2008-2009
7STATE of the States
In Gifted Education
National Policy and Practice Data
STATE of the States
In Gifted Education
National Policy and Practice Data
2008-2009
A Report by
The Council of State Directors of Programs
for the Gifted
and
The National Association for Gifted Children
HTU
1707 L Street, N.W., Suite 550
Washington, DC 20036
202.785.4268
www.nagc.org
© 2009 National Association for Gifted Children
UTH
FOREWORD FROM THE COUNCIL OF STATE DIRECTORS OF PROGRAMS FOR THE GIFTED The State of the States Report is a collaboration between the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and the National Association for Gifted Children. Recognizing that information and data on gifted programming is necessary to analyze trends and determine decisions, the State of the States is intended to be used by professionals to further support the efforts of gifted programming for advanced learners at the local, state, and national levels. With this end in mind we intend to honor the work of all our states, territories, and their directors. Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted Officers 2007‐2009 President: Rosanne Malek, Iowa Department of Education Past President: Ann Biggers, Arkansas Department of Education (Ret.) President Elect: Kelly Callaway, Texas Education Agency Treasurer: Jacquelin Medina, Colorado Department of Education Secretary: Richard Blanchard, South Carolina Department of Education Eastern Region Representative: Donnajo Smith, Florida Department of Education Central Region Representative: David Welch, Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Western Region Representative: Teri Knapp, Guam Department of Education i Foreword from the National Association for Gifted Children The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and the National Association for Gifted Children join together biannually to produce this important report. It is the only collection of information available about the state of gifted education nationally, as well as in individual states, and it provides a detailed look at the level and degree of support for gifted students as well as the variability of policies and practices among the states. The quality of gifted education over the past 30 years has been charted through the efforts of individual states and their ability to develop and implement policies that promote the identification of gifted children, deliver services to them, ensure their teachers are well‐trained, and assess how well the programs and services are working. Advocates working at the state level are in a critical position to advance the field of gifted education by continuing to upgrade state policies and practices that improve the climate for the administration of gifted programs at the local level. I am proud that NAGC continues to be a leader in these efforts and I thank the Council for State Directors, as well as the individual directors who completed the survey, for their support. Together we can build a strong and vital infrastructure to support gifted and talented students. Ann Robinson, President 2009‐2011 NAGC Board of Directors and National Office
Ann Robinson, President University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, AR Del Siegle, Past President University of Connecticut Storrs, CT Paula Olszewski‐Kubilius, President‐Elect Northwestern University Evanston, IL At Large Members: Jaime Castellano Ganado, AZ U
Treasurer: Jann H. Leppien Great Falls, MT U
Teacher Representative: Cindy Sheets Lee’s Summit, MO U
U
Governance Secretary: Kristen Stephens Durham, NC U
Parent Representative: Katie Augustyn Westport, CT U
U
Network Representative: Carol Tieso College of William & Mary Williamsburg, VA U
U
U
U
State Representative: Lauri Kirsch Tampa, FL U
U
Sally Krisel Athens, GA Stuart Omdal Greeley, CO U
Jean S. Peterson Purdue University West Lafayette, IN National Office Nancy Green Executive Director ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A project such as the State of the States 2008‐2009 cannot be accomplished without the cooperation and input from numerous individuals who contributed advice, expertise, and time to the report. The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) would like to thank the working group of state directors for this assistance and support through the report’s various stages: Rosanne Malek, Iowa; Wendy Behrens, Minnesota; Shirley Farrell, Alabama, and Rick Blanchard, South Carolina. We would also like to thank the individual state directors who participated in the survey and thank Jane Clarenbach and Carolyn Kaye at NAGC for coordinating the project. Finally, we would like to thank Del Siegle, Hope Wilson, Catherine Little, and Jaclyn Chancey at the University of Connecticut for conducting the survey and compiling the responses into this report. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD BY THE COUNCIL OF STATE DIRECTORS OF PROGRAMS FOR THE GIFTED i FOREWORD BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GIFTED CHILDREN ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
INTRODUCTION 3
ABOUT THE REPORT 3
OVERVIEW 7
METHODOLOGY 13
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 15
State Education Agencies Funding for Gifted and Talented Education Mandates to Identify and Serve Gifted Students Accountability Definition of Giftedness Identification of Gifted and Talented Students Programs and Services for Gifted Students Personnel Preparation Related Policies and Practices Concerns and Directions for the Future APPENDIX 77 Table 1: State Education Agencies Staffing Table 2: State Education Agencies Staffing (continued) Table 3: State Report Cards Table 4: Positive and Negative Forces on Gifted Education (Part 1) Table 5: Positive and Negative Forces on Gifted Education (Part 2) Table 6: Positive and Negative Forces on Gifted Education (Part 3) Table 7: Areas Needing Attention in Gifted Education (Part 1) 15
18
22
24
26
27
31
38
41
45 1
92 97
103
109
112
115
119
Table 8: Areas Needing Attention in Gifted Education (Part 2) Table 9: Areas Needing Attention in Gifted Education (Part 3) Table 10: State Gifted Education Advisory Committee Table 11: State Definitions of Giftedness Table 12: State Mandate for Gifted and Talented Services Table 13: IDEA Strategies in State Mandate for Gifted and Talented Services Table 14: Identification for Gifted and Talented Services Table 15: Identification for Gifted and Talented Services (continued) Table 16: Identification for Gifted and Talented Services—Demographics Table 17: Gifted and Talented Programming and Accountability Table 18: Gifted and Talented Programming and Accountability, Education plans Table 19: Gifted Education Administrators Table 20: Gifted and Talent Services and Programming by Grade (Part 1) Table 21: Gifted and Talent Services and Programming by Grade (Part 2) Table 22: Gifted and Talent Services and Programming by Grade (Part 3) Table 23: Other Policies and Practices—Acceleration Table 24: Other Policies and Practices—Dual or Concurrent Enrollment Table 25: Other Policies and Practices—Proficiency‐Based Promotion Table 26: Other Policies and Practices Table 27: Personnel Preparation Table 28: Personnel Preparation (continued) Table 29: Personnel Preparation (continued) Table 30: State Funding Table 31: State Funding (continued) Table 32: Clarifications Table 33: No Child Left Behind Table 34: Changes in State Rules and Regulations Table 35: NAGC Pre‐K‐Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards Table 36: Other Comments—Gifted Education in State Table 37: Other Comments—The Study of Gifted Education 2
122
125
128
133
143
150
154
159
171
179
186
192
195
198
201
208
213
222
228
239
247
259
263
268
272
277
281
283
285
288
INTRODUCTION Most agree that the education of our children is vital to our future. But, when it comes to learning, one size does not fit all. With the millions of gifted and talented students in classrooms today, this 2008‐2009 State of the States report reveals the lack of a coherent national strategy to educate and inspire the next generation of scientists, mathematicians, peacemakers, artists, and engineers. Some states provide little or no state funding. Others have few policies that support high‐ability learners. Still others leave critical decisions to individual districts. The result of the disparity between and within states is, at best a patchwork quilt of services, at worst a nation of promising learners left bored and unchallenged. We invite gifted education supporters to use the data in State of the States to compare their states with others in the region and country to advocate for strong state policies and additional resources. NAGC and CSDPG encourage legislators, administrators, teachers, and parents to learn more about gifted children and the kind of challenging education they need. 3
ABOUT THE REPORT The State of the States report is organized into ten key areas, which provide readers with a better understanding of the degree of support individual states offered to gifted and talented education for the school year 2008–2009. This is not to say that these ten areas are clearly differentiated in real life. There are, in fact, multiple points of overlap and influence among them. I. State Education Agencies and II. Funding for Gifted and Talented Education The allocation of funding and personnel is a major indicator of state‐level commitment to gifted and talented education. Questions in these two sections cover the allocation of employees at the state education agency to coordinate gifted education, the range of responsibilities for state agency staff, and the existence of a standing state advisory committee for gifted and talented education. In addition, there are questions that address the amount of state funds allocated to gifted and talented education, allocation of those funds, funding formulas, and funding caps. III. Mandates to Identify and Serve Gifted Students There are two types of state‐ordered mandates for gifted education: mandates to local school districts to identify children and mandates that services be provided. If a state does not have mandates to identify and/or serve gifted and talented students, it is up to each district to determine whether and how to identify students and what programs and services to offer high‐
ability learners. The questions in this section focus on the existence of state mandates for identification and services, the source of the mandate (law or regulation), the extent of the mandate, and the degree to which a mandate is supported by state funding. IV. Accountability Quality assurance encourages accountability for education decisions. This section of the report focuses on whether states audit or monitor local gifted education programs and, if so, the areas in which districts are required to report. The section also contains questions about whether the states require districts to submit plans to the state agency and whether the district plan is for information purposes only or if it is part of an evaluation plan. V. Definition of Giftedness and VI. Identification of Gifted and Talented Students The provision of programs and services for advanced learners is often tied to whether students are considered by law to be “gifted and talented.” The state’s definition of giftedness generally 4
informs the identification process(es) used to determine eligibility. These two sections of the report focus on the existence and components of state definitions, as well as whether districts are required to follow a state definition and/or use specific criteria or methods to identify gifted students. The identification section also includes data on when students are identified for services, the number and demographics of students identified in each state, and whether state law places a limit on the number of identified students. VII. Programs and Services for Gifted Students As gifted education supporters know, there is a wide variance among states and districts in the programs and services offered to meet the needs of gifted students. Questions in this section address state requirements for service offerings, the percentage of gifted and talented students who receive services (by grade), and the most common service delivery methods used in the states. VIII. Personnel Preparation Preparation of teachers and other personnel is a critical factor to the success of programs for gifted and talented students. Because gifted students are spending increasing amounts of time in the regular education classroom, information in this section includes data about teachers in the regular classroom as well as those working in specialized gifted education programs. The questions in this section explore state requirements regarding pre‐service training, certification and endorsement, and professional development for educators. IX. Related Policies and Practices In many states, there are policies in place that affect high‐ability learners but that were not designed with gifted learners in mind. For example, policies regarding early entrance to kindergarten often hold back children who are ready for school earlier than their age peers. This section includes questions on state policies concerning entrance to kindergarten, alternate high school diplomas, dual enrollment, age cut‐offs for general equivalency diplomas, and proficiency‐based promotions. X. Concerns and Directions for the Future Professionals in gifted and talented education share many common concerns about the current state of the field as well as the future of gifted programs and services. However, such concerns are influenced by the different environments in which these professionals operate. This section includes ratings of positive and negative forces, indications of areas needing attention, and free‐
form responses on recent legislative and other changes. 5
The State of the States offers not only a general overview of where we are as individual states supporting gifted learners, but also details on the areas in which we need federal support to help ensure that all of America’s high‐potential youth have equal opportunities to excel in school. There is much work to be done to ensure that quality gifted education programs and services—those with adequately trained teachers, rigorous standards, supportive ancillary policies, sufficient classroom time, and accountability measures—are available to all students across the U.S. who need such programs and services. These initiatives can succeed only with the joint commitment of parents, school leadership, and communities. We will continue to work with state education agencies, school administrators, teachers, parents, and policymakers to make sound decisions based on the best available empirical evidence to improve the way we challenge students to achieve at higher levels, and we will, in the process, improve educational opportunities for all children. 6
OVERVIEW There are an estimated three million academically gifted and talented students in U.S. classrooms, spanning pre‐K to grade 12. Although these young people represent a diversity of experiences, expertise, and cultural backgrounds, they all require a responsive and challenging educational system to help them achieve their highest potential. The data collected and highlighted here offer a snapshot of the extent of state support for gifted learners in the 2008‐2009 school year. Forty‐seven states responded to this year’s State of the States questionnaire, which contained a combination of closed response and open‐ended questions about gifted policies, programs, and services within the states. Several major themes emerged: decentralized decision‐making and limited accountability; limited service options; the importance of professional development; the impact of the federal No Child Left Behind Act; and funding issues in a difficult economic climate. Decentralized Decision‐Making and Limited Accountability Without a coherent national strategy or a federal mandate, all gifted programming decisions are made at the state and local levels. Within this context, states and districts can respond to the specific needs of their populations; the context also presents the potential for fractured approaches and limits on funding. The variation in policies results in a disparity of services between and within states. Many states do not provide much direction regarding the education of gifted and talented students, leaving local education agencies (LEAs) to determine the best ways to serve their gifted and talented students. In those states that do provide some direction, there is sometimes limited specificity and clarity regarding identification procedures, programs, and services for gifted learners. •
Thirty‐two states have a mandate related to gifted and talented education, either for identification or services or both. •
Fifteen states have no mandate, and five states do not provide any funding for their mandates. •
Forty‐one states have defined giftedness in statute or regulations. However, only 29 of them require LEAs to follow the definition. •
Twenty‐six states require that specific criteria or methods be used to identify gifted and talented students. Eight states require a particular identification process, while the others leave the specifics to the LEAs. 7
•
Two states require the acceptance of gifted identifications from other states, and 11 states require LEAs to accept identifications from other LEAs in the same state. Relocating families may have to repeat the identification process in order to obtain services for their gifted children. •
Few states require strategies implemented under IDEA to be used with gifted education, including appropriate free public education (11), non‐discriminatory testing (11), due process (10), mediation (8), and least restrictive environment (2). States that do specify standards or requirements regarding gifted programming differ in their ability to monitor and report on the quality of gifted programs. •
Twenty‐three states reported having one or more full‐time staff members at the state level dedicated to gifted education. Eighteen states have entirely part‐time gifted education staff. In 32 states, these staffs also have responsibilities for programs or projects not specific to gifted education. •
Twenty‐one states reported that they neither monitor nor audit LEA programs for gifted and talented students; four others do so when the LEAs apply for funds. In 20 states, LEAs are not required to report on their gifted education services, and in four others, LEAs only submit reports when applying for funds. •
Fifteen states that do not monitor or audit LEA gifted programs also do not require reporting and gave no additional information on how they ensure compliance. •
Seven states publish a stand‐alone report on the state of gifted education; seven others publish this information as part of a larger report. •
Eleven states include gifted and talented indicators on district report cards. Service Options Services to gifted and talented students may be limited by district funding, geographic isolation, or other inhibiting factors. Additionally, many state laws and policies leave to districts all decisions about the type of services offered, resulting in wide variance across and within states. •
Twenty‐eight states require some form of program or service for gifted and talented students. These required services fall under a variety of categories, including intellectual (15), specific academic areas (13), and general academic (12). Requirements for programs in visual or performing arts (8), creativity (6), and leadership (5) are less common. 8
•
Twenty‐two states require services starting in either pre‐K or kindergarten all the way through grade 12. Others may start service requirements later (3) or may end service requirements earlier (1). •
In the majority of states, state policy does not specify whether gifted programs should include social‐emotional support (34) or academic guidance and counseling (34). Very few have policies specifically permitting these services (7; 8), and a few specifically do not permit them (2; 1). •
At every grade level, the regular classroom is one of the most‐used delivery methods for gifted services. It was the most frequently named method for pre‐K and kindergarten (14), early elementary (23), and middle school (21) and the second most frequently named in upper elementary (19). In high school, only Advanced Placement (28) and dual enrollment in college (17) are more common than regular classroom (11). State Policies Affecting Services •
In the majority of states (35), LEAs set academic acceleration policies. Eight states specifically allow acceleration by state policy. LEAs also set proficiency‐based promotion policies in 30 states, although 11 states have policies permitting this practice. On the other hand, two states specifically prohibit proficiency‐based promotion. •
Ten states have policies specifically permitting early entrance to kindergarten. Thirteen states do not allow early entrance, and 21 states leave the decision to LEAs. •
In most states (30), policies on dual enrollment in middle and high school are made at the local level. Nine states specifically allow this kind of dual enrollment, and two states specifically prohibit it. Whether high school graduation credit is earned for these courses is also usually determined at the local level (20), although 11 states have policies that permit it. •
Twenty‐nine states specifically permit students to be dually enrolled in high school and college or university. Fourteen states set this policy locally, and no state prohibits it. In most cases (25), state policy allows the student to earn credit towards high school graduation through college courses. •
Several states fund residential public high schools for math and science (14), fine and performing arts (6), or the humanities (2). •
Sixteen states fund a virtual high school. 9
•
States may also fund advanced programs called governor’s schools during the summer (17) or during the school year (3). The Importance of Teacher Training Survey responses indicated that, at every grade level, LEAs relied upon the regular classroom as one of the top three delivery methods for gifted services. However, only five states required regular classroom teachers to have pre‐service training in the nature and needs of gifted students, despite the fact that these teachers are most often relied upon to meet the diverse educational needs of our most able students. •
Five states require all teachers to receive pre‐service training in gifted and talented education. •
General education teachers in 36 states are not required to have training on the nature and needs of gifted and talented students at any point in their careers. Even where districts place gifted students in specialized programs, the professional preparation of their teachers will vary. •
Twenty states require teachers in specialized gifted education programs to have a certificate or endorsement in gifted education. •
Only five states require teachers in specialized gifted programs to receive annual professional development in gifted education. Thirteen states require district administrators for gifted education; however, administrators are required to have certification in gifted and talented education in only four states. While there are signs that the emphasis placed on professional development in gifted education may be improving, it is still an area of concern. Professional development initiatives were considered a positive influence on gifted education by 28 of 44 respondents, and only four respondents said that this factor was not applicable to their state. However, a majority of respondents rated funding for professional training in gifted and talented education (36), pre‐
service training in gifted and talented education at the undergraduate level (40), and training for general education teachers in gifted instruction (40) as in need of attention. Impact of No Child Left Behind The extent to which the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, which does not address the learning needs of above‐proficient children, has affected gifted and talented education is still being assessed. 10
NCLB was one of the most negatively rated factors influencing gifted education, with 28 ratings in the very negative to slightly negative range, 10 neutrals, and only 3 slightly positive ratings. An open‐ended question regarding its effect on programming and services elicited several types of responses: •
Seventeen referred to the focus on bringing underperforming students to proficiency levels, resulting in limited challenge for students who already have met that target. •
Five explicitly stated that gifted and talented education programs or services have been reduced or that less money is being spent on them. •
Two observed that this federal mandate and its accountability measures, which do not include gifted identification and services, are seen to override state mandates and accountability that may. •
Two noted that the focus on standardized testing in math and reading is reducing both other types of assessment and services in science, social studies, and creative fields. A few positive comments referred to the funding available for services targeting minority, low‐
income, and ESL/ELL students. In Arizona and Colorado, for example, these funds have helped provide advanced coursework to gifted students in the targeted populations. However, some respondents are not sure that NCLB is to blame for issues in gifted education. Five said that it has had no impact on gifted education in their state, including one who said, “NCLB has not impacted [gifted education], but lack of state funding has impacted.” Another respondent commented that it is not possible to assess the effect of NCLB. When asked about the impact of NCLB on staffing for gifted and talented programs, 12 respondents indicated that there has been some form of reduction, either in actual positions or in the time specialists are able to devote to gifted education. One pointed out that teachers have fewer financial incentives to pursue certification in gifted education than in one of the specialties covered under NCLB. However, 10 indicated that there had been minimal or no change in staffing as a result. A few others cited the economy as a more immediate reason for staffing decreases. Funding Issues in A Difficult Economic Climate In the absence of federal funding for gifted education services, the success and long‐term stability of gifted programs and services are tied to the degree to which states dedicate a reliable funding stream to districts to meet student needs. However, this report found that gifted and talented learners in the majority of states are dependent on local rather than state funding to support programs and services to meet their needs. 11
•
Eighteen states reported that no state funds are allocated specifically for programs and services related to gifted education. •
Of the 32 states with a mandate for gifted and talented education, only six reported fully funding the mandate. •
Of the 23 states that submitted non‐zero funding amounts, 11 allocated more than $10 million to gifted education and four allocated less than $1 million. Funding per identified gifted student ranged from less than $2 to more than $750. •
Funding for gifted education was rated one of the areas of greatest need of attention, with 36 respondents rating it most in need (18) or in need (18) and only two rating in not in need (1) or least in need (1). The economic crisis of the last year has affected several state budgets, and some states have reacted by reducing support for gifted education. •
Five states decreased funding for gifted education in 2008‐09. Four had increased funding in the previous year, while one had held funding constant. •
Eight states’ gifted education programs received smaller proportional increases in funding in 2008‐09 than they had the previous year, and one state held funding flat after an increase in the previous year. •
When asked about positive and negative influences on gifted education, respondents gave negative ratings to all three factors related to changes in funding: changes in state funding for gifted education; changes in state funding for education; and decrease in general education formula. •
Six respondents used the open‐ended question about the state of gifted education in their states to mention budget cuts related to the current economy. Nearly all the states had representatives who responded to the request for information for this report, thereby providing us with a wide view of gifted education across the country. The report shows the great range of state‐level support and direction in gifted education, as well as emphasizing the areas that are common concerns across the states. The range of responses highlights areas for growth and possible directions for change. Features such as specific mandates, high levels of funding, professional preparation requirements, and accountability measures in particular states represent possible models for other states to consider as they continue to strive for the best possible educational experiences for gifted and talented students. 12
METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive picture of the condition of education for gifted children in the United States. As such, our approach was to be inclusive of all the states and U.S. territories by inviting all to participate and providing multiple methods of responding to the research questions. Invitations to participate in this study were sent to the employee charged with oversight of gifted programs within the state departments of education. In states without a current designated individual, we contacted the state superintendent to request a response. Multiple requests for participation were made by e‐mail and telephone between June and September 2009. After the completion deadline, non‐responding states or territories were contacted by telephone and e‐mail again to invite their participation. Responding states were also contacted as necessary to resolve data inconsistencies. The survey instrument covered multiple topic areas, including policies, services, funding, and other information about the 2008–2009 school year. The questionnaire was made available online as well as by a hard copy. The vast majority of respondents provided their responses online. In all, 47 states participated in the survey. Of these, 45 were considered complete. States are included in the analysis for a particular question if they were determined to have completed the survey up to that point. Careful attempts were made to distinguish between incomplete surveys and questions intentionally left blank. In two instances, questions from the survey were judged to have been confusing to the respondents, leading to misleading or inaccurate data. In the first instance, responses from questions 46 and 47 were combined into one measure of areas of giftedness contained in a state’s definition, regardless of the source of that definition. In the second, question 129 was removed from the data set and further analysis. Readers interested in the number of hours required for certification or endorsement are encouraged to refer to question 124. Question 146 asked for the amount of state funding for gifted and talented education in each of the past three school years. No responses of zero were recorded, making it difficult to compare funding levels across a wide number of states. For purposes of this analysis, state funding of $0 for all three school years was assigned to 12 states that (1) did not provide other funding amounts, (2) did not indicate in question 139 that funds are allocated specifically to gifted and talented education, (3) did not respond that a gifted and talented education mandate was 13
partially or fully funded in question 54, and (4) had no contradictions between responses to questions 139, 146, or 54 on this survey and corresponding questions on the 2006‐2007 State of the States survey. Finally, states with no response to question 146 which did not meet these four criteria were contacted for correct data. When respondents could only provide the 2008‐2009 and/or 2007‐2008 funding amounts, information for 2006‐2007 was brought forward from the previous State of the States report. This conservative method left 10 of 45 states with no response to question 146. Notes on Reading this Report For the purposes of this report, all areas are referred to as “states.” Three abbreviations frequently employed throughout the report are listed below: SEA: State Education Agency LEA: Local Education Agency GT: Gifted and Talented In a study of this type, which includes a small sample size, reporting percentages to question responses can be misleading. Therefore, the actual numbers of states responding to each question are provided and should be considered in the context of the number of states that had completed that section of the survey. For each question, the applicable sample size of 45, 46, or 47 is noted. Not all questions in this survey applied to all respondents. In addition, some questions were optional. Therefore, there are blank cells within the tabular data located in the appendix of this report. Those cells should be considered questions left blank; states that had not completed a particular section of the survey were omitted from the applicable table(s). 14
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES SEAs vary widely in how they structure reporting for gifted and talented education. Most combine gifted and talented with other educational focus areas, including curriculum and instruction (18), special education (9), general education (5), and exceptional students (3). In eight states, gifted and talented education is handled by a separate department or office. Of the 14 that selected “other” for this question, two indicated that there is no state‐level office for the gifted. (See Table 1.) STAFFING Only 23 of 46 states reported having at least one full‐time person dedicated to gifted education in the SEA. Of those 23 states, four have more than one full‐time staff member and nine have part‐time staff in addition to full‐time. Eighteen states have entirely part‐time gifted education staff (or full‐time staff who are only partially allocated to gifted education). Only two states explicitly stated that they have no gifted education personnel at the state level. There is little variation in staffing levels; the majority of states (30) reported having either a single full‐time staff member or one or two part‐time staff members. (See Table 1.) Only nine states reported having additional state‐provided gifted education professionals to provide technical assistance or support to schools. (See Table 2.) 15
Among the 24 gifted education offices having supervisory roles over one or more programs, the majority were responsible for Advanced Placement courses and/or exams (20), and/or the International Baccalaureate program (14). (See Table 1.) When asked to choose the three most time‐consuming activities of the gifted and talented education staff, the majority (40) selected providing technical assistance by telephone, providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field, or both. Other major responsibilities included providing professional and staff development (21), responding to parental requests (19), and monitoring program compliance (17). Of the six states with a response of “other,” four indicated that providing technical response by e‐mail or a combination of e‐mail and phone was now a major use of time. (See Table 2.) 16
The majority of state gifted education offices (32) also have responsibilities for one or more programs or projects in general education or otherwise not specific to gifted and talented education. (See Table 1.) STATE REPORTING Thirty‐two states do not publish an annual report on gifted education. Seven states publish a stand‐alone report on the state of gifted education, while seven others publish this information as part of a larger report. (See Table 3.) Only 11 states list gifted and talented indicators, usually identified students (9), on district report cards. Twenty‐nine states use advanced proficiency indicators in language arts (29), math (29), science (27), social studies (20), fine arts (7), or other (2). In only seven states were personnel from gifted and talented education involved in developing those indicators. (See Table 3.) 17
STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE While 17 states have standing advisory committees, only seven states require a standing advisory committee by law. In 13 states the standing advisory committee reports to the state superintendent and/or state board of education. In one of the 13, the committee also reports to the governor, and in another, the committee reports to the legislature as well as the governor. Of the remaining four states, two did not list a reporting channel and two selected “other.” Standing committees usually meet quarterly (10). (See Table 10.) Seven states have ad‐hoc committees, although no state requires one by law. These committees either report to someone within the gifted education office (4) or to the state superintendent and/or state board of education (3). These ad‐hoc committees generally meet as needed or infrequently. (See Table 10.) Only seven states have produced a written advisory committee report within the last three years. (See Table 10.) FUNDING FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION Respondents from 45 states answered questions about funding. Twenty‐five states reported that state funds are allocated specifically for programs and services related to gifted and talented education. Of those 25 states, 17 make funds available through a formula or allocation and two provide funding through grants. (See Table 30.) 18
FUNDING FORMULAS Among the 25 states with funding allocated for gifted education, the most common funding formula, used by 10 states, is weighted funding, in which state aid allocation is based on the number of students as well as one or more other criteria. Four states use a discretionary funding formula, in which districts apply for state funds and send a plan for how funds will be used. Four states use a flat grant formula, in which a state provides all districts with a specific amount per student. Two states use a resource‐based funding formula, in which funding is figured based on specific education resources, such as staff or classroom units. Finally, 10 states use other funding formulas. Four of the states use a combination of these funding formulas. (See Table 30.) FUNDING CAPS / LEVELS 19
Eleven of the 25 states that allocate funds specifically for gifted education place a cap on state funds. Most of those (7) base the cap on funds available, while others base the cap on the percent of identified students (2), the percent average daily attendance (2), or teacher units (1). (See Table 30.) Twenty‐three states submitted non‐zero information about their 2008‐2009 funding levels for gifted and talented education. Among these states, funding for gifted and talented education in 2008–2009 ranged from $28,760 in Kansas to almost $91 million in Texas. There was no apparent correlation with state size or student population. Funding per public school student ranged from less than $1 in Kansas, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin to more than $87 in Oklahoma. Among the 14 states who reported both funding levels and numbers of identified gifted students, funding per identified gifted student ranged from less than $2 in Kansas to more than $750 in Iowa. Twelve states were determined to have no gifted and talented education funding. (See Tables 16 and 31 and Methodology, p. 16.) Between the 2006‐07 and 2008‐09 school years, 14 states increased their funding for gifted and talented education, with increases ranging from 1.5% in Ohio to 124.1% in Indiana. Of the other ten states reporting non‐zero gifted education funding within the last three years, three states had no funding changes, six states decreased their funding, and one state reported a funding increase for 2007‐08 and reversion to the previous funding level for 2008‐09. However, reported funding changes between the 2007‐08 and 2008‐09 school years were generally less positive than funding changes between the 2006‐07 and 2007‐08 school years. Of the 11 states that increased gifted education funding for 2008‐09, eight increased it proportionally less than they had for 2007‐08. (See Table 31.) Funding Trends Over Last Three School Years
(21 states reporting funding information for all three years) 20
Change from 2006-07 to
2007-08
Increase
Flat
Decrease
Change from 2007-08 to
2008-09
Larger increase
Smaller increase
Flat
Decrease
Flat
Decrease
Increase
Flat
Frequen
cy
2
8
2
4
3
1
1
1
Twelve of the responding states reported that state funds for gifted and talented education are channeled to all LEAs as part of general funding to districts. Five states channel funds through discretionary funding based on application. Others channel funds through governors’ schools and summer programs (5), through distribution to LEAs by mandate (3), with competitive grants (1), through residential schools for the gifted and talented (1), through a virtual high school (1), or by other means (10). (See Table 31.) STATE‐FUNDED PROGRAMS In a separate question, respondents were asked to indicate which of a variety of programs was funded at the state level. This funding may or may not be part of the funding allocated specifically to gifted and talented education in that state. Summer governor’s schools and Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate tests are each funded by 17 states, followed by virtual high schools (16), and schools for math and science (14). (See Table 26.) 21
MANDATES TO IDENTIFY AND SERVE GIFTED STUDENTS Thirty‐two of the 47 responding states have a mandate related to gifted and talented education. Six states fully fund the mandate, 19 states partially fund the mandate, and five states do not fund the mandate. (See Table 12.) State mandates are most commonly authorized by a state law specific to gifted education (18), followed by administrative rule (12), a state law specific to disabled and gifted education (10), and state department of education policy (7). In 15 states the authority is derived from more than one source. (See Table 12.) 22
Almost all of the mandates address the identification of gifted students (28), and 26 of those also address services. Respondents from 12 states also listed other areas addressed by the mandate, often in addition to identification and services. (See Table 12.) Twenty‐six states also reported that they require parental involvement in gifted and talented decisions at some level. (See Table 11.) Even in states with a state mandate for gifted education, procedures and services such as those iimplemented under IDEA may not be mandated. For example, only 11 states require appropriate free public education, individual plans for gifted students, or non‐discriminatory testing. Only 10 require due process or Child Find, and fewer require mediation (8), other related services (6), or least restrictive environment (2). (See Table 13.) 23
ACCOUNTABILITY Respondents from 46 states answered questions about accountability. States vary considerably in the processes in place to ensure or track LEA compliance with state mandates or regulations. Twenty‐one states do not monitor or audit local gifted education programs, and four others do so only when the LEA applies for funding from the state. Similarly, in 20 states, LEAs are not required to report on their gifted education services, and in four others, LEAs must only submit reports when applying for funds. In the 26 states that do require LEAs to submit reports (either regularly or when applying for funds), criteria required in the reports include service options (17), teacher training (10), program performance (8), and a combination of student performance and program evaluation (8). (See Table 17.) 24
Fifteen states neither monitor, audit, nor require any type of reporting. None of these 15 states responded to the open‐ended question asking how the state ensures compliance. (See Tables 17 and 18.) LOCAL GIFTED EDUCATION PLANS In 22 states, LEAs are never required to submit their gifted education plans to the state. In four others, they only do so when requesting funding. Among the 23 states in which LEAs do submit their plans (either regularly or when requesting funding), 10 require them to be approved by the SEA, and 6 require them to be approved when the LEA is requesting funds. Components of those plans requiring approval include identification (16), evaluation (14), programming (12), funding (10), teacher training (9), and others (8). (See Table 18.) 25
DEFINITION OF GIFTEDNESS Forty‐one of the 47 responding states have a definition of giftedness. Of these, only 29 of the states require LEAs to follow the definition. State definitions may be found in state statute (27), state rules and regulations (22), or other (4). Eleven states have all or part of their definitions in more than one place. (See Table 11.) The most common area of giftedness addressed in the 41 state definitions is intellectually gifted, used by 34 of the states. Other commonly included areas are creatively gifted (26); performing and visual arts (25); academically gifted (23); and specific academic areas (21). Less common areas include leadership (17); culturally diverse (10); ESL and ELL (9); disabled gifted (8); highly gifted (4); and underachieving (3). (See Table 11.) 26
IDENTIFICATION OF GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS Respondents from 46 states answered questions about identification. The process that an individual school district uses to identify gifted and talented students is dependent on the existence and content of state mandates and definitions, among other factors. This section is divided into separate discussions of requirements at the state level and applications at the district level. STATE CRITERIA AND PROCESS Twenty‐eight states require that specific criteria or methods be used to identify gifted and talented students. These include a multiple criteria model (21), IQ scores (15), achievement data (15), a range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select (10), and nominations (9). (See Table 14.) 27
Even when the criteria are specified at the state level, the process of identification often is not. Twenty‐eight states do not require local districts to follow a common identification process, and districts use a combination of state process and their own in nine states. However, the state does provide guidance in the identification process in 36 states. (See Tables 14 and 15.) States Requiring Specific Identification Processes and/or Providing Guidance to LEAs on
the Identification Process (N=46)
Provides
Does not provide
N/A or no
guidance
guidance
response
No requirement of
19
7
2
28
process
Combination of state
9
0
0
9
and LEA process
Must follow state
8
0
0
8
process
No response
0
0
1
1
36
7
3
46
POLICIES RELATED TO IDENTIFICATION Respondents were also asked to report on other state policies related to identification, including the timeline for identification, the maximum percent of students a district may identify, whether districts must recognize gifted eligibility from other states, and whether districts must recognize gifted eligibility from other districts in the same state. 28
•
In 16 states, the age(s) or grade(s) at which identification should take place are mandated at the state level. These required ages vary widely, with the most frequent choice being “other” (9). (See Table 15.) •
The majority of states (43) do not set a maximum percentage of students in a district that may be identified as gifted (See Table 16.) although 2 states cap available funds to districts based on the percentage of identified students, and another 2 states cap funds based on the percentage of ADA. (See Table 30.) •
Districts are generally not required to accept gifted eligibility from other states. In 26 states there is no state policy, and in 12 others the state policy explicitly leaves the decision to the LEAs. Only in two states does state policy specifically permit the recognition of gifted eligibility from another state; three states explicitly do not permit this. (See Table 26.) •
Only 11 states specifically require LEAs to accept a student’s gifted eligibility from another LEA in the same state. In most states, districts make this determination locally, either due to the absence of a state policy (24), or due to a state policy leaving this to local control (9). (See Table 26.) DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION OF GIFTED STUDENTS Among the 40 states that provided estimates for the percent of LEAs that do identify gifted and talented students, most of them (32) stated that 80% or more of their LEAs identify. (See Table 14.) 29
Students are identified at a wide variety of points during their school careers. The most frequently reported points of identification among the states were multiple times during elementary school (24), following parent referral (23), following teacher referral (22), and when transferring from out of state (20). (See Table 15.) NUMBERS OF IDENTIFIED STUDENTS Only 21 states provided information about their total number of identified gifted and talented students. Eighteen states indicated that this information was not collected or unavailable, and eight states did not respond to this question. In the 21 states that reported data, the percent of students identified as gifted ranges from less than 2% in Utah and West Virginia to over 25% in Kentucky. In only one case did a state report serving fewer students than were identified. (See Table 16.) 30
Twenty states provided information about the breakdown of identified gifted and talented students by gender. In 11 states there are more females than males, in 2 states there are equal numbers, and in 7 states there are more males than females. The range reported was from 55% male (45% female) to 46% male (54% female). (See Table 16.) Twenty‐two states provided information about the racial or cultural identity of identified gifted and talented students. Of the reporting states, Caucasians represented the majority of students in all but three states—Texas (48%), Hawaii (22%), and Nebraska (11%). African‐American students represented a high of 22% of the gifted and talented students in Arkansas and Louisiana and a low of 1% in Utah and Idaho. Asian students represented a high of 64% of gifted and talented students in Hawaii and a low of 1% in Idaho. Hispanic students represented a high of 36% of gifted and talented students in Texas and a low of 0% in Iowa. Only Oklahoma and Nebraska reported a large percentage of Native American gifted students. (See Table 16.) PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR GIFTED STUDENTS Unless otherwise specified, respondents from 46 states answered questions about programs and services. Like identification processes, the particular programs and services an individual school district offers for gifted and talented students are dependent on state mandates and definitions of giftedness. This section is divided into separate discussions of requirements at the state level and applications at the district level. STATE REQUIREMENTS Twenty‐eight states responded that some category of program or service for gifted and talented students is required. Among those, the most common service categories are intellectual (15), 31
specific academic areas (13), and general academic (12). Fewer states require services in the visual or performing arts (8), creativity (6), or leadership (5). (See Table 17.) 32
SERVICES REQUIRED BY GRADE Twenty‐five states require services for particular grades. Eighteen of these require services for kindergarten through grade 12, four for pre‐kindergarten through grade 12, two for grades 3 through 12, and one for grades 1 through 8. (See Table 17.) COMPONENTS OF GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS/SERVICES In the majority of responding states, the state does not specify whether gifted programs and services should contain social‐emotional support (34); academic guidance and counseling (34); or contact time (35). In most cases there is no state policy (27; 26; 28), while in others state policy leaves the determination to the LEAs (7; 8; 7). (See Table 26.) 33
Respondents were asked an open‐ended question about the use of NAGC’s Pre‐K to Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards in their states. Thirteen responses indicated that the standards are used in the development of regulations, optional guidelines, or evaluation at the state level. Seven responses confirmed that the standards, while optional, were used by at least some school districts. Several others noted the use of the standards in professional development (3) and as a reference or resource (3). (See Table 35.) DISTRICT‐LEVEL SERVICES The majority of respondents either could not or did not submit data about the percent of gifted students in each grade receiving services. Only seven respondents submitted data on pre‐
kindergarten, while response numbers for the other grades ranged from 18 to 21. Among those states submitting data, the percent of gifted students in each grade receiving services is generally either high (80‐100%) or low (1‐19%). Relatively few respondents (no more than four in any grade) indicated that their states serve between 20% and 79% of gifted students in a grade. The highest percentages of students receiving services were in grades 3 through 8. (See Tables 20 and 21.) 34
SERVICE DELIVERY METHODS Among the 18 respondents who were able to estimate the most frequently used methods deliver gifted education services in Pre‐K and kindergarten, the most common methods are regular classroom (14), cluster classroom (8), resource room (7), and continuous progress curriculum (5). (See Table 22.) 35
More respondents were able to estimate delivery methods for early elementary (28), upper elementary (29), middle school (29), and high school (30). In early and upper elementary and in middle school, the three most common methods are regular classroom (23; 19; 21), resource room (18; 20; 12), and cluster classroom (13; 14; 13). In high school, both Advanced Placement (28) and dual enrollment in college (17) are more common than regular classroom (11). (See Table 22.) 36
37
PERSONNEL PREPARATION Respondents from 45 states answered questions about personnel preparation. Only five states require all teachers to receive pre‐service training in gifted and talented education, leaving the vast majority of new teachers uninformed about the diverse educational needs of our most able students when they enter the classroom. GIFTED EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS In thirteen states, each school district is required to have at least a part‐time administrator for gifted and talented education. In four of these states, this administrator is required to have certification or endorsement in gifted and talented education. While no state reported requiring full‐time administrators for gifted and talented education, 19 states have one or more districts with full‐time administrators, ranging from 1% to 100% of districts. (See Table 19.) PROFESSIONALS IN SPECIALIZED PROGRAMS FOR THE GIFTED AND TALENTED Twenty states require credentialing (certification or endorsement) for professionals working in specialized programs for gifted and talented students. These credentials may be earned through course semester credit hours (18), continuing education units (4), staff development (3), or other 38
means (5). Credentials require between 6 and 33 credit hours, with most (12 of the 17 reporting hours) requiring between 12 and 18 hours. Seven states require some written competencies, other than credentialing, for teachers of the gifted in specialized programs; two of these states also require credentialing, while the other five do not. (See Tables 27 and 29.) Only five states reported requiring annual staff development in gifted education for teachers working in specialized programs for the gifted and talented. Most states reported having no such requirement (27), while 11 states leave the decision to LEAs. Fourteen of the states with no requirement reported that between 0 and 90% of their teachers in specialized programs receive annual staff development. Among states leaving the decision to the LEAs (seven reporting), between 25% and 100% of teachers receive annual staff development; in the states requiring annual staff development, the four reporting states indicated a range of 85% to 100%. (See Table 29.) GENERAL EDUCATION PROFESSIONALS In the majority of states, general education professionals are not required to have any pre‐
service training in gifted and talented education. Only five responding states require such training for all pre‐service teachers. One state includes coursework in gifted and talented education in the preparatory program for counselors. In 35 states, general education preparation programs do not require coursework in gifted & talented education. (See Tables 27 and 29.) Similarly, only seven states require general education teachers to receive training in gifted and talented education at any point in their careers. Other states do offer such training as electives, either pre‐service (14), as in‐service development (10), or as continuing education units (12) (See Table 28.) 39
Most states do not collect data on the percent of general education teachers with three or more credit hours in gifted and talented education. Only three respondents were able to estimate this figure, and all three indicated that it is below 20%. (See Table 28.) Twenty‐three respondents were able to estimate the percent of general education personnel who receive annual staff development in gifted and talented education. This estimate ranged from 0% to 100%, with the largest numbers below 20% (11) and between 20% and 59% (8). (See Table 28.) GRADUATE DEGREES IN GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION In 12 states, no graduate degrees in gifted and talented education are offered. Among the 31 states that respondents indicated offered at least one degree, the majority offered master’s 40
degrees (29). Other degrees available were Ph.D. (9), Ed.D. (8), and specialist’s (8). (See Table 29.) RELATED POLICIES AND PRACTICES Respondents from 45 states answered questions about related policies and practices. There are areas of education policy outside of gifted and talented education that may have specific implications for gifted students from the time they enter kindergarten to the time they graduate—or do not graduate—from high school. Questions in this section asked about the absence or presence of state policy, including policy that leaves decisions to LEAs, in those areas as opposed to practice at the LEA level. ACCELERATION AND PROFICIENCY‐BASED PROMOTION In the majority of states (35), academic acceleration policy is set at the local level. Twenty‐eight states have no state acceleration policy, and an additional seven states explicitly allow LEAs to set their own acceleration policies. Eight states have policies specifically permitting academic acceleration. No respondent reported having a state policy prohibiting acceleration. (See Table 23.) Slightly fewer states (30) leave policy setting regarding proficiency‐based promotion to the LEAs. Seventeen states have no policy, and 13 states have policies allowing LEAs to set policy. In contrast to acceleration, more states (11) have policies specifically permitting proficiency‐
based promotion, but two states also have policies specifically prohibiting the practice. Among those states allowing proficiency‐based promotion, the LEAs generally have the ability to determine the methods of demonstrating proficiency (31) and a student’s advancement options after proficiency is successfully demonstrated (30). (See Table 25.) 41
The majority of responding states either implicitly (15) or explicitly (9) allow LEAs to determine whether credit towards high school graduation can be awarded based on proficiency. However, more states have policies explicitly allowing credit towards graduation (13) than allowing proficiency‐based promotion. Three states do not allow high school graduation credit to be awarded on this basis. (See Table 25.) 42
ENTRANCE INTO KINDERGARTEN Of the 39 states that submitted their kindergarten entry policy, 38 require the child to be five years old as of a cut‐off date sometime between August and January. Twenty‐nine states set that cut‐off in either August or September. One state, North Dakota, has a state policy allowing children to enter kindergarten at four years old. (See Table 23.) In 13 states, state policy does not permit students to enter kindergarten earlier than the cut‐off date. Ten states have state policies allowing early entrance into kindergarten. In 21 states, the decision is left to the LEAs, either by state policy (11) or due to the lack of state policy (10). (See Table 23.) DUAL ENROLLMENT In 30 states, policies regarding whether middle school students are allowed to be dually enrolled in high school courses are made at the local level, and LEAs make decisions about whether those course may count towards high school graduation requirements in 17 of those 30 states. In cases in which state policies do exist, they are more likely to be permissive of middle/high school dual enrollment (9) and credit towards graduation for those courses (13) than prohibitive (2; 1). (See Table 24.) More states explicitly allow dual enrollment in college or university courses (29) and for students to receive credit towards high school graduation for these courses (25). No state explicitly disallows either; in all other responding states, the decisions are left to the LEAs. (See Table 24.) 43
State Policies on Dual Enrollment in Middle School and High School and Credit
Towards
High School Graduation (N=45)
No policy on dual
enrollment
Policy leaves decision on
dual enrollment to LEA
Policy permits dual
enrollment
Policy prohibits dual
enrollment
No response
No policy
on credit
Policy
leaves
decision on
credit to
LEA
Policy
permits
credit
Policy
prohibits
credit
No
response
8
2
4
0
8
22
2
5
1
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
1
9
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
12
1
8
0
13
0
1
2
11
4
45
State Policies on Dual Enrollment in College or University and Credit Towards
High School Graduation. (N=45)
No policy on dual
enrollment
Policy leaves decision on
dual enrollment to LEA
Policy permits dual
enrollment
Policy prohibits dual
enrollment
No response
No policy
on credit
Policy
leaves
decision on
credit to
LEA
Policy
permits
credit
Policy
prohibits
credit
No
response
6
2
1
0
0
9
1
3
1
0
0
5
2
3
23
0
1
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
9
0
25
0
0
1
2
2
45
Decisions regarding the ages or grades at which students can dually enroll in college courses are generally left up to the LEAs (22), although grades 11 (17) and 12 (13) were also common responses. Tuition is paid by the student’s parents (24) or the LEA (20), with 11 states reporting a combination of the two. Only six states reported that the SEA pays some or all of the tuition for dually enrolled students. (See Table 24.) HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION ALTERNATIVES The majority of responding states (22) have state policies that do not permit an alternate high school diploma or certificate to gifted and talented students who do not have enough credits to 44
qualify for the standard diploma. Only three states specifically permit this practice, while the rest leave the decision to the LEAs directly (5) or because of a lack of state policy (18). However, most states (29) allow students to obtain a GED at 16. (See Tables 23 and 26.) CONCERNS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE CURRENT CONCERNS Respondents were asked to rank the impact of various forces on gifted and talented education on a scale ranging from very negative to very positive (coded ‐3 to 3 for the purposes of this analysis). They were also given the choice of not applicable. Most responses ranged from slightly negative to slightly positive. However, there were several factors with notable response profiles. (See Tables 4, 5, and 6). •
Differentiated instruction was seen as the most positive factor overall (average 1.6), with only two responses on the negative side of the scale. (See Table 6.) •
The 33 respondents who indicated that the factor “state mandate” was applicable to them rated it positively (average 1.5). Conversely, the 19 respondents who indicated that the “lack of state mandate” was applicable rated it as a largely negative factor (average ‐
1.4). (See Table 4.) •
Professional development initiatives in gifted education were considered positive or very positive (average 1.5), with only one response in the negative range. (See Table 4.) •
Only 34 respondents indicated that the compliance/monitoring factor was applicable to them, but they generally saw it as positive (average 1.3). Conversely, the 21 respondents who rated the lack of compliance/monitoring factor scored it negatively (average ‐0.8). (See Table 5.) •
The focus on needs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), was rated as largely positive (average 1.2), with only one slightly negative response. (See Table 6.) •
All three factors related to funding changes were considered negative, with an average of ‐0.5 for changes in state funding for gifted education, an average of ‐0.9 for changes in state funding for education overall, and an average of ‐1.1 for decrease in general education formula. (See Tables 4 and 5.) •
Anti‐ability grouping sentiment was one of the most negatively‐rated factors (average ‐
1.1), with only one positive response. (See Table 5.) 45
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was also rated negatively (average ‐1.0), with only three positive responses. Additional open‐ended questions were asked about the impact of NCLB on gifted and talented programs and services and the staffing for those programs, and 27 respondents answered at least one of the two questions. NCLB was cited by 20 respondents as having a negative impact on gifted and talented programs and services due to a shift in focus to bringing up lower‐performing students and maintaining adequate yearly progress. Twelve respondents also indicated that NCLB has had actual or potential impact on staffing for gifted education programs, due to the shift in resources or to fewer professionals seeking GT certification. On the positive side, two respondents noted that NCLB provides resources for minority and low‐
income students, including those that are gifted and talented. (See Tables 4 and 33.) 46
Respondents were also asked to list other positive or negative factors affecting gifted education, and 21 did so. Eleven responses contained positive factors and 13 responses included negative factors. Fifteen responses included some mention of funding, budgeting, or the economy; most but not all of these were negative. Seven respondents cited particular programs in their states that had affected gifted education, and six mentioned staffing issues, including loss of personnel, inadequate training, and new professional development or certification programs. (See Table 6.) 47
Twenty‐five respondents answered the question about changes to their state statutes, rules, and regulations that impact gifted education. In 17 states, changes to regulations or state programs have been made recently or are in process. These include new mandates for identification and services and new programs supporting acceleration and proficiency‐based promotion. Nine respondents cited budgetary changes, three of which were positive. However, those that were negative included a few states that are losing substantial portions of their gifted and talented education funding. (See Table 34.) FUTURE DIRECTIONS Respondents were also asked to rate the degree of attention needed to thirteen different areas. Ratings ranged from most in need of attention to least in need of attention (coded from ‐2 to 2 in this analysis). Respondents said that almost all areas needed attention, although some more so than others. The only area rated not in need of attention was state definition of giftedness (average 0.9), which 30 respondents said was either not in need or least in need of attention. Areas most in need of attention were appropriate pre‐service training in GT at the undergraduate level (average ‐1.4); professional development in gifted instruction for general education teachers (average ‐1.4); representation of minorities in GT programs (average ‐1.2); funding for GT programs (average ‐1.2); funding for professional development in GT (average ‐
1.1); assessing academic growth in gifted students (average ‐1.1); and a national mandate for GT (average ‐1.0). Thirteen respondents offered additional areas of need, including specific issues of professional development, staffing, funding, legislation, and awareness. (See Tables 7, 8, and 9.) 48
49
STATE EDUCATION AGENCY CONTACTS FOR GIFTED EDUCATION Arizona Department of Education 1535 W. Jefferson Phoenix, AZ 85007 602‐364‐3842 [email protected] Shirley Farrell Gifted Education Specialist Special Education Services Alabama Department of Education PO Box 302101 Montgomery, AL 36130 334‐242‐8317 [email protected] Nancy Johnson Education Specialist Special Education Services Alabama Department of Education PO Box 302101 Montgomery, AL 36130 334‐242‐8114 [email protected] Dr. Mabrey Whetsone Director of Special Education Special Education Services Alabama Department of Education PO Box 302101 Montgomery, AL 36130 334‐242‐8114 [email protected] Paul Prussing Deputy Director Division of Teaching & Learning Support Alaska Department of Education 801 W. 10th Street, Suite 200 Juneau, AK 99801 907‐465‐8721 [email protected] Peter Laing Director Gifted Education/Advanced Placement Vacant Gifted & Talented Programs Arkansas Department of Education Education Bldg., Room 203‐B, Four State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 501‐682‐4224 Sandra Frank Program Consultant Gifted & Talented Education California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Suite 4309 Sacramento, CA 95814 916‐323‐5505 [email protected] Jacquelin Medina Director of Gifted Education Student Support Services Colorado Department of Education 201 E. Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303‐866‐6652 [email protected] Jack Hasegawa Director of Gifted Education Gifted & Talented Programs Connecticut Department of Education 165 Capitol Avenue, Room 221 50
Hartford, CT 06106 860‐713‐6769 [email protected]; [email protected] Deborah Lattimore Executive Assistant Teaching and Learning and Chief of School District of Columbia Public Schools 825 N. Capitol Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20001 202‐442‐5055 [email protected] 51
[email protected] Dr. Anna Viggiano Gifted Education Specialist Student Support Branch Hawaii Department of Education 475 22nd Avenue, Bldg 302, Room 209 Honolulu, HI 96816 808‐203‐5510 [email protected] Dr. Valerie Schorzman Gifted/Talented Specialist Bureau of Innovation & choice Idaho Department of Education PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83702 208‐332‐6920 [email protected] Marci Johnson Principal Consultant Grants & Programs Illinois Board of Education 100 N. First Street #N242 Springfield, IL 62777 217‐524‐4832 [email protected] Amy Marschand High Ability Educational Specialist Center for Exceptional learning Indiana Department of Education 151 W. Ohio Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 317‐232‐9107 [email protected] Rosanne Malek Consultant Gifted & Talented Education Iowa Department of Education 400 E. 14th Street Debora Hansen Education Associate Gifted & Talented Programs Delaware Department of Education 401 Federal Street, Suite 2 Dover, DE 19901 302‐739‐4180 [email protected] Donnajo Smith Program Specialist Curriculum and Instruction Florida Department of Education 325 W. Gaines Street, Suite 432 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850‐245‐0423 [email protected] Annette Eger Director for Gifted Education Gifted Education Georgia Department of Education 1770 Twin Towers East, 205 Jessie Hill Dr. SE Atlanta, GA 30334 404‐656‐6854 [email protected] Elizabeth Webb Interim Program Specialist/Gifted Education Gifted Education Georgia Department of Education 1770 Twin Towers East Atlanta, GA 30303 404‐656‐6854 [email protected] Teri Knapp Coordinator Gifted & Talented Education Guam Department of Education PO Box DL Hagatna, Guam 671‐475‐0598 52
Maine Department of Education 23 State House Station Augusta, ME 04330 207‐624‐6654 [email protected] Dr. Jeanne Paynter Specialist Gifted & Talented Education Maryland Department of Education 200 W. Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201 410‐767‐0363 [email protected] Deborah Walker Gifted & Talented Education Specialist Office of School Performance Massachusetts Department of Education 350 Main street Malden, MA 02148 (781) 338‐3347 [email protected] Sam Sinicropi Educational Consultant Office of Talent Development Michigan Department of Education PO Box 30008 Lansing, MI 48933 517‐241‐1162 [email protected] Wendy Behrens Gifted & Talented Education Specialist Division of School Improvement Minnesota Department of Education 1500 Highway 36 West Roseville, MN 55113 651‐582‐8786 [email protected] Mary Grant Des Moines, IA 50309 515‐281‐3199 [email protected] Linda Geiger Education Program Consultant Special Education Services Kansas Department of Education 120 SE 10th Street Topeka, KS 66612 785‐296‐3378 [email protected] Greg Finkbonner Humanities Branch Manager Kentucky Department of Education 500 Mero Street Frankfort, KY 40601 502‐564‐2106, ext. 4140 [email protected] Judy Huckabay Supervisor Gifted & Talented Programs Louisiana Department of Education PO Box 94064 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225‐342‐3653 [email protected] Patti Drapeau Education Consultant Maine Department of Education PO Box 5 South Freeport, ME 04032 207‐831‐1157 [email protected] Cliff McHatten Regional Education Services Rep. Gifted & Talented Education 53
Division Director Gifted & Talented Programs Mississippi Department of Education PO Box 772 Jackson, MS 39205 601‐359‐2586 [email protected] David Welch Director Gifted Education Programs Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education PO Box 480 Jefferson City, MO 63555 573‐751‐2453 [email protected] Michael Hall Curriculum and Instruction Unit Manager, Instructional Technology Program Gifted & Talented Education Montana Office of Public Instruction 1300 11th Avenue Helena, MT 59601 406‐444‐4422 [email protected] 301 Centennial Mall South Lincoln, NE 68508 402‐471‐0737 [email protected] Rorie Fitzpatrick Office of Special Education Elementary and Secondary Education and School Improvement Program Nevada Department of Education 700 E. Fifth Street Carson City, NV 89701 (775) 687‐9215 [email protected] Robert Wells, PhD. Education Consultant III New Hampshire State Department of Education 101 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 603‐271‐1536 [email protected] Cheri Quinlan Coordinator Gifted & Talented Education New Jersey Department of Education PO Box 500 Trenton, NJ 08625 609‐292‐4469 [email protected] Deb Poole Gifted and Talented State Director Gifted & Talented Education Montana Office of Public Instruction/OPI PO Box 2501 Helena, MT 59601 406‐444‐4317 [email protected] Mary Duffy Director High‐Ability Learning Nebraska Department of Education 54
Ohio Department of Education 25 S. Front Street Columbus, OH 43215 614‐995‐3354 [email protected] Carolyn Brownrigg Administrator A Gifted Education New Mexico Public Education Department 300 Don Gaspar Santa Fe, NM 87501 505‐827‐8489 [email protected] Mary Daley Coordinator Gifted Education New York State Education Department Room 866 EBA Albany, NY 12207 518‐474‐8773 [email protected] Sneha Shah‐Coltrane State Consultant, Academically/Intellectually Gifted Acadmic Services & Instructional Support Academic Services & Instructional Support North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Mail Service Center 6307 Raleigh, NC 27699 919‐807‐3849 [email protected] Brenda Oas Assistant Director Special Education North Dakota Department of Public Instruction 600 East Blvd., Dept 201 Bismarck, ND 58501 701‐328‐2277 [email protected] Mike Demczyk Educational Services Office of Exceptional Children 55
503‐947‐5922 [email protected] Dr. Shirley Curl Special Education Advisor Bureau of Special Education Pennsylvania Department of Education 333 Market street, Floor 7 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717‐786‐6361 [email protected] Kenneth Swanson Director Office for Diverse Learning Rhode Island Department of Education 255 Westminster Street Providence, RI 02903 401‐222‐8343 kenneth.swanson.ride.ri.gov Rick Blanchard Education Associate Office of Academic Standards South Carolina Department of Education 1429 Senate Street, Rm. 802B Columbia, SC 29201 803‐734‐8335 [email protected] Sue Burgard Education Program Representative South Dakota Department of Education 700 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501 605‐773‐5238 [email protected] Karen Willis Coordinator Gifted & Talented Programs Tennessee Department of Education Andrew Johnson Building, 7th Floor, 710 James Beth Hahn Educational Consultant for Gifted Services Office of Exceptional Children Ohio Department of Education 25 S. Front Street Columbus, OH 43215 614‐752‐1745 [email protected] Rosemary Pearson Educational Consultant for Gifted Services Office of Exceptional Children Ohio Department of Education 25 S. Front Street Columbus, OH 43215 614‐644‐2641 [email protected] Sara Austin Director of Gifted and Talented Education Gifted & Talented Education Section Oklahoma Department of Education 2500 N. Lincoln Blvd., Suite 316 Oklahoma City, OK 73105 405‐521‐4287 [email protected] Cathy Douglas Executive Director of Advancement Placement and Gifted and Talented Gifted and Talented Education Section Oklahoma Department of Education 2500 N. Lincoln Blvd., Suite 316 Oklahoma City, OK 73105 405‐521‐4287 [email protected] Tryna Luton Interim Gifted Education Director Office of Student Services Oregon Department of Education 255 Capitol Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97301 56
Program Supervisor AP & High Capable Programs Washington Department of Education PO Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504 360‐725‐4991 [email protected] Gayle Pauley Director, Title I/Gifted Education Special Programs and Federal Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction PO Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504 360‐725‐6100 [email protected] Victoria Mohnacky Gifted Coordinator Office of Special Programs West Virginia Department of Education 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, Bldg 6, Room 304 East Charleston, WV 25305 304‐558‐2696 [email protected] Chrystyna Mursky Consultant Gifted and Talented and Advanced Placement Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction PO Box 7841 Madison, WI 53707 608‐267‐9273 [email protected] Debi Gaines Coordinator Wyoming Department of Education 2020 Grand Avenue, Suite 500 Laramie, WY 82070 307‐777‐7775 [email protected] Robertson Pkwy Nashville, TN 37243 615‐532‐6240 [email protected] Kelly Callaway Director Advanced Academics/Gifted Education Texas Education Agency 1701 N. Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701 512‐463‐9581 [email protected] Moya Kessig Early College and Gifted and Talented Specialist Department of Curriculum and Instruction Utah State Office of Education PO Box 144200 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 801‐538‐7742 [email protected] Noel Bryant Enrichment Coordinator Standards Assessment Team Vermont Department of Education 120 Sate Street Montpelier, VT 05602 802‐828‐0215 [email protected] Donna Poland, Ph.D. Education Specialist Governorʹs Schools & Gifted Education Office Of Middle and High School Education Virginia Department of Education PO Box 2120 Richmond, VA 23218 804‐225‐2884 [email protected] Kristina Johnstone 57
Tammy Schroeder Educational Consultant Standards and Assessment Team Wyoming Department of Education 2020 E. Grand Avenue, Suite 500 Laramie, WY 82070 307 ‐777‐3618 [email protected] 58
STATE GIFTED EDUCATION ASSOCIATION WEBSITES Alabama Association for Gifted Children Arizona Association for Gifted & Talented Arkansans for Gifted & Talented Education California Association for the Gifted Colorado Association for Gifted & Talented Connecticut Association for the Gifted Florida Association for the Gifted Florida Gifted Network Georgia Association for Gifted Children Hawaii Gifted Association Idaho – The Association for the Gifted Illinois Association for Gifted Children Indiana Association for the Gifted Iowa Talented & Gifted Association Kansas Association for Gifted, Talented & Creative Kentucky Association for Gifted Education Association for Gifted & Talented Students of Louisiana Maine Educators of the Gifted & Talented Maryland Coalition for Gifted & Talented Education Maryland Educators of Gifted Students Massachusetts Association for Gifted Education Michigan Alliance for Gifted Education Minnesota Council for the Gifted & Talented Minnesota Educators of the Gifted and Talented Mississippi Association for Gifted Children Gifted Association of Missouri Montana Association of Gifted & Talented Nebraska Association for Gifted New Hampshire Association for Gifted Education New Jersey Association for Gifted Children New Mexico Association for the Gifted NY‐AGATE NC Association for the Gifted & Talented Ohio Association for Gifted Children Oklahoma Association of Gifted, Creative, & Talented 59 www.alabamagifted.org/ www.arizonagifted.org www.agate‐arkansas.org/ www.cagifted.org www.coloradogifted.org www.ctgifted.org www.flagifted.org/ www.floridagiftednet.org www.gagc.org/ www.higifted.org/ www.itag‐sage.org www.iagcgifted.org www.iag‐online.org www.iowatag.org www.kgtc.org www.wku.edu/kage www.agtslouisiana.org/ www.megat.org www.mcgate.org www.megsonline.net www.massgifted.org www.migiftedchild.org www.mcgt.net www.megt.org http://magcweb.org www.mogam.org www.mtagate.org/ www.negifted.org www.nhage.org www.njagc.org http://nmgifted.org www.agateny.com www.ncagt.org www.oagc.com http://oagct.org Oregon Association for Talented & Gifted Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Education Rhode Island Advocates for Gifted Education South Carolina Consortium for Gifted Education South Dakota Association for Gifted Children Tennessee Association for the Gifted Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented Utah Association for Gifted Children Vermont Council for Gifted Education Virginia Association for the Gifted Washington Association of Educators of the Talented & Gifted West Virginia Association for the Gifted & Talented Wisconsin Association for Talented & Gifted 60 www.oatag.org www.penngifted.org/ www.riage.org www.scgifted.org www.sd‐agc.org www.tag‐tenn.org www.txgifted.org www.uagc.org www.vcge.org/ www.vagifted.org www.waetag.net www.wvgifted.org www.watg.org/ QUESTIONNAIRE: STATE OF THE STATES 2009 Introduction This online survey is the ONLY comprehensive survey conducted of gifted and talented programs and services across the country. The information collected is used to inform the public, gifted education advocates and key decision makers on the “state” of gifted education in the U.S. NAGC and CSDPG thank you for your assistance in developing the report. Your participation strengthens a continuing collaboration between NAGC and CSDPG. The report results are published every two years and we seek to have all fifty states represented as this provides a stronger platform for funding and for advocacy of gifted children in the United States. Demographics 1. … … … … … … Salutation Mr. Ms. Mrs. Miss Dr. Other (please specify) 2. First Name 3. Last Name 4. Title 5. Department 6. Mailing Address 7. Street Address (if different) 8. City 9. State 10. ZIP Code 11. Telephone 12. State Department Website URL 13. E‐mail Address 14. Alternate E‐mail Address 15. Fax Number 16. Were you the primary contact for gifted education in your State Education Agency (SEA) in 2008‐2009? 61 { { Yes No 17. { { Does your state have a state gifted education advocacy group (e.g., an NAGC affiliate)? Yes No 18. Please provide the contact information for gifted education advocacy groups in your state in 2008‐2009. State Education Agency 19. Under which department/divisions does your SEA include gifted/talented education? (Check all that apply.) … Special Education … Exceptional Students … General Education … Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) … Curriculum and Instruction … Vocational/Technical … Other (please specify) 20. How many designated SEA personnel have 100% of their time allocated to gifted/talented education? (Enter a number.) 21. How many designated SEA personnel (non‐support personnel and not upper management with oversight responsibility) have partial responsibility for gifted/talented education? (Enter a number.) 22. Does the gifted education office in your state include responsibility for some general or other special programs or projects not specifically related to gifted/talented education? { Yes { No 23. Does the office for gifted education in the SEA have a supervisory role in any of the following programs? (Check all that apply.) … College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams … International Baccalaureate program … College Correspondence courses … Concurrent enrollment in college and public school course 62 … … … … … … Credit by examination Academic or other competition Online learning opportunities Virtual high school None of the above Other (please specify) 24. What activity performed by the SEA designated personnel responsible for gifted education consumes the greatest amount of time? { Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field { Providing technical assistance by telephone { Providing professional and staff development { Monitoring program compliance { Responding to parental questions { Serving on task forces and committees { Liaison to statewide association for the gifted { Grants management { Other (please specify) 25. What activity performed by the SEA designated personnel responsible for gifted education consumes the second greatest amount of time? { Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field { Providing technical assistance by telephone { Providing professional and staff development { Monitoring program compliance { Responding to parental questions { Serving on task forces and committees { Liaison to statewide association for the gifted { Grants management { Other (please specify) 26. What activity performed by the SEA designated personnel responsible for gifted education consumes the third greatest amount of time? { Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field { Providing technical assistance by telephone { Providing professional and staff development { Monitoring program compliance { Responding to parental questions { Serving on task forces and committees { Liaison to statewide association for the gifted 63 { { Grants management Other (please specify) 27. Does your state provide a gifted education professional(s) separate from the SEA staff previously mentioned who provides technical support and assistance to school‐based educators? (For example at a regional or intermediate education agency, in a local school district, etc.) { Yes { No 28. … … … Where do these professionals deliver services? (Check all that apply.) Regionally District level School building level 29. Does the state department publish an annual report on gifted and talented services in the state? .) { Yes { No { Yes, as a section of a larger report 30. Please provide URL for annual report. 31. Are there, or will there be, gifted and talented indicators on district report cards? (Such as the number of certified teachers of the gifted in the district, the percent of students identified for gifted education in the district or gifted student performance information) { Yes { No District Report Cards 32. What are the specific gifted and talented indicators reported on district report cards in your state? (Check all that apply.) † Not specified † Identified students † Cluster classrooms † AP/International Baccalaureate classes † Resources teachers † Mentor programs † Other (please specify) 64 33. In what areas does your state utilize advanced proficiency indicators? (Check all that apply.) † None † Language arts † Math † Science † Social studies † Fine arts † Other (please specify) 34. { { Was the gifted and talented office involved in the development of these indicators? Yes No Impact of Forces on Delivery of Gifted Education Services 35. How would you rate each of the following forces in terms of the positive or negative effects on the delivery of gifted education services in your state within the past two years? Middle school reform Change in state funding for education State assessments Standards‐based education State mandate Lack of state mandate No Child Left Behind Professional development initiatives in gifted education State Accreditation Outcome‐based education Site‐based decision making Anti‐ability grouping sentiment Change in state funding for gifted education Compliance/monitoring Lack of compliance/monitoring Decrease in general education formula Charter Schools Differentiated Instruction Focus on needs in science, tech, engineering & math (STEM) Very Negative { { { { Slightly Negative { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { Slightly Positive { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { Very Positive { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { Negative 65 Neutral Positive N/A { { 36. What other positive or negative forces are affecting gifted education in your state? 37. Please rate the degree of attention needed in each of the following areas of gifted education in order for gifted education services in your state to be optimal. Representation of minority students in gifted education Funding for gifted education Funding for professional training in gifted education Mastery of the disciplines among teachers of the gifted National mandate for gifted education Appropriate program evaluation in gifted education Appropriate pre‐service training at the undergraduate level in gifted education Professional training for general education teachers to provide gifted/talented instruction Assessing academic growth in gifted students Teaching standards for licensure/endorsement Graduate level coursework in gifted education Curriculum that differentiates state standards State definition of gifted Least in Need of Attention { Not In Need of Attention { { { { In Need of Attention { Most in Need of Attention { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { Neutral 38. What other areas are in greatest need of attention in order for gifted education services to be optimal in your state? 39. { { { Does the SEA gifted education personnel work with a state level advisory committee? Standing Advisory Committee Ad‐hoc Committee Not Applicable Gifted Education Advisory Committee 40. Is the gifted education advisory committee(s) required by state law, regulation or policy? Standing advisory committee Ad‐hoc advisory committee Yes, required by state law, regulation or policy { { No, not required by state law, regulation or policy { { 66 Not Applicable { { 41. To whom do(es) the advisory committee(s) for gifted and talented education report? (Check all that apply.) Governor Legislature Standing advisory committee Ad‐hoc advisory committee † † † † Other (please specify) State superintendent/ state board of education † † Not Applicable † † Other † † 42. How often do(es) the state advisory committee(s) for gifted and talented education meet? Standing advisory committee Ad‐hoc advisory committee Monthly Bi‐Monthly Quarterly Annually Other Not Applicable { { { { { { { { { { { { Other (please specify) 43. { { { Has the advisory committee produced a written report within the last three years? Not applicable No Yes. What is the title(s) of this report(s) and how can it be accessed? Definition of Gifted and Talented Students 44. { { { { Does your state require parent/guardian involvement in gifted and talented decisions? No Yes, at the state level Yes, at the local level Yes, other (please specify) 45. Does your state have a definition of gifted/talented? (Check all that apply.) No definition Yes, in state statute Yes, in state rules & regulations Yes, in other (please specify) † † † † 46. What areas of giftedness are specifically addressed in your state statute definition of gifted/talented? (Check all that apply.) † Not applicable † Intellectually Gifted † Academically Gifted 67 † † † † † † † † † † † † † Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/Visual Arts Creatively Gifted Highly Gifted Profoundly Gifted Underachieving Vo‐Tech Geographically isolated/rural Culturally Diverse Disabled Gifted ESL / ELL Other (please specify) 47. What areas of giftedness are specifically addressed in your state rules and regulations’ definition of gifted/talented? (Check all that apply.) † Not applicable † Intellectually Gifted † Academically Gifted † Specific academic areas † Leadership † Performing/Visual Arts † Creatively Gifted † Highly Gifted † Profoundly Gifted † Underachieving † Vo‐Tech † Geographically isolated/rural † Culturally Diverse † Disabled Gifted † ESL / ELL † Other (please specify) 48. { { Are LEAs required to follow the state definition? Yes No 49. What is the citation in the state statute and/or regulation (e.g., Iowa Code 257.44) for the state definition? 68 Citation: URL: 69 Mandates for Identification and Gifted and Talented Services 50. { { Does your state have a mandate for gifted and talented education? Yes No 51. What areas are included in your state mandate? (Check all that apply.) Not specified Identification Services Other (please specify) † † † † 52. † † † † † † † Where is the authority for the state mandate? (Check all that apply.) Not specified (skip to next page) State law specific to gifted education State law specific to disabled and gifted education Administrative rule SEA guidelines State Department of Education policy Other (please specify) 53. What is the citation in the state statute, regulation, or rules that mandate gifted education identification and services? (If applicable) Citation: URL: 54. { { { { Is the mandate funded in your state? Not applicable Mandated with full funding Mandated with partial funding Mandated with no funding Services Required That are Aligned with IDEA 55. Which of the following does your state require for gifted and talented students that align with IDEA strategies? (Check all that apply.) Free appropriate public education Child Find Individual Plan for gifted students Least restrictive environment Non‐discriminatory testing By state special education law † † † † † 70 Not Required † † † † † Not Applicable † † † † † Mediation Due process Related services † † † † † † Please Describe Related Services 56. { { Does your state require specific criteria/methods to identify gifted students? Yes No † † † State Requirements for Identification 57. Which of the following does your state require for identifying gifted students? (Check all that apply.) † Not specified † IQ scores † Achievement data † Nominations † Multiple criteria model † Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select † Other (please specify) 58. Approximately what percent of LEAs identify gifted‐talented students? 59. Is the age or time at which students are identified for gifted programming mandated in your state? { Yes { No 60. At what juncture are students required to be identified for gifted programming in your state? (Check all that apply.) † Not specified † Elementary school (one time only) † Elementary school (multiple times) † Entering middle school † Entering high school † When students transfer from out of state † When students transfer from in state † Following parent referral † Following teacher referral † Following student referral 71 † † † When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Kindergarten or early entrance screening Other (please specify) 61. When are students usually identified for gifted programming in your state? (Check all that apply.) † Not specified † Elementary school (one time only) † Elementary school (multiple times) † Entering middle school † Entering high school † When students transfer from out of state † When students transfer from in state † Following parent referral † Following teacher referral † Following student referral † When taking other assessments approved for GT identification † Kindergarten or early entrance screening † Other (please specify) 62. { { { Does the state provide guidance or guidelines for the identification process? Yes No Not Applicable 63. { { { Are LEAs throughout the state required to follow the same identification process? Yes No Combination of state and LEA policies 64. Why are LEAs not required to follow the same identification guidelines or uniform identification process? { State law does not specifically require { There is no state law on identification process { Other (please specify) 65. How many public school students are enrolled in your state in 2008‐2009? 66. What is the total number of students identified as gifted and talented in your state? (Enter a number or enter “not collected.”) 72 67. { { { { How is this number calculated? State‐collected information Estimate District reports (not mandatory reporting) Data not collected 68. How many gifted and talented students, K – 12, were served in your state in 2008‐2009? (Enter a number or enter “not collected.”) 69. Is there a maximum number or percentage in code or policy of students that a district may identify for gifted programs and services? { No { Yes, What is the maximum number or percentage of students that a district may identify for gifted programs and services? 70. Is data collected on the percent of students identified as gifted and talented who are male or female? { Yes { No 71. Of students identified as gifted and talented, what percent are male and what percent are female? (Total must sum to 100%.) Male students among identified gifted and talented: Female students among identified as gifted and talented: 72. Is data collected on the percent of students identified as gifted and talented who are from different minority groups? { Yes { No 73. Of students identified as gifted and talented, what percent are in each of the following groups? (Total must sum to 100%.) African American students among identified gifted and talented: Native American students among identified gifted and talented: Asian students among identified gifted and talented: Hispanic students among identified gifted and talented: Caucasian students among identified gifted and talented: Other: 73 74. (only for those with “other” in question 70.) What are the other minority groups included in the total of identified gifted and talented students? Programming and Accountability 75. For which categories of giftedness are programs/services required in your state? (Check all that apply.) † Not required † Visual/performing arts † Leadership † Intellectual † General academic † Creativity † Specific academic areas † Not specified 76. At which grades are gifted and talented services mandated in your state? (Check all that apply.) † Not required † Pre‐K to 12 † Up to LEA to determine † Pre‐K † Kindergarten † Grade 1 † Grade 2 † Grade 3 † Grade 4 † Grade 5 † Grade 6 † Grade 7 † Grade 8 † Grade 9 † Grade 10 † Grade 11 † Grade 12 77. Does your state monitor/audit LEA programs for gifted/talented students? (Check the appropriate response.) { Yes 74 { { No Only when LEA applies for funds 78. Are LEAs required to report on gifted and talented education services through state accountability procedures or guidelines? (Check the appropriate response.) { Yes { No { Only when LEA applies for funds LEA Reports on Gifted and Talented Services 79. Which of the following criteria is required in the report on gifted and talented education services through state accountability procedures or guidelines? † Student performance † Program performance † A combination of student performance and program evaluation † Teacher training † Service Options † Other (please specify) 80. 81. { { { How does the state ensure compliance? Are school districts required to submit gifted education plans to the SEA? Yes No Only when LEA applies for funds 82. { { { Must local gifted education plans be approved by the SEA? Yes No Only when LEA applies for funds 83. What are the components of the district gifted and talented plan that must be approved by the state? (Check all that apply.) † Identification † Programming † Funding † Evaluation † Teacher training † Other (please specify) 75 84. { { Does your state require school districts to have a gifted education administrator? Yes No Gifted Education Administrator 85. Does the state require the gifted education administrator to have gifted and talented training (e.g., certification or endorsement)? { Yes { No (skip to next page) 86. { { Is the gifted education administrator required by the state to be a full‐time position? Yes No 87. Approximately what percentage of LEAs in the state have a full‐time gifted education administrator? 88. Approximately what percent of gifted and talented students in your state receive services in each grade below. 0% 1%‐ 19% 20%– 39% 40%– 59% 60%– 79% 80%– 100% Pre‐Kindergarten Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { Do not collect data or Not applicable { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 89. We are interested in an estimate of the top delivery methods through which services are provided in pre‐K and kindergarten. Is it possible to estimate that for your state? { Yes { No Pre‐K and Kindergarten Delivery Methods 76 90. What are the top three delivery methods through which services are provided in pre‐K and kindergarten? (Please rank 1, 2 and 3. You must use all three numbers.) Continuous Progress Curriculum Independent Study Magnet Schools Regular Classroom Self‐Contained Classroom Self‐Paced Learning Telescoped Learning Resource Room Cluster Classrooms Other 1 { { { { { { { { { { Other (please specify) 2 { { { { { { { { { { 3 { { { { { { { { { { 91. We are interested in an estimate of the top delivery methods through which services are provided in early elementary (1‐3). Is it possible to estimate that for your state? { Yes { No Early Elementary Delivery Methods 92. What are the top three delivery methods through which services are provided in early elementary (1‐3)? (Please rank 1, 2 and 3. You must use all three numbers.) Continuous Progress Curriculum Independent Study International Baccalaureate Magnet Schools Mentorships Regional Math School Regional Performing Arts School Regular Classroom Self‐Contained Classroom Self‐Paced Learning Telescoped Learning Resource Room Cluster Classrooms Virtual classroom/coursework Virtual school Other (please specify) 1 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 2 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 3 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 77 93. We are interested in an estimate of the top delivery methods through which services are provided in upper elementary (4‐6). Is it possible to estimate that for your state? { Yes { No Upper Elementary Delivery Options 94. What are the top three delivery methods through which services are provided in upper elementary (4‐6)? (Please rank 1, 2 and 3. You must use all three numbers.) Advanced Placement Continuous Progress Curriculum Dual Enrollment (in college) Independent Study International Baccalaureate Magnet Schools Mentorships Regional Math School Regional Performing Arts School Regular Classroom Self‐Contained Classroom Self‐Paced Learning Telescoped Learning Resource Room Cluster Classrooms Virtual classroom/coursework Virtual school Other (please specify) 1 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 2 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 3 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 95. We are interested in an estimate of the top delivery methods through which services are provided in middle school. Is it possible to estimate that for your state? { Yes { No Middle School Delivery Methods 96. What are the top three delivery methods through which services are provided in middle school? (Please rank 1, 2 and 3. You must use all three numbers.) Advanced Placement Continuous Progress Curriculum Dual Enrollment (in college) Independent Study International Baccalaureate Virtual classroom/coursework Virtual school 1 { { { { { { { 2 { { { { { { { 78 3 { { { { { { { Magnet Schools Mentorships Regional Math School Regional Performing Arts School Regular Classroom Self‐Contained Classroom Self‐Paced Learning Telescoped Learning Resource Room Cluster Classrooms Other (please specify) { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 97. We are interested in an estimate of the top delivery methods through which services are provided in high school. Is it possible to estimate that for your state? { Yes No { High School Delivery Methods 98. What are the top three delivery methods through which services are provided in high school? (Please rank 1, 2 and 3. You must use all three numbers.) Advanced Placement Continuous Progress Curriculum Dual Enrollment (in college) Independent Study International Baccalaureate Virtual high school Virtual classroom/coursework Magnet Schools Mentorships Regional Math School Regional Performing Arts School Regular Classroom Self‐Contained Classroom Self‐paced Learning Telescoped Learning Resource Room Cluster Classrooms Other (please specify) 1 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 2 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { 3 { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { Other Policies and Practices 99. { Does your state have an acceleration policy? State policy specifically permits 79 { { { State policy does not permit State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 100. Does your state have an early entrance to kindergarten policy in state statute or regulation? { State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit State policy leaves LEA to determine { { No state policy; up to LEA to determine 101. What is the age requirement (years and months) or cut‐off date (e.g., “must be 5 by June 1”) in your state for admission to kindergarten? 102. Does your state offer an alternate high school diploma or certificate for gifted students without sufficient units to quality for a regular high school diploma? { State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit (skip to question 104) { State policy leaves LEA to determine { No state policy; up to LEA to determine 103. Please describe the basis on which the alternate diploma/certificate is offered. (For example, test results, portfolio, online high school courses.) 104. Under your state laws and regulations, are students allowed dual or concurrent enrollment in a community college, college or university? { State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit (skip to question 108) { State policy leaves LEA to determine { No state policy; up to LEA to determine 105. When can students begin dual or concurrent enrollment in a community college, college or university? (Check all that apply.) † Left to LEA to determine † Grade 7 † Grade 8 † Grade 9 † Grade 10 † Grade 11 † Grade 12 80 † † † † † † † Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Other (please specify) 106. Is high school credit given for courses completed at a community college, college or university? { State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit { State policy leaves LEA to determine { No state policy; up to LEA to determine 81 107. Who pays the tuition for a student dually or concurrently enrolled at a community college, college or university? (Check all that apply.) † SEA † LEA † Parent † Other (please specify) 108. { { { { Are middle school students permitted to be dually/concurrently enrolled in high school? State policy specifically permits State policy does not permit State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 109. May middle school students receive credit toward high school graduation for the courses in which he/she is dually/concurrently enrolled? { State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit { State policy leaves LEA to determine { No state policy; up to LEA to determine 110. Does your state allow proficiency‐based promotion (demonstrate proficiency without seat time in that course) for gifted and talented students? { State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit State policy leaves LEA to determine { { No state policy; up to LEA to determine 111. † † † † † † † † How does the student demonstrate proficiency? (Check all that apply.) Left to LEA to determine Multiple choice test Essay Lab experiments Oral exam Portfolio Performance Other (please specify) 112. Once a student demonstrates proficiency, what are the options to accommodate his/her needs for advancement? (Check all that apply.) † Not applicable † Individualized instruction 82 † † † † † † † † † Correspondence courses Independent study Dual/Concurrent enrollment Cross‐grade grouping Cluster grouping Grade/course advancement Individualized education programs Left to LEA to determine Other (please specify) 113. Does your state allow credit towards high school graduation for demonstrated proficiency? { State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit { State policy leaves LEA to determine { No state policy; up to LEA to determine 114. Which of the following are part of program/service delivery for gifted students in your state? Social‐emotional support Academic guidance & counseling Contact time State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit { State policy leaves LEA to determine { No state policy; up to LEA to determine { { { { { { { { { 115. { { { { Does your state recognize gifted eligibilities from other states? State policy specifically permits State policy does not permit State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 116. Does your state have a policy requiring LEAs to recognize gifted eligibilities from other LEAs in the same state? { State policy specifically permits { State policy does not permit { State policy leaves LEA to determine { No state policy; up to LEA to determine 117. What is your state’s minimum age requirement to obtain a GED? 83 118. † † † † † † † † † † Which of the following does your state fund at the state level? (Check all that apply.) None School for Math and Science School for the Fine and Performing Arts School for the Humanities Governor’s School (Summer) Governor’s School (school year) Virtual High School AP/International Baccalaureate Tests ACT/SAT/Discover Test Other (please specify) Personnel Preparation 119. Does your state require gifted and talented training for all pre‐service teacher candidates? { Yes { No 120. 121. { { What are the gifted and talented pre‐service level requirements in your state? Does your state require gifted and talented credentialing (certification/endorsement)? Yes No Teachers Working in Specialized Programs 122. Does your state require professionals working in specialized programs for gifted and talented students to have certification or endorsement? { Yes { No (skip to next page) 123. † † † † † How are hours earned for certification or endorsement? (Check all that apply.) Not specified Course semester credit hours Continuing Education Units (CEUs) Staff development Other (please specify) 84 124. How many course semester credit hours, Continuing Education Units, or staff development hours are required for certification or endorsement for professionals working with gifted children in specialized programs? 125. What percentage of professionals working with gifted children in specialized programs had a gifted and talented endorsement or certification in 2008‐2009 in your state? { Data not collected { 0% 1‐10 % { { 11‐20 % { 21‐30 % { 31‐40 % { 41‐50 % { 51‐60 % { 61‐70 % { 71‐80% { 81‐90% { 91‐100% 126. { { { Is this based on: An estimate Collected data Data not collected/Not applicable General Education Teacher Training 127. Are general education teachers in your state required to have training on the nature/needs of gifted students? { Yes { No 128. How do general education teachers receive education on the nature/needs of gifted and talented learners in your state? (Check all that apply.) Up to LEAs to Determine Left to LEAs † Endorsement/ Certification After Initial License † † † † † † † † † † † † † Elective Required Preservice training Inservice staff development training Continuing Education Units † 85 129. For those options that are required in Q123, please provide the number of hours required Preservice training Inservice staff development training Continuing Education Units Endorsement/Certification after initial license Up to LEAs to determine 130. What is the percentage of general education teachers in your state who have three or more course semester credit hours (or its equivalent) in gifted/talented education? { Data not collected { 0% { 1‐10 % { 11‐20 % { 21‐30 % { 31‐40 % { 41‐50 % { 51‐60 % { 61‐70 % { 71 % or more 131. { { { Is this based on: Estimate Collected data Data not collected/Not applicable 132. What percentage of general education teachers and staff statewide do you estimate receive annual staff development in gifted education? 133. Does your state require annual staff development hours in gifted education for teachers working in specialized programs for the gifted and talented? { Left to LEA { No { Yes, how many hours of staff development are required? 134. What percentage of teachers and staff working in specialized programs for the gifted and talented statewide do you estimate receive annual staff development in gifted education? 135. Does your state require university coursework in nature/needs of gifted students as part of the preparatory program for any of the following? (Check all that apply.) 86 † † † † † † † † New/beginning teachers Principals Counselors Auxiliary staff Curriculum/instruction directors Assessment directors No Other (please specify) 136. Does your state have written competencies, other than endorsement or certification standards, for teachers of the gifted in specialized programs? { No { Yes, Please Describe 137. Are graduate degrees with an emphasis in gifted education offered at universities in your state? { Yes { No Graduate Programs 138. At which levels are graduate degrees with an emphasis in gifted education offered? (Check all that apply.) † Master’s † Specialist’s † Ph.D. † Ed.D. † Other (please specify) 87 State and National Funding 139. { { Are state funds allocated specifically for services to gifted and talented students? Yes No 140. { { { How is gifted and talented education funded in your state? Funding available from the state through grants Funding available from the state through formula or other allocation Other (please specify) 141. What is the type of funding formula for gifted education in your state? (Select all that apply.) { Discretionary funding: Districts apply for state funds and send a plan for how funds will be used. { Weighted funding: State aid is allocated on a per‐student basis formula, which accounts for the amount spent per pupil multiplied by the weighted figure. { Flat grant: A state provides a specific amount per student, with all districts receiving the same amount. { Percentage reimbursement: State provides a specific percentage of the prior year’s budget. { Resource based: Funding is figured based on the specific education resources, such as staff or classroom units. { Other (please specify) 142. { { Is there a cap on the state funds? Yes No 143. † What is the basis for the cap on state funds? (Select all that apply.) Percent of identified students Percent of Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Teacher units Tied to state funds available Other (please specify) 144. What is the percentage (%) of the cap on state funding? † † † † 88 145. † † † † † † † † † How are state funds disbursed (Check all that apply.) To all LEAs by mandate To LEAs through discretionary funding, based on application To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts Competitive Grants Governor’s schools and summer programs Residential schools for the gifted and talented Virtual High School Not Applicable Other (please specify) 146. Please indicate the amount of the state funding for gifted/talented education for each of the following years 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 147. What has been the impact of No Child Left Behind on gifted and talented programs and services in your state? 148. What has been the impact of No Child Left Behind on staffing for gifted and talented programs and services in your state? 149. What recent changes in your state statute or rules and regulations might impact gifted and talented education in your state? 150. How are NAGC’s Pre‐K to 12 Gifted Program Standards used in your state? 151. Is there anything else you would like to say about the status of gifted education in your state? 152. Are there any clarifications to your responses that you would like to make? (Please include reference to the question number in your answer.) 153. Any comments you wish to make that you think will help future efforts to study the status of gifted education in the United States will be appreciated. 89 THANK YOU FOR CONTRIBUTING YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND TIME TO THIS IMPORTANT PROJECT. 90 Appendix 91 TABLE 1: STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES STAFFING Reporting department (Q19) SEA staff: full‐time to GT (Q20) SEA staff: part‐time to GT (Q21) Responsibility for general/other education (Q22) Programs with supervisory role (Q23) Alabama Special Education 2 0 No None Alaska Other: School districts are responsible for G&T 0 0 No Arizona Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) 1 0 No College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams Arkansas Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) Other: Division of Learning Services 3 1 No College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Concurrent enrollment in college and public school course California Curriculum and Instruction 1 1 Yes None (See Table 32: Clarifications) Colorado Exceptional Students Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) 1 0 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams Other: Twice exceptional; differentiated instruction Delaware Curriculum and Instruction 0 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Academic or other competition Online learning opportunities Virtual high school Florida Exceptional Students Curriculum and Instruction 1 0 No Academic or other competition Georgia Curriculum and Instruction 1 0 No None 92 Reporting department (Q19) SEA staff: full‐time to GT (Q20) SEA staff: part‐time to GT (Q21) Responsibility for general/other education (Q22) Programs with supervisory role (Q23) Hawaii General Education Curriculum and Instruction 0 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Online learning opportunities Other: Learning centers Idaho Other: Division of Innovation and Choice 1 0 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams Other: Other SDE initiatives Illinois Other: Grants and Programs 0 1 Yes None Indiana Other: Differentiated Learning 0 2 Yes Iowa Curriculum and Instruction 0 1 Yes (See Table 32: Clarifications) Kansas Special Education 0 1 Yes None Kentucky Curriculum and Instruction 1 0 No None Louisiana Special Education 1 9 Yes None Maine Special Education 0 3 Yes None Maryland Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) Curriculum and Instruction 1 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams Massachusetts Curriculum and Instruction 0 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams 93 Reporting department (Q19) SEA staff: full‐time to GT (Q20) SEA staff: part‐time to GT (Q21) Responsibility for general/other education (Q22) Programs with supervisory role (Q23) Michigan General Education Curriculum and Instruction 0 2 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program College correspondence courses Concurrent enrollment in college and public school course Credit by examination Online learning opportunities Other: Alternative education; early and middle college high schools Minnesota Other: Division of School Improvement 1 0 Yes Other: Minnesota Scholars of Distinction Mississippi General Education 0 2 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program College correspondence courses Concurrent enrollment in college and public school course Missouri Curriculum and Instruction 0 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Montana Curriculum and Instruction 1 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Nebraska Curriculum and Instruction 1 0 No None New Hampshire Other: No bureau or department for G&T. Contact person for the state is a consultant in the Bureau of Special Education 0 1 No (See Table 32: Clarifications) New Jersey Other: Office of Academic Standards New Mexico Special Education Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) 0 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams 94 Reporting department (Q19) SEA staff: full‐time to GT (Q20) SEA staff: part‐time to GT (Q21) Responsibility for general/other education (Q22) Programs with supervisory role (Q23) New York General Education 0 1 Yes Other: AP and IB fee waiver program; governorʹs school North Carolina Other: Reports directly to the Deputy Chief Academic Officer 1 0 No None North Dakota Special Education 0 2 Yes None Ohio Exceptional Students 4 2 Yes None Oklahoma Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) 1 2 No College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Oregon Curriculum and Instruction 1 0 Yes None Pennsylvania Special Education General Education Curriculum and Instruction 1 2 Yes None South Carolina Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) Curriculum and Instruction 1 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program South Dakota 0 1 Tennessee Special Education 0 0 No None Texas Gifted and Talented (Separate from special or general education) Curriculum and Instruction 2 0 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Concurrent enrollment in college and public school course Credit by examination Utah Curriculum and Instruction 0 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Concurrent enrollment in college and public school course 95 Reporting department (Q19) SEA staff: full‐time to GT (Q20) SEA staff: part‐time to GT (Q21) Responsibility for general/other education (Q22) Programs with supervisory role (Q23) Vermont Other: Standards and Assessment 1 0 Yes Other: AP fee reduction grant Virginia Other: Office of Middle and High School Instruction 1 0 No None Washington Other: Special Programs 0 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program West Virginia Special Education 0 1 Yes None Wisconsin Other: Content and Learning 0 1 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Wyoming Other: Standards and Assessment 0 3 Yes College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams International Baccalaureate program Summary Responses: 46 No response: 1 Curriculum and Instruction: 18 Special Education: 9 Gifted and Talented: 8 General Education: 5 Exceptional Students: 3 Other: 14 Responses: 46 No response: 1 Full‐time GT staff: 23 No full‐
time GT staff: 23 Responses: 45 No response: 2 Part‐time GT staff: 29 No part‐
time GT staff: 16 Responses: 45 No response: 2 Yes: 32 No: 13 Responses: 41 No response: 6 College Board Advanced Placement courses and/or exams: 20 International Baccalaureate program: 14 Concurrent enrollment in college and public school course: 5 Online learning opportunities: 3 College correspondence courses: 2 Credit by examination: 2 Academic or other competition: 2 Virtual high school: 1 Other: 7 None: 17 96 TABLE 2: STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES STAFFING (CONTINUED) Major responsibilities of SEA designated personnel ranked by time (Q24, Q25, Q26) State provides additional GT support staff (Q27) Where they deliver services (Q28) Alabama 1. Monitoring program compliance 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Providing professional and staff development No Alaska No Arizona 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Providing professional and staff development 3. Grants management No Arkansas 1. Monitoring program compliance 2. Other: Technical assistance via phone/e‐mail 3. Grants management Yes Regionally District level School building level California 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Grants management 3. Responding to parental questions No Colorado 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone Yes 3. Serving on task forces and committees Regionally District level Delaware 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Responding to parental questions 3. Serving on task forces and committees No Florida 1. Grants management 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Monitoring program compliance No 97 Major responsibilities of SEA designated personnel ranked by time (Q24, Q25, Q26) State provides additional GT support staff (Q27) Where they deliver services (Q28) Georgia 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Providing professional and staff development 3. Monitoring program compliance Yes Regionally Hawaii 1. Monitoring program compliance 2. Providing professional and staff development 3. Responding to parental questions No Idaho 1. Other: Technical assistance by e‐mail No 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field Illinois 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Responding to parental questions 3. Liaison to statewide association for the gifted No Indiana 1. Grants management 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Providing professional and staff development Yes Regionally District level School building level Iowa 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Serving on task forces and committees 3. Grants management Yes Regionally Kansas 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Responding to parental questions 3. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field No Kentucky 1. Other: Providing technical assistance by e‐mail 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Providing professional and staff development No Louisiana 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Serving on task forces and committees 3. Providing professional and staff development No 98 Major responsibilities of SEA designated personnel ranked by time (Q24, Q25, Q26) State provides additional GT support staff (Q27) Where they deliver services (Q28) Maine 1. Monitoring program compliance 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Liaison to statewide association for the gifted No Maryland 1. Providing professional and staff development 2. Grants management 3. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field No Massachusetts 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone No 2. Responding to parental questions 3. Monitoring program compliance Michigan 1. Responding to parental questions 2. Liaison to statewide association for the gifted 3. Providing technical assistance by telephone No Minnesota 1. Providing professional and staff development 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Serving on task forces and committees No Mississippi 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Providing professional and staff development 3. Monitoring program compliance No Missouri 1. Monitoring program compliance 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Liaison to statewide association for the gifted No Montana 1. Grants management 2. Monitoring program compliance 3. Providing technical assistance by telephone Yes Regionally Nebraska 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Grants management 3. Providing professional and staff development Yes Regionally New Hampshire 1. Responding to parental questions 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Liaison to statewide association for the gifted No 99 Major responsibilities of SEA designated personnel ranked by time (Q24, Q25, Q26) State provides additional GT support staff (Q27) Where they deliver services (Q28) New Jersey 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Responding to parental questions New Mexico 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Responding to parental questions 3. Serving on task forces and committees No New York 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Responding to parental questions 3. Serving on task forces and committees No North Carolina 1. Other: Providing technical assistance to LEAs via phone, e‐mail, and on‐site 2. Other: Developing and supporting state policies and committees related to gifted education 3. Other: Supporting partnerships with gifted community, including parents, organizations, IHEs and inter‐agency No North Dakota 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Responding to parental questions 3. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field No Ohio 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Providing professional and staff development 3. Monitoring program compliance No Oklahoma 1. Providing technical assistance by telephone 2. Providing professional and staff development 3. Responding to parental questions No Oregon 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Monitoring program compliance 3. Providing professional and staff development No Pennsylvania 1. Responding to parental questions 2. Monitoring program compliance 3. Providing professional and staff development Yes District level School building level 100 Major responsibilities of SEA designated personnel ranked by time (Q24, Q25, Q26) State provides additional GT support staff (Q27) Where they deliver services (Q28) South Carolina 1. Providing professional and staff development 2. Monitoring program compliance 3. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field No South Dakota 1. Responding to parental questions 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Liaison to statewide association for the gifted No Tennessee 1. Responding to parental questions No 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Providing professional and staff development Texas 1. Grants management 2. Other: Providing guidance to LEAs 3. Serving on task forces and committees Yes Regionally Utah 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Monitoring program compliance 3. Providing professional and staff development No Vermont 1. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field 2. Providing professional and staff development 3. Serving on task forces and committees No Virginia 1. Other: Responding to inquiries from a variety of constituent groups 2. Grants management 3. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field No Washington 1. Grants management 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Monitoring program compliance No West Virginia 1. Providing professional and staff development 2. Providing technical assistance by telephone 3. Responding to parental questions No Wisconsin 1. Providing professional and staff development 2. Serving on task forces and committees 3. Responding to parental questions No 101 Major responsibilities of SEA designated personnel ranked by time (Q24, Q25, Q26) State provides additional GT support staff (Q27) Where they deliver services (Q28) Wyoming 1. Responding to parental questions 2. Monitoring program compliance 3. Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field No Summary Responses: 46 No response: 1 Responses: 46 No response: 1 Number of states citing in top three: Providing technical assistance by telephone: 26 Providing professional and staff development: 21 Responding to parental questions: 19 Providing technical assistance to LEAs in the field: 17 Monitoring program compliance: 17 Grants management: 12 Serving on task forces and committees: 10 Liaison to statewide association for the gifted: 6 Other: 6 No: 37 Yes: 9 Provided at regional level: 8 Provided at district level: 4 Provided at school building level: 3 102 TABLE 3: STATE REPORT CARDS State‐published report (Q29) URL (Q30) GT indicators on district report cards (Q31, Q32) Areas advanced proficiency indicators used (Q33) GT office involved in developing indicators (Q34) Alabama No No None Alaska No No Language arts Math Science No Arizona No Yes, but not specified Language arts Math Science Social studies Fine arts Yes Arkansas No No Language arts Math No (See Table 32: Clarifications) California No Identified students Language arts Math Science Social studies No Colorado Yes No Language arts Math Science Social studies Fine arts No www.cde.state.co.us/gt/data.htm Delaware No No None Florida Yes, as a section of a larger report Identified students Other: State test scores None 103 State‐published report (Q29) URL (Q30) Georgia Yes, as a section of a larger report GT indicators on district report cards (Q31, Q32) Areas advanced proficiency indicators used (Q33) GT office involved in developing indicators (Q34) No Language arts Math Science Social studies No No Language arts Math Science Social studies Fine arts Other: Health and P.E. Yes http://app3.doe.k12.ga.us/ows‐
bin/owa/qbe_reports.public_menu?p_fy=2000 Hawaii Yes http://gt.k12.hi.us Idaho No No None Illinois No No None Indiana No Identified students None Iowa No Identified students Language arts Math Science No Kansas No No None Kentucky No No Language arts Math Science Social studies Fine arts No Louisiana Yes, as a section of a larger report Yes, but not specified Language arts Math Science Social studies No https://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/eia/2115.html Maine No No None Maryland No No None 104 State‐published report (Q29) URL (Q30) GT indicators on district report cards (Q31, Q32) Areas advanced proficiency indicators used (Q33) GT office involved in developing indicators (Q34) Massachusetts No No Language arts Math Science No Michigan No No Language arts Math Science Social studies Yes Minnesota No Identified students Cluster classrooms AP/International Baccalaureate classes Resources teachers Mentor programs Other: If, when, and how students are identified; if acceleration procedures are in place; if staff development on the nature and needs of gifted learners has been provided Language arts Math Science Social studies Fine arts No Mississippi No No Language arts Math Science Social studies No Missouri No No None Montana Yes No No Nebraska Yes, as a section of a larger report No None New Hampshire No No None New Jersey New Mexico No No None 105 State‐published report (Q29) URL (Q30) GT indicators on district report cards (Q31, Q32) Areas advanced proficiency indicators used (Q33) GT office involved in developing indicators (Q34) New York No No Language arts Math Science Social studies Fine arts No North Carolina No No Language arts Math Science No North Dakota No No None Ohio No Identified students Language arts Math Science Social studies No Oklahoma Yes No Language arts Math Science Social studies No Identified students Other: Assessment data No http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/GiftTalent/pdf/An
nualReport09.pdf Oregon Yes, as a section of a larger report http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1821 Pennsylvania No No Language arts Math Science Social studies No South Carolina No Identified students AP/International Baccalaureate classes None South Dakota No No Language arts Math No 106 State‐published report (Q29) URL (Q30) GT indicators on district report cards (Q31, Q32) Areas advanced proficiency indicators used (Q33) GT office involved in developing indicators (Q34) Tennessee No No Language arts Math Science Social studies No Texas Yes, as a section of a larger report Yes Identified students AP/International Baccalaureate classes Other: Dual credit Language arts Math Science Social studies No Utah Yes, as a section of a larger report No Language arts Math Science Yes www.schools.utah.gov Vermont No No Language arts Math Science No Virginia Yes No Language arts Math Science Social studies No No Language arts Math Science Social studies Fine arts Yes No Language arts Math Science Social studies Yes (See Table 32: Clarifications) Washington Yes http://www.k12.wa.us/HighlyCapable/reports.aspx West Virginia Yes http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/Giftedreport08.pdf 107 State‐published report (Q29) URL (Q30) GT indicators on district report cards (Q31, Q32) Areas advanced proficiency indicators used (Q33) GT office involved in developing indicators (Q34) Wisconsin No No Language arts Math Science Social studies Other: Writing No Wyoming No No Language arts Math Science Yes Summary Responses: 46 No response: 1 No: 32 Yes: 7 Yes, as a section of a larger report: 7 Reports available online: 9 Responses: 46 No response: 1 No: 35 Yes: 11 Identified students: 9 AP/International Baccalaureate classes: 3 Cluster classrooms: 1 Resources teachers: 1 Mentor programs: 1 Other: 4 Not specified: 2 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Language arts: 29 Math: 29 Science: 27 Social studies: 20 Fine arts: 7 Other: 2 None: 15 Responses: 31 No response: 16 No: 24 Yes: 7 108 TABLE 4: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FORCES ON GIFTED EDUCATION (PART 1) Rate each force in terms of the positive or negative effects on gifted education. (Q35) Middle school reform Changed state education funding State assessments Standards‐
based education State mandate Lack of state mandate No Child Left Behind Professional development incentives Alabama Positive Very negative Very negative Very negative Very positive N/A Very negative Slightly pos. Alaska N/A Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral N/A Neutral N/A Arizona Positive Negative Neutral Slightly pos. Very positive N/A Neutral Very positive Arkansas Slightly neg. Neutral Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Very positive N/A Negative Very positive California Colorado Slightly neg. Very negative Positive Slightly pos. Very positive N/A Slightly neg. Very positive Delaware Slightly pos. Negative Negative Neutral N/A Very negative Negative Slightly pos. Florida Neutral Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. Very positive N/A Slightly neg. Neutral Georgia Neutral Slightly neg. Slightly pos. Positive Very positive N/A Slightly neg. Very positive Hawaii Slightly neg. Very negative Neutral Slightly pos. Positive N/A Slightly pos. Positive Idaho Illinois N/A Very negative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Positive Indiana N/A Negative Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. N/A Neutral Positive Iowa N/A Neutral Neutral N/A Very positive N/A Neutral Slightly pos. Kansas Neutral Negative Slightly neg. Neutral Slightly pos. N/A Slightly neg. Neutral Kentucky N/A Very negative Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. N/A Slightly neg. Positive Louisiana Neutral Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Neutral Neutral N/A Slightly neg. Positive Maine Slightly neg. N/A Neutral Slightly pos. Positive N/A Negative Slightly pos. Maryland Slightly pos. Negative Slightly neg. N/A N/A Negative Negative Very positive Massachusetts Neutral Very negative Neutral Neutral N/A Very negative Slightly neg. Very positive Michigan Neutral Very negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Very negative Neutral Neutral 109 Rate each force in terms of the positive or negative effects on gifted education. (Q35) Middle school reform Changed state education funding State assessments Standards‐
based education State mandate Lack of state mandate No Child Left Behind Professional development incentives Minnesota Neutral Neutral Neutral Positive Very positive Slightly pos. Neutral Very positive Mississippi Neutral Neutral Neutral Very positive Very positive Neutral Neutral Very positive Missouri Neutral Negative Slightly neg. N/A N/A Negative Negative Slightly neg. Montana Neutral Slightly pos. Neutral Neutral N/A N/A Nebraska Neutral Negative Negative Negative Neutral N/A Very negative Neutral New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Neutral N/A N/A New Jersey New Mexico Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. Slightly pos. New York Neutral Slightly neg. Neutral Neutral Negative Slightly neg. Neutral North Carolina Neutral Very positive Positive Positive Very positive N/A Slightly neg. Very positive North Dakota Neutral Positive Positive Positive N/A Negative Slightly neg. Neutral Ohio Neutral N/A Neutral Slightly pos. N/A Negative Neutral Very positive Oklahoma Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral N/A Neutral N/A Oregon Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Positive Positive Slightly pos. N/A Slightly neg. Slightly pos. Pennsylvania Neutral Neutral Neutral Positive Positive Very negative Very negative Positive South Carolina Slightly neg. Negative Neutral Neutral Very positive N/A Very negative Positive South Dakota Neutral N/A Slightly neg. Neutral N/A Very negative Slightly neg. Neutral Tennessee Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. Slightly pos. Neutral Slightly pos. Very positive Texas Neutral Neutral Negative Neutral Slightly pos. N/A Slightly neg. Positive Utah Neutral Positive Slightly pos. Positive Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. Neutral Vermont Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral N/A Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Positive Virginia Neutral Neutral Negative Negative Neutral N/A Negative Neutral Washington Slightly neg. Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. Neutral 110 Rate each force in terms of the positive or negative effects on gifted education. (Q35) Middle school reform Changed state education funding State assessments Standards‐
based education State mandate Lack of state mandate No Child Left Behind Professional development incentives West Virginia N/A N/A Slightly neg. Positive Very positive N/A Slightly neg. Positive Wisconsin Neutral Negative Neutral Slightly pos. Positive N/A Negative Positive Wyoming Neutral Slightly pos. Neutral Slightly pos. Neutral Slightly neg. Neutral Neutral Summary Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Very neg.: 0 Very neg.: 7 Very neg.: 1 Very neg.: 1 Very neg.: 0 Very neg.: 5 Very neg.: 4 Very neg.: 0 Negative: 0 Slightly neg.: 7 Negative: 9 Slightly neg.: 4 Negative: 4 Slightly neg.: 7 Negative: 2 Slightly neg.: 1 Negative: 0 Slightly neg.: 0 Negative: 5 Slightly neg.: 2 Negative: 7 Slightly neg.: 17
Negative: 0 Slightly neg.: 1 Neutral: 26 Slightly pos.: 2 Neutral: 14 Slightly pos.: 2 Neutral: 23 Slightly pos.: 2 Neutral: 16 Slightly pos.: 9 Neutral: 11 Slightly pos.: 6 Neutral: 6 Slightly pos.: 1 Neutral: 10 Slightly pos.: 3 Neutral: 11 Slightly pos.: 6 Positive: 2 Very pos.: 0 Positive: 2 Very pos.: 1 Positive: 4 Very pos.: 0 Positive: 8 Very pos.: 1 Positive: 4 Very pos.: 12 Positive: 0 Very pos.: 0 Positive: 0 Very pos.: 0 Positive: 11 Very pos.: 11 N/A: 7 N/A: 5 N/A: 2 N/A: 5 N/A: 11 N/A: 24 N/A: 2 N/A: 4 111 TABLE 5: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FORCES ON GIFTED EDUCATION (PART 2) Rate each force in terms of the positive or negative effects on gifted education. (Q35) State accreditation Outcome‐based Site‐based Anti‐ability education decision making grouping sentiment Change in state GT education funding Compliance/ monitoring Lack of compliance/ monitoring Decrease in general education formula Alabama Neutral Very negative Negative Very negative Very negative Positive N/A N/A Alaska N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Neutral N/A N/A Arizona N/A Slightly pos. Slightly neg. Negative N/A Very positive N/A Negative Arkansas Very positive Neutral Neutral Negative N/A Very positive N/A N/A California Colorado Very positive Slightly pos. Positive Very negative Very positive Very positive N/A Very negative Delaware N/A Neutral Slightly pos. Slightly neg. N/A Slightly pos. N/A Neutral Florida N/A Slightly pos. Neutral N/A N/A Slightly pos. N/A Neutral Georgia Positive Neutral Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Positive N/A Slightly neg. Hawaii N/A Slightly pos. Positive N/A Very negative Slightly pos. N/A Negative Idaho Illinois N/A N/A N/A N/A Very negative N/A N/A N/A Indiana N/A N/A N/A N/A Positive N/A N/A Negative Iowa Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. Very positive N/A N/A Kansas N/A N/A Slightly neg. Slightly neg. N/A N/A Slightly neg. Negative Kentucky Positive N/A Neutral Negative Negative Slightly pos. Very negative Very negative Louisiana Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. Negative Neutral Maine Slightly pos. Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. N/A Slightly pos. Negative Negative Maryland Very positive N/A Negative Negative Very negative N/A Slightly neg. N/A Massachusetts N/A Neutral Neutral Neutral Very negative N/A Negative Very negative Michigan Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. Neutral Very negative Neutral Neutral Neutral 112 Rate each force in terms of the positive or negative effects on gifted education. (Q35) State accreditation Outcome‐based Site‐based Anti‐ability education decision making grouping sentiment Change in state GT education funding Compliance/ monitoring Lack of compliance/ monitoring Decrease in general education formula Minnesota N/A N/A Neutral Neutral N/A N/A Neutral N/A Mississippi Neutral Very positive Very positive Neutral Neutral Very positive Neutral Neutral Missouri Slightly pos. N/A Slightly neg. Negative Negative Positive N/A N/A Montana Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. Neutral N/A Neutral Nebraska Positive Neutral Neutral Negative Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. Negative New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Slightly pos. N/A New Jersey New Mexico Slightly neg. Neutral Slightly pos. Slightly neg. Neutral Neutral Negative Neutral New York Neutral Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. Very negative Neutral Neutral Neutral North Carolina N/A N/A Neutral Slightly neg. Very positive Slightly neg. Neutral N/A North Dakota Slightly neg. N/A N/A N/A Positive Neutral Neutral N/A Ohio N/A N/A Negative Negative Positive N/A Oklahoma N/A Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. N/A Positive N/A N/A Oregon N/A Slightly pos. Slightly pos. Negative Positive Slightly pos. N/A Negative Pennsylvania N/A N/A Neutral Neutral N/A Very positive N/A Neutral South Carolina Slightly pos. Slightly neg. Negative Negative Negative Slightly pos. N/A Slightly neg. South Dakota Neutral Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. N/A N/A N/A N/A Tennessee Positive Positive Slightly pos. Slightly neg. Neutral Positive Neutral Neutral Texas N/A Slightly pos. Negative N/A N/A N/A Negative N/A Utah Positive Neutral Positive Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. Neutral Neutral Vermont N/A Slightly pos. Slightly neg. Slightly neg. N/A N/A Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Virginia Negative Slightly neg. Negative Slightly neg. N/A Positive N/A Negative Washington Neutral Neutral Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Neutral Positive Negative Neutral 113 Rate each force in terms of the positive or negative effects on gifted education. (Q35) State accreditation Outcome‐based Site‐based Anti‐ability education decision making grouping sentiment Change in state GT education funding Compliance/ monitoring Lack of compliance/ monitoring Decrease in general education formula West Virginia N/A Positive N/A N/A N/A Slightly pos. N/A N/A Wisconsin N/A Positive Neutral N/A N/A Slightly pos. N/A Negative Wyoming Neutral Slightly pos. Neutral Slightly neg. Neutral Slightly pos. Slightly neg. Slightly neg. Summary Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Very neg.: 0 Very neg.: 1 Very neg.: 0 Very neg.: 2 Very neg.: 7 Very neg.: 0 Very neg.: 1 Very neg.: 3 Negative: 1 Slightly neg.: 2 Negative: 0 Slightly neg.: 2 Negative: 6 Slightly neg.: 8 Negative: 9 Slightly neg.: 13
Negative: 3 Slightly neg.: 1 Negative: 0 Slightly neg.: 2 Negative: 6 Slightly neg.: 4 Negative: 9 Slightly neg.: 4 Neutral: 9 Neutral: 16 Neutral: 16 Neutral: 9 Neutral: 8 Neutral: 7 Neutral: 8 Neutral: 12 Slightly pos.: 3 Positive: 6 Slightly pos.: 8 Positive: 3 Slightly pos.: 4 Positive: 3 Slightly pos.: 1 Positive: 0 Slightly pos.: 2 Positive: 3 Slightly pos.: 11
Positive: 8 Slightly pos.: 2 Positive: 0 Slightly pos.: 0 Positive: 0 Very pos.: 3 N/A: 20 Very pos.: 1 N/A: 13 Very pos.: 1 N/A: 6 Very pos.: 0 N/A: 10 Very pos.: 2 N/A: 17 Very pos.: 6 N/A: 10 Very pos.: 0 N/A: 23 Very pos.: 0 N/A: 15 114 TABLE 6: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FORCES ON GIFTED EDUCATION (PART 3) Rate each force in terms of the positive or Other positive or negative forces affecting gifted education (Q36) negative effects on gifted education. (Q35)
Charter schools Differentiate
d instruction
Focus on needs in STEM Alabama Neutral Slightly pos.
Positive Proration of funds Alaska Neutral Neutral N/A Arizona Neutral Slightly pos.
Slightly pos. Arkansas Slightly pos. Very positive Neutral Advanced Placement initiative has been positive. California California’s state budget crisis Colorado Neutral Very positive Slightly pos. Positive: Learning environments that implement the six components of Coloradoʹs response to instruction/intervention framework; accreditation requirement to implement and report using Colorado Growth Model; standards‐based or outcome‐based education are positive if continuous learning is permitted along the continuum of expectations. Negative: Turnover of administrators and educators in small or rural areas; qualified personnel (with endorsement or higher degree in gifted education) facilitating gifted student learning. Delaware Slightly pos. Positive Slightly pos. Delaware is suffering from an $800 million budget deficit—25% of the state budget. All educational programs with the exception of English language arts, mathematics, and science are all under careful scrutiny. Florida N/A Positive Overall budgetary restrictions Georgia Slightly pos. Very positive Very positive
Hawaii Slightly pos. Very positive Slightly pos. Weighted student formula for funding Idaho Illinois N/A Positive N/A Indiana Neutral Neutral Slightly pos. Iowa N/A Slightly pos.
Neutral Kansas Neutral Slightly pos.
Slightly pos. Kentucky N/A Neutral Very positive
N/A 115 Rate each force in terms of the positive or Other positive or negative forces affecting gifted education (Q36) negative effects on gifted education. (Q35)
Charter schools Differentiate
d instruction
Focus on needs in STEM Louisiana Neutral Slightly neg.
Neutral Funding is an issue. Maine N/A Neutral Neutral Positives: Having a state mandate for identification and services in the academics and arts; GT endorsement requirement; money Negatives: The overall state of the economy Maryland N/A Slightly pos.
Neutral Massachusetts Neutral Positive Slightly neg. Michigan Neutral Neutral Neutral Minnesota Slightly pos. Very positive Very positive
Mississippi N/A Very positive Very positive
Missouri Neutral Slightly pos.
Slightly pos. Montana Neutral Slightly pos.
Neutral Positive: Increase in funding and statewide awareness of the importance of GT. Negative: Chronic lack of acknowledgement of gifted students’ needs by many school districts.
Nebraska N/A Very positive Very positive
New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A Negative forces would include a lack of funding for individuals/programs and a lack of awareness regarding the needs of children and youth who need above grade curriculum and instruction. New Jersey New Mexico Neutral Positive Neutral New York Neutral Very positive Slightly pos. North Carolina Neutral Very positive Very positive
Positive: Development of SBE adopted AIG program standards; development of AIG teacher licensure standards Negative: Teacher attrition; local budget issues North Dakota N/A Positive Very positive
State has funding surplus (due to energy‐related income over last several years); no shortfall at state level Ohio Neutral Slightly pos.
Neutral Negatives: Decreases in district tax revenues and difficulty passing operating levies due to the recession. 116 Rate each force in terms of the positive or Other positive or negative forces affecting gifted education (Q36) negative effects on gifted education. (Q35)
Charter schools Differentiate
d instruction
Focus on needs in STEM Oklahoma Neutral Slightly pos.
Positive Oregon Slightly pos. Very positive Slightly pos. Pennsylvania Very positive Very positive Very positive
Inadequate training of teachers South Carolina Neutral Positive Slightly pos. The floundering economy, tax collection revenues (sales tax basis), and general focus on raising the lower performing students have negatively impacted gifted education. South Dakota N/A Slightly pos.
N/A Tennessee Neutral Positive Slightly pos. Positive: Revised eligibility standards (8/07) and more emphasis on disproportionate underrepresentation of minorities (Hispanic and black in TN) as intellectually gifted. Negative: The loss of our gifted coordinator (Mike Copas) in December 2008. All work, including statewide reports for gifted services, has stopped until this position is filled. (The Division is in the process of filling this position.) Texas Neutral Positive Slightly pos. Positive: Legislative support Utah Slightly pos. Positive Positive The state has a high ability initiative project which serves the entire state. One component is online endorsement classes. Rural districts can have teachers receive GT endorsements via this program. Vermont N/A Very positive Neutral Virginia Neutral Slightly neg.
Slightly pos. Economics; retirement of coordinators and positions not being filled with full‐time or experienced personnel; parent groups and state advocacy groups are having a positive impact
Washington N/A Positive Neutral West Virginia N/A Slightly pos.
Slightly pos. Wisconsin Slightly pos. Positive Slightly pos. State‐funded gifted and talented education grants; needs assessment on gifted education; response to intervention; revision of state gifted and talented resource guide; statewide gifted and talented advisory committee Wyoming Slightly neg. Slightly pos.
Positive 117 Rate each force in terms of the positive or Other positive or negative forces affecting gifted education (Q36) negative effects on gifted education. (Q35)
Charter schools Differentiate
d instruction
Summary Responses: 44 No response: 3 Responses: 44 Responses: 44 No response: 3 No response: 3
Very neg.: 0 Very neg.: 0 Negative: 0 Negative: 0 Slightly neg.: 2 Slightly neg.: 1 Neutral: 5 Neutral: 20 Slightly pos.: Slightly pos.: 12 8 Positive: 11 Positive: 0 Very pos.: 1 N/A: 14 Very pos.: 12
N/A: 2 Focus on needs in STEM Responses: 21 No response: 26 Very neg.: 0 Negative: 0 Slightly neg.: 1
Neutral: 11 Slightly pos.: 15 Positive: 5 Very pos.: 8 N/A: 4 118 TABLE 7: AREAS NEEDING ATTENTION IN GIFTED EDUCATION (PART 1) Rate each area of gifted education in term of the degree of attention needed. (Q37) Representation of minority students in GT education Funding for gifted education Funding for professional training in gifted education Mastery of the disciplines among teachers of the gifted National mandate for gifted education Appropriate program evaluation in gifted education Alabama Most in need Most in need Not in need In need Most in need Not in need Alaska In need In need In need In need Neutral Arizona Most in need Most in need Most in need Neutral Most in need In need Arkansas In need In need Neutral Neutral Most in need Not in need California Colorado In need Most in need In need In need Most in need In need Delaware In need In need In need In need Most in need In need Florida Most in need Most in need Most in need In need Most in need In need Georgia Most in need In need In need Not in need In need In need Hawaii In need Most in need Most in need Most in need Most in need Not in need Idaho Illinois In need Most in need Neutral Neutral Neutral In need Indiana In need In need In need In need Most in need In need Iowa Most in need Neutral Most in need In need Neutral In need Kansas Neutral Neutral In need Neutral Neutral In need Kentucky In need Most in need In need In need Neutral Most in need Louisiana Most in need In need Neutral Neutral Most in need In need Maine In need In need In need In need Most in need In need Maryland In need In need In need In need Most in need In need Massachusetts Most in need Most in need Most in need Most in need Most in need Most in need Michigan In need Most in need Most in need Most in need Most in need In need 119 Rate each area of gifted education in term of the degree of attention needed. (Q37) Representation of minority students in GT education Funding for gifted education Funding for professional training in gifted education Mastery of the disciplines among teachers of the gifted National mandate for gifted education Appropriate program evaluation in gifted education Minnesota Most in need Neutral In need Neutral In need Neutral Mississippi In need Neutral In need Neutral In need Not in need Missouri In need Most in need In need Not in need In need In need Montana In need In need In need In need Most in need Most in need Nebraska In need In need In need In need Most in need In need New Hampshire Most in need Most in need Most in need New Jersey New Mexico Most in need In need Most in need In need In need In need New York In need In need Most in need In need Neutral In need North Carolina Most in need In need Most in need Neutral In need Most in need North Dakota In need Most in need Most in need In need Neutral In need Ohio In need Most in need In need Neutral In need In need Oklahoma In need Least in need Least in need In need Not in need Least in need Oregon In need Most in need Most in need In need In need In need Pennsylvania Neutral Most in need Most in need Most in need Neutral Most in need South Carolina In need Most in need Most in need In need In need In need South Dakota In need In need Most in need Neutral Neutral Neutral Tennessee Most in need In need In need In need Most in need In need Texas In need In need In need In need Not in need In need Utah In need Neutral Neutral Least in need Neutral Neutral Vermont Neutral In need In need Neutral In need In need Virginia Most in need In need Most in need In need Most in need In need Washington Most in need Most in need In need In need Neutral In need 120 Rate each area of gifted education in term of the degree of attention needed. (Q37) Representation of minority students in GT education Funding for gifted education Funding for professional training in gifted education Mastery of the disciplines among teachers of the gifted National mandate for gifted education Appropriate program evaluation in gifted education West Virginia In need Most in need Most in need Neutral In need Most in need Wisconsin Most in need In need Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Wyoming Neutral Not in need Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Summary Responses: 43 No response: 4 Least in need: 0 Not in need: 0 Neutral: 4 In need: 25 Most in need: 14 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Least in need: 1 Not in need: 1 Neutral: 5 In need: 19 Most in need: 18 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Least in need: 1 Not in need: 1 Neutral: 6 In need: 19 Most in need: 17 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Least in need: 1 Not in need: 2 Neutral: 14 In need: 22 Most in need: 4 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Least in need: 0 Not in need: 2 Neutral: 13 In need: 11 Most in need: 17 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Least in need: 1 Not in need: 4 Neutral: 5 In need: 26 Most in need: 7 121 TABLE 8: AREAS NEEDING ATTENTION IN GIFTED EDUCATION (PART 2) Rate each area of gifted education in term of the degree of attention needed. (Q37) Pre‐service GT training at undergrad level Training for general education teachers in GT instruction Assessing academic growth in gifted students Teaching standards for licensure/ endorsement Graduate level coursework in gifted education Curriculum that differentiates state standards Alabama Most in need Most in need Most in need Least in need Least in need Most in need Alaska In need In need In need Neutral In need In need Arizona Most in need Most in need In need Not in need Neutral Neutral Arkansas Most in need Most in need In need Least in need Not in need In need California Colorado In need Most in need Most in need Least in need In need In need Delaware In need In need In need In need In need Neutral Florida Neutral Not in need In need Not in need Not in need Most in need Georgia Most in need Most in need In need Neutral Neutral Most in need Hawaii In need Most in need In need Most in need Most in need In need Idaho Illinois In need In need In need In need In need Neutral Indiana In need Most in need Most in need Neutral Not in need In need Iowa Most in need Most in need In need Neutral In need In need Kansas Most in need Most in need In need Neutral Neutral In need Kentucky Most in need Most in need Most in need Most in need Neutral Most in need Louisiana In need In need Most in need Not in need Neutral Not in need Maine In need Most in need Most in need Neutral Not in need Neutral Maryland In need In need In need Not in need In need In need Massachusetts Most in need Most in need Most in need In need Most in need Most in need Michigan In need In need In need In need In need In need 122 Rate each area of gifted education in term of the degree of attention needed. (Q37) Pre‐service GT training at undergrad level Training for general education teachers in GT instruction Assessing academic growth in gifted students Teaching standards for licensure/ endorsement Graduate level coursework in gifted education Curriculum that differentiates state standards Minnesota In need In need In need Neutral Not in need In need Mississippi Neutral In need Neutral Neutral Not in need Not in need Missouri In need In need Most in need Least in need Neutral In need Montana Most in need Most in need In need In need Most in need Most in need Nebraska Most in need Most in need Most in need In need Most in need In need New Hampshire Most in need Most in need Most in need Most in need New Jersey New Mexico Most in need Most in need Neutral In need In need Not in need New York Most in need Most in need In need In need Most in need Most in need North Carolina In need Most in need Most in need Least in need Not in need In need North Dakota In need In need In need In need In need Most in need Ohio Most in need Neutral In need Least in need Neutral In need Oklahoma Most in need In need In need In need In need In need Oregon In need Most in need In need In need In need Neutral Pennsylvania Most in need Most in need In need In need Most in need Least in need South Carolina Most in need In need In need In need In need In need South Dakota Most in need Most in need In need Neutral Most in need Neutral Tennessee Most in need In need Neutral In need In need In need Texas In need Neutral In need In need In need In need Utah In need In need Not in need Not in need Not in need Neutral Vermont In need In need In need In need In need In need Virginia Neutral Most in need In need Neutral Neutral In need Washington In need In need Most in need In need In need In need 123 Rate each area of gifted education in term of the degree of attention needed. (Q37) Pre‐service GT training at undergrad level Training for general education teachers in GT instruction Assessing academic growth in gifted students Teaching standards for licensure/ endorsement Graduate level coursework in gifted education Curriculum that differentiates state standards West Virginia In need In need In need Neutral Not in need Not in need Wisconsin Most in need In need In need Not in need In need In need Wyoming Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Summary Responses: 44 No response: 3 Least in need: 0 Not in need: 0 Neutral: 4 In need: 20 Most in need: 20 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Least in need: 0 Not in need: 1 Neutral: 3 In need: 18 Most in need: 22 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Least in need: 0 Not in need: 1 Neutral: 4 In need: 27 Most in need: 11 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Least in need: 6 Not in need: 6 Neutral: 12 In need: 17 Most in need: 3 Responses: 44 No response: 3 Least in need: 1 Not in need: 9 Neutral: 9 In need: 17 Most in need: 8 Responses: 43 No response: 4 Least in need: 1 Not in need: 4 Neutral: 8 In need: 22 Most in need: 8 124 TABLE 9: AREAS NEEDING ATTENTION IN GIFTED EDUCATION (PART 3) Rate each area by degree of attention needed (Q37) State definition of gifted Other areas in greatest need of attention (Q38) Alabama Least in need Alaska In need Arizona Not in need Arkansas Least in need California Teacher pre‐service training Teacher training in serving gifted students Funding for gifted education Increase in underrepresented culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically gifted students. Colorado Least in need Administrators’ professional development in gifted education A positive statewide communication network among superintendents and gifted education directors/coordinators Increased advocacy by parents and community Delaware Neutral Delaware will be guilty of random acts of gifted education until there is an organized and cohesive effort to pass legislation to identify and serve highly able students statewide. This will come about in part through a focused advocacy effort by parents, educators and community leaders. Both initiatives—the development of a high functioning advocacy group and drafting and passage of legislation—are great needs we have. Florida Not in need Georgia Not in need Hawaii Not in need Additional support services personnel Idaho Illinois Neutral Indiana Neutral Iowa Neutral Kansas Neutral 125 Rate each area by degree of attention needed (Q37) State definition of gifted Other areas in greatest need of attention (Q38) Kentucky Least in need Louisiana Least in need Maine Least in need Focus on program evaluation Training in differentiation for the gifted and talented for regular education teachers Maryland Neutral Massachusetts In need Michigan In need Minnesota Not in need Mississippi Not in need Missouri Least in need Montana Least in need Increase FTE in Gifted Program Nebraska Not in need New Hampshire A better understanding that a mission statement that includes “all students” includes those that need greater academic challenges among other specific supports and services. New Jersey New Mexico Not in need Increased identification Teacher education in gifted education New York Not in need North Carolina Least in need North Dakota Not in need Ohio In need Oklahoma Least in need Oregon Least in need Pennsylvania Not in need Additional funding for leadership positions in gifted education and professional development 126 Rate each area by degree of attention needed (Q37) State definition of gifted South Carolina Not in need An update of the regulations is needed, along with an increased offering of gifted education classes from institutions of higher education South Dakota Neutral Tennessee Not in need Texas Least in need Identifying and successfully serving students from poverty and twice‐exceptional students Utah Neutral Vermont Least in need The state of Vermont highly values local control. It is difficult to get state‐wide buy‐in on anything. Virginia Least in need Mandate a full time coordinator with GT licensure Washington Neutral West Virginia Not in need Wisconsin Not in need Wyoming Not in need Summary Responses: 43 No response: 4 Least in need: 14 Not in need: 16 Neutral: 9 In need: 4 Most in need: 0 Other areas in greatest need of attention (Q38) 127 TABLE 10: STATE GIFTED EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE State level advisory committee (Q39) Require advisory committees (Q40) Advisory committees reporting channels (Q41) Frequency of advisory committee meetings (Q42) Written report within last three years, with title and access method if applicable (Q43) Alabama N/A Alaska N/A Arizona N/A Standing: Not required Standing: N/A Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: N/A Standing: Required Standing: Governor; Legislature; State superintendent/board of education Standing: Quarterly Yes Ad‐hoc: N/A Annual Report for Gifted Education: Contact ADE Gifted and Talented Office. Arkansas Standing advisory committee Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A California N/A Colorado Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Quarterly Yes Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Quarterly Ad‐hoc committee Standing: N/A Standing: N/A Standing: N/A Yes Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: SEA contacts (Other) Ad‐hoc: Quarterly Floridaʹs Frameworks for K‐12 Gifted Learners; brochure; white paper; www.unfwogi.com Georgia Ad‐hoc committee Standing: Not required Ad‐hoc: Gifted specialist (Other) Ad‐hoc: Just getting started (Other) No Hawaii Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Monthly No Delaware Florida Ad‐hoc: N/A State Advisory Committee for Gifted Student Education ‐ 2009 Report to the State Board of Education No Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A 128 State level advisory committee (Q39) Require advisory committees (Q40) Advisory committees reporting channels (Q41) Frequency of advisory committee meetings (Q42) Written report within last three years, with title and access method if applicable (Q43) Idaho N/A Illinois Standing advisory committee Standing: Required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Other No Indiana N/A Iowa N/A Kansas N/A Kentucky Standing advisory committee Standing: Required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Quarterly No Ad‐hoc committee Standing: Not required Standing: N/A Standing: N/A Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A Maine Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: N/A Standing: Other No Maryland Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Quarterly Yes Standing advisory committee Standing: Required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Bi‐monthly Yes Michigan N/A Minnesota Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: State gifted and talented education specialist (Other) Standing: Quarterly No Mississippi Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: Legislature; State superintendent/board of education Standing: Quarterly No Louisiana Massachusetts Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: Other Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: Not required 129 N/A How to Establish and Maryland Teacher Education Cohort Gifted and Talented Advisory Council Annual Report [email protected] State level advisory committee (Q39) Require advisory committees (Q40) Advisory committees reporting channels (Q41) Frequency of advisory committee meetings (Q42) Written report within last three years, with title and access method if applicable (Q43) Missouri N/A Montana N/A Nebraska Ad‐hoc committee Standing: N/A Standing: N/A Standing: N/A No Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: State superintendent/ board of education Ad‐hoc: Annually New Hampshire N/A New Jersey New Mexico Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: N/A Standing: Quarterly No Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: N/A New York N/A North Carolina N/A North Dakota N/A Ohio Ad‐hoc committee Standing: Not required Standing: N/A Standing: N/A No Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: State superintendent/ board of education Ad‐hoc: As needed (Other) Oklahoma N/A Oregon N/A Pennsylvania Ad‐hoc committee Standing: Not required Standing: N/A Standing: N/A No Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: To address changes in gifted regulations (Other) South Carolina N/A South Dakota N/A Tennessee Ad‐hoc committee Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: Annually No 130 State level advisory committee (Q39) Require advisory committees (Q40) Advisory committees reporting channels (Q41) Frequency of advisory committee meetings (Q42) Written report within last three years, with title and access method if applicable (Q43) Texas Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Quarterly No N/A Standing: N/A Standing: N/A Standing: N/A (See Table 32: Clarifications) Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A Vermont N/A Virginia Standing advisory committee Standing: Required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Quarterly Yes Washington Standing advisory committee Standing: Required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: 3 times per year (Other) No West Virginia Standing advisory committee Standing: Required Standing: State superintendent/ board of education Standing: Monthly Yes Standing advisory committee Standing: Not required Standing: State director of gifted education (Other) Standing: Semi‐
annually (Other) Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A N/A Standing: N/A Utah Wisconsin Wyoming Ad‐hoc: Not required Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: State superintendent board of education Ad‐hoc: N/A Ad‐hoc: N/A 131 N/A A Report of the VACEG; presented in hardcopy only to the VBOE. Available from specialist. Not published on‐line No State level advisory committee (Q39) Require advisory committees (Q40) Advisory committees reporting channels (Q41) Frequency of advisory committee meetings (Q42) Written report within last three years, with title and access method if applicable (Q43) Summary Responses: 46 No response: 1 Standing advisory committee: 17 Ad‐hoc committee: 7 N/A: 22 Standing: Responses: 26 No response: 21 Not required: 15 Standing: Responses: 24 No response: 23 State superintendent/ board of education: 13 Legislature: 2 Governor: 1 Other: 2 N/A: 9 Standing: Responses: 23 No response: 24 Quarterly: 10 Responses: 25 No response: 22 Required: 7 N/A: 4 Ad‐hoc: Responses: 18 No response: 29 Not required: 10 N/A: 8 Ad‐hoc: Responses: 17 No response: 30 State superintendent/ board of education: 3 Other: 4 N/A: 11 132 Monthly: 2 Bi‐monthly: 1 Other: 4 N/A: 6 Ad‐hoc: Responses: 14 No response: 33 Annually: 2 Quarterly: 1 Other: 3 N/A: 8 No: 16 Yes: 7 N/A: 2 TABLE 11: STATE DEFINITIONS OF GIFTEDNESS Alabama Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) Citation for definition (Q49) Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) No State statute Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Yes Alabama Administrative Code 290‐8‐9‐.12 http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/documents.asp?sectio
n=65&sort=5&footer=sections Creatively gifted Culturally diverse Disabled gifted Other: Dual exceptionalities Alaska No No Arizona Yes, at the local level State statute State rules & regulations Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 15, Chapter 7, Article 4.1 Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Culturally diverse Disabled gifted ESL/ELL Yes Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Creatively gifted Other: Motivation Yes http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/1
5/00779.htm&Title=15&DocType=ARS Arkansas Yes, at the local level State rules & regulations Gifted and Talented Program Approval Standards Rules http://www.arkansased.org/rules/pdf/current/ade_80_rr_g
iftedtalented_99.pdf 133 Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) California Yes, at the local level State statute State rules & regulations Other: State Board Recommended Standards for Gifted and Talented Students Education Code Sections 52200‐52212 www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Highly gifted Underachieving Culturally diverse ESL/ELL Yes Colorado Yes, at the state level State statute State rules & regulations Statute: 22‐20‐103 (13) Regulations 12.01(12)(a) through (e) and 12.01(13) www.cde.state.co.us/gt/lawsregs.htm Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Highly gifted Culturally diverse Disabled gifted ESL/ELL Other: “Exceptional children” includes children whose abilities, talents, and potential for accomplishments are so outstanding that they require special provisions to meet their educational needs. “Highly advanced gifted child” is also defined for use in the early access process to kindergarten or first grade. Citation for definition (Q49) 134 Delaware Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) Yes, at the local level State statute Title 14,Chapter 31,Subchapter IV Delaware Code‐Gifted or Talented Persons Citation for definition (Q49) http://delcode.delaware.gov/title14/c031/sc04/index.shtml Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) Intellectually gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Other: Psychomotor abilities No Florida Yes, other Other: in development of the educational plan for a gifted student State rules & regulations Rule 6A‐6.03019, F.A.C. www.flrules.org Intellectually gifted Leadership Creatively gifted Culturally diverse ESL/ELL Other: Motivation; Need for a special program; Characteristics of the gifted Yes Georgia No State statute State Law: OCGA 120‐2‐152 Special Education Services Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Creatively gifted Yes Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Other: Psychomotor ability Yes http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi‐bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?co
de=20‐2‐152 Hawaii Yes, other Other: School level nominations and program agreement State statute State rules & regulations Hawaii Revised Statues Chapter 51 http://gt.k12.hi.us 135 Idaho Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) No State statute Idaho Code 33‐2001 Citation for definition (Q49) www.sde.idaho.gov/site/gifted_talented/ Illinois No State statute 105 ILCS 5/15A‐55 http://www.isbe.net/rules/archive/pdfs/227ARK.pdf Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Yes Intellectually gifted Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted No Indiana Yes, at the local level Other: Relative definition of High Ability YIC 20‐36‐2‐2 Intellectually gifted Specific academic areas Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Other: Technical and practical arts; Interpersonal Yes Iowa No State statute Iowa Code 257.44 Gifted and talented children defined. Intellectually gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Other: Multiple selection criteria for identifying gifted and talented students from the total student population Yes Intellectually gifted Yes http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/ACODocs/DOCS/7‐1‐
2009.281.12.5.pdf Kansas Yes, other Other: Part of the special education IEP process for gifted students State statute State rules & regulations K.S.A. 72‐962(h) and K.A.R. 91‐40‐1(cc) http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2833 136 Kentucky Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) Yes, at the state level State rules & regulations 704 KAR 3:285 Citation for definition (Q49) http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/704/003/285.htm Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Underachieving Geographically isolated/rural Culturally diverse Disabled gifted ESL/ELL Yes Louisiana Yes, other Other: Parents have input as members of the IEP team but there is no requirement that they serve on an advisory committee for gifted/talented policy making State statute Subsections 901 and 903 in Bulletin 1508 Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Performing/visual arts Yes Maine Yes, at the local level State statute Statute Title 20A sections 8102‐8104; Rule Chapter 104 Intellectually gifted Specific academic areas Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Yes Maryland No State statute Maryland Annotated Code Section 8‐201 Intellectually gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted No Massachusetts No No Michigan No No 137 Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) Minnesota No Other: Minnesota Automated Reporting School System (MARSS) (See Table 32: Clarifications) N/A No Mississippi Yes, at the local level State rules & regulations Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Underachieving Yes Missouri No State statute State rules & regulations Section 162.675. RSMo Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Yes Other: Gifted and talented means a child of outstanding abilities who is capable of high performance Yes Citation for definition (Q49) http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutesearch/ Montana Yes, at the local level State statute Montana Annotated Code 20.7.901.904 http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/20/7/20‐7‐901.htm Nebraska No State statute Academically gifted Specific academic areas Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted No New Hampshire No No New Jersey New Mexico Yes, at the local level State statute State rules & regulations New Mexico Statute 22‐13‐6 D. N/A Yes 138 New York Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) No State statute State rules & regulations NYS Chapter 740 of the Laws of 1982 Citation for definition (Q49) Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Performing/visual arts No Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Highly gifted Culturally diverse Disabled gifted ESL/ELL Yes http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/gt/define.html North Carolina Yes, at the state level State statute NC General Session Law § 115C‐150.5.‐.8 http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/By
Article/Chapter_115C/Article_9B.pdf North Dakota No State rules & regulations No Ohio Yes, at the local level State statute State rules & regulations Ohio Revised Code 3324.01‐07, Ohio Administrative Code 3301‐51‐15 http://education.ohio.gov Keyword search: gifted operating standards Intellectually gifted Specific academic areas Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Yes Oklahoma Yes, at the local level State statute 70 O.S. § 1210.301 Intellectually gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Yes State statute State rules & regulations Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Yes ORS 343.391‐343.413 and OAR 581‐022‐1310 http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2309 Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted http://sde.state.ok.us/Curriculum/GiftTalent/law.html Oregon Yes, at the local level 139 Pennsylvania Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) Yes, at the local level State rules & regulations Chapter‐16 section 16.1 Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Culturally diverse Disabled gifted ESL/ELL Yes http://www.ed.sc.gov/agency/Standards‐and‐
Learning/Academic‐Standards/old/cso/gifted_talented/d
ocuments/gt_regulation06‐04.doc Academically gifted Specific academic areas Performing/visual arts Culturally diverse Disabled gifted ESL/ELL Citation for definition (Q49) http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter16/s/16./h
tml South Carolina No State statute S.C. Code Ann. § 59‐5‐60 (2004), Regulation 43‐
220 South Dakota No No Tennessee Yes, other Other: Required in the evaluation and required at the IEP Team level State statute Tennessee Rules and Regulations Programs and Services‐Part B 1520‐1‐9‐.02 (11) http://state.tn.us/education/speced/legal.shtml Intellectually gifted Yes Texas Yes, at the local level State rules & regulations Texas Education Code 29.121 Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Leadership Specific academic areas Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Other: All sub‐populations Yes http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/gted/tec29‐121.html 140 Utah Vermont Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) Yes, at the local level No Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) State rules & regulations Utah Administrative Rule www.schools.utah/gov Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted No State statute Title 16: Chapter 1, Section 13 Intellectually gifted Leadership Creatively gifted Other: Artistic No Citation for definition (Q49) http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=16
&Chapter=001&Section=00013 (See Table 32: Clarifications) Virginia Yes, at the local level State rules & regulations VA Administrative Code: 8VAC20‐40‐10 et seq currently in the process of revision/approval; not on website Intellectually gifted Specific academic areas Performing/visual arts Other: Career and technical aptitude Yes Washington Yes, other Other: to approve testing and entrance State rules & regulations Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 28A.185 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.185 Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Highly gifted Yes West Virginia No State rules & regulations WV Board Policy 2419 §126‐16‐1. http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/ Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Yes 141 Require parent involvement in GT decisions (Q44) State definition of GT (Q45) Areas of giftedness addressed in state definition(s) (Q46, Q47) Require LEAs to follow state definition (Q48) Wisconsin Yes, at the local level State statute State rules & regulations 1) S. 118.35, Wis. Stats. 2) S. PI 8.01(2)(t)2, Wis. Admin. Code http://dpi.wi.gov/cal/gift‐law.html Intellectually gifted Academically gifted Specific academic areas Leadership Performing/visual arts Creatively gifted Culturally diverse Disabled gifted ESL/ELL Other: Low socio‐economic status Yes Wyoming No Other: guidelines for districts N/A No Summary Responses: 46 No response: 1 Yes: 26 State level: 3 Local level: 17 Other: 6 No: 20 Responses: 46 No response: 1 Responses: 40 No response: 7 Yes: 41 Statute: 27 Rules & regulations: 22 Other: 4 No: 5 Intellectually gifted: 34 Creatively gifted: 26 Performing/visual arts: 25 Academically gifted: 23 Specific academic areas: 21 Leadership: 17 Culturally diverse: 10 ESL/ELL: 9 Disabled gifted: 8 Highly gifted: 4 Underachieving: 3 Geographically isolated/rural: 1 Other: 13 N/A: 2 Responses: 39 No response: 8 Yes: 29 No: 10 Citation for definition (Q49) 142 TABLE 12: STATE MANDATE FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICES State mandate for GT (Q50) Areas included in mandate (Q51) Authority for mandate (Q52) Alabama Yes Identification Services State law specific to disabled and gifted education Act 106 No Alaska Yes Identification Services State law specific to gifted education Administrative rule 4 AAC 52.800, AS 14.30.352 Partial Arizona Yes Identification Services Other: Social & emotional development, PD (teachers, administrators, counselors, psychologists), parent & community involvement State law specific to gifted education Administrative rule Full Citation (Q53) Mandate funded (Q54) SEA guidelines Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 15, Chapter 7, Article 4.1 http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=15 Arkansas Yes Identification Services Other: Program evaluation State law specific to gifted education Administrative rule State department of education policy Arkansas Law 6‐42‐101 through 6‐42‐109 Partial California No Colorado Yes Identification Services Other: Advanced learning plans; programming matched to needs in ALP; budget; monitoring authority; compliance with accreditation State law specific to disabled and gifted education Administrative rule SEA guidelines Statute: 22‐20‐104.5; Regulation 12.02 Partial www.cde.state.co.us/gt/lawsregs.htm; www.michie.com/colorado/1pext.dll?f=templates&fn=main‐
h.htm&cp= Delaware No 143 State mandate for GT (Q50) Areas included in mandate (Q51) Authority for mandate (Q52) Florida Yes Identification Services State law specific to disabled and gifted education 6A‐6.0331, F.A.C. www.flrules.org Partial Georgia Yes Identification Services State law specific to gifted education OCGA 120‐2‐152 Special Education Services Full Citation (Q53) Mandate funded (Q54) http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi‐bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=20
‐2‐152 Hawaii Yes Identification Services State law specific to gifted education Administrative rule SEA guidelines State department of education policy Policy 2101 Gifted Education http://gt.k12.hi.us No Idaho Yes Other: Ages 5–18 State law specific to gifted education Idaho Code 22‐2003 www.sde.idaho.gov/site/gifted_talented/ Partial Illinois No Indiana Yes Identification Services State law specific to gifted education IC 20‐36‐2‐2 Partial 144 Iowa State mandate for GT (Q50) Areas included in mandate (Q51) Authority for mandate (Q52) Yes Identification Services Other: Valid and systematic procedures, including multiple selection criteria for identifying gifted and talented students from the total student population; goals and performance measures; a qualitatively differentiated program to meet the studentsʹ cognitive and affective needs; staffing provisions; an in‐service design; a budget; and qualifications of personnel administering the program. Each school district shall review and evaluate its gifted and talented programming. Administrative rule Iowa Administrative Rule 281—Chapter 12.5 (256) Education program. Citation (Q53) Mandate funded (Q54) Full http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/ACODocs/DOCS/7‐1‐
2009.281.12.5.pdf Kansas Yes Identification Services State law specific to gifted education State law specific to disabled and gifted education K.S.A. 72‐961 et seq. and K.A.R. 91‐40‐8(a)(1) & (2) http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2833 Partial Kentucky Yes Identification Services Other: Policies & procedures; program evaluation; curriculum; personnel; budget and funding; procedural safeguards State law specific to gifted education State law specific to disabled and gifted education 704 KAR 3:285 http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/704/003/285.htm Partial Louisiana Yes Identification Services Other: Reevaluation State law specific to disabled and gifted education Revised Statute 17:1941, et seq., and their regulations http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=80046 Partial Maine Yes Identification Services State law specific to gifted education Statute Title 20A sections 8102‐8104; Rule Chapter 104 Partial 145 Maryland State mandate for GT (Q50) Areas included in mandate (Q51) Authority for mandate (Q52) Yes Other: Include goals, objectives, and strategies for gifted and talented students in the schools system’s master plan. Other: Bridge to Excellence legislation regarding the master plan No Citation (Q53) Mandate funded (Q54) (See Table 32: Clarifications) Massachusetts No Michigan No Minnesota Yes Other: LEAs are required to have a procedure for the academic acceleration of gifted and talented students. State law specific to gifted education Minnesota State Statue 120B.15 (c) http://www.leg.state.mn.us/ Partial Mississippi Yes (Incomplete survey) Missouri No Montana Yes Identification Services Administrative rule SEA guidelines Administrative Rules of Montana 10‐55‐804 Partial http://www.mtrules.org/Gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=10.55.804 Nebraska Yes Identification State law specific to gifted education Administrative rule Rule3 Sec.001C Section 79‐1107 (3) Partial New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes Identification Services Other: Administrative code http://www.nj.gov/education/code/current/title6a/chap8.pdf New Mexico Yes Identification Services State law specific to disabled and gifted education State department of education policy 6.31.2.12 NMAC Full New York No 146 North Carolina State mandate for GT (Q50) Areas included in mandate (Q51) Yes Identification Services Authority for mandate (Q52) Citation (Q53) State law specific to disabled and gifted education NC General Session Law § 115C‐150.5.‐.8 Mandate funded (Q54) Full http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArt
icle/Chapter_115C/Article_9B.pdf North Dakota No Ohio Yes Identification State law specific to gifted education ORC 3324.01‐.07, OAC 3301‐51‐15 http://education.ohio.gov Keyword Search: gifted operating standards Partial Oklahoma Yes Identification Services Other: Local advisory committee; proficiency‐
based promotion State law specific to gifted education Administrative rule State department of education policy OAC 210:15‐23‐1 Full http://sde.state.ok.us/Schools/Accreditation/pdf/StandsforSchl
s.pdf Oregon Yes Identification Services State law specific to gifted education Administrative rule ORS 343.391‐343.413 and OAR 581‐022‐1310, 1320, 1330 http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2309 No Pennsylvania Yes Identification Services State law specific to disabled and gifted education Chapter16 Section 16.2(d) and Section 16.21 No http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter16/s/a6.2.ht
ml 147 South Carolina State mandate for GT (Q50) Areas included in mandate (Q51) Yes Identification Services Authority for mandate (Q52) Citation (Q53) State law specific to gifted education SEA guidelines State department of education policy SC code of Laws 59‐29‐170 (1976 and amended in 1986) http://www.ed.sc.gov/agency/Standards‐and‐Learning/Acade
Mandate funded (Q54) Partial mic‐Standards/old/cso/gifted_talented/documents/GTLegislat
ion.pdf South Dakota No Tennessee No Texas Yes Identification Services Other: Professional development; program design; family‐community involvement State law specific to gifted education Texas Education Code 29.121‐29.123, Texas Adminstrative Code 89.1‐89.5 http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/gted/GifTal.html Partial Utah No (See Table 32: Clarifications) Not specified N/A (See Table 32: Clarifications) Vermont No Virginia Yes Identification Services Administrative rule see earlier question Partial Washington No West Virginia Yes Identification Services State law specific to disabled and gifted education State department of education policy WV CODE 18‐20‐1 http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm Partial 148 State mandate for GT (Q50) Areas included in mandate (Q51) Authority for mandate (Q52) Wisconsin Yes Identification Services Other: Establish a G/T plan, designate a G/T coordinator, and provide opportunity for parental participation State law specific to gifted education Administrative rule State department of education policy Other: State curriculum standards 1) s. 121.02(1)(t), Wis. Stats. 2) s. 118.35, Wis. Stats. 3) s. 8.01(2)(t)2, Wis. Admin. Code http://dpi.wi.gov/cal/gift‐law.html Partial Wyoming No Summary Responses: 47 No response: 0 Yes: 32 No: 15 Responses: 31 No response: 15 Responses: 32 No response: 14 State law specific to gifted education: 18 State law specific to disabled & gifted education: 10 Administrative rule: 12 State department of education policy: 7 SEA guidelines: 5 Other: 3 Not specified: 1 Responses: 31
No response: 15 Partial: 19 Full: 6 No: 5 N/A: 1 Citation (Q53) Identification: 28 Services: 26 Other: 12 149 Mandate funded (Q54) TABLE 13: IDEA STRATEGIES IN STATE MANDATE FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICES State requirements for GT students that align with IDEA strategies (Q55) Appropriate free public education Child Find Individual plan for GT students Least restrictive environment Non‐
discriminatory testing Mediation Due process Related services, with description Alabama State special education law State special education law State special education law N/A State special education law State special education law N/A N/A Alaska State special education law Not required State special education law Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Arizona N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Arkansas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (See Table 32: Clarifications) California Colorado Not required Not required State special education law Not required Not required Not required Not required State special education law Gifted students with a disability have access to related services. Also, gifted students may be provided related services during the RtI problem solving/ intervention process. (See Table 32: Clarifications) Delaware State special education law State special education law Not required State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law N/A Florida State special education law Not required State special education law N/A State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law 150 Service as needed to benefit from the special education State requirements for GT students that align with IDEA strategies (Q55) Appropriate free public education Child Find Individual plan for GT students Least restrictive environment Non‐
discriminatory testing Mediation Due process Related services, with description Georgia State special education law State special education law Not required Not required State special education law Not required State special education law Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Idaho N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Illinois N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indiana N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Iowa N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Kansas State special education law State special education law State special education law N/A State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law Developmental, corrective, and supportive services that are required to assist an exceptional child to benefit from special education. Includes assistive technology devices and services; counseling services; parent counseling and training; school social work services; and transportation Kentucky N/A N/A State special education law N/A State special education law N/A State special education law N/A Louisiana State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law Counseling; transportation Maine State special education law Not required Not required Not required State special education law Not required Not required Not required 151 State requirements for GT students that align with IDEA strategies (Q55) Appropriate free public education Child Find Individual plan for GT students Least restrictive environment Non‐
discriminatory testing Mediation Due process Related services, with description Maryland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Massachusetts Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Michigan Minnesota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Missouri Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Montana N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nebraska N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New Jersey New Mexico N/A State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law New York Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required North Carolina N/A State special education law Not required Not required Not required Not required State special education law State special education law Based on LEA program and plan North Dakota Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Ohio Not required Not required N/A N/A N/A Not required N/A Not required Oklahoma N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Oregon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pennsylvania N/A State special education law State special education law N/A State special education law State special education law State special education law N/A South Carolina N/A Not required Not required Not required N/A Not required Not required Not required South Dakota 152 State requirements for GT students that align with IDEA strategies (Q55) Appropriate free public education Child Find Individual plan for GT students Least restrictive environment Non‐
discriminatory testing Mediation Due process Related services, with description Tennessee State special education law State special education law State special education law Not required State special education law Not required Not required Not required Texas Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Utah State special education law N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vermont Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Virginia Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required N/A N/A Washington West Virginia State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law State special education law Speech Wisconsin N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wyoming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Summary Responses: 41 Responses: 41
Responses: 41
Responses: 39
Responses: 40 Responses: 40
Responses: 41
Responses: 39 No response: 5 No response: 5 No response: 5 No response: 7 No response: 6 No response: 6 No response: 5 No response: 7 State law: 11 State law: 10 State law: 11 State law: 2 State law: 11 State law: 8 State law: 10 State law: 6 Not required: 9 N/A: 21 Not required: 13 N/A: 18 Not required: 12 N/A: 18 Not required: 14 N/A: 23 Not required: 10 N/A: 19 Not required: 15 N/A: 17 Not required: 11 N/A: 20 Not required: 11 N/A: 22 153 TABLE 14: IDENTIFICATION FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICES Require specific criteria/methods to identify (Q56) Required criteria/methods (Q57) Percent of LEAs that identify GT (Q58) State provides guidance or guidelines for identification (Q62) Alabama Yes IQ scores Achievement data Nominations Multiple criteria model Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select Other: Work samples/products 100% Yes Alaska No No Arizona Yes Nominations Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select Other: District must serve students at the 97th percentile in any of three reasoning categories, on any state approved assessment. However, districts may (in addition) utilize locally derived processes (approved by the LEA and SEA) for identifying their gifted learners for their unique local contexts. 100% Yes Arkansas Yes Nominations Multiple criteria model Other: Two objective measures and two subjective measures, but state does not dictate what they are. 100% Yes California Yes IQ scores Achievement data Nominations Multiple criteria model Other: Districts may choose tests and criteria for identification using a multiple criteria model 80% Yes 154 Require specific criteria/methods to identify (Q56) Required criteria/methods (Q57) Percent of LEAs that identify GT (Q58) State provides guidance or guidelines for identification (Q62) Colorado Yes IQ scores Achievement data Nominations Multiple criteria model Other: Multiple sources and qualitative and quantitative data points in a body of evidence (e.g. behavior, motivation, parent or teacher rating scales, performance assessment, environmental factors) 93% Yes Delaware No Not specified 80% No Florida Yes IQ scores Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select Other: Evidence of characteristics; evidence of need for special program 100% Yes Georgia Yes Multiple criteria model 98% Yes Hawaii Yes Nominations Multiple criteria model Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select 87% Yes Idaho Yes Multiple criteria model 90% Yes Illinois No N/A Indiana Yes Multiple criteria model 100% Yes Iowa No 100% Yes Kansas No 97% Yes Kentucky Yes Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select 100% Yes Louisiana Yes IQ scores Achievement data 95% Yes Maine Yes Multiple criteria model 85% Yes Maryland No 100% Yes Massachusetts No 5% No Michigan No 60% No 155 Require specific criteria/methods to identify (Q56) Required criteria/methods (Q57) Percent of LEAs that identify GT (Q58) State provides guidance or guidelines for identification (Q62) Minnesota No 80% Yes Missouri Yes IQ scores Achievement data Multiple criteria model 56% Yes Montana Yes IQ scores Achievement data Nominations Multiple criteria model 21% Yes Nebraska Yes Multiple criteria model 93% Yes New Hampshire No 0% No New Jersey 100% New Mexico Yes IQ scores Achievement data Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select Other: Creativity/divergent thinking or problem solving/ critical thinking 50% Yes New York No 100% Yes North Carolina No 100% Yes North Dakota Not specified 25% Yes Ohio Yes IQ scores Achievement data Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select 90% Yes Oklahoma Yes IQ scores Achievement data Nominations Multiple criteria model Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select Other: Portfolios or auditions 98% Yes 156 Require specific criteria/methods to identify (Q56) Required criteria/methods (Q57) Percent of LEAs that identify GT (Q58) State provides guidance or guidelines for identification (Q62) Oregon Yes IQ scores Achievement data Multiple criteria model 100% Yes Pennsylvania Yes IQ scores Achievement data Multiple criteria model 100% Yes South Carolina Yes Achievement data Multiple criteria model Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select 100% Yes South Dakota No No Tennessee Yes IQ scores Achievement data Multiple criteria model Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select Other: Creativity/characteristics of gifted assessment 85% Yes Texas Yes Multiple criteria model Other: Quantitative and qualitative measures 100% Yes Utah Yes Other: Three assessment instruments 86% Yes Vermont No No Virginia Yes IQ scores Achievement data Multiple criteria model 100% Yes Washington Yes IQ scores Achievement data Nominations Multiple criteria model 75% Yes West Virginia No 100% Yes 157 Require specific criteria/methods to identify (Q56) Required criteria/methods (Q57) Percent of LEAs that identify GT (Q58) State provides guidance or guidelines for identification (Q62) Wisconsin Yes Multiple criteria model (See Table 32: Clarifications) Yes Wyoming No N/A Summary Responses: 44 Responses: 30 Responses: 40
Responses: 45 No response: 2 Yes: 28 No response: 16 Multiple criteria model: 21 No response: 6 Minimum: 0% No response: 1 Yes: 36 IQ scores: 15 Maximum: 100% No: 7 No: 16 Achievement data: 15 Range of state‐approved assessments from which LEAs may select: 10 Nominations: 9 Other: 11 Not specified: 2 158 Mean: 83% Median: 96% N/A: 2 TABLE 15: IDENTIFICATION FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICES (CONTINUED) Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Alabama Yes Elementary school (multiple times) Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral Other: When gifted student transfers from out of state Elementary school (multiple times) Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Other: When gifted student transfers from out of state Combination of state and LEA policies Alaska No Not specified No State law does not specifically require Arizona Yes Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Other: District must provide for identifying gifted learners K‐12 and make testing available for students K‐12 on a periodic basis, not less than 3 times per year. Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (one time only) Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Combination of state and LEA policies Why not (Q64) 159 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Arkansas Yes Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral Yes California No Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (multiple times) When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Other: Each district determines how they will identify and serve kindergarten students Combination of state and LEA policies Colorado No Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral Combination of state and LEA policies Why not (Q64) 160 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Delaware No Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification No There is no state law on identification process Florida No Other: At any time K–12 No Other: LEAs have the option of developing alternative plans for identifying students from underrepresented populations. The state approves these plans. Georgia No When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Combination of state and LEA policies Hawaii No Elementary school (one time only) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Yes Why not (Q64) 161 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Idaho No Other: Ages 5–18 No Other: Local control; must use multiple criteria Illinois No Other: Data not collected No State law does not specifically require Indiana Yes Other: Local decision; mandated K–12 Other: Local decision; mandated identification and services K–12 No State law does not specifically require Iowa No Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral No Other: Identification process is determined at the local district level Kansas No Elementary school (one time only) Elementary school (multiple times) When students transfer from out of state Following parent referral Following teacher referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification No State law does not specifically require Why not (Q64) 162 (See Table 32: Clarifications) Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Kentucky Yes Other: 4th grade Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (one time only) Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification No State law does not specifically require Louisiana Yes Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Elementary school (multiple times) Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral Yes Maine Yes Other: Identified by grade 3 with an annual review of the K–12 population When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Other: Identified by grade 3 with an annual review of the K–12 population Combination of state and LEA policies Why not (Q64) 163 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Maryland No Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school When students transfer from out of state Following parent referral Following teacher referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification No There is no state law on identification process Massachusetts No Not specified No There is no state law on identification process Michigan No Not specified No State law does not specifically require Minnesota No Not specified Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification No There is no state law on identification process Why not (Q64) 164 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Missouri No Elementary school (multiple times) When students transfer from out of state No There is no state law on identification process Montana No Elementary school (multiple times) No State law does not specifically require Nebraska No Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (one time only) Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification No State law does not specifically require New Hampshire No Other: Not required to identify No There is no state law on identification process New Jersey Yes Kindergarten or early entrance screening Other: Ongoing identification New Mexico No Not specified Elementary school (multiple times) Following parent referral Following teacher referral Yes Why not (Q64) 165 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) New York Yes Kindergarten or early entrance screening When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Not specified No State law does not specifically require North Carolina No Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school When students transfer from out of state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral No Other: State mandate to identify but local control North Dakota No Elementary school (multiple times) No There is no state law on identification process Ohio Yes When students transfer from out of state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Yes Why not (Q64) 166 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Oklahoma Yes Other: Upon school entry Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (multiple times) When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification No State law does not specifically require Oregon Yes Other: Ongoing K–12 Other: Ongoing K–12, with majority in elementary Combination of state and LEA policies Pennsylvania Yes Following parent referral Following teacher referral No State law does not specifically require South Carolina Yes Elementary school (one time only) Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Combination of state and LEA policies South Dakota No No There is no state law on identification process Why not (Q64) 167 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Tennessee No Elementary school (one time only) Elementary school (multiple times) When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral Other: Required grade level screening for gifted no later than grade 4 Yes Texas No Kindergarten or early entrance screening When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (one time only) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral No Other: Locally developed process; must follow required state guidelines Utah No (See Table 32: Clarifications) Elementary school (one time only) Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral When taking other assessments approved for GT identification Other: Assessment and identification generally take place at the elementary, middle and high school level. Referrals come from all sources: parents, teachers and self. No There is no state law on identification process Why not (Q64) 168 Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Vermont No Not specified No There is no state law on identification process Virginia Yes Other: K–12 Other: Typically it has been 2nd or 3rd grade, but new regulations will require kindergarten as a start. No State law does not specifically require Washington No Kindergarten or early entrance screening Elementary school (multiple times) Entering middle school Entering high school When students transfer from out of state When students transfer from in state Following parent referral Following teacher referral Following student referral Yes West Virginia No Yes Wisconsin Yes Other: K–12 Other: K–12 Combination of state and LEA policies Why not (Q64) (See Table 32: Clarifications) Wyoming No Not specified 169 No There is no state law on identification process Summary Mandate GT ID age or time (Q59) When students required to be identified (Q60) When students usually identified (Q61) LEAs required to use same ID process (Q63) Why not (Q64) Responses: 46 Responses: 18 Responses: 43 No response: 0 No response: 28 No: 30 Following parent referral: 8 No response: 3 Elementary school (multiple times): 24 Yes: 16 Following teacher referral: 8 Following parent referral: 23 Following student referral: 7 When students transfer from out of state: 5 Following teacher referral: 22 When students transfer from out of state: 20 When students transfer from in state: 4 When taking other assessments approved for GT identification: 4 Kindergarten or early entrance screening: 4 Following student referral: 17 When students transfer from in state: 16 Elementary school (multiple times): 3 Entering middle school: 2 Entering middle school: 16 When taking other assessments approved for GT identification: 15 Entering high school: 11 Entering high school: 2 Elementary school (one time only): 1 Kindergarten or early entrance screening: 10 Elementary school (one time only): 8 Other: 9 Other: 14 Not specified: 1 Not specified: 7 Required to use same process: Responses: 45 No response: 1 No: 28 Combination of state and LEA policies: 9 Yes: 8 Why not: Responses: 28 No response: 18 No state law: 11 State law does not require: 12 Other: 5 170 TABLE 16: IDENTIFICATION FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICES—DEMOGRAPHICS Number of public school students (Q65) Number of identified GT students (Q66) Number of GT K‐12 students served (Q68) Max district can identify as GT (Q69) Gender of GT students (Q70, Q71) Ethnicity of GT students (Q72, Q73, Q74) Alabama 739,198 36,420 State‐collected information 36,420 No Not collected Caucasian: 77% African American: 18% Asian: 2% Hispanic: 2% Native American: 1% Alaska 29,000 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected Arizona 1,062,452 76,569 Estimate 76,569 No Male: 51% Female: 49% Caucasian: 63% Hispanic: 25% How calculated (Q67) Asian: 6% African American: 3% Native American: 3% Arkansas 465,801 42,796 State‐collected information 42,796 No Male: 51% Female: 49% Caucasian: 67% African American: 22% Hispanic: 8% Asian: 2% Native American: 1% California State‐collected information No Collected but not submitted Collected but not submitted Colorado 818,443 56,092 State‐collected information 56,092 No Male: 52% Female: 48% Caucasian: 73% Hispanic: 17% Asian: 5% African American: 4% Native American: 1% 171 Number of public school students (Q65) Number of identified GT students (Q66) Number of GT K‐12 students served (Q68) Max district can identify as GT (Q69) Gender of GT students (Q70, Q71) Ethnicity of GT students (Q72, Q73, Q74) Delaware 125,430 7,371 District reports (not mandatory reporting) 7,371 No Not collected Not collected Florida 2,653,396 Not collected 132,313 No Collected but not submitted (See Table 32: Clarifications) Georgia 1,609,681 159,278 State‐collected information 159,278 No Male: 46% Female: 54% Caucasian: 70% African American: 16% Asian: 7% Hispanic: 3% Native American: 1% Other: 3% (Multiracial) Hawaii 177,871 13,052 State‐collected information 13,052 No Not collected Asian: 64% Caucasian: 22% African American: 2% Hispanic: 2% Other: 10% (Part‐Hawaiian) Idaho 275,075 16,796 State‐collected information 16,796 No Male: 50% Female: 50% Caucasian: 95% African American: 1% Native American: 1% Asian: 1% Hispanic: 1% Other: 1% (Unknown ethnicity) Illinois 2,019,678 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected How calculated (Q67) 172 Indiana Number of public school students (Q65) Number of identified GT students (Q66) 993,476 143,193 State‐collected information How calculated (Q67) Number of GT K‐12 students served (Q68) Max district can identify as GT (Q69) Gender of GT students (Q70, Q71) Ethnicity of GT students (Q72, Q73, Q74) 143,193 No Male: 47% Female: 53% Caucasian: 85% African American: 5% Hispanic: 4% Asian: 3% Other: 3% (Multiracial) (See Table 32: Clarifications) Iowa 470,573 43,791 State‐collected information 43,791 No Male: 50% Female: 50% Caucasian: 91% African American: 3% Asian: 3% Other: 3% (Native American 0.28 and Hispanic 2.71) Kansas 485,353 14,592 State‐collected information 14,592 No Male: 55% Female: 45% Caucasian: 87% Asian: 5% Hispanic: 4% African American: 3% Native American: 1% Kentucky 671,466 170,459 State‐collected information 170,459 No Male: 47% Female: 53% Caucasian: 91% African American: 5% Asian: 2% Native American: 1% Hispanic: 1% Louisiana 650,000 Not collected 26,461 No Male: 47% Female: 53% Caucasian: 70% African American: 22% Asian: 5% Hispanic: 3% 173 Number of public school students (Q65) Number of identified GT students (Q66) Number of GT K‐12 students served (Q68) Max district can identify as GT (Q69) Gender of GT students (Q70, Q71) Ethnicity of GT students (Q72, Q73, Q74) Maine 174,641 5,109 District reports (not mandatory reporting) 5,109 Yes: 5% Not collected Not collected Maryland 845,700 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected Massachusetts 975,000 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected Michigan State‐collected information No Male: 54% Female: 46% Collected but not submitted Minnesota 822,412 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected Missouri Implementing a new statewide system to collect this data State‐collected information Not collected No Not collected Not collected Montana 137,000 State‐collected information Not collected No Collected but not submitted Collected but not submitted Nebraska 292,161 48,715 State‐collected information 48,715 No Not collected Native American: 28% Caucasian: 11% African American: 5% Asian: 3% Hispanic: 3% Other: 50% New Hampshire 197,956 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected New Jersey How calculated (Q67) 174 Number of public school students (Q65) Number of identified GT students (Q66) Max district can identify as GT (Q69) Gender of GT students (Q70, Q71) Ethnicity of GT students (Q72, Q73, Q74) How calculated (Q67) Number of GT K‐12 students served (Q68) New Mexico 323,881 Not collected 14,393 No Collected but not submitted Collected but not submitted New York Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected North Carolina 1,405,622 161,866 More than 161,866 No Male: 49% Female: 51% Caucasian: 77% African American: 11% Asian: 4% Hispanic: 4% Native American: 1% Other: 3% (Multiracial) (See Table 32: Clarifications) State‐collected information North Dakota 102,719 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected Ohio State‐collected information No Male: 51% Female: 49% Caucasian: 87% African American: 6% Asian: 3% Native American: 1% Hispanic: 1% Other: 2% (Multiracial) Oklahoma 644,777 107,249 State‐collected information 106,184 No Male: 49% Female: 51% Caucasian: 69% Native American: 16% African American: 6% Hispanic: 6% Asian: 3% 175 Oregon Number of public school students (Q65) Number of identified GT students (Q66) Number of GT K‐12 students served (Q68) Max district can identify as GT (Q69) Gender of GT students (Q70, Q71) Ethnicity of GT students (Q72, Q73, Q74) 554,960 41,375 State‐collected information Not collected No Male: 53% Female: 47% Caucasian: 79% Asian: 9% (See Table 32: Clarifications) Hispanic: 5% African American: 2% Native American: 1% Other: 4% (Multiracial students [2.8%] and students who declined to report race [1.3%]) (See Table 32: Clarifications) How calculated (Q67) Pennsylvania Not collected Not collected No Collected but not submitted South Carolina 742,007 82,905 State‐collected information No Male: 46% Female: 54% Caucasian: 77% African American: 16% Asian: 2% Hispanic: 2% Other: 3% (Other, White/black, white/indian, Black/indian) South Dakota Not collected No Not collected Not collected Tennessee 929,543 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Collected but not submitted Texas 4,524,844 355,847 State‐collected information 355,847 No Male: 49% Female: 51% Caucasian: 48% Hispanic: 36% African American: 8% Asian: 7% Native American: 1% 176 Utah Number of public school students (Q65) Number of identified GT students (Q66) Number of GT K‐12 students served (Q68) Max district can identify as GT (Q69) Gender of GT students (Q70, Q71) Ethnicity of GT students (Q72, Q73, Q74) 551,013 6,864 District reports (not mandatory reporting) Not collected No Male: 49% Female: 51% Caucasian: 86% Asian: 6% How calculated (Q67) Hispanic: 6% African American: 1% Other: 1% (Pacific Islander) Vermont 95,000 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected Virginia Not collected yet State‐collected information Not collected yet No Male: 49% Caucasian: 69% Female: 51% African American: 12% Asian: 11% Hispanic: 5% Native American: 1% Other: 2% (Pacific Islander and Unknown race) Not collected 50,224 Yes: 2.314 (See Table 32: Clarifications) (See Table 32: Clarifications) Male: 48% Female: 52% (See Table 32: Clarifications) Caucasian: 77% Asian: 13% Hispanic: 7% African American: 2% Native American: 1% (See Table 32: Clarifications) Washington 1,031,846 (See Table 32: Clarifications) West Virginia 281,908 4,816 State‐collected information Not collected yet No Not collected Not collected Wisconsin 872,311 Not collected Not collected No Not collected Not collected Wyoming 85,000 Unavailable State‐collected information Unavailable No Collected but not submitted Collected but not submitted 177 Summary Number of public school students (Q65) Number of identified GT students (Q66) Max district can identify as GT (Q69) Gender of GT students (Q70, Q71) Ethnicity of GT students (Q72, Q73, Q74) How calculated (Q67) Number of GT K‐12 students served (Q68) Responses: 37 No response: 9 Minimum: 29,000 Maximum: 4,524,844 Number identified: Responses: 39 No response: 7 Minimum: 4,816 Maximum: 355,847 Not collected, or unavailable at this time: 18 Responses: 40
No response: 6
Minimum: 5,109
Maximum: 355,847 Not collected, or unavailable at this time: 19 Responses: 45 No response: 1 No: 43 Yes: 2 Responses: 44
No response: 2
Collected: 20 Collected but not submitted: 5 Not collected: 19 Responses: 44 No response: 2 Collected: 22 Collected but not submitted: 7 Not collected: 15 How calculated: Responses: 45 No response: 1 State‐collected: 24 District reports: 3 Estimate: 1 Not collected: 17 178 TABLE 17: GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMMING AND ACCOUNTABILITY Categories of GT requiring programs/ services (Q75) Grades services State monitors/ mandated (Q76) audits LEA GT programs (Q77) LEAs must report on GT services (Q78) Alabama Not specified K–12 Yes No Alaska Not required Not required No No Arizona Intellectual General academic Specific academic areas K–12 Yes Yes Student performance Program performance A combination of student performance and program evaluation Teacher training Service options Other: Budget Arkansas Intellectual General academic Creativity K–12 Yes Yes A combination of student performance and program evaluation Teacher training Service options California Intellectual K–12 Only when LEA applies for funds Yes Student performance Program performance A combination of student performance and program evaluation Service options Colorado Visual/performing arts Leadership Intellectual General academic Creativity Specific academic areas K–12 Yes Yes Student performance Program performance A combination of student performance and program evaluation Teacher training Service options 179 Criteria required in report (Q79) Categories of GT requiring programs/ services (Q75) Grades services State monitors/ mandated (Q76) audits LEA GT programs (Q77) LEAs must report on GT services (Q78) Delaware Not required Not required No No Florida Not specified K–12 Yes No Georgia Not specified Pre‐K to 12 Yes Yes Service options Hawaii Not required Not required Yes Yes Program performance Idaho Visual/performing arts K–12 No No Criteria required in report (Q79) Leadership Intellectual Creativity Specific academic areas Illinois Not required Not required No No Indiana General academic Specific academic areas K–12 No Yes Teacher training Service options Other: Assessments used in identification; specific use of funds Iowa Not specified K–12 Yes Yes Other: Districts are required to have documentation for the components of Chapter 12: identification procedures; programming goals and measures; differentiated curriculum for cognitive and affective needs; inservice design; program evaluation for the accreditation site visit Kansas Intellectual Up to LEA to determine No No 180 Kentucky Categories of GT requiring programs/ services (Q75) Grades services State monitors/ mandated (Q76) audits LEA GT programs (Q77) LEAs must report on GT services (Q78) Visual/performing arts Leadership K–12 Yes Yes Student performance Program performance A combination of student performance and program evaluation Teacher training Service options Other: Identification; special populations; parent communication; policy & procedures; curriculum; monitoring Intellectual General academic Creativity Specific academic areas Criteria required in report (Q79) Louisiana Visual/performing arts Intellectual Pre‐K to 12 Yes No Maine Visual/performing arts Intellectual Specific academic areas 3–12 No Yes A combination of student performance and program evaluation Service options Maryland Not specified Up to LEA to determine No Yes Other: Goals, objectives, and strategies regarding the performance of gifted and talented students Massachusetts Not required Not required No No Michigan Not required Not required No Yes Student performance Program performance Minnesota Not required Not required No Yes Teacher training Service options Other: Identification tools; academic acceleration procedures; program components; when and how students are identified for services 181 Categories of GT requiring programs/ services (Q75) Grades services State monitors/ mandated (Q76) audits LEA GT programs (Q77) LEAs must report on GT services (Q78) Missouri Not required Not required Yes Yes Other: Number of students served; amount of contact time; teacher certification Montana Not specified Pre‐K to 12 Only when LEA applies for funds Only when LEA applies for funds Other: Data and analysis specific to the measurable objective identified by the district Nebraska Not required Not required Only when LEA applies for funds Only when LEA applies for funds A combination of student performance and program evaluation New Hampshire Not required Not required No No New Jersey K–12 Yes Yes New Mexico Not specified K–12 Yes No New York Not required Not required No No North Carolina Intellectual General academic K–12 No No North Dakota Not specified Not required No No Ohio Not required Not required Yes Yes Teacher training Service options Other: Professional development and identification plan Oklahoma Visual/performing arts Leadership Intellectual General academic Creativity Specific academic areas Pre‐K to 12 Yes Yes Teacher training Service options 182 Criteria required in report (Q79) Categories of GT requiring programs/ services (Q75) Grades services State monitors/ mandated (Q76) audits LEA GT programs (Q77) LEAs must report on GT services (Q78) Oregon Intellectual Specific academic areas K–12 Yes Yes Other: Districts must report on how they are making continuous improvement for students who have exceeded the state benchmarks. Districts must also submit annual assurances that they are complaint with Division 22 (which contains TAG) rules. Pennsylvania Not specified K–12 Yes Yes Service options South Carolina Visual/performing arts General academic Specific academic areas 3–12 Yes Yes Service options Other: Program goals, objectives, and activities through the three year plan. Each district is also required to submit annual data reports on the number of students screened, identified, and served. South Dakota Not required Not required No No Tennessee Intellectual General academic Specific academic areas Not required No Yes Service options Other: Identification through grade level screening and comprehensive development of students by race/ethnicity Texas Specific academic areas K–12 No No Utah Not required Not required Only when LEA applies for funds Only when LEA applies for funds Program performance Teacher training Service options Vermont Not required Not required No No Virginia General academic Specific academic areas K–12 Yes Yes Service options Other: Number of students identified and referred 183 Criteria required in report (Q79) Categories of GT requiring programs/ services (Q75) Grades services State monitors/ mandated (Q76) audits LEA GT programs (Q77) LEAs must report on GT services (Q78) Washington Not required Not required Yes Only when LEA applies for funds Student performance Program performance A combination of student performance and program evaluation Teacher training Service options West Virginia Intellectual General academic 1–8 Yes No Wisconsin Visual/performing arts Leadership Intellectual General academic Creativity Specific academic areas K–12 No No Wyoming Not required Not required No No 184 Criteria required in report (Q79) Summary Categories of GT requiring programs/ services (Q75) Grades services State monitors/ mandated (Q76) audits LEA GT programs (Q77) LEAs must report on GT services (Q78) Responses: 45 No response: 1 Intellectual: 15 Specific academic areas: 13 General academic: 12 Visual/performing arts: 8 Creativity: 6 Leadership: 5 Not required: 17 Not specified: 9 Responses: 46
No response: 0
Pre‐K to 12: 4 K–12: 18 3–12: 2 1–8: 1 Up to LEA to determine: 2 Not required: 19 LEAs must report: Responses: 46 No response: 0 Yes: 22 No: 20 When LEA applies for funds: 4 Responses: 46
No response: 0
Yes: 21 No: 21 When LEA applies for funds: 4 Criteria required in report (Q79) Criteria required in report: Responses: 25 No response: 21 Service options: 17 Teacher training: 10 A combination of student performance and program evaluation: 8 Program performance: 8 Student performance: 6 Other: 13 185 TABLE 18: GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMMING AND ACCOUNTABILITY, EDUCATION PLANS How the state ensures compliance (Q80) Districts submit GT plans to SEA (Q81) Local GT plans approved by SEA (Q82) Components of GT plan requiring SEA approval (Q83) Alabama Yes Yes Identification Programming Evaluation Teacher training Other: Acceleration procedures Alaska Yes No Arizona Compliance is monitored through several mechanisms. The first is through review and approval of local plans (Scope & Sequence for Gifted Education). The second is through our state Title I monitoring process, as gifted education is Cycle V of a six‐cycle process. This monitoring will now include an on‐site component, in addition to a plan review and self‐
reporting questionnaire, and the gifted education unit has responsibility for this process. The third includes a partnership with our Title III (ELL) unit, in which questions concerning how LEAs identify and serve their gifted ELL students are included as part of their onsite monitoring & interview process. The SEA also conducts program monitoring upon request or as needed. Yes Yes Identification Programming Funding Evaluation Teacher training Other: Program design; identification; curriculum; instruction; social development; emotional development; professional development of administrators, teachers, school psychologists, and counselors; parent involvement; community involvement; program assessment; budgeting Arkansas On‐site visits once every three years by state GT personnel and annual program approval applications. Yes Yes Identification Programming Evaluation Teacher training 186 How the state ensures compliance (Q80) Districts submit GT plans to SEA (Q81) Local GT plans approved by SEA (Q82) Components of GT plan requiring SEA approval (Q83) California District Evaluation Reports upon renewal of applications for gifted funding. Categorical Program Reviews coordinated with federal compliance reviews for districts that receive funding. Yes Only when LEA applies for funds Identification Programming Funding Evaluation Teacher training Other: Parent involvement Colorado Cyclical desk reviews and on‐site visits; annual reporting; technical assistance for support and service Yes Yes Identification Programming Funding Evaluation Teacher training Other: Communication outreach; definition; accountability; personnel; procedure for appeals; early access plan (if applicable) Delaware No Florida Yes Yes Identification Other: Gifted endorsement plans Georgia Yes No Hawaii Assessment of program reports is made with feedback for improvement Yes No Idaho Yes Yes Identification Programming Evaluation Other: Definitions; philosophy; goals Illinois No Indiana Self‐reported Yes No 187 How the state ensures compliance (Q80) Districts submit GT plans to SEA (Q81) Local GT plans approved by SEA (Q82) Components of GT plan requiring SEA approval (Q83) Iowa The state has an accreditation site visit process for all accredited public and non‐public schools to monitor compliance for state and federal programs. Gifted programming is included in the document review as well as school and community interview procedures. No Kansas No Kentucky Desk audits; site visits; analysis and monitoring of specific indicators No Louisiana No Maine Review of annual GT application. Yes Yes Identification Programming Funding Evaluation Teacher training Maryland A yearly review of the school system’s Comprehensive Master Plan No Massachusetts No Michigan No Minnesota State required reporting No Missouri Newly‐implemented statewide data collection system No Montana End of the year report Only when Only when LEA LEA applies applies for for funds funds 188 Identification Programming Funding Evaluation Teacher training How the state ensures compliance (Q80) Districts submit GT plans to SEA (Q81) Nebraska Only when Only when LEA LEA applies applies for for funds funds Identification Programming Funding Evaluation New Hampshire No New Jersey New Mexico No New York No North Carolina Yes No North Dakota No Ohio Data reporting; audits Yes Yes Identification Oklahoma Annual report of information and program audit. Yes Yes Identification Programming Funding Evaluation Teacher training Other: Local advisory committee; site committee Oregon Technical assistance and program monitoring/compliance review. Only when Only when LEA LEA applies applies for for funds funds Identification Programming Funding Evaluation Pennsylvania Compliance monitoring process No South Carolina Monitoring the reports at the present time Yes No South Dakota No 189 Local GT plans approved by SEA (Q82) Components of GT plan requiring SEA approval (Q83) How the state ensures compliance (Q80) Districts submit GT plans to SEA (Q81) Local GT plans approved by SEA (Q82) Components of GT plan requiring SEA approval (Q83) Tennessee The plan was to train and work with those districts that were not identifying students at even the screening level. Data has not been collected for the 08‐09 school year and data was not completely analyzed for the 07‐08 school year due to the onset of the former gifted coordinator’s fatal illness. State budgetary restrictions have slowed the process of finding another person to fill this position. The Division is making the effort to fill this position. We feel it is extremely important to continue with this work. Yes Yes Identification Evaluation Other: Grade level screening procedures and assurances included for multi‐modal assessment Texas No Utah The application for funding is reviewed and funding is granted if the plan meets all the requirements of the rule. Only when Only when LEA LEA applies applies for for funds funds Identification Programming Funding Evaluation Teacher training Vermont No Virginia Yes No Washington Reviews of districts Yes Only when LEA applies for funds Identification Funding Evaluation West Virginia No Wisconsin No Wyoming No 190 How the state ensures compliance (Q80) Districts submit GT plans to SEA (Q81) Local GT plans approved by SEA (Q82) Components of GT plan requiring SEA approval (Q83) Summary Responses: 21 No response: 25 Responses: 45 No response: 1 No: 22 Yes: 19 When LEA applies for funds: 4 Responses: 23 No response: 23 Yes: 10 No: 7 When LEA applies for funds: 6 Responses: 16 No response: 30 Identification: 16 Evaluation: 14 Programming: 12 Funding: 10 Teacher training: 9 Other: 8 191 TABLE 19: GIFTED EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS Require school districts to have GT administrator (Q84) Require GT administrator to have GT training (Q85) Require GT administrator to be full‐time (Q86) Percent of LEAs with full‐time GT administrator (Q87) Alabama Yes No No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas Yes Yes No 25% California Yes Yes No Colorado Yes No 60% Delaware No 10% Florida Yes No No 17% Georgia No Hawaii No 0% Idaho Yes No 5% Illinois No Indiana Yes No No 2% Iowa No 14% Kansas No Kentucky Yes Yes No 100% Louisiana No 20% Maine Yes No No 25% Maryland No Massachusetts No 1% Michigan No Minnesota No N/A Missouri No 1% 192 Require school districts to have GT administrator (Q84) Require GT administrator to have GT training (Q85) Require GT administrator to be full‐time (Q86) Percent of LEAs with full‐time GT administrator (Q87) Montana Yes No 0% Nebraska No 8% New Hampshire No 0% New Jersey New Mexico No 4% New York No North Carolina No No No North Dakota No 5% Ohio Yes Yes No Oklahoma No Oregon No Pennsylvania No South Carolina No No 15% South Dakota No Tennessee No Texas No Yes No 25% Utah No No No 10% Vermont No Virginia Yes No No 50% Washington No West Virginia No 0% Wisconsin Yes No Wyoming No 193 Require school districts to have GT administrator (Q84) Require GT administrator to have GT training (Q85) Require GT administrator to be full‐time (Q86) Percent of LEAs with full‐time GT administrator (Q87) Summary Responses: 45 No response: 1 Responses: 17 No response: 29 No: 12 Yes: 5 Responses: 12 No response: 34 No: 12 Responses: 23 No response: 23 Minimum: 0% Maximum: 100% Mean: 17.3% Median: 10% No: 32 Yes: 13 194 TABLE 20: GIFTED AND TALENT SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING BY GRADE (PART 1) Approximate percent of GT students receiving services in each grade (Q88) Note: N/A may mean either that the data was not collected or that the question is not applicable Pre‐K Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Alabama N/A 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Alaska N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Arizona N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (See Table 32: Clarifications) Arkansas N/A 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 California Colorado 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Delaware N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Florida N/A 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Georgia Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Idaho 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Illinois N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indiana 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Iowa N/A 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Kansas 0 0 0 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Kentucky N/A 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Louisiana 1–19 1–19 20–39 40–59 80–100 80–100 80–100 Maine N/A N/A 1–19 1–19 80–100 80–100 80–100 Maryland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Massachusetts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Michigan 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 195 Approximate percent of GT students receiving services in each grade (Q88) Note: N/A may mean either that the data was not collected or that the question is not applicable Pre‐K Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Minnesota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Missouri N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Montana N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nebraska New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New Jersey New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New York N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A North Carolina 0 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 20–39 North Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ohio N/A 1–19 1–19 20–39 20–39 40–59 40–59 Oklahoma 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Oregon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pennsylvania South Carolina N/A N/A N/A N/A 80–100 80–100 80–100 South Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tennessee 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 20–39 20–39 Texas 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vermont N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Virginia 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Washington N/A 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 (See Table 32: Clarifications) West Virginia 196 Approximate percent of GT students receiving services in each grade (Q88) Note: N/A may mean either that the data was not collected or that the question is not applicable Pre‐K Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Wisconsin N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wyoming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Summary Responses: 36 No response: 10 80–100%: 2 1–19%: 4 0%: 1 N/A: 29 Responses: 40 No response: 6 80–100%: 9 1–19%: 7 0%: 2 N/A: 22 Responses: 41 No response: 5 80–100%: 10 20–39%: 1 1–19%: 8 0%: 1 N/A: 21 Responses: 41 No response: 5 80–100%: 10 40–59%: 1 20–39%: 1 1–19%: 8 N/A: 21 Responses: 41 No response: 5 80–100%: 13 20–39%: 1 1–19%: 7 N/A: 20 Responses: 41 No response: 5 80–100%: 13 40–59%: 1 20–39%: 1 1–19%: 6 N/A: 20 Responses: 41 No response: 5 80–100%: 13 40–59%: 1 20–39%: 2 1–19%: 5 N/A: 20 197 TABLE 21: GIFTED AND TALENT SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING BY GRADE (PART 2) Approximate percent of GT students receiving services in each grade (Q88) Note: N/A may mean either that the data was not collected or that the question is not applicable Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Alabama 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Alaska N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Arizona N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (See Table 32: Clarifications) Arkansas 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 California Colorado 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Delaware N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Florida 80–100 80–100 80–100 60–79 60–79 60–79 60–79 Georgia Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Idaho 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Illinois N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indiana 1–19 1–19 20–39 1–19 1–19 1–19 20–39 Iowa 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Kansas 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Kentucky 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Louisiana 80–100 80–100 80–100 40–59 40–59 20–39 20–39 Maine 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Maryland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Massachusetts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Michigan 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 198 Approximate percent of GT students receiving services in each grade (Q88) Note: N/A may mean either that the data was not collected or that the question is not applicable Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Minnesota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Missouri N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Montana N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nebraska New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New Jersey New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New York N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A North Carolina 20–39 20–39 20–39 1–19 20–39 20–39 20–39 North Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ohio 20–39 20–39 20–39 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Oklahoma 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Oregon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pennsylvania South Carolina 80–100 80–100 80–100 N/A N/A N/A N/A South Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tennessee 20–39 20–39 20–39 1–19 1–19 1–19 1–19 Texas 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vermont N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Virginia 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 Washington 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 80–100 (See Table 32: Clarifications) West Virginia 80–100 80–100 199 Approximate percent of GT students receiving services in each grade (Q88) Note: N/A may mean either that the data was not collected or that the question is not applicable Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Wisconsin N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wyoming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Summary Responses: 41 No response: 5 80–100%: 13 20–39%: 3 1–19%: 5 N/A: 20 Responses: 41 No response: 5 80–100%: 13 20–39%: 3 1–19%: 5 N/A: 20 Responses: 41 No response: 5 80–100%: 13 20–39%: 4 1–19%: 4 N/A: 20 Responses: 40 No response: 6 80–100%: 9 60–79%: 1 40–59%: 1 1–19%: 8 N/A: 21 Responses: 40 No response: 6 80–100%: 9 60–79%: 1 40–59%: 1 20–39%: 1 1–19%: 7 N/A: 21 Responses: 40 No response: 6 80–100%: 9 60–79%: 1 20–39%: 2 1–19%: 7 N/A: 21 Responses: 39 No response: 7 80–100%: 9 60–79%: 1 20–39%: 3 1–19%: 5 N/A%: 21 200 TABLE 22: GIFTED AND TALENT SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING BY GRADE (PART 3) Top delivery methods in pre‐K, kindergarten (Q89, Q90) Top delivery methods in grades 1‐3 (Q91, Q92) Top delivery methods in grades 4‐6 (Q93, Q94) Top delivery methods in middle school (Q95, Q96) Top delivery methods in high school (Q97, Q98) Alabama Other: Consultative in general education classroom Regular classroom Resource room Cluster classrooms Other: Consultative in general education classrooms 1–2 Resource room Other: Consultative in general education classrooms Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Other: Honors or advanced classes Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) Virtual high school Alaska Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Arizona Regular classroom Resource room Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Advanced Placement Independent study Arkansas Regular classroom Other: Instruction provided by a trained teacher of the gifted, delivered by the same teacher or by the classroom teacher to all students (whole group enrichment) Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Resource room Cluster classrooms Resource room Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Regular classroom Other: Pre‐AP classes Resource room Advanced Placement Regular classroom Other: Pre‐AP classes California Other: Grouping and clustering in regular classrooms Other: Grouping and clustering in regular classrooms Other: Grouping and clustering in regular classrooms Other: Advanced or honors classes Other: Advanced Placement; honors; International Baccalaureate 201 Top delivery methods in pre‐K, kindergarten (Q89, Q90) Top delivery methods in grades 1‐3 (Q91, Q92) Top delivery methods in grades 4‐6 (Q93, Q94) Top delivery methods in middle school (Q95, Q96) Top delivery methods in high school (Q97, Q98) Colorado Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Other: Cluster grouping Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Resource room Other: Subject‐based acceleration structures Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Cluster classrooms Other: Subject‐based acceleration structures; online courses; content extensions; targeted critical thinking skills development; scheduling structure that permits affective guidance Regular classroom Advanced Placement Virtual classroom/ coursework Other: Cross‐grade grouping; scheduling structure for affective guidance and career planning; targeted critical thinking skill development Delaware Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Resource room Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Resource room Advanced Placement Regular classroom Independent study Florida Resource room Self‐contained classroom Cluster classrooms Self‐contained classroom Resource room Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Resource room Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Cluster classrooms Virtual classroom/ coursework Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) International Baccalaureate Other: Consultation; externships; virtual courses Georgia Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Resource room Cluster classrooms Magnet schools Advanced Placement Resource room Dual enrollment (in college) 202 Top delivery methods in pre‐K, kindergarten (Q89, Q90) Top delivery methods in grades 1‐3 (Q91, Q92) Top delivery methods in grades 4‐6 (Q93, Q94) Top delivery methods in middle school (Q95, Q96) Top delivery methods in high school (Q97, Q98) Hawaii Not possible to estimate Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Self‐contained classroom Regular classroom Independent study Self‐paced learning Self‐contained classroom Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Advanced Placement Regional performing arts school Dual enrollment (in college) Idaho Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Illinois Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Indiana Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Self‐paced learning Regular classroom Advanced Placement Self‐contained classroom Iowa Not possible to estimate Regular classroom Resource room Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Resource room Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Resource room Other: Grade or content acceleration Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) Virtual classroom/ coursework Kansas Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Kentucky Other: Differentiation Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Regular classroom Resource room Cluster classrooms Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Resource room Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Self‐paced learning Advanced Placement Virtual high school Regular classroom Louisiana Self‐contained classroom Regular classroom Resource room Regular classroom Resource room Self‐contained classroom Regular classroom Resource room Self‐contained classroom Regular classroom Resource room Magnet schools Regular classroom Magnet schools Resource room Maine Telescoped learning Continuous progress curriculum Regular classroom Resource room Continuous progress curriculum Regular classroom Telescoped learning Continuous progress curriculum Resource room Resource room Continuous progress curriculum Regular classroom Magnet schools Regular classroom Advanced Placement Maryland Not possible to estimate Regular classroom Magnet schools Cluster classrooms Cluster classrooms Magnet schools Resource room Self‐contained classroom Magnet schools Cluster classrooms Advanced Placement Magnet schools Mentorships 203 Top delivery methods in pre‐K, kindergarten (Q89, Q90) Top delivery methods in grades 1‐3 (Q91, Q92) Top delivery methods in grades 4‐6 (Q93, Q94) Top delivery methods in middle school (Q95, Q96) Top delivery methods in high school (Q97, Q98) Massachusetts Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Michigan Regular classroom Independent study Magnet schools Self‐contained classroom Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Self‐contained classroom Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Regular classroom Self‐paced learning Magnet schools Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) Virtual high school Minnesota Not possible to estimate Regular classroom Resource room Self‐paced learning Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Self‐contained classroom Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) International Baccalaureate Missouri Not possible to estimate Resource room Cluster classrooms Virtual classroom/ coursework Resource room Cluster classrooms Virtual classroom/ coursework Resource room Self‐contained classroom Cluster classrooms Dual enrollment (in college) Advanced Placement International Baccalaureate Montana Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Nebraska Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Self‐paced learning Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) Virtual high school New Hampshire Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate New Jersey New Mexico Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate New York Possible to estimate, but none given Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Advanced Placement Regular classroom Independent study 204 Top delivery methods in pre‐K, kindergarten (Q89, Q90) Top delivery methods in grades 1‐3 (Q91, Q92) Top delivery methods in grades 4‐6 (Q93, Q94) Top delivery methods in middle school (Q95, Q96) Top delivery methods in high school (Q97, Q98) North Carolina Regular classroom Other: Consultant Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Other: With consultation Advanced Placement Self‐contained classroom Dual enrollment (in college) North Dakota Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Ohio Regular classroom Resource room Other Resource room Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Resource room Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Resource room Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Dual enrollment (in college) Advanced Placement Other: Honors classes Oklahoma Not possible to estimate Regular classroom Resource room Independent study Regular classroom Resource room Other: Acceleration Regular classroom Resource room Advanced Placement Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) Regular classroom Oregon Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Continuous progress curriculum Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Continuous progress curriculum Regular classroom Independent study Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Self‐paced learning Telescoped learning Regular classroom Dual enrollment (in college) Advanced Placement Pennsylvania Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate South Carolina Not possible to estimate Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Resource room Self‐contained classroom Resource room Magnet schools Self‐contained classroom Resource room Magnet schools Self‐contained classroom Advanced Placement International Baccalaureate South Dakota Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Tennessee Not possible to estimate Resource room Regular classroom Continuous progress curriculum Resource room Independent study Advanced Placement Independent study Advanced Placement Virtual classroom/ coursework Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) Independent study 205 Top delivery methods in pre‐K, kindergarten (Q89, Q90) Top delivery methods in grades 1‐3 (Q91, Q92) Top delivery methods in grades 4‐6 (Q93, Q94) Top delivery methods in middle school (Q95, Q96) Top delivery methods in high school (Q97, Q98) Texas Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) Independent study Utah Not possible to estimate Other: Individualized programs; differentiated instruction; pull‐out programs Other: Individualized instruction; differentiated instruction; pull out programs Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Vermont Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Virginia Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Resource room Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Resource room Regular classroom Cluster classrooms Resource room Cluster classrooms Regular classroom Other: Self‐contained in some content areas, mainly mathematics Advanced Placement Dual enrollment (in college) Magnet schools Washington Not possible to estimate Regular classroom Other: Part‐time grouping (content specific) Self‐contained classroom (See Table 32: Clarifications) Other: Part‐time grouping (content specific) Regular classroom Self‐contained classroom (See Table 32: Clarifications) Other: Advanced subject placement Regular classroom Other: Part‐time grouping (content specific) (See Table 32: Clarifications) Advanced Placement Other: Honors Other: Advanced subject placement (See Table 32: Clarifications) West Virginia Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Wisconsin Other: Differentiation; enrichment; acceleration Other: Differentiation; enrichment; acceleration Other: Differentiation; enrichment; acceleration Other: Differentiation; advanced sections; acceleration Advanced Placement Other: Honors courses Dual enrollment (in college) Wyoming Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate Not possible to estimate 206 Top delivery methods in pre‐K, kindergarten (Q89, Q90) Top delivery methods in grades 1‐3 (Q91, Q92) Top delivery methods in grades 4‐6 (Q93, Q94) Top delivery methods in middle school (Q95, Q96) Top delivery methods in high school (Q97, Q98) Summary Responses: 45 Responses: 45 Responses: 45 Responses: 45 Responses: 44 No response: 1 Possible to estimate: 18 No response: 1 No response: 1 No response: 1 No response: 2 Possible to estimate: 29 Possible to estimate: 30 Possible to estimate: 28 Possible to estimate: 29 Regular classroom: 14 Cluster classrooms: 8 Regular classroom: 23 Resource room: 18 Resource room: 20 Regular classroom: 19 Regular classroom: 21 Cluster classrooms: 13 Resource room: 7 Continuous progress curriculum: 5 Self‐contained classroom: 2 Independent study: 1 Cluster classrooms: 13 Continuous progress curriculum: 7 Self‐contained classroom: 7 Self‐paced learning: 1 Cluster classrooms: 14 Self‐contained classroom: 6 Continuous progress curriculum: 4 Independent study: 3 Resource room: 12 Self‐contained classroom: 10 Magnet schools: 5 Magnet schools: 1 Telescoped learning: 1 Independent study: 1 Magnet schools: 1 Other: 8 Not possible to estimate: 26 AP: 28 Dual enrollment (in college): 17 Regular classroom: 11 Independent study: 5 IB: 4 Virtual high school: 4 Magnet schools: 4 Magnet schools: 2 AP: 1 Self‐paced learning: 5 Continuous progress curriculum: 4 AP: 2 Virtual classroom/ coursework: 1 Self‐paced learning: 1 Telescoped learning: 1 Virtual classroom/ coursework: 2 Virtual classroom/ coursework: 2 Other: 5 Virtual classroom/ coursework: 1 Independent study: 1 Telescoped learning: 1 Resource room: 2 Mentorships: 1 Other: 7 Other: 9 Regional performing arts school: 1 Possible to estimate, but none given: 1 Not possible to estimate: 17 Not possible to estimate: 16 Not possible to estimate: 16 Self‐contained classroom: 3 Other: 7 Not possible to estimate: 14 207 TABLE 23: OTHER POLICIES AND PRACTICES—ACCELERATION State acceleration policy (Q99) State policy on kindergarten early entrance (Q100) State kindergarten entry age or cut‐off date (Q101) Alternate high school diploma or certificate offered to GT students (Q102) Basis on which it is offered (Q103) Alabama State policy specifically permits State policy does not permit 5 by October State policy does not permit Alaska No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 on or before September 1 State policy does not permit Arizona No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by September 1 of the current school year. For early entrance (at LEA discretion), must be 5 by January 1 of the current school year. State policy does not permit Arkansas No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 on or before September 1 for 2009–2010; August 15 for 2010–2011; and August 1 for 2011–2012. State policy does not permit California No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 12/01/2009 State policy specifically permits Test Colorado No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 5 by October 1. For early access, must be 4 for kindergarten and 5 for first grade by the start date of school. No state policy; up to LEA to determine Delaware No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by August 31 State policy does not permit Florida No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by September 1 State policy specifically permits Statute 1003.429: Accelerated High School Options Hawaii No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No policy on kindergarten; not mandatory No state policy; up to LEA to determine 208 State acceleration policy (Q99) State policy on kindergarten early entrance (Q100) State kindergarten entry age or cut‐off date (Q101) Alternate high school diploma or certificate offered to GT students (Q102) Basis on which it is offered (Q103) Idaho No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 on or before September 1 State policy does not permit Illinois No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by September 1 No state policy; up to LEA to determine Indiana State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by August 1 State policy does not permit Iowa No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by September 15 State policy does not permit Kansas State policy specifically permits State policy does not permit 5 by August 1 State policy does not permit Kentucky State policy specifically permits No state policy; up to LEA to determine 5 by October 5 No state policy; up to LEA to determine Louisiana No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy does not permit Maine No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by October 15 State policy specifically permits Portfolio Maryland No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 5 by September 1 State policy does not permit Massachusetts No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Michigan No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by December 1 No state policy; up to LEA to determine 209 State acceleration policy (Q99) State policy on kindergarten early entrance (Q100) State kindergarten entry age or cut‐off date (Q101) Alternate high school diploma or certificate offered to GT students (Q102) Basis on which it is offered (Q103) Minnesota State policy specifically permits State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by September 1, or earlier if the school board establishes a policy for selected students at an earlier age. (MN Statue 20A.20) State policy does not permit Missouri No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by August 1, or earlier if military dependent and has attended an accredited pre‐kindergarten or accredited kindergarten in another state. (See Table 32: Clarifications) State policy leaves LEA to determine Montana No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 5 by September 10 State policy does not permit Nebraska No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by October 15 State policy leaves LEA to determine New Hampshire No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No requirement No state policy; up to LEA to determine New Jersey New Mexico No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 5 by September 1 at 12:01 a.m. State policy does not permit New York No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 5 by December 1 State policy does not permit North Carolina State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits 5 by August 31 No state policy; up to LEA to determine North Dakota No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 4 State policy leaves LEA to determine 210 State acceleration policy (Q99) State policy on kindergarten early entrance (Q100) State kindergarten entry age or cut‐off date (Q101) Alternate high school diploma or certificate offered to GT students (Q102) Basis on which it is offered (Q103) Ohio State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits 5 by August 1 or September 30 unless referred for early entrance. No state policy; up to LEA to determine Oklahoma No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 5 on or before September 15 State policy does not permit Oregon State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by September 1 No state policy; up to LEA to determine Pennsylvania State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by January 31 No state policy; up to LEA to determine South Carolina No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by September 1 No state policy; up to LEA to determine South Dakota No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by September 1 State policy does not permit Tennessee State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by September 30 No state policy; up to LEA to determine Texas State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits 5 by September 1 State policy does not permit Utah No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit 5 by September 1 State policy does not permit Vermont State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Must be 5 by January 1. LEA may choose any date between August 31 and January 1. State policy leaves LEA to determine (See Table 32: Clarifications) Virginia State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 5 by September 30 211 State acceleration policy (Q99) State policy on kindergarten early entrance (Q100) State kindergarten entry age or cut‐off date (Q101) Alternate high school diploma or certificate offered to GT students (Q102) Basis on which it is offered (Q103) Washington State policy specifically permits 5 before September 1 State policy does not permit West Virginia State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits 5 prior to September 1 State policy does not permit Wisconsin State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 5 by September 1 State policy leaves LEA to determine Wyoming No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 5 by September 15 State policy does not permit Summary Responses: 43 No response: 2 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 28 State policy specifically permits: 8 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 7 Responses: 44 No response: 1 State policy does not permit: 13 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 11 State policy specifically permits: 10 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 10 Responses: 43 No response: 2 Alternate diploma offered: Responses: 43 No response: 2 State policy does not permit: 22 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 13 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 5 State policy specifically permits: 3 Basis on which it is offered: Responses: 3 No response: 42 212 TABLE 24: OTHER POLICIES AND PRACTICES—DUAL OR CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) Alabama State policy specifically permits Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 State policy specifically permits Parent Alaska No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine LEA Parent State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Arizona State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine LEA Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine Arkansas State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Grade 8 State policy specifically permits LEA Parent Other: Institution, or tuition waived State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits California State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Other: Varies according to school district policy No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Colorado State policy specifically permits Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 State policy specifically permits LEA Other: Parents pay if the student does not complete the course with a passing grade No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 213 Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) Delaware No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Florida State policy specifically permits Grade 9 Other: Determined by GPA State policy specifically permits LEA No state policy; up to LEA to determine Hawaii State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine Idaho State policy specifically permits Age 16 Other: Or have completed half of high school requirements State policy specifically permits Illinois No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Indiana State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits LEA Parent Other: Tuition may be waived No state policy; up to LEA to determine 214 Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) Iowa State policy specifically permits Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 (See Table 32: Clarifications) State policy specifically permits LEA State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Kansas State policy specifically permits Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Other: If special education IEP indicates a need for concurrent enrollment prior to grade 9 State policy specifically permits Parent State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits Kentucky State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits LEA State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits Louisiana State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Maine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine SEA LEA Other: State university No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 215 Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) Maryland State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine Massachusetts No state policy; up to LEA to determine Grade 12 No state policy; up to LEA to determine Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine Michigan State policy specifically permits Grade 11 State policy specifically permits LEA State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits Minnesota State policy specifically permits Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 State policy specifically permits SEA Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Missouri State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits LEA Parent State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits Montana State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Other: Varies by situation State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 216 Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) Nebraska No state policy; up to LEA to determine Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 State policy leaves LEA to determine LEA Parent State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine New Hampshire No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine New Jersey New Mexico State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Other: IEP; institutions of higher education State policy specifically permits LEA No state policy; up to LEA to determine New York State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine LEA Parent State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy specifically permits North Carolina State policy specifically permits Other: Under age 16 by statute are permitted State policy specifically permits Other: No tuition charges State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits North Dakota State policy specifically permits Grade 11 State policy specifically permits LEA State policy does not permit No state policy; up to LEA to determine 217 Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) Ohio State policy specifically permits Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 State policy specifically permits SEA LEA Parent State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits Oklahoma State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine LEA Parent Other: Scholarship No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Oregon State policy specifically permits Grade 11 State policy specifically permits Other: Depends on the program and LEA policy No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Pennsylvania State policy specifically permits Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 (See Table 32: Clarifications) State policy specifically permits SEA Parent State policy leaves LEA to determine South Carolina State policy specifically permits Grade 11 Grade 12 State policy specifically permits Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine South Dakota State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 218 Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) Tennessee State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Parent State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Texas State policy specifically permits Grade 11 Grade 12 Other: Exceptions allowed at the discretion of both schools State policy specifically permits Other: Varies depending on the district No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Utah State policy specifically permits Grade 11 Other: Unless an early college program State policy specifically permits Other: State funds the program; no tuition is charged to students State policy does not permit State policy does not permit Vermont No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Other: LEA decides who will pay unless the student is a participant in the High School Completion program. Then there is a state fund which pays. No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Virginia State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine LEA Parent Other: College or university waives fees State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Washington No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits SEA State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits 219 Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) West Virginia State policy specifically permits Grade 11 Grade 12 State policy specifically permits LEA Parent No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Wisconsin State policy specifically permits Grade 11 State policy leaves LEA to determine SEA LEA State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine (See Table 32: Clarifications) Wyoming Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 State policy leaves LEA to determine Parent Other: LEA if they choose to No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 220 Dual enrollment in college allowed (Q104) High school credit given for college courses (Q106) Pays tuition for dual enrollment (Q107) Grades or ages when allowed (Q105) Summary Dual enrollment allowed: Responses: 43 No response: 2 State policy specifically permits: 29 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 9 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 5 Dual enrollment in high school and middle school allowed (Q108) Graduation credit received for dual enrollment (Q109) Responses: 43 Responses: 41 No response: 2 No response: 4 State policy specifically permits: 25 Dual enrollment allowed: Parent: 24 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 9 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 9 LEA: 20 SEA: 6 Other: 14 Responses: 41 No response: 4 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 22 State policy specifically permits: 9 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 8 State policy does not permit: 2 Grades/ages allowed: Responses: 43 Graduation credit received: Responses: 34 No response: 11 State policy specifically permits: 13 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 12 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 8 State policy does not permit: 1 No response: 2 Left to LEA to determine: 22 Grade 7: 1 Grade 8: 2 Grade 9: 8 Grade 10: 9 Grade 11: 17 Grade 12: 13 Age 12: 1 Age 13: 1 Age 14: 1 Age 15: 1 Age 16: 2 Age 17: 1 Other: 7 221 TABLE 25: OTHER POLICIES AND PRACTICES—PROFICIENCY‐BASED PROMOTION State allows proficiency‐
based promotion (Q110) Methods of demonstrating proficiency (Q111) Advancement options after proficiency (Q112) State allows graduation credit for proficiency (Q113) Alabama State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Alaska State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine N/A No state policy; up to LEA to determine Arizona State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Arkansas State policy does not permit California No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Multiple choice test Essay Lab experiments Oral exam Portfolio Performance Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Colorado No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Delaware No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Dual/concurrent enrollment Cross‐grade grouping Grade/course advancement Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Florida State policy does not permit Hawaii No state policy; up to LEA to determine Other: End of course exam N/A No state policy; up to LEA to determine Idaho No state policy; up to LEA to determine Illinois No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 222 State allows proficiency‐
based promotion (Q110) Methods of demonstrating proficiency (Q111) Advancement options after proficiency (Q112) State allows graduation credit for proficiency (Q113) Indiana State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Iowa State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Kansas State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Kentucky State policy specifically permits Other: State assessment Individualized instruction Correspondence courses Independent study Dual/concurrent enrollment Cross‐grade grouping Cluster grouping Grade/course advancement Individualized education programs Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Louisiana State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Maine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Individualized instruction Correspondence courses Independent study Dual/concurrent enrollment Cross‐grade grouping Grade/course advancement Individualized education programs No state policy; up to LEA to determine Maryland No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Dual/concurrent enrollment Grade/course advancement Left to LEA to determine Other: Online courses No state policy; up to LEA to determine Massachusetts No state policy; up to LEA to determine Other: MCAS statewide assessment Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 223 State allows proficiency‐
based promotion (Q110) Methods of demonstrating proficiency (Q111) Advancement options after proficiency (Q112) State allows graduation credit for proficiency (Q113) Michigan No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine N/A State policy specifically permits Minnesota State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Multiple choice test Essay Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Lab experiments Oral exam Portfolio Performance Other: Transcript submission Missouri No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Montana State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Nebraska State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Individualized instruction Correspondence courses Independent study Dual/concurrent enrollment No state policy; up to LEA to determine New Hampshire No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine N/A No state policy; up to LEA to determine New Jersey New Mexico No state policy; up to LEA to determine Other: Standard based assessment Left to LEA to determine State policy does not permit New York State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits North Carolina No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit North Dakota State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Individualized education programs State policy does not permit 224 State allows proficiency‐
based promotion (Q110) Methods of demonstrating proficiency (Q111) Advancement options after proficiency (Q112) State allows graduation credit for proficiency (Q113) Ohio State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Individualized instruction Correspondence courses Independent study Dual/concurrent enrollment Cross‐grade grouping Cluster grouping Grade/course advancement Individualized education programs Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Oklahoma State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Grade/course advancement State policy specifically permits Oregon State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Multiple choice test Essay Lab experiments Oral exam Portfolio Performance Individualized instruction Correspondence courses Independent study Dual/concurrent enrollment Cross‐grade grouping Cluster grouping Grade/course advancement Individualized education programs Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Pennsylvania State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Individualized instruction Correspondence courses Independent study Dual/Concurrent enrollment Cross‐grade grouping Cluster grouping Grade/course advancement Individualized education programs Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine South Carolina No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 225 State allows proficiency‐
based promotion (Q110) Methods of demonstrating proficiency (Q111) Advancement options after proficiency (Q112) State allows graduation credit for proficiency (Q113) South Dakota Tennessee State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Texas State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Other: Credit by exam; district may develop their own Grade/course advancement Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Utah State policy specifically permits Other: A combination of the above tests Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Vermont State policy leaves LEA to determine Performance Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Virginia State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Washington No state policy; up to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine West Virginia State policy specifically permits Left to LEA to determine Grade/course advancement Individualized education programs Other: Virtual school State policy leaves LEA to determine Wisconsin State policy leaves LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine Left to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Wyoming No state policy; up to LEA to determine Other: State assessment; body of evidence Left to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 226 State allows proficiency‐
based promotion (Q110) Methods of demonstrating proficiency (Q111) Advancement options after proficiency (Q112) State allows graduation credit for proficiency (Q113) Summary Responses: 43 No response: 2 Responses: 38 No response: 7 Responses: 39 No response: 6 Responses: 40 No response: 5 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 17 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 13 State policy specifically permits: 11 State policy does not permit: 2 Left to LEA to determine: 31 Performance: 4 Multiple choice test: 3 Essay: 3 Lab experiments: 3 Oral exam: 3 Portfolio: 3 Other: 8 227 Left to LEA to determine: 30 Grade/course advancement: 10 Dual/concurrent enrollment: 8 Individualized education programs: 7 Individualized instruction: 6 Correspondence courses: 6 Independent study: 6 Cross‐grade grouping: 6 Cluster grouping: 4 Other: 2 N/A: 4 No state policy; up to LEA to determine: 15 State policy specifically permits: 13 State policy leaves LEA to determine: 9 State policy does not permit: 3 TABLE 26: OTHER POLICIES AND PRACTICES Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Alabama Social‐emotional support: State policy leaves LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: State policy leaves LEA to determine Contact time: State policy specifically permits State policy does not permit State policy specifically permits 16 School for math and science School for the fine and performing arts Virtual high school Other: Alabama ACCESS virtual high school only Alaska Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 16 None Arizona Social‐emotional support: State policy specifically permits Academic guidance & counseling: State policy specifically permits Contact time: State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits 16 Other: AP/IB tests for low‐
income students through a U.S. Department of Education AP Test Fee Waiver Grant 228 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Arkansas Social‐emotional support: State policy specifically permits Academic guidance & counseling: State policy specifically permits Contact time: State policy specifically permits No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 School for math and science School for the fine and performing arts Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school AP/IB tests ACT/SAT/Discover test Other: PSAT California State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 16 AP/IB tests Other: Varies by district. Funding available for AP testing for low income students Colorado Social‐emotional support: State policy specifically permits Academic guidance & counseling: State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits State policy specifically permits 16 AP/IB tests Other: The state has 17 multi‐district online schools supported through state efforts and administered by a district Delaware Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school 229 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Florida Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 16 Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school Hawaii Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 School for the fine and performing arts Virtual high school Idaho Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 Virtual high school Illinois Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 17 School for math and science Virtual high school Indiana Social‐emotional support: State policy specifically permits Academic guidance & counseling: State policy specifically permits Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 17 School for math and science School for the humanities (See Table 32: Clarifications) AP/IB tests 230 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Iowa Social‐emotional support: State policy leaves LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 Other: AP/IB exams for 2009 (one time appropriation) Kansas Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 16 School for math and science Kentucky Social‐emotional support: State policy specifically permits Academic guidance & counseling: State policy specifically permits Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy does not permit State policy specifically permits 16 School for math and science Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school AP/IB tests ACT/SAT/Discover test Louisiana Social‐emotional support: State policy specifically permits Academic guidance & counseling: State policy specifically permits Contact time: State policy specifically permits State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 16 School for math and science School for the fine and performing arts Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school ACT/SAT/Discover test 231 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Maine Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 School for math and science Virtual high school AP/IB tests ACT/SAT/Discover test Maryland Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 None Massachusetts Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine School for math and science Michigan Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 AP/IB tests Minnesota Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 School for the fine and performing arts AP/IB tests ACT/SAT/Discover test Other: College Level Examination Program (CLEP) tests 232 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Missouri Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: State policy specifically permits State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 16 Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school AP/IB tests Montana Social‐emotional support: State policy leaves LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: State policy leaves LEA to determine Contact time: State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 AP/IB tests Nebraska Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 16 None New Hampshire Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 17 None New Jersey New Mexico Social‐emotional support: State policy leaves LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: State policy leaves LEA to determine Contact time: State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 16 AP/IB tests (See Table 32: Clarifications) (See Table 32: Clarifications) 233 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) New York Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 17 Governor’s school (summer) North Carolina Social‐emotional support: State policy leaves LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: State policy leaves LEA to determine Contact time: State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine School for math and science School for the fine and performing arts Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school AP/IB tests North Dakota Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine Governor’s school (summer) Ohio Social‐emotional support: State policy does not permit Academic guidance & counseling: State policy leaves LEA to determine Contact time: State policy specifically permits No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits Governor’s school (summer) Oklahoma Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 16 School for math and science AP/IB tests Other: PLAN and EXPLORE tests 234 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Oregon Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: State policy specifically permits Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 None Pennsylvania Social‐emotional support: State policy leaves LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: State policy leaves LEA to determine Contact time: State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 18 School for math and science Governor’s school (summer) South Carolina Social‐emotional support: State policy specifically permits Academic guidance & counseling: State policy specifically permits Contact time: State policy specifically permits No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy specifically permits 16 Governor’s school (school year) Virtual high school AP/IB tests ACT/SAT/Discover test Other: PSAT, PLAN, EXPLORE South Dakota Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 18 Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school AP/IB tests Tennessee Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: State policy leaves LEA to determine Contact time: State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy does not permit State policy specifically permits 17 Governor’s school (summer) ACT/SAT/Discover test 235 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Texas Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 18 School for math and science School for the humanities Governor’s school (summer) Virtual high school AP/IB tests Utah Social‐emotional support: State policy leaves LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: State policy leaves LEA to determine Contact time: State policy leaves LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 School for math and science AP/IB tests Vermont Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 Governor’s school (summer) Governor’s school (school year) Virginia Social‐emotional support: State policy does not permit Academic guidance & counseling: State policy does not permit Contact time: State policy does not permit No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 18 Governor’s school (summer) Governor’s school (school year) Virtual high school Washington Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 236 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) West Virginia Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine Governor’s school (summer) Wisconsin Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine State policy leaves LEA to determine 18 (See Table 32: Clarifications) Other: Expansion of advanced placement courses (AP and IB) Social‐emotional support: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Academic guidance & counseling: No state policy; up to LEA to determine Contact time: No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine No state policy; up to LEA to determine 16 ACT/SAT/Discover test Wyoming 237 Components of GT services (Q114) GT eligibility from other states recognized (Q115) LEAs must recognize in‐state GT eligibility (Q116) Minimum age for GED (Q117) Funded at state level (Q118) Summary Social‐emotional support: Responses: 43 No response: 2 No state policy; up to LEA: 27 State policy permits: 7 State policy leaves to LEA: 7 State policy does not permit: 2 Responses: 43 No response: 2 No state policy; up to LEA: 26 State policy leaves to LEA: 12 State policy does not permit: 3 State policy permits: 2 Responses: 44 No response: 1 No state policy; up to LEA: 24 State policy permits: 11 State policy leaves to LEA: 9 Responses: 39
No response: 6
16: 29 17: 5 18: 5 Responses: 43 No response: 2 Governor’s school (summer): 17 AP/IB tests: 17 Virtual high school: 16 School for math and science: 14 ACT/SAT/Discover test: 8 School for the fine and performing arts: 6 Governor’s school (school year): 3 School for the humanities: 2 Other: 10 None: 5 Academic guidance & counseling: Responses: 43 No response: 2 No state policy; up to LEA: 26 State policy permits: 8 State policy leaves to LEA: 8 State policy does not permit: 1 Contact time: Responses: 42 No response: 3 No state policy; up to LEA: 28 State policy leaves to LEA: 7 State policy permits: 6 State policy does not permit: 1 238 TABLE 27: PERSONNEL PREPARATION GT required for all pre‐service teachers (Q119, Q120) GT credential required (Q121) Require certified GT professionals in specialized programs (Q122) How hours earned (Q123) Percent of GT professionals in specialized programs with certification (Q125) Number hours required (Q124) Basis of percentage (Q126) Alabama No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 18 71–80% An estimate Alaska No No Data not collected Arizona No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours Continuing Education Units (CEUs) Staff development Other: Course hours, professional development hours, or a combination of both may be used to apply towards a gifted education endorsement (See Table 32: Clarifications) Data not collected Arkansas No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 18 81–90% Collected data California No No Data not collected Colorado No No 41–50 % An estimate 239 GT required for all pre‐service teachers (Q119, Q120) GT credential required (Q121) Require certified GT professionals in specialized programs (Q122) How hours earned (Q123) Percent of GT professionals in specialized programs with certification (Q125) Number hours required (Q124) Basis of percentage (Q126) Delaware No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 33 71–80% An estimate Florida No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours Staff development 15 71–80% Collected data Hawaii No No Data not collected Idaho No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 20 Data not collected Illinois No No Data not collected Indiana No No 11–20 % An estimate Iowa Yes Course in special populations Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 12 91–100% Collected data 240 GT required for all pre‐service teachers (Q119, Q120) GT credential required (Q121) Require certified GT professionals in specialized programs (Q122) How hours earned (Q123) Percent of GT professionals in specialized programs with certification (Q125) Number hours required (Q124) Basis of percentage (Q126) Kansas Yes All preservice programs, regardless of the content area the candidate is pursuing, must address the Kansas professional education standards. Gifted/talented is defined as an exceptionality under state special education statutes and regulations. The standards require demonstration of competencies to provide instruction and adaptations for all students and diverse learners, including those with exceptionalities. The candidate must understand how learning is influenced by individual talents. Yes Yes Not specified Course semester credit hours Other: The endorsement requires completion of an approved preparation program for gifted. In order to have a program approved, the higher education institution must document how candidates meet the gifted program content standards for knowledge and performance. The programs at each higher education institution will vary in the specific number of credit hours that are required. (See Table 32: Clarifications) 71–80% Collected data Kentucky No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 12 Data not collected Louisiana No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours Other: 15 hours of graduate coursework included in a masterʹs degree program or added onto an existing masterʹs 15 71–80% Collected data 241 GT required for all pre‐service teachers (Q119, Q120) GT credential required (Q121) Require certified GT professionals in specialized programs (Q122) How hours earned (Q123) Percent of GT professionals in specialized programs with certification (Q125) Number hours required (Q124) Basis of percentage (Q126) Maine No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours Continuing Education Units (CEUs) Staff development 12 71–80% An estimate Maryland No No Data not collected Massachusetts No No Data not collected Michigan No No Data not collected Minnesota No No Data not collected Missouri No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 15 91–100% Collected data Montana No No Data not collected Nebraska No No Course semester credit hours 18 Data not collected New Hampshire No No Data not collected New Jersey Yes New Mexico No No Data not collected 242 GT required for all pre‐service teachers (Q119, Q120) GT credential required (Q121) Require certified GT professionals in specialized programs (Q122) How hours earned (Q123) Percent of GT professionals in specialized programs with certification (Q125) Number hours required (Q124) Basis of percentage (Q126) New York No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 12 Data not collected North Carolina No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 12 Data not collected North Dakota No Yes No 91–100% Collected data Ohio No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 18 91–100% Collected data Oklahoma No No 1–10 % Collected data 243 GT required for all pre‐service teachers (Q119, Q120) Oregon Yes There are some general requirements for pre‐service teachers that relate to gifted and talented students. Some of the relevant objectives for teachers are GT credential required (Q121) Require certified GT professionals in specialized programs (Q122) How hours earned (Q123) Percent of GT professionals in specialized programs with certification (Q125) Number hours required (Q124) Basis of percentage (Q126) No Data not collected • Design and adapt unit and lesson plans for all learners and exceptional learners, including but not limited to students with varying cultural, social, socio‐economic and linguistic backgrounds • Determine the current performance level of oneʹs students with respect to the learning goals established for a unit of instruction • Use a variety of research‐based educational practices that promote student learning and are sensitive to individual differences and diverse cultures Pennsylvania No No 0% Collected data South Carolina No Yes Yes Other: Graduate credit hours 6 (See Table 32: Clarifications) 91–100% An estimate South Dakota No No Data not collected 244 GT required for all pre‐service teachers (Q119, Q120) GT credential required (Q121) Require certified GT professionals in specialized programs (Q122) How hours earned (Q123) Percent of GT professionals in specialized programs with certification (Q125) Number hours required (Q124) Basis of percentage (Q126) Tennessee No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours Continuing Education Units (CEUs) 6 Data not collected Texas Yes Yes Yes Continuing Education Units (CEUs) 30 (See Table 32: Clarifications) Data not collected Utah No Yes Yes Course semester credit hours 16 Data collected but not submitted (See Table 32: Clarifications) Vermont No No Data not collected Virginia No No 11–20 % Collected data Washington No No Data not collected West Virginia No Yes Yes Other: Accept the successful completion of a program Data not collected Wisconsin No No No Data not collected Wyoming No No Data not collected 245 GT required for all pre‐service teachers (Q119, Q120) Summary Responses: 45 No response: 0 GT credential required (Q121) No: 40 Responses: 43 No response: 2
No: 22 Yes: 5 Yes: 21 Require certified GT professionals in specialized programs (Q122) How hours earned (Q123) Percent of GT professionals in specialized programs with certification (Q125) Number hours required (Q124) Basis of percentage (Q126) Requirement: Responses: 23 No response: 22 Percent certified: Responses: 43 No response: 2 91–100%: 5 81–90%: 1 71–80%: 6 Yes: 20 No: 3 Ways hours earned: Responses: 23 No response: 22 Course semester credit hours: 18 Continuing Education Units (CEUs): 4 Staff development: 3 Not specified: 1 Other: 5 Hours required: Responses: 18 No response: 27 Minimum: 6 Maximum: 33 246 41–50%: 1 11–20%: 2 1–10%: 1 0%: 1 Data not collected: 26 How percent determined: Responses: 39 No response: 6 Collected data: 12 Estimate: 6 Data not collected, N/A: 21 TABLE 28: PERSONNEL PREPARATION (CONTINUED) Alabama Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) Yes Data not collected 80% Data not collected Data not collected Preservice: Elective Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Required Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Left to LEAs Alaska No Preservice: Up to LEAs to determine Inservice: Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Up to LEAs to determine Arizona Yes Preservice: Elective Inservice: Required Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Required Up to LEAs to determine 247 Arkansas Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) No Data not collected 50% Preservice: Up to LEAs to determine Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Up to LEAs to determine California No Data not collected 50% Colorado No Preservice: Elective 11–20 % Estimate 20% Data not collected 20% Inservice: Elective Endorsement/certification after initial license Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Elective Endorsement/certification after initial license Up to LEAs to determine Delaware No Preservice: Elective Inservice: Endorsement/certification after initial license CEUs: Left to LEAs 248 Florida Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) No Data not collected 5% Data not collected 3% Data not collected Data not collected Preservice: Endorsement/certification after initial license Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Endorsement/certification after initial license CEUs: Endorsement/certification after initial license Hawaii No Preservice: Left to LEAs Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs Idaho No Preservice: Left to LEAs Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs Illinois No 249 Indiana Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) No Data not collected Data not collected Data not collected Preservice: Elective Endorsement/certification after initial license Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Up to LEAs to determine Left to LEAs CEUs: Elective Up to LEAs to determine Left to LEAs Iowa Yes Preservice: Required Inservice: Elective CEUs: Elective Kansas No Preservice: Required Inservice: Elective Endorsement/certification after initial license Up to LEAs to determine Left to LEAs 250 Kentucky Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) Yes Data not collected 25% Data not collected 20% 1–10 % Estimate 5% Data not collected 10% Preservice: Elective Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Elective CEUs: Elective Endorsement/certification after initial license Louisiana No Preservice: Left to LEAs Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs Maine No Inservice: Elective CEUs: Elective Maryland No Preservice: Elective Inservice: Endorsement/certification after initial license CEUs: Elective 251 Massachusetts Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) No Data not collected 2% Preservice: Left to LEAs Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs Michigan No Data not collected Minnesota No Preservice: Elective Data not collected Data not collected 5% Data not collected 10% Data not collected 30% Inservice: Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Left to LEAs Missouri No Preservice: Elective Inservice: Elective CEUs: Elective Montana No Preservice: Required Inservice: Elective CEUs: Elective Nebraska No 252 New Hampshire Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) No Data not collected 0% Preservice: Left to LEAs Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs New Jersey New Mexico No Preservice: Up to LEAs to determine Data not collected Data not collected Data not collected Inservice: Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Up to LEAs to determine New York No Preservice: Left to LEAs Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs North Carolina No Preservice: Left to LEAs Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs 253 North Dakota Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) No Data not collected 25% Data not collected 15% Data not collected 100% Data not collected Preservice: Endorsement/certification after initial license Left to LEAs Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Endorsement/certification after initial license Left to LEAs CEUs: Endorsement/certification after initial license Left to LEAs Ohio No Preservice: Elective Inservice: Elective CEUs: Elective Oklahoma Yes Preservice: Left to LEAs Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs Oregon Yes Preservice: Required Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs 254 Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) Pennsylvania No Data not collected 5% South Carolina Yes Preservice: Data not collected 80% Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Left to LEAs Inservice: Required CEUs: Up to LEAs to determine South Dakota Data not collected Tennessee No Preservice: Left to LEAs Data not collected Data not collected 65% Data not collected Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs Texas No Preservice: Required Inservice: Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Up to LEAs to determine Utah No Preservice: Left to LEAs Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs 255 Vermont Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) No Data not collected 1–10 % Estimate 10% Preservice: Elective Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Inservice: Elective CEUs: Elective Virginia No Preservice: Elective Inservice: Up to LEAs to determine CEUs: Elective Endorsement/certification after initial license Washington No Data not collected West Virginia No Inservice: Left to LEAs Data not collected Wisconsin No Preservice: Elective Data not collected (See Table 32: Clarifications) Inservice: Elective CEUs: Elective 256 Wyoming Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) No Data not collected Preservice: Elective Inservice: Left to LEAs CEUs: Left to LEAs 257 Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Summary Require training in How general ed teachers receive training on GT GT nature, needs for nature, needs (Q128) general ed teachers (Q127) Percent of general ed teachers with 3+ credit hours GT (Q130) Responses: 43 Percent of general teachers: Responses: 44 No response: 1 Data not collected: 41 1–10%: 2 11–20% 1 Basis of percentage: Responses: 3 No response: 42 Estimates: 3 No response: 2 No: 36 Yes: 7 Preservice: Responses: 35 No response: 10 Elective: 14 Left to LEAs: 12 Required: 5 Endorsement/certification after license: 3 Up to LEAs to determine: 3 Inservice: Responses: 37 No response: 8 Left to LEAs: 16 Up to LEAs to determine: 11 Elective: 10 Endorsement/certification after license: 6 Required: 3 CEUs: Responses: 35 No response: 10 Left to LEAs: 17 Elective: 12 Up to LEAs to determine: 8 Endorsement/certification after license: 5 Required: 1 258 Basis of percentage (Q131) Percent of general ed teachers, staff receiving annual GT staff development (Q132) Responses: 23 No response: 22 Minimum: 0% Maximum: 100% Mean: 27.6% Median: 20% TABLE 29: PERSONNEL PREPARATION (CONTINUED) Annual GT staff development for GT teachers (Q133) Percent GT teachers receiving annual GT development (Q134) Prep programs requiring GT coursework (Q135) Competencies for GT teachers (Q136) Grad degrees in GT offered in state (Q137, Q138) Alabama Yes; 8 hours 85% None No Master’s Specialist’s Alaska No None Yes They are required to take 6 credits in G&T. None Arizona Yes; number of hours left to LEA None No Ph.D. Arkansas Yes 90% None No Master’s Specialist’s Ph.D. Ed.D. California Left to LEA 75% None No Master’s Specialist’s Colorado Left to LEA 75% Counselors (See Table 32: Clarifications) Yes General competencies for teacher of gifted learners are in the state guidelines Master’s Ph.D. Delaware No 50% None No Master’s Florida No 15% None No Master’s Specialist’s Hawaii No 3% None No None Idaho No 50% (See Table 32: Clarifications) No None Illinois Left to LEA None No Master’s Indiana No None No Master’s Ph.D. Ed.D. Iowa No New/beginning teachers No None 259 Annual GT staff development for GT teachers (Q133) Percent GT teachers receiving annual GT development (Q134) Prep programs requiring GT coursework (Q135) Competencies for GT teachers (Q136) Grad degrees in GT offered in state (Q137, Q138) Kansas Left to LEA New/beginning teachers No Master’s Kentucky Left to LEA 25% None No Master’s Louisiana No 50% None No Master’s Ph.D. Maine No 45% None No Master’s Maryland No 50% Other: Gifted and talented specialist endorsement No Master’s Massachusetts No 2% None No Specialist’s Michigan No None No Master’s Minnesota No None No Master’s Specialist’s Ph.D. Ed.D. Other: Gifted and Talented Education certificate Missouri No 90% None No Master’s Montana No 25% New/beginning teachers Yes Special competency in gifted education (20 hours) None Nebraska Left to LEA 85% None Yes Master’s New Hampshire No 0% None No None (See Table 32: Clarifications) New Jersey 260 Annual GT staff development for GT teachers (Q133) Percent GT teachers receiving annual GT development (Q134) Prep programs requiring GT coursework (Q135) Competencies for GT teachers (Q136) Grad degrees in GT offered in state (Q137, Q138) New Mexico No None No Master’s Ed.D. New York No None No Master’s Ph.D. Ed.D. North Carolina Left to LEA 90% None Yes Teacher licensure candidate standards Master’s Specialist’s North Dakota Left to LEA 25% None No None Ohio No 80% None No Master’s Ph.D. Ed.D. Oklahoma Yes; Number of hours up to LEA 100% None No None Oregon No No None Pennsylvania No 60% None No Master’s South Carolina Left to LEA 100% None No Master’s South Dakota Tennessee Left to LEA None Yes Endorsement competencies are new to state statute. There has been a Praxis Exam developed for gifted endorsement. None (See Table 32: Clarifications) Texas Yes; 6 hours 90% New/beginning teachers No Master’s Ed.D. Utah No None No Master’s Vermont No None No None Virginia No 50% Other: Endorsement No Master’s Ph.D. Ed.D. 261 Annual GT staff development for GT teachers (Q133) Percent GT teachers receiving annual GT development (Q134) Prep programs requiring GT coursework (Q135) Competencies for GT teachers (Q136) Grad degrees in GT offered in state (Q137, Q138) Washington No Yes Gifted specialty endorsement Master’s West Virginia No None No Master’s Wisconsin Left to LEA (See Table 32: Clarifications) None No Master’s Specialist’s Wyoming No None No None Summary Responses: 43 No response: 2 No: 27 Left to LEA: 11 Yes: 5 Responses: 25 No response: 20 Minimum: 0% Maximum: 100% Mean: 56% Median: 50% Responses: 40 No response: 5 None: 33 New/beginning teachers: 4 Counselors: 1 Other: 2 262 Responses: 43 No response: 2 No: 36 Yes: 7 Responses: 43 No response: 2
None offered: 12 At least one offered: 31 Master’s: 29 Specialist’s: 8 Ph.D.: 9 Ed.D.: 8 Other: 1 TABLE 30: STATE FUNDING State funds allocated for GT services (Q139) How GT education funded (Q140) Alabama No Alaska No Arizona Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Other: Statutory formula is $75 per student for 4% of a districtʹs total student enrollment or $2,000, whichever is greater. Districts must be in compliance and must apply for their allocation. Budgets and plans are subject to SEA approval. No Arkansas Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Weighted funding Other: Expenditure requirement vs. funding requirement Yes Percent of identified students Percent of average daily attendance (ADA) 5% (See Table 32: Clarifications) Type of funding formula used (Q141) Cap on state funding (Q142) Basis for cap (Q143) Percent of cap (Q144) California Yes From the state through grants Weighted funding Yes Tied to state funds available Colorado Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Discretionary funding Other: Per pupil funding based upon enrollment; if in a BOCES or small district, factors are considered in the formula (small district, # of rural districts, # of districts in the BOCES) Yes Tied to state funds available Delaware No 263 State funds allocated for GT services (Q139) How GT education funded (Q140) Type of funding formula used (Q141) Cap on state funding (Q142) Florida Yes Other: Gifted is partially funded Other: A lump sum allocation is given to each LEA based on the total number of ESE (exceptional education students) Hawaii No Idaho Illinois No Indiana Yes Other: Funding formula determines grant amount Other: Base amount, then per identified high ability students with maximum percentage Yes Other: State line item Iowa Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Other: Gifted programming is (1) funded annually, (2) by the dollar increase in allowable growth, (3) multiplied by a district’s budget enrollment (certified student enrollment). No Kansas Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Resource based No Kentucky Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Flat grant Yes Tied to state funds available 0% Louisiana Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Weighted funding No Maine Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Other: Percentage reimbursement based on local regular education funding formula No Maryland No Massachusetts No Michigan No Basis for cap (Q143) Percent of cap (Q144) 264 Minnesota State funds allocated for GT services (Q139) How GT education funded (Q140) Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Weighted funding No (See Table 32: Clarifications) Type of funding formula used (Q141) Cap on state funding (Q142) Basis for cap (Q143) Percent of cap (Q144) Missouri No Montana Yes From the state through grants Discretionary funding Yes Tied to state funds available Nebraska Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Discretionary funding Weighted funding Flat grant Yes Percent of identified students Tied to state funds available 1% New Hampshire No New Jersey New Mexico Yes Other: Under funding for special education students Weighted funding No New York No North Carolina Yes Other: Funding to all LEAs, based on ADM Other: Funding to all LEAs, based on ADM No North Dakota Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Flat grant Yes Tied to state funds available Ohio Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Flat grant Resource based Other: Partial reimbursement for employing/contracting gifted education staff Yes Teacher units Tied to state funds available Oklahoma Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Weighted funding No 265 State funds allocated for GT services (Q139) How GT education funded (Q140) Type of funding formula used (Q141) Cap on state funding (Q142) Oregon Yes Pennsylvania No South Carolina Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Weighted funding No South Dakota No Tennessee No Texas Yes Other: Both through state grants and through formula or other allocation Weighted funding Yes Percent of average daily attendance (ADA) 5% Utah Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Weighted funding No Vermont No Virginia Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Other: Categorical funding through the SOQ, based on total student population No Washington Yes From the state through formula or other allocation Discretionary funding Yes Other: Full‐time enrollment on a monthly basis 3% West Virginia No Wisconsin No Other: State and local general education funds Wyoming No Basis for cap (Q143) Percent of cap (Q144) 266 Summary State funds allocated for GT services (Q139) How GT education funded (Q140) Responses: 43 No response: 2 Yes: 25 No: 18 Responses: 25 No response: 20 From the state through formula or other allocation: 17 From the state through grants: 2 Type of funding formula used (Q141) Cap on state funding (Q142) Basis for cap (Q143) Percent of cap (Q144) Other: 6 Responses: 24 No response: 21 Weighted funding: 10 Discretionary funding: 4 Flat grants: 4 Resource based: 2 Other: 10 Responses: 23 No response: 22 No cap: 12 Cap: 11 Tied to state funds available: 7 Based on % of identified students: 2 Based on % ADA: 2 Based on teacher units: 1 Other: 2 267 TABLE 31: STATE FUNDING (CONTINUED) Amount of state funding for GT education (Q146) How state funds disbursed (Q145) 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 Alabama $2,300,000 $0 Alaska Arizona Other: By mandate to LEAs who are in compliance with state statutes for gifted education $3,192,500 $3,192,500 $3,192,500 Arkansas To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts Governor’s schools and summer programs $33,239,000 $34,081,000 $24,840,000 California Other: Monthly apportionment funding Colorado To all LEAs by mandate To LEAs through discretionary funding, based on application $6,891,654 $7,361,561 $8,396,099 Delaware $0 $0 $0 Florida Other: The district determines how the dollars will be directed. They are not tied to the student Hawaii Idaho To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts Virtual high school $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Illinois $0 $0 $0 Indiana Other: To LEA as noncompetitive grant $5,800,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 Iowa To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts Other: Line item in the general budget, with required carryover of unexpended budget to remain in GT budget for subsequent year. $30,885,376 $32,042,202 $33,204,910 Kansas Other: Categorical aid reimbursement for special education teachers (gifted) is paid out of state special education funding $24,275 $28,200 $28,760 Kentucky To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts $7,121,500 $7,121,500 $6,836,640 (See Table 32: Clarifications) 268 Amount of state funding for GT education (Q146) How state funds disbursed (Q145) 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts Governor’s schools and summer programs $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 Other: To LEA as part of general funding to districts based on annual application $0 $0 $0 Maryland $0 $0 $0 Massachusetts $740,000 $521,000 Michigan Minnesota To all LEAs by mandate (See Table 32: Clarifications) $8,579,600 $11,441,200 $11,400,600 Missouri $0 $0 $0 Montana To LEAs through discretionary funding, based on application $250,000 $1,250,000 $250,000 Nebraska To LEAs through discretionary funding, based on application $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 New Hampshire $0 $0 $0 New Jersey $0 $0 $0 New Mexico To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts New York $0 $0 $0 North Carolina To all LEAs by mandate To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts Other: Not including other schools related to gifted $51,789,577 $60,965,069 $66,949,383 North Dakota Governor’s schools and summer programs Other: To LEAs with qualified personnel Ohio To LEAs through discretionary funding, based on application Competitive grants Governor’s schools and summer programs $47,305,135 $46,923,339 $48,008,613 Oklahoma To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts $49,401,405 $55,818,787 $56,646,607 Louisiana Maine (See Table 32: Clarifications) 269 (See Table 32: Clarifications) Oregon Amount of state funding for GT education (Q146) How state funds disbursed (Q145) 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 (See Table 32: Clarifications) Pennsylvania $0 $0 $0 South Carolina To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts $29,257,829 $30,451,890 $26,010,220 South Dakota $0 $0 $0 Tennessee $0 $0 $0 Texas To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts Governor’s schools and summer programs Residential schools for the gifted and talented Other: Grants to regional education centers $75,667,563 $87,444,711 $90,894,709 Utah To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts $2,084,873 $2,229,089 $2,352,462 Vermont $0 $0 $0 Virginia To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts $27,685,985 $44,757,259 $45,534,868 Washington To LEAs through discretionary funding, based on application $7,026,729 $8,443,006 $9,430,000 West Virginia Wisconsin $282,000 $273,000 $273,000 Wyoming $2,209,362 $2,302,763 $2,422,205 270 Amount of state funding for GT education (Q146) Summary How state funds disbursed (Q145) 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 Responses: 25 No response: 20 To all LEAs as part of general funding to districts: 12 To LEAs through discretionary funding, based on application: 5 Governor’s schools and summer programs: 5 To all LEAs by mandate: 3 Competitive grants: 1 Residential schools for the gifted and talented: 1 Virtual high school: 1 Other: 10 Responses: 33 Responses: 33 Responses: 33 No response: 13 Minimum: $0 Maximum: $75,667,563 271 No response: 13 Minimum: $0 Maximum: $87,444,711 No response: 13 Minimum: $0 Maximum: $90,894,709 TABLE 32: CLARIFICATIONS Are there any clarifications to your responses that you would like to make? (Q152) Arizona 88. Data are collected for grade level bands: •
•
•
•
K–2: 6% 3–6: 30% 7–8: 23% 9–12: 40% 124. Arizona’s gifted education endorsement requirements include several options for teachers, to include coursework, professional development hours, and years of teaching experience. Therefore, the number of hours, courses, or years of experience each may vary depending on the choices of the applicant. Below are Arizona’s gifted education endorsement requirements from Arizona Administrative Code (R7‐2‐613) <http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_07/7‐02.htm#Article_6> Gifted Endorsements ‐‐ grades K‐12 1. A gifted endorsement is required of individuals whose primary responsibility is teaching gifted students. 2.
The provisional gifted endorsement is valid for three years and is not renewable. The requirements are an Arizona elementary, secondary, or special education certificate and one of the following: a.
b.
3.
Two years of verified teaching experience in which most students were gifted; Ninety clock hours of verified in‐service training in gifted education; or c. Six semester hours of courses in gifted education. Requirements for the gifted endorsement are: a.
An Arizona elementary, secondary, or special education certificate; b.
Completion of 9 semester hours of upper division or graduate level courses in an academic discipline such as science, mathematics, language arts, foreign language, social studies, psychology, fine arts, or computer science; and Two of the following: c.
i. Three years of verified teaching experience in gifted education as a teacher, resource teacher, specialist, or similar position, verified by the district; or ii. A minimum of 135‐clock hours of verified in‐service training in gifted education; or iii. Completion of 12 semester hours of courses in gifted education. District in‐service programs in gifted education may be substituted for up to six semester hours of gifted education courses. Fifteen clock hours of in‐service is equivalent to one semester hour. In‐service hours shall be verified by the district superintendent or personnel director. Practicum courses shall not be accepted toward this requirement; or iv. Completion of six semester hours of practicum or two years of verified teaching experience in which most students were gifted. 272 Are there any clarifications to your responses that you would like to make? (Q152) Arkansas 29. The Governor’s Advisory Council for Gifted Education compiles an annual report on gifted education. 55. We require some of the strategies that are used with IDEA but we are not a part of IDEA. 139. Expenditure requirement versus funding requirement. 146. 2008–2009 year to date is $24,840,000. Records for 08–09 are not completed until September 2009. California 23. AP, International Baccalaureate, and concurrent enrollment reside in the High School and Post Secondary Division. 55. The California Gifted and Talented Education Program is not specifically aligned with IDEA strategies. Colorado 42. Subcommittees meet as needed. 135. Gifted education is a small portion of the general course in exceptional students. Florida 73. African American: 9.70% Native American: 0.31% Asian: 4.92% Hispanic: 23.63% Caucasian: 57.49% Other (multiracial): 3.96% Idaho 135. Some preservice training in education courses. Indiana 73. I wish we could have given specific percentage on ethnicity identification, as we had to include a zero for Native American when in reality we have 0.2%. 118. Indiana has a single residential public high school, the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities. Iowa 23. Not supervisory, but advisory or oversight with College Board and Iowa AP Online Academy. 105. Available for all in grades 11 and 12, identified gifted students in grades nine and ten. Kansas 64. Strong local decision for determining criteria for eligibility for services 124. Number of hours, units required for certification/endorsement = not applicable. Left it blank because it would not accept this response. Louisiana 146. The sum of $30,000,000 as the amount of money appropriated for the gifted program for each of the last 3 years. This is the best estimate Iʹve been able to get. Maine 146. I have not received these numbers from the finance department. Maryland 54. All school systems are required to report on their gifted and talented programs as part of their comprehensive master plans submitted to the state as accountability for the state funding. The school system determines how the funds will be used to support gifted and talented students and there is no formula required; hence, the answer the answer ʺmandated with no funding was selected. 273 Are there any clarifications to your responses that you would like to make? (Q152) Minnesota 49. Minnesota Statute 120B.15 permits LEAs to adopt guidelines for assessing and identifying students for participation in gifted and talented programs. Guidelines should include the use of 1) multiple and objective criteria and 2) assessments and procedures that are valid and reliable, fair, and based on current theory and research. 139. At the conclusion of the most recent legislative session, existing gifted and talented legislation, including funding, remained untouched. 145. Funding for gifted and talented education is categorical. Missouri General: The data collected from our newly implemented data collection system will enable us to provide more disaggregated student data in the next year. 101. Section 160.053, RSMo, states that: • A child is eligible for admission to kindergarten if the child reaches the age of five (5) before the first day of August of the school year beginning in that calendar year. • A child is eligible for admission to kindergarten/first grade if the child is a military dependent and has successfully completed an accredited pre‐kindergarten program or has attended an accredited kindergarten program in another state. • A child who reaches the age of five (5) prior to the cut‐off date is eligible for admission to the summer school session immediately preceding kindergarten. • A child is eligible for admission to first grade if the child reaches the age of six (6) before the first day of August of the school year beginning in that calendar year. • ʺAny child who completes the kindergarten year shall not be required to meet the age requirements of a district for entrance into grade one.ʺ This law does not specify the type of kindergarten program that must be completed prior to promotion to the first grade. Most school districts accept successful completion of kindergarten at any accredited public, private, or parochial school as sufficient basis for promotion to the first grade. A child transferring from an unaccredited school, such as a home school, may be subject to additional evaluation to determine promotion. Exceptions: • Pursuant to statutes 160.054 and 160.055, RSMo, the St. Louis and Kansas City School Districts may establish a kindergarten/first grade entry date if a child reaches the age of five (5) or six (6) no later than the first day of October. • A school may enroll a transfer student that has attended kindergarten or first grade in another state with a different entry age date on the theory of giving ʺfull faith and creditʺ to the other statesʹ entry age law. Parents seeking information regarding exceptions to kindergarten/first grade enrollment should contact the school district in which they intend to enroll their child. Nebraska Nebraska is a local control state. Identification of gifted students is mandated. However, it is up to the LEA to devise a plan based on multiple criteria. The LEA receives funds contingent upon the submission of documentation required by Rule 3. New Hampshire 23. There is no gifted and talented office in the State Department of Education in NH. 137–138. Information on colleges and university programs in gifted and talented that may lead to degrees in the area is not collected here at the department. 274 Are there any clarifications to your responses that you would like to make? (Q152) New Mexico 41. Standing committee supports the person from the NM Public Education Department who is the contact for Gifted Education. 42. Quarterly, but more frequently as needed. 117. The minimum age for a GED is 16, with parental consent and other requirements, otherwise it’s 18. 118. State only funds an in‐kind amount for AP test. North Carolina We are working towards information on district report cards and an annual report. 68. Many LEAs serve high‐potential K‐2 student, not identified yet. Oregon 71 & 73. On all of the data questions requiring percentages that add up to 100% I was not able to use decimals. Therefore, I had to round up or down to the nearest whole number. 146. Since 2007 there has been $350,000 allocated per biennium to fund a full‐time specialist at the state level and in‐field professional development. Pennsylvania 105. For grant monies, dual enrollment applies to grades 11 and 12. South Carolina 124. In South Carolina, we offer endorsement in gifted and talented education at a minimal number of graduate hours of 6 being required. However, we do also offer certification in gifted and talented education at 18 graduate hours. Tennessee 137 & 138. There will be in the 2009–10 school year. Texas 124. We require 30 hours initially, and then 6 hours annually. Utah 39. Utah does not have a state level advisory committee but we work closely with UAGC, especially during the legislative session. 48. The state definition is a guide for the development of local programs. If they apply for funding, the only requirement is that the LEA must use three identification assessments. 51. The state does not have a mandate but the definition includes the following areas: general intellectual, specific academic, visual and performing arts, leadership, creative, critical or productive thinking. 54. No, funds are given to LEAs who make application. 60. Students are not required to be identified. Most LEAs start in first grade. 125. Teachers who are in identified programs must have endorsements or be working on receiving GT endorsement. The total number of endorsed teachers is 1,107 (K–12). Vermont 103. The state does not offer diplomas. However, in our school quality standards, a student meets the requirements for graduation if at the discretion of each secondary school board the student demonstrates that he or she has attained or exceeded the standards contained in the framework or comparable standards as measured by results on performance‐based assessments. Virginia 30. This is a report from the advisory committee to the BOE. 275 Are there any clarifications to your responses that you would like to make? (Q152) Washington 65 & 68. Numbers given are 2007–08 school year data. 69. Cap of 2.314% is funded by the State. Districts may fund more. 71 & 73. Data provided was from students served for 2007–08 school year 88. Percentages recorded were calculated using 2007‐08 data. 91–98. Calculations were based on 2007‐08 data. 95–96. Middle school was defined as grades 7 and 8. Wisconsin 58. Data not collected 64. Wisconsin has historically followed a policy of local decision‐making. 109. State statute permits that credits obtained in middle school would count toward the overall district’s credit requirement, but not for the credits specified in law. 117. Include the actual age, which is 18 years and 6 months 132 & 134. Data not collected 276 TABLE 33: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Impact of No Child Left Behind on state GT programs and services (Q147) Impact of No Child Left Behind on staffing for state GT programs and services (Q148) Alabama It has caused general education teachers to not differentiate for gifted students because of the lack of accountability for gifted learners. It also has caused gifted specialists to cancel gifted services in order to proctor or administer various tests used for accountability. It varies. Some systems are reducing gifted units in order to have lower teacher‐student ratios in general education classrooms. Arizona The impact of NCLB has had a mixed impact on gifted education in Arizona. NCLB has a primary focus of raising students to a level of basic proficiency. This has had, in some instances, the unfortunate impact of schools resetting their priorities to implement a “proficiency” or “deficit” model (focusing on what students do not have) rather than an “excellence” model (focusing on students’ strengths, talents, and potential, or rather on what they do have). While this has led to more students achieving basic proficiency, we have seen a lag in the number of students who have already mastered material showing appropriate growth and progress according to their abilities and potential. Given that NCLB does not specifically include funding for gifted education (beyond the Jacob K. Javits competitive grant program), schools in Arizona generally provide for staffing dollars out of state and local monies. This does have an impact on the ability of schools to hire staff specifically for these positions, particularly at a time when state and local budgets have been in jeopardy due to recent economic conditions. NCLB also does not require, at the federal level, identification, programs or services for gifted learners. While Arizona has a strong state level mandate, this has served to create an un‐even playing field nationally for our gifted learners However, NCLB also provided funding for the Advanced Placement Incentive Program (APIP) competitive grant program and the AP Test Fee Waiver Program. These programs have proven extremely beneficial to Arizona and have led to a huge increase in the number of students (particularly from low‐income and minority backgrounds) accessing more rigorous coursework through more schools statewide implementing AP and Pre‐AP programs and services. NCLB also vastly increase the level of accountability and awareness regarding the needs of English Language Learners. This has led to a more increased focus on their unique educational needs, including their identification for gifted education programs. California Reduction in gifted and talented education program services Not known 277 Impact of No Child Left Behind on state GT programs and services (Q147) Impact of No Child Left Behind on staffing for state GT programs and services (Q148) Colorado The big ideas of NCLB, such as rigor, high achievement, accountability, and parental involvement, work—in theory—for all students. However, NCLB requirements inordinately divert resources to students not yet proficient. For our gifted in poverty or gifted and ESL students, NCLB provides some resources. NCLB, in some cases, overshadows state accountability. The focus is on NCLB. NCLB confuses accountability for gifted learners. Because NCLB does not name gifted as a categorical, some stakeholders think that accountability for the learning and growth of gifted learners is not necessary. The lesser number of qualified personnel in gifted education is impacted by incentives offered through federal funds to earn endorsements in other areas of education. Delaware NCLB and the accountability system have caused school leaders to redirect resources from highly‐able learners who demonstrate proficiency on our state test to students who are struggling learners. Response to Intervention (RtI) is being implemented in our state but only some school leaders recognize that this is a time opportunity to provide services to all students. Staff has been reduced in some SEAs and increased in others. The economy is having a greater impact on schools that offer programs for the gifted as students previously in private and parochial schools migrate into public schools. Florida N/A None Hawaii Schools are more aware of the need to have a gifted and talented program None Illinois NCLB has not impacted, but lack of state funding has impacted NCLB has not impacted, but lack of state funding has impacted Kentucky Testing and accountability have been more focused on math, science, and reading, and less focus and attention have been given to science and social studies, having an impact on identification of GT students in these areas. Louisiana There has been less focus on the top performing students. Services have decreased for our gifted students, especially at the high school level. Maine Less money spent None Missouri They have suffered from lack of interest and an overemphasis on bringing up the lower performing students. We have maintained only 1 professional staff position with part time responsibilities for gifted education. Montana It has been negative. The focus, both instructional and resource allocation, has been shifted to lower performing students. Overall staffing of GT programs and services has been reduced. It is not clear whether or not this is due to NCLB. Nebraska Districts feel pressured to spend more time and money on those students who are below grade level and tend to ignore those at the top end. Some of the teachers are given half‐time assignments such as half‐time gifted and half‐time Title 1. Many gifted coordinators have a full‐time teaching assignment and are given gifted service coordination as an additional duty. 278 Impact of No Child Left Behind on state GT programs and services (Q147) Impact of No Child Left Behind on staffing for state GT programs and services (Q148) North Carolina Attention of high‐stakes testing is not on high achieving students. Locally, some LEAs are eliminating positions for other needs. See previous. North Dakota Narrowed curricular focus with heavy emphasis on basic proficiency None Ohio Emphasis on students ʺbelow proficientʺ diverted attention from gifted education in some districts. A shift toward ʺvalue addedʺ accountability vs. absolute proficiency has neutralized this impact somewhat. Minimal. The availability of state funding for staffing is the primary driver. Oklahoma According to funding and gifted education plans, there has been no impact. No impact Oregon There has been a general shifting of attention and resources to focus most on students who are underperforming and away from students who are exceeding. Same as previous. Pennsylvania Negligible None South Carolina With the required adequate yearly progress, the schools have focused on raising the lower end of the bell curve. One of the required reporting components on the school report cards is the number of gifted and talented students. However, most of the resources for gifted and talented education have remained stagnant since NCLB has been implemented. There has not been a large impact, except on the support services. We have a required maximum teacher to student class ratio and those have not changed. Tennessee In most cases, more emphasis is placed on students who underachieve. TVAAS has been instrumental for motivating teachers to continue “pushing” gifted students to higher learning competencies. Again, there has been more emphasis on the general education program than on related services like gifted education. Utah I believe it is impossible to assess the effect of NCLB. Vermont Emphasis is on schools making AYP and bringing students to proficiency. Often available resources target school improvement, which is often translated as making AYP. Virginia Funding and focus has been on NCLB and taken assets away from gifted programs Funding and focus has been on NCLB and taken assets away from gifted programs Washington West Virginia 279 Impact of No Child Left Behind on state GT programs and services (Q147) Impact of No Child Left Behind on staffing for state GT programs and services (Q148) Wisconsin No Child Left Behind mandates that all students must achieve a certain proficiency on a standardized instrument in two core areas: math and reading. This has resulted in three trends: 1) Since the benchmarks represent a floor, once students have attained this level (or if theyʹre already there) there is little federal statutory incentive to look at continual progress and growth 2) Since NCLB uses a standardized test as its sole measure of progress, there is a tendency to focus on this type of assessment rather than using a wide variety of tools and measures in the classroom. This, in turn, leads to an emphasis on test‐taking skills and a de‐emphasis on critical and creative thinking NCLBʹs emphasis on bringing all students up to a certain level has often resulted in a dedication of funding and staffing to this objective. Programs and services that focus on other areas have been negatively impacted. 3) Since NCLB includes only math and reading, there is a tendency to devalue other content areas, including science, social studies, the visual and performing arts, technical education, etc. This has an impact on opportunities that are available for all students, including those with gifts and talents in other academic areas, leadership, creativity, and the visual and performing arts Wyoming No impact No impact Summary Responses: 26 No response: 19 Responses: 25 No response: 20 280 TABLE 34: CHANGES IN STATE RULES AND REGULATIONS What recent changes in your state statute or rules and regulations might impact gifted and talented education in your state? (Q149) Alabama The new high school program of ʺFirst Choiceʺ with the acceleration option does not require seat time for Carnegie units, and the LEA may determine proficiency in individual courses. California Suspension of district compliance with Education Code and Title 5 requirements due to the state budget crisis. Ability to transfer gifted education program funds to the general fund. Colorado Key legislation impacting gifted education: SB08‐212 CAP4K: Coloradoʹs Achievement Plan for Kids HB 09‐1319: Concurrent enrollment of public high school students in courses offered by institutions of higher education SB09‐090 Parental Involvement in Education Delaware Delaware is phasing in a new state testing model over the next year which is computer based and provides a shorter feedback loop for reporting. Economic changes (teacher pay cuts, loss of professional development days, reduction in resources) are impacting all educational programs, including programs for highly able learners. Florida Funding for grades 9‐12 and development of educational plans for students who are gifted Indiana Effective July 1, 2007, we obtained a mandate for identification and services in grades K–12 in the core academic areas. In addition to this mandate, we received an increase in funding from $5.8 million to $13 million. Due to the mandate and increased funding, we have many school corporations showing increased attention to their high ability services. Our professional development events fill within days of registrations being released, and we have communicated with many school corporation administrators about best practices. Iowa Licensure endorsement change for talented and gifted teacher‐coordinator. Practitioners licensed and employed after July 1, 2012, and assigned as teachers or coordinators in programs for the talented and gifted will be required to hold this endorsement in order to teach or continue to teach talented and gifted classes. The rule became effective August 20, 2008. Louisiana LA is currently in the process of revising the regulations. Maryland The State Board of Education has approved a new add‐on endorsement certification for Gifted and Talented Specialist. Massachusetts There are no state statutes regarding gifted education. Minnesota Minnesotaʹs 2007 mandate requiring LEAs to adopt procedures for the academic acceleration of gifted students has increased awareness of the need to assess a studentʹs readiness and motivation for acceleration and to match the level, complexity, and pace of the curriculum to a student to achieve the best type of academic acceleration for that student. Missouri The elimination of earmarked funds for gifted service, cutting of 2/3 of the governor’s schools budget, and the elimination of state reimbursement for math and science AP exams will negatively impact gifted education. Nebraska Because gifted education is not mandated by the federal government and there are no funds available from the federal government (except competitive grants such as Javits or AP incentive grants), funding is very difficult. 281 What recent changes in your state statute or rules and regulations might impact gifted and talented education in your state? (Q149) North Carolina Adoption of NC AIG Program Standards and development of a review process for local programs. North Dakota State has a funding surplus, so funding went up Ohio The adoption of an acceleration mandate and model policy is gradually increasing the use of acceleration in districts. Revised operating standards for gifted education were adopted prior to the start of the 2008‐2009 school year. Data regarding gifted services for the 2008‐2009 school year are currently being collected. Flexible credit will also be mandatory beginning in the 2010‐2011 school year. Oregon Since the last State of the State Report, our legislature approved a set amount of funding for a full‐time gifted education specialist at the state level and some additional funding for in‐field professional development. Prior to that, we only had .3 FTE devoted to gifted education at the state level. Pennsylvania Screening and evaluation procedures and program elements must be included in the strategic plan and there are additional accountability requirements on the GIEP. South Carolina The growth of the charter schools is emerging as an area of concern in serving gifted and talented students. There was also a shifting in educational funding from a property tax basis to more of a sales tax basis. This has had a huge negative impact on educational funding and programs as the economy has worsened. Tennessee Although we have not yet collected data based on revisions in state standards for gifted, interactive feedback has been positive, especially in the area of identification of students from “at‐risk” sub‐groups. Texas 81st Texas Legislature authorized the creation of standards for G/T program Vermont Emphasis on transformation: Change in wording of statue and intent of EST to include the need for ʺflexible pathwaysʺ for students and assessments around significant transition times in a studentʹs life which may indicate the need for an personal learning plan. Also, changes in the high school completion program to address the needs of both unenrolled and enrolled students. Virginia Currently, the revised regulations are awaiting the Governorʹs signature for final approval. Washington Washington legislature continues to support gifted education in our state. It was passed in the 2009 legislative session that in 2011 gifted education will be a mandate in the state of Washington. Wisconsin The Administrative Rule for Gifted and Talented Education was revised in April 2008 and has brought renewed attention to the requirements for identification and programming. Summary Responses: 25 No response: 20 282 TABLE 35: NAGC PRE‐K‐GRADE 12 GIFTED PROGRAM STANDARDS How are NAGC’s Pre‐K to 12 Gifted Program Standards used in your state? (Q150) Alabama These standards are the basis for the LEA gifted program monitoring procedures. Arizona The NAGC Pre‐K to 12 Gifted Program Standards were integral to Arizona’s recent enhancement to our state mandate for gifted education (Spring 2006). They formed the basis for new requirements that enhanced what districts were required to address in their local plans (Scope and Sequence for Gifted Education Programs and Services). These new areas include program design, identification, curriculum, instruction, social development, emotional development, professional development of administrators, teachers, school psychologists and counselors, parent involvement, community involvement, program assessment, and budgeting. The standards have also been used to inform professional development and local program design and evaluation. California Guidance and awareness to assist with state policy development. Colorado They were used several years ago to develop a statewide programming rubric that is now implemented in every administrative unit for self‐evaluation and/or the Colorado Gifted Education Review (C‐GER). Delaware NAGC Gifted Program Standards were adopted by the Delaware Gifted Advisory Council in August of 2001 and are used as guidelines for LEA programs. Florida LEA determined. Hawaii Reference only. Illinois N/A Indiana Used to write our own state program standards. These are a Field Study Edition; schools are not required to follow them. Iowa As a resource to provide guidelines for gifted programming expectations. Kentucky Professional development. Louisiana A major focus. Maine N/A Maryland Our state guidelines for gifted education are aligned with the NAGC standards. The guidelines are not mandated, however. Massachusetts Up to individual LEAs. Minnesota Many LEAs use the NAGC Program Standards as guidance in best practices for comprehensive district services. Missouri As guides if LEAs choose to do so. Montana Up to LEAs. Nebraska We use the NAGC program standards as a guide in the formulation of the district gifted programs. 283 How are NAGC’s Pre‐K to 12 Gifted Program Standards used in your state? (Q150) New Mexico Program Standards are used as a guide and also to assess growth through surveys. North Carolina Used as a resource for our state’s development of the NC AIG Program Standards. North Dakota By individual programs for improvement efforts. Ohio The NAGC standards were used to inform the recent revision of the state operating standards for gifted education. NAGC/CEC standards are also used as the basis for state standards for higher education institutions offering gifted education licensure or endorsement programs. Oregon The state department uses them as a resource, and many districts do as well. South Carolina They are used in planning of the required three year district plans and the LEAs are using them to plan professional development sessions. Tennessee I donʹt know. I am aware that some districts utilize these standards while others donʹt. There seems to be a big correlation between use of NAGCʹs standards and involvement of personnel in TAG (Tennessee Association for the Gifted). Texas Evaluation. Utah The early child curriculum specialist is knowledgeable regarding the standards. Vermont Some schools/districts utilize them when planning their programs. Virginia With slight modifications, they are the guidelines for evaluation of academic year governorʹs schools and summer governorʹs school programs. West Virginia Used as a framework in professional development. Wisconsin The NAGC Pre‐K to 12 Gifted Program Standards informed the revision of the Administrative Rule for Gifted and Talented Education and serve as the foundation for the revision of the Gifted and Talented Resource Guide currently under way. Wyoming Not used. Summary Responses: 34 No response: 11 284 TABLE 36: OTHER COMMENTS—GIFTED EDUCATION IN STATE Is there anything else you would like to say about the status of gifted education in your state? (Q151) Alabama There are a few LEAs that have enrichment programs that use their own state‐approved criteria which broaden the state criteria to make the program more inclusive. Alaska Alaska provides districts with additional funding of 20 percent to account for the extra expenses for special education, gifted and talented, and vocational education. But the state does not tell districts how to spend this money. Arizona Arizona continues to move forward in its efforts to ensure that all our gifted and advanced learners are effectively and appropriately identified, served, and supported to ensure they develop cognitively, academically, socially and emotionally according to their unique needs, abilities, and potential. In a time of perilous economic conditions and extremely difficult budget decisions statewide, our state house and senate made a strong statement by not recommending that gifted education be a specific area to receive cuts for this fiscal year (09–10)—and we remain, as a community, optimistic moving forward. 2009–2010 will also see Arizona implementing a new, more rigorous compliance monitoring and technical assistance process. This will be achieved through expanding the current monitoring process (which has been primarily an LEA self‐monitoring protocol) to include an on‐site monitoring component. The vehicle for this monitoring process will be our state’s Title I monitoring process, of which gifted education is Cycle V in a six‐cycle (year) process. Our gifted education unit oversees this monitoring cycle through a unique partnership with our Title I unit. Arkansas After 30 years, the state continues to maintain high standards. Support for gifted programs has never waned. California More funding for gifted education is needed. Colorado • Identification and programming is evident in every administrative unit • Improvements are seen in the demographics of the gifted population • The monitoring process was designed and piloted in 08–09 and is ready for full implementation • Early access provisions are working for the ʺrightʺ child • Advanced learning plans will be implemented for all gifted learners by 2010 • The regional network system of support and service is the best thing we have provided to districts across the state Delaware Delaware lacks a systematic plan for the education of this population of students. Hawaii Not a top concern at most schools. Schools are more concerned with making adequate yearly progress in order to get out of status. Massachusetts With the legislature eliminating funding for grants for gifted education, any services to be provided will be at the discretion of LEAs. Michigan The money for gifted programs will be zeroed out this year by the legislature. 285 Is there anything else you would like to say about the status of gifted education in your state? (Q151) Minnesota The Minnesota Department of Education’s current collaborations include: • Board of Teaching: Working to embed gifted education into the standards of effective practice for all pre‐service teachers • Special Education Policy: Working to increase awareness of the nature and needs of twice‐exceptional learners • Aligned Literacy Project: Working on the alignment of literacy instruction with state grade level standards for students of all abilities • Response to Intervention (RtI) Toolkit: Working to ensure that the entire spectrum of student needs are addressed • Staff development and training: Working to impact the knowledge and skill of educators by providing best practices in the field of gifted education The department enjoys strong relationships with higher education community and two independent advocacy groups: the Minnesota Council for Gifted and Talented and the Minnesota Educators of the Gifted. Minnesota educators have access to a plethora of high‐quality graduate level training options in gifted and talented education through the Minnesota Department of Education, universities and the annual Hormel Foundation Gifted and Talented Education Symposium. Nebraska Distance is very challenging in Nebraska. There are two school districts that have buildings in different time zones! We are exploring more ways to use technology to deliver high quality high ability learning experiences in remote areas of Nebraska. It takes money, but it also takes letting go of old paradigms in the delivery of instruction. New Hampshire Needs a higher profile and awareness of the need to provide programs and programming for students who need above grade level curriculum and instruction and the supports and services that may be needed. New Mexico The state is currently studying the possibility of a gifted endorsement to teacher licensure. North Carolina We continue to be work towards preparing students for the 21st century. North Dakota Needs attention. Ohio Significant changes to the state school funding model, including funding for gifted education, are likely for the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 school years. Oregon The current economic climate is hitting all areas of education in our state very hard, including gifted education. South Carolina With the economic outlook not improving, the funds for gifted and talented academic programs, gifted and talented artistic programs, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and a state program for eighth graders has been ʺrolled upʺ into a single line item in the budget. Additionally, the funding for this upcoming year is significantly reduced due to low projections on tax revenues. Tennessee Again, our data collection and ability to provide technical assistance is pretty much at a stand‐still until the gifted coordinatorʹs position is filled. I have filled in to answer questions regarding assessment and procedures as much as possible (as I was the supervisor to Mr. Copas and had formerly held the position of gifted/assessment coordinator). My background is school psychology and I was very involved in the development of the revision of the intellectually gifted standards, approved by the BOE in August, 2007. Utah We are making steady progress. Vermont Currently the SDE is working towards a state‐wide rollout of differentiated instruction which will benefit gifted and talented students. 286 Is there anything else you would like to say about the status of gifted education in your state? (Q151) Summary Responses: 22 No response: 23 287 TABLE 37: OTHER COMMENTS—THE STUDY OF GIFTED EDUCATION Any comments you wish to make that you think will help future efforts to study the status of gifted education in the United States will be appreciated. (Q153) Delaware This version of the survey has been much easier to complete. Questions were broken down into components which address the variables and diversity that is evident in programs across the nation. Thank you for making this instrument more user friendly. Indiana Please solicit and take into consideration input from states that have normally provided the information about questions and timelines before telling us what they will be and expecting that we can make our legislation and timelines fit. Missouri We need to develop one source for collecting data and use common definitions. As long as we have multiple sources (NAGC, Davidson, Regional Talent Development Programs, university graduate studies, Javits grants, etc.) providing conflicting data, we will not be able to convince policy makers of a need to address the issues in gifted education. New Hampshire Suggest that studies target students that are in need of above grade level curriculum and instruction rather than starting out looking for students that fit a label of gifted and talented. That way it would be easier and more direct to provide appropriate levels of curriculum and instruction and also there would be a more accurate count of those students in need of such support. North Carolina Better choices for modes of service. North Dakota National standards and assessments should give better focus to gifted and talented. Will not be as invisible as having 50 state approaches. Summary Responses: 6 No response: 39 288