National Surveys of Gifted

Programs
Executive Summary
2014

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.
 Overview

In order to address concerns about the lack of systematic and specific data regarding programs
for gifted students, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned a study to develop a national portrait
of the current status of gifted programs at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. This executive
summary presents highlights from the study and identifies areas for consideration in future policy
development at the federal, state, and local level relating to the education of gifted learners.
With funding provided by the U. S. Department of Education, the research team identified areas
in need of comprehensive data to describe the status of gifted education programs nationally. In
particular the research team focused on ascertaining the current status of practices and procedures that
are reflected in operations of gifted programs in the areas of administration (staffing), identification of
gifted students, curriculum and instruction, program delivery models, finance, evaluation, teacher
selection, and staff development. We also were interested in the degree to which national standards (i.e.,
the National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] PreK-Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming
Standards) are used to guide programming.
Draft surveys (for data collection at the elementary, middle, and high school level) were
constructed based on current research in the field of gifted education, best practices in the field of gifted
education, and national level gifted education standards. The draft surveys were piloted with district
coordinators representing various levels of funding and student population sizes and revised accordingly.
The final surveys included questions across the areas of funding, identification of gifted students, gifted
programming, curricular emphases, teacher qualifications, and program evaluation.
The desired sample size for the surveys was determined by first considering the number of public
school districts in the U.S. and by implementing a 95% confidence level with a 3% margin of error,
resulting in a suggested sample size of 1,062 for each school level (elementary school, middle school, and
high school). In order to account for potential non-responses, the research team sampled 2,000 districts
for each school level. Market Data Retrieval provided district level information for each randomly selected
public school district in the U.S., stratified according to urbanicity, size, and distribution of ethnic groups.
Each sample was made up of 35% urban, 35% suburban, and 25% rural school districts. After sampling for
the elementary school gifted program survey, the research team eliminated overlapping districts to avoid
sampling the same school districts for the middle school and high school surveys. In addition, school
districts that did not serve the targeted grade levels were removed. The final sample for the elementary
gifted programs survey included 2,000 districts while the middle school gifted program survey sample was
comprised of 1,753 school districts, and 1,160 the high school districts were surveyed.
Surveys were distributed through an online survey platform to district-level
coordinators/directors whose email addresses were available from state gifted education directors or the
school districts’ websites. When district contact email addresses were not available, hard copies of
surveys were mailed. The elementary school gifted program survey responses were collected between
November 2010 and April 2011. The middle school level survey data were collected between November
2011 and February 2012, and the high school survey data were gathered in March through June 2012.
A gifted program was defined on the survey as a program with 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. The survey included both closed (i.e., select best option)

1
questions and open-ended questions, which allowed for the collection of in-depth information pertinent
to the gifted programs at each school level. Frequencies and percentages of responses were computed on
each closed-ended item. The open-ended section of the survey and any additional documents supplied by
respondents were analyzed inductively seeking patterns and common themes across the responses.
The average response rate was 30.8% across the three surveys, and a total of 1,566 school
districts across the nation provided data in response to the three separate surveys (765, 486, and 315 for
elementary, middle, and high school surveys, respectively). The research team received approximately the
same proportion of responses across urban, suburban, and rural school districts. Schonlau, Fricker, and
Elliott (2002) reported that response rates for web surveys typically range from 7% to 44% and that
responses to open-ended questions in web surveys provided more complete information when compared
to paper surveys. The expansive nature of the surveys resulted in what would be considered a long and
demanding survey, which probably decreased response rates.

Context
While the federal Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Children and Youth Education Act of 1988
[Javits Act] (H.R. 543, 1988) acknowledged the need for special programs for gifted children and
proposed advancing knowledge and services through funding research, model programs, and leadership
training. However, the legislation does not include a national policy on gifted education. Unlike federal
policy with regards to other special needs children and adolescents (e.g., children with disabilities), the
federal government does not legislate a definition of giftedness that must be adopted by states or local
education agencies, nor does it provide specific requirements for services. Furthermore, the only federal
funding allocated specifically to research or services for gifted students in the past several decades was
provided through the Javits Act. The federal financial allocations for the Javits Act and any research or
services designated specifically for gifted education have historically been miniscule relative to both
allocations for other educational programs and the total spending on education in general. But even the
funding allocated in the Javits Act represented only1/33 of 1% of the federal education budget. (See
Figure 1 for an illustration of the relative funding during 2007, which was one of the years when federal
funding for the Javits Act was highest.)

Figure 1: Federal Education Budget 2007

2
 Since 2011, the federal government has allocated $0 funding dollars for programs through the
Javits Act.1 No other federal legislation is specifically tailored to provide monies for gifted programs and
service, and budget cuts at the state and local levels contribute to the challenge of serving the nation’s
gifted youth. Because of the absence of federal-level policy and financial support, each state has (or does
not have) its own policy 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. The results
from these surveys highlight the challenges and implications of such variation in policies.

Findings

Status of Gifted Programming

 A majority of the district coordinators (92.5%, 83.7%, and 75.1% at the elementary, middle, and
high school level respectively) indicated that their districts offer a program with a specific process
for the identification of a group of students who were provided with educational options in ways
that differ from regular classroom curricula and/or instructional practices.

Policies on Gifted Education

 State-level regulations. The vast majority of respondents (approximately 90%) indicated that
there were state regulations in place that provided guidance in the development and
implementation of programs for gifted and talented students. Although there was wide variation
in the state-level regulations, most regulations centered on similar aspects of gifted
programming: the definition of gifted students, the areas of giftedness to be identified, and
teacher qualifications. These results were similar to those reported in the State of the States in
Gifted Education: National Policy and Practice Data (National Association of Gifted Children
[NAGC] & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2011, 2013).
 Funding. School districts report being dependent on local funding for providing gifted education
services. Nearly 40% of districts with elementary gifted programs, 51% of the districts with
middle school gifted programs, and 60% of the districts with high school gifted programs
received no state funding. The differing proportion of districts receiving state funding across
elementary, middle, and high school levels mirrors the differential funding patterns for other
educational programs at the federal level. According to Riddle (2011), under Title I, elementary
schools received 76% of the school allocations for Title I funds - considerably more than their
share of the nation’s low-income students (57%). Fourteen percent of Title I funds were allocated
to middle schools, which enrolled 20% of all low-income students, and high schools received 10%
of Title I funds and enrolled 22% of all low-income students (Year 2004-2005). Survey results
indicated little change in the allocation of state funding for gifted education services, as also
noted in the report State of the States in Gifted Education: National Policy and Practice Data
2010-2011 (NAGC & CSDPG, 2011). The research team also collected data relative to specific

1
After completion of this report, the Congress included $5 million for the Javits Act in the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (H.R. 3547), which was signed into law by President Obama on January 17, 2014.

3
 funding amounts; however, the question was interpreted in many
different ways. At one extreme, some districts included salaries and Although alternative theories of
benefits for all personnel teaching in heterogeneous classrooms with intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1983;
gifted students; at the other extreme, only expenses directly relating Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997)
to gifted education services were reported. For that reason, the and broadened conceptions of
research team decided not to report on funding amount. giftedness (e.g., Gagné, 1993;
Renzulli, 1986) have been offered
 Administrative allocation. The most prevalent administrative
in the field of gifted education, the
position was a part-time (less than 50%) gifted program administrator,
survey responses indicated that
whose assignment included gifted education among other the broadened conceptions of
responsibilities. This result suggests a minimum level of dedicated giftedness have not been widely
expertise at the leadership level, which adds challenges in the adopted and/or operationalized in
development of high-quality educational programs that support local level practices.
gifted students’ learning.
 Teacher qualification requirements. A state endorsement in gifted
education or parallel credentials were required to teach identified Educators at the local level face
gifted students in 53.6%, 49.1% and 33.8% of the districts at the more challenges in states where
there is no state definition or
elementary, middle, and high school levels, respectively. When
where state policy does not
respondents were asked if there were additional requirements for
require districts to use the state
teaching gifted students beyond state-level requirements, a large
definitions. While seemingly
proportion of respondents (80.9% and 74.1% at the middle and high providing flexibility, lack of policy
school level) reported that their teacher credential requirements did often relegates decision-making
not differ from state-level credential requirements. The elementary at the local level to individuals
survey did not include questions relating to credential requirements without the time and resources to
relative to state-level requirements. investigate viable and defensible
options for definition,
identification, and/or specification
Definition of Giftedness of services for gifted students.
 The areas of giftedness. Prior reports (e.g., NAGC & CSDPG, 2009, This is particularly the case in
2011) document a wide range of definitions for giftedness at the those districts where only 50% or
state level. The survey results reflect this variation in the definitions less of a position is dedicated to
of giftedness that guide local practice. The vast majority of gifted program leadership.
respondents indicated that their districts followed the definition for
giftedness adopted at the state level (81.0% and 74.4% of the districts with middle school and
high school gifted programs respectively2).
 Definition of giftedness adopted by local districts. The survey results included many local
definitions that encompassed a wide range of areas that have been put forth in definitions of
giftedness in literature of the field, including creativity and high academic achievement. The most
common area of giftedness identified for services by respondents across all school levels was
intellectual giftedness.

2
Whether districts follow their state definitions of giftedness was not investigated in the elementary gifted program survey.

4
Identification of Gifted Students
 Percentage of identified gifted students. The average reported The finding that fewer districts
identify students as gifted at the
percentage of elementary level students identified at gifted as 7.8%
middle school and high school
with a standard deviation of 6.5%. The percentage of students
level likely has detrimental effects
identified as gifted ranged between 0% and 50% at the elementary on educators’ ability to identify
level. At the middle and high school level, the majority of district many students who are in need of
coordinators (62.0% and 57.9% respectively) reported that educational services. Just
between 1% and 10% of the students were identified as gifted. identifying at the elementary
When respondents were asked if they identify gifted students at school level ignores evidence that
the middle and high school level, 81.4% of the districts at the documents the very different
middle school level and 58.9% of the districts at the high school developmental trajectories among
level reported that they have a specific process in place to identify individuals during childhood and
adolescence. Hence it ignores the
gifted students. The remaining districts did not identify gifted
possibility that some students with
students at the middle and high school level and student eligibility
very specific talents in specific
depended on the identification at the prior school level. disciplines may emerge as the
 Identification practices. Respondents reported a wide array of curriculum begins to reflect
identification practices in elementary, middle, and high schools, differences in aptitude for high
and those practices fell on a continuum representing the degree to performance or students’
which practices recommended in the literature were followed. At development results in the
one extreme on the continuum the reported identification system emergence of talent. For example,
relied on only one data point or used an additive combination of the discipline of mathematics
cut-off scores for selection to receive services. At the other end of requires different thinking skills
and performances than are
the continuum, there were procedures that included a multi-
required for success in arithmetic.
faceted approach combining exemplary practices such as:
If school districts do not rescreen
collecting information from multiple data sources to create a to identify students who may have
student profile; decision-making by a committee of trained been missed in screenings at the
educators; selecting appropriate identification tools based on the elementary school level (often only
student demographic information (such as race or language once at the second or third grade
proficiency); looking for evidence of a broader skill set matching level), they many fail to identify
properties of the adopted definition; purposefully including many gifted students. These
strategies for considering students who may have a disability; identified students may be
continuously training key personnel to ensure decision-making excluded from services at the
middle school and high school
reliability; and identifying students within the Response to
level. Not having the opportunity
Intervention (RTI) framework.
to participate in those advanced
 Demographic Representation - Minority Students. When level services, including but not
demographic data were disaggregated by looking at the alignment limited to Advanced Placement or
between the percentage of certain subgroups of students in each International Baccalaureate
district and the percentage of the various racial and socio- options, may have grave
economic subgroups in the district’s gifted programs, the implications for subsequent
representation of minority students and economically college application and admissions
disadvantaged students in gifted programs varied widely across decisions.

5
 school districts. In only 50% of elementary school districts was exact alignment3 reported for
Black student representation; 34% of districts at the middle school level and 50% at the high level
were in the exact category. Hispanic student representation was similarly disparate. Fifty four
percent of coordinators provided data that placed their elementary schools in the exact
category; 37% of middle schools and 50% of high school districts fell in the exact category. More
than 80% of the district coordinators across all school levels reported exact or adjacent
alignment between Black and Hispanic student representation in their districts and in districts’
gifted programs.
 Demographic Representation - Students of Poverty. Notably, underrepresentation of students
of poverty in gifted programs was greater than that of Black or Hispanic students. More than 50%
of the respondents across school levels reported much lower representation of students of
poverty in their gifted programs than the percentage of the subgroup in their district student
population. Only 17.8%, 21.4%, and 15.1% of the districts at the elementary, middle, and high
school levels, respectively were in the exact alignment category.
 Identification of historically underrepresented populations. In reporting strategies used to
identify historically underrepresented student subgroups for gifted programs, 61%, 73% and 50%
of the district coordinators (at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, respectively)
reported that there was a plan in place to specifically identify gifted students from historically
underrepresented populations. Among the strategies reported by those who had strategies in
place for identifying underrepresented students, non-verbal assessments and/or gathering
student information from multiple sources (e.g., student portfolios, student interviews,
anecdotal notes, and teacher observation checklists) were the most commonly cited approaches.
 Talent development among historically underrepresented student populations. Fifty-one
percent of elementary school districts, 57.1% of middle school districts, and 48.7% of high school
districts reported having a plan to develop talent potential in underrepresented populations.
Using culturally relevant curriculum pedagogy through differentiated instruction or providing
teacher mentorship were the most common talent development strategies reported at the
elementary school level. At the middle and high school levels, additional support systems, such
as teacher mentoring, tutoring, or special support programs (e.g., Advancement via Individual
Determination and Bridge Program) were noted as strategies to develop talent potential in gifted
students from underrepresented populations.

Gifted Programming
 Program goals. A large portion of district coordinators (92.3% at the elementary, 83.5% at the
middle, and 73.6% at the high school level) reported offering educational opportunities for gifted
students that differed from regular classroom curricular and instructional practices. Typical goal
statements included the goal of providing adequate learning opportunities commensurate with
student needs through differentiation, enrichment, and/or acceleration. While the district
program goal statements that were provided acknowledged the educational needs of gifted
students, student learning outcome goals were rarely reported by respondents across all school

3
See Endnote for a full explanation of how the categories for alignment were determined.

6
 levels. Respondents were more likely to report process goals, such
as providing teacher training and developing quality curriculum, Services for gifted and talented
rather than student outcome goals to guide gifted programming. students should be based on
 Framework for programming. More than 30% of the respondents programmatic goals that provide a
framework for determining the
(32.1% at the elementary, 40.2% at the middle, and 34.1% at the
specific educational objectives of the
high school level) indicated that no particular framework guided
gifted program to guide curricular
gifted programming in their districts. When respondents reported and instructional decisions (e.g.,
adoption of specific models, Tomlinson’s Differentiation Model cognitive objectives, affective
(Tomlinson, 2001), Renzulli’s Enrichment Cluster Model (Renzulli, objectives, behavioral objectives).
1977) and Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity (Kaplan, 2005) were These educational objectives identify
frequently cited as models used to guide gifted education the types of measurable gifted
programs at the elementary and middle school levels. Advanced learner outcomes that are expected
®
Placement frameworks and curriculum guides were chosen by the as a result of the implementation of
majority of respondents at the high school level. the educational program. Without
documentation of learner outcomes,
 Program service delivery. Part-time, pull-out classes (51.9%) for
it is impossible to use evidence to
one to four hours per week at the elementary level and special
improve student learning and to
classes of homogeneously grouped gifted students within a regular build and sustain program
school setting at the middle school (64.3%) were identified as the excellence over time.
most frequent service delivery options. Advanced Placement®
(90.7%) was the predominant program option for gifted students at the high school level.
Responding district coordinators also indicated that 100% of the identified students were served
by one primary service delivery model at the elementary, and between 75%-99% of the identified
students were served by one primary model at the middle and high school levels. These results
indicated that identified gifted students are still considered and identified as a homogeneous
group of students with all students being served in the same way.
 Curricular materials. A variety of curricular materials are used to provide gifted education
services. Two-thirds of the district respondents at the elementary
level and nearly as many at the middle school level listed specific The reported delivery systems
resources used for instruction including teacher-developed suggest a “one-size-fits-all”
materials, public resources (e.g., Library of Congress materials), approach that runs counter to the
pre-developed materials (e.g., LEGO robotics, Junior Great Books, research findings that gifted
Accelerated Math), curricular materials developed by the students are not a homogeneous
university research teams, and academic competition materials group with the same learning needs
(e.g., Destination Imagination, Mock Trial, National History Day, (e.g., Kenny, Archambault, &
Hallmark, 1995; Reis & Renzulli,
and Science Fair). No particular set of materials dominated. The
2009) and that Advanced
remaining district respondents (25.4% at the elementary and 36.2%
Placement programs at the high
at the middle school level) noted that no particular materials
school level are not a fit for all
guided instruction. At the high school level, Advanced Placement® gifted high school students
course resources were identified as the primary curricular (Gallagher, 2009; Hertberg-Davis,
materials for gifted students. Callahan, & Kyburg, 2006).

7
 Content areas and skills developed. Given the development of
expanded conceptions of giftedness and recognition that students The heavy emphases on the areas
might be gifted in one or more specific academic area, we of English Language Arts and
expected that schools would offer a more balanced range of areas mathematics is most likely a result
of federal and state-level policies
of emphasis in content and skills. However, the area of language
(e.g., NCLB, Common Core State
arts at the elementary (47.2%) and high school levels (35.3%) and
Standards) that specifically target
the area of mathematics at the middle school level (41.7%) were
these two content areas.
identified as the most developed content areas for serving gifted
students. Note that in choosing one area of emphasis, respondents
were not given the option of other areas of emphasis in assessing the most developed skills in
the programs offered to gifted students. The largest number of school district coordinators
reported focus on creative-thinking skills at the elementary school level (32.9%) and problem-
solving skills at the middle and high school levels (26.5% and 39.3%, respectively).
 Learning outcome measures. The majority of the district
respondents (40.1% at the elementary and 64.0% at the middle Beyond simply justifying the
school level) identified informal classroom assessments (e.g., investment of school district funds
teacher developed checklists, interviews, or student satisfaction for gifted programming, measuring
gifted learner outcomes at the
questionnaires) as the primary measures used to assess student
program and classroom levels is
outcomes. At the high school level, 45.8% identified Advanced
necessary to improve practice.
Placement® tests as the most prevalent student outcome measure. While it is not hard to argue that
 Results of measuring student learning outcomes. Only 8% of the learning outcomes are critically
district respondents at the elementary school level indicated that important and useful to measure,
they used student learning outcome results for program two questions should be asked
improvement such as curriculum and instruction modification, regarding the measurement of
planning intervention, or professional development. The remaining gifted program learning outcomes:
elementary respondents did not elaborate on the types of
1) Can the district/school/program
decisions made based on outcome data or how the outcome
provide data on which students
results impacted policy or practices relating to elementary gifted
have mastered particular learning
programs. At the secondary school level, 95.1% of middle school
outcomes and provide evidence
and 69.2% of high school respondents noted use of outcome data (e.g., assessed student work) for
for curricular and instructional modification and professional that determination?; and/or
development. 2) Can students, parents, teachers,
 Use of the national gifted education programming standards. and administrators articulate the
NAGC’s Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards desired learning outcomes of the
(NAGC, 2010) provide a structure for rules, policies, and gifted program?
procedures for systemic programming for gifted learners. However,
Without being able to answer each
only 53.6% of respondents at the elementary level, 39.1% of
of these questions with solid
respondents at the middle school level, and 27.5% of respondents
evidence, a gifted program is
at the high school level use the NAGC Standards to guide
vulnerable to cuts in funding, staff,
programming. Among the districts that employed them, the NAGC or resources; programs even may
standards relating to curriculum planning and instruction be eliminated.

8
 reportedly guided the planning of 45% of those districts, which is less
than 20% of the total sample. No other set of NAGC standards was In the face of competing funds,
reported as applied by more than 39% of the district respondents evaluation of a gifted program is
who reported using the NAGC standards at all. Respondents in only the vehicle that affords local
33.9% districts at the elementary level reported using the NAGC school districts the opportunity to
standards for guidance across all six standards areas. respond to accountability and to
create data for program
 Staff development activities. When professional development on
improvement, development,
the education of gifted students was offered, differentiation
refinement, and/or expansion.
strategies for teaching gifted students was the most frequently noted
focus across all school levels. Among those secondary districts that
offered targeted professional development, 57.6% and 62% of the Valuable information can result
from learning that a gifted
districts at the middle and high school levels, respectively reported
program is achieving its goals, but
less than five hours per school year of professional development
equally valuable information can
activities focused on gifted students. Professional development be obtained from examining why
commitments at the elementary school level varied widely from a program is not achieving its
district to district, ranging from as low as 15 minutes to four days per goals. The intent of the evaluation
year. process is to systematically look at
not only “what works or not” but
Evaluation and Program Improvement also for whom, where, and under
 Evaluation of gifted programs. More than 50% of the districts at what conditions. This type of data
each school level (51.2%, 50.2% and 58.8% respectively) did not provides information to
report that they had a program evaluation requirement or strategic stakeholders about program
plans to monitor and report on the quality of gifted program services. effects, potential limitations of the
Among the districts with program evaluation requirements, 59.8%, program, and strengths of the
program.
49.6% and 63.8% of the districts at the elementary, middle and high
school level reported a limited scope of internal evaluation carried
out by educators in the gifted education program. As indicated earlier, without
 Planned changes. The most frequent response relating to planned specifically identifying program
change was a report of no plans for change in the next 12-18 months outcomes and being able to
provide solid evidence of
(41.5%, 42.4% and 58.7% at the elementary, middle and high school
effectiveness, including areas of
level respectively). Among the district respondents that indicated
needed improvement, the risk is
planned changes, modifications to programs services and service high that a gifted program fail to
delivery options were selected as the area of focus for change by the serve gifted learners, will be
greatest number of districts across all school levels. drastically reduced or will be cut
completely, especially when
considering competition for funds
within a district.

9
 Implications
A gifted program can be thought of as one sub-system within a larger system (the district) that
provides the context for the gifted program. Factors such as funding level, guiding state regulations,
student demographics, teaching faculty (e.g., number, qualifications, skills) all play a significant role in the
context of the gifted program and also have a significant impact on the quality of program. Within the
gifted program are several components of primary importance. First, the gifted program should be guided
by a philosophical belief statement about giftedness. This belief undergirds all subsequent components -
from defining what it means to be gifted in a particular district to the identification procedures employed
to assess giftedness. These two components; definition and identification, in theory, should directly guide
the types of services that are delivered to students within the program, the curriculum, instruction, and
supporting resources that are used for instruction, and the types of professional development
opportunities offered to program faculty. In addition, the philosophical belief also guides the evaluation
component, regardless of whether an evaluation is internal or external. This organized scheme for a gifted
program outlines how each component is connected to form the whole – i.e., the gifted program – and it
highlights that weaknesses and/or strengths in one component have implications for all other
components.
Based on the data collected for this study, the typical gifted program does not operate within an
aligned system like the one described above. For example, the NAGC Programming Standards are used in
less than half of the districts; one fourth of respondents at the elementary level and one third at the
middle school level indicated that their gifted program had no specific curricular materials that guided
program activities; at the high school level, the predominant default curriculum was AP courses, a
program now widely believed to be suitable for all high school students. Furthermore, the use of clearly
identified learner outcomes and routine cycles for program evaluation are rarities for gifted programs at
all school levels. Without these components as an integral part of gifted programming, school districts
cannot ascertain whether their efforts in all other stages of program development and implementation
are producing the desired outcome—high quality education for gifted students. Professional development
specifically targeted at providing educators with the knowledge and skills to provide services and
instruction to gifted learners is also limited. Because each of these areas is a component within a gifted
program system, this strongly suggests that gifted programs, in many instances, are not providing the
types of services necessary to fully address gifted youth’s academic, social, and emotional needs so that
they may reach their full potential. Furthermore, based on these data it also appears that there has been
limited transfer, if any at all, of the work of experts (research and theory development) into the field of
practice. We are in a time in this country where the practices of gifted education should be leading the
way in educating all our youth. Yet, based on the survey responses, in many school districts, practices are
at the same level they were 30 or more years ago. It is time for a national dialogue focused on shaping the
future of gifted education for the 21st century.

10
 Note

For ease of reporting (necessary to increase response rates) we asked survey respondents to
indicate the percentages of subgroups in their general school population and in their gifted programs by
deciles (i.e., < 1%, 1-10%, 11-20%, etc.). To compare the reported proportions of Black, Hispanic, and
children categorized as low-socioeconomic in the general population to the proportion of those students
in gifted programs we created three categories. The “exact” category included districts whose
coordinators reported that the proportion of a subgroup was in the same decile as the proportion of
those students in the gifted program. Placement in the “exact” category did not mean percentage was
exactly the same. The possible range of difference in percentage in the exact category was 9 percent.
The “adjacent” proportion category included districts who reported that their proportions were in
adjacent decile categories. For example, if a district coordinator reported that the general population was
comprised of 41-50% Black students and the population of its gifted program services was comprised of
31-40% Black students, that district was placed in the “adjacent” category.

11
 References

Gagné, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J.
Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness
and talent (pp.69-87). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Gallagher, S. A. (2009) Myth 19: Is Advanced Placement an adequate program for gifted students? Gifted
Child Quarterly, 53, 286-288.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Hertberg-Davis, H., Callahan, C.M., & Kyburg, R.M. ( 2006). Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate programs: A "fit" for gifted learners? (RM06222). Storrs: University of Connecticut,
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
House Representatives 543 [H.R. 543], 100th Congress: Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Children and
Youth Education Act of 1987 (1987) (enacted).
Kaplan, S. N. (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.
Kenny, D. A., Archambault, F. X., Jr., & Hallmark, B. W. (1995). The effects of group composition on gifted
and non-gifted elementary students in cooperative learning groups (Research Monograph 95116).
Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming 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 Association for Gifted Children & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2013).
State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2012-2013. Washington,
DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous
group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 53, 233-235.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the
gifted and talented. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative
productivity In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 246-279). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Riddle, W. (2011). Title I and high schools: Addressing the needs of disadvantaged students at all grade
levels. Policy Brief: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/TitleIandHSs.pdf
Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., & Elliott, M. N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via email and the web.
(MR 1480). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (Eds.). (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and environment. NY, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

12