Gifted Weekly

Many readers responded to the Gifted Weekly Exit Policy research review survey. While there is limited academic research on this issue, it is clearly a significant concern within the gifted education community. In addition, Exit Policy is a commonly used phrase, but many also consider any change a “reconsideration” of services rather than a withdrawal. Outside of this nomenclature, a number of larger themes emerged: 

1. Giftedness Viewed as Permanent: Many programs view giftedness as an enduring trait. While services may be adjusted based on need, students are seldom fully exited, even if they no longer require specialized gifted services. 
2. Service Flexibility: Services are sometimes reduced or altered rather than fully withdrawn, especially if rigorous coursework in general education meets the student’s needs, particularly at the high school level.
3. Performance and Behavior Factors: Common reasons for considering an exit include the student’s academic struggles, behavioral issues, lack of engagement, or refusal to do the work. This often triggers discussions with parents and a support plan, but exit is still rare.
4. Formal Process and Documentation: Exiting may involve a formal review, accommodations, and goal-setting processes to help the student succeed in the program, usually ending only if all parties agree that an exit is best.
5. Parental Involvement: Most policies require parent agreement for a student to exit the program, making it rare for a student to be removed, as parents generally resist this.

In summary, while exit policies exist, they are complex and rarely result in a full removal from gifted education services.

Additional comments added several key insights:

1. Adapting to Service Model Changes: When service models change, some students may not perform as well, emphasizing the importance of matching services to current needs rather than maintaining a fixed placement.
2. Trial Exits: Some programs use temporary releases to see if a student truly wants to exit, which provides flexibility and avoids permanent removal without testing the impact first.
3. Reevaluation and Parental Consent: Some believe students showing consistently low grades and scores should have their services revised to a different tier even if parents disagree, suggesting a need for policies that balance parental involvement with objective criteria.
4. Program Effectiveness: There is interest in research on the long-term efficacy of early gifted identification, especially for students who struggle later academically. Some observed that an enriched home environment confers early advanced academic skills rather than innate giftedness, supporting the idea that periodic reassessment should be part of reconsideration policies. 
5. General Education Performance: Some question the value of pull-out programs if students are not performing well in general education, suggesting that services should be contingent on overall academic performance.
6. Assessment Types and Their Link to Success: There is curiosity about the predictive ability of specific assessments, particularly the IQ tests, indicating a desire to compare policies and understand the role of cognitive assessments in gifted identification and retention.

Across these responses, one recurring concept appears: tiers of service. There is definite concern about meeting the needs of identified gifted learners as they grow and change academically. A range of services to challenge students as their needs evolve can allow for more targeted and effective services.

Recommendation: Clearly outline the range of services offered in your gifted program, including whole-school enrichment, a gifted cluster model, and in-class differentiation, among others. A clearly defined model will enhance families’ understanding of the gifted services available.