Rationale

Consistently evaluating and refining the identification procedures in a district is an

ongoing process that should be prioritized. Most especially, this work is critical because of the

diversity of students that are represented in a district. Districts should have a plan for how they

address the disparities that exist in their programs between the populations of students in their

district and how they are represented in the gifted program. The National Association for Gifted

Children (Citation for website) suggest four guideposts for work around instrumentation. This

includes:

1. Giftedness is dynamic, not static. Identification needs to occur over time, with multiple

opportunities to exhibit gifts. One test at a specific point in time should not dictate

whether someone is identified as gifted. Read NAGC's position statement, "The Role of

Assessments in Identifying Gifted Individuals."

2. Giftedness is represented through all racial, ethnic, income levels, and exceptionality

groups. Underrepresentation is widely spread. It’s estimated that African American,

Hispanic American, and Native American students are underrepresented by at least 50%

in programs for the gifted.1 Learn more about identification in diverse gifted populations

and read NAGC's position statement, "Identifying and Serving Culturally and

Linguistically Diverse Students."

3. Giftedness may be exhibited within a specific interest or category—and even a

specific interest within that category. Professionals must seek ways to gather

examples across various domains and contexts. See "Multiple Identification Procedures"

below.
 4. Early identification in school improves the likelihood that gifts will be developed

into talents.

NAGC’s position on instrumentation also highlights the fact that “ identification policies and

procedures are determined at the district level. Because no two gifted children are alike, it is

important to collect information on both the child's performance and potential through a

combination of objective (quantifiably measured) and subjective (personally observed)

identification instruments in order to identify gifted and talented students.” This survey aims to

provide a battery of questions that will ask districts to share information regarding

instrumentation of the multiple criteria areas, as well as, the ways that they are using products

and portfolios for identification in their district.

Other issues that address the identification process are critical to understanding how the entirety

of the process works. For example, the way that students are screened for further testing can

present a host of issues including types of screeners, training of personnel using screeners, timing

of distribution of screeners, etc. It is important that districts critically evaluate and establish

processes that “follow a systematic, multi-phased process for identifiying gifted students to find

students who need services beyond the general education program: 1) Nomination or

identification phase; 2) Screening or selection phase; 3) Placement phase” Furthermore, and to

speak to the purposes of this survey, to make sure that in the nomination and screening phase,

various identification tools are used to eliminate bias.

The coalition aims to collect data about instrumentation and practices centered on equitable

identification from all Georgia districts. This information will be analyzed and shared to assist

districts in making revisions to their processes to provide more equitable practices and
instruments for identifying those students who are consistently missed and who should be

provided with the high ability programming they are entitled to.