Transcript Overview of Gifted Implementation Team
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
practices in gifted education articles regarding best – 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 screening
and
selection
tools; specifically tools for the .
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 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
remarkably
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 programs:
participation
in gifted – – 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 – 95 th %tile on MAP (‘12-’13) *adding CogAT cut scores (’13-’14) Mathematics scores – 93 rd %tile on MAP *adding CogAT cut scores (’13-’14)
Screening and Selection to Align with Programming
1.
2.
3.
Writing Assessment (6-8) 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 Level 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)
75 79%tile 80 84%tile 85 89%tile 90 94%tile 95 99%tile
Grade 2 (194)
8 9 12 13 7
Grade 3 (183) Grade 4 (164)
13 11 13 12 19 12 12 14 13 10
Grade 5 (175)
17 13 18 12 10
Grade 6 (197)
13
Grade 7 (198) Grade 8 (244)
13 16 7 15 23 11 14 13 14 23 22 19 17 14
Spring 2012 – District Mathematics Upper Quartile (75-99 %tile Breakdown)
75 79%tile 80 84%tile 85 89%tile 90 94%tile 95 99%tile
Grade 2 (194)
8 22 8 6 6
Grade 3 (183)
6 14 6 13 16
Grade 4 (164)
13 7 7 11 12
Grade 5 (175) Grade 6 (197)
10 16 3 5 10 10 15 15 18 11
Grade 7 (198)
8
Grade 8 (244)
10 22 12 17 21 18 23 19 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 21 st Century Skills (P21) Consulted: – K-5 Math in Focus heavily aligned to CCS – Rigorous core curriculum Meets 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 appropriateness In 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
6 th Grade-Replacement ILS Curriculum 7 th and 8 th by
Unit
Grade Replacement ILS or R/LA 6 th -8 th Grade Science)
Project CARE
(Pull from
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 90 th 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 Evenin
g will be conducted in late September to share our process, findings, and program revisions based on recommendations of Learning and Implementation Team meetings.