Status of High School Gifted Programs - NAGC

Status of High School

Gifted Programs 2013

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented University of Virginia

Curry School of Education

Charlottesville, Virginia

Carolyn M. Callahan, Ph.D. Tonya R. Moon, Ph.D.

Sarah Oh, Ph.D.

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A060044 to the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

http://curry.virginia.edu/

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Method .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Development of the Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 1

Sample ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Response Rate ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Gifted Program Status ........................................................................................................................... 4

State Regulations ................................................................................................................................... 8

Funding ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Administration of Gifted Program ...................................................................................................... 11

Endorsement Requirements for Teaching Gifted Students ................................................................. 13

Definition of Giftedness ...................................................................................................................... 14

Student Identification .......................................................................................................................... 15

Representation of Certain Groups of Students in Gifted Programs .................................................... 27

Overarching Goals of the High School Programs for Gifted Students ............................................... 30

Framework for High School Gifted Programming ............................................................................. 30

Program Service Delivery Type .......................................................................................................... 32

Student Outcome Measures ................................................................................................................. 38

Use of the National Gifted Education Programming Standards .......................................................... 39

Professional Education ........................................................................................................................ 40

Evaluation and Program Improvement ............................................................................................... 44

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 48

References ................................................................................................................................................... 52

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Response Rate by State .................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2 Response Rate by Urbanicity ........................................................................................................... 4

Table 3 Respondents by District Size ........................................................................................................... 4

Table 4 Program Status ................................................................................................................................. 5

Table 5 Program Status by Urbanicity .......................................................................................................... 5

Table 6 Program Discontinuation or Cut in Past Five Years ........................................................................ 5

Table 7 Program Discontinuation or Cut in Past Five Years by Urbanicity ................................................. 5

Table 8 Number of Years Program in Existence .......................................................................................... 6

Table 9 Number of Years Programs in Existence by Urbanicity .................................................................. 6

Table 10 Educational Opportunities Provided to High School Gifted Students ........................................... 6

Table 11 Educatioinal Opportunities Provided to High School Gifted Students by Urbanicity ................... 7

Table 12 Elements Governed by State Law or Regulations ......................................................................... 8

Table 13 Elements Governed by State Law or Regulations by Urbanicity .................................................. 9

Table 14 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................................... 10

Table 15 Funding Sources by Urbanicity ................................................................................................... 11

Table 16 Gifted Education Administrator Status ........................................................................................ 11

Table 17 Gifted Education Administrator Status by Urbanicity ................................................................. 12

Table 18 Endorsement Requirements for Teaching Gifted ........................................................................ 13

Table 19 Endorsement Requirements for Teaching Gifted by Urbanicity .................................................. 13

Table 20 Districts Requirements Beyond State Requirements for Teaching Gifted ................................... 14

Table 21 Districts Requirements Beyond State Requirements for Teaching Gifted by Urbanicity............ 14

Table 22 Definition of Giftedness ............................................................................................................... 14

Table 23 Identification of Gifted Students at the High School Level ......................................................... 15

Table 24 Identification of Gifted Students at the High School Level by Urbanicity .................................. 15

Table 25 Standardized Instruments Used in Identification ......................................................................... 16

Table 26 Non-standardized Instruments Used in Identification ................................................................. 18

Table 27 Non-standardized Instruments Used in Identification by Urbanicity .......................................... 19

Table 28 General Student Demographics ................................................................................................... 21

Table 29 General Student Demographics by Urbanicity ............................................................................ 21

Table 30 Percentage of Identified Gifted Students .................................................................................... 23

Table 31 Percentage of Identified Gifted Students by Urbanicity .............................................................. 23

Table 32 Gifted Program Student Demographics ....................................................................................... 25

Table 33 Gifted Program Student Demographics by Urbnacity ................................................................. 26

Table 34 Alignment of Black Student Representation in a District and in District’s Gifted Programs ...... 27

Table 35 Alignment of Hispanic Student Representation in a District and in District’s Gifted Programs . 28

Table 36 Alignment of Student of Poverty Representation in a District and in District’s Gifted Programs ..... 29

Table 37 Primary Gifted Programming Model Utilized ............................................................................. 30

Table 38 Primary Gifted Programming Model Utilized by Urbanicity ...................................................... 31

Table 39 Program Service Delivery Type ................................................................................................... 32

Table 40 Program Service Delivery Type by Urbanicity............................................................................ 33

Table 41 Percentage of Students Served by the Primary Service Delivery Type ....................................... 34

iii

Table 42 Percentage of Students Served by the Primary Service Deliverty Type by Urbanicity ............... 34

Table 43 Time per Week Students Received Gifted Education Services ................................................... 35

Table 44 Time per Week Students Received Gifted Education Services by Urbanicity ............................ 35

Table 45 Most Developed Content Area ..................................................................................................... 36

Table 46 Most Developed Content Area by Urbanicity.............................................................................. 37

Table 47 Most Developed Skills Area ........................................................................................................ 37

Table 48 Most Developed Skills Area by Urbanicity ................................................................................. 38

Table 49 Areas to Which the NAGC Standards Were Applied .................................................................. 39

Table 50 Areas to Which the NAGC Standards Were Applied by Urbanicity ........................................... 39

Table 51 Desirable Qualities and Characteristics of Teachers in Gifted Programs .................................... 40

Table 52 Desirable Qualities and Characteristics of Teachers in Gifted Programs by Urbanicity ............. 41

Table 53 Staff Development Areas in Gifted Education ............................................................................ 41

Table 54 Staff Development Areas in Gifted Education by Urbanicity ..................................................... 42

Table 55 Staff Development Hours per Year Devoted to Areas in Gifted Education ................................ 43

Table 56 Staff Development Hours per Year Devoted to Areas in Gifted Education by Urbanicity ......... 43

Table 57 Program Evaluation Requirement ................................................................................................ 44

Table 58 Program Evaluation Requirement by Urbanicity ......................................................................... 44

Table 59 Program Evaluation Frequency .................................................................................................... 44

Table 60 Program Evaluation Frequency by Urbanicity ............................................................................. 44

Table 61 Time of Last Program Evaulation ................................................................................................ 45

Table 62 Time of Last Program Evaluation by Urbanicity ......................................................................... 45

Table 63 Program Evaluation Design and Implementation ........................................................................ 46

Table 64 Program Evaluation Design and Implementation by Urbanicity ................................................. 46

Table 65 Areas of Planned Program Changes............................................................................................. 47

Table 66 Areas of Planned Program Changes by Urbanicity ..................................................................... 48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Percentage of Students on Free/Reduced Lunch Price in General and in Gifted Programs ......... 29

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: The Status of High School Programs for Gifted students Survey .......................................... 53

Appendix 2: Black Student Representation in High School Gifted Programs ............................................ 70

Appendix 3: Hispanic Student Representation in High School Gifted Programs ....................................... 74

Appendix 4: Representations of Students of Poverty in High School Gifted Programs ............................. 78

Appendix 5: Representation of Certain Subgroups of Students in High School Gifted Programs ............. 82

1

Introduction

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) at the University of Virginia was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education to conduct a national survey for the purpose of developing a national portrait of programs for gifted students and programming options at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. Surveys were designed at each level to gather information describing the current status of programs for gifted students nationwide, and the results may be used by policymakers, K-12 education leaders, researchers, and stakeholders in the field of gifted education to formulate future directions for quality education of gifted and talented students. In this report, the results of the high school survey are presented.

Method

Development of the Survey Questionnaire

NRC/GT principal investigators consulted with officials in the U.S. Department of Education [Office of Elementary and Secondary Education] to identify areas of importance in describing the status of gifted education programs nationally. Based on the areas identified by these officials, the researchers drafted an initial survey, which was reviewed by the Department. The draft survey was informed by current research and national level gifted education standards and included questions across the areas of: administration of gifted program, funding, identification of gifted students, gifted program services, curricular emphases, teacher qualifications, and program evaluation.

Pilot Study. Personnel responsible for gifted programming in three districts representing variations in size of the district, state, and district-level policies regarding gifted and talented education participated in a pilot study of the instrument. These districts also represented rural, suburban, and urban districts and had a wide range of financial allocations for programming. The principal investigators queried each district gifted program coordinator who completed the pilot on his or her experience completing the survey. The survey questionnaire was modified for clarity and length based on the feedback.

Sample Sample size was determined by implementing a 95% confidence level with a 3% margin of error,

resulting in a target sample of 1,062. In order to account for potential non-responses, the research team utilized oversampling of 2,000 districts for the survey. Market Data Retrieval (MDR) provided district level information for 2,000 public school districts across the United States stratified according to urbanicity, district size, and distribution of ethnic groups for the high school level survey. The sample was made up of 750 urban (35%), 750 suburban (35%), and 500 rural school districts (25%) reflecting the distribution of public school districts across nation at the time of sampling1.

The research team reviewed the sample and eliminated overlapping districts sampled for the earlier surveys for studies of The Status of Elementary Gifted Programs and The Status of Middle School Gifted Programs Surveys. In addition, school districts that do not serve high school grades were also

1 The source of this data and classification system is the U.S. Department of Education through its statistical branch,

the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NCES maintains a database of public schools, the Common Core of Data (CCD), and assigns a locale code to the CCD public school records. MDR has applied the CCD locale codes to the related zip codes, thus providing selection by locale code for all U.S. records.

2

removed. The final sample for the Status of High School Gifted Programs Survey was comprised of a total of 1,160 school districts including 443 urban school districts (38.2%), 422 suburban school districts (36.4%), and 295 rural school districts (25.4%).

The investigators attempted to determine the names and contact information for each program coordinator in the sample districts. A letter from the principal investigators was sent to each state-level directors of gifted education or their designees in October 2010 soliciting that information. Twelve state directors (Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) provided contact information for high school programs for gifted students in their states. To complete the contact information not supplied for districts in the sample, the homepage of each district was consulted. If email addresses could not be identified, U.S. Postal addresses were noted. Email contact information for 940 school districts and mailing addresses for 220 school districts in the sample of 1,160 school districts across the country were identified using the combined strategies. The District of Columbia and the state of Hawaii were in the initial sample of 2,000, but not included in the final sample because all of the districts in the initial sample were used for either The Status of Elementary Gifted Programs Survey or The Status of the Middle School Programs Survey.

A gifted program was defined on the survey as a program that had a specific process for the identification of a group of students who were provided educational options in ways that differ from regular classroom curricula and/or instructional practices. District level coordinators/directors were asked to report data for their high school programs for gifted students defined as 9th grade through 12th grade. The survey questions requested generic information on school district demographics, size, funding, and teacher resources. In addition, the survey included questions related to gifted program services such as administration of the gifted program, student identification, gifted program delivery, the evaluation of student outcomes and program components, and professional education.

Data Collection

The Status of High School Programs for Gifted Students Survey was sent to the individual contacts (the gifted coordinators or their designees) in the 1,129 school districts identified by the sampling strategy described above. The survey was distributed primarily using an online survey system, SurveyMonkey®. The 940 district level contact persons for whom email addresses were available received an email invitation to participate in the study with a link to the survey. Five reminders over 12 weeks were sent encouraging the district directors/coordinators to respond to and complete the survey.

The other 220 school district coordinators received a questionnaire packet through the mail including a brief study rationale and directions for completing the survey from the principal investigators. All participants were asked to share any documents from their school districts pertinent to their high school programs for gifted students if they thought the documents would add to understanding and/or description of their program. All the returned paper surveys were entered manually into the survey response database.

Data Analysis

Frequencies of responses were computed on each multiple choice item. The open-ended section of the survey and the additional documents supplied by respondents were analyzed inductively seeking patterns and common themes in the responses.

3

Results

Response Rate

A total of 315 districts (27.2%) of 1,160 gifted coordinators responded to the survey. New Mexico had the highest percentage response rate (3 of 4 districts reporting, 75%). Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wyoming has the lowest percentage response rate with no district responding. Pennsylvania had the greatest number of district coordinators responding with a count of 34. The research team received about the same proportion of responses across demographic categories (28.8% rural, 27.5% urban and 25.4% suburban). Table 1

Response Rate by State

State Surveys Distributed

Surveys Returned

Response Rate State Surveys

Distributed Surveys Returned

Response Rate

AK 2 0 0% MT 4 1 25.0% AL 32 6 18.8% NC 29 8 27.6% AR 22 4 18.2% ND 3 1 33.3% AZ 21 5 23.8% NE 11 2 18.2% CA 78 17 21.8% NH 6 0 0% CO 12 5 41.7% NJ 59 17 28.8% CT 25 8 32.0% NM 4 3 75.0% DC 0 0 0% NV 3 1 33.3% DE 3 1 33.3% NY 48 9 18.8% FL 18 3 16.7% OH 82 23 28.0% GA 34 12 35.3% OK 25 5 20.0% HI 0 0 0% OR 11 1 9.1% IA 23 7 30.4% PA 84 34 40.5% ID 12 3 25.0% RI 2 1 50.0% IL 38 5 13.2% SC 13 3 23.1% IN 32 5 15.6% SD 5 1 20.0% KS 21 9 42.9% TN 29 8 27.6% KY 33 11 33.3% TX 73 16 21.9% LA 17 5 29.4% UT 5 1 20.0% MA 15 4 26.7% VA 26 13 50.0% MD 10 3 30.0% VT 2 0 0% ME 9 0 0% WA 14 2 14.3% MI 37 12 32.4% WI 34 10 29.4% MN 13 6 46.2% WV 12 4 33.3% MO 35 9 25.7% WY 1 0 0%

MS 33 10 30.3% Not Reporting

1

Total Survey Distributed 1160 Survey

Returned 315 Response Rate 27.2%

Note. Among 315 responses, 1 school district did not provide state information.

4

Table 2

Response Rate by Urbanicity Category Surveys Distributed Surveys Returned Response Rate

Urban 443 122 27.5% Suburban 422 107 25.4% Rural 295 85 28.8% Total 1,160 314 27.2% Note. Urbanicity for one school district was not reported.

Among the 202 school districts that provided district size as indicated by student enrollment, the greatest number of districts reported enrollment of less than 5,000 students (109; 54.0%).

Table 3

Respondents by District Size

Options Number of Districts Percent Less than 5,000 109 54.0 5,000-10,000 45 22.3 10,001-30,000 35 17.3 30,001-50,000 10 5.0 50,001-70,000 1 0.5 70,001-100,000 0 0.0 100,001-250,000 2 1.0 250,001-500,000 0 0.0 More than 500,000 0 0.0 Total number of districts responding

202

Gifted Program Status

Two hundred and thirty two (75.1%) district coordinators indicated that they were providing gifted and talented opportunities to their students at the high school level, while 77 (24.9%) school district cooridnators reported not providing gifted and talented opportunities at the high school level. Fifty (16.3%) district coordinators reported that a gifted program had been discontinued or cut within the past 5 years. The remaining 256 did not report program discontinuation or cuts within the past 5 years. While a few districts had added programs recently, more than 80% of the districts reported having programs that had been in existence more than 10 years. For the districts that indicated that specific educational opportunities are provided to gifted high school students, Advanced Placement courses (n=194, 90.7%), dual enrollment (n=186, 86.9%) and/or ability grouping (n=152, 71.0%) were most frequently noted as the educational opportunity offered.

5

Table 4

Program Status

Options Number of Districts Percent Yes 232 75.1

No 77 24.9 Total number of districts responding

309

Table 5

Program Status by Urbanicity

Options Urban Suburban Rural N % N % N %

Yes 85 70.8 81 77.9 65 77.4 No 35 29.2 23 22.1 19 22.6

Total number of districts responding

120 104 84

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. Among the responded districts, urbanicity for one school district was not reported. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Table 6

Program Discontinuation or Cut in Past Five Years

Options Number of Districts Percent Yes 50 16.3 No 257 83.7

Total number of districts responding 307

Table 7

Program Discontinuation or Cut in Past Five Years by Urbanicity


Yes 17 14.2 18 17.3 15 18.1 No 103 85.8 86 82.7 68 81.9

Total number of districts responding 120 104 83

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

6

Table 8

Number of Years Program in Existence

Options Number of Districts Percent Less than 1 year 5 2.4

1-2 years 2 1.0 2-5 years 12 5.7

6-10 years 24 11.5 More than 10 years 166 79.4


209

Table 9

Number of Years Program in Existence by Urbanicity


Less than 1 year 3 3.9 2 2.7 0 0.0 1-2 years 0 0.0 1 1.3 1 1.8 2-5 years 4 5.2 6 8.0 2 3.5 6-10 years 10 13.0 9 12.0 5 8.8 More than 10 years 60 77.9 57 76.0 49 86.0 Total number of districts responding 77 75 57

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The question allowed multiple responses. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

Table 10

Educational Opportunities Provided to High School Gifted Students

Options Number of Districts Percent Advanced Placement (AP)

194 90.7

Dual Enrollment (in college or university)

186 86.9

Ability Grouping (e.g., student are placed in advanced classes such as honors classes)

152 71.0

Distance learning or online opportunities 108 50.5

7

In-class differentiation in general classrooms with no clustering of gifted students

88 41.1

Special classes of homogeneously grouped gifted students within a regular school setting

75 35.0

After-school learning opportunities (either through programs such as Destination Imagination or Future Problem Solving or through activities developed by the school)

67 31.3

Cluster grouping of gifted students in general education classrooms with in-class differentiation

41 19.2

International Baccalaureate (IB)

28 13.1

A state-sponsored residential high school

12 5.6

A full-time school for gifted students

9 4.2

Other 45 21.0


Note. The question allowed multiple responses.

Table 11

Educational Opportunities provided to High School Gifted Students by Urbanicity


Advanced Placement (AP) 71 92.2 64 85.3 59 96.7

Dual Enrollment (in college or university) 68 88.3 63 84.0 55 90.2

Ability Grouping (e.g., student are placed in advanced classes such as honors classes)

57 74.0 50 66.7 45 73.8

Distance learning or online opportunities 36 46.8 38 50.7 34 55.7


36 46.8 27 36.0 25 41.0


67 87.0 24 32.0 24 39.3

After-school learning opportunities (either through 25 32.5 19 25.3 23 37.7

8

programs such as Destination Imagination or Future Problem Solving or through activities developed by the school) Cluster grouping of gifted students in general education classrooms with in-class differentiation

16 20.8 12 16.0 13 21.3

International Baccalaureate (IB) 7 9.1 12 16.0 9 14.8

A state-sponsored residential high school 7 9.1 3 4.0 2 3.3

A full-time school for gifted students 3 3.9 4 5.3 2 3.3

Other 14 18.2 13 17.3 18 29.5 Total number of districts responding 77 75 61 Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The question allowed multiple responses. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Among the responded districts, urbanicity for one school district was not reported and the district information was not included in this table.

State Regulations

State law or regulations were most likely to govern the definition of gifted and talented students (n=110, 81.5%) at the high school level if they provided guidance at all, while curriculum provided to gifted students (n=15, 11.1%) was least often governed by state law or regulations. District coordinators in 15 (11.1%) school districts reported that their states did not have any rules or regulations governing programs for gifted and talented. Among the 15 district coordinators in 10 states who reported absence of state level rules or regulations, six districts in five states (Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin) actually had state level regulations regarding identification of and services for gifted students at the time of data collection as indicated by the state-level directors for gifted education (personal communication with each state director or his or her designe(es)). This result suggested that some of the district level gifted education administrators were not aware of state level rules or regulations regarding education of gifted students.

Table 12

Elements Governed by State Law or Regulations Options Number of

Districts Percent Number of States

My state does not have rules or regulations governing programs for the gifted and talented

15 11.1 10

The definition of gifted and talented 110 81.5 23

The qualifications of teachers who may teach in the gifted program

65 48.1 27

9

The areas of giftedness served by my program 63 46.7 23

The evaluation of the programs for gifted students

47 34.8 21

The age at which students are identified 42 31.1 19

The way in which data are considered for selecting students to receive services

42 31.1 21

The instruments used in the identification process 38 28.1 19

The types of grouping arrangements (e.g., pull-out or self-contained) used to serve gifted students

30 22.2 17

The curriculum provided to gifted students

15 11.1 11

Other 23 17.0 -- Total number of districts responding 135 Note. Multiple responses were possible.

Table 13

Elements Governed by State Law or Regulations by Urbanicity


My state does not have rules or regulations governing programs for the gifted and talented

7 15.6 6 11.8 2 5.3

The definition of gifted and talented 36 80.0 40 78.4 33 86.8

The qualifications of teachers who may teach in the gifted program 21 46.7 20 39.2 24 63.2

The areas of giftedness served by my program 23 51.1 24 47.1 15 39.5

The evaluation of the gifted programs 21 46.7 11 21.6 15 39.5

The age at which students are identified 14 31.1 14 27.5 13 34.2

The way in which data are considered for selecting students to receive services 14 31.1 14 27.5 13 34.2

The instruments used in the identification process 14 31.1 9 17.6 14 36.8

10

The types of grouping arrangements (e.g., pull-out or self-contained) used to serve gifted students

9 20.0 11 21.6 10 26.3

The curriculum provided to gifted students 5 11.1 7 13.7 3 7.9

Total number of districts reporting 45 51 38

Note. N= Number of school districts reporting the category. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. Multiple elements could be selected. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. One district that did not report urbanicity was not included in the table.

Funding

As shown in Table 14, 32.3% of the districts were funded by local sources only while in another 16.1% of districts the funding comes from a combination of state and local sources. In 28 districts (27.7%) the coordinators reported having no funding to support their high school gifted program, and in 30 (29.7%) district coordinators reported not receiving any state level funding support for high school programs for gifted students. While the research team collected data relative to funding amounts for gifted education programming, the question was apparently interpreted in many different ways with some districts including salaries of all personnel including all teachers teaching in heterogeneous classrooms that included gifted students at one extreme and others including only expenses directly relating to gifted services. For that reason, the research team determined that the data was not interpretable in a defensible way and, hence, is not reported.

Table 14

Funding Sources Source of Funding Number of Districts Percent

State funding only

15 14.9

Local funding only

23 22.8

Other funding source only

5 5.0

A combination of state and local

22 21.8

A combination of state and other

2 2.0

A combination of local and other

2 2.0

A combination of state, local, and other

4 4.0

No funding 28 27.7


11

Table 15

Funding Sources by Urbanicity


State funding only 5 14.7 5 12.5 5 19.2

Local funding only 8 23.5 10 25.0 5 19.2

Other funding source only 1 2.9 2 5.0 2 7.7

A combination of state and local

7 20.6 9 22.5 6 23.1

A combination of state and other

2 5.9 0 0 0 0

A combination of local and other

0 0 1 2.5 1 3.8

A combination of state, local, and other

1 2.9 1 2.5 2 7.7

No funding 10 29.4 12 30.0 5 19.2


34 40 26

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Administration of Gifted Program

The most prevalent administrative allocation for high school gifted program was a part-time (less than 50%) administrator for district wide gifted programs whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities (reported by 73 (50.3%) district coordinators). Less than 10% of the districts reported a full-time administrator for just high school gifted and talented programs. Nearly 5% had a part-time administrator for high school programs for gifted students specifically in addition to a fulltime administrator responsible for district wide programs for gifted students. Twenty-four (16.6%) respondents in 30 states reported having no specific administrative assignment above a teacher level position.

Other district staff assigned responsibilities for supporting gifted and talented programs at the high school level, school psychologists and counselors are named in 64 districts and gifted education teachers or specialists are named in 37 districts. While school psychologists’ responsibilities were reported to be limited to administering tests for identification, counselors and gifted education teachers or specialists were reported to have a broader range of responsibilities including identification of students, supporting and training teachers and staff, and/or parent education.

Table 16

12

Gifted Education Administrator Status Options Number of Districts Percent A full-time administrator for high school gifted and talented programs

6 4.1

A full-time administrator for gifted and talented programs in the school district with a part-time administrator for the high school gifted program (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities)

7 4.8

A full-time administrator for gifted and talented programs in the school district, but no additional administrator with specific high school administrative responsibilities

27 18.6

A part-time (at least 50%) administrator for high school programs for gifted students in the district (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities)

8 5.5

A part-time (less than 50%) administrator for programs for gifted students in the district (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities)

73 50.3

No administrative assignment (e.g., there is a teacher level position as coordinator)

24 16.6


Table 17

Gifted Education Administrator Status by Urbanicity


A full-time administrator for high school gifted and talented programs

1 2.1 2 3.8 3 6.8

A full-time administrator for gifted and talented programs in the school district with a part-time administrator for the high school gifted program (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities)

3 6.3 3 5.7 1 2.3

A full-time administrator for gifted and talented programs in the school district, but no additional 6 12.5 13 24.5 8 18.2

13

administrator with specific high school administrative responsibilities A part-time (at least 50%) administrator for high school programs for gifted students in the district (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities)

3 6.3 3 5.7 2 4.5

A part-time (less than 50%) administrator for programs for gifted students in the district (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities)

27 56.3 21 39.6 25 56.8

No administrative assignment (e.g., there is a teacher level position as coordinator) 8 16.7 11 20.8 5 11.4

Total number of districts responding 48 53 44 Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Endorsement Requirements for Teaching Gifted Students

Two-thirds (n=90; 66.2%) of the district coordinators s reported that an endorsement in gifted education was not required for teaching high school gifted and talented students.

Table 18

Endorsement Requirement for Teaching Gifted Options Number of Districts Percent Yes

46 33.8


136

Table 19

Endorsement Requirement for Teaching Gifted by Urbanicity


Yes

12 27.3 13 24.5 21 53.8

No 32 72.7 40 75.5 18 46.2 Total number of districts responding

44 53 39

14


Among the districts in which credentials were required to teach gifted students, 36 district coordinators indicated district level requirements for training or background were different or went beyond those required by the state. Among additional requirements most often noted were professional training in gifted education and strong content knowledge or specific degree in content area taught. Other requirements noted were: prior experience in teaching gifted students, training in AP and IB courses, competency in using technology, and ability to provide adequate curriculum and instruction for gifted students.

Table 20

District Requirements Beyond State Requirements for Teaching Gifted Options Number of Districts Percent Yes

36 25.9


139

Table 21

District Requirements Beyond State Requirements for Teaching Gifted by Urbanicity


Yes

12 25.5 11 20.8 13 33.3


47 53 39


Definition of Giftedness

In the majority of districts (n=99, 74.4%) the state definition of gifted and talented guides programming.

Table 22

Definition of Giftedness Option Number of Districts Percent My district does not have any specific definition of gifted and talented students at the high school level

25 18.8

15

My district follows the state definition of gifted and talented students

99 74.4

My district uses a definition of gifted and talented beyond or different from the state definition

9 6.8


Student Identification

Identification at the high school level. Identification at the high school level occurs in 58.9% of the districts, while in the remaining districts services are provideds based on an identification process at the middle school level.

Table 23

Identification of Gifted Students at the High School Level Options Number of

Districts Percent

Yes, we have a specific process in place to identify gifted students and provide services at the high school level

83

58.9

No, we do NOT identify gifted students at the high school level, but we provide services for them. Student eligibility depends on the identification process at the middle school level

58

41.1


Table 24

Identification of Gifted Students at the High School Level by Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

N % N % N % Yes, we have a specific process in place to identify gifted students and provide services at the high school level

28 62.2 28 58.3 27 56.3

No, we do NOT identify gif ted students at the high school level, but we provide services for them. Student eligibility depends on the identification process at the middle school level

17 37.8 20 41.7 21 43.8

Total number of districts responding 45 48 48 Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

16

Identification practices reported fell on a continuum representing the degree to which recommended practices were followed. At one extreme on the continuum the reported identification system relied on only one data point for selection to receive services. At the other end of the continuum were procedures that included a multi-faceted combination of practices such as: collecting multiple data; decision-making by a committee of educators; selecting appropriate identification tools based on the student demographic information (such as race or language proficiency); looking for evidence of a broader skill set; purposefully including consideration in the identification process those students who may have a disability; continuously training key-personnel to ensure decision-making reliability; and identifying students within the Response to Intervention framework. In general, high school services and practices of identification were evenly distributed along the continuum. One of the distinct differences observed in high school identification, not observed in elementary school identification, was the identification for and availability of programs that serve students with advanced skills and knowledge within a specific subjects area. Programs such as Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) have often been associated as the default gifted program for students in high schools. Hence, the identification process in these districts involved assessments for students’ readiness to enter these programs.

Standardized instruments used in identification. No instrument clearly dominated the identification process at the high school level. The ACT and standardized intelligence tests were most frequently noted, even those instruments were reported by only 25-30% (n=18-22) of the coordinators who answered this question. Table 25

Standardized Instruments Used in Identification

Options Number of Districts Percent

ACT 21 28.4

Assessment in Mathematics 4 5.4

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 22 29.7

Children’s Category Test (CCT) 0 0.0

Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (CCTT) 0 0.0

Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI1) 0 0.0

Developing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT) 0 0.0

Differential Abilities Scales II (DAS II) 1 1.4

Eby Gifted Behavior Index (EGBI) 0 0.0

Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scale (GATES) 9 12.2

17

Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES-2) 6 8.1

Group Inventory for Fining Interest (GIFFI) 1 1.4

Guilford Tests of Divergent Thinking 0 0.0

InView 6 8.1

Iowa Tests of Educational Developments (ITED) 11 14.9

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC-II) 0 0.0

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 9 12.2

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-II) 4 5.4

KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (KeyMath-3 DA) 1 1.4

Khatena-Morse Multi-talent Perception Inventory (KMMPI) 0 0.0

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) 5 6.8

Metropolitan Achievement Test 4 5.4

Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-II (MAB-II) 0 0.0

Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 18 24.3

Nonverbal Ability Tests (NAT) 1 1.4

Otis Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) 12 16.2

Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) 1 1.4

Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) 13 17.6

Ravens Progressive Matrices 6 8.1

Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scale 3 4.1

School and Cognitive Ability Test (SCAT) 2 2.7

Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) 9 12.2

Slosson Intelligence Test 0 0.0

Stanford Achievement Tests 4 5.4

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale 9 12.2

State Benchmark Assessments 13 17.6

Stoelting Brief Nonverbal Intelligence Test (S-BIT) 0 0.0

18

Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA) 0 0.0

TerraNova 4 5.4

Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS) 4 5.4

Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (3rd) (TONI-3) 6 8.1

The Identity-Form System for Programs for gifted students 0 0.0

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking 5 6.8

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) 2 2.7

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal 0 0.0

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) 6 8.1

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test 12 16.2

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R) 22 29.7

Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) 1 1.4

Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT Expanded) 1 1.4

Woodcock Johnson Achievement Test 18 24.3

Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities 11 14.9

Other 19 25.7


Note. As respondents were asked to select all the instruments applicable, multiple instruments could be selected.

Non-standardized instruments used in identification. Teacher nomination (n=59, 92.2%), parent nomination (n=46, 71.9%), and grades (n=45, 70.3%) were identified as the most commonly used non-standardized procedures in the identification process. Other responses include teacher rating scale or checklist.

Table 26

Non-standardized Instruments Used in Identification Options Number of Districts Percent Teacher Nomination 59 92.2

Parent Nomination 46 71.9

Grades 45 70.3

19

Self-Nomination

39 60.9

Display of Work, Audition, Performance (Observation)

32 50.0

Products

20 31.3

Student Interview

20 31.3

Peer Nomination

18 28.1

Portfolio

18 28.1

Other 10 15.6 Total number of districts responding 64 Note. As respondents were asked to select all the elements applicable, multiple elements could be selected.

Table 27

Non-standardized Instruments Used in Identification by Urbanicity


Teacher Nomination 20 90.9 19 90.5 20 95.2

Parent Nomination 15 68.2 15 71.4 16 76.2

Grades 18 81.8 13 61.9 14 66.7

Self-Nomination 14 63.6 11 52.4 14 66.7

Display of Work, Audition, Performance (Observation)

14 63.6 8 38.1 10 47.6

Products 8 36.4 4 19.0 8 38.1

Student Interview 9 40.9 7 33.3 4 19.0

Peer Nomination 5 22.7 5 23.8 8 38.1

Portfolio 7 31.8 5 23.8 6 28.6

Other 4 18.2 2 9.5 4 19.0 Total number of districts responding 22 21 21

20

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. As respondents were asked to select all the elements applicable, multiple elements could be selected. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

General student demographics. The general population of American Indian/Alaska Native students is notably small with fewer than 10% of students identified in that category in the vast majority of school districts reporting. In 21 (11.2%) of the 187 districts providing information, more than 50% of the high school populations in the district were non-White, racial minority students. In 68 districts (37.6%), more than 50% of the high school population received free or reduced price lunch.

21

Table 28

General Student Demographics

Percent Category

Number of Districts for a Given Category

White Hispanic Black Asian American

Indian Pacific Islander Multi-Racial

Free-reduced Lunch

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Less than 1%

2 1.1 57 30.2 47 25.1 95 50.8 161 86.6 174 94.6 92 51.7 2 1.1

1-10% 7 3.7 89 47.1 84 44.9 80 42.8 20 10.8 9 4.9 79 44.4 12 6.6 11-20% 8 4.3 11 5.8 26 13.9 8 4.3 0 0.0 1 0.5 2 1.1 31 17.1 21-30% 4 2.1 10 5.3 12 6.4 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 2.8 23 12.7 31-40% 11 5.9 5 2.6 7 3.7 2 1.1 2 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 11.0 41-50% 12 6.4 5 2.6 4 2.1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 13.8 51-60% 10 5.3 4 2.1 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 13.8 61-70% 16 8.6 2 1.1 2 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 8.3 71-80% 20 10.7 3 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 8.3 81-90% 29 15.5 2 1.1 3 1.6 0 0.0 2 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 4.4

More than 90% 68 36.4 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 2.8

Total Number of

districts responding

187 189 187 187 186 184 178 181

Note.Each racial category was a separate question. As the respondents skipped some of the questions asking percentage of racial representation, total numbers across racial categories are different. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each racial category. Table 29

General Student Demogrpahics by Urbanicity

22

Percent Category

White Hispanic Black Asian American Indian

Pacific Islander

Multi-racial Free-reduced Lunch

U S R U S R U S R U S R U S R U S R U S R U S R Less than

1% 1 0 1 18 19 19 19 13 14 39 29 26 57 60 43 61 63 49 34 35 22 1 1 0

1-10% 1 4 2 37 34 18 29 36 19 23 32 25 8 6 6 5 3 1 27 28 24 4 3 5 11-20% 3 3 2 1 4 6 9 10 7 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 11 16 4 21-30% 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 12 7

31-40% 2 3 6 0 1 4 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 3

41-50% 4 5 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6 7 51-60% 5 2 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 10 6 61-70% 1 12 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 7 71-80% 7 6 7 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 81-90% 13 9 7 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4

More than 90%

27 22 18 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3


65 67 54 65 68 55 65 68 53 65 68 53 65 67 53 66 67 50 63 65 49 62 66 52

Note. Each racial category was a separate question. As the respondents skipped some of the questions asking percentage of racial representation, total numbers of responses by racial categories are different. U=urban, S=suburban, and R=rural school districts. As the locality of one district was not identified, there is discrepancy between the total numbers of districts responding for each racial category in Table 28 and those in Table 29.

23

Gifted program student demographics.The survey included questions relating to the racial/ethnic distribution of students in the gifted programs and the proportion of students on free and reduced lunch in the programs. Most districts (98, 57.6%) reported that between 1 and 10% of students are identified as gifted.

Table 30

Percentage of Identified Gifted Students

Options Number of Districts Percent Less than 1% 6 3.5

1-10% 98 57.9 11-20% 46 26.9 21-30% 13 7.6 31-40% 5 2.9 41-50% 2 1.2 51-60% 1 0.6 61-70% 0 0.0 71-80% 0 0.0 81-90% 0 0.0

More than 90% 0 0.0 Total number of districts responding 171

Table 31

Percentage of Identified Gifted Students by Urbanicity

Options Urban Suburban Rural

N % N % N %

Less than 1% 2 3.5 2 3.1 2 4.1 1-10% 30 52.6 42 64.6 26 53.1 11-20% 20 35.1 14 21.5 12 24.5 21-30% 4 7.0 4 6.2 5 10.2 31-40% 1 1.8 1 1.5 3 6.1 41-50% 0 0.0 1 1.5 1 2.0 51-60% 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0 61-70% 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 71-80% 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 81-90% 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

More than 90% 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total number of districts responding

57 65 49

24

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. For one district that reported between 1 and 10% of the students identified as gifted, urbanicity information was not provided. This district information was not included in the table.

25

Table 32

Gifted Program Student Demographics

Percent Category

Number of Districts for a Given Category


Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Free-reduced

Lunch N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Less than 1% 11 6.5 101 60.5 91 54.2 90 54.2 147 89.6 157 95.2 112 69.6 22 14.2

1-10% 21 12.5 49 29.3 58 34.5 63 38.0 14 8.5 8 4.8 46 28.6 60 38.7

11-20% 11 6.5 7 4.2 15 8.9 8 4.8 1 0.6 0 0.0 2 1.2 19 12.3

21-30% 4 2.4 2 1.2 2 1.2 3 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 19 12.3

31-40% 2 1.2 1 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.2

41-50% 2 1.2 3 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.5

51-60% 3 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 3.9

61-70% 14 8.3 2 1.2 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.3

71-80% 14 8.3 2 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6

81-90% 25 14.9 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.6

More than 90%

61 36.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.6

Total Number of districts responding

168 167 168 166 164 165 161 155

Note.Each racial category was a separate question. As the respondents skipped some of the questions asking percentage of racial representation, total numbers across racial categories are different. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each racial category.

26

Table 33

Gifted Program Student Demographics by Urbanicity

Percent Category

Number of Districts


Pacific Islander

Multi-Racial Free-reduced Lunch

U S R U S R U S R U S R U S R U S R U S R U S R

Less than 1% 3 5 3 34 40 26 31 33 26 33 35 21 51 58 37 53 60 43 37 46 28 10 7 5

1-10% 6 8 7 15 18 16 19 26 13 21 21 21 4 3 7 3 3 2 14 16 16 11 28 20

11-20% 7 3 1 3 1 3 4 3 8 1 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 11 6 2 21-30% 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 6 5 31-40% 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 41-50% 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 51-60% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 61-70% 2 6 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 71-80% 7 5 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 81-90% 8 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1

More than 90% 18 26 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Total Number of

districts reporting

56 63 48 56 62 48 55 63 49 55 63 47 55 62 46 56 63 45 53 62 45 52 57 45

Note. U = Urban, S = Suburban, R= Rural districts.Each racial category was a separate question. As the respondents skipped some of the questions asking percentage of racial representation, total numbers of responses by racial categories are different. Among the responded districts, urbanicity for one school district was not reported. As the locality of one district was not identified, there is a discrepancy between the total numbers of districts responding for each racial category in Table 32 and those in Table 33.

27

Representation of Certain Groups of Students in Gifted Programs

When demographic information in Tables 30 and 32 are disaggregated by looking at alignment between percentage of certain groups of students in each district and percentage of the various racial and socio-economic groups in the district’s gifted programs, representation of minority students and economically disadvantaged students in gifted programs was widely variant across school districts. For tables 34 through 36, four categories were generated based on the percentage categories used in Tables 30 and 32 to reflect alignment between minority and economically disadvantaged student representation in each district and the district’s gifted programs. When the district coordinator reported the same percentages of representations for the subpopulation group in the district and in the district’s gifted programs fell in the same category (e.g., 1-10%), these districts were categorized under “exact alignment.” If the percentage of student representation was within one category, this group of districts was labeled “adjacent alignment. For example, if a district coordinator reported that 21-30 % of the students in the district are Black and 11-20% or 31-40% of the students in gifted programs are Black, that district was placed in the “adjacent alignment” category. Additionally, the “divergent alignment” label was applied to the districts with two or three categories separating the district population from the population in the gifted programs while “distant alignment” was applied when the informants reported that there were four or more categories separating the percentage of students in the district and the district’s gifted programs.

This approach allowed the research team to take the local context of each district into account in investigating underrepresentation of minorities (Black and Hispanic students in particular) and students in the Free and Reduced lunch program. It was not research team’s intention to suggest a quota system in identification of gifted students, but to show general patterns in student demographic information in gifted education programs Detailed information about representation of these groups of students in each district in the sample can be found in Appendix 2 through 4.

Black students. More than 80% of the district coordinators reported exact alignment (n=84, 50.3%) or adjacent alignment (n=59, 35.3%) between the percentage of Black students in the district and percentage of Black students in the district’s gifted programs. There were 24 districts (14.3%) in which Black student representation in gifted programs was far lower than the representation of the group in the general student population of the district.

Table 34

Alignment of Black Student Representation in a District and in District’s Gifted Programs Alignment Number of Districts Percent Exact Alignment 84 50.3 Adjacent Alignment 59 35.3 Divergent Alignment 20 11.9 Distant Alignment 4 2.4 Note. Only districts that reported both the percentage of Black students in the district and in the gifted programs were included in this table.

28

Hispanic Students. The representation of Hispanic students in gifted programs was similar to that of Black students in gifted programs. While a majority of the district coordinators reported exact (n=84, 50.6%) alignment or adjacent alignment (n=61, 36.7%), 12.6% (n=21) of the districts indicated that the percentage of Hispanic students in their gifted programs was much lower than the percentage of the group in the general student population of the district.

Table 35

Alignment of Hispanic Student Representation in a District and in District’s Gifted Programs Alignment Number of Districts Percent Exact Alignment 84 50.6 Adjacent Alignment 61 36.7 Divergent Alignment 14 8.4 Distant Alignment 7 4.2 Note. Only districts that reported both the percentage of Hispanic students in the district and in the gifted programs were included in this table.

Students in Free and Reduced Lunch Program. Underrepresentation of students of poverty informed by their free or reduced lunch price status was greater than that of minority students. The representation of this group of students in general and in gifted programs were considered in two ways.

While the total high school population had a relatively a bell curve distribution relating to percentage of students on free or reduced price lunch, the distribution of the number of districts reporting a given percentage of students on free or reduced price lunch in their gifted programs was skewed with gifted programs having a relatively small proportion of students participating in the free and reduced lunch program as shown in Figure 1.

29

Figure 1

Percent of Students on Free/reduced Lunch Overall and in Gifted Programs

In addition, only 38.1% (n=58) of the district coordinators reported exact or adjacent alignment between the percentage of students in the free and reduced lunch program in the district and the percentage of the group of students in the district gifted programs.

Table 36

Alignment of Student of Poverty Representation in a District and inDistrict’s Gifted Programs

Alignment Number of Districts Percent Exact Alignment 23 15.1 Adjacent Alignment 35 23.0 Divergent Alignment 60 39.4 Distant Alignment 34 22.4 Note. Only districts that reported both the percentage of students of poverty in the district and in the gifted programs were included in this table.

Strategies to identify historically underrepresented gifted students. Out of 48 district coordinators who answered the question, 24 (50.0%) indicated that the high school program did not have any plan in place to identify gifted students from historically underrepresented populations. Strategies named for identifying these students included: use of alternative assessments (n=7, 14.6%) and multiple source of information (n=6, 12.5%) such as teacher observation or parent input, bridge programs between regular and advanced courses, partnerships with community organizations, the AP Potential report, and consultation with ELL teachers.

30

Strategies to develop talent in underrepresented gifted students. Among 39 respondents to the question asking specific strategies utilized to develop talent in underrepresented gifted students, 20 (51.3%) district coordinators indicated that they did not have any strategic plan to do so. Among those reporting strategies, 10 (25.6%) indicated creating a support system such as teacher mentoring, tutoring, or special support programs (e.g., Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) and Bridge Program) as a strategy to develop talent potential in gifted students from underrepresented populations. Other responses included strategies such as collaboration with parents and general education classroom teachers and differentiated instruction.

Overarching Goals of the High School Programs for Gifted Students

Among the 102 school district coordinators who provided information on the overall goals of their high school programs for gifted students, 94 (92.2%) indicated that the program in their districts for gifted students existed to provide rigorous learning opportunities commensurate with student needs through differentiation and AP classes. In addition, the goals in 17 (16.7%) school districts included equitable access to advanced academic settings for gifted students. Other responses included both student outcome goals and operational goals of programs for gifted students: encourage lifelong learning (n=14, 13.8%); career planning guidance (n=8, 7.8%); encourage student to reach highest potential (n=8, 7.8%); and promote social and emotional well-being of gifted students (n=6, 5.9%).

Framework for High School Gifted Programming

AP frameworks and curriculum guides were named in the largest number of districts (n=78, 60.5 %) as the gifted program model. In 44 districts (34.1%) no particular model guided programming.

Table 37

Primary Gifted Programming Model Utilized Options Number of Districts Percent No particular model

44 34.1

AP Framework and Curriculum Guides

78 60.5

Model of Differentiated Curriculum (Tomlinson)

27 20.9

Depth and Complexity Model (Kaplan)

8 6.2

IB Framework and Curriculum Guides

8 6.2

Consultation and Collaboration Model (Landrum)

7 5.4

Autonomous Learner Model (Betts)

5 3.9

Integrated Curriculum Model (VanTassel-Baska)

5 3.9

Levels of Services (Treffinger)

5 3.9

31

Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli)

5 3.9

Enrichment Clusters (Renzulli)

4 3.1

Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli)

4 3.1

Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli)

3 2.3

Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, et.al.)

3 2.3

Purdue 3-stage Model

2 1.6

Stanley Model of Talent Identification and Development

0 0.0

Other 5 3.9 Total number of districts responding 129 Note. As the question allowed multiple responses, the total number of responses is greater than the total number of districts responding.

Table 38

Primary Gifted Programming Model Utilized by Urbanicity


No particular model

16 36.4 16 31.4 12 36.4

AP Framework and Curriculum Guides

28 63.6 28 54.9 22 66.7

Model of Differentiated Curriculum (Tomlinson)

11 25.0 11 21.6 5 15.2

Depth and Complexity Model (Kaplan)

4 9.1 3 5.9 1 3.0

IB Framework and Curriculum Guides

1 2.3 5 9.8 2 6.1

Consultation and Collaboration Model (Landrum)

1 2.3 3 5.9 3 9.1

Autonomous Learner Model (Betts)

1 2.3 1 2.0 3 9.1

Integrated Curriculum Model (VanTassel-Baska)

3 6.8 1 2.0 1 3.0

Levels of Services (Treffinger)

2 4.5 0 0.0 3 9.1

Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli) 2 4.5 1 2.0 2 6.1

32

Enrichment Clusters (Renzulli) 1 2.3 1 2.0 2 6.1

Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli)

2 4.5 0 0.0 2 6.1

Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli)

1 2.3 1 2.0 1 3.0

Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, et.al.)

0 0.0 2 3.9 1 3.0

Purdue 3-stage Model

1 2.3 1 2.0 0 0.0

Stanley Model of Talent Identification and Development

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Other 1 2.3 2 3.9 2 6.1 Total number of districts responding 44 51 33 Note. N= Number of school districts reporting the percent category. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Urbanicity for one school district was not reported.

Programming model goals. Even though the intent of the question asking for specific measurable goals for the programming model was to elicit outcome goals different from the overall goal of gifted services listed in the earlier question, responses were very similar to those listed as gifted program goals. While 56 (57.1%) district coordinators specified measurable outcome goals such as critical-thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and/or creative-thinking skills, the remaining respondents listed process goals such as college preparation (n=22, 22.4%) or providing rigorous content (n=16, 16.3%) as outcome goals in the high school gifted programs.

Program Service Delivery Type

Advanced Placement (n=55, 40.4%) was identified as the leading model used to deliver services to most gifted students followed by ability grouping at 25.7% (n=35). Other options may have been used in those districts, but they were not selected as the primary service delivery model. Other responses included independent study, mentorship, and internship opportunities with a focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Table 39

Program Service Delivery Type

Options Number of Districts Percent Advanced Placement (AP) 55 40.4

Ability Grouping (e.g., students are placed in advanced classes such as honors classes)

35 25.7

Special classes of homogeneously grouped gifted students 10 7.4

33

within a regular school setting Dual Enrollment (in college or university) 9 6.6


8 5.9


3 2.2

International Baccalaureate (IB) 3 2.2

A full-time school for gifted students 1 0.7


1 0.7

Distance learning or online opportunities 1 0.7

A state-sponsored residential high school 0 0.0

Other 10 7.4 Total number of districts responding 136

Note. Multiple elements could be selected.

Table 40

Program Service Delivery Type by Urbanicity


Advanced Placement (AP) 21 43.8 19 37.3 15 40.5

Ability Grouping (e.g., students are placed in advanced classes such as honors classes) 14 29.2 13 25.5 8 21.6


2 4.2 4 7.8 4 10.8

Dual Enrollment (in college or university) 6 12.5 1 2.0 2 5.4


2 4.2 4 7.8 2 5.4


1 2.1 1 2.0 1 2.7

International Baccalaureate (IB) 0 0.0 2 3.9 1 2.7

34

A full-time school for gifted students 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.7


0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0

Distance learning or online opportunities 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0

A state-sponsored residential high school 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Other 2 4.2 5 9.8 3 8.1 Total Responded 48 51 37 Note. N= Number of school districts reporting the percent category. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. Multiple elements could be selected. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

Proportion of the gifted students served by the primary service delivery type. Sixty-seven percent of respondents (n=90) reported that they served between 75 and 100% of the identified students through their primary service model.

Table 41

Percentage of Students Served by the Primary Service Delivery Type Options Number of Districts Percent 100% 21 15.8

75-99% 69 51.9

50-74% 27 19.5

25-49% 9 6.8

Less than 25% 7 5.3 Total number of districts responding 133

Table 42

Percentage of Students Served by the Primary Service Delivery Type by Urbanicity Options Urban Suburban Rural

N % N % N % 100%

5 11.4 9 17.3 7 19.4

35

75-99%

25 56.8 27 51.9 17 47.2

50-74%

8 18.2 12 23.1 6 16.7

25-49%

3 6.8 2 3.8 4 11.1

Less than 25% 3 6.8 2 3.8 2 5.6 Total number of districts responding

44 52 36

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Urbanicity for one school district was not reported.

Amount of time students received gifted education services. Over 40% of the respondents (n=55) indicated that gifted students received services through the primary service delivery mode for 1-4 hours per week. However, responses in the “other” category (29.1%) suggest that the amount of time in which services are offered in some districts is variable across schools or falls somewhere between listed categories. For example, in the 39 comments regarding the amount of time the students were provided services per week, 23 respondents indicated that the decision depended on different courses or teachers at the building level. Other responses included two days per week and one day every other week.

Table 43

Time per Week Students Received Gifted Education Services Options Number of Districts Percentage Less than an hour per week

4 3.0

1-4 hours per week

55 41.0

One day per week

10 7.5

All of their time

26 19.4


Table 44

Time per Week Students Received Gifted Education Services by Urbanicity


Less than an hour per week

3 6.5 1 2.0 0 0.0

1-4 hours per week 21 45.7 16 32.0 18 49.0

36

One day per week

4 8.7 5 10.0 1 3.0

All of their time

5 10.9 15 30.0 6 16.0

Other 13 28.3 13 26.0 12 32.0 Total number of districts responding

46 50 37


Cluster grouping. When cluster grouping was used as a means of assigning students to services in 22 districts, the process for assigning students varied widely. In 12 districts (54.5%) the respondents indicated that they used a rubric based on GPA, pre-assessments, and/or teacher recommendation as the primary determinant of how cluster groups are assigned in the high school. Other responses include students’ self-decision, student interest, and student skills level reported by less than three districts.

Curricular materials used. While 38 districts (40%) indicated that they did not use any particular curricular materials, AP course materials were identified as primary curricular materials for gifted students at the high school level (n=35, 36.1%) followed by university course materials (n=4, 4.1%) and International Baccalaureate materials (n=3, 3.1%).

Most developed content area. Language arts (n=41, 34.5%) and mathematics (n=37, 31.1%) were identified as the most well-developed content areas in the curriculum for high school gifted students. An additional 8 districts indicated that all content areas were equally developed in their districts.

Table 45

Most Developed Content Area Options Number of Districts Percent Language Arts

42 35.3

Mathematics

39 32.8

Science and Technology

17 14.3

Social Sciences

4 3.4

Visual and Performing Arts

1 0.8


37

Table 46

Most Developed Content Area by Urbanicity Options Urban Suburban Rural

N % N % N % Language Arts 10 25.0 17 37.0 15 46.9

Mathematics 14 35.0 19 41.3 5 15.6

Science and Technology 7 17.5 4 8.7 6 18.8

Social Sciences 2 5.0 1 2.2 1 3.1

Visual and Performing Arts 1 2.5 0 0.0 0 0.0



Most developed skills area. Problem-solving skills were identified as the most developed area in the curriculum (n=48, 39.3%). In rural school districts, writing skills were noted as the most developed skills area at the high school level. Table 47

Most Developed Skills Area Options Number of Districts Percent Problem Solving skills

48 39.3

Writing skills

23 18.9

Creative thinking skills

19 15.6

Research skills

11 9.0

Metacognitive skills

9 7.4

Affective skills

3 2.5

Communication skills

2 1.6


38

Table 48

Most Developed Skills Area by Urbanicity


Problem Solving skills 19 45.2 22 44.9 7 23.3

Writing skills 10 23.8 4 8.2 9 30.0

Creative thinking skills 5 11.9 8 16.3 6 20.0

Research skills 4 9.5 5 10.2 2 6.7

Metacognitive skills 2 4.8 5 10.2 2 6.7

Affective skills 0 0.0 2 4.1 1 3.3

Communication skills 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 3.3



Student Outcome Measures

As indicated in previous responses, AP courses are the predominant option for gifted students at the high school level and AP tests (n=43, 45.8%) are identified as the most prevalent student outcome measures to assess the outcomes of gifted program services at the high school level. Other measures of student outcomes reported include classroom assessments (n=34, 36.2%), state benchmark testing (n=23, 24.5%), and college entrance exam scores (n=20, 21.3%).

Results of measuring student learning outcomes. Out of 94 responses to the question of how student outcome data were used, 65 (69.2%) district coordinators commented that they used student outcome results for program improvement such as curricular and instructional modification, planning intervention, or professional development. Other areas informed by student outcome data at the high school level include student placement, test preparation tutoring, modification of individual goals, and communication with parents. Among the respondents, 20 (21.3%) indicated that they take no actions based on the measured outcomes.

39

Use of the National Gifted Education Programming Standards

In order to reflect best practices in gifted education, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) issued the Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards (2010). The stated purpose of the Standards is to help teachers and other educators in Pre-K-12 settings be effective in planning and implementing programs for gifted learners.

Nearly 73% (n=95) of the coordinators indicated that NAGC Standards were not used in their districts. Among those who were using the NAGC standards, the greatest number of respondents reported applying the Standards in the area of curriculum planning and instruction (n=30, 22.9%) and the least-used Standards were in the area of professional development (n=21, 16.0%). The overall pattern did not change across urban, suburban, and rural school districts.

Table 49

Areas to Which the NAGC Standards Were Applied Answer Options Number of District Percent Currently not using the standards

95 72.5

Curriculum planning and instruction

30 22.9

Learning and development

25 19.1

Assessment

23 17.6

Programming

23 17.6

Professional development 21 16.0

Learning environments 20 15.3

Total number of districts responding 131 Note. As respondents were asked to select all the elements applicable, multiple elements could be selected.

Table 50

Areas to Which the NAGC Standards Were Applied by Urbanicity


Currently not using the standards

31 72.1 40 78.4 24 64.9

Curriculum planning and instruction

12 27.9 7 13.7 11 29.7

40

Learning and development

6 14.0 6 11.8 13 35.1

Assessment

7 16.3 5 9.8 11 29.7

Programming

5 11.6 7 13.7 11 29.7

Professional development 7 16.3 8 15.7 6 16.2

Learning environments

4 9.3 6 11.8 10 27.0

Total number of districts responding 43 51 37

Note. N= Number of school districts reporting the percent category. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. Respondents were asked to select all the Standards applicable, therefore multiple standards could be selected. The percentages were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. One district that did not report urbanicity was not included in the table.

Professional Education

Teaching credentials. The data relating to teacher credentials presented a very difficult problem for analysis. In our first analysis we noted many cases of extreme outliers. Follow-up inquires to several school districts indicated that the respondents had, in some cases, misinterpreted the question. In other cases, an afternoon workshop once a year resulted in attribution of the label “certified/endorsed.” To avoid providing misleading information, we have chosen not to include the data from this section of the survey.

Desired qualities and characteristics of teachers of gifted students. Completed professional training in gifted education (n=20, 55.6%) and strong content knowledge (n=19, 52.8%) were identified as the most desired qualities in teachers of the gifted. Only one coordinator chose an advanced degree in gifted education as a desired characteristic of high school teachers of the gifted.

Table 51

Desirable Qualities and Characteristics of Teachers in Gifted Programs Options Number of District Percentage Professional training in gifted education

20 55.6

Strong content knowledge

19 52.8

Ability to provide adequate curriculum and instruction for gifted students

14 38.9

Competency in using technology

11 30.6

Prior experience in teaching gifted students

9 25.0

Add-on endorsement or certification in gifted education 7 19.4

41

Advanced degree in gifted education

1 2.8

Other 10 27.8 Total number of districts responding 36 Note. As respondents were asked to select all the elements applicable, multiple elements could be selected. Table 52

Desirable Qualities and Characteristics of Teachers in Gifted Programs by Urbanicity


Professional training in gifted education

8 57.1 5 45.5 7 63.3

Strong content knowledge

6 42.9 7 63.3 6 54.5

Ability to provide adequate curriculum and instruction for gifted students

4 28.6 5 45.5 4 36.4

Competency in using technology

6 42.9 1 9.1 2 18.2

Prior experience in teaching gifted students

4 28.6 3 27.3 2 18.2

Add-on endorsement or certification in gifted education

3 21.4 1 9.1 3 27.3

Advanced degree in gifted education

0 0 0 0 1 9.1

Other 4 28.6 3 27.3 3 27.3 Total number of districts responding 14 11 11 Note. Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. Multiple elements could be selected. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Urbanicity for one school district was not reported.

Staff development activities. Differentiation strategies for teaching gifted students (n=81, 73.6%) was the areas of staff development offered to general education teachers in the largest number of districts. However, in the majority of districts (n=75) less than 5 hours is devoted to staff development on gifted students or gifted education.

Table 53

Staff Development Areas in Gifted Education Options Number of District Percentage Differentiation strategies for teaching gifted students

81 73.6

42

Way to modify curriculum and instruction for gifted students

52 47.3

Characteristics of gifted and talented students

46 41.8

Utilization of assessment in instruction

35 31.8

Specific content knowledge 28 25.5 Multiple perspectives on giftedness and talents

21 19.1

Ways to identify gifted student from diverse backgrounds

21 19.1

Program service options for gifted and talented

21 19.1

Development of instructional materials for gifted students

20 18.2

Ways to meet social/emotional needs of gifted students

20 18.2

Ways to work with parents in addressing the needs of gifted students

8 7.3

Other 17 15.5 Total number of districts responding 110 Note. The questions allowed multiple responses. Table 54

Staff Development Areas in Gifted Education by Urbanicity Options Urban Suburban Rural

N % N % N % Differentiation strategies for teaching gifted students

27 71.1 29 72.5 25 78.1

Way to modify curriculum and instruction for gifted students

22 57.9 17 42.5 13 40.6

Characteristics of gifted and talented students

19 50.0 12 30.0 15 46.9

Utilization of assessment in instruction

10 26.3 13 32.5 12 37.5

Specific content knowledge

10 26.3 11 27.5 7 21.9

Multiple perspectives on giftedness and talents

10 26.3 6 15.0 5 15.6

Ways to identify gifted student from diverse backgrounds

8 21.1 6 15.0 7 21.9

Program service options for gifted and talented

7 18.4 7 17.5 7 21.9

43

Development of instructional materials for gifted students

7 18.4 6 15.0 7 21.9

Ways to meet social/emotional needs of gifted students

9 23.7 6 15.0 5 15.6

Ways to work with parents in addressing the needs of gifted students

5 13.2 1 2.5 2 6.3

Other 3 7.9 9 22.5 5 15.6 Total number of districts responding 38 40 32 Note. The question allowed multiple responses. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Table 55

Staff Development Hours per Year Devoted to Areas in Gifted Education Options Number of Districts Percent Less than 5 hours 75 62.0 Between 5 and 10 hours 27 22.3 Between 10 and 20 hours 8 6.6 More than 20 11 9.1 Total number of districts responding

121

Table 56

Staff Development Hours per Year Devoted to Areas of Gifted Education by Urbanicity


N % N % N % Less than 5 hours 28 68.3 27 60.0 20 57.1 Between 5 and 10 hours 7 17.1 10 22.2 10 28.6 Between 10 and 20 hours 3 7.3 5 11.1 0 0 More than 20 3 7.3 3 6.7 5 14.3 Total number of districts responding

41 45 35

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category.The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

44

Evaluation and Program Improvement

Program evaluation requirement. Fifty-nine percent of districts (n=77) did not have a requirement to evaluate the high school gifted programs. Of the disricts with such a requirement, the greatest number (n=30, 63.8%) reported yearly evaluation. The majority of districts (n=39, 78.9%) had completed a program evaluation after 2009.

Table 57

Program Evaluation Requirement Options Number of District Reporting Percent

Yes 54 41.2 No 77 58.8 Total number of districts responding

131

Table 58

Program Evaluation Requirement by Urbanicity


Yes

17 37.8 18 36.0 19 52.8


45 50 36

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category.The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Table 59

Program Evaluation Frequency Options Number of Districts Percent Every year 30 63.8

Every two years

2 4.3

Every three to five years

6 12.8

Less frequently than every five years 9 19.1 Total number of districts responding 47 Table 60

Program Evaluation Frequncy by Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

N % N % N %

45

Every year 10 76.9 8 47.1 12 70.6

Every two years

0 0.0 2 11.8 0 0.0

Every three to five years 0 0.0 4 23.5 2 11.8

Less frequently than every five years

3 23.1 3 17.6 3 17.6


13 17 17

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category.The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Table 61

Time of Last Program Evaluation Response Options Number of Districts Percentage 2011 34 73.9

2010 5 5.0

2009 0 0.0

2008 3 6.5

2007 1 2.2

2006 0 0.0

2005 2 4.3

2004 1 2.2

2003 0 0.0

2002 0 0.0

2001 0 0.0

Before 2001 0 0.0 Total number of districts responding

46

Table 62

Time of Last Program Evaluation by Urbanicity


N % N % N % 2011 10 83.3 13 76.5 11 64.7 2010 1 8.3 2 11.8 2 11.8 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0

46

2008 0 0 0 0 3 17.6 2007 0 0 1 5.9 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 1 0 1 5.9 2004 1 8.3 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 Before 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total number of districts responding

12 17 17

Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category.The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

Program evaluation design and implementation. Gifted program evaluation in most districts reporting on this question was designed and implemented in-house (n=31, 67.4%) by educators working in the program. Suburban districts were more likely (18.8%) than urban or rural districts to have a professional outside evaluator conduct the program evaluation.

Table 63

Program Evaluation Design and Implementation Options Number of Districts Percent Educators working in the program

31 67.4

Educators in the research and/or evaluation department of your school district

8 17.4

A professional outside evaluator

4 8.7

A governmental agency such as the state department of education

3 6.5

Total number of districts responding 46 Table 64

Program Evaluation Design and Implementation by Urbanicity


Educators working in the program

11 84.6 10 62.5 10 58.8

Educators in the research and/or evaluation department of your school district

1 7.7 2 12.5 5 29.4

A professional outside evaluator 1 7.7 3 18.8 0 0

47

A governmental agency such as the state department of education

0 0 1 6.3 2 11.8

Total number of districts responding 13 16 17 Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

Indicators for judging the success of the gifted program. Among 35 district coordinators who responded to the question, student achievement outcomes or outcomes of AP exams (n=19, 54.3%) were most frequently noted as indicators of the success of gifted program. The respondents also listed feedback from stakeholders including parents, students, teachers, and administrators, and an increase in enrollment of gifted students in AP courses (n=9) as indicators for success.

Plans to make changes to gifted program. Seventy-one of the district coordinators who responded to this question (58.7%) indicated no plans to make changes to their high school gifted program in the next 12-18 months, Among the 50 district coordinators that indicated planned changes, service delivery options (n=23, 19.0%) and program services (n=22, 18.2%) were selected as the area of focus for change. Table 65

Areas of Planned Program Changes Options Number of Districts Percent No plan to change

71 58.7

Service delivery options

23 19.0

Program services

22 18.2

Professional development based on evaluation outcomes

19 15.7

Evaluation of student progress

18 14.9

Program goals and objectives

18 14.9

Student referral and identification

14 11.6

Operational definition of giftedness

2 1.7

Other 15 12.4 Total number of districts responding 121 Note. Multiple elements could be selected.

48

Table 66

Areas of Planned Program Changes by Urbanicity


No plan to change

26 61.9 23 53.5 22 62.9

Service delivery options

7 16.7 12 27.9 4 11.4

Program services

7 16.7 9 20.9 6 17.1

Professional development based on evaluation outcomes

6 14.3 9 20.9 4 11.4

Evaluation of student progress

6 14.3 8 18.6 4 11.4

Program goals and objectives

5 11.9 9 20.9 4 11.4

Student referral and identification

6 14.3 5 11.6 3 8.6

Operational definition of giftedness

0 0 1 2.3 1 2.9

Other 4 9.5 6 14.0 5 14.3 Total number of districts responding 42 43 35 Note. N= Number of Districts Reporting. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. Multiple elements could be selected. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Urbanicity for one school district was not reported.

Summary

As in the Elementary and Middle School Gifted Programs Survey results, the great variability across state and local levels in serving gifted students was noteable at the high school level. Further, the survey results also documented that limited services were available to high school gifted students other than Advanced Placement courses. The AP course option was the dominant option for high school gifted students and appears to have impact on ways student outcomes are measured and that desired teacher qualities are articulated in that AP test scroes served as the most named outcome measure and strong content knowledge was a highly desireable characteristic for teachers of the gifted.

Program Status

More than 75% of the respondents reported that their districts provided a gifted and talented program to high school gifted students and their programs had been in existence more than 10 years.

For the districts that indicated that specific educational opportunities are provided to gifted high school students, Advanced Placement courses (n=194, 90.7%), dual enrollment (n=186, 86.9%)

49

and/or ability grouping (n=152, 71.0%) were most frequently noted as the educational opportunity offered.

Policies on Gifted Education

Statae-level regulations. The definition of gifted and talented students (n=110, 81.5%) and the areas of giftedness to be served (n=63, 46.7%) were the elements most often determined by state law or regulations. Fifteen (1101%) district coordinators in 10 states reported that their state did not have rules or regulations governing programs for gifted students.

Funding. The largest number of district coordinators reported that funding for high school gifted programs was provided by local sources (n=23, 22.8%) while the least amount of funding was provided by grants or other sources, and 28 (27.7%) district coordinators reported having no funding to support their high school gifted programs.

Administrative allocation. Less than 5%of the districts (n=6) were guided by a full-time administrator for high school gifted programs. The most prevalent administrative allocation for high school gifted programs was a part-time administrator of district wide gifted programs whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities (n=73, 50.3%).

Teacher qualification requirements. State-endorsed credentials for teaching high school gifted students were required in only 33.8% (n=46) of the districts.

Definition of Giftedness Definition of giftedness utilized. The majority of respondents (n=99, 74.4%) reported that the

state definition for gifted and talented was applied in their district.

Identification of Gifted Students

Identification practices. More than 50% (n=83) of the respondents indicated that they have a specific process in place to identify gifted students at the high school level. Identification practices reported fell on a continuum representing the degree to which recommended practices were followed. At one extreme on the continuum the reported identification system relied on only one data point for selection to receive services. At the other end of the continuum were procedures that included a multi-faceted combination of practices such as: collecting multiple data; decision-making by a committee of educators; selecting appropriate identification tools based on the student demographic information (such as race or language proficiency); looking for evidence of a broader skill set; purposefully including consideration of students who may have a disability in the identification process; continuously training key-personnel to ensure decision-making reliability; and identifying students within the Response to Intervention framework.

Demographic representation. Underrepresentation of minority students and economically disadvantaged students in high school gifted programs showed a wide variation. Between 10-20% of the district coordinators reported a lower percentage of Black and Hispanic students in their gifted programs than the percentage of those groups in their district student population, and 61.8% (n=94) respondents reported a much lower representation of students of poverty in their gifted programs than the percentage of the group in their district student population.

Identification of historically underrepresented populations. Out of 48 district coordinators who answered the question, 24 (50.0%) indicated that the high school program did not have any

50

plan in place to identify gifted students from historically underrepresented populations. Strategies named for identifying these students included: use of alternative assessments (n=7, 14.6%) and multiple source of information (n=6, 12.5%) .

Talent development among historically underrepresented populations. Nearly half of the districts (n=20, 51.3%) indicated that they did not have a strategic plan to develop talent potential in underrepresented populations at the high school level. Among those respondents reporting strategies, 10 (25.6%) indicated creating a support system such as teacher mentoring, tutoring, or special support programs (e.g., Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) and Bridge Program) as a strategy to develop talent potential in gifted students from underrepresented populations.

Gifted Programming Program goals. Among the 102 school district coordinators who provided information on the

overall goals of their high school programs for gifted students, 94 (92.2%) indicated that the program in their districts for gifted students existed to provide rigorous learning opportunities commensurate with student needs through differentiation and AP classes.

Framework for gifted programming. AP frameworks and curriculum guides were named in the largest number of districts (n=78, 60.5 %) as the gifted program model.. In 44 districts (34.1%) no particular model guided programming. Sixty-seven percent of respondents (n=90) reported that they served between 75 and 100 % of the identified students through their primary service model. These results indicated that identified gifted students are still considered and identified as a homogeneous group of students with all students being served in the same way.

Program delivery. Advanced Placement was identified as the leading programming model used to deliver services to most gifted students (n=55, 40.4%) followed by ability grouping at 25.7% (n=35).

Curricular materials. While 38 districts (40%) indicated that they did not use any particular curricular materials, AP course materials were identified as primary curricular materials for gifted students at the high school level (n=35, 36.1%) followed by university course materials (n=4, 4.1%) and International Baccalaureate materials (n=3, 3.1).

Content areas and skills developed. Language arts and problem solving skills were identified as the most well-developed content and skills areas for high school gifted students by the largest number of respondents.

Learning outcome measures. Advanced Placement (AP) courses are the predominant option for gifted students at the high school level and AP tests (n=43, 45.8%) are identified as the most prevalent student outcome measures to assess the outcomes of gifted program services at the high school level.

Use of the national gifted education programming standards. Nearly 73% (n=95) of the coordinators indicated that NAGC Standards were not used in their districts. Among those who were using the NAGC standards, the greatest number of respondents reported applying the Standards in the area of curriculum planning and instruction (n=20, 22.9%); the least- used Standards were in the area of professional development (n=21, 16.0%). The overall pattern did not change across urban, suburban, and rural school districts.

51

Professional development. Completed professional training in gifted education (n=20, 55.6%) and strong content knowledge (n=19, 52.8%) were identified as the most desired qualities in teachers of the gifted. Differentiation strategies for teaching gifted students was the area of staff development offered to general education teachers in the largest number of districts. However, in the majority of districts (n=75) less than 5 hours is devoted to staff development on gifted students or gifted education .

Evaluation and Program Improvement

Evaluation of gifted programs. Only 41.2% (n=54) of respondents indicated that the district had a requirement to evaluate the high school gifted program. Among the districts with evaluation requirements, evaluations were characterized as in-house evaluations carried out by educators working in the program by the largest number of districts.

Planned changes. In reporting planned changes in the high school gifted program in the next 12-18 months, 71 informants (58.7%) indicated no plans to change despite many challenges documented in the responses. Among the 50 district coordinators that indicated planned changes, service delivery options (n=23, 19.0%) and program services (n=22, 18.2%) were selected as the area of focus for change.

52

References

Kaplan, S. (2005). Layering differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. In F. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching gifted students (2nd ed., pp. 107-132). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K-Grade 12 standards. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=546

National Association for Gifted Children & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2011). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 20102011. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=546

Appendices

53

Appendix 1: The Status of High School Programs for Gifted students Survey

I. Introduction

Policymakers, researchers, and administrators are concerned about the status of programs for gifted students and programming options in the United States. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented has been commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education to gather data from school districts around the country to develop a portrait of the current status of programs for gifted students in high school schools. Accordingly, we have randomly sampled school districts across the United States according to size, distribution of ethnic groups, etc. Your district was selected as one that is important in this endeavor. If you do not have a program that provides services to gifted and talented students, the first question on the survey will give you the opportunity to respond accordingly, and you will be exited from the survey. The survey is structured so that you will only be asked questions that fit your particular situation. The results of the survey are completely anonymous and only aggregated data will be reported. We expect that it will take about 30 minutes to complete the survey. For some questions, you may need to obtain data from another department. Questions focus on school district and gifted program demographics (race/ethnicity); free/reduced lunch; gifted program administration; type of curriculum elements implemented in the high school gifted program; the identification process; professional development. Should you have any concerns or questions, please contact us. We thank you in advance for your efforts in this important endeavor.

Carolyn M. Callahan, Ph.D. Tonya R. Moon, Ph.D. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented University of Virginia

II. General Directions

We have selected your school district to report on its HIGH SCHOOL gifted programs for 9-12th grade students depending on the subset of grades considered high school in your school district. For the purposes of this survey, a gifted program is defined as a program that has a specific process for the identification of a group of students who are provided educational options in ways that differ from regular classroom curricula and/or instructional practices.

You will answer the question in most cases by selecting the responses most closely aligned with statistics, policy, or practice in your school district. On some occasions you may be asked whether you wish to provide an explanation and there will be a response box where you can fill in such information.

Appendices

54

III. Gifted Program Services

1. In which state is your school district located?

2. Did your school district offer high-school programs for gifted students that were discontinued/cut within the past 5 years? ⃝ Yes

⃝ No

3. Do you offer educational opportunities for gifted students at the high school level that differ from regular classroom curricula and/or instructional practices?

⃝ Yes (If you answered yes, please proceed to next page)

⃝ No

IV. Gifted Services Offered

1. How long have the gifted programs for high school students been in existence? ⃝ Less than one year ⃝ Between 1 and 2 years ⃝ Between 2-5 years ⃝ Between 5-10 years ⃝ More than 10 years

2. What educational opportunities do you provide for gifted students at the high school level in your district? Check all that apply.

⃝ In-class differentiation in general classrooms with no clustering of gifted students ⃝ Cluster grouping of gifted students in general education classrooms with in-class

differentiation ⃝ Ability grouping (e.g., students are placed in advanced classes such as honors classes) ⃝ Advanced Placement (AP) ⃝ Dual Enrollment (in college or university) ⃝ International Baccalaureate (IB) ⃝ Special classes of homogeneously grouped gifted students within a regular school setting (e.g.,

Calculus; a special enrichment class for gifted students) ⃝ A full-time school for gifted students (e.g., Magnet schools or regional math/science school) ⃝ A state-sponsored residential high school ⃝ After-school learning opportunities (either through programs such as Destination ImagiNation or

Future Problem Solving or through activities developed by the school) ⃝ Distance learning or online opportunities ⃝ Other (please specify)

V. District Demographics

1. What is the size of your school district's student population?

⃝ Less than 5,000

Appendices

55

⃝ 5,001-10,000 ⃝ 10,001-30,000 ⃝ 30,001-50,000 ⃝ 50,001-70,000 ⃝ 70,001-100,000 ⃝ 100,001-250,000 ⃝ 250,001-500,000 ⃝ More than 500,000

2. What percentage of high school students in your school district are White, non-Hispanic?

⃝ Less than 1% ⃝ 51-60% ⃝ 1-10% ⃝ 61-70% ⃝ 11-20% ⃝ 71-80% ⃝ 21-30% ⃝ 81-90% ⃝ 31-40% ⃝ More than 90% ⃝ 41-50%

3. What percentage of high school students in your school district are Hispanic?


4. What percentage of high school students in your school district are Black, African-American?


5. What percentage of high school students in your school district are Asian/ Asian-American (including South Asian)?


6. What percentage of high school students in your school district are American Indian or Alaska Native?

Appendices

56


7. What percentage of high school students in your school district are Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian?


8. What percentage of high school students in your school district are identified as multi-racial? ⃝ Less than 1% ⃝ 51-60% ⃝ 1-10% ⃝ 61-70% ⃝ 11-20% ⃝ 71-80% ⃝ 21-30% ⃝ 81-90% ⃝ 31-40% ⃝ More than 90% ⃝ 41-50%

9. What percentage of high school students in your school district participate in the free/reduced lunch program?


VI. Gifted Program Demographics

1. What percentage of high school students in your school district are identified as gifted? ⃝ Less than 1% ⃝ 51-60% ⃝ 1-10% ⃝ 61-70% ⃝ 11-20% ⃝ 71-80% ⃝ 21-30% ⃝ 81-90% ⃝ 31-40% ⃝ More than 90% ⃝ 41-50%

2. What percentage of high school students served in the programs for gifted students in your school district are White, non-Hispanic?

⃝ Less than 1% ⃝ 51-60%

Appendices

57

⃝ 1-10% ⃝ 61-70% ⃝ 11-20% ⃝ 71-80% ⃝ 21-30% ⃝ 81-90% ⃝ 31-40% ⃝ More than 90% ⃝ 41-50%

3. What percentage of high school students served in the programs for gifted students in your school district are Hispanic?


4. What percentage of high school students served in the programs for gifted students in your school district are Black, African-American?


5. What percentage of high school students served in the programs for gifted students in your school district are Asian/Asian American (including South Asian)?


6. What percentage of high school students served in the programs for gifted students in your school district are American Indian or Alaska Native?


7. What percentage of high school students served in the programs for gifted students in your school district are Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian?

⃝ Less than 1% ⃝ 51-60%

Appendices

58

⃝ 1-10% ⃝ 61-70% ⃝ 11-20% ⃝ 71-80% ⃝ 21-30% ⃝ 81-90% ⃝ 31-40% ⃝ More than 90% ⃝ 41-50%

8. What percentage of high school students served in the programs for gifted students in your school district are identified as multi-racial?


9. What percentage of high school students served in the gifted programs in your school district participate in the free/reduced lunch program?


VII. Administration of Your Gifted Program Services

1. Does your district have a district coordinator or administrator for gifted and talented programs? Choose the option which best matches the situation in your district.

⃝ A full-time administrator/coordinator for high school gifted and talented programs

⃝ A full-time administrator for gifted and talented programs in the school district with a part-time administrator for the high school gifted programs (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities.)

⃝ A full-time administrator for gifted and talented programs in the school district, but no additional administrator with specific high school administrative responsibilities

⃝ A part-time (AT LEAST 50%) administrator for high school gifted programs in the district (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities.)

⃝ A part-time (LESS THAN 50%) administrator for gifted programs in the district (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities.)

Appendices

59

⃝ No administrative assignment for gifted programs in the district (e.g., administrative responsibilities are assigned to a teacher level position)

2. Are other district level staff assigned responsibilities for supporting gifted and talented programs at the high school level? Please describe the responsibilities of those individuals in the textbox provided and indicate the proportion of their time assigned to the gifted programs. (Example: “A school psychologist oversees the identification process and is assigned 25% time for that responsibility.”)

3. What is the annual appropriation budget allocation for K-12 gifted programs in your school district from all sources?

4. Please list the total funding in dollars from each source for providing services for high school level gifted students. Enter $0 if you do not receive any funds from the source or $0 are spent on services for high school students.

State funding_$_________________

Local funding_$_________________

Grants or other sources_$___ _______

Please describe other sources of funding:

5. Which of the following elements of your high school gifted programs are determined by state law or regulations governing programs for the gifted and talented? Check all that apply.

⃝ My state does not have rules or regulations governing programs for the gifted and talented that apply to services for high school students

⃝ The definition of gifted and talented

⃝ The areas of giftedness served by a school district

⃝ The age at which students are identified

⃝ The instruments used in the identification process

⃝ The way in which data are considered for selecting students to receive services

⃝ The types of grouping arrangements (e.g., pull-out or self-contained) used to serve gifted students

⃝ The curriculum provided to gifted students

⃝ The qualifications of teachers who may teach gifted students

⃝ The evaluation of the gifted programs

⃝ Other

6. What are overarching goals of your high school gifted programs? Please articulate your gifted programs goals in detail. (Examples: Provide adequate learning opportunities for advanced students

Appendices

60

through differentiated curriculum and instruction; equitable identification of gifted students from diverse background; or development of students with knowledge of the methodologies of the major disciplines.)

7. Are the NAGC PreK-Grade12 Gifted Education Programming Standards used as a basis for policy making regarding the high school gifted program? If so, in which areas are the standards used? Please check all that apply.

⃝ Currently NOT using the NAGC PreK-Grade12 Standards

⃝ Learning and development

⃝ Assessment

⃝ Curriculum planning and instruction

⃝ Learning environments

⃝ Programming

⃝ Professional development

8. Of the options listed below, which option is used to serve the majority of high school gifted students in your school district? Please select ONLY ONE answer.

⃝ In-class differentiation in general classrooms with no clustering of gifted students

⃝ Cluster grouping of gifted students in general education classrooms with in-class differentiation

⃝ Ability grouping (e.g., students are placed in advanced classes such as honors classes)

⃝ Advanced Placement (AP)

⃝ Dual Enrollment (in college or university)

⃝ International Baccalaureate (IB)

⃝ Special classes of homogeneously grouped gifted students within a regular school setting (e.g., Calculus; a special enrichment class for gifted students)

⃝ A full-time school for gifted students

(e.g. Magnet schools or regional math/science school)

⃝ A state-sponsored residential high school

⃝ After-school learning opportunities (either through programs such as Destination ImagiNation or Future Problem Solving or through activities developed by the school)

⃝ Distance learning or online opportunities

⃝ Other (please specify)

Appendices

61

9. What proportion of the identified high school gifted students in your district is served by the model selected in question 8 above?

⃝ 100%

⃝ 75-99%

⃝ 50-74%

⃝ 25-49%

⃝ Less than 25%

10. What is the amount of time (on average) high school students are provided services per week in the model selected in question 8 above?

⃝ Less than an hour per week

⃝ 1-4 hours per week

⃝ One day per week

⃝All of their time

⃝Other (please specify)

11. If students are cluster grouped in classrooms, how is the cluster group determined?

12. Which particular framework(s) are used to guide the development of the programs, curriculum, and instruction used in delivering services that you indicated in the question 8 above? Please check all that apply.

⃝ NO particular model

⃝ Autonomous Learner Model (Betts)

⃝ Consultation and Collaboration Model (Landrum)

⃝ Depth and Complexity Model (Kaplan)

⃝ Enrichment Clusters (Renzulli)

⃝ Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli)

⃝ Integrated Curriculum Model (VanTassel-Baska)

⃝ Levels of Services (Treffinger)

⃝ Model of Differentiated Curriculum (Tomlinson)

⃝ Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli)

⃝ Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, et.al.)

Appendices

62

⃝ Purdue 3-stage Model

⃝ Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli)

⃝ Stanley Model of Talent Identification and Development

⃝ AP Frameworks and Curriculum Guides

⃝ IB Frameworks and Curriculum Guides


13. What are the top three student outcome goals of the services offered using this program model? (Example: promote critical creative thinking skills or develop problem solving skills)

14. What instrument/assessment tools do you use to measure student achievement outcomes? (For example, if you promote critical thinking skills in gifted programs, how do you measure it? If you do not measure student outcomes, please indicate that in the space below as well.)

15. What actions do you take based on the measured student outcomes? (For example, do you use the results to modify curriculum and instruction in the programs or design teacher development activities?)

16. Are there particular curricular materials used in the gifted and talented programs at the high school level?

17. What content area has the best developed curriculum that is offered to high school gifted and talented students? Please choose ONLY ONE area.

⃝ Mathematics

⃝ Language Arts

⃝ Science/Technology

⃝ Social Sciences/History

⃝ Visual and Performing Arts


18. Which skill areas are best developed within the curriculum provided to high school gifted and talented students? Please choose ONLY ONE area.

⃝ Research skills

⃝ Creative thinking skills

⃝ Problem solving skills

⃝ Metacognitive skills

⃝ Affective skills

Appendices

63

⃝ Writing skills

⃝ Communication skills


VIII. Identification of Gifted Students

1. What definition of giftedness is used at the high school level in your school district?

⃝ My district does not have any specific definition of gifted and talented students at the high school level.

⃝ My district follows the state definition of gifted and talented students.

⃝ My district uses a definition of gifted and talented beyond or different from the state definition (If so, please specify the definition of giftedness in high school students used in your district in the space provided below).

2. Does your school district identify gifted students at the high school level using identification procedures specific for high school?

⃝ Yes, we have a specific process in place to identify gifted students and provide services at the high school level.

⃝ No, we do NOT identify gifted students at the high school level, but we provide services for them. Student eligibility depends on the identification process at the middle school level.

IX. Identification Process

1. Please describe the identification process used for identifying students at the high school level in your school district.

2. What are the criteria for identifying students for the high school gifted programs (for example, obtaining a specific cutoff score on a standardized instrument; meeting a set score on a matrix; selecting a certain percentage of students from the population; etc.)?

3. Which published instruments are used to identify gifted students at the high school level? Please check all that apply.

⃝ Otis Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT)

⃝ Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT)

⃝ Assessment in Mathematics

⃝ Children's Category Test (CCT)

⃝ Ravens Progressive Matrices

Appendices

64

⃝ Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT)

⃝ Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (CCTT)

⃝ Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI1)

⃝ Slosson Intelligence Test

⃝ Stanford Achievement Tests

⃝ Differential Abilities Scales II (DASII)

⃝ Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

⃝ State bench marks assessments

⃝ Eby Gifted Behavior Index (EGBI

⃝ Stoelting Brief Nonverbal Intelligence Test (S-BIT)

⃝ Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scale (GATES)

⃝ Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA)

⃝ Terra Nova

⃝ Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES-2)

⃝Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS)

⃝ Group Inventory for Finding Interest (GIFFI)

⃝ Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (3rd) (TONI-3)

⃝ Guilford Tests of Divergent Thinking

⃝ The Identity-Form System for Gifted Programs

⃝ InView

⃝ Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking

⃝ Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)

⃝ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED)

⃝ Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

⃝ Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC-II)

⃝ Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI)

⃝ Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test

⃝ Wechsler Individual Achievement Test

Appendices

65

⃝ Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-II)

⃝ Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R)

⃝ KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (KeyMath-3 DA)

⃝ Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV)

⃝ Khatena-Morse Multi-talent Perception Inventory (KMMPI)

⃝ Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)

⃝ Metropolitan Achievement Test

⃝ Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT Expanded)

⃝ Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-II (MAB-II)

⃝ Woodcock Johnson Achievement Test

⃝ Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT)

⃝ Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities

⃝ Nonverbal Ability Tests (NAT)

⃝ Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scale

⃝ Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT)

⃝ Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT)

⃝ ACT

⃝ Developing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT)

⃝ School and College Ability Test (SCAT)

⃝ SIGS (Scales for Identifying Gifted Students)

⃝ SRBCSS (Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students, Renzulli-Hertman)


4. Check any other procedures or data sources used in the identification process at the high school level.

⃝ Display of Work, Audition, and/or Performance Observation

⃝ Grades

⃝ Parent Nomination

⃝ Peer Nomination

Appendices

66

⃝ Portfolio

⃝ Products

⃝ Self Nomination

⃝ Student Interview

⃝ Teacher Nomination


5. Please describe any specific strategies used to IDENTIFY talent potential in underrepresented populations at the high school level (e.g., ethnic minorities, students of poverty, ELL learners, and twice-exceptional students). This might include use of portfolios in the identification process, use of alternative testing instruments, etc. Please be as specific as possible.

6. Please describe any strategies used to DEVELOP talent potential in underrepresented populations at the high school level (e.g., ethnic minorities, students of poverty, ELL learners, and twice-exceptional students). Please be as specific as possible.

X. Professional Education

1. Does your district require a state endorsed credential for teaching high school level gifted and talented students? ⃝Yes

⃝ No

2. Does your district require training or background for teachers of the gifted that are different and unique or go beyond those required by the state? ⃝Yes (please proceed to the next page)

⃝ No (If no, please proceed to page 31, Staff Development)

XI. Teacher Qualifications

1. What qualities or characteristics are sought in a teacher of high school level gifted students in your district? (Check all that apply)

⃝ Add-on endorsement or certification in gifted education

⃝ Advanced degree in gifted education

⃝ Professional training in gifted education

⃝ Prior experience in teaching gifted students

⃝ Strong content knowledge/specific degree in content area taught

Appendices

67

⃝ Ability to provide adequate curriculum and instruction for gifted students

⃝ Competency in using technology

⃝ Other (Please specify)

XII. Staff Development

1. What were the areas addressed in the staff development opportunities provided to general education teachers at the high school level on the education of gifted students during the past school year?

⃝ Characteristics of gifted and talented students

⃝ Multiple perspectives on giftedness and talents

⃝ Ways to identify gifted students from diverse backgrounds

⃝ Ways to modify curriculum and instruction for gifted students

⃝ Differentiation strategies for teaching gifted students

⃝ Development of instructional materials for gifted students

⃝ Utilization of assessment in instruction

⃝ Program service options for gifted and talented students

⃝ Ways to meet social/emotional needs of gifted students

⃝ Ways to work with parents in addressing the needs of gifted students

⃝ Specific content knowledge

⃝ Other (Please specify)

2. What is the total number of staff development hours designated specifically to the area of gifted students or gifted student education during the past year?

⃝ Less than 5 hours

⃝ Between 5 and 10 hours

⃝ Between 11 and 20 hours

⃝ More than 20 hours

3. What is the total number of teachers who are serving identified gifted students at the high school level?

4. Among the teachers who are serving identified gifted students at the high school level, estimate the number of teachers endorsed in gifted education.

Appendices

68

XIII. Evaluation of Gifted Programs

1. Are the gifted programs for high school students in your district evaluated? That is, do you develop and implement a specific plan for collecting data about the various elements of your program (including student outcomes) to use for program development and improvement?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No

XIV. Program Evaluation Practice

1. Please identify up to 5 indicators that have been established for judging the success of the district's gifted programs for high school students.

2. How often are the gifted programs for high school students in your district evaluated (using a systematic plan for collecting and analyzing program related data)?

⃝ Every year

⃝ Every two years

⃝ Every three to five years

⃝ Less frequently than every five years

3. When was the last time your gifted program for high school students was evaluated (year)?

4. Who was responsible for the evaluation of the gifted program for high school students the last time it was evaluated?

⃝ Educators working in the program

⃝ Educators in the research and/or evaluation department of your school district

⃝ A professional outside evaluator

⃝ A governmental agency such as the state department of education


XV. Plans for Change

1. Are there plans to make changes to the high school gifted programs during the next 12-18 months? Check as many as apply.

⃝ No plan to change

⃝ Operational definition of giftedness

⃝ Program goals and objectives

Appendices

69

⃝ Student referral and identification

⃝ Program services

⃝ Service delivery options

⃝ Evaluation of gifted student progress

⃝ Professional development based on evaluation of gifted program outcomes


2. If you checked any area(s) as targets for possible change, please describe the planned changes.

XVI. Completion of the Survey

If you have any documents describing the gifted programs in your district (e.g., Local Plan for Education of the Gifted), please send those to us as well through an email or a mai.

We truly appreciate the time and attention you have given to this survey. Thank you for your participation.

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented University of Virginia

Appendices

70

Appendix 2: Black Student Representation in High School Gifted Programs

State District Student Enrollment

Percentage of Black Student in District

Percentage of Black Student in the District’s Gifted Programs

1 AL Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 2 AL Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 3 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 4 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 5 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 6 AR Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 7 AR Less than 5,000 More than 90% More than 90% 8 AR Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 9 AZ Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1%

10 AZ 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 11 CA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 12 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 13 CA 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 14 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 15 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 16 CA 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 17 CA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 11-20% 18 CA 30,001-50,000 1-10% Less than 1% 19 CO 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 20 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 21 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 22 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 23 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 24 FL 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 25 GA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 26 GA Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 27 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 28 GA Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 29 GA Less than 5,000 61-70% 11-20% 30 GA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 31 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 32 IA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 33 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 34 IA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 35 ID Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 36 ID 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 37 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 38 IL 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20%

Appendices

71

39 IN Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 40 IN Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 41 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 42 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 43 IN 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 44 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 45 KS Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 46 KS Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 47 KS 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 48 KS 10,000-30,000 21-30% Less than 1% 49 KS 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 50 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 51 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 52 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 53 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 54 KY Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 55 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 56 KY 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 57 KY 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 58 LA Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 59 LA Less than 5,000 51-60% 11-20% 60 LA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 61 MA 10,000-30,000 21-30% Less than 1% 62 MD 100,001-250,000 41-50% 21-30% 63 MD 100,001-250,000 11-20% 11-20% 64 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 65 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 66 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 67 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 68 MI 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 69 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 70 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 71 MN Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 72 MN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 73 MN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 74 MN 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 75 MN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 76 MO Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 77 MO 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 78 MO 5,001-10,000 11-20% Less than 1% 79 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 80 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 81 MS Less than 5,000 81-90% 1-10%

Appendices

72

82 MS Less than 5,000 81-90% 81-90% 83 MT 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 84 NC Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 85 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 86 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 87 NC 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 88 NC 10,000-30,000 11-20% 11-20% 89 NC 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 90 ND 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 91 NE 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 92 NJ Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 93 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 94 NJ Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 95 NJ Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 96 NJ 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 97 NJ 5,001-10,000 41-50% 11-20% 98 NJ 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 99 NM Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1%

100 NM 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 101 NM 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 102 NY 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 103 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 104 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 105 OH Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 106 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 107 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 108 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 109 OH 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 110 OH 30,001-50,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 111 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 112 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 113 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 114 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 115 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 116 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 117 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 118 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 119 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 120 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 121 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 122 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 123 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 124 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1%

Appendices

73

125 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 126 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 127 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 128 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 129 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 130 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 131 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 132 PA 5,001-10,000 21-30% Less than 1% 133 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 134 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 135 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 136 TN Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 137 TN Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 138 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 139 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 140 TN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 141 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 142 TX Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 143 TX 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 144 TX 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 145 TX 5,001-10,000 21-30% 21-30% 146 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 147 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 148 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 149 TX 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 150 UT 50,001-70,000 1-10% Less than 1% 151 VA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 152 VA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 153 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 154 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 155 VA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 156 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 157 VA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 158 VA 5,001-10,000 11-20% Less than 1% 159 VA 30,001-50,000 31-40% 11-20% 160 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 161 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 162 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 163 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 164 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 165 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 166 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 167 WV Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1%

Appendices

74

Appendix 3: Hispanic Student Representation in High School Gifted Programs


Percentage of Hispanic Student in District

Percentage of Hispanic Student in the District’s Gifted Programs

1 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 2 AL Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 3 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 4 AL 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 5 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 6 AR Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 7 AR Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 8 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 9 AZ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1%

10 AZ 5,001-10,000 11-20% Less than 1% 11 CA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 12 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 13 CA 5,001-10,000 81-90% 41-50% 14 CA 10,000-30,000 81-90% 71-80% 15 CA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 16 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 17 CA 10,000-30,000 71-80% 71-80% 18 CA 30,001-50,000 1-10% Less than 1% 19 CO 30,001-50,000 21-30% 11-20% 20 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 21 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 22 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 23 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 24 FL 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 25 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 26 GA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 27 GA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 28 GA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 29 GA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 30 GA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 31 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 32 IA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 33 IA Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 34 IA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 35 ID Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 36 ID 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 37 IL Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 38 IL 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10%

Appendices

75

39 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 40 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 41 IN Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 42 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 43 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 44 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 45 KS Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 46 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 47 KS 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 48 KS 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 49 KS 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 50 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 51 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 52 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 53 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 54 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 55 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 56 KY 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 57 KY 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 58 LA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 59 LA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 60 LA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 61 MA 10,000-30,000 31-40% Less than 1% 62 MD 100,001-250,000 21-30% 1-10% 63 MD 100,001-250,000 21-30% 11-20% 64 MI Less than 5,000 71-80% 1-10% 65 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 66 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 67 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 68 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 69 MI 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 70 MI 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 71 MN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 72 MN Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 73 MN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 74 MN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 75 MN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 76 MO Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 77 MO 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 78 MO 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 79 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 80 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 81 MS Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10%

Appendices

76

82 MS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 83 MT 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 84 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 85 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 86 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 87 NC 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 88 NC 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 89 NC 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 90 ND 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 91 NE 5,001-10,000 51-60% 1-10% 92 NJ Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 93 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 94 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 95 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 96 NJ 5,001-10,000 11-20% Less than 1% 97 NJ 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 98 NJ 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 99 NM 5,001-10,000 61-70% 61-70%

100 NM 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 101 NY 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 102 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 103 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 104 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 105 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 106 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 107 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 108 OH 30,001-50,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 109 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 110 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 111 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 112 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 113 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 114 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 115 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 116 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 117 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 118 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 119 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 120 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 121 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 122 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 123 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 124 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1%

Appendices

77

125 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 126 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 127 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 128 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 129 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 130 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 131 PA 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 132 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 133 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 134 TN Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 135 TN Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 136 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 137 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 138 TN 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 139 TX Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 140 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 141 TX 5,001-10,000 61-70% 41-50% 142 TX 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 143 TX 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 144 TX 10,000-30,000 41-50% 11-20% 145 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 146 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 11-20% 147 TX 30,001-50,000 71-80% 41-50% 148 UT 50,001-70,000 21-30% 1-10% 149 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 150 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 151 VA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 152 VA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 153 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 154 VA Less than 5,000 31-40% Less than 1% 155 VA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 156 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 157 VA 5,001-10,000 41-50% Less than 1% 158 VA 30,001-50,000 Less than 1% 61-70% 159 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 160 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 161 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 162 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 163 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 164 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 165 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 166 WV Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1%

Appendices

78

Appendix 4: Representations of Students of Poverty in High School Gifted Programs


Percentage of Student of Poverty in District

Percentage of Students of Poverty in the District’s Gifted Programs

1 AL Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 2 AL Less than 5,000 81-90% 81-90% 3 AL Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 4 AL 5,001-10,000 41-50% 21-30% 5 AR Less than 5,000 41-50% 21-30% 6 AR Less than 5,000 71-80% 41-50% 7 AR Less than 5,000 More than 90% More than 90% 8 AR Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 9 AZ Less than 5,000 81-90% 81-90%

10 AZ 5,001-10,000 51-60% 1-10% 11 CA Less than 5,000 More than 90% More than 90% 12 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 13 CA 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 81-90% 14 CA 10,000-30,000 71-80% 61-70% 15 CA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 21-30% 16 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 17 CA 10,000-30,000 61-70% 61-70% 18 CA 30,001-50,000 11-20% 11-20% 19 CO 30,001-50,000 51-60% 51-60% 20 CT Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 21 CT Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 22 CT Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 23 CT Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 24 FL 5,001-10,000 71-80% Less than 1% 25 GA Less than 5,000 41-50% 41-50% 26 GA Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 27 GA Less than 5,000 51-60% 51-60% 28 GA Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 29 GA Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 30 GA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 31 IA Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 32 IA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 33 ID Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 34 IL Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 35 IL 10,000-30,000 71-80% 31-40% 36 IN Less than 5,000 41-50% 31-40% 37 IN Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 38 IN Less than 5,000 41-50% 21-30%

Appendices

79

39 IN 5,001-10,000 41-50% 21-30% 40 IN 5,001-10,000 51-60% 31-40% 41 KS Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 42 KS Less than 5,000 21-30% Less than 1% 43 KS Less than 5,000 41-50% Less than 1% 44 KS 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 45 KS 10,000-30,000 71-80% 51-60% 46 KS 10,000-30,000 41-50% 1-10% 47 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 48 KY Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 49 KY Less than 5,000 71-80% Less than 1% 50 KY Less than 5,000 61-70% 51-60% 51 KY Less than 5,000 61-70% 41-50% 52 KY Less than 5,000 51-60% 41-50% 53 KY 5,001-10,000 31-40% 11-20% 54 KY 10,000-30,000 51-60% 11-20% 55 LA Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 56 LA Less than 5,000 71-80% 41-50% 57 LA 5,001-10,000 61-70% 21-30% 58 MA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% 59 MD 100,001-250,000 21-30% 1-10% 60 MI Less than 5,000 More than 90% More than 90% 61 MI Less than 5,000 41-50% 31-40% 62 MI 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 63 MI 10,000-30,000 51-60% 11-20% 64 MI 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 65 MI 10,000-30,000 71-80% 41-50% 66 MN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 67 MN Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 68 MN 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 69 MN 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 70 MN 5,001-10,000 21-30% Less than 1% 71 MO Less than 5,000 71-80% 51-60% 72 MO 5,001-10,000 61-70% 41-50% 73 MO 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 74 MO 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 75 MO 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 76 MS Less than 5,000 21-30% 81-90% 77 MS Less than 5,000 81-90% 31-40% 78 NC Less than 5,000 71-80% 71-80% 79 NC Less than 5,000 71-80% 51-60% 80 NC Less than 5,000 71-80% 1-10% 81 NC 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10%

Appendices

80

82 NC 10,000-30,000 51-60% 31-40% 83 ND 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 84 NE 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 85 NJ Less than 5,000 41-50% 41-50% 86 NJ Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 87 NJ Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 88 NJ Less than 5,000 51-60% 41-50% 89 NJ 5,001-10,000 21-30% Less than 1% 90 NJ 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 91 NJ 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 92 NM 5,001-10,000 81-90% 31-40% 93 NM 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 94 NY 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 95 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 96 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 97 OH Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 98 OH Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20% 99 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10%

100 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 101 OH 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 102 OK Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 103 OK 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30% 104 OK 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20% 105 PA Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 106 PA Less than 5,000 61-70% Less than 1% 107 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 108 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 109 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 110 PA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 111 PA Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 112 PA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 113 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 114 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 115 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 116 PA Less than 5,000 21-30% Less than 1% 117 PA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 118 PA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 119 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 120 PA 5,001-10,000 11-20% Less than 1% 121 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 122 PA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 123 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 124 TN Less than 5,000 51-60% Less than 1%

Appendices

81

125 TN Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 126 TN 5,001-10,000 41-50% Less than 1% 127 TN 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% 128 TX Less than 5,000 51-60% Less than 1% 129 TX Less than 5,000 71-80% 21-30% 130 TX 5,001-10,000 61-70% 21-30% 131 TX 5,001-10,000 61-70% 1-10% 132 TX 5,001-10,000 41-50% 21-30% 133 TX 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 134 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 135 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 21-30% 136 UT 50,001-70,000 31-40% 11-20% 137 VA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 138 VA Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 139 VA Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 140 VA Less than 5,000 51-60% 41-50% 141 VA Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 142 VA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 11-20% 143 VA 5,001-10,000 61-70% 21-30% 144 VA 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 145 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 146 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 147 WI Less than 5,000 51-60% 11-20% 148 WI Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 149 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 150 WI Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 151 WI 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 152 WV Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10%

Appendices

82

Appendix 5: Representation of Certain Subgroups of Students in High School Gifted Programs

The tables below shows comparison between percentage of Black, Hispanic, and students on free/reduced lunch price within each district and representation of those subgroups in gifted programs in the districts where they reported more than 30% of their students are Black, Hispanic, or on free/reduced lunch price.


Percentage of Students in District Percentage of Students in the District’s Gifted Programs

Black Hispanic Students on FRL Black Hispanic Students on

FRL 1 AL Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 41-50% 11-20% 1-10% 11-20% 2 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 3 AL Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 81-90% 11-20% 1-10% 81-90% 4 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 21-30%

5 AR Less than 5,000 More than 90% Less than 1% More than 90% More than 90% Less than 1% More than 90%

6 AR Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 21-30% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 7 AR Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 71-80% Less than 1% Less than 1% 41-50% 8 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% Less than 1% 21-30% 9 AZ Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 81-90% Less than 1% Less than 1% 81-90%

10 AZ 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10%

11 CA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% More than 90% Less than 1% Less than 1% More than 90%

12 CA 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% 81-90% More than 90% 1-10% 41-50% 81-90% 13 CA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 71-80% 61-70% 11-20% 71-80% 61-70% 14 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 41-50% 51-60% 1-10% 21-30% 21-30% 15 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 81-90% 71-80% 1-10% 71-80% 61-70% 16 CO 30,001-50,000 11-20% 21-30% 51-60% 1-10% 11-20% 51-60% 17 FL 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% Less than 1% 18 GA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 41-50% 19 GA Less than 5,000 31-40% Less than 1% 51-60% 11-20% Less than 1% 1-10% 20 GA Less than 5,000 61-70% Less than 1% 61-70% 11-20% Less than 1% 1-10%

Appendices

83

21 GA Less than 5,000 31-40% Less than 1% 51-60% 11-20% Less than 1% 1-10% 22 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 51-60% 23 GA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 24 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 25 ID Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% 1-10% 21-30% 26 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% 1-10% Less than 1% 11-20% 27 IL 10,000-30,000 21-30% 21-30% 71-80% 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 28 IN Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% 1-10% 31-40% 29 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% 11-20% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 30 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 31 IN 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 31-40% 32 KS Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 33 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20% 34 KS 5,001-10,000 1-10% 31-40% 21-30% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 35 KS 10,000-30,000 1-10% 21-30% 41-50% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 36 KS 10,000-30,000 21-30% 21-30% 71-80% Less than 1% 11-20% 51-60% 37 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% 51-60% 38 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 41-50% 39 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 40 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 71-80% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 41 KY Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 61-70% 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% 42 KY 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20% 43 KY 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 11-20% 44 LA Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 45 LA Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 71-80% 11-20% Less than 1% 41-50% 46 LA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 47 MA 10,000-30,000 21-30% 31-40% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10%

48 MD 100,001-250,000 41-50% 21-30% 41-50% 21-30% 1-10% Not Reported

49 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 50 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% 71-80% More than 90% Less than 1% 1-10% More than

Appendices

84

90% 51 MI 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 11-20% 52 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 71-80% Less than 1% Less than 1% 41-50% 53 MN Less than 5,000 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 54 MN 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 55 MO Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 71-80% Less than 1% Less than 1% 51-60% 56 MO 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 57 MS Less than 5,000 81-90% 1-10% 81-90% 81-90% Less than 1% 31-40% 58 MS Less than 5,000 81-90% 1-10% 21-30% 1-10% 1-10% 81-90% 59 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 60 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 61 NC Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 71-80% Less than 1% 1-10% 71-80% 62 NC 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 63 NC 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 64 ND 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 65 NE 5,001-10,000 1-10% 51-60% 31-40% Less than 1% 1-10% 21-30% 66 NJ Less than 5,000 11-20% 51-60% 41-50% 11-20% 31-40% 41-50% 67 NJ Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 51-60% 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 68 NJ Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 69 NJ 5,001-10,000 41-50% 11-20% 11-20% 11-20% 1-10% 1-10% 70 NM 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% 61-70% 81-90% Less than 1% 61-70% 31-40%

71 NM 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% 1-10% More than 90% Less than 1% 1-10% More than 90%

72 OH Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 21-30% 73 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 74 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 75 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 76 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 77 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20% 78 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 79 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1%

Appendices

85

80 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 81 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 82 TN Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 83 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 84 TN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 85 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% 21-30% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% Less than 1% 86 TX Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 87 TX 5,001-10,000 1-10% 61-70% 61-70% 1-10% 41-50% 21-30% 88 TX 5,001-10,000 21-30% 21-30% 61-70% 1-10% 11-20% 1-10% 89 TX 5,001-10,000 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 21-30% 21-30% 21-30% 90 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 41-50% 31-40% Less than 1% 11-20% 11-20% 91 TX 30,001-50,000 1-10% 71-80% 61-70% 1-10% 41-50% Not Reported 92 UT 50,001-70,000 1-10% 21-30% 31-40% Less than 1% 1-10% 11-20% 93 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% 31-40% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 21-30% 94 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20% 95 VA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% 96 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 31-40% 1-10% Less than 1% 11-20% 97 VA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 21-30% 31-40% 1-10% 11-20% 11-20% 98 VA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 41-50% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% . 99 VA 5,001-10,000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% Not Reported Less than 1% 21-30%

100 VA 30,001-50,000 31-40% Less than 1% 21-30% 11-20% 61-70% 1-10% 101 WI Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20% 102 WV Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10%

Note. FRL=Free and Reduced Lunch price.

Status of High School Gifted Programs - NAGC

Documents

Transcript of Status of High School Gifted Programs - NAGC