Skip To main content

Renzulli Learning

Menu

Title-1

Highly Capable Program · Washington

Washington Highly Capable Program (HCP / Hi-Cap): Implementing RCW 28A.185 and WAC 392-170 \u2014 Constitutionally Part of Basic Education, With Universal Screening Twice in K-6, Multiple Objective Criteria, a Multidisciplinary Selection Committee, and Equitable Identification of Low-Income Students as a Statutory Priority

Washington frames the Highly Capable Program (HCP) as constitutionally part of basic education under RCW 28A.185.020: “for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education.” Implementing rule WAC 392-170 requires universal screening once in or before grade 2 and again in or before grade 6, multiple objective criteria for identification, and a multidisciplinary selection committee. Statute prioritizes equitable identification of low-income students. Renzulli Learning supports each requirement while preserving district authority.

Start Your Free 30-Day Trial Schedule a Demo Download the Alignment Summary
Basic Education
RCW 28A.185.020 frames HCP as constitutionally part of basic education \u2014 not discretionary
Twice in K-6
universal screening required once in or before grade 2 and again in or before grade 6
3 Domains
general intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, creative productivities (WAC 392-170-035)
Equity Priority
RCW 28A.185.020 requires district practices to prioritize equitable identification of low-income students
Washington law

What Washington’s Highly Capable Program Framework Requires

Washington serves gifted students through the Highly Capable Program (HCP), often referred to as Hi-Cap. The framework is established through RCW 28A.185 (Highly Capable Students) and implemented through WAC 392-170 (Special service program \u2014 Highly capable students). The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) administers the framework.

Washington’s framework is structurally distinctive in three ways. First, RCW 28A.185.020 states that “for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education” \u2014 making HCP part of Washington’s constitutionally required basic education. Second, the statute requires universal screening once in or before grade 2 and again in or before grade 6 to identify students who may need highly capable services. Third, RCW 28A.185.020 requires that “district practices for identifying the most highly capable students must prioritize equitable identification of low-income students.”

Constitutional basic education means HCP cannot be cut as a discretionary program. Washington Article IX, Section 1 makes ample provision for basic education a paramount duty of the state. Because RCW 28A.185.020 puts HCP within basic education, districts must offer an HCP program that complies with WAC 392-170 even if they decline categorical HCP funding. School districts may access basic education funds in addition to highly capable categorical funds to provide appropriate HCP services per OSPI guidance interpreting WAC 392-170-012.
Three areas of outstanding ability · WAC 392-170-035

Washington’s Definition of a Highly Capable Student

Under WAC 392-170-035, highly capable students are defined as students who perform or show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with others of their age, experiences, or environments. Outstanding abilities are seen within students’ three identification domains:

Domain 1
General Intellectual Aptitudes
Broad cognitive capability across multiple domains \u2014 reasoning, abstract thinking, conceptual learning. Identified through cognitive ability assessments alongside multiple other measures in the district’s body of evidence.
cognitive measures + multi-source evidence
Domain 2
Specific Academic Abilities
Outstanding ability in a particular academic discipline \u2014 most commonly mathematics or language arts, but may include science or other content areas based on local district practice and the body of evidence reviewed by the multidisciplinary selection committee.
subject-specific evidence + criteria
Domain 3
Creative Productivities
Capacity to generate original work within a specific domain. Recognizing creative productivity as a standalone identification dimension is a Washington-specific feature broader than many state frameworks. Requires evidence of original creative output, not just creativity test scores.
original work evidence required
Performance OR potential. WAC 392-170-035 explicitly recognizes both demonstrated performance AND potential for performance \u2014 meaning students whose abilities have not yet been demonstrated through traditional academic measures may still be identified. This is operationally significant for equity work: students from low-income, multilingual learner, or other historically underrepresented populations whose strengths haven’t emerged in traditional academic settings can still meet the definition based on potential supported by the body of evidence.
Identification rigor · WAC 392-170

Washington’s Universal Screening + Multidisciplinary Selection Committee Process

Washington’s identification framework is structurally rigorous, distinguishing it from frameworks where eligibility is determined by single test cutoffs:

Universal Screening (RCW 28A.185)

Once in or before grade 2 and again in or before grade 6. Designed specifically to focus on equitable identification of low-income and underserved students who may not be referred through traditional teacher or parent referral processes.

Annual Public Notification (WAC 392-170-042)

Annual public notification of parents and students before any major identification activity. Notice published or announced in multiple ways and in appropriate languages, with circulation adequate to notify parents and students throughout the district.

Multiple Objective Criteria (WAC 392-170-055)

Districts must use multiple objective criteria to identify students. Body of evidence includes multiple data points over time including district-administered assessments, teacher input, parent input, and equity-focused considerations such as environmental domain.

Multidisciplinary Selection Committee (WAC 392-170-070)

Each district establishes a multidisciplinary selection committee that determines eligibility based on the body of evidence. Procedural protection that prevents single-administrator decisions or automatic test-cutoff identification.

Equity priority is statutory, not optional. Per RCW 28A.185.020: “District practices for identifying the most highly capable students must prioritize equitable identification of low-income students.” This is a verbatim mandate \u2014 not a recommendation or best practice. Many Washington districts use environmental domain considerations to provide additional consideration for students who receive services through an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or 504 plan, multilingual learners (ML), and other historically underserved populations \u2014 operationalizing the equity priority through specific identification criteria.
Annual reporting

Washington HCP Annual Reporting and OSPI Oversight

Districts that accept Highly Capable categorical funding must complete several annual reporting requirements through OSPI. Even districts that decline categorical HCP funding must still offer an HCP program that complies with WAC 392-170, because HCP is constitutionally part of basic education:

CEDARS Annual Reporting

Districts annually report the students served in the LEA’s Highly Capable program through CEDARS (Comprehensive Education Data and Research System) \u2014 OSPI’s state student data system.

Comprehensive Plan

Districts maintain a Comprehensive Plan submitted via iGrants Form Package 217, updated on an as-needed basis when the district has made major program changes.

End-of-Year Report

Districts annually complete the End-of-Year Report via iGrants Form Package 250, documenting program activities, students served, and outcomes for the program year.

Consolidated Program Review (CPR)

OSPI staff review the Comprehensive Plan during the Consolidated Program Review (CPR) process on a multi-year cycle \u2014 evaluating compliance with WAC 392-170 across required program components.

Real challenges

What Washington HCP Coordinators Struggle With

These are the challenges we consistently hear from Washington educators implementing the Highly Capable Program:

Operationalizing universal screening twice in K-6

The grade-2 and grade-6 universal screening requirement is foundational to Washington’s equity priority \u2014 but operationalizing it well requires substantial coordinator capacity. Tracking which students were screened at each window, what data was collected, and which students moved into the body-of-evidence review takes significant infrastructure.

Equitable identification of low-income students

RCW 28A.185.020’s priority on equitable identification of low-income students is statutory, not optional. Coordinators need operational tools beyond traditional cognitive testing to identify highly capable potential in students whose strengths haven’t emerged in traditional academic settings.

Documenting body of evidence for the multidisciplinary committee

The multidisciplinary selection committee requires multiple objective criteria reviewed in a body of evidence. Coordinators need defensible documentation across multiple data points over time \u2014 not just a single test score \u2014 with the equity-focused environmental domain considerations many districts have adopted.

OSPI Consolidated Program Review preparation

OSPI’s Consolidated Program Review evaluates the Comprehensive Plan submitted via iGrants Form Package 217. Strong CPR preparation requires sustained documentation of identification procedures, equity provisions, services delivered, and student outcomes \u2014 not just paperwork at review time.

Platform tools mapped to WA's framework

What Renzulli Learning Provides: Mapped to Washington HCP

Each tool maps to specific WAC 392-170 / RCW 28A.185 requirements and produces concrete, exportable artifacts \u2014 while preserving district authority over multidisciplinary selection committee determinations:

Renzulli Profiler — Multiple Objective Criteria + Equitable Identification: A 20-30 minute interest, learning style, and expression-style inventory available in 20+ languages through the Global Profiler. Generates documented strength-based evidence supporting the multiple objective criteria requirement under WAC 392-170-055. Multilingual access supports the equitable identification of multilingual learner populations the framework explicitly prioritizes \u2014 directly addressing the RCW 28A.185.020 priority on equitable identification.
Cebeci Test of Creativity (CTC) — Creative Productivities Identification Domain: A validated, scored creative thinking assessment producing a ready-to-file report in under an hour. Directly supports the creative productivities within a specific domain identification dimension under WAC 392-170-035 \u2014 Washington’s third identification domain that many state frameworks don’t recognize as standalone. Provides documented creativity evidence for the multidisciplinary selection committee’s body-of-evidence review.
Executive Function Assessment (EFA) — Twice-Exceptional and Environmental Domain Support: Measures self-regulation, planning, working memory, and metacognition \u2014 surfaces twice-exceptional profiles whose disability-related strengths may not be captured by traditional measures. Directly supports the environmental domain considerations many Washington districts use for students with IEP/504 plans and other historically underserved populations.
Leadership Assessment — Whole-Student Evidence: Identifies leadership and psychosocial strengths \u2014 broadens the body of evidence the multidisciplinary selection committee reviews. Particularly relevant for students whose highly capable potential manifests in leadership and community contexts before traditional academic settings capture it.
Personal Success Plan (PSP) — Comprehensive Plan and End-of-Year Report Documentation: A student-driven goal and progress tracker generating exportable summaries that can contribute to the iGrants Form Package 217 Comprehensive Plan and iGrants Form Package 250 End-of-Year Report \u2014 supporting OSPI Consolidated Program Review preparation. Per-student progress records aggregate into program documentation.
Enrichment Database — Accelerated Learning and Enhanced Instruction: Over 40,000 curated activities matched to student Profiler results. Supports the accelerated learning and enhanced instruction RCW 28A.185.020 frames as constitutional basic education for highly capable students \u2014 providing structured content beyond what students receive in the regular program.
Project-Based Learning (PBL) Tools — Creative Productivity Evidence: Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM)-based investigations and Renzulli Type III independent investigations produce original creative work products directly relevant to the “creative productivities within a specific domain” identification dimension. Generates documented evidence of original creative output that supports the multidisciplinary selection committee’s body-of-evidence review.
Side-by-side alignment

How Renzulli Learning Aligns with Washington’s HCP Framework

RCW 28A.185 WAC 392-170 WAC 392-170-035 WAC 392-170-055 WAC 392-170-070 Universal Screening
Washington RequirementRenzulli Learning Contribution
WAC 392-170-035
Three Identification Domains
General intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, creative productivities within a specific domain		The Renzulli Profiler, CTC, EFA, and Leadership Assessment add multi-source strength-based evidence supporting identification across all three domains. The CTC directly addresses the “creative productivities” domain that many state frameworks don’t recognize as standalone.
RCW 28A.185
Universal Screening Twice in K-6
Once in or before grade 2 and again in or before grade 6		The Profiler can be administered at scale during screening windows \u2014 multilingual access supports equitable screening across diverse student populations. PSP documentation tracks which students moved into body-of-evidence review.
WAC 392-170-055
Multiple Objective Criteria
Body of evidence with multiple data points over time		Profiler, CTC, EFA, and Leadership Assessment provide non-cognitive multi-source measures that contribute to the body of evidence the multidisciplinary selection committee reviews \u2014 satisfying the multiple objective criteria requirement.
RCW 28A.185.020
Equitable Identification of Low-Income Students
Statutory priority on equitable identification		The multilingual Profiler (20+ languages), CTC (non-verbal/figural design), and EFA (twice-exceptional/environmental domain support) directly address the equity priorities the framework explicitly names.
WAC 392-170-070
Multidisciplinary Selection Committee
Committee determines eligibility based on body of evidence		Renzulli’s exportable reports provide structured documentation the committee can incorporate into its review. The committee retains full authority over eligibility determinations; Renzulli tools provide supporting evidence.
RCW 28A.185.020
Accelerated Learning + Enhanced Instruction (Basic Education)
Constitutional basic education for highly capable students		The Enrichment Database and PBL tools provide accelerated learning and enhanced instruction content. PSP documentation contributes to iGrants 217/250 reporting and OSPI Consolidated Program Review preparation.
From Washington educators

What Implementation Looks Like in Washington Districts

“Universal screening twice in K-6 is the right thing to do, but operationalizing it across the equity priority RCW 28A.185.020 establishes is where most coordinators struggle. Body-of-evidence review at the multidisciplinary selection committee can’t just be a single test score on a single day. The Renzulli Profiler in 20+ languages, the CTC for the ‘creative productivities’ domain, the EFA for environmental domain considerations \u2014 they fit Washington’s framework better than tools that weren’t built around equity.”
HCP Coordinator · Western Washington school district
Operationalizing the equity priority RCW 28A.185.020 requires district practices to prioritize equitable identification of low-income students \u2014 a statutory mandate, not a recommendation. The multilingual Profiler, the non-verbal CTC, and EFA-supported environmental domain considerations operationalize this priority with structured evidence the multidisciplinary selection committee can incorporate into the body of evidence.
Documenting creative productivities defensibly Washington’s “creative productivities within a specific domain” identification dimension is broader than many state frameworks. The CTC provides validated, scored creativity evidence; PBL Type III investigations produce original creative work products. Together they generate the documented evidence of original creative output the multidisciplinary committee needs for this identification domain.
Frequently asked questions

Washington Highly Capable Program: Common Questions

Questions Washington HCP coordinators, classroom teachers, and parents ask most often:

What law governs the Highly Capable Program in Washington?
Washington’s Highly Capable Program (HCP) framework is established through RCW 28A.185 (Highly Capable Students) and implemented through WAC 392-170 (Special service program \u2014 Highly capable students). RCW 28A.185.020 makes HCP part of Washington’s constitutionally required basic education by finding that “for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education.” WAC 392-170 contains the detailed procedures districts must follow including definitions (WAC 392-170-035), annual public notification (WAC 392-170-042), multiple objective criteria identification (WAC 392-170-055), multidisciplinary selection committee (WAC 392-170-070), and assessment procedures. RCW 28A.300.770 establishes additional identification procedures. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) administers the framework with district reporting through CEDARS, the Comprehensive Plan via iGrants Form Package 217, the End-of-Year Report via iGrants Form Package 250, and Consolidated Program Review.
How does Washington define a highly capable student under WAC 392-170-035?
Under WAC 392-170-035, highly capable students are defined as students who perform or show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with others of their age, experiences, or environments. Outstanding abilities are seen within students’ general intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, and/or creative productivities within a specific domain. The definition recognizes performance OR potential, meaning students whose abilities have not yet been demonstrated through traditional academic measures may still be identified. The three areas of outstanding ability are: (1) general intellectual aptitudes \u2014 broad cognitive capability across domains; (2) specific academic abilities \u2014 outstanding ability in a particular academic discipline; and (3) creative productivities within a specific domain \u2014 capacity to generate original work. This is broader than many state definitions, recognizing creative productivity as a standalone identification dimension.
What is the universal screening requirement in Washington?
Under RCW 28A.185, Washington school districts must conduct universal screening once in or before grade 2 and again in or before grade 6 to identify students who may need highly capable services. The universal screening requirement is designed to focus on equitable identification of low-income and underserved students who may not be referred through traditional teacher or parent referral processes. The requirement was strengthened through subsequent rulemaking and continues to be a focus of OSPI guidance. WAC 392-170-042 requires annual public notification of parents and students before any major identification activity, with the notice published or announced in multiple ways and in appropriate languages with circulation adequate to notify parents and students throughout the district. RCW 28A.185.020 specifically requires that “district practices for identifying the most highly capable students must prioritize equitable identification of low-income students.”
What is Washington’s multidisciplinary selection committee?
Under WAC 392-170-070, each Washington school district establishes a multidisciplinary selection committee that determines a student’s eligibility for the Highly Capable Program. The committee reviews the body of evidence assembled through universal screening or referral and makes the eligibility determination. Districts must use multiple objective criteria under WAC 392-170-055 \u2014 not a single test score \u2014 to identify students. Practice across Washington districts varies but generally includes review of multiple data points over time including district-administered assessments, teacher input, parent input, and equity-focused considerations. The multidisciplinary selection committee is a procedural protection that distinguishes Washington’s framework from frameworks where eligibility is determined by a single administrator or by automatic cutoff scores. Combined with the universal screening requirement and the equitable-identification-of-low-income-students priority in RCW 28A.185.020, the multidisciplinary committee structure aims to surface highly capable students from populations historically underrepresented in gifted programs.
What does Washington’s “HCP is part of basic education” framing mean?
Washington is constitutionally distinctive in framing the Highly Capable Program as part of basic education. RCW 28A.185.020 states that “for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education.” This framing has practical funding implications: school districts may access basic education funds in addition to highly capable categorical funds to provide appropriate highly capable student programs (per OSPI guidance interpreting WAC 392-170-012). The basic-education framing also has constitutional implications: Washington’s Article IX, Section 1 makes ample provision for basic education a paramount duty of the state, so failing to provide HCP services is a failure to provide basic education. This is operationally significant: HCP cannot be cut as a discretionary program because constitutional basic education obligations apply. Districts must offer an HCP program that complies with WAC 392-170 even if they decline categorical HCP funding.
How does Washington address equity in HCP identification?
Washington’s framework includes explicit equity provisions throughout. RCW 28A.185.020 requires that “district practices for identifying the most highly capable students must prioritize equitable identification of low-income students.” The universal screening requirement (once in or before grade 2 and once in or before grade 6) is specifically designed to focus on equitable identification of low-income and underserved students who may not be referred through traditional channels. WAC 392-170-055 requires multiple objective criteria for identification \u2014 not a single test score. Many Washington districts use environmental domain considerations to provide additional consideration for students who receive services through an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or 504 plan, multilingual learners (ML), and other historically underserved populations. WAC 392-170-042 requires annual public notification in multiple ways and appropriate languages. Together these provisions create a structural framework designed to identify highly capable potential across Washington’s diverse student populations.
What annual reporting must Washington districts complete for HCP?
Washington districts that accept Highly Capable categorical funding must complete several annual reporting requirements. (1) CEDARS reporting: Districts annually report the students served in the LEA’s Highly Capable program through the Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS). (2) Comprehensive Plan: Districts maintain a Comprehensive Plan submitted via iGrants Form Package 217, updated on an as-needed basis when the district has made major program changes. (3) End-of-Year Report: Districts annually complete the End-of-Year Report via iGrants Form Package 250. (4) Consolidated Program Review (CPR): OSPI staff review the Comprehensive Plan during the Consolidated Program Review process on a multi-year cycle. (5) Annual public notification: WAC 392-170-042 requires annual public notification of parents and students before any major identification activity, in multiple ways and appropriate languages. Even districts that decline categorical HCP funding must still offer an HCP program that complies with WAC 392-170, because HCP is constitutionally part of basic education.
How does Renzulli Learning support Washington’s Highly Capable Program?
Renzulli Learning supports Washington HCP implementation while preserving district authority over multidisciplinary selection committee determinations. The Renzulli Profiler captures interests, learning styles, and expression preferences \u2014 generating documented strength-based evidence supporting the multiple objective criteria requirement under WAC 392-170-055. Available in 20+ languages, the Profiler supports the equitable identification of low-income and multilingual learner populations the framework explicitly prioritizes. The Cebeci Test of Creativity (CTC) provides a validated creativity assessment supporting identification of “creative productivities within a specific domain” \u2014 the third area of outstanding ability under WAC 392-170-035. The Executive Function Assessment supports identification of twice-exceptional students whose disability-related profiles may not be captured by traditional measures. The Leadership Assessment broadens the evidence base. The 40,000+ activity Enrichment Database delivers programming supporting the accelerated learning and enhanced instruction RCW 28A.185.020 requires. The Personal Success Plan (PSP) supports student-level documentation that can contribute to Comprehensive Plan and End-of-Year Report preparation. School districts retain full authority over multidisciplinary selection committee eligibility determinations; Renzulli Learning provides supporting tools and evidence.
Official sources

Washington Highly Capable Program Resources

All compliance decisions should reference these primary OSPI sources. Renzulli Learning is designed to complement \u2014 not replace \u2014 Washington’s requirements and your district’s local Comprehensive Plan and identification procedures.

Custom District Alignments

Need help operationalizing universal screening twice in K-6, building defensible body-of-evidence documentation for the multidisciplinary selection committee, or producing OSPI Consolidated Program Review-ready materials for iGrants Form Package 217 and 250?

+1 (203) 680-8301

Universal Screening Workflow Documentation · Multidisciplinary Committee Body-of-Evidence Support · Comprehensive Plan + CPR Preparation

Explore Renzulli Learning’s gifted education alignment for neighboring states:

All States G&T Alignment Oregon G&T Idaho G&T Montana G&T Alaska G&T California G&T

Operationalize Washington HCP: Universal Screening, Multiple Objective Criteria, Multidisciplinary Selection Committee, and OSPI Reporting

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 Washington RCW 28A.185 (HCP as basic education; universal screening twice in K-6; equitable identification of low-income students priority), WAC 392-170 (the implementing rule with definitions, public notification, multiple objective criteria, and multidisciplinary selection committee), and the OSPI annual reporting cycle (CEDARS, iGrants Form Package 217 Comprehensive Plan, iGrants Form Package 250 End-of-Year Report, and Consolidated Program Review).

Start Your Free Trial Schedule a Demo Download the Alignment Summary

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