Title-1
Title-2
Title-2
Title-3
Title-4
Gifted and Talented Education · Massachusetts
Gifted Education in Massachusetts: A National Academic Leader with Fewer Than 4% of Schools Offering G/T Programs, a Landmark 2019 Policy Review, and an MTSS-Based Continuum of Services Now in Active Development
Massachusetts leads the nation in NAEP reading and math and ranks at the top internationally in PISA. Yet fewer than 4% of Massachusetts schools have a gifted program, the state has no definition of giftedness, and the 2019 DESE Practice and Policy Review documented the Commonwealth failing its advanced learners. DESE has responded with a Northwestern CTD partnership, a Continuum of Services for Advanced Learning, and an 8-district pilot program.
<4%
of Massachusetts schools reported a G/T program in the 2015-16 federal survey; 69 of 1,872 schools
0
state mandate, state definition of giftedness, dedicated state G/T funding, or G/T teacher certification pathway currently in Massachusetts
57,000+
estimated gifted students in Massachusetts based on 6.6% national enrollment rate; most without any specialized programming
8 districts
in DESE’s 5-year Advanced Learning Pilot; plus Continuum of Services guidance developed with Northwestern University’s Center for Talent Development
Massachusetts’s central paradox: national leader, local failure
Leading the Nation in Academic Achievement While Failing Its Gifted Students: Massachusetts’s Distinctive Contradiction
Massachusetts academic achievement
National and International Leader
Massachusetts public school students lead the nation in reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Massachusetts ranks at the top internationally in PISA reading, science, and math. The state has built this record through strong standards, high-quality curriculum, and consistent accountability expectations across more than 300 school districts.
Massachusetts gifted education record
No Definition, No Mandate, No Data, Fewer Than 4% of Schools Served
Massachusetts has no state definition of giftedness, no mandate for G/T identification or programming, no dedicated state funding, and no G/T teacher certification. Only 69 of 1,872 schools reported G/T programs in the 2015-16 federal survey. The state was one of nine states that didn’t respond to the 2014-15 national G/T policy survey. An estimated 57,000 to 67,000 Massachusetts students are gifted; most receive no specialized services.
The excellence gap: who suffers most: Massachusetts has among the highest “excellence gaps” in the country, measuring disparities in high-achievement rates by race and socioeconomic status. On the 2015 NAEP fourth-grade math test, only 1% of Massachusetts Black students and 3% of Massachusetts Hispanic students scored at the advanced level. The 2019 DESE Practice and Policy Review documented that the absence of systematic G/T programming falls hardest on low-income, Black, Brown, and English Learner students, who cannot access private tutoring, out-of-school enrichment programs, or private school alternatives that families with greater resources use to compensate for the public school gap. Massachusetts Association for Gifted Education (MAGE) calls this the “equity paradox”: the populations most harmed by the absence of G/T programs are the populations the state’s equity commitments are most focused on serving.
What exists in Massachusetts law
The Thin Legal Framework: What Massachusetts Law Actually Says About Gifted Education
While Massachusetts has no G/T mandate, it has a few statutory hooks that create the infrastructure for advocacy and advisory guidance:
G.L. c. 15, §1G — Statutory G/T Advisory Council: Massachusetts law requires the Board of Education to have an advisory council focused on gifted and talented education. This council advises BESE on G/T matters and has historically recommended differentiation, data collection, attention to the “excellence gap,” and focus on “gifted underachievers” who may underperform from disengagement. MAGE members participate in public comment at council meetings. The council’s existence in statute gives G/T advocates a formal venue; its advisory nature means its recommendations are not binding.
G.L. c. 71, §94 — Virtual School Priority: The virtual schools statute directs BESE to give priority to proposals that will serve students in 13 named categories, including “gifted and talented students.” This is narrow but provides one statutory acknowledgment of gifted students as a population with distinct educational needs.
Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science at WPI: The one piece of direct state investment in G/T: a specialized residential high school for grades 11 and 12 at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, supported by a state budget line item. It serves academically accelerated students through a competitive admissions process. For many years, the legislature also funded a line item for a G/T school grant program; this has not been funded since the early 2000s.
No state definition, no state data: Massachusetts neither defines giftedness in statute nor collects data on gifted students. This makes Massachusetts an extreme outlier: nearly every other state has a definition. Without a definition, districts cannot compare practices, DESE cannot track outcomes, and the legislature cannot assess whether interventions are working.
G.L. c. 71, §94 — Virtual School Priority: The virtual schools statute directs BESE to give priority to proposals that will serve students in 13 named categories, including “gifted and talented students.” This is narrow but provides one statutory acknowledgment of gifted students as a population with distinct educational needs.
Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science at WPI: The one piece of direct state investment in G/T: a specialized residential high school for grades 11 and 12 at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, supported by a state budget line item. It serves academically accelerated students through a competitive admissions process. For many years, the legislature also funded a line item for a G/T school grant program; this has not been funded since the early 2000s.
No state definition, no state data: Massachusetts neither defines giftedness in statute nor collects data on gifted students. This makes Massachusetts an extreme outlier: nearly every other state has a definition. Without a definition, districts cannot compare practices, DESE cannot track outcomes, and the legislature cannot assess whether interventions are working.
From the 2019 report to the 2025-26 legislative session
Massachusetts G/T Policy: What Has Changed Since 2019 and What Is Moving Now
June 2018
Legislature mandates DESE review: The Massachusetts Legislature requires DESE to commission an independent review of policies and practices for gifted and beyond-grade-level students.
August 2019
DESE releases “Gifted Education in Massachusetts: A Practice and Policy Review”: The report finds fewer than 4% of schools have G/T programs; documents the excellence gap; estimates 57,000-67,000 gifted students underserved; calls the Commonwealth “failing to serve its advanced learners.” Recommends: track the excellence gap, include G/T in teacher training, establish acceleration guidelines, hire a DESE staff member, establish a task force.
Post-2019
Initial response: G/T Education Advisory Council re-established at BESE. DESE hires a part-time Manager of Advanced and Accelerated Programs (now Leah Murphy, [email protected]). Partnership with Northwestern University’s Center for Talent Development (CTD) announced.
Ongoing
Continuum of Services document: Developed with Northwestern CTD; applies MTSS framework to advanced learners; three tiers of service intensity; guidance on extending, accelerating, and differentiating for advanced learners. Last updated November 19, 2025. 5-year Advanced Learning Pilot Program: 8 school districts implementing the Continuum of Services with DESE support through check-ins, professional development, and observations.
2025-26
Most significant legislative activity in decades: Five bills before the Massachusetts legislature. Three (H.621, H.622, H.663) favorably reported to House Ways and Means. Two (H.658, H.661) before the Joint Committee on Education following public hearings in July and October 2025. If enacted, these bills would represent the most substantial shift in Massachusetts G/T policy since the elimination of the G/T grant program in the early 2000s.
DESE’s Continuum of Services: MTSS applied to advanced learners
The MTSS Framework for Advanced Learning: Three Tiers, Talent Development Principles, and Northwestern CTD Partnership
DESE’s Continuum of Services for Advanced Learning is the most substantive current guidance for Massachusetts districts. It applies the three-tier MTSS structure, typically used for struggling learners, to students with advanced learning needs. Contact for questions: Leah Murphy, Manager of Advanced and Accelerated Programs, [email protected].
Tier 1
Universal: All Students
High-quality, differentiated classroom instruction that challenges every student. Teachers observe all students for above-grade-level performance. Flexible grouping within the classroom. Enrichment opportunities available to all. Talent development principles embedded in general instruction. Goal: no gifted student is entirely invisible at the universal level.
Renzulli at Tier 1
Profiler as universal interest and strength survey for all students. Enrichment database for above-grade-level activities available to any student demonstrating readiness. PBL as universal access to original investigation. All three tools scale across the entire class without requiring prior identification.
Tier 2
Targeted: Students Needing More Than Classroom Differentiation
Structured programming for students whose needs cannot be met within the general classroom even with differentiation. Small-group enrichment, pullout programs, subject acceleration, advanced coursework. Systematic identification through multiple criteria. Monitoring of student progress. Coordination with classroom instruction.
Renzulli at Tier 2
Profiler + CTC + Leadership Assessment as multi-criteria identification evidence. Enrichment database for structured above-level programming. PSP to document individual plans and monitor progress. PBL for in-depth investigations that constitute identifiable Tier 2 programming.
Tier 3
Intensive: Profoundly Advanced Learners
Intensive, individualized services for students whose needs require substantial modifications to grade, pace, and content. Whole-grade acceleration, subject acceleration multiple years above grade, mentorships, dual enrollment, talent search programs, early college. Comprehensive assessment. Individual learning plans. Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science at WPI for grades 11-12.
Renzulli at Tier 3
EFA for social-emotional and executive function profile critical to intensive service planning. PSP as individual plan document tracking highly customized pathways. PBL for original investigations that may lead to genuine academic products and external mentorships. Enrichment database to fill content gaps during complex individualized schedules.
2025-26 legislation: what could change
Five Bills Moving Through the Massachusetts Legislature in 2025-26
MAGE-supported legislation represents the most active G/T policy advocacy in Massachusetts in decades. Three bills were favorably reported to House Ways and Means in 2025; two others had committee hearings. If enacted in any combination, these bills would substantially reshape Massachusetts’s G/T landscape:
H.621
Favorably Reported to House Ways and Means
An Act relative to State Engagement in the Education of Gifted and Advanced Students
Would create state-level engagement and policy infrastructure for gifted and advanced students; addresses the absence of any state framework for data collection and program oversight.
H.622
Favorably Reported to House Ways and Means
An Act relative to an Expert Panel on the Education of Advanced and Gifted Students
Would establish an expert panel to develop recommendations for Massachusetts gifted education policy; addresses the 2019 report’s call for a formal task force.
H.663
Favorably Reported to House Ways and Means
An Act relative to Educational Equity for Gifted and Beyond Grade-Level Children
Addresses the equity dimensions of the excellence gap; frames G/T education as an equity issue requiring state action, consistent with DESE’s 2019 report findings on the disproportionate impact on underrepresented students.
H.658
Before Joint Committee on Education
An Act relative to educator training to create educational equity for gifted and beyond grade-level children
Would require educator training on gifted and beyond-grade-level learners; addresses the 2019 report’s recommendation to include G/T instruction in teacher training. Hearing October 2025.
H.661
Before Joint Committee on Education
An Act relative to equitable accelerated learning opportunities for public school students
Would establish state expectations for equitable access to accelerated learning; addresses the 2019 report’s recommendation for state policy and guidelines on acceleration. Hearing July 2025.
What districts should do while legislation progresses: The path from “favorably reported to Ways and Means” to enacted law includes additional committee votes, floor votes in both chambers, and reconciliation. Massachusetts districts should not wait for legislation to act. The Continuum of Services document provides actionable guidance now. The Advanced Learning Pilot offers a model to learn from. MAGE provides professional development and parent resources. And the ESSA federal framework (Title I for high-poverty schools, Title II-A for professional development, Title IV-A for enrichment) provides funding that districts can use to build local G/T programs today. The 2019 report’s findings about the equity consequences of inaction make a strong case for districts to act proactively rather than wait for a state mandate that may or may not arrive.
Platform tools for Massachusetts’s three-tier framework and equity priorities
What Renzulli Learning Provides: Mapped to the Continuum of Services, the Excellence Gap Priority, and the 2025-26 Legislative Direction
Renzulli Profiler, Tier 1 Universal Talent Identification and Excellence Gap Equity (H.663 / H.661 Direction): Massachusetts’s excellence gap is directly connected to identification: students from underrepresented populations are systematically missed because they are rarely nominated for programs that don’t exist. The Profiler addresses the first half of this problem: it generates student self-report evidence of intellectual interests and strengths that does not depend on teacher nomination, prior program access, or high scores on a single standardized test. Deployed at Tier 1 for all students, the Profiler makes gifted potential visible before any formal identification process, surfacing students from low-income, Black, Brown, and ELL communities whose gifts are real but whose circumstances have not previously triggered any recognition. For the H.658 educator training direction: Profiler results give teachers a structured data tool to help them recognize and respond to advanced learners, building the recognition capacity that teacher training bills would formalize.
Cebeci Test of Creativity (CTC), Tier 2 Multi-Criteria Identification (Intellectual, Creative, and Artistic Domains) and Excellence Gap Equity: The ESSA federal definition that DESE uses for its Continuum of Services guidance includes intellectual, creative, artistic, and leadership capacity. The CTC provides scored creativity data that cognitive ability tests alone cannot capture and that is less dependent on English language dominance, prior enrichment exposure, or family socioeconomic status. For Massachusetts’s large multilingual populations in Boston, Springfield, Worcester, Lowell, and Lawrence, creativity evidence in the student’s strongest mode of expression is more equitable than verbal cognitive tests. The 2019 report’s finding that the excellence gap disproportionately affects ELL students makes the CTC’s language-independence directly relevant.
Executive Function Assessment, Tier 2-3 Twice-Exceptional Identification and the “Gifted Underachiever” Profile the Advisory Council Named: The G/T Advisory Council specifically recommended attention to “gifted underachievers who may be underperforming because of disengagement rather than skill.” The EFA is the tool that distinguishes between these profiles: a student whose executive function data shows strong metacognition and cognitive flexibility but poor self-regulation and task initiation may be gifted and disengaged (a “gifted underachiever”) rather than a student with no special ability. For twice-exceptional students (the 2019 report specifically named students with disabilities as a population whose giftedness is systematically overlooked), the EFA makes the 2E profile visible by showing where executive function challenges mask cognitive potential. H.658’s educator training direction would require teachers to understand exactly the EFA-measurable characteristics of these students.
Leadership Assessment, ESSA Definition (Leadership Capacity Domain) and Tier 2 Multi-Criteria Identification in Urban Districts: Leadership capacity is a named category in the ESSA federal definition that DESE’s Continuum of Services uses. For Massachusetts’s urban districts (Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Brockton, Lowell), where students from immigrant families and low-income communities often demonstrate leadership in contexts that academic tests don’t capture (community organizing, family caregiving, peer mentoring, cultural bridging), the Leadership Assessment surfaces a form of giftedness that standard identification processes systematically miss. H.661’s equitable accelerated learning direction signals that any acceleration framework the legislature creates will need to address access gaps in urban districts; the Leadership Assessment helps identify urban gifted leaders for that access.
Enrichment Database, Tier 1-2-3 Programming and the “Identifiably Different” Standard Across 300 Massachusetts Districts: Massachusetts’s 300+ districts vary enormously in capacity: from well-resourced suburban districts (Lexington, Newton, Wellesley, Lincoln-Sudbury) with substantial enrichment infrastructure, to high-poverty urban districts (Boston, Springfield, Brockton) with minimal dedicated G/T staff, to small rural districts with one teacher handling everything. The enrichment database provides the content library that makes quality above-grade-level programming practical regardless of district capacity. A single enrichment teacher in Springfield can deliver the same intellectual depth and complexity as a team of gifted specialists in Newton. For the 5-year Advanced Learning Pilot districts, the enrichment database provides the programming content that DESE’s MTSS-based guidance recommends but does not itself supply.
Project-Based Learning (PBL) Tools, Exemplar Classroom Demonstration (Advanced Learning Pilot Goal) and the Brockton Model of Project-Based Gifted Education: The Advanced Learning Pilot’s second goal is “exemplar classrooms to expand the implementation of the continuum of services.” The Brockton TAG program, noted in the Boston Globe as one of the few comprehensive programs in the state, explicitly uses project-based learning: “students work on in-depth projects, guided by their interests, which culminate in presentations.” Brockton’s program demonstrates that project-based, interest-driven advanced learning is achievable with a diverse student body (75% Hispanic, 50% free or reduced-price lunch), countering the assumption that rigorous G/T programming requires affluent demographics. PBL tools operationalize this model at scale: any district can provide the original investigations that Brockton’s educators describe as the kind of learning “historically implemented in more traditional gifted programs.”
Personal Success Plan (PSP), Tracking the Excellence Gap (2019 Report Recommendation) and District Accountability for H.621 and H.622 Direction: The 2019 DESE report’s first recommendation was to “track and report on the excellence gap.” H.621 addresses state engagement that would likely require data collection. H.622 creates an expert panel that would need data to assess the landscape. The PSP generates the individual student records that aggregate into district-level data on who is being identified, what services are being provided, and what progress is being made. For districts building programs proactively before legislation passes, PSP records provide the evidence base that demonstrates program reach and effectiveness. For the equity priority: PSP demographic data makes it visible whether identified students reflect the district’s population or whether the excellence gap is being replicated within the program.
DESE guidance and Renzulli alignment
Massachusetts’s G/T Landscape and Renzulli Learning: Side by Side
| Massachusetts Context or DESE Guidance | Renzulli Learning Contribution |
|---|---|
| Continuum: Tier 1 Universal: challenge all students; observe all K-12 for advanced learning needs; flexible grouping; talent development principles in general instruction | Profiler (universal interest/strength survey for all students), enrichment database (above-level activities available to any student demonstrating readiness), PBL (universal access to original investigation). All three scale across the whole class without requiring prior identification. |
| Continuum: Tier 2 Targeted: structured programming for students whose needs exceed classroom differentiation; multi-criteria identification; small-group enrichment; subject acceleration; progress monitoring | Profiler + CTC + Leadership Assessment as multi-criteria identification portfolio. Enrichment database for structured above-level programming. PSP for individual plan documentation and progress monitoring. PBL for in-depth investigations as the content of Tier 2 services. |
| Continuum: Tier 3 Intensive: profoundly advanced learners needing major modifications to grade/pace/content; whole-grade or multi-year subject acceleration; individual planning; MA Academy at WPI for grades 11-12 | EFA (social-emotional profile for intensive planning), PSP (individual plan for highly customized pathways), PBL (original investigations that may generate genuine academic products and mentorship opportunities), enrichment database for content gaps in complex individualized schedules. |
| Excellence Gap Priority 2019 report: falls hardest on low-income, Black, Brown, ELL, and students with disabilities; excellence gap among highest in nation; 1% Black and 3% Hispanic students scored advanced on NAEP 4th grade math | CTC (creativity evidence less dependent on language/income/prior enrichment), Profiler (student self-report reduces nomination bias), Leadership Assessment (surfaces urban/community leadership gifts), EFA (twice-exceptional and disengagement profiles). Together directly target the four underrepresented populations the 2019 report names. |
| Advisory Council Recommendation “Gifted underachievers who may be underperforming because of disengagement rather than skill”; greater focus on differentiation and increased challenge for already high-performing students | EFA distinguishes disengagement from disability from low ability: the student profile that shows metacognitive strength with task initiation difficulty is a gifted underachiever, not a student with no ability. Profiler interest data shows what would engage a disengaged advanced learner. Together they provide actionable data for re-engaging gifted underachievers. |
| H.658 Direction: Educator Training Proposed requirement for educator training on gifted and beyond-grade-level children; H.658 before Joint Committee on Education; hearing October 2025 | Renzulli tools themselves serve as professional development: using the Profiler, CTC, EFA, and Leadership Assessment teaches educators what gifted learner profiles look like across multiple domains. The data these tools generate builds teacher recognition capacity across general, creative, twice-exceptional, and leadership dimensions of giftedness. |
| H.621 / H.622 Direction: State Engagement and Expert Panel Both favorably reported to House Ways and Means; would create state-level G/T policy infrastructure and expert panel; address absence of data collection and program oversight | PSP aggregate data provides the district-level evidence base (identification rates, service delivery, student progress, demographic data) that any state engagement or expert panel framework would need to assess program reach and effectiveness. Districts building PSP records now are positioned to contribute to any state data collection that follows from these bills. |
Frequently asked questions
Massachusetts Gifted and Talented Education: Common Questions
This paradox is well-documented. Massachusetts leads the nation in NAEP reading and math and ranks at the top internationally in PISA. Yet fewer than 4% of its schools reported G/T programs in the 2015-16 federal survey. The explanation combines three factors: (1) Massachusetts has long prioritized getting the bottom up and the middle to the top through strong standards and accountability, with less attention to the students already at the top; (2) the state has never enacted a G/T mandate, definition, or funding mechanism, so programs are entirely voluntary and depend on local political will and resources; and (3) the state eliminated its specialized G/T teacher certification due to lack of demand, creating a training gap that compounds the policy gap. The 2019 DESE Practice and Policy Review stated directly that “the Commonwealth is failing to serve the state’s advanced learners” and called for legislative action. Former Commissioner Jeff Riley said: “We have not really challenged our most gifted children, and we need to do better.”
The “excellence gap” measures disparities in high-achievement rates by race and socioeconomic status. Massachusetts has among the highest excellence gaps in the country. On the 2015 NAEP fourth-grade math test, only 1% of Massachusetts Black students and 3% of Massachusetts Hispanic students scored at the advanced level. The excellence gap is directly connected to the absence of systematic G/T programs: families with resources can supplement public school shortcomings with private tutoring, enrichment programs, private schools, and out-of-school talent development opportunities. Families without resources cannot. Massachusetts Association for Gifted Education calls this the “equity paradox”: the populations most harmed by the absence of G/T programs are the low-income, Black, Brown, and English Learner students that the state’s equity commitments most center. The 2019 DESE report, MAGE advocacy, and the current legislative package (particularly H.663) all frame Massachusetts G/T education as an equity issue, not just an excellence issue.
DESE developed the Continuum of Services for Advanced Learning with Northwestern University’s Center for Talent Development. It applies the three-tier MTSS framework to advanced learners: Tier 1 provides universal high-quality, differentiated instruction that challenges all students; Tier 2 provides targeted structured programming for students whose needs exceed classroom differentiation; Tier 3 provides intensive, individualized services for profoundly advanced learners. The document is a working guidance document, last updated November 19, 2025, and is not a mandate. Districts should use it as: a quality framework for designing local programs, a tool for professional development on what advanced learning services look like at each tier, and a reference for building the MTSS-based evidence base that the Advanced Learning Pilot is generating. Contact Leah Murphy at [email protected] for questions about the Continuum of Services or the Advanced Learning Pilot.
Massachusetts eliminated its specialized G/T teacher license because of insufficient demand for the certification: too few educators were seeking it to justify maintaining the credential. This creates a compounding problem. With no state mandate for G/T programs, few districts hire G/T specialists. With few districts hiring G/T specialists, few educators pursue G/T certification. With no G/T certification available, districts have no credential to look for when hiring. The pending H.658 (educator training bill) attempts to address the upstream part of this loop by requiring G/T content in initial teacher preparation, so that all teachers enter the profession with at least baseline knowledge of advanced learners even if they never teach in a formal G/T program. Currently, districts seeking teachers with G/T preparation must look for candidates with out-of-state credentials, university coursework in gifted education, or professional development certifications from organizations like Northwestern’s Center for Talent Development.
The Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science at WPI is a specialized residential high school for students in grades 11 and 12 located at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. It is the one direct state investment in gifted education, supported by a state budget line item. It serves academically accelerated students through a competitive admissions process and is one of the few state-supported specialized high schools for academically advanced students in New England. For many years, the Massachusetts Legislature also funded a line item (7061-9621) for a grant program for gifted and talented school-age children; this funding has not been appropriated since the early 2000s.
Several resources are available to Massachusetts districts building or strengthening local G/T programs today. DESE’s Continuum of Services for Advanced Learning (developed with Northwestern CTD) provides an MTSS-based quality framework. Contact Leah Murphy, Manager of Advanced and Accelerated Programs ([email protected]), for guidance on implementation and potential involvement in future advanced learning initiatives. MAGE (massgifted.org) provides professional development resources, parent advocacy tools, and policy updates. Federal ESSA funds can support G/T identification and programming: Title I can support gifted students from low-income families; Title II-A can support teacher professional development on advanced learners; Title IV-A can support enrichment as a well-rounded educational opportunity. The Brockton Talented and Gifted program, with its lottery-based admissions, project-based model, and diverse student body (75% Hispanic, 50% free or reduced-price lunch), demonstrates that quality G/T programming is achievable with equity as a design principle.
Official sources
Massachusetts Gifted and Talented Education Resources
- DESE Continuum of Services for Advanced Learning hub: document download, Advanced Learning Pilot information, contact for Leah Murphy (Manager of Advanced and Accelerated Programs, [email protected]); last updated November 19, 2025
- DESE Gifted and Talented Education Advisory Council (BESE): statutory advisory body under G.L. c. 15, §1G; advises on G/T matters; open to public comment
- 2019 DESE Practice and Policy Review (full report): findings on fewer than 4% school participation, excellence gap data, 57,000-67,000 estimated gifted students, recommendations including teacher training and state policy guidelines
- Massachusetts Association for Gifted Education (MAGE): primary advocacy organization; professional development; parent resources; 2025-26 legislative update; contact for advocacy involving BESE Advisory Council public comment
- Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science at WPI: state-funded specialized high school grades 11-12; the one direct state investment in gifted education; competitive admissions; located at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Explore Renzulli Learning’s gifted and advanced learner alignment for neighboring states:
Ready to Build an Equitable Advanced Learning Program Aligned to DESE’s Continuum of Services?
Start a 30-day free trial with full platform access, no credit card required. Or schedule a free QuickStart with a consultant who understands Massachusetts’s three-tier MTSS framework for advanced learners, the excellence gap equity priority, and the legislative landscape heading into 2026.
Call +1 (203) 680-8301 · Email