Name ___________________________________ TEMPLATE Gifted & Talented Eligibility Profile , rev. 2018; rev.

2021
Grade: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date referred (month/year) ______________
Referral initiated by: Teacher / Parent / Self / other ____________________ Total Score: _____/90
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Not eligible at this time* Eligible

I. Standardized Test Scores

List up to 6 objective test scores collected Total Step I Points = ______

*Universal Screeners: Whole cohort
within previous two years Scoring is consistent across grade levels
List StarMath, DIBELS, LinkIt Rdg, etc. Standardized tests per local grade cohort If fewer than 6 scores are reported, scores
Scores receive points per next column top 5 % … 5 points are weighted as follows, for total of 30
top 6-10 % … 3 points possible Step I Points:
Source/SUBJECT Score points top 11-20% … 1 point
5 scores … (n x 1.2) /25 = n/30
**Univ scr:
4 scores … (n x 1.5)/20 = n/30
**OE/Open-ended tests: Compare achievement
level to actual grade level placement 3 scores … (n x 2)/15= n/30
3 + gr. levels up … 5 points
2 gr. levels up … 3 points Step I = _____ adjusted to _____
1 gr. level up … 1 point
Do these reported scores include…
New-to-district transfers:
● *Universal screener including all
**OE: Stanine scores of 9… 5 points
students at this grade level cohort?
Stanine scores of 8… 3 points (Local benchmarks may suffice)
Add total Step I Points Stanine scores of 7… 1 point ● **OE/Open-ended evaluation, to
assess above-grade level skills?

II. Subjective Information: reported by teacher(s) and parent(s)

Step II A. Teacher Inventories PAUSE to assess Step II B. Parent Reports
Kingore: responses converted to % of total potential cost/benefit Parent Narrative: Identify evidence of
A/Accelerated… 1 point per 25% ____ these traits (1 Point each) … _____/6
B/Gifted Learner… 2 points per 25% ____
of additional testing. ____ Creativity, Initiative
C/Creative … 1 point per 25% ____ ____ Self-Teaching
Step I Points = _____ ____ Task Commitment, Determination
D/none of the above … 0 points
Step IIA Points = + _____ ____ Pref for Complexity/Abstraction
Slocumb Payne TPI (see guide below) ____ ____ Intra/Interpersonal Exceptionality
SUBTOTAL = _____
Step II A Points (possible 12+) total = ____ ____ Precocity, Async. Development
Is subtotal at or above 20?
Should other factors be considered? Parent Inventory:
Slocumb-Payne* scoring as follows:
n = 70 or greater … 5 points ___SES ___ELL ___Biling. __2E ___other Kingore: responses converted to % of total
n = 60 - 69 … 4 points A/Accelerated… 1 point per 25% ____
___ Do NOT Proceed ___ Proceed B/Gifted Learner… 2 points per 25% ____
n = 50 - 59 … 3 points
n = 40 - 49 … 2 points C/Creative … 1 point per 25% ____
n = 30 - 39 … 1 point D/none of the above … 0 points
n less than 30 … 0 points Inform parents; they may appeal decision.
*Slocumb-Payne Teacher Perception Inventory Step II B Points (possible 12+) total = ____

III. Qualifying Test Data: Screening Assessments for Gifted Elementary Students (SAGES-3)

SAGES points, consistent for all gr levels Quotient scores on qualifying test(s) … points TOTAL
_______ Non-verbal Reasoning … _____
Step I Points … _____/30
98th+ %ile Quotient 130+ … 10 pts _______ L.A./Soc. Studies … _____
~95th–97th %ile Quotient 125-129… 8 pts Step II A Points … _____/12+
_______Verbal Reasoning … _____
91st– ~95th %ile Quotient 120-124… 6 pts Step II B Points … _____/12+
_______ Mathematics/Science … _____
85th– 90th %ile Quotient 115-119… 4 pts Step III Points … _____/40
75th– 84th %ile Quotient 110-114… 2 pts OVERALL
Students may take 0-4 SAGES tests. There is no Step III Points (possible 40) = ______
TOTAL … ________
adjustment/weighting for n of SAGES tests.
 This template is based on the system developed and implemented for our local district and reflects compliance with
Best Practices as outlined below. Notes below describe the specific instruments and strategies we have used; general notes
discuss adapting implementation and adaptation of these strategies.
Throughout the Eligibility Determinations process, candidates may accumulate points at each step. There
are occasions where a candidate has accumulated sufficient points at or near the outset and it is abundantly clear
that the child will qualify. In such situations, we continue through the full process to avoid potential questions of
conflicts with other candidates/parents. Also, having every candidate participate in all phases of the process
provides ongoing verification of our instruments.

Kristin Baker, Ed. S.

bakerk@njagc.org

Referral initiated by…

Our call for nominations is publicized for approximately six
weeks every spring. Nominations come from teachers, parents,
and (less commonly) students; students may also be nominated
through their scores on Universal Screeners. All nominations are
followed up with the same information-gathering procedures
regardless of the initial source.
In recent years, we added a direct message to the parents of
students in the enrichment groups, explaining the nomination
opportunity. This increased the number of parent nominations
particularly from groups which had been less well-represented.
The Eligibility for Gifted and Talented Programs is intended to
identify students who are ready to benefit from Gifted services,
not to identify “gifted students.”
In some districts these rosters are reconsidered every year.
Our district has followed the guidance of E. Jean Gubbins, former
President of National Association for Gifted Children, who
recommends flexible program structures and adjusting
participation to suit the emerging needs of the child rather than
withdrawing qualification to participate.

Universal Screening: Local benchmarks …Scoring per LOCAL cohort: 5/10/20 %

Our initial score-gathering consists of examining the candidate’s
local benchmark scores, particularly the MoY data which is
available as our nomination cycle opens in March/April. Later,
the EoY data is also examined for students who may not have
been nominated and yet should be considered.
For several years we used NWEA/MAPs which as OE
assessments were helpful; these were considered for both reading
and math. Recently our district transitioned to LinkIt which
focuses on grade-level mastery.
In the past we used NJASK scores; we have not used NJSLA as
part of this profile.
Universal Screening with benchmarks can be applied where all
students within a grade level cohort have participated in the
assessment(s).
With any of these data sources, organize lists of scores in rank
order and then locate “cut scores” for the top 5%, the top 10%,
and the top 20% of each group. Tie scores are all included in that
group, though this may reduce the count in subsequent groups.
(For example, in a group of 100 students, if the 5th/6th/7th scores
are tied then there are 7 in the top 5% and there will only be 3
more to reach 10%.)
Note: every grade level cohort will have distinct cut scores every
year. Points are awarded as described in the profile chart.

NEXT STEP
For the 2022-23 school year, we will be piloting the Naglieri3 The Naglieri3 General Ability Tests are a new release based on a
General Ability Tests at grades K and 3. This series includes widely recognized existing instrument. Test items have been
online assessments for verbal reasoning, non-verbal reasoning, deliberately designed to avoid cultural bias and support equity
and quantitative reasoning. and representation. Here is a brief overview.
Our scoring system will be developed as we review results from
this pilot group.
*OE / Open-ended assessment: scores
In our district, every candidate participates in OE assessments
through letsgolearn.com (other tests are available):
● DORA: Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment
● ADAM K7: Adaptive Diagnostic Assessment of
Mathematics (grades k-7), used in grades k-4
● DOMA Pre-Algebra, used in grades 4-6
These scores are evaluated per an in-house system developed over
a decade of use; details available on request.
In the past, our NWEA/MAP benchmarks were also OE.
Representation/equity: S-P TPI (IIA)
The Slocumb-Payne Teacher Perception Inventory is a rating
system designed to be inclusive of diverse populations. Each of
the nineteen items is shown as “two sides of the coin” and the
rater scores only one of the two descriptors. This scale thus avoids
bias towards compliant, “teacher-pleasing” behaviors.
Note: The cut scores/points guide for S-P TPI was developed for
our local district, reflecting patterns observed among hundreds of
candidates.
Use of Subjective Ratings: Steps IIA& B
We have revised our Subjective Information tools several times
over the years. We have used the S-P TPI for several years. An
earlier adaptation of the Kingore scales was replaced by the
current form as we digitized our system, and we expect this will
provide more detailed information.
The parent narrative section is based on a questionnaire and is
evaluated for evidence of the specific traits listed. This section has
been valuable in revealing remarkable behaviors or precocious
interests. When parents are poor reporters (leaving most items
blank or not returning forms) this section has been supplemented
by information gathered through informal student interviews.
Gifted Identification Screening tool: Step III
We use the Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary Students
(SAGES-3), consisting of four paper-and-pencil tests, used in
grades K-3 and 4-8:
● Mathematics/Science
● Language Arts/Social Studies
● Verbal Reasoning
● Non-Verbal Reasoning
Note: The Non-Verbal Reasoning is in the form of picture
analogies; after direct communication with the publishers, we
have used the strategy of verbally identifying any image with
which a child is unfamiliar (such as “walnut”) to avoid
experiential bias, though we are cautious not to provide any
information on how images relate to one another.
The SAGES-3 tests are multiple choice and must be hand-scored.
Open-ended assessments are necessary for assessing candidates
for gifted education as many students will have skills that extend
beyond grade-level expectations.
Classroom performance cannot be a shortcut for this step, as
students who have disengaged from tasks they do not find
challenging may not be demonstrating their actual abilities in the
traditional classroom environment.
Regularly examining the patterns of nominations and eligibility
against local district population demographic data can alert us to
concerns regarding representation.
Be mindful of trends regarding gender and socioeconomic status
as well as racial and ethnic identity.
This profile system offers the opportunity for points to be awarded
for both teacher and parent input. The balance of possible points is
such that while these subjective points may offer a highly
significant contribution, even their combined total is not sufficient
for eligibility. Subjective information, including from parents,
should be considered in any eligibility evaluation system. Asking
parents to describe behaviors may be more helpful than asking for
ratings, as parents may lack a frame of reference for what is age
typical.
Note: In this system, teacher profiles are required for all
candidates, regardless of the source of the nomination. Teachers
occasionally object due to student behavior problems or poor
classroom engagement; they are then reminded that the profile
forms provide information, and are not a recommendation, and
that these are not optional.
There are numerous options for assessing giftedness in students,
such as the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) which can be
administered in groups, the non-verbal Otis-Lennon School
Ability Test (OLSAT 8), the individually administered Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V), and the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking (TTCT). This brief list is intended merely to
suggest the range of options available.
The screening instruments should be aligned with the form(s) of
giftedness that will be served by the program being offered.
Selecting the appropriate instruments for a particular setting
requires consideration of the testing conditions, the time available
for testing and scoring, and the cost factors as well as the actual
instrument itself.