state report cards equal talents, unequal … · % advanced g8 math naep 2015 13% 2% % advanced g4...
TRANSCRIPT
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
STATE REPORT CARDS
A Report Card on State Support for Academically Talented Low-Income Students 2ND EDITION
March 2018
Dr. Jonathan Plucker, Johns Hopkins UniversityDr. Jennifer Glynn, Jack Kent Cooke Foundation
Grace Healey, Johns Hopkins University and Cooperative Educational ServicesDr. Amanda Dettmer, Johns Hopkins University
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
2
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
Yes
Both
1 measure
Yes
No
No
None
Not permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Yes
Voluntary
Not specified in policy
No
C+
8%
25%
2%
3%
5%
2%
11%
B
D
ALL STATES ALABAMA
ALABAMA
2
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
3
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
Required
Yes (free ACT)
LEA determined
Inservice only
No
0.43
Unavailable
5% 0%
6% 1%
10% 2%
3% 1%
55%
24%
13%
C
C-
D-
ALL STATES ALABAMA
ALABAMA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
4
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
No
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
No policy
No policy
No policy
LEA discretion
No
Not specified in policy
No
D
5%
23%
6%
7%
6%
3%
15%
C+
C-
ALL STATES ALASKA
ALASKA
4
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
5
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
F
No
No
No
Student
No
No
0.22
Unavailable
11% 2%
11% 2%
10% 2%
4% 1%
38%
8%
7%
F
F
D+
ALL STATES ALASKA
ALASKA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
6
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
LEA determined
Yes
LEA determined
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
Yes
B
6%
25%
6%
8%
7%
2%
14%
C+
C
ALL STATES ARIZONA
ARIZONA
6
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
7
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
No
No
No
LEA determined
Inservice only
Inservice only
0.66
Unavailable
12% 2%
12% 4%
14% 2%
4% 1%
45%
30%
25%
D+
B+
C-
ALL STATES ARIZONA
ARIZONA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
8
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
Yes
Both
3 measures
Yes
Yes
No
Yes: 4
Not permitted
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
C+
10%
46%
3%
4%
6%
2%
16%
B+
C-
ALL STATES ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
8
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
9
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C+
Yes
No
Yes (free ACT; some free AP tests)
LEA determined
No
No
0.54
39%
6% 2%
7% 2%
12% 3%
4% 1%
61%
33%
24%
C-
B
C
ALL STATES ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
10
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
No
Neither
None
No
No
No
None
LEA determined
LEA determined
No policy
Yes
Mix
Unclear
No
D
8%
41%
5%
6%
6%
3%
27%
B+
C+
ALL STATES CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
10
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
11
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
No
No
No
Student
Yes
Yes
0.78
Unavailable
11% 1%
13% 2%
14% 2%
5% 1%
54%
42%
38%
D+
B+
D+
ALL STATES CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
12
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B
Yes
Both
2 measures
No
Yes
No
Yes: 2
Permitted
Permitted
LEA determined
Yes
Mixed
Yes
No
B
7%
39%
8%
10%
10%
3%
24%
B
B+
ALL STATES COLORADO
COLORADO
12
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
13
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
Yes
Required
Yes (free PSAT & SAT in select grades)
State/district
Inservice only
No
0.41
22%
14% 2%
17% 3%
15% 3%
5% 1%
40%
17%
13%
B
C
D
ALL STATES COLORADO
COLORADO
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
14
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
No
Identification only
2 measures
Yes
Yes
No
None
No policy
No policy
No policy
Yes
Voluntary
Not specified in policy
No
D
2%
39%
7%
10%
13%
6%
29%
C
B+
ALL STATES CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
14
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
15
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
Student
No
No
0.39
12%
11% 1%
14% 1%
19% 3%
9% 2%
35%
14%
9%
D-
D
F
ALL STATES CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
16
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
No
Both
2 measures
No
Yes
No
Yes: 4
LEA determined
Permitted
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Not specified in policy
No
C+
2%
31%
5%
7%
9%
3%
17%
C
C-
ALL STATES DELAWARE
DELAWARE
16
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
17
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
LEA determined
No
No
0.45
Unavailable
7% 2%
11% 2%
13% 3%
4% 1%
48%
22%
15%
D
C-
F
ALL STATES DELAWARE
DELAWARE
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
18
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
No
Neither
1 measure
Yes
No
No
None
LEA determined
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Not specified in policy
No
D+
0%
56%
7%
4%
8%
3%
14%
C
C
ALL STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
18
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
19
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
No
No
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
LEA determined
No
No
0.66
Unavailable
24% 2%
15% 1%
29% 1%
9% 0%
73%
49%
36%
D
B+
D+
ALL STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
20
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B-
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
Not permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
No
B-
5%
53%
7%
5%
8%
2%
27%
B
C+
ALL STATES FLORIDA
FLORIDA
20
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
21
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
No
No
No
State/district
No
No
0.63
Unavailable
14% 3%
11% 2%
14% 4%
5% 1%
56%
35%
31%
D-
B+
C
ALL STATES FLORIDA
FLORIDA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
22
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
No
Both
2 measures
Yes
Yes
No
None
Not permitted
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
No
C
10%
40%
5%
7%
7%
3%
21%
B+
C+
ALL STATES GEORGIA
GEORGIA
22
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
23
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
No
No
State/district
No
No
0.55
Unavailable
11% 2%
15% 2%
14% 3%
6% 1%
57%
32%
23%
D-
B-
C
ALL STATES GEORGIA
GEORGIA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
24
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
No policy
No policy
No policy
Yes
Not specified
Yes
No
C
1%
29%
7%
6%
6%
2%
12%
C
C-
ALL STATES HAWAII
HAWAII
24
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
25
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
Student
No
No
0.61
31%
11% 3%
10% 2%
11% 3%
4% 1%
47%
29%
23%
D-
A
C
ALL STATES HAWAII
HAWAII
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
26
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
No
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
Not permitted
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Not specified in policy
Yes
C-
3%
20%
6%
6%
8%
3%
13%
D+
C
ALL STATES IDAHO
IDAHO
26
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
27
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
Yes
No
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
LEA determined
No
No
0.43
25%
9% 3%
9% 3%
12% 4%
3% 2%
45%
19%
17%
C-
C
B-
ALL STATES IDAHO
IDAHO
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
28
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
No
Neither
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
No policy
No policy
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
D
4%
32%
8%
7%
9%
4%
22%
C+
B
ALL STATES ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
28
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
29
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
No
No
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
LEA determined
No
Yes
0.63
Unavailable
15% 2%
12% 2%
17% 3%
7% 1%
47%
29%
20%
C-
B+
D
ALL STATES ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
30
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B
Yes
Both
2 measures
No
Yes
No
Yes: 3
No policy
No policy
No policy
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
Yes
C+
13%
35%
9%
9%
9%
4%
16%
A
B-
ALL STATES INDIANA
INDIANA
30
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
31
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
No
Student
No
No
0.34
25%
16% 4%
14% 3%
14% 5%
6% 1%
47%
16%
12%
F
D
C
ALL STATES INDIANA
INDIANA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
32
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
Not permitted
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Mixed
Not specified in policy
No
C
9%
18%
9%
9%
9%
3%
11%
C+
C+
ALL STATES IOWA
IOWA
32
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
33
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
No
No
State/district
Yes
Yes
0.36
1%
13% 3%
13% 4%
13% 3%
4% 1%
39%
14%
10%
C
D-
C-
ALL STATES IOWA
IOWA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
34
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
Yes
Identification only
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
Not permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
C+
3%
17%
7%
6%
9%
3%
11%
D+
C
ALL STATES KANSAS
KANSAS
34
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
35
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
No
Student
No
No
0.39
12%
12% 3%
10% 2%
16% 3%
5% 1%
48%
19%
12%
F
D-
C-
ALL STATES KANSAS
KANSAS
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
36
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B+
Yes
Both
2 measures
Yes
Yes
No
None
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
Yes
A-
13%
32%
7%
5%
10%
4%
16%
A
C+
ALL STATES KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
36
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
37
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
LEA determined
No
No
0.46
Unavailable
14% 3%
9% 2%
18% 5%
7% 2%
57%
26%
19%
D
C-
C
ALL STATES KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
38
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
D+
No
Both
1 measure
Yes
No
No
None
LEA determined
LEA determined
Permitted
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
No
C+
3%
15%
4%
3%
6%
2%
5%
D
D-
ALL STATES LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
38
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
39
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
State/district
No
No
0.43
Unavailable
7% 2%
6% 1%
11% 3%
3% 1%
66%
28%
15%
D+
C-
C
ALL STATES LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
40
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
No
Both
2 measures
No
Yes
No
Yes: 4
Not permitted
No policy
No policy
Yes
Mixed
Mixed
No
D+
5%
36%
7%
8%
8%
2%
22%
B
B-
ALL STATES MAINE
MAINE
40
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
41
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C-
No
Required
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
State/district & student
No
No
0.37
24%
11% 3%
11% 3%
12% 4%
3% 1%
43%
16%
14%
C-
D
C
ALL STATES MAINE
MAINE
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
42
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B
Yes
Both
None
No
No
No
None
Permitted
No policy
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
No
No
C+
16%
47%
8%
10%
10%
5%
30%
A
B+
ALL STATES MARYLAND
MARYLAND
42
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
43
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
No
State/district & student
No
No
0.48
Unavailable
13% 2%
15% 2%
16% 2%
8% 1%
40%
19%
14%
F
C-
D
ALL STATES MARYLAND
MARYLAND
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
44
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
No
Neither
2 measures
Yes
Yes
No
None
LEA determined
No policy
No policy
Yes
Mixed
No
No
D
1%
39%
13%
18%
14%
6%
28%
C
A-
ALL STATES MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
44
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
45
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
No
No
Student
No
No
0.56
Unavailable
20% 4%
27% 7%
21% 5%
9% 3%
34%
19%
13%
F
B-
C-
ALL STATES MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
46
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
D+
No
Neither
None
No
No
No
None
Not permitted
No policy
Permitted
Yes
Mandatory
No
No
D
2%
26%
5%
7%
5%
3%
17%
C
C-
ALL STATES MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
46
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
47
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
State/district & student
No
No
0.34
Unavailable
9% 1%
11% 2%
8% 1%
4% 1%
46%
16%
11%
D
D-
D
ALL STATES MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
48
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Yes
Voluntary
No
No
B
8%
32%
14%
13%
9%
4%
20%
B+
B
ALL STATES MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
48
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
49
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
No
Yes (reimburses district costs for ACT or SAT)
LEA determined
No
No
N/A
Unavailable
21% 5%
18% 4%
13% 3%
6% 1%
37%
- -
- -
D
Incomplete
C-
ALL STATES MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
50
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
D+
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
Not permitted
Permitted
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
C+
7%
13%
3%
3%
5%
1%
4%
D+
F
ALL STATES MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
50
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
51
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C-
No
Required
Yes (free ACT)
LEA determined
Inservice only
No
0.46
44%
8% 2%
8% 2%
11% 2%
3% 1%
71%
33%
21%
C
C
D+
ALL STATES MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
52
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
Yes
Neither
3 measures
Yes
Yes
No
Yes: 2
Not permitted
No policy
Permitted
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
C
4%
16%
5%
7%
9%
3%
10%
D+
D+
ALL STATES MISSOURI
MISSOURI
52
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
53
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
LEA determined
No
No
0.37
Unavailable
9% 2%
11% 2%
14% 4%
6% 1%
45%
17%
9%
D
D-
D+
ALL STATES MISSOURI
MISSOURI
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
54
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
No
Both
None
No
No
No
None
LEA determined
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
C
4%
21%
6%
8%
8%
3%
13%
C
C
ALL STATES MONTANA
MONTANA
54
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
55
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
Yes (free ACT - funding expired, under review)
LEA determined
No
No
0.29
Unavailable
9% 3%
11% 4%
12% 3%
5% 1%
41%
12%
9%
D
F
C
ALL STATES MONTANA
MONTANA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
56
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
Yes
Identification only
3 measures
Yes
Yes
No
Yes: 1
No policy
No policy
No policy
Yes
Voluntary
No
No
C-
12%
17%
7%
8%
9%
3%
10%
B
C-
ALL STATES NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
56
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
57
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
Student
No
No
0.31
Unavailable
11% 2%
12% 3%
15% 3%
5% 1%
43%
13%
10%
D-
D-
C-
ALL STATES NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
58
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
No
Both
2 measures
No
Yes
Yes
None
No policy
No policy
No policy
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
D+
2%
32%
4%
5%
6%
2%
17%
C
C-
ALL STATES NEVADA
NEVADA
58
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
59
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
Student
Yes
No
0.66
Unavailable
8% 2%
10% 2%
10% 4%
3% 0%
50%
33%
28%
D+
B+
C-
ALL STATES NEVADA
NEVADA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
60
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
No
Neither
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
LEA determined
No policy
No policy
LEA determined
No
No
No
D-
1%
24%
10%
12%
12%
5%
18%
D+
B+
ALL STATES NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
60
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
61
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
Student
No
No
0.25
Unavailable
13% 3%
15% 3%
15% 5%
6% 1%
25%
6%
6%
D-
F
C
ALL STATES NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
62
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B-
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
No policy
No policy
No policy
Yes
Voluntary
No
No
C-
7%
32%
9%
16%
12%
6%
24%
B
A-
ALL STATES NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
62
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
63
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
No
Student
No
No
0.41
Unavailable
15% 2%
23% 3%
17% 3%
8% 1%
33%
13%
10%
F
C-
D-
ALL STATES NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
64
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
No
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
Not permitted
No policy
No policy
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
No
D+
5%
28%
3%
3%
4%
1%
12%
B
D
ALL STATES NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
64
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
65
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C-
No
No
No
State/district
No
No
0.68
Unavailable
9% 1%
7% 2%
9% 2%
2% 0%
68%
46%
39%
D-
B+
C-
ALL STATES NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
66
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
No
Neither
None
No
No
No
None
LEA determined
No policy
LEA determined
LEA determined
No
Unclear
No
D-
2%
38%
5%
7%
9%
4%
25%
C
B-
ALL STATES NEW YORK
NEW YORK
66
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
67
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C
No
Required
No
Student
Yes
No
0.53
Unavailable
9% 2%
11% 4%
15% 3%
6% 1%
48%
26%
20%
D+
B-
C
ALL STATES NEW YORK
NEW YORK
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
68
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B
Yes
Both
3 measures
No
Yes
Yes
Yes: 4
Permitted
Permitted
Not permitted
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
B
11%
31%
8%
9%
9%
3%
19%
A
B-
ALL STATES NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
68
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
69
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
Encouraged
Yes (free ACT and free IB/AP if enrolled)
State/district
No
No
0.33
Unavailable
16% 3%
18% 3%
18% 4%
7% 1%
50%
17%
12%
C-
D-
D-
ALL STATES NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
70
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
D
No
Neither
None
No
No
No
None
Permitted
No policy
Not permitted
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
D
3%
15%
8%
7%
7%
2%
9%
D
C-
ALL STATES NORTH DAKOTA
NORTH DAKOTA
70
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
71
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
Student
No
No
0.16
Unavailable
11% 3%
10% 2%
9% 4%
2% 1%
32%
5%
4%
D-
F
C
ALL STATES NORTH DAKOTA
NORTH DAKOTA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
72
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
Yes
Identification only
3 measures
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
Permitted
Permitted (all districts must have a policy)
Permitted
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
No
B+
4%
23%
8%
9%
8%
4%
15%
C
C+
ALL STATES OHIO
OHIO
72
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
73
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
Required
Yes (reimburses district costs for ACT or SAT)
State/district
No
No
0.26
Unavailable
14% 2%
14% 2%
13% 3%
7% 1%
43%
11%
7%
C
F
D
ALL STATES OHIO
OHIO
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
74
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
Yes
Both
None
No
No
No
None
Not permitted
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Mandatory
Yes
No
C
14%
22%
5%
3%
6%
2%
11%
B+
D+
ALL STATES OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
74
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
75
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C-
No
No
Yes (reimburses district costs for ACT or SAT)
Student
Yes
Yes
0.45
Unavailable
10% 2%
5% 1%
10% 3%
3% 1%
61%
27%
21%
C
C-
C-
ALL STATES OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
76
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
Yes
Both
2 measures
No
Yes
Yes
None
No policy
LEA determined
Permitted
Yes
Not specified
No
No
C+
7%
24%
6%
7%
8%
4%
15%
C+
C
ALL STATES OREGON
OREGON
76
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
77
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C-
Yes
Encouraged
No
LEA determined
No
No
0.43
Unavailable
10% 3%
13% 3%
15% 4%
6% 2%
51%
22%
18%
D+
C-
C
ALL STATES OREGON
OREGON
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
78
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B-
Yes
Both
2 measures
Yes
Yes
No
None
LEA determined
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
No
No
B-
4%
24%
10%
10%
11%
5%
16%
C
B+
ALL STATES PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
78
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
79
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
No
State/district & student
No
No
0.36
Unavailable
14% 3%
15% 3%
17% 3%
7% 1%
39%
14%
8%
F
D-
D
ALL STATES PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
80
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
No
Neither
2 measures
Yes
Yes
No
None
No policy
Permitted
LEA determined
Yes
Not specified
Unclear
No
D+
1%
26%
6%
6%
10%
4%
15%
C
C+
ALL STATES RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND
80
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
81
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C-
No
No
Yes (free SAT - public school juniors)
Student
No
No
0.61
Unavailable
9% 2%
11% 1%
15% 4%
6% 1%
43%
26%
16%
D-
B+
D
ALL STATES RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
82
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B-
Yes
Both
3 measures
Yes
Yes
No
Yes: 1
Not permitted
No policy
Permitted
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
C+
12%
29%
6%
5%
8%
2%
18%
A
C
ALL STATES SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
82
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
83
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
Required
Yes (free ACT [11th], PSAT/ pre-ACT [10th], free AP if enrolled)
LEA determined
No
No
0.37
Unavailable
11% 2%
10% 2%
16% 4%
4% 1%
55%
20%
16%
C-
D-
D+
ALL STATES SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
84
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
D
No
Neither
None
No
No
No
None
No policy
No policy
Not permitted
Yes
Voluntary
No
Yes
F
2%
20%
4%
6%
8%
2%
12%
D
C-
ALL STATES SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
84
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
85
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
No
LEA determined
No
No
0.26
Unavailable
7% 2%
8% 2%
11% 3%
3% 1%
37%
10%
10%
F
F
C+
ALL STATES SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
86
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
LEA determined
LEA determined
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
B-
3%
19%
7%
6%
8%
3%
10%
D+
C-
ALL STATES TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
86
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
87
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D+
No
No
Yes (reimburses district costs for ACT or SAT)
State/district
No
No
0.43
Unavailable
12% 3%
12% 2%
14% 3%
5% 1%
55%
24%
15%
D+
C-
D
ALL STATES TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
88
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B-
No
Both
2 measures
No
Yes
No
Yes: 1
Permitted
Permitted
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Unclear
No
C+
8%
36%
8%
7%
7%
2%
19%
B+
C+
ALL STATES TEXAS
TEXAS
88
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
89
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C+
No
No
Yes (SAT/ACT/AP subsidized for NSLP students)
LEA determined
No
No
0.99
38%
19% 2%
13% 3%
14% 3%
5% 1%
50%
50%
44%
D
A
C-
ALL STATES TEXAS
TEXAS
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
90
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C+
Yes
Neither
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
Not permitted
No policy
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
Yes
C-
4%
36%
7%
8%
10%
4%
25%
C+
B
ALL STATES UTAH
UTAH
90
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
91
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
State/district & student
No
No
0.26
20%
10% 3%
11% 3%
12% 5%
5% 1%
38%
10%
9%
D
F
C
ALL STATES UTAH
UTAH
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
92
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C
No
Neither
None
No
No
No
None
Not permitted
LEA determined
No policy
Yes
Mixed
Unclear
No
D-
0%
31%
9%
11%
12%
6%
21%
C
A-
ALL STATES VERMONT
VERMONT
92
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
93
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
No
State/district & student
No
No
0.28
Unavailable
13% 3%
16% 5%
17% 6%
8% 2%
37%
10%
9%
F
F
C
ALL STATES VERMONT
VERMONT
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
94
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
No
No
Yes: 2
LEA determined
LEA determined
No policy
Yes
Mandatory
No
No
C+
12%
44%
10%
10%
14%
3%
28%
A
B+
ALL STATES VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
94
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
95
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
No
LEA determined
No
No
0.31
17%
16% 2%
15% 2%
21% 3%
5% 1%
37%
11%
8%
F
D
D
ALL STATES VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
96
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B-
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
LEA determined
No policy
Permitted
Yes
Mixed
Mixed
No
C+
4%
34%
12%
11%
12%
4%
21%
C+
A-
ALL STATES WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
96
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
97
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
C-
No
No
No
LEA determined
No
No
0.55
21%
21% 4%
18% 5%
21% 3%
7% 2%
40%
23%
17%
F
B
D+
ALL STATES WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
98
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
Yes
Both
1 measure
No
Yes
No
None
LEA determined
Permitted
LEA determined
Yes
Mixed
Mixed
No
B-
2%
22%
5%
3%
6%
2%
9%
D+
D
ALL STATES WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
98
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
99
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
No
LEA determined
No
No
0.31
Unavailable
10% 3%
6% 1%
10% 4%
3% 1%
52%
16%
14%
F
D-
C+
ALL STATES WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
100
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
B
Yes
Both
2 measures
Yes
Yes
No
None
Permitted
Permitted
LEA determined
Yes
Mixed
Not specified in policy
No
B
6%
32%
9%
11%
8%
4%
22%
B
B+
ALL STATES WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
100
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
101
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D-
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
LEA determined
No
No
0.29
Unavailable
14% 3%
14% 3%
12% 2%
5% 2%
39%
12%
9%
D
F
C-
ALL STATES WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
EXCELLENCE GRADE
Excellence Grade: The extent to which states promote and achieve learning for their high-ability students.
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
102
A: 0 B: 14 C: 32 D: 5 F: 0
State produces an annual report on G&T programs Yes: 29 or monitors/audits local G&T programs No: 22
State mandates identification or services for Both: 33 identified advanced learners Identification only: 4 Neither: 14
State K-12 accountability system includes Four desired measures: 0 measures of advanced learning and excellence Three: 6 Two: 15 One: 21 None: 9
Extra credit for advanced achievement Yes: 15
Include high achievers in growth model Yes: 38
Separately report growth for high achievers Yes: 5
Other indicators (Number of gifted students, Yes: 11
availability of AP courses, etc.
State policy allowing early entrance to Kindergarten Permitted: 9 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 12 Not permitted: 16
State policy on acceleration Permitted: 15 LEA determined: 14 No policy: 22 Not permitted: 0
State policy on middle school / high school concurrent Permitted: 12 LEA determined: 21 enrollment with credit received for high school No policy: 15 Not permitted: 3
State policy on early college/dual enrollment Yes: 48
Mandatory Yes: 11
Public postsecondary institutions required to accept credits Yes: 24
Incentive program for early HS graduation Yes: 6
Excellence Policies A: 1 B: 10 C: 24 D: 15 F: 1
Percentage of K-12 students identified as gifted 11% or more: 8 3-10%: 30 0-2%: 13
Percentage of Class of 2013 who took at least one AP exam 26% or more: 30 11-25%: 21
% Advanced Grade 4 Math NAEP 2015 7%
% Advanced Grade 8 Math NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 4 Reading NAEP 2015 8%
% Advanced Grade 8 Reading NAEP 2015 3%
% HS students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam 2013 20%
Excellence Participation Indicators A: 6 B: 14 C: 20 D: 11 F: 0
Excellence Outcomes A: 4 B: 14 C: 26 D: 6 F: 1
C-
Yes
Neither
2 measures
No
Yes
Yes
None
No policy
No policy
LEA determined
Yes
Voluntary
Yes
No
C-
3%
17%
9%
7%
10%
3%
10%
D+
C
ALL STATES WYOMING
WYOMING
102
Grade for Closing Excellence Gaps: The extent to which states ensure that low-income students have equal access to advanced learning opportunities and are equally likely to achieve high levels of academic excellence as other students.
GRADE FOR CLOSING EXCELLENCE GAPS
EQUAL TALENTS, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: 2ND EDITION 2018
103
A: 0 B: 0 C: 19 D: 31 F: 1
At least half of state K-12 accountability rating Yes: 4 based on growth for all students No: 47
State mandates and/or funds universal screening Required: 7 Encouraged: 2 No: 42
State provides funding for SAT / ACT / AP test-taking Yes: 31 No: 20
State provides funding for dual enrollment State/district: 10 State/district & student: 6 LEA determined: 20 Student: 15
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 5 teacher / administrator training Inservice only: 4 No: 42
State requires gifted coursework as part of Yes: 4 school counselor training Inservice only: 1 No: 46
Ratio of percent of low-income* AP test takers to 0.60 or higher: 10 overall percent of low-income students 0.30-0.59: 30 0-0.29: 11
Percent low-income K-12 students identified as gifted Incomplete
Not low-income Low-income Not low-income Low-income
% Advanced G4 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G8 Math NAEP 2015 13% 2%
% Advanced G4 Reading NAEP 2015 15% 3%
% Advanced G8 Reading NAEP 2015 6% 1%
% of students who were low-income 48%
% of 2013 AP exam takers who were low-income students 28%
% students scoring 3+ on 1+ AP exam in 2013 who were low-income 22%
* “Low-income” defined as eligible for free or reduced price lunch subsidies
Policies to Close Excellence Gaps A: 0 B: 1 C: 11 D: 27 F: 12
Excellence Gap Participation Measures A: 2 B: 13 C: 12 D: 13 F: 10 Incomplete: 1
Excellence Gap Outcomes A: 0 B: 1 C: 27 D: 21 F: 2
D
No
No
Yes (free ACT)
State/district
No
No
0.1
Unavailable
12% 4%
10% 3%
13% 5%
4% 1%
37%
4%
4%
D+
F
C+
ALL STATES WYOMING
WYOMING
The Cooke Foundation is dedicated to advancing the
education of exceptionally promising students who have
financial need. Since 2000, the foundation has awarded
$175 million in scholarships to more than 2,300 students
from 8th grade through graduate school, along with
comprehensive counseling and other support services.
The foundation has also provided over $97 million in
grants to organizations that serve such students.
www.JKCF.org