Mcps Dsac Report Final

Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Schools MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Rockville, Maryland November 20, 2006 MEMORANDUM To:

Dr. Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of Schools

From:

Frieda K. Lacey, Deputy Superintendent of Schools

Subject:

Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented Education Report

Attached is the final report developed by the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented Education that provides feedback on the implementation of Board of Education Policy IOA, Gifted and Talented Education. The report includes four major recommendations to improve programming and services designed to benefit all students who show potential, capability, or motivation for rigorous and challenging instruction. Beginning in 2004 the committee reviewed, researched, and discussed practices and issues regarding the education of gifted students. Members visited Centers for the Highly Gifted and magnet schools, and spoke with teachers, administrators, specialists, and other school personnel. During the 2005–2006 school year the committee shared findings with an outside consultant, revised, and finalized the report. Staff in the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP) and the Office of School Performance have been acting on the initial recommendations of the report through the following programs, services, and initiatives: •

Program expansions include Grade 5 at the Chevy Chase Elementary Center for the Highly Gifted, Grade 6 and Grade 7 in the Middle School Magnet Consortium schools, the Poolesville High School Whole School Magnet, and continuing International Baccalaureate expansions.

•

Two additional administrators have been budgeted to the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) to provide additional support to schools and improve monitoring of Policy IOA, Gifted and Talented Education.

•

A 0.5 bilingual instructional specialist position has been added to the Division of Consortia Choice and Application Program Services to increase outreach for students traditional underserved by magnet programs.

•

The middle school 0.2 GT Coordinator position and 0.2 SES position have been combined into a 0.4 Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Support Teacher position. This

position provides greater emphasis on identifying and supporting underserved students in accelerated courses. •

During the 2005–2006 school year, the Options guide to countywide programs was developed and mailed directly to homes of students in Grades K–8 to provide more consistent information about the application programs. In October 2006, the Options guide was mailed to the homes of all students in kindergarten and Grades 3, 5, and 8. Students in these grades are eligible to apply for center and magnet programs.

•

The Grade 2 global screening and selection processes for elementary and secondary magnets have been reviewed and changes have been made to monitor implementation. These reviews will be ongoing as results of these processes are not consistent with system goals.

•

OCIP staff is developing a proposal for a kindergarten curriculum revision that will include a primary talent development initiative similar to the Program for Assessment and Diagnostic Instruction that has shown success in identifying and nurturing student potential prior to Grade 2.

•

AEI professional development has been focused to include training on economic, racial, and cultural masks of giftedness.

•

OCIP staff is developing documents for parents and teachers to clarify rigorous pathways in mathematics and reading/language arts.

•

Staff in AEI is working with community superintendents to implement a monitoring system that includes an annual review of specific data points at every school.

•

The Division of Shared Accountability is continuing the evaluation of the 0.5 Title I Gifted and Talented teacher initiative.

•

Staff is developing a partnership with the College Board to improve rigor in curriculum, assessments, and professional development.

I recommend that you share this report with members of the Board of Education. I know you join me in thanking the committee for the countless hours they committed to preparing this report. FKL:llh Attachment Copy to: Ms. Leleck Mr. Creel Mr. Lang

Gifted and Talented Education Report

2

Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee On Gifted and Talented Education May 2006

Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Background Policy Implementation: Successes Policy Implementation: Challenges The Committee The Committee Process Summary of Recommendations Recommendation One:

Strengthen Accountability Measures

Recommendation Two:

Improve and Expand Programs

Recommendation Three:

Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data

Recommendation Four:

Provide Equal Access for All Students to Gifted and Talented (GT) Programs and Services

Summary of Recommendations Appendix A:

Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted Education

Appendix B:

Data Regarding Access to GT Programs, Services and Outcomes

Appendix C:

Professional Development: Culture Competency and Gifted Education

Appendix D:

Teaching the Highly Able Student

Appendix E:

Specific Recommendations Regarding Data Availability

Appendix F:

Parent Outreach and Institutional Advocacy

Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education 2006 Report Executive Summary Background In January 2004 the deputy superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), formed an advisory committee charged with developing recommendations to ensure full implementation of Policy IOA: Gifted and Talented Education. Ms. Virginia A. Tucker, director, Division of Enriched and Innovative Instruction (AEI), submitted names of representatives from a variety of stakeholder groups and constituencies within MCPS. The Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education began its work in March 2004. Appendix A contains the names and affiliations of the members of the committee. Over the ensuing 18 months, the committee reviewed research and best practices in the field of gifted education, received presentations on topics of interest, and discussed emerging trends and implementation issues within MCPS. Members chose to focus their work on two areas of concerns that, if addressed, would have the greatest impact to change the level of access and challenge for students in MCPS: • •

Recognizing and Ensuring Access for Underserved Students in MCPS Programs and Services Developing Challenging Local School Programs and Services

In May 2005 the committee made the decision to submit a report focused on the consensus of both subcommittees. The compelling theme of this report is access to high-quality, challenging services for all students within MCPS, as envisioned in Policy IOA adopted by the Board of Education in 1995 and implemented through Regulation IOA-RA. Last year, during the 50th anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I, 1954), MCPS took the opportunity to review the resulting successes and ongoing challenges of equal-quality education for all students. In its unanimous decision, the Court held that “separate but equal” public education denied many children a good-quality public education. Brown I stands for the proposition that good-quality public education for all children—in addition to being a moral imperative and an essential component of the American dream—is a legal requirement. MCPS has done some things well in its implementation of the policy. A more rigorous mathematics curriculum for Grades K–5 has been developed and implemented in local schools. This curriculum builds in acceleration pathways so that all children can receive above-gradelevel instruction through pre-assessment.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

i

In addition, MCPS has increased the availability of Math A, the first middle school math course, in elementary schools and increased enrollment and performance in gifted, Honors, Advanced Placement, and other advanced-level courses in local schools. There has been expansion of International Baccalaureate (IB) programs at all grade levels. IB programs are now available to students through open enrollment or consortium settings, not just in the countywide selective admission program at the high school level. Each year, hundreds more MCPS students can receive this level of rigorous instruction. The MCPS tiered approach to an accelerated and enriched reading/language arts program includes the William and Mary Language Arts and Junior Great Books units. Increased availability of these programs enables more students to have access to instruction in critical reasoning skills using high-quality texts with challenging themes and issues to discuss. Starting in Title I schools, MCPS has expanded the number of schools participating in the Program of Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI). PADI nurtures and enhances the identification of potentially gifted students at an early age in diverse populations, especially those whose giftedness may not have been revealed in standardized tests and assessments. In 2002 a six-school analysis was completed that compared similar schools with high Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS) enrollments and high enrollments of African American and Hispanic students. The PADI schools recognized more than twice the percentage of their students as gifted than did schools not using PADI. The Title I initiative which provides a 0.5 teacher position for gifted and talented services, has demonstrated that consistent professional development, coupled with services in place as students need them, can build student capacity for more challenging instruction. Results from the first three years of implementation indicate that in the majority of these schools, more students are being recognized as needing services and more staff are prepared to provide those services across grade levels. MCPS has increased the number of “seats” in the center and middle school magnet programs as it has made some progress in reducing disparities in identification and invitation rates for highly gifted programs. Many of these initiatives will permit all students, whether identified as Gifted and Talented (GT) or not, to have more access to rigorous instruction. This is truly “success for every student” and the committee commends these efforts. However, many challenges remain. During the 50th anniversary this past year of the landmark United States Supreme Court case decision of Brown v. Board of Education, MCPS took the opportunity to review the resulting successes and ongoing challenges of equal-quality education for all students. The decision in Brown v. Board of Education stands for the proposition that high-quality public education for all children is—in addition to being a moral imperative and an essential component of the American dream—a legal requirement. A similar vision of highquality education for all is reflected in Policy IOA. The slow and uneven implementation of the Brown decision illustrates the difficulties in improving public education for all students. As the committee reviewed the implementation of Policy IOA, it found that there is considerable work to be done to provide the quality of education and the level of challenge envisioned in the policy.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

ii

Local schools are not uniform in the quality of their GT programs. This inconsistency of service is a serious issue that limits access and opportunity for students. Staff development is needed, as is better data gathering and analysis. Accountability and evaluation should be strengthened. MCPS must do more to remedy the disparities in service delivery, outcomes, and access for all students, but especially for those students who are currently underserved, including African American and Hispanic students as well as students who receive special services. MCPS needs to nurture motivation among parents and students to accept the challenge of more rigorous instruction. The state Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools act includes requirements for gifted education, and the Maryland State Department of Education recently proposed reporting guidelines that will stress the effective delivery of challenging services to the same student groups as are reported under the federal No Child Left Behind law. The committee believes that the updated MCPS Strategic Plan, Our Call To Action, provides an additional template to ensure that the policy is fully implemented. The committee recommends that MCPS double its efforts to meet the policy’s goal of ensuring that all students achieve their highest potential by further strengthening GT services at local schools and by taking additional steps to ensure access for all students. Specific recommendations fall in four broad areas. Summary of Recommendations The Committee believes that action in four key areas will improve the MCPS implementation of Policy IOA: Gifted and Talented Education. I

Strengthen Accountability Measures

The Committee believes that MCPS should improve the way it– •

monitors the outcomes of its gifted services;

•

collects and analyzes data on programs, services, and outcomes and uses these data to drive service delivery;

•

provides parents and stakeholders with information on programs, services, and outcomes;

•

provides professional development for key school-based staff responsible for identification and service delivery, and holds these staff accountable for outcomes; and

•

identifies students as needing gifted services (that is, accelerated and enriched instruction) at every grade level and selects students for countywide programs for the highly gifted.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

iii

II

Improve and Expand Programs

The Committee believes that MCPS should– •

improve the quality of service delivery at local schools by embedding the characteristics of an ideal MCPS school described herein with a fully implemented program in every school;

•

expand the number of “seats” available in the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted, the countywide middle school and high school magnet programs, and programs for the gifted who also are learning disabled (GT/LD), based on analyses of the numbers of MCPS students whose needs cannot be met in the regular classroom (the policy’s criterion for such programs);

•

disseminate the models for successful service delivery developed at the centers and countywide magnets to local schools; and

•

enhance professional development activities for key local school staff involved in identification and service delivery.

III.

Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data

One of the Board of Education’s priorities is that MCPS collect and use student, staff, and system performance data to monitor and improve student achievement. The committee believes that this activity is embedded in many of its recommendations and, in particular, it recommends–

IV

•

strengthening the ability of MCPS-wide data systems such as the Instructional Management System (IMS) and the Data Warehouse to serve as repositories for data on gifted and talented programs and services;

•

ensuring that the approach found in the primary-grade handheld initiative is used for data collected as part of the global screening process so that relevant testing and assessment results as well as a record of key services received follow the student through his or her MCPS career; and

•

making summary data regarding outcomes of gifted services easily available to parents and stakeholders and making student-specific data regarding services available to parents and instructional staff for advocacy and decision support. Provide Equal Access for all Students to Gifted and Talented (GT) Programs and Services

The committee believes that more can be done to ensure consistency among local schools in the provision of high-quality programs and services and provide greater access for all students.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

iv

•

Put additional staff in local schools to provide more effective services by, for example, expanding the 0.5 GT positions currently in Title I schools to other schools.

•

Improve “just in time” delivery of services as part of the answer to the MCPS critical question “what do we do when they already know it?”

•

Improve the criteria used and training for staff involved in, identification, deciding who gets services in local schools, and selection for countywide tests in programs.

•

Strengthen parent involvement in GT issues through more effective outreach, and strengthen the capacity for parent advocacy, internal MCPS advocacy, and external institutional advocacy on behalf of individual students who are potential candidates for accessing GT programs and services.

Conclusion The committee believes that the need for improvement is urgent. MCPS has made some important gains in the nine years since the Board adopted Policy IOA. However, this progress should not give us a sense of complacency. Because we have done much does not mean that we cannot do much more. By allowing states to use “all deliberate speed” in implementing the Brown decision, the Supreme Court slowed the access to high-quality education. The nation’s current achievement gap demonstrates that the job is not done. Although MCPS has many competing priorities, it must not allow the policy to proceed with “all deliberate speed.” The intent of this committee has been to ensure that the original vision developed through Policy IOA, and implemented through Regulation IOA-RA, is carried out in reality. The policy addresses the need to serve not only those students recognized as gifted and talented but the equally pressing need to have challenging services in place for all students as their strengths emerge. The greatest impact that the policy may have in subsequent years is to continue to demand that MCPS use current research and best practices to develop an understanding of the level of challenge that many more students can sustain as they access and succeed in more challenging programs and services. The goal of Our Call to Action is to have all of our students meet or exceed grade-level standards. The policy and this committee’s recommendations provide a powerful leverage for MCPS to achieve that goal. The committee urges the Board and MCPS to give its recommendations, as well as the input of other stakeholders, the immediate attention that they deserve.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

v

Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented Education Introduction Background In 1978 the Montgomery County Board of Education approved a policy on gifted and talented education (Regulation IOA-RA) that sought to expand differentiated educational opportunities to students requiring more rigorous and challenging instruction. However, in 1992 the Board of Education asked then superintendent Paul Vance to convene a group of parents, MCPS staff, and community members to review this policy. This group, known as the Superintendent’s Advisory Committee (SAC), submitted its report in February 1994 raising concerns that the existing policy was inconsistently implemented from school to school and there was a need for more effective parent communication, professional development, ongoing assessment, and equal access to rigorous instruction for all children. The result of this work group was an amended policy, approved in 1995, reaffirming MCPS’ commitment to gifted and talented education and rigorous instruction to “all children who have the potential, capability, or motivation to accept the challenge.” Policy Implementation: Successes Since the adoption of Policy IOA: Gifted and Talented Education, MCPS has taken significant steps to increase the level of rigor and challenge available to students. A more rigorous mathematics curriculum for Grades K–8 has been developed and implemented in local schools. This curriculum provides acceleration pathways so that all children can receive above-gradelevel instruction through pre-assessment. In addition, MCPS has increased the availability to elementary students of Math A, a middle school math course. As a result of the Honors/Advanced Placement (AP) report of 1999, MCPS also has seen increased enrollment and performance in gifted, Honors, Advanced Placement, and other advanced-level courses in local schools as well as expanded International Baccalaureate (IB) programs at all grade levels. These programs are now available to more students through open enrollment or in consortium settings, not just through the countywide selection process at the high school level. As a result, hundreds more MCPS students are receiving rigorous, highlevel instruction. Advanced reading/language arts opportunities also have been expanded. MCPS has adopted a tiered approach to accelerated and enriched reading/language arts programs, including the William and Mary Reading/Language Arts and Junior Great Books units. Increased availability of these programs enables more students to have access to instruction in critical reasoning skills using high-quality texts with challenging themes and issues. MCPS also has improved its global screening process. In Title I schools, MCPS has expanded the number of schools participating in the Program of Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI). PADI nurtures and enhances the early identification of potentially gifted students in Gifted and Talented Education Report

1

diverse populations, especially those whose giftedness may not have been revealed in standardized tests and assessments. In 2002 a six-school analysis was completed that compared similar schools with high Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS) enrollments and high enrollments of African American and Hispanic students. More than twice the percentage of PADI students are recognized as gifted than schools not using PADI. The Title I initiative, which funds a 0.5 teacher position for gifted and talented services, has demonstrated that consistent professional development, coupled with services in place as students need them, can build student capacity for more challenging instruction. Results from the first three years of implementation indicate that, in the majority of these schools, more students are gaining access to gifted and talented (GT) services and more staff are prepared to provide those services across grade levels. MCPS has also increased the number of “seats” available in Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and middle school magnet programs, and has made some progress by reducing disparities in identification and invitation rates for Center Programs for the Highly Gifted. Policy Implementation: Challenges While many of these initiatives have given more students, whether identified as GT or not, greater access to rigorous instruction, barriers remain that challenge the vision developed in the policy and prevent it from becoming a daily reality for every student in every classroom within the system. One of the biggest challenges is that local schools are inconsistent in their implementation of GT programming and services. This unevenness impacts students from all clusters and all backgrounds, and many students who need accelerated and enriched instruction do not receive it. Another challenge is that access to services for Highly Gifted Center highly gifted students is restricted by limited funding and capacity of these programs. While Highly Gifted Center programs have expanded to seven schools and an upcounty middle school magnet has been established, capacity has not increased commensurate with the rising percentage of students identified as gifted and the rising percentage of students whose standardized test scores and assessment data suggest that they may need more rigorous instruction than is available in local schools. Of special concern is the lack of access to these GT services appears to affect African American and Hispanic students disproportionately and, from the available data, students receiving special services as well. Professional development that emphasizes recognition of and programming for highly able students is inadequate and presents another challenge. While there is some staff development available to teachers regarding effectively identifying and servicing gifted students, many teachers would benefit from training in how to recognize various manifestations of giftedness, how to effectively plan for and deliver differentiated instruction, and how to support students who have the potential or the desire to pursue more challenging material.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

2

A fourth challenge is limited accessibility to data on GT services and outcomes. In part, this is because data are collected at the local school level rather than systematically warehoused in and disseminated from a central location. Local school educators do not have easy access to longitudinal data to help them follow the progress of individual students. This lack of easy access makes the delivery of appropriate services to students more difficult, and systematic monitoring of local school programs nearly impossible. Further, parents are not provided with useful information about individual students that could help them effectively advocate for their children. Disparities also exist in access, service, and outcomes, especially for African American and Hispanic students and those students receiving special services. From the limited data available, it is clear that significant populations of African American and Hispanic students, students from poverty, English language learners, and students with disabilities are underserved in MCPS programs and services for GT students. (See Appendix B for detailed data analysis.) Clearly, these challenges indicate that MCPS must redouble its efforts to meet the policy’s goal of ensuring that all students receive educational experiences and opportunities that will enable them to achieve at their highest potential. The Committee The deputy superintendent of schools convened the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented Education (DSAC) in January 2004 to examine the county’s current efforts to implement the policy and make recommendations on improvements. The committee was charged with identifying “areas that must be addressed to ensure full implementation of the Policy on Gifted and Talented Education and provide supports for students to increase capacity for Honors and Advanced Placement course work.” The committee’s membership was intended to provide broad representation of the various interest groups in the county. Special attention was paid to ensure that the composition of the committee was diverse, and committee members had the opportunity to bring additional informal organizational input from the groups that they represented. (See Appendix A for a list of committee members.) Committee Process For the next 18 months, the committee read a selected body of research on various aspects of gifted and talented education, reviewed data on MCPS GT programs, visited Grade 4 and 5 classes in the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted, and heard from several expert speakers on current practices and initiatives, including a presentation on the Information Management System (IMS) and the Data Warehouse. The committee engaged in an issues identification exercise and formed two work groups to address what it felt to be the most important issues for investigation—access to GT services and delivery of GT services—and formed subcommittees to further research, develop, and refine recommendations in these areas. The committee then reviewed the recommendations of the two work groups, identified the most critical issues that emerged, and combined the recommendations of the two groups into this final report. It is the committee’s belief that, if adopted, these recommendations will lead to a broader range of Gifted and Talented Education Report

3

learners succeeding at rigorous academic levels because they will have access to appropriate instruction and a continuum of services at their local schools, not just in countywide programs. Recommendations The Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education has developed recommendations in response to its charge to identify “areas that must be addressed to ensure full implementation of the Policy on Gifted and Talented Education and provide supports for students to increase capacity for Honors and Advanced Placement course work.” They are as follows: I.

Strengthen Accountability Measures

II.

Improve and Expand Programs

III.

Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data

IV. Provide Equal Access for all Students to GT Programs and Services

Gifted and Talented Education Report

4

Recommendation I: Strengthen Accountability Measures Discussion Committee discussions revealed a commonly held perception that there is an uneven level of services for high-ability students within and across all schools. To ensure that they are meeting the needs of all students, achieving student growth beyond proficiency, and implementing Policy IOA-RA with fidelity, schools need to be held accountable. The single most important and immediate action to improve the effectiveness of gifted instruction is to improve both the process for monitoring the services provided and the process for monitoring student performance. Effective monitoring and follow-up communicate to schools the expectation that that they are accountable for maintaining consistency, increasing the quantity, and improving the quality of accelerated and enriched offerings, critical elements in ensuring equal access to programming. Implementation Strategies Implementation Strategy A: Make improvements in the program-monitoring process in order to better examine the outcomes of GT services MCPS currently has a process for monitoring GT programs. This process is largely narrative and lacks significant quantitative data inputs. A more robust data-driven program evaluation effort would provide a broader and timelier tool to use in monitoring whether all student populations have equitable access to GT programs and services. IA1. Require yearly status reports Currently, schools are reviewed on a four-year cycle. Instructional specialists conduct monitoring interviews with identified school principals, complete a monitoring form, collate the information, and share findings with directors in the Office of School Performance (OSP). Included in the monitoring report are recommendations to support full implementation of the GT policy and school requests for future resources to sustain programs and services. However, there is a strong need for greater consistency in the follow-up by staff from OSP and the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP) to school-level GT program monitoring. To augment this process, the committee recommends that MCPS require schools to submit a yearly action plan status report after they have participated in the monitoring process. Such reporting will set a clear expectation for necessary follow-up to the action plan established during monitoring. IA2. Enhance evaluation criteria in the program-monitoring process Schools should be evaluated on how accurately and equitably they identify students for accelerated and enriched services, with a particular emphasis on improving access for student populations that are currently underserved. There should be a longitudinal component to this evaluation to determine if students who appear prepared for higher levels of rigor actually gain access. This evaluation should examine how closely the demographics of the students accessing GT services reflect the overall demographic makeup of the school population.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

5

IA3. Expand participation of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) in walkthroughs To further ensure effective monitoring of local school programs, the committee recommends that instructional specialists from AEI participate in all walk-throughs and program reviews currently conducted by OSP and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. This participation will ensure that the walk-through will include a review of the components that address and serve the needs of high-ability students. IA4. Collect parent feedback It is also important to collect parent feedback as part of a more comprehensive assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a school’s accelerated and enriched offerings. Core elements of this parental input that are consistent across schools would assist schools in determining whether appropriate instruction for students is available and access to this instruction is fair, inclusive, and clearly explained. IA5. Publish summary indicators Program monitoring at local schools should require collecting a set of summary indicators that is made public as part of the data currently reported in Schools at a Glance. Implementation Strategy B: Develop an annual report devoted to GT programs and include GT data in existing annual reports Besides holding local schools more accountable, MCPS must enhance systemwide accountability and transparency by monitoring what actually happens to students who have been identified as GT and those who may not be identified but who show potential for high achievement. IB1. Collect and report performance data Because an important goal of the policy is to match students who have the capacity for achieving at high levels of rigor with appropriate services, the committee recommends that MCPS monitor the system’s success in achieving this goal by collecting and reporting data that address the following questions: • Are identified high performing students being matched with rigorous curriculum? • Are students who have the potential to perform at high levels, but are not currently identified, being matched with rigorous curriculum and given the supports they need to succeed? • Do students who are identified or have shown potential to perform at high levels show similar progress across schools? • Do members of various subgroups who have been identified show similar levels of progress? Do students who have shown potential also show similar levels of progress across the various subgroups? Data from these questions should be analyzed by racial and ethnic group, income level, gender, special education status, and the student’s first language. IB2. Publish an annual performance report with a longitudinal component The committee recommends that MCPS develop an annual performance report on GT services in an effort to report data on trends over time so that better decisions about programs can be made. The ultimate goal of this report would be to ensure that every student who is capable of Gifted and Talented Education Report

6

accelerated and enriched instruction is receiving it; therefore, it should include data to determine if the needs of high-ability students are being served equally well across schools. This report should show the rate of participation, growth, and performance level for high-ability students, disaggregated by gender, race, FARMS, and for the GT/LD subpopulation. MCPS should also develop a set of criteria to use for the category of students who are not identified, but have shown potential in nontraditional ways. The data should be pulled from MCPS data and used for this report. A proposal for the content of this report should be developed by MCPS and vetted for public comments prior to implementation. This reporting should include a longitudinal component. For example, examining average Grade 5 Maryland School Assessments (MSA) performance outcomes for students identified as gifted in Grade 2 could address whether comparable students are experiencing similar long-term outcomes. Information, such as the proportion of identified students who score “advanced” on the MSA and who successfully complete Math A by the end of Grade 5, would indicate the level of effectiveness of acceleration and enrichment provided within the instructional program. These longitudinal outcomes for identified students should also reflect the quality of services available to students not initially identified but who show potential or emerging strength in specific areas. This annual report should provide data on high school outcomes, such as successful completion of AP course work and IB programs, for students who exhibit high abilities in middle school using performance criteria such as successful completion of Algebra 1 or above by Grade 8. Enhanced data collection and reporting could also be designed to address the upcoming reporting requirements of the Maryland State Department of Education regarding the documentation of services provided by local school systems and the participations rates across student groups. IB3. Document and publish local programs and offerings Besides a separate report on GT services, local programs and offerings should be documented and included in existing reports such as Schools at a Glance and in the proposed annual gifted and talented performance report. MCPS currently produces annual reports on school-level performance measures such as the MSA, Algebra 1, PSAT, SAT, and AP. These existing accountability reports should be enhanced to include reporting for identified GT students and for students who exhibit high abilities in middle school, using performance criteria at the school level. Implementation Strategy C: Build accountability measures into the local school improvement plan and expand the role of the GT committee To increase schoolwide accountability, it is important to include the needs of gifted students and the need for equitable access to accelerated and enriched instruction in the school improvement planning process. The GT committee’s role needs to be expanded from its current status as an oversight body tasked with monitoring identification of GT students and GT program management, to a more robust committee, involved in making program decisions and monitoring the effective implementation of the goals of the county GT policy at the school level, both in

Gifted and Talented Education Report

7

designated GT courses and in the regular classroom. The Baldrige school improvement team should include a representative from the GT committee. Implementation Strategy D: Include criteria for GT policy implementation in staff performance evaluations School-based staff should be held accountable for their delivery of GT services and implementation of the GT policy. ID1. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for principals and supervisory staff During their own evaluation process, principals should identify how they provided leadership to ensure the effective implementation of a comprehensive GT program under standard one of the Administrative and Supervisory Professional Growth System (PGS). ID2. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for staff development teachers Accountability criteria should be developed for the evaluation of the Office of Organizational Development’s (OOD) role in implementing the GT policy and ensuring the effectiveness of staff development teachers in promulgating effective GT instruction at all schools. ID3. Add evaluation criteria for elementary school GT liaisons and 0.2 GT coordinators To strengthen and validate the role these teachers play in building local school programs, MCPS should consider a seventh standard in the teacher PGS for the GT liaison or .2 GT coordinator positions that includes indicators specific to the position, much the same way it currently does for resource teachers. ID4. Include a GT component in evaluation criteria for guidance counselors Include performance evaluation criteria for guidance counselors that would indicate that they are being held accountable for appropriately recommending placement for students who show potential, motivation, or capacity to undertake high-level work. ID5. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for all instructional staff Include GT-specific goals and measures in the PGS and the Professional Development Plans (PDPs) for all teaching staff.

Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation One • • • •

Make improvements in the program-review process in order to better monitor the outcomes of GT services. Develop an annual report devoted to GT programs and include GT data in existing annual reports. Build accountability measures into the local school program. Include criteria for GT policy implementation in staff performance evaluations.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

8

Recommendation Two: Improve and Expand Programs Discussion Services for gifted students in local schools and for highly gifted students through countywide and regional programs should be improved and expanded. The chief issue for local school programs is the lack of consistency within and across schools. Many local schools have not fully implemented the GT policy and do not offer a wide range of GT experiences and opportunities to their students. Committee discussions regarding the inconsistency of policy implementation surfaced concerns that lack of access to GT services particularly affects schools with a disproportionate high share of minority and low-income children. Believing that all children, regardless of background, can achieve at high levels if given both opportunity and support, the committee recognized the need to improve local school programs and make them more consistent countywide. Countywide programs are limited in number and capacity. The Center Programs for the Highly Gifted, countywide middle school magnet programs, and countywide high school magnet programs serve approximately 4 percent of MCPS elementary school, 3 percent of middle school, and 2 percent of high school students, respectively, providing opportunities to learn among intellectual peers to a small percentage of students. The number of slots at the high school level has increased little, albeit some, over the past 18 years, despite a 50 percent increase in the student population. As a result, these programs are becoming more and more competitive at a time when the diversity within MCPS is increasing, especially with respect to non-Englishspeaking students, students eligible for Free and Reduced-price Meals (FARMS), and underrepresented student populations such as African American and Hispanic students. In addition, programs for other aspects of giftedness (e.g., leadership, arts) also need to be expanded.

Implementation Strategies Implementation Strategy A: Strengthen the model for the delivery of GT services at the local school level IIA1. Define components of an effective GT program A major challenge to strengthening the model for the delivery of GT services at the local school level is that the components of an effective program are not clearly defined by the county. By defining and establishing a continuum of programming and services available at each local school, stronger, more comprehensive programs will result and consistency across schools will more likely occur. IIA2. Allocate a part-time GT specialist in every elementary school Another step toward improved local school delivery is to allocate a part-time GT specialist at each elementary school. The results of the Title I Gifted and Talented Initiative clearly illustrate that the assignment of a GT staff position with specifically defined responsibilities has a significant positive impact on GT policy implementation and student performance.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

9

Benchmarking data from other districts, including Fairfax, Howard, and Baltimore counties show similar gains in identification and services once they allocated staff positions for GT services. IIA3. Enhance the role of the .2 GT coordinator At the middle school, more prominent and consistent use of the .2 GT coordinator should be made by guaranteeing that this designated teacher receive release time, and that the time is focused on GT services such as dissemination of materials, modeling, parent outreach, counseling, and student advocacy. A systemwide recognition of the importance of this role at the middle school level will aid in policy implementation and service delivery. Implementation Strategy B: Expand existing programs to meet the growing needs of the county IIB1. Expand seats in Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and middle and high school magnet programs MCPS identifies more students than can be served in the spaces available at Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and magnet programs. And, as the early childhood initiatives experience more success, more students will meet the threshold for giftedness and the number of students identified as highly gifted will continue to increase. As the number of students in need of these services continues to grow, it becomes more imperative that the county expand the number of “seats” available in the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted programs, the countywide “testin” middle school and high school magnet programs, and programs for the gifted who are also learning disabled (GT/LD). IIB2. Fund an upcounty magnet high school An example of this urgent need is the upcounty Roberto Clemente middle school magnet programs. Once students complete the program offered there, they will have to compete for one of only 200 seats in the existing Montgomery Blair magnet and Richard Montgomery IB programs. Currently, there is no upcounty high school magnet to accommodate them. With the establishment of an upcounty high school magnet to align with the Roberto Clemente magnet, the county could better accommodate those highly gifted students whose needs may not be met at their home high schools. IIB3. Expand programming and services for GT/LD students Another area of growing need for program expansion lies with the services currently provided for students identified as GT/LD. Currently, there is some training and programming available for teachers of these twice exceptional students. While the phenomenon of the GT/LD child has become more and more a part of GT discourse and the MCPS profile, there has not been a commensurate increase in the availability of services. MCPS needs to research and implement best practices in this area to expand its current programming at the local schools to include a wider range of services for GT/LD students. IIB4. Expand programming for students with nontraditional forms of giftedness Other aspects of giftedness such as leadership and the arts currently are under-addressed by the GT programs and services available at both local schools and centers. Although MCPS has made some efforts to develop these talents in students through signature programs and the new

Gifted and Talented Education Report

10

middle school magnets, there is still much more to be done. MCPS should explore the best means of surfacing these manifestations of giftedness and examine its current program offerings to see how they can best be expanded to meet the needs of those students who demonstrate talent in nontraditional forms of giftedness. Implementation Strategy C: Enhance staff development and support activities for key local school staff involved in GT service delivery Effective professional development is paramount to the attainment of the school system’s goals regarding GT programming. As the demand for services in accelerated programs continues to grow, local schools face the challenge of meeting the needs of highly able students. And, with the increasing diversity within the county, these needs are not always immediately apparent. Teachers must recognize and build upon the strengths and talents of culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students who may demonstrate their gifts in nontraditional ways. (See Appendix C for further discussion.) IIC1. Expand gifted education training for instructional staff Instructional staff should have training and support that will enable them to– • apply flexible grouping practices and differentiation strategies in the classroom; • use tiered resources in the curriculum guides, such as challenge math questions, to enrich instruction for all students; • develop cultural competence to meet the needs of a diverse student population; • properly interpret and use global screening data for instructional planning; • implement strategies for communicating high expectations; • develop deep content knowledge to accelerate instruction as students progress; and • address the social and emotional needs of highly able learners. (See Appendix D for further details about teaching highly able learners.) IIC2. Reinstate specialized GT in-service classes Other teacher training focusing on developing or enhancing specific skills will enable teachers to better implement the GT policy at the local school level. The committee suggests that the county reinstate the in-service classes “Teaching the Gifted in Elementary School” and “Teaching the Gifted in Middle School” that focus on general strategies, philosophy, and techniques for teaching the highly able. IIC3. Train and support staff development teachers It is important to clarify the role of the staff development teacher as it relates to support and implementation of the policy. Staff development teachers at the elementary level would benefit from receiving instruction, observing modeling of effective practices, and learning specific strategies suited to highly able learners. Such experiences would increase teacher capacity and encourage dissemination of best practices in teaching these students. This could be accomplished, for example, by establishing bimonthly daylong meetings between specialists from Accelerated and Enriched Instruction and staff development teachers. Equipping the teachers with tools and strategies to support local staff in GT instruction would strengthen local school instruction.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

11

IIC4. Train and support GT liaisons and .2 GT coordinators GT liaisons at the elementary school level and .2 GT coordinators at the middle school level should continue to receive ongoing training in best practices and the essential components of an effective GT program. IIC5. Develop GT training for guidance counselors Guidance counselors in middle and high schools play a critical role in ensuring that all students have access to a rigorous, challenging, and enriched course of study and should be trained and supported in this effort. Often, students are capable of mastering more rigorous content, but are not motivated or confident to do so. Guidance counselors should encourage students to take more challenging courses rather than simply take what is required. The AEI should develop training sessions specifically for counselors to educate them about topics such as– • characteristics of gifted students; • gifted programming in the middle and high school; • challenges faced by gifted students from low-income, immigrant, African-American, or Hispanic families; • challenges faced by GT/LD and GT/ED students; • social and emotional needs of highly able learners; • the requirement of the GT policy for open access to challenging courses; and • mentoring and proactively nurturing students’ potential. IIC6. Train and support principals and supervisory staff To support principals and supervisory staff, the committee recommends training in how to identify effective differentiation strategies during formal and informal observations, as well as training in understanding the elements of an effective, comprehensive GT program. IIC7. Expand the use of communication technologies to deliver student data to teachers The expansion of communication technologies to provide teacher support for GT instruction would also strengthen local programming and services. Current development of the Teaching Centered Model, which will utilize handheld devices providing real-time access to student formative and summative assessment data and help guide student instruction, should include assessments and data related to high-ability students. Teachers should be trained to effectively use this data to differentiate instruction and provide more acceleration and enrichment for those students ready to move ahead. IIC8. Expand the AEI Web site The Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards recommend the use of communication technology to broaden the scope of collaboration among teachers. Expanding information on GT strategies and sample lesson plans on the AEI Web site would enable teachers to share best practices and continue to build their capacity.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

12

Implementation Strategy D: Disseminate to local schools models of service delivery from Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and magnet programs to strengthen their programs IID1. Disseminate lessons, materials, and resources from centers and magnet schools After visiting various center programs, committee members recognized the importance of having center and magnet schools serve as models of high expectations, acceleration, and enrichment. The AEI should identify ways to disseminate lessons, materials, and other resources developed at the various center and magnet schools to enrich local school GT programming. These resources, coupled with the high expectations they reflect, provide teachers with solid and practical examples of challenging instruction. IID2. Use centers and magnets for professional development experiences Besides receiving resources, identified teachers could do year-long internships at the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted, working with the teachers and learning their methods. The interns could then return to their home schools and serve as leaders in gifted programming. IID3. Allocate time for dissemination and collegial conversations At the same time, the focus of the programs for the highly gifted must continue to be to provide an appropriate education for students whose needs cannot be met in the regular classroom. Adequate support must be given to the teachers in these programs so that they have adequate time to balance teaching with sharing of their expertise with colleagues.

Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation Two • • • •

Strengthen the model for the delivery of GT services at the local school level. Expand existing programs to meet the growing needs of the county. Enhance staff development activities and support for key local school staff involved in GT service delivery. Disseminate to local schools models of service delivery from center and magnet programs to strengthen their programs.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

13

Recommendation Three: Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data Discussion The MCPS Strategic Plan, under its goal of ensuring success for every student, commits MCPS to “develop and implement high quality information systems”, and further commits MCPS to provide “a continuum of services for its gifted and talented students.” These objectives are complementary. High quality information systems are a necessary component for providing a continuum of services for gifted and talented students. Consequently, easily and readily usable data must be available for teachers to make instructional decisions; for parents/guardians to advocate more effectively for their children and become better partners with their children’s teachers; and for MCPS to promote continuous improvement through implementing structures and processes for ongoing research-based data-driven program evaluation. Implementation Strategies Implementation Strategy A: Collect longitudinal data and use the ability of systems such as IMS and data warehouse to ensure retention of student assessment data Longitudinal student-specific data should be collected and analyzed to ensure that students are appropriately accessing accelerated and enriched instruction at all grades, including honors, AP, and IB courses in high school, and to better inform teachers’ instructional decisions. Any assessment data indicating that a child should receive more rigorous instruction should be made available along with other individual student data through SIMS and the Data Warehouse to teachers and principals. These data must be easy for teachers and others to access and use. Data, indicating whether or not a student has been taught curriculum extensions; how well the student performed on unit assessments (at least for the previous and current academic years) and standardized tests, such as the second grade global GT screening tests (currently the Raven and InView); and results of the Terranova CTBS, MSAs, center and magnet school screening tests, should follow the student electronically and be easily accessible through the data warehouse or IMS. Currently, existing data are not easily or readily available to school administrators and teachers to support classroom decision-making. Assessment results are often “lost” after the student leaves the grade in which the assessment was administered. Thus, vertical articulation and flexible grouping decisions may well be made without these critical pieces of information. The lack of adequate data, including data tracking the progress of students identified during the Grade 2 global screening, impedes rigorous long-term evaluation of MCPS GT programs and activities. Absent longitudinal data, it is difficult to monitor whether students are receiving a strong foundation in the primary grades, an important prerequisite for success in later Honors, IB and AP coursework. Similarly, it is difficult to identify gaps in students’ understanding of math

Gifted and Talented Education Report

14

concepts, for example, that need remediation in order to prepare for more rigorous instruction in middle and high school. Implementation Strategy B: Take Inventory, evaluate, and consolidate existing GT data collection efforts Currently, GT data are collected at several locations within MCPS—at schools, in the GT office, and in MCPS centralized data collection systems. As a part of its ongoing data initiatives, MCPS should undertake a systematic inventory of data relevant to gifted and talented education, evaluate whether it is collecting the appropriate data, and consolidate these data at the appropriate organizational level. It is likely that some of what is collected would be extremely useful if more easily available, while other data currently collected may be too burdensome to merit collection, duplicative, or unnecessary. Finally, it is likely that there will be gaps in the data that are collected. These gaps should be remedied. Implementation Strategy C: Use data to strengthen GT identification and center and magnet invitation processes IIIC1. Create a structure for collecting K–12 data MCPS is committed to a data-driven approach to public education. However, it appears that there is no structured method to use quantitative data to ensure that all students have access to as rigorous an educational experience as possible. The literature suggests that giftedness may manifest itself at a later stage in a student’s education than Grade 2, or may manifest itself in areas not captured by global screening. Therefore, it is important to match the continuum of services available to gifted and talented students to every student, not just those identified in the global screening as gifted and talented, at various stages in their education. The Grade 2 global identification process, while helpful, must be supplemented by a dynamic use of assessment data to identify students who would benefit from more rigorous instruction. And, as students move through school, data should be used to identify those students who have not been formally identified as GT but who may benefit from more rigorous instruction in particular areas. IIIC2. Use data to inform selection and expansion of programs Data should also be used to strengthen the selection processes for the centers and middle and high school magnet programs. In particular, data should be used to review these selections processes and determine whether the existing criteria are appropriate predictors of success in these programs. Finally, evaluating these data may assist MCPS in determining whether additional magnet programs are needed to provide rigorous instruction to students who are highly able and cannot receive the level of rigor they need in the regular classroom. IIIC3. Backmap data While the school system is refining its data collection and reporting for GT programs and services, it should also backmap a subset of existing data to determine whether students who now take Honors, AP, and IB courses were identified as gifted and talented in the MCPS Grade 2 global screening process, or received GT services in elementary and/or middle school. To reduce the resources involved in implementing this recommendation, MCPS should consider using statistically valid sampling.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

15

IIIC4. Use data as a predictor for success Data-driven program evaluation efforts such as these can also assist MCPS in identifying which student characteristics are the best predictors for success in these programs, and whether additional efforts are needed to encourage students with these characteristics to apply. Knowing these characteristics will also assist teachers in making instructional decisions that will prepare students to succeed in the rigor that the centers and magnets provide and help parents more effectively evaluate the centers/magnet option. Implementation Strategy D: Seek stakeholder input on data collection MCPS should seek input from a variety of stakeholders, including teachers, principals, the Department of Shared Accountability, parents/guardians, and external entities regarding what data should be collected to support the development and implementation of MCPS gifted and talented programs and services, and how its activities can provide timely support for instructional decisions, better information for parents, and information needed for evaluation efforts. MCPS should also seek stakeholders’ input regarding the burdens associated with existing and proposed data collection, and whether equally useful information can be obtained in a less burdensome manner such as statistical sampling.

Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation Three • • • •

Collect longitudinal data and use the ability of systems such as the IMS and Data Warehouse to ensure retention of student assessment data. Take inventory, evaluate, and consolidate existing GT data collection efforts. Use data to strengthen GT identification as well as the centers and magnet invitation process. Seek stakeholder input on data collection. (See Appendix E for additional details regarding these implementation strategies.)

Gifted and Talented Education Report

16

Recommendation Four: Provide Equal Access for all Students to Gifted and Talented Programs and Services Discussion Students of color, students from poverty, GT learners, and students with disabilities are often underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. These culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students have the potential to achieve at high levels but often do not because their unique cognitive, emotional, and social development needs have not been recognized or addressed in schools. The consequence has been the historical underrepresentation of culturally diverse students in GT programs. Although MCPS is making strides in this regard, we cannot assume that only those children labeled as GT in the Grade 2 global screening, or those invited under the current selection criteria to attend a magnet program, would benefit from accelerated or enriched instruction. If the policy is to be implemented with fidelity, then it must examine the institutional and external barriers to accessing GT programs and remedy them. Implementation Strategies Implementation Strategy A: Improve the screening process for “test-in” programs to recognize various manifestations of giftedness Given that there is more than one way of demonstrating readiness for more rigorous instruction, MCPS should examine its process of selecting students for county “test-in” programs. MCPS should look for ways to broaden the indicators used to identify student strengths and potential. At the same time, MCPS should ensure the validity of these indicators as predictors of success. Implementation Strategy B: Continue revising global screening The county should continue its efforts to provide support prior to the Grade 2 global screening process, such as the PADI initiative currently being undertaken at several elementary schools. Further, the global screening process needs to continue to undergo revision to ensure that it is effectively used to surface giftedness. Implementation Strategy C: Enhance training for staff so that they can better recognize and support students who could benefit from greater rigor It is critical that MCPS continue to offer training and professional experiences that develop teachers’ cultural competence. This cultural competence would improve teachers’ ability to recognize various manifestations of giftedness and provide them with a wider repertoire of teaching strategies to support students’ different ways of learning. Culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students often have ways of representing their knowledge that are different from the mainstream. Unfortunately, if teachers are poorly prepared to recognize alternate ways of representing knowledge, they may interpret cultural differences in communication, learning, and behavior as limitations in students’ ability to handle challenging material.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

17

Implementation Strategy D: Strengthen Parental Outreach and Training IVC1: Outreach Families knowledgeable about GT services and programs help support and improve the delivery of services at the local school level. Research addressing the importance of parental involvement highlights the need for schools to develop culturally sensitive ways to reach out to parents and invite them to be involved in the decision-making processes of the school. By making parents partners with the school and helping them effectively advocate for their children, local schools can help families, especially those of underserved students, better access appropriate GT programs and services. MCPS has done an excellent job of being responsive to educated parents who demonstrate high levels of interest in their children’s education. Schools often do not always provide challenging educational opportunities for students independent of their parent’s level of involvement. Many parents, however, do not understand the expectations for parental involvement, nor do they have the means to be effective advocates for their children’s education. Marginalized by culture, language proficiency, socioeconomic status, educational level, or the lack of time or resources needed to learn how to navigate the system, these parents need education not only about what GT programs and services are available, but also how to access them, interpret testing data, and avail themselves of the human and material resources available at the local school and county levels. (See Appendix F for more specific details about outreach recommendations.) IVC2: Provide easily accessible and understandable data Parents need data in formats that are easily and readily accessible and should receive training on how to use the data appropriately to advocate for their children. Making easy-to-understand data available to parents/guardians is a critical step in helping them to become more effective advocates for their children and partners in their education. Implementation Strategy E: Promote institutional advocacy There is also a critical need for institutional advocacy for those students who lack family advocacy. Each school should designate a staff member to be responsible for monitoring the progress of those students who do not have a strong support network outside of the school. This designee would be tasked with making sure that students are accessing appropriate services, receiving appropriate levels of challenge, and appropriately being placed in programs matched with the highest level of rigor they can handle. Summary of Implementation Strategies for Recommendation Four • • • • •

Improve the screening process for “test-in” programs to recognize various manifestations of giftedness. Continue revising global screening. Enhance training for staff so that they can better recognize and support students who could benefit from greater rigor. Strengthen parent outreach and training. Promote institutional advocacy.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

18

Summary of Recommendations I. Improve accountability: The committee believes that full implementation of the GT policy has been hindered by insufficient accountability. It recommends that MCPS monitor the outcomes of the gifted services, collect and analyze data on the programs’ effectiveness in achieving those outcomes, and use these data to improve service delivery. In addition, MCPS should assign performance criteria used to evaluate key school-based staff responsible for service delivery to the desired outcomes described in the policy. II. Improvement and expansion of programs: The quality of gifted programs, especially those at local schools, is uneven. The committee recommends that MCPS clearly define the components of a fully developed program and hold staff accountable for implementation. That accountability must be supported with professional development for those staff responsible for identification and service delivery. Models of service delivery from Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and magnet programs must be disseminated to local schools to strengthen their programs. Services must address all aspects of giftedness found in the policy, including those students receiving special education services. MCPS must meet the increasing need for additional seats in programs for the highly able. III. Systematic collection and analysis of data: In its commitment to using student, staff, and system performance data to monitor and approve achievement, the committee recommends that MCPS use a longitudinal approach in data collection. Relevant assessment results and key services received should follow the students through their MCPS careers. Such an approach must utilize the capabilities of the IMS and Data Warehouse as repositories of relevant data. MCPS should make summary data regarding outcomes of service easily available to parents and stakeholders, and make specific data regarding services available to parents and instructional staff for both advocacy and support. IV. Equal access: More must be done to ensure consistency among local schools in providing access for all students to high-quality programs and services. Those services must be in place and available to students in all schools as they require them. Such consistency will require additional staff support such as the .5 positions currently in Title I schools. MCPS must strengthen parent involvement and increase its capacity as well as that of staff and the broader community to advocate for individual student access to programs and services.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

19

Appendix A Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee For Gifted and Talented Education Original Members of Committee Name Antoine, Elise Avila, Bryan Barclay, Christopher Butler, Dr. Yvette Cade, Michele Camacho, Carolyn Dennis III, Beverly

Center Teacher, Pine Crest ES Signature Program Coordinator, Sherwood HS Parent Gapbusters Parent Parent Parent

Members as of May 2006 Name Antoine, Elise C. Barclay, Christopher Butler, Yvette Cade, Michele Camacho, Carolyn Creel, Marty

Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Parent Gapbusters Parent Parent Acting Director, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Parent Parent

Easley, Tonya Edgehill-Smith, Dr. Yvette Ervin, Valerie

Parent Parent

Dennis III, Beverly Easley, Tonya

Parent

Parent

Faden, Janice

Director, Elementary School Instruction

Edgehill-Smith, Dr. Yvette Faden, Janice

Ferrell, Linda

Director, School Performance

Ferrell, Linda

Director, Middle School Instruction

Galloway, Monroe

Parent

Graves, Donna

Graves, Donna

Staff Development, Diversity Initiatives

Jackson, Robyn R.

Harvey, Dr. Karen Jackson, Robyn

Director, Curriculum and Instruction Student Support Specialist, Thomas W. Pyle MS Principal, Rock Creek Valley ES

Jasperse, Catherine Kaplan-Wassell, Gail

McHale, Diane

McHale, Diane McManus, Doug Rosas, Rosalva

Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Parent Parent/NCBR3 Principal, Roberto Clemente MS

Supervisor, Diversity Training/Development Assistant Principal, Thomas W. Pyle MS Principal, Rock Creek Valley ES Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Director, Enriched and Innovative Programs Parent

Scofield, Susie

Parent

Siegelbaum, Laura

Shevitz, Betty

Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Principal, Rosemont ES

Versel, Marcia

Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Parent Parent Parent

Wilson, Crystal

Parent

Zaldivar, Enrique

Parent

Jasperse, Catherine Kaplan-Wassell, Gail

Talley, Adrian Versel, Marcia Watts, Sherry Wilson, Crystal Wong, Hoi May Zaldivar, Enrique

Lang, Erick J.

McManus, Doug Scofield, Susie Shevitz, Betty

Watts, Sherry

Director, Elementary School Instruction

Parent/NCBR3 Parent Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Acting Supervisor, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Instructional Specialist, Accelerated and Enriched Instruction

Appendix B Data Regarding Access to Gifted and Talented Programs, Services, and Outcomes (The GT Achievement Gap) Summary In recent years, MCPS has improved opportunities and outcomes with respect to gifted and talented (GT) programs and services for all students at local schools. In many grades, larger percentages of students in Grades 3—8 are demonstrating high-level mastery of MCPS rigorous curriculum, and at the higher grades, mastery of AP course work. More African American and Hispanic students are being invited to attend MCPS programs for the highly gifted. Notwithstanding these successes, and the MCPS commitment to “raise the bar and close the gap,” successes occur primarily in “raising the bar” while difficulties persist in “closing the gap.” Disparities in opportunities and outcomes exist based on students’ race and ethnicity. Data suggest that African American and Hispanic students have less access to gifted programs and services than do White and Asian American students. (The MCPS data available to the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented Education have too little information regarding American Indians to determine whether this is true for this subgroup as well.) These two groups also have lower GT identification rates in the Grade 2 “global” GT screening process, and generally lower rates of application for and invitations to attend the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and the countywide “test in” middle school and high school gifted programs. Data also indicate that African American and Hispanic students have lower outcomes on standardized tests that are intended to measure high levels of mastery of the grade-level curriculum. The growth in the percentages of African American and Hispanic students receiving “advanced” scores in the Maryland School Assessments (MSA) Reading and Math tests since 2003 has been uneven. The gap between the percentage of these students receiving advanced scores and the percentage of White students doing so is closing for some grade levels, but increasing for others. African American and Hispanic students’ participation in International Baccalaureate (IB) and Advanced Placement (AP) courses is rising, but still lags behind the participation of other groups. Even more troublesome, the gaps between the percentages of African American and Hispanic students on the one hand, and the percentage of White students on the other, taking one or more AP examinations and the gaps in earning scores of 3 or higher on at least one AP examination, are growing. Both the research and available MCPS data also suggest that lower levels of access to GT programs and services, as well as lower standardized test scores are correlated, with socioeconomic status (either measured by rates of participation in the Free and Reduced-price Meals (FARMS) programs or by using more complex composite measures), and with learning English as a second language, perhaps more strongly than correlations based on students’ race and ethnicity.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

21

Introduction In public education much attention has been paid to the “achievement gap.” This phrase refers to the national phenomenon of disparities in educational outcomes among student subgroups, especially in standardized test scores. The student subgroups compared are most often groupings by gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English language learners, students receiving special education services, and students under Individualized Education Plans (IEP) because of the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Research suggests the disparities in scores reflect differential levels of cognitive development and that they are present when students enter public school and persist throughout public school. Federal law (the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)) requires schools to make yearly progress toward eliminating the gaps in mastery of grade-level material among certain subgroups, as measured by scores on states’ standardized tests, and to eliminate it entirely by 2014. MCPS is also committed to closing this gap, as it strives to ensure success for every child and to provide a rigorous instructional program. The MCPS approach is sometimes referred to as “raise the bar and close the gap.” MSA data for 2005 illustrate MCPS success in achieving these goals and its progress toward meeting the NCLB requirements as well. These data also suggest, however, that disparities persist and in some cases are growing. For more than 25 years, research has suggested disparities in GT identification rates, and thus access to GT programs and services when these activities are examined for many of the student subgroups described above. Federal, state, and local school statutes and policies often emphasize, in the area of gifted policy, that giftedness is not limited to certain student subgroups and that school systems should strive to reduce GT disparities as well. The Maryland Bridge to Excellence law, for example, states that “gifted and talented students are to be found in youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor.” Policy IOA: Gifted and Talented Education, similarly states that giftedness is “present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor.” Policy IOA goes on to require special efforts with respect to “underachieving and traditionally underrepresented students,” including GT/LD students. The committee examined MCPS data regarding achievement in local schools, countywide “testin” magnet programs, and in other settings where enriched and accelerated instruction occurs to explore whether all children have equal access to GT programs and services and are achieving the outcomes intended under Policy IOA. We examined Grade 2 GT identification, invitations to attend the highly rigorous Center Programs for the Highly Gifted, and the countywide “test-in” middle school and high school magnet programs. We also examined Maryland School Assessment (MSA) scores at the Advanced level as well as enrollment and successful test taking in AP courses, and enrollment in IB programs. Progress is occurring, but disparities persist and in some cases are growing. Because of the limitations of the available data, this paper primarily examines data disaggregated by race and ethnicity. National research, published as well as incomplete (and sometimes preliminary), MCPS data, and anecdotal evidence suggest that other identifiable groups such as

Gifted and Talented Education Report

22

students receiving special services—FARMS, special education services, services under Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and English language learners, and perhaps categories used by other school systems such as emotionally disabled students, also have disparities in the rates at which they are identified as gifted, and therefore may not have appropriate access to the levels of rigorous instruction offered by many school systems to gifted students. Outcomes for students receiving special services are included in some of the MCPS data and the MSA data. These data show that these subgroups also have lower outcomes in the areas examined. As an editorial matter, we have avoided using the term “underserved,” or an alternative term such as “underrepresented,” to describe African American and Hispanic students1 whose lower GT identification rates, lower rates of invitation to centers and test-in magnet programs, lower rates of MSA achievement at the advanced level, and lower rates of enrollment and success in AP courses suggest that they may not have full access to GT programs and services. It is worth noting again that other subgroups may also fall into this category. These disparities in gifted identification, access, and outcomes represent a GT dimension to the concept of “achievement gap,” but one that MCPS’ “raise the gap and close the gap” approach also has had some success in attempting to address. Second Grade Global Gifted and Talented Screening MCPS has commenced a number of initiatives to ensure that all students who are gifted are identified in the early grades. As required under Policy IOA, MCPS uses multiple indicators of academic and leadership potential. MCPS has added staff to Title I schools (“.5 positions”) to assist teachers, paraeducators, and other school staff in recognizing giftedness. MCPS has expanded the Program of Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI). PADI uses the concept of “identification through instruction” and nurtures critical and creative thinking skills in Grade K–2 students in diverse populations. For five years MCPS has worked to strengthen skills of all students in the primary grades through expanding all-day kindergarten, smaller class sizes, and its reading initiative as well as changes intended to improve the curriculum. Line 2 shows that the number of students in each group identified as GT in 2005 declined compared with the number identified in 2002, for every group except Asian American students. Lines 5a and 5b reflect declines in 2005 percentage GT identification rates for all subgroups compared with 2002 and 2004, respectively, with the largest declines for Hispanic students and the smallest for White students. (Line 5b is included to illustrate the sharp and disparate drop in identification rates, which occurred in 2005 after MCPS made changes to the global screening process.) (Although not reflected in these data, MCPS directed that schools increase rescreening in Grades 3 and 4 to identify students who may have been missed in the initial Grade 2 screening.) 1

As noted above, MCPS also has official data in many of these areas for students receiving special services and the state of Maryland has published MSA data for these subgroups that are available as well. In addition, in the interest of clarity, generally data are shown only for the earliest and most recent years for which data are available. In the interest of length, generally only data disaggregated by race and ethnicity are included in this document; however, all the available data suggest that these students suffer from the same difficulties.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

23

Table 1: Second Grade Global Gifted and Talented Screening 2002–2005 Global GT Screening

Asian American African American Hispanic 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 1,384 1,568 2,007 2,196 1,813 2,079 1 Number of students screened 647 710 412 411 356 354 2 Number of students identified 14.3 15.9 20.7 22.2 18.7 21.1 3 % screened of Total screened 18.6 21.3 11.9 12.3 10.3 10.6 4 % identified of Total identified 46.7 45.3 20.5 18.7 19.6 17.0 5a % of racial or ethnic group identified -21.2 -23.3 -42.8 5b year-to-year % change -3.1 -8.8 -13.3 5c 2002 - 2005 % change Gap (compared with White 5d -0.5 0.8 25.7 27.3 26.6 29.0 students)

White 2002 2005 4,454 3,995 2,058 1,840 46.0 40.5 59.3 55.2 46.2 46.1 -19.3 -0.3

*Total 2002 2005 9,682 9,875 3,473 3,333 100.0 100.0 35.9 33.8 -24.2 -5.9

Line 5a shows that GT identification rates for African American and Hispanic students still lag overall GT identification rates and identification rates for other student subgroups. Line 5d shows that the gaps in GT identification rates for African American and Hispanic students compared with White students are increasing.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

24

Fourth and Fifth Grade Center Programs for the Highly Gifted Centers data illustrate two phenomena that lead to disparities in access to the centers programs: disparities in application rates among student subgroups and disparities in the percentages of students invited among student subgroups. The application rate phenomenon also has two components. African American and Hispanic students each constitute slightly more than 20 percent of Grade 3 MCPS students; however, they constitute a much smaller percentage of the applicant pool for the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted. White and Asian American students apply for the centers in a higher proportion than their proportion of the overall MCPS student population. Possible causes for the disparities in applicant rates include carryover effects from the disparate gifted identification rates; differences in the effectiveness of outreach efforts; transportation issues that may be more acute for some groups; continued institutional gatekeepers; and disparate levels of rigorous instruction and positive outcomes in the primary grades. The second component is the disparity in the percentages of students invited, although here progress has occurred. Table 2a, line 5 reflects increases in centers invitation rates for all subgroups. Line 5a shows that African American and Hispanic students achieved the largest gains. Although Line 3 shows that centers invitation rates for African American and Hispanic students still lag overall behind center invitation rates and invitation rates for other student subgroups, line 5b shows that the gap is closing, albeit more slowly than the increases in line 5a might suggest. The combined effect of disparities in application and invitation rates is that relatively few African American and Hispanic students are receiving the higher level of rigor that the centers provide.2 Table 2a. Centers Program for the Highly Gifted 2001–2005 Center Programs for the Highly Gifted

Asian American African American Hispanic 2001

2005

2001

2005

White

2001 2005 2001 2005

2001 2005

68 132 824 970

1,268 1,722

1

No. of students applied

284

452

92

168

2

No. of students invited

59

119

10

34

7

24 181 259

3

% applied of total applied

22.4

26.2

7.3

9.8

5.4

7.7 65.0 56.3

4

% invited of total invited

23.0

27.3

3.9

7.8

2.7

5.5 70.4 59.4

5

% of racial or ethnic group invited

20.8

26.3

10.9

5a 2001–2005 % change Gap (compared with White 5b students)

26.7 1.2

0.4

257

436

20.3 25.3

20.2 10.3 18.2 22.0 26.7 86.2

11.1

*Total

6.5 11.7

76.6

21.6

24.9

8.5

Several interesting data points are present for White students. Lines 1 and 2 show that the number of White students who apply and the number invited have increased. Lines 3 and 4 show that White students’ percentage of the applicant pool and the percentage of White students invited have both declined. Put another way, the increases for White students in lines 1 and 2 are less than the increases for other groups, resulting in the drop in lines 3 and 4. 2

Gifted and Talented Education Report

25

Comparing the percentage in line 5a with the numbers on line 2 puts a human face on the remaining challenges. From 2001 to 2005, the percentage of African American students invited from the African American student applicant pool jumped by more than 86 percent, and the equivalent increase for Hispanic students was more than 76 percent. These percentage increases translate into a total of 34 African American and 24 Hispanic invitees out of a total of 436. Moreover, the sharp drop in 2005 global screening GT identification rates for African American and Hispanic students does not portend well for the 2006 application and selection processes. Middle School Magnet Programs As with the centers, the test-in middle school magnets programs have disparities in application rates and disparities in the percentages of students invited among student subgroups. Table 3a, line 3 shows a significant increase in the percentage of African American students in the applicant pool during 2001–2005; however, the percentage of Hispanic students in the applicant pool has dropped. Much of the increase in the number of African American student applications occurred when the programs at the Roberto Clemente Middle School opened in 2003, when 206 students applied. Similar increases occurred for White and Asian American students in 2003, when 760 White and 560 Asian American students applied. Since 2003 the number of White students applying for the Math/Science/Computer Science magnets and the number of African American students applying for the Humanities and Communications magnets has dropped. The numbers of Hispanic and White students applying for humanities and communications middle school magnet programs, line 1, tables 3a, and 3c, have increased since 2002, the percentage increases were smaller than the percentage increases in overall applications. This phenomenon caused the percentages of these students in the applicant pools, line 3, tables 3a and 3c, to fall. The same effect occurred for White students apply to the Math/Science/Computer Science magnet programs. Moreover, the percentage of Asian American students invited, line 5a, tables 3a–3c, has dropped. The percentages of Hispanic and White students invited to the Humanities and Communications magnets, line 5a, table 3c, have also dropped. Line 5b, tables 3a–3c, show the gap between percentages of African American students in the applicant pool invited to middle school magnet programs and White students in the applicant pool invited, has declined substantially, while the percentage of Hispanic students invited to attend these magnets also has improved. Much of this improvement occurred this year, after protests by a group of parents of African American students regarding the middle school magnet selection process.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

26

Table 3a: Middle School Magnets Asian African American American Hispanic White *Total Year ====> 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 Number of students applied 364 575 118 212 80 108 560 718 1122 1614 Number of students invited 104 148 13 51 11 19 150 203 278 422 Percentage applied of total applied 32.4 35.6 10.5 13.1 7.1 6.7 49.9 44.5 Percentage invited of total invited 37.4 35.1 4.7 12.1 4.0 4.5 54.0 48.1 Percentage of racial or ethnic group invited 28.6 25.7 11.0 24.1 13.8 17.6 26.8 28.3 24.8 26.1 2002–2005 % change -9.9 118.4 27.9 5.6 5.5 Gap (compared with White students) -1.8 2.5 15.8 4.2 13.0 10.7 Middle School Magnets 1 2 3 4 5 5a 5b

Table 3b: Middle School Math/Science/Computer Science Magnets Asian African MS Math/Sci./Com. Sci. Magnets American American Hispanic White *Total Year ====> 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 1 Number of students applied 238 360 65 123 44 65 291 361 638 910 2 Number of students invited 59 79 4 24 3 10 57 93 123 207 3 Percentage applied of total applied 37.3 39.6 10.2 13.5 6.9 7.1 45.6 39.7 4 Percentage invited of total invited 48.0 38.2 3.3 11.6 2.4 4.8 46.3 44.9 Percentage of racial or ethnic group 5 invited 24.8 21.9 6.2 19.5 6.8 15.4 19.6 25.8 19.3% 22.7 5a 2002–2005 % change -11.5 217.1 125.6 31.5 18.0% 5b Gap (compared with White students)

-5.2

3.8

13.4

6.2

12.8

10.4

Table 3c: Middle School Humanities and Communications Magnets Middle School Humanities/Comm. Asian African Magnets American American Hispanic White Total Year ====> 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 2002 2005 1 Number of students applied 126 215 53 89 36 43 269 357 484 704 2 Number of students invited 45 69 9 27 8 9 93 110 155 215 3 Percentage applied of total applied 19.7 23.6 8.3 9.8 5.6 4.7 42.2 39.2 4 Percentage invited of total invited 36.6 33.3 7.3 13.0 6.5 4.3 75.6 53.1 5 Percentage of racial or ethnic group invited 35.7 32.1 17.0 30.3 22.2 20.9 34.6 30.8 32.0 30.5 5a 2002–2005 % change -10.1 78.7 -5.8 -10.9 -4.6 5b Gap (compared with White students)

Gifted and Talented Education Report

-1.1

-1.3

17.6

0.5 12.4

9.9

27

MSA Advanced Scores Grades 3–8 MSA Reading The good news is that the percentage of students achieving advanced scores is increasing, and increasing for all almost all grades for all groups. The percentage increases are also significant. For example, in the Grade 3 Reading, the percentage of Asian American students achieving Advanced increased by 70 percent from 2003 to 2005; for African American students the increase was 12 percent; for Hispanic students, the increase was 116 percent; and for White students, the increase was 56 percent. The challenge is the intractability of the achievement gap at the advanced level. When MCPS released the 2005 MSA scores, it included graphs showing changes from 2003 to 2005 in the achievement gap in Grade 3 Reading scores. Looking at the gap between African American and White students’ scores “at or above proficient,” the percentage point gap decreased 30 percent. Comparing Hispanic and White students’ scores, the gap decreased 36 percent. Looking solely at advanced scores, the gap between Grade 3 African American and White students increased 42 percent, while the gap between Grade 3 Hispanic and White students increased 45 percent. Again, looking at Grade 3 students, this gap has actually increased for both African American and Hispanic students each year the MSA has been administered. For Grade 5 African American and Hispanic students, the 2005 gaps are greater than those that existed in 2003. It is important to note that generally modest reductions in these advanced achievement gaps occurred for both groups in Grades 4, 5, and 6; results were mixed for Grades 7 and 8. Table 4a: 2003/43–2005 MSA Achievement Gaps: Montgomery County, Maryland Advanced Reading Grade

Percent Advanced (higher is better) Asian American

African American

White

Achievement Gaps (lower is better) Hispanic

White - Afr. Amer.

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 3

18.1 24.8 30.7

4.2

6.3

8.9 21.8 26.6 33.9

4

30.6 28.6

8.3

9.4

5

48.4 51.8 53.8

6

58.0 52.6

21.9 18.9

61.6 54.3

7

49.1 51.0

15.5 18.6

55.7 57.6

8

43.4 39.8 44.5

3.1

34.5 34.6

2005

2003 2004 2005 18.7

4.6

6.7 17.6

20.3

25.0

6.9

8.4

26.2

25.2

37.8

37.2

19.3 15.6

39.7

35.4

42.3 38.7

15.5 15.9

40.2

39.0

40.2 41.7

33.7

34.1

17.1 18.7 18.5 53.9 56.5 55.7 14.2 15.7 15.8 36.8

17.2 12.6 12.8 54.7 46.3 46.9 12.4

White - Hispanic

9.9 11.6 37.5

22.0 27.2 27.6 26.2

39.7

42.3

40.8 39.9

36.4 35.3

As an approximation of the human face of the gap, only 192 African American and 137 Hispanic Grade 3 students achieved advanced reading scores in 2005. If the same percentage of African American and Hispanic Grade 3 students had achieved advanced in 2005 as the

3

In 2003, the MSAs were only given to Grades 3, 5, and 8 students. In 2004, Grades 4, 6, and 7 students were tested for the first time.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

28

percentage of White students, 539 more African American students, and 556 more Hispanic students would have achieved this high level of mastery of the curriculum. MSA Math While the year-to-year percentages of advanced math scores also are generally increasing, for several subgroups the percentages fall as the grade increases. The math data also illustrate the wrong way to close the achievement gap. The 2005 gaps noted on the right side of Table 4b generally fall as the grade increases. However, these falls are artifacts caused by the fact that scores for White students are falling more rapidly than those of African American and Hispanic students. On the other hand, the drop from 2004 to 2005 in the gap for Grade 4 Hispanic students was accompanied by rising percentages of advanced scores for both Hispanic and White students. Table 4b: 2003/4–2005 MSA Achievement Gaps: Montgomery County, Maryland Advanced Mathematics Grade

Percent Advanced (higher is better) Asian American

African American

White

Achievement Gaps (lower is better) White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic

Hispanic

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 3

38.0

4 5

45.2 55.6

8.6

53.5 57.6 35.0

40.3 50.5

3.6

11.9 15.7

37.9 42.3 52.8

14.1 15.3

51.8 52.9

6.1

9.8

27.5 33.9 43.2

8.3 12.1 14.8 29.3 30.4 37.1 14.2 17.7 5.0

29.6 30.2 38.0

37.7 37.6

37.6 35.2

7.1 10.7 23.9 27.8 33.4

22.5 26.8 32.5

6

39.4 43.0

3.9

5.7

28.1 32.3

5.4

6.4

24.2 26.6

22.7 25.9

7

37.7 43.8

3.2

4.5

27.3 33.3

3.9

5.7

24.1 28.8

23.4 27.6

6.2

8.7

38.1 38.8 41.1

7.4

8.7 32.1 32.6 32.4

30.5 31.4 32.4

8

43.9

48.7 54.0

6.0

7.6

High School Magnet Programs The seemingly dramatic improvement in the percentage of African American students invited to the IB magnet program at Richard Montgomery High School and Math/Science/Computer Science magnet program at Montgomery Blair High School is an artifact of the very small numbers involved. It represents an improvement from six African American students invited to the class of 2005 to 14 students invited to the class of 2009. In a countywide system of almost 140,000 students with more than 11,000 8th graders, only 14 African American students and seven Hispanic students were among the 295 students initially invited to the two high school magnet programs’ classes of 2009.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

29

Table 5a: High School International Baccalaureate And Math/Science/Computer Science Magnets High School Magnets

Asian American

Class of ====> 2005

2009

African American 2005

2009

Hispanic

White

*Total

2005 2009 2005 2009 2005

1 No. of students applied

601

653

155

149

38

2 No. of students invited

101

163

6

14

2

7 161 109

3 % applied of total applied

40.0 48.9

10.3

11.2

2.5

5.2 46.9 34.4

-7.7

4 % invited of total invited

37.3 55.3

2.2

4.7

0.7

2.4 59.4 36.9

-16.6

5 % of racial or ethnic group invited

16.8 25.0

3.9

9.4

5.3 10.0 22.8 23.7

5a 2005–2009 % change Gap (compared with White 5b students)

48.5 6.0

-1.2

142.7 18.9

70 706 459 1,504

2009

90.0

1,335

271

295

18.0

22.1

4.1

34.9

14.4 17.5 13.7

Table 5b: High School Math/Science/Computer Science Magnet Mont. Blair Math/Sci/Comp. Sci.

Asian American

Class of ====> 2005 2009

African American 2005

2009

Hispanic

White

*Total

2005 2009 2005 2009 2005

1 No. of students applied

300

331

74

68

15

31

2 No. of students invited

48

84

2

7

1

3

3 % applied of total applied

43.8 53.3

10.8

11.0

2.2

5.0

43.2 30.4

-8.9

4 % invited of total invited

42.1 61.3

1.8

5.1

0.9

2.2

55.3 30.7

-21.6

5 % of racial or ethnic group invited

16.0 25.4

2.7

10.3

6.7

9.7

21.3 22.2 16.6%

22.1

280.9

45.2

4.4

44.4

11.9

14.6 12.5

5a 2005–2009 % change Gap (compared with White 5b students)

58.6 5.3

-3.2

18.6

296 189

2009

63

42

685

621

114

137

Table 5c: High School International Baccalaureate Magnet Richard Montgomery IB

Asian American

African American

Class of ====> 2005 2009

2005

2009

Hispanic

White

*Total

2005 2009 2005 2009 2005

1 No. of students applied

301

322

81

81

23

39

2 No. of students invited

53

79

4

7

1

4

3 % applied of total applied

36.8 45.1

9.9

11.3

2.8

5.5

50.1 37.8

-6.7

4 % invited of total invited

33.8 50.0

2.5

4.4

0.6

2.5

62.4 42.4

-11.6

5 % of racial or ethnic group invited

17.6 24.5

4.9

8.6

4.3 10.3

75.0

135.9

5a 2005–2009 % change 5b Gap (compared with White students)

39.3 6.3

0.3

19.0

16.2 19.6 14.6

410 270

2009

98

67

819

714

157

158

23.9 24.8 19.2%

22.1

3.8

15.4

High School AP Courses: Race and Ethnicity MCPS data regarding AP courses show that African American and Hispanic students’ access to and success in these courses is improving. The gap is growing between the percentage of African American and Hispanic students taking at least one AP examination and White students doing so. Also growing is the gap between the percentage of African American and Hispanic students scoring 3 or higher in at least one exam and White students doing so. The negative numbers for Asian American students mean that they are outperforming White students in both of these categories. (Table 6) Table 6: AP Examination Participation and Success Rates by Race and Ethnicity for Graduating Seniors During High School Careers 2000, 20044 Percentage taking at least one exam: 2000 Percentage taking at least one exam: 2004 2000 Gap (compared with White students) 2004 Gap (compared with White students) Percentage scoring 3 or higher on at least one exam: 2000 Percentage scoring 3 or higher on at least one exam: 2004 2000 Gap (compared with White students) 2004 Gap (compared with White students)

Asian American 47.8 66.9 -4.8 -8.4

African American 11.1 23.3 31.9 35.2

Hispanic

White

16.9 29.5 26.1 29.0

43.0 58.5

38.7

8.1

15.5

37.0

52.7

14.6

23.4

49.8

-1.7 -2.9

28.9 35.2

21.5 26.4

It is clear that much work remains to be done. In addition to the gaps shown in Table 6, success rates vary dramatically by school. In 2004, for schools with five or more students in the demographic cohort, only 5.1 percent of Watkins Mill High School African American students received a score of 3 or better in their high school career, while at Walter Johnson and Springbrook, this percentage was 24.1. In 2004, for schools with five or more students in the demographic cohort, only 15.0 percent of Watkins Mills High School Hispanic students received a score of 3 or better in their high school career, while at Churchill, this percentage was 73.1. International Baccalaureate Programs: Primary, Middle Years, and Diploma Programs On April 12, 2005, the superintendent of schools provided the Board of Education with an update on the status of the K–12 International Baccalaureate programs in the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). Included in this update was a table setting out the demographics of students participating in authorized International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) programs (Table 7). The table illustrates African American and Hispanic students’ participation in these programs.

4

Note: corrections made to conform to online version of Table 10 of Report (page 17)

http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/sharedaccountability/pdf/performance/AP%20Report0305.pdf Gifted and Talented Education Report

31

Table 7: Demographics of Students Participating in Authorized IBO Programs Program

African American No. %

Asian American No. %

Hispanic No. %

White No. %

PYP

90

19.0 118

24.9 43

9.1 222

MYP

410

17.3 321

13.5 398

16.8 1242

55

10.2 138

25.7 32

5.9 312

DP

American Indian Total No. % No.

0 . 46.8 1 2 0 . 52.4 1 0 0 . 58.0 1 2

FARMS Spec. Ed. No. No.

ESL No.

474

96

39

52

2372

454

195

277

538

13

9

34

Data elsewhere in that update show little progress since 2002 in improving access for African American and Hispanic students to IB diplomas at Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Richard Montgomery, and Springbrook high schools. In most cases, any increase in access averaged one student or less per year over the four-year period.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

32

Appendix C

Professional Development: Cultural Competency and Gifted Education Introduction Research consistently indicates that most educators are ill-prepared to work with culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students. As a result, teachers interpret the cultural differences in communication, learning, and behavioral styles of diverse students from a deficit perspective. This deficit perspective limits teacher recognition of students’ gifts and talents and students’ access to rigorous instructional programming (Ford, 2002; Shade, 1999; Gay, 2000). In addition, many teachers lack adequate training in gifted education. The lack of training and sensitivity to the characteristics and needs of gifted students hinders teacher ability to identify students for Gifted and Talented (GT) programs as well as their ability to work effectively with students to develop their potential (Ford, 2002). These findings point to the need to provide training and professional experiences that address these dual goals of cultural competence and gifted education. Process for Identifying Areas of Focus Cultural Competence As the student population becomes increasingly diverse, so too must professional development proactively build educators’ cultural competence in pursuit of providing equitable educational outcomes for culturally diverse students. Research consistently suggests that cultural competence requires educators to self-examine their own cultural beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and assumptions that give rise to deficit perspectives regarding the abilities and capabilities of culturally diverse students. So too must educators acquire information about and understanding of the cultural experience, background, and learning styles of culturally diverse students. This understanding is critical to helping students make connections between what they are learning in school and their own lives. When students perceive content as relevant to themselves, their interest, motivation, and engagement in academic pursuit increases. As teachers increase their cultural competence through enhanced understanding of self and students, they must develop skill in delivering culturally responsive instruction that maximizes the academic, cognitive, social-emotional, and cultural development of students. James Banks, professor of education at the University of Washington, Seattle, has delineated the specific professional development outcomes that must be addressed if educators are to modify educational programming so that students from diverse ethnic, racial, cultural, and language groups will have equitable opportunities to learn in their classrooms. According to Banks: • Teachers must understand the ways that race, ethnicity, culture, language, and social class interact in complex ways to influence student behavior. • Teachers must uncover and identify their personal attitudes toward different racial, ethnic, language, and social groups. • Teachers must uncover and identify their behaviors related to diverse racial, ethnic, language, and social class groups. • Teachers must acquire knowledge about the history and cultures of diverse ethnic, racial, and cultural groups.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

33

•

Teachers must be knowledgeable about the diverse perspectives on historical and current events within different ethnic, racial, cultural, language, and cultural communities.

Gifted Education In gifted education, the professional’s learning curve is steep. Students, parents, and administrators expect a challenging instructional program, regardless of whether a teacher has been teaching 3 months or 30 years. A first-year teacher is expected to be in command of all aspects of teaching that a veteran teacher is, including engaging students who are easy to overlook, such as minority GT students. Conversely, a veteran teacher is expected to be responsive to the new cultures entering her classroom and maintain high academic standards. In other words, both novice and veteran are held accountable for high student academic achievement for all groups. Training to build cultural competence should not be narrowly linked to higher academic achievement but rather to recognizing the intellect of all students. A school system that is proactive about teacher expectations rather than reactive to problems is one that will maintain a high-performing workforce. A new expectation can be described as follows: • Changing instruction to match assessment • New colleagues and administrators • New instructional standards or curriculum • Adapting instruction with an unfamiliar student population This document will focus on teacher training that promotes the success of GT students, specifically the expectation of engaging African American and Hispanic students, low-income students, English language learner, and students with disabilities who do not fit traditional images of precociousness. Professional Development Building the cultural competence of staff in a school system as large and culturally diverse as the Montgomery County Public Schools is a complex task. Several questions must be considered before an efficient and effective professional development program can be implemented. These questions include the following: • What specific knowledge, understanding, and skills do educators need to ensure that the strengths, gifts, and talents of culturally diverse students are recognized? • What audiences should participate in professional development? • What is the timeline for delivering professional development? • What are the most efficient delivery methods for professional development? • What measures should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development? • How will available resources be deployed to design, deliver, and evaluate professional development? • What additional resources are required?

Gifted and Talented Education Report

34

Appendix D

Teaching the Highly Able Student The Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education recommends that all instructional staff in MCPS be provided with ongoing, job-embedded professional development that builds capacity to identify the gifts of students and work effectively with students to develop their potential. •

Provide all instructional staff with professional development to do the following: 1. Use specific, and observable strategies that communicate high expectations to students. Decades of research confirms that teachers form expectations about students’ learning capabilities based on their own biases and perceptions (race, socioeconomics, language, gender, physical appearance, etc.). Though these low expectations are unintentional and unconscious, they are at the root of the underidentification of minority students in rigorous instructional programming and GT programs. 2. Build understanding of the traditional and nontraditional characteristics of highly able students. Teachers must be able to recognize giftedness in its many forms to provide equitable access to GT programs. 3. Use specific and observable strategies to nurture critical and creative thinking in all students. 4. Use specific strategies to promote student interest, motivation, and engagement in learning. This includes strategies for helping students make connections between what they are learning in school, and their own background, experience, and reality. Teachers must recognize and build upon the cultural capital that students bring to school. 5. Establish and nurture caring relationships between the teacher and students and between students in support of academic achievement. 6. Recognize and correct inequitable practices and structures that are barriers to equitable participation in GT programs. 7. Use global screening instruments and other identification tools, interpret the results/data, and use the data to design and deliver rigorous instructional programming.

•

Build scaffolding and enrichment options into curriculum for students who can handle more. For example, the use of resources like Jacob’s Ladder allow students below grade level to quickly and systematically build reading comprehension skills to move into grade-level instruction and beyond. Carefully selected texts may be required to begin moving students beyond grade-level indicators. The strategies developed and disseminated by the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction should be incorporated into every staff development activity and supported by the staff development teacher, reading specialist, math coach, resource teacher, and interdisciplinary resource teacher.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

35

• •

•

For those students with a level of giftedness (academic, artistic, etc.) requiring educational settings outside the regular classroom, ensure that there are sufficient opportunities for them to be among their peers. Incorporate into all training programs, to all staff, the perspective of how new concepts can be best taught to gifted students. A repeated inclusion of the “how to teach and to deal with the emotional issues” of gifted students will start to create a countywide consciousness among all staff that paying attention to giftedness not only helps the gifted students but all students as well. Unless all staff are trained and fully implementing it, neither nonidentified nor identified students will get adequate accelerated and enriched instruction at their local school. Include in every school part-time GT specialists supporting regular teachers when designing activities and taking students for special projects. Staff centers and magnets with highly trained, highly qualified teachers with experience, expertise, and advanced skills in gifted education.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

36

Appendix E

Specific Recommendations Regarding Data Availability Seek Stakeholder Input on Data Collection Recommendation. The committee recommends that MCPS enhance its ongoing efforts to improve data collection and dissemination activities by seeking additional input from stakeholders on how these efforts can improve gifted and talented programs and services. In particular, MCPS should seek stakeholder input on how its activities can provide timely support for instructional decisions, better information for parents, and information needed for evaluation. Rationale. MCPS should seek input from a variety of stakeholders, including teachers, principals, the Department of Shared Accountability, parents/guardians, and external entities regarding what data should be collected to support MCPS GT education programs and services. In conjunction with Recommendation 2, below, MCPS should also seek stakeholders’ input regarding the burdens associated with existing and proposed data collection, whether similar data are collected elsewhere, at what organization level and in what information system these data should reside, and, whether equally useful information can be obtained in a less burdensome manner (sampling, for example). Take Inventory, Evaluate, and Consolidate Existing GT Data Collection Efforts Recommendation. The committee recommends that MCPS, as a part of it ongoing data initiatives, undertake a systematic inventory of data relevant to gifted and talented education, evaluate whether it is collecting the appropriate data, and consolidate these data at the appropriate organizational level. Rationale. The advisory committee initially believed that MCPS collected data on its GT programs and services in a systematic fashion and that these data would be readily available to the committee to inform and assist members in their work. We discovered that these data are collected at several locations within MCPS such as at schools, the GT office, and in some MCPS centralized data collection systems. Although limited data on the Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and countywide middle and high school magnet programs were made available to the committee, it proved impossible to receive other useful data on MCPS GT programs and services within a reasonable time. The committee believes that it is essential that MCPS review and revamp its GT data collection activity in order to implement many of the committee’s other recommendations to strengthen MCPS GT programs and services. As a critical first step, we recommend that MCPS conduct an inventory of what GT-related data it collects, where these data reside, and whether the data are collected in paper or electronic format. It is likely that some of what is collected would be extremely useful, if more easily available, while other data currently collected may be too burdensome to merit collection, duplicative, or unnecessary. These data should be collected, if at all, in the appropriate electronic systems that will permit implementation of the other data recommendations. Finally, it is likely that there are gaps in the data that are collected and these gaps should be remedied.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

37

Data Should Follow the Student Recommendation. Longitudinal student-specific data should be collected and analyzed to ensure that students are appropriately accessing accelerated and enriched instruction at all grades, including Honors, AP, and IB courses in high school, and to better inform teachers’ instructional decisions. Any assessment data that could indicate that a child should receive more rigorous instruction should be made available, along with other individual student data, through SIMS and the Data Warehouse to teachers and principals. These data must be easy for teachers and others to access and use. Rationale. The MCPS Strategic Plan states, as one of its objectives, that MCPS provide a continuum of services for its gifted and talented students. However, the lack of adequate data, including data tracking the progress of students identified during the Grade 2 global screening, impedes rigorous long-term evaluation of GT programs and activities. We note that this recommendation is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s objective that “MCPS staff have access to relevant and timely information to ensure student success,” but adds what the committee believes to be the critical idea that access should be easy. Use Data to Strengthen GT Identification as well as Center and Magnet Invitation Processes Recommendation. Data should be used to identify those students who have not been formally identified at GT but who may benefit from more rigorous instruction in particular areas. Moreover, data should be used to strengthen the selection processes for center, middle and high school magnet programs. In particular, these selection processes should be reviewed to determine whether the existing criteria are appropriate predictors of success in these programs. Finally, evaluating these data may assist MCPS in determining whether additional magnet programs are needed to provide rigorous instruction to students who are highly able and cannot receive the level of rigor they need in the regular classroom. Rationale. The committee believes it is important to match the continuum of services available to GT students to every student, not just those identified in the global screening as GT, at various stages in their education. The Grade 2 identification process, while helpful, must be supplemented by a dynamic use of assessment data to identify students who would benefit from more rigorous instruction. Data-driven program evaluation efforts can help MCPS identify which student characteristics are the best predictors for success in these programs as well as identify whether additional efforts are needed to encourage student with these characteristics in underserved populations to apply. Knowing these characteristics will also assist teachers in making instructional decisions that will prepare students in underserved populations to succeed in the rigor that the centers and magnets provide and assist parents in more effectively evaluating the centers/magnet option.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

38

Make Data Easily Available to Parents/Guardians Recommendation. Data should be made available to parents in formats that are easily accessible, and parents should receive training on how to appropriately use the data to advocate for their children. Rationale. The MCPS Strategic Plan as well as research acknowledges that importance of parental involvement in the educational process. Making easy-to-understand data available to parents/guardians is a critical step in helping them to become more effective advocates for their children and partners in the education of their children. Use GT Data for Program Evaluation Recommendation. Data should be used to evaluate how accurately and equitably programs are identifying students for GT services and how well programs are providing GT services to those students who have been identified with a particular emphasis on improving access for student populations currently underserved. These data should be built into a process of continuous improvement for GT services. Rationale. MCPS staff evaluate schools’ efforts to implement the Policy on Gifted and Talented Education and, indeed, have assisted other school districts in developing evaluation instruments. However, this process is largely narrative and lacks significant quantitative data inputs. A more robust data-driven program evaluation effort with respect to GT education would provide an additional dimension to this activity. It would also provide a broader and timelier tool to use in monitoring whether all student populations have equitable access to GT programs and services.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

39

Appendix F

Parent Outreach and Institutional Advocacy Parental Involvement Background • The academic achievement gap between African American and Hispanic students compared with White and Asian students is even greater when examining access to GT programs and services. • Lack of access for African American and Hispanic students to GT and magnet programs compared to White and Asian students. • MCPS parents often are not provided with information about GT and magnet programs and how to prepare their students for rigorous curriculum. • Parental involvement by African American and Hispanic parents is crucial when considering the success of these students. Introduction Parental outreach by schools is integral to connecting schools and parents. As this relationship forms and is fostered, an improvement in communication, access, and most important, parental involvement will be evident. Parental involvement not only helps to empower parents to become avid advocates for their children, but also influences children’s developmental and educational outcomes through such mechanisms as modeling and reinforcement and instruction, as mediated by the parent’s use of developmentally appropriate activities and the fit between parental activities and the school’s expectations (Hoover-Dempsy and Sandler, 1995). The barriers to parental involvement in schools include, but are not limited to, income, ethnicity, language, alienation from schools, and attitudes of teachers. A high priority should be placed on removing barriers and designing activities to stimulate and maintain parental involvement. Epstein suggests designing parental outreach efforts around the following themes: (1) basic obligations of families to provide for the safety and health of their children; (2) basic obligation of schools to communicate with families about school programs and the individual progress of their children; (3) parental involvement at school; (4) parental involvement in learning activities at home; (5) parental involvement in decision making at school, and (6) collaboration and exchange with community organizations (Eccles and Harold, 1993). These provide the basis for the following recommendations: • Distribute literature about rigorous curriculum, GT, and Magnet opportunities within MCPS at kindergarten roundup and other similar gatherings (i.e., Aim High; Parent’s Guide to Kindergarten; A Resource Guide to Services, Support, and Advocacy Groups in GT Education, etc.). Provide opportunities to discuss or respond to questions during meetings or link interested parents with appropriate personnel. •

Staff members will be available to speak with parents about GT curriculum and other opportunities for exposure to rigor available within the school and throughout the county at Back to School Night.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

40

•

Teachers will use parent/teacher conferences as an opportunity to discuss and show how their children have been exposed to rigorous materials and give suggestions to parents on how they can support their child’s academic success (i.e. models of student work, curriculum guides, etc.).

•

Hold annual informational meetings for all elementary school parents about GT instruction, identification, and the Highly Gifted Centers.

•

Hold special informational meetings for Grade 5 parents in addition to the annual informational meeting for all parents. This meeting would also be hosted by elementary schools and would further address middle school accelerated learning opportunities, including accessing Honors classes and other issues that are germane to Grade 5 students (i.e., family life education, middle school experience, etc.).

•

Meetings targeting Grade 8 students regarding high school magnets and other accelerated learning opportunities, should be conducted during the first semester of each school year by Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) staff.

•

Information about Honors, AP, and other accelerated programs offered at the home school and how parents can access them for their children should be provided during regularly scheduled Grade 9 parent meetings.

•

Opportunities for parents and prospective students to hear testimonials from students currently enrolled in accelerated programs (i.e., Honors, AP, academies, IB, and magnet programs) should be presented.

•

Working in collaboration with other departments in MCPS and the county, the AEI will create workshops to train parents as education promoters in their communities. Education promoters will work with parents at every level to explain resources within MCPS that encourage participation in accelerated academic programs. Some of the activities education promoters will perform are listed below: o Assist with magnet school application preparation o Assist parents in understanding their role in the parent-teacher conference. o Assist parents in filling out the course selection for middle and high school. o Work with parents on activities they can implement at home to support a rigorous program. MCPS should explore ways in which to compensate these promoters (i.e., stipend, gift card, etc.). The role of education promoters could be expanded to broader issues related to navigating the school system.

• •

Principals will share best practices for parent outreach at their various meetings. Transportation and childcare should be provided when needed.

Parent outreach is essential to educational success. Outreach stimulates parent involvement, making it one of the most practical and effective means of improving educational outcomes. It

Gifted and Talented Education Report

41

has the potential to increase student performance, narrow the achievement gap, increase college application rates, and lower suspension rates. There are also long-term implications for other disparities, including those found in health care and economics. These recommendations are intended to educate parents about available educational opportunities that will help prepare their children for college and the workforce. When parents are better informed and become involved they can work together with teachers to provide the necessary support and assistance for students. Finally, most of these recommendations can be easily implemented at little or no cost to the school which eliminates the need to secure funding. Institutional Advocacy

•

Pooling the 0.5 GT positions into a team of full-timers, who can best focus their efforts on a coordinated objective of supporting GT initiatives, which include serving as advocates for students.

•

Expanding the number of school counselors, so that they can truly fulfill their—already written—advocacy mandate.

Gifted and Talented Education Report

42

Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education Education Report Summary of Recommendations Recommendation One: Strengthen accountability measures Implementation Strategy A: Make improvements in the program-monitoring process in order to better examine the outcomes of GT services IA1. Require yearly status reports IA2. Enhance evaluation criteria in the program-monitoring process IA3. Expand participation of AEI in walk-throughs IA4. Collect parent feedback IA5. Publish summary indicators Implementation Strategy B: Develop an annual report devoted to GT programs and include GT data in existing annual reports IB1. Collect and report performance data IB2. Publish an annual performance report with a longitudinal component IB3. Document and publish local programs and offerings Implementation Strategy C: Build accountability measures into the local school improvement plan and expand the role of the GT Committee Implementation Strategy D: Include criteria for GT policy implementation in staff performance evaluations ID1. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for principals and supervisory staff ID2. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for staff development teachers ID3. Add evaluation criteria for elementary school GT liaisons and 0.2 GT coordinators ID4. Include a GT component in evaluation criteria for guidance counselors ID5. Include a GT component in the evaluation criteria for all instructional staff

Recommendation Two: Improve and expand programs Implementation Strategy A: Strengthen the model for the delivery of GT services at the local school level IIA1. Define components of an effective GT program IIA2. Allocate a part-time GT specialist in every elementary school IIA3. Enhance the role of the 0.2 GT coordinator Implementation Strategy B: Expand existing programs to meet the growing needs of the county IIB1. Expand seats in Center Programs for the Highly Gifted and middle and high school magnets IIB2. Fund an upcounty magnet high school IIB3. Expand programming and services for GT/LD students IIB4. Expand programming for students with nontraditional forms of giftedness Implementation Strategy C: Enhance staff development and support activities for key local school staff involved in GT service delivery IIC1. Expand gifted education training for instructional staff IIC2. Reinstate specialized GT in-service classes IIC3. Train and support staff development teachers IIC4. Train and support GT liaisons and 0.2 GT coordinators IIC5. Develop GT training for guidance counselors IIC6. Train and support principals and supervisory staff IIC7. Expand use of communication technologies to deliver student data to teachers IIC8. Expand the AEI Website Implementation Strategy D: Disseminate to local schools models of service delivery from center and magnet programs to strengthen their programs IID1. Disseminate lessons, materials, and resources from centers and magnet schools IID2. Use centers and magnets for professional development experiences IID3. Allocate time for dissemination and collegial conversations

ii

Recommendation Three: Implement systematic collection and analysis of data Implementation Strategy A: Collect longitudinal data and use the ability of systems such as the IMS and Data Warehouse to ensure retention of student assessment data Implementation Strategy B: Take inventory, evaluate, and consolidate existing GT data collection efforts Implementation Strategy C: Use data to strengthen GT identification and center and magnet invitation processes IIIC1. Create a structure for collecting data K–12 IIIC2. Use data to inform selection and expansion of programs IIIC3. Backmap data IIIC4. Use data as a predictor for success Implementation Strategy D: Seek stakeholder input on data collection Recommendation Four: Provide equal access for all students to GT programs and services Implementation Strategy A: Improve the screening process for test-in programs to recognize various manifestations of giftedness Implementation Strategy B: Continue revising global screening Implementation Strategy C: Enhance training for staff so that they can better recognize and support students who could benefit from greater rigor Implementation Strategy D: Strengthen Parental Outreach and Training IVC1: Outreach IVC2: Provide easily accessible and understandable data Implementation Strategy E: Promote institutional advocacy

iii