A Review of the National Gifted Standards Implementation in Eight Districts: An Uneven Picture of Practice

Abstract

This article presents the results of a review of eight gifted programs, using the 2010 National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) program standards as one basis for assessing the programs. Each of the six standards is reviewed in respect to the extent that programs addressed underlying indicators. Findings showed that districts met slightly over 50% of indicators for three standards. For the other three standards, only 31% to 37% of the indicators were met through district gifted programs. Areas of greatest need for further program development include developing planning tools for curriculum implementation, monitoring of program implementation efficacy, establishing the routine use of content acceleration in all subjects, and developing counseling support for gifted learners.

Keywords

standards gifted education national gifted standards evaluation

“ASSESSMENTS PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT IDENTIFICATION, LEARNING PROGRESS AND OUTCOMES, AND EVALUATION OF PROGRAMMING FOR STUDENTS WITH GIFTS AND TALENTS IN ALL DOMAINS”.

Introduction

The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) established a set of pre-K-12 Gifted Program Standards for use by local school districts for improving their programs and developed an evaluation guide in 2001 (Landrum, Callahan, & Shaklee, 2001). At that time, a checklist was also developed for districts to use in assessing adherence to these NAGC program standards (see Matthews & Shaunessy, 2010). The 2001 program standards were later revised in 2010 to align with the teacher preparation standards (NAGC, 2010). These 2010 standards were divided into six categories related to planning, implementation, and maintenance of program development indicators and included student outcomes. The six categories included the following: learning and development, assessment, curriculum planning and instruction, learning environments, programming, and professional development (see Johnsen, 2012). This article reports on how eight districts performed, using these standards as a yardstick and what the results suggest for the state of practice in the field.

Context

Each of the districts evaluated represented a large exurban or urban district in six Eastern states. All districts requested an evaluation of gifted elementary and secondary programs, with the exception of one large district where a gifted school was evaluated. Each of these districts was evaluated using multiple sources of evidence to discern the nature, level, and extent of program development. A source of data for understanding the program status on standards was a review of materials, including curriculum materials, begun before the on-site visit and continued during and after the visitation. During the visitation, teacher observations in a sample of classrooms were another source of data. A structured form (i.e., The Classroom Observation Scale–Revised [COS-R]) was employed to assess the use of differentiation in practice. A third data source was the use of focus groups of stakeholders including students at Grades 5, 8, and 12; parents; teachers; and administrators. Finally, surveys were used in two of the districts with all stakeholders and in two additional districts with students only. All of the districts also had key personnel interviewed about the program, including the superintendent and the program coordinator. All of these data sources taken together provided a picture of a school district’s adherence to the national gifted education standards and offered documentary evidence to suggest compliance.

Method

This evaluation study was a convergent mixed-methods design, using both quantitative and qualitative sources for analysis. This method assumes that having both types of data from multiple sources will get at the heart of the research questions more effectively, providing a deeper understanding of the program interventions (Creswell, 2014). Given the focus on a marginalized group like gifted students within programs designed for them, this evaluation design can also analyze different perspectives on the program more effectively to glean a more complete picture of stakeholder views. The method treats each data source separately first, and then compares the results from each to confirm or disconfirm findings that may yield final recommendations. In this way, researchers can understand the nature of the impact of the current program and recommend changes that might improve practice. Figure 1 conceptually illustrates the process described.

Figure 1

Convergent parallel mixed-methods design (after Creswell, 2014).

Instrumentation

In the total study of eight district gifted programs, materials related to the program were routinely reviewed, using a basic materials review form. Curriculum materials were reviewed using the Curriculum Review Form–Revised (VanTassel-Baska, 2018) in part or in whole as desired by the school district. In each of the districts, the evaluation team used the COS-R that had a .95 congruence across three external raters to ensure content validity and .87 interrater reliability; the instrument has been used in several studies to gauge differentiation strategy and materials use in the classroom (Farah & Chandler, 2019). In addition, the team used set protocols across all of the studies for interviews, a 10-question set of open-ended queries and, for focus groups, a set of six open-ended questions. Each of these data sources employed a common core of questions. Interviews added questions that were relevant only to a given program and those that probed responses provided in the interview context itself. Surveys to assess student attitudes toward their gifted program were used with all students participating in focus group discussions as a way of discerning congruence with the major themes that emerged from the group discussions. In one district, surveys were sent to a random sample of parents with students in the program and parents not with students in the program. Surveys were also sent to all teachers in the program and administrators with responsibility for the program. Surveys were constructed in concert with program administrators and district departments of assessment. All surveys asked stakeholder groups the same questions to aid in the comparative analysis across groups on this dimension of the study.

In this article, however, we are reporting only on the results from the accreditation process for each NAGC program standard and its underlying indicators. These results were obtained through collaborative discussions with the program coordinator. This accreditation process occurred at the end of the on-site evaluation work; thus, several of the other data sources had already been analyzed. However, this process was treated as another data collection effort that was viewed alongside the other results reported from the other data sources. Recommendations then emanated from all data sources, not just from this accreditation process. Most recommendations were in concert, however, with the ones suggested as a result of this standards review.

Procedures

At the conclusion of the on-site review, the evaluator sat down with the program coordinator for a discussion of the standards and their 97 indicators. The session usually lasted for three hours. The evaluator used a form that was devised to rate each indicator in one of five categories: The indicators included the following: met or Yes (Y), not met or No (N), Uneven (U): Developing (D), or Not Observed (N/O). The response of “Yes “or “Y” was notated if the majority of the program schools at each level (i.e., elementary, middle, and high schools) showed evidence of the intent of the indicator and/or the program showed evidence of the indicator in written material available to the evaluation team. The response of “No” or “N” was indicated if there was no evidence of the indicator. The response of “Uneven” was assigned if the evidence for the presence of the indicator was observed at one level of the program but not another. If, for example, critical thinking models were in evidence in elementary schools but in not middle schools, the indicator would be marked “U.” The assignment of “Developing” or “D” was given if the program coordinator had evidence to suggest that an initiative to address the standard was in a nascent stage of development. If there was no evidence to suggest that an indicator was considered in the purview of the program per se, then “Not Observed” was notated. In some districts, for example, the use of mentorships and internships came under the purview of departments at the high school, not the gifted program per se, and would be designated as “N/O.” The standard indicator form, used to record responses, may be found in the supplemental appendix. A form devised by the evaluators, based on the 97 NAGC indicators, was used to record responses.

Data Analysis

The results of the collaborative session with the coordinator to review the standards were recorded on the developed form, tabulated, and then described in narrative, based on discussion notes. The report was then sent to the coordinator to review for accuracy. Upon the return of the approved copy of the form, the evaluator included the results as a part of the larger evaluation report and noted the strengths and deficiencies in the standards as a key basis for overall recommendations. The results were also compared with the results from other data sources to check for triangulation across data sources. The COS-R categorical data related to “curriculum planning and delivery” and “assessment of learning” were especially important in verifying the responses to Standards 2, 3, and 4.

Limitations of the Study

While the convergent approach to an evaluation study has many strengths, it also has some weaknesses. The most apparent is the issue of (a) unequal sample size when comparing data sets, and (b) the validity of the findings, given different analytic metrics and calibrations being used in separate instruments. In this study, the focus groups were comparable in size (typically 12-14) and yielded a set of data on the same instrument that could be compared through thematic analysis of aspects of the program operation to show triangulation where it was present among stakeholder groups. All other data sources yielded a quantitative score that could be examined on a 3-point scale from acceptable to not acceptable, allowing for comparisons to be made quantitatively as well as qualitatively across the different sources. The sample of teachers observed, however, differed in size by level, school, and district, depending on the parameters of the purposive sample selected at each site. Thus, the metrics for comparison on the COS-R with other data sets were challenging. Moreover, it might be argued that the results of observing 40 teachers in a district was more relevant to the evaluation of the program than a review of six curriculum units, raising the issue of comparability of data sources. To address that problem, the researchers reported the results of each data source independently so that the district might decide which data source was most critical to their understanding of program operation and changes needed. A three year plan of action was also developed to demonstrate the transformation of the recommendations of the report to actual program operation by program area, such as identification and learning assessments as well as overall findings such as the need for a systemic communication system within the district about the gifted program.

The researchers used the following specific procedures to ensure that valid comparisons were being made:

We compared the top score on the COS-R, which was “effective,” with the top rating on the standards form, which was “Yes” for relevant indicators, mostly under the categories related to curriculum planning and assessment on each form. For example, if the aggregate teacher rating for the indicator of “critical thinking” was 2.7, this was judged to be in the range of being an “effective teacher” on that dimension of teaching (2.5-3.0). This result was compared with the Standard 3 indicator on using critical thinking strategies.

We examined the stakeholder and interview data results for common themes in respect to key aspects of the program. The themes were then put on a scale of positive and negative valence to converge with findings related to reviewed materials. For example, a common complaint from parent stakeholders was the lack of up-to-date and meaningful written communication from the program. This theme was then examined against the presence of parental materials and their quality on a 1 to 3 scale, 3 being high (Onwuegbusie & Leech, 2006).

We then coded the themes to relevant sections of the standards and the COS-R to analyze for convergence across these five mixed data sources (Classen et al., 2007).

Recommendations emanated from strong findings of convergence across at least two data sets; findings were also reported by individual data set and research question for purposes of district planning.

By following these procedures, we were able to discern whether convergence was present on an issue, so that a recommendation might be proffered. In cases where the data were insufficient to judge or where there appeared to be divergence, the report so noted and suggested remedial measures to collect more data for further analysis to gain convergence.

Results

Results are reported by standard and the underlying indicators that framed the basis for the review. Process standards, rather than outcome standards, were examined for purposes of this evaluation. In a few instances, outcome standards were examined and reported, based on the district’s specific interest in the results. In Standard 2, for example, outcomes for identification of underrepresented populations and for student learning were addressed in addition to process standards. Results were reported by number and percent of indicators met for each of the six standards. Standard deviations were also reported and overall percentages of standards met were tallied. Each standard is described at the beginning of the results reporting.

Findings for Standard 1: Learning and Development

Description: Educators, recognizing the learning and developmental differences of students with gifts and talents, promote ongoing self-understanding, awareness of their needs, and cognitive and affective growth of these students in school, home, and community settings to ensure specific student outcomes.

In the area of learning and development (Standard 1), districts on average received 4.8 “Yeses” out of 13 evidence-based practices, constituting 36.9% of the indicators being met. However, there were wide variations in the districts on this standard, with one district meeting 11 indicators and another meeting none. The divergence on this standard was striking as it contains indicators that are essential for gifted student self-understanding, awareness of her giftedness, and of the needed growth and development required to reach individual potential. This standard is also a mixed collection of indicators that relate to programmatic interventions, such as grouping and research-based interventions as well as a focus on personalized opportunities in and outside the classroom, such as learning preferences and mentoring. Whereas some districts did well with programmatic interventions, they did less well with the more personalized ones, leading to lower scores.

The aspects of this standard that districts did address were in the areas of helping students identify their interests and abilities and offering opportunities commensurate with them (1.1.1). Most of the districts employed multiple approaches to grouping that allowed for gifted students to interact at their cognitive and emotional levels (1.3.1).

A chronic area of deficiency noted for this standard centered on the lack of a counseling program that addressed college and career education needs of the gifted and a scope and sequence to use for decision making in these areas (1.8.1). Although districts provided some counseling services for all learners, there was no tailored counseling program designed to meet the personal, academic, or career needs of gifted learners (1.8.2). Moreover, items relating to underachievers (1.6.2) and to using individual data to design programs (1.2.1) did not appear to be regularly at work in most of these programs.

However, most districts were engaged in using research-based best practices to plan interventions for their identified gifted learners (1.6.1). Attention to using various forms of grouping was noted in most districts although they were usually related to the same grouping pattern being used at elementary and then a different one at middle and high school (1.3.1). For example, districts might use cluster grouping at elementary levels of Grades 3 to 5 and then switch to special class grouping at middle and high school, commensurate with domain-specific programming demands. Respect for individuals with diverse interests and strengths was noted in classrooms in all the districts evaluated (1.3.2).

Yet attention to out-of-school opportunities for gifted learners was fragmented at best (1.4.2) nor were mentors used in any systematic way that could be observed in most of the districts (1.4.1). Use of preferred learning approaches of students was not present in any of the observed classrooms (1.7.1). In focus groups, parents rarely mentioned support in accessing resources to develop their child’s talents (1.5.1). Evidence for such personalized approaches, where they were observed, came through anecdotal evidence from individual teachers. There was no coordinated effort at the district level to monitor such approaches.

Findings for Standard 2: Assessment

Description: Assessments provide information about identification, learning progress and outcomes, and evaluation of programming for students with gifts and talents in all domains.

In the area of assessment (Standard 2), districts used identification and learning assessment approaches that met 11.6 evidence-based practice items out of 22 on average, constituting 52.7% of the indicators. However, the range of “Yes” responses varied greatly from 4 to 22. Most of the variance emerged in the area of identification procedures employed and the use of nontraditional measures for learning assessments. Some of this variance may also have been due to differences in state standards. For example, one state requires the use of an advisory group to oversee the identification process, whereas other states did not require such oversight in their administrative rules for gifted program operation. This situation may have accounted for stricter adherence to state regulations in this one state while negatively affecting it in others.

Regarding the identification aspect of Standard 2, all districts followed state guidelines in crafting identification policies and procedures as seen in their state document and local plan for the district (2.2.1). Use of multiple assessments (2.2.2), including off-level ones (2.2.3), following procedures for the participation of educators in the process, and the sharing of information about the process to parents and students were all addressed in most districts (2.2.6). In the area of addressing greater inclusion of underrepresented populations, all of the districts had procedures in place to address such underrepresentation (2.3.2). Outcome data from one district, however, suggested limited progress over years on increasing numbers of such students in programs (Student Outcome 2.3). All of the districts showed interest in improving this aspect of their programs and most followed up on evaluator recommendations about how they might do so. On the programmatic side, however, most districts were not designing instruction to respond to diversity within their gifted population (2.1.1) nor were they sharing those data with parents (2.1.2). Students who exhibited atypical profiles were not singled out for differentiated instruction unless they were on an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan (2.2.4). In fact, there was little evidence of teacher use of identification data for curriculum planning (2.2.5).

As the element of underrepresentation in Standard 2 was of greatest concern in each of the districts evaluated, the evaluators employed two outside consultants, each representing not only expertise in gifted education but also experience in working with underrepresented groups, to review the district model for identification that was currently in place and the recommendations we were making for improvement. The outside consultants concurred with our recommendations but also added an important piece on the need for parent advocacy and education of parents of English language learners (ELL) and other minority parents. The underlying theme in their response was to develop a specific plan for increasing student representation, track the plan, and evaluate at the end of the year how successful it was.

In the aspect of Standard 2 that deals with student assessment of student learning and process outcomes, pre-post curriculum-based assessment data were not collected systematically to evaluate individual student growth (2.4.1; 2.4.2). These data were therefore not available to support curriculum development and program planning. In the absence of curriculum-based data, all districts used state assessment results to evaluate student performance and to judge the effectiveness of their programs (2.4.3), even though these results should be used cautiously and not in isolation in rendering judgments about individual learner capabilities or program efficacy. In only two districts did we see the use of profile data for instructional decision making (2.4.4). These data were used in parent conferences, according to the coordinators in the two districts, to help parents understand student progress (2.4.5). Although multiple indicators were employed (2.5.2), the instruments used for assessment of learning did not undergo the scrutiny applied to identification tools, including concerns for validity and reliability (2.5.1). Usually, the indicators used were product-based assessments and occasionally pre-post curriculum assessments. According to interviews with the coordinators, administrators did not weigh these types of data as strongly in importance as state assessment results. No evidence of public reporting of gifted student assessment data was present in any of the districts (2.5.3).

Regarding program evaluation in Standard 2, districts did not conduct annual evaluations routinely (2.6.1). However, they used internal approaches, including surveys to stakeholders, to assess the program every 3 to 5 years as a basis for the development of their local plans (2.6.2). No district analyzed results in respect to outcome data, however. All but one of the districts evaluated were having an outside evaluation, conducted by experts in the field of gifted education, for the first time. Consequently, a plan for dissemination of the current evaluation results was recommended (2.6.3).

Findings for Standard 3: Curriculum Planning and Instruction

Description: Educators apply the theory and research-based models of curriculum and instruction related to students with gifts and talents and respond to their needs by planning, selecting, adapting, and creating culturally relevant curriculum and by using a repertoire of evidence-based instructional strategies to ensure specific student outcomes.

In the area of curriculum planning (Standard 3), the districts averaged 7.4 “Yes” out of 20 evidence-based practices, constituting 37.0% of the indicators in the standard. The range of responses for districts on this standard was broad, from 2 to 16. Only three districts met half of the indicators. These results may have been influenced by the lack of differentiation observed in many classrooms coupled with a lack of examples of such differentiation in the curriculum documents reviewed.

Positive responses were given for the use of diverse learning experiences (3.3.1), the use of research-based differentiated strategies (3.4.1-3.4.4), and the individualized use of technologies for twice exceptional learners and others who may need such accommodation (3.1.3; 3.1.7). Indicators related to a specified scope and sequence of opportunities within and across the levels of schooling and multidimensional emphases in cognitive, affective, social, and aesthetic areas of the curriculum, however, were not met (3.1.2). With the exception of one district that was exemplary in the use of critical and creative thinking (3.4.1, 3.4.2), districts also were weak on the classroom application of differentiated strategies (3.1.4), especially higher level thinking strategies.

In each district, evaluators observed some extraordinary teaching in multiple classrooms. In mathematics, we frequently observed excellent teaching at all levels. For example, a fifth-grade mathematics class used toy jumping frogs to establish a classroom data base on the length of each frog’s jump. The excited students then calculated mean, median, and mode for the jumps, with plans to graph the results. Several elementary teachers organized instruction to provide individual student conferences on writing. One elementary teacher had students in her cluster grouped class read books on the same theme on different and appropriate reading levels. Using higher level questions, she led a remarkable class discussion, focused on the impact of differing perspectives.

At the middle school level in one district, evaluators observed several language arts classes in which using the same novel study unit supported both in-depth understanding of content and extensive higher level thinking. A number of high school science classes focused on experiments that supported student understanding of theoretical principles rather than relying on textbook explanations. One teacher noted that the change to in-depth scientific thinking had resulted in a significant increase in AP scores.

Culturally relevant curriculum was found in districts using materials that featured diversity such as the William and Mary language arts units. In other districts, individual teachers addressed the theme of culturally relevant curriculum in diverse ways (3.5.1). One teacher had students do an individual project, highlighting the accomplishments of a person from another culture, and reading three examples of their work. Career exploration was again an individual teacher choice, some using biography and speakers to help students understand people from different cultural backgrounds than their own (3.5.2). Deep exploration of diversity issues was not evident, however (3.5.3). Use of research-based materials was in evidence in most of the districts, and both teachers and administrators were able to discuss these materials knowledgably (3.6.1).

Acceleration opportunities within the curriculum were uneven in the majority of these districts (3.1.6), with principals hesitant to support or engineer opportunities for advancement in subjects beyond mathematics, even though student profile data suggested readiness to move beyond grade-level offerings. One district, however, had created an accelerated eighth-grade English course for which students received high school credit, an apt example of content-based acceleration in an area other than math.

Findings for Standard 4: Learning Environments

Description: Learning environments foster personal and social responsibility, multicultural competence, and interpersonal and technical communication skills for leadership in the 21st century to ensure specific student outcomes.

In the area of learning environments (Standard 4), districts received ratings of “Yes” in 9.8 out of 17 indicators on average, constituting 57.6% of the indicators for the standard. As this standard is centered on the importance of creating climates that promote achievement, settings of trust, and contexts where gifted students feel secure, the majority of the indicators relate back to classroom environments for learning.

Districts uniformly were very strong in setting high expectations for learning (4.1.1) but less effective in teaching social skills that would help students with real-world contexts (4.2.3). Identity development was uneven (4.1.2), with some emphasis on it, however, in intermediate-level reading programs. One classroom, for example, had students create an image of themselves on butcher block paper, indicating internal characteristics that affected outward behavior and decision making. Students also indicated their strengths and career interests. These self-portraits were displayed around the room, and each student used the portrait to introduce himself or herself to classmates, with a lively discussion ensuing (4.1.3).

A respect for cultural diversity and language diversity was evident in all districts (4.4.1; 4.5.1), based on classroom observations and materials selected for use in programs. There was little evidence to suggest specific use of modeling appropriate strategies or providing peer collaboration based on diversity, however (4.4.2, 4.4.3). Resources and communication tools were usually available to highlight cultural context (4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3).

Moreover, many of the districts employed error analysis deliberately as a way for gifted learners to understand mistakes (4.1.4) and use their abilities to improve performance in the future. This technique was observed at both elementary and high school levels in both math and language arts classrooms. Students seemed to be developing a routine for the error analysis approach, an excellent example of metacognitive behavior that provides a coping mechanism for failure (4.1.5). Some districts also provided research opportunities that honored individual versus small group work, allowing choice for learners in pursuing what and with whom they might engage in the learning process (4.2.1, 4.2.2).

Weaker areas in this standard related to the absence of a focus on leadership skill development (4.3.1). Leadership skills (4.3.2) were not overtly addressed in any of the programs observed before high school where the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Program provided a mandated opportunity for community service (4.3.3). Evaluators did not observe other structured leadership opportunities for the gifted.

Findings for Standard 5: Programming

Description: Educators are aware of empirical evidence regarding (a) the cognitive, creative, and affective development of learners with gifts and talents, and (b) programming that meets their concomitant needs. Educators use this expertise systematically and collaboratively to develop, implement, and effectively manage comprehensive services for students with a variety of gifts and talents to ensure specific student outcomes.

In the area of programming (Standard 5), the elementary, middle, and high school programs met four out of 13 indicators, representing 30.8% of the standard being met. This standard and its underlying practices was often difficult to judge because of the wide-ranging areas of program development contained within it, and the likelihood that districts may have responded to indicators based on the level of schooling. The range of responses to this standard by indicator was narrower than most (2-7), but in the negative direction, with only two districts meeting more than half of the indicators.

Use of technology (5.1.5) and communication skill development (5.3.1) received an affirmative response on the indicator checklist in all districts. In several districts, for example, each student was issued a tablet or laptop appropriate for the age of the student. There was also evidence of resources and materials being provided to the program upon request (5.4.1). However, many schools still reported lack of sufficient materials to use with gifted students each year.

Districts received credit for offering programming to qualified gifted students at Grades 4 to 8 and for serving students as part of the regular school day (5.2.1). Despite state regulations that called for PK-Grade 12 programming, no formal programming was available systematically before Grade 4 in most of the districts, although several extended programming down to Grade 3. Two districts provided programming beginning in kindergarten. Ironically, in several districts, there was no formal identification or monitoring of placement or progress of gifted students after eighth grade. Grouping practices in the form of a differentiated replacement curriculum in reading and math at Grades 4 and 5 demonstrated opportunities for gifted students to work together in each school across the districts evaluated (5.1.3).

At middle school level, advanced language arts options were available in some districts, whereas advanced math options were available in all districts across the grade levels in middle schools, providing support for gifted learners to work together (5.1.3, 5.2.1, 5.5.1). Differentiation in science and social studies was almost never observed in any district. Several districts also were uneven in how language arts programs were provided during the middle school years, with some offering honors or advanced classes at only one or two grade levels rather than across all grade levels in the middle school years. Explanations for these differences were not articulated. Some districts did employ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs to address enrichment needs of the gifted in science, math, engineering, and technology (5.1.2). These programs were focused on the middle school or early high school years.

High school opportunities were available in AP at all high schools, and IB at one high school in three of the districts (5.1.1). Dual enrollment was also encouraged in each district with linkages to community colleges readily available in all districts, regardless of state. However, the options offered did not necessarily connect to one another nor to the standards in a deliberate way and thus left gaps in specific curriculum areas at given grade levels (5.2.1; 5.5.1).

Except for one district, specific counseling for gifted students at the high school level in course, program, or even school selection was nonexistent (5.7.1). Only through the IB program, where it was available, were internships or community-based opportunities facilitated (5.7.2).

Although efforts were made to collaborate with special and general education staff, opportunities to do so were limited in most districts (5.2.1). In two districts, however, these efforts have been formalized through shared in-service as a result of the overall evaluation. In one district, for example, the science department and the gifted program collaborated to offer a series of three professional development days (one for Grade 6, one for Grade 7, and one for Grade 8) on problem-based learning, using PBL science units of study designed for the relevant grade levels of Grades 6 to 8. The science department paid for the in-service sessions, while the gifted coordinator organized the content with the outside presenter. Both administrative teams from science and gifted were present for the sessions and engaged in their implementation. In other districts, the lack of systematic collaborative planning across general and special education in relation to the needs of the gifted was evident and detrimental to the sustainable development of the gifted program.

There was also a lack of definitive school district policies that cited provisions for gifted students, such as in acceleration and waivers (5.6.1). Several of the districts were in the process of revising their acceleration policy, using the Iowa Acceleration Scale (Assouline, Colangelo, Lupowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2015) that assesses readiness for individual acceleration to assist them with that process. Most of the districts did not have in place a policy on the use of content acceleration, even though they all offered AP and, some, IB programs. Obviously, both AP and IB represent two important accelerated options that districts can offer to gifted learners at the high school level.

The extent to which gifted programs received a fair share of the district or individual school budgets was not deeply probed in the reviews. Perceptions of equity in resources varied across the districts evaluated. Some coordinators felt that principals used their funds to support School Improvement Plans that often excluded gifted program subsidies (5.1.6, 5.4.1). Other coordinators felt they received a fair share of the school-based allotment. Where clear inequity arose, however, was in the deployment of personnel to support the gifted program. In all districts, for example, the evaluators recommended adding personnel to have a full-time coordinator and/or full-time elementary and secondary coordinators. In only one district did that recommendation lead to positive change. In each of the districts, the allotment of personnel in special education, for example, greatly exceeded those working with gifted learners although the number of students was comparable. Both the special education mandate at state and federal levels coupled with funding might have accounted for such disparities.

There was uneven and limited use of personalized options, such as mentorships and internships (5.7.2), reserved primarily for high school levels. Often these options were not targeted or designed for identified gifted students but rather for those who had opted for STEM program initiatives that contained such a component or to the service component requirement of the IB program.

Collaborative planning with parents was another area of weakness in most of these districts (5.3.1). Two of the districts used their advisory committees as conduits for program planning and development as parents were well represented on those bodies. In others, parents were less involved in a systematic way.

Findings for Standard 6: Professional Development

Description: All educators (administrators, teachers, counselors, and other instructional support staff) build their knowledge and skills using the NAGC-CEC Teacher Standards for Gifted and Talented Education and the National Staff Development Standards. They formally assess professional development needs related to the standards, develop and monitor plans, systematically engage in training to meet the identified needs, and demonstrate mastery of standard. They access resources to provide for release time, funding for continuing education, and substitute support. These practices are judged through the assessment of relevant student outcomes.

In the area of professional development (Standard 6), districts received on average 6.8 “Yes” out of 12 evidence-based practices, constituting 56.7% of the indicators for that standard. Remaining indicators were checked as “Uneven” or “Developing.” Areas of positive response under this standard included an emphasis on providing ongoing opportunities for educators to learn more about elements of gifted education in an array of different delivery modalities (6.1.1; 6.3.3). Districts also were vigilant in providing opportunities for professional development through providing released time, funding support, and resources to follow-up (6.1.4; 6.3.2). Districts encouraged different levels and types of professional development, including local, national, and university offerings (6.3.1). Most districts also provided sessions on issues related to the social and emotional development of gifted learners (6.2.1). Although these sessions did not focus on issues of anti-intellectualism per se (6.1.3), they did include issues of diversity and equity and how to apply them to classroom curriculum planning (6.1.2).

Of greatest concern for this standard was the gap between the processes identified in the indicators being addressed and the expected outcomes. For example, one district had designed an excellent online series of workshops for targeted stakeholders on gifted learners and their needs, the nature of services designed for them in the district, and issues that teachers would confront in serving them. Even though this series was repackaged for use with different stakeholders, it was underutilized in the district by both teachers and administrators. While a process was in place to track usage of this professional development program, the initial buy-in to accessing and using the modules was extremely limited (6.3.2).

There was no evidence in any district that teachers had designed their own professional development plans (6.3.4), based on assessments of their performance from supervisors or from self-assessments. However, teachers and coordinators commented to evaluators that they were involved in professional organizations in gifted education and regularly attended conferences and other events that fostered their growth in working with gifted learners (6.3.1) Yet the districts had no overall plan (i.e., goals, outcomes, and assessment) for ongoing professional development opportunities for targeted stakeholders, rendering the process more random. For regular classroom teachers, who need to understand the cognitive, social, and emotional development of gifted learners (6.2.1), this situation rendered the growth of these teachers unlikely.

Although each district had a list of dates and topics for professional development sessions offered annually, the list was not part of a comprehensive plan for using professional development in a targeted way to improve practice. Although the process of professional development planning was in evidence in all districts, the outcomes of such efforts were rarely recorded or used to promote improved practice. We examined outcome data for this standard as available in each district. The data were reported for the numbers of teachers trained in different types of modalities. No data addressed follow-up in classrooms for evidence of teacher change in the use of strategies or other behaviors. There was an assumption that if the gifted program offered courses or workshops, then the professional development standard was adequately addressed.

Discussion

Overall, the school districts evaluated received a total of 44 “Yeses” on indicators met out of a total of 97 indicators for six standards (see Table 1). This is a tepid score at best, with only three standards receiving positive indicator responses above 50%. These standards were assessment, learning environments, and professional development. Other standards ranged from 30.8% to 37.07% of the indicators being met by the district gifted programs. The programming standard received the lowest rating of any of the six standards. Only one district received an overall rating above 75% while three others received ratings above 50% and one approached that score level. Two of the remaining three districts met approximately one third of the indicators. The final district met only 12.4% of the indictors.

Table 1.

Overall Ratings for Eight District Gifted Programs on Evidence-Based Practices of the NAGC Gifted Programming Standards

	District 1Number (%) met	District 2Number (%) met	District 3Number (%) met	District 4Number (%) met	District 5Number (%) met	District 6Number (%) met	District 7Number (%) met	District 8Number (%) met	Average met/total number(SD)	Percentage practices met
Standard 1 Learning and development (13 evidence-based practices)	11 (84.6)	0	6 (46.1)	5 (38.4)	3 (23.1)	5 (38.4)	3 (23.1)	5 (38.4)	4.8/13 (SD = 2.95)	36.9
Standard 2 Assessment (22 evidence-based practices)	22 (100)	4 (18.2)	11 (50.0)	15 (68.2)	9 (40.9)	12 (54.5)	12 (54.5)	8 (36.3)	11.6/22 (SD = 4.97)	52.7
Standard 3 Curriculum planning (20 evidence-based practices)	16 (80.0)	2 (10.0)	7 (35.0)	10 (50.0)	11 (55.0)	7 (35.0)	2 (10.0)	4 (20.0)	7.4/20 (SD = 4.53)	37.0
Standard 4 Learning environments (17 evidence-based practices)	15 (88.2)	2 (11.8)	9 (52.9)	14 (82.4)	16 (94.1)	13 (76.5)	5 (29.4)	4 (23.5)	9.8/17 (SD = 5.14)	57.6
Standard 5 Programming (13 evidence-based practices)	3 (23.1)	2 (15.4)	7 (53.8)	5 (38.5)	7 (53.8)	4 (30.8)	2 (15.4)	2 (15.4)	4.00/13 (SD = 2.0)	30.8
Standard 6 Professional development (12 evidence-based practices)	8 (66.7)	2 (16.7)	6 (50.0)	5 (41.7)	9 (75.0)	10 (83.3)	8 (66.7)	6 (50)	6.8/12 (SD = 2.38)	56.7
Total scores (97 evidence-based practices)	75 (77.3)	12 (12.4)	46 (47.4)	54 (55.7)	55 (56.7)	51 (52.6)	32 (33.1)	29 (30.1)	44.3/97 (SD = 18.12)	45.7

Note. NAGC = National Association for Gifted Children.

In the core areas of Curriculum Planning and Instruction (Standard 3), Programming (Standard 5), and in Learning and Development (Standard 1), less than 40% of the standards indicators were met. Although a majority of districts appeared to address Assessment (Standard 2), Learning Environments (Standard 4), and Professional Development (Standard 6), there was limited work apparent in basic program development, curriculum planning, and counseling opportunities. This pattern suggests that although aspects of gifted programs were in place in each district, comprehensive planning, including a scope and sequence, was neither in place for curriculum, instruction, learning assessment, nor professional development. Systematic evaluation efforts on an ongoing basis were absent from all districts.

There was also a diverse pattern of findings within and across districts. One district was significantly stronger than others in meeting the indicators found in the first four standards yet more typical in scores for Standards 5 and 6. In general, most districts were weak in programming and curriculum planning, suggesting that existing programs were not being sufficiently defined and executed. New initiatives, with the exception of early intervention programs to support young advanced learners from underserved populations, were not being undertaken.

It is easy to understand the lack of traction on program development experienced by these districts, however. Funding for education over the past 5 years has decreased or remained static in many states. Funding for gifted education has reflected that trend (NAGC, 2015). Although the evaluations did not probe budgeting issues deeply, these issues emerged from interviews and focus groups as major reasons that gifted programs have not expanded or become more refined in their development.

Moreover, in many of the districts evaluated, concerns surrounding the grouping of gifted learners, as played out in the choice of delivery models for gifted programs being employed by schools, have escalated. Based on focus group and interview data from principals and other administrators, these educators remain unconvinced that gifted student performance is affected by the grouping arrangement employed. Beliefs prevail that these students would perform at high levels regardless, that gifted learners should be helping other learners, and that no specialized materials for the gifted are needed as the basic materials, selected by the district for all learners, are adequate and appropriate for all.

As seen in lessons observed, in districts where cluster grouping was the model of choice, few attempts were made to ensure that gifted students were grouped for services on a regular schedule, that they used differentiated materials such as advanced readings or math problem sets, or that they received differentiated instruction or homework. In four of the eight districts observed, this situation was common at both elementary and middle school levels. However, one district was a model for use of a cluster grouping approach; the coordinator had developed a system whereby a gifted specialist in each building was able to monitor the implementation of clustering, provide assistance to cluster teachers as needed, and teach cluster groups directly. Due to limited funding for sufficient staffing in each school, however, several districts could not provide this support to guarantee effective cluster grouping.

Regardless of the grouping model employed, districts had difficulty with using a systematic approach to the use of advanced curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Primary and middle school levels often lacked consistent delivery systems for gifted learners. Where they existed, honors classes at middle school levels often included large numbers of students who were not identified for gifted services. Differentiation rarely took place within these honors classes, as seen by the depressed scores on the COS-R at this level of instruction. Moreover, these middle school teachers were infrequently trained to differentiate instruction for this population. Even though opportunities were provided, teachers were allowed to opt in or out and to select which type of option they preferred. Consequently, the result was uneven training rather than targeted professional development, focused on improving classroom differentiated instruction.

There was little evidence of a systematic approach to guidance and counseling (5.7.1), which would have placed more emphasis on the social and emotional needs of gifted learners. Most emphases in this area came from the teachers of the gifted through the curriculum in language arts classes and their personal attention to student needs in this area. Linked to this concern was the call by parents and students in stakeholder groups for more individual opportunities for learning for these students as opposed to consistent use of group work in classrooms. Individual projects, homework assignments, and other learning platforms were rarely used to showcase a talent area or to provide alternatives for meeting content standards.

The evaluations also revealed the extent to which curriculum planning was missing from the work of school district programs for the gifted. None of the districts had a curriculum framework (3.1.2) that could be used to guide instruction each year. None of the districts had a scope and sequence of coursework designed for gifted learners in each subject area, culminating in AP, IB, or dual enrollment at the high school level. To their credit, all of the districts did attempt to align their curriculum to existing content standards. Clearly, better articulation of advanced curriculum opportunities by grade level and content area was needed in these districts.

Major Strengths and Weaknesses Across District Evaluations

At the completion of each evaluation, each district received a written report with commendations, recommendations, and a three year plan for implementation of the recommendations. The evaluators analyzed these district evaluation reports for major strengths and weaknesses, using the results on each standard as a guide and then correlated those strengths and weaknesses with report commendations and recommendations. Based on the results of this standards review across districts, major strengths and weaknesses were determined, using the findings from all data sources available. Table 2 highlights the syntheses found, constituting the major strengths and weaknesses across districts by standard. These strengths and weaknesses aligned closely with district evaluation report commendations and recommendations.

Table 2.

Major Strengths and Weaknesses Indicated by Standards Review

Standard	Strengths	Weaknesses
Standard 1 Learning and development	Support for the cognitive and affective growth of gifted learners was observed in most classrooms.	PK-Grade 12 program articulation to guide individual decision making of gifted learners on multiple program options was not evident in any district.
Standard 1 Learning and development	Respect for students with diverse abilities, strengths, and goals was evident in all districts.	Comprehensive school counseling programs focused on the needs of gifted learners were not found in any district.
Standard 2 Assessment	Research-based identification procedures were delineated and followed in all districts.	The percentage of students from underserved populations receiving program services did not reflect the percentage of these students in the total student population in any district.
	Use of nontraditional and off-level assessments was indicated in classes with advanced curriculum materials in Grades 4 to 8 and in AP and IB classes.	State assessment results were used as the predominant means to evaluate the progress of a majority of gifted learners before Grade 11.
	Each of the districts had elected to have an external team conduct a program evaluation and report on program effectiveness.	Systematic evaluation procedures were not in place for annual review of program effectiveness.
Standard 3 Curriculum planning and instruction	The use of local, state, and national standards for curriculum development and assessment was evident in all districts.	A PK-Grade 12 curriculum scope and sequence, focused on the academic needs of gifted learners, was not evident.
	All districts offered acceleration opportunities in sequential mathematics classes beginning at Grade 4 and in AP courses. Some districts also offered the IB diploma program.	Accelerative opportunities were not consistently available in Grades 4 to 10 across grade levels in subjects other than mathematics.
		Advanced curriculum offerings did not extend to science or social studies or to the arts or leadership development before high school in a majority of districts.
	Teachers who were using higher level instructional strategies were doing so effectively.	A minority of teachers was using higher level instructional strategies.
	The use of technology to support learners, including twice exceptional learners, was evident in all districts.	Although materials and resources to support the curriculum were provided, some teachers within each district indicated that the materials were neither adequate nor available.
Standard 4Learning environments	Respect for cultural diversity was evident in all districts.	Support for the development of individual student identity was observed in some classrooms but was uneven within and across districts.
Standard 4Learning environments	High expectations for learning were set in all districts.	Support for effort and for mistakes as learning opportunities was evident in some classrooms but was uneven within and across districts.
Standard 5Programming	Program services were offered to gifted learners in Grades 4 to 8 and through AP and/or IB programs in all districts.	Comprehensive, aligned PK-Grade 12 programming for gifted learners was not seen in any district.
	Some form of grouping for instruction was found in all districts.	Evidence-based policies for instructional grouping either were not in place or did not result in consistent instructional grouping practices in any district.
	Some form of acceleration was under development or in place in all districts.	Evidence-based acceleration policies either were not in place or did not drive acceleration practices in any district.
	Collaboration among general, gifted, and special educators and collaboration with families and community members was indicated at the school level in a majority of districts.	Comprehensive districtwide planning for collaboration among educators and with families and community members was not evident in any district.
		A comprehensive communication plan to receive input and provide information to educators, parents, and community members was not evident in any district.
	Coordinators of gifted programs and teachers in those programs were committed to serving gifted learners.	Adequate personnel allocation and support for program development was not evident in any district.
Standard 6Professional development	All districts offered a range of levels of professional development sessions, including local, national, and university programs, in different delivery modalities.	Professional development opportunities were seen as a list of options rather than as a comprehensive plan with goals, outcomes, and assessment.
Standard 6Professional development		Consistent, targeted professional development was not required for teachers and/or administrators in any district.

Note. IB = International Baccalaureate.

Common commendations across district evaluation reports included admiration for the high quality and commitment of the program coordinator and her staff members. The evaluation team also cited the many examples of high-quality teaching they had observed. Districts were also commended for the respect for students with diverse abilities, for respect for cultural diversity, and for high expectations for learning. Districts were also commended for identification procedures that were well developed, carefully documented, and followed state guidelines. The extensive use of technology was a frequent commendation. In all districts, students and parents were generally positive about the program as reflected in multiple data sources but especially in focus groups.

Common report recommendations included the need for funding additional staff to support program maintenance and improvement and the need to establish a communication system that was multimodal and relevant to program issues and concerns voiced by stakeholders, especially parents. To support student learning and development, common recommendations included articulating PK-Grade 12 program options and developing a comprehensive school counseling program for gifted learners. In identification, recommendations focused on increasing flexibility in the identification process with an expansion into domain-specific areas. In addition, recommendations called for the use of innovative approaches for finding, serving, and monitoring the progress of underrepresented learners. Recommendations also addressed the need for the use of multiple student assessments rather than total reliance on state assessments. In curriculum planning and instruction, recommendations emphasized developing a PK-Grade 12 curriculum scope and sequence for gifted learners with expansion into additional content areas such as science, social sciences, the arts, and leadership. The development and implementation of district policies on acceleration and the use of flexible instructional grouping were also frequent recommendations. A plan to provide comprehensive, aligned PK-Grade 12 programming for gifted learners was a recommendation for each district. Such a comprehensive programming plan would encompass recommendations on scope and sequence, grouping, acceleration, and student assessment. The plan would also address recommendations for collaboration among educators. A plan for communication with multiple publics, including parents and community members, in multiple modes as a necessary support for effective programming was a recommendation in all districts. Finally, recommendations were made in all districts for the development of a comprehensive professional development plan with goals, outcomes, and assessment. In several districts, recommendations also included the need for targeted and specific training on materials to be used in the program rather than general professional development. Most districts also demonstrated the need for professional development for building administrators to increase their knowledge of and support for the program.

Implications for Practice

These findings across eight districts on standards implementation suggest the need for districts to focus resources and energy on gifted program improvement in specific areas. The areas in critical need, based on the data available from these eight districts, are the following:

Districts need to develop and use more advanced planning tools in the curriculum offered to gifted learners. Designing a scope and sequence of gifted student offerings K-12 to share with parents and other educators so they can see what the program provides at different stages of development in specific content areas would facilitate communication about the program with key stakeholders. However, this must be more than a simple chart. It must delineate the nature of how a course or program is differentiated for gifted learners and show how it contributes to the overall goals of the program. Such a planning tool then may be used to target new areas for program and curriculum development, and act as a platform for responding to professional development needs. Closely linked to a curriculum scope and sequence is the need for a programmatic one that charts how gifted students traverse the learning challenges in school from K-12, what the opportunities are for gifted learners at each level, and how they connect to advanced learning in each subject area.

Districts need to address concerns about grouping by continuing to share research studies demonstrating the effectiveness of several approaches and offering local data to demonstrate that gifted students are learning more under these approaches than they would be without them. Districts need to employ flexible grouping approaches that produce positive learning results for gifted learners. Effective cluster grouping is challenging and requires teacher training and administrative oversight and support. Curriculum-based instructional grouping also requires attention to the level of the teacher preparation to work with gifted learners and the use of differentiated materials. This issue is particularly a critical concern at the middle school level.

Districts must become more proactive in the use of content acceleration at levels before high school in all core areas of the curriculum. From moving individual students to upper levels in the content area to advancing whole classes to another level through employing strategies and materials for advanced learners, coordinators must find ways to ensure that gifted students are not left behind in our quest to educate all students to their potential.

Finally, the need for counseling opportunities for the gifted learner is great. Whether we are talking about personal counseling needs, based on differential characteristics or academic planning needs, based on asynchronous development, there is a research-based need for attention to the social and emotional development of these students. It appears that districts are not addressing these issues in a systematic way. Closely aligned to this neglect is also the need for career planning. For example, the most important way we can counsel the twice exceptional child as early as sixth grade is through providing connections to potential future careers. Yet little appears to be happening for any gifted learner in the area of targeted counseling.

If only these four areas of best practice could be addressed, several more standards would be met and, more importantly, gifted students would be served better by school districts across this country.

Conclusion

This article has presented a report card on national standards implementation across eight diverse school districts in the United States. It has highlighted the areas where standards have been met and where districts have fallen short. It has pinpointed issues encountered in the context of these districts related to running gifted programs and services. Finally, it has offered a set of ideas for improvement of practice in other districts wishing to improve their journey toward meeting the national standards.

Supplemental Material

GCTJoyceHubbardStandardsFINAL_1 – Supplemental material for A Review of the National Gifted Standards Implementation in Eight Districts: An Uneven Picture of Practice

Supplemental material, GCTJoyceHubbardStandardsFINAL_1 for A Review of the National Gifted Standards Implementation in Eight Districts: An Uneven Picture of Practice by Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Gail Fischer Hubbard in Gifted Child Today

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Bios

Joyce VanTassel-Baska, EdD, is the Smith Professor Emerita at The College of William and Mary in Virginia where she developed a graduate program and a research and development center in gifted education. Formerly, she initiated and directed the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University. She has also served as the state director of gifted programs for Illinois, as a regional director of a gifted service center in the Chicago area, as coordinator of gifted programs for the Toledo, Ohio, public school system, and as a teacher of gifted high school students in English and Latin. She has published widely, including 30 books and more than 600 refereed journal articles, book chapters, and scholarly reports. She has received national and international awards for her work from The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), Phi Beta Kappa, World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, The American Educational Research Association (AERA), and Mensa. Her major research interests are on the talent development process and effective curricular interventions with the gifted.

Gail Fischer Hubbard, MEd, served as supervisor of gifted education for Prince William County Public Schools, Virginia, for 26 years. Before she entered administration, she was a high school gifted education resource teacher for a decade. She has served as the president of the Virginia Association for the Gifted, as chairperson of the Virginia Consortium of Administrators of Gifted Programs, and as chairperson of the Virginia Advisory Committee for the Education of the Gifted. She received her AB from Bryn Mawr College and her master’s of arts in teaching from Harvard University. She taught in Washington, D.C., in Niagara Falls, New York, and in Ithaca, New York, before moving to Virginia. She was raised in a rural community and began first grade in a two-room school house.

References

Assouline

Colangelo

Lupowski-Shoplik

Lipscomb

Forstadt

(2015). Iowa Acceleration Scale (3rd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Classen

Lopez

D. D. S.

Winter

Awadzi

K. D.

Ferree

Garvan

C. W.

(2007). Population-based health promotion perspective for older driver safety: Conceptual framework to intervention plan. Clinical Intervention in Aging, 2, 677-693.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design; qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Farah

Y. N.

Chandler

K. L.

(2019). Structured observation instruments assessing instructional practices with gifted and talented students: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 276-288. doi:10.1177/0016986218758439

Johnsen

S. K.

(Ed.). (2012). NAGC pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Landrum

M. S.

Callahan

C. M.

Shaklee

B. D.

(2001). Aiming for excellence: Gifted program standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Matthews

M. S.

Shaunessy

(2010). Putting standards into practice: Evaluating the utility of the NAGC pre-K-Grade 12 gifted program standards. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 159-167.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12

National Association for Gifted Children. (2015). 2014-2015 state of the states in gifted education. Washington, DC: Author.

10.

Onwuegbusie

A. J.

Leech

N. L.

(2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11, 474-498.

11.

VanTassel-Baska

(2018). Curriculum considerations for the gifted. In Shaughnessy

Pfeiffer

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp 349-369). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.42 MB