Although the relationships between family income and student identification for gifted programming are well documented, less is known about how school and district wealth are related to student identification. To examine the effects of institutional and individual poverty on student identification, we conducted a series of three-level regression models. Students of poverty are generally less likely to be identified for gifted services, even after controlling for prior math and reading achievement. Furthermore, school poverty predicts the percentage of gifted students identified in a school. Within districts, even after controlling for reading and math scores, the poorer schools in a district have lower identification rates. Whereas students of poverty are generally less likely to be identified for gifted services, poor students in poor schools are even less likely to be identified as gifted.

The importance of alignment between identification processes and program design is widely noted in gifted and talented education literature. We analyzed publicly available district gifted program plans (Grades 3-5) from two states to examine the extent to which district identification practices matched intervention strategies. Our team developed a coding scheme matrix with 133 items for State 1 ( n = 115) and State 2 ( n = 178). The results of this study indicated that, at least in terms of planning, districts in the two states we examined appeared to be aligning identification and programming practices to meet the needs of gifted students identified in mathematics and/or reading/English language arts. In State 1, at least 60% of the districts reported the following intervention strategies in mathematics and reading/English language arts: faster pace of coverage, regular grade-level standards, in-depth coverage, preassessment, above grade-level standards, and expanded grade-level standards. In contrast, State 2 districts reported faster pace of coverage; however, with less commonly utilized interventions, subject-matter identification significantly influenced their usage. Differentiation was the primary learning environment strategy utilized by districts in both states.

With increasing attention to examining cognitive strengths and achievements related to social and emotional variables, it is imperative that instruments developed and used to assess change be valid and reliable for measuring underlying constructs. This study examines instruments identified and/or developed to measure four noncognitive constructs (i.e., student engagement, self-efficacy, growth mindset, and stereotype threat) as outcome variables in a study with elementary-aged students in high-poverty rural communities. The process of creating and examining the psychometric properties of these instruments is a necessary step in documenting the usefulness of the instruments not just in our study but also in other studies with elementary students. We note in our descriptions of the development and assessment of measures that underlying factors may or may not parallel those identified in the general population or in older students and that measurement of noncognitive variables in the population of young gifted students requires considerable attention.

Analysis of assessment data from an initial pool of second-grade students ( n = 4549) in low-income rural communities and a subgroup of students identified from that pool for gifted services ( n = 524) provided evidence for the validity of a curricular-aligned process including universal screening and local norms for identifying rural students in high-poverty schools as gifted. We first compared identification data on a group identified with existing, more general identification strategies to data on students identified specifically in language arts using universal screening and local norms as part of the identification criteria, providing staff development focused on indicators of rural giftedness prior to teacher ratings of students, and using a profile in decision making. This comparison confirmed the hypothesis that talent in rural students from low-income areas may manifest in ways that are not captured by more generic identification processes. Despite concerns about the implementation of identification processes using local norms, students identified through the project’s alternative approach scored higher on a measure of verbal aptitude and scored as well on postintervention assessments as students identified using the district-identification process. This outcome provides evidence that students identified with local norms in a specific academic domain reach similar or higher levels of achievement as students identified using national norms and more general means of assessment.

Gifted education policies vary across the United States. Previous studies have demonstrated a disconnect between these policies at state and district levels, but alignment of school-level practices with state and/or district policies is unknown. To further examine these relationships, we examined via qualitative document analysis state and district-level gifted policies and district and school-level reported practices in two states’ gifted services. Although state and district policies reflected fairly close alignment with recommended practices, district and school reported practices reflected only partial alignment. We discuss implications of these findings for gifted programs and policy at the state and local levels.