Gifted Education Curriculum and Gifted Achievement Growth of Gifted Students in Three States

This memo presents selected findings from a larger study conducted by the National Center for Research on Gifted Education. The Center conducted an exploratory study of gifted programs in three states by collecting data from four sources: a) state data on student achievement (n=362,254 students who were in grade 5 in 2014), b) district (n=332) and school (n=2,250) surveys about services these students received.

State Selection

We selected three states based on the following criteria: (a) mandated identification and services for gifted students, (b) availability of vertically scaled longitudinal state data on student achievement, (c) emphasis on involving higher numbers of underrepresented students with gifted program services, and (d) the willingness of state department gifted specialist to work collaboratively.

Surveys

Between April 2015 and February 2017, we administered surveys to districts and schools in three states mandated to identify and serve gifted students. The district and school surveys were designed to extract current information about effective identification and programming practices in three states. With these surveys, we sought to determine whether key components distinguish districts and schools in which gifted students achieved higher reading or math growth, both across the general population of gifted students and specifically with students from traditionally underserved groups. The District Level Survey was sent to all district administrators with responsibility for gifted education, and the School Level Survey was administered to every public school containing a fifth-grade class. These surveys included questions about policies, procedures, and assessments used to identify students for gifted services, as well as a range of programming details, such as content and curricula, instructional approaches used, timing and location, duration and intensity, and staff qualifications and training. Overall, 304 districts across the three states completed the district survey and 2,293 schools across the three states completed school surveys. Response rates for the district survey ranged from 82.8% to 88.7%. Response rates for the school survey ranged from 48.6% to 73.5%.

Achievement data

The National Center for Research on Gifted Education also gathered longitudinal student-level academic achievement data for all of the 2011-12 3rd-grade cohort from three states.  We gathered longitudinal data from these students from 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades on identification as gifted, FRPL status, EL status, race/ethnicity, math achievement and reading achievement for three academic years from 2011/12, 12/13, and 13/14.  

Key Findings

• • Gifted services are not equally distributed across schools within districts. The variance between schools in a district is greater than the variance across districts in a state.
  • Underserved populations are not being identified at the same rates as non-underserved students even after controlling for student achievement. EL, free or reduced lunch, and Latinx and Black students are less likely to be identified as gifted even if they have the same reading and mathematics achievement as students not from these groups.
  • Very few districts reassess students once they have been identified.
  • Very few districts offer programs to identify and recruit potentially gifted students.
  • There is an extensive use of cognitive tests to identify gifted students.
  • Most districts identify gifted students in 3^rd grade.
  • Third grade achievement is directly related to identification gaps in identification of gifted students.
  • Practices such as universal screening and nonverbal tests do not appear to be panaceas for removing the identification gap.
  • Universal screening with modification shows promise at reducing under-identification of underserved populations.
  • The majority of schools use pull-out classes for gifted instruction.
  • Gifted programs seldom focus on core curriculum such as math and reading. Gifted programs have a greater focus on critical thinking and creative thinking than reading/language arts and mathematics.
  • Gifted students start ahead in reading and mathematics achievement at 3^rd grade but don’t grow any faster than other groups by 5^th grade. In some cases, gifted students show slower growth during this period than non-identified gifted students.
  • Teacher autonomy positively influences academic achievement of gifted students.
  • EL reclassification is linked to gifted identification. Each year a student has EL services, he or she is 30% less likely to be identified as gifted. EL students exit EL programs faster in schools with greater percentages of gifted students.
  •  When school personnel serve as talent scouts and interact with each other they are more effective in identifying gifted English learners.
  • There is a high level of agreement between district and teacher reports of practice and curriculum for gifted students.