EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

STATE REPORT CARDS

A Report Card on State Support for Academically Talented Low-Income Students 2ND EDITION

March 2018

Dr. Jonathan Plucker, Johns Hopkins UniversityDr. Jennifer Glynn, Jack Kent Cooke Foundation

Grace Healey, Johns Hopkins University and Cooperative Educational ServicesDr. Amanda Dettmer, Johns Hopkins University

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

2

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

Yes

Both

1 measure

Yes

No

No

None

Not permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Yes

Voluntary

Not specified in policy

No

C+

8%

25%

2%

3%

5%

2%

11%

B

D

ALL STATES ALABAMA

ALABAMA

2

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

3

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

Required

Yes (free ACT)

LEA determined

Inservice only

No

0.43

Unavailable

5% 0%

6% 1%

10% 2%

3% 1%

55%

24%

13%

C

C-

D-

ALL STATES ALABAMA

ALABAMA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

4

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

No

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

No policy

No policy

No policy

LEA discretion

No

Not specified in policy

No

D

5%

23%

6%

7%

6%

3%

15%

C+

C-

ALL STATES ALASKA

ALASKA

4

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

5

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

F

No

No

No

Student

No

No

0.22

Unavailable

11% 2%

11% 2%

10% 2%

4% 1%

38%

8%

7%

F

F

D+

ALL STATES ALASKA

ALASKA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

6

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

LEA determined

Yes

LEA determined

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

Yes

B

6%

25%

6%

8%

7%

2%

14%

C+

C

ALL STATES ARIZONA

ARIZONA

6

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

7

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

No

No

No

LEA determined

Inservice only

Inservice only

0.66

Unavailable

12% 2%

12% 4%

14% 2%

4% 1%

45%

30%

25%

D+

B+

C-

ALL STATES ARIZONA

ARIZONA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

8

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

Yes

Both

3 measures

Yes

Yes

No

Yes: 4

Not permitted

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

C+

10%

46%

3%

4%

6%

2%

16%

B+

C-

ALL STATES ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS

8

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

9

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C+

Yes

No

Yes (free ACT; some free AP tests)

LEA determined

No

No

0.54

39%

6% 2%

7% 2%

12% 3%

4% 1%

61%

33%

24%

C-

B

C

ALL STATES ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

10

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

No

Neither

None

No

No

No

None

LEA determined

LEA determined

No policy

Yes

Mix

Unclear

No

D

8%

41%

5%

6%

6%

3%

27%

B+

C+

ALL STATES CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA

10

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

11

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

No

No

No

Student

Yes

Yes

0.78

Unavailable

11% 1%

13% 2%

14% 2%

5% 1%

54%

42%

38%

D+

B+

D+

ALL STATES CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

12

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B

Yes

Both

2 measures

No

Yes

No

Yes: 2

Permitted

Permitted

LEA determined

Yes

Mixed

Yes

No

B

7%

39%

8%

10%

10%

3%

24%

B

B+

ALL STATES COLORADO

COLORADO

12

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

13

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

Yes

Required

Yes (free PSAT & SAT in select grades)

State/district

Inservice only

No

0.41

22%

14% 2%

17% 3%

15% 3%

5% 1%

40%

17%

13%

B

C

D

ALL STATES COLORADO

COLORADO

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

14

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

No

Identification only

2 measures

Yes

Yes

No

None

No policy

No policy

No policy

Yes

Voluntary

Not specified in policy

No

D

2%

39%

7%

10%

13%

6%

29%

C

B+

ALL STATES CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT

14

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

15

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

Student

No

No

0.39

12%

11% 1%

14% 1%

19% 3%

9% 2%

35%

14%

9%

D-

D

F

ALL STATES CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

16

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

No

Both

2 measures

No

Yes

No

Yes: 4

LEA determined

Permitted

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Not specified in policy

No

C+

2%

31%

5%

7%

9%

3%

17%

C

C-

ALL STATES DELAWARE

DELAWARE

16

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

17

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

LEA determined

No

No

0.45

Unavailable

7% 2%

11% 2%

13% 3%

4% 1%

48%

22%

15%

D

C-

F

ALL STATES DELAWARE

DELAWARE

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

18

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

No

Neither

1 measure

Yes

No

No

None

LEA determined

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Not specified in policy

No

D+

0%

56%

7%

4%

8%

3%

14%

C

C

ALL STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

18

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

19

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

No

No

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

LEA determined

No

No

0.66

Unavailable

24% 2%

15% 1%

29% 1%

9% 0%

73%

49%

36%

D

B+

D+

ALL STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

20

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B-

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

Not permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

No

B-

5%

53%

7%

5%

8%

2%

27%

B

C+

ALL STATES FLORIDA

FLORIDA

20

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

21

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

No

No

No

State/district

No

No

0.63

Unavailable

14% 3%

11% 2%

14% 4%

5% 1%

56%

35%

31%

D-

B+

C

ALL STATES FLORIDA

FLORIDA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

22

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

No

Both

2 measures

Yes

Yes

No

None

Not permitted

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

No

C

10%

40%

5%

7%

7%

3%

21%

B+

C+

ALL STATES GEORGIA

GEORGIA

22

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

23

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

No

No

State/district

No

No

0.55

Unavailable

11% 2%

15% 2%

14% 3%

6% 1%

57%

32%

23%

D-

B-

C

ALL STATES GEORGIA

GEORGIA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

24

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

No policy

No policy

No policy

Yes

Not specified

Yes

No

C

1%

29%

7%

6%

6%

2%

12%

C

C-

ALL STATES HAWAII

HAWAII

24

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

25

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

Student

No

No

0.61

31%

11% 3%

10% 2%

11% 3%

4% 1%

47%

29%

23%

D-

A

C

ALL STATES HAWAII

HAWAII

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

26

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

No

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

Not permitted

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Not specified in policy

Yes

C-

3%

20%

6%

6%

8%

3%

13%

D+

C

ALL STATES IDAHO

IDAHO

26

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

27

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

Yes

No

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

LEA determined

No

No

0.43

25%

9% 3%

9% 3%

12% 4%

3% 2%

45%

19%

17%

C-

C

B-

ALL STATES IDAHO

IDAHO

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

28

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

No

Neither

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

No policy

No policy

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

D

4%

32%

8%

7%

9%

4%

22%

C+

B

ALL STATES ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

28

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

29

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

No

No

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

LEA determined

No

Yes

0.63

Unavailable

15% 2%

12% 2%

17% 3%

7% 1%

47%

29%

20%

C-

B+

D

ALL STATES ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

30

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B

Yes

Both

2 measures

No

Yes

No

Yes: 3

No policy

No policy

No policy

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

Yes

C+

13%

35%

9%

9%

9%

4%

16%

A

B-

ALL STATES INDIANA

INDIANA

30

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

31

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

No

Student

No

No

0.34

25%

16% 4%

14% 3%

14% 5%

6% 1%

47%

16%

12%

F

D

C

ALL STATES INDIANA

INDIANA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

32

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

Not permitted

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Mixed

Not specified in policy

No

C

9%

18%

9%

9%

9%

3%

11%

C+

C+

ALL STATES IOWA

IOWA

32

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

33

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

No

No

State/district

Yes

Yes

0.36

1%

13% 3%

13% 4%

13% 3%

4% 1%

39%

14%

10%

C

D-

C-

ALL STATES IOWA

IOWA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

34

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

Yes

Identification only

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

Not permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

C+

3%

17%

7%

6%

9%

3%

11%

D+

C

ALL STATES KANSAS

KANSAS

34

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

35

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

No

Student

No

No

0.39

12%

12% 3%

10% 2%

16% 3%

5% 1%

48%

19%

12%

F

D-

C-

ALL STATES KANSAS

KANSAS

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

36

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B+

Yes

Both

2 measures

Yes

Yes

No

None

Permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

Yes

A-

13%

32%

7%

5%

10%

4%

16%

A

C+

ALL STATES KENTUCKY

KENTUCKY

36

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

37

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

LEA determined

No

No

0.46

Unavailable

14% 3%

9% 2%

18% 5%

7% 2%

57%

26%

19%

D

C-

C

ALL STATES KENTUCKY

KENTUCKY

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

38

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

D+

No

Both

1 measure

Yes

No

No

None

LEA determined

LEA determined

Permitted

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

No

C+

3%

15%

4%

3%

6%

2%

5%

D

D-

ALL STATES LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA

38

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

39

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

State/district

No

No

0.43

Unavailable

7% 2%

6% 1%

11% 3%

3% 1%

66%

28%

15%

D+

C-

C

ALL STATES LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

40

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

No

Both

2 measures

No

Yes

No

Yes: 4

Not permitted

No policy

No policy

Yes

Mixed

Mixed

No

D+

5%

36%

7%

8%

8%

2%

22%

B

B-

ALL STATES MAINE

MAINE

40

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

41

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C-

No

Required

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

State/district & student

No

No

0.37

24%

11% 3%

11% 3%

12% 4%

3% 1%

43%

16%

14%

C-

D

C

ALL STATES MAINE

MAINE

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

42

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B

Yes

Both

None

No

No

No

None

Permitted

No policy

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

No

No

C+

16%

47%

8%

10%

10%

5%

30%

A

B+

ALL STATES MARYLAND

MARYLAND

42

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

43

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

No

State/district & student

No

No

0.48

Unavailable

13% 2%

15% 2%

16% 2%

8% 1%

40%

19%

14%

F

C-

D

ALL STATES MARYLAND

MARYLAND

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

44

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

No

Neither

2 measures

Yes

Yes

No

None

LEA determined

No policy

No policy

Yes

Mixed

No

No

D

1%

39%

13%

18%

14%

6%

28%

C

A-

ALL STATES MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS

44

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

45

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

No

No

Student

No

No

0.56

Unavailable

20% 4%

27% 7%

21% 5%

9% 3%

34%

19%

13%

F

B-

C-

ALL STATES MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

46

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

D+

No

Neither

None

No

No

No

None

Not permitted

No policy

Permitted

Yes

Mandatory

No

No

D

2%

26%

5%

7%

5%

3%

17%

C

C-

ALL STATES MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN

46

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

47

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

State/district & student

No

No

0.34

Unavailable

9% 1%

11% 2%

8% 1%

4% 1%

46%

16%

11%

D

D-

D

ALL STATES MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

48

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

Permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Yes

Voluntary

No

No

B

8%

32%

14%

13%

9%

4%

20%

B+

B

ALL STATES MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA

48

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

49

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

No

Yes (reimburses district costs for ACT or SAT)

LEA determined

No

No

N/A

Unavailable

21% 5%

18% 4%

13% 3%

6% 1%

37%

- -

- -

D

Incomplete

C-

ALL STATES MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

50

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

D+

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

Not permitted

Permitted

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

C+

7%

13%

3%

3%

5%

1%

4%

D+

F

ALL STATES MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI

50

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

51

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C-

No

Required

Yes (free ACT)

LEA determined

Inservice only

No

0.46

44%

8% 2%

8% 2%

11% 2%

3% 1%

71%

33%

21%

C

C

D+

ALL STATES MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

52

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

Yes

Neither

3 measures

Yes

Yes

No

Yes: 2

Not permitted

No policy

Permitted

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

C

4%

16%

5%

7%

9%

3%

10%

D+

D+

ALL STATES MISSOURI

MISSOURI

52

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

53

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

LEA determined

No

No

0.37

Unavailable

9% 2%

11% 2%

14% 4%

6% 1%

45%

17%

9%

D

D-

D+

ALL STATES MISSOURI

MISSOURI

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

54

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

No

Both

None

No

No

No

None

LEA determined

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

C

4%

21%

6%

8%

8%

3%

13%

C

C

ALL STATES MONTANA

MONTANA

54

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

55

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

Yes (free ACT - funding expired, under review)

LEA determined

No

No

0.29

Unavailable

9% 3%

11% 4%

12% 3%

5% 1%

41%

12%

9%

D

F

C

ALL STATES MONTANA

MONTANA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

56

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

Yes

Identification only

3 measures

Yes

Yes

No

Yes: 1

No policy

No policy

No policy

Yes

Voluntary

No

No

C-

12%

17%

7%

8%

9%

3%

10%

B

C-

ALL STATES NEBRASKA

NEBRASKA

56

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

57

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

Student

No

No

0.31

Unavailable

11% 2%

12% 3%

15% 3%

5% 1%

43%

13%

10%

D-

D-

C-

ALL STATES NEBRASKA

NEBRASKA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

58

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

No

Both

2 measures

No

Yes

Yes

None

No policy

No policy

No policy

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

D+

2%

32%

4%

5%

6%

2%

17%

C

C-

ALL STATES NEVADA

NEVADA

58

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

59

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

Student

Yes

No

0.66

Unavailable

8% 2%

10% 2%

10% 4%

3% 0%

50%

33%

28%

D+

B+

C-

ALL STATES NEVADA

NEVADA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

60

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

No

Neither

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

LEA determined

No policy

No policy

LEA determined

No

No

No

D-

1%

24%

10%

12%

12%

5%

18%

D+

B+

ALL STATES NEW HAMPSHIRE

NEW HAMPSHIRE

60

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

61

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

Student

No

No

0.25

Unavailable

13% 3%

15% 3%

15% 5%

6% 1%

25%

6%

6%

D-

F

C

ALL STATES NEW HAMPSHIRE

NEW HAMPSHIRE

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

62

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B-

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

No policy

No policy

No policy

Yes

Voluntary

No

No

C-

7%

32%

9%

16%

12%

6%

24%

B

A-

ALL STATES NEW JERSEY

NEW JERSEY

62

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

63

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

No

Student

No

No

0.41

Unavailable

15% 2%

23% 3%

17% 3%

8% 1%

33%

13%

10%

F

C-

D-

ALL STATES NEW JERSEY

NEW JERSEY

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

64

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

No

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

Not permitted

No policy

No policy

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

No

D+

5%

28%

3%

3%

4%

1%

12%

B

D

ALL STATES NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO

64

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

65

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C-

No

No

No

State/district

No

No

0.68

Unavailable

9% 1%

7% 2%

9% 2%

2% 0%

68%

46%

39%

D-

B+

C-

ALL STATES NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

66

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

No

Neither

None

No

No

No

None

LEA determined

No policy

LEA determined

LEA determined

No

Unclear

No

D-

2%

38%

5%

7%

9%

4%

25%

C

B-

ALL STATES NEW YORK

NEW YORK

66

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

67

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C

No

Required

No

Student

Yes

No

0.53

Unavailable

9% 2%

11% 4%

15% 3%

6% 1%

48%

26%

20%

D+

B-

C

ALL STATES NEW YORK

NEW YORK

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

68

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B

Yes

Both

3 measures

No

Yes

Yes

Yes: 4

Permitted

Permitted

Not permitted

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

B

11%

31%

8%

9%

9%

3%

19%

A

B-

ALL STATES NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

68

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

69

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

Encouraged

Yes (free ACT and free IB/AP if enrolled)

State/district

No

No

0.33

Unavailable

16% 3%

18% 3%

18% 4%

7% 1%

50%

17%

12%

C-

D-

D-

ALL STATES NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

70

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

D

No

Neither

None

No

No

No

None

Permitted

No policy

Not permitted

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

D

3%

15%

8%

7%

7%

2%

9%

D

C-

ALL STATES NORTH DAKOTA

NORTH DAKOTA

70

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

71

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

Student

No

No

0.16

Unavailable

11% 3%

10% 2%

9% 4%

2% 1%

32%

5%

4%

D-

F

C

ALL STATES NORTH DAKOTA

NORTH DAKOTA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

72

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

Yes

Identification only

3 measures

Yes

Yes

Yes

None

Permitted

Permitted (all districts must have a policy)

Permitted

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

No

B+

4%

23%

8%

9%

8%

4%

15%

C

C+

ALL STATES OHIO

OHIO

72

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

73

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

Required

Yes (reimburses district costs for ACT or SAT)

State/district

No

No

0.26

Unavailable

14% 2%

14% 2%

13% 3%

7% 1%

43%

11%

7%

C

F

D

ALL STATES OHIO

OHIO

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

74

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

Yes

Both

None

No

No

No

None

Not permitted

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Mandatory

Yes

No

C

14%

22%

5%

3%

6%

2%

11%

B+

D+

ALL STATES OKLAHOMA

OKLAHOMA

74

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

75

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C-

No

No

Yes (reimburses district costs for ACT or SAT)

Student

Yes

Yes

0.45

Unavailable

10% 2%

5% 1%

10% 3%

3% 1%

61%

27%

21%

C

C-

C-

ALL STATES OKLAHOMA

OKLAHOMA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

76

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

Yes

Both

2 measures

No

Yes

Yes

None

No policy

LEA determined

Permitted

Yes

Not specified

No

No

C+

7%

24%

6%

7%

8%

4%

15%

C+

C

ALL STATES OREGON

OREGON

76

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

77

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C-

Yes

Encouraged

No

LEA determined

No

No

0.43

Unavailable

10% 3%

13% 3%

15% 4%

6% 2%

51%

22%

18%

D+

C-

C

ALL STATES OREGON

OREGON

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

78

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B-

Yes

Both

2 measures

Yes

Yes

No

None

LEA determined

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

No

No

B-

4%

24%

10%

10%

11%

5%

16%

C

B+

ALL STATES PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA

78

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

79

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

No

State/district & student

No

No

0.36

Unavailable

14% 3%

15% 3%

17% 3%

7% 1%

39%

14%

8%

F

D-

D

ALL STATES PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

80

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

No

Neither

2 measures

Yes

Yes

No

None

No policy

Permitted

LEA determined

Yes

Not specified

Unclear

No

D+

1%

26%

6%

6%

10%

4%

15%

C

C+

ALL STATES RHODE ISLAND

RHODE ISLAND

80

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

81

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C-

No

No

Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)

Student

No

No

0.61

Unavailable

9% 2%

11% 1%

15% 4%

6% 1%

43%

26%

16%

D-

B+

D

ALL STATES RHODE ISLAND

RHODE ISLAND

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

82

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B-

Yes

Both

3 measures

Yes

Yes

No

Yes: 1

Not permitted

No policy

Permitted

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

C+

12%

29%

6%

5%

8%

2%

18%

A

C

ALL STATES SOUTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

82

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

83

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

Required

Yes (free ACT [11th], PSAT/ pre-ACT [10th], free AP if enrolled)

LEA determined

No

No

0.37

Unavailable

11% 2%

10% 2%

16% 4%

4% 1%

55%

20%

16%

C-

D-

D+

ALL STATES SOUTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

84

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

D

No

Neither

None

No

No

No

None

No policy

No policy

Not permitted

Yes

Voluntary

No

Yes

F

2%

20%

4%

6%

8%

2%

12%

D

C-

ALL STATES SOUTH DAKOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA

84

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

85

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

No

LEA determined

No

No

0.26

Unavailable

7% 2%

8% 2%

11% 3%

3% 1%

37%

10%

10%

F

F

C+

ALL STATES SOUTH DAKOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

86

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

LEA determined

LEA determined

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

B-

3%

19%

7%

6%

8%

3%

10%

D+

C-

ALL STATES TENNESSEE

TENNESSEE

86

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

87

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D+

No

No

Yes (reimburses district costs for ACT or SAT)

State/district

No

No

0.43

Unavailable

12% 3%

12% 2%

14% 3%

5% 1%

55%

24%

15%

D+

C-

D

ALL STATES TENNESSEE

TENNESSEE

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

88

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B-

No

Both

2 measures

No

Yes

No

Yes: 1

Permitted

Permitted

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Unclear

No

C+

8%

36%

8%

7%

7%

2%

19%

B+

C+

ALL STATES TEXAS

TEXAS

88

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

89

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C+

No

No

Yes (SAT/ACT/AP subsidized for NSLP students)

LEA determined

No

No

0.99

38%

19% 2%

13% 3%

14% 3%

5% 1%

50%

50%

44%

D

A

C-

ALL STATES TEXAS

TEXAS

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

90

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C+

Yes

Neither

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

Not permitted

No policy

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

Yes

C-

4%

36%

7%

8%

10%

4%

25%

C+

B

ALL STATES UTAH

UTAH

90

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

91

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

State/district & student

No

No

0.26

20%

10% 3%

11% 3%

12% 5%

5% 1%

38%

10%

9%

D

F

C

ALL STATES UTAH

UTAH

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

92

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C

No

Neither

None

No

No

No

None

Not permitted

LEA determined

No policy

Yes

Mixed

Unclear

No

D-

0%

31%

9%

11%

12%

6%

21%

C

A-

ALL STATES VERMONT

VERMONT

92

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

93

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

No

State/district & student

No

No

0.28

Unavailable

13% 3%

16% 5%

17% 6%

8% 2%

37%

10%

9%

F

F

C

ALL STATES VERMONT

VERMONT

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

94

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

No

No

Yes: 2

LEA determined

LEA determined

No policy

Yes

Mandatory

No

No

C+

12%

44%

10%

10%

14%

3%

28%

A

B+

ALL STATES VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA

94

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

95

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

No

LEA determined

No

No

0.31

17%

16% 2%

15% 2%

21% 3%

5% 1%

37%

11%

8%

F

D

D

ALL STATES VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

96

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B-

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

LEA determined

No policy

Permitted

Yes

Mixed

Mixed

No

C+

4%

34%

12%

11%

12%

4%

21%

C+

A-

ALL STATES WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON

96

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

97

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

C-

No

No

No

LEA determined

No

No

0.55

21%

21% 4%

18% 5%

21% 3%

7% 2%

40%

23%

17%

F

B

D+

ALL STATES WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

98

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

Yes

Both

1 measure

No

Yes

No

None

LEA determined

Permitted

LEA determined

Yes

Mixed

Mixed

No

B-

2%

22%

5%

3%

6%

2%

9%

D+

D

ALL STATES WEST VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA

98

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

99

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

No

LEA determined

No

No

0.31

Unavailable

10% 3%

6% 1%

10% 4%

3% 1%

52%

16%

14%

F

D-

C+

ALL STATES WEST VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

100

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

B

Yes

Both

2 measures

Yes

Yes

No

None

Permitted

Permitted

LEA determined

Yes

Mixed

Not specified in policy

No

B

6%

32%

9%

11%

8%

4%

22%

B

B+

ALL STATES WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN

100

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

101

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D-

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

LEA determined

No

No

0.29

Unavailable

14% 3%

14% 3%

12% 2%

5% 2%

39%

12%

9%

D

F

C-

ALL STATES WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN

EXCELLENCE GRADE

Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

102

A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0

State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22

State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14

State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9

Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15

Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38

Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5

Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11

availability of AP courses, etc.

State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16

State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0

State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3

State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48

Mandatory Yes: 11

Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24

Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6

Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1

Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13

Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21

% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%

% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%

% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%

% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%

Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0

Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1

C-

Yes

Neither

2 measures

No

Yes

Yes

None

No policy

No policy

LEA determined

Yes

Voluntary

Yes

No

C-

3%

17%

9%

7%

10%

3%

10%

D+

C

ALL STATES WYOMING

WYOMING

102

Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.

GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS

EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018

103

A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1

At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47

State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42

State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20

State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42

State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46

Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11

Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete

Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income

% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%

% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%

% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%

% of students who were low-income 48%

% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%

% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%

* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies

Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12

Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1

Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2

D

No

No

Yes (free ACT)

State/district

No

No

0.1

Unavailable

12% 4%

10% 3%

13% 5%

4% 1%

37%

4%

4%

D+

F

C+

ALL STATES WYOMING

WYOMING

The Cooke Foundation is dedicated to advancing the

education of exceptionally promising students who have

financial need. Since 2000, the foundation has awarded

$175 million in scholarships to more than 2,300 students

from 8th grade through graduate school, along with

comprehensive counseling and other support services.

The foundation has also provided over $97 million in

grants to organizations that serve such students.

www.JKCF.org