Best Practices of the State of Florida's Plan B Implementation for Potentially Gifted Students

Lynn University Lynn University

SPIRAL SPIRAL

Student Theses, Dissertations, Portfolios and

Projects

Theses and Dissertations Collections

2-22-2019

Best Practices of the State of Florida's Plan B Implementation for Best Practices of the State of Florida's Plan B Implementation for

Potentially Gifted Students Potentially Gifted Students

Robin Niki Rothman

Lynn University

Follow this and additional works at: https://spiral.lynn.edu/etds

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Rothman, Robin Niki, "Best Practices of the State of Florida's Plan B Implementation for Potentially Gifted

Students" (2019).

Student Theses, Dissertations, Portfolios and Projects

. 341.

https://spiral.lynn.edu/etds/341

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations Collections at

SPIRAL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Theses, Dissertations, Portfolios and Projects by an

authorized administrator of SPIRAL. For more information, please contact [email protected].

BEST PRACTICES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION

FOR

POTENTIALLY GIFTED STUDENTS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Education in

Educational Leadership

Robin N. Rothman, M.S.Ed.

*****

Lynn University

2019

ABSTRACT

ROBIN N. ROTHMAN: Best Practices of the State of Florida's Plan B Implementation

for Potentially Gifted Students

The aim of this study was to analyze the best practices methods and procedures used by

school districts in the State of Florida for the purpose of identifying Gifted students from

historically underrepresented groups who fall under the Plan B provision of the Florida

Administrative Code 6A-6.03019, specifically students who are Limited English

Proficient and those who belong to Low Socio-Economic Status families. Twenty eight

of the 67 Florida school districts that demonstrated the most equitable representation of

traditionally underserved student populations in gifted programs were identified and

selected to participate. Of the 152 Gifted education administrators or evaluators that

received an email invitation to take part in the six question survey, 32 responded.

According to their responses, two major themes were identified. First, classroom teachers

play a crucial role in both the nomination and assessment process. Professional

development is the primary method of supporting teachers in identifying gifted behaviors

in potentially gifted students from Plan B sub-groups. Second, the use of a universal

screener, administered in the early grades is both utilized and recommended. These

results are to be compiled into a practical handbook and made available to the districts

and the Florida Department of Education Bureau of Exceptional Student Education.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Lynn University offered me an opportunity to reach an academic goal that I had

previously considered unattainable and I will always be grateful for this most enriching

experience. The Doctoral program in the Ross College of Education provided the means

for me to flourish, both professionally and personally, and its accelerated pace allowed

me to finish my terminal degree well before my career itself became terminal.

I am grateful to Dr. Jennifer Lesh, my committee chairperson, for her patient

advice and guidance. I must also thank Dr. Kathleen Weigel, Dean of the Ross College of

Education, for crafting a program that works for the working education professional. My

appreciation also goes to my committee members, Dr. Nancy Kline and Dr. Lisa Spencer-

Hoo, for their recommendations and validation. Every professor in the Ed.D. program has

my eternal gratitude and admiration.

Danny, Jaqua, Laura, and Susan have been wonderful cohort-mates. I have

learned so much from each of them and they will forever remain in my heart and mind.

Shazam!

My family and friends have unfailingly cheered me on and offered their support

along the way. While naught could diminish its value, humbly, this was to be expected. It

is the sincere response of my students that warms my heart to its core. They expressed

genuine interest in my work, enthusiastic encouragement as I shared my progress, and

generous applause as I reached the final steps. Thank you, my dears. I did this for me,

true. But I did this for you, as well.

DEDICATION

This body of work is dedicated to the untold number of gifted students who were

left behind, overlooked, or ignored. I am sorry that we failed you.

A wise friend once told me that true amends are found in the actions. The best we

can do now is to give our attention to the gifted students of today and tomorrow.

Therefore, my work is dedicated to the gifted student waiting to be acknowledged.

I see you, I hear you, and I will not stop looking for you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………….……………….……..ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………….……………………………...iv

DEDICATION…………………………………………….………………...…….v

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………...….vi

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………..……xi

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………….………..…xii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION …………….…….…….……………....……….2

Background ………………………………………………….…………..………..2

Significance of the Study…………………………………………............……….6

Rationale for the Study…………………………..……………………..…………7

Purpose of the Study…………………………………………..……….………….7

Research Questions………………………………………………...……….……..8

Assumptions………………………………………………….………...………….8

Definitions………………………………………………..……………….……….9

Organization of the Dissertation………………………………………...……….11

vii

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW …………………..………………...…13

Historical Background……………………………………………………….......13

Underrepresented Students in Gifted Education Today …………………..……..14

Narrowing the Gap in the State of Florida ………………………………...…….17

History of the Plan B regulation ……………………………………..….19

Assessing Giftedness in Underrepresented Student Populations ……..……..…..21

Summary……………………………………………………………………...….22

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ……………………………………..………24

Introduction……………………………………………………..…………..……24

Philosophical perspective…………………………………………..…….24

Purpose …………………………………………………………….…..…….…..25

Research Questions …………………………………………………….….…….25

Setting of the Study …………………………………………………….………..25

Description of the Population ……………………………………….…………..26

Selection of the population…………………………………………...….26

Research Design …………………………………………………………..……..29

Rationale for Design …………………………………………….………………29

viii

Procedure ……………………………………………………………..…………30

Data Collection ………………………………………………………………….31

Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………….…….31

Risks and Benefits ……………………………………………………………….32

Confidentiality and Anonymity ………………………………………...……….32

Quality of Data ………………………………………………………..…....……32

Data Analysis .…………………………………………………………..……….33

Limitations and Delimitations ………………………………………..….………33

Summary …………………………………………………………….…..………34

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ……………………………………………………....35

Introduction………………………………………………………………………35

Participant demographics………………………………..……………….35

Data collection timeline…………………………………….……………36

Summary of Analyses……………………………………………………………37

Results for Research Question One……………………………………………...37

Survey question one……………………………………………………...38

Survey question two………………………………………………...……39

Results for Research Question Two………………………………………...……40

Survey question three…………………………………………………….40

Survey question four……………………………………………………..41

Coding of responses……………………………………………...41

Demographic questions…………………………………………………………..44

Survey question five……………………………………………………..44

Survey question six………………………………………………………45

Summary of Results…………………………………………………………..….46

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………..47

Introduction………………………………………………………………………47

Summary of Results…………………………………………………...…………48

Discussion of Results………………………………………………………….....49

Implications for Practice………………………………………………………....53

Limitations……………………………………………………………………….57

Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………….58

Summary……………………………………………………………...………….60

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..62

APPENDIX A: Selected Florida School Districts to be Invited to Participate in

Survey …………………………………………………………………….……..73

APPENDIX B: Sample Phone Call to District …………………...………....…..74

APPENDIX C: Informed Consent….…………………………...….…………....75

APPENDIX D: Cover letter to Survey Invitees ……………………….…..…….76

APPENDIX E: Survey Questions………………………………………………..78

APPENDIX F: Additional Assessments Cited by Respondents………………....80

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Differential in Ethnic Representation in Gifted Programs in

United States……………………………………………………………………..16

Table 2: Florida School Districts with Representation Differential of 20% or Less

of LEP Students in Gifted Programs …………………………………….…..…..27

Table 3: Florida School Districts with Representation Differential of 20% or Less

of FRL Students in Gifted Programs ……………………………………………28

Table 4: Major Themes and Sub-Themes Identified in Suggestions for Increasing

Equitable Representation of Plan B Students……………………………………43

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Comparison of Differential in Representation in Gifted Programs

in the US…………………………………………………………………………17

Figure 2: Representation Gap in Gifted Programs in the State of

Florida……………………………………………………………………..……..18

Figure 3: Primary Source of Nominations for Potentially Gifted Students via Plan

B…………………………………………………………………….……………38

Figure 4: Primary Method of Assessment for Potentially Gifted Plan B

Students…………………………………………………………………………..39

Figure 5: Methods of Supporting Teachers in Identifying Gifted

Behaviors…………………………………………………….………………......41

Figure 6: Student Enrollment of Districts Participating in the Study…………....45

Figure 7: Roles of Participants in Study……………………………………...….45

Figure 8: Representation of School Districts by Enrollment……….……………52

Running Head: BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 1

Best Practices of the State of Florida's Plan B Implementation for

Potentially Gifted Students

Robin N. Rothman

Lynn University

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 2

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

History is filled with stories of gifted people who were not always considered

gifted. Albert Einstein did not speak until he was four years old. Thomas Edison’s

teachers said he was unable to learn. Isaac Newton, Winston Churchill, and Louis

Pasteur were all considered poor students (Rhode Island State Advisory Committee on

Gifted and Talented Education, 2016). Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Frank Lloyd Wright

did not have college degrees (Time, 2016). And yet, somehow, they all proved that they

were indeed exceptional, responsible for revolutionary advancements in science,

architecture, and the new field of computers, as well as leading a country at war to

victory. They were able to push past low expectations and achieve great things.

These stories are known. But, how many stories are unknown? What happens to other

gifted students who are not identified, nurtured, or encouraged? What happens to the

gifted child who is told he or she is not gifted? How many gifted students are falling

through the cracks?

Who are they? And, how do we find them?

Background

The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) estimates that

approximately six to ten percent of the K-12 student population is gifted (2016). This

estimate is not limited by ethnicity, language or socio-economic status. While current

research places increasing emphasis on a child’s environment for the development of

giftedness, the potential for giftedness begins with genetic composition (NAGC, 2016).

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 3

Therefore, is it not logical to expect that six to ten percent of demographic sub-groups are

potentially gifted?

Logical it may be, but an equitable representation of non-White students in gifted

populations is seen in half of the United States public school districts or less. As reported

by the NAGC (2014), nationally:

“In only 50% of elementary school districts was exact alignment reported for

Black student representation; 34% of districts at the middle school level and 50%

at the high level were in the exact category. Hispanic student representation was

similarly disparate. Fifty four percent of coordinators provided data that placed

their elementary schools in the exact category; 37% of middle schools and 50% of

high school districts fell in the exact category. More than 80% of the district

coordinators across all school levels reported exact or adjacent alignment between

Black and Hispanic student representation in their districts and in districts’ gifted

programs” (NAGC, 2014).

Similarly, students from lower socio-economic groups are also underrepresented:

“Notably, underrepresentation of students of poverty in gifted programs was

greater than that of Black or Hispanic students. More than 50% of the

respondents across school levels reported much lower representation of students

of poverty in their gifted programs than the percentage of the subgroup in their

district student population. Only 17.8%, 21.4%, and 15.1% of the districts at the

elementary, middle, and high school levels, respectively were in the exact

alignment category” (NAGC, 2014).

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 4

Stated plainly, across the country, gifted student populations within school

districts are primarily White, of middle class or higher socioeconomic status. In many

cases, the diversity of the gifted population within a school district does not mirror the

diversity of the district as a whole. Minority students are not represented at an equitable

level.

In 1988, revisions were made to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965, to include grant programs to encourage individual states to create special programs

for gifted and talented students. The Secretary of Education is specifically charged with

giving “highest priority to programs intended to identify and serve gifted and talented

students, such as the disadvantaged, who might not be identified by traditional means”

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1988). The most recent revision, enacted in

September of 2017, specifically includes “economically disadvantaged individuals, [and]

individuals who are English learners” (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2017).

Although federal legislators seem to have been aware of the need for more

inclusive gifted programs since 1988, non-White students continue to be

underrepresented in gifted programs. For example, in 2012, students enrolled in public

schools across the United States were 51% White, 15.7% Black and 24.3% Hispanic.

However, students enrolled in gifted programs across the nation were 60.7% White, 8.8%

Black, and 16.8% Hispanic (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2015). White

students were over-represented by almost 10%, while Black and Hispanic students were

underrepresented by 7% - 8%. The gap in representation can be interpreted as

approximately 17% nationwide.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 5

In the State of Florida, 2012 enrollment is reported as 41.6% White, 23% Black,

and 29% Hispanic (NCES, 2014) while 2012 enrollment in gifted programs was reported

as 54.9% White, 9.2% Black, and 26.5% Hispanic (NCES, 2015). This translates to an

overrepresentation of more than 13% in the White subgroup, and an underrepresentation

of almost 14% for Black students and less than 3% for Hispanic students. While the

Hispanic students are equitably represented, the representation gap for Black and White

students is approximately 27%, significantly (10%) higher than the national gap.

Under the auspices of the Florida Department of State, the Florida Administrative

Code, Rule 6A-6.03019 (1988) outlines the eligibility criteria for a student to be included

in special instructional programs for the gifted. Originally implemented in 1977,

lawmakers revised the rule in 1991, adding a provision designed to serve students from

underrepresented groups. Underrepresented students were originally defined as those

“whose racial/ethnic backgrounds are other than white non-hispanic, or who are limited

English proficient, or who are from a low-socio-economic status family” (FAC, Rule 6A-

6.03019, 1997). In 1998, the regulation was amended by stating that in addition to white,

non-hispanic students, those of Asian/Pacific Island descent were also not considered to

be members of an underrepresented student group (FAC, Rule 6A-6.03019, 1998). In

2002, the reference to race was removed completely (FAC, Rule 6A-6.03019, 2002).

This regulation is frequently referred to as Plan B (FAC, Rule 6A-6.03019, 2002).

The current verbiage is:

“(b) The student is a member of an under-represented group and meets the

criteria specified in an approved school district plan for increasing the

participation of under-represented groups in programs for gifted students.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 6

1. For the purpose of this rule, under-represented groups are defined as groups:

a. Who are limited English proficient, or

b. Who are from a low socio-economic status family” (FAC, Rule 6A-6.03019,

2002).

This rule gives the Florida Department of Education the authority to approve

district plans for increasing the inclusion of students from the named underrepresented

groups. Approved plans must include specific goals for increasing inclusion of

underrepresented students, a description of referral and screening procedures, and a list of

measurement instruments to be used. Districts, therefore, have the autonomy to choose

from a broad array of assessments and procedures for the purpose of implementing Plan

B (FAC, Rule 6A-6.03019, 2002).

The purpose of this study was to determine which of Florida’s 67 school districts

showed the most equitable representation and identify which assessments and procedures

under Plan B were best achieving the goal of including more students from

underrepresented groups in their gifted programs.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this research was to identify procedures and assessments that

promote equitable participation of gifted students from traditionally underrepresented

subgroups, specifically students who are categorized as Limited English Proficient or

who come from a family of Low Socio-Economic Status. Florida school districts that

demonstrated equitable representation were selected for this survey. By broadening the

demographic base of the gifted student population, more students will gain the support

and services to which they are entitled. Gifted students who have access to challenging

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 7

and rigorous learning opportunities thrive in the customary K-12 experience and in post-

secondary ventures, as well (NAGC, 2017).

Additionally, most current statistical reporting that is available to the public does

not parse the demographics within the categories of Limited English Proficient or Low

Socio-Economic Status, but by ethnic groups. It is, therefore, somewhat difficult to

measure and monitor the success of Plan B.

Rationale for the Study

It would be virtually impossible to calculate the number of students who are

gifted but have not been identified as gifted. Although one may find anecdotal evidence

of students who have not been identified as gifted, there is no empirical way to measure

this. In an effort to find an aspect of the problem that could be measured and potentially

facilitate a meaningful result, this researcher chose to study the reported statistics of the

67 school districts in Florida to discover which methods of gifted assessment produced

the most equitable results for students from traditionally underrepresented groups,

namely that the percentages of gifted students from the identified underrepresented

subgroups would mirror the percentages of the identified groups in the district population

as a whole. Then, the methods of the districts with the most equitable distributions could

be studied and shared as best practices.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to learn which assessment instruments for

identifying giftedness in students from underrepresented populations were producing the

most equitable results in Florida school districts. Specifically, as defined in the Plan B

provision (Florida Administrative Code, Rule 6A-A.03019, Section b, 1991), these

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 8

students have Limited English Proficiency or come from a Low Socioeconomic Status

family. By comparing the percentage of these two groups as they are represented in the

individual districts’ gifted programs to the percentage of these two groups as they are

represented in the individual districts as a whole, the methods that produced the most

equitable results were identified. Results are to be disseminated to the districts in an

effort to share best practices.

Research Questions

1) Which measurement instruments and procedures for assessing giftedness being

used by the Florida school districts show the most equitable representation of

students who belong to an underrepresented group, as defined in Plan B?

2) How can school districts support teachers in identifying students who are

potentially gifted for nomination for Plan B assessment?

Assumptions

For the purpose of this study, certain assumptions were accepted. First, it was

assumed that all 67 Florida school districts have a gifted services program. It was

assumed that all districts have specialized personnel who manage these programs and

would be able to answer survey questions. It was assumed that demographic data

regarding student groups and subgroups would be readily accessible online through state

or district websites. It was assumed that demographic data reported at the district level

and the state level was reported accurately and consistently. It was also assumed that

survey participants would be honest and forthcoming about their district’s Plan B

procedures.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 9

Definitions

In an effort to ensure the consistency of language in the reporting and analysis of data,

the following defined terms were used throughout the study.

Assessments. This term refers to any measurement instrument used by any

Florida school district in an effort to identify students for participation in their respective

gifted programs. These may include, but are not limited to, standard intelligence or

academic proficiency tests, non-verbal assessments, portfolio submissions, and indicator

checklists.

Equitable Representation. This term represented a difference of no more than

20% in the percentages of each subgroup in the specified population. For example, if a

district’s FRL population is 40% and the percentage of FRL students in the Gifted

program is 20%, it was considered an equitable representation.

Gifted. As found in the Florida Department of State Administrative Code, Rule

6A-6.03019 is “One who has superior intellectual development and is capable of high

performance.” This includes those students who have “ability or potential in specific

areas of leadership, motivation, academic performance, and creativity” (Florida

Administrative Code, 2017).

Gifted Education Administrators. This term refers to members of the district level

gifted education departments, as found on each district’s website. Depending on the

information available on these websites, this may have included gifted education

department directors, facilitators, coaches, or specialists. When the gifted education

department did not have their own webpage, the Exceptional Student Education staff

were selected and may have included ESE directors, facilitators, coaches or specialists.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 10

Gifted Education Evaluators. This term refers to those district employees who

may be administering gifted assessments to students nominated to the gifted programs.

This group was primarily composed of school psychologists who may have operated at

the district or school level.

Limited English Proficient (LEP). This term signifies any student who is

currently participating in an ‘English for Speakers of Other Languages’ (ESOL) program

or an ‘English Language Learner’ (ELL) program. The terms LEP, ELL and ESOL may

be used interchangeably, and for the purposes of this study, were considered equivalent.

For the purpose of clarity and delineation, LEP was be the preferred acronym.

Low Socio-Economic Status (LSES). This benchmark is determined annually by

the USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, as reported by the Federal Register (2017) and is

often considered equivalent to the term established for those who qualify for ‘Free or

Reduced Lunch’ (FRL). For the purposes of this study, the terms LSES and FRL may

have been used interchangeably and are considered equivalent. For the purpose of clarity

and delineation, FRL was the preferred acronym.

Representation Differential. This term will represent the difference between the

percentage of a subgroup’s representation with the total enrollment and the subgroup’s

representation within the Gifted population. For example, if a district’s LEP population

is 20% and the percentage of LEP students in the Gifted program is 15%, then the

differential is 5%.

Representation Gap. This term represented the total difference between one

subgroup’s overrepresentation and another’s underrepresentation. For example, if one

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 11

subgroup is overrepresented by 10% and another is underrepresented by 5%, then the

representation gap is 15%.

School Districts. This term represented the brick-and-mortar school districts that

are delineated by the 67 geographical counties within the state. Although some databases

include additional school districts, they are specialty districts, defined for unrelated

purposes and were not included in this study.

Organization of the Dissertation

Data was collected from the Florida Department of Education, Bureau of

Exceptional Education and Students Services, ESE Policies and Procedures (SP&P)

database found within the Florida Department of Education’s website. Each school

district is responsible for reporting their policies and procedures for their respective

Exceptional Student Education departments. Under Part V Appendices, Appendix C is

entitled: District Plan to Increase the Participation of Underrepresented Students in the

Program for Students who are Gifted. Within this page, districts report enrollment data,

including the number of Limited English Proficient students and those from Low Socio-

Economic Status families who are identified as Gifted.

Based on this data, 28 districts show equitable representation in either LEP or

FRL gifted enrollment categories, or both. A Survey Monkey™ survey was sent to the

designated Gifted education administrator or evaluator at each of these school districts.

The identity of the respondents was masked via Survey Monkey’s anonymity protocols.

The survey consisted of both quantitative and qualitative questions regarding the

procedures and measurement instruments for identifying gifted students.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 12

Once the data was collected, data will be analyzed and coded (Yin, 2016).

Themes and additional coding were determined as the data was reviewed.

The measurement instruments and procedures that have produced the most

equitable results are to be compiled as a handbook of best practices to be shared with

districts. This information is also to be offered to the Florida Department of Education

Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 13

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Historical Background

As explained by Dr. Donna Y. Ford and Dr. J. John Harris III, in their book,

Multicultural Gifted Education (1999), the discussion of equitable multicultural education

for gifted students begins with Brown v. Board of Education (1954). This landmark case

“is the foundation upon which all subsequent developments ensuring the legal rights of

the disenfranchised rest” (Ford & Harris, 1999, p. 16).

The focus on equality continued through the 1960s, as President Lyndon B.

Johnson and his administration waged a War on Poverty in an effort to create the Great

Society, in which poverty would be eliminated and all Americans would enjoy economic

and educational opportunities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the accompanying

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 were intended to level a playing field for those

citizens facing a pervasive discrimination that prevented them from accessing fair wages

and adequate education (US History, 2017). In 1965, Head Start awarded its first grants

to give students from low socio-economic neighborhoods access to learning opportunities

so that they would be ready for mainstream public school (National Head Start

Association, 2018). Although Johnson’s equality programs commenced with good

intentions, the Vietnam War was costly and his social programs suffered (US History,

2017).

Ford and Harris (1999) describe a shift in policy during the 1970s. They explain

that while education reform was focused on the disenfranchised, opponents felt that the

rights and needs of the majority were not given equal attention.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 14

This complaint then influenced reforms that followed. Ford and Harris (1999)

cite three misconceptions that negatively impacted efforts to offer equal educational

opportunities to minority students and those from low socio-economic status families.

First, high test scores seem to have more importance than quality experiences. Second,

common core curriculums do not allow for cultural and socio-economic differences; the

words ‘common’ and ‘different’ are antonyms. Third, “In attempting to be democratic,

reformers have ignored the importance of group differences (e.g., gender, race, socio-

economic status) as general guidelines from which to educate children, especially racially

and culturally diverse youth” (Ford & Harris, 1999, p. 17).

These reforms were focused on helping these students function in the mainstream

public classroom at grade level. The legislative discussion had not yet addressed the

underprivileged, underrepresented gifted and talented student (Ford & Harris, 1999). As

described in Chapter I of this document, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(1965) was amended in 1988 to include specific language to ensure that gifted and

talented students who come from disadvantaged situations were identified and included

in programs for the gifted (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1988). In 2017,

that verbiage was made even more specific and the law now focuses on students who are

“economically disadvantaged individuals, [and] individuals who are English learners”

(Every Student Succeeds Act, 2017).

While it is too soon to gauge the effects of the most recent adaptation, it is logical

to next review the inclusion of the underrepresented students since 1988.

Underrepresented Students in Gifted Education Today

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 15

Most collected data on the emerging concept of greater inclusion of the

underrepresented in gifted education is parsed by ethnic group: White, Black, and

Hispanic. It is important to note that Black is not necessarily indicative of LSES.

Sociologist Robert Ross cites data from the 2011 Census Bureau report entitled Income,

Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, and explains that

“The white poverty rate does run much lower than the black rate, just under

10 percent, one-third of the black rate. But the white poor outnumber the black

poor considerably, 19 to 7.8 million. White people make up 42 percent of

America’s poor, black people about 28 percent…Of the 20 million people who

live in extreme poverty [less than 50% of poverty level income], about 42 percent

are white, 27 percent black” (Ross, 2012).

Additionally, even though Spanish speakers account for 77% of English

Language Learner students in the 2014-2015 school year (NCES, 2017), it cannot be

assumed that all students who identify themselves as Hispanic are simultaneously LEP.

The available data will nonetheless support the general idea that underrepresentation is

still an issue in gifted education (Grissom & Redding, 2016).

For example, African American students are most notably underrepresented in

Gifted Education. In 2012, Jordan, Bain, McCallum and Bell introduced their study,

Comparing Gifted and Nongifted African American and Euro-American Students on

Cognitive and Academic Variables Using Local Norms, with the following statistics:

“According to U.S. Department of Education figures from 2006, although 55% of

the entire population of public school students was Euro-American, 67% of gifted

students were Euro-American. Alternatively, 17% of the entire school population

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 16

was African American, but only 9% of gifted students were African American

(U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

An examination of additional reporting from the National Center for Educational

Statistics (2017), the data warehouse for the US Department of Education, showed

similar results. Beginning in 2006, the NCES began reporting the number and

percentages of students enrolled in gifted and talented programs, parsed by gender and

ethnicity. This figure was not updated annually, but reported again in 2007, 2008, and

2015 (NCES, 2006, 2007, 2008, & 2015). This represented the gifted enrollment in

2002, 2004, 2006, and 2011, respectively. These figures were compared with the overall

student enrollment and the percentages of enrollment based on ethnic group from the

same years (NCES, 2004, 2006, 2008, & 2015). It was clear that the pattern of the

underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic students in gifted programs, although

improving slightly, had continued as seen in Table 1.

Table 1.

Differential in Ethnic Representation in Gifted Programs in United States

Total Enrollment Data: (NCES 2004, 2006, 2008, 2015)

Gifted Enrollment Data: (NCES 2006, 2007, 2008, 2015)

While White students were over-represented by a range of 9% to 13%, Black

students were underrepresented by 7% to 9% and Hispanic students were

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 17

underrepresented by 5% to 7%. Figure 1 depicts the representation gap of almost 20%

between Black and White students, and an average of 16% between White and Hispanic

students.

Figure 1.

Comparison of Differential in Representation in Gifted Programs in the US

Total Enrollment Data: (NCES 2004, 2006, 2008, 2015)

Gifted Enrollment Data: (NCES 2006, 2007, 2008, 2015)

Narrowing the Gap in the State of Florida

An analysis of data with the same parameters in the State of Florida shows

somewhat different, yet still significantly disproportionate findings. Figure 2 shows that

the White subgroup was overrepresented by 11% to 14% and the Black subgroup was

-20

-10

% of Total Enrollment

% of Gifted Enrollment

Diff ±

% of Total Enrollment

% of Gifted Enrollment

Diff ±

% of Total Enrollment

% of Gifted Enrollment

Diff ±

White Black Hispanic

2002

2004

2006

2011

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 18

severely underrepresented at approximately 14% across all years surveyed. The Hispanic

subgroup representation seemed to be the most equitable, with differential percentages

hovering just 1 – 2% below the overall representation figures.

Figure 2.

Representation Gap in Gifted Programs in the State of Florida

Total Enrollment Data: (NCES 2004, 2006, 2008, 2013)

Gifted Enrollment Data: (NCES 2006, 2007, 2008, 2015)

In an effort to balance the underrepresentation in gifted program, the State of

Florida implemented the Florida Administrative Code, Rule 6A-A.03019 (2002), Section

b (Plan B), which specifically focuses on LEP (Limited English Proficient) students and

FRL students (those who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch). However, most of the

current statistical reporting that is available to the public does not parse the demographics

within these same categories, but by ethnic groups. It was, therefore, somewhat difficult

to measure and monitor the success of Plan B.

-20

-15

-10

-5

White Black Hispanic

2002

2004

2006

2011

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 19

The Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) has created a variety of

publications, technical assistance papers and other resources for the benefit of all gifted

students, and their parents and teachers (FLDOE, 2017). The FLDOE’s requirements for

the approval of districtwide gifted programs are specified, but the creation of districtwide

gifted programs does not appear to be mandated. However, an initial survey of the

individual districts appeared to report that while all Florida school districts have a gifted

education policy, not all implement a Plan B model (FLDOE, Department of Exceptional

Education and Student Services, 2017).

History of the Plan B Regulation. Regulation 6A-6.03019 was first introduced

to the Florida Administrative Code in 1977 (Florida Department of State, 1988). It states

that a student shall be deemed Gifted and is therefore eligible to participate in a gifted

program, if he or she scores two or more standard deviations above average on a

standardized intelligence test. Neither race nor any other demographic designation is

stipulated (Florida Department of State, 1988).

In 1991, the regulation was amended to include the first iteration of the Plan B

verbiage. It stated that a student who was a member of an underrepresented group and

who met the criteria specified by the district in a plan that was approved by the state,

could be included in the Gifted program. ‘Underrepresented’ was defined as a student 1)

whose race or ethnicity is other than white non-Hispanic, 2) who has limited English

proficiency or 3) is from a low socio-economic status family (Florida Department of

State, 1997). This change was presumably in response to the 1988 amendment to the

federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act that focused on the identification and

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 20

inclusion of disadvantaged students in gifted programs (Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, 1988).

In 1998, the regulation was further amended to expand the definition of

‘underrepresented.’ In addition to excluding White non-Hispanic students, those of

Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity were also deemed ineligible for the Plan B path into the

gifted programs (Florida Department of State, 1998).

In 2002, the current version of the Plan B regulation was established. All racial or

ethnic criteria were removed so that the Plan B option is available only to students with

limited English proficiency or who come from a low socio-economic status family. This

was in direct response to a lawsuit, Miller, et al. v. State of Florida, the State of Florida

Department of Education, and Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education (2002), that

alleged that the racial component of the regulation was indicative of unconstitutional

racial discrimination. Mrs. Miller’s son had been nominated for Gifted assessment, but

his score did not qualify him for placement under Plan A. As he is a White non-Hispanic

student, he did not qualify for placement in the Gifted program under the Plan B

regulation. The plaintiff alleged that her son was a victim of discrimination because of

his race. The lawsuit was initiated first against the Miami-Dade Public Schools and

Superintendent Merritt Steirheim, and as it progressed through the system, finally named

the State of Florida, the Florida Department of Education and Charlie Crist,

Commissioner of Education as the Defendants. A settlement was reached on March 8,

2002. In addition to a reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s legal fees, the Defendants agreed

to adopt “a race-neutral gifted rule” (Miller, et al. v. State of Florida, the State of Florida

Department of Education, and Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education, 2002).

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 21

Assessing Giftedness in Underrepresented Student Populations

Traditionally, school districts and other testing authorities have relied upon

standard intelligence tests to assess students for giftedness (Ford, 2013). Recently,

however, leaders in the field of gifted education have been advising that school districts

use a more flexible approach and use a combination of assessment measures so that more

underrepresented students will have access to services and enrichment opportunities

(Ford, 2013).

In 2008, the National Association for Gifted Children released a position

statement entitled “The Role of Assessments in The Identification of Gifted Students”

(NAGC, 2008). Rather than relying on one standardized test, they believe that

“Identification of gifted and talented students should not be based on a single

assessment. Rather, multiple pieces of evidence should be collected that measure

different constructs and characteristics aligned to the gifted program’s definition,

goals, and objectives (Callahan, Tomlinson, & Pizzat, 1993), ideally including a

variety of format types (e.g., paper-and-pencil; performance assessment).

Multiple pieces of psychometrically sound data obtained from a variety of sources

result in a more comprehensive and thus, more accurate picture of the student on

which to base selection” (NAGC, 2008).

The position statement also enumerates their recommendations for alternative

instruments that can be used for determining entrance into a gifted program to ensure that

all students are assessed fairly, including those from underrepresented subgroups. In

addition to traditional standardized tests, these instruments may include performance

assessments, such as portfolios of student work, and ratings scales used for observations

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 22

of a student’s work-related behaviors and interviews with teachers and parents (NAGC,

2008).

Dr. Donna Y. Ford, a leader in the field of inclusive gifted education, advocates

the use of the Naglieri Non-Verbal Ability Test (2003) and Raven's Matrix Analogies

Tests (2003). Both of these assessments measure the cognitive processes of the student,

rather than acquired knowledge. As a result, students from underrepresented subgroups

score better on these tests and are included in gifted programs more often (Ford &

Grantham, 2003).

School districts may choose from a broad variety of measurement instruments to

identify gifted students and promote inclusion of underrepresented students (FAC, Rule

6A-A.03019, Section b, 2002). As Florida has the second most diverse student

population in the United States, the state has a unique opportunity to become a leader in

gifted education equity (New York Times, 2011.)

Summary

More than five decades have passed since the United States government

acknowledged the underrepresentation of minority students in Gifted programs in public

schools. Educational equity legislation dates back as early as Brown v. Board of

Education (1954). Despite the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the

implementation of the Head Start program in 1965, non-White students continue to lag

behind their White peers academically. Challenging, high level scholastic opportunities

are easily accessed by White students, while these same pathways are statistically and

chronically blocked for their counterparts of color. While the State of Florida has

specific legislative policies to promote equity, the progress has been slow. This study

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 23

aimed to assist Florida school districts in implementing more effective procedures for

more balanced participation of traditionally underrepresented student groups in Gifted

programs.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 24

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Although federal and state legislators have recognized the disparities in the

representation of students who are cultural minorities or those who belong to low

socioeconomic status families in gifted education programs around the country,

significant inequities still exist (NCES, 2015). The representation gap is significant

across the United States as well as the State of Florida. Although Florida legislation and

Florida Department of Education policies encourage school districts to decrease this gap,

the variance continues to be substantial (NCES, 2015). This study surveyed the 28

Florida school districts that have demonstrated the most equitable representation based on

the results documented in this chapter and attempted to ascertain which assessment

methods and procedures are producing these outcomes.

Philosophical Perspective. After more than a decade teaching in Florida public

schools, this researcher has become increasingly aware of disparities and inequities in the

placement of students in Gifted programs and advanced classes. The researcher has

personally known many students who demonstrate exceptional skills, aptitudes and

talents that may have deserved a place in Gifted or accelerated programs, but were not

afforded that opportunity because they did not ‘fit in the box.’ This prompted the

researcher to learn more about Florida’s Plan B provision for increasing inclusion for

underrepresented students in Gifted programs. Not convinced that the code yet serves as

many students as it could, the researcher was motivated to discover which methods and

procedures were producing the most equitable results. Sharing these best practices is the

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 25

researcher’s first step in working to facilitate increasing equity for underrepresented

student groups.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify the best practices within the Plan B

procedures and assessments used by Florida school districts in order to identify gifted

students from traditionally underrepresented sub-groups. Specifically, these students are

English Language Learners and those from low Socio-Economic status families. This

study was intended to answer the following research questions:

Research Questions

1) Which measurement instruments and procedures for assessing giftedness being

used by the Florida school districts show the most equitable representation of

students who belong to an underrepresented group, as defined in Plan B?

2) How can school districts support teachers in identifying students who are

potentially gifted for nomination for Plan B assessment?

Setting of the Study

The setting of the study was the 28 Florida districts who have reported equitable

representation of LEP and/or FRL students in their respective Gifted programs. A six

question survey was sent to Gifted education administrators and evaluators at each school

district. The identity of respondents was anonymous. The selected participants may have

answered any, all, or none of the questions. Respondents may have chosen to identify the

size of their district based on enrollment.

The 28 Florida districts were identified by an analysis of data found in the Florida

Department of Education, Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services,

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 26

Policies and Procedures (SP&P) database. This information belongs to the public domain

and is accessible via the internet to any interested party.

Description of Population

The surveyed population included designated representatives of the gifted

education program for each of the 28 Florida school districts that have demonstrated

success in equitable representation of LEP and/or FRL students in their Gifted programs.

Gifted education administrators or evaluators, or other designated representative, as

applicable within each district, were invited to participate.

Selection of the population. First, data was collected from the Bureau of

Exceptional Education and Student Services database (BEESS), found within the Florida

Department of Education website. Within this database, each Florida school district

reports their ESE Policies and Procedures. Under Part V. Appendices, Appendix C is

entitled District Plan to Increase the Participation of Underrepresented Students in the

Program for Students who are Gifted. The data used in this study reflects the 2016-2019

reporting period.

Appendix C compares the total student enrollment to the total number of Gifted

students. It then compares the total number of Limited English Proficient students with

the number of LEP students in the Gifted program. It also compares the total number of

students from Low Socio-Economic Status families to the number of LSES (or FRL)

students in the Gifted program.

The data for each school district was then transferred to an excel spreadsheet for

further comparison. The Representation Differential was calculated for each category,

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 27

LEP and FRL, for each district. The districts with a Differential of 20% or less were

selected for the survey.

Table 2.

Florida School Districts with Representation Differential of 20% or Less of LEP Students

in Gifted Programs

Florida Department of Education. (2018).

School

District

Total

Enrolled

Total

Gifted

Representation

Differential

LEP

Number Percent Number Percent

1 Gadsden 5629 81 426 7.57% 9 11.11% -3.54%

2 St. Johns 40450 3440 736 1.82% 14 0.41% 1.41%

3 Hernando 23755 684 703 2.96% 8 1.17% 1.79%

4 Clay 38859 2408 971 2.50% 10 0.42% 2.08%

5 Alachua 33768 5478 803 2.38% 9 0.16% 2.21%

6 Leon 35321 1444 1046 2.96% 8 0.55% 2.41%

7 Pasco 86770 4641 6614 7.62% 166 3.58% 4.05%

8 Brevard 73052 5691 3254 4.45% 23 0.40% 4.05%

9 Duval 126388 5483 6762 5.35% 30 0.55% 4.80%

10 Lake 41489 654 2923 7.05% 13 1.99% 5.06%

11 Volusia 62937 3392 4065 6.46% 34 1.00% 5.46%

12 Seminole 65508 5660 5401 8.24% 146 2.58% 5.67%

13 Marion 42747 2357 3035 7.10% 10 0.42% 6.68%

14 Pinellas 103779 7022 7912 7.62% 48 0.68% 6.94%

15 Monroe 8629 315 1074 12.45% 7 2.22% 10.22%

16 Lee 94440 5993 10629 11.25% 21 0.35% 10.90%

17 Broward 272023 12209 43495 15.99% 337 2.76% 13.23%

18 Hillsborough 219614 18030 35150 16.01% 416 2.31% 13.70%

19 Polk 94448 5113 13953 14.77% 44 0.86% 13.91%

20 Palm Beach 194331 10868 31618 16.27% 135 1.24% 15.03%

21 Orange 200637 13481 38819 19.35% 312 2.31% 17.03%

22 Mia-Dade 356086 39362 72264 20.29% 899 2.28% 18.01%

23 Collier 45998 3005 8905 19.36% 35 1.16% 18.19%

LEP

Enrolled

Gifted

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 28

Table 2 shows the calculated data for the 23 Florida school districts that reported

the smallest representation differential for LEP students in their respective Gifted

programs. The districts are listed by smallest to largest representation differential, of

20% or less.

Table 3 shows the calculated data for the 13 Florida school districts that reported

the smallest representation differential for FRL students in their respective Gifted

programs. The districts are listed by smallest to largest representation differential of 20%

or less.

Table 3.

Florida School Districts with Representation Differential of 20% or Less of FRL Students

in Gifted Programs

Florida Department of Education. (2018).

School

District

Total

Enrolled

Total

Gifted

Representation

Differential

FRL

Number Percent Number Percent

1 Gadsden 5629 81 3618 64.27% 81 100.00% -35.73%

2 Martin 19727 833 1090 5.53% 135 16.21% -10.68%

3 St. Johns 40450 3440 7663 18.94% 414 12.03% 6.91%

4 Clay 38859 2408 16316 41.99% 828 34.39% 7.60%

5 Collier 45998 3005 26907 58.50% 1464 48.72% 9.78%

6 Osceola 70630 2342 38181 54.06% 1022 43.64% 10.42%

7 Hernando 23755 684 14616 61.53% 346 50.58% 10.94%

8 Pasco 86770 4641 28317 32.63% 987 21.27% 11.37%

9 Bradford 3211 105 1927 60.01% 51 48.57% 11.44%

10 Suwannee 6021 209 2535 42.10% 55 26.32% 15.79%

11 Bay 28426 634 15511 54.57% 243 38.33% 16.24%

12 Mia-Dade 356086 39362 251914 70.75% 21182 53.81% 16.93%

13 Brevard 73052 5691 35985 49.26% 1838 32.30% 16.96%

FRL

Enrolled

Gifted

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 29

Of the 36 districts that showed a differential of 20% or less, eight appeared in

both categories. They are: Brevard, Clay, Collier, Gadsden, Hernando, Miami-Dade,

Pasco and St. Johns. Therefore, a total of 28 districts were selected to be invited to

participate in this research. (Appendix A)

Some districts were excluded from the selection process. Seventeen school

districts were excluded because data was not reported in the BEESS database. Districts

that reported less than five Gifted students in a category (LEP or FRL) were also

excluded from selection for that category.

Research Design

This design of this study was embedded action research (Leedy & Ormond,

2016). Although some preliminary quantitative data was compiled, both quantitative and

qualitative data will be gathered in a synchronous fashion. As explained by Leedy and

Ormond (2016), the research was primarily quantitative, with qualitative data included as

a supplement.

The central component of the research included a researcher-created survey

presented to the Gifted education administrator or evaluator of each district or their

designee. The survey was a combination of qualitative and quantitative questions.

(Appendix E).

These questions were presented via the online survey format, Survey Monkey™.

The identity of the gifted education representative remained anonymous and the IP

addresses were masked to the researcher.

Rationale for Design

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 30

A study of the methods used by the selected 28 Florida county school districts to

implement their Plan B steps for inclusion of underrepresented groups in their gifted

programs may assist other school districts in achieving greater equity in their Gifted

enrollment. This will potentially serve underrepresented students across the state by

expanding access to advanced academic opportunities throughout the public school

districts. This information may also be helpful in creating an informational document for

both school districts and the Florida Department of Education.

Procedure

First, the researcher identified the Gifted education administrators and evaluators

at the District level and obtained a valid email address. This was primarily found at the

District’s website. When the identity of a Gifted specialist was not found online, the

researcher called the District office to ascertain who would be the most appropriate

recipient. A sample of the phone script can be found in Appendix B.

An online Survey Monkey™ survey was created with six questions (Appendix E).

It was estimated to require approximately 6 minutes or less to complete. The first two

questions asked the participant which procedures and assessments are commonly used to

determine Giftedness in Plan B students. These questions were multiple-choice, with the

ability to select all that apply and to include any explanatory notes. The next two

questions allowed for open-ended response. The respondents were asked how the district

assists classroom teachers in identifying potential giftedness in their students. They were

also asked for advice or suggestions on how other districts can also achieve equitable

results. Finally, respondents were asked to identify the size of their district based on

student enrollment and to identify their role in the process. As this relates to the districts’

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 31

identity, these questions were labeled as optional. However, the size ranges are broad

enough that identification of a specific district based on that one characteristic is highly

unlikely.

The responses were collected from Survey Monkey™ and compiled in an Excel

spreadsheet. The data was categorized and analyzed, for patterns and coding. Based on

the participants’ responses, a handbook of best practices is to be compiled. This

handbook is to be offered to school districts across Florida, as well as the Bureau of

Exceptional Education and Student Services within the Florida Department of Education.

Data Collection

Data was collected from Survey Monkey™ survey responses and transferred to an

Excel spreadsheet. Analysis was guided by quantity and quality of the data. All digital

data was saved on a password protected flash drive.

Ethical Considerations

The identity of the district designees who choose to respond remained anonymous.

SurveyMonkey.com allows researchers to suppress the delivery of IP addresses during

the downloading of data, and in this study no IP address was delivered to the researcher.

All data received from the survey was saved on a password-encrypted flash drive that

will be kept in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s office. Data will be destroyed after

five years.

All invitees were informed of the voluntary nature of their potential participation.

All respondents were assured of their anonymity, both personally and as a district

representative. Informed consent was specified prior to the invitees accessing the survey

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 32

(Appendix C). Respondents were able to exit the survey at any time and to answer as

many or as few questions as they chose.

Risks and Benefits

Risks to participants were extremely low. If at any time, the respondent became

stressed or felt uncomfortable for any reason, he or she may have exited out of the survey

and the data would have been destroyed. There was no penalty for exiting the survey.

The researcher had no direct contact with district representatives after the initial

invitation, with the exception of four who initiated contact with the researcher with

questions or comments. The anonymity of the respondents was assured. There were no

direct benefits for the respondents, other than knowing that they contributed to a study

that aims to expand academic opportunities for students from underrepresented

demographic subgroups. However, respondents were able to request a copy of the

handbook once competed.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

After the initial invitation to participate, respondents’ identities and the identity of

the district they represent were completely anonymous. The Survey Monkey™ protocols

allowed the researcher to mask IP addresses and the researcher did have access to

identifying information.

Quality of Data

Data obtained via survey from voluntary district participants was to be deemed

reliable. It was assumed that the participant chose to assist and offered the most reliable

information they possess. Their identity and the identity of their district was to be

completely anonymous, thereby hopefully promoting an atmosphere of openness.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 33

Data Analysis

Based on the responses received, the methods and practices of those districts

whose gifted population is most equitably represented by their district demographics

were closely analyzed for themes and coding (Yin, 2016).

The examination of all data was expected to demonstrate which types of Plan B

processes are most effective. Descriptive statistics such as mean, median, and mode will

be calculated using the tools in Survey Monkey™. As a final project, the researcher will

create a concise and practical handbook outlining research based best practices for

inclusive gifted populations to be shared with districts, schools and the Florida

Department of Education.

Limitations and Delimitations

Limitations included the participation of the individual districts in the qualitative

survey. While the selected 28 Florida school districts were invited to participate, they

may have declined to participate or may not have completed all parts of the survey.

Additionally, not all Florida school districts reported Plan B data in the Bureau of

Exceptional Education and Student Services database. Therefore, these districts were not

included in the selection process. Qualitative data may have also been limited by the

participants’ personal bias or willingness to complete the survey or answer all questions.

Delimitations were the exclusion of other subgroups within student data. The

study did not parse the data based on race, gender or age. Additionally, students with

other exceptionalities were not be included. Inclusion of these groups would have

rendered the study too broad. These groups would be best served in a separate study.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 34

Also, the study focused on public schools and did not include online, charter or private

schools.

Summary

In an effort to better serve the gifted students from underrepresented subgroups, a

variety of legislative policies are been enacted, federally and locally. While the State of

Florida has empowered the Florida Department of Education to create policies and

procedures for the inclusion of these unidentified gifted students, the individual districts

choose which measurement instruments they will use. The purpose of this study was to

determine which measurement instruments produce the most equitable results for

traditionally underrepresented students.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 35

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to identify the best practices within the Plan B

procedures and assessments used by Florida school districts in order to identify gifted

students from traditionally underrepresented sub-groups. Specifically, these students are

English Language Learners and those from low Socio-Economic status families. Data

was collected from the Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services database,

found within the Florida Department of Education website (Florida Department of

Education, 2018). A review of the reported statistics from each of the 67 traditional

Florida school districts identified 28 districts with equitable representation within 20% or

less (Appendix A). Gifted education representatives from these 28 districts were invited

to participate in the online survey.

Participant Demographics. Gifted education administrators and evaluators were

the targeted invitees. Email addresses were primarily obtained from the district websites,

openly available to the public. Two districts were contacted by phone to request

corresponding email addresses (Appendix B). One district required a completed paper

application to obtain approval before invitees could respond.

Eighty four Gifted education administrators and 68 Gifted evaluators were

contacted, for a total of 152 invitees. Thirty two of those invitees chose to participate in

the online survey, via the Survey Monkey™ interface. Informed consent was specified in

the invitation email and the invitee signified his or her consent to participate by

intentionally clicking on the link in the invitation. Of the 32 participants, 17 identified

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 36

themselves as Gifted education administrators and 12 identified themselves as Gifted

evaluators. Three respondents skipped this question.

Thirty one of the 32 respondents identified the size of their respective school

district by overall student enrollment. The mid-size districts had the highest

participation, with 19 of the respondents representing districts with enrollment between

10,001 and 100,000 students. Districts with 10,000 students or less had three

respondents, while nine participants represented districts with more than 100,000 students

(Figure 6).

Data Collection Timeline. One hundred and forty five survey invitees were

initially contacted via email through the Survey Monkey™ survey interface on November

6, 2018. After obtaining additional email addresses, the invitation was sent again on

December 2, 2018 to an additional seven potential participants. Concurrently, on

December 2, 2018, a reminder email was sent to 117 invitees who had not yet responded.

Three invitations were bounced back, most likely because they were no longer

valid email addresses and two invitees opted out. One district employee emailed the

researcher and explained her district’s required approval process. These instructions

were followed but an approval was not received by the researcher prior to the survey

closing date of December 10, 2018. One invitee emailed the researcher and explained

that she and her colleagues could not access the survey. An alternative web link within

Survey Monkey™ was created and sent to this district representative.

In total, 32 responses were received. Twenty three responses were received

between November 6, 2018 and November 20, 2018. An additional nine responses were

received between December 2, 2018 and December 10, 2018.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 37

Summary of Analyses

Thirty two invitees responded and 29 identified his or her role in the Gifted

student identification process. Of those who chose to identify his or her role, 17

respondents (58% percent) were Gifted education administrators while 12 respondents

(41% percent) were Gifted education evaluators. This establishes a degree of balance of

both roles, allowing a reasonably comprehensive image of the prevalent themes (Figure

7).

Most respondents cited the classroom teacher as the primary source of

nominations for assessment (Figure 3). The Gifted Indicator Checklist, or similar item, is

the most widely used method of assessment, often in addition to other more traditional

tests (Figure 4). Most of the districts that responded rely upon in-school Professional

Development to help teachers to recognize Gifted behaviors in the classroom (Figure 5).

When asked for advice as to how to achieve a higher level of equitable representation of

Plan B students, most respondents recommended the use of a universal screener,

administered in second or third grade. Many also recommended additional training for

classroom teachers to recognize gifted behaviors (Table 4).

In reviewing the aggregate survey data, it is important to note that respondents

were encouraged to select ‘all that apply.’ Total responses may therefore exceed the

number of participants.

Results for Research Question One

Which measurement instruments and procedures for assessing giftedness being used by

the Florida school districts show the most equitable representation of students who

belong to an underrepresented group, as defined in Plan B?

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 38

Survey Question One. The primary source of nominations for assessment for Plan B

students is (check all that apply):

a) Parents

b) Classroom Teachers

c) Standardized Tests

d) Other

Of the 29 respondents that answered survey question one, 24 cited classroom

teachers as the primary source of nominations for assessment for Plan B students.

Standardized tests were selected by 13 respondents and parents were named by ten

respondents. Additionally, seven participants chose ‘other’ and referred to an unnamed

screener, with three respondents specifying the Naglieri Non-Verbal Abilities Test.

These seven responses were added to the total of number standardized test responses in

Figure 3. One respondent referenced an In-School Success Team that managed student

referrals to the Gifted program.

Figure 3.

Primary Source of Nominations for Potentially Gifted Students via Plan B

Primary Source of Nominations

Parents Classroom Teachers Standardized Tests Other

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 39

Survey Question Two. The primary method of assessment for Plan B

students is (check all that apply)

a) Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT2)

b) Naglieri Non -Verbal Abilities Test (NNAT)

c) Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM)

d) Gifted Indicators Checklist

e) Portfolio of Student Work

f) Other (please describe)

Figure 4.

Primary Method of Assessment for Potentially Gifted Plan B Students

Twenty seven participants answered this question. Twenty two selected the

Gifted Indicators Checklist as the primary method of assessment. The Kaufman Brief

WISC

Teacher

RIAS

Portfolio

OLSAT

NNAT

KBIT

KABC II

IQ Test (unnamed)

Gifted Indicator Checklist

DAS II

CTONI

Creativity

CogAt

Achievement Tests

Academic Performance/Grades

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Primary Method of Assessment for Potentially Gifted Plan B Students

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 40

Intelligence Test (KBIT2) was chosen by 15 respondents. The Naglieri Non-Verbal

Abilities Test (NNAT) and a Portfolio of student work were each chosen six times.

Twenty three of the 27 respondents chose ‘other’ and elaborated by naming numerous

other assessment vehicles, with the Gifted Indicator Checklist as the most cited.

Responses that were duplicated from the answer choices ‘a’ through ‘e’ were

added to the totals represented in Figure 4. Responses that were similar in nature (ex.,

Gifted Indicators Checklist, Gifted Rating Scale and HOPE Scale Gifted Checklist) were

added to the same category. Figure 4 also lists all other assessments named by

respondents. A list of these additional assessments with complete names and brief

descriptions can be found in Appendix F.

Results for Research Question Two

How can school districts support teachers in identifying students who are potentially

gifted for nomination for Plan B assessment?

Survey question three. How does your district help teachers identify gifted

behaviors in the classroom (check all that apply)

a. In-School Professional Development

b. Online Courses

c. Webinar

d. Other

Twenty six of 28 respondents chose In-School Professional Development as the

primary method of helping teachers identify gifted behaviors in the classroom. Online

courses were chosen by eight respondents and two participants chose Webinars. Eleven

participants chose ‘other’ and in addition to citing district led workshops and professional

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 41

development, three wrote that the Gifted teachers assisted the classroom teachers. Two

others referenced a rating scale and a screener. Three other respondents stated that there

was no support for the classroom teachers in this regard. Figure 5 represents all

responses to survey question three.

Figure 5.

Methods of Supporting Teachers in Identifying Gifted Behaviors

Survey question four. Based on your district’s success in equitable

representation for underrepresented Plan B students, what suggestions or advice

would you have for other school districts?

Coding of responses. More than half of the respondents recommended a

universal school-wide screening.

“Start universal screening and use multiple screening tools.”

Methods of Helping Teachers Identify Gifted Behaviors in Classrooms

In-School Professional Development Online Courses

Webinar District PD & Workshops

Gifted Teachers None

Rating Scale Screener

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 42

“Universal screening is essential to give every student the chance to show the

skills.”

“Our district wide screener is very successful as well.”

One respondent also specified that one of the benefits of a school-wide screening

is that “parent and teacher requests don't catch everyone.” Additionally, a “district wide

nonverbal screener [can be used] in addition to screening checklist.” Another respondent

supported the use of a screener, although his or her district does not yet use one. “We are

looking to revamp our policy currently. We believe a universal screening is needed.”

Several responses specified that the screener should be administered in

elementary school.

“Adopt a universal screening system to administer to all students in every

elementary school, instead of relying solely on parental request.”

“The best practice is to screen all students in Kindergarten or 1st grade.”

Both the Cognitive Abilities Test and the Naglieri Non-Verbal Abilities Test were

mentioned, as they were in responses for survey question two.

“I think moving to a grade-specific, school-wide group administered standardized

assessment would be a better approach. Something like the CogAT and/or Nagliari.”

An equal number of respondents suggested targeted professional development and

“educating teachers on gifted characteristics.”

“Teacher training is key-recognizing talent in students beyond just a test score.”

“Training to teachers on gifted characteristics for underrepresented learners.”

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 43

Furthermore, several respondents specifically stated that the training should focus

on the characteristics of a non-traditional Gifted student, implying that the Plan B student

may exhibit his or her giftedness in a unique or atypical manner.

Districts can offer “PD around what is gifted and how can it look in all students,

not just our typical type A gifted.”

“Also target training on non traditional gifted characteristics.”

“Educating the teachers in the gifted characteristics of underrepresented students.”

“My advice would be to look at each student on an individual basis, across the

curriculum. Districts need to train their staff on what a Plan B kid might look like in the

educational setting, so that referrals for further testing can happen.”

One participant also noted that the use of checklists required training and should

“take into account whether the person filling out the checklist has been trained, user bias,

personal feelings or opinions about the student.”

The need for all stakeholders, in and out of school, to be involved was similarly

advised.

“PD around what is gifted and how can it look in all students, not just our typical

type A gifted. Increased knowledge in all stakeholders including teachers, parents, and

administrators.

“Provide more awareness activities for teachers, school counselors and for school

psychologists.”

Table 4.

Major Themes and Sub-Themes Identified in Suggestions for Increasing Equitable

Representation of Plan B Students

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 44

_______________________________________________________________________

Major Theme 1

________________________________________________________________________

Universal Screener

Administered in Elementary School

Cognitive Abilities Test and Naglieri Non-Verbal Abilities Test

________________________________________________________________________

Major Theme 2

________________________________________________________________________

Professional Development

Non-traditional Gifted Characteristics

All Stakeholders

________________________________________________________________________

Demographic Questions. These questions were included in order to get a general

picture of the sample group, and still maintain the anonymity of the respondents.

Although they were specifically labeled as optional, most participants answered the

following two questions.

Survey Question Five. Please identify the size of your district based on student

enrollment (optional)

a. Less than 10,000

b. 10,001 to 100,000

c. 100,001 or Higher

Figure 6 illustrates that three respondents identified his or her district as having

less than 10,000 students enrolled. Nineteen participants described his or her district’s

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 45

enrollment as between 10,001 and 100,000. Nine respondents wrote that his or her

district has more than 100,001 enrolled students. One participant declined to answer.

Figure 6.

Student Enrollment of Districts Participating in the Study

Survey Question Six. Please identify your role in this process (optional):

a. Gifted Education Administrator

b. Gifted Education Evaluator

Figure 7.

Roles of Participants in Study

Less than 10,000 Between 10,001 and

100,000

More than 100,001 Declined to Respond

District Size based on Student Enrollement

Administrator Evaluator Declined to Respond

Roles of Study Participants

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 46

Seventeen Gifted Education Administrators participated in the study, along with

12 Gifted Education Evaluators. Three participants declined to identify themselves.

Summary of Results

Of the 152 Gifted Education professionals that were invited to participate in this

study, 32 chose to respond. Although more administrators than evaluators completed the

survey, both perspectives are amply represented. The mid-size school districts

contributed the most replies, while small and large school districts were also represented.

Two themes are consistently illustrated throughout both the quantitative and

qualitative responses. First, most of the participants recognize the value of a universal

non-verbal school-wide screener as a required element for equitable representation.

Second, the importance of the classroom teacher is an ever-present entity in this process.

These themes and additional perspectives will be analyzed in Chapter V.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 47

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to identify the nomination procedures and testing

instruments that produce the most equitable representation of traditionally

underrepresented students in the Gifted programs in Florida’s public school districts.

Specifically, as defined in the Plan B provision (Florida Administrative Code, Rule 6A-

A.03019, Section b, 2002), these students have Limited English Proficiency or come

from a Low Socioeconomic Status family. Although the FAC code specifies which

students qualify for non-traditional assessment methods, each district may choose from a

broad array of nomination procedures and testing instruments, subject to a final approval

by the State of Florida Department of Education (Florida Administrative Code, Rule 6A-

A.03019, Section b, 2002).

A review of the district level statistical data found in the Bureau of Exceptional

Education and Student Services database, within the FLDOE website, revealed 28 Florida

public school districts that demonstrated equitable representation of traditionally

underrepresented students in Gifted programs, within a 20% differential, as explained

under Definitions in Chapter I of this document (Florida Department of Education, 2018).

One hundred and fifty two Gifted Education Administrators and Evaluators representing

the selected 28 Florida school Districts (Appendix A) were invited to participate in this

study. They each received, via email, a request to participate in an online survey, created

on SurveyMonkey.com™. Informed consent was clearly delineated prior to entering the

survey and anonymity was assured by the researcher and through Survey Monkey™

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 48

protocols. Thirty two Gifted Education professionals chose to contribute their expertise

to this research.

Summary of Results

Research question one asks: Which measurement instruments and procedures for

assessing giftedness being used by the Florida school districts show the most equitable

representation of students who belong to an underrepresented group, as defined in Plan

According to the responses for survey question one, classroom teachers are the

clear leader in the nomination process, followed closely by standardized tests or

screeners. Parents are nominating their students; however, this answer was chosen at

approximately half the frequency of the others (Figure 3).

Gifted Indicator Checklists and other similar documents were the frontrunner for

assessment methods, chosen 32 times in survey question two. The KBIT II was chosen

18 times, followed by the NNAT and Portfolios of student work (Figure 4). Other

assessments were listed under ‘other’ at a frequency of less than ten selections. These are

described in Appendix F.

Research question two asks: How can school districts support teachers in

identifying students who are potentially gifted for nomination for Plan B assessment?

In-School Professional Development was the most widely chosen approach to

supporting classroom teachers in recognizing potentially gifted students, selected 26

times. Online courses were chosen next but at a much lower rate of only eight times.

District workshop and professional development were also included along with working

directly with Gifted teachers (Figure 5).

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 49

Twenty seven participants offered advice on how districts can increase their

representation of Plan B students in Gifted programs. A universal screener, administered

in the early grades, was cited the most, at 12 times. At almost the same frequency, 11

times, teacher training and awareness were recommended. Other suggestions were

included but none with any significant frequency (Table 4).

Discussion of Results

While the initial focus of this research was directed at testing instruments and

procedures, it appears that the human element is equally important to an equitable process

for students to gain access to Gifted programs through the Plan B guidelines. The

reliance on teachers for nominations for Gifted assessment and for the completion of

Gifted Indicator Checklists puts the everyday classroom educator at the center of this

research.

However, most of the academic research focuses on the assessment vehicle and

enrichment opportunities offered to potential Plan B students, also referred to as

Culturally and Linguistically Different (CLD) students. The role of the teacher is

acknowledged but very little is said after that. For example, a position paper written by

the National Association for Gifted Children entitled, Identifying and Serving Culturally

and Linguistically Diverse Gifted Students, states “In order to meet the needs of CLD

students, a change in how educators view these students must occur.” (NAGC, 2011).

Yet, the paper continues without any further mention of how to facilitate that change as it

directly pertains to the teacher. In 2014, the NAGC published another position paper,

Preparing All Pre-Service Teachers to Work Effectively with Gifted Learners. This one-

page paper discusses the need for teacher preparation programs to include “coursework

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 50

for all their teacher candidates on the nature and needs of gifted and talented students.”

(NAGC, 2014).

Although no further guidance is offered in that paper, the NAGC initiated a pilot

program in Tennessee called Giftedness Knows No Boundaries, reported in April 2018

(Sparks, 2018). This is a micro-credentialing program for teachers in training to

recognize and work with potentially gifted students and is “the first formal certification in

the country focused on educating academically advanced but underserved students.”

(Sparks, 2018). The article in EdWeek reports that if the pilot goes well, the NAGC

hopes to expand the program to other states (Sparks, 2018).

Some resources for training teachers on how to identify potentially gifted students

from minority sub-groups can be found online. Teachers First.com has an easy-to-read

checklist of identifying behaviors (Teachers First, 2019). In addition to another

behaviors checklist, AdvancementCourses.com offers training modules available for a fee

(Advancement Courses, 2016). Generally, though, the researcher had difficulty finding

any substantive methods for classroom teachers to recognize giftedness in traditionally

under-represented student groups. If the NAGC’s pilot program is successful, perhaps

more emphasis will be placed on the crucial role of the classroom teacher.

The importance of the front-line educator should not draw attention away from

the value of the universal non-verbal screener. The Naglieri Non-Verbal Test (NNAT)

was the most frequently cited by survey participants. Respondents repeatedly

recommended the use of this type of screener in the early grades, usually kindergarten

through second grade. The NNAT and other screeners, such as the Cognitive Abilities

Test, were also cited as assessments.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 51

Teacher training was named as the most effective way to support teachers in

identifying potentially gifted students in their classrooms. In-school professional

development was cited most often, followed by online courses and district-led

workshops.

Educating the educators was also one of the most recurrent suggestions for

equitable representation in other districts. Several respondents were quite specific:

“PD around what is gifted and how can it look in all students, not just our typical

type A gifted.”

“Provide training/support in recognizing gifted characteristics in all students,

including SWD”

“Utilize a normed referenced gifted identifier/checklist instead of relying on a

gifted characteristic checklist that does not take into account whether the person filling

out the checklist has been trained, user bias, personal feelings or opinions about the

student.”

“Also target training on non-traditional gifted characteristics”

“Districts need to train their staff on what a Plan B kid might look like in the

educational setting”

“Principals who push teachers to identify and take the [Gifted] endorsement seem

to correlate with schools that have higher representation and more endorsed teachers.”

“Teacher training is key-recognizing talent in students beyond just a test score.”

“Training to teachers on gifted characteristics for underrepresented learners”

It is noteworthy that many of these comments acknowledge that Plan B students,

those who are ‘outside the box,’ may demonstrate giftedness in untraditional ways. This,

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 52

presumably, was the original impetus for the addition of Plan B to the Florida

Administrative Code.

Of the 32 respondents, 17, or 53%, identified themselves as Gifted education

administrators and 12, or 37%, as Gifted education evaluators. Three, or 10%, declined

to respond. This allows for a reasonably balanced perspective, within 16%, between the

two roles.

Figure 8.

Representation of School Districts in Study by Enrollment

Florida Department of Education. (2018).

The representation of small, mid-size, and large school districts in the survey

shows a lesser degree of balanced representation, especially in the over-representation of

the larger school districts. Figure 8 shows a comparison of the distribution of the three

size categories in all of Florida’s 67 school districts, the 28 districts selected for the

survey, and the 31 participants who responded to this question. The representation of the

mid-size districts was consistent with their prevalence in both the state at large and within

All Florida School Districts Districts Selected for Survey Identified by Respondents

Representation of Districts

Based on Student Enrollment

Expressed in Percentages

Less than 10,000 10,001 - 100,000 100,001 or more

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 53

the districts selected for the survey. Small districts were not represented at the same rate

as they are in the state overall but represented commensurately within the survey. The

larger districts, while represented fairly in the survey, had an over-presentation of

respondents. As larger districts may tend to operate differently from the smaller districts,

it is difficult to surmise what effect, if any, this may have had on the survey results.

Implications for Practice

The two most prevalent themes realized from this research are the need for a

universal screener administered in the early grades, and improved training and support

for classroom teachers for identifying potentially gifted students who meet Plan B

criteria.

Although not all respondents specified which screener they prefer, participants

consistently recognized the value of a universal screener designed for elementary level

students. Standardized tests or screeners were identified by 68.9% of the participants

who answered survey question one as the primary source of nomination. When asked for

suggestions for success in survey question four, almost half of the comments were

recommendations for the use of an early grades screener. Additionally, even though

survey question two focused on assessments for giftedness, screeners such as the Naglieri

Non-Verbal Abilities Test and the Cognitive Abilities Test were most notably selected.

Overall, the use of universal abilities screeners is perceived by these district

representatives to be an important tool for identifying potentially gifted Plan B students.

The impact of the classroom teacher was repeatedly acknowledged throughout the

survey results. Classroom teachers were overwhelmingly (82.76%) selected as the

primary source of nominations for Plan B students. Nominations from the teacher were

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 54

named by 24 out of 29 participants, even more frequently than the screening instruments.

Moreover, professional development to support these teachers was the most cited way to

support them in the challenge to identify and nominate potentially gifted students from

under-represented groups. In-school Professional Development was selected by 26 out of

28 respondents (92.86%) as the most prevalent method of assisting teachers with this

task. It must be noted, however, that increased knowledge and awareness for all

stakeholders of the characteristics of the traditionally under-represented gifted student

was also consistently recommended as a means by which other districts could achieve

more equitable representation of Plan B students in Gifted programs.

In addition to the results of this survey, there is recent research that confirms the

value of a universal screening process. Card and Guiliano (2015) reported on the

improvement in equitable representation in gifted enrollment in a large Florida district

when a universal screener had been implemented. McBee, Peters and Miller (2016)

conducted a statistical analysis of how universal screening for giftedness can positively

impact the representation of traditionally under-represented students by broadening the

nomination process (McBee, et.al., 2016). A 2018 study conducted at the Thomas B

Fordham Institute entitled, “Is There a Gifted Gap?” found that while gifted programs

were found with relatively equal frequency at high-poverty schools and low-poverty

schools, enrollment in those programs was significantly higher at low-poverty schools.

Their first recommendation for school districts is to implement universal screeners

(Fordham Institute, 2018). These proposals are supported by the National Association for

Gifted Children (NAGC, 2018).

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 55

However, some research cautions that the non-verbal screener should not be used

as a comprehensive tool. In 2013, Giessman, Gambrell and Stebbins compared the

NNAT II to the Cognitive Abilities Test 6 and confirmed that while the results for

underrepresented students were comparable, they should not be used solely without

“other adjustments to selection protocol.” Additionally, they cautioned that:

This study raises doubts about the claims of at least one nonverbal test that it can

better identify students from underrepresented groups for gifted services.

Districts should not assume that one instrument will be a panacea and, instead,

might consider using nonverbal ability tests as one tool in a wider approach to

identifying and serving students in these groups. (Giessman, et.al, 2013).

In 2016, Carman, Walther, and Bartsch researched the use of the Cognitive

Abilities Test (CogAT) and the effect of specific demographics on the final results of this

screener. They found that the specific demographics of a selected group of students can

directly impact the validity of the scores (Carman, et.al, 2016). Considering the broad

diversity found in Florida school districts, this may have a significant influence.

As is sometimes seen in contemporary education, United States policymakers try

to place an objective, numeric value on a subjective, human experience by relying on

standardized testing for quantified data. For example, the Washington Post cited the

2015 research by the Council of the Great City Schools (www.cgcs.org) which found that

“A typical student takes 112 mandated standardized tests between pre-kindergarten

classes and 12th grade…By contrast, most countries that outperform the United States on

international exams test students three times during their school careers.” (Layton, 2015).

Interestingly, the Council of the Great City Schools membership includes seven Florida

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 56

school districts, all of which were invited to participate in this study: Broward, Duval,

Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, Pinellas and Palm Beach (Council of the Great City

Schools, 2019). In parallel, teacher performance has also been translated into a

quantified paradigm. Steinberg and Kraft (2017) cite the passage of the Every Student

Succeeds Act (2015) as the recent focused redesigning of teacher evaluation models.

Their study suggests that designers of these evaluation systems may not be aware of the

intricacies of each component and how delicate the overall balance can affect evaluations

and in turn, student achievement (Steinberg & Kraft, 2017).

Therefore, while some instructional leaders seem to favor an increasing push for

digital data and automated delivery, the contribution of the classroom teacher remains a

significant factor. How can district administrators and school principals continue to

support these teachers without adding one more task to their already overflowing plates?

Ongoing professional development is the mainstay of successful educators, but

perhaps the professional development itself must be vetted. It should be obtained from

Gifted Education experts such as the National Association for Gifted Children (nagc.org),

the Neag Center at the University of Connecticut (gifted.uconn.edu), or The Institute for

Educational Advancement (educationaladvancement.org). In order to broaden the scope

of nominations, educators need to broaden their perception of giftedness.

Nonetheless, any pupil learns best by doing. Experienced Gifted Education

teachers, those who have recognized giftedness in underrepresented student groups are in

the best position to work with classroom teachers and assist them in recognizing the

talents that may be outside the box yet right under his or her nose.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 57

As referenced in Chapter I, the National Association of Gifted Children estimates

that approximately six to ten percent of K-12 students are gifted, regardless of race,

ethnicity, socio-economic status or first language. Yet, non-white student subgroups are

historically under-represented in Gifted programs both nationally (Table 1) and in the

State of Florida (Figure 2). More specifically, only 28 of 67 Florida school districts

reported Plan B enrollment within a 20% differential (Tables 2 & 3). Therefore, a

majority of Florida school districts (39) report a Plan B enrollment with a greater than

20% differential. It should be noted that the researcher had originally intended to survey

Florida school districts with an even lower differential, but that sample would have been

too small for a representative analysis. Based on the NAGC estimates, a significant

number of gifted students are not being identified. Experienced, well-trained teachers

would likely improve this situation.

Limitations

There are several limitations to the results of this study. Although 152 gifted

education professionals were invited to participate, only 32, or 21% chose to respond.

Therefore, the actual sample size was smaller than anticipated. This may be at least

partially attributed to the fact that the survey was sent during the winter holiday season

on November 6, 2018 and again on December 2, 2018. Generally, school districts and

their employees are often busy with holiday events and there are a significant number of

days when district offices are closed. Also, although every effort was made by the

researcher to remain unbiased, the researcher had prior knowledge and opinions of the

Plan B protocols, which could have possibly influenced the final analysis or

recommendations.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 58

Other limitations may have included the organization and wording of the survey

questions. Specifically, in Survey question one, the researcher used the term

‘standardized test’, which was meant to include all screeners. Several respondents chose

‘other’ for this question and then specified ‘screener’ in general or ‘NNAT’ in particular.

This may have artificially inflated the number of times an answer was chosen.

Additionally, the types of measurement tools used for nomination versus assessment

could have been more clearly described as several respondents listed instruments usually

used for screening, as assessments for giftedness. Some respondents may not have

understood that they could choose ‘all that apply’ because there were several occasions

when answers were written as ‘other’ even though they were offered in the original

answer choices. Again, this may have artificially inflated the final results.

Recommendations for Future Research

As the Plan B protocol focuses solely on students who are either Limited English

Proficient or a member of a low Socio-Economic Status family, it might be interesting to

compare the level of equitable representation in Gifted programs by Race or Gender, and

then compare those numbers against the Plan B data.

This survey targeted Gifted Education Administrators and Evaluators but did not

include the perspectives of the classroom teachers. The opinions and perceptions of those

who work directly with Gifted students, regardless of the path to acceptance into these

programs, could be most enlightening. How do classroom teachers see Giftedness?

Additionally, interviews with the parents of Limited English Proficient students

and those from Low Socio-Economic Status families would also offer a unique

perspective. What are their views or opinions of the application of Plan B? Are most

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 59

parents even aware of the Plan B protocol and the potential opportunities for their

children?

Another way to analyze this data might be to consider the specific demographics

of each individual district and how they may affect sub-group representation in Gifted

programs. For example, do districts with a lower percentage of FRL or LEP students

have a higher or lower representation differential than other districts?

While the Plan B regulation is specific as to what should be included in the

district plan, it does not specify how each component is to be implemented. For example,

it requires the district to name the referral, screening, or assessment instrument, but does

not specify which instruments are recommended, or may or may not be used.

Presumably, this is done at the state level, but it appears to allow the districts an

extremely broad breadth of flexibility. How are the district-proposed plans monitored

and evaluated for final approval? Are recommendations for preferred screening or

assessment instruments offered by the state?

Historical Plan B data, as it may be available, would also be of interest.

Considering the evolution of the Plan B regulation as described in Chapter 2, it may be

relevant to explore how the demographic data may have shifted as a result of the changes

through the years. For example, between the years of 1991 and 2002, the regulation

specified that students who were not white non-Hispanic, and later Asian/Pacific

Islander, were eligible for Plan B placement into Gifted programs. Was there a more

equitable representation of Black students during those years? Additionally, it has been

17 years since the Plan B verbiage was amended. Leaders in the field of Gifted

education, such as Dr. Donna Y. Ford (2013), Dr. Joseph Renzulli (2019), and the

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 60

National Association for Gifted Children (2019, 2011, 2008), all agree that flexible and

varies assessment procedures facilitate a more inclusive Gifted student environment that

better serves the Culturally and Linguistically Different student. Is it not time to review

the regulation again? What would happen if any student could qualify for Plan B? What

if Plan B became Plan A? How many more potentially Gifted students would be served?

Summary

The purpose of this study was to identify best practices for equitable

representation for potentially gifted students from historically underrepresented

demographic sub-groups in Florida public school districts, under the Florida

Administrative Code, Rule 6A-A.03019, also known as Plan B (Florida Administrative

Code, Rule 6A-A.03019, Section b, 2002). After a review of the data reported by

Florida’s 67 public school districts, 28 districts were found to have equitable

representation within a 20% differential (see Definitions, Chapter I). One hundred and

fifty two Gifted Education Administrators and Evaluators were invited to participate in an

online survey, via the Survey Monkey.com™ interface. Thirty two education

professionals responded.

While there were many different suggestions and opinions expressed, two primary

themes emerged. The respondents strongly recommended the use of a non-verbal

screener, such as the NNAT or CogAT, to be administered in the early grades. Perhaps

more importantly, the interaction of the classroom teacher was represented as invaluable

to an equitable process.

The researcher will be compiling a Best Practices Handbook, highlighting the

final results of this research, to be shared with the Florida Department of Education and

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 61

interested school districts. Similar to Appendix F, this will also include an investigation

of the different screeners and assessments cited by respondents. Additionally, sources for

high quality professional development for teachers and other education professionals will

be included.

One of the sacred duties of an educator is to seek, find and nurture the special

talents that each unique child possesses. Gifted children are in every school, every

neighborhood, every classroom. The right teacher supported by a well-designed system

will find them all.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION      62 
   
 
References 
Advancement Courses (2019) Continuing education courses for teachers.  Retrieved 
from https://www.advancementcourses.com/courses/?subject=Gifted&Talented 
Advancement Courses (2016). How to identify gifted students in your classroom. 
Retrieved from https://www.advancementcourses.com/blog/how-to-identify-
gifted 
Allen, J. K. (2017). Exploring the Role Teacher Perceptions Play in the 
Underrepresentation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted 
Programming. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 77–86. https://lynn-
lang.student.lynn.edu:2092/10.1177/1076217517690188 
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).  
Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., & Pizzat, P. M. (Eds.). (1993). Contexts for promise: 
Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students.  
Charlottesville: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University 
of Virginia. 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c to 2000c-9 (1964).  
Council of the Great City Schools. (2019). Member districts.  Retrieved from 
https://www.cgcs.org/Page/827 
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-452 (1964).  

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 63

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 20 U.S.C. 236-244

(1965).

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-297, 20 U.S.C. 6301

§ 11 (1988).

Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 115-64, 20 U.S.C. 6301 § 4644 (2017).

Federal Register. (2017). Food and Nutrition Service. Child Nutrition Programs: Income

Eligibility Guidelines. Retrieved from

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/10/2017-07043/child-

nutrition-programs-income-eligibility-guidelines

Florida Department of Education. (2018). Bureau of exceptional education and student

services: SP&P district search, Part V, Appendix C. Retrieved from

http://beess.fcim.org/sppDistrictDocSearch.aspx

Florida Department of Education. (2017). Exceptional student education: Gifted

education. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/academics/exceptional-student-

edu/gifted-edu.stml.

Florida Department of State. (1988). Florida Administrative Code. Rule: 6A-6.03019:

Special instructional programs for students who are gifted. (Vol. 3, p. 343).

Florida Department of State. (1997). Florida Administrative Code. Rule: 6A-6.03019:

Special instructional programs for students who are gifted. (Vol. 3, p. 345 - 346).

Florida Department of State. (1998). Florida Administrative Code. Rule: 6A-6.03019:

Special instructional programs for students who are gifted. (Vol. 2, p. 141).

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 64

Florida Department of State. (2002). Florida Administrative Code. Rule: 6A-6.03019:

Special instructional programs for students who are gifted. Retrieved from

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?ID=6A-6.03019.

Ford, D. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students. Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press, Inc.

Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted

students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 217-225.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Grissom, J.A. & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the

underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs.

American Education and Research Association. January-March 2016, Vol. 2,

No. 1, pp. 1–25 DOI: 10.1177/2332858415622175.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2019). CogAT. Retrieved from

https://www.hmhco.com/programs/cogat.

Jordan, K. R., Bain, S. K., McCallum, R. S., & Bell, S. M. (2012). Comparing gifted and

nongifted African American and Euro-American students on cognitive and

academic variables using local norms. Journal For The Education Of The

Gifted, 35(3), 242-258. doi:10.1177/0162353212451701

Lakin, J. M., & Lohman, D. F. (2011). The Predictive Accuracy of Verbal, Quantitative,

and Nonverbal Reasoning Tests: Consequences for Talent Identification and

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION      65 
   
 
Program Diversity. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 595–623. 
https://lynn-lang.student.lynn.edu:2092/10.1177/016235321103400404 
Layton, L. (2015). Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public 
schools. Washington Post. Retrieved from 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/study-says-standardized-
testing-is-overwhelming-nations-public-schools/2015/10/24/8a22092c-79ae-11e5-
a958-d889faf561dc_story.html?utm_term=.0411f43318cd 
Leedy, P. D. & Ormond, J. E. (2016).  Practical research planning and design.  New 
York, NY: Pearson 
McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Miller, E. M. (2016). The Impact of the Nomination Stage 
on Gifted Program Identification. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. 
https://lynn-lang.student.lynn.edu:2092/10.1177/0016986216656256 
Miller, et al., v. State of Florida, Department of Education, et al. No. 01-4536-CIV (S.D. 
Fla. 2002).  
National Association for Gifted Children. (2019). Giftedness knows no boundaries. 
Retrieved from http://www.giftednessknowsnoboundaries.org 
National Association for Gifted Children (2011).  Identifying and serving culturally and 
linguistically diverse gifted students.  Retrieved from 
https://nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Identifying%20and%20
Serving%20Culturally%20and%20Linguistically.pdf 

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 66

National Association for Gifted Children. (2008). The role of assessments in the

identification of gifted students. Retrieved from

http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Assessment%20Po

sition%20Statement.pdf

National Association for Gifted Children. (2014). National surveys of gifted programs.

Retrieved from

http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014%20Survey%20of%2

0GT%20programs%20Exec%20Summ.pdf

National Association for Gifted Children. (2016). Frequently asked questions about

gifted education. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-

publications/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-gifted-education

National Association for Gifted Children (2017). Why are gifted programs needed?

Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-

practices/why-are-gifted-programs-needed

National Center for Education Statistics (2004). Table 42. Percentage distribution of

enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and

state or jurisdiction: Fall 1992 and fall 2002. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_042.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Table 40. Percentage distribution of

enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and

state or jurisdiction: Fall 1994 and fall 2004. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_040.asp

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 67

National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Table 51. Number and percentage of

gifted and talented students in public elementary and secondary schools, by sex,

race/ethnicity, and state: 2002. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_051.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Table 50. Number of gifted and talented

students in public elementary and secondary schools, by sex, race/ethnicity, and

state: 2002 and 2004. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_050.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2008). Table 41. Percentage distribution of

enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and

state or jurisdiction: Fall 1996 and fall 2006. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_041.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2008). Table 53. Number of gifted and talented

students in public elementary and secondary schools, by sex, race/ethnicity, and

state: 2004 and 2006. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_053.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Table 203.70. Percentage distribution

of enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and

state or jurisdiction: Fall 2001 and fall 2011. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.70.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2014). Table 203.70. Percentage distribution

of enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 68

state or jurisdiction: Fall 2002 and fall 2012. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_203.70.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Table 203.50. Enrollment and

percentage distribution of enrollment in public elementary and secondary

schools, by race/ethnicity and region: Selected years, fall 1995 through fall 2025.

Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_203.50.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Table 204.80. Number of public school

students enrolled in gifted and talented programs, by sex, race/ethnicity, and

state: 2004, 2006, and 2011-12. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.80.asp

National Head Start Association. (2018). Mission, vision, history. Retrieved from

https://www.nhsa.org/about-us/mission-vision-history

New York Times. (2011). Diversity in the classroom. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/immigration/enrollment/florida

PAR. (2019). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales, Second edition. Retrieved from

https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/365

Pearson Education (2019). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Second

edition. Retrieved from

https://www.pearsonclinical.com/education/products/100000624/comprehensive-

test-of-nonverbal-intelligence-second-edition-ctoni-2-ctoni-2.html#tab-details.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 69

Pearson Education (2019). Differential Ability Scales. Retrieved from

https://www.pearsonclinical.com/education/products/100000468/differential-

ability-scales-ii-das-ii.html#tab-details.

Pearson Education. (2019). Gifted Rating Scales (GRS). Retrieved from

https://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000180/gifted-rating-

scales-grs.html#tab-details

Pearson Education. (2019). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second edition

normative update. Retrieved from

https://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000088/kaufman-

assessment-battery-for-children-second-edition-kabc-

ii.html?origsearchtext=KABC#tab-details.

Pearson Education. (2019). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second edition. Retrieved

from https://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000390/kaufman-

brief-intelligence-test-second-edition-kbit-2.html#tab-details.

Pearson Education. (2019). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Second edition. Retrieved

from

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/learningassessments/products/100000287/n

aglieri-nonverbal-ability-testsecond-edition-nnat2-nnat-2.html#tab-details.

Pearson Education. (2019). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, Eighth edition. Retrieved

from

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/learningassessments/products/100000003/o

tis-lennon-school-ability-test-eighth-edition-olsat-8-olsat-8.html#tab-details

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 70

Pearson Education. (2019). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth edition.

Retrieved from

https://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000771/wechsler-

intelligence-scale-for-childrensupsupfifth-edition--wisc-v.html#tab-details

Pinellas County Schools. (2019). Gifted assessment matrix for plan B eligibility.

Retrieved from

https://www.pcsb.org/cms/lib/FL01903687/Centricity/domain/176/pcs%20forms/

2-3194.pdf

ProEd. (2019). CAP: Creativity Assessment Packet. Retrieved from

https://www.proedinc.com/Products/6565/cap-creativity-assessment-packet.aspx.

Prufrock Press. (2019). HOPE Teacher Rating Scale (Manual): Involving teachers in

equitable identification of gifted and talented students in K-12. Retrieved from

https://www.prufrock.com/HOPE-Teacher-Rating-Scale-Manual-Involving-

Teachers-in-Equitable-Identification-of-Gifted-and-Talented-Students-in-K-12-

P2525.aspx

Rhode Island State Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented Education. (2016).

Characteristics and behaviors of the gifted. Retrieved from

http://www.ri.net/gifted_talented/character.html

Renzulli, J. and Gaesser, A. (2019). A multi criteria system for the identification of high

achieving and creative/productive giftedness. Renzulli Center for Creativity,

Gifted Education, and Talent Development. Retrieved from

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 71

https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/high_achieving_creative-

productive_giftedness/#

Ross, R. (2012) Poverty more than a matter of black and white. Retrieved from

https://inequality.org/research/poverty-matter-black-white

Scholastic Testing Service. (2018). Gifted education: TTCT. Retrieved from

https://www.ststesting.com/gift.

School Board of Broward County. (2019). Gifted Eligibility Matrix (GEM), Plan B.

Retrieved from http://www.sbbc-

gifted.com/downloads/Gifted_Eligibility_Matrix_Plan_B.pdf

Sparks, S.D. (2018). In Tenn., a 'microcredential' to help teachers identify students'

hidden giftedness. Education Week. Retrieved from

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/04/11/in-tenn-a-microcredential-to-

help-teachers.html

Steinberg, M. P. & Kraft, M. A. (2017). The sensitivity of teacher performance ratings to

the design of teacher evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, volume 46, no.

7. Retrieved from https://lynn-

lang.student.lynn.edu:2085/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X17726752

Teachers First (2019). How to spot a gifted student. Retrieved from

https://www.teachersfirst.com/gifted_spot.cfm

Thomas Fordham Institute (2018). Is there a gifted gap? Gifted education in high-poverty

schools. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/publications/is-there-a-gifted-gap

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 72

Time. (2016). Top 10 college dropouts. Retrieved from

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1988080,00.

html

U.S. History. (2017). Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Retrieved from

http://www.ushistory.org/us/56e.asp

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: The

Guilford Press.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 73

Appendix A

Selected Florida School Districts to be Invited to Participate in Survey

1 Alachua 15 Marion

2 Bay 16 Martin

3 Bradford 17 Mia-Dade

4 Brevard 18 Monroe

5 Broward 19 Orange

6 Clay 20 Osceola

7 Collier 21 Palm Beach

8 Duval 22 Pasco

9 Gadsden 23 Pinellas

10 Hernando 24 Polk

11 Hillsborough 25 Seminole

12 Lake 26 St. Johns

13 Lee 27 Suwannee

14 Leon 28 Volusia

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 74

Appendix B

Sample Phone Call to District (as applicable)

Good morning/afternoon,

My name is Robin Rothman and I am a Doctoral student in the Ross College of

Education at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida.

I am calling today to verify the email address of the coordinator of your district’s

gifted program. I am researching best practices in Florida’s Plan B implementation and

your district has one of the highest levels of equity for underrepresented students.

I would like to invite a designee from your district to participate in a brief online

survey about the procedures and assessments that your district has used to help create this

level of equity. The survey will be completely anonymous; neither the identity of the

respondent or his/her respective district will be revealed.

May I have the email address of the appropriate person?

Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 75

Appendix C

Informed Consent

Invitees were apprised of the following before choosing to participate in the

survey:

By clicking on the link leading to the survey, respondents agree to participate in

this survey. Respondents acknowledge that participation is voluntary and that the survey

is completely anonymous. There are minimal risks, such as possible stress from

answering questions regarding school issues. At any time, participants can exit the

survey and choose not to participate. If participants choose to exit the survey, there will

be no penalty and any related data will be destroyed. There are no benefits; however,

participants may enjoy answering questions regarding their work. By participating in the

study, respondents will be benefiting research in the area of increasing equitable

representation in Florida’s Gifted programs for underrepresented students.

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 76

Appendix D

Cover letter to Survey Invitees

Good day, Gifted Education Specialist,

My name is Robin N. Rothman and I am a Doctoral student in the Ross College

of Education at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. I am asking for your assistance

in completing my dissertation.

Based on the reporting found in the Florida Department of Education, Bureau of

Exceptional Education and Student Services database, your District has one of the highest

levels of equitable representation for Plan B Gifted Students, either in the Limited

English Proficient category and/or the Low Socio-Economic Status family category. I

am conducting an investigation into which methods and procedures are producing the

most equitable results in Plan B implementation. This email with the link to the survey

may be forwarded to another district employee if you feel that he/she would be more

knowledgeable in this area.

The link below will take you to a Survey Monkey™ survey consisting of five

questions. The respondent’s identity as well as his/her IP address will be anonymous and

not known to the researcher. You may answer as many questions as you wish. However,

your detailed responses would be most appreciated. The survey is expected to take

approximately 6 minutes or less to complete.

By clicking on the link, respondents agree to participate in this survey.

Respondents acknowledge that participation is voluntary and that the survey is

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 77

completely anonymous. There are minimal risks, such as possible stress from answering

questions regarding school issues. At any time, participants can exit the survey and

choose not to participate. There are no benefits; however, participants may enjoy

answering questions regarding their work. By participating in the study, you will be

benefiting research in the area of increasing equitable representation in Florida’s Gifted

programs for underrepresented students.

Thank you very much for your assistance in helping me to compile my data and

complete my degree. I hope to create a handbook of best practices for identifying gifted

students from underrepresented groups, which I look forward to sharing.

If you would like to receive a copy of the handbook, or if you have any other

questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at .

Sincerely,

Robin N. Rothman

BEST PRACTICES OF FLORIDA’S PLAN B IMPLEMENTATION 78

Appendix E

Survey Questions

Please review the following informed consent clause before beginning the survey: