. Offices held by student in extracurricular activities and class government.
(e) Visual and performing arts talent shall be determined through evidence of performance
which may include auditions, letters of recommendations, or product or portfolio
37 | P a g e
assessment by specialists or professional artists. Evidence of visual or performing arts also

may include:
1. Awards or critiques of performance; or
2. Portfolio of visual or performing arts ability.
Citation: 704 KAR 3:285. Programs for the gifted and talented. RELATES TO: KRS 157.196,
157.200(1)(n), 157.224, 157.230. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS 156.070, 157.196(3),
157.220, 157.224
Virginia
"Gifted students" means those students in public elementary, middle, and secondary
schools beginning with kindergarten through twelfth grade who demonstrate high levels of
accomplishment or who show the potential for higher levels of accomplishment when
compared to others of the same age, experience, or environment. Their aptitudes and
potential for accomplishment are so outstanding that they require special programs to
meet their educational needs. These students will be identified by professionally qualified
persons through the use of multiple criteria as having potential or demonstrated aptitudes
in one or more of the following areas:
1. General intellectual aptitude. Such students demonstrate or have the potential to
demonstrate superior reasoning; persistent intellectual curiosity; advanced use of
language; exceptional problem solving; rapid acquisition and mastery of facts,
concepts, and principles; and creative and imaginative expression across a broad
range of intellectual disciplines beyond their age-level peers.
2. Specific academic aptitude. Such students demonstrate or have the potential to
demonstrate superior reasoning; persistent intellectual curiosity; advanced use of
language; exceptional problem solving; rapid acquisition and mastery of facts,
concepts, and principles; and creative and imaginative expression beyond their age-
level peers in selected academic areas that include English, history and social
science, mathematics, or science.
3. Career and technical aptitude. Such students demonstrate or have the potential to
demonstrate superior reasoning; persistent technical curiosity; advanced use of
technical language; exceptional problem solving; rapid acquisition and mastery of
facts, concepts, and principles; and creative and imaginative expression beyond
their age-level peers in career and technical fields.
4. Visual or performing arts aptitude. Such students demonstrate or have the potential
to demonstrate superior creative reasoning and imaginative expression; persistent
artistic curiosity; and advanced acquisition and mastery of techniques, perspectives,
concepts, and principles beyond their age-level peers in visual or performing arts.
"Identification" means the multi-staged process of finding students who are eligible for
service options offered through the division's gifted education program. The identification
process begins with a division wide screening component that is followed by a referral
38 | P a g e
component, and that concludes with the determination of eligibility by the school division's
identification and placement committee or committees. The identification process includes
the review of valid and reliable student data based on criteria established and applied
consistently by the school division. The process shall include the review of information or
data from multiple sources to determine whether a student's aptitudes and learning needs
are most appropriately served through the school division's gifted education program.
Citation: VR270-01-0002 1.1. Chapter 40: Regulations Governing Educational Services

for Gifted Students
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/gifted_regulations.pdf
Summary
States show different approaches in the way identification processes are designed to find
the students who are, by state definition/s, the gifted and talented students eligible for
gifted services. In these examples, the legislation uses clear language to match the
processes and the assessments used with the intended operational definitions. The
Kentucky example identifies instruments and procedures that are specific to each area of
talent in the state definition for gifted students in grades 4-12. Kentucky regulations
describe an informal identification process for finding primary level high-potential learners
for placement in a talent pool: For children in the primary program, the procedure for
selecting a high-potential learner for participation in the primary talent pool shall include
use of a minimum of three (3) of the following recognized or acceptable assessment
options to assess the degree of demonstrated gifted characteristics and behaviors and to
determine level of need and most appropriate service interventions These assessment
options range from a performance portfolio, inventory checklists, diagnostic data, parent
interview, anecdotal record, and more. As Kentucky students exit the primary program for
services in grades 4 12, identification includes a formal approach including a valid and
reliable combination of measures to identify strengths, gifted behaviors and talents that
indicate a need and eligibility for service options. Specific informal and formal assessment
measures of general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creativity, and
leadership or psychosocial abilities, and visual and performing arts are listed. Virginia
policy language states clearly that there must be a match between the identification
instruments/ processes and the particular category of giftedness being identified.

A comprehensive state policy related to identification allows for placement options that
match the operational definition.

Allows for placement options means that a continuum of services that offer needs-
based options exists for identified gifted and talented students. Effective, research-
based learning opportunities are provided to develop talent and giftedness of
39 | P a g e
students. Placement options are not one size fits all for gifted students; varied
programming services are offered to allow student potential to be developed.

What do a variety of placement options for gifted and talented students look like?
What problems do you see for a one size fits all gifted program? What are
challenges with a continuum of services for gifted students?
What are some issues that small districts face when planning for a range of
programming for high-ability students?
Is there flexibility in the programming to accommodate talent across different
domains?
Content
Callahan et al. (2013) call congruence between identification and programming the golden
rule (p. 88) of gifted education. They describe an example of the mathematically gifted
student who is placed in what they call the all-purpose gifted program (p. 88). Prescribed
curriculum and lack of flexibility and individualization are other issues found when
examining how placement options fit or do not fit with identified gifted students. Borland
(2013) discusses the undifferentiated differentiated curriculum (p. 71) as a curious
paradox inherent in most [gifted] enrichment programs, that is while the gifted program
curriculum is different from the regular curriculum, there is little if any differentiation
found for the students in the program. All students experience the same enrichment at the
same time, suggesting they are all part of a monolithic population of generically gifted
students (p.71).
In NAGCs Pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming standards (2010), Standard 1 begins with,

For teachers and other educators in Pre-K-12 settings to be effective in working with
learners with gifts and talents, they must understand the characteristics and needs of the
population for whom they are planning curriculum, instruction, assessment, programs, and
services. These characteristics provide the rationale for differentiation in programs,
grouping, and services for this population and are translated into appropriate
differentiation choices made at curricular and program levels in schools and school
districts (p. 1). Clear connections between who the gifted are and the range of
programming options are essential for effective education of these students. When
examining the range of options reported among states, the State of the States report (NAGC
& CSDPG, 2015) 23states require some form of programming or service for gifted students,
and that programming varies by category: intellectual (22 states), specific academic areas
(16 states), general academic (17 states), visual or performing arts (11 states), creativity
(9states), and leadership (7 states) (pp. 177-180).
Identification Policy Examples: Match between Who and How Served

These examples provide sample policy language to illustrate match between who the gifted
are, how they are identified, and how they are served.
40 | P a g e
Kentucky
Kentucky was mentioned as an example above. This example comes from the same
regulation source, but shows how the services are a direct outgrowth on the student traits,
behaviors and areas of talent.
Section 4. Procedure for Determining Eligibility for Services. (1) Identification of gifted
characteristics, behaviors and talent shall be based on the following process:
(a) Data gathering. A district shall develop a system for searching the entire school
population on a continuous basis for likely candidates for services using both informal and
available formal, normed, standardized measures, including measures of nonverbal ability;
(b) Data analysis. A district shall develop a system for analyzing student data for the
purposes of a comparison of the students under consideration for identification to local or
national norms, including those required in this administrative regulation, and to district-
established criteria of eligibility for each category of giftedness;
(c) Committee for determination of eligibility and services. A school district or school shall
assemble a selection and placement committee which shall have four (4) purposes:
1. To provide feedback on the adequacy of the district's identification and diagnostic
procedure;
2. To ensure that a variety of views are heard during the selection and placement
process;
3. To determine which students meet identification criteria and which services, at
what level, shall be included in each identified student's gifted and talented student
services plan; and
4. To help provide communication and support in the schools and community;
(d) Provision of services. A district shall implement articulated services from primary
through grade twelve (12) which provide multiple delivery options matched to diagnosed
behaviors, strengths and characteristics of individual students; and
(e) Petition and appeal for services. A district shall provide a petition system as a safeguard
for a student who may have been missed in the identification and diagnosis procedure.
Citation: 704 KAR 3:285. Programs for the gifted and talented. RELATES TO: KRS 157.196,
157.200(1)(n), 157.224, 157.230. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS 156.070, 157.196(3),
157.220, 157.224
Virginia
Virginia was also mentioned above. This example comes from state regulations and refers
to student learning needs and the link to student placement in the appropriate service
option.
41 | P a g e
"Learning needs of gifted students" means gifted students' needs for advanced and complex
content that is paced and sequenced to respond to their persistent intellectual, artistic, or
technical curiosity; exceptional problem-solving abilities; rapid acquisition and mastery of
information; conceptual thinking processes; and imaginative expression across a broad
range of disciplines.
"Placement" means the determination of the appropriate educational options for each
eligible student.
"Service options" means the instructional approaches, settings, and staffing selected for the
delivery of appropriate service or services provided to eligible students based on their
assessed needs in their areas of strength.
Citation: VR270-01-0002 1.1. Chapter 40: Regulations Governing Educational Services

for Gifted Students
Washington
The language used in Washington State regulations is more general, less explicit. This
example connects definition, learner traits, and program using broad and general language.
392-170-035
DefinitionStudents who are highly capable.
As used in this chapter, highly capable students are students who perform or show
potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with
others of their age, experiences, or environments. Outstanding abilities are seen within
students' general intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, and/or creative
productivities within a specific domain. These students are present not only in the general
populace, but are present within all protected classes according to chapters 28A.640
and 28A.642 RCW.
392-170-036
DefinitionLearning characteristics.
As used in this chapter, the term learning characteristics means that students who are
highly capable may possess, but are not limited to, these learning characteristics:
1. Capacity to learn with unusual depth of understanding, to retain what has been
learned, and to transfer learning to new situations;
2. Capacity and willingness to deal with increasing levels of abstraction and
complexity earlier than their chronological peers;
3. Creative ability to make unusual connections among ideas and concepts;
4. Ability to learn quickly in their area(s) of intellectual strength; and
5. Capacity for intense concentration and/or focus.
42 | P a g e
392-170-080
Educational program for highly capable students.
Each student identified as a highly capable student shall be provided educational
opportunities which take into account such student's unique needs and capabilities. Such
program shall recognize the limits of the resources provided by the state and the program
options available to the district, including programs in adjoining districts and public
institutions of higher education. Districts shall keep on file a description of the educational
programs provided for students selected.
Citation: Washington State Legislature. WAC, Chapter 392-170. Special Service Program-
Highly Capable Students, Sections -035, 036, and 080.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=392-170&full=true
Summary
Three examples offer varied language and approaches to illustrate how placement options
that match definition may be articulated in policy. Kentucky connects traits and strengths
as their statute describes articulated services from primary through grade twelve (12)
which provide multiple delivery options matched to diagnosed behaviors, strengths and
characteristics of individual students. Virginia statute defines both placement and
service options. Language used in this example is: Placement means the determination
of the appropriate educational options for each eligible student. Service options means
the instructional approaches, settings, and staffing selected for the delivery of appropriate
service or services provided to eligible students based on their assessed needs in their
areas of strength. Washington state policy language is general and broad.

A comprehensive state policy related to identification addresses the arts or other specific
domains.

The arts are generally defined in terms of the visual and performing arts. This aligns
with the National Standards for Arts Education (1994) and the draft standards in
the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (2014) in dance, drama, music, and
visual arts. Other arts areas might include creative writing and the technical or
practical arts.
Other specific domains refers to areas such as leadership, psychomotor, creativity, or
any discrete academic area.

Which art forms or other domains will be included and what rationale exists to
support these?
43 | P a g e
Are the resources and commitment for identification and service in the arts and
other domains present?
What is the state and local capacity for supporting gifted and talented students in
the arts and other domains?
How do the services for gifted and talented students go beyond those afforded to all
students in the arts or other specific domains?
Content
The arts, and potentially other specific domains, struggle for inclusion in the current
academic accountability period. The National Standards for Arts Education (NAEA, 1994)
included the need for special experiences designed for gifted and talented students
according to their abilities and interests (p.7). Currently, the National Coalition for Core
Arts Standards (NAEA, 2014) is preparing a revision of these standards that includes
standards at the advanced level. Recent publications addressing best practices and
research on giftedness in the arts and other specific domains help to guide policy makers in
these areas as well (Piirto, 2014; Robinson, Shore, & Enersen (2007); Worley, 2008).
Worley (2008) provides an overview of the research on giftedness in the arts that
succinctly explores the nature of giftedness in the arts, identification practices, and factors
that support talent development in the arts. Because of the unique nature of the various
arts disciplines, the criteria for identification vary and do not rely solely on standardized
assessments.
Clark and Zimmerman (2001) stress the importance of using multiple criteria such as
measures of various aspects of students backgrounds, behaviors, skills, abilities,
achievement, personality, and values (p.105).
Piirto (2014) explains the importance of tying the identification measures closely to the
specific domain behaviors as a logical approach. Her model acknowledges the importance
of person, process, product, and environment in talent development. There is similarity in
the approaches commonly used: audition or portfolio, interview, and the use of objective
and subjective rubrics (Zimmerman, 2004).
According to the State of the States report (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015), 37 states had a state
definition of gifted and talented and most (34) included intellectually gifted in their
definition. The figure below (2015, p.28) identifies the other specific areas of giftedness
addressed in state definitions and the frequency. The table shows by state where programs
are required or offered by area of giftedness.
44 | P a g e
Figure 2.1. Areas of giftedness addressed in state definitions of gifted
Source: National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted
[CSDPG]. (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state/2014-2015-state-states-gifted-
education
Table 2.1. Gifted Programs Offered or Required, by State.

Area of Giftedness: State
Programs/Services required
or offered
Creativity Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin,
Wyoming
Leadership Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Performing/visual arts Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
45 | P a g e
Intellectual Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
General Academic Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
Specific Academic Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin,
Wyoming
Source: 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015, pp. 178-180). Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state/2014-2015-state-states-gifted-
education
Identification Policy Examples: Varied Domains of Giftedness

The policy examples below represent a range of regulatory language that existsfrom
simple definition to detailed identification processes.
Colorado
Colorados Exceptional Childrens Act uses language that describes various domains of
giftedness. These examples include creative thinking, leadership, and arts domains.
12.01 (12) (c) Creative or Productive Thinking

(c) (i) Definition: Creative or productive thinking is exceptional capability or
potential in mental processes (e.g., critical thinking, creative problem solving,
humor, independent/original thinking, and/or products, etc.). 114 1 CCR 301-8,
ECEA Rules, July 2012
(c) (ii) Criteria: Creative or productive thinking is demonstrated by advanced level
on performance assessments or ninety-fifth percentile and above on standardized
tests of creative/critical skills or creativity/critical thinking.
12.01 (12) (d) Leadership Abilities.
(d) (i) Definition: Leadership is the exceptional capability or potential to influence
and empower people (e.g., social perceptiveness, visionary ability, communication
skills, problem solving, inter and intra-personal skills and a sense of responsibility,
etc.).
(d) (ii) Criteria: Leadership is demonstrated by advanced level on performance
assessments or ninety-fifth percentile and above on standardized leadership tests.
46 | P a g e
12.01 (12) (e) Visual Arts, Performing Arts, Musical or Psychomotor Abilities.
(e) (i) Definition: Visual arts, performing arts, musical or psychomotor abilities are
exceptional capabilities or potential in talent areas (e.g., art, drama, music, dance,
body awareness, coordination and physical skills, etc.).
(e) (ii) Criteria: Visual arts, performing arts, musical or psychomotor abilities are
demonstrated by advanced level on performance talent-assessments or ninety-fifth
percentile and above on standardized talent-tests.
Citation: Rules for the Administration of the Exceptional Childrens Educational Act.
Colorado Rules for the Exceptional Children's Educational Act (ECEA) - Effective June 1,
2015 (see Gifted and Talented Student Programming, pg. 98)
Oregon
Intellectual ability, domain-specific ability in academics and arts, creative abilities, and
leadership abilities are included in the definition in Oregons statute.
"Talented and gifted children" means those children who require special educational
programs or services, or both, beyond those normally provided by the regular school
program in order to realize their contribution to self and society and who demonstrate
outstanding ability or potential in one or more of the following areas:
(a) General intellectual ability as commonly measured by measures of intelligence and

aptitude.
(b) Unusual academic ability in one or more academic areas.
(c) Creative ability in using original or nontraditional methods in thinking and producing.
(d) Leadership ability in motivating the performance of others either in educational or non-
educational settings.
(e) Ability in the visual or performing arts, such as dance, music or art.
Oregon districts are required to identify students who are: intellectually gifted and
academically talented in either reading or mathematics or both. Districts must also identify
students who have the potential to perform at the gifted level using criteria selected by
each district. Districts may also choose to identify students in the categories of leadership,
creativity, and visual and performing arts.
Citation: Oregon revised Statute, ORS 343.391 to 343.413

http://www.ode.state.or.us/policy/state/laws/tagors.pdf
Mississippi
These state regulations describe creatively gifted and artistically gifted students, who they
are and how to find and provide programming for them.
47 | P a g e
IDENTIFICATION OF CREATIVELY GIFTED STUDENTS

Creatively Gifted is defined as those children and youth who are found to have an
exceptionally high degree of creativity and an exceptionally high degree of ability in the
performing arts as documented through the identification process.
STAGE 1: REFERRAL
A student may be referred by a teacher, administrator, counselor, parent, peer, self, or any
other person having reason to believe that the student may be creatively gifted. The person
initiating the referral shall sign and date the referral form. District personnel shall collect
the data required to satisfy the districts referral criteria. Only the LSC (local school
committee) can stop the identification process once a referral has been signed.
Referral Criteria
1. A statement is required from an individual with documented expertise in the
performing arts indicating that the student is in the top 10% of age peers in ability
in the performing arts and has an exceptionally high degree of creativity, and one of
the following:
2. Published checklist of creativity or a published test of creativity,
3. Published checklist of characteristics in the performing arts or a published test of
ability in the performing arts,
4. Individual accomplishment in the performing arts such as recognition at the state
level or above,
5. Videotape of the students performance in the performing arts evaluated using a
rubric, or
6. Other indicators of an exceptionally high degree of ability in the performing arts
(with prior approval of the MDE). Each district shall establish the local minimal
acceptable criteria on each measure used at this stage. Documentation of the
measures and minimal acceptable criteria for each shall be maintained in a written
document and approved by the local school board. This document shall be
distributed to district administrators, school counselors, and teachers, and shall be
available to parents at each school site.
STAGE 2: LSC REVIEW OF REFERRAL DATA

Once the referral data has been collected, the LSC shall review all data and make one of the
following recommendations:
1. The student has satisfied minimal criteria and should move forward to the
assessment stage,
2. The student has not satisfied minimal criteria. However, the LSC feels strongly that
additional data should be collected and the student reconsidered at that time, or
3. The student has not satisfied minimal criteria, and the identification process should
stop.
48 | P a g e
STAGE 3: PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR TESTING

STAGE 4: ASSESSMENT
Once the LSC has determined that the student should move forward to the assessment
phase, district personnel shall review all available data before deciding which measures are
most appropriate to be used during assessment. District personnel shall collect measures
from at least two of the categories of assessment measures. At least one of the measures
shall be a measure of creativity. A student shall satisfy minimal acceptable criteria on the
measures used. Gifted Education Regulations, 2013
Assessment Criteria
1. Published checklist of creativity with a score in at least the superior range, or a
published test of creativity with a score in at least the superior range,
2. Published checklist of characteristics for performing arts with a score in at least the
superior range, or a published test of ability in the performing arts with a score in at
least the superior range, or
3. Videotape of the students performance (must have been taped within the past
twelve months) evaluated using a rubric (with prior approval by the MDE) by an
individual who derives their main source of income from working in the pertinent
performing arts area and who certifies in writing that the student has an
exceptionally high degree of creativity and ability in the performing arts which places
them in the top 5% of age peers.
Individual Audition
If the student has satisfied the minimal criteria as outlined above, the student shall
successfully complete an individual live audition before a Panel of Experts. There must be
at least three experts on the panel with no more than one being an employee of the district.
The teacher in the program may not be a member of the panel. All members of the panel
shall meet the following criteria:
1. Possess an advanced degree in the appropriate performing arts area or
2. Derive main source of income from working in the appropriate performing arts
area.
The district shall maintain written documentation confirming the qualifications of each
member of the panel. The members of the panel shall observe a live performance by the
student in the appropriate performing arts area.
The evaluation of the panel shall be conducted simultaneously, independently, and without
discussion of the results. Each member of the panel will complete a rubric (with prior
approval of the MDE) and sign a statement that they find that the student has an
exceptionally high degree of creativity and an exceptionally high ability in the performing
arts that places them in the top 5% of age peers.
49 | P a g e
STAGE 5: ASSESSMENT REPORT

STAGE 6: LSC ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
Once the Assessment Report is finished, the LSC shall meet and review all data and
determine if eligibility criteria has or has not been satisfied. The LSC shall rule that the
student is or is not eligible for the creatively gifted program.
Parental Notification
District personnel shall notify in writing the parents of each student tested for the
creatively gifted program about the assessment results
IDENTIFICATION OF ARTISTICALLY GIFTED STUDENTS

Artistically Gifted is defined as those children and youth who are found to have an
exceptionally high degree of creativity and an exceptionally high degree of ability in the
visual arts as documented through the identification process.
STAGE 1: REFERRAL
A student may be referred by a teacher, administrator, counselor, parent, peer, self, or any
other person having reason to believe that the student may be artistically gifted. The
person initiating the referral shall sign and date the referral form. District personnel shall
collect the data required to satisfy the districts referral criteria. Only the LSC can stop the
identification process once a referral form has been signed and dated.
Referral Criteria
A statement is required from an individual with documented expertise in the visual arts
indicating that the student is in the top 10% of age peers in ability in the visual arts and has
an exceptionally high degree of creativity, plus one of the following:
1. Published checklist of creativity or norm-referenced test of creativity,
2. Published checklist of characteristics for the visual arts or a published test of ability
in the visual arts,
3. Individual accomplishment in the visual arts such as recognition at the state level or
above, Portfolio of the students work evaluated using a rubric, or
4. Other indicators of an exceptionally high degree of ability in the visual arts (with
prior approval of the MDE).
Each district shall establish the local minimal acceptable criteria on each measure used at
this stage. Documentation of the measures and minimal acceptable criteria for each shall be
maintained in a written document and approved by the local school board. This document
shall be distributed to district administrators, school counselors, and teachers, and shall be
available to parents at each school site.
STAGE 2: LSC REVIEW OF REFERRAL DATA

Once the referral data has been collected, the LSC shall review all data and make one of the
following recommendations:
50 | P a g e
1. The student has satisfied minimal criteria and should move forward to the
assessment stage,
2. The student has not satisfied the minimal criteria. However, the LSC feels strongly
that additional data should be collected and the student reconsidered at that time,
or
3. The student has not satisfied minimal criteria, and the identification process should stop.
STAGE 3: PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR TESTING

STAGE 4: ASSESSMENT
Once the LSC has determined that the student should move forward to the assessment
stage, district personnel shall review all available data before deciding which measures are
most appropriate to be used during assessment. District personnel shall collect measures
from at least two of the assessment criteria noted below. At least one of the criteria shall be
a measure of creativity. A student shall satisfy minimal acceptable criteria on the measures
used.
Assessment Criteria
Published checklist of creativity with a score in at least the superior range, or a published
test of creativity with a score in at least the superior range,
Published checklist of characteristics for the visual arts with a score in at least the superior
range, or a published test of ability in the visual arts with a score in at least the superior
range, or
1. Portfolio of the students work (all components of the portfolio shall be the
individual efforts of the student and completed during the past twelve months)
evaluated using a rubric (with prior approval by the MDE) by an individual who
derives his/her main source of income from working in the visual arts area and who
certifies in writing that the student has an exceptionally high degree of creativity
and ability in the visual arts which places them in the top 5% of their age peers in that
visual arts area.
Individual Audition
If the student has satisfied minimal criteria as outlined above, the student shall successfully
complete an individual live audition before a Panel of Experts. There must be at least three
experts on the panel with no more than one being an employee of the district. The teacher
in the program may not be a member of the panel. All members of the panel shall meet the
following criteria:
2. Possess an advanced degree in the appropriate visual arts area or
3. Derive their main source of income from working in the appropriate visual arts area.
The district shall maintain written documentation confirming the qualifications of each
member of the panel. The members of the panel shall observe the student performing in
the appropriate visual arts area. The evaluation of the panel shall be performed
simultaneously, independently, and without discussion of the results. Each member of the
panel will complete a rubric (with prior approval by the MDE) and sign a statement
51 | P a g e
certifying that they find that the student has an exceptionally high degree of creativity and
exceptionally high ability in the visual arts that places them in the top 5% of age peers.
STAGE 5: ASSESSMENT REPORT

STAGE 6: LSC ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
Once the Assessment Report is finalized, the LSC shall meet and review all data and
determine if eligibility criteria has or has not been satisfied. The LSC shall rule that the
student is or is not eligible for the artistically gifted program.
Parental Notification
District personnel shall notify in writing the parents of each student tested for the
artistically gifted program about the assessment results
Citation: Mississippi Department of Education 2013 Gifted Education Regulations

https://districtaccess.mde.k12.ms.us/curriculumandInstruction/Advanced%20Learning%
20and%20Gifted%20Programs/2013%20Regulations%20for%20the%20Gifted%20Educa
tion%20Programs%20in%20Mississippi%20-
%20Board%20Approved%202013.05.17.pdf
Ohio
Identification in creative thinking and in visual and performing arts is included in Ohios
rules and regulations on gifted education.
Section C: Identification
(a) A child shall be identified as exhibiting "creative thinking ability" superior to children of
a similar age, if within the previous twenty-four months, the child scored one standard
deviation above the mean, minus the standard error of measurement, on an approved
individual or group intelligence test and also did either of the following:
(i) Attained a sufficient score, as established by the department of education, on an
approved individual or group test of creative ability; or
(ii) Exhibited sufficient performance, as established by the department of education,
on an approved checklist by a trained individual of creative behaviors.
(d) A child shall be identified as exhibiting "visual or performing arts ability" superior to
that of children of similar age if the child has done both of the following:
(i) Demonstrated to a trained individual through a display of work, an audition, or
other performance or exhibition, superior ability in a visual or performing arts area;
and
(ii) Exhibited to a trained individual sufficient performance, as established by the
department of education, on an approved checklist of behaviors related to a specific
arts area.
52 | P a g e
Citation: Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-51-15; Office of Exceptional Children

Technical Assistance Manual
http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/Gifted-
Education/Rules-Regulations-and-Policies-for-Gifted-Educatio/TAD308.pdf.aspx
South Carolina
South Carolinas regulation includes intellectual and academic abilities and high abilities in
the arts.
I. Gifted and Talented Definitions

A. Population
1. Gifted and talented students are those who are identified in grades one through twelve
as demonstrating high performance ability or potential in academic and/or artistic areas
and therefore require educational programming beyond that normally provided by the
general school programming in order to achieve their potential.
2. Gifted and talented abilities for these regulations include
(a) Academic and Intellectual Ability: Students who have the academic and/or
intellectual potential to function at a high level in one or more academic areas.
(b) Visual and Performing Arts: Students who have the artistic potential to function
at a high performance level in one or more of the fine arts (dance, music, theatre,
and visual arts).
III. ARTISTIC
A. Programming
1. Districts shall develop a written plan to include the following artistic requirements:
(a) differentiated curriculum, instruction, and assessment that maximize the
potential of the identified students;
(b) support services that facilitate student learning and personalized education (e.g.,
assistive technology, guidance, artistic support, staff development, artistic
competition, independent study, and online courses);
(c) programming models that facilitate the delivery of differentiated curriculum and
instruction;
(d) a teacher-pupil ratio that fosters positive results;
(e) appropriate and sufficient time in instruction to assure that the goals and
objectives of the programming are met; and
(f) systematic assessment of student progress and programming effectiveness
relative to goals.
2. To provide curriculum, instruction, and assessment that maximize the potential of the
identified students, educational programming for the artistic gifted and talented students
must reflect the following characteristics:
53 | P a g e
(a) content, process, and product standards that exceed the state-adopted arts
standards for all students and that provide challenges at an appropriate level for the
strengths of the individual students;
(b) goals and indicators that require students to demonstrate depth and complexity
of knowledge, creative and critical thinking skills, and problem-solving skills;
(c) instructional strategies that accommodate the unique needs of gifted and
talented learners;
(d) opportunities for global communication and research using available
technologies; and
(e) evaluation of student performance and programming effectiveness as related to
the goals of the programming submitted in the local gifted and talented five-year
plan.
Citation: South Carolina Code of Regulations ARTICLE 19. 43-220. Gifted and Talented,
2013. (Statutory Authority: S.C. Code Ann. Section 59-29-170 (Supp. 2002))
http://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/File/instruction/standards/Advanced%20Programs/GT-
Reg-43-220.pdf
Summary
These examples illustrate how states have approached including identification of high
ability in the arts and other specific domains in gifted education programs and services.
The examples provide clear guidelines and a defined process for local schools to identify
students with talents in the arts. The policy often lists required steps in the process while
leaving to the school districts the development and application of specific procedures.

A comprehensive state policy related to identification calls for a connection between
identification processes and curriculum and service.

Connection implies that a relationship exists. This criterion addresses how the
identification processes align with the curriculum and services provided. While such
congruency would seem logical, the opportunity for students to be identified with a
specific aptitude and then placed into a curriculum that does not match the aptitude
does exist. With limited resources, districts and schools may find themselves
limiting the availability of curriculum or service approaches, creating a possible
mismatch.

Should there be articulated expectations that programming offered to gifted and
talented students be based upon the definition and identification processes outlined
in policies?
54 | P a g e
Can a single curricular or service approach meet the needs of all gifted learners?
How is differentiation used to address a students strengths and weaknesses?
Content
The mismatch between curriculum or program services and a students academic,
intellectual, or artistic strength can lead to frustration and negative consequences for both
student and teacher. The decisions made related to identification practices should inform
the pedagogical and curricular services provided. Schroth (2014) summarized the research
on service delivery models and points to the need for alignment between identification
models and program services. While an alignment among definition, identification,
curriculum, and service would seem fundamental to best practice, policy calling for this
specific articulation is rare, most often found in establishing exceptions.
Identification Policy Examples: Identification is Connected to Service Models

These examples link who is served in gifted programs to the model/s of service and
curriculum provided from state policy follow.
Kentucky
These regulations acknowledge a critical connection between curriculum and the learners
for whom the curriculum is intended.
Section 7. Curriculum.
(1) A comprehensive framework or course of study for children and youth who are
diagnosed as possessing gifted characteristics, behaviors and talent shall be based on a
district or school's curricula required to meet the goals established in KRS 158.6451.
(2) A school shall differentiate, replace, supplement, or modify curricula to facilitate high
level attainment of the learning goals established in KRS 158.6451 and to assist students
identified and diagnosed as gifted and talented to further develop their individual interest,
needs and abilities.
704 KAR 3:285. Programs for the gifted and talented.

Section 6. Service Delivery Options.
(1) A student diagnosed as possessing gifted characteristics, behaviors or talent shall be
provided articulated, primary through grade twelve (12) services which:
(a) Are qualitatively differentiated to meet his individual needs;
(b) Result in educational experiences commensurate with his interests, needs and
abilities; and
(c) Facilitate the high level attainment of goals established in KRS 158.6451.
(2) For a student in a primary program, services shall be provided within the framework of
primary program requirements and shall allow for continuous progress through a
differentiated curriculum and flexible grouping and regrouping based on the individual
needs, interests, and abilities of the student.
55 | P a g e
(3) Emphasis on educating gifted students in the general primary classroom, shall not
preclude the continued, appropriate use of resource services, acceleration options, or the
specialized service options contained in subsection (5) of this section. A recommendation
for a service shall be made on an individual basis.
(4) Grouping for instructional purposes and multiple services delivery options shall be
utilized in a local district gifted education plan. Student grouping formats shall include
grouping for instructional purposes based on student interests, abilities, and needs,
including social and emotional.
(5) There shall be multiple service delivery options with no single service option existing
alone, districtwide, at a grade level. These service delivery options shall be differentiated to
a degree as to be consistent with KRS 157.200(1). Both grouping for instructional purposes
and multiple service delivery options may include:
(a) Various acceleration options (e.g., early exit from primary, grade skipping,
content and curriculum in one (1) or more subjects from a higher grade level);
(b) Advanced placement and honors courses;
(c) Collaborative teaching and consultation services;
(d) Special counseling services;
(e) Differentiated study experiences for individuals and cluster groups in the regular
classroom;
(f) Distance learning;
(g) Enrichment services during the school day (not extracurricular);
(h) Independent study;
(i) Mentorships;
(j) Resource services delivered in a pull-out classroom or other appropriate
instructional setting;
(k) Seminars;
(l) Travel study options; or
(m) Special schools or self-contained classrooms, grades four (4) through twelve
(12) only.
(6) With the exception of an academic competition or optional extracurricular offering,
services shall be provided during the regular school hours.
Section 7. Curriculum.
(1) A comprehensive framework or course of study for children and youth who are
diagnosed as possessing gifted characteristics, behaviors and talent shall be based on a
district or school's curricula required to meet the goals established in KRS 158.6451.
(2) A school shall differentiate, replace, supplement, or modify curricula to facilitate high
level attainment of the learning goals established in KRS 158.6451 and to assist students
identified and diagnosed as gifted and talented to further develop their individual interest,
needs and abilities.
Citation: Kentucky Administrative Regulation (704 KAR)

http://education.ky.gov/specialed/GT/Pages/Gifted-and-Talented-Resources.aspx
56 | P a g e
Montana
General language about curriculum and services that meet student needs is found in this
regulation.
20-7-901. Definitions. As used in this part the following definitions apply:

(1) Gifted and talented children means children of outstanding abilities who are capable
of high performance and require differentiated educational programs beyond those
normally offered in public schools in order to fully achieve their potential contribution to
self and society. The children so identified include those with demonstrated achievement
or potential ability in a variety of worthwhile human endeavors.
Administrative Rules of Montana:

10.55.804 Gifted and Talented
(1) Schools shall provide educational services to gifted and talented students that are
commensurate to their needs, and foster a positive self-image.
Glossary reference: Framework for Gifted and Talented Education Services

GIFTED AND TALENTED: Schools shall provide educational services to students
commensurate to their needs. It is recommended that such services shall be outlined in
framework which includes:
(2) Identification of talent areas and student selection criteria according to a written
program philosophy;
(b) A curriculum which reflects student needs.
Citation: Montana Regulations; Montana Administrative Rules; State Board of Public

Education School Accreditation Standards
http://opi.mt.gov/pdf/gifted/g&tGuideApA.pdf
Texas
These regulations describe program services as research-based, matched to students
abilities, and focused on the individual learners strengths. Description of a menu of
learning and a continuum that builds on the previous years learning offer sample language
for describing services matched to student traits.
Pursuant to Section 29.123 of the Texas Education Code (TEC), the Texas State Plan for the
Education of Gifted Students (2009) forms the basis of G/T services and accountability. The
plan offers an outline for services without prohibitive regulation. Districts are accountable
for services as described in the in compliance column of the State Plan where
performance measures are included for five aspects of G/T service design. These standards
reflect actions required in state law and/or SBOE rule. Many districts, in collaboration with
57 | P a g e
their communities, will provide more comprehensive services incorporating research-

based best practices for G/T learners.
Opportunities that are commensurate with G/T students abilities and that emphasize
content in the four foundation curricular areas must be provided for G/T students in
Kindergarten to grade 12 (State Plan 3.1C). Students should be served based on individual
strengths and should not be required to participate in all four foundation curricular areas
(State Plan 2.1C).
An array of learning experiences is a menu of challenging activities or opportunities that fit

the unique interests and abilities of advanced-level students (State Plan Glossary). The
State Plan requires an array of appropriately challenging learning experiences in each of
the four foundation curricular areas be provided for G/T students in Kindergarten to
grade12 and parents be informed of the opportunities (TAC 89.3 and State Plan 3.1C).
A continuum of learning experiences refers to articulated intellectual, artistic, creative,

and/or leadership activities and opportunities that build upon one another each year a
student is in school. Instruction must be seamless and vertically aligned in order to achieve
the state goal of developing advanced-level products and/or performances (State Plan 3.2C
and State Plan Glossary).
Citation: Texas State Plan For The Education of Gifted/Talented

Students http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=214
7507377&libID=2147507368
Summary
In examples found in the policies above, there are specific, explicit connections between the
student population identified and the services offered through curriculum, instruction, and
learning opportunities. In contract, a couple of the examples show broad, general language
describing the services and curriculum.

A comprehensive state policy related to identification outlines a general process for decision
making concerning screening, identification, and service.

General process means guidance on procedures that may be followed explicitly. The
opportunity for exceptions may be provided particularly when there is strong local
control in a state.
58 | P a g e

How do processes for screening, identification, and service afford access to all?
Are processes sensitive to the diversity within the state or district?
How are special populations of gifted learners engaged and not excluded?
Content
Johnsen (2011) outlined a sequential process for identifying gifted students. This process,
however, may vary based upon the definition of giftedness that is stated in policy. Having a
defined process supports equal opportunity, ensures fairness, and reduces the likelihood of
challenges. Callahan et al (2013) articulated guiding principles for identifying gifted and
talented students. These principles serve as an excellent template for evaluating the
decisions made on screening, identification, and service. Ford (2013) highlighted the
challenges of recruiting culturally diverse learners when making screening, referral,
assessment, identification, and placement. Her Multicultural Gifted Education Framework
(2013) and the NAGC-CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted education (2013)
provide additional guidance for ensuring general processes are explicitly inclusive.
Identification Policy Examples: Screening and Identification Process

Examples from state policy that illustrate language to describe defined screening and
identification processes follow.
Alabama
The process from referral to consent and placement is described in this example.
(2) Referral. Each LEA must develop and implement procedures to ensure that students
who exhibit gifted characteristics are referred for gifted services.
(a) Public Notice. Parents, teachers, and students must be informed of referral
procedures.
(b) Equity. Efforts must be made to identify students among all populations and socio-
economic groups as well as students with disabilities and students who are Limited
English Proficient (LEP).
(c) Second Grade Child Find. All second grade students will be observed as potential
gifted referrals using a gifted behavior checklist provided by the State Department of
Education.
(d) Standard Referral. A student may be referred for consideration for gifted services by
teachers, counselors, administrators, parents or guardians, peers, self, and other
individuals with knowledge of the students abilities. Standard referrals may occur at
any time for students six years of age and older. Parents must be informed when
students are referred.
(e) Gifted Referrals Screening Team (GRST). Each LEA must establish a team(s) to
review referrals to determine if further assessment is indicated. Each team should
59 | P a g e
consist of at least three individuals including someone knowledgeable about the

student and someone knowledgeable about gifted education.
(3) Consent.
(a) Parental Consent for Evaluation. The LEA must obtain written parental consent
prior to administering individual assessments.
(b) Parental Consent for Placement. An identified gifted student may be placed in a
program for the gifted upon written approval of the parents. Participation in this
program is not mandatory should the parent and/or the student chose not to
participate.
(c) Rights in Gifted Education. A copy of the rights pertaining to gifted education
services must be given to the parents with the consent for screening and/or
evaluation.
(4) Evaluation. Each LEA must develop and implement procedures to evaluate students
referred for gifted services.
(a) Information must be obtained in the following areas:
1. Aptitude. Aptitude should be assessed through an individual or group test
of intelligence or creativity. Vision and hearing screening must be completed
prior to completing individually administered aptitude assessments (not
screeners).
2. Performance. At least three examples of student performance that indicate
the student is performing at high levels in academic or creative fields when
compared to others of his or her age, experience, or environment must be
included.
3. Characteristics. A behavior rating scale designed to assess gifted behaviors
should be used.
4. Aptitude Test Selection. Information must be gathered to determine if
there are any environmental, cultural, economic, language differences, or a
disabling condition that might mask a students true abilities and thereby
affect student performance in the areas evaluated.
(b) Tests and evaluative materials selected and administered should be sensitive to
cultural, economic, and linguistic differences and be administered by qualified
personnel under the supervision of an LEA.
(c) For special populations such children with LEP, or sensory or physical
impairments, assessments used must be appropriate for their special needs.
(d) For students who exhibit creative thinking abilities the Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking (or other creativity assessment with prior approval) must be administered
unless the student has been determined eligible with a verbal or nonverbal
assessment.
(5) Eligibility Determination. Each LEA must establish an Eligibility Determination Team(s)
(EDT) to implement procedures to determine eligibility of students for gifted services. Each
team should consist of at least three individuals including someone knowledgeable about
the student being assessed, someone knowledgeable about gifted students in general, and
someone able to interpret the assessment information gathered.
60 | P a g e
(a) Timeline. Eligibility must be determined within 90 days of receiving parental

consent for standard referrals. Referrals generated from the second grade Child
Find activity should be completed by the beginning of the students third grade year.
(b) Notice. The LEAs must provide written notice to parents regarding the eligibility
decision.
(c) Eligibility Criteria. Two methods of eligibility determination are available. The
student may not be determined ineligible without having the matrix applied.
1. Automatic Eligibility. A student may be determined automatically eligible
for gifted services when the obtained full scale/composite IQ score on an
individually administered test of intelligence (NOT a screener) is two
standard deviations above the mean or higher; or either the Verbal Average
Standard score or Figural Creativity Index of the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking is at or above the 97th national percentile.
2. Matrix of Multiple Criteria. The matrix of multiple criteria developed by the
State Department of Education, requires information in the areas described
above in (4)(a)1-4 of this section.
(i) Use of other matrices must be approved by the State Department of
Education.
(ii) Students with environmental, cultural, economic, or language
differences may not be determined ineligible until both verbal and
nonverbal abilities have been assessed
Citation: Alabama Code Title 16, Chapter 39. Alabama Administrative Code Chapter 290-8-
9-.12 Gifted. June 30, 2011.
http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/ed/290-8-9.pdf
Arkansas
Nomination for screening, screening procedures, decision-making about identification and
placement, and the ongoing nature of the process are evident in Arkansass rules.
7.00 IDENTIFICATION
7.01 The process for identifying students has several stages.
1. Nominations are sought from a wide variety of sources to ensure that all
potentially gifted and talented students have an opportunity to be considered.
2. Data are collected (on the nominated students) to aid in making decisions for
selection of students who are in need of special education services.
3. Placement of students is made in an appropriate program option.
7.02 Identification procedures are clearly stated, uniformly implemented, and
communicated to the entire school staff.
7.03 A committee of at least five members chaired by a trained specialist in gifted
education and including administrators, teachers, and/or counselors collects and analyzes
data, maintains appropriate records, and makes professional decisions on placement of
61 | P a g e
students. This committee can be per campus within the district and/or district level with
representatives of each campus involved.
7.04 The identification process yields information obtained through a variety of procedures
and from multiple independent sources.
1. Procedures for obtaining information about students include at least two
objective assessment methods such as group and individual tests of ability,
achievement, and creativity.
2. Procedures for obtaining information about students include at least two
subjective assessment methods such as checklists, rating scales, biographical data,
product evaluations, auditions, interviews and grades.
3. Information about students is obtained from multiple sources which may include
teachers, counselors, parents, community members, peers, and students themselves.
7.05 Student placement decisions are based on multiple criteria. No single criterion or cut-
off score is used to include or exclude a student.
7.06 Procedures used in the identification process are non-discriminatory with respect to
race, cultural or economic background, religion, national origin, sex, or handicapping
condition.
7.07 Instructionally useful information about individual students obtained during the
identification process is communicated to the appropriate members of the instructional
staff regardless of final placement.
7.08 Written identification and placement procedures include parental involvement.
1. Parents grant permission for individual testing.
2. Parents are informed of the criteria for placement in a program for the gifted.
3. Parents give written permission for childs participation in gifted program.
4. Parents may appeal a placement with which they disagree.
7.09 Identification of gifted and talented students is an ongoing process extending from
school entry through grade twelve.
1. Opportunities are provided for students to be considered for placement in
gifted/talented programs throughout their school experience.
2. A review of students placement in the gifted/talented program us made at least
annually.
3. Written policies for exit from a program are developed and implemented.
4. Records of placement decisions and data on all nominated students are kept on
file for a minimum of five years or for as long as needed for educational decisions.
Citation: Arkansas Rules Gifted and Talented 2009

www.arkansased.org/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Gifted%20and%20Talented/20
09_GT_Revised_Program_Approval_Standards.pdf
Pennsylvania
This example illustrates local control of the screening and placement process.
16.21. General. Screening and Evaluation Process
62 | P a g e
(a) Each school district shall adopt and use a system to locate and identify all students
within that district who are thought to be gifted and in need of specially designed
instruction.
(b) Each school district shall conduct awareness activities to inform the public of gifted
education services and programs and the manner by which to request these services and
programs. These awareness activities shall be designed to reach parents of students
enrolled in the public schools and the parents of school age children not enrolled in the
public schools.
(c) Each school district shall determine the students needs through a screening and
evaluation process which meets the requirements of this chapter.
(d) Each school district shall establish procedures to determine whether a student is
mentally gifted. This term includes a person who has an IQ of 130 or higher and when
multiple criteria as set forth in Department Guidelines indicate gifted ability.
Determination of gifted ability will not be based on IQ score alone. A person with an IQ
score lower than 130 may be admitted to gifted programs when other educational criteria
in the profile of the person strongly indicate gifted ability. Determination of mentally gifted
shall include an assessment by a certified school psychologist.
Citation: The Pennsylvania Code Chapter 16

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter16/s16.21.html
Texas
Texas statute illustrates how this state addresses placement decisions.
Student Assessment
School districts shall develop written policies on student identification that are approved
by the local board of trustees and disseminated to parents. The policies must:
(4) include provisions regarding furloughs, reassessment, exiting of students from program
services, transfer students, and appeals of district decisions regarding program placement.
Citation: 19 TAC 89.1(4)

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ch089a.html
Kentucky
Section 4. Procedure for Determining Eligibility for Services.
(1) Identification of gifted characteristics, behaviors and talent shall be based on the
following process:
(a) Data gathering. A district shall develop a system for searching the entire school
population on a continuous basis for likely candidates for services using both
informal and available formal, normed, standardized measures, including measures
of nonverbal ability;
63 | P a g e
(b) Data analysis. A district shall develop a system for analyzing student data for the
purposes of a comparison of the students under consideration for identification to
local or national norms, including those required in this administrative regulation,
and to district-established criteria of eligibility for each category of giftedness;
(c) Committee for determination of eligibility and services. A school district or
school shall assemble a selection and placement committee which shall have four
(4) purposes:
1. To provide feedback on the adequacy of the district's identification and
diagnostic procedure;
2. To ensure that a variety of views are heard during the selection and
placement process;
3. To determine which students meet identification criteria and which
services, at what level, shall be included in each identified student's gifted
and talented student services plan; and
4. To help provide communication and support in the schools and
community;
(d) Provision of services. A district shall implement articulated services from
primary through grade twelve (12) which provide multiple delivery options
matched to diagnosed behaviors, strengths and characteristics of individual
students; and
(e) Petition and appeal for services. A district shall provide a petition system as a
safeguard for a student who may have been missed in the identification and
diagnosis procedure.
(2) Exceptions and special considerations for eligibility. School personnel shall take into
consideration environmental, cultural, and disabling conditions which may mask a child's
true abilities that lead to exclusion of otherwise eligible students, such as a student who
qualifies as:
(a) An exceptional child as defined in KRS 157.200;
(b) Disadvantaged; or
(c) Underachieving.
Citation: Kentucky Administrative Regulation (704

KAR) http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/704/003/285.htm?id=6420
Summary
This criterion for identification requires thoughtful, intentional planning. The examples
illustrate how states outline a process for screening, identification, and placement
committees, as well as decision-making processes for placement. One example shows how
a state designates local control of this process.
64 | P a g e

A comprehensive state policy related to identification provides for an appeals process.

Appeals process refers to a procedure for a student or parent to request a review of
an identification, placement, or service decision on which there is disagreement.

How might an appeals process be affected by whether or not gifted education
students are included in state law governing special education?
How are the rights of the student protected without placing undue burden upon
schools or districts?
How are appeals used to inform decisions regarding policies related to
identification, placement, or service at the local level? The state level?
Content
In the identification process (referral/nomination, screening, evaluation, placement) there
are many opportunities for biaswhether conscious or unconscious. An appeals process
serves as another assurance that students are treated fairly. A due process procedure with
time frames for decision making and logical steps can help to avoid a visit from the Office
for Civil Rights or from a local attorney.
Johnsen (2011) suggests that an appeals process include meaningful parent meetings with
(a) teachers, (b) the selection committee or building administrator, (c) a school district
committee that would include the director or administrator responsible for the gifted
program, and finally (d) the school board. (p. 115). Mediation may be considered to
resolve the problem.
Identification Policy Examples: Appeals Process

Examples from state policy that illustrate language to describe appeals processes follow.
North Carolina
The statute includes a process whereby an identification decision can be challenged by a
parent or guardian.
Review of Disagreements. In the event that the procedure developed under G.S. 115C-
150.7(b) (7) fails to resolve a disagreement, the parent or guardian may file a petition for a
contested case hearing under Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. The scope
of review shall be limited to (i) whether the local school administrative unit improperly
failed to identify the child as an academically or intellectually gifted student, or (ii) whether
the local plan developed under G.S. 115C-150.7 has been implemented appropriately with
regard to the child. Following the hearing, the administrative law judge shall make a
65 | P a g e
decision that contains findings of fact and conclusions of law. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes, the decision of the administrative law
judge becomes final, is binding on the parties, and is not subject to further review under
Article 4 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.
Citation: North Carolina Statutes 115C-150.8. Review of

Disagreements. http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Cha
pter_115C/Article_9B.html
Illinois
The language of the school code is precise in its requirements for the appeals process.
5) In order to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of Section 14A-30(8) of the

School Code [105 ILCS 5/14A-30(8)], each plan shall describe the appeals process that will
be available when students are not identified as gifted and talented or are not selected to
be served by a program, including evidence that each appeal will be considered:
A) by an individual not involved in the original decision and at an equal or higher
level of authority within the applicant organization;
B) using information in accordance with the requirements of subsections (a)(3) and
(4) of this Section; and
C) in time for the student to be placed into the program at the beginning of the next
semester, if the appeal results in the students identification and selection.
Citation: Illinois Administrative Code

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/rules/archive/pdfs/227ARK.pdf
Texas
This is broad language addressing a component that covers several contingencies that may
occur.
Student Assessment
School districts shall develop written policies on student identification that are approved
by the local board of trustees and disseminated to parents. The policies must:
(5) include provisions regarding furloughs, reassessment, exiting of students from program
services, transfer students, and appeals of district decisions regarding program placement.
Citation: 19 TAC 89.1(5)

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ch089a.html
66 | P a g e
Kentucky
This language delineates the elements that a district policy must include in an appeals
process.
(Section 4, part e) Petition and appeal for services. A district shall provide a petition system
as a safeguard for a student who may have been missed in the identification and diagnosis
procedure. (Section 10):
(1) How, and by whom, the grievance procedure is initiated;
(2) The process for determining the need to evaluate or reevaluate the child for
appropriate services;
(3) The criteria for determining if placement of the child needs revision;
(4) Procedures for ensuring that appropriate services are provided to all identified
students consistent with KRS 157.200 and 157.230; and
(5) Procedures for ensuring the participation of the parent or guardian, a regular
education teacher of the student, a gifted education teacher or coordinator,
administrator, and a counselor in addressing a grievance
Citation: Kentucky Administrative Regulations (704

KAR) http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/704/003/285.htm?id=6420
Summary
The examples show how various states provide for different contingencies in the appeals
process.
Policy to Practice
For those interested in the journey of some states, two examples of a states journey are
listed below with a citation for your reference.
The Georgia Story: One states approach to the underrepresentation issue. National
Research Center on Gifted and Talented and the University of Georgia
(2006). http://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/the_georgia_story/
Swanson, J. & Lord, E. W. (2013). Harnessing and guiding the power of policy:
Examples from one states experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3),
198-219.
Questions for Reflection on Identification Policy

1. Does the operational definition of giftedness drive the identification process? In
what ways and how?
2. Does the population of students receiving gifted education services reflect the
diversity of the school and/or district?
3. Are students being served in their area(s) of strength(s) as identified?
67 | P a g e
4. Are students re-evaluated periodically after the initial assessment to determine if

the area(s) change?
5. How are identification practices evaluated?
68 | P a g e
References
Borland, J. H. (2013). Problematizing gifted education. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis
(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 69-80). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Borland, J. H. (2014). Identification of gifted students. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.),
Critical issues and practices in gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 323- 342). Waco, TX: Prufrock,
TX.
Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five-state analysis of
gifted education policy. Roeper Review, 29(1), 1123.
Callahan, C. M., Renzulli, J. R., Delcourt, M. A. B., & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (2013). Considerations for
identification of gifted and talented students: An introduction to identification. In C. M
Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering
M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering
Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (2001). Identifying artistically talented student in four rural
communities in the United States. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 104-114.
Ford, D. Y. (2013). Recruiting & retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Frasier, M. M., Garcia, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education
and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. (Report No. RM95204). Storrs:
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. (2015). Pub. L. 114-95, sec. 4644.
Johnsen, S. K. (1997). Assessment beyond definitions. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3-4), 136-
152.
Johnsen, S. K. (2011). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Lohman, D. F. (2013). Identifying gifted students: Nontraditional uses of traditional measures. In C.
multiple perspectives (pp. 112- 127). New York, NY: Routledge.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United
States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. (Government Documents Y4.L 11/2: G36).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Art Education Association (NAEA]. (1994). National standards for arts education. Reston,
VA: Author.
National Art Education Association [NAEA]. (2014). National coalition for core arts standards.
Reston, VA: Author.
National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], & Council for Exceptional Children [CEC]. (2013).
NAGC-CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented education. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/NAGC-
%20CEC%20CAEP%20standards%20%282013%20final%29.pdf
Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/K-
12%20programming%20standards.pdf
National Association for Gifted Children, & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted.
(2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education. Retrieved
69 | P a g e
gifted-education
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110; 115 Stat. 1425; 20 U.S.C. 1021 (2002).
Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Piirto, J. (2014). Visual and performing arts talent development. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan
(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp.
723-734). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Renzulli, J. (2002). Giftedness: Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits
and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 33-58.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Equity, excellence, and economy in a system for identifying students in gifted
education programs: A guidebook (RM05208). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for
educational excellence. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, A., Shore, B., & Enersen, D. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based
guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Ross, P. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing Americas talent. Washington, DC: U. S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED359743.pdf
Ryser, G. R. (2011). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.),
Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (pp. 23- 40). Prufrock: Waco, TX.
Schroth, S. T. (2014). Service delivery models. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues
and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed.,pp. 577-591). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Stambaugh, T., Worley, B., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. (2005). Analysis of state gifted education
policy self-assessment forms: Results from the NAGC state policy workshop, November, 2004.
Swanson, J. D., & Lord, E. W. (2013). Harnessing and guiding the power of policy: Examples from
one states experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 198-219.
Tyler-Wood, T. L., & Carri, L. (1991). Identification of gifted children: The argument of various
measures of cognitive ability. Roeper Review, 14(2), 63-65.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). State policies in gifted education. In Purcell & Eckert (Eds), Designing
services and program for high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Worley, Bess. (2008). Visual and performing arts. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical
issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 734-748). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Zimmerman, E. (Ed.). (2004). Artistically and musically talented students (Vol. 9). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
70 | P a g e
Chapter 3
State Policies Related to Program and Curriculum
Elissa Brown
This chapter provides state policy examples to demonstrate essential criteria related to
program and curriculum policy in gifted education. No state, to date, has policy inclusive of
the entire set of criteria, but rather policies typically focus on one or two criteria. The
examples provided reflect a range of policies. Some are more explicit and comprehensive;
others are vague and leave much to local school district interpretation. Yet, the policies
demonstrate the scope of programming and curriculum policies supporting gifted
education. Educational policy makers and school district leaders can use these to develop,
revise, or augment their own local and state policies. The following list presents ten criteria
that comprehensive state policy in programming and curriculum should include:
1. Specific grouping arrangements to match the program and to meet the needs of
gifted learners
2. Specifies a minimum number of minutes per week of contact time for gifted
program/service
3. Describes appropriate curriculum options
4. Links gifted curriculum to existing state content standards
5. Embeds higher level thinking processes within content areas
6. Matches student assessment approaches to curriculum objectives
7. Acknowledges program modifications for at-risk and highly gifted learners
8. References social-emotional support as part of program services
9. Includes appropriate guidance and counseling services related to academic and
career planning
10. Requires a local advisory committee for program sustainability and shared
leadership
State regulations regarding programming, services, and curriculum options for gifted
learners are often not documented in policy language and are not evident in many states
(Brown, Avery, VanTassel-Baska, Worley, & Stambaugh, 2006). In the State of the States
(NAGC & CSDPG, 2015) report, 28 states reported having mandates that require services
for gifted and talented students. Many states systematically define and identify gifted
students, but how these identification policies link to programming and curriculum options
is less obvious. Callahan, Moon, and Oh (2014) proposed that definition and identification,
in theory, should directly guide the types of services that are delivered to students within
the program, the curriculum, instruction, and supporting resources that are used for
instruction (p.10). Curriculum policy should extend standards-based regular curriculum
and should be designed to meet the learning needs of gifted students (VanTassel-Baska,
2006).
71 | P a g e
The first two criteria refer to policy language that specifically addresses grouping
arrangements and contact time. Grouping gifted learners for instructional purposes is well
documented in research (Rogers, 1998, 2007; Kulik & Kulik, 1992), and many state policies
explicitly cite a variety of grouping options within their regulations. The most commonly
used grouping or placement models reported in the State of the States report follow: In
Pre-K- K, regular classroom and resource rooms; in grades 1-3, cluster classrooms,
resource rooms, and regular classrooms; in grades 4-6, cluster classrooms and resource
rooms; in middle school, honors/advanced coursework and regular classrooms; in high
school, Advanced Placement, and dual enrollment in college (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015).
Implications are that there are many ways to group gifted students for instruction, and
each is contextually bound. A few states specify contact time, with variations in the amount
of time at different educational levels: elementary, middle, and high school. Policy language
specifying contact time ensures that gifted students have guaranteed time with other like-
ability peers, typically linked to a service option.
A cluster of criteria refers to curriculum and content approaches (#3-6). These include
describing curriculum options, linking content to state standards, embedding high-level
thinking within content, and matching student assessment to curricular objectives. State
policies are not as explicit in this cluster and seem to assume high-level content, process,
and product options within the stated grouping arrangements. In the states where
advanced coursework is offered in middle and high schools, the content is typically above
grade level expectations, such as Advanced Placement.
Another criterion considered is attention to program modifications for at-risk and/or

highly gifted learners (#7). While the research consistently refers to the need to
differentiate within sub populations of gifted learners, few policies explicitly address these
groups. Existing language refers in general terms to identifying and serving culturally
diverse, economically disadvantaged, and at-risk learners; however, it may not be the case
that this occurs in practice.
Two criteria encompass social-emotional and guidance aspects of programming (#8 & 9).
Many states have policies that refer to meeting the social-emotional needs of gifted
learners, providing guidance opportunities and access, providing academic college
planning, and providing career counseling.
The last criterion addresses the need for a local advisory committee or shared leadership
model (#10). A number of states require a state advisory committee for gifted education,
but fewer states require it at the local level. For school districts that develop a local gifted
plan, the need for a local committee is critical because it provides for stakeholder input as
well as acting as a mechanism for monitoring gifted program implementation. Some state
policies are more prescriptive in terms of the representatives who serve on the local
committee; other states are open to committee make-up.
72 | P a g e
One of the questions asked of state directors of gifted education in the State of the States
report (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015) was, Which of the following are part of program/service
delivery for gifted students in your state? One of the possible answers that states could
select was whether or not the program or service/delivery components were specifically
required by state policy. Figure 3.1 displays the responses to the overall question. Table 3.1
provides the states in which the policy specifically requires the identified component.
These data are self-reported.
Figure 3.1. State requirements for gifted service/delivery components

Source: 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education. (NAGC & CEC, 2015, p. 33). Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state/2014-2015-state-states-gifted-education
Table 3.1: Program Components Required by State Policy.

Components required in state Number States
policy of States
Social-emotional 9 Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Academic Guidance/Counseling 6 Arkansas, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada,
North Carolina, South Carolina
Contact Time 7 Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi,
Missouri, South Carolina, Utah
Differentiated Instruction 12 Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina
Content-Based Acceleration 8 Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana,
Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina
Source: 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education. (NAGC & CEC, 2015, p. 33). Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state/2014-2015-state-states-gifted-education
73 | P a g e
Program and Curriculum Policy Criteria 1 & 2:

A comprehensive state policy related to program and curriculum includes specific grouping
arrangements to match the program and to meet the needs of gifted learners and specifies a
minimum number of minutes per week of contact time for gifted program/service.

Specific grouping arrangements: Placing gifted and talented students together
organizationally is not a substitute for appropriate services. The placement or
program model fundamentally serves as a vehicle to group or organize students
together. However, programming, in practice, sometimes referred to as a service
delivery model, is not the same thing as service. Grouping is a management strategy.
It must be coupled with curriculum and instructional modifications in order for
substantial and positive academic and social-emotional effects to occur for gifted
and talented students. Specifically, the grouping arrangement is only as good as the
curriculum and instructional models provided within that placement (Brown &
Stambaugh, 2014).
Match program to needs of gifted learners: This refers to the direct link between
programming/services and the area(s) of student identification. If a student is
identified as mathematically gifted, then programming should match that precocity.
Specifies contact time: Being explicit in policy with regard to actual minutes, hours,
or days in which gifted students are placed together ensures that gifted students
have time together with other like-ability peers.

Does specific contact time affect student learning outcomes?
Is specifying a contact time more an accountability issue for monitoring or does it
ensure consistent service?
There have been studies demonstrating academic gains for gifted students when
grouped together for instruction, yet grouping continues to be a political issue in
many districts. How can data about grouping be used effectively to persuade policy
makers?
In what ways might grouping practices and different types of gifted students be
related? For example, is a pull-out/resource room grouping more effective for some
populations of gifted than others?
What are the implications for identification if schools and school systems explicitly
link programming or services to identification practices?
Content
Criteria 1 and 2 address opportunities to learn. Specific grouping or placement
arrangements and minimum contact time increase the likelihood that gifted learners have
access to differentiated curriculum in a responsible manner that supports the unique
74 | P a g e
characteristics of gifted learners and reflects a serious commitment to their continuous

progress and growth.
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples Grouping/Placement Arrangements

The states that have policy language around programming for gifted learners employ terms
such as resource room, part-time services, or differentiated learning experiences within the
school day. This language acknowledges that these learners need something beyond what
is typically provided to all learners and need to be with each other in some sort of grouping
arrangement.
California
Although programs and services for gifted students are optional in California, the state has
policy language around both grouping and curriculum augmentation. However programs
for gifted students are optional.
3840. Special Day Classes and Special Services or Activities.

All program options shall be in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations.
Programs may consist of:
(a) A "Special Day Class" for gifted and talented pupils consists of one or more classes (as
defined in Education Code Section 51016) totaling a minimum school day where each of
the one or more classes meets the following requirements:
(1) It is composed of pupils identified as gifted and talented.
(2) It is especially designed to meet the specific academic needs of gifted and
talented pupils for enriched or advanced instruction and is appropriately
differentiated from other classes in the same subjects in the school.
(3) It is taught by a teacher who has specific preparation, experience, personal
attributes, and competencies in the teaching of gifted children.
(b) Part-time Grouping: Pupils attend classes as defined in Education Code Section 51016 or
seminars which are organized to provide advanced or enriched subject matter for a part of the
school day. These classes are composed of identified gifted and talented pupils.
(c) Enrichment Activities: Pupils remain in their regular classrooms but participate in
supplemental educational activities planned to augment their regular educational programs. In
these supplemental educational activities, the pupils use advanced materials and/or receive
special opportunities from persons other than the regular classroom teacher.
(d) Cluster Grouping: Pupils are grouped within a regular classroom setting and receive
appropriately differentiated activities from the regular classroom teacher.
(e) Independent Study: Pupils are provided with additional instructional opportunities
through either special tutors or mentors, or through enrollment in correspondence courses
specified in Education Code Section 51740 and Section 1633 of this title. These
opportunities shall be supervised by a certificated person employed by the pupil's school
district.
75 | P a g e
(f) Acceleration: Pupils are placed in grades or classes more advanced than those of their
chronological age group and receive special counseling and/or instruction outside of the
regular classroom in order to facilitate their advanced work.
(g) Postsecondary Education Opportunities: High school pupils for a part of the day attend
classes conducted by college or community college or participate in College Entrance
Examination Board Advanced Placement programs. When needed, the high school shall
provide books and supplies.
(h) Services for Underachieving Gifted and Talented Pupils: Pupils receive services
designed to assist them in developing basic skills needed to overcome, as soon as possible,
their underachievement and to enable them to achieve in their academic classes at levels
commensurate with their individual abilities. This shall not preclude their participation in
other program options.
(i) Services for Linguistically Diverse, Culturally Divergent and/or Economically
Disadvantaged Gifted and Talented Pupils: Pupils receive services designed to assist them
to develop their potential to achieve at the high levels commensurate with their abilities.
This shall not preclude their participation in other program options.
(j) Other: Pupils participate regularly, on a planned basis, in a special counseling or
instructional activity or seminars carried on during or outside of the regular school day for
the purpose of benefiting from additional educational opportunities not provided in the
regular classroom in which the pupils are enrolled.
(k) Other services or activities approved 90 days in advance by the Superintendent of
Public Instruction.
Citation: CA Code of Regulations. Title 5, Division 1 (CA Dept of Ed), Chap 4 Gifted &
Talented Pupil Programs.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/lw/gatetitle5ccr.asp
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvanias policy speaks to matching the instruction to student needs and ability and
states that the opportunities shall go beyond the program that the student would receive
as part of general education. But, Pennsylvanias policy does not require school districts to
place or group students.
22 Pa. Code 16.41-Districts may use administrative and instructional strategies and
techniques in the provision of gifted education for gifted students which do not require, but
which may include, categorical grouping of students. The placement shall: (1) Enable the
provision of appropriate specially designed instruction based on the students need and
ability. (2) Ensure that the student is able to benefit meaningfully from the rate, level and
manner of instruction. (3) Provide opportunities to participate in acceleration or
enrichment, or both, as appropriate for the students needs. These opportunities shall go
beyond the program that the student would receive as part of a general education.
76 | P a g e
Citation: Chapter 16: Special Education for Gifted Students, The Pennsylvania Code, 22 Pa
Code Chapter 16
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter16/022_0016.pdf
Louisiana
Louisiana is an example of state policy where gifted students have IEPs. At the IEP meeting
the program determination is made between the school representative and the parent. It
specifies only 4 types of services that can be offered.
1446-The continuum for gifted and talented students include: regular classroom with
supplemental aids and services, a resource center or class, a self-contained class and
preschool services. At the IEP meeting the school system's representative and the parent
determines what program bests meets the needs of the child as indicated by the evaluation
report.
Citation: Regulations for Implementation of the Children with Exceptionalities Act (R.S.
17:1941 et seq.), Bulletin 1706, Subpart B Regulations for Gifted/Talented Students,
1446. Least Restrictive Environment of a G/T Student.
http://www.louisianabelieves.com/academics/gifted-and-talented-students
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Contact Time

Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia are states in which programming policies delineate
contact time thus ensuring in policy an established framework for gifted students to be
together as well as a mechanism for monitoring.
Alabama
Alabamas contact time policy is narrower in scope because it is only for grades 3-6 and
specifies pull-out resource room as the only organizational arrangement or grouping
model.
290-8-9-.12: Grades 3-6 resource room pull-out for 3-5 hours a week.
Citation: Alabama Administrative Code 290-8-9-.12, supp. 9/30/05, Special Programs I,

Gifted
https://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/Policy/AAC%20Gifted%20Code_5-14-2009.pdf (p 3)
South Carolina
South Carolina specifies minimum minutes in grades 1-8 based upon delivery model.
59-29-170 (Supp. 2002). The program must provide appropriate and sufficient time to
assure that the goals and objectives of the program are met. The following time
77 | P a g e
requirements must be met by resource room/pull-out and regular classroom/itinerant

teacher program models at respective grade levels to assure funding:
Grades Minimum Minutes Per Year

1-3 4500
4-8 7200
The special school model requires full time (academic) service. The special class model
time requirements are 8100 minutes per year.
Citation: S.C. Code Ann. Section 59-29-170 (Supp. 2002); State Board Regulation: R43-
220, Gifted and Talented; SC Gifted and Talented Best Practices Manual
https://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/file/programs-
services/123/documents/SCGiftedandTalentedBestPracticesManual.pdf
Georgia
Georgia identifies approved models and instructional time.
Rule 160-4-2-.38- Students identified as gifted and whose participation has received
parental consent shall receive at least five segments per week (or the yearly equivalent) of
gifted education services, using one of the approved models described in Appendix A of the
Georgia Department of Education Resource Manual for Gifted Education Services. (A
segment of instruction is defined as one-sixth of the instructional day (i.e., the length of the
school day minus any non-instructional activities such as lunch, recess, or class changes).
Citation: State Board of Education Rule 160-4-2-.38 Education Program for Gifted
Students.
http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/State-Board-of-
Education/SBOE%20Rules/160-4-2-.38.pdf
The Georgia Resource Manual for Gifted Education Services provides further explanation
https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-
Instruction/Documents/Gifted%20Education/2015-2106-GA-Gifted-Resource-Manual.pdf
Summary
Some states have policy language that specifies that gifted students should or may be
grouped together, but typically the regulations leave it up to each school district to
determine which arrangement it will be, allowing for local flexibility. Less frequently states
cite that placement options are linked to identification. In other words, an accelerated math
class for an identified precocious math student. Fewer still are the state examples that cite
contact time. While contact time guarantees that gifted students will be together for a
certain amount of time, considerations need to be given to what students actually do
during that time and the degree to which content, process, and concepts are differentiated.
78 | P a g e
Program and Curriculum Policy Criteria 3-6:

A comprehensive state policy related to program and curriculum describes appropriate
curriculum options, links gifted curriculum to existing state content standards, embeds higher
level thinking processes within content areas, and matches student assessment approaches to
curriculum objectives.

Curriculum Options: Curriculum options is a loosely coupled phrase that includes
curriculum modifications to a local or state content standards, service delivery or
placement options, as well as a broad range of educational experiences that may
augment the regular school program, such as mentorships or community service
projects.
Higher level thinking processes: Generally when this phrase is used, the context is
Benjamin Blooms taxonomy of learning objectives or hierarchy of thinking skills
moving from concrete to abstract. Bloom and colleagues (1956) posited that there
are skills in the cognitive domain that revolve around knowledge, comprehension,
and critical thinking. When educators refer to higher level thinking processes, they
typically emphasize skills such as reasoning, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating,
creating, or problem solving versus recalling facts, terms, or basic concepts. Blooms
taxonomy was seen as a way to move students from knowledge of specific facts to
knowledge of universals or abstractions in a field.
Content Standards/Content Areas: Content standards describe the knowledge and
skills students should be able to know, understand, and demonstrate on
commensurate state assessments within a subject area, such as mathematics. The
four core content areas are English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social
Studies. However, many professionals would argue that foreign language, arts, and
other subjects are core or essential to learning too. Until recently, every state had its
own set of content standards; but with the adoption of Common Core standards,
many states have operationally agreed upon a unifying set of content expectations,
specifically in the areas of English/Language Arts and Mathematics.

How are states considering the needs of gifted learners as they roll-out the Common
Core and revised state standards and develop supporting structures such as
professional development, assessment tasks, or guideline documents?
How are school districts and states ensuring that higher level thinking processes
within content areas match student assessment approaches?
It is clear that certain instructional strategies and best practices used for gifted
students are being increasingly absorbed into general education by reform models
intended to upgrade the performance of all students. How can policy assist with
79 | P a g e
distinct approaches to gifted students learning in order to develop expertise and

mastery?
Content
Curriculum is central to how gifted learners realize their potential and strengths. While
allowing flexibility in curriculum options, policies can promote attention to learning rate
and style and encourage inquiry, critical and creative thinking, and the development of
research skills. Standards affect curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Standards cannot
be ignored in gifted programs, and the expectation for gifted curricula to reflect state
standards as appropriate should be clearly stated in policy. With the standards-based
environment and the adoption of Common Core and similar standards, it is critical that
higher level thinking processes linked to content be addressed in a deliberate and
purposeful manner. Almost all curricula for gifted learners stress the importance of such
skills as reasoning, problem solving, creativity, metacognition, and inquiry, which
undergird the Language Arts and Mathematics Common Core standards as state-developed
content standards.
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Curricular Options, Higher Order Thinking,
Link to Standards
Kentucky
Kentuckys policy speaks to services that are qualitatively differentiated and educational
experiences commensurate with the students learning needs and areas of interest. Other
sections of the policy reference grouping for instructional purposes based on a variety of
factors including social-emotional needs.
Section 6: Service Delivery Options.

(1) A students diagnosed as possessing gifted characteristics, behaviors, or talent shall be
provided articulated, primary through grade twelve (12) services which: a) are
qualitatively differentiated to meet his individual needs; b) result in educational
experiences commensurate with his interests, needs, and abilities, and; c) facilitate the high
level attainment of goals established in KRS 158.6451.
(2) For a student in a primary program, service shall be provided within the framework of
primary program requirements and shall allow for continuous progress through a
differentiated curriculum and flexible grouping and regrouping based on the individual
needs, interests, and abilities of the student.
(3) Emphasis on educating gifted students in the general primary classroom, shall not
preclude the continued, appropriate use of resource services, acceleration options, or the
specialized service options contained in subsection (5) of this section.
(4) Grouping for instructional purposes and multiple service options shall be utilized in a
local district gifted education plan. Student grouping formats shall include grouping for
instructional purposes based on student interests, abilities, and needs, including social and
emotional.
80 | P a g e
Citation: Kentucky Revised Statutes KRS 157.196 Each exceptional child shall have an
individual education plan.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=3289
Washington
Washington implemented a new statute stating that accelerated learning and enhanced
instruction for highly capable students equates to a basic education. This policy
acknowledges that what is a basic education to the majority of students may be insufficient
for gifted students.
28A.185 RCW, the Legislature determined that for highly capable students, access to
accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education.
To reflect legislative changes in Chapter 28A.185 RCW, the Washington Administrative

Code (WAC) Chapter 392-170 was revised in April 2013. Chapter 392-170 WAC addresses
the requirements for all districts to provide basic education services that meet the
educational needs of the districts most highly capable students. Changes were made to
reflect that highly capable programs and services are for highly capable students in Grades
K-12 and that all districts must develop and implement an annual highly capable program
plan.
Citation: Revised Code of Washington: Chapter 28A.185 RCW (Highly Capable

Students) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.185
Wisconsin
Wisconsins broad policy notes that appropriate program options must be systematic and
continuous but does not prescribe various grouping or placement approaches. It does not
state that those activities or learning experiences have to be linked or aligned to a students
area of identification. Additionally, it does not state that the learning experiences or
instructional activities have to be content-based.
PI 8.01(2)(t) Gifted and talented pupils

2. In this paragraph:
a. "Appropriate program" means a systematic and continuous set of instructional
activities or learning experiences which expand the development of the pupils
identified as gifted or talented.
Citation: Wisconsin Administrative Code PI 8.01(2)(t)(1)(a)

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/pi/8/01/2
81 | P a g e
Maine
Maine has educational principles upon which gifted and talented programs are to be based.
Interestingly, the principles speak to matching the pace or rate of learning to the learner,
offering a variety of program models, offering specialized or complex curricula in lieu of the
regular curricula, reflecting the understanding of a trajectory of learning, and recognizing
the idea the highly gifted needed further modifications.
20-A MRSA Section 8101 et seq. and section 15603, sub-section 22(c), 05-071 Chapter
104.04 Gifted and talented programs in the State are to be based on the following
educational principles:
1. Gifted and talented children need to move at their own rate, regardless of
chronological age or grade placement; therefore, academic subjects, including the
fine arts, shall be taught to them in a manner that allows them to learn at their
appropriate instructional level and at their own pace.
2. Gifted and talented children need diversity in their educational experiences;
therefore, diverse and appropriate learning experiences shall be offered through a
variety of program models, instructional strategies and materials.
3. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged to develop their abilities and
potential; therefore, specialized curricula that are advanced, conceptually complex
and carefully differentiated from regular curricula shall be provided in lieu of the
regular curricula.
4. Gifted and talented children's needs vary as they progress through the elementary
and secondary grades; therefore, instructional settings shall be appropriate to their
changing needs.
5. Highly gifted and talented children may need further modifications to their
educational programs; therefore, appropriate adjustments or alternatives to their
gifted and talented programs must be made.
Citation: Statutory Authority: 20-A MRSA Section 8101 et seq. and section 15603, sub-
section 22(c), 05-071 Chapter 104.04
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/05/071/071c104.doc
Ohio
Ohio was the first state to adopt a statewide acceleration policy. There are 13 states that
have policies that specifically permit acceleration, while 12 have policies that permit the
LEA to determine whether acceleration is allowed (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). Ohios
acceleration policy takes the standards-based curriculum as a point of departure.
OAC 3301-35-06: Students who can exceed the grade-level indicators and benchmarks set
forth in the standards must be afforded the opportunity and be encouraged to do so.
Students who are gifted may require special services or activities in order to fully develop
82 | P a g e
their intellectual, creative, artistic, and academic capabilities or to excel in a specific

content area.
The Model Policy for Academic Acceleration has been developed to assist districts in
meeting the requirements of Section 3324.10 of HB 66: A) Prior to June 30, 2006, the state
board of education shall adopt a model student acceleration policy addressing
recommendations in the department of educations 2005 study conducted under the gifted
research and demonstration grant program. The policy shall address, but not be limited to,
whole grade acceleration, subject area acceleration, and early high school graduation.
Citation: Ohio Administrative Code 3301-35-

06. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&Topi
cRelationID=964&ContentID=6163&Content=26224
Arkansas
Arkansas has a statute act to require that each school district provide high school students
with the opportunity to enroll in at least one Advanced Placement course in the four core
areas of English, Math, Science, and Social Studies. AP courses are typically used in high
school as a gifted education service option because it inherently employs content
acceleration. AP courses use college-level content implemented with a younger-age
population. Many college admissions policies allow AP credit for some entry level courses,
and in that way it assists gifted students in terms of academic college planning and
trajectory.
Beginning with the 2008-2009 school year, all school districts shall offer one (1) College
Board Advanced Placement course in each of the four core areas of math, English, science,
and social studies for a total of four (4) courses.
Citation: Arkansas Code Title 6, Chapter 16, Section 6-16-1204(c).

http://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2012/title-6/subtitle-2/chapter-16/subchapter-
12/section-6-16-1204
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Student Growth Assessed through

Curriculum Outcomes
State policy examples in which matching student assessment approaches to curriculum
objectives are found in Montana, Colorado, and Utah. Having policy language on program
evaluation creates a tool for accountability and communication.
Montana
The policies of the board of public education must assure that program proposals
submitted by school districts to the Superintendent of public instruction contain: a
83 | P a g e
program description including stated needs and measurable objectives designed to meet
those needsanda method to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
Citation: Montana State Law, Part 9, Gifted and Talented Students, 20-7-904
http://www.opi.mt.gov/pub/pdf/Gifted/G&TMTStateLaw.pdf
Colorado
12.02(2)(i) Evaluation and Accountability Procedures
(i)(ii) Methods by which student affective growth is monitored and measured for
continual development (e.g. rubrics for personal journals and anecdotal data,
student surveys, demonstration of self-advocacy, and student career and/or college
plans);
(i)(iii) Methods for ensuring that gifted student performance (achievement and
growth) and reporting are consistent with state accreditation and accountability
requirements (.i.e., disaggregation of state assessment data for gifted students,
identification of discrepancies in the data, goal setting and demonstration of
achievement and growth); and
(i)(iv) Methods for self-evaluation of the gifted program including a schedule for
periodic feedback and review (e.g., review of gifted policy, goals, identification
process, programming components, personnel, budget and reporting practices, and
the impact of gifted programming on student achievement and progress); and
(i)(v) Methods by which parents, educators, and other required persons are
informed about the methods described in 12.02(2)(i)(i-iv) above.
Citation: Code of Colorado Regulations 2220-R-12.00 Gifted and Talented Student

Programming.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=6251&fileName=1%
20CCR%20301-8 (p 98)
Utah
R277-711-3. Program Standards
F. Each district shall evaluate its program to assure accountability, assess the success of
individual program elements, and determine student growth and achievement.
Citation: Utah Administrative Code R277-711-3(F), Educational Program Standards for

Gifted and Talented Students.
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2011/20110601/34830.htm
Summary
Many of the gifted education curriculum models ascribe to either an accelerated view of
curriculum such as Advanced Placement courses, or an enriched view of curriculum
development for the gifted that addresses a broader conception of giftedness, taking into
84 | P a g e
account principles of creativity, motivation, and independence as crucial constructs to the

development of high ability. These enrichment views also tend to see process skills, such as
critical thinking and creative-problem solving, as central to the learning enterprise, with
content choices being more incidental. Regardless of whether curriculum for gifted is
accelerated, enriched, or contains aspects of both, it is fundamentally one of the most
important elements of effective policy and programming because students interact with
curriculum daily.
Program and Curriculum Policy Criterion 7:

A comprehensive state policy acknowledges program modifications for at-risk and highly
gifted learners.

At-risk: At-risk refers to gifted students who historically have been
underrepresented in programs and services for the gifted. These students can be
gifted students from rural environments, highly gifted learners, gifted children with
disabilities, gifted females, gifted and talented students on the autism spectrum,
English learners, underachieving gifted students, and students from culturally or
linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Highly Gifted: Highly gifted children are often identified as a result of extremely high
scores on an individually scored IQ tests, generally above the 140 IQ range. Others
may be prodigies in areas such as math, science, language and/or the arts.
Profoundly gifted children can score in excess of 170 IQ. The child of 160+ is as
different from the child of 130 IQ as that child is different from the child of average
ability. Current research suggests that there may be a higher incidence of children in
this high range than previously thought. Due to their unique characteristics, these
children are particularly vulnerable. Highly gifted children need individualized
services because very little has been done to develop appropriate curriculum and
non-traditional options for these children.

In what ways is every gifted child at risk?
What program interventions do at-risk students need and what are the implications
of providing for the students differentially?
Are some at-risk factors, such as poverty, a greater barrier than other risk factors
for effective programs and services?
How can the highly gifted be differentiated from more typically gifted in terms of
identification and service delivery?
Content
Flexibility in the curriculum and support systems for special populations of gifted students
such as economically disadvantaged, twice-exceptional gifted learners, or highly gifted
85 | P a g e
students, and other domain-specific gifted areas should be addressed to ensure that gifted
learners are not viewed as a homogenous group when making curriculum and instructional
decisions.
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Program Modifications for At-Risk and
Highly Gifted
Florida
Floridas policy regarding under-represented students is connected to identification
procedures but is not explicitly stated in curriculum or program policy. This is similar to
other states. However, there is no specific state policy on the program or curriculum these
identified students will receive.
f. An evaluation design which addresses evaluation of progress toward the districts goal
for increasing participation by students from under-represented groups.
(3) Procedures for student evaluation. The minimum evaluations for determining
eligibility are the following:
(a) Need for a special instructional program;
(b) Characteristics of the gifted;
(c) Intellectual development; and,
(d) May include those evaluation procedures specified in an approved district
plan to increase the participation of students from under-represented groups in
programs for the gifted.
Citation: Florida Administrative Code, 6A-6.03019(3)(d), Special Instructional Programs

for Students Who Are Gifted.
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?ID=6a-6.03019
North Carolina
North Carolinas State Board of Education enacted an early entrance to kindergarten policy
in 1999 allowing a four-year-old to enter kindergarten if certain criteria were met. This
policy is one example of highly gifted students being able to gain admission to kindergarten
and thus accelerating their entire K-12 educational experience.
EARLY ADMISSION TO KINDERGARTEN

(a) To determine the eligibility of a four-year-old child to enter kindergarten pursuant to
the provisions of G.S. 115C-364(d), the principal shall confer with a committee of
professional educators to consider for each child the following factors:
(1) Student Aptitude. The child shall be precocious in academic and social
development and shall score at the 98th percentile on a standard individual test of
intelligence such as the Stanford-Binet, The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale
86 | P a g e
of Intelligence, the Kaufman Anderson, or any other comparable test administered

by a licensed psychologist.
(2) Achievement. The child shall be functioning from two to three years beyond the
child's peers. The child shall score at the 98th percentile on either reading or
mathematics on a standard test of achievement such as the Metropolitan Readiness
Test, the Stanford Early School Achievement Test, The Mini Battery of Achievement,
the Woodcock-Johnson, the Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA), the Test of
Early Reading Ability (TERA), or any other comparable test administered by a
licensed psychologist, a member of the psychologist's professional staff, or a
professional educator who is trained in the use of the instrument and who has no
conflict of interest in the outcome of the assessment.
(3) Performance. The child shall be able to perform tasks well above age peers as
evidenced by behaviors in one or more areas such as independent reading, problem
solving skills, advanced vocabulary, and some writing fluency. The parent shall
submit a sample of the child's work that shows outstanding examples of ability in
any area including, but not limited to, art, mathematics, writing, dramatic play,
creative productions, science, or social interactions. The principal may also require a
teacher to complete an informal reading assessment of the child.
(4) Observable Student Behavior/Student Interest. The child shall demonstrate
social and developmental maturity sufficient to participate in a structured setting
for a full school day. The child shall be capable of following verbal instructions and
functioning independently within a group. The parent shall provide two
recommendation letters with specific documentation of physical and social maturity
from preschool teachers, child care workers, pediatricians, or others who have
direct knowledge of the child. Useful documentation checklists include the California
Preschool Competency Scale, the Harrison Scale, or any other comparable scale of
early social development.
(5) Motivation/Student Interest. The principal or principal's designee shall conduct
an informal interview with the child and a more structured interview with the
parent to determine if the child displays a thirst for knowledge and seeks new and
challenging learning situations.
(b) The parent shall present the information required by this Rule to the principal within
the first 30 calendar days of the school's instructional year. All testing shall be
administered after the April 16 that follows the child's fourth birthday. The principal shall
decide whether to grant the parent's request for enrollment within three weeks after
receiving this information. The principal may conditionally enroll the child for up to ninety
days in order to observe whether the child is able to adjust to the school setting. If the
principal determines that the child has not adjusted to the school setting, the principal shall
deny the request for enrollment. However, before the child is exited from school, the
principal shall invite the parent to assist in the development of intervention strategies for
the child. If those strategies are not successful, the principal shall provide the parent at
least 10 days notice before exiting the child from school so the parent may arrange child
care, if needed.
87 | P a g e
(c) LEAs may require parents to supply information in addition to that required by this
Rule. LEAs may also require specific tests or other measures to provide information
relating to the factors listed in Paragraph (a) of this Rule.
(d) Early admission to kindergarten shall not automatically result in the placement of the
child in the program for academically gifted students. By the time the child has been
enrolled for 90 calendar days, or at any earlier time that school officials determine that the
child has adjusted satisfactorily and shall be allowed to remain in school, the gifted
identification team shall review the child's information to determine if the child shall
receive gifted services. If the team determines that the child shall receive gifted services, it
shall develop either a differentiated education plan or an individual differentiated
education plan for the child.
Citation: North Carolina State Board of Education

http://sbepolicy.dpi.state.nc.us/policies/GCS-J-001.asp?pri=01&cat=J&pol=001&acr=GCS
History Note: Authority G.S. 115C-364(d); N.C. Constitution, Article IX, Sec. 5;
Summary
The policy examples in this section acknowledge at-risk populations in regard to students
who are under-represented in gifted programs, the highly gifted, and those learners more
commonly known in the literature as special populations. Having state policies address
these populations is paramount. There are decades of research citing that minority
students, regardless of their ethnicity, students of poverty, gifted students with disabilities,
and other special populations are typically underrepresented in programs for gifted
learners. Furthermore, once identified for services, some may fare poorly in classrooms
and cultures that overlook cultural differences in learning (Ford, 1994). There are many
efforts around the country in schools and districts specifically targeted to identifying and
servicing at-risk gifted populations, but more work needs to be done to broaden use of
successful approaches.
Program and Curriculum Policy Criteria 8 & 9:

A comprehensive state policy in program and curriculum policy references social-emotional
support as part of program services and appropriate guidance and counseling services
related to academic and career planning.
Key Words or Phrases

Social-emotional: Gifted students have social-emotional or affective characteristics
and needs that are qualitatively different than their age peers. These can include
psychological issues resulting from challenges such as perfectionism, anxiety, and
fear of failure. Social- emotional issues are present because of exceptional abilities.
Silverman (1993) stated that gifted children are emotionally intense and that
emotional intensity is one of the personality concomitants of giftedness. It is
strongly correlated with high intelligence.
88 | P a g e
Guidance and counseling services: High ability does not necessarily translate into
planning for college or career or being able to self-regulate, problem solve, or get
along with peers. School counselors typically are not grounded in theories of
giftedness. Due to their tremendous variability in cognitive and affective
development, gifted students require effective counseling to nurture and guide
these students academically and emotionally.

Due to the increased emphasis on content standards, academic achievement, and
teacher accountability systems linked to student achievement, how can we convince
teachers and administrators that providing support for social-emotional
development for gifted learners must occur across the K-12 continuum?
What social-emotional and other needs do gifted students have that may require
separate counseling services or career counseling services?
Content
Attention to social-emotional support as part of program service is critical. Gifted learners
may fail to reach their potential when their affective needs are ignored. A proactive
approach that focuses on prevention rather than remediation is encouraged. Appropriate
guidance and counseling services related to academic and career planning are needed for
gifted learners in order to support their smooth transition from grade to grade as well as
from graduation to college and career. Moreover, teachers need to integrate affective
strategies and incorporate in their planning social-emotional curriculum for use with gifted
learners. Policies that mention affective curriculum and/or counseling services are a
proactive stance toward this critical aspect of the learner.
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Social-Emotional Supports, Guidance and

Counseling
Nebraska
Nebraska includes and distinguishes between affective curriculum and counseling options
for gifted learners. The policy makes a distinction between affective curriculum with an
emphasis on personal awareness and individual needs, and counseling with an emphasis
on groups and long-term education and career goals.
Learners with high ability need affective as well as cognitive growth. Therefore, affective
curriculum, as well as specialized counseling specific to the needs of learners with high
ability, shall be provided by each eligible, approved school district.
005.02A Affective curriculum provides personal/social awareness and adjustment,
academic planning and performance, and vocational and career awareness, investigation,
and planning.
89 | P a g e
005.02B. Specialized counseling provides individual or small group guidance services to

learners with high ability which will help them to make long-range decisions about school
and career choices.
Citation: Nebraska Department of Education Title 92, Chapter 3, Regulations Governing

High Ability Learners, 79-1108.03 005
http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/Education_Dept_of/Title-
92/Chapter-03.pdf
Indiana
Sec. 2 (c) The differentiated program for high-ability students must include the following:
(3) A counseling and guidance plan.
Citation: Indiana Department of Education, Title 511 IAC 6-9.1; 511 IAC 6-9.1-2 Program
Requirements
http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/highability/ndiana-administrative-code-high-
ability-students-rule-511.pdf
Arizona
Arizonas statute mandates that each school district shall develop a scope and sequence for
gifted students that must be reviewed by the state at least once every four years. The
criteria for the scope and sequence shall include (among others), social development,
emotional development, professional development of administrators, teachers, school
psychologists and counselors
Citation: Arizona Department of Education, Title 15, Article 4.1, section 779-
779.02(A)(3) https://www.azed.gov/gifted-
education/files/2012/10/arizonagiftededucationstatutesadministrativecode.pdf
Summary
Even though there is no research evidence to suggest that gifted and talented students are
any less emotionally stable than their age peers, there are aspects of their experiences, due
in part to their asynchronous development, (Silverman, 2002) that may put them at risk for
specific kinds of social and emotional difficulties. Of the state policies that refer to social-
emotional needs, they more typically include language and aspects requiring or
recommending counseling components to assist with college and career choices.
Nebraskas example distinguishes between affective curriculum options and counseling.
90 | P a g e
Program and Curriculum Policy Criterion 10:

A comprehensive policy requires a local advisory committee for program sustainability.
Key Words and phrases

Local advisory committee: This typically refers to a group comprised of educators,
parents, local business or civic leaders, and others from the community who can be
a conduit for garnering feedback, act as an advisory group to the gifted program
coordinator, and/or advocate for gifted services and funding. Some local advisory
committees have formal structures and/or duties; others are less formal.

Does the local advisory committee represent the diversity of the community, in
terms of ethnicity, as well as business and civic representation? Is the make-up
mostly educators or is there a balance of internal and external stakeholders?
Are there clear expectations for the roles, responsibilities, time cycle, and
communication of the local advisory committee?
In what ways has the local advisory committee been able to influence changes to the
program?
Content
In the absence of federal and, in many instances, state regulations in gifted education, state
and local advisory committees are necessary to sustain gifted programs. A state advisory
committee supports the work of the state education agency, and local advisory committees
ensure that services, processes, and programs remain current with best practices and
recent research. These committees provide for continuity of programs when leadership
changes occur. The advisory committee can sometimes influence changes to local or state
policy that school personnel cannot. They can be conduits for communication,
dissemination, and advocacy, as well as serve as a mechanism for external program
accountability.
Program and Curriculum Policy Examples: Local Advisory Committee
New Mexico
New Mexicos policy requires that the membership of the committee reflect the cultural
diversity of the schools enrollment and specifies the purposes for the committee.
(1) Establishment and membership. Pursuant to Subsection C of Section 22-13-6.1NMSA

1978, each school offering a gifted education program shall create an advisory committee
of parents, community members, students and school staff members. The membership of
each advisory committee shall reflect the cultural diversity of that schools
enrollment. Formal documentation of committee membership, activities and
recommendations shall be maintained.
91 | P a g e
(2) Purposes. The advisory committee shall:

(a) regularly review the goals and priorities of the gifted program, including the
operational plans for student identification, evaluation, placement and service
delivery;
(b) demonstrate support for the gifted program;
(c) provide information regarding the impact that cultural background, linguistic
background, socioeconomic status and disability conditions within the community
may have on the child referral, identification, evaluation and service delivery
processes; and
(d) advocate for children who have been under-represented in gifted services due to
cultural or linguistic background, socioeconomic status, or disability conditions, in
order to ensure that these children have equal opportunities to benefit from
services for gifted students.
Citation: New Mexico Administrative Code 6.31.2.12 Educational Services for Gifted
Children
http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title06/06.031.0002.htm
Virginia
Virginia requires the local advisory committee to be representative of the ethnic and
geographic composition of the school district. In addition, the committee reviews local
plans annually and makes recommendations to the school board.
8 VAC 20-40-60
B. Each school division shall establish a local advisory committee comprised of parents,
school personnel, and other community members. This committee shall reflect the ethnic
and geographical composition of the school division. The purpose of this committee shall
be to advise the school board through the division superintendent of the educational needs
of all gifted students in the division. As part of this goal, the committee shall review
annually the local plan for the education of gifted students, including revisions, and
determine the extent to which the plan for the previous year was implemented. The
recommendations of the advisory committee shall be submitted in writing through the
division superintendent to the school board.
Citation: 22.1-16 and 22.1-253.13.1 of the Code of Virginia

8VAC20-40-60. Local plan, local advisory committee, and annual report.
Summary
Forming an advisory group of community members, parents/families of gifted and talented
students, teachers of the gifted, and other professional staff who meet regularly to review
all aspects of the local program and make recommendations for program improvement
92 | P a g e
undergirds the success of any program. The committee should represent the diverse
populations in the community and the roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined.
Advisory committees can elicit feedback regarding the quality and effectiveness of the local
gifted plan as well as act as advocacy mechanisms when needed.
Theory to Practice: One States Story

In January 2008, the North Carolina Academically/Intellectually Gifted (AIG) program,
under the auspices of the Exceptional Children Division of the Department of Public
Instruction (DPI), received a performance audit through the Office of the State Auditor. The
audit was initiated in response to parent/family concerns that state-allocated AIG budget
funds were being used for purposes other than AIG programming, while AIG students were
left underserved.
The purpose of the audit was to identify weaknesses and make recommendations for the
monitoring and evaluation of the AIG program in order for the DPI, guided by the State
Board of Education, to take appropriate corrective action. The State Auditor gathered
relevant information from DPI, district personnel, and parents/ families. One of the audit
recommendations was to develop state performance standards for local AIG programs in
order to provide a statewide vehicle for monitoring program implementation, to support
quality and effective local AIG programs, and to safeguard the rights of AIG students.
As a result of the audit, North Carolina embarked on a collaborative effort among state
education personnel, local school district personnel, state advocacy association members,
and university faculty to develop the North Carolina AIG Program Standards, which were
adopted by the State Board of Education in July, 2009 and currently serve as a statewide
framework and guide local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop, coordinate, and
implement thoughtful and comprehensive curriculum through the AIG programs. LEAs on a
three-year cycle send their approved local gifted plans, which are organized around the
program standards, to DPI for review and comment. This story from one state illustrates
how a framework of standards to guide LEAs in their gifted program development grew out
of one parents concerns.
Conclusion
This chapter provides an array of elements of curriculum and program policy from a
variety of states. States that have programming and curriculum policies and regulations for
gifted students are ahead of the curve. Yet, the policies that do exist range from loosely
coupled and permissive to prescriptive policies, that specifically describe the types of
curriculum, contact time, or programming to take place. One concern is that there appears
to be a lack of coherence in state programming and curriculum policy. For example, there
may be a curriculum policy about grouping gifted students together, but the policy does not
specify how the curriculum and instruction will be differentiated for the students in the
93 | P a g e
group. Curriculum and programming policies are critical for gifted students because they
directly impact where students are placed and the instruction they receive. Less directly
but not less importantly, they impact student achievement.
Policies supporting programming and curriculum for the gifted are the meat and potatoes
of infrastructure because they affect what actually occurs in the classroom or school with
gifted students. This policy area speaks to the heart of differentiation, grouping, service
delivery, and meeting social-emotional needs. It is not enough to identify a child as gifted.
Once the who question has been addressed, the what, when, where, and why questions
need to be addressed. Comprehensive state policy in programming and curriculum can
provide the answers. However, strong policies become the means, not the ends. Having
solid policies is essential, but strong policies must be coupled with an equally strong
commitment to implement policy into practice and then evaluate the effects of the policy
for the benefit of gifted children.
Questions for Reflection on Program and Curriculum Policy

1. Does your state have any policy relating to programming, services, grouping or
curriculum options for students with gifts and talents? If so, which, if any, of the ten
essential criteria are emphasized?
2. How successful is program/curriculum policy in your state and how is that success
measured?
3. How does the policy (if there is one) align with other policies for gifted students?
For example, if your state (or district) has a policy to identify in mathematics, does
the programming match?
4. How comprehensive is your policy? What are ways to increase its scope (e.g., adding
social-emotional or including programming for at-risk gifted students)?
5. Do you have a local advisory committee? What role does it play regarding program
development, implementation, or oversight?
94 | P a g e
References
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain.
New York, NY: David McKay Company
Brown, E., & Stambaugh, T. (2014). Placement of students who are gifted. In J. Bakken, F. Obiakor, &
A. Rotatori (Eds.), Advances in special education. Gifted education: Current perspectives and
issues, (vol. 26, pp. 39-67). Bingley, England: Emerald Publishers.
gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11-23.
Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2014). National surveys of gifted programs: Executive summary.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Ford, D. (1994). The recruitment and retention of Black students in gifted programs. (RBDM 9406).
Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], & the Council of State Directors of Programs for
the Gifted [CSDPG]. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education. Retrieved
gifted-education
Rogers, K. B. (1998). Using current research to make "good" decisions about grouping. National
Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82(595), 38-46.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the
research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396.
Silverman, L. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Silverman, L. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. Robinson, & S. Moon
(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 31-
40). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Designing services and program for high-ability learners (pp. 249-261). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
95 | P a g e
Chapter 4
State Policy Related to Personnel Preparation
Melissa Bilash and Jennifer Nance
Who dares to teach must never cease to learn. -John C. Dana
Teachers are critical to the success of any program, as demonstrated by the measurable
difference effective teaching makes to student achievement (Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, 2013; Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2012). In order to support student growth,
teachers are required to draw upon a wide variety of skills. They use pedagogical
techniques as well as mastery of subject content to provide direct instruction; they model
and encourage critical thinking and problem-solving skills to help students generalize their
learning beyond the content at hand. In order to help their students learn, they must also
address various student needs such as learning styles, prior knowledge, behavior, family
and cultural contexts, and levels of ability. Even in a relatively homogeneous school or
district, classes are becoming increasingly academically diverse, with teachers expected to
cover a wide variety of student needs, including advanced learners.
This chapter discusses personnel preparation policy essentials. Comprehensive state

policy in personnel preparation should address the following criteria:
1. Requires teachers who work directly with gifted learners to complete university-
based coursework in gifted education
2. Links gifted coursework to national gifted standards
3. Addresses coursework in educational leadership for gifted program leaders
4. Calls for ongoing, comprehensive professional development for program
administrators and teachers of the gifted
5. Provides regular professional development in gifted education for all school
personnel
If teachers are to fully support student learning, they must be provided with
comprehensive professional development that will help them rise to the challenge of an
academically diverse classroom, meeting the needs of all learners, including those who are
performing, or capable of performing, beyond their peers (Callahan, Cooper, & Glascock,
2003). By implementing changes in their practice, teachers are more likely to be able to
differentiate learning for all students, and therefore more effectively meet the needs of all
learners (Goodnough, 2000). While many aspects of general teacher preparation apply in
the gifted education setting, gifted learners differ significantly from typical learners in
many ways, such as the rate at which they assimilate new information, the depth and
complexity of material they are able to absorb, and the ways in which they may respond to
their environment as a result of their advanced capabilities.
96 | P a g e
Because many gifted students attend general education classes, all classroom teachers need
knowledge and skills in gifted education (Callahan et al., 2003). Since few practicing
teachers actually adapt instruction for gifted learners (Robinson & Kolloff, 2006), it is
important that these teachers acquire gifted education preparation in more than a single
introductory course in order to better understand both the how and the why of real
differentiation (Bain, Bourgeois, & Pappas, 2003). We know that well-designed
professional development can correct teacher misconceptions and enable teachers to
advance their knowledge of curriculum and instructional strategies directed to gifted
learners (Gubbins et al., 2002). Teachers who have an understanding of the complexity of
gifted learners, as well as cultures different from their own, will be better able to recognize
learners with high potential, which is especially critical when dealing with students who
might otherwise be overlooked (Cash, 2007; NAGC-CEC, 2013b). Conversely, a failure to
recognize and understand gifted learners and their needs can actually create a climate that
encourages underachievement from students. Without adequate preparation in gifted
education, teachers run the risk of fostering an environment where, for example, high-
ability students might be punished for not complying with classroom behavior norms,
where low expectations result in self-fulfilling prophecies, or where students abilities are
not recognized because of a lack of cultural understanding or even a literal communication
struggle for English as a Second Language students (Cash, 2007; Kolb & Jussim, 1994).
Effective personnel preparation must involve several components, including a

consideration of content as well as methods of delivery. In regards to content, preparation
should support teachers in providing challenging curriculum accompanied by in-depth
knowledge of both content and content pedagogy, with the ability to provide the careful
planning and orchestration quality lessons require (VanTassel-Baska, 2012). However, it
should also provide teachers with an understanding of the psychological issues facing
gifted learners, with an emphasis on challenging many of the common myths and
assumptions that they may have about gifted learners and replacing these with an
understanding of student motivation (VanTassel-Baska, 2012). While important, it is not
enough that teachers be able to address their students academic needs; they must be able
to address their students affective needs as well (Abel & Karnes, 1994).
From a delivery perspective, teachers may have learning experiences that contribute to
their knowledge and improve their teaching practice in a number of different settings
from formal workshops to more embedded experiences such as talking to colleagues or
through self-examination of their own methods. The focus of professional development
planning should be less on the type of activity than on the characteristics of the activity that
make it more likely to support teacher change and improvement over the long-term, which
in turn improves student learning (Desimone, 2009). Teacher preparation should include
quality programming, teacher reflection, and ongoing support (Coleman, Coltrane,
Harradine, & Timmons, 2007). Further, best practice in gifted education suggests that
effective professional development must take place over the long-term, with step-by-step
planning and the provision of plenty of time for teachers to absorb and adopt the changes
presented (Robinson, Shore, & Enersen, 2007).
97 | P a g e
The criteria in this chapter were designed to guide states in creating a policy on
professional learning for personnel working with gifted learners. A comprehensive state
policy will provide teachers with research and evidence-based preparation through
university-based coursework. It will tie this coursework to standards of professional
learning, which have been established after years of collaboration between various groups
in the educational community (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). In addition, state policy
should provide for program leaders to receive training in educational leadership, so that
gifted programs are led by individuals with the training and skills to bring together state
policy and standards, to advocate on behalf of gifted learners based on a deep
understanding of their needs, and to direct practical and managerial program concerns. A
comprehensive state policy will also call for teacher preparation in gifted education to be
ongoing and regular, and to be provided to all staffnot only to teachers in the gifted
education program.
Personnel Preparation Policy Criterion 1:

A comprehensive state policy requires teachers who work directly with gifted learners to
complete university-based coursework in gifted education.

Directly with: A majority of gifted students spend most of their time in general
education classes. Therefore, teachers considered to be working directly with gifted
learners should be interpreted broadly, under its plain language; it is expected this
will encompass most, if not all, teachers.
University-based coursework: the idea of coursework being university-based
implies an alignment with objective professional standards, such as research-based
content and best practices, expert instructors, procedures to assess mastery, and the
creation of similar foundations of knowledge across the country. At the same time,
specifying that the coursework be university-based, as opposed to strictly
coursework completed at a university, provides flexibility for states that do not have
gifted education instruction offered at a nearby university.

What is the quality, breadth, and depth of the instruction? How are states defining
such coursework? What is the knowledge and expertise of the instructor?
What access do teachers have to university-based coursework, geographically and
financially?
Should states require specific coursework be completed? How strict should
requirements be?
98 | P a g e
Content
In many classrooms, student populations are becoming increasingly diversesocially,
economically, culturallyand academically. Teachers are expected to differentiate
instruction for students across a broad spectrum of academic needs, but cannot do so
effectively without the appropriate preparation (Callahan, 2007; Latz, Neumeister, Adams,
& Pierce, 2009; NAGC, 2014). Comprehensive and standards-based educator preparation
programs that teach evidence- and research-based practices are a critical piece of
supporting teachers in meeting the needs of all their students.
Given the complexity and variation of gifted learners needs, teachers working with gifted
students should complete university-based coursework that will provide them with a
framework to apply in their classrooms. A comprehensive state policy will clearly explain
what criteria will meet coursework requirements, while still providing teachers with the
flexibility to select the courses and delivery of coursework that will best meet teachers
needs and the needs of their students.
At the same time, states must be cautious about establishing coursework requirements that
are too restrictive, limiting teachers flexibility to pursue courses most relevant to their
students. To support this balance, states can consult the NAGC-CEC teacher preparation
standards (2013), which provide areas of competency for beginning gifted education
professionals:
Learner development and individual learning differences (understanding variations
in learners, understanding cognitive and affective needs)
Learning environments (creating safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive settings
for learning)
Curricular content knowledge (both general and specialized content to support
advanced learning)
Assessment (use of multiple methods to identify gifted learners and measure
progress)
Instructional planning and strategies (use of many different strategies to advance
the learning of different students)
Professional learning and ethical practice
Collaboration
One area of these standards to highlight is increasing teacher competency in understanding

the diverse backgrounds of their students. Underrepresentation among culturally,
linguistically, and ethnically diverse learners is a continuing issue with which the gifted
education field has struggled (Dickson, 2012). Diversity training can help teachers to be
sensitive to the different manners in which giftedness appears, not only helping to improve
identification of gifted learners but also supporting teachers in incorporating
multiculturalism into their instruction (Baldwin, 2007). It is not enough for this training to
occur in just a few hours per year; teachers must explore both historical and
99 | P a g e
contemporaneous contributions of diverse populations in order to authentically

incorporate multiculturalism into their lessons (Bernal, 2007).
Another concern with overly restrictive requirements is that of access. Specific university-
based courses may be difficult for teachers to access, both financially and even
geographically, which will in turn result in fewer teachers with required training; this is an
issue states must consider in setting coursework requirements.
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: University-Based Coursework

A review of the State of the States report (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015) reveals that state policy
regarding coursework requirements for teachers working with gifted students is
inconsistent. While 29 states offer a credential in gifted and talented education,
professionals in specialized gifted and talented programs were required to have gifted
education credentials in 19 states (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). Five states have written
competencies, other than endorsement or certification standards, for teachers in gifted
education programs (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015, p. 38).
The credentials may be earned through a variety of methods. Twenty-five responding

states accept course semester credit hours toward earning a GT credential. The number of
required hours varies, from 6 to 36 credit hours (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). Other accepted
methods of earning GT credentials reported in the State of the States report included CEUs
(Continuing Education Units) (8), staff development (7), and other means (11). (NAGC &
CSDPG, 2015, p. 41).
Credentialing varies widely from state to state with the most common types of credentials
being:
An endorsement connected to a teachers base certificate/license; typical
requirement is six semester hours of coursework.
A certificate, which is commonly the next level up from an endorsement; typical
requirements are a masters degree in gifted education, a year or more experience
teaching gifted students, and/or 12-18 semester credit hours. Frequently states may
require two out of three of these requirements.
Teachers may obtain post-secondary degrees in gifted education at universities in 34

states, most commonly a masters degree (33), followed in availability by Ed.D., (13),
specialists (12) degree, and Ph.D. (10). Four states and the District of Columbia have no
universities offering degree programs in gifted education (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). The fact
that university coursework is not available in every state is an important consideration in
establishing acceptable coursework options. Where university coursework is not available,
it may be even more important for states to establish clear guidelines regarding content,
instructor qualifications, and specific courses required for all teachers.
100 | P a g e
In response to access, the South Carolina General Assembly established a process to fund
gifted education programs, with preference given to ensuring that these programs are
spread throughout the state (which is divided into GT regions). Teachers are then
assured that there are courses in their area, which they may take tuition-free as the state
has already funded the program (Swanson & Lord, 2013).
101 | P a g e
Table 4.1. State Examples of Required University-Based Gifted Education

Certification or Endorsement.
Arizona Georgia South Carolina
Must have or be working Gifted In-Field Each teacher of a state-funded
towards having a Gifted Endorsement: may gifted and talented course or class
Endorsement. provide direct shall have completed a gifted and
Two endorsements: instruction to gifted talented endorsement program
Provisional, valid for 3 years: students only in the grade approved by the SCDE. There are
Either levels and fields of the three levels of educator
A) 2 years of verified full-time base certificate(s). Direct credentialing for gifted and
teaching experience in which instruction may be talented: beginning endorsement,
most students were gifted; or provided in resource intermediate endorsement, and
B) 90 clock hours of verified in- classes, advanced content certification.
service training in gifted classes, and/or cluster
education; or classes. Individuals with Citation: SC Regulation 43-220
C) 6 semester hours of courses the Gifted Endorsement Gifted and Talented
in gifted education. are also in-field to serve (II)(C)(1)(b)
as a resource teacher for
Full endorsement indirect gifted education Beginning endorsement: six
(automatically renewed with services in any content hours for endorsement (Nature
teaching certificate): area for grades P-12. and Needs of the Gifted Learner
Two of the following: and the Introduction to Curriculum
A) Three years of verified full- Citation: GaPSC 505-2- for the Gifted Learner).
time teaching experience in .167
gifted education as a teacher, The intermediate endorsement
resource teacher, specialist, or is the six hours for endorsement
similar position, verified by (Nature and Needs of the Gifted
district. Learner and the Introduction to
B) Minimum Curriculum for the Gifted Learner)
135 clock hours of verified in- plus six additional graduate hours.
service training in gifted The recommended six hours are:
education. Advanced Curriculum for Gifted
C) 12 semester hours of courses Learners and a Special Topics in GT
in gifted education. District in- Class, such as the Social and
service may substitute for up to Emotional Needs of the Gifted
6 semester hours, with 15 clock Learner.
hours of in-service being
equivalent to 1 semester hour. The gifted and talented
Practicum courses dont count. certificate requires 18 semester
D) 6 semester hours of hours in outlined courses.
practicum or 2 years of verified
teaching experience where most Citation: Beginning endorsement
students were gifted. and certificate at State Board
Regulation 43-62-II.G.
Citation: Arizona Department of Intermediate endorsement at SC
Education Educator State Board of Education FAQ on
Certification Gifted Reg 43-220.
Endorsement.
102 | P a g e
Summary
Even in the advent of online learning, access continues to be an important issue in the
question of what credentials to require for teachers of the gifted, as rural teachers may find
it difficult to meet these requirements, coupled with concerns for out-of-state tuition costs.
In addition, if states currently without credentialing options choose to implement new
requirements, universities will need to expand their programs to meet this demand.
However, with these considerations in mind, it is important to note that a state that does
not require its teachers of the gifted to be credentialed in some way cannot ensure that its
teachers will be adequately prepared to meet the diverse needs of its gifted students.

A comprehensive state policy links gifted coursework to national gifted standards.

Links gifted coursework to: Formal gifted education coursework will draw upon the
professional standards of the field for content.
National gifted standards:
o NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted Education. While these seven
standards were crafted to form benchmarks for university-level coursework, the
principles within provide a structure to any state policy on professional
development. (NAGC-CEC, 2013).
o NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards establish direction and
focus for student outcomes and therefore provide guidance in regards to what
teacher preparation is needed (NAGC, 2010).
o NAGC Knowledge and Skill Standards for All Teachers have been distilled from the
NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards and present the primary
understanding of the issues, learning differences, and strategies that all teachers
should possess (NAGC, 2014).

What standards are in place to guide states in teacher preparation? What quality
control measures are used to ensure courses link to established standards? Is there
a long-term vision guiding teacher preparation that would inform teacher
coursework?
What are the desired teacher learning outcomes and how are they addressed?
What courses are acceptable as gifted education coursework? What courses are
required as gifted education coursework? Where are they located, what content do
they include, and how is it relevant or useful in preparing teachers to teach gifted
students?
Who is designing and implementing the coursework, and is it grounded in the best
practice of the field? What is the quality control?
103 | P a g e
Content
Teacher preparation standards for gifted education provide structure and direction to
guide educators toward relevant theory, research, pedagogy, and management techniques
(VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). Standards can be used to establish methods, content,
and assessment of teacher preparation. They help to establish best practices to ensure that
the professional development teachers receive is effective and likely to be used. Providing a
broad picture of competency, standards provide states with quality expectations that
reflect a shared vision and values of the profession.
Resources exist to guide university personnel and practitioners. The three sets of national
gifted education standards have been crafted specifically to guide university based gifted
education teacher preparation programs (NAGC-CEC, 2013); to guide general and special
education teacher preparation programs and P-12 staff responsible for professional
development offerings on what all classroom teachers should know and be able to do to
support gifted students (NAGC, 2014); and to guide P-12 programs and services for gifted
students, providing specific examples of both student outcomes and the evidence-based
practices that will support such outcomes.
Due to the wide variety of forms that professional development can takesome may be
university-based coursework, other opportunities may be workshops, independent study,
consultant presentations, coaching sessions, or conferences, it is important for states to
adopt standards for professional development to ensure quality content and a focus on the
most essential aspects of gifted education. Any of the three sets of gifted education could be
used to guide these state policies.
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: Professional Development Linked to National

Gifted Standards
One strategy states may employ is to issue recommended professional development

guidelines for local districts rather than adopting specific standards and course
requirements. For example, Pennsylvanias regulations on gifted education, while not
requiring an endorsement or certification for its gifted teachers, requires that, a school
district and intermediate unit shall provide, under section 1205.1 of the School Code (24
P.S. 12-1205.1), in-service training for gifted and regular teachers, principals,
administrators, and support staff persons responsible for gifted education. (22 Pa Code
16.5(c)). Section 1205.2 of the Public School Code specifies that districts will set a
professional education plan designed to meet the educational needs of the individual
school entity and its staff. In its 2014 gifted education guidelines, the Pennsylvania
Department of Education made a number of recommendations for what professional
development should include, but does not require the application of national gifted
education standards explicitly. However, many of the principles of the NAGC-CEC teacher
preparation standards (NAGC-CEC, 2013) appear in the staff responsibilities listed. For
104 | P a g e
instance, the NAGC-CEC standards call for teachers to use a repertoire of instructional
strategies to support gifted learners both academically and affectively; Pennsylvania
guidelines expect professional development to build a repertoire of teaching strategies
that maximize potential for gifted behavior and enhance skills for teaching and advising
the very able and talented.
Table 4.2. State Examples to Illustrate Criterion 2- Professional Development and

Gifted Education Standards.
States with GT Arizona Delaware Washington
credential
offered
How the Course semester credit hours Course semester Other: Specialty
credential is Continuing Education Units credit hours, Endorsement Program or
offered in the (CEUs), Staff development, Continuing Masters of Arts in
state Other: There are multiple Education Units Teaching with Gifted
pathways for earning a (CEUs), Staff Emphasis; Credits and
provisional or full Gifted development portfolio for
Education Endorsement. 225 hours endorsement.
Citation: NAGC-CEC, 2015, p. Required. 45 Citation: NAGC-CEC, 2015,
242. hours in each of p. 248.
Citation: http://www.azed.go five strands. Citation: http://www.whi
v/educator- Citation: NAGC- tworth.edu/Academic/De
certification/files/2011/09/r CEC, 2015, p. 243. partment/Education/Cent
equirements-for-gifted- erForGiftedEducation/spe
endorsement.pdf cialty-
endorsement.html#page-
content
How are the were used to define the Professional The standards are used at
NAGC Pre-K- local district plan learning course the local level and are
Grade 12 Gifted requirements for gifted developers used in the university
Programming education - the Scope and aligned programming and course
Standards used Sequence for Gifted Education coursework to the offerings.
in the state? (Citation: ARS 15-779.02 NAGC standards.
A.3.). Citation: NAGC-CEC, 2015,
The standards have also been Citation: NAGC- p. 283.
used to inform professional CEC, 2015, p. 282.
learning and coursework
offered for teacher
preparation at the state, local,
university and community
college levels, and have
informed program design,
implementation and
evaluation.
Citation: NAGC-CEC, 2015, p.
282.
105 | P a g e
Summary
Although no states have explicitly adopted teacher preparation standards for gifted
education coursework that requires teachers to complete university-level coursework,
states can be reasonably confident that their teachers preparation will comply with these
carefully crafted standards. However, as many states provide other options for teachers to
participate in professional development, the content and quality of this professional
development must be addressed at the state level to ensure its efficacy.

A comprehensive state policy addresses program leadership that includes coursework in
educational leadership.

Program leadership: Leaders may be formal or informal (Learning Forward, 2012).
Typically this term would refer to a principal, a building, district, or state-wide
gifted coordinator, or other administrator with responsibilities for the gifted
education program. In practice this person may be anyone from a designated full-
time administrator to a resource specialist in the school.
Educational leadership: The study of educational leadership is interdisciplinary by
nature, with a goal of bringing together teachers, students, parents, and the
community to systemically improve student educational outcomes through such
methods as improving educational equity, collaborating with other leaders, staff,
community members, and organizations, and uniting various school reforms
(DeVita, 2007; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2013; Learning Forward, 2012;
Neag School of Education, 2008).

Who is considered a gifted education program leader? What are their
responsibilities and qualifications?
Why should coursework in educational leadership be included? Why is it important?
What coursework in educational leadership should gifted education program
leaders complete?
Content
Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that
contribute to what students learn at school (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004). The ability to develop program capacity includes leaders being able to guide the
vision for the programming they oversee, as well as the professional development that will
allow teachers and staff to fulfill this vision (Learning Forward, 2012). Gifted program
leaders need to understand how gifted programming fits into the overall district
programming, and likewise, general educational leaders need to see the needs of gifted
learners as part of the scope of general education (Clarenbach, 2007).
106 | P a g e
Maintaining a healthy gifted program requires thoughtful leadership, teacher preparation,

and advocacy supporting state policy (Clarenbach & Eckert, 2013, p 34). As an advocate,
an administrator must be the voice of his or her gifted students in administrative settings
and seek to improve state and district policies, as well as their implementation. School
leaders should advocate for policy guided by state law, best practices, and community
values. Then, along with national program standards, they can create and put into place
gifted education programming that will meet the needs of their students (Clarenbach &
Eckert, 2013). Leaders will lead by example, demonstrating their own career-long learning;
they will also articulate the clear connection between student outcomes and professional
development (Learning Forward, 2012).
In creating support systems for professional development, leaders will also pursue
coursework to help them to oversee and refine organizational structures and resources
that will in turn support continued student and program improvement. This translates to
both managerial responsibilities, such as program schedules, and broader work, such as
aligning internal policy with local, state, and federal standards (Learning Forward, 2012).
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: Professional Requirements for Gifted

Education Leaders
While it is not known what requirements for gifted program leadership exists, ten states
responding to the State of the States report (2015) require school districts to have a gifted
administrator, although none required this position to be full-time; only one state
(Arkansas) requires the administrator to have training in the needs of gifted and talented
students. (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015).
Ohio
(5) Coordinators shall meet the following qualifications:
(a) Evidence of at least three years successful teaching experience;
(b) Master's degree;
(c) Ohio administrative specialist license, if the coordinator is to supervise teachers;
and
(d) Ohio intervention specialist license for gifted education.
Citation: Ohio Administrative Code 3301-51-15 (See Operating Standards for Identifying
Gifted Students, page 13)
http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Gifted-Education/Rules-Regulations-
and-Policies-for-Gifted-Educatio
107 | P a g e
Note: Ohio requires a higher level of administrative preparation for the program
coordinator in addition to the specialist license required for those who teach gifted
children.
Arkansas
2.05 Administrator License means a five (5)-year renewable license, issued by the State
Board, which allows the license holder to serve as an administrator in Arkansas public
schools. Administrator licenses include:
2.05.1 Curriculum/Program Administrator A school leader who is responsible for
program development and administration, and who may be responsible for
employment evaluation decisions, in one (1) of the following areas:
2.05.1.1 Special Education;
2.05.1.2 Gifted and Talented Education;
2.05.1.3 Career and Technical Education;
2.05.1.4 Content Area Specialist, in a licensure content area;
2.05.1.5 Curriculum Specialist; or
2.05.1.6 Adult Education;
6.02.6 Documentation of at least four (4) years of licensed experience in the relevant area
as follows:
6.02.6.1 Special Education Classroom teaching experience in special education, or
experience in speech language pathology or school psychology, while employed by a
public or private school under the terms of an approved teacher employment
contract and not under a purchase-service contract;
6.02.6.2 Gifted and Talented Education Classroom teaching experience in the area
of gifted and talented education;
Citation: Arkansas State Department of Education Rules (See Rules Governing Educator
Licensure, Section 2.05.1 and 6.02.6.2)
http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/human-resources-educator-effectiveness-and-
licensure/educator-licensure-unit/administrator-licensure
Summary
A successful gifted education program needs a leader that has both the knowledge and
understanding of gifted students and their needs, as well as the practical training in
leadership skills to support such a program effectively. Unfortunately, few states make this
a staffing priority, with no states requiring their gifted administrators be full-time.
Personnel Preparation Criterion 4:

A comprehensive state policy calls for ongoing, comprehensive professional development for
program administrators and teachers of the gifted.
108 | P a g e

Ongoing: Achieving change in educator practice and increasing student learning is a
process that requires support and long-term dedication to embedding new learning
into the day (Learning Forward, 2012). Genuine change in teacher practice requires
dedication to life-long learning, continual self-assessment, and realignment with
evolving standards of the field (NAGC, 2010; NAGC-CEC, 2013). Practically,
educators need three to five years of ongoing implementation support, with
opportunities to deepen understanding, to fully integrate new ideas into practice
(Learning Forward, 2012). As research and best practice are continually refining
methods for supporting gifted learners, however, opportunities to integrate new
pedagogy will be recurring.
Teachers of the gifted: The focus of this term is teachers working in any context of
gifted programming services.

In considering long-term professional development, what is the states broader vision for
long-term change? How is this vision implemented through ongoing professional
development?
Content
The NAGC pre-k-grade 12 programming standards call for educators to participate in
professional development that is systematic, ongoing, and research-based, and that
provides teachers and administrators with foundations in gifted education, identification,
curriculum, key issues and trends, and social and emotional needs of gifted students
(NAGC, 2010). Educators of the gifted must understand that as research and best practice
continue to evolve, ongoing professional development is necessary to best support
learners. Teachers who are successful in developing and supporting high levels of talent
will need to continuously refine and extend both their understanding and their ability to
implement the changes and adaptations their students need. (Callahan et al., 2003).
Occasional professional development has little effect on improving teacher practices or

student performance, because it commonly lacks support for implementation. In fact,
professional development should be focused around ongoing student and educator goals,
rather than a minimum, specific number of hours (Learning Forward, 2012) if it is to result
in long-term change. Effective professional development occurs in many different forms,
requires frequent constructive feedback, and is strengthened by learner reflection
encouraging educator-learners to continually self-assess their own practices (Learning
Forward, 2012).
Professional development resulting in long-term change has been a subject of much

research. Some methods that have proven to be successful include:
Step-by-step planning of professional development experiences, with plenty of time
for teachers to absorb and adopt the changes presented (Robinson, et al., 2007).
109 | P a g e
Implementing an Individual Professional Development Plan for each staff member,

which allows for incorporating the personal histories teachers bring to teaching,
encouraging reflection and continued assessment of their own teaching methods,
and establishing self-directed personal professional growth goals (Robinson, et al.,
2007).
Peer coaching, on an ongoing basis, has been successful for both gifted program
administrators and teachers. This method has been found to lead to an increase in
administrators knowledge of program evaluation and best practices in gifted
education programming and progress toward meeting professional standards, when
compared to administrators who attended two one-day institutes without
supplementary and intensive peer coaching (Cotabish & Robinson, 2012; Latz et al.,
2009). Of note is that the peer coaching relationship be one of mentoring, rather
than evaluating, to avoid teachers feeling threatened and to allow teachers to gain as
much as possible from the experience (Latz et al., 2009).
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: Ongoing Professional Development
Seven states require teachers in specialized GT programs to receive annual professional

development (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). However, a lack of requirement on the state policy
level does not necessarily mean that there is no requirement to complete annual gifted
education professional development; many states leave this decision to the local districts.
Indeed, the State of the States (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015) reports that several states gifted
education personnel are receiving annual professional development, even in the absence of
a state-level requirement. Seventeen states provided estimates for the percentage of
professionals in gifted education programs who received annual professional development.
Responses ranged from less than 10% (3) to two states estimating 100%, and 12 states
estimating between 30-85% (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015, p. 38).
Texas
Texas Administrative Code (state rule based on law) says:
"School districts shall ensure that:

(1) Prior to assignment, teachers who provide instruction and services that are a part of
the program for gifted students have a minimum of 30
(clock) hours of staff development that includes nature and needs of gifted/talented
students, assessing student needs, and curriculum and instruction for gifted students;
(2) teachers without training required in paragraph (1) of this section who provide
instruction and services that are a part of the program for gifted students must complete
the 30-hour training requirement within one semester;
110 | P a g e
(3) teachers who provide instruction and services that are a part of the program for gifted
students receive a minimum of six hours annually of professional development in gifted
education; and
(4) administrators and counselors who have authority for program decisions have a
minimum of six hours of professional development that includes nature and needs of
gifted/talented students and program options."
Citation: Texas Administrative Code 89.2

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter089/ch089a.html
Note: This law applies to all teachers who specifically teach in the gifted program, and
addresses the ongoing element of the criterion by requiring six hours annually in addition
to a required 30 hour minimum prior to entering the classroom. The Code also requires
professional development for administrators and counselors involved with gifted
programs.
Maine
104.11 Program Personnel
1. Personnel employed in the school unit's gifted and talented program shall be
properly certified and possess such other skills as are appropriate and necessary for
the particular assignments within the program.
2. Personnel with overall administrative responsibility for the program shall be
certified administrators.
3. Professional staff with teaching, coordinating or consulting responsibilities for the
program shall be certified teachers or administrators.
4. Other personnel who assist with program activities or who work directly with gifted
and talented children may be individuals classified as auxiliary personnel who have
received prior approval from the Commissioner.
5. Personnel who are not employed as full- or part-time employees of the school unit
but who render instructional or consulting services may work in the capacity of
independent contractors. These may include persons sponsored by the Maine Arts
Commission in the visiting artist program.
6. Personnel shall participate in gifted and talented education training experiences
appropriate to their program responsibilities and as required and approved by the
Department, including, but not limited to, the Department-sponsored Gifted and
Talented Summer Training Institute.
Citation: Rules. 05-071; Department of Education; Chapter 104: Educational Programs

for Gifted and Talented Children.
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/05/chaps05.htm
Note: The rules recognize and address the need for appropriate professional development
for a variety of personnel who may work with gifted students.
111 | P a g e
North Carolina
Each plan shall include the following components:
(4) Professional development clearly matched to the goals and objectives of the plan, the
needs of the staff providing services to academically or intellectually gifted students, the
services offered, and the curricular modifications.
Citation: North Carolina General Statutes 115C-150.7. Local

plans. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/byarticle/chapter_11
5c/article_9b.pdf
Note: This example is representative of language that is less prescriptive than that of some
other states.
Summary
Successful professional development for gifted and talented professionals should be
ongoing and organized around program goals with frequent opportunities for self-
assessment, gradual implementation, and individual support through individualized
teacher plans and peer coaching. Unfortunately, these approaches are harder to assess than
a quantitative approach of requiring teachers to take a specific number of hours in
semester classes or continuing education units. Many states have left decisions about
teacher preparation to local districts, which may allow districts to tailor their approaches
to the needs of their specific students; however, it is important for states to consider how
the effectiveness of districts preparation of teachers might be assessed.
Personnel Preparation Criterion 5:

A comprehensive policy provides regular professional development in gifted education for all
school personnel.

All school personnel: All instructional and support staff, faculty, and leadership
working in an educational capacity within a school.

Why should all school personnel be provided with this preparation?
Who should oversee this preparation?
What topics should be presented to all personnel?
Content
In order to support gifted students, school personnel must first understand the
characteristics that distinguish these students (Gilson, 2009). As further guidance, NAGC
112 | P a g e
provides three core knowledge and skills standards in gifted education that are applicable
to all teachers. All teachers should be able to:
1. Recognize the learning differences, developmental milestones, and
cognitive/affective characteristics of gifted and talented students, including those
from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and identify their related
academic and social-emotional needs;
2. Design appropriate learning and performance modifications for individuals with
gifts and talents that enhance creativity, acceleration, depth and complexity in
academic subject matter and specialized domains; and
3. Select, adapt, and use a repertoire of evidence-based instructional strategies to
advance the learning of gifted and talented students.
(NAGC, 2014)
Professional development for all school personnel contributes to the establishment of a

well-trained and knowledgeable learning community. Learning communities engage in
continuous improvement, develop collective responsibility, and create alignment and
accountability (Learning Forward, 2012). By applying this standard to professional
development in gifted education, the benefits include:
all staff, not just teachers of the gifted, sharing responsibility and holding each other
accountable for educating all students, including high-ability learners;
working together to continually improve identification, assessment, and curriculum
for gifted learners;
learning more together about the immediate learning community;
holding each other to high standards for learners;
establishing and aligning goals across the school community for meeting the needs
of gifted learners, and measuring the effectiveness of those services
(Learning Forward, 2012).
Professional development on general topics of giftedness and specifically giftedness among

minority populations, including identification and the assessment process in place, the
nature of the gifted child, the special needs of minority and other underserved gifted
students, and student eligibility for gifted programming, is vital to creating more culturally
responsive learning communities (Michael-Chadwell, 2010).
Further, professional development in gifted education for all teachers and staff benefits not
just gifted students, but all students. For example, delivering a differentiated, enriched
reading program relating to students oral reading fluency and comprehension at five
different schools was found to significantly improve reading fluency in two schools, reading
comprehension in one school, and make no achievement differences in the others. At a
minimum, enrichment approaches may be as effective, or more so, than whole group
instruction. (Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller, & Kaniskan, 2011).
113 | P a g e
Personnel Preparation Policy Examples: Professional Development in Gifted

Education for All Educators
According to the 2014-2015 State of the States report, most general education teachers
were not likely to receive professional development or training in gifted education,
although about half of the states reported discussion of the need for some training or
development at the pre-service level. Nevada requires all pre-service teachers to complete
a course in gifted education. Thirty-nine states reported on requirements that general
education teachers (after initial certification) have some professional development in
gifted education, but the requirements were often left up to LEAs or were voluntary (NAGC
& CSDPG, 2015).
Thirty states reported on the percentage of general education teachers who receive annual
professional development in gifted education; 11 of these states reported more 50% or
more of their teachers receiving annual professional development (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015).
As a state snapshot, in Pennsylvania, gifted education training for general education

teachers is voluntary. Although the number of hours is not specified and nor required, the
state reported 60% of general education staff receiving gifted and talented training (NAGC
& CSDPG, 2015, p 240). The Pennsylvania Department of Education released Gifted
Guidelines (2010), which include a number of areas that classroom teachers implementing
a gifted students program are expected to be able to deliver, including: understanding the
characteristics, learning styles, and cognitive and affective needs of gifted students; varying
the rate of instruction and degree of complexity of their lessons content; providing
programming options when students demonstrate mastery of core content (and giving
students the opportunity to demonstrate mastery in advance); and demonstrating the
ability to compact curriculum to accommodate individual gifted instructional levels, to
name just a few. However, actual delivery of professional development is left to local
districts.
Louisiana
1372. Improvement Strategies
A. The Department will describe the strategies the State will use to address the needs
identified. The strategies will include how the State will address the identified needs for in-
service and pre-service preparation to ensure that all personnel who work with G/T
students (including professional personnel who provide special education, general
education, related services, or early intervention services) have the skills and knowledge
necessary to meet the needs of gifted and talented students. The plan will include a
description of how the Department will accomplish the following:
1. The Department shall prepare general and special education personnel with the
content knowledge and collaborative skills needed to meet the needs of G/T
students including how the State will work with other states on common
certification criteria.
114 | P a g e
2. The Department shall work with institutions of higher education and other entities
that (on both a pre-service and an in-service basis) prepare personnel who work
with G/T students to ensure that those institutions and entities develop the capacity
to support quality professional development programs that meet State and local
needs.
3. The Department shall develop collaborative agreements with other States for the
joint support and development of programs to prepare personnel for which there is
not sufficient demand within a single state to justify support or development of such
a program of preparation.
4. The Department shall work in collaboration with other States, particularly the
Departments of Education of neighboring states, to address the lack of uniformity
and reciprocity in the credentialing of teachers and other personnel.
5. The Department shall acquire and disseminate to teachers, administrators, school
board members, and related services personnel, significant knowledge derived from
educational research and other sources, concerning how the State will, if
appropriate, adopt promising practices, materials, and technology.
6. The Department shall encourage LEAs to recruit, prepare, and retain qualified
personnel, including personnel with disabilities and personnel from groups that are
under-represented in the fields of regular education, special education, and related
services.
7. The Department shall develop a plan that is integrated, to the maximum extent
possible, with other professional development plans and activities, including plans
and activities developed and carried out under other Federal and State laws that
address personnel recruitment and training.
8. The Department shall provide for the joint training of parents and special education,
related services, and general education personnel.
Citation: Louisiana Regulations for Implementation of the Children with Exceptionalities

Act (R.S. 17:1941 et seq.) Bulletin 1706 Subpart B - Regulations for Gifted/Talented
Students August 1, 2000
http://www.doe.state.la.us/LDE/uploads/1418.pdf. (see page 12)
Note: These regulations explicitly address the preparation of pre-service and in-service
educators to work with gifted and talented students. The language specifies all personnel
who work with gifted and talented, and identifies specific categories of personnel.
Arkansas
5.00 STAFF DEVELOPMENT
5.01 There is a written plan for gifted and talented staff development specific to the
needs of gifted students that includes all faculty, when appropriate, based on local
education needs of gifted students.
5.02 Opportunities to increase knowledge of the education of gifted and talented
students are provided for continuing and new school board members, school and
115 | P a g e
district administrators, teachers and support staff on a continuing and regular basis.
To design a successful staff development program, the district allocates sufficient
time and money. Plans for ongoing training in gifted and talented education are
incorporated into the districts total staff development plan. Planning for staff
development is based on the data obtained from periodic needs assessments
conducted by the district. All personnel must be made aware of the results of the
assessments and the districts plan for serving gifted and talented students. Other
areas of training which are appropriate for the entire school staff but specifically
necessary for all new staff are:
(1) characteristics and needs of the gifted;
(2) identification procedures;
(3) curriculum and teaching strategies;
(4) creativity;
(5) utilization of community resources;
(6) program evaluation;
(7) districts philosophy and program model for gifted students; and
(8) overview of state requirements.
Staff development is also encouraged by adding books and journals on gifted education to
the schools professional library; placing reprints of pertinent articles in teachers boxes;
presenting short, specific classroom demonstrations and teaching techniques at regular
building-level faculty meetings; and sharing gifted students projects with all staff.
Citation: Arkansas Department of Education, Rules and Regulations: Program standards/

approval document.
http://www.arkansased.org/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Gifted%20and%20Talent
ed/2009_GT_Revised_Program_Approval_Standards.pdf
Note: This document contains the standards for approval for programs for school
accreditation and specifies that the entire school staff must at least be aware of the
districts gifted education plan.
Summary
All faculty and staff working with gifted students need an understanding of the needs of
gifted learners and knowledge about evidence-based best practices to support them in the
classroom and school setting. While leaving teacher preparation decisions to local districts
may allow much-needed flexibility, it may be time to rethink this approach in regards to
preparing all teachers and staff to support gifted students.
Theory to Practice
As in many areas of gifted education policy, personnel preparation requires a careful
balance between state mandates and oversight, and local district control. While it makes
116 | P a g e
sense to give local education agencies the flexibility to tailor preparation to their
population of students, states must maintain the critical position of overseeing districts
professional development plans, acting as a check to ensure districts have the resources
they need, and that the training they are providing is effective, diverse, and of high quality.
One approach is to require districts to submit their professional development plans to the
state education agency as a measure of accountability. Arizona requires districts to create
their own Scope and Sequence for Gifted Education (ARS 15-779.02), which is updated at
a minimum every five years, and must include criteriathat address the elements
ofprofessional development of administrators, teachers, school psychologists, and
counselors. If a district does not submit such a plan, or if their plan is not approved, they
do not receive state aid; in this way, the state incentivizes such planning.
Pennsylvania is another example of a state weighing the appropriate balance between local
district flexibility and state mandates. While Pennsylvania has a mandate to provide gifted
education services, the state does not allocate funds specifically to support gifted education
programs and services; most decisions about gifted education delivery and teacher
preparation are left to local control. Districts are required to provide in-service training
for gifted and regular teachers, principals, administrators, and support staff persons
responsible for gifted education (22 Pa Code 16.5(c)). Discussions about requiring
teachers working with gifted students to have an endorsement or certificate in gifted
education are ongoing. Although much work remains to be done in expanding teacher
preparation, this is a positive first step towards both improving teacher training and also
better understanding what gifted students need.
Conclusion
Effective teachers and leaders must have a variety of skills in order to meet the needs of an
increasingly diverse student population. In order to build a well-rounded skill set that will
allow educators to fully support their students learning, states must provide all faculty and
staff with comprehensive preparation built on evidence-based best practices from the
fields of professional development and gifted education.
As our review of current policy demonstrates, state education agencies must consider
whether a policy is best determined at the state or local level. While local control provides
districts with flexibility to meet the specific needs of their community, states play a critical
role in guiding the approach toward and the quality of teacher preparation. Because well-
prepared teachers are so crucial to the success of gifted students and gifted programming,
it is imperative that states implement comprehensive policies that hold teacher
preparation programs and professional development opportunities to high standards.
These policies must make a point to build up their leaders in gifted education with the
appropriate supports to enable them to fully advocate for their students. And finally, this
preparation must be ongoing for all faculty and staff.
117 | P a g e
Reflection Questions
1. What coursework is required of your states GT teachers, and what standards is it
based upon? General education teachers?
2. Who oversees and directs gifted programming in your state? What resources and
preparation are they provided with?
3. What ongoing professional development does your state require of teachers in
gifted education, both GT and general education? What is the content of this
preparation and how is it delivered?
4. How successful is your states teacher preparation in gifted education? How are they
measuring success?
118 | P a g e
References
Abel, T., & Karnes, F. A. (1994). Teacher preferences among low socioeconomic rural and suburban
gifted students. Roeper Review, 17(1), 52-57.
Bain, S., Bourgeois, S., & Pappas, D. (2003). Linking theoretical models to actualpractices: A survey
of teachers in gifted education. Roeper Review, 25(4), 166-172.
Baldwin, A.Y. (2007). The untapped potential for excellence. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh
(Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 23-25).
Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Bernal, E. M. (2007). The plight of the culturally diverse student from poverty. In J. VanTassel-Baska
& T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising
learners (pp. 27-30). Washington, DC: NAGC. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/Overlooked%20Gems%20
%28final%29.pdf
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2013). Measures of effective teaching project Ensuring fair and
reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating finds from the MET projects three-year
study. Retrieved
from http://metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practit
ioner_Brief.pdf
Callahan, C. (2007). What we can learn from research about promising practices in
developing the gifts and talents of low-income students. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T.
Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners
(pp. 53-56). Washington, DC: NAGC.
Callahan, C., Cooper, C., & Glascock, R. (2003). Preparing teachers to develop and enhance talent: The
position of national education organizations. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477882.pdf
Cash, R. M. (2007). The local school district focus: Recognizing emergent potential of low-income
promising learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A
national perspective on low-income, promising learners, (p.100). Washington, DC: NAGC.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2012). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-
added and student outcomes in adulthood. Retrieved
from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17699.pdf
Clarenbach, J. (2007). All gifted is local. School Administrator, 64(2), 1622.
Coleman, M. R., Coltrane, S. S., Harradine, C., & Timmons, L. (2007). Impact of poverty on promising
learners, their teachers, and their schools. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.),
Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 59-61).
Cotabish, A., & Robinson, A. (2012). The effects of peer coaching on the evaluation knowledge, skills,
and concerns of gifted program administrators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 160-170.
Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers professional development: toward
better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
DeVita, M.C. (2007). Leadership: the bridge to better learning. In Education leadership: A bridge to
school reform (pp. 4-7). New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Dickson, K. (2012). Overcoming underrepresentation in gifted programs among culturally,
linguistically, ethnically diverse, and diverse social and economic gifted learners: A parent
119 | P a g e
and school engagement perspective. Retrieved

from http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/overcoming-underrepresentation-in-
gifted-programs-part
Gilson, T. (2009). Creating school programs for gifted students at the high school level: An
administrator's perspective. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 36-39.
Goodnough, K. (2000). Fostering liberal views of giftedness: A study of the beliefs of six
undergraduate education students. Roeper Review, 23, 89-90.
Gubbins, E. J., Westberg, K. L., Reis, S. M., Dinnocenti, S. T., Tieso, C. L., Muller, L. . . . Burns, D. E.
(2002). Implementing a professional development model using gifted education strategies
with all students. (Report No. RM02172). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2013). Leading across boundaries. Retrieved
from http://iel.org/sites/default/files/IEL-Brochure-2013.pdf
Kolb, K. J., & Jussim, L. (1994). Teacher expectations and underachieving gifted children. Roeper
Review, 17(1), 26-30.
Latz, A. O., Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve
classroom differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31(1), 27-39.
Learning Forward. (2012). Standards for professional learning. Retrieved
from http://www.learningforward.org/standards#.UqKZLGRDvTZ
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student
learning. Retrieved http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-
leadership/key-research/Pages/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.aspx
Michael-Chadwell, S. (2010). Examining the underrepresentation of underserved students in gifted
programs from a transformational leadership point. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
34 99-130.
National Association for Gifted Children (2014). Knowledge & skill standards in gifted education for
all teachers. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-
publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/knowledge-and
National Association for Gifted Children and Council for Exceptional Children (2013). NAGC-CEC
teacher preparation standards in gifted & talented education. Retrieved
from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/NAGC-
%20CEC%20CAEP%20standards%20%282013%20final%29.pdf
the Gifted [CSDPG]. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the States report in gifted education.
Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state/2014-2015-
state-states-gifted-education
Neag School of Education (2008). Cultivating reflective analytical professionals: A conceptual
framework for preparing future leaders in education. Retrieved
from http://dev6.education.uconn.edu/eer/getfile.cfm?fileid=d1b0104a-1120-4da8-96cb-
0ee2a5bba6de
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2014). Gifted education guidelines. Retrieved
from http://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K-
12/Gifted%20Education/Gifted%20Program%20Guidelines.pdf
120 | P a g e
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of
differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five
elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 462-501.
Robinson, A., & Kolloff, P. B. (2006). Preparing teachers to work with high-ability youth at the
secondary level: Issues and implications for licensure. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The
handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 581-610). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Robinson, A., Shore, B., & Enersen, D. (2007). Professional development for teachers. In Best
practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide (pp. 263-271). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Swanson, J. D., & E. W. Lord, (2013). Harnessing and Guiding the Power of Policy: Examples from
One States Experiences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36 (2), 198 - 219. DOI
10.1177/0162353213480434.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). Teacher behavior as a tool to understanding the motivation of gifted
learners. In R. Subotnik, A. Robinson, C.M. Callahan, & E.J. Gubbins, (Eds.), Malleable minds:
Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 257-266).
Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted
education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st century. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 51, 182-205.
121 | P a g e
Chapter 5
State Policies Related to Program Management:
Assessment/Evaluation
Wendy Behrens
State policy addressing program management provides guidance and oversight for the
implementation of policies and range of services. Another critical function of program
management is assessing and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and
services: how a program will be assessed and who is accountable for the program
outcomes.
This latter function of program management breaks down into two broad categories:
assessment and evaluation. Assessment refers to the level of oversight a state department
of education or a local education agency employs in monitoring local gifted programs.
Program assessment offers a means of systematic study of the value and impact of services
provided. Program management evaluation addresses the types of data that a local district
provides to the state and how those data guide the decision-making about program
development and improvement. Effectiveness of services for gifted students is likely to be
improved if decisions about the development of program components are based on valid
and reliable evidence of what works and what does not work across aspects of program
operation (Callahan, 2004; VanTassel-Baska, 2006). The most robust provisions for gifted
learners evolve from careful collection of data regarding the context in which the services
are delivered, the adequacy and appropriateness of resources available, the quality of
activities carried out, and the degree to which goals and objectives have been achieved
(National Association for Gifted Children[NAGC], 2010).
Comprehensive state policy in Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation should

address each of the following criteria:
1. Includes regular state review of local education agency (LEA) gifted education plans
2. Requires that LEA plans address:
(a) screening, identification, and referral processes
(b) program provisions employed at each grade level, K-12
(c) goals and student outcome assessment process for each program model
(d) contact time for each model
(e) pupil-teacher ratios for classes
(f) gifted teacher planning time
(g) professional development plans for gifted staff and other school personnel
(h) counseling and guidance
(i) program evaluation design
122 | P a g e
3. Describes a state education agency (SEA) monitoring plan that involves all districts
and requires regular onsite visits
4. Requires LEAs to submit an annual progress report to the SEA containing program
and student evaluation data
The criteria in this chapter offer guidance for states in creating comprehensive policy for
program management that includes the essential components of assessment and
evaluation. The sampling of state policies related to program management that embody
one or more approaches to the four criteria. As Brulles and Winebrenner observed,
In recent years, national and state level attention to students with the highest potential
has been diverted to those struggling to achieve at minimum proficiency levels.
Meanwhile, school districts wrestle with ensuring that high-ability students demonstrate
annual yearly progress. Documenting that progress occurs for gifted students presents a
challenge to school administrators (2011, para.1).
The 2014-2015 State of the States in Gifted Education report (National Association for Gifted
Children [NAGC] & Council of State Directors of Programs for Gifted [CSDPG], 2015),
provided data to illustrate the degree to which local educational agencies (LEAs) are held
accountable to the state for gifted education services and outcomes. Specifically, 21 of the
40 responding states monitored and/or audited LEA programs for gifted and talented
students through a system of reporting, submission and approval of local gifted education
plans, in response to complaints, and onsite interviews, among other strategies (p.25).
The table below summarizes some of the data in this area from the State of the States
(NAGC & CSDPG, 2015).
Table 5.1. State Oversight Data from 2014-2015 State of the States Report.
States that require States with States that do not States that are able States that do not
some form of systems to require districts to report race and report gifted
program or monitor and/or to submit gifted ethnicity data for education
service for gifted audit LEA education plans gifted and talented performance
and talented gifted students. indicators on
students in their education their report
state mandates programs cards.
28 21 22 20 28
Requirements for monitoring or auditing of programming vary by state. In some states,

gifted education reporting ties funding to the number of students identified for services
and/or the provision of services. In others, funding is based solely on the total number of
students within the system, and in still others, reporting is required despite the absence of
funding. Eleven states publish an annual report on state gifted services. In the 24 states
where LEAs are required to submit an end-of-year report, these reports typically provide a
123 | P a g e
snapshot of how many students were served, how they were identified, staff time devoted
to programs, the nature of the programs, and occasionally evidence (through surveys of
parents and students) of program satisfaction and the progress that the program has made
toward its own goals. The attention given to these year-end reports by state departments
of education varies from checking off that a report was submitted, to providing written
feedback with suggestions for improving programs and services.
The State of the States report (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015) also reported data on the inclusion of
gifted education indicators on district report cards or other state accountability forms.
When queried, 11 of 39 respondents reported gifted education indicators as part of district
report cards or other state accountability reporting. Most (10 of 11) reported on the
number of identified gifted students served. Program options and student learning
gains/growth were also included, though less frequently.
While most in the gifted education community would argue that the social-emotional
benefits of gifted programs are at least as important as the intellectual and achievement
benefits, it is the achievement data and test scores that make more of an impact on local
school boards and state policy makers (Robinson, 2004). Attention should be given to the
assessment of student progress using multiple indicators that measure mastery of content,
demonstration of higher level thinking skills, achievement in the specific program area(s),
and affective growth.
Given the education climate of accountability and standards, program evaluation demands
that data collection include evidence that programs provide added value to achievement
outcomes. Researchers and, increasingly the general public, want to know how student
learning, performance, and achievement have changed as a result of gifted programs.
Plucker, Burroughs, and Song (2010) reviewed national and state assessment data for the
existence of excellence gaps to explore disparities in performance and rate of growth
among high-achieving students, with respect to the subgroups of race, socio-economic
level, gender, and English proficiency. The study's authors noted inconsistent efforts for
tracking growth of gifted students and offer compelling arguments for the importance of
monitoring all students growth.
The importance of documenting student growth over time, (i.e., a change in individual
student achievement between two or more points in time) has become one measure by
which school services and teachers are evaluated. Davis and Rimm noted,
We understand all students require opportunities to learn, grow, and be challenged to

strive for excellence. Students with exceptional talents and learning potential have
needs that require specific knowledge and attention. With careful nurturing and
appropriate education, gifted students have the potential to make a unique
contribution to their communities and the world. Without this, the price we and they
pay is lost academic growth, lost creative potential and sometimes lost enthusiasm for
124 | P a g e
educational success and eventual professional achievements and substantial

contributions to society (2004, p. 2).
Regular state review of LEA gifted education plans is not uncommon in state policy
language, and some states specify both the frequency of that review and the components
that should be included in the plan. While most states do not require all of the suggested
components in a LEA plan, some states (e.g., South Carolina, Utah, Kentucky) require that a
number of those components be reported, including identification data, student-teacher
ratios, contact time, professional development information, and evaluation data. How
program data are collected, reviewed, and disseminated varies as well. For example,
Minnesota requires districts to complete a site-level report indicating what services are
available, how students are identified, and the number of hours of professional
development staff received in gifted and talented education. The state reviews and
summarizes the data for the legislature. Though not in state statute, the Minnesota Staff
Development Report (2018) is part of a larger report presented annually to the state
legislature. The data mined from the report inform professional development provided by
the state and allow the state education agency (SEA) to map identification and service
trends.
Another criterion for policy language related to assessment and evaluation suggests states
specify evaluation for all LEAs include regular onsite visits. Capacity for these visits,
resources, funding, and commitment for follow-up technical assistance are challenges that
SEAs face. Are there creative solutions yet identified for these barriers? How can
technology be used effectively to support virtual onsite visits? How can peer reviews be
appropriately and professionally used to meet this need? Responses to these questions
await the creative ideas and actions of all stakeholders who value program evaluation.
Colorado and South Carolina provide examples of state education departments that have
made local program evaluation an important focus in their overall program oversight
process. However, this Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation section is the area
where few examples of state policy language can be found. Avery and VanTassel-Baska
(2001) noted when gifted program evaluations are conducted, the results are not usually
disseminated broadly.
Finally, the fourth criterion for state policy language related to assessment and evaluation
suggests that LEAs report annually on both program and student data.
Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation Policy Criterion 1:

A comprehensive state policy includes regular state review of local education agency (LEA)
plans.
125 | P a g e

Regular refers to a specific, recurring time frame established and adhered to,
whether it is every year, every two years, every five years, or other expectation.
State review means the state education agency has conducted an assessment of the
services and programs in place and/or whether an LEA has carried out
responsibilities as defined by state statutes and policies. Program assessment is the
systematic study of the value and impact of services provided.
LEA plans in this criterion are interpreted as the description, reporting, and
compilation of educational services for gifted and talented learners at the local level.
These plans are typically approved by a local school board.

Does the state have the capacity to conduct regular reviews? If the state is unable to
conduct the review, who will do so? What knowledge and expertise are needed to
conduct the review? How often will the review be conducted?
What is the scope of the review, that is, what services, opportunities, and data will
be described and reported?
Is funding connected to the review? If so, how?
What are the consequences of failing to provide a plan for review?
What feedback should be expected and provided by LEAs?
Content
Advocates, including NAGC, support greater policy uniformity and reporting as
mechanisms to ensure equity and access to services. Van Tassel-Baskas (2006) nine
components to be addressed by state regulations for programs and service could provide a
guide for the contents of a LEA review. Those components are
Grouping arrangements conducive to administrating gifted programs and services
must include cluster, resource room, pull-out, special classes, or self-contained
classrooms.
Contact time for programs and services should constitute no less than 150 minutes
per week, with at least one hour of planning time for teachers.
Curriculum should be modified in each relevant area for identified students
according to need for acceleration, complexity, depth, challenge, and creativity.
Assessment practices employed for gifted programs are matched to the demands of
the specific curriculum objectives.
A modified and extended program is articulated to accommodate at-risk and highly
gifted populations.
Acceleration in the learning rate of gifted learners should always be an option in a
gifted education program.
Social-emotional support for student development is included as a part of the
service delivery plan.
126 | P a g e
Academic guidance and career counseling are available at Grades 6-12, emphasizing
the need for advanced course-taking early and the use of student assessment data to
counsel students on college and career alternatives.
A state/local advisory council provides oversight to the state/local service delivery
plan, which received local board of education approval (pp.252-253).
As previously noted, gifted education policy in the United States is characterized by

variability. Policies, rules, and/or guidelines differ from state to state in specificity, and
comprehensiveness of program elements addressed in regulations (Gallagher, 2002;
Gallagher, 2004; NAGC & CSDPG, 2015; Passow & Rudnitski, 1993; Zirkel, 2005).
Program Management Policy Examples: State Review of LEA Gifted Program Plans
Arizona
Scope and Sequence: This policy requires LEAs to submit comprehensive reports for
approval every five years and when changes are made during the previous fiscal year.
15-779.02 Gifted pupils: scope and sequence; annual financial support

(A) The governing board of each school district shall develop a scope and sequence for the
identification process of and curriculum modifications for gifted pupils to ensure that gifted
pupils receive gifted education commensurate with their academic abilities and
potentials. Programs and services for gifted pupils shall be provided as an integrated,
differentiated learning experience during the regular school day. The scope and sequence
shall:
(1) Provide for the routine screening for gifted pupils using one or more tests
adopted by the state board as prescribed in section 15-203, subsection A, paragraph
15 and section 15-779.01. School districts may identify any number of pupils as
gifted but shall identify as gifted at least those pupils who score at or above the
ninety-seventh percentile, based on national norms, on a test adopted by the state
board of education.
(2) Include an explanation of how gifted education for gifted pupils differs from
regular education in such areas as:
(a) Content, including a broad based interdisciplinary curriculum.
(b) Process, including higher level thinking skills.
(c) Product, including variety and complexity.
(d) Learning environment, including flexibility.
(3). Include criteria, which shall be reviewed by the state board of education and the
department of education at least once every four years, that address the elements of
program design, identification, curriculum, instruction, social development,
emotional development, professional development of administrators, teachers,
school psychologists and counselors, parent involvement, community involvement,
program assessment and budgeting. The budgeting information shall include
separate data on identification and program costs and any other data required by
127 | P a g e
the superintendent of public instruction to administer and evaluate the program

effectively.
(B). The governing board shall submit the scope and sequence to the department of
education for approval on or before July 1 if any changes were made during the previous
fiscal year. The governing board shall submit the scope and the sequence to the
department of education for approval on or before July 1 every five years if no changes
were made during the previous five years. All school districts shall provide to gifted pupils
gifted education commensurate with their academic abilities and potentials.
Citation: Arizona Revised Statutes. Title 15 Education. Chapter 7 Instruction, Article 4.1
15-779.02
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/15/00779-
02.htm&Title=15&DocType=ARS
Kentucky
Gifted Education Funding: This rule explicitly ties funding to the submission of an annual
report that includes evaluation information on both the program and student progress.
Section 9. Budget; Funding.

(3) A district receiving state gifted education funding shall designate a gifted education
coordinator to:
(a) Oversee the district gifted education operation;
(b) Serve as liaison between the district and the state;
(c) Ensure internal compliance with state statutes and administrative regulations;
and
(d) Administer and revise the gifted education program budget.
(4) State funding to a district shall be contingent upon:
(a) Employing properly certified personnel to administer and teach in the program;
(b) The annual submission of a local district gifted education year-end report;
(c) A summative evaluation of the program and student progress; and
(d) Complying with this administrative regulation.
Citation: Kentucky Administrative Regulation (KAR) 704 KAR 3:285. Programs for the
gifted and talented. Section 9(4)
South Carolina
Comprehensive Services: This policy has annual reporting from LEAs to the SEA and
mandates new LEA gifted and talented programming plan every five years to delineate
progress on this plan annually. The policy specifies written feedback will be provided to
the districts.
128 | P a g e
Districts will plan for and provide a comprehensive, aligned, and coordinated continuum of
services that address the advanced learning needs of gifted and talented students. To
document planning, districts will submit a local gifted and talented programming plan
every five years and delineate progress on this plan annually. The South Carolina
Department of Education (SCDE) will review the plan annually and provide written
feedback to the districts. The SCDE shall establish a format and template for the plan.
Citation: State of South Carolina Regulation No.: 43-220 II(A)(1)

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/coderegs/Ch%2043.pdf
Utah
Annual Evaluation: Utah code requires an annual comprehensive report including data on
identified students, participation and achievement, and student growth.
(A). LEAs receiving funds shall be required to submit an annual evaluation report to the
USOE consistent with Section 53A-17a-165. The report shall include the following
performance criteria related to the identified students whose academic achievement is
accelerated:
1. Number of identified students disaggregated by subgroups;
2. Graduation rates for identified students;
3. Number of AP classes taken, completed, and exams passed with a score of 3 or
above by identified students;
4. Number of IB classes taken, completed, and exams passed with a score or 4 or above
by identified students;
5. Number of Concurrent Enrollment classes taken and credit earned by identified
students;
6. ACT or SAT data (number of students participating, at or above the college readiness
standards);
7. Gains in proficiency in language arts; and
8. Gain in proficiency in mathematics.
(B). The USOE shall submit an annual report on program effectiveness to the Public
Education Appropriations Subcommittee of the Utah State Legislature.
Citation: State of Utah Code Section 52A-17a-165; Utah State Office of Education R-2777-
707-4
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r277/r277-707.htm
Summary
The examples illustrate varied ways LEAs are reviewed by their state agencies. The
examples show how often and the contents of LEA reviews. The range of SEA reporting
requirements shown in these examples include reviews of scope and sequence (AZ),
funding (KY), comprehensive services (SC), and student progress and growth (UT). Despite
129 | P a g e
the differences, each example makes reference to the advanced learning needs of identified
gifted and talented learners.
Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation Policy Criterion 2:

A comprehensive state policy requires that LEA plans address:
a. screening, identification, and referral processes
b. program provisions employed at each grade level, K-12
c. goals and student outcome assessment process for each program model
d. contact time for each model
e. pupil-teacher ratios for classes
f. gifted teacher planning time
g. professional development plans for gifted staff and other school personnel
h. counseling and guidance
i. program evaluation design

Screening consists of first-step assessment procedures aimed at selecting students
who may have special cognitive or affective needs. Screening may refer to a broad
assessment of all students or an individual identification requiring further in-depth
evaluation.
Identification is a needs assessment whose primary purpose is the placement of
students into educational programs designed to develop their intellectual,
emotional and social potential (Richert, 2002). The identification process moves
from screening to placement (Matthews & Shaunessy, 2010) and involves use of
multiple measures to assess high-level ability, aptitude, achievement, or other
constructs of interest in one or more areas of learning (Johnsen, 2008).
Referral is a process that provides access to a service and indicates particular
programs or services may be appropriate for a specific student.
Program refers to curriculum, services and/or specific, planned instructional
experiences geared toward achieving a specific goal for program participants.
Goals and student outcomes assessment process describe how significant and
essential learning will be evaluated and in this case, how the program will monitor
and determine progress toward the goals.
Contact time for the model refers to the number of minutes or hours of service a
student will receive.
Pupil teacher ratios compare the maximum or minimum number of students to a
teacher in a given classroom.
Planning time refers to the number of minutes or hours allocated to preparing for
student instruction, assessment, or services. Planning time may refer to individual
or group preparation time.
130 | P a g e
Professional development refers to the essential information gifted staff and other
school personnel need to understand the nature and needs of gifted and talented
learners.
Counseling and guidance in this context refers to specialized assistance for gifted and
talented students by an individual with specific training to implement
comprehensive, development programs that promote and enhance student
achievement and provide assistance in academic, career, and personal/social
domains.
Evaluation of programming systematically examines outcomes related to specific
goals and determines the degree to which programming goals have been met. It can
also refer to review of the appropriateness of services for meeting the needs of an
individual, usually by using data gathered during the assessment process.

Which of the elements should be of the highest priority for LEAs with limited
resources?
Will compliance be monitored? If so, by whom and how often? Under what
circumstances is self-reporting adequate?
Content
The Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards (NAGC, 2010) were developed with
input from a variety of stakeholders. The standards have an increased focus on diversity
and collaboration two powerful principles that guide high quality programs and services.
They use student outcomes for goals, rather than teacher practices. The standards provide
valuable guidance to both SEAs and LEAs for the development of research- based
programs. Specifically, Standard 2, Assessment, explicates the need to devote time and
resources to annual program evaluation and lists key components for such an annual
assessment (NAGC, 2010)
Program Management Policy Examples: Key Components of Gifted Program Plan
Minnesota
Minnesota statute addresses many of the nine areas of criterion 2 with a combination of
policies that permit, require, and inform LEAs of best practices. In this state known for its
strict adherence to local control, LEAs are provided with gifted and talented program
revenue restricted to identifying gifted learners, providing education programs for gifted
and talented students, or providing staff development to prepare teachers to best meet the
unique needs of gifted and talented learners (Section 126C.10, subdivision 2b).
(a) School districts may identify students, locally develop programs addressing
instructional and affective needs, provide staff development, and evaluate programs to
provide gifted and talented students with challenging and appropriate educational
programs.
131 | P a g e
(b) School districts must adopt guidelines for assessing and identifying students for
participation in gifted and talented programs. The guidelines should include the use of:
(1) multiple and objective criteria; and
(2) assessments and procedures that are valid and reliable, fair, and based on
current theory and research. Assessments and procedures should be sensitive to
underrepresented groups, including, but not limited to, low-income, minority, twice-
exceptional, and English learners.
(c) School districts must adopt procedures for the academic acceleration of gifted and
talented students. These procedures must include how the district will:
(1) assess a student's readiness and motivation for acceleration; and
(2) match the level, complexity, and pace of the curriculum to a student to achieve
the best type of academic acceleration for that student.
(d) School districts must adopt procedures consistent with section 124D.02, subdivision 1,
for early admission to kindergarten or first grade of gifted and talented learners. The
procedures must be sensitive to underrepresented groups.
Citation: Minnesota Statues 120B.15 Gifted and Talented Students Programs

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=120B.15
South Carolina
Reporting: This policy addresses criterion 2(a) and not only specifies that screening,
identification, and referral processes shall be part of the districts plan, but also that data
will be collected by race with regard to identification and eligibility.
1. Districts will report to the [State Department of Education] information, which

includes, but is not limited to, student eligibility, screening, and referrals. Districts
will annually collect and maintain, district statistical data on (1) the number, by
race, of students referred for evaluation for eligibility for gifted education services;
(2) the number, by race, of students determined eligible for services; (3) the
number, by race, of students actually served during the school year, and (4) the
number, by school, by grade, by race, by model, of students actually served during
the school year through the required statewide database as designated by the SCDE.
2. Districts shall review annually the performance of gifted and talented students on
the state-approved assessment, AP exams, IB exams, SAT, ACT, and similar college
entrance tests. Districts shall summarize the performance of gifted and talented
students on these assessments and report trend data to the SCDE annually. These
data will be disaggregated demographically and reported annually to the General
Assembly.
3. Official enrollment reports to be used for funding purposes shall be submitted at the
end of the 135-day enrollment period and shall be adjusted by the 45-day
enrollment period or the year receiving funding. The enrollment reports shall be
submitted on forms to be furnished by the SCDE.
132 | P a g e
Citation: State of South Carolina Regulation No.: 43-220 II (D) (Reporting)

Constitutional and statutory Provisions: S.C. Ann. 59-5-60(2013).
Alabama
Program provisions at each grade level. This policy addresses criterion 2(b). Alabama
requires school districts to submit annual gifted education plans that must be approved by
the state.
(b) Modes of service delivery to each grade level or grade level cluster or the intent to
utilize general education staff to teach advanced classes must be approved by the State
Department of Education in the LEA Plan for Gifted. In the event that general education
staff are utilized, they must be knowledgeable of gifted learners, trained in differentiation,
and demonstrate a willingness to address the needs of diverse learners. Exceptions to the
modes of service delivery for any grade or grade level cluster require prior state approval.
(c) The recommended modes for services are as follows:
1. Grades K-2regular classroom accommodations with consultation from a gifted
specialist as needed. The general education teacher should be knowledgeable of
gifted learners, trained in differentiation, and demonstrate a willingness to address
the needs of diverse learners.
2. Grades 3-5/6resource room pull-out for 3-5 hours a week,
3. Grades 6/7-8pull-out services including electives and enrichment clusters,
and/or, advanced classes in the core content areas.
4. Grades 9-12advanced classes (including Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate), electives, dual enrollment (where available), career/college
counseling, mentorships, seminars, and independent studies.
Citation: AAC 290-8-9.12(6(b) & (c). Special Education Services.

http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/ed/290-8-9.pdf
Kansas
Student outcome assessment. Implementation of programs and services pertaining to
gifted and talented learners in Kansas is situated within special education statues and
policies. The requirement for individualized goals and student outcome assessments is
clearly stated and consistent with other learners who have different educational needs, and
particularly exemplifies criterion 2(c).
K.S.A.72-987: Individualized education program or family service plan; contents;

development; duties of IEP team; IEP meetings; postsecondary goals; transfer of child
during school year.
(c) The IEP for each exceptional child shall include:
133 | P a g e
(1) A statement of the childs present levels of academic achievement and functional
performance, including:
(A) How the childs disability or giftedness affects the childs involvement
and progress in the general education curriculum; (B) for preschool children,
as appropriate, how the disability affects the childs participation in
appropriate activities; and (C) for those children with disabilities who take
alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards, a
description of benchmarks or short-term objections;
(2) a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals
designed to:
(A) Meet the childs needs that results from the childs disability or
giftedness, to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the
general education or advanced curriculum; and (B) meet each of the childs
educational needs that result from the childs disability or giftedness;
(3) a description of how the childs progress toward meeting the annual goals will
be measured and when periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward
meeting the annual goals will be provided, such as through the use of quarterly or
other periodic reports issued concurrently with general education report cards;
Citation: Kansas State Statue K.S.A. 72-987 (chapter 72, article 9)

http://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch72/072_009_0087.html
South Carolina
Academics: This policy mentions (explicitly or implicitly) that LEA plans must contain
several of the nine areas of this criterion, in particular contact time (criterion 2(d)), pupil-
teacher ratios (criterion 2(e)), counseling and guidance (criterion 2(h)), and evaluation of
student performance and programming effectiveness (2(i)).
Programming
1. Districts will plan for and provide a comprehensive, aligned, and coordinated continuum
of services that address the advanced learning needs of gifted and talented students. To
document planning, districts will submit a local gifted and talented programming plan
every five years and delineate progress on this plan annually. The South Carolina
Department of Education (SCDE) will review the plan annually and provide written
feedback to the districts. The SCDE shall establish a format and template for the plan. The
following academic programming requirements will be addressed in a district plan:
a. Differentiated curriculum, instruction, and assessment that maximize the potential
of the identified students;
b. support services that facilitate student learning (e.g., mentorships, online courses,
independent study, assistive technologies, guidance, academic support, staff
development, academic competition);
c. program models that facilitate the delivery of curriculum and instruction;
d. a teacher-pupil ratio that fosters positive results;
134 | P a g e
e. appropriate and sufficient time in instruction to assure that the goals and objectives
of the program are met;
f. systematic assessment of student progress and programming effectiveness relative
to goals.
Citation: State of South Carolina Regulation No.: 43-220 II (A) (programming)

www.scstatehouse.gov/coderegs/Ch 43.pdf
Kentucky
Program Evaluation: This states rule addresses criterion 2(i), noting that program
evaluation should be conducted annually and listing several factors that should be included
in the evaluation.
Section 5. Program Evaluation.

(1) District policies and procedures shall ensure that a program evaluation process shall be
conducted on an annual basis and shall address:
(a) Overall student progress;
(b) Student, parent, and faculty attitudes toward the program;
(c) Community involvement;
(d) Cost effectiveness;
(e) The incorporation of gifted education into the regular school program;
(f) Overall quality of instruction and program personnel credentials; and
(g) Future program directions and modifications.
(2) Data collected in the annual program evaluation shall be utilized in the school and
district instructional planning process.
(3) Beginning with the 2001-2002 school year, local district policies and procedures shall
ensure that the school personnel report to a parent or guardian the progress of his child
related to the gifted and talented student services plan at least once each semester.
Citation: 704 KAR 3:285. Programs for the gifted and talented. Section
5(1) http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/704/003/285.htm
Summary
The examples above illustrate all but one of the nine subcategories. Specifically, the reader
will find examples related to (a) screening, identification and referral (SC and MN), (b)
program provisions at each grade level (AL), (c) student outcome assessment
(individualized education plan- KS), (d) contact time (SC), (e) pupil-teacher ratios (SC), (g)
teacher development permissive (MN), (h) counseling and guidance (SC), and (i) program
evaluation design (academics and reporting SC and annual program evaluation - KY).
Examples are NOT provided for (f) gifted teacher planning time
135 | P a g e
Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation Policy Criterion 3

A comprehensive state policy includes an SEA monitoring plan that involves all districts and
requires regular onsite visits.
Key Words and Phrases:

SEA monitoring refers to oversight by the state education agency to ensure
compliance with state law.
Regular refers to a specific time frame that is established and adhered to, whether it
is every year, every two years, every five years, or other expectation.
Onsite visits are visits to the location of the gifted education program or services.
Depending on the program structure, the visit may occur at the LEA district office or
building level.

Does the state have the capacity to conduct regular onsite visits? What knowledge
and expertise are needed to conduct the visit? How often will the LEA site visit
occur?
Does state policy articulate what will be monitored? What steps will be taken if the
LEA is not in compliance?
What feedback will the SEA provide to the LEA?
Is continuous improvement and/or progress towards benchmarks required?
What opportunities exist to share best practices with other LEAs?
Does the SEA review rate individual features of the plan?
Content
Onsite monitoring requires the allocation of resources to conduct regular quality assurance
checks by the SEA or an independent entity. Sufficient personnel and funding to support
travel are considerations that impact an SEAs capacity to conduct site visits. While many
SEAs require LEAs to file reports, very few require onsite monitoring visits.
Despite the climate of increased accountability and standards, few SEAs require onsite
monitoring specific to gifted and talented education. The absence of state statutes in this
area may be philosophical or attributed to any one of a number of factors: policy situated
within general education policy, electronically submitted plans, desk audits, and local
control, e.g., self-reporting and evaluation.
Program Management Policy Examples: Regular Onsite Visits for All Districts
Colorado
Monitoring: This state implements a cyclical monitoring process called the Colorado Gifted
Education Review Process (C-GER). Monitoring includes a desk audit of documents
pertaining to the gifted education program, a review of gifted student data, and an onsite
136 | P a g e
visit. Under rule section 12.07 each LEA receives an extended 1-3 day visit every four
years.
(1) Each administrative unit shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws and
regulations regarding the program plan, identification and special educational services for
gifted students.
(2) Each administrative unit shall be subject to ongoing monitoring by the Department
concerning implementation of the program plan.
(3) Monitoring procedures shall include:
(a) A determination of compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and
regulations, and
(b) An assessment of program quality based on the standards established by the
Department of Education.
(4) Monitoring activities shall include:
(a) A review of the program plan;
(b) A review of the annual report;
(c) A planned comprehensive onsite process integrated with the continuous
improvement and monitoring process in the Department of Education; and
(d) Follow-up activities including the provision of technical assistance in areas of
noncompliance and verification that areas of non-compliance have been corrected.
Citation: Colorado 2220-R-12.00 Gifted and Talented Student Programming

http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/gt/download/pdf/c-
ger_guidebook.pdf
Iowa
Comprehensive Site Visit: This example shows policy requiring a site visit every five years.
(2) Comprehensive site visit. A comprehensive site visit shall occur at least once every five
years as required by Iowa Code section 256.11(10) or before, if requested by the school or
school district. The purpose of a comprehensive site visit is to assess progress with the
comprehensive school improvement plan, to provide a general assessment of educational
practices, to make recommendations with regard to the visit findings for the purposes of
improving educational practices above the level of minimum compliance, and to determine
that a school or school district is in compliance with the accreditation standards. The
department and the school district or school may coordinate the accreditation with
activities of other accreditation associations.
Citation: Iowa Administrative Code/Education Department [281]/Chapter 12 GENERAL

ACCREDITATION STANDARDS/281 -12.8 (256) Accountability for student
achievement. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/12-12-2012.281.12.8.pdf
137 | P a g e
Maine
Program Review: This example addresses the all districts aspect of this criterion. It
directs that the gifted programs in each school administrative unit shall be reviewed at
least once every five years.
For the purpose of determining compliance with this rule, the Department will conduct
periodic reviews of the gifted and talented program(s) in each school administrative unit.
Review As a Part of the Comprehensive School Approval Review
At least once in each five-year period, the Department shall conduct a review of the
gifted and talented program(s) in the schools of each school administrative unit as a
part of the comprehensive review of all schools in the unit. The findings resulting
from this review, the program approval application submitted annually by the
school unit, and the results of the local, annual, self-evaluation shall be the basis for
determining whether the unit, and/or any school within it, is in compliance with
gifted and talented program approval standards. These reviews shall be scheduled
as part of and pursuant to Chapters 125 and 127 of the Department's rules
Citation: State of Maine, Department of Education Regulations,05-071, Chapter

104:Educational Programs for Gifted and Talented Children. Part 1. General Provisions,
104.16, 104.17
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/05/071/071c104.doc.
Summary
Colorado has implemented a cyclical monitoring process (Colorado Gifted Education
Review Process or C-GER) in which LEAs are visited on a regular, but not annual basis.
Maine requires an onsite monitoring visit at least once every five years. Colorado and
Maine share several common characteristics: each has a mandate for identification and
services and partial funding for gifted education. In contrast, Iowa, a state with a mandate
for gifted identification and services and full funding, discusses onsite monitoring within
the Comprehensive Accreditation Iowa Code-Statute and as guidance in Iowa
Administrative Code Chapter 12.8. Though not specific to gifted education, the
accreditation site visit has been designed to support a cycle of continuous improvement for
the entire LEA.
Program Management Policy Criterion 4:

A comprehensive policy requires LEAs to submit an annual progress report to the SEA
containing program and student evaluation data.

Program evaluation data are information collected as indicators of school or district
success and progress toward meeting goals and objectives of the gifted education
program.
138 | P a g e
Student evaluation data provide measurable evidence of student learning.

What program and student data can be collected by LEAs to indicate annual
progress?
What components of the program are reported?
How are students evaluated? Are student growth data collected for elementary and
secondary students?
When students are subject accelerated, at level will they take state assessments?
Who is accountable for program progress? Who monitors student evaluation data?
How will the SEA respond to the program and student evaluation data?
Content
LEAs typically collect data on student achievement, demographics, depth and breadth of
student services and student growth. In some instances, LEAs may also collect perception
or attitudinal data. Data can be used to systematically inform annual goals and guide
service design. In the age of increased accountability and testing, data collection gained
prominence as a method to measure program success and student growth. Diminishing
financial resources for public schools coupled with a widespread climate of accountability
have contributed to increasing importance of the level of oversight and the types of data
collected (Callahan, 2004). A majority, of reporting states (21 of 40) either monitor or audit
LEA gifted education plans (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015).
Program Management Policy Examples: Annual Progress Reported through Data

The state examples illustrate a variety of approaches to accountability.
Utah
Program and student evaluation data: LEAs in Utah that receive funding must submit a
comprehensive student evaluation report.
A. LEAs receiving funds shall be required to submit an annual evaluation report to the
USOE consistent with Section 53A-17a-165. The report shall include the following
performance criteria related to the identified students whose academic achievement is
accelerated:
1) Number of identified students disaggregated by subgroups;
2) Graduation rates for identified students;
3) Number of AP classes taken, completed, and exams passed with a score of 3 or
above by identified students;
4) Number of IB classes taken, completed, and exams passed with a score of 4 or above
by identified students;
5) Number of Concurrent Enrollment classes taken and credit earned by identified
students;
139 | P a g e
6) ACT or SAT data (number of students participating, at or above the college readiness
standards);
7) Gains in proficiency in language arts; and
8) Gains in proficiency in mathematics.
B. The USOE shall submit an annual report on program effectiveness to the Public
Education Appropriations Subcommittee of the Utah State Legislature.
Citation: State of Utah Code Section 52A-17a-165; Utah State Office of Education R-277-
707-4
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r277/r277-707.htm
South Carolina
Student Data: This example specifies that college entrance exams of various types should
be included as part of the annual reporting of program and student evaluation data.
1. [information about student eligibility for services]

2. Districts shall review annually the performance of gifted and talented students on
the state-approved assessment, AP exams, IB exams, SAT, ACT, and similar college
entrance tests. Districts shall summarize the performance of gifted and talented
students on these assessments and report trend data to the SCDE annually. These
data will be disaggregated demographically and reported annually to the General
Assembly.
Citation: State of South Carolina Regulation No.: R43-220 II(D)(2)

Arkansas
Program components evaluated and reported: This example provides comprehensive
policy language regarding the types of evaluation data LEAs should provide in their annual
report. Every third year an onsite visit is held in each school district to verify compliance
with standards. Student progress is explicitly mentioned as an area to be evaluated.
10.01 The evaluation process provides accurate, timely, and relevant information to
decision-makers for improving options offered gifted students.
10.02 The plan for evaluation is based on program objectives.
10.03 All components of the gifted/talented program are evaluated annually:
identification, staff development, program options, program goals and objectives,
curriculum, community involvement, program expenditures, and evaluation.
10.04 Data for evaluation are obtained from a variety of instruments, procedures, and
information sources.
10.05 Evaluation findings are compiled, analyzed and communicated to Arkansas
Department of Education, Office of Gifted and Talented and appropriate audiences.
140 | P a g e
10.06 Student progress is assessed, with attention to mastery of content, higher-level

thinking skills, creativity, and affective growth.
10.07 Participation in the gifted program is noted on student transcripts and permanent
records.
Citation: Gifted and Talented Rules and Regulations: Program Approval Standards.
Arkansas Department of Education. 2009.
http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/rulesRegs/Arkansas%20Register/2010/Jan10Reg/005.15.0
9-003.pdf
Summary
The Program Management criterion for state policy related to assessment and evaluation
suggests that LEAs report annually on both program and student data. Many states
mention regular program review, but not necessarily in statute or regulation; most do not
mandate onsite visits, and even fewer require LEAs to provide specific data on student
progress. While each of the above examples requires data from several instruments,
procedures, and information sources they show marked differences in requirements for
disaggregated data for student subgroups and growth.
Theory to Practice
A review of the 2014-2015 State of the States report (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015), indicates the
assessment and evaluation of LEA programs continues to vary greatly from state to state.
Differences between state policies in this and other areas are vast, reflecting basic
differences in government philosophy toward management and reporting responsibilities.
In the absence of federal policy these differences will continue and may increase.
Therefore, it is prudent to consider the context as well as the variety of opportunities that
exist to support gifted and talented learners.
Minnesota is a state in which a stepped (legislation over time) and combination approach
to policy has been successful in supporting LEAs in their efforts to design services that
meet the needs of their districts and students. Known for its strict adherence to local
control, Minnesotas legislation (adopted 2005-2013) provides restricted funding for gifted
education, permits districts to develop local programs, identify and serve the instructional
and affective needs of gifted learners, provide staff development, and evaluate gifted
programs. State statute requires LEAs to adopt guidelines for assessing and identifying
students for participation in programs. Best practices for identification are provided as
guidance indicating assessments should include multiple measures, be fair, reliable, based
on current research and theory while sensitive to underrepresented groups including but
not limited to low-income, minority, twice-exceptional, and English learners.
Minnesota was one of the first states with an acceleration mandate. The SEA requires LEAs
to adopt procedures for academic acceleration to match the level, complexity, and pace of
141 | P a g e
the curriculum to meet the instructional needs of students. Legislation adopted in 2013
requires districts to adopt procedures for early entrance to kindergarten and to first grade.
Minnesotas history of education innovation (e.g., creation of the first charter school in the
nation, open enrollment opportunities, and creation of the quality compensation system)
continues as the state embraces a variety of models for student support. Minnesota
remains a state in which LEAs have the flexibility to tailor programs and services to meet
the diverse needs of their student population. Stable funding, expanded policy, expanded
student opportunities, and increased personnel are evidence of a state whose unique
approach to gifted education works.
Arkansas education policy offers a contrast to the local control exemplified in Minnesota
policy. For example, Arkansas Law 6-42-109 requires each LEA to report annually to the
Arkansas Department of Education, at a prescribed due date, the extent to which it is
providing educational opportunities specifically designed to meet the educational needs of
gifted and talented children (http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/learning-
services/gifted-and-talented-and-advanced-placement ). Gifted and Talented Program
Approval Standards approved by the State Board of Education establish minimum
standards for approval of programs that meet the requirements of the Standards of
Accreditation adopted by the State Board of Education in 1984. LEAs are advised to retain
evidence verifying compliance with the standards so that it is available to review by the
Department of Education when the district is monitored. As per the law and standards,
LEAs submit a yearly Gifted & Talented Program Application, which is reviewed for
approval by the Office of Gifted & Talented and Advanced Placement. Every third year an
onsite visit is held in each LEA to verify compliance with standards. The table below
provides a summary of state examples matched with criteria from the program
management area of policy
142 | P a g e
References
Avery, L. D. & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2001). Investigating the impact of gifted education evaluation at
state and local levels: Problems with traction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 153-
76.
Brulles, D., & Winebrenner, S. (2011). Maximizing gifted students' potential in the 21st century.
Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=17446.
Callahan, C. M. (Ed.). (2004). Program evaluation in gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Cross, T. L. (2013) Foreword. In National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], & Council of State
Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2012-2013 State of the states (pp. v).
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Societys role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy. Storrs:
Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.). (2004). Public policy in gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Johnsen, S. K. (2008). Identifying gifted and talented learners. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens
(Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented (pp. 135-153). Boston:
Pearson.
Matthews, M. S. & Shaunessy, E. (2010). Putting standards into practice: Evaluating the utility of the
NAGC pre-K - grade 12 gifted program standards. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54 159-167.
Minnesota Staff Development Program, 122A. 60 (2013). Retrieved
from https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=122A.60
the Gifted [CSDPG]. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education. Retrieved
gifted-education
Passow, A. H., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1993). State policies regarding the education of the gifted as
reflected in legislation. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in
K-12 education. Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.
Richert, E. S. (2002). Excellence and justice in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo & G.
A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 146-158). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Robinson, A. (2004). Foreword. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng (Eds.), Designing and utilizing
evaluation for gifted program improvement (pp. xv). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Designing services and program for high-ability learners (pp. 249-261). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Zirkel, P. A. (2005) State laws for gifted education: An overview of the legislation and regulations.
Roeper Review, 27(4), 228232.
143 | P a g e
Chapter 6
Leveraging General Education Policies to Support
Gifted Education
Elissa Brown
There are explicit state policies in gifted education, but perhaps more importantly, there
are broader educational policies emerging from state and national educational reform
initiatives that impact gifted students and programs. While not explicitly directed at gifted
learners, these broader policies in curricula and instruction, teacher evaluation, or other K-
12 initiatives may have positive implications for gifted students. The field of gifted
education must leverage these policy opportunities in order to ensure and scale effective
and coherent systems for identifying, serving, and assessing gifted learners. Working in
tandem with gifted policies can result in increased student access, growth, and outcomes.
Initiatives, such as the Common Core standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics,
the Next Generation Science Standards, revisions to state learning standards and teacher
evaluation systems, policies on virtual courses, and emphasis on Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) initiatives, may not all specifically mention gifted
and talented students, but each offers an opportunity to raise the needs and concerns of
gifted learners as part of the implementation plans.
The goals of this chapter are to

Provide illustrative examples of general education policies and or legislative
statutes that impact gifted education.
Provide the context for the interplay of policies between gifted education, special
education, and general education, through consideration of other education policies.
Educational policies are built on several assumptions. These assumptions undergird the
necessity of leveraging policies that are not necessarily targeted for gifted education, but
whose outcomes can benefit gifted students and programs. These assumptions include:
Gifted students are part of the overall preK-12 educational landscape, and therefore,
are impacted by local and state policies and also may be affected by federal policy.
Policies are typically written to be broadly applied. They are more inclusive than
exclusive in nature.
Policies are part of the infrastructure undergirding educational practices. For gifted
students, leveraging this tool is critical. As infrastructure, policies assist in
safeguarding against scarce educational resources, teacher and administrator turn-
over, and political agendas.
Gifted education stands to benefit from leveraging general education policies that do
not specifically include gifted students. When policies use language such as All,
144 | P a g e
Each, Every, when referring to students, or Will or must, when referring to

implementation, by implication gifted students are included as well.
The gifted student population is diverse. Supplemental educational policies may
serve some populations of gifted that gifted policies leave out. If the gifted policy
specifies a particular type of service delivery or programming, it may
unintentionally preclude some gifted students from accessing alternative modes of
learning.
The illustrative examples provided in this chapter are not necessarily exemplars nor do
they represent a complete listing, but rather they provide context for the scope of policies
and legislative acts that could be considered as having positive outcomes for gifted
students. States included represent geographic and student population diversity.
Personnel charged with implementation policies, whether at the state or local levels,
should ensure that gifted is at the table when considering the strategies and activities
associated with these mandates or policies. The examples provided are organized with a
title, a brief introduction, the representative state, and its policy or statute language
followed by the online link. The examples included in this chapter and their representative
states are listed below in Table 1.
Table 6.1. Policy Areas and Representative States.

Category of Policy, Rules, or state statute State
1. Seat time waivers Michigan
2. Credit by demonstrating mastery North Carolina
3. Early entrance to kindergarten Colorado
4. Gifted within a Response to Intervention framework Georgia
5. Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (STEM) Maine
6. Common Core State Standards California
7. Teacher Evaluation Tennessee
8. E- or Online learning Florida
9. Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate Arkansas
1. Seat Time Waivers in Conjunction with Alternative or Innovative Programs

Seat time waiver policies remove the physical attendance requirements and typically allow
students to use an alternative service delivery model or innovative program, such as virtual
learning for certain courses. Many states now have online or virtual learning public school
options for high school students. This type of policy supports gifted students because it
enables advanced learners to take courses without physically attending a school facility,
and if used in conjunction with virtual learning, creates an online community of learners.
145 | P a g e
Michigan
An intermediate school district, a local school district, or a public school academy seeking
to offer pupils access to online learning options and seeking to offer the opportunity to
continue working on a high school diploma or grade progression without physically
attending at the school facility may choose to do so under a seat time waiver. The seat time
waiver is a Department approved alternative or innovative education program that
removes the days, hours, and physical attendance requirements, and lifts the cap on the
number of online courses (if limited in Administrative Rule by course type) a pupil can
enroll in during the count period, as defined by Administrative Rule 340.11.
Section 101(9) of the State School Aid Act (MCL 388.1701) permits the State
Superintendent to waive the required days and required hours of pupil instruction for
alternative education programs or another innovative program approved by the
Department, including a four (4) day school week.
Section 1281 of the Revised School Code (MCL 380.1281) allows the State Superintendent
the right to waive, for a limited time, administrative rules if the district can demonstrate
that the district can address the intent of the Rule in a more effective, efficient, and
economical manner or that the waiver is necessary to stimulate improved pupil
performance.
Administrative Rule 340.18 grants the State Superintendent the authority to waive, for a
limited time, pupil accounting Administrative Rules.
All seat time waivers, regardless of the waiver being granted to an individual district or
granted as part of a consortium agreement, are subject to termination by the State
Superintendent at any time during the school year for any reason.
Citation: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/5-O-
B_SeatTimeWaivers_329678_7.pdf
2. Credit by Demonstrating Mastery

A credit by demonstrating mastery policy can complement seat time waivers by allowing
students to receive course credit through a body of evidence rather than through required
seat time or course completion. Nineteen states specifically permitted proficiency-based
credit/promotion in 2014-2015 (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). This type of policy is
advantageous for gifted students because demonstrating content mastery to earn credit is
one mechanism that may allow some students to achieve not only content acceleration but
also an overall accelerated learning experience accruing credits toward graduation. The
credit is based on the premise of mastery learning versus a specified amount of time,
literally, spent in a classroom, which does not ensure that learning or mastery has
occurred. This type of policy has the potential to show authentic learning gains in gifted
students and be responsive to their rapid learning rate.
146 | P a g e
North Carolina
13. Credit by Demonstrated Mastery
13.1. Credit by Demonstrated Mastery is the process by which LEAs shall, based upon a
body-of-evidence, award a student credit in a particular course without requiring the
student to complete classroom instruction for a certain amount of seat time.
13.2. Mastery is defined as a students command of course material at a level that
demonstrates a deep understanding of the content standards and application of
knowledge.
13.3. Beginning with the 2013-14 school year, Credit by Demonstrated Mastery shall be
available for all NC students in grades 6-12.
13.4. Students shall demonstrate mastery through a multi-phase assessment, consisting
of (1) a standard examination, which shall be the EOC/EOG where applicable, or a final
exam developed locally and (2) an artifact which requires the student to apply
knowledge and skills relevant to the content standards. LEAs may require additional
requirements, such as performance tasks.
This multi-phase assessment process builds a body-of-evidence that allows a committee
to determine if the student has a deep understanding of the standards for the course or
subject area, as defined by the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, thereby
earning credit for the course without experiencing it in the school setting.
13.5. DPI shall develop implementation guidelines for this policy. These guidelines
shall provide guidance for LEAs regarding scoring of assessments as well as local
implementation. The guidelines shall establish minimum scores for the standard
examination and artifact creation. Students must attain minimum scores to earn Credit
by Demonstrated Mastery.
Citation: North Carolina State Board Of Education Policy Manual

Policy Identification Priority: Globally Competitive Students
http://sbepolicy.dpi.state.nc.us/
3. Early Entrance to Kindergarten

Early entrance to kindergarten policies allow students to enter kindergarten at a younger
age than is typical and are based on the premise of ability versus chronological age. This is
one type of acceleration as noted in A Nation Empowered (Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-
Baska, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2015). Sixteen states that have early entrance to kindergarten
policies or leave the decision to school districts to decide (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015) have
varying criteria, but all recognize the need to permit early access to kindergarten for a
targeted group of qualifying students.
147 | P a g e
Colorado
12.08 Early Access
(1) General Provisions
(a) Early access shall be provided by the AU to identify and serve highly advanced gifted
children who are:
(a)(i) Four years of age and for whom early access to kindergarten is deemed
appropriate by the AU; and
(a)(ii) Five years of age and for whom early access to first grade is deemed
appropriate by the AU.
(b) If the AU permits early access, early access provisions shall be included in its early
childhood and gifted instructional programs, and the AU shall expand access to
kindergarten through grade one for students deemed appropriate for early access.
(c) Early access shall not be an acceleration pattern recommended for the majority of age 4
or age 5 gifted children who will benefit from preschool gifted programming that responds
to the strength area. The purpose of early access is to identify and serve the few highly
advanced gifted children who require comprehensive academic acceleration.
(d) When an AU permits early access, its program plan shall describe the elements of an
early access process and how those elements, criteria and components will be
implemented. Determinations made by the AU shall be made after consideration of criteria
required by Section 12.08(2)(d) of these Rules.
(e) In 2008, an AU may submit an early access addendum to its program plan by September
10, 2008. Thereafter, AUs shall submit an addendum for early access by January 1
preceding the initial school year in which early access will be permitted, thus early access
assessment may occur after the addendum is approved by the Department.
Citation: Colorado Education of Exceptional Children Act (C.R.S. 2220-R-12-08)

http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=6251&fileName=1%
20CCR%20301-8
4. Linking Gifted to a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework
Response to Intervention is a method of academic intervention used to provide early,

systematic assistance to children who are having difficulty learning. Response to
Intervention, more commonly referred to as RtI, seeks to prevent academic failure through
early intervention, frequent progress measurement, and increasingly intensive research-
based instructional interventions for children. Many states and local school districts have
adopted an RtI framework as a preventive model for special education. Application to
gifted education has not been fully developed or supported by research, but some states
are taking steps to broaden the RtI framework and modify its components for gifted
populations.
148 | P a g e
Georgia
2015-2016 Georgia Resource Manual for Gifted Education Services
How does gifted education fit into the Response to Intervention (RTI) framework? All
identified gifted education students are on Tier IV in the general education RTI progress.
The following information relates to the tiers within the gifted education program.
Advanced learning needs for the majority of students can be addressed in a general
education classroom which offers a quality learning environment by providing
instructional interventions prior to, or in lieu of, identifying students for specialized
educational services. By documenting instructional interventions, the RTI process allows
gifted and high-achieving students access to a differentiated curriculum, flexible pacing,
cluster grouping, and other universal interventions. The RTI policies for referral,
evaluation, eligibility, and instruction of gifted education students is set by the State Board
of Education and defined in the Georgia Department of Education Resource Manual for
Gifted Education Services.
Citation: State Law: OCGA 120-2-152 Special Education Services Title 20. Education
Chapter 2. Elementary and Secondary Education Article 6. Quality Basic Education Part 3.
Educational Programs
https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-
Instruction/Documents/Gifted%20Education/2015-2106-GA-Gifted-Resource-Manual.pdf
5. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
Since President Obamas release of A Blueprint for Reform (USED, 2010), there has been a
national priority on garnering and facilitating different trajectories for students to go into
STEM fields of endeavor. States will be required to develop comprehensive, evidence-
based plans and to align federal, state, and local funds to provide high-quality STEM
instruction (p. 26). State legislative bodies and boards of education have adopted policies
and earmarked funding. While the impetus for this focus has been from international
comparisons, as well as business and workforce demands, it has positive implications for
gifted students to access STEM pathways, especially those students who show evidence of
mathematic, scientific, or technological precocities. Some state policies have directed the
state education agencies to implement STEM high schools or embed STEM coursework
within pre-existing graduation pathways; other states have passed legislation or policies to
have agencies or organizations outside of public education focus on STEM initiatives.
Maine
Establishes the position of executive director of the Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) Council and requires the Council to establish the Office of Executive
Director and, to the extent that funds are available, contract with an executive director for
149 | P a g e
the council. The Council may also receive and expend funds from other public and private
sources as well as any balance of funds appropriated by the Legislature at the end of a fiscal
year.
Citation: LD 1132, Public Law 2013 Chapter 410 An Act To Achieve Economic Growth by
Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education and To Meet
Workforce Needs
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/chapters/PUBLIC410.asp
6. State Adoption of Common Core Academic Learning Standards
The state of academic content standards across the nation took a huge step forward with
the development and release of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The CCSS are K-
12 content standards, developed in mathematics and English language arts. CCSS are a set
of clear, consistent, and rigorous academic standards that are focused on what students
should know and be able to do at each grade level to ensure that they graduate from high
school prepared for college and the workforce, (see www.corestandards.org).
Developed through a state-led process facilitated by the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA), the CCSS draw upon the
strengths of the best state standards in the country, are internationally benchmarked
against academic standards in some of the highest performing countries in the world, and
are based on evidence and research about what students need to know to be college- and
career-ready. The standards are benchmarked against the Advanced Placement Program
(AP) as well as national and international frameworks, including NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA
(Wiley, Wyatt, & Camara, 2010).
Gifted students are served in a variety of educational models such as general education
self-contained classrooms, pull-out resource models, cluster groups, specialized schools
and special classes. In every educational context, gifted learners are expected to learn the
content standards and be assessed on them.
California
Senate Bill No. 1, Public schools: Race to the Top
SEC. 11. (a)(3) Statewide academically rigorous content and performance standards that
reflect the knowledge and skills that pupils will need in order to succeed in the
information-based, global economy of the 21st century. These skills shall not include
personal behavioral standards or skills, including, but not limited to, honesty, sociability,
ethics, or self-esteem.
150 | P a g e
SEC. 15. (d) The commission shall develop academic content standards in language arts and
mathematics. The standards shall be internationally benchmarked and build toward college
and career readiness by the time of high school graduation. Unless otherwise allowed by
the Secretary of the United States Department of Education, at least 85 percent of these
standards shall be the common core academic standards developed by the consortium or
interstate collaboration set forth in Section 60605.7.
Citation: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-
0050/sbx5_1_bill_20100107_chaptered.html
7. Teacher-Evaluation Measures
States are creating and implementing robust teacher evaluation systems utilizing multiple
measures including student achievement data. For subject areas not covered by state
assessments, many states are considering alternative evaluation methods such as
portfolios or videotape analysis. One example is Tennessee. Video footage of students sight-
reading a musical score or reciting a speech from Shakespeares Julius Caesar are the
types of documentation educators in Tennessee are assembling as evidence of their impact
on student learning. In Tennessee, teachers are submitting electronically the before and
after of student products showing student improvement over time. Teachers submit their
portfolios electronically to the state, and they are scored by trained peer reviewers.
Depending upon the depth and breadth of a states evaluation system, teachers of gifted
students may be evaluated and will need to demonstrate student learning from authentic
performance-based work.
Tennessee
0520-02-01-.01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EVALUATIONS.
(1). The Department of Education shall develop and recommend a model plan for teacher
evaluation to the State Board of Education for approval. The model plan will be developed
in accordance with these rules and the Educator Evaluation Policy adopted by the State
Board of Education.
(2). Local boards of education shall use either the model plan for teacher evaluation or
evaluation models that have been adopted by the local board of education and approved by
the State Board of Education.
a. Prior to review by the State Board of Education, locally adopted evaluation models
must:
i. Be reviewed by the Commissioner of the Department of Education for
compliance with the guidelines and criteria adopted by the State Board of
Education, and;
ii. Following conditional approval by the commissioner, have been
implemented for a one (1) year pilot in a Tennessee LEA.
151 | P a g e
b. Following the pilot year, evaluation models shall be reviewed by the

Commissioner and submitted to the State Board of Education for final approval.
c. Evaluation models approved by the State Board of Education may, with local
board approval, be used in any LEA.
(3). Annual evaluation shall be made of all educators in the state.
(4). Local boards of education shall develop a local-level evaluation grievance procedure
that complies with the State Board of Educations Teacher Evaluation Policy. This
procedure shall provide a means for evaluated teachers and principals to challenge only
the accuracy of the data used in the evaluation and the adherence to the evaluation policies
adopted by the State Board of Education.
Citation: Rules of the State Board of Education, Chapter 0520-02-01- .02(1)(b)(2),

Evaluations, Local Evaluations, Local evaluation of teachers
http://share.tn.gov/sos/rules/0520/0520-02/0520-02-01.20120530.pdf
8. Online, Virtual, or E-learning Required for High School Graduation
Employing virtual or online options for learning during the academic year is becoming
increasingly commonplace in high schools, but requiring it for graduation is less common.
The Florida State Board of Education passed a policy stating that students must complete a
minimum of one online course as a condition of graduation and that the course must be
part of the school day. This type of policy could be advantageous to gifted students,
especially if it is a course that his/her traditional high school does not offer (e.g., an upper
level world language course).
Florida
General requirements for high school graduation; revised
(2)(c) Beginning with students entering grade 9 in the 2011-2012 school year, at least one
course within the 24 credits required in this subsection must be completed through online
learning. A school district may not require a student to take the online course outside the
school day or in addition to a students courses for a given semester. An online course
taken during grades 6 through 8 fulfills this requirement. This requirement shall be met
through an online course offered by the Florida Virtual School, an online course offered by
the high school, or an online dual enrollment course. A student who is enrolled in a full-
time or part-time virtual instruction program under 1002.45 meets this requirement.
This requirement does not apply to a student who has an individual educational plan under
1003.57 which indicates that an online course would be inappropriate or a student who
is enrolled in a Florida high school and has less than 1 academic year remaining in high
school.
152 | P a g e
Citation: 2012 Florida Statutes 428: General requirements for high school graduation;
revised.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/1003.428
9. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Diploma

Incentive Programs
The predominant service delivery models for gifted students at the secondary level have
been Advanced Placement (AP) courses or the International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma
program. Of the 24 states able to estimate the top 5 delivery models for secondary school
students in 2014-2015, 19 states listed AP as the first or second most common model
(NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). In 1955, the College Board acquired administration of the
Advanced Placement Program, designed to encourage high school students to engage in
college-level work. IB began in 1968 as a single program for internationally mobile
students to prepare for university work. Both AP and IB have grown exponentially over the
years and are offered across thousands of high schools. AP courses and the IB program
have value for colleges and universities. Typically, students take AP or IB exams and,
depending upon their score, colleges or departments within colleges may provide college
credit to the entering student based on how well the student performed on the relative
courses and exams.
Even though AP or IB courses are not exclusively for gifted, many gifted students take these
courses as part of their high school program of study. In most traditional high schools,
students take AP courses during their junior and senior years. Some high schools have
begun to offer Pre-AP courses during freshman and sophomore years as way to build a
scope and sequence of Advanced Placement courses over a students high school program
of studies.
Arkansas
2.01 The purpose of these Rules is to establish, organize, and administer a program
designed to improve the course offerings available to middle school, junior high school and
high school students throughout the state. The program established under this act will
provide advanced educational courses that are easily accessible and will prepare students
for admission to and success in a postsecondary educational environment.
2.02 To ensure that each school district provides high school students with the opportunity
to enroll in at least one (1) College Board Advanced Placement course in the four (4) core
areas of English, math, science, and social studies, and to outline teacher training
requirements.
Citation: Arkansas Department of Education Rules Governing the Advanced Placement and
International Baccalaureate Diploma Incentive Program and Rules Governing the
Availability of Advanced Placement Courses in the Four Core Areas in High School with
153 | P a g e
Guidelines for Endorsed Concurrent Enrollment

Courses. http://www.arkansased.org/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Gifted%20and%
20Talented/AP_IB_Rules_August_2007.pdf
Policy to Practice
Implementing educational policies is complex, critical, and provides the infrastructure for
program implementation. In the absence of policy, educational practices are person
dependent. It is the devil in the details. Professionals such as school administrators,
teachers, or district coordinators are not usually the individuals who wrote the policy and
therefore, they may not be sure of the policy intent. Additionally, policy is written in such a
way as to be broadly applied to large groups of students. The nuances of each community
or school context are not addressed.
Policy to practice is intent to implementation. Sometimes the inverse is true.

Implementation can lead to policy development. In education, there are many examples
where educational practice outpaces policies. In other words, new initiatives such as e-
learning opportunities frequently begin at local levels, and as these initiatives scale up, a
policy around their access and use may ultimately be written. Therefore, administrators
have to pay attention to both policy and practices and determine the degree to which gifted
students would benefit. Policy to practice and practice to policy requires leadership,
communication, advocacy, and strategic, intentional efforts to maximize the benefits to
gifted students and programs.
Conclusion
Gifted education practice is determined at state and local levels (Baker & Friedman-Nimz,
2004; Brown, Avery, VanTassel-Baska, Worley, & Stambaugh, 2006). It is incumbent on
state agency personnel responsible for gifted programs, state advocacy organizations,
parents, local gifted education program coordinators, and other professionals to find ways
to safeguard and strengthen gifted students and programs. Gifted education leaders need to
constantly scan the environment, looking for opportunities that may coalesce into policy.
The most effective gifted education leaders seize the opportunity by being proactive and
leveraging policy opportunities.
This chapter illustrates how varied educational policies not specifically earmarked for
gifted students have implications for gifted students. If leveraged properly, these general
education policies can benefit gifted students. But there may be times that a policy excludes
gifted students, and therefore, unintentionally does more harm than good. The range of
policies from seat time waivers to teacher evaluation measures that, when interpreted and
applied in the broadest sense, are inclusive and intended for all learners, even those who
may be achieving beyond grade level.
154 | P a g e
Gallagher (2006) noted that one of the only ways to create support systems for gifted
students is through changes in policy. Leveraging these general education policies to
support gifted education will mitigate against marginalizing gifted programs. School,
district, and state leaders must pay close and ongoing attention to broader educational
policies that augment, rather than supplant, gifted education especially within tight budget
constraints. By leveraging and maximizing other policies, we can ensure that educational
opportunities, customization of learning, and supporting structures are in place for gifted
students.
Questions for Reflection for Leveraging General Education Policies

1. Why do general education policies matter in supporting gifted education?
2. In what ways can general education policies be leveraged when planning,
implementing, and evaluating gifted programs?
3. Are there particular policy or statute examples presented in this chapter that you
could replicate in your own district or state?
4. Locate 2-3 local or state policies within your state that you think would augment
your current gifted policies and practices.
a. What resources are available?
b. What communication and dissemination techniques can you employ to ensure
that gifted is included?
c. Which stakeholders do you need to involve, how frequently, and under what
circumstances?
d. What documents, procedures, or strategies need to be in place for
implementation?
155 | P a g e
References
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lubkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015). A nation
empowered. Iowa City: University of Iowa, Belin-Blank Center.
Baker, B., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004). State policy influences governing equal opportunity: The
example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 39-64.
gifted education policy. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11-23.
Gallagher, J. J. (2006, April). Future prospects for gifted education. Presented at the Javits Grantee
meeting. Hartford, CT.
National Association for Gifted Children, & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted.
(2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education. Retrieved
gifted-education
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
(2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A Blueprint for Reform: The reauthorization of the elementary
and secondary education act. Washington, DC: author.
Wiley, A., Wyatt, J., & Camara, W. J. (2010). The development of a multidimensional college
readiness index. Retrieved
from: https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/research
report-2010-3-development-multidimensional-college-readiness-index.pdf
156 | P a g e
Final Thoughts
E. Wayne Lord
Coda: In instrumental music following regular musical forms, a

concluding section extraneous to the form as usually defined; any
concluding passage that can be understood as occurring after the
structural conclusion of a work and that serves as a formal closing
gesture. Although codas may on occasion consist of only a few
perfunctory chords, they may on other occasions assume considerable
dimensions and cannot always be regarded as essentially superfluous.
(Rendel, 1986, p. 178,)
Musicians recognize a coda as a closing added to a composition. A coda is an ending that

seems appropriate to conclude, summarize, or wrap up that which technically has ended.
The coda is usually distinct from the primary body of a composition and rarely introduces
substantive new musical ideas. From a practical point, the coda is a clue for a listener that
this is the end. Similar to a postscript in literature, this brief chapter is my last chance to
make a statement.
This guide to state policy in gifted education proposes that a comprehensive state policy
will address identification, curriculum, personnel, and program evaluation. In the previous
chapters, the authors of this guide present essential elements for each of these. Each author
highlights key words or concepts that should be discussed and defined before creating
policy. Illustrative examples of state policy for each element are provided. We also suggest
broader educational policies offer opportunities for addressing gifted and talented
learners.
Now to the coda.
On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed a reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA): the Every Student Succeeds Act.
In the 1061 pages of this bill, gifted and talented appears 25 times. Those specific
references resonate with the policy areas discussed in this guide and serve as cues for
conversations at the state and local levels. Read the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA,
2015) through four lenses: identification, curriculum, personnel, and evaluation. Is your
current policy regarding identification enhanced by ESSA? Will ESSA affect your current
policy on curriculum and programming for gifted learners? What expectations in ESSA
regarding personnel will cause a review of your current policy? Can gifted program
evaluation be strengthened because of ESSA and would policy changes be required?
157 | P a g e
As states and school districts wait for guidance on implementation of this act, gifted
education leaders and advocates must begin now to examine current gifted policy
language: where are the opportunities for strengthening effective policy and where are
there omissions that must be addressed? While it is tempting to celebrate enthusiastically
the presence of gifted and talented in ESSA, the hard work of planning for implementation
is just beginning to emerge. And then, implementation will be driven by state planning and
decisions about fundingparticularly Titles I and II, which address achievement of low-
income learners and professional development for school leaders. Gifted leaders and
advocates might well review the Rand study Federal Policy Supporting Education Change
(Berman & McLaughlin, 1975, 1977, 1978) as they begin to consider policy change and
implementation. Although this study addressed Titles III and VII of ESEA and may be
considered dated, gifted leaders can benefit from the discussion on innovation and
implementation. How well one understands educational change, innovation, and
implementation will facilitate or undermine policy effort. This reality can be seen in
numerous education reform efforts in the past decade.
NAGC has equipped the field with introductory resources for the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA). http://www.nagc.org/get-involved/advocate-high-ability-learners/nagc-
advocacy/federal-legislative-update/every-student. The documents on the NAGC website
highlight the provisions of ESSA for gifted education and identify significant opportunities.
NAGC recommends that those advocating at the state level meet with the state education
agency staff responsible for Titles I and II to make recommendations on how the new
provisions in ESSA will be implemented. Also, school districts can provide state agencies
guidance on what technical support is needed and how the state agency might offer this
support most effectively.
Advocates will also want to meet with statewide gifted education advisory committees to
discuss the new provisions. For example, (1) new language in ESSA permits school districts
to use their Title I funds to identify and serve low-income gifted students. This is a sea
change from previous guidance from the U.S. Department of Education necessitating not
only information from the U.S. Department of Education but also from the state regarding
implementation of this new provision. (2) Another example is that states are required to
include gifted and talented students in their Title II professional development plans. The
plans are provided to the U.S. Department of Education and are the basis on which
professional development funds are distributed to districts. Advocates will want to
recommend changes to the state plan that will ensure the new requirement is implemented
in a meaningful way.
Similarly, local advocates will want to educate district leaders about the changes in ESSA
and discuss how they will implement the changes in ESSA. In each case the gifted
education community has an opportunity to act as advisor on implementation, offering
expertise where needed.
158 | P a g e
As NAGC continues to address ESSA, other education voices will also be heard as the
response to the Act begins to unfold. Advocates and gifted policy leaders would be wise to
attend to these other voices. How are those outside of our community reacting and
responding to ESSA references to gifted and talented?
Education Week (January 6, 2016) gave a macro-level review of ESSA. In those 12 pages,
three sentencesone paragraph referenced gifted and talented (Samuels, 2016). The
January 13 and January 20 issues addressed how the federal and state education agencies
are beginning to process the challenges of ESSA implementation. Monitoring guidance
documents provided by the U.S. Department of Education (www.ed.gov) and the Council of
Chief State School Officers (www.ccsso.org) will benefit gifted education policy leaders and
advocates.
This is the clich or truth: knowledge is power. State and local gifted education leaders
must be thoroughly informed regarding ESSA policy because the policy making is not over.
Gifted education leaders must possess (in a timely manner) the same information that state
school superintendents and other state educational agency leaders receive. There must be
a process for disseminating information at the state, district, and local school levels. If we
fail to be engaged now and tread water until implementation is figured out, we find
ourselves once again having reform done to us.
Now is our moment to build a bridge between policy and practice.
159 | P a g e
References
Berman, Paul, & McLaughlin, Milbrey Wallin. (1974). Federal programs supporting educational
change: Vol. I, A model of educational change. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R1589z1.html.
Rendel, D. M. (Ed.). (1986). The new Harvard dictionary of music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (2015). Pub. L. 114-95.
Samuels, Christina A. (2016). Special education community gears up for advocacy. Education Week,
35(15), 21.
160 | P a g e
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Wendy Behrens, serves as the Gifted and Talented Education Specialist for the Minnesota
Department of Education, providing leadership and consultation services for educators,
administrators, and parents. She provides technical assistance to and collaborates with
institutions of higher education, professional organizations, educator networks, and others
interested in promoting rigorous educational opportunities. Wendy is the president of the
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, and an active member of NAGC. She
serves on the advisory councils for the Northwestern University Center for Talent
Development and the University of St. Thomas. She is a U.S. delegate to the World
Conference on Gifted and received the 2013 NAGC Presidents Award. She co-authored
Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education: A Case Studies Approach, a 2013 Prufrock Press
and NAGC co-publication with Christine L. Weber, Ph.D. and Cecelia Boswell, Ed.D.
Melissa Bilashs practice, Advocacy & Consulting for Education, has served thousands of
students and their families across the country by securing critical educational services,
accommodations, tuition, and settlement funds. She also founded The Grayson School, a day
school outside Philadelphia specifically designed for exceptionally gifted students, which
opened in 2015. One of only 78 federally-trained Special Education Advocates, she has
testified before Congress and met with Senators, Representatives, and U.S. Department of
Education staff regarding best practices in gifted education. She has also given hundreds of
presentations to assist parents and professionals in advocating on behalf of their children
and clients. Ms. Bilash serves on the legislative committees of both NAGC and the
Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Education, who recently named her Parent of the Year
in recognition of her impact on gifted education.
Dr. Elissa Brown is a Distinguished Lecturer and Director of the Hunter College Center for
Gifted Studies and Education at Hunter College. Previously, she was the Director of Teacher
& Leader Education Programs and Gifted Education at the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction. From 2002-2007, she was the Director of the Center for Gifted
Education at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. She has served as a state
director of gifted education, a federal grant manager, a district gifted program coordinator,
principal of a specialized high school, and a teacher of gifted students. As a professor, Elissa
coordinates and teaches the Advanced Certificate program in Gifted & Talented at Hunter
College and has served as an adjunct professor at several universities, including Rutgers
and Duke University. She is a published author in the field of gifted education and presents
widely. She lives in East Harlem.
Jennifer Nance is the Legal Affairs Advisor at Advocacy & Consulting for Education, where
she has worked intensively on testimony in support of changes to Congresss
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). She also serves as
in-house counsel and Director of Admissions at The Grayson School during its development
phase. Additionally, Ms. Nance has extensive advocacy experience with AmeriCorps, where
she trained staff in working with at-risk children in Philadelphia-area schools. She has also
served as an advocate for legal issues with state- and local-level agencies on behalf of
disenfranchised populations such as underprivileged youth and the homeless.
161 | P a g e
ABOUT THE EDITORS

Dr. E. Wayne Lord is Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Graduate Programs at
Augusta University (Augusta, GA). He worked at the South Carolina State Department of
Education from 1992 to 2006. During that time he served as State Coordinator for Gifted
and Talented Programs for 8 years, guiding revisions to state regulations and
implementing an alternative assessment for identification. While at the department of
education he received a federal Javits grant that supported creation of a statewide
professional development network for gifted and talented educators, and funded research
on the impact of alternative assessment.
Dr. Julie Dingle Swanson has taught in and coordinated K 12 gifted programs, and has
directed federal demonstration projects focused on gifted students in high poverty schools.
She is a professor at the College of Charleston, directs the Gifted and Talented Education
Certificate Program, and teaches graduate courses in gifted education. Swanson is active in
gifted education leadership at state and national levels, serving as the past president of the
South Carolina Consortium for Gifted Education, member of the National Advisory Board of
the Center for Gifted Education at William and Marys, and co-chair of NAGCs State Policy
Task Force. She has written and received several state and federal grants impacting gifted
students and teachers. Swanson has authored or co-authored articles, book chapters, and
one book. Her research interests, publications, and presentations focus on
underrepresented gifted learners, gifted education policy, and teacher development in
gifted education.
162 | P a g e

A Guide To State Policies in Gifted Education 2016 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Guide To State Policies in Gifted Education 2016 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Guide to State Policies

E. Wayne Lord and Julie Dingle Swanson, Editors

A Service Publication of the National Association for Gifted Children

2016, National Association for Gifted Children, Washington, DC www.nagc.org

Dr. Sally C. Krisel

The Federal Voice in Gifted Education Policy

Dont Think You Are a Pioneer

Mandate for Gifted Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,

Dont Underestimate Your Power to Affect Change

Dont Ignore What Research and the Field Say

If there is agreement that state policy should address, at minimum, identification,

An examination of existing state policies, as well as the body of literature in gifted

Policy Essentials Related to Identification

identification processes. The work of Guilford, Gagn, Gardner, Sternberg, and

Bernal, E. M. (1994). Finding and cultivating minority gifted/talented students. (ERIC

Policy Essentials Related to Program and Curriculum

7) Social and emotional needs and guidance

Policy Essentials Related to Personnel Preparation

Imbeau, M. B. (2006). Designing a professional development plan. In J. H. Purcell & R. D.

Leppien, J. J., & Westberg, K. L. (2006). Roles, responsibilities, and professional

Policy Essentials Related to Program Management: Assessment/Evaluation

What Does the Literature on Gifted Education Policy Tell Us?

State Policy Implementation

Theory, Position, and Opinion

policy to the difficulties in establishing national reform are discussed as VanTassel-Baska

Dont Think We Have All the Answers

1. Includes an operational definition of gifted and talented

Acknowledging the lack of agreement in the field on the construct of giftedness, it is

Identification Policy Criterion 1:

Key Words and Phrases

Related Questions and Issues

Identification Policy Examples: Operational Definition

Citation: Iowa Code sec. 257.44

Citation: Texas Education Code Chapter 2 sec. 29.121

ARTICLE 3. CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

States that place gifted programs administratively under exceptional/special education

Identification Policy Criterion 2:

Key Words and Phrases

Related Questions and Issues

Identification Policy Examples: Multiple Criteria

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Instruments for measuring intelligence and creative behavior

Citation: OAC 3301-51-15 I (1) (c)

8-51-5 School committee for gifted and talented.

(b) Responsibilities of the committee shall include the following:

Citation: Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 51, 8-51-5

Identification Policy Criterion 3:

Key Words and Phrases

Related Questions and Issues

Is there a unique scoring methodology or percentage of the population set-aside for

Identification Policy Examples: Underrepresented Students

A district goal to increase the percent of students from under-represented groups in

b. Criteria for determining eligibility based on the students demonstrated ability

Citation: Florida State Board of Education, State Department of Education, Division of

Historically Under-represented Gifted Population. Historically Underrepresented Gifted

Identification Policy Criterion 4:

Key Words and Phrases

Related Questions and Issues

Identification Policy Examples: Match between Definition and Processes to Identify

NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: KRS 157.200(1)(n) includes within the

as possessing demonstrated or potential ability to perform at an exceptionally high level in

assessment by specialists or professional artists. Evidence of visual or performing arts also

Citation: VR270-01-0002 1.1. Chapter 40: Regulations Governing Educational Services

Identification Policy Criterion 5: