AGATE does not subscribe to any one theory of the nature of human abilities or their origins. We assert that there are children who demonstrate high performance, or who have the potential to do so, and that we have a responsibility to provide optimal educational experiences for talents to flourish in as many children as possible, for the benefit of the individual, the community, the nation and the world.

 Contents:

          Section 1: Definitions of Gifted (page 1)

          Section 2: NY Laws regarding Gifted (page 3)

          Section 3: Guidelines from NAGC (page 8)

          Section 4: Test types (page 9)

          Section 5: Rating Scales (page 11)

          Section 6: Annotated Bibliography (page 12)

          Section 7: What Can a Parent Do? (page 16)

Section 1: Definitions of Gifted

National Definition: United States Office of Education Marland Definition of 1972 PL 91-230, Section 806: Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and service beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society.

Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and or potential in any of the following areas: (1) General intellectual ability; (2) Specific academic aptitude; (3) Creative or productive thinking; (4) Leadership ability; (5) Visual and performing arts; (6) Psychomotor ability**

United State Office of Education Revised Definition of 1978:

The gifted and talented are “….children and, whenever applicable, youth who are identified at the pre-school, elementary, or secondary level as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, specific academic, or leadership ability or in the performing and visual arts, and who by reason thereof require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school.” (U.S. Congress, Educational Amendment of 1978 [P.L. 95-561, IX (A)] (In Education of the Gifted and Talented, Davis & Rimm, 1989, p.12)

**The major difference from the 1972 definition is that psychomotor ability is omitted because some reason that many, if not most schools already have a gifted program for athletes which is articulated in team sports and competitions.

The U.S.O.E. Definition (1993) based on Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act of 1988:

Children and youth with outstanding talent who perform or show the potential for performing at remarkable high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment.

These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools.

Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (In National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent; Pat O’Connell Ross, Project Director; Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education, 1993)

***All laws have been excerpted and cited from federal and state statutes, except where noted. For the actual legislation, readers are encouraged to research the statutes, at local law libraries, based on the years and numbers provided in the citations.

New York State Definition: “The term ‘gifted pupils’ shall mean those pupils who show evidence of high performance capability and exceptional potential in areas such as general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude, and outstanding ability in visual and performing arts. Such definition shall include those pupils who require educational programs or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their full potential.” (New York Education Law Chapter 740, Article 90, Section 4452.a)

Columbus Group Definition: "Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in parenting, teaching and counseling in order for them to develop optimally."  The intensities refer to Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration.  Dabrowski described five types of over-excitabilities or intensities:

1. Psychomotor:  An excess of energy that may be expressed as a love of movement, rapid speech, impulsiveness and restlessness.

2. Sensual:  Heightened sensory awareness (e.g. touch, taste, smell); may be expressed as desire for comfort or a sharp

sense of aesthetics.

3. Imaginational:  Vivid imagery, use of metaphor, visualizations, and inventiveness; may also include vivid dreams,

fear of the unknown, poetic creativity, or love of fantasy.

4. Intellectual:  Persistence in asking probing questions, love of knowledge, discovery, theoretical analysis and synthesis, independence of thought.  This is not the same as IQ, which is the ability to solve a problem.  Intellectual over-excitability is the love of solving the problem.

5. Emotional. Expressions might include deep relationships, concern with death, feelings of compassion and responsibility, depression, need for security, self-evaluation, shyness, and concern for others.

People can have all five over-excitabilities or just a few.

Section 2: NY Laws regarding Screening of Students

(including gifted students)

Chapter 740 of the Laws of 1982

Under this law, if a district accepts NY State funds for gifted programs, it must provide services to gifted pupils. These services shall include identification, instructional programs, planning, in-service education, and program evaluation. (Article 90 of the Laws of 1982, Section 4452.c of Education Law)

Section 4451. Powers of the department with respect to gifted pupils (as written)

Subject to the availability of funds, the state education department is hereby authorized and 

empowered to assist districts in meeting the educational needs of gifted pupils through the 

following:

1. Provide information to school districts concerning development of programs, 

curriculum resources, instructional procedures and strategies to identify and encourage 

gifted pupils;

2. Provide technical assistance and in-service education for teachers and administrators;

3. Maintain a record of programs available, and make this record available for public 

inspection;

4. Develop, maintain, and distribute a handbook for parents of gifted pupils.

Section 4452. Guidelines and definition (as written) 

1.  In order to provide for educational programs to meet special needs of gifted pupils, 

the commissioner is hereby authorized to make recommendations to school districts in 

accordance with the provisions of this subdivision and section 3602 of this chapter.

    a. As used in this article, the term "gifted pupils" shall mean those pupils who show 

evidence of high performance capability and exceptional potential in areas such as 

general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude and outstanding ability in visual 

and performing arts. Such definition shall include those pupils who require educational 

programs or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in 

order to realize their full potential.

    b. Prior to payment of state funds for education of gifted pupils, a school district 

shall submit to the commissioner a summary for the identification and education of 

gifted pupils.   

The plan shall be in form and content as prescribed by the commissioner.

    c. Upon acceptance by a local school district of the apportionments made under 

section 3602 of this chapter such district shall use such funding in accordance with 

guidelines to be established by the commissioner for services to gifted pupils. Such 

services shall include but not be limited to identification, instructional programs, 

planning, in-service education and program evaluation. A board of education may 

contract with another district or board of cooperative educational services to 

provide the program and/or services with the approval of the commissioner 

under guidelines established by the commissioner.

    d. The identification of pupils for participation in gifted programs funded 

under this chapter shall commence through the referral of a parent, teacher, 

or administrator.

    e. Upon referral of a pupil for participation in a gifted program funded under 

this chapter, the school district shall so inform the parent or guardian of such 

pupil's referral and shall seek their approval to administer diagnostictests or 

other evaluation mechanisms related to the program objectives of the district 

in order to determine eligibility for participation in such gifted program. Failing 

to receive approval, the child shall not be tested, evaluated or participate in the 

program.  In no case shall the parent, guardian or pupil be charged a fee for the 

administration of such diagnostic tests or other evaluation mechanisms.

    f. The parent or guardian of a pupil designated as gifted shall be informed by 

the local school authorities of the pupil's placement in such gifted program

funded under this chapter.

2. The commissioner shall establish procedures for evaluation of the quality and 

educational effectiveness of programs for gifted pupils.

AGATE NOTE: Currently there is no separate funding for Gifted and Talented 

programming in the state budget.  When target funding existed this is how it 

worked.  AGATE is supporting the reinstatement of such target funding.  

Section 4452. Guidelines and Definition (in plain talk)

• When a pupil is referred for consideration for a gifted program, the school district must inform the parent or guardian and seek approval to carry out an assessment to see if the pupil meets the district’s identification criteria for the program. If the parent does not give approval, the pupil may not be tested or assessed in other ways for the program. (Article 90, Section 4452.e.)
•  If a pupil is placed in a gifted program, the school must inform his or her parent. (Article 90, Section 4452.f.)
• A pupil attending a private school has a right to participate in the gifted program in the public school district in which the private school is located. The pupil must meet the school district eligibility requirements for the gifted program. The school district must provide transportation between schools, if the distance is greater than one-fourth of a mile. If the pupil lives in another school district, the parent should apply to that school board, which will relay the request to the school board of the district in which the private school is located. The application must be made by June 1 for the next school year. (Article 73, Section 3602-c of Education Law.) There are some limitations on this right, including the following:
  • Services to private school gifted pupils must be provided in the same way and in the same setting as services provided to public school gifted pupils.
  • If the gifted program in the public school enrolls pupils full time, obviously a pupil cannot participate and still be enrolled in a private school.

Section 4453. Advisory council on the education of gifted pupils (as written) 

               1. Subject to the availability of funds, the commissioner may establish within 

the department an advisory council on the education of gifted pupils.  Such council shall 

assist and advise thecommissioner and his designees with respect to policies and 

procedures relating to the education of gifted pupils and programs associated therewith.

               2. Such advisory council appointed by the commissioner shall consist of at 

least ten members, who are directly concerned with gifted pupils or who have specialized 

in the education of such pupils, provided, however,that such advisory council shall include 

at least one parent of such a pupil. The members shall be residents of this state and 

shall be selected on the basis of their competence, concern, and professional activity in 

the education of gifted pupils.

               3.  The advisory council shall meet at least twice each year at a location to be 

determined by the commissioner.  The advisory council shall report at least annually to the 

commissioner.

               4.  Five years or sooner after the effective date of this section, the commissioner 

shall review the necessity of such advisory council, and shall make a determination whether 

to continue or disband such council.

AGATE NOTE: A committee comprised of BOCES educators has been working together 

for the past few years. 

Screening under Chapter 53 of the Laws of 1980

Pupils who are entering a public school in New York State for the first time must be screened to see if they are gifted. For the majority of pupils, this is when they enter kindergarten. However, a pupil who has never been enrolled in a public school in the State and now enters a public school from a private school or from out of state must be screened, no matter what grade he or she is in. (Section 117 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.)

·        For pupils enrolling in the fall of the school year, screening must take place by December 1. For pupils enrolling later, screening must take place within 15 days of entry.

·        The screening must include an assessment of language development.

·        The screening must be conducted in the pupil’s native language, if the language of the home is other than English.

·        If a pupil is found to be possibly gifted, results of the screening must be reported to the school superintendent and, as a result of an amendment passed in 1993, to the pupil’s parent or guardian.

Since this is a preliminary screening, it may indicate only that a pupil is possibly gifted. An in-depth assessment is needed to identify with more certainly a gifted pupil and determined the most appropriate program for him or her.

Chapter 28 of the Laws of 1993: (Article 65, Section 3208)

(2)d. If such screening indicates a possible gifted child, the name and finding shall be reported to the Superintendent of schools of such district and to the parent or legal guardian of such child. Such notification shall not be construed as an entitlement for services for any such child identified as possibly gifted.

AGATE NOTE: Parents can be told, but there are no guarantees of programming. However, the selected program is always the choice of the district. Districts may choose their own screening instruments but, as stated under the law, it must include a language assessment.

Sections 100.4 and 100.5 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education

Eighth Grade Acceleration and Credit through Examination:

In the case of eighth grade acceleration, schools are permitted to accelerate students in one or more disciplines (e.g., math, English, science, foreign language, history) in the middle school, before entering grade 9. Credit through examination refers to students challenging a Regents Exam in which they did not officially complete all of the required class work (class credit is not usually given). If a student earns a grade of 65 or higher on the Regents Exam, they will receive Regents credit. Some districts will also give course credit for the Regents, but students usually have to demonstrate mastery (85 or higher), make provisions beforehand, and be interviewed or complete an additional project.

The Regents Bill of Rights for Children: March 1989: (Goals and Policy)

Each child has the right to an education appropriate for his or her individual needs.

Commissioner's Regulations Part 117 (Diagnostic Screening of Pupils)

Amendments to Commissioner's Regulations Part 117 Briefing Bulletin 07-13 - August 22, 2007 are in italics. These changes are effective October 4, 2007.

Section 117.1 Scope of Part  

The purpose of this Part is to establish standards for the screening of every new entrant to the schools to determine which pupils are possibly gifted, or have a possible handicapping condition in accordance with subdivision (6) of section 3208 of the Education Law and/or possibly are limited English proficient in accordance with subdivision 2-a of section 3204 of the Education Law.

Section 117.2 Definitions. As used in this Part:

a.      A pupil who has a possible handicapping condition shall mean a pupil who, on the basis of diagnostic screening, shows evidence of being a pupil with a handicapping condition as defined in section 200.1(d) of this Title.

b.     A pupil who is possibly gifted shall mean a pupil who, on the basis of diagnostic screening, appears to meet the definition of gifted and talented as contained in Section 142.2 of this Title. (see NY Definition on page 2 of this document).

c.      A pupil who possibly is limited English proficient shall mean a pupil who, on the basis of diagnostic screening, appears to meet the definition of limited English proficiency as contained in section 154.2 of this Title.

d.     New entrant shall mean a pupil entering the New York State public school system for the first time, or reentering a New York State public school with no available record of a prior screening.

e.      For purposes of paragraph (a) of subdivision (5) of section 3208 of the Education Law:  Pupils who score below level two on either the third grade reading or mathematics test for New York State elementary schools and pupils who obtain a comparable percentile score on the Regents Preliminary Competency Test in reading or writing shall mean pupils obtaining scores that have been designated by the commissioner as the scores indicating the need for diagnostic screening. Those pupils exempted from testing as non-English-speaking shall be examined in the pupil's native language through similar procedures, and shall be screened for possible handicapping conditions if resultant scores are comparable to those indicated above.

f.       Diagnostic screening shall mean a preliminary method of distinguishing from the general population those pupils who may possibly be gifted, those pupils who may possibly have a handicapping condition and/or those pupils who possibly are limited English proficient.

Section 117.3.  Diagnostic Screening

Each school district shall develop a plan for the diagnostic screening of all new entrants, pupils who score below level two on either the third grade reading or mathematics test for New York State elementary schools and students who obtain a comparable percentile score on the Regents Preliminary Competency Test, and all such new entrants, pupils and students shall receive such screening.

Such diagnostic screening shall be conducted:

a.       by persons appropriately trained or qualified;

b.      in the pupil's native language if the language of the home is other than English;

c.       in the case of new entrants, prior to the school year, if possible, but no later than December 1 of the school year of entry, or within 15 days of transfer of a pupil into a New York State public school should the entry take place after December 1 of the school year;

d.      in the case of pupils who score below level two on either the third grade reading or mathematics test for New York State elementary schools, and students who obtain a comparable percentile score on the Regents Preliminary Competency Test, within 30 days of the availability of the test scores.  Low test scores are defined as scoring below level two on either the third grade English language arts or mathematics assessment.

Diagnostic screening shall include, but not be limited to:

a.       a health examination by a (duly licensed physician) health care provider defined as a duly licensed physician, physician's assistant, or nurse practitioner; or evidence of such in the form of a health certificate, in accordance with sections 903, 904 and 905 of the Education Law;

b.      Certificates of immunization or referral to immunization

c.       Vision, hearing, and scoliosis screening;

d.      a determination of receptive and expressive language development, motor development, articulation skills and cognitive development; A determination of development in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills and reading fluency and comprehension, mathematical calculation and problem solving, motor development, articulation skills, and cognitive development using recognized and valid screening tools; and

e.       a determination that the pupil is of foreign birth or ancestry and comes from a home where a language other than English is spoken as determined by the results of a home language questionnaire and an informal interview in English.  

       Administration of Diagnostic Screening

a.       Diagnostic screening will be conducted by persons appropriately trained and qualified and screening for new entrants shall include, but not be limited to:

b.      Diagnostic testing for students with low test scores shall include, but not be limited to:

·         Vision and hearing screenings;

·         A review of the instructional programs in reading and mathematics to ensure that instruction is researched based;

·         Periodic monitoring through screenings and on-going assessments of the student's reading and mathematic abilities and skills. If it is determined that the student is making sub-standard progress, instruction will be tailored to meet the student's needs with targeted interventions and instruction;

·         Districts shall give written notice to parents when a student requires an intervention beyond the general education classroom. The notice will include information about the performance data that will be collected and the general education services that will be provided, strategies for increasing the student's rate of learning, and the parents’ right to request an evaluation by the Committee on Special Education to determine whether the student has a disability.

        Reporting Results

The results of the diagnostic screening shall be reviewed and a written report of each pupil screened shall be prepared by appropriately qualified school district staff. Such report shall include a description of diagnostic screening devices used, the pupil's performance on those devices and, if required, the appropriate referral.

1.     A student suspected of having a disability shall be referred to the Committee on Special Education or the Committee on Preschool Special Education no later than 15 calendar days after completion of diagnostic screening.

2.     A pupil identified as possibly gifted shall be reported to the superintendent of schools and to the parent or legal guardian of such child no later than 15 calendar days after completion of such screening. Such referral shall be accompanied by the report of such screening.

3.     A pupil being identified as limited English proficient shall be assessed in accordance with part 154 of this title.  

Section 3: Guidelines from NAGC

l        National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Standards (www.nagc.org ):

NAGC Guidelines state: "Best practices indicate that multiple measures and valid indicators from multiple sources must be used to assess and serve gifted students. Information should be gathered from multiple sources (caregivers/families, teachers, students, and others with significant knowledge of the students), in different ways (e.g., observations, performances, products, portfolios, interviews), and in different contexts (e.g., in-school and out-of-school settings)." Children should be screened using qualitative as well as quantitative measures. These include but are not limited to: student products/performance, teacher checklists, parent/student nomination, achievement/performance tests, and ability/intelligence tests.

Explore the Five Guiding Principles of Student Identification on the NAGC website:

1.      A comprehensive and cohesive process for student nomination must be coordinated in order to determine eligibility for gifted education services.

2.      Instruments used for student assessment to determine eligibility for gifted education services must measure diverse abilities, talents, strengths, and needs in order to provide students an opportunity to demonstrate any strengths.

3.      A student assessment profile of individual strengths and needs must be developed to plan appropriate intervention.

4.      All student identification procedures and instruments must be based on current theory and research.

5.      Written procedures for student identification must include at the very least provisions for informed consent, student retention, student reassessment, student exiting, and appeals procedures.

l        National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) - Research in Review

�        “School Readiness Assessment” by Kelly L. Maxwell and Richard M. Clifford NAEYC Journal Jan. 2004 – http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200401/maxwell.asp

�       NAEYC wants developmentally appropriate alternatives to readiness tests (www.education.com).  “There is no one best approach or tool to use for assessing school readiness.  Different purposes require different approaches.  A review of state pre-kindergarten evaluation reports identified 42 different assessment tools used in 13 state evaluations (Gilliam & Zigler, 2001).” NAEYC suggests in their journal, RESEARCH IN REVIEW  “School Readiness Assessment” by Kelly L. Maxwell and Richard M. Clifford NAEYC Journal Jan. 2004)  some ways an individual can work to support the appropriate use of school readiness assessments.

    * Be informed. Reading about school readiness and participating in other professional development activities will help you develop expertise in this area.

    * Get involved. Apply your expertise to the discussion of school readiness at the local, state, or national level. You can speak out to help ensure that school readiness assessment efforts benefit, not harm, young children. Start with your own program, and make sure that you are using the appropriate instruments and procedures for your particular purpose of interest; and that the program's assessment results are used to help children.

    * Build partnerships. People have different perspectives about school readiness and school readiness assessments, which can lead to some heated discussions. Strengthening relationships with preschool teachers, administrators, families, and public school staff makes it easier to work together toward a common understanding of this controversial topic. If you work in an early care and educational setting, reach out to kindergarten teachers to discuss your views of school readiness and assessment. If you are a kindergarten teacher, work with preschool teachers on school readiness issues.”

Section 4: Test types

Click Assessing Kindergarten Children: A Compendium of Assessment Instruments  to read this document written by Judith Niemeyer, Ph.D., School of Education, Department of Specialized Education Services, University of North Carolina at Greensboro and Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D.

Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA): K-2 Test 2002 Harcourt Brace MEASURES: readiness concept knowledge. Includes the first six subtests from the Bracken Basic Concept Scale, Revised: Colors, Letters, Numbers/Counting, Sizes, Comparisons, and Shapes. TIME: 10-15 minutes. SCORES: percentile ranks and standard scores. NYC uses Bracken School Readiness Assessment and Otis Lennon beginning in the 2007-2008 school year.   Bruce Bracken, author of the test, is on the staff of the College of William and Mary and works with NAGC, Joyce Van Tassel-Baska .  

Bracken Basic Concept Scale - Revised (BBCS-R): K-6 Test 1998 Psychological Corp MEASURES: comprehension of 308 foundational and functionally relevant educational concepts in 11 subtests or concepts categories. TIMES: 20-40 minutes. SCORES: stanines & percentiles.

CogAT (http://www.riverpub.com/products/cogAt/details.html)

Kaufman Adolescent & Adult Intelligence Test: 6-12 Test 1993 AGS MEASURES: general intelligence, developed from fluid & crystallized theory. TIME: 60-90 minutes. SCORES: age-based standard scores and scaled scores.

Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: (also worked with Bracken doing presentations.  This is not good to use for screening of spatially gifted.  A good tool for spatially gifted is My Thinking Style (Mann, 2004) Self Rating Scale along with Block Design Subtest of the WISC IV with score of +13.

The OLSAT: (Otis-Lennon School Ability Test): "The Otis Lennon School Abilities Test measures the cognitive abilities that relate to a student's ability to learn in school. By assessing students' abstract thinking and reasoning ability, the OLSAT 8 provides an understanding of a student's relative strengths and weaknesses in performing a variety of tasks. This information allows educators to design educational programs that will enhance students' strengths while supporting their learning needs. When administered with Stanford 10, OLSAT 8 scores may also be used to relate a student's actual achievement with his or her school ability." (Harcourt Assessment, publisher of the OLSAT 8).The OLSAT is composed of four components — verbal comprehension; verbal reasoning; figural reasoning, which measures nonverbal skills using pictograms; and quantitative reasoning. The OLSAT is not an IQ test.

Phelps Kindergarten Readiness Scale: (http://www.great-ideas.org/PKRS.htm)

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale 4th Edition: K-12 Test 1986 Riverside MEASURES: intelligence and cognitive abilities. TIME: varies. SCORES: standard scores, percentile ranks, age equivalents, and SAS.

Test of Kindergarten/First Grade Readiness Skills: K-2 Test 1987 Academic Therapy MEASURES: Basic skills in reading, spelling, & arithmetic. TIME: 20 minutes. SCORES: Standard.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III (WISC III): 3-12 Test 1991 Psychological Corp MEASURES: intelligence. TIME: 50-70 minutes. SCORES: standard. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) and the Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition (SB-5) were released in 2003.

Wechsler Preschool & Primary Scale of Intelligence - Revised (WPPSI-R): K-2 Test 1989 Psychological Corp MEASURES: the intelligence of children covering both perceptual-motor (performance) and verbal subtests. TIME: untimed. SCORES: scaled scores, IQ and test age. The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Third Edition (WPPSI-III) was published in 2002.

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Battery (WJIII): Test 2001 Riverside

MEASURES: intellectual abilities and academic achievement. Revised test includes 7 new tests: fluency in reading & math, three oral language tests, a diagnostic spelling test & a measure of phonological awareness. Computerized scoring & profiling replace hand computation of scores & profiles. TIME: 60-70 minutes. SCORES: raw scores, grade equivalent, age equivalent, percentile rank and standard score. (Form A 14725 1-12 , Form B 14722 1-12)

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJIII): 1-12 Test 2001 Riverside MEASURES: different aspects of cognitive ability through the use of 20 tests: verbal comprehension, visual-auditory learning, spatial relations, sound blending, concept formation, visual matching, numbers reversed, incomplete words, auditory working memory, visual-auditory learning-delayed, general information, retrieval fluency, picture recognition, auditory attention, analysis-synthesis, decision speed, memory for words, rapid picture naming, planning, and pair cancellation. TIME: 45-50 minutes. SCORES: raw scores, grade equivalent, age equivalent, Percentile rank and standard score.

On-line reviews of these tests are available from the Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Information made available by the publishers includes the following:
WPPSI-III (Harcourt)
WISC-IV (Harcourt)
Stanford Binet-5

MAP Test:  NWEA about Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)  Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) developed Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), a state- aligned computerized adaptive assessment program that provides educators with the information they need to improve teaching and learning. Educators use the growth and achievement data from MAP to develop targeted instructional strategies and to plan school improvement. With the ability to test students up to four times a year, MAP test results help educators make student-focused, data-driven decisions.

More than 3,100 school districts and educational partners use MAP Mathematics, Reading, and Language Usage tests to help all students learn. These assessments are unique in that they adapt to each student's ability, accurately measuring what a child knows and needs to learn. In addition, MAP tests measure academic growth over time, independent of grade level or age. Most importantly, the results educators receive have practical application to teaching and learning. MAP test results provide educators with timely information that guides instructional planning and school improvement. 

Some districts are using this computer test to screen for gifted programming (ex. Brighton Central School District). Features

The Iowa Acceleration Scale: For decisions regarding whole grade acceleration (early admittance and grade skipping) the Iowa Acceleration Scale may be used. This scale combines standardized tests and a questionnaire rating scale to help determine whether whole grade acceleration is the correct decision for the child.  The Iowa Acceleration Scale helps the school based team, along with the parents, consider the social and emotional impact whole grade acceleration will have on the student.

Achievement tests will assist in determining whether Single-Subject Acceleration is appropriate:  Single-subject acceleration allows a student who has demonstrated that he/she has advanced knowledge and skills in a particular domain to access a curriculum at least one year in advance of their current grade-level peers. Where a student has specific talents in a subject area, such as mathematics or languages, single-subject acceleration may be beneficial to the student’s overall academic achievement, school performance and social and emotional well-being.

Section 5: Rating Scales

There are several lists of gifted behaviors that can be found on the Internet.  Just remember that lists of characteristics of gifted learners are NOT exhaustive and may or may not fit your child. (ex. Bright Child/Gifted Learner).  Checklists of behaviors: (http://www.austega.com/gifted/characteristics.htm)�     

The Gifted Rating Scales are norm-referenced rating scales based on current theories of giftedness and federal and state guidelines regarding the definition of gifted and talented students. Pre-school and Kindergarten teachers complete the Pre-School/Kindergarten GRS-P form for children between the ages of 4:0 and 6:11 years. This form of GRS–P contains brief scales covering five domains: intellectual, academic readiness, motivation, creativity and artistic talent. Teachers complete six brief scales on the School-Age GRS–S form to evaluate children between the ages of 6:0 through 13:11 years who are in grades 1 - 8. The six domains include: intellectual, academic, motivation, creativity, leadership and artistic talent. Features and Benefits GRS–P (4:0-6:11) validity studies have been conducted linking it to the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence™—Third Edition (WPPSI™–III) and measures of potential in other domains.

 The Gifted Evaluation Scale - 2 (GES-2) was factor analyzed to create the factor clusters (subscales). Intellectual, Creativity, Specific Academic Aptitude, Leadership Ability, and Performing and Visual Arts. The GES-2 is ideal as a reliable and valid measure of giftedness and can be used on its own to identify students who would benefit from a program for the gifted or can be used for initial screening together with teacher and parents reporting to identify students for further assessment for Identification of the Intellectual Exceptionality – Gifted. The GES-2 provides separate norms for male and female students ages 5 through 18. An optional subscale for Motivation and an optional Subscale Percentile Tables is available.

Renzulli-Hartman Scale:  In a comparison of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised (WISC-R) and the Renzulli-Hartman Scale for Determination of Gifted Placement results suggest that the Renzulli-Hartman Scale could be best used in planning educational goals for students after placement.” 

Section 6: Annotated Bibliography

Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.) (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Pruock Press.

This book reviews the definitions, models, and characteristics of gifted and talented students, explains approaches to qualitative and quantitative assessments, discusses important characteristics of selecting instruments, provides technical information for more than 40 assessments that are frequently used in gifted education, examines the identification process, and reviews methods for evaluating the identification procedure.

Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.

This article describes Project Synergy, a procedure for identifying economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted kindergarten students in urban schools. The approach emphasized the development of site-appropriate methods such as multicultural curriculum-based enrichment activities, classroom observations, portfolio assessment, teacher nominations, dynamic assessment, a literature-based activity, a child interview, and the concept of best performance. It de-emphasized the use of standardized tests.

Johnsen, S., & Ryser, G. (1994). Identification of young gifted children from lower income families. Gifted and Talented International, 9(2), 62-68.

This study examined the relationship among measures used in the identification for a summer program of 50 gifted and talented four to seven-year-old children from lower income families. Approximately 38% were Hispanic. Identification procedures included parent nomination, teacher nomination, products, the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, the Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary Students—Primary Version. The three best predictors of future achievement were the SAGES-P Reasoning, the parent checklist, and the teacher checklist.

 Jolly, J. L., & Hall, J. R. (2004). Technical information regarding assessment.

 Ryser, G. R. (2004). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to assessment.

 S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

This chapter discusses types of assessments used in the identification of gifted learners. The author provides descriptions of different types of qualitative and quantitative assessments commonly used to identify gifted learners and addresses strengths and weaknesses of each type. Reliability and validity are also addressed.

Publications:

Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ). Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the National Association for Gifted Children's (Washington, DC) premier peer-reviewed research journal in the field of gifted education. This journal publishes manuscripts that offer new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. This journal also publishes quantitative or qualitative research studies as well as manuscripts which explore policy and policy implications.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted (JEG). JEG is the official publication of The Association for the Gifted, a division of the Council for Exceptional Children (Reston, VA), and is published through a cooperative partnership with Prufrock Press.  The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education offers education professionals comprehensive and critical information needed for building an effective educational environment for gifted adolescents. The journal offers a mixture of innovative theory and research focused on adolescents. It is designed especially for professionals interested in secondary and post-secondary programs for gifted and talented children.

Roeper Review. Published by the Roeper School in Michigan, the Roeper Review applies the highest standards of peer review journalism to cover a broad range of issues for professionals who work with teachers and psychologists, and for professionals who work directly with gifted and talented children and their families.

Mantzicopulous, P. (2000). Can the Brigance K & 1 Screen detect cognitive/academic giftedness when used with preschoolers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? Roeper Review, 23, 185-191. This study explores the predictive value of the Brigance K & 1, an instrument that has been used as an identification measure of educationally at-risk students. This study used 134 Head Start preschoolers with a mean age of 61.6 months and an equal number of boys and girls. Racial and ethnic background information is also included. Students were assessed by the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

(K-ABC), Teachers’ Ratings of Academic Competence Scale, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test as well as the Brigance K & 1. The first set of analyses examined the extent to which participants’ scores on the Brigance’s twelve subtests differed between two groups identified by their scores on the Mental Processing Component of the K-ABC (above or below 115); this analysis also focused on the concurrent and predictive accuracy of the Brigance in identifying academic giftedness. Another set of analyses were executed to determine the level of accuracy with which the test could detect the Head Start children who were possibly gifted. Results indicated support for the use of the Brigance K & 1 test for early identification of gifted children

 Mantzicopoulos, P. Y. (2000). Can the Brigance K & 1 screen detect cognitive/academic giftedness when used with preschoolers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? Roeper Review, 22, 185-191. The accuracy of the Brigance K&1 Screen in the early identification of Head Start children with possible cognitive/academic giftedness was explored with 134 children, 13 of whom were identified as potentially gifted on the K-ABC. These potentially gifted children also performed significantly better on the Brigance than did other children. Teacher ratings were ineffective in detecting potentially gifted children.

 Perleth, C., Schatz, T., & Mönks, F. J. (2000). Early identification of high ability. In K. A. Heller, F. J.Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd; pp. 297-316). New York: Pergamon. This chapter addresses recognizing high ability at an early age and fostering giftedness in the preschool years. The authors describe models of high ability, psychometric assessment of giftedness in young children, personal characteristics of young gifted learners, and environments that support young gifted learners.

Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Today, 38(4), 164-171. This paper presents a rationale for and description of procedures developed for a grant project identifying economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted kindergarten students in urban schools. The approaches used emphasize the development of on-site methods, observations, dynamic assessment, and the concept of best performance.

Feiring, C., Louis, B., Ukeje, I.; Lewis, M., & Leong, P. (1997). Early Identification of gifted minority kindergarten students in Newark, NJ. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 76-82.  A screening and assessment procedure has been developed in Newark, New Jersey, to identify gifted inner-city minority kindergarten students. The procedure uses the Brigance K & 1 Screen, a new Gifted Screening intelligence measure, and the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. The procedure has increased identification of gifted students among entering first graders from 0.2% to 2%

Cline, S. (1999). Suggestions for screening entering kindergarten students to assist in the identification of possibly gifted children. Solvay, NY: Advocacy for Gifted and Talented Education in New York State. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440489). This monograph is designed for New York parents and school personnel charged with administering the screening instruments for incoming kindergarten students to determine possible giftedness. It begins by explaining Article 65 of New York's Compulsory Education and School Census Law, Section 3208, which requires that parents be notified if their child is found to be possibly gifted through kindergarten screening. It suggests that school districts use multiple instruments and criteria to assist in this determination and urges that the following be considered as part of the identification procedure: (1) individual IQ tests should be given; (2) information from parents should be included in the screening process; (3) class lessons should be designed to elicit the demonstration of gifted characteristics; and (4) portfolios should be used to enhance the process and provide authentic assessment of ability.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115-123. This study of 82 teachers of gifted students showed that teachers trained in gifted education demonstrated greater teaching skills and developed more positive classroom climates than did teachers who had no training in gifted education. Students of trained teachers reported greater emphasis on higher level thinking skills and on discussion and less emphasis on lecture and grades.

Louis, B., & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness in young children and their relation to actual ability level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 27-31.The sample for this study was 118 parents and their children who contacted a Gifted Child Clinic. In describing their children, parents identified 26 different characteristics with language, memory, and abstract thinking most frequently cited. The authors found that parents were good judges of the gifted status of their preschool children with 61% of their children having intelligence scores of 132 or above and the remainder having above average ability (IQ=118).

Pletan, M. D., Robinson, N. M., Berninger, V. W., & Abbot, R. D. (1995). Parents’ observations of kindergartners who are advanced in mathematical reasoning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 30-44. This study examined two major questions: What behaviors and abilities do young, mathematically precocious children display? Are parents able to recognize such precocity? The researchers mailed a questionnaire to 120 parents of gifted kindergarten children. The sample was primarily Caucasian (77%), with Asians constituting 13%, African Americans (6%), and other groups (4%). The parents frequently mentioned adding, subtracting, and multiplying; counting; interest in money, computer games, board games, and telling time; making up story problems; reading road signs; and using arithmetic workbooks. Five factors were found to characterize the parents’ responses: (a) general intellectual factor, (b) short and long-term memory, (c) rote memory, (d) spatial reasoning, and (e) specific relationship knowledge. They concluded that parents can indeed identify advanced abilities in mathematics.

Todd, S. M., & Larson, A. (1992). In what ways might statewide advocates for gifted and talented education coordinate and focus their efforts? Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 160-164. This article examined the state of Utah and its development of a statewide advocacy design that provided universal coordination, organization, focus, and direction on behalf of gifted and talented students. A step by step process is included demonstrating the Utah Association for Gifted Children’s use of the creative problem-solving process in order to foster advocacy for the gifted and talented in formulating goals and missions. The authors conclude that the impact of this coordinated advocacy effort was immediately noticed through improvement in services for gifted children, better in-service training for educators, and more focused policy at the state level. This example of creative collaboration strategies may be useful to other states in meeting their own advocacy affairs.

Alvino, J. (1991). Media relations: What every advocate should know about the tricks of the trade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 204-209. This article examines how the use of media technology can enhance advocacy efforts for gifted education and programs. Alvino provides three rules for public relations: make an inside contact and maintain it; learn what is newsworthy; and learn the distinction between form and content. The author provides insightful information, helpful tips, and strategies for using different media forms: news releases, features, magazines, journals, newsletters, radio, television, and news conferences. Alvino also introduces his Driver-Rider Matrix as a strategy for enhancing the image of an organization. “Piggyback on the reputation, image, or marketability of someone or some organization (the driver) with the power to carry or ‘transport’ your cause (the rider) to prominence in the public or professional eye” (p. 205).

Irvine, D. J. (1991). Gifted education without a state mandate: The importance of vigorous advocacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 196-199. Using New York as an example, Irvine discusses positive and negative factors influencing state mandates for gifted education. The use of vigorous advocacy groups, financial incentives, mandatory screening for giftedness, and educational reform are all factors that promote the development of programs for gifted students. Some negative factors associated with the lack of a mandate include inequities in access to programs, difficulties in assuring the quality of programs, and limited access to teacher preparation programs. The author concludes that although progress can be made without a state mandate through the use of incentives, leadership, and advocacy, a mandate can more rapidly reduce the circumstances that are likely to deprive students of gifted and talented education and opportunities.

Organizations:

National Association for Gifted Children. (http://www.nagc.org)

Mission Statement: “The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) is an organization of parents, teachers, educators, other professionals and community leaders who unite to address the unique needs of children and youth with demonstrated gifts and talents as well as those children who may be able to develop their talent potential with appropriate educational experiences. We support and develop policies and practices that encourage and respond to the diverse expressions of gifts and talents in children and youth from all cultures, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic groups. NAGC supports and engages in research and development, staff development, advocacy, communication, and collaboration with other organizations and agencies who strive to improve the quality of education for all students.”

Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (http://www.cec.sped.org/)

“The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) is the largest international professional organization dedicated to improving educational outcomes for individuals with exceptionalities, students with disabilities, and/or the gifted. CEC advocates for appropriate governmental policies, sets professional standards, provides continual professional development, advocates for newly and historically underserved individuals with exceptionalities, and helps professionals obtain conditions and resources necessary for effective professional practice.” The Association for the Gifted (TAG) is a division of CEC. “The Association for the Gifted (TAG) delivers information to both professionals and parents about gifted and talented children and their needs. Members receive the Journal for the Education of the Gifted and the TAG Update newsletter.”

Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG). (http://www.sengifted.org/)

“SENG is dedicated to fostering environments in which gifted adults and children, in all their diversity, understand and accept themselves and are understood, valued, nurtured, and supported by their families, schools, workplaces and communities.”

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt.html)

Association for the Education of Gifted Underachieving Students (AEGUS).  www.aegus1.org

HOAGIES Gifted Education Page.  www.hoagiesgifted.org 

Section 7: What can a parent do?

• For general information regarding identification http://www.gtcybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2_0&rid=11376
• Become knowledgeable about the NY State laws.  By NY State Law every district MUST identify potentially gifted learners.
• Understand that general practice is that the identification is on-going through the years of schooling, with programming provided to meet the needs of the identified students.
• In some districts programming begins at Kindergarten.  Realistically, most schools that have formal programs will identify at the end of second grade and service students beginning in third grade. 
• Bringing a score from an “out of district” source in does not necessarily provide the district the information needed to admit the child into the district’s programming.  A school district can still reject the information.   Or a district may accept the data but not have a “program” in place for your child.  In this case, ask what might be done for the child regardless of “programming” not being in place?
• No one test should keep a child out of a program but one test should be sufficient to get them into a program.
• Open ended lessons and tests should be used to determine the ability of the child.
• Find out what the district is using to test – what kinds of programming does the district provide gifted learners.
• There are several districts around the state with formal identification processes and procedures that are available to view on their website (e.g., Fairport Central School District).  Others like Penfield Central School District uses a “fun educational experience” to identify the kids – with whole classroom lessons to narrow down the talent pool.   
• Seek an advocate for you and your child.  If one is not available in your district, seek one from a neighboring district to assist you in learning the language to use.  Remember, you and the school both want what’s best for the child but you may have to encourage them to work with you to provide advanced programming.   Using words like “how can we…” rather than “you must…” helps to take the adversarial tone out of your requests.