Title-1
Title-2
Title-2
Title-3
Title-4
Gifted & Talented Education · New York
New York Gifted & Talented Education: Universal Diagnostic Screening of New Entrants Under Part 117 of the Commissioner’s Regulations, the Three-Domain Article 90 Definition, Local District Control Over Programs, and the NYC Selective G/T Process
New York’s framework rests on Part 117 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (§§117.1\u2013117.3) and Article 90 of the Education Law. Part 117 requires diagnostic screening of every new entrant to identify students who are possibly gifted, possibly disabled, or possibly English Language Learners. Article 90 defines gifted across three domains: general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude, and visual and performing arts. NYSED does not mandate gifted programs and provides no state funding for gifted education \u2014 program design, identification criteria, and service delivery are entirely local district decisions. NYC operates a separate selective G/T admissions process.
Part 117
Sections 117.1\u2013117.3 of Commissioner's Regulations: diagnostic screening of every new entrant required statewide
All New Entrants
universal screening of every student entering NYS public schools pre-K\u2013grade 12 for the first time
3 Domains
Article 90 definition: general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude, visual & performing arts
Local Control
no state mandate for gifted programs; no state gifted funding; districts design own programs
The defining structural choice
New York’s Framework: Universal Screening + Local Program Control \u2014 Genuinely Distinctive Among State Frameworks
New York’s gifted framework is structurally distinctive among state 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, Iowa). New York takes a different approach entirely:
Universal Screening
Mandatory at State Level
Part 117 requires every NYS public school district to screen every new entrant for possibly gifted, possibly disabled, and possibly ELL identification. The screening is universal, statewide, and non-negotiable. Districts cannot opt out.
Three-Domain Definition
Article 90 Verbatim
Article 90 defines gifted across general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude, AND visual/performing arts. The arts inclusion is meaningful \u2014 NY recognizes arts giftedness as a qualifying domain alongside intellectual and academic giftedness.
Local Program Control
No State Mandate or Funding
NY is one of fewer than 10 states with no state mandate for gifted education. NYSED does not require districts to operate gifted programs, does not provide state funding for gifted education, and does not endorse specific screening tools or curricula.
Why this structure matters operationally. The framework reflects New York’s strong local-control tradition. The state requires identification awareness through universal screening at entry; individual districts make all decisions about whether to operate programs, what programs look like, what identification criteria apply, and what services are delivered. Districts in NYC may operate selective G/T admission processes; suburban districts may operate substantial pull-out programs; rural districts may operate embedded classroom differentiation; some districts may operate no specific gifted programming \u2014 all are statutorily compliant if they conduct Part 117 diagnostic screening of new entrants and notify parents of students identified as “possibly gifted.”
Part 117 verbatim
Part 117 of the Commissioner’s Regulations: Diagnostic Screening for Every New Entrant
Part 117 (Sections 117.1, 117.2, 117.3) establishes New York’s universal screening requirement. Per Section 117.1 (Scope of part):
“The purpose of this Part is to establish standards for the screening of every new entrant to the schools to determine which students are possibly gifted, have or are suspected of having a disability in accordance with subdivision (6) of section 3208 of the Education Law and/or possibly are limited English proficient in accordance with subdivision 2-a of section 3204 of the Education Law.”
Five operationally important elements:
Every new entrant must be screened: Universal screening applies to every student entering NYS public schools. A “new entrant” is a student entering NYS public schools pre-kindergarten through grade 12 for the first time, OR reentering a NYS public school with no available record of a prior screening. Districts cannot exempt students based on demographics, prior schooling, or other factors.
Three identification purposes simultaneously: The same diagnostic screening process simultaneously evaluates students for possibly gifted, possibly disabled or suspected of having a disability, and possibly Limited English Proficient (English Language Learner). This unified screening is structurally distinctive \u2014 most states operate gifted, disability, and ELL screening through entirely separate processes.
Diagnostic screening defined: Per Section 117.1(f), “diagnostic screening shall mean a preliminary method of distinguishing from the general population those students who may possibly be gifted, those students who may be suspected of having a disability, and those students who may possibly be limited English proficient.” Screening is preliminary \u2014 it identifies students who warrant further evaluation, not students who are formally identified.
Written report required for each student screened: The diagnostic screening results must be reviewed, and a written report must be prepared by appropriately qualified school district staff for each student screened. The report must include a description of diagnostic screening devices used, the student’s performance on those devices, and the appropriate referral if required.
Parent notification when "possibly gifted": NYSED requires that parents or guardians are notified if their child is identified as “possibly gifted” through Part 117 screening. The notification is required regardless of whether the district operates a gifted program. After notification, the district’s response depends on local programming.
Article 90 verbatim definition
The Three-Domain Definition: General Intellectual Ability, Special Academic Aptitude, and Visual/Performing Arts
Article 90 of the Education Law (and Section 142.2 of Commissioner’s Regulations) defines gifted pupils verbatim:
“Gifted pupils are those who show evidence of high performance capability and exceptional potential in areas such as general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude and outstanding ability in visual and performing arts. Such definition shall include those pupils who require educational programs or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their full potential.”
Three structural features are operationally important:
Three explicit domains
The definition recognizes general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude, AND visual/performing arts as separate qualifying domains. The visual/performing arts inclusion is meaningful \u2014 NY recognizes arts giftedness as a qualifying domain alongside intellectual and academic giftedness, with implications for how districts identify students whose talent expresses through artistic rather than academic channels.
"High performance capability and exceptional potential"
The definition uses both demonstrated achievement ("high performance capability") AND underlying capacity ("exceptional potential"). This dual framing supports identification of both high-achieving students AND students whose potential exceeds their demonstrated performance \u2014 important for English Learners, twice-exceptional students, and students from underserved backgrounds.
Service-need test
The definition includes a critical second sentence: students who require educational programs or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program. This is the service-need test \u2014 identification triggers a service rationale, not just an academic honor. Students who can be challenged within the regular curriculum would not meet the definition even if high-achieving.
"Such areas as" \u2014 inclusive framing
The phrase “in areas such as” rather than “limited to” means the three named domains are illustrative rather than exhaustive. Districts may recognize giftedness in other domains beyond the three explicitly named \u2014 leadership, creativity, specific subject areas \u2014 if their local identification framework supports it. The state floor recognizes three domains; districts may expand.
Local control: what NY does NOT require
What New York Does NOT Mandate: An Honest Look at the Local-Control Framework
NYSED is explicit about what New York does NOT require. The honest framing of these non-mandates shapes how districts approach gifted education and helps coordinators set realistic expectations:
NYSED does NOT require gifted programs. The determination to offer gifted and talented programs is made entirely at the local school district level. Districts may operate substantial selective programs, modest pull-out enrichment, embedded classroom differentiation, or no specific gifted programming \u2014 all are equally compliant with state law.
NYSED does NOT provide state funding for gifted education. Districts that operate gifted programs fund them through local resources, federal flow-through funds (Title I, Title II), or other local sources. The absence of state funding is one reason for the local-control framework: districts that are not state-funded are not state-mandated.
NYSED does NOT endorse specific screening tools. New York is a "non-endorsing state" \u2014 selection of screening tools is a local decision. Districts may use any combination of cognitive ability tests, achievement tests, validated creativity assessments, behavioral checklists, teacher observation protocols, parent referral forms, and structured nomination processes.
NYSED does NOT prescribe gifted curriculum. The Department does not create, maintain, or endorse specific academic programs or curricula for gifted students. Districts that operate gifted programs make all curriculum, instructional approach, and service delivery decisions locally.
NYSED does NOT maintain a directory of districts with gifted programs. There is no state-level inventory of which districts offer gifted programming or what those programs include. Families researching gifted education access for their children must contact individual districts directly \u2014 a real consequence of the local-control framework for parent decision-making.
NYSED DOES require parent notification if a student is identified as "possibly gifted" through Part 117 screening, regardless of whether the district operates a gifted program. This is the one statewide entitlement on the gifted side: families have a right to know if their child shows evidence of giftedness through the state-required screening.
NYSED DOES require federal nondiscrimination compliance: A student with a disability who is also identified as gifted may not be excluded from participation in a gifted and talented program if their school district operates such a program. Twice-exceptional students with IEPs cannot be excluded from gifted programs that exist.
NYC G/T process
New York City’s Selective G/T Admissions Process: A Distinctive Subsystem Within the State Framework
New York City Public Schools operate a separate selective G/T admissions process that exists alongside but distinct from Part 117 screening. The NYC process is one of the most prominent selective G/T admission systems in the United States and has been the subject of substantial public debate:
Operated by NYC DOE, not NYSED: The NYC G/T admissions process is operated by the New York City Department of Education for students seeking admission to NYC’s selective G/T programs, including programs at specific schools and citywide G/T programs. NYSED does not operate the NYC process.
Distinct from Part 117 screening: The NYC selective process is layered on top of \u2014 not replacing \u2014 Part 117 screening. NYC schools still conduct Part 117 diagnostic screening of new entrants. The NYC G/T admissions process applies separately to families seeking admission to selective G/T programs.
Public debate about equity and access: The NYC G/T admissions process has been the subject of substantial public debate about equity, demographic representation, and access \u2014 with the criteria, instruments, and admission processes evolving over time. Coordinators and parents in NYC operate within an actively contested policy environment.
Districts outside NYC do not use the NYC process: Suburban, small-city, and rural districts outside NYC design their own identification approaches under local control. The NYC process is not a model that other districts must adopt or follow.
Real challenges
What New York District G/T Coordinators Struggle With
These are the operational challenges we consistently hear from New York district gifted coordinators:
Universal screening at scale
Part 117 universal screening of every new entrant is operationally substantial \u2014 particularly for districts with high mobility (e.g., NYC and other urban districts), large pre-K populations, and continuous enrollment cycles. Districts need scalable screening infrastructure that can process new entrants throughout the year while producing the required written reports for each student screened.
Locally selected screening tools require deliberate choice
The non-endorsing state framework gives districts complete flexibility but also requires deliberate decision-making. Coordinators new to gifted education may default to incidental practices rather than deliberate selection. The NYSED guidance on valid and reliable screening tools provides direction but no specific instrument requirement.
Bridging screening to programming
Part 117 screening identifies students as “possibly gifted” \u2014 which is preliminary. Districts that operate gifted programs must build identification processes that move from preliminary screening to formal local identification, with appropriate referral pathways. Districts without gifted programs face the awkward situation of notifying parents of “possibly gifted” status without programmatic next steps.
Visual/performing arts identification
The Article 90 three-domain definition includes visual and performing arts as a qualifying domain \u2014 but most districts have under-developed identification infrastructure for arts giftedness. Building identification across all three domains requires arts-specific evaluation processes that aren’t typically part of cognitive or achievement screening.
Platform tools mapped to New York's framework
What Renzulli Learning Provides: Mapped to Part 117 Screening, Article 90 Domains, and Local Program Design
Each tool maps to specific New York requirements:
Renzulli Profiler — Multi-Domain Strength-Based Evidence Across Article 90 Areas: A 20\u201330 minute strength-based interest and learning style inventory available in 20+ languages through the Global Profiler. The Profiler captures interests across general intellectual, academic, creative, and arts domains \u2014 contributing student-generated evidence that complements Part 117 diagnostic screening with deeper student-strength data. Multilingual access supports New York’s substantial English Learner populations including the simultaneous Part 117 ELL screening.
Cebeci Test of Creativity (CTC) — Creativity Evidence Beyond Basic Screening: A validated, standardized creativity assessment (US Patent 12,087,176) measuring fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration with scored output. The CTC provides creativity evidence that goes beyond Part 117’s basic screening framework \u2014 particularly relevant for the visual/performing arts domain Article 90 names. Non-verbal and culture-independent design supports identification of students whose abilities may be affected by cultural background, linguistic background, or socioeconomic status.
Leadership Assessment — Behavioral Evidence Beyond the State Floor: Provides scored evidence of leadership characteristics. New York’s Article 90 uses “in areas such as” framing rather than “limited to” \u2014 meaning districts may recognize giftedness in domains beyond the three explicitly named. The Leadership Assessment supports districts that include leadership in their local identification framework alongside the state-named domains.
Executive Function Assessment (EFA) — Twice-Exceptional Identification: Measures self-regulation, planning, working memory, and metacognition. The EFA supports identification of twice-exceptional students whose disability may suppress demonstrated achievement \u2014 directly supporting the “exceptional potential” framing in Article 90’s definition. Particularly valuable in New York’s framework where Part 117 screens simultaneously for possibly gifted, possibly disabled, and possibly ELL \u2014 making 2E identification structurally easier than in states with separate screening processes.
Enrichment Database — Differentiated Programming for Districts That Operate Gifted Services: Over 40,000 interest-matched, SEM-aligned activities. The enrichment database delivers content for districts that operate gifted programs \u2014 supporting program design from substantive selective programs (NYC, suburban) to embedded classroom differentiation (rural and small districts). For districts without specific gifted programs, the database supports the general differentiation needs of high-ability students within regular classrooms.
Project-Based Learning (PBL) Tools — Substantive Programming Across All Three Domains: SEM-based investigations producing authentic student products. PBL projects deliver substantive programming across general intellectual, academic, and creative/arts domains \u2014 with student-driven projects matching student-identified strengths. Products provide concrete evidence of learning depth that supports local accountability documentation in the absence of state-level program reporting.
Personal Success Plan (PSP) — Local Accountability Documentation: A student-driven goal and progress tracker. PSP records consolidate identification evidence, services delivered, and progress against student-identified goals. For districts that operate gifted programs, PSP records support local accountability and program practice documentation \u2014 particularly important given the absence of state-level program reporting infrastructure. For districts without gifted programs, PSP records support general high-ability student support within regular classrooms.
Side-by-side alignment
How Renzulli Learning Aligns with New York’s Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Part 117 (Sections 117.1\u20133) Article 90 Education Law Section 142.2 Commissioner's Regs Local-control framework| New York Statutory or Regulatory Requirement | Renzulli Learning Contribution |
|---|---|
| Part 117 Diagnostic screening of every new entrant Possibly gifted + possibly disabled + possibly ELL | Profiler (multi-language, brief, strength-based) complements district-selected screening tools by capturing interests, learning patterns, and motivation. CTC contributes scored creativity evidence. Together these tools provide deeper student-strength data than basic screening alone. |
| Article 90 Three-domain definition General intellectual + special academic aptitude + visual/performing arts | Profiler captures interests across all three domains. CTC provides creativity evidence supporting visual/performing arts and general intellectual identification. EFA contributes cognitive process indicators supporting general intellectual ability identification. Together these tools support multi-source evidence across the three statutory domains. |
| Article 90 "High performance capability and exceptional potential" Both achievement AND potential | 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 both the achievement and potential framing. |
| Article 90 Service-need test Programs or services beyond the regular school program | Enrichment database (40,000+ activities) delivers above-curriculum content satisfying the “beyond regular program” service-need test. PBL tools generate authentic Tier 3 investigations producing original products that demonstrate the kind of substantive enrichment Article 90’s service-need test envisions. |
| Local control "Non-endorsing state" Districts select screening tools and programs | Platform tools are flexible and configurable to local district criteria. Districts can use Renzulli instruments as part of locally selected screening + identification, or alongside other locally selected instruments. Renzulli does not replace local screening selection authority \u2014 it provides one or more components of locally designed processes. |
| Federal nondiscrimination 2E students cannot be excluded from gifted programs Students with disabilities have equal access | EFA provides functional performance data informing how gifted programming addresses both giftedness and disability. Profiler surfaces talent in students whose disability suppresses conventional performance. CTC identifies creative ability that may be most visible when academic performance is masked by disability. |
| Local accountability No state program reporting infrastructure Districts conduct own program evaluation | PSP aggregates identification evidence, services delivered, and outcomes into structured documentation supporting local accountability and program practice review. PSP records support districts that conduct their own program evaluation in the absence of state-level reporting requirements. |
From New York educators
What Implementation Looks Like in New York Districts
“Part 117 is the floor, not the ceiling. We screen every new entrant because the regulation requires it. But what we do with screening results is entirely up to us \u2014 and that’s both the freedom and the burden of New York’s framework. Districts that take the local-control flexibility seriously build substantive programs; districts that don’t can comply with the screening mandate without ever building meaningful gifted services. Web-based platform infrastructure helps us turn screening flexibility into deliberate program design rather than incidental practice.”Director of Curriculum · Suburban New York school district
For New York City NYC operates the most prominent selective G/T admissions process in the United States, layered on top of Part 117 universal screening. NYC’s G/T programs span specific schools and citywide programs, with admissions criteria that have evolved through substantial public debate about equity and access. Coordinators in NYC work within an actively contested policy environment with real demographic representation considerations. Web-based platform delivery scales across NYC’s 1,800+ schools and 1M+ students with infrastructure consistency across boroughs and school types.
For suburban, upstate urban, and rural New York Districts outside NYC \u2014 from Long Island and Westchester suburbs to upstate cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany) to rural Adirondack and Southern Tier districts \u2014 design entirely local identification and program approaches. Substantial variation across districts is the rule, not the exception: some districts operate strong selective programs; some operate embedded differentiation; some operate no specific programs. Web-based platform delivery means a single coordinator can scale identification, programming, and documentation across substantial geographic and demographic diversity without specialist staffing at every site.
Frequently asked questions
New York Gifted & Talented Education: Common Questions
Questions New York district G/T coordinators, classroom teachers, and parents ask most often:
What does Part 117 require for gifted identification?
Part 117 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (Sections 117.1, 117.2, 117.3) requires every New York State public school district to establish procedures for diagnostic screening of every new entrant to determine which students are "possibly gifted," "possibly have or are suspected of having a disability," and/or "are possibly English Language Learners." A "new entrant" is a student entering NYS public schools pre-kindergarten through grade 12 for the first time, or reentering with no available record of prior screening. The diagnostic screening must be conducted by appropriately qualified school district staff, and the results must be reviewed with a written report prepared for each student screened. The report must include a description of diagnostic screening devices used, the student’s performance on those devices, and, if required, the appropriate referral. Screening tools are a local decision \u2014 NYSED is a non-endorsing state and does not specify which instruments districts must use.
How does New York define gifted students under Article 90?
Article 90 of the Education Law (and Section 142.2 of Commissioner’s Regulations) defines gifted pupils verbatim as “those who show evidence of high performance capability and exceptional potential in areas such as general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude and outstanding ability in visual and performing arts. Such definition shall include those pupils who require educational programs or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their full potential.” Three structural features are operationally important. First, the definition recognizes three domains: general intellectual ability, special academic aptitude, and visual/performing arts. Second, the definition uses "high performance capability and exceptional potential" \u2014 framing identification around both demonstrated achievement and underlying capacity. Third, the definition includes the service-need test: students require programs or services beyond the regular school program to realize their potential. Students who can be challenged within the regular curriculum would not meet the definition even if they are high-achieving.
Are New York public schools required to have gifted and talented programs?
No. NYS public schools are not required to have gifted and talented programs. The determination to offer gifted and talented programs is made at the local school district level. New York is one of fewer than 10 states with no state mandate for gifted education. NYSED does not provide state funding for gifted education, does not require districts to operate gifted programs, does not maintain a directory of districts that offer gifted programs, and does not create or endorse specific gifted curricula. Districts may operate substantial selective programs, modest pull-out enrichment, embedded classroom differentiation, or no specific gifted programming \u2014 with the Part 117 diagnostic screening requirement applying equally regardless. The framework reflects New York’s local-control tradition: the state requires identification awareness through screening, and individual districts make programmatic decisions based on local priorities, resources, and community values.
What happens if Part 117 screening identifies a student as “possibly gifted”?
Under Part 117, if diagnostic screening identifies a student as “possibly gifted,” two things must happen. First, the results must be reviewed by appropriately qualified school district staff, and a written report must be prepared. The report must include a description of the diagnostic screening devices used, the student’s performance on those devices, and the appropriate referral if required. Second, NYSED requires that parents or guardians are notified if their child is identified as “possibly gifted” through Part 117 screening. The parent notification is required regardless of whether the district operates a gifted program. After notification, the district’s response depends on local programming: districts that operate gifted programs initiate their identification and placement processes; districts without programs notify parents but have no mandated services to provide. The “possibly gifted” identification through Part 117 is preliminary \u2014 it is not equivalent to formal gifted identification under a district’s local criteria.
How does the New York City G/T admissions process relate to Part 117?
New York City Public Schools operate a separate selective G/T admissions process that exists alongside but distinct from Part 117 screening. The NYC G/T process is operated by the NYC Department of Education for students seeking admission to NYC’s selective G/T programs, including programs at specific schools and the citywide G/T programs. NYC’s process has used various criteria over time including teacher recommendations, performance assessments, and parent applications. The NYC process is one of the most prominent selective G/T admission systems in the United States and has been the subject of substantial public debate about equity, demographic representation, and access. Districts outside NYC do not use the NYC process \u2014 they design their own identification approaches under local control. Renzulli Learning supports both NYC’s selective process (with multi-source evidence informing applications) and locally designed processes elsewhere.
Are students with disabilities eligible for gifted education in New York?
Yes. NYSED has confirmed that a student with a disability who is also identified as a gifted student may not be excluded from participation in a gifted and talented program if their school district operates such a program for gifted students. This is the federal nondiscrimination principle applied to gifted programs \u2014 students with disabilities who meet gifted identification criteria have equal access. Twice-exceptional (2E) students may have both an IEP for their disability and gifted identification through district processes. The Part 117 diagnostic screening serves as a single screening process that simultaneously evaluates students for possible gifted identification, possible disability identification, and possible English Language Learner status \u2014 making 2E identification structurally easier in New York’s framework than in states where gifted and disability screening occur through entirely separate processes. Districts that operate gifted programs must include 2E students; districts without gifted programs have no programmatic obligations for any students.
What does “non-endorsing state” mean for New York screening tools?
NYSED is a non-endorsing state for gifted screening \u2014 meaning the Department does not endorse or specify particular screening instruments districts must use. The selection of screening tools is a local decision. Districts may use any combination of cognitive ability tests (CogAT, NNAT, KBIT), achievement tests, validated creativity assessments, behavioral checklists, teacher observation protocols, parent referral forms, and structured nomination processes. The non-endorsing posture reflects New York’s broader local-control tradition: the state requires that diagnostic screening occur but leaves instrument selection to district discretion. Districts may consult NYSED guidance on valid and reliable screening tools but are not required to adopt any specific instrument. The local-control approach means districts must make and document deliberate selection decisions \u2014 different districts may use entirely different screening tools while both meeting Part 117 requirements.
How does Renzulli Learning support New York’s framework?
Renzulli Learning provides instruments and content aligned to New York’s Part 117 + Article 90 framework. The Renzulli Profiler captures interest depth, learning patterns, and motivation \u2014 contributing student-generated evidence to locally selected screening processes. The Cebeci Test of Creativity provides scored creativity evidence supporting identification beyond Part 117’s basic screening, particularly relevant for the visual/performing arts domain Article 90 names. The Leadership Assessment provides leadership behavioral data; the Executive Function Assessment supports identification of twice-exceptional students whose disability may suppress conventional performance. The 40,000+ activity enrichment database delivers content for districts that operate gifted programs \u2014 supporting program design from substantive selective programs (NYC, suburban) to embedded classroom differentiation (rural and small districts). The Personal Success Plan documents identification, services delivered, and outcomes \u2014 supporting the local accountability and program practice documentation NYSED expects, particularly important given the absence of state-level program reporting infrastructure.
Official sources
New York Gifted & Talented Education Resources
All identification, screening, and program design decisions should reference primary NYSED and NYC DOE sources. Renzulli Learning is designed to complement \u2014 not replace \u2014 your district’s screening process under Part 117 or your local identification criteria.
- NYSED \u2014 Gifted & Talented Education Overview (definition, FAQ, district-level information)
- NYSED \u2014 Commissioner’s Regulations Sections 117.1\u2013117.3 (Part 117 full text on diagnostic screening)
- New York City Public Schools \u2014 Gifted & Talented Programs (NYC selective admissions process)
- Gifted New York State (GiftedNYS) \u2014 advocacy organization, parent resources, district information
- National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) \u2014 Pre-K-12 Programming Standards used by NY districts in deliberate local-selection processes
Custom District Alignments
Need a custom alignment for your district’s Part 117 universal screening, three-domain identification (intellectual + academic + arts), local program design, or NYC selective process documentation?
Explore Renzulli Learning’s gifted and talented alignment for neighboring states:
Ready to Build Universal Screening Infrastructure That Bridges Part 117 With Substantive Local Programming?
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 Part 117 universal screening framework, the Article 90 three-domain definition (general intellectual + special academic + visual/performing arts), the local-control framework with no state mandate, and the NYC selective G/T admissions process \u2014 from NYC and Long Island to rural Adirondack districts.
Call +1 (203) 680-8301 · Email [email protected]