Overview of Gifted Implementation and Advanced

Learning Program (ALP)

2012-13

Review Gifted Learning Team Process

Met 6 times between January and April, 2012– Read and discussed research articles regarding best

practices in gifted education– Examined best practices in field guided by NAGC

2010 Gifted Programming Standards Explored definitions of gifted Examined conceptual framework models Crafted District 68 mission statement and developed

core beliefs surrounding gifted and talented Studied characteristics of gifted and talented learners

and how they combine into profiles Reviewed identifications tools; specifically tools for the

screening and selection.

Facts about Gifted Education in Illinois

School Code encourages, but does not require, the establishment of gifted education programs.

There is no state or federal funding available for providing such programs.

Illinois Definition of Gifted and Talented

Gifted and talented children means children and youth with outstanding talent who perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with other children and youth their age, experience, and environment. A child shall be considered gifted and talented in any area of aptitude, and specifically in language arts and mathematics, by performing in the top 5% locally in that area of aptitude.

105ILCS5/14A-20

Mission Statement

District 68 believes academically gifted and talented children have unique characteristics and distinct learning needs. The Advanced Learning Program (ALP) is committed to providing students identified as academically gifted and talented with an appropriately challenging curriculum and instruction that meets their intellectual, social, and emotional needs.

Recommendations

Recognize different learning needs. Recommend:– Programming options should provide students with a range of

services such as differentiation, enrichment, flexible/cluster groupings, and acceleration

Consistent standards are needed for participation in gifted programs:

– Develop criteria for identification– Screening tools are needed for identification– Selection process should be developed to align with

programming– Multiple measures implemented in the screening/selection

process– Create a transparent process that is known to all

stakeholders– Cultural awareness within selection process

Recommendations

Programming elements should be appropriately challenging and able to meet intellectual, social, and emotional needs and include the following elements:

– 21st century skills– Flexible delivery of services– Tiered learning opportunities– Differentiated learning in classrooms– Time for intellectual or like-minded peers

Identification

Criteria established– Multiple measures within screening and selection– Cultural awareness considered through data from

CogAT 7– Selection aligned to programming

2012-13 cut scores identified: Reading scores – 95th%tile on MAP (‘12-’13)

*adding CogAT cut scores (’13-’14) Mathematics scores – 93rd%tile on MAP

*adding CogAT cut scores (’13-’14)

Screening and Selection to Align with Programming

1. Writing Assessment (6-8)2. Screening – multiple measures:

– Teacher Behavioral Characteristic Checklist– Achievement Test Scores (MAP)– Ability Test Scores from (CogAt 7) – Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment to

confirm Guided Reading Level3. Selection – multiple measures:

– Ability = capacity for learning– Achievement = evidence of learning

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7

Administered to all students in grades 2 – 7 during Spring 2013

– Beyond 2013 – new students and at transition year (grades 2 and 5)

CogAT 7 measures student’s learned reasoning abilities in three areas most closely related to school success:– verbal, nonverbal and quantitative

CogAT 7 designed to ensure fairness to ELL students Ability Profile received on all students Scores used as one point within Identification Matrix

Spring 2012 – District Reading Upper Quartile (75-99 %tile Breakdown)

Grade 2 (194)

Grade 3 (183)

Grade 4 (164)

Grade 5 (175)

Grade 6 (197)

Grade 7 (198)

Grade 8 (244)

75-79%tile

8 13 11 17 13 13 16

80-84%tile

9 13 12 13 7 14 22

85-89%tile

12 12 14 18 15 13 19

90-94%tile

13 19 13 12 23 14 17

95-99%tile

7 12 10 10 11 23 14

Spring 2012 – District Mathematics Upper Quartile

(75-99 %tile Breakdown)

Grade 2 (194)

Grade 3 (183)

Grade 4 (164)

Grade 5 (175)

Grade 6 (197)

Grade 7 (198)

Grade 8 (244)

75-79%tile

8 6 13 10 16 8 10

80-84%tile

22 14 7 3 15 22 18

85-89%tile

8 6 7 5 15 12 23

90-94%tile

6 13 11 10 18 17 19

95-99%tile

6 16 12 10 11 21 19

Year Two Identification

Revise process – Spring 2013– Include CogAT cut scores

Finalize Multiple Measure Matrix – convert standard scores (ss) to z scores

Gifted Problem Solving Team to create grade-level lists of students for program consideration

Programming/Curriculum Delivery and Common Core Standards

Common Core Standards (CCS) and Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) Consulted:– K-5 Math in Focus heavily aligned to CCS

Rigorous core curriculumMeets needs of all learners by curriculum

design– Built in tiers of differentiation

– 6-8 Math, once adopted, to align as well– K-8 Reading/Language Arts curriculum revision

2012-13

Programming/Curriculum Delivery K-5

R/LA Replacement:– Grades 4 and 5 = 240 minutes a week – Grade 3 = 90 minutes a week– K-2 = flexible delivery as schedule permits

Developmentally appropriatenessIn class differentiation training

Mathematics Replacement:– Grades 3-5 – 240 minutes a week – K-2 = flexible delivery as schedule permits

Developmentally appropriateness Differentiation by design within Math in Focus

K-5 Curriculum Map and Resources

Curriculum mapping aligned to CCS Caesar’s English Advanced Reader Response Notebooks William and Mary Curriculum for core reading

instruction

Programming/Curriculum Delivery 6-8

6th Grade-Replacement ILS Curriculum

7th and 8th Grade Replacement ILS or R/LA by Unit

6th-8th Grade- Project CARE (Pull from Science)

6-8 Curriculum Map and Resources

Curriculum Mapping aligned to CCS Advanced Reader Response Notebooks William and Mary Curriculum for core reading

instruction

Tier 3 Individualized Learning Plans

Highly selective participation Part One: Present Levels of Educational

Performance Part Two: Academic Growth, and Social

Emotional/Socialization Part Three: Learning Outcomes Part Four: Educational Plan/Specially

designed Instruction

The Role of Differentiation

Consultation with differentiation expert to plan teacher training over the next two years

Goal: build capacity of staff to differentiation content, process, and product within the core curriculum– Gifted staff to serve as resource/coach

Differentiation to target 75 to lower 90th percentile 2012-13 R/LA core curriculum will be revised to

align to higher expectations and rigor found within CCS

Communication Plan

Gifted staff will conduct a staff meeting to share 2012-13 ALP presentation with staff

After MAP scores and teacher recommendations have been reviewed, parents will receive a call from gifted teacher regarding placement in program.

Parent Evening will be conducted in late September to share our process, findings, and program revisions based on recommendations of Learning and Implementation Team meetings.

What Questions Do You Have