Instrumentation Project Survey

Georgia Association for Gifted Children’s Coalition for Access and Equity

Introduction
The underrepresentation of diverse students from gifted and talented education programs

is a national problem that has not yet been adequately addressed (cite any recent studies that

indicate this national issue). In order to address the disparities of gifted identification as it relates

to culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students, we must begin by taking a critical

look at the assessment methods utilized, as well as the methods, practices, and instrumentation in

place for programs at large. Identification methods are research-based approaches to categorizing

students based on areas like cognitive ability, creativity, motivation and achievement in school.

Based on these areas of evaluation, specific instruments are utilized to capture the selected skills,

understandings, and talents of students. As a part of the development of identification processes

and procedures, it is paramount that districts and schools consider the ways that they are

promoting equitable tools for screening, selecting a menu of instruments that are free of bias, and

educating teachers to recognize the diversity of student gifts and talents.

The purpose of this survey is to collect information across the state of Georgia regarding

the methods, instruments and issues that make up the identification process in districts across the

state that can be shared across districts to inform practices and instrumentation that help to

reduce inequitable representation in gifted programs. Responses from the survey will be

collected and analyzed and distributed back to districts so that they can better understand and

learn from the results to inform revisions in their identification procedures. The survey was

created by a working group within the Georgia Association for Gifted Children’s Coalition for

Access and Equity, a group of educators dedicated to identifying and removing barriers to ensure
equitable access to challenging educational opportunities for children of color. Read more about

the coalition HERE.

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 they need to thrive.

-Transpose notes below into survey questions

-Vet to other individuals in coalition to make suggestions for survey

Create the template

● District Name
● District Size
● Gifted Contact and Contact Info
● Demographics

Create the survey to send out

● Instruments in Current Use
○ Please list the variety of instruments that you are currently using in each of the
Multiple Criteria for Gifted Education in Georgia.
■ In the area of MENTAL ABILITY?
■ In the area of CREATIVITY?
■ In the area of MOTIVATION?
■ In the area of ACHIEVEMENT?
■ What have you found to be the pros of any of these instruments? Cons?
(Pros and cons can include, but not limited to, issues like financial costs
for the instruments, time factors around the instrument, human resources
to use the instrument, scoring, or access to technology)
■ Please describe any unique situations with any of these instruments that
would be significant (i.e. Using the Iowa-G for achievement that yields
outcomes of qualification in reading or math in student strength area)?
■ Does your office allow instruments in other languages? In what areas?
What instruments? What does the data say about this?

● Testing Windows
○ Does your district have established testing windows? If so, how many? And at
what points in the school year do they occur?
● Screeners
○ What types of screeners does your district use to scout talent?
○ Why do you use this/these screeners?
 ○ How often are the screeners used?
○ What have you found using these? How have they helped? Are there
drawbacks?
○ Do you have any cut off scores for your screeners? What are your cut off scores
you use and why?
○ Are these cut off scores consistent across the district or does it vary from school
to school? How were these cut off scores established?
○ Who is being screened? Do you use whole group or small groups for screeners?
What is the criteria for a student to be screened?
○ Do you have universal screening? At what ages or grades? If you don’t, what is
the nomination process for screening students?
○ Do you use digital or paper-pencil screening processes or both? Have you found
something different with each?
● Second Measures / Option B
○ Oftentimes within the nidentification process, students may score in two, but
“Wait and Watch List”; “Two-scorers”; “Talent Pool” or “Flagged Students”
○ Do you have a process for these types of students? Please briefly describe your
process and what is the rationale? If they are “talent pool” or “flagged” during the
identification process, how are you monitoring these students?
○ If you would be reevaluating students, what is the re-evaluation range your
district allows for each of the criteria areas and for what groups of students? (i.e.
Students taking the Iowa scores at the 85-89%, they may retest during the next
testing window)
● Performance Based Assessments
○ Are you using interviews, portfolio or other performance based practices for any
of the criteria areas? If so, for which areas? What are you using? And for what
ages?
● Talent Development Initiatives (does this make more sense
○ Are you using any instruments for screeners for TD programs?
○ This overlaps with instrumentation because there are some alternative scores-
● Evaluation of Instrumentation (how does your district collect data on the reliability or
validity or effectiveness of the instruments you use?)
○ How does your district collect data on instrumentation? What is the process used
to analyze this? How are the results used?
● Teacher Training
○ How are teachers trained in giving instruments? How is the training administered
and to whom at what intervals?
○ How are teachers trained to facilitate the nomination process?