Gifted & Talented Education · New Hampshire

New Hampshire Gifted & Talented Education: A Three-Domain Definition Including Athletic Potential, Locally Selected Assessments Under Complete Local Control, and an Annual Narrative Report Due to NHED by August 1 with Public Online Availability

Q: What does "assessments selected and administered locally" mean operationally?

The 'assessments selected and administered locally' provision establishes complete local control over gifted identification in New Hampshire. There is no state-mandated identification instrument, no state-required percentile threshold, no state-prescribed multi-criteria framework. Each district selects its own assessments based on local priorities, student populations, available expertise, and preferred identification approaches. Districts may use cognitive ability tests (CogAT, NNAT), achievement tests, creativity measures, leadership assessments, portfolio review for artistic or athletic potential, teacher and parent nomination protocols, and any combination appropriate to the talent domain being evaluated. The local-control framing means districts must make and document deliberate identification choices — the annual narrative report to NHED requires explanation of what assessments are selected and how they're administered. Districts that adopt thoughtful, defensible local processes produce stronger annual reports than districts that rely on incidental practices without explicit selection rationale.

Q: Does New Hampshire mandate specific gifted programs?

No. RSA 189:29-b is a definitional and reporting statute, not a programmatic mandate. The statute does not require districts to operate gifted programs, allocate specific resources to gifted education, employ specific staffing, deliver minimum service hours, or follow particular instructional approaches. The statute requires only (a) identification using locally selected assessments, and (b) annual reporting on what the school does for gifted students. Districts may operate substantial gifted programs, modest enrichment opportunities, embedded differentiation within regular classrooms, or no specific programs — with the reporting requirement applying equally regardless. The framework reflects New Hampshire's broader local-control tradition: the state establishes statewide visibility and accountability through reporting, and individual districts make programmatic decisions based on local priorities, resources, and community values. The distinction is consequential for how districts approach gifted education — they can build programs commensurate with local capacity rather than meet state-prescribed requirements.

New Hampshire’s framework rests on RSA 189:29-b (enacted by 2021 session law 139:1, effective 2022-2023 school year). The statute defines gifted and talented students through academic, artistic, OR athletic potential identified by locally selected assessments; requires every public school to submit an annual narrative report on identification and accommodation policies, programs, and procedures by August 1 each year; and requires NHED to publish those reports on its public Internet website. The framework establishes statewide visibility and accountability without mandating specific programs or services.

Start Your Free 30-Day Trial Schedule a Demo Download the Alignment Summary

RSA 189:29-b

three-paragraph statute establishing definition, annual reporting requirement, and standardized format with public publication

August 1

annual deadline for every NH public school to submit narrative report on identification and accommodation policies, programs, procedures

3 Domains

academic, artistic, OR athletic potential \u2014 with explicit recognition of athletic potential genuinely distinctive among states

Public

NHED publishes all annual reports on its public Internet website \u2014 statewide transparency and parental access by school

The defining structural choice

New Hampshire’s Framework: Local Control with Statewide Visibility \u2014 Not a Programmatic Mandate

RSA 189:29-b is structurally distinctive among state gifted education frameworks. Most states either mandate gifted programs (Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina), require identification with permissive services (Nebraska, Maryland), or set quantitative eligibility standards tied to state funding (Nevada). New Hampshire takes a different approach entirely:

Element 1

Definitional Statute

RSA 189:29-b paragraph I provides a statewide definition of “gifted and talented student” covering academic, artistic, OR athletic potential. The definition establishes statewide language but leaves implementation to local discretion.

Element 2

Reporting Requirement

RSA 189:29-b paragraph II requires every public school to submit an annual narrative report by August 1 \u2014 detailing the policies, programs, and procedures in place for identification and accommodation. Including null status if no programs exist.

Element 3

Public Transparency

RSA 189:29-b paragraph III requires NHED to develop a standardized format, reassess it annually, and make all reports available on its public Internet website. Statewide transparency creates community-level accountability.

Why this structure matters operationally. The framework reflects New Hampshire’s broader local-control tradition: the state establishes statewide visibility and accountability through reporting; individual districts make programmatic decisions based on local priorities, resources, and community values. Districts in Manchester or Nashua may operate substantial gifted programs; districts in the North Country or rural communities may operate modest enrichment opportunities; some schools may report no specific programs. All are statutorily compliant if they identify students using locally selected assessments and submit accurate annual reports. The transparency mechanism creates community-level pressure for program development without state-level program prescription.

RSA 189:29-b paragraph I verbatim

The Three-Domain Definition: Academic, Artistic, OR Athletic Potential

RSA 189:29-b paragraph I provides New Hampshire’s gifted and talented definition verbatim:

“In this section, ‘gifted and talented student’ means a student identified as having unique academic, artistic, or athletic potential according to assessments selected and administered locally.”

Three structural features are operationally important:

Three explicit domains

The definition recognizes academic, artistic, OR athletic potential as separate qualifying domains. The inclusion of athletic potential is genuinely distinctive among states \u2014 most state gifted definitions cover academic and creative or artistic domains, but few states explicitly include athletic potential. The disjunctive “or” means a student qualifies through ANY single domain.

"Unique potential" framing

The statute uses “unique potential” rather than “high performance” or “outstanding achievement.” This is genuinely a potential-based framing \u2014 districts may identify students whose underlying potential exceeds their current demonstrated performance. The framing supports identification of twice-exceptional students, English Learners, and students from underserved backgrounds.

"Selected and administered locally"

The statute establishes complete local control over identification instruments and processes. There is no state-mandated assessment, no state-required percentile, no state-prescribed multi-criteria framework. Each district selects its own assessments based on local priorities, student populations, available expertise, and preferred identification approaches.

Why the athletic-potential inclusion matters

New Hampshire is one of the few states to include athletic potential in its gifted definition. Most state frameworks treat athletic ability as outside the gifted umbrella \u2014 covered through athletics programs, not gifted education. New Hampshire’s inclusion creates space for identification and accommodation of students with exceptional athletic potential, particularly relevant for schools with active athletics programs and student-athletes pursuing competitive sports.

RSA 189:29-b paragraph II verbatim

The August 1 Annual Narrative Report: What Every NH Public School Must Submit

RSA 189:29-b paragraph II establishes the annual reporting requirement verbatim:

“Beginning in the 2022-2023 school year, every New Hampshire public school shall submit to the department of education, no later than August 1, an annual narrative report detailing the policies, programs, and procedures that are in place to identify and accommodate the unique needs of gifted and talented students. If no such policies, programs, or procedures exist, the report shall so state.”

The reporting requirement has five operationally important elements:

Every public school must submit: The reporting requirement applies to every New Hampshire public school. Not every school district. Not just districts with gifted programs. Every public school. Districts with multiple schools must coordinate reports across schools or submit consolidated district-level reporting consistent with NHED format requirements.

August 1 deadline annually: The deadline is no later than August 1 each year, beginning the 2022-2023 school year. This summer deadline aligns with the academic year transition \u2014 reports cover the school year that just ended and inform NHED’s public release before the new school year begins. Schools must build report preparation into end-of-year administrative cycles.

Three subject areas in the report: The narrative must detail (a) policies in place to identify and accommodate gifted students, (b) programs in place to identify and accommodate gifted students, and (c) procedures in place to identify and accommodate gifted students. Each subject area is distinct and must be addressed.

Two functions covered: The narrative must address both identification (how the school identifies students with academic, artistic, or athletic potential) and accommodation (the policies, programs, and procedures used to address the unique needs of identified students). Reports that cover only identification or only accommodation are incomplete.

Null-status reporting required: “If no such policies, programs, or procedures exist, the report shall so state.” Schools without gifted programs cannot avoid reporting \u2014 they must affirmatively report the absence of programs. This is the genuinely distinctive accountability mechanism: schools without programs are publicly visible to families, communities, and policymakers through the public report.

RSA 189:29-b paragraph III verbatim

Standardized Format and Public Internet Publication: How NHED Operationalizes Transparency

RSA 189:29-b paragraph III establishes NHED’s administrative responsibilities verbatim:

“The department shall develop a standardized format for the submission of such information and shall reassess the format each year to ensure the required information is useful. The department shall make the reports available on its public Internet website.”

NHED’s implementation of paragraph III creates the operational infrastructure for the framework:

Standardized format: NHED develops the form schools use for submission \u2014 establishing consistent fields, language, and structure across all reports. The standardized format makes reports comparable across schools, facilitating analysis by parents, district administrators, journalists, and policymakers.

Annual format reassessment: NHED is statutorily required to reassess the format each year “to ensure the required information is useful.” The annual reassessment provision means the format evolves based on what NHED, parents, advocates, and educators learn from prior-year reports about what information matters and what could be improved.

Public Internet website publication: All reports are published on NHED’s public Internet website. Parents researching school choice options for gifted children can access reports for any New Hampshire public school. District administrators can benchmark practices against neighboring districts. Journalists and researchers can analyze statewide patterns. Advocacy organizations can track gifted education access across communities.

Accountability without mandate: The public-availability provision creates statewide accountability through transparency rather than through state-prescribed program requirements. Schools that report “no such policies, programs, or procedures exist” are publicly visible to families and communities, which can drive local advocacy for program development without state-level mandate.

Local control under RSA 189:29-b

What "Locally Selected" Means: Districts Choose Their Own Assessment Approach

The phrase “assessments selected and administered locally” in RSA 189:29-b paragraph I is operationally consequential. There is no state-mandated identification instrument, no state-required percentile threshold, no state-prescribed multi-criteria framework. Each district makes its own choices:

Cognitive ability tests

Districts may use CogAT, NNAT, KBIT, RIAS, or other validated cognitive ability instruments. Choice depends on local population, language profile, and district preference.

Achievement tests

Districts may use achievement test results from state assessments, NWEA MAP, Stanford Achievement Test, or other achievement measures as identification evidence \u2014 particularly relevant for the academic potential domain.

Creativity and behavioral measures

Districts may use validated creativity assessments (like the Cebeci Test of Creativity), leadership assessments, or executive function measures \u2014 particularly relevant for academic potential beyond cognitive measures and for artistic potential.

Portfolio review and performance assessment

Districts may use portfolio review for artistic potential (visual arts, music, theatre, dance) and performance assessment for athletic potential. Both are appropriate where standardized testing isn’t the right measure.

Teacher and parent nomination

Districts may incorporate teacher and parent nomination as part of multi-criteria identification \u2014 with structured nomination forms supporting consistent local application.

Combinations of multiple instruments

Most districts combine multiple instruments rather than relying on any single measure \u2014 cognitive + achievement + nomination, or cognitive + creativity + portfolio, or other combinations matched to the talent domain being evaluated.

Why deliberate local selection matters for the annual report. The August 1 narrative report requires explanation of what assessments are selected and how they’re administered. Districts that adopt thoughtful, defensible local processes \u2014 with explicit selection rationale, structured administration, and consistent interpretation \u2014 produce stronger annual reports than districts that rely on incidental practices without explicit selection rationale. The reporting requirement creates indirect pressure for systematic identification approaches even though the statute doesn’t mandate specific assessments.

Real challenges

What New Hampshire District G/T Coordinators Struggle With

These are the operational challenges we consistently hear from New Hampshire district gifted coordinators:

Annual narrative report preparation

The August 1 deadline coincides with summer staffing transitions and limited administrative capacity. Districts without structured year-round documentation face end-of-year scrambling to construct narrative reports from incidental records. Coordinators preparing reports under deadline pressure produce less robust documentation than coordinators with year-round accumulation infrastructure.

Public reporting visibility

Reports become public on NHED’s Internet website. Parents read them; community members read them; journalists read them; neighboring district administrators read them. The public visibility creates real reputational stakes \u2014 thin reports become public evidence of thin programs. Coordinators feel pressure to produce reports that accurately reflect substantive practice, which requires substantive practice to begin with.

Three-domain identification scope

Identifying across academic, artistic, AND athletic potential requires distinct identification infrastructure for each domain. Most districts have well-developed academic identification processes but underdeveloped artistic and athletic identification \u2014 particularly athletic, which most districts haven’t historically treated as a gifted domain. Building identification capacity across all three statutory domains is operationally substantial.

Local-control framework requires deliberate choices

The freedom to select assessments locally is also the burden of selecting assessments locally. Without state-prescribed instruments, districts must make and document deliberate choices about what to use, why, and how. Coordinators new to gifted education may default to incidental practices rather than deliberate selection \u2014 creating gaps that become visible in the annual report.

Platform tools mapped to New Hampshire's framework

What Renzulli Learning Provides: Mapped to RSA 189:29-b Identification, Accommodation, and Annual Reporting

Each tool maps to specific New Hampshire statutory requirements:

Renzulli Profiler — Locally Selected Assessment Across All Three Domains: A 20\u201330 minute strength-based interest and learning style inventory available in 20+ languages through the Global Profiler. The Profiler functions as a locally selected identification instrument under RSA 189:29-b paragraph I \u2014 capturing strengths across academic interests, artistic interests, and athletic interests in a unified profile. Multilingual access supports New Hampshire’s growing English Learner populations in Manchester, Nashua, and other diverse districts.

Cebeci Test of Creativity (CTC) — Validated Creativity Evidence for Academic and Artistic Domains: A validated, standardized creativity assessment (US Patent 12,087,176) measuring fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration with scored output. The CTC supports identification across academic potential (creative problem-solving) and artistic potential (creative production) under RSA 189:29-b. Provides scored quantitative evidence supporting the “assessments selected and administered locally” framework.

Leadership Assessment — Behavioral Evidence Supporting Multi-Criteria Identification: Provides scored evidence of leadership characteristics. Supports identification across the academic potential domain (academic leadership) and supports the broader local-control assessment framework. New Hampshire’s local-control structure means districts can incorporate leadership evidence as one of multiple identification measures.

Executive Function Assessment (EFA) — Twice-Exceptional Identification Through "Unique Potential": Measures self-regulation, planning, working memory, and metacognition. The EFA supports identification of twice-exceptional students whose disability may suppress demonstrated achievement despite strong underlying ability \u2014 directly supporting RSA 189:29-b’s “unique potential” framing rather than narrow performance-based identification.

Enrichment Database — Accommodation Programming Content: Over 40,000 interest-matched, SEM-aligned activities. The enrichment database delivers content for the “accommodate the unique needs” element of RSA 189:29-b paragraph II. Activities span academic content domains, artistic exploration, and applied projects \u2014 supporting accommodation across the three statutory domains. Particularly valuable for districts in New Hampshire’s rural North Country and small-town communities where specialist staffing for accommodation programming may be limited.

Project-Based Learning (PBL) Tools — Substantive Accommodation Programming: SEM-based investigations producing authentic student products. PBL projects deliver substantive accommodation programming addressing “unique needs” \u2014 with student-driven projects across academic, creative, leadership, and applied domains. Products provide concrete evidence of accommodation programming for the annual narrative report.

Personal Success Plan (PSP) — Year-Round Documentation for the August 1 Annual Report: A student-driven goal and progress tracker. PSP records consolidate identification evidence (locally selected assessments and outcomes), accommodation services delivered, and progress against student-identified goals. For the annual narrative report, PSP records aggregate into school-level documentation supporting the policies, programs, and procedures the August 1 report requires \u2014 across both identification and accommodation. Year-round structured documentation eliminates end-of-summer reconstruction work.

Side-by-side alignment

How Renzulli Learning Aligns with New Hampshire’s Statutory Framework

RSA 189:29-b paragraph I RSA 189:29-b paragraph II RSA 189:29-b paragraph III Local-control framework

New Hampshire Statutory Requirement	Renzulli Learning Contribution
Paragraph I Three-domain definition Academic, artistic, OR athletic potential	Profiler captures interests across academic, artistic, AND athletic domains in a unified profile. CTC provides creativity evidence supporting academic and artistic potential. Leadership Assessment contributes behavioral evidence. EFA surfaces twice-exceptional potential. Together these tools provide multi-source evidence across the three statutory domains.
Paragraph I "Unique potential" framing Potential-based rather than performance-based identification	Profiler captures potential indicators (interests, motivation, learning patterns) supporting potential-based identification. CTC measures creative potential beyond achievement test scores. EFA identifies twice-exceptional students whose performance is suppressed by co-occurring conditions. All four instruments support the “unique potential” framing.
Paragraph I "Selected and administered locally" Complete local control over assessments	Platform tools are flexible and configurable to local district criteria. Districts can use Renzulli instruments as part of locally selected multi-criteria identification, or alongside other locally selected instruments. Renzulli does not replace local identification authority \u2014 it provides one or more components of locally designed processes.
Paragraph II Annual narrative report due August 1 Identification + accommodation; null-status reporting required	PSP aggregates identification evidence (which assessments were selected, how they were administered, what outcomes were produced) and accommodation evidence (services delivered, progress recorded, products produced) into school-level documentation supporting the narrative format. Year-round structured documentation eliminates end-of-summer report reconstruction.
Paragraph II "Identify and accommodate the unique needs" Both identification AND accommodation must be detailed	Identification side: Profiler + CTC + EFA + Leadership Assessment generate multi-source evidence. Accommodation side: Enrichment database + PBL deliver substantive content addressing unique needs. PSP connects identification evidence to accommodation services in unified records supporting the report’s coverage of both elements.
Paragraph III Public Internet website availability NHED publishes all reports for statewide transparency	Strong year-round documentation produces strong public-facing reports. Schools using structured documentation infrastructure produce reports that accurately reflect substantive practice \u2014 supporting the accountability mechanism the public-availability provision creates. Schools without infrastructure produce thin reports that become public evidence of thin practice.
Local control No state-mandated programs, services, or staffing Districts choose accommodation approaches	Web-based platform delivery means districts in Manchester, Nashua, Concord, Portsmouth, and the rural North Country can implement accommodation programming consistent with local capacity \u2014 from substantive pull-out programs to embedded classroom differentiation to focused enrichment offerings \u2014 with the same platform infrastructure scaling across district models.

From New Hampshire educators

What Implementation Looks Like in New Hampshire Districts

“The August 1 deadline and the public-website publication changed how we approach gifted documentation. We can’t wait until July to assemble the report \u2014 the underlying identification and accommodation work has to happen consistently across the year. Web-based documentation infrastructure means we’re continuously capturing what we do rather than reconstructing it at deadline. The local-control framework gives us flexibility, but the public reporting requires we exercise that flexibility deliberately.”

Gifted Coordinator · Southern New Hampshire school district

For larger New Hampshire districts Manchester School District, Nashua School District, Salem, Bedford, Merrimack, Concord, Londonderry, and other larger districts serve substantial gifted populations across many schools. Multi-school report coordination, structured documentation across schools, and accommodation programming at scale are operationally substantial. Districts in larger urban areas (Manchester, Nashua) also serve diverse English Learner populations requiring culturally responsive identification approaches.

For New Hampshire’s rural and North Country districts Rural and North Country districts \u2014 across Coos, Carroll, Grafton, and Sullivan counties \u2014 often have a single coordinator covering multiple schools. The August 1 deadline and the three-domain identification scope (including artistic and athletic potential) create real capacity demands. Web-based platform delivery means a single coordinator can scale identification across schools, manage accommodation programming consistently, and produce structured annual report documentation without specialist staffing at every site.

Frequently asked questions

New Hampshire Gifted & Talented Education: Common Questions

Questions New Hampshire district G/T coordinators, classroom teachers, and parents ask most often:

What does RSA 189:29-b require for gifted and talented students?

RSA 189:29-b establishes New Hampshire’s gifted and talented framework with three operative paragraphs. Paragraph I provides the statutory definition verbatim: “In this section, ‘gifted and talented student’ means a student identified as having unique academic, artistic, or athletic potential according to assessments selected and administered locally.” Paragraph II establishes the annual reporting requirement: beginning in the 2022-2023 school year, every New Hampshire public school shall submit to the Department of Education, no later than August 1, an annual narrative report detailing the policies, programs, and procedures in place to identify and accommodate the unique needs of gifted and talented students. If no such policies, programs, or procedures exist, the report shall so state. Paragraph III requires the Department to develop a standardized format, reassess it annually, and make reports available on its public Internet website. The statute creates statewide visibility without mandating specific programs, identification criteria, or services.

How does New Hampshire define gifted and talented students?

RSA 189:29-b paragraph I defines a gifted and talented student as “a student identified as having unique academic, artistic, or athletic potential according to assessments selected and administered locally.” Three structural features are operationally important. First, the definition explicitly recognizes three domains: academic, artistic, AND athletic potential. The inclusion of athletic potential is genuinely distinctive \u2014 most state gifted definitions cover academic and creative or artistic domains, but few states explicitly include athletic potential. Second, the definition uses “unique potential” rather than “high performance” \u2014 framing identification around ability and capacity rather than demonstrated achievement. Third, the definition uses “assessments selected and administered locally” \u2014 establishing complete local control over identification instruments and processes. Districts choose what assessments to use, how to administer them, and how to interpret results.

What is the annual narrative report due to NHED on August 1?

Every New Hampshire public school must submit an annual narrative report to the Department of Education no later than August 1 each year. The report must detail the policies, programs, and procedures in place to identify and accommodate the unique needs of gifted and talented students. The report covers identification (how the school identifies students with academic, artistic, or athletic potential), accommodation (the policies, programs, and procedures used to address the unique needs of identified students), and any supporting documentation showing implementation. Critically, RSA 189:29-b paragraph II includes an explicit null-status provision: “If no such policies, programs, or procedures exist, the report shall so state.” Schools without gifted programs cannot avoid reporting \u2014 they must affirmatively report the absence of programs. NHED develops the standardized format and reassesses it annually to ensure the required information is useful.

Why are New Hampshire’s annual reports made publicly available?

RSA 189:29-b paragraph III requires the Department of Education to make the annual reports available on its public Internet website. The public-availability provision creates statewide transparency about how each New Hampshire public school addresses gifted and talented identification and accommodation. Parents researching school choice options, district administrators benchmarking practices against neighboring districts, journalists and researchers analyzing statewide patterns, advocacy organizations tracking gifted education access across communities, and policymakers evaluating the framework’s effectiveness all access these public reports. The transparency mechanism creates accountability pressure even though the statute does not mandate specific programs \u2014 schools that report “no such policies, programs, or procedures exist” are publicly visible to families and communities, which can drive local advocacy for program development.

What does “assessments selected and administered locally” mean operationally?

The “assessments selected and administered locally” provision establishes complete local control over gifted identification in New Hampshire. There is no state-mandated identification instrument, no state-required percentile threshold, no state-prescribed multi-criteria framework. Each district selects its own assessments based on local priorities, student populations, available expertise, and preferred identification approaches. Districts may use cognitive ability tests (CogAT, NNAT), achievement tests, creativity measures, leadership assessments, portfolio review for artistic or athletic potential, teacher and parent nomination protocols, and any combination appropriate to the talent domain being evaluated. The local-control framing means districts must make and document deliberate identification choices \u2014 the annual narrative report to NHED requires explanation of what assessments are selected and how they’re administered. Districts that adopt thoughtful, defensible local processes produce stronger annual reports than districts that rely on incidental practices without explicit selection rationale.

Does New Hampshire mandate specific gifted programs?

No. RSA 189:29-b is a definitional and reporting statute, not a programmatic mandate. The statute does not require districts to operate gifted programs, allocate specific resources to gifted education, employ specific staffing, deliver minimum service hours, or follow particular instructional approaches. The statute requires only (a) identification using locally selected assessments, and (b) annual reporting on what the school does for gifted students. Districts may operate substantial gifted programs, modest enrichment opportunities, embedded differentiation within regular classrooms, or no specific programs \u2014 with the reporting requirement applying equally regardless. The framework reflects New Hampshire’s broader local-control tradition: the state establishes statewide visibility and accountability through reporting, and individual districts make programmatic decisions based on local priorities, resources, and community values. The distinction is consequential for how districts approach gifted education \u2014 they can build programs commensurate with local capacity rather than meet state-prescribed requirements.

Does New Hampshire have a state gifted teacher endorsement?

New Hampshire does not have a state-issued gifted education teacher endorsement comparable to those in states like Nevada (NAC 391.394), Florida, or Texas. Teachers serving gifted students in New Hampshire typically hold standard elementary or secondary teaching credentials, and may pursue gifted education professional development through coursework, conferences, and continuing education \u2014 but no state credential specifically authorizes gifted teaching. This reflects New Hampshire’s local-control framework: teacher preparation for gifted education is left to local district decisions and individual teacher initiative. Districts that prioritize gifted programming often invest in voluntary professional development, partnerships with university gifted education programs (including the University of Connecticut’s gifted education programs developed by Joseph Renzulli and Sally Reis), and gifted education conferences offered by NAGC and regional organizations.

How does Renzulli Learning support New Hampshire’s framework?

Renzulli Learning provides instruments and content aligned to New Hampshire’s RSA 189:29-b framework. The Renzulli Profiler captures interest depth, learning patterns, and motivation indicators \u2014 contributing student-generated evidence to locally selected identification processes. The Cebeci Test of Creativity provides scored creativity evidence supporting identification across academic and artistic domains the statute names. The Leadership Assessment provides leadership data; the Executive Function Assessment supports identification of twice-exceptional students. The 40,000+ activity enrichment database delivers content for accommodation programming. The Personal Success Plan documents identification, accommodation services delivered, and outcomes \u2014 producing structured documentation that supports the annual NHED narrative report. The platform is particularly aligned to New Hampshire’s local-control framework because it provides flexible infrastructure that districts can configure to their own assessment selection, identification process, and accommodation programming choices, rather than requiring adoption of a specific identification protocol.

Official sources

New Hampshire Gifted & Talented Education Resources

All identification, accommodation, and annual reporting decisions should reference primary NH General Court and NHED sources. Renzulli Learning is designed to complement \u2014 not replace \u2014 your district’s identification process under RSA 189:29-b paragraph I or your annual narrative report under RSA 189:29-b paragraph II.

Custom District Alignments

Need a custom alignment for your district’s RSA 189:29-b annual narrative report, three-domain identification across academic/artistic/athletic potential, or year-round accommodation documentation?

+1 (203) 680-8301

Three-Domain Identification · Annual Narrative Report Documentation · Year-Round Accommodation Evidence

Explore Renzulli Learning’s gifted and talented alignment for neighboring states:

All States G&T Alignment Vermont G&T Maine G&T Massachusetts G&T Connecticut G&T Rhode Island G&T New York G&T

Ready to Build Year-Round Documentation Infrastructure That Produces a Strong RSA 189:29-b Annual Narrative Report?

Start a 30-day free trial with full platform access \u2014 no credit card required. Or schedule a free QuickStart with a consultant who knows the RSA 189:29-b three-domain definition (academic, artistic, athletic), the “assessments selected and administered locally” framework, the August 1 annual narrative report due to NHED, the public Internet website publication, and how to build documentation infrastructure that turns local-control flexibility into strong public-facing reports.

Start Your Free Trial Schedule a Demo Download the Alignment Summary

Call +1 (203) 680-8301 · Email [email protected]

Title-1

Title-2