Agenda Item
a. Riverside Insights Gifted Assessments Analysis Presentation ~ Updated 9.8.2025
Summary: Presented by: Evelyn Johnson, Ed. D., Vice President, Research, Riverside Insights,
Ms. Sierra Scott, Regional Partnership Manager, Riverside Insights
Examining the impact of DeKalb County’s 2024-25
Gifted Program referral process
DeKalb County School District
Prepared by: Riverside Research Team (Matthew Naveiras, Sharon Frey, Jongpil Kim, Evelyn Johnson)
Date Prepared: August 26, 2025
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 1
Executive Summary
In the 2024–25 school year, DeKalb County School District broadened its gifted referral process by
lowering the MAP score threshold and adding the Iowa Assessment, with the goal of improving fair
access to gifted eligibility testing. As a result, more than twice as many students completed the CogAT
assessment compared to prior years. The number of students identified for gifted education increased
significantly, and the racial/ethnic distribution of newly identified students more closely resembled the
overall student population. While the representation of Black and Hispanic students increased
significantly after the policy change, these groups—along with economically disadvantaged and English
learner students—remain underrepresented. The findings support the continued use of expanded referral
criteria – including broader access to CogAT testing – as a meaningful step toward more equitable gifted
identification in DeKalb County Schools.
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 2
A note about data sources used for this analysis
The analyses reported in this slide deck are
based on a data set received from the district in
May 2025. The number of students newly
eligible for gifted services in our analyses are
lower than those included in the state report
largely due to:
1. Timing of data pull
2. Different student populations (state data
include all students active at any point)
3. Fluctuations in enrollment
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 3
New Gifted Identified Students by Subgroup
Table 1. DeKalb County School District data reporting the number and percentage change in newly gifted
identified students by subgroup.
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
% one year % one year
Number Number Number
change change
Black 431 386 -10% 662 +72%
White 538 522 -3% 651 +25%
Latino 140 155 +10% 248 +60%
Asian 223 224 No change 279 +25%
Multiracial 94 104 +10% 150 +44%
Economically Disadvantaged 483 484 No change 679 +40%
English Learners 21 51 +142% 92 +80%
Students with Disabilities 51 52 +2% 87 +67%
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 4
Gifted Referral Methods
School Years 2022-23; 2023-24 School Year 2024-25
Students were referred for gifted eligibility Students were referred for gifted eligibility
testing if: testing if:
• MAP scores > 90th percentile • MAP scores > 75th percentile
Eligibility testing included: Eligibility testing included:
• Students complete CogAT • Students complete Iowa Assessments and
CogAT
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 5
Data Analysis
To determine the impact of the change in gifted referral policy, we examined a dataset drawn in May 2025 that included scores
on the MAP, CogAT, and the Iowa Assessments for students in grades K-11. The table below provides the number of students
taking each test by semester. Figure 1 on the next slide provides a visual display of the data.
Table 2. Number of Students by Semester Taking MAP, CogAT, and Iowa Assessments
Student N Counts (and Percentages) by Semester
Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter
2022-23 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24 2023-24 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25
Students
91087 91087 91087 91627 91627 91627 90433 90433
(100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
MAP 70264 69993 68322 66510 69727 69217 69063 69398
(77.1%) (76.8%) (75.0%) (72.6%) (76.0%) (75.5%) (76.4%) (76.7%)
CogAT 4719 4763 10583 9747
- - - -
(5.2%) (5.2%) (11.7%) (10.8%)
Iowa 4791 6391
- - - - - -
(5.3%) (7.1%)
Torrance* 3185 (3.5%) 3345 (3.7%) 11306 (12.5%)
Note. The percentage of students administered the CogAT more than doubled, and Torrance more than tripled following the change in referral criteria
*The Torrance is administered once per year. Students newly eligible for gifted as a result of Spring 2025 Torrance assessments not included in this analysis.
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 6
Figure 1. Number of Students by Semester Taking MAP, CogAT, or Iowa Assessments
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 7
New Gifted Eligibility Summary by Ethnicity
Table 3. Demographic breakdown of students by school year as a percentage of the total population and as
a percentage of the newly gifted eligible population
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Total Gifted Total Gifted Total Gifted
White 10.3 37.7 10.5 37.5 10.8 32.7
Black 58.3 30.2 56.1 27.7 54.9 33.3
Hispanic 21.6 9.8 23.4 11.1 23.5 12.5
Asian/PI/AI/AN* 6.7 15.6 7.0 16.1 7.5 14.0
Multiracial 3.0 6.6 3.1 7.5 3.3 7.5
Total N New Gifted 1426 1391 1990
*Note. Includes students who are Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Alaska Native. These groups were combined due to small sample sizes.
Green line indicates beginning of gifted referral policy change. Students newly eligible for gifted as a result of Spring 2025 Torrance assessments not included in this
analysis.
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 8
Summary of Findings Reported in Table 3
•The total percentage of students found newly eligible for gifted services (both
within and across ethnicities) increased substantially between the 2023-24
and 2024-25 school years, due to the change in DeKalb’s GT referral criteria.
•In the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years, only 1.57% and 1.52% were
identified for gifted education*.
•However, in the 2024-25 school year, these percentages increased to 2.18%
and 2.07% of students*.
*See values in the “Total” row of Table 2 (Slide 6) for the values used for these calculations.
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 9
Summary of Findings Reported in Table 3 continued
• Despite representing approximately 80% of the overall student population, Black and Hispanic
students consistently account for only 40–45% of students identified for gifted education each
semester. This persistent gap highlights a pattern of underrepresentation that warrants attention.
• In contrast, White and Asian students have been overrepresented among the students identified for
gifted education. Despite making up less than 20% of the student population combined, these groups
tend to make up 45-55% of the students gifted eligible.
• These trends have improved following the changes to gifted referral criteria. Figures 2 through 4
provide additional visual displays of the data.
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 10
Figure 2. Percentage of students by race/ethnicity found newly eligible for gifted education by year.
40%
35%
Racial/Ethnic Group as a Percentage of Newly Gifted Eligible Students
30%
25%
White
Black
20%
Hispanic
Asian/PI/AI/AN
Multiracial
15%
10%
5%
0%
Fall 2022-2023 Fall 2023-2024 Fall 2024-2025
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 11
Figure 3. Race/Ethnicity Makeup of DeKalb Student Population
and Newly Gifted Eligible Students by School Year.
56
37.7 37.5
32.7 33.3
30.2
27.7
23.5
15.6 16.1
14
12.5
10.5 11.1
9.8
7
WHITE ASIAN BLACK HISPANIC
Total Student Population New Gifted 2022-23 NewGifted 2023-24 New Gifted 2024-25
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 12
Gains in Gifted ID Rates Across
We tested whether the proportion of
Racial/Ethnic Groups students in each racial/ethnic group
Figure 4. Proportion Z-Test Results Pre and Post Changes, *p < .001
identified for gifted education
changed significantly following
DeKalb’s change in referral practice.
6.5*
5.58 * • Black, Hispanic, Multiracial, and
4.9* White students saw statistically
* significant increases in the
3.95
3.56 3.57 proportion identified as gifted due
to the change in practice.
1.29* * 1.13*
* • Asian/PI/AI/AN students did not
0.78 0.72 show a significant change,
BLACK HISPANIC WHITE ASIAN/PI/AI/AN MULTIRACIAL suggesting stability in identification
Pre-Practice Change % Post-Practice Change % rates.
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 13
Newly Gifted Eligibility Summary by Lunch Status
Table 4 summarizes results by lunch status (i.e., whether a student was economically disadvantaged).
Approximately two-thirds of students are economically disadvantaged in this district. However, only about one-
third of the gifted eligible students are economically disadvantaged, making this group highly
underrepresented. This trend has persisted across school years (regardless of which Gifted referral method
was used).
Table 4. Percentage of students from the total population by semester eligible for Free or Reduced-Price
Lunch (FRL) and as a percentage of the newly gifted eligible population
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Total Gifted Total Gifted Total Gifted
FRL Eligible 74.6 33.9 71.8 34.8 65.3 34.1
Not Eligible 25.4 66.1 28.2 65.2 34.7 65.9
Total N Gifted 1426 1391 1990
Note. Green line indicates beginning of gifted referral practice change
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 14
Figure 5. Percentage of students by economic status found newly eligible for gifted education by year.
70%
60%
50%
40% Economically Disadvantaged
Not Economically
Disadvantaged
30%
20%
10%
0%
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 15
Newly Gifted Eligible Summary by English Learner (EL)
Status
Table 5 summarizes results by EL status. Approximately 20% of students are ELs. However, less than 5% of
the newly gifted eligible students are ELs, making this group highly underrepresented. This trend was
persistent across school years (regardless of which Gifted referral method was used), though it has improved
slightly in the 2024-25 school year.
Research we have conducted with other datasets suggests that expanding CogAT testing to all
students may help improve eligibility rates for ELs since language can prevent some English
Learners from demonstrating their full potential on achievement tests.
Table 5. Percentage of English Learners from the total population by school year and as a percentage of
the newly gifted eligible population
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Total Gifted Total Gifted Total Gifted
English Learner 16.7 1.4 20.2 3.7 22.0 4.6
Not English Learner 83.3 98.6 79.8 96.3 78.0 95.4
Total N Gifted 1426 1391 1990
Note. Green line indicates beginning of gifted referral practice change
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 16
Figure 6. Percentage of students by EL status found newly eligible for gifted education by year.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
English Learner
50% Not English
Learner
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 17
Newly Gifted Eligible Summary by Disability Status
Table 6 summarizes results by disability status. Approximately 12% of students have a disability (SWD).
However, less than 5% of the gifted eligible students are SWDs, making this group underrepresented.
This trend was persistent across school years (regardless of which Gifted referral method was used),
though it has improved slightly in the 2024-25 school year.
Table 6. Percentage of students with disabilities (SWD) from the total population by year and as a
percentage of the newly gifted eligible population
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Total Gifted Total Gifted Total Gifted
SWD 11.5 3.6 11.7 3.7 12.0 4.4
Not SWD 88.5 96.4 88.3 96.3 88.0 95.6
Total N Gifted 1426 1391 1990
Note. Green line indicates beginning of gifted referral practice change
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 18
Figure 7. Percentage of students by disability status found newly eligible for gifted education by year.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% SWD
Not SWD
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 19
Discussion
• These results show that the changes to DeKalb’s Gifted Education referral method resulted in the
demographic makeup of newly gifted identified students better resembling the student population, with
proportionally more Black, Hispanic, and Multiracial students being identified in the 2024-25 school year
relative to previous years.
• Although this is an improvement relative to previous results, Black and Hispanic students are still
largely underrepresented.
• There was an increase in the number of students with disabilities and students who are English
Learners identified for gifted education. However, these results should be interpreted with caution given
the smaller sample sizes. The district should consider using Alt-Verbal scores for English Learners in
grades K-2 to reduce language load.
• The results of these analyses support the expanded referral criteria for determining which
students are referred for gifted identification.
9/2/2025 © Riverside Insights 2024 20
Questions? Please contact:
Dr. Evelyn Johnson, VP of Research
ejohnson@riversideinsights.com
21
9/2/2025