1.

Title: “Best Practiced in Gifted Identification and Assessment: Lessons from the WISC-

V” (2020). Authors: Linda K. Silverman and Barbra J. Gilman

a. “As the student body grows more diverse, there is increasing necessity to ensure

that all students have equal access to gifted programs.”

b. “Well- chosen intelligence tests can effectively uncover high abilities hidden by

poverty, diversity, disability, prejudice, or lack of opportunity to be displayed.”

c. “Some researchers suggest that the best use of the group ability testing as a

screening device to determine whether further individualized assessment is

needed (Cao et al., 2017; McBrr, Peters, & Miller, 2016). The two stage process

of identifying gifted learners appears to be the most common (Peters et al., 2019)

…. The larger the number of students assessed in the screening phase, the fewer

students are missed.”

d. WISC-V: Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children, “Comprehensive, individual

intelligence test.” Directed to be used for Gifted and Twice Exceptional

Identification.

i. “Use of the WISC-V for Gifted and Twice Exceptional Identification

provided multiple pathways for documenting giftedness, taking a strong

stance against rigid FSIQ cutoffs that prevent access to gifted programs by

underserved students.”

e. “Non-meaningful or low-interest measures (e.g. recalling digits or pictures objects

in sequences of increasing lengths) may fail to engage gifted children. Timing is a

significant factor for the gifted. Untimed subtexts involving abstract reasoning

generally scored higher than reasoning subtests with timing.”

f. “Examiners report that gifted English language learners and bilingual gifted

children often score high on verbal subtests.”

g. “Full Scale IQ score should not be required as it “…undermines the identification

of many gifted students” (NAGC, 2018, p.1). Twice exceptional students have

more pronounced discrepancies among composite scores; the mandatory use of

FSIQ scores can prevent their access to gifted programs.”

h. “Instead, NAGC recommends that any “one” of the following WISC-V expanded

and ancillary index scores, that emphasizes reasoning ability, should be

acceptable for the use in the selection process for gifted programs.” These

include:

i. Verbal Index

ii. Nonverbal Index

iii. Expanded Fluid Index

iv. Full Scale IQ Score

v. General Ability Index

vi. Expanded General Ability Index

vii. Quantitative Reasoning Index

i. Supporting higher levels of Giftedness: “Traditionally, raw score points earned

beyond designated levels were ignored. The new norms allow all raw score points

earned to be accounted for by extending the upper scaled score range…”

i. “Documenting high levels of giftedness is important to qualify such

children for support groups.”

 j. “Nonverbal tests need to be supplemented with verbal tests, since even ESL

students perform better on verbal than nonverbal instruments.”

k. “A major stumbling block in the identification of culturally diverse students is the

referral process. Teacher recommendations should be used with caution, as

educators may not recognize signs of giftedness in other ethnic groups.”

i. “Teachers indicated without the TOPS (Teacher’s Observation of Potential

in Students tool) they would have overlooked the academic potential in

22% (1,741) of children of color, and 53% of African American boys in

particular.”

l. Emphasis on the nomination component of gifted placement. Article argues it

should not be required, and can produce a false negative/ positive identification.

2. Title: “Promising Practices for Improving Identification of English Learners for Gifted

and Talented Programs” (2020). Authors: E. Jean Gubbins, Del Siegle, Pamela M. Peters,

Ashley Y. Carpenter, Rashea Hamilton, D. Betsy McCoach, Jeb Puryear

a. This article took a closer look at the underrepresentation of ELLs in Gifted and

Talented Programs. To learn more, the authors observed schools where the

number of ELLs in GT was proportional. They then developed the following

themes: adopting universal screening procedures, creating alternative pathways to

identification, establishing a web of communication, and using professional

learning as a lever for change.

b. ELL in schools statistics, “The number of public-school students classified as ELs

increased from 4.3 million in 2004-2005 to 4.6 million in 2014-2015, representing

 an increase from 9.1% to 9.4% of the public-school student population” (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2017).

c. As opposed to gifted, “The United States Department of Education, Office for

Civil Rights (2014) reported that in the 2011-2012 school year just 2% of ELs

were enrolled in gifted and talented programs compared to 7% of non-ELs.”

d. This can be attributed to identification instruments and conception of giftedness in

educators.

e. “Nine districts and 14 of the 16 schools used universal screening, nonverbal

assessments, cut scores, and native language assessments, while seven districts

and eight schools used talent pools for promising students. Nine districts within

the three states in our study used cognitive ability and achievement tests as part of

the identification process. In addition to standardized assessments, eight of the

nine districts included performance assessments, such as portfolios, work

samples, and grades as a component for identification.”

f. “Variability in identification procedures occurred across states and districts most

often when practices specific to the identification of ELs were involved.”

g. Gifted teachers often had informal training for teachers, due to the classroom

teacher’s role in identification: nominations.

h. “The major challenge in this component was a general hesitation by teachers;

parents/guardians/caretakers; and other stakeholders in referring ELs for

evaluation.”

i. “Of the schools we visited, 14 of the 16 used some form of universal screening,

most often an ability test such as the CogAT or the NNAT.”

j. A major problem is a lack of communication between gifted coordinators and

ELL coordinators when sharing the same students.

k. “Both school personnel and parents/guardians/caretakers expressed concerns

about the mismatch between testing in a native language and services provided in

English.”

l. “Data sources included nominations, rating scales, and portfolios to supplement

universal screening results.”

m. “When available, schools used native language ability and achievement

assessments as indicators of potential giftedness.”

n. “Schools established a web of communication in which all personnel were aware

of the identification system in its entirety and were empowered to interact with

one another in all components (i.e., screening, nomination, identification, and

placement) to identify ELs’ talents.”

o. “Developing and implementing intentional outreach approaches to the school

community, particularly parents/guardians/caretakers, was a critical strategy.”

p. “Educators and parents/guardians/caretakers who understood that giftedness can

be revealed in different ways were more likely to identify ELs as gifted.”

q. “In a nation where one in five residents speaks a language other than English in

the home (Batalova & Zong, 2016), it has become incumbent on all educators to

reflect on how to support multilingualism and multiculturalism, which is the

explicit goal of culturally sustaining pedagogy” (Paris, 2012).

r. “The integration of knowledge from the fields of multicultural education, which

encompasses culturally sustaining pedagogy, and gifted education offers new

 possibilities for equitable practices in developing the gifts and talents of all

students.”

s.

3. Title: “Enhancing Gifted Education for Underrepresented Students: Promising

Recruitment and Programming Strategies” (2017). Authors: Meghan Ecker-Lyster and

Christopher Niileksela

a. “For decades, our educational system has been criticized for the limited

recruitment and retention of minority students in gifted education programs….

exploring promising best practices for recruitment and retention of

underrepresented students in gifted education. Multicultural education, mentoring,

and noncognitive skill development are three promising areas that gifted

educators can use to enhance programming.”

b. “One cause of this disproportionate representation is that RELD students are

being recruited into gifted programs and advanced-level courses at significantly

lower rates than White children.”

c. Regarding the current population of gifted students: “The highest rates were for

Asian/ Pacific Islander students who had a 9.98% placement rate (i.e., one in 10

students from this minority group were in a gifted program). Non-Hispanic White

students had a 7.75% rate, whereas the lowest rates were for Black students at a

3.04% placement rate, Hispanic students at 3.57%, and American Indian/Alaskan

native students at 4.86%.”

d. To address concerns, some schools have introduced a multitude of nonverbal

intelligence measures. With that being said, merely using alternative methods
 does not solve the problem of underrepresentation. “In a similar vein, nonverbal

assessments have been found to lead to more classification errors and frequently

fail to identify a higher percentage of minority students than traditional IQ

measures.”

e. Another flawed method of identification is teacher nominations and referrals,

which allow for bias to limit students from qualifying for gifted services.

“Specifically, McBee found that Asian and White students were more likely to be

referred for evaluation for gifted programming compared with Black and Hispanic

students. McBee also reported that students receiving free or reduced lunch were

less likely to receive a teacher referral compared with their wealthier peers.”

f. “Research indicates promising results for the use of rating scales and rubrics for

increasing access to gifted programs for underrepresented students.”

g. “Recruiting students into gifted services is only half the battle to closing the

excellence gap. Research has found that minority students are more likely to drop

out of advanced courses and gifted programs compared with their White peers

(Grantham, 2004a).”

h. “Research suggests that minority students face a number of social and

psychological experiences that perpetuate negative self-beliefs and expectations

regarding the value of participating in gifted education or advanced-level courses

(Grantham, 2004a). Black male students have reported declining enrollment in

gifted education or Advanced Placement (AP) courses because their peers accused

them of acting White (Grantham, 2004a).” In response to this issue, the article

suggests the following methods of retention:

 i. Multicultural Education: “Research has found that incorporating culture

and everyday experiences specific to the target population of students

enhances learning (Milner & Ford, 2007).”

1. “To accomplish this mission, Banks (1993) created a hierarchical

model with four levels that educators can use to incorporate

multicultural content into their curriculum. Aligning with CRT

practices, Banks’s framework embraces a student-focused model

that incorporates student’s culture and experiences into the

curriculum to create a more welcoming learning environment.”

ii. Mentoring: “General educational research has found that supportive adults

can serve as a protective factor against stress and adversity, enhancing

resilience.”

1. “The PMEVM (Grantham, 2004b) suggests that Black males will

decline participating in gifted programs because of three primary

reasons: (a) negative participation competence expectancy, (b)

negative outcome attainment expectancy, and (c) negative value of

gifted program outcomes.”

2. “Reis identified specific factors that students attributed to their

academic success, which included the development of a belief in

themselves, personal characteristics (e.g., motivation and

resilience), supportive adults, family support, and interactions with

high-achieving peers.”
 iii. Noncognitive Factors: “There is a growing body of research that

emphasizes the importance of noncognitive factors in academic

achievement (e.g., Duckworth, Kirby, Tsukayama, Berstein, & Ericsson,

2010). These personal attributes include grit, motivation, persistence, self-

control, and mindset toward ability and effort.”

1. “Noncognitive factors are uniquely positioned within the

educational literature because research has found that these

attributes are malleable and can be deliberately cultivated in

students (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014).”

4. Title: District Leaders Focused on Systemic Equity in Identification and Services for

Gifted Education: From Policy to Practice (2021). Authors: Miriam D. Ezzani, Rachel U.

Mun, and Lindsay Ellis Lee

a. “For decades, systemic disparities in urban and suburban school districts have existed in

the identification of his- torically minoritized student populations from cultu- rally,

linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) backgrounds in gifted and talented

(GT).”

b. “District leaders must understand the formation of policies at the various levels and how

they contribute to inequities and inform the implementation of pedagogical approaches

(Horsford, 2010; Horsford et al., 2011).”

c. “Ford et al. (2005) noted the lack of culturally relevant content in gifted education and

proposed a framework to integrate multiculturalism into existing gifted pedagogy.

Horsford et al. (2011) asserted that culturally relevant pedagogy must be com- bined with

antiracist pedagogy, a topic that schools rarely address.”

d. “A culturally proficient leader can guide others on a personal journey where educators

question their beliefs and attitudes about those who are culturally different from them

(Cross et al., 1989; Terrell et al., 2018).”

e. “The leader’s professional duty is to develop educators to value cultures and to address

systemic concerns related to practices and policies.”

f. “Leadership for equity, through poli- cies and practices, was a way to counter

discrepancies along the lines of race/ethnicity, language, and economic status.”

g. “Language in the equity policy for GT included: procedures should guarantee that no one

is overlooked; students from all groups should be considered according to their demo-

graphic representation in the district; the civil rights of students should be protected;

strategies should be specified for identifying CLED gifted/talented; and, cutoff scores

should be avoided because they are the most common way that CLED students are

discriminated against.”

h. Communication between parents, and different educators in the school is discussed as a

vital component of equitable gifted education. “Various modes of communication were

central to the implementation of the equity policy and the cultural proficiency goal.”

i. Professional Training- “The strategic plan required educators’ participation in cultural

proficiency training to become more aware of cultural differences. Learning opportunities

fostered communication and focused on various cultures represented throughout the

district.”

j. “Conceptions of giftedness by educators led to chal- lenges and barriers to identification

and serving CLED gifted students as well as how students and their families might

navigate the system to ensure post- secondary success.”

k. “Although educational leaders understand the chal- lenges of identifying and serving

students from diverse populations, there are gaps in the professional learning of teachers

and communication with families.”

 l. “From the vantage point of culturally relevant leaders, systemic reform is resistance

against the political context that perpetuates inequity toward the historically

marginalized.”

m. “Although district leaders had a strong sense of culturally relevant leadership, in sum,

school leaders were limited in their ability to broach topics such as race, ethnicity, and

language creating a void in learning for teachers with deficit ideologies about stu- dents

and their families.”

n. “Leaders must reflect on not only their preconceived beliefs regarding CLED students but

also their beliefs on giftedness and the various ways students could benefit from GT

services.”

o. “We recommend leaders: utilize data- informed leadership (quantitative and qualitative)

as the impetus for system-wide reform, for example, equity audits; garner support from

stakeholders in the devel- opment of the vision for gifted education; provide sus- tained

professional learning via professional learning communities that incorporate culturally

responsive practices in discussions about students; and, conduct periodic GT program

evaluations to assess what is work- ing well and what needs to be changed or updated to

best serve historically minoritized/CLED students.”

5. Title: “Equitable Identification of Underrepresented Gifted Students: The Relationship

Between Students’ Academic Achievement and a Teacher-Rating Scale” (2022).

Authors: Hyeseong Lee, Kristen Seward, and Marcia Gentry

a. Addressing the problem of identifying gifted and talented individuals from

underserved populations. “Underrepresentation of students from low-income

families and/or certain ethnic groups has been a persistent worldwide problem in

the field of gifted education.”

b. “In short, identification malpractice in all its forms resulted in fewer students

from low-income and/or culturally diverse families being identified for gifted

programming (Yoon & Gentry, 2009; Pereira & Gentry, 2013; Plucker & Peters,

2018).”

c. The authors tested these ideas in a study which combined teacher-rating scale

scores and a grade-level achievement test by “applying local norms and different

cutoff score combinations for the identification of students from underserved

populations in South Korea.”

d. “One underserved population that spans all other learner demographics is learners

from low-income families. Several factors work against finding these gifted

learners. First, identification systems, including universal screenings, that rely on

high cutoff scores on academic assessments miss gifted learners from low-income

families who often score below these sometimes arbitrarily set cutoffs (Callahan,

2005). Second, teachers who are untrained in gifted education and in

identification of underrepresented populations continue to overlook these

students. Sadly, continuing to overlook these learners year after year places them

in jeopardy of unsatisfactory progress, under- achievement, potential dropout in

high school, and, if they move on to postsecondary education, college

undermatching (Wyner et al., 2009).”

e. “...teacher bias and low academic expectations for learners from low-income

families influence teachers’ interpretations of high achievement and performance

and skews their abilities to spot academic talent in this underserved population.”
f. “Universal screening increased the number of underrepresented learners who

qualified for gifted services by 180%, including those from low-income and/or

minority families who would have been overlooked with traditional identification

pro- cedures. Additionally, the use of local norms in the identification of gifted

learners will likely compensate for most occurrences of legitimate test bias.”

g. The article states that applying local norms to state-level achievement test scores

results in an increase in students from underrepresented groups identified for

gifted.”

h. Similar to the other articles, this article expresses that teacher ratings often hinder

the identification process due to a multitude of reasons (bias, lack of knowledge,

etc.). With that being said, more formal methods of teacher-ratings can yield more

reliable data. “When teacher-rating instruments of any kind are well-constructed

and provide reliable data on which to make valid inferences, support for teacher

ratings as part of the identification process will also increase (Hodge & Cudmore,

1986; Peters & Gentry, 2012a).”

i. The study aimed to address these students in underserved communities and their

underrepresentation in the gifted program. “We hypothesized that student

achievement outcomes will have positive relationships with both Academic and

Social subscale scores from the HOPE Scale.”

j. Results:

i. “We found that more underrepresented students in Korea were identified

when applying different combinations of local norms on grade-level

achievement test scores and on teachers’ ratings of academic behaviors

 using the HOPE Scale’s Academic subscale. These additional students

may be poor test takers, underachievers, students with fewer opportunities

to learn outside of school, or students who were unidentified using

achievement tests’ national norms alone (Peters & Gentry, 2012b).”

ii. “The addition of a teacher rating scale and the applica- tion of local norms

showed that more students, including those from low-income and/ or

culturally diverse families, needed further consideration, or, if you will, a

second look in the process of thorough procedures that more intricately

identify students’ aca- demic strengths and, subsequently, provide

appropriate challenge and supports in gifted programming.”

iii. ““Alternative pathways” (Peters & Gentry, 2012b) must continue to be

explored for more equitable gifted identification. The limitations of state

laws, unequal access, ineq- uity, and missingness, coupled with rampant

imperfections and misuses of educational assessment results has created a

broken system for identifying students’ gifts and talents.”

iv. “From the study findings, it was obvious students from underrepresented

backgrounds receive lower scores, not only from the achievement tests,

but also from the teacher- rating scale compared to their peers in the

classroom. Decades of institutional racism, inequitable identification

methods, segregation, and unequal opportunities have resulted in gifted

education programs that ignore talents of children who are Black, Latinx,

Indigenous and who are learning English or who live in poverty.”

6. Title: Expanding Gifted Identification to Capture Academically Advanced, Low-Income,

or Other Disadvantaged (2022). Authors: Bich Thi Ngoc Tran, M.A., Jonathan Wai,

Ph.D., Sarah McKenzie, Ph.D., Jonathan Mills, Ph.D. Research Scientist at Coleridge

Initiative, and Dustin Seaton, M.Ed.

a. According to the findings of the article, “high-achieving students participating in

the federal Free/Reduced Lunch program were 50% less likely to be identified.

These findings suggest that using state math and literacy assessments as universal

screening tools could improve gifted identification of high-achieving students,

many from low-income or other disadvantaged backgrounds.”

b. The Study (Arkansas Schools): “The analysis was intended to examine how

focusing on already high-achieving students might expand the identified pool of

GT students, in particular those from low-income and other disadvantaged

backgrounds.”

c. “Overall, we observed that about 70% of students who scored in the top 5% on

both literacy and math on third-grade state assessments were identified as GT.

The current GT system in AR appears to overidentify certain students when

considering the top 5% achievers in math and literacy. On the one hand, we found

that students from certain ethnic and lower SES backgrounds, ELL, and SPED

students had been identified for the gifted program although there were fewer of

them in the top 5% of math and literacy achievement.”

d. Results
 i. “More than 82% of students identified GT in fourth grade did not

demonstrate high academic performance on third-grade state

assessments.”

ii. “Districts with the highest level of poverty (>66% FRL) also identified the

highest percentage of students as GT (12%) and were most likely to

identify students in the top 5% as GT (79%). Districts in the lowest level

of poverty had the highest percentage of students in the top 5% but only

identified about two thirds of those students as GT.”

iii. “Around 30% of students who objectively scored in the top 5% on both

math and literacy assessments were not identified as GT by fourth grade.

This academically high-achieving group of students is not provided a

service that may help their further talent development.”

iv. “A high percentage of identified GT students did not demonstrate high

achievement (at least defined as the top 5%) on state assessments.”

v. “Because the percentage of students in the GT group that were not

academic high achievers was quite large, efficiency and adequacy of

resource usage and distribution are worth thinking more deeply about.”

e. “GT identification could indeed be expanded by using math and literacy state

assessments (or other similar assessments), which already serve as a universal

screener to capture a broader array of talented students, especially those from

low-income and other disadvantaged backgrounds, who are ready for greater

academic challenge.”
 f. “On a positive note, we found no statistically significant differences in the

likelihood of GT identification of high-achieving students by ethnicity, gender, or

special program status (SPED, ELL). In other words, FRL was the only subgroup

that we detected a potential misalignment in the GT identification process in

Arkansas.”

g. “In particular, using state assessments as a universal screener may be cost-

effective and relatively low hanging fruit to leverage.”

h. “By expanding identification procedures to more universally capture students who

have high developed talents in mathematical and verbal symbol systems that are

important to school as currently structured (Lohman, 2005a), this is relatively low

hanging fruit given that state assessments are already often universally provided

and such data can be leveraged as part of the GT identification process, no matter

the specific requirements of the state policy. Additionally, gifted education needs

better alignment between identification procedures, programming offered based

on identification (Lakin, in press), and program evaluation (Plucker & Callahan,

2020; Redding & Grissom, 2021; Tran et al., 2021) to demonstrate the importance

of such programming to meet academic needs.”

7. Title: Gifted Education’s Legacy of High Stakes Ability Testing: Using Measures for

Identification That Perpetuate Inequity” (2021). Authors: Marcia Gentry, Ophélie Allyssa

Desmet, Sareh Karami, Hyeseong Lee, Corinne Green, Alissa Cress, Aakash Chowkase

& Anne Gray

a. This article is a critical reflection of the development of intelligence tests and how

certain practices perpetuate racism and bias into the modern day. “We found only
 one test included Indigenous youth in their sample; only one test reported racial

group means; only two provided internal consistency estimates for different

subgroups; and only four reported group invariance testing.”

b. “Some theorists have proposed multi-dimensional theories of intelligence,

including multiple intelligences (Gardner, 2011) and the augmented theory of

successful intelligence (Sternberg, 2020).”

c. Intelligence tests, despite their controversial aspects, are still widely used as a

component in the identification of gifted students in the U.S.

d. New tests are developed under the guidelines:

i. “Standard 3.2: “Test developers are responsible for developing tests that

measure the intended construct and for minimizing the potential for tests

being affected by construct-irrelevant such as linguistic, communicative,

cognitive, cultural, physical or other characteristics” (AERA, 2014, p.

64).”

ii. “Standard 3.3 “Those responsible for test development should include

relevant subgroups in validity, reliability/precision, and other preliminary

studies used when constructing the test” (AERA, 2014, p. 64).”

e. “American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN), Black, Latinx, or Native

Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (NHPI) are from 20% to 80% less likely than their

White peers to be identified with gifts and talents. Additionally, they estimated

that 50% to 74% of these children are missing from identification completely due

to underidentification in schools that identify students with gifts and talents and

lack of access to identification in schools that do not identify such students.”

f. This lack of equity has called for states such as New York to take drastic

measures (New York eliminating gifted programs).

g. Discussing International Norms: “However, some groups do lag behind these

international norms. These include Brazil, Ireland, Puerto Rico, and Blacks and

Native Americans in America . . . .In all countries, the norms for children from

less privileged socioeconomic backgrounds and rural areas are lower than others”

(2000a, pp. G26-G27).

h. “Even in states with mandated identification and services, recommendations and

guidance rather than dictated practices are often provided to schools regarding

how to proceed with identification and programming.”

i. “19 states included a specific list of recommended tests for gifted identification

purposes. Each of these lists included one or more intelligence tests.”

j. “Gifted education has an overreliance on a variety of measures designed to yield

IQ-like scores as intelligence measures to “qualify” students for services. Using

these measures is a longstanding practice in the field despite the fact that these

measures result in disproportional racial representation/underrepresentation in

gifted education.”

k. The continued emphasis on these intelligence tests as well as the belief that

intelligence is fixed threatens underserved populations in gifted education (as well

as gifted education in general).

l. “Longstanding, pervasive, and persistent underrepresentation of Black, Latinx,

and Indigenous youth, those learning to speak English, those who come from low

income families, and those who have disabilities, exists and is maintained, in part,
 by overreliance on measures that yield disparate results, and as shown in this

research, were not properly developed for use with them.”

m. The limitations of intelligence tests call for them to be eliminated from gifted

identification criteria.

n. “It is time to look beyond the racist ideologies that underscored intelligence

testing and the lingering limitations such views impose today. The overuse of

intelligence scores for inclusion in gifted education services results in the

continued systematic inequity in the identification of racially and ethnically

minoritized students.”

8. *** Title: “Advancing Minority Gifted Identification: Evidence from a Randomized Trial

of Nurturing for a Bright Tomorrow” (2017). Authors: Angel L. Harris, Darryl V. Hill,

Matthew A. Lenard

a. “Preliminary results from a randomized control trial of a multi-component

nurturing program designed to increase gifted education among minority

students.”

b. Addressing the issue of (according to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office

of Civil Rights) 40% of Black and Hispanic students enrolled in schools with a

gifted program, but only 28% enrolled in gifted.

c. In response, introduction of Nurturing for a Bright Tomorrow, a curriculum

designed to achieve school-level consistency of gifted practices.

d. Sample: 3,500 first graders who took NNAT2 in Spring 2016.

e. The effects of Nurturing were determined by a) NNAT2 scores, b) odds of being

classified as gifted, c) school count of gifted students.

f. Results: “Nurturing had a small-to-moderate positive impact on NNAT2 scores,

student-level identification, and school-level identification.”

g. Charts from Study: