Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
' V I i <br />allocations nor more intensive service needs appears to have <br />nerit. <br />3A. METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ACADEMICALLY <br />GIFTED STUDENTS SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED AND REVISED. <br />Currently, there are two conflicting state <br />policies, one which implicitly states that only 3.9 percent <br />of the total student population "should" be identified and <br />served as academically gifted, and the second which allows <br />(by virtue of identification procedures) local districts to <br />serve an average of ten percent of the school age population <br />as gifted. We recommend serving a small percentage and <br />providing appropriate resources to meet their needs for <br />differentiated instruction. <br />3E. THE CURRENT CAP OF 12.5 PERCENT OF AVERAGE <br />DAILY MEMBERSHIP FOR ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR RAMICAPPED PUPILS <br />SHOULD BE MAINTAINED UNTIT, SOME OTHER METHOD FOR CONTROLLING <br />EXPENDITURES IS FOUND TO BE EFFECTIVE. <br />in Yost states, incal school districts provide a <br />major portion of the funding for handicapped students. <br />Local f,.scal contribution to programs fcr exceptional <br />children in North Carolina is the lowest in the Southeast. <br />This local cost, has a controlling influence on "over" <br />identification.c handicapped children (i.e., it provides a <br />disincentive fo_ local districts,to identify handicapped <br />children bevond the Z.5 percent- cap) <br />Local district personnel in North Carolina argue <br />that anv child who meets the definition fcr receiving <br />