RALEIGH - With test scores showing the state's brightest students aren't doing as well as they should, state educators recommended Tuesday that they have more say over how school districts run their gifted education programs.

A recent state audit warned that North Carolina's gifted students may not be receiving the services they need because there's not enough state oversight of local programs. Elissa Brown, the state Department of Public Instruction's consultant for academically gifted education, said the best response would be changes that would give her office more of a role at the local level.

To help back up her case, Brown pointed to data on the state's end-of-grade tests, in which students are divided into four levels based on their raw scores. Of the students in Level IV, the highest bracket, she said the scores of gifted students were not going up at the same rate as those of children in that bracket who weren't in gifted programs.

"If you challenge your best students, all kids will benefit," Brown told a committee of the State Board of Education.

The changes would have to be adopted by the state board, which will wait until at least May while Brown gets public feedback on her proposal. Some of these ideas would also require the approval of the General Assembly.

Statewide, 153,211 students were identified as academically gifted last school year, about 11 percent of public school enrollment.

The state is providing $63.3 million to school districts for gifted education. Deputy Superintendent J.B. Buxton said DPI has requested a $25 million increase this year.

But state Auditor Les Merritt found in February that no one at the state is monitoring how the money is spent locally. He also noted that little was being done to see how school districts are implementing their gifted programs.

Brown's proposals include:

* Developing state guidelines for identifying gifted students.

* Considering reviewing local gifted education plans more often than every three years.

* Reviewing how school districts implement what's listed in their gifted education plans.

* Revising how school districts can use their state gifted education funds.

* Allowing DPI to approve gifted education plans before state funding is released.

* Coordinating collection of test data showing the performance of gifted students.

Melissa Bartlett, a member of the State Board of Education and a former classroom teacher, said part of the problem is that programs for gifted students are among the first to get cut when districts are short of money.

"They think [gifted students] can get by without it," Bartlett said.

Emily Martine, a Chapel Hill parent of an academically gifted student, is hopeful that these changes will lead to greater services for bright students, but she's also skeptical.

"It sounds good on paper, but it depends on the implementation," Martine said.