of the advanced academic program county public schools · 2019-05-31 · beverly shaklee, ed.d....

Lori C. Bland, Ph.D.Beverly Shaklee, Ed.D.Anastasia Kitsantas, Ph.D.Angela Miller, Ph.D.April Mattix, Ph.D.George Mason University ConsultantsJune 27, 2013

Review of the Advanced Academic Program

Fairfax County Public Schools2012‐2013

Research Questions & Assumptions

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013) 2

FCPS Scope of Study

Three Guiding Questions:

1. To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area aligned with best practices in the field of gifted education?

2. To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area perceived to be effective by relevant stakeholders?

3. What are the FCPS strengths and areas for improvement in the identified focus area? What are the recommendations for improvement and potential expansion?


FCPS Scope of Study

Four Areas of Focus:

� Identification Procedures:� Board Request 1, 2, 3, 8, 10

� Curriculum and Instruction:� Board Request 2, 3, 4, 8, 10

� Teacher Certification and Professional Development:� Board Request 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10

� Quality of Program Services:� Board Request 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10


Methods and Results for Each Guiding Question


Methods

1. How does AAP compare nationally to best practices?�Descriptive Program Analysis

2. How is the program viewed by stakeholders?� Interviews, Focus Groups, and Surveys

3. How can we assess implementation across settings?� Pilot Study for Fidelity of Implementation (FOI)


How does AAP compare nationally to best practices?

Best Practices/Expectations AAP Overall Results

1. Compliance with VDOE Regulations:

2. Alignment to NAGC (National Standards)

3. Benchmark School District Comparisons

1. Meets or exceeds all required regulations.

2. Meets or exceeds all national standards.

3. Meets or exceeds all comparison districts.


Alignment with NAGC StandardsFocusArea Standard Indicator Alignment

Identification Identification Overall:Equal Access, Show Gifts, Comprehensive

Meets

Representation of diversity To improve

Curriculum Curric., Instr., Assessment

Measures Growth, Multiple Domains, Skills and Access to Resources

Exceeds

Independent Investigations (Depth esp. in Soc. Studies & Science)

To improve

Teacher Cert.& Prof. Dev.

Preparation Access to PD, Life‐long Learning, Ethical Practices, FCPS Courses for Preparation

Meets

Endorsement – should be required, not optional;

To improve

Program Programming Variety of options, comprehensiveness Exceeds

Environment Personal, Social, Cultural Competences Meets

Development Cognitive and Affective Growth Meets

• More communication• More focus on students’ affective needs

To improve


District Comparisons: Elementary

Program/District

YoungScholars

L1(All)

L2(Diff.)

L3(P/O)

L4(Full Day)

2E

Fairfax * * * * * *

Chapel‐Hill, NC * * * * * *

Mont. Co., MD * * * * * *

Loudoun, VA * * * *

Charlotte, NC * * *

Chesterfield,VA * * *

Arlington, VA * * *

Pr.William, VA * * *

Wake, NC * * *

Gwinnett, GA * *


District Comparisons: Middle

Program/District

YoungScholars

L1 L2 L3 L4 2E Honors IBMPY

Fairfax * * * * * * * *

Chapel‐Hill, NC * * * * * * * *

Mont. Co., MD * * *

Loudoun, VA *

Charlotte, NC * *

Chesterfield,VA * *

Arlington, VA * *

Pr.William, VA * *

Wake, NC * *

Gwinnett, GA *


Comparison Districts

Differences:�Differentiated Educational Plans – Chapel Hill�Wings Mentorship for 25 twice exceptional students – Montgomery County

� Individual interviews for identification – other VA districts

�No recommendations to adopt practices


Methods: Interviews, Focus Groups, and Surveys

Qualitative Data� Interviews with:

ISD Leadership, AAP Leadership & Staff

� Focus Groups and Interviews in Observed Buildings

Focus Groups –Parents‐Students‐Teachers

Interviews –Building Administrators

Observations in 20 classrooms

Quantitative Data� Collected surveys from

stakeholder groups Parents N=708 Students N=1,752 Teachers N=79 Administrators N=27


How is the program viewed by stakeholders overall?

� Very positive view�More AAP – from all stakeholder groups � Few areas identified as opportunities for growth� Consistent with a district of this size and scope� Addressable

� Parents wanted more communication and help for students making transitions


Views of Student Experience in AAP Level IV/Center: All Stakeholders

Item Student Parent Teacher Admin

Enough Challenge in Language Arts 78.4% 77.7% 83.3% 100%

Enough Challenge in Mathematics 73.3% 80.6% 83.3% 92.6%

Enough Challenge in Social Studies 70.8% 80.9% 66.2% 96.3%

Prepared for Challenging Coursework Next Year

86.9% 83.5% 87.4% 100%

Student is encouraged to reflect 78.9% 81.5% 88.1% 96.2%

Student is encouraged to set goals 81.1% 75% 81.5% 88.9%


Views of Student Experience in AAP Level IV/Center: All Stakeholders

Item Student Parent Teacher Admin

Enough Challenge in Science 67.5% 73.3% 62% 96.3%

Opportunity to Work with Students at a Similar Level

59.9% 86.8% 85.9% 92.6%

Academic Strengths are considered 68.4% 81.8% 88.2% 100%

Academic Interests are considered 59.3% 76.6% 84.2% 100%

Student is provided choice in ways to demonstrate learning

66.1% 74.2% 84.2% 100%


How can we assess implementationacross settings? Pilot Study for FOI� Piloted procedures and tools� Conducted Observation of Screening Procedures� Conducted Observation of Classroom Instruction � 2 Local Level and Center Schools� 2 Elementary and Middle Schools� 20 classrooms ‐ 1 full instructional period�Grades 3‐8� 4 Core Subject Areas in Middle School


Results of Observations

� Elementary classrooms �Wide variety of activities Multiple opportunities for “hands on” learning which showed greater student engagement

Multiple flexible grouping options used during instruction which positively influenced student engagement

�Use of multiple teaching strategies Evidence for use of Socratic Method Few instances of one word or one sentence responses from students


Results of Observations

�Middle School � Preparation for SOL’s influenced observations at the middle school

� Some strong examples of questioning and use of robust vocabulary

� Some strong examples of flexible grouping and ‘hands on’ learning for instructional purposes

� Student responses often one word or one sentence with few probes

� Inconsistent implementation across observations


Synthesis of Key Findings & Recommendations by Focus Area

� Identification� Curriculum & Instruction� Teacher Certification & Professional Development� Quality of Program Services


Identification – AAP meets or exceeds national/state standards

�Meeting/Exceeding Standards

1. FCPS uses multiple criteria 2. Young Scholars to ensure identified

population reflects population of school division

3. Insures equal access by screening at every school through Grade 2, and with referral in Grades 3‐7


Identification: Processes

� Over‐Identification – there is nothing wrong with the AAP Identification model�Raised in multiple settings and there appears to be a pattern of: Influence of ‘cottage’ test preparation industry in the area along with, Inflated use of external assessments creating an opportunity gap and, The importance that parents place on identification for AAP


Identification: Recommendations

� * FCPS‐AAP should continue to seek ways to identify a population that is congruent with the demographics of FCPS increasing diversity within AAP (NAGC Standards)

� FCPS‐AAP should continue to study access issues for students from underserved populations including underrepresented populations (culturally and linguistically diverse learners, twice exceptional…)

� FCPS‐AAP should consider using one source for external testing

� FCPS‐AAP should use secure customized assessments for identification purposes


Curriculum and Instruction – AAP provides a rigorous, challenging and varied curriculum to AAP learners

�Use of research‐based curriculum created by experts in the field

� Surpasses measuring growth of students � Surpasses comparisons on instruction for use of multiple critical thinking strategies


Curriculum & Instruction:Recommendations

� Develop a scope and sequence for multiple types of thinking skills, K‐8

� Clarify specific linkages from POS to AAP curricula for all content areas and grade levels

� Devote strategic PD time to questioning strategies across content disciplines

� Give teachers more CLT and explicit planning time devoted to POS/AAP curriculum frameworks

� Consider high intensity and sustained vocabulary instruction for robust vocabulary development across all levels


Teacher Preparation – AAP provides astrong Professional Development program

� Teachers indicated concerns about getting access to limited number of courses that fill quickly

� Administrators had concern about new teachers and ability to differentiate

� Higher percentage of elementary Center and Level IV teachers hold endorsement for teaching AAP learners

� Endorsed teachers range by building:� Elementary 0‐100%

� Middle School 4% ‐ 38%


FCPS Center & Level IV Teacher Endorsement 2013*

Level Total # State FCPS Not Yet

Elementary 490 25% 16% 59%

Level IV 217 19% 19% 62%

Center 273 30% 14% 56%

Middle School 770 9% 3% 88%

Center 365 13% 4% 88%

Honors 405 6% 2% 92%

*VDOE does not require the endorsement in gifted education.


Teacher Preparation :Recommendations

� Continue to provide a variety of alternatives for PD � Expand number and type of offerings� Require VDOE/FCPS endorsement within 5 years � Build skills in PCM, beyond the Core Curriculum� Build targeted skills in

� Understanding diverse populations� Teaching for robust vocabulary� Teaching for depth of conceptual understanding

� Continue to focus on:� Questioning/probing, and multiple thinking skills� Differentiation and Assessment strategies� Affective needs of students


Program Services – AAP is strong with a multiplicity of options for students

� Critical Mass – what is the ‘critical number’ of AAP students in a building to create a new Center?� Estimates in the literature range from 15% ‐ 25%� Student enrollment is insufficient to make the decision

also need: Cadre of strong teacher advocates and leaders Critical mass of qualified teachers (endorsed) Paired classes per grade/content level Strong administrative and resource support Documented effect on financial implications (transportation and resource needs) (Callahan, 2010; Cross, 2013; Renzulli, 1979; Rogers, 2003)


Program Services: Recommendations

� Keep and expand the current models� Young Scholars� Elementary Levels 2, 3, 4 and Centers� Middle School Centers and Honors� Open Enrollment 8‐12

� Make explicit the Talent Development component at Middle Schools� Consider forms of assessment to show specific

academic strengths

� Enhance communication to all stakeholders on options and selection decisions


Opportunities for Advancing AAP


Program Services

Model for Expansion: Young Scholars and Centers� Self‐study� Self‐study report is reviewed and approved� Documentation Process:

Strong stakeholder, administrative and resource support Critical mass of qualified teachers (endorsed) Paired classes per grade/content level Implementation of curricula and instructional strategies (instructional artifacts)

Observe classes (e.g. Teaching Strategies, Student Activities and AAP Curriculum Fidelity)

Gather parent, teachers, student and administrator feedback Document student growth and performance


Program Services

� Elementary Programs� Examine differentiation practices for Level 2 & Level 3� Examine student choices in content areas – Social Studies,

Mathematics� Examine depth vs. breadth

� Expand professional development offerings to general education teachers

� Employ a regular cycle of evaluation for each level of the program

� Consider using AAP as a model for infusing systematically critical and creative thinking strategies throughout POS


In Summary

� To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area aligned with best practices in the field of gifted education?

� AAP is aligned with best practices in the field

� To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area perceived to be effective by relevant stakeholders?

� Selected stakeholders perceived AAP to be successful and a positive experience for students


In Summary�What are the FCPS strengths and areas for

improvement in the identified focus area? What are the recommendations for improvement and potential expansion?

� Areas of development, expansion and recommendations were identified – all are expected in a district of the size and scope of FCPS and all should be monitored.

� AAP is a highly successful program that benefits the students and families in the District.


of the advanced academic program county public schools · 2019-05-31 · beverly shaklee, ed.d....

Documents