The Identification Gap in Gifted Education: Where Have We Been, and Where Can We Go?

Patty Costis, PhD

Longwood University
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 2

Since the inception of public education in the United States, children of color have been

consistently subjected to separate and unequal opportunities in school. Nowhere is this fact more

apparent historically, than in gifted and talented programs. Lewis Terman, referred to as the

father of gifted education (National Association for Gifted Children, 2017), was a eugenicist.

Some psychologists, including Terman, argued that minorities were biologically inferior to

Caucasians, and used intelligence tests to support their ideas. In his book, The Measurement of

Intelligence (1916), Terman asserted that minorities are intellectually inferior to Caucasians, “No

amount of school instruction will ever make them [minorities] intelligent voters or capable voters

in the true sense of the word.” (p. 91) He cited results of his newly developed Stanford-Binet IQ

test as support for his assertion (Terman, 1916).

Much has changed in the 100 years since Terman’s work began. Researchers have

discredited the concept of eugenics. Federal legislation established provisions for equity in

education for minorities, English language learners, and students with disabilities. However,

underrepresentation remains for culturally and linguistically different students in gifted

programs. In response, many states have examined their gifted identification practices, and as a

result have adopted policies aimed at increasing the representation of minority students among

their gifted populations.

I serve in a culturally diverse, urban school district. More than half of enrolled students

are African American, and nearly 75% of students qualify for free and reduced price lunch. Our

gifted population varies greatly from school to school in both number and cultural make-up. We

have worked for many years toward achieving proportional representation of all subgroups in

gifted education. As an advocate for gifted and twice exceptional students, I consider it my duty

to stay abreast of the latest trends in culturally responsive strategies. Further, I find it important
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 3

monitor the school district’s progress toward adopting best practices that work in the best interest

of gifted and twice exceptional students, and continually seek to educate myself and others on

these topics.

Therefore, I chose to conduct the present policy analysis as a natural progression in my

ongoing endeavor to grow in cultural competence and strength in advocacy. The diversity of the

school district in which I serve makes this particular analysis essential as we work toward equity

for all gifted students, particularly those from traditionally underserved populations.

Disproportionate Representation

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) evaluated the gifted identification rates

of cultural subgroups in school districts across Virginia for the school year 2008-2009 (VDOE,

2010). Findings revealed different levels of disproportional representation depending upon the

location of each school district. For example, cities and towns tended to identify larger

populations of their students as gifted than rural areas. Cities and towns reported higher, although

not proportional, levels of representation of Hispanic and African American students. However,

Hispanic and African American students were underrepresented among gifted populations in

every school district they analyzed. Further, African American and Hispanic students were

underrepresented to a greater degree than the degree of overrepresentation of Caucasian and

Asian students (VDOE, 2010).

Best Practices in Multicultural Gifted Education

In their review of the literature on best practices in gifted identification, the VDOE

(2010) identified and recommended five categories of best practices for the identification of

gifted and talented students. They include, 1) clearly defining giftedness; 2) using data to

monitor referral, identification, and retention; 3) creating comprehensive processes for student
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 4

referral or nomination; 4) using multiple assessments to identify giftedness; and 5) providing

teacher training programs and professional development opportunities that include ways to

identify giftedness in students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (p. 2).

The VDOE subsequently adopted all five categories of best practices in their revision of

the Virginia Regulations for the Education of Gifted Students (VDOE, 2010, 2012). In what

ways, if any, have the use of these best practices at the local level closed the identification gap

for culturally different students? First, I compared the Virginia gifted regulations (2012) and the

Norfolk Public Schools gifted plans (King, Houston, & Banks, 2012; Boone, Jordan, & Tuck,

2016), focusing on whether, and to what extent each of the five best practices was adopted into

the local gifted plan. Then, I analyzed Virginia and NPS gifted identification rates of cultural

subgroups over the six years since the regulations were revised. Finally, I offer policy

recommendations addressing the findings of my evaluation.

Clearly Defining Giftedness. The VDOE provided a broadened, more inclusive

definition of giftedness in its revised regulations by making two small but powerful changes

(Appendix A, 2006, 2012). First, the term graduation was replaced by the term twelfth grade.

This change implies that not all gifted students graduate from high school, a recognition that

gifted students can and do underachieve (McCoach & Siegle, 2003). Underachievement is often

the result when the needs of culturally diverse students are not met (Ford, Harris, Tyson, &

Trotman, 2002).

The second change in terminology actually changes the state definition of giftedness. The

term abilities is replaced with the term aptitudes (VDOE, 2006, 2012). The term ability refers to

the skills one possesses, whereas the term aptitude refers to potential. Gagné (2004, 2007)

defines giftedness in terms of potential, or aptitude and talent in terms of skill, or ability. A
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 5

person’s giftedness (aptitude) is developed into talent (ability) via specialized, targeted training

and practice (Gagné, 2007). Together, these changes result in a broadened and more inclusive

definition of giftedness.

Describing giftedness in terms of aptitude goes beyond the mere statement that giftedness

exists in many different forms. Instead, the term aptitude creates a conceptualization of

giftedness inclusive of all cultures and languages. This is the first step in improving the

underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically different students in gifted education.

(Hopkins & Garrett, 2010).

The latest regulations require each school district to formulate a local operational

definition of giftedness, and include it in their local plan (8VAC20-40-60A.1). NPS provides a

clear definition of giftedness (Appendix B) which explicitly recognizes that gifted students

“come from many backgrounds, and their special abilities cover a wide spectrum of human

potential” (p. 4). Similar to Virginia’s definition (VDOE, 2012), NPS describes areas in which

students may be identified, except for the area of career and technical aptitude. Norfolk also

describes the use of a multiple-criteria protocol for identifying giftedness in their goals and

objectives (King et al, 2012; Boone et al, 2016).

The NPS definition, however, does not directly describe giftedness in terms of aptitude or

potential in need of development. Their detail of the categories of giftedness includes the term

aptitude, but these category names were devised by the VDOE and not NPS.

Use of Data to Monitor Referral, Identification, and Retention. The VDOE gifted

regulations require local school districts to include goals and objectives that work toward

equitable representation of students in their gifted programs. In addition, identification protocols

and annual effectiveness review procedures must include measures toward this end (8VAC20-
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 6

40-60A.2). In particular, identification protocols must include multiple assessment measures to

“ensure that no single criterion is used to determine at student’s eligibility” (VDOE, 2012, n.p.).

However, the requirement for the annual review of effectiveness does not list specific criteria by

which procedures “toward the achievement of equitable representation of students” (VDOE,

2012, n.p.) should be evaluated.

The gifted identification protocol for NPS utilizes five possible data points, requiring a

superior score on three of the five for identification of intellectual giftedness. Measures include

1) a standardized test of ability or achievement, depending upon grade level; 2) parent checklist;

3) teacher checklist; 4) a student portfolio of above-average work; and 5) an interview or

observation by the gifted resource teacher. Per Virginia regulations, NPS also conducts an annual

district-wide, or universal, screening of all students in Grade 1 for giftedness. Data results are

analyzed and students meeting a proscribed cut score are further evaluated for possible gifted

identification.

The use of a universal screening for giftedness has increased in recent years as a means of

addressing the identification gap in gifted education. The use of a referral process alone, in

which teachers, parents, and others recommend screening for giftedness, introduces cultural bias,

and is a cause of underrepresentation among culturally diverse students (Ford, 2010; Hopkins &

Garrett, 2010). The lone empirical study on the efficacy of universal screenings found significant

increases in the representation of culturally different students among gifted populations (Card &

Giuliano, 2015). However, reviews and commentaries on this study caution that identification

errors occur. Therefore, researched-based practices tailored for each school district are

recommended in conjunction with the universal screening (Larkin, 2016; McBee, 2016).
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 7

The annual review of effectiveness for NPS’s gifted plan (2016) includes the reporting of

the number of students referred, identified, and receiving services. NPS also reports the number

of gifted students participating in Advanced Placement classes, and the number of gifted students

earning advanced diplomas. The plan itself is evaluated in three major categories, each reviewed

on a three-year cycle.

Year one includes review of the identification process, and effectiveness of the

elementary service delivery model. Evaluation measures include parent and student surveys,

evaluation by Norfolk’s Gifted Education Advisory Council (GEAC), district testing data. In

year two, NPS’ gifted middle school program, Young Scholars, is reviewed via student and

parent surveys and student achievement data. Finally, in year three, gifted student participation in

Advanced Placement is reviewed. Data are retrieved from NPS’ office of Assessment, Research,

and Accountability.

It is unclear which components of the NPS annual review procedures measure progress

toward achieving equitable representation of students in its gifted program. Specific procedures

such as survey instruments, disaggregated data, and advisory council protocols are not included

in the plan (King et al, 2012; Boone et al, 2016).

Student Referral and Multiple-Criteria Identification Protocol. A comprehensive

referral process for gifted identification is mandated by the VDOE (8VAC20-40-40).

Regulations state that anyone, including the student may refer her/him for identification, and

students in grade K-12 may be referred. A placement committee comprised of education

professionals must review multiple, uniform data points; determine eligibility; and match

placement options to the needs of the gifted student. An optional provision for reciprocity of

identification from other school districts is also in place.

THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 8

The gifted referral and identification process in the NPS gifted plan details a protocol in

which referred students are placed on a GEMS list and assessed during the next testing cycle.

Referrals are collected and submitted all year to the gifted resource teacher (GRT). The

following fall, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders are notified of the upcoming testing

window, which begins each November. Prior to testing, the GRT garners parental permission to

test the student, a completed parent checklist and a completed teacher checklist.

Gifted testing is administered by the GRTs. Upon receipt of testing results, further

information may be required to make a determination. These include a portfolio of above-

average student work, and/or an interview or observation of the student by the gifted resource

teacher (GRT). Test scores determine which, if any additional data are required, using a Tier

system. All data are gathered and scored at the building level by a committee which includes the

student’s classroom teacher, one additional teacher or counselor, the GRT, and the building

principal. The scored data are then presented to a district placement committee of at least three

GRTs and a gifted specialist, and an eligibility determination is made. Appropriate services

decisions are made at the building level for elementary students. Middle school students may

apply to the gifted specialty program, and high school students meeting requisite criteria may

enroll in honors and Advanced Placement (AP) courses.

Students are identified gifted in the visual and performing arts via an application, audition

of portfolio presentation and an interview before a panel of trained personnel in the particular

discipline for which the student is a candidate. Additional, valid measures may also be

considered. Acceptance into the Governor’s School for the Arts identifies the student as gifted in

his/her particular discipline.

THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 9

Teacher Training and Professional Development. Every school district is required to

provide a plan for professional development in gifted education best practices, which includes

training toward achievement of equitable representation of students (8VAC20-40-60). NPS

offers a variety of professional development, workshop, and seminar options for classroom

teacher, administrators, parents, and students. GRTs who are experts in an area of gifted

education share their knowledge. Education consultants, researchers, and university professionals

also provide professional development.

NPS provides a sample list of topics addressed in professional development sessions.

Among these are differentiation strategies and cultural diversity training. Although the list is a

sampling, only cultural diversity training is specifically listed to address the needs of culturally

different gifted students. It is unclear whether GRTs receive training in culturally responsive

pedagogy for diverse populations of gifted students.

Identification Rates of Subgroups

The VDOE study of gifted identification rates of subgroups revealed that Asian and

Caucasian students were overrepresented in gifted programs for the school year 2008-2009

(Figure 1). Recommendations of best practices were adopted and implemented in the 2010-2011

school year. NPS, in accordance with VDOE regulations, included these best practices in their

former and current local plans (King et al, 2012; Boone et al, 2016). In the years following,

Asian and Caucasian students continue to be overrepresented.

THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 10

Figure 1: Virginia Gifted Overrepresentation Percentages

80
68
70 63 62 64 64 63
61
60 57
54 53 53 52 51 50
50
40
30
20 13 13 14 12 12 12
11
10 6 6 6 6 6 6 7

0
2008-2009 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2015
Gifted Asian Total Asian Gifted White Total White

Through email correspondence, I garnered additional information from Dr. Donna

Poland, Virginia gifted and STEM specialist, regarding the Virginia identification rates, and

annual reports. Although it appears as though disproportionate representation of Asian and White

students is greater in NPS (Figure 2), the statewide data can be deceiving. The annual reports

provide combined data from all school districts, including large and small cities, towns, and rural

districts. Individual identification rates vary greatly from one district to another.
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 11

Figure 2: NPS Gifted Overrepresentation Percentages

50 47
45
45 43 42 41 41
40
35
30
25 23 23 23 23 23 23

20
15
10 5 5
3 4 4 3 4 4
5 2 2 2 2
0
2009-2010 2010-2011 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Gifted Asian Total Asian Gifted White Total White

In the VDOE study of identification rates of subgroups, data were controlled for the wide

variance in results, and is detailed in the study’s findings (VDOE, 2010). Acquiring and

compiling the complete annual reports from each school district in Virginia to prepare similar

comparisons proved time and cost-prohibitive. Therefore, the Virginia data are shown to offer

context and general trends.

In the six years following the adoption of best practices from the VDOE and their

subsequent implementation in NPS, identification data show a reduction in the

overrepresentation of White students in NPS. This is an encouraging trend. The disproportional

representation of Asian students has remained largely unchanged. The small population size in

the total number of Asian students enrolled may be a factor, but further investigation is needed to

better understand this trend.

THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 12

The VDOE study of identification rates of subgroups for school year 2008-2009 found

African American and Hispanic students underrepresented in every school district examined

(Figure 3). In the years following the 2010 implementation of recommended best practices,

African American and Hispanic populations continue to be underrepresented. A note of caution

again. The Virginia identification data combined all districts statewide. Individual identification

rates vary widely from district to district. Figure 3 offers context and general trends.

Figure 3: Virginia Gifted Underrepresentation Percentages

30
26
24 24
25 23 23 23 23

20
14 14
15 12 12
13
12
13
12
11 11 11 11
10
9 9
10 8 8
7 7
8
5
5

0
2008-2009 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Gifted Hispanic Total Hispanic Gifted Black Total Black

Examination of the identification rates of Hispanic and African American students in

NPS in the years following the 2010 implementation of the best practices, including the use of a

universal screening (Figure 4), reveals a downward trend in the underrepresentation of African

American students. For school years 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, Hispanic students were

proportionally represented, before returning to slight underrepresentation.

In its evaluation, the VDOE found that for school year 2008-2009, African American and

Hispanic students were more underrepresented than Asian and Caucasian students were
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 13

overrepresented. A comparison of the identification rates show in Figures 2 and 4 shows this is

not the case for NPS. The identification gap is not small, however, it is not as extreme as the

findings of the VDOE study (2010).

Figure 4: NPS Gifted Underrepresentation Percentages

70 63 62 62 61 61 60
60
50
38 38 38
40 36 36 36

30
20
7 7 7 8
10 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 6

0
2009-2010 2010-2011 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Gifted Hispanic Total Hispanic Gifted Black Total Black

Recommendations

The identification data in NPS reveal a slow but steady closing of the identification gap

over the six school years since adopting the latest Virginia regulations (VDOE, 2012). However,

there is still much work to be done to achieve proportional representation of all subgroups, and to

hasten the promising trend. The VDOE recommended the use of specific best practices in

identification and services aimed at achieving equitable representation of all populations of

students. These best practices were incorporated into Virginia’s regulations for the education of

the gifted.
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 14

The recommended best practices are an excellent first step in closing the identification

gap for culturally and linguistically different students. However, two of the best practices in

particular should be implemented more extensively. First, the annual review of gifted services

should require school districts to explicitly report the measures taken toward achieving equitable

representation of all subgroups. In addition, school districts should report the effectiveness of the

stated measures taken, and demonstrate growth toward this goal.

Second, school districts should be required to report which specific training they

provided each year in the characteristics of giftedness in diverse populations, including culturally

and linguistically different students, as well as gifted students with disabilities. These

professional development topics should be offered to teachers, administrators, and parents.

Further, districts should be required to report which populations of education professionals

received this training, and whether and how often it was offered to parents.

Third, coursework in culturally responsive gifted pedagogy should be required for all

teachers earning a licensure endorsement in gifted education. Such coursework must go beyond

the professional development level, so that gifted specialists are prepared to share best practices

in culturally responsive gifted education in their buildings. Finally, NPS should examine its

definition of giftedness to include the term aptitude, so as to describe giftedness in terms of

potential in need of targeted development.

Conclusion

The United States population is increasingly diverse, and consequently, so is the school

population (Ford, 2011). It is essential for educators to understand the diverse cultures of gifted
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 15

students, and how to address the nuances of these cultures as they manifest in the classroom in

order to develop their talents and meet their unique academic, social and emotional needs

(Barlow & Dunbar, 2010). Ongoing training, coursework, and culturally responsive policies are

necessary components of every gifted plan. It is encouraging to know the Virginia Department of

Education is working toward implementing and monitoring the cultural integrity of its gifted

policies and regulations. I am hopeful that periodic reviews of culturally responsive policy and

practice become the norm for Departments of Education nationwide.

I am a lifelong learner of diverse cultures, and through this policy analysis, I was hopeful,

I would observe positive growth in the identification of culturally different students across

Virginia, but especially in NPS. I found it somewhat disappointing that progress toward closing

the identification gap is so slow. Literature on culturally and linguistically different gifted

students suggests the use of local norms, assessment tools with reduced bias, and performance

tasks when screening diverse populations of students for giftedness (Costis, 2016; Naglieri &

Ford, 2003).

I was surprised to learn that these alternative methods for assessing ability were not

among the recommendations detailed by the VDOE its assessment of equitable representation of

minority students in Virginia’s gifted programs (2010). It would be interesting to examine the

efficacy of these measures in a comparative study against more traditional identification

methods. Students present with myriad strengths, demonstrated in many ways. Culture plays a

large role in how children’s gifts manifest. In order to effectively and equitably meet the needs

of all gifted learners, education professionals must equip themselves with the appropriate tools

with which to measure, identify, and serve them

THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 16

References

Barlow, K. & Dunbar, C.E. (2010). Race, class, and whiteness in gifted and talented

identification: A case study. Berkley Review of Education, 1(1), 63-85.

Boone, M. J., Jordan, R., & Tuck, V. S. (2016). Local plan for the education of the gifted.

Norfolk, VA: The School Board for the City of Norfolk.

Borland, J. (2004). Issues and Practices in the identification and education of gifted students

from under-represented groups. US Department of Education.

Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low

income and minority students in gifted education? (No. w21519). National Bureau of

Economic Research.

Costis, P. (2016). Alternative gifted identification methods for culturally and linguistically

different students. Excellence and Diversity in Gifted Education, 2(1), 16-21.

Ford, D. Y. (2011). Multicultural gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Ford, D.Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education.

Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31-35.

Ford, D. Y., Harris III, J., Tyson, C. A., & Trotman, M. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking:

Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52.

Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High

ability studies, 15(2), 119-147.

Gagné, F. (2007). Ten commandments for academic talent development. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 51(2), 93-118.

Hopkins, A. & Garrett, K. (2010). Separate and unequal: The underrepresentation of African

American students in gifted and talented programs. Black History Bulletin, 73(1), 24-30.
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 17

King, S. T., Houston, K., & Banks, D. (2012). Local plan for the education of the gifted.

Norfolk, VA: The School Board for the City of Norfolk.

Lakin, J. M. (2016). Universal screening and the representation of historically underrepresented

minority students in gifted education: Minding the gaps in Card and Giuliano’s

research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2), 139-149.

McBee, M. T. (2016). What you don’t look for, you won’t find: A commentary on Card and

Giuliano’s examination of universal screening. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2),

131-138.

McCoach, D.B., & Siegle, D. (2003) Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students

from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144-154.

Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children

using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155-

160.

National Association for Gifted Children (2017). A Brief History of Gifted and Talented

Education. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/gifted-

education-us/brief-history-gifted-and-talented-education

Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide

for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale.

Houghton Mifflin.

Virginia Department of Education. Office of STEM, Governor's Schools & Gifted Education

(2006). Chapter 40: Regulations governing educational services for gifted students.

Richmond, VA: Author

THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 18

Virginia Department of Education. (2010). Representation of racial and ethnic students, and

English language learners in gifted education in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author.

Virginia Department of Education. Office of STEM, Governor's Schools & Gifted Education

(2012). Chapter 40: Regulations governing educational services for gifted students.

Richmond, VA: Author.

Virginia Department of Education (2017). Gifted annual reports. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/statistics_reports/gifted/index.shtml
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 19

Appendix A

Figure 1: Revisions to Virginia Definition of Giftedness

Year Definition of Giftedness
2006 "Gifted students" means those students in public elementary and secondary schools
beginning with kindergarten through graduation whose abilities and potential for
accomplishment are so outstanding that they require special programs to meet their
educational needs. These students will be identified by professionally qualified persons
through the use of multiple criteria as having potential or demonstrated abilities and
who have evidence of high performance capabilities, which may include leadership, in
one or more of the following areas: Intellectual aptitude or aptitudes, Specific academic
aptitude, Technical and practical arts aptitude, Visual or performing arts aptitude.
2012 "Gifted students" means those students in public elementary, middle, and secondary
schools beginning with kindergarten through twelfth grade who demonstrate high levels
of accomplishment or who show the potential for higher levels of accomplishment when
compared to others of the same age, experience, or environment. Their aptitudes and
potential for accomplishment are so outstanding that they require special programs to
meet their educational needs. These students will be identified by professionally
qualified persons through the use of multiple criteria as having potential or
demonstrated aptitudes in one or more of the following areas: General intellectual
aptitude, Specific academic aptitude, Career and technical aptitude, Visual or
performing arts aptitude.
Note: Italics added for ease of comparison. Adapted from Virginia Department of Education.
Office of STEM, Governor's Schools & Gifted Education (2006, 2012). Chapter 40: Regulations
governing educational services for gifted students. Richmond, VA: Author.
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 20

Appendix B

Norfolk Public Schools Operational Definition of Giftedness

Norfolk Public Schools defines gifted students as those whose abilities and potential for

accomplishment are so outstanding that they require special services and programs to

meet their educational needs. Gifted students come from many backgrounds, and their

special abilities cover a wide spectrum of human potential. NPS uses multiple criteria to

identify gifted learners which includes: teacher and parent checklists, portfolios, student

interviews, ability and achievement tests to determine students’ need of gifted services in

areas of general intellectual aptitude, specific academic aptitude, and visual and

performing arts aptitude. A student may be identified in the area of General Intellectual

Aptitude (GIA) in grades K-5, but demonstrating advanced verbal or quantitative skills or

Creative Expression above that of his/her peers in a range of disciplines. Specific

Academic Aptitude (SAA) is demonstrated through advance performance in

mathematics, the Sciences, social studies, and/or English Language Arts. Selection is

based on multiple Criteria including a norm-referenced achievement test, parent rating,

teacher rating, and student interview and student portfolio. Visual or Performing Arts

Aptitude (VPA) may be demonstrated through exceptional auditions or authentic

products and creative expressions.

From: Boone, M. J., Jordan, R., & Tuck, V. S. (2016). Local plan for the education of the

gifted. Norfolk, VA: The School Board for the City of Norfolk.
THE IDENTIFICATION GAP 21

Appendix C

Table 1C: Internship Hours

Date Times Hours Task Total Hours
8/31 4:00-7:00pm 3 data collection- NPS gifted enrollment data 3
from 2010-present. Extracted demographic
data (ethnicity & gender) from larger data set

8/31 7:00-10:00pm 3 data collection- VA gifted enrollment from 6

2010-present. Extracted demographic data
(ethnicity & gender) from larger data set on
VDOE website
9/5 4:00-9:00pm 5 data collection- NPS and VA enrollment 11
data- disaggregated, graphed, began analysis

9/30 10:00am-2:00pm 4 Researched Virginia Gifted Plan and NPS 15

Gifted plan for identification mandates

11/2 7:00-8:00pm 1 Correspondence with Dr. Donna Poland, 16

Specialist, Governor's Schools & Gifted
Education
Office of STEM, Virginia Department of
Education
11/4 6:00-8:00pm 2 Reading, analysis of data and information 18
received of Dr. Poland
11/8 4:00-6:00pm 2 Research, compare, and evaluate Virginia 20
regulations regarding identification of gifted
students. Evaluate NPS’s Local Plan for the
Gifted Identification Protocol. Assessed
alignment, compliance with state regulations
11/10 9:00am-3:00pm 6 Research empirical literature on history of 25
and strategies addressing the
underrepresentation of culturally different
students