Blending Gifted Education and School ReformDr. Betsy Gustafson, Assistant SuperintendentSpecial Education Leadership Academy July 2011

If you are planning for a year, sow rice; if you are planning for a decade, plant trees; if you are planning for a lifetime,

educate people. Anonymous

Changes and Challenges

• School reform initiatives• Standards Aligned System (SAS)• Accountability of NCLB• Changing demographics • Increasing diversity of student populations• Limited fiscal resources

The needs of our highest achieving students must be identified and challenged within

this broad arena.

PMSD Demographics

Total Enrollment - 10,689Free/Reduced Lunch - 49.1%Special Education - 22% (increase from 15% in 2008-09)Gifted Education - 2.6% (increase from 1.3% in 2006-07)Diversity of Student Body• White – 53.5%• African American – 23.8%• Hispanic – 21.3%English as a Second Language – 400 studentsHomeless – 82 students (increase from 9 in 2009-10)

Needs Assessment/Action Plan

•Research •Current Practices•Education

Research

• Other districts• IU 20 Networking Group• Data Collection – achievement, former

evaluations, teacher/parent input• Correlation Studies• Past Referrals and Outcomes –

patterns, student records, screening consistency, etc.

Revised Current Practices

• Reassigned existing staff – School Psychologists

• Provided support, guidance, and resources to all staff

• Developed consistency district-wide – referral process, screening instruments, evaluations, forms and formats

• Collected data – student records, teacher input, parent input, etc.

• Developed Guidelines and Procedural Manual for Gifted Education

• Updated Board of School Directors and the community

Education

• Professional Developmentfaculty administrators Board of School Directorscommunity

• Gifted Education Advisory Council• Observation and Networking • Conferences and Workshops

Number of Gifted Students

K 1 2 3 4 50

1020304050

25 29 29 33 33 36

2

13 17 1420

28

0 2 612

21139

1522 20

4135

Expected Gifted Gifted 2007-2008Gifted 2006-2007 Gifted 2010-2011

Grade Level

Stu

dent

s

Sustainability and Continuous Improvement

• Review the 2010 PreK-12 Gifted Programming Standards

• Conduct Professional Development activities per building on updated laws and regulations

• Implement Gifted Guidelines and Procedural Manual

• Administer a universal screener • Plan and implement RtI for Gifted Education• Continue progress monitoring initiative• Review Compliance Monitoring results and

recommendations

Pennsylvania Department of Education

Gifted Guidelines August 2010

Indicators of Giftedness/High Achievers

Indicators of high achieving students should be drawn from a wide variety of sources. The evaluation should address

information relevant to the student’s suspected above average abilities

including academic functioning, learning strengths, and educational needs.

Guiding Principles for Gifted Education

• School districts are primarily responsible for identifying all exceptional children and developing educational programs to meet their needs. (24 P.S. §13-1371)

• Pennsylvania School Law includes gifted students as “children with exceptionalities” who need specially designed instruction.

• Appropriate specially designed instruction should be based on the gifted student’s unique needs and abilities and not solely on the student’s classification. (22 Pa. Code §16.41(b)(1))

Guiding Principles cont.

• Placement should provide learning opportunities that go beyond the program the student would receive as part of regular education. (22 Pa. Code §16.41)

• Gifted education programming must be an integral part of the instructional school day.

• Gifted students benefit from being grouped with their intellectual peers for a significant part of their instructional day.

Guiding Principles cont.

• The Gifted Individualized Educational Program (GIEP) should be based on information obtained from formal and informal comprehensive needs assessments, including input from parents. (22 Pa. Code §16.22 and §16.32)

• Placement of a gifted student should ensure that the student is able to benefit meaningfully from the rate, level, and manner of instruction. (22 Pa. Code §16.41)

How is Educational Placement Determined?

• Educational placement decisions must be based on the student’s unique needs and not solely on the classification. (22 Pa. Code §16.41(a))

• Chapter 16 requires that the educational placement of gifted school-age exceptional students in Pennsylvania includes specially designed instruction that is individualized to include acceleration or enrichment, or both, as appropriate. (22 Pa. Code §16.2(d)(3), §16.41(b)(3))

Delivery of Services and Support

An effective approach would include all of the following:• Acceleration, in which instruction is matched

to the competence level of the student;• Enrichment, in which opportunities for the

investigation of appropriate materials are given and

• Individualization, in which instruction is matched specifically to the student’s achievement abilities and interests.

School Reform

• Gifted education must be responsive to current trends and issues impacting all children (i.e. RtI).

• Educators must be aware of how the larger educational picture impacts students who are gifted.

• Educators must ensure gifted education is not isolated as new educational initiatives emerge.

• Must balance theory, practice, and policy.

NAGC 2010 PreK-12 Gifted Programming Standards

• A framework that focuses on student outcomes.

• Assists school districts in examining the quality of their programming for gifted learners.

• Used as mileposts for improving programs and services.

• Used as rubrics for evaluation.• Endorsed by The Association for the Gifted of

the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC-TAG).

Access below:

Resources

Websites:• www.nagc.org• www.giftedpage.org• http://journals.prufrock.com

Books:• The Development of Giftedness and Talent Across the

Life Span by Frances Degen Horowitz, Rena F. Subotnik and Dona J., Ph.D. Matthews

• Education of the Gifted and Talented (6th Edition) by Gary A. Davis, Sylvia B. Rimm and Del Siegle