Abstract The key to success or failure of opportunities for gifted students is affected by what a school district provides, how it views giftedness, and how it supports academic flexibility and individualized or differentiated learning. Gifted programs are selected by administrative decision makers based upon their knowledge and understanding of the foundational theories in the field of gifted education. The implementation of policies and provisions for gifted education vary from state to state and often district to district. A commonality often reported is of the negative attitudes towards giftedness and gifted education by staff, faculty, and administrators. Many of the policy decisions in gifted education by administrators, although guided by theory, are influenced by personal experiences, myths, and stereotypes. A review of literature reveals a chronicled legacy of myths and misconceptions providing conflicting concepts of giftedness, gifted education, and educational programs. The effect of these perceptions may directly skew an administrator's ability to make unbiased informed decisions in relationship to this diverse population of gifted learners. The purpose of this study was to investigate Minnesota public school superintendents' attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education, and what factors affect these attitudes. This study utilized the McCoach and Siegle's revised edition of Gagné and Nadeau's survey, Opinions About the Gifted and Their Education. The survey is divided into three subcategories for analysis: support, elitism, and acceleration. Also included are sections on self-perception as gifted and demographic information. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. This exploratory study sampled 119 of 336 Minnesota superintendents in regards to gifted education. Results show mild to moderate support for funding, with women superintendents perceiving themselves as gifted more than male superintendents and showing greater support for gifted education. Among the predictor variables, superintendents who had education or training in gifted education were more supportive toward giftedness and gifted education, less negative about gifted education as being elitist, and more positive toward acceleration of gifted students. With gifted programming relying on the discretion of local administrators and implementation of programs falling on the school faculty, it is important that these stakeholders have a working knowledge of gifted student development and gifted education. Therefore, further research might explore these attitudes in teacher education and administrator training programs.