An Analysis of Stakeholder Perceptions of Gifted Programs: A Report Card on Gifted Program Performance

District Context

The school districts whose gifted program were evaluated consisted of urban, suburban, or exurban, and rural districts across seven states. In some districts, only elementary and middle school programs (N = 9) were evaluated; in others, all three levels were evaluated (i.e., Elementary, middle, and high school) programs (N = 4). Most of the districts were on the East coast and represented seven different states.

School districts were divided into small, medium, and large, depending on student enrollment of the entire school district. Small districts ranged from 1,000–12,000 students; medium districts ranged from 12,000–42,000 students, and large districts ranged from 42,000–105,000. Using this metric, four of the districts were small, four medium, and four large, suggesting a broad range of districts in respect to size. Researchers used the respective state designations for rural, suburban/exurban, and urban. They were designated as follows: 1 rural district, 5 urban districts, and 6 suburban/exurban districts.

Additionally, the length of a formal gifted program for each district ranged from fairly new programs (formally established within the last 5 years) to programs whose history was more than 25 years old. Moreover, it is important to understand state context when conducting focus groups, because if a state mandates identification or services or both, a school district is much more likely to have explicit systems in place. State mandates, funding, any type of review or approval process provides critical infrastructure (Brown et al., 2006). In terms of state mandates, 58% had mandates to identify and/or serve gifted learners. Table 1 provides an overview of the seven states in which the 12 school districts reside.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

State mandates and funding for gifted services by evaluation site

State	Mandate for Identification	Mandate for Services/Programming	Any state funding	Mandate for Advisory Board, Review or Approval Process (local or state level)
VA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
NC	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
SC	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
TN	Yes	No	Yes	No
NJ a	No	Yes	No	Yes
NY	No	No	No	No
FL	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

^aAs of January 2020, New Jersey has a mandate to identify and serve gifted students. At the time of the gifted program evaluations, New Jersey did not have a mandate to identify.

Individual Stakeholders

Focus group participants (i.e., parents, students, teachers, and administrators) selected for these evaluation studies within the 12 districts were individuals who had a vested interest in the school district gifted program and possessed a unique point of view regarding the program. For example, some parents had more than one student in programs and therefore knew about the program experience at different levels and even in different schools. Sometimes a stakeholder wore multiple hats, such as being both teacher and parent, but, for the purposes of a focus group session, they represented one preselected point of view. Criteria for selection of participants were the following:

A participant should have reasonable knowledge of the gifted program, based on their role.

Table 2 shows the districts evaluated, stakeholder roles, number of focus groups held and number of attendees by role, and the total number of focus group sessions held and attendees involved. There were several districts in which individual interviews, rather than focus groups, were conducted with key administrators. Those are noted in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Number of focus group sessions/interviews and participants by district and stakeholder role

School Districts (N = 12)	Total # of FG Sessions; Individual Interviews	# of Parent FG Sessions	# of Parents	# of Gifted Student FG Sessions	# of Students	# of Administrators in FG Sessions or Individual Interviews with Administrators	# of GT Teacher FG Sessions	# of Teachers
District 1 (small, urban, E/M)	3 FG; 5 Interviews	1	9	1	9	5 Interviews (0 FG)	1	9
District 2 (small, rural, E/M)	3 FG; 3 Interviews	1	7	1	10	3 Interviews (0 FG)	1	8
District 3 (medium, urban, E/M)	3 FG; 3 Interviews	1	10	1	20	3 Interviews (0 FG)	1	11
District 4 (large, urban, E/M)	13 FG;	6	53	3	21	22 (1 FG)	3	19
District 5 (15,588 medium, suburban ,E/M/H)	38 FG;	12	103	12	121	20 (2 FG)	12	131
District 6 (26,895 medium, suburban, E/M/H)	3 FG:	0	0	0	0	13 (1 FG)	2	19
District 7 (22,000 medium, urban, E/M/H)	7 FG	2	19	1	11	47 (2 FG)	2	27
District 8 (104,000 large, exurban, E/M)	10 FG	2	17	2	18	10 (2 FG)	4	40
District 9 (2104) (small, suburban E/M)	4 FG	2	12	0	0	6 (1 FG)	1	8
District 10 (5495 small, suburban, E/M)	8 FG	2	14	2	20	15 (2 FG)	2	13
District 11 (35,000 large, exurban, E/M/H)	10 FG	2	12	2	21	21 (3 FG)	3	51
District 12 (17,400 medium, urban, E/M/H)	9 FG	2	18	4	37	20 (2 FG)	1	7
TOTAL	111 FG; 11 interviews	33 FG	274	29 FG	288	174 (16 FG) and 11 interviews with individual administrators	33 FG	343

Note: E = Elementary, M = Middle School, H = High School.

Instrumentation

Protocols for the development of focus group questions and their purposes have been researched in many fields of education (see Feng & Brown, 2004; Johnsen, 2018; VanTassel-Baska & Feng, 2004). A 7-item focus group protocol was developed and tailored for each district to assess the perceptions of parents, students, teachers, and administrators about the gifted program by probing issues related to the general operation of the program in the context of selected best practice standards (Rinn et al., 2020). For example, questions about the use of multiple tools and underrepresentation of low income and students of color were probed under assessment, differentiation practices under curriculum, and the use of critical thinking and creative thinking under instruction. These were aligned with the NAGC Pre-K to Grade 12 Programming standards (see https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12) Sample questions used, with some variations, based on stakeholder group and district site, were:

1. What is your perception of the gifted program in your district? Follow-up probes often included: Is your perception the same at all levels of instruction? In all areas of instruction? (see NAGC Standard 5, Programming)

2. How effective do you judge the identification process to be? Follow-up probes were: How effective are the multiple tools used for identification? How effective is the process for finding underrepresented groups (typically defined as students of color, poverty and/or disability)? (see NAGC Standard 2, Assessment).

3. How effective is curriculum and instruction in the program? Is it differentiated for gifted learners? How is it monitored? (see NAGC Standard 3. Curriculum and Instruction).

4. How effective are teachers at delivering instruction? Do they routinely differentiate for gifted learners? Are they trained to ensure competency in this area? (see NAGC Standard 3. Curriculum and Instruction and NAGC Standard 6. Professional Learning).

5. To what extent are students challenged and engaged with the gifted program? What is the evidence of their accomplishment in the program? What aspects of the program are designed to benefit gifted learners? (NAGC Standard 1. Learning and Development and NAGC Standard 4. Learning Environments)

Concluding questions focused on overall strengths and weaknesses of the program. Variations of these questions were also used as part of the framework for interviews conducted with the administrators in charge of the program, the superintendent and other program and school officials such as school board members and directors of curriculum and instruction.

Procedures

In the total study of these 12 gifted program evaluations, procedures in facilitating a focus group of stakeholders were consistent, even though the participants varied (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Regardless of the size, location, or participants of the school districts involved, the evaluation team members facilitated these focus groups, using established protocols.

Specific guidelines for conducting focus groups in these 12 districts were:

1. Convening a group of on average 12 stakeholders by role (e.g., teachers, students, parents) in a convenient location in the district for 1 hour. Stakeholder members were selected either by the coordinator or principals at school sites who were provided guidelines to ensure a broad range of perceptions about the program, schools, socioeconomic levels, and grade levels of students in the program. It was important that focus groups were diverse in all the ways that the program was diverse in the district.

2. Providing rules for participation in the group, noting that the session would last about 1 hour, and facilitators would ask questions where participants would respond in two ways—by individual comments on a notecard and by discussion in the group. Group responses, visible to all, were recorded by either the facilitator or a second evaluation consultant, each trained by the principal investigator in the processes to be followed.

3. Collecting data that were based on the 7-question protocol, generating a list of ideas through the discussion, and procuring individual responses generated on cards. Overall charts of responses for each group were constructed with quotes and tallies of similar responses.

4. Analyzing responses by question and stakeholder group into general themes. First, all comments from individual cards were transcribed and then coded by the evaluation team for emergent themes. Then, the comments from the general discussion were analyzed for emerging themes. Themes emerged whereby at least half of the respondents within focus groups noted the same idea. Finally, the two sets of data (i.e., individual cards and list of discussion items) were integrated for clarity and to reduce redundancy (Creswell, 2014). The same team of evaluators conducted this process to enhance consistency.

5. Conducting a comparative analysis across stakeholder groups by question to ascertain similarities and differences in responses. At least two groups out of four (50% congruence) had to cite a similar response for it to be judged a general theme across stakeholder groups. This process was also carried out by the same trained evaluation team.

6. Selecting quotations to illustrate the thematics uncovered became the next task. Quotes were chosen that synthesized ideas and/or provided a distinctive view of the question as well as representing different stakeholders involved in each focus group. Evaluators were careful to represent all stakeholder groups and types of participants within groups (e.g., elementary vs. secondary teachers and students) in the quotes and to represent fairly the views of each group to the extent possible. Quotations provided additional support for the thematics identified and clarified their application (Creswell, 2014).

Data Analysis

The analysis was conducted by the lead evaluators in all instances. This involved from 2–3 individuals who had been trained on the administration and scoring of the instrumentation used (i.e., focus group protocol). The lead investigator trained other team members in the roles of facilitating focus groups and analyzing the follow-up data. Since the analysis of most focus groups involved at least two members of the evaluation team, consistency was maintained through obtaining written individual evaluator ratings, discussion around resulting areas of divergence, and then final concurrence with the identification of the emergent themes. In almost all instances, agreement before discussion was 100%.

In the first cycle of analysis, initial codes were identified and defined by the trained evaluation team (Miles et al., 2014) for each focus group conducted. Coding of the collected cards and group discussion sheets was carried out by typing all responses by question and highlighting key words for each. In the second cycle, the components of program development (i.e., identification, curriculum, instruction, and assessment) were used to organize the codes and a second round of coding with this framework in mind was conducted (Maxwell, 2013). In the process, patterns. and themes common or unique to each group were identified and recorded.

In order to ascertain congruity to targeted best practice standards, a content analysis was conducted (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), using the thematic findings in comparison to selected standards from the NAGC standards. The standards compared included those related to all six standards of learning and development, assessment, curriculum and instruction, environment and learning, programming, and professional learning.

The verification of the interpretation of the focus group data was accomplished through two approaches. The first approach was to verify in each focus group that the ideas tracked on the discussion board were accurate and reflective of the meaning generated during the session. A second approach was to discuss the results for each focus group among the evaluation team and reach consensus regarding the meaning of each recorded statement and to select quotations from the individual cards of responses that best represented that interpretation. No focus group member was quoted more than once, nor any district represented by multiple quotes from one stakeholder group. During the conferring of evaluation team members, numbers of responses were also tallied and verified for purposes of accuracy in reporting.

The evaluation team, selected through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process by district officials for their competency in conducting evaluation processes, was responsible for the facilitation of all focus groups and all analyses of the data. The use of a scripted set of questions, enforcing a time limit for each session, and a protocol for obtaining responses to ensure that all members in each group participated guaranteed consistency in administration and data collection. Evaluators developed, piloted, and conferred with district coordinators on the processes and questions to be used for focus groups. All questions were tailored to individual district needs within categories of inquiry.

Focus Group Results on the Structured Questions

The results from each type of focus group (e.g., students, teachers, parents, and administrators) were organized into separate charts for the evaluation team to review and synthesize. Results herein are reported from these stakeholder groups across all 12 districts.

Teacher Focus Group Results

Teacher focus groups were held in each district, ranging from 1–12, depending on the scope of the evaluation and the size of the district. Participant size ranged from 7–131 teachers. Most districts included both elementary and secondary students although only three contained high school teacher responses. In some districts, focus groups were held by school, increasing the number of teacher groups in those districts. Elementary and secondary groups were organized separately in each district.

Teachers indicated that the gifted program lacks importance in the school system in which they work and is not a priority, due to competing needs. Some teachers noted that the program has eroded over time, reverting to the use of general district teaching materials rather than differentiated ones designed for gifted learners. An overall perception among teachers was that the work they did with gifted learners was devalued in the eyes of the district; they felt that they had to be more creative and flexible for their program to be valued. One teacher noted, “I feel like I’m jumping up and down to get noticed, but they don’t care because my students are performing well”(Elementary Teacher # 1, District 1). Teachers felt that if they kept parents happy; administrators left them alone. Many teachers felt pulled in different directions between implementing an accelerated and enriched curriculum with gifted learners and implementing the core program designed for all learners in the school district.

Regarding identification, teachers shared similar concerns voiced by other focus groups, especially principals, regarding the underrepresentation of students from poverty and of color. They felt the selection process did not use criteria beyond tests to any extent in the final decisions. Yet teachers also showed concern for the efficacy of an open access program in providing sufficient support for students who lack the skills necessary for success in a gifted program, calling for entry and exit procedures to ensure a match of student and program. It also Verifying the lack of consistent differentiation in her district, one teacher noted: “Identification has changed dramatically in the past 3-4 years. I feel like we have gotten away from actual data and moved to a very subjective system. It also seems different in every building. There is very little that is similar across all schools, and this concerns me greatly” (Elementary Teacher #2, District 5).

Teachers in districts using differentiated materials felt that the curriculum was effective with their students in helping them think at higher levels but could be stronger in respect to more challenging work “if there were time to implement best practices.” One noted: “When it’s done right, it is AMAZING! Growth for all kids, and we can raise everyone up. The biggest roadblock is implementation – doing it correctly or not at all” (Elementary Teacher #3, District 6). Another cited that the effectiveness of curriculum implementation also lay with the quality of the teacher: “. . .needs to be paired with a teacher ready to take on the challenges of the gifted group ”(Elementary Teacher #4, District 8).

However, most teachers did not think the curriculum was sufficiently differentiated in any subject area except for accelerated math. There was a clear call for differentiated materials to be used as models in classrooms and for more resources to support the program. One teacher noted: “I would like to see more support in planning gifted lessons with materials we have available and model lessons” (Elementary Teacher #5, District 9). Teachers also noted that the lack of professional learning in the use of the curriculum and access to differentiated materials were barriers in providing a more rigorous experience for gifted learners.

Teacher quality was perceived to be effective by many teachers in the stakeholder groups yet uneven or even poor by others. One teacher focus group member commented: “Teachers are still not understanding that all students benefit from challenging & rigorous content/materials (and there is) no accountability for (doing) differentiation”(Middle School Teacher #1, District 11). Two others voiced the view of many students that teachers did not differentiate for them in the regular classroom through similar comments such as: “I think there is a lack of rigor for GT students in the regular classroom” (Middle School Teacher #2, District 1).

Many of the teachers cited the use of a variety of strategies found effective with gifted students such as project-based learning; differentiation through subgrouping and the use of technology; and use of individualized approaches. A common theme across teacher focus groups was that the teachers in the program were hardworking, passionate, eager to try new things, and committed to gifted students. There was inconsistency in teacher comments, however, on the issue of professional learning. Some felt that training was available and that teachers were trained to work with these students, while in other districts the perception was that there was little training or resources available for working with gifted students, a finding corroborated in a recent evaluation study of teacher observations (VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2019). Another view often cited by teachers was a lack of support for efforts to differentiate: “I feel prepared educationally, but I do not feel I have the resources and/or time to be successful. With the limited amount of time, I feel rushed and less effective” (Middle School Teacher #3, District 7). Another noted: “Newer hires have little context or knowledge of specific differentiated instructional models and strategies” (Elementary Teacher # 6, District 6). One coordinator, who advocated for school-based professional learning, noted: “Bringing the training to teachers in a respectful, palatable way has been a game changer” (Coordinator #1, District 2).

Comments on gifted students’ learning centered on the use of too many assessments that were not specifically designed for gifted students or their differentiated program. Assessment in the gifted programs, for the most part, was not seen as different from the general education program, using only the state assessment scores to judge student learning. Project assessments and portfolios were mentioned as tools but rarely were they used by teachers to assign either grades or movement to a higher level of learning. Teachers felt that student success and academic gains were evident more anecdotally through class discussions, students’ eagerness to work together on a project, and overall student interest.

Benefits of the gifted programs were seen as the opportunity for gifted students to work together to advance their learning, the enthusiasm for learning that develops, and the increasing self-efficacy and self-confidence that accrues. Teachers said that the gifted program provided a safe place for students to express their opinions without criticism from other students, “finding their tribe and feeling comfortable” (Middle School Teacher #4, District 10). Teachers also spoke of the challenge that was provided to these learners through the gifted programs. They also mentioned the opportunities for early advancement in subjects like math, higher level skills, and more opportunities for creative learning as real benefits that gifted students enjoyed as a result of participation in the gifted program.

Improvements needed for the programs were perceived to be in the area of having access to differentiated curriculum and resources with permission to use them, training for teachers in how to use differentiated materials, and the need for better communication among stakeholders. One frustrated teacher noted: “. . .more clarity is needed regarding which set of expectations we are to meet and how they expect us to meet them with limited time” (Middle School Teacher #4, District 4). Teachers in some of the districts were very concerned about the articulation of the gifted program in respect to curriculum and assessment, noting that the connection of the gifted curriculum to state assessments was limited, forcing them to teach to the state assessment demands.

Student Focus Group Results

Student focus groups were organized in all but two of the districts to provide important perceptual understanding of the program’s impact on its major client group. Groups numbered 1–12, with 9–121 students interviewed, depending on the organization of focus groups in each district due to district desires and size. In one district, each school site visited organized a school-based student focus group. Student groups were limited to fourth and/or fifth graders at the elementary level, to 7^th-8th graders at middle school, and to seniors in high school. Program commentary was sought on students’ overall time spent in the program, ranging from 1 to 10 years.

Elementary and middle school students held different perspectives regarding their gifted program, so it was important to target each student focus group separately and then compare themes across them. Student “voice” was an important data source because these are the very stakeholders who matter most in judging the efficacy of their learning (Cross et al., 2018). Listening to student voice also can encourage school and district leaders to make important decisions and effectively prioritize decisions in schools (Kanevsky, 2011; Mitra, 2003). Middle school focus groups were comprised of 6–8th grade students; elementary focus groups contained primarily 4–5^th graders.

All students engaged with the same questions as other stakeholder groups. Elementary students focused their comments more heavily on their teachers and project work, whereas middle school students emphasized the advanced content of their programs as well as preparation for their next level of schooling and beyond.

Overall Responses on Program Benefits and Improvements

Gifted students at elementary and middle school levels returned to the advantages of being advanced and accelerated and working with like ability peers as the highlight of their gifted program experience. Students felt that the program was designed for those who were hardworking and did not work for students who were not. Thus, they felt that some students who were in the program did not belong. Conversely, they felt that some students who were not selected might have been successful. Some students indicated that major benefits of their program included the interaction with their peers and teachers and the teacher mode of teaching. They also mentioned projects and activities as strengths. In terms of program improvement, students registered the need for more freedom in their learning activities and more project work in general. They also felt strongly about having teachers who understood their needs. Several students believed that the program could be improved if expanded opportunities for learning were provided, especially in the areas of science and history.

Parent Focus Group Results

The importance of parental involvement to student success is well-documented, and researchers have identified a number of key factors related to the achievement of diverse and gifted students, which center on parents’ high expectations, family engagement in education, community partnerships, and various interventions (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jolly & Matthews, 2012; Sizemore, 2008). Therefore, another important stakeholder group for focus group sessions in these program evaluations were parents of gifted learners.

Focus groups were held with parents, at least one for elementary parents and one for middle school parents, depending on the size and desires of the district. In some districts, focus groups were held by school, increasing the number of such groups conducted while providing salient school-based information for improvement purposes. One district asked us to conduct two focus groups with non-gifted parents as well. The size of these groups varied from 8–20, depending on the district. Across all 12 program evaluations, parents noted how much they appreciated and valued the gifted program, particularly related to issues of teacher quality, their children being with “like-ability” peers and doing hands-on projects.

Perceptions of elementary parents regarding the gifted program varied, to some extent based on the grade level of their child and the school. One parent opined: “I really appreciate that the pace of instruction is more appropriate for gifted learners than it was at our previous school. Less repetition, less boredom, more challenge - all leading to a greater love of learning” (Elementary Parent #1, District 7).

In general, parents were uninformed about the identification process and therefore did not offer perceptions about its efficacy. However, the one area that was cited by parents in the majority of the districts was the issue of underrepresentation of low-income students and students of color.

Parents generally perceived the curriculum as well-matched to their student’s abilities, providing the important challenge they were seeking from a gifted program. As noted by one parent, “it’s raising the bar.” Several parents across seven districts felt their child was not being appropriately challenged in these classes due to instructional approaches used or classes moving too fast in math. Some also expressed concern about the use of acceleration rather than enrichment in the math program. According to parents, concern for meeting state standards and performing well on related tests sometimes prevailed over any gifted emphasis in classes. One parent noted: “I tend to feel that ‘differentiated curriculum’ is still very much theoretical and not practiced effectively” (Elementary Parent #2, District 8). Another parent did not feel there was enough differentiation occurring, “There is not enough differentiation in the general education classroom, and when there is, it starts too late” (Elementary Parent, #3, District 4).

Some elementary parents noted that the amount of make-up work was perceived as a problem and felt that their children “were being penalized for participating in the pull-out gifted program by having to make up regular class work missed while participating in these sessions” (Elementary Parent #3, District 5). Other parents felt the lack of communication about the curriculum to parents hampered their ability to respond to the question about its effectiveness. One stated: “Not qualified to assess differential level of rigor. Never seen any measures/metrics that could quantify or validate the rigor” (Elementary Parent #4, District 9).

The majority of parents (60%) appeared pleased in general with their child’s teachers although they saw a degree of unevenness across both the elementary and middle school staff. Parents noted that teachers at the elementary level fostered higher level thinking and engagement with learning in ways that were perceived as challenging for their children. One elementary parent shared that teachers “were engaged and motivated” (Elementary Parent # 5, District 10). However, complaints at middle school level often were quite specific: one centered on the teacher’s abdication of teaching responsibility for the gifted within science and math classes, indicating that videos were extensively used. Another parent said: “Many teachers seem ‘green’ to gifted instruction and none of them differentiate – ‘one size fits all’” (Middle School Parent #1, District 10). Another middle school parent shared that the program “was inconsistent and fluctuated based on scheduling conflicts within the school” (Middle School Parent #2, District 7). Parents also seemed quite aware of the status of teacher preparation for working with gifted learners: “Last year, most gifted 6th grade teachers were not gifted endorsed/nor completed gifted coursework - lack of training evident”(Middle School Parent #3, District 12).

Assessment of the program was not perceived by parents to be different from grades received and the reporting on state testing. A few parents mentioned portfolios and the performance-based assessments constructed for the specific units of study being used. Many parents did not comment on this question due to lack of knowledge. They did perceive, however, that the assessment system did not vary for gifted learners.

Parents perceived the benefits of the program to be in the challenge of the curriculum, its faster pace, its individualized nature, and its focus on higher level thinking skills. The special classes were also perceived to bolster self-efficacy, offering a space where students could be themselves as learners. One parent summed it up by saying: “Every aspect (of learning) seems stronger than general education” (Middle School Parent #4, District 11). Parents also felt strongly about the benefit of ability grouping, of students working with others of similar interests and abilities. Another parent cynically commented: “it provides a spark to learning for disengaged, deadened, and bored gifted learners in the district” (Middle School Parent #5, District 5).

Areas for improvement cited centered on the need for the provision of differentiated services to gifted students at middle school level with a rigorous curriculum, improvement in the counseling process, improved coordination between the gifted program and the general education program, and improvement in the communication process to parents. One parent shared: “. . . parents aren’t neglected as much as not properly directed” (Middle School Parent #6, District 10).

Administrator Focus Group Results

Administrator focus groups were organized in each district, based on the scope of the evaluation and the size of the district. For example, in some districts, elementary, middle, and high school principals were each interviewed in their separate group while in others individual elementary principals were interviewed. In all districts, principals were the target administrator role targeted for focus group discussions as they had a major responsibility in the management of the gifted program at their school site. Central office administrators formed a focus group in six of the district sites. These groups included curriculum specialists and other special program heads such as special education and Title I. Individual interviews were held with superintendents in most districts as well. In total, 11 individual interviews were held in four of the districts and 16 focus groups held in the rest, with 174 administrators interviewed in total.

The administrative lens, unlike the other stakeholder groups, constituted a K-12 framework and as such, allowed a glimpse into the trajectory of a gifted program within the entire school district. The maintenance, supervision, and subsequent revisions of a gifted program fall under the auspices of the designated program coordinator. However, the role of oversight is often shared with the principal in each building. Moreover, the gifted coordinator typically reports to a director of curriculum or special education. Thus, the perceptions of administrators at various levels in the system affect the effective implementation of the program. Often such leaders may contend that appropriately differentiated academic experiences for highly able children are somehow unfair to other children (Brown & Rinko-Gay, 2017).

In this focus group study, administrators (predominantly principals) expressed strong concerns about the underrepresentation of students from poverty and color. They felt that the system of identification used was faulty, under-utilizing teacher input and over-using test scores. One administrator expressed, “There is unconscious bias. We need to work on standardizing criteria. We’re getting the smart, teacher pleasers and not necessarily the creative, out of the box kids” (Principal #1, District 1). They often criticized the cumbersome nature of the selection process and its requisite appeals process as well: “Few minority students are identified as GT. I think we could do a better job of this from a vertical standpoint (middle to high), but also from an internal perspective; where are these students and how do we intentionally seek them out, rather than leaving this to chance?”(Principal #2, District 3).

Many central office administrators focused on the strength of the teachers in the program and innovative strategies that were employed by them. One administrator summed it up with this statement: “. . .we have highly motivated teachers who want to make a difference and want to teach children with innovative strategies and higher expectations” (Administrator #1, District 5). Administrators, in general, felt that the effectiveness of curriculum and instructional practices in the gifted program were teacher dependent. One administrator shared: “Whether you are talking about gifted education or general education, you’re talking about differentiation. We need to be better about letting students become the thinkers; more open-ended questions and activities are needed. I would like to see students really engaged in the classroom when I visit schools, but that just isn’t the case”(Administrator #2, District 4).

In some districts, administrators voiced concerns about the limited extent to which differentiation was being used in classrooms. Middle school principals also voiced concerns about the rigor of honors classes and program articulation across the grade levels of 6–12. Special concerns were also voiced related to the articulation of honors classes to AP and IB demands.

Administrators also spoke to how teachers of the gifted modify the district curriculum by creating cognitively demanding tasks and their own units of study. The majority of these district leaders spoke to the need for professional development and the need for all teachers to be certified or endorsed in gifted education. In terms of assessment and gauging student growth, they felt that more should be done with regard to monitoring gifted students’ academic growth and then having teachers understand what the data mean in order to make inferences and adjust instruction accordingly. One administrator noted: “We need a strategic plan for helping students, all students, achieve. I just want people to understand that it’s not about the label; it’s about students growing”(Administrator #3, District 1).

Principals were clear about the type of benefits that accrued to gifted students from the program. One noted: “The greatest benefit is exposing these kids to new ideas/thoughts outside of their interests/culture/family beliefs – opens the door to career interests” (Principal #3, District 12). Another voiced the views of many by summarizing: “The most important benefit is challenging students in a supportive environment that allows them to take risks academically so that they may reach their full potential” (Principal #4, District 8).

Across Focus Group Themes

After analyzing the focus group data by level and by group, the evaluators examined the data by question across focus groups. Where an idea was expressed in two or more core focus groups (i.e., parents, students, teachers, or administrators) within a district, the evaluator noted it as a theme. Common focus group themes by question and stakeholder role are summarized and discussed below.