# data[].attributes.body
I am not familiar with our identification methods at NISD, however, it seems that I stumble across gifted kids in high school that are not identified.  Often I see the gifted kids who are refusing to work, however, they are truly gifted when (and if) you can get them to start talking about what they know.
-Ashley Bettis

# data[].attributes.headline
I think our district does a good job of identifying students.  We have an opportunity at the beginning of the year and in the Spring to get the ball rolling for testing.  It takes into account COGAT & ITBS testing, teacher input, parental input, and other testing done by the GT teacher.  Kids that are close to qualifying, get enrichment lessons from our GT teacher.  Many of those kids qualify the next year, or within 2 years.  

# data[].attributes.subject
I think our district does a good job of identifying students.  We have an opportunity at the beginning of the year and in the Spring to get the ball rolling for testing.  It takes into account COGAT & ITBS testing, teacher input, parental input, and other testing done by the GT teacher.  Kids that are close to qualifying, get enrichment lessons from our GT teacher.  Many of those kids qualify the next year, or within 2 years.  

# data[].attributes.headline
I am not familiar with the process that our school has for identifying GT students. I do believe that it should entail multiple assessments.Teacher input is important as they see the student daily and see how they function under different stresses and activities. A written test is good to see how students so under pressure and on their own but does has negative downsides to those that are not good test takers. I think it is important also for outside entities or counselors, evaluators outside the classroom to come and observe those students who may not be biased to the student. I like the idea of using several indicators and assessment that approach from different areas. One thought is that this assessment should take place more than once? I am not sure how frequent students change their intelligence level or processes but it sounds like it might be a good thing to do.

# data[].attributes.subject
I am not familiar with the process that our school has for identifying GT students. I do believe that it should entail multiple assessments.Teacher input is important as they see the student daily and see how they function under different stresses and activities. A written test is good to see how students so under pressure and on their own but does has negative downsides to those that are not good test takers. I think it is important also for outside entities or counselors, evaluators outside the classroom to come and observe those students who may not be biased to the student. I like the idea of using several indicators and assessment that approach from different areas. One thought is that this assessment should take place more than once? I am not sure how frequent students change their intelligence level or processes but it sounds like it might be a good thing to do.

# data[].attributes.body
Rachel Grier

# data[].attributes.body
If I'm being honest, I'm unfamiliar with our identification process for GT in NISD. Since I work at the secondary level, we do a lot less identifying.

I really liked the "mini UN" school's system of identification. The fact that they accept many different indicators of giftedness (written IQ test, verbal IQ test, teacher recommendation, project submission, etc.) lends itself to a more diverse and inclusive GT program.

(Side note: Anyone notice that journal entry from the kid on the first day of 1st grade at the end? "I'm lost in thought." Do 1st graders really write like that? I teach high school, so I don't know, but I was pretty impressed.

K. Watson

# data[].attributes.body
I am not part of the gifted identification process at the secondary level. However, I believe in the value of teacher input but recognize it's limitations due to teacher bias. I also see the limitations of basing giftedness on test data alone, as this can also be biased. I think the more flexibility you have in the identification process the better it is; incorporating test data, teacher input, and considering student desire is crucial. Even a gifted student may not be a good match for a specific gifted program.

# data[].attributes.body
I think our identification process is fairly flexible regarding our academically and intellectually gifted kids. We include both qualitative and quantitative data.  We can flex around rigid cut off points, to a degree, if the committee feels it is appropriate by looking holistically at everything.  I'm wondering about portfolios right now...?

# data[].attributes.body
I think as a district we are heading in the right direction. However, we use the Cogat and ITBS assessment  as the main source of identifying  our students. This resource is pretty black and white. The only concern with that is that it may miss some of our poor test takers or students with learning disabilities. With that being said,our school and district has a very trusting spirit that appreciates the recommendations of the teachers. Many times there has been one student on the border of maybe yes, maybe no and they are still considered the student because they trust our professional opinion. That's why I appreciate my school and district, it gives us that wiggle room to catch those few that wouldn't have been seen at first glance from simple test scores.

# data[].attributes.headline
I have worked in a district and even different state in which identification starts much sooner.  That made me happy because it is important to identify and meet the needs of those learners.  My son was identified during the first half of his kindergarten year.  Had he not, he may have been bored and not fully challenged.  Fortunately, both his teacher and I recognized his talents and pursued testing.  It bothers me that some districts choose to wait until a certain grade level to test kids for the gifted and talented program.  I will also say that the general screeners are appropriate as baseline data for consideration if administrated appropriately.  Since this is a special service, I  do wonder if there are talks of tweaking monitoring protocol for academic performance in middle and elementary.  Last but not least, we need to continue to provide rigorous activities and instruction for those who do not qualify and/or considered as high achievers.    

# data[].attributes.subject
I have worked in a district and even different state in which identification starts much sooner.  That made me happy because it is important to identify and meet the needs of those learners.  My son was identified during the first half of his kindergarten year.  Had he not, he may have been bored and not fully challenged.  Fortunately, both his teacher and I recognized his talents and pursued testing.  It bothers me that some districts choose to wait until a certain grade level to test kids for the gifted and talented program.  I will also say that the general screeners are appropriate as baseline data for consideration if administrated appropriately.  Since this is a special service, I  do wonder if there are talks of tweaking monitoring protocol for academic performance in middle and elementary.  Last but not least, we need to continue to provide rigorous activities and instruction for those who do not qualify and/or considered as high achievers.    

# data[].attributes.body
My concerns and comments on  gifted identification has always been three areas:
1. The identification and referral process seems to be flexible.
2. Identification early- academically doesn't always demonstrate throughout/ maintain the advance academics through out elementary education.
3. Those who do not maintain high academics  tend to struggle with new concepts taught each year and may fall behind.
4. Question: Should there be a continuing identification process- yearly?

# data[].attributes.headline
If we're speaking for our district, I would say that I think the ability to be refer someone is very flexible, as long as we have logical reasoning for our choice. I also think that the Cogat and ITBS is a helpful way to identify students throughout the grade level. One thing I have heard and witnessed, is sometimes there's a concern that a student who may be gifted may not be qualified through the testing when they are in primary grades, but may be qualified in later grades. So that does cause me to question, is our testing overlooking some kids? And if so, how are we working to ensure that those kind of situations are being minimized as much as possible? Also, I know that most of us are required/asked to have 30 hours of G/T training, but how could we extend our reflection of our students to truly think about their abilities? Maybe we could have some kind of form to go through for each student? Now, I know that's just extra work for a teacher to add to their to-do list, but maybe have something easy that is readily available for us to look over and reflect on our students in our own time. 

# data[].attributes.subject
If we're speaking for our district, I would say that I think the ability to be refer someone is very flexible, as long as we have logical reasoning for our choice. I also think that the Cogat and ITBS is a helpful way to identify students throughout the grade level. One thing I have heard and witnessed, is sometimes there's a concern that a student who may be gifted may not be qualified through the testing when they are in primary grades, but may be qualified in later grades. So that does cause me to question, is our testing overlooking some kids? And if so, how are we working to ensure that those kind of situations are being minimized as much as possible? Also, I know that most of us are required/asked to have 30 hours of G/T training, but how could we extend our reflection of our students to truly think about their abilities? Maybe we could have some kind of form to go through for each student? Now, I know that's just extra work for a teacher to add to their to-do list, but maybe have something easy that is readily available for us to look over and reflect on our students in our own time. 

# data[].attributes.body
From what I have experienced in Kinder and 2nd, it seems that we are trying to work our way towards a more flexible identification process.  We currently do the Cogat and ITBS as general screeners for all students.  After reading the chapter, however, I am realizing that our ELLs and/or students with disabilities may not be getting a fair shake. While most of the tests are read aloud, the vocabulary or situations presented may not be understandable to all of my students. I also wonder about the poor test-takers. I had several who just didn't finish and therefore appeared to score low. While I don't see any students this year that may have been overlooked, that isn't to say that district-wide we haven't missed some. On the other hand, in kindergarten, a large portion of the ID process was based on observation and anecdotal records. I think the testing offers a clear cut option, but that we need to continue, as classroom teachers, to advocate for those we recognize as possibly gifted that may have fallen through the cracks.