We are fortunate to live in one of the states that requires both identification and services for GT students. In Texas, all public school districts must determine which students need GT services, and districts must offer those GT services to qualifying students in grades K-12 during the school day and throughout the school year.
Texas laws and regulations outline how GT students should be identified and what GT services must include. Nearly all Texas GT requirements are listed in a document called the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (“State Plan” for short). The State Plan is approved by the State Board of Education and published by the Texas Education Agency, and it was last updated in 2019.
Unfortunately, when parents learn about the State Plan, they may also discover that their school district is not fully in compliance with its requirements. Parents sometimes approach one of our GEFN volunteers, mention a State Plan section, and explain that their district is doing something differently than what the section says. This happens even in districts that work hard to make their GT programs strong.
Then parents ask: does my school district have to follow ALL of the State Plan?
Short answer: Yes, they do.
To understand why, and to help clear up any confusion on this point, please read below!
Texas GT Compliance in a Nutshell
Texas GT requirements all stem from laws passed by the Texas Legislature. (You can find these laws in the Texas Education Code, §§ 29.121 – 29.123) Additional details for these requirements can be found in the Texas Administrative Code, which is a compilation of state agency rules. The Texas Education Agency is responsible for the interpretation of the Administrative Code rules related to education, including the rules for gifted education (19 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 89.1 – 89.5). Each of these two sources creates a broad framework for GT program requirements – like building the wooden frame of a house – and each source then points to the State Plan to flesh out the details of those requirements. To continue the house analogy: the State Plan includes everything else needed to build the house (walls, roof, plumbing, doors, windows). The frame alone doesn’t include everything you need to complete a functional house.
It is important to pause and note that every part of the GT sections of the Education Code and Administrative Code must be followed. Let’s take 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 89.3 as an example. This rule reads:
School districts shall provide an array of learning opportunities for gifted/talented students in kindergarten through Grade 12 and shall inform parents of the opportunities. Options must include:
(1) instructional and organizational patterns that enable identified students to work together as a group, to work with other students, and to work independently;
(2) a continuum of learning experiences that leads to the development of advanced-level products and performances;
(3) in-school and, when possible, out-of-school options relevant to the student’s area of strength that are available during the entire school year; and
(4) opportunities to accelerate in areas of strength.
We’ve added boldface to emphasize the use of “and,” since lists sometimes cause confusion. Even if a district’s program goes above-and-beyond with requirements (2) and (3), that district must still also follow requirements (1) and (4).** Meeting one requirement does not exempt a district from meeting other requirements; everything listed is mandatory for each district and parents must be given information about how this is happening.
** For (4), requiring “opportunities to accelerate in areas of strength,” we should note that this applies to all students identified for gifted services (“kindergarten through Grade 12”). Although many districts choose to meet this requirement by using the CBE (Credit by Examination) process for single subjects in K-12, districts are not limited to using CBE to accelerate GT-identified students in their area(s) of strength.
Reading the State Plan
The State Plan is divided into several sections, and each section includes two columns: the accountability column and the exemplary column.
Here is one way to remember what this means: if the TEA looks at whether a district is in compliance with Texas GT laws, that district will be held accountable for doing everything in the accountability column. If families are looking to move to a district that does an exemplary job with GT services, they will want to look at whether the district’s program also does what the exemplary column describes.
Let’s look at the beginning of the Curriculum and Instruction section (page 9 of the State Plan, or page 17 of the PDF) as an example.
Sections 4.1 – 4.7 are pictured here. Each section in the accountability column lists a different requirement that districts must meet in teaching GT students. The sections in the exemplary column are extra: districts that want to do the best they can for GT students should follow the exemplary column, but realistically, not all districts are able to hit all of the exemplary sections.
No matter what happens in the exemplary column, everything in the accountability column is always required. Because Tex. Educ. Code § 29.123 directs the State Board of Education to create the State Plan, which “shall be used for accountability purposes,” the State Plan is part of the state education requirements that are mandatory for all Texas districts. The only situation in which a district can be temporarily exempt from meeting accountability column requirements is when the district elects to “develop a written plan specifying actions and timelines for achieving compliance” under State Plan Section 1.11 (for obvious reasons, districts cannot rely on 1.11 to delay compliance indefinitely).
Unfortunately, some districts – even districts with GT programs that are strong in some areas – misinterpret these requirements.
It’s a Recipe, Not a Menu
In districts that are out of compliance, administrators sometimes seem to view the entire State Plan as a menu of possibilities from which they can pick and choose. They believe that if they select just a few of the accountability sections to follow – and do their best with them – they will have created a good GT program that meets state requirements. Unfortunately, they are wrong.
It may be helpful to think of the State Plan as a recipe listing all of the ingredients needed for a strong, high-quality GT program. A strong GT program meets state requirements and meets the needs of all GT students in the district. If any State Plan section is left out and not followed, the district’s GT services are incomplete, and there will be students with needs that fall through the cracks. Each requirement exists for a reason, and the recipe fails when ingredients or instructions are left out. Just as a chef works for years to train, practice, experiment, sample, and perfect a dish before publishing their recipe, the State Plan was written and updated by a committee with many decades of combined experience in education. Current research and expert recommendations were incorporated, along with input from experienced district GT Coordinators, principals, teachers, and parents. Educators may not agree with every decision made by the TEA, but if they are familiar with best practices in GT education, they can see that each section of the State Plan has been included for a good reason.
Guidance on Interpreting the State Plan
Finally, the Texas Education Agency publishes helpful guidance to assist with interpreting the language in the State Plan. This guidance can be found on the TEA website, and it includes TEA answers to some of the most frequent questions about the State Plan. Supervising a district’s GT services is not an easy or a simple job, and in some districts, a teacher or administrator who is relatively new to GT education may be assigned to this role. In very small districts, the district’s GT Coordinator may wear multiple hats and simultaneously manage other district programs. Fortunately, an educator does not have to be a seasoned GT expert to ensure that their program is in compliance. They can simply follow all State Plan accountability requirements and TEA guidance.
Unfortunately, district leaders sometimes tell GT educators and parents that this TEA guidance is just a suggestion or recommendation, rather than a requirement. That is not correct. We cannot emphasize this enough: when a government agency issues guidance that interprets laws and regulations, this guidance is not optional.
When and how does TEA guidance come into play? When a district’s programs or policies are challenged as being out of compliance, either through a state audit or triggered by a parent complaint that has been filed with the state agency, the agency’s guidance tells you how state requirements will be interpreted and applied during the investigation.
Putting aside metaphors, in plain language: districts that do not want to be found out of compliance would be wise to follow all TEA guidance. Districts with GT programs that are out of compliance can lose funding. Under state law, districts can only receive GT Allotment funding if they have GT programs “that the district certifies to the commissioner as complying with” Texas Education Code GT requirements (Tex. Educ. Code § 48.109(a)). Again, because Texas law requires the creation of the State Plan (Tex. Educ. Code § 29.123), compliance with the State Plan is part of Texas Education Code GT requirements, and is therefore required to maintain GT funding. Although the current GT Allotment is small and insufficient, every dollar counts for underfunded public schools.
When district administrators attempt to skirt or downplay GT requirements, it is not because they want to hurt kids. Not all educators have the training needed to understand GT needs, and without that understanding, GT often takes a back seat to priorities that seem more pressing. Parent groups can play an important role in helping district leaders to understand that GT needs are legitimate educational needs, that a failure to meet these needs causes measurable harm to students, and that prioritizing GT programs helps GT students in all populations, including twice-exceptional students (gifted with one or more disabilities) and GT students from low-income backgrounds. If a district leader fully understands the reasons for Texas GT requirements and still attempts to avoid following them, it might be better for the district if a different educator filled that role.
Closing thoughts
GT educators work extremely hard, and both teachers and administrators enter education because they want to help kids. It is a difficult and often thankless time to work in a public school district in Texas. As parents, we want to support educators for many reasons, and we do not want them to leave education. While it is important for districts to reach full GT compliance as quickly as possible, it may take months or even a couple of years to bring about all necessary changes. We encourage parents to work collaboratively with districts whenever possible, to provide positive support for improvements, and to work with parent groups to advocate for the best possible education for GT students in all populations.
p.s. Watch our blog for an upcoming post with more details on the GT Allotment!
Do you have a burning question or a suggestion for a future post topic? Write us at giftededucationfamilynetwork@gmail.com!
This resource is provided for general information purposes, does not constitute legal advice, is not intended as and should not be interpreted as legal advice, and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
Gifted Education Family Network 