A Brief History of Gifted and Talented Legislation in Minnesota

Beginning in 1979 through 1988 the state of Minnesota funded programming for gifted and talented (g/t) students using a categorical funding formula.  In the years just prior to the formula's elimination, the g/t categorical formula provided school districts with $40 per identified pupil.  School districts were given authority to identify g/t  students, but a maximum of 5% of a district's students could be identified as gifted for funding purposes.  The 1987 Legislature eliminated a variety of categorical funding programs, including the gifted and talented categorical aid program.  During this time the Department of Education had one to two gifted and talented resource people on their staff.  

There was no specific funding for g/t programming for the next ten years and resource staff was lost during the Department’s various reorganizations during 1990 to 1996.

However, the Minimum Requirements for Elementary and Secondary Schools still included state law 3500.0500 GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS which stated in Subpart 1.  Program for all pupils.  "The educational program shall provide a general education for all pupils and suitable special education for exceptional children - handicapped, gifted and talented.  It shall meet the needs and interests of all pupils and the needs of the community served."  (Italics and bolding added) 

In 1993 that law was repealed when the Legislature, feeling there were too many mandates, formulated legislation which repealed some 200 pages of mandates. Because of the size of the bill, g/t supporters were unaware that the "gifted and talented" wording was being eliminated. 

In 1997, the legislature established grants for gifted and talented programming.  $1.5 million was appropriated in both 1998 and 1999 for g/t activities  (for a total of $3 million).  The session law allowed school districts or groups of districts to apply for grants of up to $25 per pupil per year.  In order to qualify for a grant, the district was required to: 1) establish a process to identify g/t students; 2) offer a challenging learning experience for these students; and 3) provide for staff development in meeting the needs of gifted and talented students.   

Also in 1997, the Department of Children, Families, and Learning (MDCFL) was told to designate resource staff for gifted.  A list of 12 gifted "experts" in the MDCFL was created. 

In 1998, $5 per pupil unit (ppu) of the graduation standards implementation money (totaling $64 ppu) for FY 1999 was reserved for gifted and talented programs that were integrated with the graduation rule.  This revenue was available to all school districts in Minnesota but was repealed after one year. 

Also in 1998, MDCFL was required by law to designate staff for gifted.  Mary Pfeiffer was assigned the position and began creating the Gifted and Talented Development Center.  She has since been allowed to spend between only 5% and, now, 2% of her time on this effort. 

In 1999, the grants were re-proposed with increased funding and the legislation was defeated.  At the federal level a Gifted Education Act was proposed.  However, Minnesota would not have qualified for any funding as it required states to outline an identification process for gifted students, not individual districts. 

In 2000, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate which would have provided gifted and talented revenue for each district at $10 ppu as part of the general education revenue.  The funding was to be spent only to (1) identify gifted and talented students; (2) provide educational programming for g/t students; or (3) provide staff development to aid in the teaching of g/t students.  The legislation was defeated. 

As you can see, funding for gifted and talented students in the state of Minnesota has never been feast or famine, it has been more like slow starvation or famine. To our knowledge, MDCFL currently has no money budgeted for the approximately 80,000 gifted students in Minnesota.  Last year MDCFL had designated $20,000 from its budget for the Gifted and Talented Development Center.  That $20,000 came to .000025% of the millions appropriated for K-12 education.  In practice, this means we were targeting 25¢ from the state for each gifted student in Minnesota.

Why are we requesting funding from the Legislature?**

Early in 2000 a survey was mailed from MDCFL to every district superintendent in Minnesota requesting information concerning how their district did or did not identify and provide services to gifted and talented students.  Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the districts responded. 

The survey reported what many of us knew all along - that Gifted and Talented students in K-12 are most often

	Not formally identified
	Not offered daily challenging services and programs
	Not taught by an instructor who has been trained to provide these type services
	Not guaranteed services from year to year

	Of the 87% of districts that did report (50 districts did not report), 43 districts reported offering no gifted and talented services of any kind
	The greatest concentration of those "no services" districts occurs in districts with enrollments of less than 500 students and in outstate districts
	Formal differentiation occurs in 46% of the reporting districts, while in-class enrichment by a GT Resource Teacher occurs in 31% of the reporting districts
	However, at the high school level, formal differentiation is offered in less than 3% of the districts in the state and in-class enrichment by a GT Resource Teacher drops to 7%
	Extra-curricular academic clubs and competitions do become more prevalent at the high school level, as do enriched and/or accelerated courses, although these courses tend to be most prevalent in English and math, and sparse in social studies and humanities
	While extra-curricular activities are prevalent across the entire state, the concentration of advanced course offerings varies regionally and with school size
	Of the districts reporting any kind of services for gifted and talented students, the most common "service" provided at the secondary level was extra-curricular academic clubs, not  in-class daily instruction
	At the middle school level, gifted services drop off significantly from elementary levels, although extra-curricular activities remain strong, as do enriched courses in English and math
	Specialized services for gifted students - scheduled proactive counseling services, self-contained classes of GT learners - are found in no more than 13% of the reporting districts, and become less prevalent as grade level increases
	Of the 101 districts in the state which identify g/t students, few have teachers who have either coursework or training in the methods of dealing with gifted and talented students
	Identification measures used are consistent across the state with the most prevalent being teacher referral and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
	However, one must question the criteria teachers used to judge a student as gifted and their ability to recognize specific traits in gifted and talented students given the utter lack of training most teachers receive in this area and the inability of the identification measures to effectively select under-served populations of students for Gifted and Talented programs

	how many K-12 students are Gifted and Talented
	how many of the state's talent pool remain in Minnesota to contribute to its quality of life
	how many opportunities we have already lost