Steps to follow for identification of High Ability students follow those of professional organizations (http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=1045) and other professional sources (http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-2/gifted.html).

 

I. Begin by, in fact, not coming up with an identification system. Begin by determining the school’s program. Stipulate (1) the characteristics of students you particularly are seeking and wish to develop and expand and (2) program goals. Numerous sources, including those described in this module, declare the need for there to be a match between the program and identification. A mistake all-too-frequently made is for the school to list some instruments/procedures that are thought to be acceptable as identifying the gifted. Then, after students are identified, trying to figure out what to do with them. The unfortunate result is a mismatch between what is used for identification and program goals. After the school knows what it is looking for, then it can begin looking for it.

 

II. The first step in identification is a general screening or student search.

This means identifying the top ____% of your students who are likely to show those characteristics you are seeking. This is not the final step of identification but is establishing a pool to select from. If the steps to establish this pool cast a sufficiently wide net, it is thought that underrepresented students or students who may be overlooked are likely to be considered for the pool. The usual recommendation is to include at least 10% of the student population in the pool. Generally, it is thought that one might take one of two different approaches to establishing this pool:

A.    Use test scores to determine which students are in the pool. Given Indiana guidelines, one could use the test results one has at the school to determine which students are in the pool. Thus, this would be an “on paper” step. Determine the percentage of students to be in the pool, then locate the test score which would yield that percentage.

B.     Use ratings, by teachers, parents, or students to identify students with the characteristics you are seeking. Obviously, this step is trying to determine a match between student characteristics and program type. Thus, a school committee could develop a rating sheet and ask teachers to rate students in their classes to locate students with those characteristics.

A helpful sheet listing some characteristics in different categories can easily be found in an internet search. One example of characteristics in several categories is provided from Rhode Island, http://www.ri.net/gifted_talented/character.html. After finding such a list, one should not adopt it in total but should select from it the characteristics sought for that school’s program. Or, one might pick from several lists. Another example list is http://www.dodea.edu/instruction/curriculum/ge/geid.htm. In listing characteristics, one must be mindful of characteristics as they may be shown by students from underrepresented groups or as they may be being shown in the classroom in less-than-desirable ways (see “Characteristics of Gifted Children and Talented Children and Possible Associated Problems” in the IAG Guide).

 

III. Narrow the pool (“funnel down”) by using other criteria. This should be considered a process, and no one identifier would bring a student into, or keep a student from final selection. The Indiana Guide recommends that a committee be selected to review all the identifiers to be considered at this time. Here, a school may choose to establish “cut scores” for particular types of identifiers. If achievement test scores were not used to create the pool, a school may now wish to use, as one of the multiple assessments or identifiers to use, tests at ­­­­____ (a designated) level. Note that this is only one of multiple potential identifiers, and it is possible that a student may not have a designated test score but other identifiers could keep that student in the pool.

 

            This would also be the time to also consider several of the things noted in above resources: parent nomination, self-identification, portfolios, and assessments of particular areas. The school may identify standardized tests or procedures which are professionally-accepted by identifying students in those areas.

 

 

            The Indiana Guide has a section on “Steps and Suggestions for Implementing and Identification Plan” (see pages 26-31, http://www.doe.in.gov/exceptional/gt/docs/IndianaStandards.pdf (see also Appendix). This plan, which is consonant with Indiana Rule 511, list several suggested specific tests and items. Additionally, it contains plans for informing staff members, providing professional development for school personnel, informing parents, and getting parent input, using a selection committee, especially attending to students from underrepresented populations, and ideas for less formal assessment information which could be useful inputs.

            Some have found material provided by Renzulli (n.d.) to be helpful. Renzulli scales for identification of several areas of talents can be found at http://www.creativelearningpress.com/webscales/index.html.

            A critical review of instruments which some are using is available from the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented site (Callahan, Hunsaker, Adams, Moore, & Bland, n.d.)        . Callahan (2005) also has a useful article describing identifying students from underrepresented populations.

            At this step, personnel need to be informed of the identification procedure and trained in using any rating scales, rating products, and so on that will be used. It is a misjudgment to presume that personnel can use such procedures without being informed and trained in their use. However, when trained, teachers and school personnel, who see students perform on a daily basis, can provide insightful judgment about students. The Indiana Guide specifically notes the usefulness of teachers in providing qualitative measures of assessment, such as peer evaluation, self-evaluation, teacher recommendation, parent recommendation, product or portfolio assessment, rating or observation scales, interviews, or performance assessment. These can have utility and, as noted by the Indiana Guide can be as important as test scores in identifying High Ability students. Parents, too, can have useful information and suggestions have been provided, above, for the kinds of information they can provide (see Kingore’s article on use of portfolios).

            A selection committee is now useful for making final determinations of the students the school will identify as “High Ability.” There are several practical reasons for making this a committee judgment. It needs to be clear that this is not one person’s determination. This is also the time to assure that all the information collected for the step III. Narrow the Pool step has been conscientiously reviewed. It may be that the school will want to apply a formula, or matrix procedure here.

            Finally, after selection has been made, the identification process needs to remain open. It may be that some “identified” students will choose not to participate in a school’s program, and it may be that new information will come to light on some students that indicates a student needs to be so identified, although they were not in the first review. A very open process would continue to permit student self-identification and other less formal information permit a student to be identified. It is clear that the professional sources reviewed for this module, including Indiana sources, would permit such an open procedure.