​State Standards & Best PracticesVaried State Definitions & Mandates: Gifted education policies differ widely by state. Some states legally define “gifted” students and require all public schools (including charters) to identify and serve them, while others leave it to local discretion​
davidsongifted.org
. For example, North Carolina law provides a statewide definition and standards for AIG programs, but charter schools are not required to have an official AIG program – it’s optional, though about 20 charters have voluntarily developed AIG plans aligned with state guidelines. In Texas, by contrast, state code mandates that each district (including charter districts) identify gifted students and offer services, using multiple criteria and a “blind” committee process per the Texas Administrative Code. Arizona requires all district schools to provide gifted education, whereas charter schools “may elect” to offer gifted services, giving charters more autonomy in program design.

Identification Practices: Best practices emphasize using multiple measures to identify gifted learners, to capture diverse talents. Many states guide schools to use achievement tests, ability tests, teacher/parent nominations, and portfolios rather than a single cutoff score. For instance, Texas law calls for “ongoing screening” and data from multiple sources to find students with “remarkably high” accomplishment or potential. There is also a growing movement toward universal screening in early grades to ensure no gifted student is overlooked. Pennsylvania actually requires universal screening for gifted identification (though it’s an unfunded mandate), a step that has increased equity in one district by giving all students a chance to show their abilities. Charter schools following best practices often adopt similar inclusive identification processes even when not mandated.
Curriculum Design & Instructional Models: High-quality AIG programs use curriculum enrichment and acceleration to challenge gifted learners. Common models include:

• Cluster Grouping: placing a small cluster of gifted students together in an otherwise mixed-ability classroom. This is considered one of the most inclusive models, as it allows gifted students to learn with like-minded peers daily while still interacting with all students​
  mhs.com
  . Cluster grouping helps gifted children dive deeper into content and engage in critical thinking alongside intellectual peers​
  mhs.com
  . Many charter schools use cluster groups combined with differentiated instruction, given their often small cohorts of gifted students.
  
  
• Pull-Out or Enrichment Classes: students spend part of the week in a separate enrichment class for advanced projects. For example, some charters partner with local programs or online platforms to provide specialized enrichment in STEM, arts, or humanities. Enrichment clusters allow students to explore interests in depth without full-time segregation.
  
• Self-Contained Gifted Classes: a dedicated class or program for gifted students. A few charters create full-time gifted cohorts when numbers allow. In Arizona, San Tan Charter School runs a self-contained gifted elementary program – a full-day class where identified gifted students learn a compacted, rigorous curriculum one year above grade level, taught by teachers specialized in gifted education. This model ensures advanced pacing and depth; San Tan’s gifted students benefit from small class sizes, interdisciplinary projects, and an accelerated curriculum tailored to their needs.
  
• Acceleration & Advanced Courses: enabling gifted students to move faster through material. Many charters allow subject acceleration (e.g. a 3rd grader joining 5th grade math) or grade-skipping where appropriate. Some charter networks embed acceleration for all high achievers – for instance, the BASIS charter schools require all students to take Advanced Placement courses starting in 9th grade, effectively treating advanced coursework as the norm. Similarly, charter schools in the Academies of Math & Science network provide a curriculum about one year ahead of grade level in core subjects, integrating STEM and foreign languages to keep gifted and high-motivated students challenged.
  

Alignment with Standards: Even with autonomy, many charter schools align their AIG programs to state and national standards for quality. They often consult resources like the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) programming standards and state AIG standards. In North Carolina, charters that choose to have AIG programs must write a local AIG plan that follows the state’s AIG Program Standards. This ensures consistency in areas like student identification, curriculum planning, and socio-emotional support. Charter schools also emphasize critical thinking, creativity, and self-directed learning in their curricula. For example, Priority Charter Schools in Texas set goals for gifted services that include developing students’ skills in independent research, complex thinking, and creative problem-solving – expecting gifted students to create “advanced-level products” and even professional-quality work by high school. Overall, best practices involve a mix of challenging content, flexible pacing, and supportive environments tailored to gifted learners’ needs.
Challenges & Barriers in Implementing AIG ProgramsDesigning and sustaining gifted programs can be difficult for charter schools due to several common challenges:

• Funding Constraints: Money is a top concern. Unlike some traditional districts, charter schools often receive no dedicated funds specifically for gifted education. Many states provide little or no extra funding for gifted programs – 13 states provided $0 in state gifted funding in 2008-09, and only 11 states spent over $10 million. In North Carolina, for example, charter schools’ state funding already includes any AIG allotment, but opting to run an official AIG program doesn’t bring additional dollars​
  wakepage.org
  . This means charters must carve resources out of their general budget to test students or hire specialized teachers, which is tough if budgets are tight. Smaller charters especially struggle to fund a full gifted program without economies of scale. As a result, some charters rely on cost-effective strategies (like integrating gifted differentiation into regular classrooms) due to limited funding.
  
  
• Limited Teacher Training & Expertise: Finding teachers trained in gifted education is another barrier. Most states do not require general classroom teachers to have gifted-endorsed training, and charter schools may not have specialists on staff. Many teachers feel ill-equipped to differentiate curriculum for advanced learners on top of teaching the rest of the class. Professional development in gifted education is often scarce or not prioritized amid other training needs. Only a few states (fewer than five) require gifted education certification for those coordinating programs, so charters must proactively seek PD opportunities. Without training, even well-intentioned teachers might struggle to provide appropriate challenge, leading to under-servicing gifted students. Charter networks that invest in ongoing teacher development in differentiation and acceleration (e.g. training in curriculum compacting or social-emotional needs of gifted students) have an easier time implementing AIG programs.
  
• Regulatory & Compliance Hurdles: Gifted education laws can be confusing for charter schools. In some states, charter schools are exempt from certain district mandates. For instance, Louisiana’s law requiring services for gifted students explicitly does not apply to charter schools​
  thelensnola.org
  , leaving it up to each charter’s leadership to decide whether to offer a gifted program. Navigating state reporting requirements or plan submissions for AIG programs can also be challenging for charters that lack central office support. Moreover, accountability pressures under federal law (focusing on proficiency and closing gaps) might inadvertently incentivize schools to focus on struggling learners over advanced ones. Charter leaders sometimes worry about the optics of dedicating resources to high-achievers when they are also accountable for bringing up low performers. Balancing these pressures while meeting gifted students’ needs is a delicate task.
  
  
• Scale and Resource Limitations: Many charter schools are small (single school or few campuses) and may have only a handful of gifted-identified students per grade. This low critical mass can make it impractical to run separate gifted classes or hire a full-time gifted specialist. In contrast to large districts that might have an entire gifted program staff, a charter might rely on one teacher to coordinate AIG services on top of other duties. Small numbers of gifted students also mean those children could feel isolated if no program exists – a catch-22 if the school lacks resources to create one. Additionally, creating advanced curriculum materials or obtaining appropriate instructional resources can be a challenge without district-level support. Charter schools often must be creative, for example by sharing a gifted teacher across several schools, using online gifted courses, or partnering with local universities or talent search programs to provide enrichment.
  
• Equity & Identification Issues: Ensuring equitable access to AIG programs is a persistent challenge. Research has shown that low-income and minority students are underrepresented in gifted programs nationwide. Charter schools face the same issue and, in some cases, additional complexities. If a charter relies solely on parent referrals or standardized test scores for identification, it may overlook gifted learners from less advantaged backgrounds or those who are English Language Learners. Biases in identification can be a barrier – for example, if testing is only in English or if teachers are not trained to spot gifted traits in diverse students. Some charters might inadvertently create barriers (like requiring families to request testing) that disadvantage those unfamiliar with the system. The end result is an “excellence gap” where high-potential students of color or poverty are left out. Addressing this requires proactive measures (like universal screening or using local norms), which not all schools have the capacity to implement. Equity concerns also extend to rural charter schools, which may have fewer resources to identify and serve gifted learners, and to ensuring gender equity in areas like math/science gifted identification. Charters committed to AIG programs have to consciously work to mitigate these issues so that gifted services are accessible to all who need them.
  

Funding Models & Resources for AIG ProgramsFunding for gifted education in charter schools typically comes through a patchwork of sources, since there is no dedicated federal funding stream for gifted programs (the U.S. Department of Education invests only a few cents per $100 in K-12 toward gifted education). However, various funding models and resources can support AIG efforts:

• State Education Funding: Many states include gifted students in their school funding formulas or grants, which charters can tap into. In fact, 32 states provide some additional funding for Gifted/Talented (GT) programs. This can take different forms. State formula funding in about 11 states allocates extra dollars for each identified gifted student or as a weight in per-pupil funding. For example, Florida’s funding formula (FEFP) uses a weighted model: each gifted student counts as more than 1.0 FTE, generating supplemental funds for their education. Charters in Florida receive those weighted funds for serving gifted learners, which they can use for specialized staff or materials. State gifted grants are another model – roughly 18 states give non-competitive block grants to districts (and charters) to support approved gifted programs. North Carolina provides AIG funds as part of the overall allotment to each district/charter based on student population; charters that develop an AIG plan thus already have some state funds earmarked for those services​
  wakepage.org
  . A few states use competitive grants: Delaware and Indiana, for instance, have awarded competitive grants to spur innovative local gifted programs. Charter schools can apply for these when available, though the process can be competitive and may favor larger districts. Finally, a state or two (like North Dakota) may reimburse a portion of gifted program expenses, effectively refunding schools for supporting gifted learners.
  
  
• Federal Funds and Grants: While there is no federal formula funding for gifted education (no mandate under ESSA to serve gifted students), the federal government does offer the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. Javits grants fund research and innovative approaches to identify and serve gifted learners, especially those from underrepresented groups. Charter schools (or their networks/universities in partnership) can compete for Javits grants to support their AIG initiatives. For example, Arizona’s education department points to resources developed through a Javits grant (Project Bright Horizon) to improve identification of diverse gifted learners. Some charters have benefited from Javits-funded projects that provide teacher training or new screening tools. Additionally, charters can strategically use federal Title funds: Title II grants (for professional development) might train teachers in gifted education strategies, or Title IV-A flexible block grants can fund enrichment programs that benefit gifted and advanced students. In schools with many low-income gifted learners, a portion of Title I funds could potentially support advanced learning as a means of enrichment for disadvantaged high-achievers. Though not earmarked specifically for gifted, these federal streams can be braided into a charter’s overall plan to support advanced learners.
  
• Private Grants and Partnerships: Charters often seek external funding or partnerships to bolster their gifted programs. Education foundations and nonprofits sometimes offer grants for STEM enrichment, arts programs, or curricular innovation that gifted classes can use. For instance, the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation has advocated for high-ability low-income students and provided grants to increase their access to gifted services (their report “Equal Talents, Unequal Opportunities” graded states on supporting low-income gifted learners). Some charter schools partner with local universities or science centers to access specialized programs at low or no cost – e.g. university-run Saturday programs for gifted youth or mentorships that effectively extend the resources available to the charter’s AIG students. Parent Teacher Organizations (PTOs) at charter schools have also helped raise funds for things like math Olympiad coaches, robotics clubs, or field trips for gifted clusters. An “innovative” approach a few charters use is creating blended funding models: they might combine a small state allocation with fundraising and volunteer support. For example, a charter might use state funds to hire a part-time gifted coordinator, while a private grant funds new testing materials and parents volunteer to run after-school enrichment clubs.
  
• Leveraging Shared Resources: Given limited budgets, charter schools sometimes collaborate or use cost-effective resources to support gifted learners. State or regional support networks can be invaluable – many states have a Gifted Association or regional cooperatives that offer training, student enrichment events (like academic competitions), or curriculum materials. Charter schools can join these networks to access resources that would be expensive to develop alone. Online resources and curricula are increasingly available: charters can utilize open-source advanced curricula or online programs (like Khan Academy or Johns Hopkins CTY online courses) to supplement classroom instruction for gifted students. In states like Colorado, the statewide Charter School Institute provides guidance and requires each CSI charter to have policies for gifted education, helping charters share best practices. By pooling resources or knowledge, charters can overcome some financial and expertise hurdles.
  

In summary, while funding AIG programs in charters can be challenging, there are avenues to explore – from state-provided funds and federal grants to creative partnerships and community support. Charter leaders often need to be proactive and entrepreneurial in securing and utilizing these resources to sustain robust gifted programs.
Case Studies & Success StoriesDespite the challenges, many charter schools have developed strong AIG programs or innovative models for gifted education. These success stories illustrate what’s possible:

• Menlo Park Academy (Ohio): Menlo Park is a K-8 charter school exclusively for gifted students, and it stands out as Ohio’s only public school dedicated entirely to gifted education. As a tuition-free charter, Menlo Park selects students who meet gifted criteria and provides an accelerated, enriched curriculum for all. Classes are ability-based rather than strictly age-based, allowing students to advance at their own pace. The school emphasizes a “whole child” approach – addressing social and emotional needs alongside academic challenge – and creates a community where gifted learners belong and thrive. This model eliminates the need for pull-out services; instead, the entire school experience is geared toward high-ability learners. Results: Menlo Park Academy is consistently ranked among the top schools in Ohio, with high test scores and parent satisfaction. Its success is attributed to highly trained teachers, a tailored curriculum (often compacting a year’s worth of material into shorter timeframes), and strong support from families who are deeply engaged in the school. Menlo Park demonstrates that a charter school can successfully specialize in gifted education, given a clear mission and expertise.
  
• Success Academy Network (New York City): While not labeled as “gifted” programs, the Success Academy charter schools have become famous for their advanced academic outcomes. Serving mostly low-income, minority students, this K-12 network uses an accelerated curriculum and high expectations for all. The result: Success Academy schools often outperform even selective gifted-and-talented programs. In one analysis, 19 of the 25 top-scoring schools in NYC for math were Success Academy campuses – surpassing elite magnet schools in performance. Their elementary curriculum introduces sophisticated content early (e.g., kindergartners doing basic programming, first graders tackling simple physics concepts). By middle school, scholars are working at a level that prepares them for honors and AP courses in high school. Success Factors: A culture of rigor and intense focus on quality instruction means advanced learners are continually challenged. They use techniques like curriculum compacting (covering content more quickly when students demonstrate mastery) and provide enrichment in science, chess, art, etc. The Success Academy case shows that a charter network can embed gifted-level rigor into its standard program. It’s a “whole-school” approach rather than a separate gifted track, but it effectively offers gifted students an environment where they are challenged at high levels. Their success also sparks debate – some attribute it to strict discipline or motivated families, but it undeniably showcases how charter schools can cultivate very high achievement.
  
• BASIS Charter Schools (Arizona & other states): The BASIS charter network is often cited as a model for academically advanced education. While open to all who enroll (by lottery), BASIS operates with a college-prep mindset that pushes even elementary students to engage deeply with content. They offer accelerated math and science tracks and require Advanced Placement courses for all students in high school. Gifted students at BASIS thrive because the baseline curriculum is already accelerated and enriched – for example, all students take chemistry, physics, and biology in middle school, and by design the coursework is about a year ahead of traditional grade level. BASIS’s outcomes – their schools frequently rank among the best in the nation for AP exams and college readiness – highlight that charters can create a de facto gifted program school-wide by maintaining a uniformly high bar. One key to their success is hiring content-specialist teachers (many with advanced degrees) who can teach high-level material and trusting children to rise to the challenge. This model might not use the label “gifted,” but it serves advanced learners very effectively alongside motivated peers.
  
• San Tan Charter School – Gifted Program (Arizona): San Tan Charter, mentioned earlier, provides a self-contained gifted classroom option in the elementary grades. Identified gifted students can enroll in a dedicated class where the entire day’s instruction is tailored to their advanced learning needs. These classes feature project-based learning, interdisciplinary thematic units, and flexible grouping within the class (so students move at their own pace in each subject). The program’s goal is to meet each child at their level and take them to new heights of understanding. Why it succeeds: San Tan invests in teachers with gifted education training, keeps the class sizes small, and emphasizes both acceleration (compacting standard curriculum when appropriate) and enrichment (independent research opportunities for students to pursue their interests). Parents of participants report high engagement and satisfaction as their children are appropriately challenged and no longer “bored” in school. San Tan’s approach illustrates how a charter can implement a school-within-a-school model for gifted learners, even if broader state law doesn’t force them to.
  
• Charter Networks with Special Focus: A few charter schools are explicitly designed to serve gifted or high-performing students. For example, Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) inspired charter-like offshoots or partnerships in some states (though IMSA itself is a public residential academy, not a charter, its ethos appears in charters focusing on STEM excellence). Another example is the Gifted and Talented Charter School in Minneapolis (part of the Minneapolis Public Schools portfolio), which was created to provide an option for advanced learners citywide (though details would come from local case studies). These schools show that charters can fill a niche by catering to students who need more challenge.
  

Each of these success stories shares common threads: a commitment to academic excellence, curriculum and instruction designed for high ability levels, and a belief that meeting gifted students’ needs is part of the school’s mission. They also underscore different ways to structure AIG services – whether by full gifted-only enrollment (Menlo Park), embedding in a rigorous general program (Success Academy, BASIS), or offering special classrooms (San Tan). Charter school leaders can draw inspiration from these models and adapt elements that fit their context.
Policy Trends, Improvements & RecommendationsEvolving State Policies: In recent years, there’s growing awareness of the need to support gifted learners, and some states are updating policies that affect charter schools. For instance, North Carolina revised its AIG Program Standards in 2024​
dpi.nc.gov
, reinforcing a statewide framework for local AIG plans. This signals that charters opting into AIG programs will have clearer guidance and expectations in NC. Texas implemented state GT program standards and an accountability measure for gifted student performance (requiring districts to periodically evaluate their gifted services). More states are also considering accountability adjustments so that schools are recognized for helping high-achievers grow (e.g. weighting student growth to advanced levels, or treating gifted students as a subgroup for reporting). The Education Commission of the States and other policy groups have recommended that state accountability systems not ignore top performers, which could incentivize charters to prioritize gifted education along with other goals. Another trend is the push for equity in gifted education – states like Illinois, Colorado, and others have encouraged universal screening or use of local norms to identify more underrepresented gifted students. Charter schools, which often serve diverse communities, are influenced by these trends and may voluntarily adopt such practices to improve equity. In short, the policy landscape is slowly shifting toward broader support: more states (around 32 as of recent count) now mandate some level of gifted services, and a few have moved from unfunded to at least partially funded mandates. Charter schools in those states will likely find it easier to justify and fund AIG programs. However, where policies are still lax (no mandate or no funds), charters must be proactive on their own. The unevenness of gifted education across states remains – as a 2021 national report noted, it’s a patchwork system leading to unequal access​
davidsongifted.org
. This continues to fuel advocacy for more comprehensive state strategies​
davidsongifted.org
that include all public schools in gifted education improvements.

Potential Improvements: To strengthen AIG programs in charter schools, several improvements are needed at the policy and systemic level. First, increased funding and support would make a big difference – states could move to fully fund their gifted education mandates so that charters and districts alike have earmarked resources (currently, only 6 states fully fund their gifted mandates, while 5 mandate without funding at all). Ensuring charters have equal access to any district gifted funding or state grants is critical; policymakers might consider creating grant opportunities specifically for charter schools to develop innovative gifted services. Second, more robust teacher training requirements or incentives would help. States could require or encourage training in gifted education for initial teacher licensure or as part of charter certification. At minimum, offering scholarships or grants for charter school teachers to get a gifted endorsement or attend NAGC conferences could build capacity. Some states now provide online PD modules for teaching gifted students – making such resources widely available (and known) to charter schools would be beneficial. Third, clear guidelines and monitoring can improve implementation. Charter authorizers and state education agencies should explicitly ask: how is the school meeting the needs of its gifted learners? For example, Colorado’s Charter School Institute oversees charters’ compliance with state gifted policies, and Missouri started reporting gifted data on school report cards. Similar oversight in other states could prompt charters to develop and refine AIG services. Fourth, adopting research-based identification practices (like universal screening at second grade, using non-verbal ability tests to spot giftedness in ELL students, etc.) should be encouraged system-wide. States could supply screening tests or funding for them, which would directly help charters that can’t afford them on their own. Lastly, improving equity is paramount: policy could require disaggregating gifted enrollment by subgroup and setting goals to close identification gaps. This kind of transparency would push all public schools, including charters, to seek out gifted potential in overlooked populations and provide services accordingly.
Recommendations for Charter School Leaders: Charter school administrators looking to enhance AIG offerings can take concrete steps even within current constraints. Here are key recommendations:

• Commit to an AIG Plan: Even if not required by law, consider developing a formal gifted education plan for your school. This plan should outline how you will identify gifted students and how you will serve them (e.g. through differentiation, enrichment, or separate programming). Having a plan brings intentionality and can be modeled after district AIG plans. North Carolina’s Department of Public Instruction explicitly invites charters to submit Local AIG Plans on the state’s 3-year cycle – a practice that other charter leaders could emulate by voluntarily aligning with state gifted standards. A clear plan also signals to parents and authorizers that gifted education is a priority.
  
• Diversify Identification Methods: Review and broaden your identification process to ensure you’re finding all gifted students, not just the obvious ones. Use multiple criteria – ability tests, achievement tests, creative performance, observational checklists, etc. – to identify talents. Implementing some level of universal screening can be a game-changer for equity: for example, testing all 2nd graders with a cognitive abilities screening (rather than relying on referrals) often uncovers gifted learners among underrepresented groups. Also consider using local norms (comparing students to peers in your school) to spot high achievers in a high-poverty charter who might be overlooked if compared to a wealthy district’s norms. The goal is to cast a wide net so that English learners, students with disabilities, or others traditionally missed have a fair chance to qualify.
  
• Professional Development for Teachers: Invest in training your teachers to recognize and nurture giftedness. Encourage or sponsor teachers to obtain a Gifted Education certification or to attend workshops. Even short-term PD on strategies for differentiating instruction for advanced learners can pay off. Teachers should learn techniques like curriculum compacting (streamlining lessons when students show mastery), higher-order questioning, and managing project-based learning for gifted kids. Building this capacity is critical because in a charter setting, the regular classroom teacher often delivers gifted services (for instance, via cluster grouping or enrichment in class). A well-trained teacher can effectively challenge a range of abilities without always needing a separate program. Some states have resources (online modules, regional specialists) for gifted PD – charter leaders should take advantage of these and ensure that teacher evaluation and support systems value growth in serving advanced students.
  
• Curriculum and Grouping Strategies: Examine your school’s curriculum and see where you can embed opportunities for advanced work. This might mean offering accelerated curriculum in certain subjects or creating ability-based groups for part of the day. For example, you could introduce an advanced math track starting in elementary grades or add an enrichment period where gifted students work on independent projects. Cluster grouping is an easy-to-implement strategy: assign 4-6 identified high achievers to the same class with a teacher skilled in differentiation​
  mhs.com
  . This doesn’t cost extra, but it allows those students to bounce ideas off each other and delve deeper daily, which benefits their learning (and research shows it doesn’t harm other students). If resources allow, set up a weekly pull-out seminar or join forces with other nearby charters to host combined enrichment sessions (e.g. a “gifted Saturday academy” run jointly). The key is to ensure that gifted learners have consistent access to challenging material. Schools might also consider acceleration policies – be open to letting a student in 4th grade move up to 5th grade science if that’s their strength, for example. Having a clear, fair policy for subject or grade acceleration can help meet individual needs.
  
  
• Support the Whole Child: Remember that AIG programs are not just about academics; gifted learners often have unique social and emotional needs. Charter schools can foster affective support by connecting gifted students with peers and mentors. Setting up a small advisory group or lunch bunch for gifted kids to talk about their challenges (perfectionism, frustration, etc.) can build a sense of community. Incorporate social-emotional learning that addresses topics like resilience and intellectual curiosity. Some successful charters (like Menlo Park Academy) attribute their positive environment to understanding that gifted children may feel “out of sync” and need affirmation and like-minded friends. Even if you can’t create a class solely for gifted students, consider a club (science club, coding club, book club) that brings them together. Engaged, happy students will maximize the benefits of any academic program you provide.
  
• Leverage External Resources: Charter leaders should not hesitate to seek outside help. Tap into state and national organizations – the state’s gifted education association, if one exists, can offer guidance, sample policies, and networking with experienced gifted coordinators. The NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children) has a wealth of information on best practices and may connect your teachers with mentors. Explore partnerships: perhaps a local college can host your gifted students for an astronomy night, or a nearby science museum might run a special workshop. If your charter is part of a management organization or network, advocate for network-wide gifted initiatives (shared curriculum resources or joint teacher training). Also consider utilizing online courses or dual enrollment for upper-elementary gifted students who are ready for above-grade learning – for example, some 5th graders might take an online middle school math course. These creative solutions can extend what your school can offer without heavy in-house costs.
  
• Monitor and Evaluate: Finally, continuously evaluate your AIG program and student outcomes. Track identified gifted students’ progress – are they staying engaged and growing academically? Solicit feedback from students and parents about the level of challenge. Use this data to refine services each year. If certain groups are underrepresented in identification, adjust your methods and outreach. Treat gifted services as an evolving part of the school program that can improve with each cycle. Showing strong outcomes (e.g. high growth scores for advanced students, or successful completion of advanced projects) will also build the case for more support and perhaps attract funding or favorable attention from authorizers.
  

In conclusion, strengthening AIG programs in charter elementary schools requires both systemic support and on-the-ground initiative. Policy trends are gradually acknowledging gifted education (with more states defining and funding programs), but charter schools can act now by embracing best practices and seeking creative ways around obstacles. By learning from successful charter exemplars and implementing thoughtful identification, instruction, and support strategies, school leaders can ensure their academically or intellectually gifted students truly flourish. This not only benefits those children, but elevates the whole school – proving that excellence and equity can go hand-in-hand in the charter sector.

When I first entered the field of early childhood education, I was excited but also overwhelmed. Like many new teachers, I had the passion to make a difference in the lives of young children, but I lacked a roadmap to navigate the complexities of working in a standards-based Pre-K classroom. Licensing requirements, classroom setup, regulatory compliance, and even the day-to-day management of behavioral challenges were all daunting. There were so many rules I didn’t fully understand, so many expectations I wasn’t prepared for, and so many moments when I thought, Am I doing this right?
I often found myself wondering: What if I had a guide? What if there were a resource that could help me figure this out without the stress of learning everything the hard way? That thought stuck with me as I grew in this profession, and it’s what inspired this study.
A Guide to Empower Teachers
This research is personal. I want to create a guidebook that I wished I had when I started in the field. It’s not just about listing rules or best practices—it’s about creating something practical, easy to use, and filled with insights from real educators who have faced the same challenges. My goal is to develop a resource that supports teachers in navigating everything from ECERS-3 requirements and licensing to classroom management, family engagement, and transitions to kindergarten.
Why It Matters
Teaching is one of the most rewarding professions, but it’s also one of the hardest. Too often, talented educators leave the field—not because they lack the passion or skills, but because they feel unsupported or overwhelmed. I believe that having a clear, accessible guidebook could change that. It could mean fewer moments of doubt, fewer stressful encounters with inspections or compliance checks, and more confidence in handling the unique challenges of early childhood education.
For teachers, this resource could serve as a lifeline—a go-to tool that makes their work just a little easier, whether they’re new to the field or seasoned professionals. For children, it could mean more teachers staying in their roles and fostering high-quality, stable learning environments. For families, it could mean stronger partnerships with educators who feel equipped to engage and collaborate effectively.
Your Voice Matters
This guidebook won’t just reflect my experiences—it will reflect the voices of educators across the field. That’s why this study is so important. By sharing your insights, challenges, and strategies, you’ll help create a resource that truly meets the needs of Pre-K teachers. Your input will shape something that has the potential to make a lasting impact, not just on the teaching profession, but on the children and families we serve.
Join Me in This Mission
If you’re a Pre-K educator, I invite you to participate in this study and share your story. Together, we can build something meaningful—a guidebook that bridges the gap between research and practice, between stress and confidence, between frustration and fulfillment.
Let’s create a resource that keeps teachers inspired, supported, and empowered to do what they love: making a difference in the lives of children.

​David Shannon’s No, David! series serves as a unique lens through which we can explore the complex relationship between children’s behavior, discipline, and social-emotional learning (SEL). While the No, David! books illustrate the challenges young children face in regulating their emotions and actions, they also offer an opportunity to reflect on the roles teachers and caregivers play in shaping these behaviors. This essay examines how No, David! highlights the need for balanced discipline and empathetic understanding, juxtaposed with the potentially dangerous aspects of behavior management systems like Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Specifically, we will explore how subjective labeling, the branding of children, and the over-reliance on data collection in PBIS may stifle children's creativity and reflective potential, echoing the consequences David could face if he were solely viewed through the lens of his misbehavior.
The Role of Social-Emotional Learning in Early Childhood
Social-emotional learning is essential for young children’s development, helping them build emotional regulation, empathy, and problem-solving skills. As McClelland et al. (2017) argue, SEL interventions in early childhood have long-term benefits, impacting not only emotional health but also academic performance and peer relationships. Literature, including books like No, David!, plays a critical role in these interventions. When children engage with stories that depict emotional challenges—such as David’s misadventures—they can better understand their own feelings and develop empathy for others. Kalland et al. (2022) emphasize the importance of shared storybook reading, coupled with mentalizing discussions, as a tool to promote SEL in early childhood education. Through these discussions, teachers can guide children to explore characters’ emotions, fostering a deeper understanding of social-emotional concepts.
Misguided Discipline and the Consequences of Labeling
The No, David! series vividly portrays a young boy who, despite his frequent misbehavior, is ultimately loved and forgiven. This dynamic reflects the importance of handling children’s behavioral challenges with empathy and balance. Research by Murano et al. (2020) highlights how harsh or punitive discipline, especially when applied inconsistently, can have detrimental effects on a child’s emotional and social development. If David were constantly labeled as a troublemaker, his ability to reflect on his actions and develop emotionally could be severely hindered. Instead, the series demonstrates the need for a compassionate approach that acknowledges the child’s developmental stage.
PBIS and the Dangers of Subjective Labeling
PBIS is widely used in schools to promote positive behavior and address behavioral challenges. However, one significant drawback of the system is the subjectivity involved in categorizing behaviors as "minor" or "major" violations. Teachers, who are responsible for labeling student behavior, may unintentionally introduce bias into the process. Murano et al. (2020) discuss how subjective interpretations of behavior can lead to inconsistent applications of discipline, disproportionately affecting certain students. In the context of No, David!, David’s actions could be interpreted differently depending on the teacher’s perspective. While some might view his behavior as exploratory or developmentally appropriate, others could label it as disruptive, leading to unfair consequences.
Branding Children and the Long-Term Effects of Data Collection
One of the most concerning aspects of PBIS is the risk of branding children based on behavioral data. Burke et al. (2020) warn that systems like PBIS, which rely on collecting data to track behavior patterns, can inadvertently reinforce negative labels. Children like David, who may frequently engage in minor misbehavior, could be flagged as "problematic," creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the child internalizes these labels and continues to act out. The danger of branding children lies in the fact that once labeled, it becomes difficult for them to break free from these negative perceptions, potentially stifling their creativity and reflective potential.
The Importance of Balance in Discipline
As No, David! illustrates, balance in discipline is crucial. Shannon’s portrayal of David’s misbehavior, coupled with his mother’s love and forgiveness, emphasizes the need for a developmental approach to discipline that allows children to learn from their mistakes without fear of being permanently branded. As McClelland et al. (2017) and Mahoney et al. (2020) argue, children who are disciplined in a way that promotes self-reflection and emotional understanding are more likely to develop social-emotional skills that will serve them throughout their lives. Conversely, when children are subjected to punitive or inconsistent discipline, as seen in the potential pitfalls of PBIS, their ability to grow and express themselves may be stifled.
Conclusion
The No, David! series offers more than just an entertaining narrative about a mischievous child—it provides a valuable lesson about the importance of balanced discipline and the dangers of labeling children based on their behavior. As schools increasingly adopt behavior management systems like PBIS, it is critical to recognize the risks of subjective labeling, branding, and the over-reliance on data collection. Children, like David, possess an innate potential for creativity and reflection, but that potential can only be nurtured if they are allowed to learn from their mistakes in a supportive and understanding environment.

References
Burke, M., Jones, S. M., Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (2020). Systemic Social and Emotional Learning: Promoting Educational Success for All Students. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000701
Kalland, M., Linnavalli, T., & Koskull, M. (2022). SAGA-Supporting Social-Emotional Development in Early Childhood Education: The Development of a Mentalizing-Based Intervention. Education Sciences, 12(6), 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060409

There is something frightfully wrong about the trash leaving the early childhood classrooms at the end of the day. No, at least 3 times the trashcans must be emptied in the North Carolina preK classroom- after each meal. These bulging leaking bags are not only filled with biodegradable food waste, the ends of craft materials, abandoned student artwork, and swept up dirt, but also it contains as many styrofoam plates/bowls and plastic utensils (spoons/forks) as there are children in that class. With a ratio of 10 children to 1 teacher, a fully enrolled NC Pre-K classroom can produce approximately 20 styrofoam dishes and 20 plastic utensils as trash up to three times a day. That is 60 plates a day, 5 days a week for an entire school year. Keep multiplying those plates per child per classroom per center. In the past 5 years how much non-biodegradable waste have early childhood centers produced? Using the available statistics of enrollment in the state of North Carolina as pertains to the students in early childhood classrooms, where meals are included, the potential volume of waste is alarming.
Recycling, Sustainably sourced and sustainably used materials need to factor in to mitigate the negative environmental impact that continues to grow with each order form that is submitted. 
At Green IBIS we are looking into practical, sustainable solutions to address this issue, starting with data collection. Following data collection our proposal for the replacement of current materials used in the food service of our NCPre K classrooms starting with a model for one center at a time.
It is imperative that children see that we care about how we engage with our environment, and how our actions, even the most seemingly insignificant, do matter.