Gifted Identification

A common source of frustration for many parents and students (and schools) is that there is no standard method for identifying students for gifted services. Criteria varies greatly from state to state, and district to district. I believe the process for qualifying for additional educational services should include:

1. gathering information from parents and teachers on observed behaviors,

2. compiling state assessment scores (such as STAAR in Texas),

3. administering an above-level assessment across a battery of subjects,

4. administering a nonverbal assessment as well,

5. and reviewing a portfolio of the student’s work.

This process would be under the oversight of a reviewing committee well-versed in giftedness, one of the most important components of the identifying process. They must have a deep and extensive understanding of giftedness, and all its nuances and subtleties, to be able to piece together the puzzle of these students and work to find academic solutions that can help them continue to learn and develop. Ideally, schools would utilize universal screening of all children.

Lots of programs rely heavily on a score of “gifted behaviors” from a checklist, as reported by the child’s family and teacher. In general, a list of intellectual, social, and emotional characteristics of giftedness can be relevant in identifying gifted children. However, this is a very weak and obviously subjective yardstick. For example, a family may recognize a child’s behavior as demonstrating ability well above average (having a strong and advanced vocabulary), however the teacher may see evidence of that behavior manifesting negatively in the classroom (talking over peers, not giving others the chance to answer, calling out), thus giving the student a lower overall “score” on gifted behaviors. This is where the oversight committee can be so critical. If the committee reviewing this particular application is also familiar with giftedness, they would quickly recognize teacher bias and stereotyping in her interpretation of behaviors. Paradoxically, this could actually make the case for needed academic intervention stronger. Also, relying on a subjective list of behaviors as observed and reported by families and teachers is especially susceptible to ethnic and cultural bias. This would be to the detriment of students who are typically under-represented in gifted programs.

Reviewing on-level state assessments can be indicative of how the student is performing relative to their age peers on a national level. As researchers Peters and Engerrand (2016) point out, because of huge differences in opportunities to learn (OTL) between socio-economic groups, a national comparison based on age alone may not give an accurate reflection of a student’s ability and potential. They suggest instead norming tests based on income-levels as a way to control for the differences of experience and acquired knowledge that is found across different households. Norming for income-levels would effectually increase diversity within GT programs.

Additionally, administering an above-level assessment across a variety of subjects can be helpful in not only in identifying giftedness, but also the level of giftedness and potential specific areas of strengths and weaknesses. For example, a student scoring at the top range of an on-level test may still be concealing ability because of the low testing constraints. Above level testing can be useful in identifying the level of giftedness for those that are highly above average. Testing across a wide variety of subject matter allows for a more detailed and appropriate educational plan for the student, based on their unique combination of strengths and weaknesses. This could also be helpful in creating a fuller picture of the abilities of non-traditional students by uncovering specific areas in which they do excel, absent of other traditional gifted markers. Securing testing through an outside source can be beneficial for parents as they present a case to the school for the need of advanced academics for their child. However, private testing is expensive and must be paid for by the family, which is a barrier to low-income families, and companies that provide private testing are not available in all locations. Also, even being aware of the existence of these outside testing opportunities creates several barriers to low-educated or non-English speaking households.

Non-verbal testing, such as the NNAT, is useful in helping to identify students who excel in spatial reasoning and problem solving, but who may not manifest giftedness in other areas. These tests are also very useful for non-native English speakers and many twice-exceptional (2e) students as very little reading is involved.

Including a portfolio of work would further evidence the student’s abilities and potential. This would be especially pertinent to demonstrating creativity. However, a student’s portfolio could also be limited by OTL and the rigor of assignments given in the classroom. If current curriculum is too far below abilities, work output may only meet minimal standards if the student finds work under stimulating and beneath them. Significant lack of challenging coursework is most often an issue in low-income and rural schools, which would make producing an impressive portfolio very difficult for these students.

All this points to the incredible challenge it is to establish a standardized protocol for identifying giftedness in children who are, by definition, different from the standard. Even if criteria could be agreed upon, the needed scoring could still remain in question. It is an extensive and thorough process, obviously requiring significant funding and time as well as know-how. It is realistic that schools could universally screen all students in this way? Would such screening not result in a clearer academic profile for every student and a better starting point for effectively teaching each student, regardless of ability? Could this be a standard feature of American schools in the next twenty years?

Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and Excellence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165