status of elementary gifted programs - nagc

Status of Elementary

Gifted Programs 2013

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented

University of Virginia

Curry School of Education

Charlottesville, Virginia

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

Sarah Oh, Ph.D.

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through

Grant R305A060044 to the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. The opinions expressed are those of the

authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

http://curry.virginia.edu/

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

Sample ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 3

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

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

Gifted Program Status ........................................................................................................................... 5

State Regulations................................................................................................................................... 7

Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Administration of Gifted Programs ..................................................................................................... 11

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

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

Student Identification .......................................................................................................................... 14

Representation of Certain Groups of Students in Gifted Programs .................................................... 28

Overarching Goals of the Elementary Gifted Programs ..................................................................... 32

Framework for Elementary Gifted Programming ............................................................................... 32

Program Service Delivery Type .......................................................................................................... 34

Student Learning Outcome Measures ................................................................................................. 41

Use of the National Gifted Education Programming Standards ......................................................... 43

Professional Education ........................................................................................................................ 44

Evaluation and Program Improvement ............................................................................................... 45

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 49

References ................................................................................................................................................... 53

ii

LIST OF TABLES

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

Table 2 Respone Rate by Urbanicity ............................................................................................................ 4

Table 3 Response Rate by District Size ........................................................................................................ 4

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

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

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

Table 7 Program Discontinuation or Cut in Past Five Years by Urbanicity ................................................. 6

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

Table 9 Number of Years Program in Existence by Urbanicity ................................................................... 7

Table 10 Elements Governed by State Law or Regulations ......................................................................... 7

Table 11 Elements Governed by State Law or Regulations by Urbanicity .................................................. 8

Table 12 Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................ 9

Table 13 Funding Sources by Urbanicity ................................................................................................... 10

Table 14 Gifted Education Administrator Status ........................................................................................ 11

Table 15 Gifted Education Administrator Status by Urbanicity ................................................................. 12

Table 16 Endorsement Requirement for Teaching Gifted .......................................................................... 13

Table 17 Endorsement Requirement for Teaching Gifted by Urbanicity ................................................... 13

Table 18 District Requirements Beyond State Requirements for Teaching Gifted .................................... 14

Table 19 District Requirements Beyond State Requirements for Teaching Gifted by Urbanicity ............. 14

Table 20 Standardized Instruments Used in Identification ......................................................................... 17

Table 21 Non-standardized Instruments Used in Identificaiton ................................................................. 19

Table 22 Non-standardized Instruments Used in Identification by Urbanicity .......................................... 20

Table 23 General Student Demographics ................................................................................................... 22

Table 24 General Student Demographics by Urbanicity ............................................................................ 23

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

Table 26 Gifted Program Student Demographics by Urbanicity ................................................................ 26

Table 27 Alignment of Black Student Representation in a District and in a District’s Gifted Programs ... 28

Table 28 Alignment of Hispanic Student Representation in a District and in a District’s Gifted Programs ..... 29

Table 29 Alignment of Student of Poverty Representation in a District and in a District’s Gifted Programs .. 31

Table 30 Framework for Elementary Gifted Programming ........................................................................ 33

Table 31 Framework for Elementary Gifted Programming by Urbanicity ................................................. 33

Table 32 Program Service Delivery Type ................................................................................................... 35

Table 33 Program Service Delivery Type by Urbanicity............................................................................ 35

Table 34 Percentage of Students Served by the Primary Service Delivery Type ....................................... 36

Table 35 Percentage of Students Served by the Primary Service Delivery Type by Urbanicity ................ 37

Table 36 Time per Week Students Received Gifted Education Services ................................................... 37

Table 37 Time per Week Students Received Gifted Education Services by Urbanicity ............................ 38

Table 38 Determination of Cluster Grouping ............................................................................................. 38

Table 39 Determination of Cluster Grouping by Urbanicity ...................................................................... 39

Table 40 Most Developed Content Area ..................................................................................................... 39

Table 41 Most Developed Content Area by Urbanicity.............................................................................. 40

Table 42 Most Developed Skills Area ....................................................................................................... 41

iii

Table 43 Most Developed Skills Area by Urbanicity ................................................................................. 41

Table 44 Student Learning Outcome Measures .......................................................................................... 42

Table 45 Areas to Which the NAGC Standards Were Applied .................................................................. 43

Table 46 Areas to Which the NAGC Standards Were Applied by Urbanicity ........................................... 43

Table 47 Program Evaluation Requirement ................................................................................................ 45

Table 48 Program Evaluation Requirement by Urbanicity ......................................................................... 45

Table 49 Program Evaluation Frequency .................................................................................................... 46

Table 50 Program Evaluation Frequency by Urbanicity ............................................................................. 46

Table 51 Program Evaluation Design and Implementation ........................................................................ 47

Table 52 Program Evaluation Design and implementation by Urbanicity ................................................. 47

Table 53 Areas of Planned Program Changes............................................................................................. 48

Table 54 Areas of Planned Program Changes by Urbanicity ..................................................................... 49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Percentage of Students on Free/reduced Lunch in General and in Gifted Programs ................. 30

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Status of the Elementary Gifted Programs Survey ................................................................. 54

Appendix 2 Black Student Representations in Gifted Programs ............................................................... 66

Appendix 3 Hispanic Student Representation in Gifted Programs ............................................................ 77

Appendix 4 Representation of Students on Free/Reduced Lunch Price in Gifted Programs ..................... 88

Appendix 5 Representation of Certain Subgroups of Students in Gifted Programs .................................. 99

1

Introduction

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) released A Nation at Risk: The Imperatives for Educational Reform which posited that the downward decline of American student performance rendered the U.S. educational system dysfunctional, thereby threatening the country’s economic, military, and technological power. The report further asserted that the only way to avoid such colossal damage was to raise the educational achievement of the country’s students. As a result of the Nation at Risk report there has been more federal involvement in educational policies (e.g., No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002; Race to the Top Act of 2011, 2011; The National Goals Report, 1995) and increased attention to student learning outcomes. In fact, NCLB mandates that reports of student performance be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and economically disadvantaged status in those states accepting federal funding. With this shift in emphasis on assessing student learning outcomes, came an increased interest in understanding which factors (e.g., student characteristics, teacher characteristics, or school variables) affect student outcomes. After more than a decade of attention focused on student performance and 30 years since the report A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) took note about gifted and talented students, little is known about outcomes relating to this population or even the policies and practices related to their education. Many states have developed regulations that govern the structures of programs for gifted students and the reporting of the academic growth of gifted students (e.g., Virginia; http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/ed_services_plans/local_school_boards.pdf ). However, the documentation of the academic growth of gifted students, while an important component of gifted education, is not subject to accountability measures and there exists very little understanding of the factors that impact the academic growth of gifted learners or even the programs that serve gifted students. In fact, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Work Group was recently tasked with the job of studying the educational databases that are collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to identify those variables that specifically relate to gifted education (Ann Robinson, NAGC Past President, personal communication). In a related effort, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) at the University of Virginia to conduct a national survey for the purpose of developing a portrait of the status of gifted programs and programming options at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels across the United States. The results of the survey on the current state of gifted programming at the elementary level are presented in this report.

Method

Development of the Survey Questionnaire

NRC/GT principal investigators consulted with officials in the U.S. Department of Education [Office of Elementary and Secondary Education] to identify areas of concern that federal officials deemed important in understanding the status of gifted education programs nationally. Based on the areas identified, the researchers drafted an initial survey, which was reviewed by the Department. The draft survey was informed by current research and best practices as outlined by national level gifted education standards and included questions across the areas of administration of gifted programs, funding,

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/ed_services_plans/local_school_boards.pdf

2

identification of gifted students, gifted program service delivery, curricular emphases, teacher qualifications, and program evaluation.

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

Sample

Sample size was determined by implementing a 95% confidence level with a 3% margin of error, resulting in a target sample of 1,062. In order to account for potential non-responses, the research team utilized oversampling of 2,000 districts at each school level for the surveys. Market Data Retrieval (MDR) provided district level information for 2,000 public school districts across the United States according to urbanicity, district size, and distribution of ethnic groups for the elementary school level survey. The sample was made up of 750 urban (35%), 750 suburban (35%), and 500 rural school districts (25%) reflecting the distribution of public school districts across the nation at the time of sampling1.

To collect the contact information from the sampled school districts, we sent an email request to each state-level director of gifted education or his or her designees in October 2010 soliciting the names and email or postal addresses of the gifted program coordinators in each state. Twelve state directors (Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) provided contact information for gifted programs in their states. To complete collection of the contact information for the sampled school districts, the homepage of each district in the sample was examined if the state director did not provide an email address or U.S. postal service contact information. Email contact information for personnel in 1,357 school districts and mailing addresses for personnel in 643 school districts in the sample of 2,000 school districts across the country were identified using the combined strategies.

A gifted program was defined on the survey as a program that has a specific process for the identification of a group of students who are provided educational options in ways that differ from regular classroom curricula and/or instructional practices. District-level coordinators/directors were asked to report data for their elementary gifted programs defined as including PreK through fifth-grade (or sixth-grade if the elementary school(s) in the district included the sixth-grade). In the first question on the survey district administrators were asked whether their district did provide such a program at the elementary school level. If the answer was no, they were exited from the survey. The survey questions covered information on school district student demographics, size, funding, and teacher resources. In addition, the survey included questions related to gifted programming such as administration of the gifted program, student identification, gifted program options, evaluation of student outcomes and program, and professional education. The complete survey can be found in Appendix 1.

1 The source of this data and classification system is the U.S. Department of Education through its statistical branch, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NCES maintains a database of public schools, the Common Core of Data (CCD), and assigns a locale code to the CCD public school records. MDR has applied the CCD locale codes to the related zip codes, thus providing selection by locale code for all U.S. records.

3

Data Collection

The Status of Elementary Gifted Programs survey was entered into SurveyMonkey® (an online survey tool) and hard copies were also printed. The 1,357 district-level contact persons for whom email addresses were available received an email invitation to participate in the study with a link to the survey. Five reminders over 12 weeks were sent encouraging the district directors/coordinators to respond to and complete the survey. The response rate for the districts contacted by email was 52.8%. The other 643 school district coordinators received a questionnaire packet, including a brief study rationale and directions for completing and returning the survey and a post-paid return envelope. All participants were asked to share any documents from their school districts pertinent to their middle school gifted programs if they thought the documents would add to understanding and/or description of their program. The response rate for the districts contacted by mail was 7.6%. Responses on the returned paper surveys were entered manually into the database of survey responses.

Data Analysis

Descriptive quantitative data from the survey provided frequencies of responses on each item in which options were provided for choice. The open-ended section of the survey and the additional documents supplied by respondents were analyzed inductively seeking patterns and common themes in the responses.

Results

Response Rate

A total of 765 (38.3%) of 2,000 gifted coordinators responded to the survey. Nevada had the highest percentage response rate (4:4, 100%) and Vermont the lowest (0:2, 0%). Ohio had the greatest number of district coordinators responding with a count of 64. Alaska, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Wyoming had the fewest responses, one each, reflecting the small sample sizes of those states. Most states had response rates between 25 and 50%.

When we examined the response rate for urbanicity, we found similar response rates and relatively balanced numbers of response rates. The response rate in rural school districts was the highest (45.6%, n= 228); while 35.8% (n=269) of the suburban and 27.2% (n=204) of the urban school district coordinators responded. Table 1

Response Rate by State

State Surveys Distributed

Surveys Returned

Response Rate State Surveys

Distributed Surveys Returned

Response Rate

AK 4 1 25% NC 69 25 36% AL 48 21 44% ND 5 2 40% AR 43 9 21% NE 18 5 28% AZ 34 11 32% NH 8 2 25% CA 154 37 24% NJ 84 21 25% CO 25 10 40% NM 15 5 33% CT 33 17 52% NV 4 4 100%

4

DE 3 1 33% NY 78 23 29% FL 41 23 56% OH 139 64 46% GA 67 30 45% OK 40 9 23% IA 41 17 41% OR 17 7 41% ID 18 9 50% PA 122 54 44% IL 71 17 24% RI 5 1 20% IN 51 21 41% SC 23 6 26% KS 35 10 29% SD 10 4 40% KY 53 29 55% TN 50 20 40% LA 39 17 44% TX 136 52 38% MA 20 6 30% UT 9 3 33% MD 18 7 39% VA 45 34 76% ME 18 7 39% VT 2 0 0% MI 57 20 35% WA 28 11 39% MN 27 9 33% WI 58 28 48% MO 50 19 38% WV 18 8 44% MS 50 13 26% WY 7 1 14%

MT 10 4 40% Not reporting 11

Total Surveys Distributed 2000 Surveys

Returned 765 Response Rate 38.3%

Note. Of 765 responses, 11 school districts did not provide state information.

Table 2

Response Rate by Urbanicity Category Surveys Distributed Surveys Returned Response Rate

Urban 750 204 27.2% Suburban 750 269 35.8% Rural 500 228 45.6% Total 2000 713 Note. Of 765 responses, urbanicity for 52 school districts was not identified.

Among 629 school district coordinators who provided district size informed by student

enrollment, the greatest number reported enrollment of less than 5,000 students (n=271, 43.1%). The response percent and count for school size are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Respondents by District Size District Size Number of Districts Percent

Less than 5,000 271 43.1

5,000-10,000 140 22.3

5

10,001-30,000 134 21.3

30,001-50,000 41 6.5

50,001-70,000 15 2.4

70,001-100,000 16 2.5

100,001-250,000 10 1.6

250,001-500,000 1 0.2

More than 500,000 1 0.2

Total number of district responding

629

Gifted Program Status

Seven hundred six (92.5%) district coordinators indicated that their districts provided a gifted and talented program to their students, while 57 respondents reported not providing a gifted and talented program. Among the respondents, 107 (14.2%) coordinators reported that their gifted programs had been discontinued or cut within the past five years. The remaining 646 (85.8%) did not report program discontinuation or cuts within the past five years. While a few districts had added programs recently, more than 90% (n=657) of the respondents reported that their programs had been in existence more than 10 years.

Table 4

Program Status Options Number of Districts Percent

Yes 706 92.5

No 57 7.5

Table 5

Program Status by Urbanicity

Options Urban Suburban Rural Urbanicity Not Reported

N % N % N % N %

Yes 197 96.6 246 91.5 211 92.5 52 83.9 No 7 3.4 23 8.55 17 7.5 10 16.1

Total number of districts reponding

204 269 228 62

6

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

Table 6

Program Discontinuation or Cut in Past Five Years Options Number of Districts Percent

Yes 107 14.2 No 646 85.8

Table 7

Program Discontinuation or Cut in Past Five Years by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N %

Yes 32 15.8 38 14.1 30 13.3 7 12.3 No 170 84.2 231 85.9 195 86.7 50 87.7

Total number of districts reponding

202 269 225 57

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

Table 8

Number of Years Program in Existence Options Number of Districts Percent

Less than 1 year 8 1.1

1-2 years 2 0.3

2-5 years 15 2.1

6-10 years 43 5.9

More than 10 years 657 90.6

Total number of districts responding 725

7

Table 9

Number of Years Program in Existence by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Less than 1 year 1 0.5 3 1.2 3 1.4 1 2.0

1-2 years 0 0 2 0.8 0 0 0 0.0

2-5 years 1 0.5 6 2.3 6 2.8 2 3.9

6-10 years 8 4.0 16 6.3 16 7.3 3 5.9

More than 10 years 190 88.5 229 89.5 193 88.5 45 88.2

Total number of districts responding 200 256 218 51

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

State Regulations

In reporting areas governed by state law or regulations, respondents indicated that the definition of gifted and talented students (n=327, 83.0%) and required teacher qualifications for teaching in the gifted programs (n=262, 66.5%) were the elements most often determined by state law or regulations while the curriculum provided to gifted students was least often governed by state law or regulations.

Among the 42 (10.7%) district coordinators in 15 states who reported no state-level rules or regulations, 9 districts actually represented six states (Connecticut, Kentucky, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin) with state-level regulations regarding identification of and services for gifted students at the time of data collection as indicated by the State of the States in Gifted Education: National Policy and Practice Data 2010-2011( NAGC & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 2011). This result suggested that some of the district-level gifted education administrators were not aware of state-level rules or regulations regarding education of gifted students at the time of the data collection.

Table 10

Elements Governed by State Law or Regulations

Options Number of Districts Percent Number of States

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

42 10.7 15

The definition of gifted and talented 327 83.0 43

The qualifications of teachers who may teach in the gifted program

262 66.5 34

8

The areas of giftedness served by the program 208 52.8 38

The age at which students are identified 164 41.6 29

The evaluation of the gifted program 156 39.6 29

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

151 38.3 34

The instruments used in the identification process 137 34.8 29

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

107 27.2 22

The curriculum provided to gifted students 45 11.4 19


Note. Multiple responses were possible. Table 11

Elements Governed by State Law or Regulations by Urbanicity

Options Urban Suburban Rural Urbanicity Not

Reported N % N % N % N %

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

8 7.9 27 19.3 2 1.8 5 12.2

The definition of gifted and talented

86 85.1 108 77.1 99 88.4 34 82.9

The qualifications of teachers who may teach in the gifted program

60 59.4 78 55.7 82 73.2 22 53.7

The areas of giftedness served by my program

59 58.4 62 44.3 69 61.6 18 43.9

The age at which students are identified

44 43.6 47 33.6 61 54.5 12 29.3

The evaluation of the gifted programs

36 35.6 42 30.0 59 52.7 19 46.3

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

38 37.6 43 30.7 54 48.2 16 39.0

9

The instruments used in the identification process

32 31.7 46 32.9 47 42.0 12 29.3

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

23 22.8 37 26.4 42 37.5 5 12.2

The curriculum provided to gifted students

11 10.9 12 8.6 18 16.1 4 9.8

Total number of districts responding

101 140 112 41

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

Whether the district coordinators reported one or more elements of programming governed by the state, the most frequently noted area in which rules or regulations existed was in the area of definition and the least regulated areas were curriculum provided and types of grouping in programs for gifted students. According to the State of the States in Gifted Education: National Policy and Practice Data 2010-2011(NAGC & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 2011), only 31 states mandate identification and services for gifted students. Furthermore, most of the 31 states do not have specific state level regulations in areas of education of gifted stuents other than identification and/or services.

Funding

As shown in Table 12, 92 respondents (29.8%) reported a combination of state and local funding as the source for elementary gifted programs while grants or other sources of funds were identified as sources of funding by the fewest number of districts (n=8, 2.6%). While the research team collected data relative to funding amounts for gifted education programming, the question was apparently interpreted in many different ways with some districts including salaries of all personnel including all teachers teaching in heterogeneous classrooms that included gifted students at one extreme and others including only expenses directly relating to gifted services. For that reason, the research team determined that the data was not interpretable in a defensible way and, hence, is not reported.

Table 12

Funding Sources

Source of Funding Number of Districts Percent State funding only 58 18.8

Local funding only 69 22.3

Other funding source only 8 2.6

10

A combination of state and local 92 29.8

A combination of state and other 2 0.6

A combination of local and other 10 3.2

A combination of state, local, and other 13 4.2

No funding 57 18.4


Table 13

Funding Sources by Urbanicity

Options Urban Suburban Rural Urbanicity Not

Reported N % N % N % N %

State funding only 20 25.6 17 15.6 18 20.0 3 9.4

Local funding only 16 20.5 32 29.4 14 15.6 7 21.9

Other funding source only 1 1.3 1 0.9 5 5.6 1 3.1

A combination of state and local

26 33.3 29 26.6 32 35.6 5 15.6

A combination of state and other

0 0 2 1.8 0 0 0 0

A combination of local and other

4 5.1 3 2.8 1 1.1 2 6.3

A combination of state, local, and other

5 6.4 2 1.8 4 4.4 2 6.3

No funding 6 7.7 23 21.1 16 17.8 12 37.5


78 109 90 32

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

11

Administration of Gifted Programs

The most prevalent administrative allocation for elementary gifted programs was a part-time (less than 50%) administrator of district wide gifted programs whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities(n=176, 42.3%). Fewer than 10% of the districts were guided by a full-time administrator for elementary gifted and talented programs. Nearly 6% (n=24) of districts had a specific part-time administrator for elementary gifted programs in addition to a fulltime administrator responsible for district wide gifted programs. Sixty-seven districts (16%) stated they had no specific administrative assignment above a teacher level position. Among school districts with less than 5,000 students, 77% of the respondents reported that their district-wide programs were led by a part-time administrator (less than 50% time assigned to gifted program administration) or someone with no administrative assignment for gifted programs. Within smaller school districts (50,000 students or less) where no specific administrator was assigned for gifted education programming, district administrators such as assistant superintendents, directors of pupil services or directors of special education oversaw the operation of the program services for gifted students. In contrast, in 49% of the school districts with more than 50,000 students an administrator was assigned fulltime responsibility for district-wide gifted and talented programs. Other personnel listed as support staff for elementary gifted programs included pupil appraisal teams, gifted education screening teams, computer teachers, gifted resource teachers/gifted specialists, art teachers, school psychologists, and counselors whose assignments included services for gifted education. While school psychologists’ or screening teams’ responsibilities were reported to be limited to administering tests for identification, gifted education specialists were reported to have a broader range of responsibilities including identification of students, supporting and training teachers and staff, and/or parent education. Secretarial staff (n=19, 4.6%) and instructional coach/consultant (n=9, 2.2%) were also indicated as personnel who assisted district administration in the provision of gifted services, and testing specialists were hired (n=10, 2.4%) specifically for testing during the identification process.

Table 14

Gifted Education Administrator Status Options Number of Districts Percent

A full-time administrator for elementary gifted and talented programs

41 9.9

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

24 5.8

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

64 15.4

A part-time (at least 50%) administrator for elementary gifted programs in the district (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted

44 10.6

12

education among other responsibilities)

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

176 42.3

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

67 16.1


Table 15

Gifted Education Administrator Status by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % A full-time administrator for elementary school gifted and talented programs

20 19.1 10 6.6 7 5.7 4 9.5

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

10 9.5 8 5.3 4 3.28 2 4.8

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

25 23.8 21 13.9 14 11.5 4 9.5

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

10 9.5 17 11.3 13 10.7 4 9.5

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

27 25.7 67 44.4 62 50.8 20 27.6

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

10 9.52 28 18.5 21 17.2 8 19.1

13


Note. N= Number of districts reporting on status. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Endorsement Requirements for Teaching Gifted Students

State-endorsed credentials for teaching elementary gifted and talented students were required in 194 (53.6%) school districts.

Table 16

Endorsement Requirement for Teaching Gifted Options Number of Districts Reporting Percent

Yes 194 53.6

No 168 46.4

Table 17

Endorsement Requirement for Teaching Gifted by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Yes 44 48.9 58 45.0 71 69.6 21 51.2

No 46 51.1 71 55.0 31 30.4 20 48.8


90 129 102 41

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

Among the districts in which credentials were required to teach gifted students, 76 (21.3%) noted

district-level requirements for training or background that were different or went beyond those required by the state. Among this group of districts, 43 noted that teachers should possess or be working toward gifted education endorsement or certification. Other requirements articulated across districts were at least 30 hours of teacher training on gifted education including ways to modify curriculum; differentiated instruction and assessment; coursework in gifted education at higher education institutions; and teaching experience either in general classrooms or gifted education programs.

14

Table 18

District Requirements Beyond State Requirements Options Number of Districts Reporting Percent

Yes 76 21.3

No 281 78.7

Table 19

District Requirements Beyond State Requirements for Teaching Gifted by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Yes 33 37.1 25 19.8 14 13.9 4 9.8

No 56 62.9 101 80.2 87 86.1 37 90.2


89 126 101 41


Definition of Giftedness

The most commonly identified area of giftedness included in definitions of giftedness was intellectual giftedness, reported by 209 (99.8%) school district coordinators. Other areas that were commonly included in local definitions were creative/divergent thinking (n=117, 55.9%), visual and performing arts (n=94, 44.9%), specific academic aptitude (n=87, 41.6%), leadership (n=75, 35.9%), and academically gifted with high performance (n=60, 28.8%).

Student Identification

Identification process and criteria. By examing survey results and supplemental documents provided by 303 districts the research team was able to discern some patterns within the process of nomination, screening, and identification of gifted students. First, we found that parent or teacher nomination or referral is still a common entry point in the identification process at the elementary school level. Many district coordinators indicated that all students were assessed through general screeing using a standardized test at one specific grade level to identify students for further screening. A total of 82 school districts specified grades at which standardized ability testing was carried out in the district. While the specified grade level for screening varied widely across school districts, more school districts administered group testing in the lower grades (K-2, n= 55) than the upper grades (grades 3-6, n= 27 ).

15

Some districts used a combination of both a nomination process (teacher, parent, peer, and/or self) and general screening measures. Other frequently mentioned points of entry into the screening process were examination of state level testing results and grades.

The pool of nominees established by one or more of the strategies listed above was then screened further to determine identification and/or placement. At this point several alternate branches emerged. In 176 districts (60%), a pre-determined score or percentage on an intelligence/aptitude test or achievement test qualified any student in the pool for gifted education service automatically (e.g., intelligence test score above 130 or top 5% of the district student population). In many cases the coordinators cited state mandates to include these students in gifted programming options. However, additional data was most often collected on these students and other students in the pool for further identification using other data points and for use in further decision making. The range of information sources used at this stage of the process widely varied and most often included the original scores or nominations that had qualified the student for inclusion in the pool, additional test scores, teacher observations, teacher check lists, and/or portfolio ratings.

Once such data was collected, the decision processes for determining which students would be identified as gifted and would be provided services diverged. Some of the policies and procedures described at this point reflected practices that are considered out of date or psychometrically unsound. One of these common paths was the combination of scores using a matrix with points allocated to scores in certain ranges on tests, on teacher ratings to create a total scores. Scores were then ranked and the top ranked students were identified and placed until all available “slots” were filled or an arbitrary non-validated total score was considered high enough to warrant the label of gifted. In a second approach that has been criticized in the literature was the application of a combination of multiple cut-off scores derived from traditional and/or alternative assessments such as a student portfolio, observations of the student, or parent input reported by 67 (23%) district coordinators. In this cases a student had to meet 3 out 4 arbitrary criteria or had to achive a particular aptitude score plus one other score above a given standard. This process creates “multiple hurdles” –each represent a place where a student could stumble and be eliminated from the opportunity to receive services. A third approach, considered as reflecting more current literature on identification included assembling profiles of gifted students and then implementing reviews that sought to identify needs for services based on the data in the profile using professional judgments.

The creation of identification committess was frequently cited as a stage in the process regardless of the process described in the prior paragraph. But the committee decision work varied from nearly clerical affirmation (to affirm that matrix score totals were “high enough” or to determine a cut-off based on numbers of student to be served in the program or to verify all hurdles had been successfully negotiated) to committees comprised of evaluators with expertise in assessment and gifted eduction who used very carefully planned strategies for consideration of student educational needs.

Examples of identification practices. To illustrate the range of identification practices across responding districts, four examples of identification practice were selected to provide a examples of how proceses exemplify or stray from current research-based practices in the identification of gifted students. No districts provided fully exemplary practices, but many had at least some elements of recommended identification methods embedded in them.

16

The gifted identification and placement committee, including the gifted assessment specialist who worked with the student, reviews each profile. The gifted identification and placement committee seeks evidence that the student demonstrates potential for exceptional performance and has academic needs that cannot be met through the general education curricula. New committee members are trained on identification procedures using a review of evidence and sample cases. No single instrument, score, or criterion is used to exclude or include a child for eligibility. Decisions are based on a consensus of the committee using a summary of data to determine if the student demonstrates potential for exceptional performance and has academic needs that cannot be met through the general education curricula.

This example contains an excellent example of research-based gifted identification practices. The

description indicates that no single score cut-off is used to exclude a student from gifted education services. Committee members are also trained on identification practice and use multiple pieces of information to inform their decisions.

At the elementary level, we focus on identification(s) in the following areas: Cognitive, Reading, Math, Social Studies, Science, and Creative Thinking. ALL students in Grade 2 take the full battery of both the CogAT-6 (Cognitive Abilities Test) and the IOWA/Form A (Iowa Achievement Tests of Basic Skills). Those scoring at the levels determined for gifted identification are documented as such, while those scoring within the screening range(s) are administered other assessments from the state approved list for individual testing or testing conducted in a small group setting. Following the second round of testing, students scoring within the ientifcation range are documented as being identified as gifted. The example above displays some commendable practices in that reference is made to a

conception/definition of giftedness and all students are screened for identification using multiple assessment measures. It is important that all students have an equal chance to be identified for gifted education services. However, alternative strategies (other than testing) for inclusion of students to the pool of considered students are not utilized and a single score cut-off is the determining factor in student identification. The use of a single cut-off score does not reflect recommended practices in identification for gifted students.

Matrix of points are assigned to grades, OLSAT scores, achievement test scores, teacher and parent ratings, as well as WISC-IV performance.

In the third example, the district appears to be using multiple pieces of information to make a

decision. However, those multiple pieces of information are ultimately reduced to a single total combined score and aptitude/intelligence is double-weighted by the inclusion of OLSAT and WISC-IV test scors. Even though the district has collected multiple pieces of information, the use of a matrix with a cut-off score likely places over-emphasis on test scores, combines scores in arbitray ways violating sound assessment practice, and does not reflect matching student characteristics to program services. This is not a quality identification practice.

96th percentile on two approved measures.

17

In the final example, the district does use more than one measure for identification that on first

glance may be seen as reflecting good practice. However, a student must achieve at an artbitrary percentile on both in order to be identified for gifted services. Though the district has taken a first step by using more than one identification tool, the use of arbitray cut-off scores is a poor example of recommended practice relying on multiple hurdles.

Standardized instruments used in identification. The Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) was reported to be the most utilized standardized instrument in the identification process (n=145, 40.3%), followed by Otis Lennon School Ability Test (n=124, 34.4%). Among standardized achievement tests, The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) was most frequently cited(n=104, 29%).

Table 20

Standardized Instruments Used in Identification

Options Number of Districts Percent

A Survey of Students’ Educational Talents and Skills (ASSETS) 3 0.8

Assessment in Mathematics 16 4.4

BRIGANCE K&1 Screen-II 10 2.8

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 145 40.3

Children’s Category Test (CCT) 0 0.0

Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (CCTT) 0 0.0

Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI1) 1 0.3

Developing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT) 5 1.4

Differential Abilities Scales II (DAS II) 21 5.8

Early Math Diagnostic Assessment (EMDA) 1 0.3

Eby Gifted Behavior Index (EGBI) 2 0.6

Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scale (GATES) 48 13.3

Gifted and Talented Scale (GTS) 2 0.6

Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES-2) 25 6.9

Gifted Rating Scales (GRS) 31 8.6

Group Inventory for Finding Creative Talent (GIFT) 9 2.5

Guilford Tests of Divergent Thinking 1 0.3

18

InView 27 7.5

Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 104 28.9

Iowa Tests of Educational Developments (ITED) 11 3.1

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC-II) 19 5.3

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 60 16.7

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-II) 19 5.3

KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (KeyMath-3 DA) 11 3.1

Khatena-Morse Multi-talent Perception Inventory (KMMPI) 1 0.3

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) 23 6.4

Metropolitan Achievement Test 9 2.5

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

Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 114 31.7

Nonverbal Ability Tests (NAT) 12 3.3

Otis Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) 124 34.4

Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) 10 2.8

Pictorial Test of Intelligence, 2nd ed. (PTI-2) 0 0.0

Primary Test of Cognitive Skills (PTCS) 5 1.4

Ravens Progressive Matrices 46 12.8

Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes 0 0.0

Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES) 37 10.3

Slosson Intelligence Test 20 5.6

Standard Achievement Tests 66 18.3

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale 55 15.3

State Assessment 79 21.9

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

Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA) 5 1.4

TerraNova 49 13.6

Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS) 26 7.2

19

Test of Mathematical Ability for Gifted Students (TOMAGS) 15 4.2

Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (3rd) (TONI-3) 25 6.9

The Identity-Form System for Gifted Programs 2 0.6

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking 48 15.3

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) 21 5.8

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal 0 0.0

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) 21 5.8

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test 46 12.8

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R) 99 27.5

Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) 12 3.3

Wechsler Preschool Primary Scale of Intelligence (3rd) (WPPSI-III) 29 8.1

Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT Expanded) 7 1.9

Woodcock Johnson Achievement Test 79 21.9

Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities 42 11.7

Other 98 27.2


Note. Multiple responses were possible.

Other responses include Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scale; Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test; SAT; EXPLORE, ACT; Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (2); Test of Early Mathematics Ability Test; Test of Early Reading Ability Test; Draw-a-Person Intellectual Ability Test for Children; AIMSweb; Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests; Kuhlmann- Anderson Test; Leither-R-Nonverbal Intelligence Test; Wide Range Intelligence Test; Frasier Talent Assessment Profile; Williams Test of Divergent Thinking; Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; and the Orleans-Hanna Test.

Non-standardized instruments used in identification. Teacher nomination (n=302, 86.5%) and parent nomination (n=281, 80.5%) were identified as the most commonly used non-standardized procedures in the identification process. Grades, student work products, and self-nomination were reported as sources of data in the identification process in more than 40% of districts. Table 21

Non-standardized Instruments Used in Identification

Options Number of Districts

Response Percent

Teacher Nomination 302 86.5

20

Parent Nomination 281 80.5

Grades 168 48.1

Display of Work, Audition, Performance Observation 156 44.7

Self-Nomination 146 41.8 Portfolio 122 35.0 Peer Nomination 104 29.8

Products 91 26.1

Student Interview 58 16.6

SRBCSS (Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students) 48 13.8

KOS (Kingore Observation Scale) 45 12.9

SIGS (Scales for Identifying Gifted Students) 30 8.6

Other 93 26.6 Total number of districts responding 349 Note. As respondents were asked to select all the elements applicable, multiple elements could be selected.

Table 22

Non-standardized Instruments Used in Identification by Urbanicity

Options Urban Suburban Rural Urbanicity

Not Reported N % N % N % N %

Teacher Nomination 78 88.6 103 84.4 85 85.9 36 90.0 Parent Nomination 78 88.6 96 78.7 80 80.8 27 67.5 Grades 41 46.6 54 44.3 47 47.5 26 65.0 Display of Work, Audition, Performance Observation 35 39.8 46 37.7 54 54.5 21 52.5

Self Nomination 39 44.3 47 38.5 49 49.5 11 27.5 Portfolio 31 35.2 36 29.5 42 42.4 13 32.5 Peer Nomination 33 37.5 29 23.8 36 36.4 6 15.0 Products 23 26.1 30 24.6 36 36.4 2 5.0 Student Interview 14 15.9 14 11.5 20 20.2 10 25.0 SRBCSS 14 15.9 17 13.9 15 15.2 2 5.0 KOS 21 23.9 11 9.0 10 10.1 3 7.5 SIGS 9 10.2 10 8.2 11 11.1 0 0 Other 26 29.5 33 27.0 26 26.3 8 20.0

21


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

Other responses reported by less than 10 districts included locally developed teacher checklist,

student work sample, Iowa Acceleration Checklist, Purdue Academic Rating Scales, Slocumb-Payne Teacher Perception Inventory, and the Gifted Evaluation Scales.

General Student Population Demographics. To compare the general population demographics to the gifted population demographics in the participating districts, school personnel were asked to provide estimates of the ethnicity and free and reduced lunch status of the students in their districts. The proportion of Pacific Islander students in the general school population was notably small with fewer than 10% of students identified in that category in the vast majority of school districts reporting. In the majority of school districts between 1% and 10% of the population was identified as Hispanic, Black, Asian, American Indian, and/or Multi-Racial. Twenty-nine percent (n=168) respondents reported that more than 50% of the elementary populations in their districts were non-White, racial minority students. Among the 555 respondents who provided free and reduced lunch data, 245 (44.1%) reported that more than 50% of the elementary school population received free or reduced price lunch. Gifted Program Student Demographics. The survey also included questions relating to the racial/ethnic distribution of students in gifted programs and the proportion of students on free and reduced lunch in the programs. The average of the reported percentage of elementary students identified as gifted and talented was 7.8%, with percentages of identified students ranging from 0 to 50% of the district population. Racial representation patterns of students in the elementary school population and in gifted programs were similar across the states and different localities.

22

Table 23

General Student Demographics

Percent Category

Number of Districts for a Given Category

White Hispanic Black Asian American

Indian Pacific Islander Multi-Racial

Free-reduced Lunch

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

Less than 1%

1 0.2 21 3.7 19 3.3 82 14.5 252 44.7 340 60.4 106 19.4 1 0.2

1-10% 46 8.0 355 62.2 354 62.1 441 78.1 307 54.4 221 39.3 398 73.0 40 7.2 11-20% 20 3.5 75 13.1 66 11.6 37 6.5 2 0.4 2 0.4 30 5.5 64 11.5 21-30% 29 5.0 30 5.3 35 6.1 4 0.7 2 0.4 0 0 6 1.1 58 10.5 31-40% 30 5.2 23 4.0 24 4.2 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 1 0.2 71 12.8 41-50% 42 7.3 15 2.6 22 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 76 13.7 51-60% 50 8.7 14 2.5 18 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.4 83 15.0 61-70% 55 9.5 10 1.8 8 1.4 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 70 12.6 71-80% 70 12.1 8 1.4 8 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 8.5 81-90% 96 16.6 8 1.4 8 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 5.2

More than 90% 139 24.0 13 2.3 8 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2.9

Total Number of

districts responding

578 571 570 565 564 563 545 555

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

23

Table 24

General Student Demographics by Urbanicity

Percent Category


White Hispanic Black Asian American

Indian Pacific Islander Multi-Racial

Free-reduced Lunch

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

1% 0 0 1 8 7 1 7 3 2 44 21 8 97 89 49 125 123 71 35 34 25 0 1 0

1-10% 12 12 22 129 123 76 124 134 70 129 160 120 77 109 93 48 75 25 125 150 95 10 22 3

11-20% 4 7 8 15 33 22 10 29 25 4 12 16 0 0 2 0 2 0 7 8 13 8 43 9

21-30% 3 9 15 8 8 14 9 10 13 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 12 27 12

31-40% 6 8 14 8 6 5 6 7 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 19 18

41-50% 13 12 11 3 5 5 8 4 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 26 22

51-60% 17 17 10 1 7 4 6 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 32 23 23

61-70% 11 19 23 1 3 6 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 17 18

71-80% 18 26 23 0 2 5 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8 17

81-90% 31 47 13 2 3 3 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6 11

More than 90%

64 46 10 3 2 8 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 7

Total Number of


179 203 150 178 199 149 177 200 147 177 196 146 175 199 144 173 200 47 169 195 137 171 195 142

24

Note.U = urban school districts; S = suburban school districts; R = rural school districts. Each racial category was a separate question. As the respondents skipped some of the questions asking percentage of racial representation, total numbers across racial categories are different. As some district coordinators did not report their locality, there is discrepancy between the total numbers for each racial category in Table 23 and the sum of districts in Table 24.

25

Table 25

Gifted Program Student Demographics

Percent Category


White Hispanic Black Asian American Indian

Pacific Islander

Multi-Racial Free-reduced Lunch

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Less than 1% 6 1.3 97 16.9 101 21.3 115 24.3 309 65.9 336 72.3 171 38.7 27 6.1

1-10% 58 12.1 395 68.7 293 61.7 302 63.7 157 33.5 126 27.1 254 57.5 153 34.6 11-20% 11 2.3 30 5.2 26 5.5 41 8.6 1 0.2 3 0.6 10 2.3 63 14.3 21-30% 19 4.0 10 1.7 14 2.9 9 1.9 0 0 0 0 2 0.5 57 12.9 31-40% 8 1.7 13 2.3 12 2.5 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 48 10.9 41-50% 18 3.8 6 1.0 11 2.3 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0 2 0.5 29 6.6 51-60% 23 4.8 3 0.5 3 0.6 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 4.5 61-70% 35 7.3 4 0.7 4 0.8 2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.0 71-80% 49 10.3 5 0.9 4 0.8 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 1 0.2 14 3.2 81-90% 99 20.7 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2.3

More than 90% 152 31.8 11 1.9 6 1.3 1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 12 2.7 Total Number

of districts responding

478 575 475 474 469 465 442 442

Note.Each racial category was a separate question. As the respondents skipped some of the questions asking percentage of racial representation, total numbers across racial categories are different.

26

Table 26

Gifted Program Student Demographics by Urbanicity

Percent Category


White Hispanic Black Asian American Indian

Pacific Islander

Multi-Racial Free-reduced Lunch

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

1% 4 0 1 45 35 7 49 33 6 63 29 10 113 115 62 129 125 62 67 61 31 11 11 0

1-10% 17 18 17 92 101 71 82 110 72 81 107 85 32 50 49 20 37 44 75 100 70 37 75 21

11-20% 2 5 3 7 11 9 6 13 9 4 21 12 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 4 23 22 14

21-30% 5 7 6 2 2 6 6 2 6 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 19 16 15

31-40% 2 1 5 1 8 4 5 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 11 18

41-50% 3 5 8 2 2 2 0 4 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 7 9

51-60% 4 11 6 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 8

61-70% 9 9 15 0 2 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4

71-80% 11 20 16 0 2 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 4

81-90% 28 35 25 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 3

More than 90% 66 57 11 3 1 6 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 6

Total Number of


151 168 113 152 167 111 152 165 112 150 164 113 147 165 112 149 164 107 147 165 108 141 157 102

27

Note. Each racial category was a separate question. As the respondents skipped some of the questions asking percentage of racial representation, total numbers from racial categories are different. The percentages presented were computed based on the number of respondents within each racial category. As some district coordinators did not report their locality, there is discrepancy between the total numbers for each racial category in Table 25 and the sum of districts in Table 26.

28

Representation of Certain Groups of Students in Gifted Programs

When the demographic information in Tables 23 and 25 was disaggregated by looking at the alignment between the percentage of certain groups of students in each district and the percentage of the groups in the district’s gifted programs, representation of minority students and economically disadvantaged students in gifted programs was widely variant. For Tables 27 through 29, four classifications were created based on the percentage categories presented in Tables 23 and 25 (0-10%, 11-20%, etc.) to reflect the alignment of minority and economically disadvantaged student representation in each district to the representation of those groups in a district’s gifted programs. It is noteworthy that this approach was not to suggest a “racial quota” in the identification of gifted students, but to take the local context in each district into account in investigating underrepresentation of minorities (Black and Hispanic students in particular) and students participating in the free and reduced lunch program.

When the district coordinator reported that the percentage of representation for the subpopulation group in the district and in the district’s gifted programs fell in the same category (e.g., 1-10% of a given group in both the district population and in the gifted program), the district was categorized under “exact alignment.” If the percentage of student representation in a given group was different by no more than one category, this district was labeled “adjacent alignment.” For example, if a district coordinator reported that 21-30 % of the students in the district were Black and 11-20% or 31-40% of the students in gifted programs were Black that district was placed in the “adjacent alignment”category. The “divergent alignment” label was applied to the districts where two or three categories separated the percentage of the group in the district population from the percentage of the group in the gifted programs. For example, the “divergent alignment” label was applied when a district coordinator indicated that 31-40% of the students in the district were Hispanic, but Hispanic students represented only 11-20% of the students in the district’s gifted program (two categories apart). “Distant alignment” was applied when four or more categories separated the percentage of students in the district and the percentage in the district’s gifted programs. If a district reported that 81-90% of students were students of poverty and only 1-10% of that group were represented in gifted programs (eight categories apart in this case), this district was labeled “distant alignment.” Detailed information about representation of these groups of students in each district in the sample can be found in Appendix 2 through Appendix 4.

Black students. More than 80% of the district coordinators reported exact alignment (n=233, 50.4%) or adjacent alignment (n=155, 33.6%) between the percentage of Black students in the district and the percentage of Black students in the district’s gifted programs. There were 74 districts (16.0%) in which Black student representation in gifted programs was far lower than the representation of the group in the general student population of the district.

Table 27

Alignment of Black Student Representation in a District and in a District’s Gifted Programs Alignment Category Number of Districts Percent Exact Alignment 233 50.4

Adjacent Alignment 155 33.6

Divergent Alignment 52 11.3

29

Distant Alignment 22 4.7


Note.Only districts that reported both the percentage of Black students in the district and in the gifted programs were included in this table.

Hispanic students. The pattern of representation of Hispanic students in gifted programs was similar to that of Black students in gifted programs. While 85.2% (n=396) of the district coordinators reported exact alignment (n=253, 54.4%) or adjacent alignment (n=143, 30.8%), 14.8% (n=69) of the respondents indicated that the percentage of Hispanic students in their gifted programs was much lower than the percentage of the group in the general student population of the districts.

Table 28

Alignment of Hispanic Student Representation in District and in District’s Gifted Programs Alignment Category Number of Districts Percent Exact Alignment 253 54.4





Note.Only districts that reported both the percentage of Hispanic students in the district and in gifted programs were included in this table.

Students in the free or reduced lunch program. Underrepresentation of students of poverty, based on their free or reduced lunch program status was greater than that of Black or Hispanic students. The representationof this group of students in general and in gifted programs were considered in two ways.

While the total elementary school population showed a bell curve distribution relating to percentage of students on free or reduced price lunch, the distribution of the number of districts reporting a given percentage of students on free or reduced price lunch in their gifted programs was skewed with gifted programs having a relatively small proportion of students participating in the free and reduced lunch program as shown in Figure 1. In addition, only 42.3% (n=183) of the district coordinators reported exact or adjacent alignment between the percentage of students on free or reduced lunch in the district and the percentage of the group of students in the district gifted programs.

30

Figure 1

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

31

Table 29

Alignment of Students of Poverty Representation in District and in District’s Gifted Programs

Alignment Category Number of Districts Percent

Exact Alignment 77 17.8





Note.Only districts that reported both the percentage of students of poverty in the district and in the gifted programs were included in this table.

Strategies to identify historically underrepresented gifted students. One hundred forty-eight (58.5%) of 253 responding districts reported using alternative assessments and gathering student information from multiple sources as a means of identifying gifted students from historically underrepresented populations. The alternative assessments included non-verbal assessments, student portfolios, student interviews, anecdotal notes, and teacher observation checklists. Among this group of school districts, 45 specified names of the nonverbal instruments, and the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) was the most commonly named alternative assessment (listed by 37 school districts).

Other strategies used to identify underrepresented students at the elementary level include general screening of all students (n=15, 5.9%), ongoing nomination from teachers and/or parents (n=11, 4.3%), use of lowered cutoff scores from standardized tests (n=11, 4.3%), teacher training on various manifestation of giftedness (n=7, 2.7%), collaboration with general education/special education/ ELL teachers (n=7, 2.7%), use of resources for parents in their primary languages (n=3, 1.2%), and early identification at the lower grades (n=2, 1.2%).

Thirty-nine (15.4%) respondents noted that they did not need to identify students from any underrepresented populations as their school district demographics did not include students from those groups or they did not have any resources to support historically underrepresented populations. In 10 (3.9%) districts, the informants indicated that they were looking at the underrepresented populations in the identification process; however they did not articulate any specific strategies used to identify talent potential in the population.

Strategies to develop talent in historically underrepresented gifted students. While nearly half of the districts (n=112, 49%) indicated that they did not have a strategic plan to develop talent potential in underrepresented populations at the elementary school level, other specific strategies were named across the remaining districts. Among the strategies reportedly used to develop talent potential in gifted students from historically underrepresented populations, using culturally relevant curriculum and pedagogy was most commonly noted (n=31, 14%). Additional strategies included: (a) other learning opportunities to develop creative problem-solving skills (e.g., Destination ImagiNation, Math Olympiad, or Brain Boosters) (n=23, 10%); (b) seeking collaboration between gifted educators and general education teachers, special education teachers, or teachers certified for teaching English Language Learners (n=23, 10%); (c) providing professional development for teachers on ways to provide adequate instructions for

32

the population (n=17, 7%); (d) arranging cluster grouping (n=10, 4%); (e) providing supporting resources such as tutoring, a computer, or expenses for extracurricular activities (n=7, 3%); (f) establishing a mentoring program with university or community volunteers (n=4, 2%); and (g) providing counseling and guidance services (n=1, .04%).

Overarching Goals of the Elementary Gifted Programs

Of the 327 respondents who provided information on overall goals of their elementary gifted programs, most listed process or operational goals rather then student outcome goals in response to the question. While 195 (59.6%) repsondents did focus on student learning activities (indicating that their gifted programs existed to provide adequate learning opportunities commensurate with student needs through differentiation, enrichment, and/or acceleration), most of the remaining districts listed operational goals (e.g., secure an adequate amount of budget or recruiting qualified teachers) or programming goals (e.g., equitable identification of historically underrepresented group of students or providing enrichment opportunities). Among programming goals listed, one cluster of responses (n=100, 30.6%) focused on the identification of students whose learning needs are not met in regular classrooms or equitable identification of gifted students from diverse backgrounds. Other goals of note included providing teacher training and professional development (n=51, 15.6%), promoting collaboration between gifted education teachers and regular classroom teachers (n=8, 2.4%), supporting social/emotional needs through counseling and guidance service (n=39, 11.9%) , promoting learner independence with self-directed study (n=16, 4.9%), facilitating a supportive learning environment with like-ability students through cluster grouping or pull-out programs (n=15, 4.6%), establishing a link with parents and community (n=13, 4.0%), and developing a quality curriculum (n=6, 1.8%). Student skills noted as programs goals included critical/creative-thinking skills (n=54, 16.5%), problem solving skills (n=24, 7.3%), leadership skills (n=7, 2.1%), 21st century learning skills (n=3, 0.9%), and research skills (n=2, 0.6%). Responses reported by fewer than five respondents include promoting self-awareness of gifts and talents, developing civil responsibilities, improving language proficiency and communication skills, ensuring adequate budget, offering afterschool extracurricular activities, overseeing the use of educational resources, and facilitating presentations using technology.

Framework for Elementary Gifted Programming

Tomlinson’s Differentiated Instruction Model (Tomlinson, 2001) was selected as the model guiding elementary gifted program services in 169 districts (43.4%). One hundred twenty-five respondents (32.1%) indicated that in their district no particular model guided their gifted curriculum planning. Renzulli’s Enrichment Clusters Model (Renzulli &Reis, 1985) was named by 84 (21.65) respondents and Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity Model (Kaplan, 2005) was named by 82 (21.1%). Other models were named significantly less frequently. Several respondents also indicated that different buildings embraced different approaches with no common district model. A combination of the listed models was indicated as a choice by 10 respondents.

33

Table 30

Framework for Elementary Gifted Programming Options Number of Districts Percent

No particular model 125 32.1

Model of Differentiated Instruction(Tomlinson) 169 43.4

Enrichment Clusters (Renzulli) 84 21.6

Depth and Complexity Model (Kaplan) 82 21.1

Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli) 58 14.9

Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson et.al.) 46 11.8

Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli) 42 10.8

Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli) 31 8.0

Autonomous Learner Model (Betts) 27 6.9

Purdue 3-stage Model 4 1.0

SMPY Model 1 0.3

Other 70 18.0


Note.The question allowed multiple responses Table 31

Framework for Elementary Gifted Programming by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % No particular model 25 25.0 41 29.1 43 39.1 16 42.1

Model of Differentiated Curriculum (Tomlinson) 48 48.0 63 44.7 40 36.4 18 47.4

Enrichment Clusters (Renzulli) 22 22.0 33 23.4 20 18.2 9 23.7

Depth and Complexity Model (Kaplan) 32 32.0 34 24.1 13 11.8 3 7.9

Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli) 17 17.0 20 14.2 15 13.6 6 15.8

34

Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, et.al.) 18 18.0 18 12.8 6 5.5 4 10.5

Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli) 6 6.0 17 12.1 13 11.8 6 15.8

Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli) 10 10.0 18 12.8 0 0 3 7.9

Autonomous Learner Model (Betts) 8 8.0 12 8.5 4 3.6 3 7.9

Purdue 3-stage Model 2 2.0 1 0.7 0 0 1 2.6

SMPY Model 0 0 1 0.7 0 0 0 0

Other 25 25.0 22 15.6 17 15.5 6 15.8



Programming model goals. Although the intent of the question asking respondents to provide specific measurable goals for the programming model was to elicit goals different from the overall goal of gifted services solicited in the earlier question, responses were very similar to those listed as the gifted program goals. Among 288 answers provided, the goal of “meeting gifted students’ learning needs with expanded and differentiated curriculum through acceleration and enrichment opportunities” or similarly stated goal statements dominated the responses (n=168, 58.3%). Outcome goals such as critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and/or creative thinking skills were listed by respondents from 107 districts (37.2%). Other responses included facilitating self-directed, independent learning (n=43, 14.9%); providing supportive learning environment with intellectual peers (n=40, 13.9%); supporting gifted students’ affective needs (n=39, 13.5%); and promoting student academic achievement (n=10, 3.5%).

Program Service Delivery Type2

Part-time pull-out classes were identified as the programming model most used to deliver services (n=213, 51.9%) followed by cluster grouping (n=75, 18.4%). Other options may have been used in those districts, but the question asked only for the primary service delivery model. As noted below, however, the model named as the programing model most used was nearly always used exclusively or for the vast majority of students.

2 Program service delivery type is the term used in this report to refer to administrative groupings or gifted program delivery options including pull-out program models, in-class instruction for gifted students, acceleration, full time classes for the gifted, etc.

35

Table 32

Program Service Delivery Type Options Number of Districts Percent Part-time pull-out classes 213 51.9

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

75 18.4

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

32 8.0

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

23 5.7

Acceleration by content area (e.g., sending a student to a higher level class for mathematics instruction with older children)

7 1.7

A full-time school for gifted students 6 1.5

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

4 1.0

Distance learning or online opportunities 1 0.2

Acceleration by grade 1 0.2

Other 40 11.7


Table 33

Program Service Delivery Type by Urbanicity


Not Reported

N % N % N % N % Part time Pullout 53 52.0 66 46.2 69 60.0 18 42.9

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

27 26.5 28 19.6 17 14.8 2 4.8

Special Classes 6 5.9 17 11.9 8 7.0 1 2.4

36

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

4 3.9 8 5.6 10 8.7 1 2.4

Acceleration by content 0 0 4 2.8 3 2.6 0 0

Full-time School 2 2.0 2 1.4 1 0.9 1 2.4

After school

0 0 3 2.1 0 0 1 2.4

Distance learning

0 0 0 0 1 0.9 0 0

Acceleration by grade 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 0 0

Other 10 9.8 15 10.5 5 4.4 18 42.9



Proportion of the gifted students served by the primary service delivery type. Respondents were asked what percentage of students were served by the model that they indicated as the primary model used to provide gifted services to students in their district. Nearly 50% of the districts reported that they served 100% of the identified students through their primary service model. Another 30.7% (n=112) of districts served between 75 and 99 percent of identified gifted students through the model selected as the primary service model. This finding suggests that few districts provide levels of services or multiple alternative service delivery models to meet varying students’ needs.

Table 34

Percentage of Students Served by the Primary Service Delivery Type Options Number of Districts Percent 100% 174 47.7

75-99% 112 30.7

50-74% 40 11.0

25-49% 17 4.7

Less than 25% 22 6.0


37

Table 35

Percentage of Identified Students Served by the Primary Service Deliverty Type by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % 100% 43 44.3 60 45.1 55 54.5 16 47.1

75-99% 35 36.1 43 32.3 23 22.8 11 32.4

50-74% 11 11.3 13 9.8 12 11.9 4 11.8

25-49% 6 6.2 8 6.0 2 1.9 1 2.9

Less than 25% 2 2.1 9 6.8 9 8.9 2 5.9

Total districts responding 97 133 101 34

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

Amount of time students received gifted education services. Nearly 50% of the respondents indicated that gifted students received services through the primary service delivery model for one to four hours per week (n=189, 49.3%). This finding reflects the dominance of pull-out programs noted above. However, responses in the “other” category (n=64, 16.7%) suggest that the time services are offered in some districts is variable across schools or falls somewhere between listed categories. For example, in the 15 comments regarding the amount of time students were provided services per week, nine respondents indicated that the decision depended on leadership or teachers at the building level. Other responses included two days per week and one day every other week.

Table 36

Time per Week Students Received Gifted Education Services Options Number of Districts Percent Less than an hour per week 19 5.0

1-4 hours per week 189 49.3

One day per week 43 11.2

All the time 68 17.8

Other 64 16.7


38

Table 37

Time per Week Students Received Gifted Education Services by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Less than an hour per week 3 3.0 5 3.6 8 7.4 3 7.7

1-4 hours per week 46 46.5 67 48.9 53 49.1 23 59.0

One day per week 10 10.1 19 13.9 13 12.0 1 2.6

All of their time 20 20.2 29 21.2 14 13.0 5 12.8

Other 20 20.2 17 12.4 20 18.5 7 18.0


Note. N= Number of districts reporting on status. %= Percent of the districts reporting the category. The percentages were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group. Cluster Grouping. Of the 264 districts where respondents indicated use of cluster grouping, the school principal made the decision as to how cluster groups were created and assigned in 111 (42.0%) districts. A total of 51respondents selected “other” with 11 indicating that cluster grouping was not considered a model to be used in gifted programming. Among the remaining 40 districts, 36 respondents indicated that cluster-groups were determined through a collaborative decision-making process among teachers, gifted coordinators, and principals in accordance with state or district level regulations or policies.

Table 38

Determination of Cluster Grouping Options Number of Districts Percent Principal decision 111 42.0

District policy 41 15.5

Teacher decision 31 11.7

Coordinator decision 30 11.3

Other 51 19.3


39

Table 39

Determination of Cluster Grouping by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Principal 35 50.7 33 35.1 26 31.7 8 42.1

District 12 17.4 17 18.1 10 12.2 2 10.5

Teacher 5 7.3 8 8.5 15 18.3 0 0

Coordinator 4 5.8 11 11.7 10 12.2 1 5.26

Other 13 18.8 25 26.6 21 25.6 8 42.1



Curricular materials used. In response to the questions about curricular materials used by teachers for instruction of gifted students, 199 (66%) out of 301 district coordinators listed one or more published curricular resources or materials. The identified curricular materials included Junior Great Books (n=107, 36%), College of William and Mary units (n=93, 31%), Connected Math (n=50, 17%), Thinking Skills Resources (n=41, 14%), Parallel Curriculum Materials (n=36, 12%), Project Mentoring Mathematical Minds (n=18, 6%), Depth and Complexity prompts (n=13, 4%), Renzulli Learning Systems (n=9, 3%), Michael Clay Thompson Materials (n=8, 3%), and Jacob’s Ladder (n=7, 2%). The remaining respondents (25%) reported that no particular curricular materials were used in gifted programs at the elementary level.

Most developed content area. Language arts was identified as the most well-developed content area for elementary gifted and talented students by the largest number of respondents (n=162, 47.2%). In 62 districts(16.7%) mathematics was selected as the most developed content area. Each of the other areas was noted as most developed by less than 10% of the respondents. Reponses in the “other” catetory indicated that the programs were characterized by a balanced development across the core content areas of English, Mathematics, Science, and/or the Social Studies.

Table 40

Most Developed Content Area Options Number of Districts Percent Language Arts 162 47.2

Mathematics 62 18.1

40

Science and Technology 36 10.5

Social Sciences 22 6.4

Visual and Performing Arts 6 1.7

Other 55 16.0


Table 41

Most Developed Content Area by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Language Arts 44 45.8 61 44.9 45 44.1 12 32.4

Mathematics 14 14.6 24 17.7 19 18.6 5 13.5

Science and Technology 9 9.4 12 12.8 13 12.8 2 5.4

Social Sciences 4 4.2 12 12.8 6 5.9 0 0

Visual and Performing Arts 1 1.0 3 2.2 2 2.0 0 0.0

Other 24 25.0 24 17.6 17 16.7 18 48.6


Note. N= Number of school districts reporting the category. %= Percentage of the districts reporting the category. The percentages were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

Most Developed Skills Area. Creative-thinking skills were identified most frequently as the most developed skill area by respondents (112; 30.9%). While respondents were asked to identify the most developed set of skills, 54 (15.3%) districts indicated all the presented sets of skills were equally developed.

41

Table 42

Most Developed Skill Area Options Number of Districts Percent Creative thinking skills 112 30.9

Metacognitive skills 68 18.8

Research skills 41 11.3

Communication skills 28 7.7

Writing skills 20 5.5

Affective skills 5 1.4

Other 88 24.3


Table 43

Most Developed Skill Area by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Creative thinking skills 34 35.4 40 30.0 33 32.7 5 12.1

Metacognitive skills 18 18.8 23 17.4 23 22.8 4 12.1

Research skills 9 9.4 18 13.6 13 12.9 1 3.0

Communication skills 9 9.4 10 7.6 7 6.9 2 6.1

Writing skills 4 4.2 9 6.8 5 5.0 2 6.1

Affective skills 3 3.1 2 1.5 0 0 0 0.0

Others 19 19.8 30 22.7 20 19.8 19 57.6


Note. N=Number of school districts reporting the category. %= Percentage of the districts reporting the category. The percentages were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

Student Learning Outcome Measures

Informal assessments including teacher-developed rubrics, classroom observations, interviews, or surveys were the methods utilized for measuring student learning outcomes in 128 districts (40.1%). In 57

42

districts (17.9%), respondents reported using norm-referenced tests (e.g., Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)) to measure student outcomes while 49 districts (15.4%) used criterion-referenced assessments (e.g., state benchmark tests). In a number of districts a combination of these measures were used to assess student outcomes.

Table 44

Student Outcome Measures

Type of Measure Number of Districts Reporting

Percent

Informal assessments only (e.g., teacher developed rubric, observation, survey, or checklist)

128 40.1

Norm-referenced assessment(s) only (e.g., achievement, cognitive ability tests)

57 17.9

Criterion-referenced assessment(s) only (e.g., state or district benchmark tests)

49 15.4

A combination of criterion-referenced assessment(s) and informal assessment

24 7.5

A combination of criterion-referenced assessment(s) and norm-referenced assessments

16 5.0

A combination of norm-referenced test(s) and informal assessments

16 5.0

A combination of criterion-referenced, norm-referenced, and informal assessments

8 2.5

No outcome measures utilized 21 6.6 Total number of districts responding 319

Results of measuring student learning outcomes. Among the 187 responses to the question of how results from student learning outcomes were used, 67 (35.8%) indicated that state benchmark testing results had been presented to the stakeholders across the school system interested in the gifted programs’ success. But, the respondents did not elaborate on decisions made based on the outcome data or how the outcome results impacted policy or practices relating to elementary gifted program services. Within this group of respondents, 12 commented on their frustration relating to the evaluation of student outcomes with state benchmark testing. They noted lack of consistency and resulting difficulty in establishing baseline and longitudinal data. In an additional 120 districts(64.2%), informants indicated that they did not have any evaluation system or they were in the process of establishing an evaluation system. Using student outcome results for program improvement such as curriculum and instruction modification or professional development was cited only 15 times (8.0%).

43

Use of the National Gifted Education Programming Standards

In order to guide school districts in the use of recommended best practices in gifted education, The National Association for Gifted Children issued the Pre K-Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards (NAGC, 2010). The stated purpose for the Standards is to help educators in Pre-K-12 settings be effective in working with gifted learners by helping them understand the characteristics and needs of the population for whom they are planning curriculum, instruction, assessment, programs, and services and to guide the planning of programs for those students. While 161 (46.4%) of those responding to the question indicated that NAGC Standards were not used in their districts, a total of 186 (53.6%) districts reported using the NAGC Standards in guiding some aspect of their decision-making. Among those who were using the NAGC Standards, the greatest number of respondents reported applying the standards in the area of curriculum planning and instruction (n=156, 45.0%).

Table 45

Areas to Which the NAGC Standards Were Applied Answer Options Number of Districts Percent Currently not using the standards 161 46.4

Curriculum planning and instruction 156 45.0

Programming 134 38.6

Learning and development 133 38.3

Assessment 126 36.3

Professional development 124 35.7

Learning environments 117 33.7


Note. The question allowed multiple responses. Table 46

Areas to Which the NAGC Standards Were Applied by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Currently not using the standards

38 41.8 57 46.3 47 48.0 19 54.3

Curriculum planning and instruction

45 49.5 57 46.3 42 42.9 12 34.3

Programming

38 41.8 48 39.0 37 37.8 11 31.4

Learning and development

39 42.9 47 38.2 36 36.7 11 31.4

44

Assessment

39 42.9 45 36.6 33 33.7 9 25.7

Professional development 37 40.7 46 37.4 33 33.7 8 22.9

Learning environments

33 36.3 48 39.0 29 29.6 7 20.0

Total districts responding 91 123 98 35

Note. N=Number of school districts reporting the category. %= Percentage of the districts reporting the category. Respondents were asked to select all the standards applicable, multiple standards could be selected. The percentages were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

Professional Education

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

Desired qualities and characteristics of teachers of gifted students. Among the 279 responses to the question requesting information on desired qualities and characteristics of teachers of gifted students, add-on endorsement or certification in gifted education was listed by 168 respondents (60.2%) as the most desirable qualification for teachers of the gifted. Ability to provide adequate curriculum and instruction for gifted students (n=53, 18.9%), prior experience in teaching gifted students (n=53, 18.9%), knowledge and understanding of gifted students’ needs (n=47, 16.8%), training in gifted education (n=21, 7.5%), strong content knowledge (n=19, 6.8%), or competency in using educational technology (n=5, 1.8%) were other reported qualifications considered as desirable in teachers of the gifted.

In the realm of desired teacher characteristics, flexibility (n=105, 37.6%) and creativity (n=79, 28.3%) were listed as the most desired teacher attributes. Other desireable teacher attributes listed included: positive attitude toward teaching gifted students (n=47, 16.8%), high intelligence (n=22, 7.8%), good communication skills (n=15, 5.4%), willingness to work with diverse student populations (n=13, 4.7%), willingness to collaborate with other educators and parents (n=12, 4.3%), good organization skills (n=7, 2.5%), and interpersonal skills (n=6, 2.1%). Other characteristics with less than five responses include leadership skills, risk-taking, aesthetic, lifelong learners, efficiency, self-confidence, dynamic, and dramatic.

Staff development activities. A total of 288 respondents reported in-house or outsourced staff development activities focused on gifted students provided to elementary level general education teachers. The content of the professional development included differentiation (n=99, 34.4%), followed by identification of gifted students (n=45, 15.6%), characteristics and needs of gifted students (n=31, 10.7%), curriculum development and modification (n=28, 9.7%), social emotional needs of gifted students (n=12, 4.2%), and assessment (n=11, 3.8%). Other content areas for professional development

45

(less than 10 responses) included creativity, critical thinking skills, gifted programming, technology integration, gifted service plan development, problem-based learning, questioning skills, and research skills. For 83 (28.8%) of the districts, the content of professional development activities was not specified, and in 40 (13.9%) districts no professional activities for elementary level teachers focused on gifted students.

Professional development commitments varied widely from district to district ranging from as low as 15 minutes per year to four days per year. Although the number of professional development hours provided to elementary level teachers was not specified for 89 of the respondents, in 15 school districts a specified number of hours of professional development activities for elementary level general and gifted education teachers was required. The professional development time for this group of districts ranged from 3 hours to 18 hours yearly.

Evaluation and Program Improvement

Program evaluation requirement. Nearly 50% (n=186) of respondents indicated that the district required evaluation of the elementary gifted program. One hundred one districts (59.8%) reported yearly evaluations. Table 47

Program Evaluation Requirement Answer Options Number of Districts Reporting Percent Yes 186 48.8

No 195 51.2

Table 48

Program Evaluation Requirement by Urbanicity



Yes 56 59.0 57 41.0 53 50.0 20 48.8

No 39 41.0 82 59.0 53 50.0 21 51.2


95 139 106 41

Note. N= Number of school districts reporting the category. %= Percentage of the districts reporting the category. The percentages were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group.

46

Table 49

Program Evaluation Frequency Options Number of Districts

Reporting Percent

Never 1 0.6

Every year 101 59.8

Every two years 12 7.1

Every three to five years 36 21.3

Less frequently than every five years 19 11.2


Table 50

Program Evaluation Frequency by Urbanicity



Never 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Every year 28 56 27 54 38 76 8 42.1

Every two years 4 8 5 10 1 2 2 10.5

Every three to five years 9 18 11 22 10 20 6 31.6

Less frequently than every five years 8 16 7 12 1 2 3 15.8



Program evaluation design and implementation. Evaluations were characterized as in-house evaluations carried out by educators working in the program in 79 districts (47.6%). Rarely was it reported that program evaluation was carried out by a professional outside evaluator (n=11, 6.6%). Not surprisingly urban districts were more likely to use external evaluators and rural districts were more likely to conduct in-house evaluations.

47

Table 51

Program Evaluation Design and Implementation

Options Number of District Reporting Percent

Educators working in the program 79 47.6

A governmental agency such as the state department of education 40 24.1

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

19 11.4

A professional outside evaluator 11 6.6 Other 17 10.2 Total number of districts responding 167

Table 52

Program Evaluation Design and Implementation by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % Educators working in the program 15 31.3 22 44 23 46 7 36.8

A governmental agency such as the state department of education

4 8.3 5 10 1 2 0 0

A professional outside evaluator 8 16.7 7 14 2 4 1 5.3

Other 21 43.8 16 32 24 48 11 57.9


Note. N= Number of school districts reporting the category. %= Percentage of the districts reporting the category. The percentages were computed based on the number of respondents within each urbancity group

Indicators for judging the success of the gifted program. Among those responding to the

question relating to judging the success of the program, 118 (44.9%) district coordinators indicated using student achievement outcomes or progress on state benchmark testing to make judgments about the success of their elementary gifted programs. Eighty-five (32.3%) respondents also listed feedback from stakeholders (e.g., parents, students, teachers, and administrators), and an additional 29 (11.0%) district coordinators noted increases in identification and retention of gifted students as indicators for success. Other responses (less than 10 responses) included awards from educational competitions, feedback from

48

an external evaluator, and anecdotal evidence. In the remaining 31 school districts (11.8%) no evaluation criteria were noted, or the respondent provided irrelevant information.

Plans to make changes to the gifted program. In reporting planned changes in the elementary gifted program in the next 12-18 months, 144 informants (41.5%) indicated no plans to change. Among the 347 districts that indicated planned changes, program services was selected as the area of focus for change by the greatest number of districts (n=96, 27.7%). Among the nine school districts in which respondents indicated staffing changes, eight noted that personnel responsible for administration of the gifted program would be eliminated or reduced due to budget cuts, and one indicated that administration for gifted program would be assumed by another administrator with responsibility for oversight of another department within the district.

In the area of identification of gifted students, 28 respondents (8.1%) specified planned changes such as use of alternative instruments for identification of historically underrepresented gifted students, a revision of the identification process, plans for continuous identification starting from kindergarten through grade 12, or identification of gifted students in the domain of creativity. Other areas for change include program evaluation (n=26. 7.5%), professional development (n=15, 4.3%), administration (n=4, 1.2%), and gifted education teacher cuts (n=2, 0.6%).

Table 53

Areas of Planned Program Changes

Options Number of Districts Reporting Percent

No plan to change 144 41.5

Program services 96 27.7

Evaluation of student progress 85 24.5

Student referral and identification 83 23.9

Professional development based on evaluation outcomes 73 21.0

Program goals and objectives 70 20.2

Operational definition of giftedness 23 6.6

Service delivery options 92 26.5

Other 49 14.1


49

Table 54

Areas of Planned Program Changes by Urbanicity


N % N % N % N % No plan to change 24 28.9 51 39.8 46 47.9 23 57.5

Program services 27 32.5 35 27.3 27 28.1 7 17.5

Evaluation of student progress 32 38.6 26 20.3 23 24.0 4 10.0

Student referral and identification 26 31.3 30 23.4 21 21.9 6 15.0

Professional development based on evaluation outcomes 25 30.1 23 18.0 23 24.0 2 5.0

Program goals and objectives 19 22.9 25 19.5 18 18.8 8 20.0

Operational definition of giftedness 5 6.0 7 5.5 8 8.3 3 7.5

Service delivery options 22 26.5 40 31.3 23 24.0 7 17.5

Other 11 13.3 18 14.1 13 13.5 7 17.5


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

Summary

The absence of federal-level policy each state has its own options for providing educational services for gifted students, including those relating to identification, program options, funding, and teacher qualifications in serving gifted learners. These state-level policies result in wide variations in practices across state and local levels, within and across states as evidenced by the survey responses

Gifted Programs Status

More than 90% of the respondents reported that their districts provided a gifted and talented program to their students and their programs had been in existence more than 10 years.

Policies on Gifted Education

Statae-level regulations. While 42(10.7%) district coordinators in 15 states reported the their states do not have rules or regulations governing programs for the gifted, the definition of gifted and talented students and teacher qualifications for teaching in the gifted programs were the elements most often determined by state law or regulations.

50

Funding. State funding was the sole source of funding for approximately 19% of districts; local funding was the sole source of funding for 22% of disticts; and nearly 30% relied on a a combination of state and local funds.

Administrative allocation. Fewer than 10% of the districts were guided by a full-time administrator for elementary gifted and talented programs. The most prevalent administrative allocation for elementary gifted programs was a part-time administrator of district wide gifted programs whose assignment included gifted education among other responsibilities.

Teacher qualification requirements. State-endorsed credentials for teaching elementary gifted and talented students were required in only 53.6% (n=194) of the districts.

Definition of Giftedness Definition of giftedness. The most commonly identified area of giftedness included in the

definition of giftedness was intellectual giftedness, reported by 209 (99.8%) school district coordinators. Definitions included a wide range of other constructs including creativity and academic achievement.

Identification of Gifted Students

Identification practice. Respondents reported a wide array of identification practices in elementary gifted programs. Parent or teacher nomination or referral are common strategies for intial inclusion in the identification process at the elementary school level. The respondents reported varying levels of adherence to practices recommended in the literature. At one extreme on the continuum (least reflective of best practice) identification systems relied on only one data point or used a combination of cut-off scores for selection to receive services. At the other end of the continuum were procedures that included a multi-faceted combination of such practices as: collecting information from multiple data sources to create a student profile; decision-making by a committee of well-prepared educators; selecting appropriate identification tools based on the student demographic information; looking for evidence of a broader skill set; purposefully including strategies for considering students who may have a disability; and continuously training key-personnel to ensure decision-making reliability.

Representation. Representation of minority students and economically disadvantaged students in elementary gifted programs was widely variant. More than 80% of the district coordinators reported exact alignment (n=233, 50.4%) or adjacent alignment (n=155, 33.6%) between the percentage of Black students in the district and the percentage of Black students in the district’s gifted programs. There were 74 districts (16%) in which Black student representation in gifted programs was far lower than the representation of the group in the general student population of the district. The pattern of representation of Hispanic students in gifted programs was similar to that of Black students in gifted programs. While 85.2% (n=396) of the district coordinators reported exact alignment (n=253, 54.4%) or adjacent alignment (n=143, 30.8%), 14.8% (n=69) of the respondents indicated that the percentage of Hispanic students in their gifted programs was much lower than the percentage of the group in the general student population of the district. Underrepresentation of students of poverty, based on their free or reduced lunch program status was greater than that of Black and Hispanic students. More than 50% of the respondents reported much a lower representation of students of poverty in their gifted programs than the percentage of the group in their district student population.

51

Identification of historically underrepresented populations. Using alternative assessments and gathering student information from multiple sources were noted as means of identifying gifted students from historically underrepresented populations by 148 (58.5%) districts of 253 responding districts.

Talent development among historically underrepresented populations. While nearly half of the districts (n=112, 49%) indicated that they did not have a strategic plan to develop talent potential in underrepresented populations at the elementary school level, many other specific strategies were named across the remaining districts. Among the strategies reportedly used to develop talent potential in gifted students from historically underrepresented populations, using culturally relevant curriculum and pedagogy was the most commonly noted method (n=31, 14%).

Gifted Programming Program goals. While 195 (59.6%) repsondents indicated that their gifted programs existed to

provide adequate learning opportunities commensurate with student needs through differentiation, enrichment, and/or acceleration, most of the remaining districts listed process goals (e.g., secure an adequate amount of budget or recruiting qualified teachers) or programming goals (e.g., equitable identification of historically underrepresented group of students or providing enrichment opportunities) rather than student learning outcome goals or even instructional goals

Framework for gifted programming. Tomlinson’s Model of Differentiated Instruction (Tomlinson, 2001) was selected as the model guiding program instruction in 169 districts (43.4%) while 125 (32.1%) district coordinators indicated that no particular model guided their gifted program instruction in their districts.

Program delivery. Part-time pull-out classes (n=213, 51.9%) were identified as the programming model most used to deliver gifted education services followed by cluster grouping (n=75, 18.4%) at the elementary school level. Approximatley half of the respodents (n=189, 49.3%) reported that elementary gifted students received services for only one to four hours per week.

Curricular materials. No particular set of materials dominated use in instruction. Those curricular materials listed included teacher-developed materials, public resources, published materials curricular materials developed by the university research teams, and academic competition materials.

Content areas and skills developed. Language arts and creative-thinking skills were identified as the most well-developed content and skill area for elementary gifted students by the largest number of respondents (n=162, 47.2%, n=112, 30.9% respectively).

Learning outcome measures. Formal assessment of learning outcomes is rare. Informal assessments including teacher-developed rubrics, classroom observations, interviews, or surveys were the methods most used for measuring student learning outcomes at the elementary level.

Results of measuring student outcomes. Only about onethird of 187 respondents indicated that state benchmark testing results had been presented to the stakeholders across the school system.The respondents did not elaborate on decisions made based on the outcome data or how the outcome results impacted policy or practices relating to elementary gifted program services.

Use of the national gifted education programming standards. While 161 (46.4%) of those responding to the question indicated that NAGC Standards were not used in their districts, more than half the respondents to this question reported using the NAGC Standards in guiding some

52

aspect of their decision-making. The greatest number of respondents (n=156, 45.0%) reported applying the standards in the area of curriculum planning and instruction; only about one third of respondents reported using the other standards in decision-making or assessing program quality.

Professional development. Professional development commitments varied widely from district to district (but most were minimal) ranging from as low as 15 minutes per year to four days per year. The content of the professional development included differentiation (n=99, 34.4%), followed by identification of gifted students (n=45, 15.6%).

Evaluation and Program Improvement

Evaluation of gifted programs. Nearly 50% (n=186) of respondents indicated that the district required evaluation of the elementary gifted program. Among the districts with evaluation requirements, evaluations were most often characterized as in-house evaluations carried out by educators working in the program..

Planned changes. In reporting on planned changes in the elementary gifted program in the next 12-18 months, 144 informants (20%) indicated no plans to change. Among the 347 districts that indicated planned changes, program services was selected as the area of focus for change by the greatest number of districts (n=108, 31.1%).

53

References

House of Representatives 100th Congress: Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Children and Youth Education Act of 1987 (1987) (enacted).

House of Representatives 112th Congress: Race to the Top Act of 2011. (2011) (enacted). Kaplan, S. (2005). Layering differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. In F. Karnes & S. Bean

(Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching gifted students (2nd ed., pp. 107-132). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

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

National Association for Gifted Children & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2011). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2010-2011. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.

No Child Left Behind, NCLB No Child Left Behind Act, P.L. 107-110 (Title IX, Part A, Definitions (22), 2002; 20 U.S.C. Sec. 7802 (22), 2004.

National Education Goals Panel (1995). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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

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

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

Appendices

54

Appendix 1: Status of the Elementary Gifted Programs Survey

I. Introduction

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

II. General Directions

We have selected your school district to report on its ELEMENTARY gifted program (including Pre-K through 5th grade -or 6th grade if elementary schools in your district include the 6th grade). If your school includes K-8 as elementary, please respond to programs serving K-6 only. For the purposes of this survey, a gifted program is defined as a program that has a specific process for the identification of a group of students who are provided educational options in ways that differ from regular classroom curricula and/or instructional practices. You will answer the question in most cases by selecting the responses most closely aligned with either statistics, policy, or practice in your school district. On some occasions you may be asked whether you wish to provide an explanation and there will be a response box where you can fill in such information.

Appendices

55

III. Gifted Program Services

1. In which state is your school district located? 2. Did your school district offer a program that was discontinued/cut within the past 5 years?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No

3. How long has the gifted program been in existence?

⃝ Less than a year ⃝ 1-2 years ⃝ 2-5 years ⃝ 6-10 years ⃝ More than 10 years

4. Does your district currently provide a program for gifted and talented students?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No

IV. General Demographics

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

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

2. What percentage of students at the elementary level in your school district identifies themselves as White, non-Hispanic?


3. What percentage of students at the elementary level in your school district identifies themselves as Hispanic?


4. What percentage of students at the elementary level in your school district identifies themselves as Black, African-American?

Appendices

56


5. What percentage of student at the elementary level in your school district identifies themselves as Asian, Asian-American (including South Asian)?


6. What percentage of student at the elementary level in your school district identifies themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native?


7. What percentage of students at the elementary level in your school district identifies themselves as Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian?


8. What percentage of students at the elementary level in your school district identifies themselves as multi-racial?


9. What at percentage of students at the elementary level in your school district participates in the free/reduced lunch program?

Appendices

57


V. Gifted Program Demographics

1. What percentage of elementary level students in your school district are identified as gifted? 2. What percentage of elementary level students served in the program for gifted students in your school district are White, non-Hispanic?


3. What percentage of elementary level students served in the program for gifted students in your school district are Hispanic?


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


5. What percentage of elementary level students served in the program for gifted students in your school district are Asian, Asian-American (including South Asian)?


Appendices

58

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


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


8. What percentage of elementary level students served in the program for gifted students in your school district are multi-racial?


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


VI. Administration of your gifted program services

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

⃝ A full-time administrator for elementary gifted and talented programs ⃝ A full-time administrator for gifted and talented programs in the school district with a part-

time administrator for the elementary gifted program (A part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities)

⃝ A full-time administrator for gifted and talented programs in the school district, but no

Appendices

59

additional administrator with specific elementary administrative responsibilities ⃝ A part-time (at least 50%) administrator for elementary gifted programs in the district (A

part-time administrator can be a full-time employee whose assignment includes gifted education among other responsibilities)

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

⃝ No administrative assignment (e.g., there is a teacher level position as coordinator) 2. Are other district level staff assigned responsibilities for supporting gifted and talented programs at the elementary level? (Please describe the responsibilities of those individuals in the textbox provided and indicate what proportion of their time is assigned to the gifted program. Example: A school psychologist who oversees the identification process and is assigned 25% time for that responsibility). 3. What is annual appropriation budget allocated for K-12 gifted programs in your school district? 4. Describe the funding base for providing services for elementary school level gifted students. Please list the total funding in dollars from each resource level. Please be sure to enter $0 if you do not receive any funds from the source.

State funding Local funding Grant or other sources Please describe other sources of funding

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

⃝ My state does not have rules or regulations governing programs for the gifted and talented ⃝ The definition of gifted and talented ⃝ The areas of giftedness served by my program ⃝ The age at which students are identified ⃝ The instruments used in the identification process ⃝ The way in which data are considered for selecting students to receive services ⃝ The types of grouping arrangements (e.g., pull-out or self-contained) used to serve gifted students ⃝ The curriculum provided to gifted students ⃝ The qualifications of teachers who may teach in the gifted program ⃝ The evaluation of the gifted programs

6. What are the three overarching goals of your elementary gifted program? 7. Are the NAGC PreK-Grade12 Gifted Education Programming Standards used as a basis for policy making regarding the elementary gifted program? If so, in which areas are the standards used? Please check all that apply.

⃝ Learning and development ⃝ Assessment ⃝ Curriculum planning and instruction

Appendices

60

⃝ Learning environments ⃝ Programming ⃝ Professional development ⃝ Currently not using standards

8. What are the ways in which most services for gifted students are delivered to elementary gifted and talented students? For this question, please choose the option through which the majority of identified elementary school students in your school district are served. ⃝ In-class differentiation in general classrooms with no clustering of gifted students

⃝ Cluster grouping of gifted students in general education classrooms with in-class differentiation ⃝ Part-time pull-out classes ⃝ Special classes of homogeneously grouped gifted students within a regular school setting ⃝ A full-time school for gifted students ⃝ After-school learning opportunities (either through programs such as Destination Imagination or

Future Problem Solving or through activities developed by the school) ⃝ Distance learning or online opportunities ⃝ Acceleration by grade ⃝ Acceleration by content area (e.g., sending a student to a higher level class for mathematics

instruction with older children) ⃝ Others (Please specify)

9. If you cluster group, how is the cluster group determined?

⃝ District policy ⃝ Principal decision ⃝ Teacher decision ⃝ Coordinator decision ⃝ Other (please specify)

10. Which particular philosophical approaches are used to guide the development of the program, curriculum, and instruction used in delivering this model? Check all that apply.

⃝ No particular model ⃝ Autonomous Learner Model (Betts) ⃝ Depth and Complexity Model (Kaplan) ⃝ Enrichment Clusters (Renzulli) ⃝ Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli) ⃝ Model of Differentiated Curriculum (Tomlinson) ⃝ Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli) ⃝ Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, et.al.) ⃝ Purdue 3-stage Model ⃝ Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli) ⃝ SMPY Model. ⃝ Other (please specify)

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

⃝ 100% ⃝ 75-99% ⃝ 50-74%

Appendices

61

⃝ 25-49% ⃝ Less than 25%

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

⃝ Less than an hour per week ⃝ 1-4 hours per week ⃝ One day per week ⃝ All of their time ⃝ Other (please specify)

13. What are the top three goals of the services offered using this program model? 14. What instrument/assessment tools do you use to measure student outcomes? 15. Please summarize the results of evaluating the student outcomes of this program model. What are the results of attempts to document program impact on student learning and development? 16. Are there particular curricular materials you use in your gifted and talented program at the elementary level (e.g. the language arts materials produced by the College of William and Mary, Junior Great Books, the Thinking Skills Resource Book, Connected Math, the Parallel Curriculum in the Classroom)? 17. What content area is the most well-developed for the curriculum provided to elementary gifted and talented students served in this program option & model?

⃝ Mathematics ⃝ Language Arts ⃝ Science and Technology ⃝ Social Sciences ⃝ Visual and Performing Arts ⃝ Other (please specify)

18. Which skill areas are best developed within the curriculum provided to elementary gifted and talented students using this model?

⃝ Research skills ⃝ Creative thinking skills ⃝ Metacognitive skills ⃝ Affective skills ⃝ Writing skills ⃝ Communication skills ⃝ Other (please specify)

VII. Identification process

1. What definition of gifted is used in your school district? 2. Which published standardized instruments are used to identify gifted students at the elementary school level? Please check all that apply.

⃝ A Survey of Students' Educational Talents and Skills (ASSETS) ⃝ Assessment in Mathematics ⃝ BRIGANCE K&1 Screen-II

Appendices

62

⃝ Children's Category Test (CCT) ⃝ Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) ⃝ Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (CCTT) ⃝ Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI1) ⃝ Developing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT) ⃝ Differential Abilities Scales II (DASII) ⃝ Early Math Diagnostic Assessment (EMDA) ⃝ Eby Gifted Behavior Index (EGBI) ⃝ Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scale (GATES) ⃝ Gifted and Talented Scale (GTS) ⃝ Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES-2) ⃝ Gifted Rating Scales (GRS) ⃝ Group Inventory for Finding Creative Talent (GIFT) ⃝ Guilford Tests of Divergent Thinking ⃝ InView ⃝ Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) ⃝ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) ⃝ Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC-II) ⃝ Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test ⃝ Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-II) ⃝ KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (KeyMath-3 DA) ⃝ Khatena-Morse Multi-talent Perception Inventory (KMMPI) ⃝ Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) ⃝ Metropolitan Achievement Test ⃝ Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-II (MAB-II) ⃝ Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) ⃝ Nonverbal Ability Tests (NAT) ⃝ Otis Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) ⃝ Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) ⃝ Pictorial Test of Intelligence, 2nd ed. (PTI-2) ⃝ Primary Test of Cognitive Skills (PTCS) ⃝ Ravens Progressive Matrices ⃝ Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes ⃝ Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES) ⃝ Slosson Intelligence Test ⃝ Standard Achievement Tests ⃝ Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale ⃝ State Assessment ⃝ Steeling Brief Nonverbal Intelligence Test (S-BIT) ⃝ Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA) ⃝ Terra Nova ⃝ Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS) ⃝ Test of Mathematical Ability for Gifted Students (TOMAGS) ⃝ Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (3rd) (TONI-3) ⃝ The Identity-Form System for Gifted Programs ⃝ Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking ⃝ Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) ⃝ Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

Appendices

63

⃝ Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) ⃝ Wechsler Individual Achievement Test ⃝ Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R) ⃝ Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) ⃝ Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (3rd)(WPPSI-III) ⃝ Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT Expanded) ⃝ Woodcock Johnson Achievement Test ⃝ Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities ⃝ Other (please specify)______________________________________________

3. Check and list any non-standardized instruments or procedures (teacher checklists, rating scales, or nomination forms, parent checklists, rating scales, or nomination forms; portfolios; grades; other) you use in the identification process. If any are published instruments such as the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Gifted Students, please list them by name. If they are locally developed, please write "LD" after the name of the instrument.

⃝ Display of Work, Audition, Performance (Observation) ⃝ Grades ⃝ Kingore Observation Scale (KOS) ⃝ Parent Nomination ⃝ Peer Nomination ⃝ Portfolio Products ⃝ Self-Nomination ⃝ SIGS (Scales for Identifying Gifted Students) ⃝ SRBCSS (Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students, Renzulli-Hertman) ⃝ Student Interview ⃝ Teacher Nomination ⃝Other (please specify)______________________________________________

4. Describe the identification process used for identifying students at the elementary school level in your school district. 5. What are the criteria for identifying students for the elementary gifted program (e.g., obtaining a specific cutoff score on a standardized instrument; meeting a set score on a matrix; selecting a certain percentage of students from the population; etc.)? 6. Please describe any strategies used to IDENTIFY talent potential in under-represented populations at the elementary school level (ethnic minorities, students of poverty, ELL learners, twice-exceptional students, other). This might include use of portfolios in the identification process, use of alternative testing instruments, etc. Please be as specific as possible. 7. Please describe any strategies used to DEVELOP talent potential in under-represented populations at the elementary school level (ethnic minorities, students of poverty, ELL learners, twice-exceptional students, other). This might include special curriculum at the primary grade level taught by specialized teachers. Please be as specific as possible. VIII. Professional Education

1. Does your district require a state-endorsed credential for teaching elementary level gifted and talented students?

⃝ Yes

Appendices

64

⃝ NO 2. Does your district have educational requirements with regard to training or background for teachers of the gifted that are different or go beyond those required by the state?

⃝ Yes ⃝ NO

3. If you answered yes to the above question, what are those district requirements? Please describe. 4. What are the qualities or characteristics (e.g. endorsement in gifted education or experience in teaching gifted) that you seek in a teacher of the elementary level gifted students in your district? Identify the 5 most important qualities or characteristics.

IX. Staff Development

1. Describe the staff development opportunities provided to elementary level general education teachers on identifying gifted students or providing appropriate curriculum to gifted students during the past year. Please specify the number of hours and the content of the training. 2. What is the total number of teachers who are serving identified gifted students at the elementary level? 3. Estimate the number of teachers serving elementary school students who are endorsed in gifted education. X. Evaluation of Gifted Programs

1. Please identify up to 5 indicators that have been established for judging the success of the district's gifted program for purposes of program evaluation. 2. Is there a requirement to evaluate the elementary gifted program in your district? That is, do you have to develop and implement a specific plan for collecting data about the various elements of your program (including student outcomes) to use for program development and improvement?

⃝ Yes (If you answered yes, please answer the subordinate questions below) ⃝ NO (If you answered no, please proceed to the question 3 on the next page)

<2-1>. How often is the gifted program evaluated (using a systematic plan for collecting and analyzing program related data)?

⃝ Never ⃝ Every year ⃝ Every two years ⃝ Every three to five years ⃝ Less frequently than every five years

<2-2>. Who designed and implemented the evaluation of the gifted program the last time it was evaluated?

⃝ Educators working in the program ⃝ Educators in the research and/or evaluation department of your school district. ⃝ A professional outside evaluator. ⃝ A governmental agency such as the state department of education. ⃝ Other (please specify)

Appendices

65

3. Are there plans to make changes in any of the following areas at the elementary school level during the next 12-18 months? Check as many as apply.

⃝ No plan to change ⃝ Operational definition of giftedness ⃝ Program goals and objectives ⃝ Student referral and identification ⃝ Program services ⃝ Service delivery options ⃝ Evaluation of student progress ⃝ Professional development based on evaluation outcomes ⃝ Other (please specify)

4. If you answered yes to any areas in the above question, what are the planned changes? Please describe.

*THANK YOU*

We appreciate the time and attention you have given to this survey. If you have any electronic documents regarding the gifted program in your district (e.g., Local Plan for Education of the Gifted), please send us those as well. We know that your time is valuable. Thank you for your participation. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented University of Virginia

Appendices

66

Appendix 2: Black Student Representation in Gifted Programs

State District Enrollment Percentage of Black Students in the District

Percentage of Black Students in District Gifted Programs

1 AK 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 2 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 3 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 4 AL Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 5 AL Less than 5,000 More than 90% 51-60% 6 AL Less than 5,000 More than 90% Less than 1% 7 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 8 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 9 AL 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10%

10 AL 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 11 AL 5,001-10,000 31-40% 31-40% 12 AL 10,000-30,000 71-80% 21-30% 13 AL 30,001-50,000 71-80% 61-70% 14 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 15 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 16 AR Less than 5,000 41-50% 31-40% 17 AR 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 18 AR 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 19 AR 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 20 AR 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 21 AR 10,000-30,000 41-50% 41-50% 22 AZ 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 23 AZ 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 24 AZ 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 25 AZ 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 26 AZ 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 27 CA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 28 CA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 29 CA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 30 CA Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 31 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 32 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 33 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 34 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 35 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 36 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 37 CA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 38 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10%

Appendices

67

39 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 40 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 41 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 42 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 43 CA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 44 CA 30,001-50,000 51-60% 1-10% 45 CA 10,001-250,000 1-10% 1-10% 46 CO Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 47 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 48 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 49 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 50 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 51 CO 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 52 CO 50,001-70,000 1-10% 1-10% 53 CO 70,001-100,000 1-10% 1-10% 54 CO 70,001-100,000 21-30% 31-40% 55 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 56 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 57 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 58 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 59 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 60 CT Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 61 CT 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 62 CT 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 63 CT 5,001-10,000 31-40% 11-20% 64 CT 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 65 CT 10,000-30,000 51-60% 41-50% 66 DE 5,001-10,000 51-60% 41-50% 67 FL Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 68 FL 5,001-10,000 71-80% 81-90% 69 FL 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 70 FL 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 71 FL 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 72 FL 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 73 FL 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 74 FL 30,001-50,000 31-40% 1-10% 75 FL 50,001-70,000 11-20% 1-10% 76 FL 10,001-250,000 11-20% 1-10% 77 FL 10,001-250,000 21-30% 1-10% 78 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 79 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 80 GA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 81 GA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10%

Appendices

68

82 GA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 83 GA Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 84 GA Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 85 GA Less than 5,000 41-50% Less than 1% 86 GA Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 87 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 88 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 89 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 90 GA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 91 GA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 92 GA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 93 GA 5,001-10,000 41-50% 1-10% 94 GA 5,001-10,000 71-80% 31-40% 95 GA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 41-50% 96 GA 10,000-30,000 81-90% 51-60% 97 GA 30,001-50,000 61-70% 31-40% 98 GA 30,001-50,000 61-70% 21-30% 99 GA 50,001-70,000 71-80% 41-50%

100 IA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 101 IA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 102 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 103 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 104 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 105 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 106 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 107 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 108 IA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 109 IA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 110 IA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 111 IA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 112 IA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 113 IA 30,001-50,000 21-30% 21-30% 114 ID Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 115 ID Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 116 ID Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 117 ID 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 118 ID 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 119 ID 70,001-100,000 1-10% Less than 1% 120 IL Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 121 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 122 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 123 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 124 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1%

Appendices

69

125 IL Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 126 IL Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20% 127 IL Less than 5,000 71-80% 61-70% 128 IL 5,001-10,000 51-60% 31-40% 129 IL 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 130 IL 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 131 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 132 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 133 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 134 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 135 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 136 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 137 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 138 IN 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 139 IN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 140 IN 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 141 IN 10,000-30,000 61-70% 41-50% 142 IN 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 143 KS Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 144 KS Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 145 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 146 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 147 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 148 KS 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 149 KS 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20% 150 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 151 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 152 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 153 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 154 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 155 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 156 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 157 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 158 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 159 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 160 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 161 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 162 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 163 KY 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 164 KY 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 165 KY 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 166 KY 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 167 KY 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10%

Appendices

70

168 LA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 169 LA Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 170 LA Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 171 LA Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 172 LA 5,001-10,000 More than 90% More than 90% 173 LA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 1-10% 174 LA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 1-10% 175 LA 30,001-50,000 41-50% 1-10% 176 MA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 177 MA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 178 MA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 179 MA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 180 MD Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 181 MD 30,001-50,000 11-20% 11-20% 182 MD 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 183 ME Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 184 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 185 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 186 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 187 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 188 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 189 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 190 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 191 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 192 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 193 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 194 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 195 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 196 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 197 MI 30,001-50,000 31-40% 11-20% 198 MN 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20% 199 MN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 200 MN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 201 MN 70,001-100,000 1-10% 1-10% 202 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 203 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 204 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 205 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 206 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 207 MO Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 208 MO 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 209 MO 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 210 MO 5,001-10,000 More than 90% More than 90%

Appendices

71

211 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 212 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 213 MO 10,000-30,000 51-60% 41-50% 214 MS Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 215 MS Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 216 MS Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 217 MS Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 218 MS Less than 5,000 81-90% 71-80% 219 MS Less than 5,000 81-90% 71-80% 220 MS 5,001-10,000 41-50% 1-10% 221 MS 5,001-10,000 41-50% 11-20% 222 MS 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 71-80% 223 MS 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 224 MS 10,000-30,000 31-40% 21-30% 225 MS 10,000-30,000 51-60% 21-30% 226 MT 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 227 MT 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 228 NC Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20% 229 NC Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 230 NC Less than 5,000 61-70% 11-20% 231 NC Less than 5,000 81-90% More than 90% 232 NC Less than 5,000 81-90% 71-80% 233 NC 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 234 NC 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 235 NC 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 236 NC 5,001-10,000 31-40% 31-40% 237 NC 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 238 NC 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 239 NC 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 240 NC 10,001-250,000 21-30% 1-10% 241 NC 10,001-250,000 41-50% 11-20% 242 ND 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 243 ND 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 244 NE 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 245 NJ Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 246 NJ Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 247 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 248 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 249 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 250 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 251 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 252 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 253 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1%

Appendices

72

254 NJ Less than 5,000 41-50% 31-40% 255 NJ 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 256 NJ 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 257 NM Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 258 NM 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 259 NM 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 260 NM 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 261 NV 70,001-100,000 1-10% 1-10% 262 NY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 263 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 264 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 265 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 266 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 267 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 268 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 269 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 270 NY Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 271 NY 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 272 NY 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 273 NY 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 274 NY 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 275 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 276 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 277 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 278 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 279 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 280 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 281 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 282 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 283 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 284 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 285 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 286 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 287 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 288 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 289 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 290 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 291 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 292 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 293 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 294 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 295 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 296 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1%

Appendices

73

297 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 298 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 299 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 300 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 301 OH Less than 5,000 31-40% 31-40% 302 OH Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 303 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 304 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 305 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 306 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 307 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 308 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 309 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 310 OH 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20% 311 OH 5,001-10,000 71-80% 41-50% 312 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 313 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 314 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 315 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 316 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 317 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 318 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 319 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 320 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 321 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 322 OK 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 323 OR Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 324 OR 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 325 OR 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 326 OR 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 327 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 328 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 329 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 330 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 331 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 332 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 333 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 334 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 335 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 336 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 337 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 338 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 339 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10%

Appendices

74

340 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 341 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 342 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 41-50% 343 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 344 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 345 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 346 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 347 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 348 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 349 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 350 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 351 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 352 PA 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 353 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 354 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 355 PA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 356 PA 5,001-10,000 More than 90% More than 90% 357 PA 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 358 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 359 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 360 SC 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 361 SC 10,000-30,000 31-40% 1-10% 362 SC 10,000-30,000 51-60% 11-20% 363 SC 50,001-70,000 21-30% 1-10% 364 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 365 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 366 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 367 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 368 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 369 TN Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 370 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 371 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 372 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 373 TN 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 374 TN 30,001-50,000 31-40% 41-50% 375 TN 10,001-250,000 81-90% 51-60% 376 TX Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 377 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 378 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 379 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 380 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 381 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 382 TX Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10%

Appendices

75

383 TX 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 384 TX 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 385 TX 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 386 TX 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 387 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 388 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 389 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 390 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 391 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 392 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 393 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 394 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 395 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 396 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 397 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 398 TX 30,001-50,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 399 TX 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 400 TX 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 401 TX 30,001-50,000 1-10% More than 90% 402 TX 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 403 TX 30,001-50,000 21-30% 11-20% 404 TX 50,001-70,000 1-10% 1-10% 405 TX 50,001-70,000 1-10% 1-10% 406 TX 50,001-70,000 1-10% 1-10% 407 TX 50,001-70,000 11-20% 11-20% 408 TX 70,001-100,000 1-10% 1-10% 409 TX 70,001-100,000 21-30% 21-30% 410 TX 10,001-250,000 21-30% 21-30% 411 UT 50,001-70,000 1-10% 1-10% 412 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 413 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% 11-20% 414 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 415 VA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 416 VA Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 417 VA Less than 5,000 41-50% 21-30% 418 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 419 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 420 VA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20% 421 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 422 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 423 VA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 424 VA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 425 VA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10%

Appendices

76

426 VA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 61-70% 427 VA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 428 VA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 31-40% 429 VA 30,001-50,000 31-40% 1-10% 430 VA 70,001-100,000 21-30% 1-10% 431 WA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 432 WA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 433 WA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 434 WA 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 435 WA 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 436 WA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 437 WA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 438 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 439 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 440 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 441 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 442 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 443 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 444 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 445 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 446 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 447 WI Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 448 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 449 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 450 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 451 WI 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 452 WI 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 453 WV Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 454 WV Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 455 WV Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 456 WV 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 457 WY 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 458 Not Reported Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 459 Not Reported Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 460 Not Reported 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 461 Not Reported 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 462 Not Reported 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10%

Appendices

77

Appendix 3: Hispanic Student Representation in Gifted Programs

State District Enrollment Percentage of Hispanic Students in the District

Percentage of Hispanic Students in District Gifted Programs

1 Not Reported Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 2 Not Reported Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 3 Not Reported 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 4 Not Reported 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 5 Not Reported 10,000-30,000 11-20% 11-20% 6 AK 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 7 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 8 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% More than 90% 9 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10%

10 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 11 AL Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 12 AL Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 13 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 14 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 15 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 16 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 17 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 18 AL 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 19 AL 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 20 AL 70,001-100,000 1-10% 1-10% 21 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 22 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 23 AR Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 24 AR 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 25 AR 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 26 AR 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 27 AR 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 28 AR 10,000-30,000 71-80% 1-10% 29 AZ 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30% 30 AZ 5,001-10,000 61-70% 41-50% 31 AZ 10,000-30,000 81-90% 71-80% 32 AZ 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 33 AZ 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 34 CA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 35 CA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 36 CA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 37 CA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 38 CA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20%

Appendices

78

39 CA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 40 CA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 11-20% 41 CA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 42 CA 5,001-10,000 51-60% 11-20% 43 CA 5,001-10,000 71-80% 71-80% 44 CA 5,001-10,000 81-90% 61-70% 45 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 46 CA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 47 CA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 11-20% 48 CA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 41-50% 49 CA 10,000-30,000 71-80% 51-60% 50 CA 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 51 CA 100,001-250,000 41-50% 31-40% 52 CO Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 53 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 54 CO 10,000-30,000 11-20% 11-20% 55 CO 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 56 CO 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% 57 CO 30,001-50,000 31-40% 11-20% 58 CO 50,001-70,000 1-10% 1-10% 59 CO 70,001-100,000 11-20% 11-20% 60 CO 70,001-100,000 41-50% 51-60% 61 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 62 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 63 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 64 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 65 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 66 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 67 CT 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 68 CT 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 69 CT 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 70 CT 10,000-30,000 21-30% 21-30% 71 CT 10,000-30,000 41-50% 31-40% 72 DE 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 73 FL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 74 FL 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 75 FL 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 76 FL 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 77 FL 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 78 FL 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 79 FL 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 80 FL 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 81 FL 50,001-70,000 11-20% 1-10%

Appendices

79

82 FL 100,001-250,000 1-10% 1-10% 83 FL 100,001-250,000 31-40% 11-20% 84 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 85 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 86 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 87 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 88 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 89 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 90 GA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 91 GA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 92 GA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 93 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 31-40% 94 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 95 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 96 GA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 97 GA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 98 GA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 99 GA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20%

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

Appendices

80

125 ID 70,001-100,000 11-20% Less than 1% 126 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 127 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 128 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 129 IL Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 130 IL Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 131 IL Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 132 IL Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 133 IL 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 134 IL 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 135 IL 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 136 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 137 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 138 IN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 139 IN Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 140 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 141 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 142 IN 5,001-10,000 61-70% 1-10% 143 IN 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 144 IN 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 145 IN 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 146 IN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 11-20% 147 IN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 148 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 149 KS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 150 KS Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 151 KS Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 152 KS Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 153 KS 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 154 KS 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 155 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% 1-10% 156 KY Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 157 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 158 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 159 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 160 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 161 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 162 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 163 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 164 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 165 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 166 KY Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 167 KY 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10%

Appendices

81

168 KY 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 169 KY 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 170 KY 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 171 KY 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 172 KY 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 173 LA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 174 LA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 175 LA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 176 LA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 177 LA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 178 LA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 179 LA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 180 LA 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 181 MA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 182 MA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 183 MA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 184 MA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 185 MD Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 186 MD 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 187 MD 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 188 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 189 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 190 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 191 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 192 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 193 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 194 MI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 195 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 196 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 197 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 198 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 199 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 200 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 201 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 202 MI 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 203 MN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 204 MN 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 205 MN 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 206 MN 70,001-100,000 1-10% 1-10% 207 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 208 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 209 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 210 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1%

Appendices

82

211 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 212 MO Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 213 MO 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 214 MO 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 215 MO 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 216 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 217 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 218 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 219 MS Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 220 MS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 221 MS Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 222 MS Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 223 MS Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 224 MS Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 225 MS 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 226 MS 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 227 MS 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 228 MS 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 229 MS 10,000-30,000 1-10% 81-90% 230 MS 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 231 MT 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 232 MT 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 233 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 234 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 235 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 236 NC Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 237 NC Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 238 NC 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 239 NC 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 240 NC 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 241 NC 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 242 NC 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 243 NC 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 244 NC 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 245 NC 100,001-250,000 11-20% 1-10% 246 NC 100,001-250,000 11-20% 1-10% 247 ND 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 248 ND 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 249 NE 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 250 NJ Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 251 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 252 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 253 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1%

Appendices

83

254 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 255 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 256 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 257 NJ Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 258 NJ Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 259 NJ Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 260 NJ 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 261 NJ 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 262 NM Less than 5,000 41-50% 41-50% 263 NM 5,001-10,000 21-30% 21-30% 264 NM 5,001-10,000 51-60% 41-50% 265 NM 5,001-10,000 51-60% 1-10% 266 NV 70,001-100,000 31-40% 1-10% 267 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 268 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 269 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 270 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 271 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 272 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 273 NY Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 274 NY Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 275 NY Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 276 NY 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 277 NY 5,001-10,000 51-60% 31-40% 278 NY 5,001-10,000 61-70% 31-40% 279 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% More than 90% 280 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 281 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 282 OH Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 283 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 284 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 285 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 286 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 287 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 288 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 289 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 290 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 291 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 292 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 293 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 294 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 295 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 296 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1%

Appendices

84

297 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 298 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 299 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 300 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 301 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 302 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 303 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 304 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 305 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 306 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 307 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 308 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 309 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 310 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 311 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 312 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 313 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 314 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 315 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 316 OH 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 317 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 318 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 319 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 320 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 321 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 322 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 323 OK Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 324 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 325 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 326 OK 10,000-30,000 1-10% 71-80% 327 OR Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 328 OR 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 329 OR 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 330 OR 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 331 PA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 332 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 333 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 334 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 335 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 336 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 337 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 338 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 339 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10%

Appendices

85

340 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 341 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 342 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 343 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 344 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 345 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 346 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 347 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 348 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 349 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 350 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 351 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 352 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 353 PA Less than 5,000 51-60% Less than 1% 354 PA Less than 5,000 More than 90% Less than 1% 355 PA 5,001-10,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 356 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 357 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 358 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 359 PA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 360 PA 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 361 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 362 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 363 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 364 SC 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 365 SC 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 366 SC 10,000-30,000 11-20% 11-20% 367 SC 50,001-70,000 11-20% 1-10% 368 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 369 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 370 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 371 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 372 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 373 TN Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 374 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 375 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 376 TN 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 1-10% 377 TN 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 378 TN 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 379 TN 100,001-250,000 1-10% 1-10% 380 TX Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 381 TX Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 382 TX Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20%

Appendices

86

383 TX Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 384 TX Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 385 TX Less than 5,000 71-80% More than 90% 386 TX Less than 5,000 81-90% 1-10% 387 TX 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 388 TX 5,001-10,000 31-40% 31-40% 389 TX 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 390 TX 5,001-10,000 More than 90% More than 90% 391 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 392 TX 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 393 TX 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 394 TX 10,000-30,000 41-50% 31-40% 395 TX 10,000-30,000 41-50% 11-20% 396 TX 10,000-30,000 41-50% 31-40% 397 TX 10,000-30,000 51-60% 31-40% 398 TX 10,000-30,000 61-70% 31-40% 399 TX 10,000-30,000 71-80% 71-80% 400 TX 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 401 TX 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 402 TX 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 403 TX 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 404 TX 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 405 TX 30,001-50,000 41-50% 41-50% 406 TX 30,001-50,000 51-60% 21-30% 407 TX 30,001-50,000 71-80% 61-70% 408 TX 30,001-50,000 More than 90% More than 90% 409 TX 30,001-50,000 More than 90% More than 90% 410 TX 50,001-70,000 11-20% 1-10% 411 TX 50,001-70,000 41-50% 31-40% 412 TX 50,001-70,000 71-80% 61-70% 413 TX 50,001-70,000 81-90% 71-80% 414 TX 70,001-100,000 51-60% 41-50% 415 TX 70,001-100,000 61-70% 51-60% 416 TX 100,001-250,000 61-70% 61-70% 417 UT 50,001-70,000 11-20% 11-20% 418 VA Less than 5,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 419 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 420 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 421 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 422 VA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 423 VA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 424 VA Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 425 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10%

Appendices

87

426 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 427 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 428 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 429 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 430 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 431 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 432 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 433 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 11-20% 434 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 435 VA 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 436 VA 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 437 VA 30,001-50,000 1-10% 1-10% 438 VA 50,001-70,000 1-10% 1-10% 439 VA 70,001-100,000 21-30% 1-10% 440 WA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 441 WA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 442 WA Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 443 WA 5,001-10,000 81-90% 31-40% 444 WA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 445 WA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 446 WA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 447 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 448 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 449 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 450 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 451 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 452 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 453 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 454 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 455 WI Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 456 WI Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 457 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 458 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 459 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 460 WI 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 461 WI 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 462 WV Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 463 WV Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 464 WV Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 465 WY 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10%

Appendices

88

Appendix 4: Representation of Students on Free/Reduced Lunch Price in Gifted Programs

State District Enrollment

Percentage of Students on F/R Lunch Price in the District

Percentage of Students on F/R Lunch Price in the District Gifted Programs

1 Not Reported Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 2 Not Reported Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20% 3 Not Reported 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 4 Not Reported 5,001-10,000 61-70% 21-30% 5 Not Reported 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 6 AL Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 7 AL Less than 5,000 41-50% 41-50% 8 AL Less than 5,000 61-70% 41-50% 9 AL Less than 5,000 81-90% 51-60%

10 AL 5,001-10,000 21-30% 21-30% 11 AL 5,001-10,000 51-60% 41-50% 12 AL 5,001-10,000 51-60% 31-40% 13 AL 5,001-10,000 51-60% 31-40% 14 AL 5,001-10,000 61-70% 51-60% 15 AL 10,000-30,000 61-70% 21-30% 16 AL 70,001-100,000 41-50% 41-50% 17 AR Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 18 AR Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 19 AR Less than 5,000 More than 90% More than 90% 20 AR 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 21 AR 5,001-10,000 41-50% 11-20% 22 AR 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30% 23 AR 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 24 AR 10,000-30,000 41-50% 41-50% 25 AZ 5,001-10,000 71-80% 51-60% 26 AZ 5,001-10,000 81-90% 51-60% 27 AZ 10,000-30,000 81-90% 71-80% 28 AZ 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 29 AZ 30,001-50,000 31-40% 1-10% 30 CA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 31 CA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 32 CA Less than 5,000 31-40% 31-40% 33 CA Less than 5,000 81-90% 81-90% 34 CA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 31-40% 35 CA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 36 CA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 37 CA 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30% 38 CA 5,001-10,000 51-60% 31-40%

Appendices

89

39 CA 5,001-10,000 81-90% 61-70% 40 CA 5,001-10,000 More than 90% More than 90% 41 CA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 42 CA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 43 CA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 44 CA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 41-50% 45 CA 10,000-30,000 61-70% 31-40% 46 CA 10,000-30,000 81-90% More than 90% 47 CA 100,001-250,000 61-70% 31-40% 48 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 49 CO 10,000-30,000 31-40% 1-10% 50 CO 10,000-30,000 41-50% 11-20% 51 CO 30,001-50,000 51-60% 21-30% 52 CO 50,001-70,000 1-10% 1-10% 53 CO 70,001-100,000 11-20% 1-10% 54 CO 70,001-100,000 51-60% 21-30% 55 CT Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 56 CT Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 57 CT Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 58 CT Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 59 CT Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 60 CT Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 61 CT 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 62 CT 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 63 CT 5,001-10,000 41-50% 11-20% 64 CT 10,000-30,000 51-60% 51-60% 65 DE 5,001-10,000 51-60% 31-40% 66 FL Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 67 FL 5,001-10,000 81-90% 81-90% 68 FL 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 69 FL 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 70 FL 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% 71 FL 30,001-50,000 21-30% 11-20% 72 FL 30,001-50,000 41-50% 1-10% 73 FL 30,001-50,000 61-70% 21-30% 74 FL 50,001-70,000 51-60% 1-10% 75 FL 100,001-250,000 51-60% 21-30% 76 FL 100,001-250,000 51-60% 11-20% 77 GA Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 78 GA Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 79 GA Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 80 GA Less than 5,000 61-70% 61-70% 81 GA Less than 5,000 61-70% 11-20%

Appendices

90

82 GA Less than 5,000 61-70% 11-20% 83 GA Less than 5,000 61-70% 11-20% 84 GA Less than 5,000 81-90% 1-10% 85 GA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 86 GA 5,001-10,000 41-50% 31-40% 87 GA 5,001-10,000 61-70% 31-40% 88 GA 5,001-10,000 61-70% 11-20% 89 GA 5,001-10,000 61-70% 11-20% 90 GA 5,001-10,000 71-80% 41-50% 91 GA 5,001-10,000 71-80% 31-40% 92 GA 10,000-30,000 61-70% 51-60% 93 GA 10,000-30,000 81-90% 61-70% 94 GA 30,001-50,000 61-70% 31-40% 95 GA 30,001-50,000 81-90% 61-70% 96 GA 50,001-70,000 61-70% 31-40% 97 IA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 98 IA Less than 5,000 21-30% Less than 1% 99 IA Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10%

100 IA Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 101 IA Less than 5,000 41-50% 31-40% 102 IA Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 103 IA Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 104 IA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 105 IA 5,001-10,000 71-80% 21-30% 106 IA 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 107 IA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 41-50% 108 IA 30,001-50,000 61-70% 41-50% 109 ID Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 110 ID Less than 5,000 41-50% 21-30% 111 ID 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 112 ID 10,000-30,000 51-60% 11-20% 113 ID 70,001-100,000 51-60% 31-40% 114 IL Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 115 IL Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 116 IL Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 117 IL Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 118 IL Less than 5,000 41-50% 21-30% 119 IL Less than 5,000 51-60% 41-50% 120 IL Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 121 IL Less than 5,000 71-80% 31-40% 122 IL 5,001-10,000 81-90% 61-70% 123 IL 10,000-30,000 11-20% Less than 1% 124 IL 10,000-30,000 71-80% 31-40%

Appendices

91

125 IN Less than 5,000 31-40% 31-40% 126 IN Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 127 IN Less than 5,000 61-70% 61-70% 128 IN Less than 5,000 61-70% 41-50% 129 IN 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 130 IN 5,001-10,000 31-40% 11-20% 131 IN 5,001-10,000 61-70% 31-40% 132 IN 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 133 IN 10,000-30,000 51-60% 21-30% 134 IN 10,000-30,000 51-60% 31-40% 135 IN 10,000-30,000 61-70% 31-40% 136 IN 10,000-30,000 71-80% 71-80% 137 KS Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 138 KS Less than 5,000 41-50% Less than 1% 139 KS Less than 5,000 51-60% Less than 1% 140 KS Less than 5,000 51-60% Less than 1% 141 KS Less than 5,000 61-70% Less than 1% 142 KS 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 143 KS 5,001-10,000 41-50% 11-20% 144 KY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 145 KY Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 146 KY Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20% 147 KY Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 148 KY Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 149 KY Less than 5,000 51-60% 11-20% 150 KY Less than 5,000 61-70% 41-50% 151 KY Less than 5,000 71-80% 31-40% 152 KY Less than 5,000 71-80% 51-60% 153 KY Less than 5,000 71-80% 41-50% 154 KY Less than 5,000 71-80% 71-80% 155 KY 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 156 KY 5,001-10,000 31-40% 11-20% 157 KY 5,001-10,000 61-70% 31-40% 158 KY 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 159 KY 10,000-30,000 31-40% 21-30% 160 KY 10,000-30,000 51-60% 21-30% 161 LA Less than 5,000 61-70% 11-20% 162 LA Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 163 LA Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 164 LA Less than 5,000 81-90% 1-10% 165 LA 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 81-90% 166 LA 10,000-30,000 61-70% 21-30% 167 LA 10,000-30,000 61-70% 21-30%

Appendices

92

168 LA 30,001-50,000 71-80% 1-10% 169 MA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 170 MA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 171 MA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 172 MD Less than 5,000 61-70% 51-60% 173 MD 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 174 MD 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 175 ME Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 176 ME Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 177 ME Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 178 ME Less than 5,000 51-60% 11-20% 179 ME Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 180 MI Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20% 181 MI 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 182 MI 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 183 MI 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 184 MI 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 185 MI 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30% 186 MI 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 187 MI 30,001-50,000 21-30% 1-10% 188 MN 5,001-10,000 41-50% 11-20% 189 MN 10,000-30,000 31-40% 1-10% 190 MN 10,000-30,000 41-50% 11-20% 191 MN 70,001-100,000 41-50% 31-40% 192 MO Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 193 MO Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 194 MO Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 195 MO Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 196 MO Less than 5,000 71-80% 1-10% 197 MO Less than 5,000 81-90% 51-60% 198 MO 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 199 MO 5,001-10,000 41-50% 41-50% 200 MO 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 81-90% 201 MO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 202 MO 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 203 MO 10,000-30,000 61-70% 61-70% 204 MS Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 205 MS Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 206 MS Less than 5,000 51-60% 11-20% 207 MS Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 208 MS Less than 5,000 71-80% 41-50% 209 MS Less than 5,000 81-90% 81-90% 210 MS 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30%

Appendices

93

211 MS 5,001-10,000 71-80% 51-60% 212 MS 5,001-10,000 More than 90% More than 90% 213 MS 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 214 MS 10,000-30,000 51-60% Less than 1% 215 MS 10,000-30,000 61-70% 41-50% 216 MT 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 217 MT 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 218 NC Less than 5,000 61-70% 31-40% 219 NC Less than 5,000 71-80% 71-80% 220 NC Less than 5,000 81-90% 81-90% 221 NC Less than 5,000 81-90% 71-80% 222 NC Less than 5,000 81-90% 41-50% 223 NC 5,001-10,000 41-50% 11-20% 224 NC 5,001-10,000 51-60% 1-10% 225 NC 5,001-10,000 61-70% 31-40% 226 NC 5,001-10,000 71-80% 71-80% 227 NC 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 228 NC 30,001-50,000 61-70% 61-70% 229 ND 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 230 ND 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 231 NE 10,000-30,000 11-20% 21-30% 232 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 233 NJ Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 234 NJ Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 235 NJ Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 236 NJ Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 237 NJ Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 238 NJ Less than 5,000 31-40% Less than 1% 239 NJ Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 240 NJ Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 241 NJ 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 242 NJ 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 243 NM Less than 5,000 More than 90% More than 90% 244 NM 5,001-10,000 71-80% 31-40% 245 NM 5,001-10,000 81-90% 51-60% 246 NV 70,001-100,000 31-40% 1-10% 247 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 248 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 249 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 250 NY Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 251 NY Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20% 252 NY Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 253 NY Less than 5,000 21-30% Less than 1%

Appendices

94

254 NY Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 255 NY Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 256 NY 5,001-10,000 1-10% Less than 1% 257 NY 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 258 NY 5,001-10,000 61-70% 51-60% 259 NY 5,001-10,000 61-70% 51-60% 260 OH Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 261 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 262 OH Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 263 OH Less than 5,000 21-30% 11-20% 264 OH Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 265 OH Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 266 OH Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 267 OH Less than 5,000 31-40% 11-20% 268 OH Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 269 OH Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 270 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 41-50% 271 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 272 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 273 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 274 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 275 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 41-50% 276 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 277 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 41-50% 278 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 279 OH Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 280 OH Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 281 OH Less than 5,000 51-60% Less than 1% 282 OH Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 283 OH Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 284 OH Less than 5,000 61-70% 61-70% 285 OH Less than 5,000 81-90% 71-80% 286 OH 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 287 OH 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 288 OH 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 289 OH 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 290 OH 5,001-10,000 41-50% 31-40% 291 OH 5,001-10,000 41-50% 1-10% 292 OH 5,001-10,000 51-60% 11-20% 293 OH 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30% 294 OH 5,001-10,000 61-70% 71-80% 295 OH 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 296 OH 10,000-30,000 41-50% 1-10%

Appendices

95

297 OH 10,000-30,000 51-60% 41-50% 298 OH 10,000-30,000 61-70% 1-10% 299 OK Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 300 OK Less than 5,000 71-80% 71-80% 301 OK Less than 5,000 More than 90% More than 90% 302 OK 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 303 OK 5,001-10,000 41-50% 41-50% 304 OK 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 305 OR Less than 5,000 61-70% 51-60% 306 OR 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 307 OR 10,000-30,000 71-80% 41-50% 308 OR 30,001-50,000 51-60% 41-50% 309 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 310 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 311 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 312 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 313 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 314 PA Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 315 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 316 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 317 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 318 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 319 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 320 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 321 PA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 322 PA Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 323 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 324 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 325 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 326 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 327 PA Less than 5,000 31-40% Less than 1% 328 PA Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 329 PA Less than 5,000 41-50% Less than 1% 330 PA Less than 5,000 41-50% 11-20% 331 PA Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 332 PA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 333 PA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 334 PA 5,001-10,000 61-70% 1-10% 335 PA 5,001-10,000 81-90% 81-90% 336 PA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 337 PA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 338 PA 10,000-30,000 51-60% Less than 1% 339 SC 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30%

Appendices

96

340 SC 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 341 SC 50,001-70,000 51-60% 21-30% 342 TN Less than 5,000 51-60% Less than 1% 343 TN Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 344 TN Less than 5,000 61-70% 41-50% 345 TN Less than 5,000 61-70% 31-40% 346 TN Less than 5,000 71-80% 1-10% 347 TN Less than 5,000 71-80% Less than 1% 348 TN 5,001-10,000 51-60% Less than 1% 349 TN 5,001-10,000 71-80% 1-10% 350 TN 5,001-10,000 71-80% 11-20% 351 TN 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 352 TN 30,001-50,000 41-50% 11-20% 353 TN 100,001-250,000 71-80% 51-60% 354 TX Less than 5,000 1-10% More than 90% 355 TX Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 356 TX Less than 5,000 51-60% 51-60% 357 TX Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 358 TX Less than 5,000 71-80% 51-60% 359 TX Less than 5,000 71-80% 11-20% 360 TX 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 361 TX 5,001-10,000 71-80% 41-50% 362 TX 5,001-10,000 71-80% 51-60% 363 TX 5,001-10,000 More than 90% More than 90% 364 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 365 TX 10,000-30,000 31-40% 31-40% 366 TX 10,000-30,000 41-50% 31-40% 367 TX 10,000-30,000 51-60% 31-40% 368 TX 10,000-30,000 61-70% 31-40% 369 TX 10,000-30,000 61-70% 21-30% 370 TX 10,000-30,000 71-80% 71-80% 371 TX 10,000-30,000 81-90% 81-90% 372 TX 10,000-30,000 81-90% 81-90% 373 TX 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 374 TX 10,000-30,000 More than 90% More than 90% 375 TX 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 376 TX 30,001-50,000 51-60% 21-30% 377 TX 30,001-50,000 71-80% 71-80% 378 TX 30,001-50,000 71-80% 21-30% 379 TX 30,001-50,000 More than 90% More than 90% 380 TX 30,001-50,000 More than 90% More than 90% 381 TX 50,001-70,000 11-20% 1-10% 382 TX 50,001-70,000 51-60% 41-50%

Appendices

97

383 TX 50,001-70,000 61-70% 41-50% 384 TX 50,001-70,000 More than 90% 81-90% 385 TX 70,001-100,000 51-60% 31-40% 386 TX 70,001-100,000 71-80% 21-30% 387 TX 100,001-250,000 81-90% 71-80% 388 UT 50,001-70,000 21-30% 11-20% 389 VA Less than 5,000 31-40% 21-30% 390 VA Less than 5,000 41-50% 1-10% 391 VA Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 392 VA Less than 5,000 51-60% 1-10% 393 VA Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 394 VA Less than 5,000 61-70% 11-20% 395 VA Less than 5,000 71-80% 71-80% 396 VA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 11-20% 397 VA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 398 VA 5,001-10,000 41-50% 21-30% 399 VA 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30% 400 VA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 401 VA 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 402 VA 10,000-30,000 21-30% 11-20% 403 VA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 11-20% 404 VA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 31-40% 405 VA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 11-20% 406 VA 10,000-30,000 61-70% 51-60% 407 VA 30,001-50,000 31-40% 11-20% 408 VA 50,001-70,000 31-40% 11-20% 409 VA 70,001-100,000 11-20% 11-20% 410 WA Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 411 WA Less than 5,000 51-60% 21-30% 412 WA Less than 5,000 61-70% 11-20% 413 WA 5,001-10,000 81-90% 71-80% 414 WA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 415 WA 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 416 WA 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 417 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% 1-10% 418 WI Less than 5,000 1-10% Less than 1% 419 WI Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 420 WI Less than 5,000 11-20% 1-10% 421 WI Less than 5,000 11-20% Less than 1% 422 WI Less than 5,000 11-20% 11-20% 423 WI Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 424 WI Less than 5,000 31-40% 1-10% 425 WI 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10%

Appendices

98

426 WI 5,001-10,000 31-40% 31-40% 427 WI 5,001-10,000 31-40% 31-40% 428 WI 10,000-30,000 41-50% 31-40% 429 WV Less than 5,000 21-30% 1-10% 430 WV Less than 5,000 51-60% 31-40% 431 WV Less than 5,000 61-70% 1-10% 432 WV 10,000-30,000 31-40% 21-30% 433 WY 10,000-30,000 31-40% 31-40%

Appendices

99

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

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

State District Enrollment

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

Black Hispanic F/R Lunch Black Hispanic F/R Lunch

1 Not Reported Less than 5000 1-10% 31-40% 21-30% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10%

2 Not Reported 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30%

3 AL Less than 5000 More than 90% 1-10% Not Reported More than 90% Less than 1% Not Reported 4 AL Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 5 AL Less than 5000 1-10% 11-20% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 6 AL Less than 5000 More than 90% 1-10% 81-90% 51-60% Less than 1% 51-60% 7 AL 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 61-70% 31-40% 1-10% 51-60% 8 AL 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 9 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40%

10 AL 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 11 AL 10,000-30,000 71-80% 1-10% 61-70% 21-30% 1-10% 21-30% 12 AL 30,001-50,000 71-80% 1-10% 71-80% 61-70% 1-10% Not Reported 13 AL 70,001-100,000 Not Reported 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 14 AR Less than 5000 41-50% 1-10% More than 90% 31-40% 1-10% More than 90% 15 AR Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 16 AR 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 17 AR 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 18 AR 10,000-30,000 1-10% 71-80% 21-30% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 19 AR 10,000-30,000 41-50% 1-10% 41-50% 41-50% 1-10% 41-50% 20 AZ 5,001-10,000 21-30% 61-70% 81-90% 1-10% 41-50% 51-60% 21 AZ 5,001-10,000 1-10% 51-60% 71-80% 11-20% 21-30% 51-60% 22 AZ 10,000-30,000 1-10% 81-90% 81-90% 1-10% 71-80% 71-80%

Appendices

100

23 AZ 30,001-50,000 1-10% 21-30% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 24 CA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 25 CA Less than 5000 61-70% 11-20% 11-20% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 26 CA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 81-90% Less than 1% Less than 1% 81-90% 27 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 21-30% 31-40% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 28 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 81-90% 81-90% 1-10% 61-70% 61-70% 29 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 31-40% 51-60% 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 30 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 31-40% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 31 CA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 51-60% 51-60% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 32 CA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 71-80% More than 90% 1-10% 71-80% More than 90% 33 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 71-80% 61-70% 1-10% 51-60% 31-40% 34 CA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 51-60% 51-60% 1-10% 41-50% 41-50% 35 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 41-50% 41-50% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 36 CA 10,000-30,000 1-10% More than 90% 81-90% 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 37 CA 30,001-50,000 51-60% Not Reported 61-70% 1-10% 11-20% Not Reported

38 CA 100,001-250,000 1-10% 41-50% 61-70% 1-10% 31-40% 31-40%

39 CO Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported 40 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 41 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 51-60% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported 42 CO 10,000-30,000 1-10% 11-20% 41-50% 1-10% 11-20% 11-20% 43 CO 30,001-50,000 1-10% 31-40% 51-60% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 44 CO 70,001-100,000 21-30% 41-50% 51-60% 31-40% 51-60% 21-30% 45 CT Less than 5000 41-50% 1-10% 31-40% 11-20% 1-10% 11-20% 46 CT 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 41-50% 11-20% 1-10% 11-20% 47 CT 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 48 CT 10,000-30,000 11-20% 41-50% 51-60% 1-10% 31-40% 51-60% 49 CT 10,000-30,000 51-60% 21-30% 51-60% 41-50% 21-30% Not Reported 50 DE 5,001-10,000 51-60% 1-10% 51-60% 41-50% 1-10% 31-40% 51 FL Less than 5000 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 52 FL 5,001-10,000 71-80% 11-20% 81-90% 81-90% 1-10% 81-90%

Appendices

101

53 FL 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 54 FL 30,001-50,000 31-40% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 55 FL 30,001-50,000 11-20% 21-30% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 56 FL 50,001-70,000 11-20% 11-20% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10%

57 FL 100,001-250,000 21-30% 31-40% 51-60% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30%

58 FL 100,001-250,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20%

59 GA Less than 5000 21-30% 21-30% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 60 GA Less than 5000 51-60% 21-30% 81-90% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 61 GA Less than 5000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 62 GA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 63 GA Less than 5000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 64 GA Less than 5000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 65 GA Less than 5000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 66 GA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 67 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 61-70% Less than 1% 1-10% 11-20% 68 GA 5,001-10,000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 69 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% 1-10% Not Reported 70 GA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 11-20% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 71 GA 5,001-10,000 71-80% 1-10% 61-70% 31-40% 31-40% 31-40% 72 GA 5,001-10,000 21-30% 21-30% 71-80% 11-20% 11-20% 41-50% 73 GA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 74 GA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 41-50% 41-50% 1-10% 21-30% 31-40% 75 GA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% 61-70% 41-50% 1-10% 51-60% 76 GA 10,000-30,000 81-90% 1-10% 81-90% 51-60% 1-10% 61-70% 77 GA 30,001-50,000 61-70% 1-10% 81-90% 31-40% 1-10% 61-70% 78 GA 30,001-50,000 61-70% 1-10% 61-70% 21-30% 21-30% 31-40% 79 GA 50,001-70,000 71-80% 1-10% 61-70% 41-50% 1-10% 31-40% 80 IA Less than 5000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 81 IA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% 1-10% 21-30%

Appendices

102

82 IA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 83 IA Less than 5000 1-10% 11-20% 51-60% Less than 1% 1-10% 21-30% 84 IA Less than 5000 1-10% 11-20% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 85 IA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 31-40% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 86 IA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 31-40% 41-50% 1-10% 21-30% 41-50% 87 IA 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported 88 IA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 89 IA 30,001-50,000 21-30% 21-30% 61-70% 21-30% 21-30% 41-50% 90 ID Less than 5000 Less than 1% 11-20% 41-50% Less than 1% 1-10% Not Reported 91 ID Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 92 ID Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 93 ID 10,000-30,000 1-10% 31-40% 51-60% Less than 1% 1-10% 11-20% 94 ID 10,000-30,000 1-10% 21-30% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 95 ID 70,001-100,000 1-10% 11-20% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 31-40% 96 IL Less than 5000 11-20% 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 97 IL Less than 5000 1-10% 31-40% 41-50% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 98 IL Less than 5000 71-80% 1-10% 51-60% 61-70% 1-10% 41-50% 99 IL Less than 5000 1-10% Not Reported 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 100 IL Less than 5000 1-10% 21-30% 41-50% Less than 1% 1-10% 11-20% 101 IL Less than 5000 21-30% 11-20% 31-40% 11-20% 11-20% 21-30% 102 IL 5,001-10,000 51-60% 21-30% 81-90% 31-40% 11-20% 61-70% 103 IL 10,000-30,000 21-30% 21-30% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 104 IN Less than 5000 1-10% 21-30% 31-40% Less than 1% 1-10% 31-40% 105 IN Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 106 IN Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 107 IN Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% 108 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 109 IN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 61-70% 61-70% Less than 1% 1-10% 31-40% 110 IN 10,000-30,000 More than 90% 1-10% 71-80% More than 90% 1-10% 71-80% 111 IN 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 51-60% 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 112 IN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30%

Appendices

103

113 IN 10,000-30,000 1-10% 11-20% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 114 IN 10,000-30,000 61-70% 11-20% 61-70% 41-50% 11-20% 31-40% 115 KS Less than 5000 Less than 1% 41-50% 41-50% Less than 1% 1-10% Less than 1% 116 KS Less than 5000 1-10% 11-20% 61-70% Less than 1% 1-10% Less than 1% 117 KS Less than 5000 1-10% 51-60% 51-60% Less than 1% 1-10% Less than 1% 118 KS Less than 5000 Less than 1% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 119 KS 5,001-10,000 11-20% 21-30% 41-50% 11-20% 11-20% 11-20% 120 KY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 121 KY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 122 KY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% Less than 1% 1-10% 71-80% 123 KY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 124 KY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% Less than 1% 51-60% 125 KY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported 126 KY Less than 5000 1-10% 21-30% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 127 KY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 128 KY Less than 5000 1-10% Less than 1% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 129 KY 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 130 KY 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 131 KY 10,000-30,000 Not Reported 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 132 KY 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 21-30% 133 LA Less than 5000 61-70% 1-10% 81-90% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 134 LA Less than 5000 11-20% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 135 LA Less than 5000 51-60% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 136 LA Less than 5000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 137 LA 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 1-10% 81-90% 138 LA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 139 LA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 140 LA 30,001-50,000 41-50% 11-20% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 141 MD Less than 5000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 142 ME Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 143 ME Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20%

Appendices

104

144 ME Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 145 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 146 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 147 MI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported 148 MI 30,001-50,000 31-40% 1-10% 21-30% 11-20% 1-10% 1-10% 149 MN 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 11-20% 1-10% 11-20% 150 MN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 151 MN 10,000-30,000 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 152 MN 70,001-100,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 153 MO Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 154 MO Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 155 MO Less than 5000 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% Less than 1% 11-20% 156 MO Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 157 MO Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 158 MO Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 81-90% Less than 1% Less than 1% 51-60% 159 MO 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% Less than 1% 81-90% 160 MO 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 11-20% 41-50% 161 MO 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% 61-70% 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 162 MS Less than 5000 81-90% 1-10% 81-90% 71-80% 1-10% 81-90% 163 MS Less than 5000 51-60% 1-10% 51-60% 21-30% 1-10% 31-40% 164 MS Less than 5000 21-30% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 165 MS Less than 5000 51-60% 1-10% 71-80% 21-30% Less than 1% 41-50% 166 MS Less than 5000 41-50% 1-10% 51-60% 11-20% Less than 1% 11-20% 167 MS Less than 5000 81-90% 1-10% 51-60% 71-80% 1-10% 31-40% 168 MS 5,001-10,000 41-50% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 169 MS 5,001-10,000 41-50% 1-10% 71-80% 11-20% 1-10% 51-60% 170 MS 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 1-10% More than 90% 71-80% 1-10% More than 90% 171 MS 10,000-30,000 31-40% 1-10% 31-40% 21-30% 1-10% 11-20% 172 MS 10,000-30,000 21-30% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 81-90% 41-50% 173 MS 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% 51-60% 21-30% 1-10% Less than 1% 174 MT 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20%

Appendices

105

175 MT 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 176 NC Less than 5000 61-70% 1-10% 81-90% 11-20% 1-10% 81-90% 177 NC Less than 5000 21-30% 31-40% 81-90% 11-20% 21-30% 71-80% 178 NC Less than 5000 81-90% 1-10% 81-90% More than 90% Less than 1% 41-50% 179 NC Less than 5000 81-90% 1-10% 71-80% 71-80% 1-10% 71-80% 180 NC Less than 5000 51-60% 1-10% 61-70% 31-40% 1-10% 31-40% 181 NC 5,001-10,000 21-30% 21-30% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 182 NC 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 183 NC 5,001-10,000 31-40% 11-20% 71-80% 31-40% 1-10% 71-80% 184 NC 5,001-10,000 21-30% 11-20% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 185 NC 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 186 NC 10,000-30,000 11-20% 11-20% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported 187 NC 30,001-50,000 21-30% 11-20% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 61-70%

188 NC 100,001-250,000 21-30% 11-20% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported

189 NC 100,001-250,000 41-50% 11-20% 51-60% 11-20% 1-10% Not Reported

190 NJ Less than 5000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 191 NJ Less than 5000 Less than 1% 31-40% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 192 NJ Less than 5000 1-10% 51-60% 71-80% 1-10% 31-40% Not Reported 193 NJ Less than 5000 41-50% 11-20% 41-50% 31-40% Less than 1% 11-20% 194 NM Less than 5000 1-10% 41-50% More than 90% 1-10% 41-50% More than 90% 195 NM 5,001-10,000 1-10% 21-30% 71-80% 1-10% 21-30% 31-40% 196 NM 5,001-10,000 1-10% 51-60% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported 197 NM 5,001-10,000 1-10% 51-60% 81-90% 1-10% 41-50% 51-60% 198 NV 70,001-100,000 1-10% 31-40% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 199 NY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 200 NY Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 201 NY Less than 5000 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 202 NY 5,001-10,000 21-30% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 203 NY 5,001-10,000 21-30% 61-70% 61-70% 11-20% 31-40% 51-60%

Appendices

106

204 NY 5,001-10,000 1-10% 51-60% 31-40% 1-10% 31-40% 21-30% 205 NY 5,001-10,000 31-40% Not Reported 1-10% 21-30% 1-10% Less than 1% 206 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 11-20% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 207 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 208 OH Less than 5000 31-40% 11-20% 81-90% 11-20% 1-10% 71-80% 209 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% Less than 1% Not Reported 210 OH Less than 5000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20% 211 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 212 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 213 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 214 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% 215 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% 1-10% 21-30% 216 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 217 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 218 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 219 OH Less than 5000 1-10% Less than 1% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 31-40% 220 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 221 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 222 OH Less than 5000 1-10% Less than 1% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 31-40% 223 OH Less than 5000 31-40% 1-10% 41-50% 31-40% 1-10% 41-50% 224 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% 61-70% 225 OH Less than 5000 1-10% Less than 1% 41-50% Less than 1% More than 90% 1-10% 226 OH Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 227 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 21-30% 228 OH 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 229 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 230 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 231 OH 5,001-10,000 71-80% 1-10% 61-70% 41-50% 1-10% 71-80% 232 OH 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 233 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% Less than 1% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 41-50% 234 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10%

Appendices

107

235 OH 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 236 OK Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% More than 90% 1-10% 1-10% More than 90% 237 OK Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% 238 OK Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 239 OK 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 240 OR Less than 5000 1-10% 31-40% 61-70% Less than 1% 1-10% 51-60% 241 OR 10,000-30,000 1-10% 21-30% 71-80% 1-10% 11-20% 41-50% 242 OR 30,001-50,000 1-10% 21-30% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 243 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 31-40% 41-50% Less than 1% 1-10% 1-10% 244 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 245 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 246 PA Less than 5000 1-10% More than 90% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% Not Reported 247 PA Less than 5000 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% Less than 1% 21-30% 248 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 249 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 250 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 251 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20% 252 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 253 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% Less than 1% Less than 1% Not Reported 254 PA Less than 5000 31-40% 1-10% 21-30% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 255 PA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 256 PA 5,001-10,000 More than 90% 1-10% 81-90% More than 90% 1-10% 81-90% 257 PA 5,001-10,000 31-40% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 258 PA 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% Less than 1% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 259 SC 5,001-10,000 31-40% 21-30% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 260 SC 10,000-30,000 31-40% 11-20% 41-50% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 261 SC 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% Not Reported 11-20% 1-10% 21-30% 262 SC 50,001-70,000 21-30% 11-20% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 263 TN Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 264 TN Less than 5000 11-20% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 265 TN Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10%

Appendices

108

266 TN Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% 41-50% 267 TN Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 268 TN Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 269 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% 270 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% More than 90% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 271 TN 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 272 TN 30,001-50,000 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 273 TN 30,001-50,000 31-40% 1-10% 11-20% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10%

274 TN 100,001-250,000 81-90% 1-10% 71-80% 51-60% 1-10% 51-60%

275 TX Less than 5000 1-10% 11-20% 71-80% 1-10% 11-20% 51-60% 276 TX Less than 5000 1-10% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 277 TX Less than 5000 Less than 1% 81-90% More than 90% 1-10% 1-10% Not Reported 278 TX Less than 5000 11-20% 21-30% 51-60% 1-10% 11-20% 51-60% 279 TX Less than 5000 1-10% 41-50% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 280 TX Less than 5000 1-10% 31-40% 71-80% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 281 TX 5,001-10,000 31-40% 31-40% 71-80% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 282 TX 5,001-10,000 31-40% 31-40% 71-80% 1-10% 21-30% 51-60% 283 TX 5,001-10,000 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 284 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 21-30% 31-40% 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 285 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 41-50% 61-70% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 286 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 71-80% 71-80% 1-10% 71-80% 71-80% 287 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 41-50% 51-60% 1-10% 31-40% 31-40% 288 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 61-70% 41-50% 1-10% 31-40% 31-40% 289 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 51-60% 61-70% 1-10% 31-40% 31-40% 290 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 291 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% More than 90% 81-90% 1-10% More than 90% 81-90% 292 TX 10,000-30,000 Less than 1% More than 90% 81-90% Not Reported More than 90% 81-90% 293 TX 10,000-30,000 11-20% 31-40% 31-40% 1-10% 11-20% Not Reported 294 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% 295 TX 10,000-30,000 1-10% 41-50% 31-40% Not Reported 31-40% Not Reported

Appendices

109

296 TX 30,001-50,000 11-20% 41-50% 71-80% 1-10% 41-50% 21-30% 297 TX 30,001-50,000 21-30% 71-80% 71-80% 11-20% 61-70% 71-80% 298 TX 30,001-50,000 1-10% 51-60% 51-60% 1-10% 21-30% 21-30% 299 TX 30,001-50,000 1-10% More than 90% More than 90% More than 90% More than 90% More than 90% 300 TX 30,001-50,000 Less than 1% More than 90% More than 90% Less than 1% More than 90% More than 90% 301 TX 50,001-70,000 11-20% 41-50% 51-60% 11-20% 31-40% 41-50% 302 TX 50,001-70,000 1-10% 81-90% More than 90% 1-10% 71-80% 81-90% 303 TX 50,001-70,000 1-10% 71-80% 61-70% 1-10% 61-70% 41-50% 304 TX 70,001-100,000 1-10% 61-70% 51-60% 1-10% 51-60% 31-40% 305 TX 70,001-100,000 21-30% 51-60% 71-80% 21-30% 41-50% 21-30% 306 TX 70,001-100,000 Not Reported 61-70% Not Reported 41-50% Not Reported 41-50%

307 TX 100,001-250,000 21-30% 61-70% 81-90% 21-30% 61-70% 71-80%

308 VA Less than 5000 1-10% Less than 1% 71-80% 1-10% Less than 1% 71-80% 309 VA Less than 5000 11-20% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% Less than 1% 1-10% 310 VA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 11-20% Less than 1% 21-30% 311 VA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 312 VA Less than 5000 41-50% 31-40% 61-70% Not Reported 1-10% 1-10% 313 VA Less than 5000 31-40% 1-10% 51-60% 11-20% 1-10% 21-30% 314 VA Less than 5000 41-50% 11-20% 61-70% 21-30% 1-10% 11-20% 315 VA 5,001-10,000 Not Reported 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 316 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 317 VA 5,001-10,000 11-20% 1-10% 31-40% 11-20% 1-10% 11-20% 318 VA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 21-30% 319 VA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 21-30% 51-60% 21-30% 11-20% 11-20% 320 VA 10,000-30,000 41-50% 1-10% 61-70% 61-70% Less than 1% 51-60% 321 VA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 322 VA 10,000-30,000 51-60% 1-10% 51-60% 31-40% 1-10% 31-40% 323 VA 30,001-50,000 31-40% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 324 VA 50,001-70,000 Not Reported 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 325 WA Less than 5000 1-10% 11-20% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% 11-20%

Appendices

110

326 WA Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% Less than 1% Less than 1% 21-30% 327 WA 5,001-10,000 1-10% 81-90% 81-90% Less than 1% 31-40% 71-80% 328 WA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 11-20% 329 WA 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% Less than 1% 1-10% 11-20% 330 WI Less than 5000 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 1-10% 331 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 11-20% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 332 WI 5,001-10,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 333 WI 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 41-50% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 334 WV Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 51-60% 1-10% Less than 1% 31-40% 335 WV Less than 5000 1-10% 1-10% 61-70% Less than 1% Less than 1% 1-10% 336 WV 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% Not Reported 21-30% 337 WY 10,000-30,000 1-10% 1-10% 31-40% 1-10% 1-10% 31-40%

status of elementary gifted programs - nagc

Documents