I would like the new regulations to focus more on service and less on identification.  One could set the bar at 1%, 5%, 10% . . . whatever number used is going to be somewhat arbitrary--both supported and opposed by academic research and publication.  Instead, the state should focus on the need to provide a range of services for the range of students we deal with in our schools.  The complexity of an individual's "giftedness" does not call for a simple solution like this particular center or that particular class.  Instead, it demands a complex approach that seeks to provide services that suit that child's particular needs and characteristics.  This is why a range of services is needed and we should move away from the out-dated concept that "gifted" students should do one thing and "regular" students something else.  This approach would not be considered in the field of special education (i.e. all special education students are separated from their regular ed. peers for a separate class or separate center;) why should it be assumed to work in gifted education?