How To Improve Your School District

Transcription

1 K-8 Gifted/Enrichment Program Review Committee Board of Education Report Judy Berlin Attea-G/E *Pat Cohen Henking-G/E Becky Dean Westbrook-LRC Marek Dzianott Attea-G/E Melissa Evans Hoffman-G/E Dr. Ellen Fiedler Consultant Jan Hinton Pleasant Ridge-4 th Grade Lori Hinton Westbrook-Principal *Ilene Holt-Turner Springman-Psychologist Stacey Heller Springman-R/LA *Dr. Michele Kane Consultant Katrina Klever Lyon-2 nd Rhonda Lindner Attea-R/LA *Debbie Lubeck Director of Support Programs Lisa Nathaus Attea-Science Paul Nudelman Henking-2 nd Bridget Neuson Parent Karen Ornduff Parent *Toby Pleszkun Pleasant Ridge-G/E Kyle Quackenbush Glen Grove-3 rd Jen Roberts Parent Julie Rudnicke Springman-G/E Mark Walther Hoffman-Principal Stephanie Zar Hoffman-Social Worker

2 The K-8 Gifted/Enrichment Program Evaluation Committee met eight times from September 2009 through February 2010 to review our current Reading/Language Arts Gifted/Enrichment program. Throughout our work, we partnered with two consultants to guide our work in evaluating the research and best practice information in meeting the needs of the gifted learner. After considerable time dedicated to reading and discussion, the committee came to consensus on a new definition of gifted in District 34, developed belief statements about the education of these students and compiled recommendations specific to identification and service of students defined as gifted that align with our beliefs. As the committee worked through the topics of identification and service, we continually revisited our definition and beliefs, as identification and service delivery must align with each other and a district s definition of giftedness. Definition & Beliefs About Giftedness Identification Tools & Process Service Delivery Model 2

3 Overview of the Recommended Changes Identification Assessments- SCREENING Identification Assessments- SELECTION Identification Cut Score Primary Service Current Model CogAt, NWEA, parent & teacher input forms (districtcreated) NWEA, WASI Floats annually to identify the top 3% and 4-15% of the specific grade level population Enrichment model, with student participation based on teacher input and building based data, resulting in inconsistency among buildings, inconsistent amount of service among buildings Two tier model, 3% and 4-15% Percent of Students Identified for Pull-Out Service Grade Levels Serviced 4 th -8 th 3 rd -8th Identification Points Spring 3 rd grade, screening on request after 3 rd grade, no reidentification point Program/Service Delivery Intermediate Program/Service Delivery Middle School Consistent pull-out for 3% and occasional pull-out for 4-15%, support differentiation through consultation 100% Replacement R/LA for top tier, 50% pull-out for second tier, support differentiation through consultation Proposed Model CogAt, NWEA, SRBCSS (published) parent & teacher input forms WASI, ITBS (achievement), TTCT (creativity) The minimum performance criteria are consistent from year to year and at all grade levels. Each individual criterion on the tool is based on statistical definitions of student performance as superior to very superior and is based on national norms Enrichment model with student participation based on teacher input and consistent data across the district, consistent service (ideally daily, but no less than twice per week) Single tier model, anticipated to identify 10% Fall 3 rd grade, review of screening data spring 3 rd and 4 th grade, re-identification spring 5 th grade, and review of screening data spring 6 th and 7 th grade Daily pull-out for identified students, cluster grouping for high achieving readers and identified students, support differentiation through consultation, provide enrichment support through intervention time 100% Replacement R/LA for identified students, support differentiation through consultation, provide enrichment support through X- block 3

4 Belief Statements and Definition of Giftedness To develop the District 34 Gifted Education Belief Statements and Definition of Giftedness, the committee examined a variety of definitions from the field of gifted education, examined myths and realities about giftedness and considered the differences between high achievers, creative thinkers and gifted learners. In District 34, giftedness refers to a small percentage of the population having natural abilities that significantly exceed district-defined norms in one or more areas of learning. Gifted students think in abstract and creative ways, more broadly and deeply than their like-aged peers. WE BELIEVE CHARACTERISTICS Gifted children have unique needs. Gifted children have distinct thinking and learning styles; they think differently (more deeply and more abstractly) and see the world differently than their peers. STUDENT NEEDS Gifted students should be considered in the same way that all learners with other special needs are considered. The unique social and emotional needs of gifted children should be addressed, as should the social and emotional needs of all children, by our school district in collaboration with families and the community. IDENTIFICATION There should be consistent and continuous standards for identification of students across the district and from year to year. The process for identifying gifted students should be transparent and public. SERVICES Gifted students require appropriately challenging curriculum and instruction. Gifted students should be challenged and supported through multi-faceted programs that are student centered. Gifted students need to be with their academic peers in groups of appropriate size, for an appropriate length of time, and with appropriate challenges to meet their educational and social/emotional needs. Delivery of services for gifted students should be flexible in curriculum and strategies; it should be open-minded, holistic, and differentiated with the needs of the individual student in mind. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT It is the responsibility of the district to provide resources (staff, materials, programs, etc.) for the gifted students that meet their academic, social and emotional needs. In order to support gifted students and deliver appropriate services, opportunities for professional development, training, and resources must be provided to our staff. Gifted children s abilities should be celebrated, as should the abilities of all children. 4

5 Identification Tools & Process The committee was faced with several questions related to identification: 1. When should we do whole grade level screening & selection (what are our entry points)? 2. What tools should we use at the screening & selection steps? 3. What criteria should we use on our identification tool and what percentage of the population do we anticipate our identification tool will capture at the screening and selection steps? 4. What do we need to have in place for an appeal to the identification decision? Prior to answering any specific questions, the committee highlighted some guiding statements from research, best practice and Illinois School Code to guide our planning: The choice of assessment tools must match the definition of giftedness. (NAGC) Identification of gifted and talented students should not be based on a single assessment. (NAGC) A child shall be considered gifted and talented in any area of aptitude, and, specifically, in Language Arts and Mathematics, by scoring in the top 5% locally in that area of aptitude (ILSC) When identifying gifted students, schools need to select qualitative and quantitative instruments that are technically adequate and that match gifted students characteristics and the school district s program. (Johnsen) If each assessment has equal reliability and validity for identifying gifted and talented students, then each should have equal value in the decision making process. (Johnsen) Young gifted learners are a heterogeneous group that is not easily defined or assessed. They present educators and families with unique challenges due to their rapid and often asynchronous development (NAGC) Each district should decide where to place its line. Districts that raise the line above the 95 th percentile may encounter problems since more test error is found in this range (Johnsen) Identification of giftedness at higher than the 95 th percentile in not considered statistically sound due to the standard error of measure (Kane) 1. When should we do whole grade level screening & selection (what are our entry points)? The committee spent considerable time discussing our current practice of providing enrichment at the primary level and identifying students for inclusion in the Gifted Program prior to 4 th grade, with no opportunities for re-evaluating that decision for students who are identified. Through the work of PLC s, teams of teachers are dialoguing about what we want students to know, how we will know that they know, what to do when they don t and what to do when they do know. Through RtI, District 34 has been working to provide interventions for students who don t know (PLC question #3) and has expanded efforts for enrichment interventions for students who do know (PLC question #4). Enrichment at the primary level and formal identification at the intermediate and middle school levels will further facilitate enrichment for students who do know. The committee recommends a continued enrichment model at the primary level, with some refinement to the data used to determine student readiness for enrichment so that there is consistency among the buildings. Using an enrichment model allows student data to be considered at least twice a year (fall and winter) so that students who are demonstrating readiness at that time are included in enrichment services. In addition to teacher recommendations for inclusion in enrichment, the committee discussed 5

6 the data that is currently available in the three primary buildings, including the benefits and limits of the instructional information gained from the data. The committee identified the need for an assessment such as an IRI to have a full picture of student readiness for enrichment in reading. Current data from ISEL should be used in addition to data from an IRI to identify high achieving readers. It is recommended that prior to August 2010, primary reading specialists, curriculum facilitators and the Director of Support Programs identify the specific data to use for inclusion in enrichment opportunities. In our discussions about when to identify students formally, it was not only important for our assessment tools to match our definition of giftedness, it was essential that our identification process align with our service model. All students in District 34 experience a program shift when they enter middle school. At the intermediate level, students receive the bulk of their content instruction from the classroom teacher, who is able to provide a balanced literacy experience throughout the day through his/her planning. For example, a teacher may decide to provide shared reading opportunities during Social Studies and Science on a given day and therefore, not include a shared reading activity during reading block. At the middle school level teachers become specialists in their content area. While a Social Studies or Science teacher may provide a shared reading experience for students, the Reading/Language Arts teacher would also be providing these experiences as part of his/her balanced literacy classroom. Last spring the Middle School Gifted/Enrichment Task Force collected feedback from staff at both middle schools about a desire to see students identified for service specifically at the middle school. While the committee focused on best practices and research, we did consider how service is provided in local districts. It is common practice in neighboring districts to identify students for service at one level and then to do a second screening and selection for all students prior to a shift in service at the next level. Given the shift in instruction for all students from classroom teachers who provide all daily literacy instruction to the middle school model where a specialist teaches Reading/LA, the feedback collected last spring from staff at both middle schools, and a review of the literature and practices in local districts, the committee felt that identification for intermediate service and for middle school service should be distinct for each level. 2. What tools should we use at the screening & selection steps? Screening is the process in which the data for all students at a given level are considered and selection is the process in which the target population is identified as gifted using the district s definition of giftedness. Best practices and our consultants recommend that the screening process identify approximately 20-25% of the population for additional consideration and testing during the selection step. During identification it is essential to use a variety of assessment tools to gather quantitative and qualitative data about students. To identify assessment tools for each step in the identification process, the committee evaluated quantitative and qualitative measures (Appendix A) and determined if the data yielded from the assessment would fit at a screening or selection step. From this process the committee identified which types of assessments would be used during selection and screening. Screening Tools o Group administered Ability Test o Individually administered Achievement Test (Reading & Language) o Parent and Teacher Input Selection Tools o Individually administered Ability Test o Group administered Achievement Test o Group administered Creativity Assessment 6

7 Once the types of assessment were selected for our identification tool, the committee discussed specific assessments within each assessment type. SCREENING Group Administered Ability Test: Last spring EDCO approved a shift to CogAt as a district-wide measure of general cognitive ability. This winter students in 3 rd and 6 th grade participated in CogAt testing. The student data available from testing is rich and allows for various composite scores to be compared using age-based percentiles, grade-based percentiles or standard age score comparisons. The committee recommends CogAt as the Group Administered Ability Test for screening. Individually Administered Achievement Test: NWEA is a criterion-referenced test that assesses whether a student has achieved specific skills or concepts. Each student is compared with a preset standard for achievement and student performance is reported for individual skills. NWEA test items for specific skills are parallel in difficulty at each RIT level, but students do not complete the exact same test items. The committee recommends using NWEA Reading and Language Usage Scores as separate indicators for screening. Parent & Teacher Input: The committee discussed a variety of formats for collecting feedback from parents and teachers about individual students including narrative teacher reports and checklists of observed behavior. The committee felt that checklists of specific observable behavior allowed for parents and teachers to provide feedback on intellectual and affective characteristics of students in an efficient way. In our examination of various checklists, we identified that the use of a published checklist, rather than a district created checklist, would increase the validity of the feedback collected. The committee recommends the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students to collect parent and teacher input for screening. SELECTION Individually Administered Ability Test: Individually administered ability testing is done by a professional examiner, typically a psychologist. The data collected during individual ability testing measures general cognitive ability and is reported as IQ. The school psychologists, providing consultation to the committee, recommend the continued use of WASI for selection. Group Administered Achievement Test: In the development of our identification tool and process, the committee recommended the use of unique data at the screening and selection step, which led the committee to consider achievement data other than NWEA Reading and Language Usage scores. The committee considered using sub-scores from NWEA (such as Reading Comprehension or Word Analysis), Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) and norm-referenced tests. After considering the strengths and limitations of each, the committee identified a norm-referenced assessment as the recommended assessment type. Norm-referenced tests discriminate between high and low achievers and rank each student in comparison to the achievement of others in broad areas of knowledge. Student achievement on norm-referenced tests is reported for broad skill areas and reported as a percentile. The committee has some concern that our highest performing students may ceiling out on a norm-referenced achievement test. While our consultants felt that some students may achieve a ceiling of performance, the only way for us to evaluate the usefulness of the data is for us to administer the assessment. The committee recommends using ITBS Reading and Language tests for section for the school year, but request a review of the data from this assessment prior to administration in future years. Group Administered Creativity Test: Following guidance from National Association for Gifted Children regarding the need for alignment between tools used for identification and a district s definition of giftedness, the committee considered a number of creativity tests. In considering various tools, we sought a tool that was reliable, valid, easy to administer, easy to score, and designed for use 7

8 at the ages we would administer it to students. Few assessments met our criteria, with only one meeting all criteria. The committee recommends using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), Verbal Form for selection. 3. What criterion should we use on our identification tool and what percentage of the population do we anticipate our identification tool will capture at the screening and selection steps? As the committee considered specific criteria for each of the assessment tools, our first step was to identify if our current matrix structure was best practice. We were guided by the work of Susan Johnsen in making placement decisions. If each assessment has equal reliability and validity for identifying gifted and talented students, then each should have equal value in the decision making process (Johnsen). Based on this, our new identification tool gives equal weighting to all assessments. Our next step was to consider how to use the data on the identification tool in a way that allowed for comparison of students so that we could identify gifted students in alignment with our definition of giftedness. To do this, we examined historical data from the past three years of gifted identification and general information on data. Using the chart in Appendix B, the committee identified performance in the superior to very superior range to be the target population for identification. From a statistical perspective, using 92 nd percentile or a standard score of 120 correlate with approximately 1.5 standard deviations above the norm and a full scale IQ of 130 correlates with approximately 2 standard deviations above the norm. For all test data in the identification tool (CogAt, NWEA, ITBS, TTCT and individual ability testing), the committee recommends the use of national norms. The committee projects that using these criteria will capture approximately 20% of our population at the screening step and anticipate that the selection step will result approximately 10% of our population being identified as gifted. The data represented in the following charts was considered in our projection for approximately 20% of our population at a grade level being identified at the screening step for further consideration. We only have CogAt data for current 3 rd and 6 th grade at this time, so we would like to use caution in generalizing the performance of these two groups of students, especially since there is marked difference in the performance of the two groups. This difference can also be seen in grade level comparisons of performance on NWEA. The current 6 th grade class is a high performing group of students, as demonstrated by NWEA performance, CogAt performance and proportion of currently identified gifted students at that grade level. The first chart represents the percentage of students above the 92 nd percentile on Reading and Language Usage in the fall of 3 rd grade since the school year. The second graph represents the percentage of current 3 rd and 6 th graders above a Standard Age Score of 120 based on a composite from the Verbal and Quantitative subtests of CogAt. The publisher of CogAt recommends using a composite of the Verbal and Quantitative scores for the identification of gifted students to identify an ability to reason well in the symbol systems used to communicate new knowledge and skills the primary symbol systems required in academic learning are verbal and quantitative. 8

9 The committee also considered data available from the selection step of identification for the past several school years. We used caution in evaluating this data because it represents only those students who were identified for individual testing. Therefore, we cannot assume that it represents the data of all students at a grade level. However, we feel that in a general sense the data supports our recommended criteria on the identification tool and our projection that 8-10% of the population will be identified as gifted using the new tool and criteria. Given the proposal of using data from two assessments that we do not currently administer, the committee recommends looking at grade level data once it has all been collected to determine if our proposed criteria identified the percentage of our population that we project, and that adjustments to the criteria be made if necessary. This same process should take place during the next identification cycle as well so that our finalized identification tool is based on data from multiple years. Beyond that, the committee recommends that any further changes happen through a committee review process. 9

10 District 34 Gifted/Enrichment Identification Tool Student: DOB: Parents: Phone (H): (C): Address: City: Zip: School Grade: School Year: Screening Data Assessment Minimum Criteria Student Score Criterion Met CogAt 120 SAS Yes No NWEA Reading 92 nd Percentile Yes No NWEA Lang. 92 nd Percentile Yes No Parent/Teacher TBD Spring 2010 Yes No Screening Decision-At least 3 criterion must be met to move to selection Student meets criteria to move to selection Student does not meet criteria to move to selection Selection Data Assessment Minimum Criteria Student Score Criterion Met WASI 130 Full Scale Yes No ITBS 92 nd Percentile Yes No TTCT 85 th Percentile Yes No Screening Decision-All 3 criterion must be met to move to selection Student qualifies for Gifted/Enrichment Service Student does not qualify for Gifted/Enrichment Service Approved 2/24/10 10

11 4. What do we need to have in place for an appeal to the identification decision? In considering the development of an appeal process, the committee discussed what additional information may be valuable to help an appeal panel determine if a placement decision was appropriate. To do this, we revisited our earlier evaluation of tools for screening and selection and identified assessment tools that could bring additional insight into a student s ability and performance in the areas of reading and language arts. In an appeal, initiated by a parent or teacher, a small appeal panel consisting of one general education teacher, two gifted enrichment teachers, one school psychologist and the Director of Support Programs will review the data collected during screening and selection and a sample of final draft writing provided by the parent or classroom teacher, a sample of writing collected by the Gifted teacher during the school day, a narrative teacher report from the classroom teacher, an observation checklist completed by the gifted teacher if that teacher has worked with the student and any additional information that parents would like to provide. All appeals will be handled between the selection process and the start of a new trimester so that any changes of placement will occur at the start of a new trimester. District 34 Gifted/Enrichment Appeal Process 1. A parent or teacher can initiate the appeal process on behalf of a student in District 34. To initiate the process, the parent or teacher must meet with the Director of Support Program to review existing data. Following the meeting, a request for an appeal must be put in writing and submitted to the Director of Support Programs. 2. An appeal panel consisting of one general education classroom teacher, two gifted enrichment teachers, one school psychologist, and the Director of Support Programs will review all appeal material. 3. Data collected during the screening and selection process will be considered in the appeal process and includes: group and individually administrated ability testing results, group achievement testing results, parent and teacher observation checklists and an assessment of creativity 4. In addition to the data collected through the Gifted screening and selection process, the appeal committee will review: a. a sample of final draft writing completed during the current school year, submitted by the parent b. a sample of writing collected by the Gifted/Enrichment teacher during the school day that is in response to a prompt provided by the Gifted/Enrichment teacher c. an observation checklist completed by the Gifted/Enrichment teacher if that teacher worked directly with the student during the current school year d. a teacher report from the student s current classroom teacher, collected by the Gifted/Enrichment teacher e. any additional information the parents would like to provide 5. The appeal panel s decision about a student s placement in the Gifted/Enrichment program will be provided to the parents in writing. Decisions of the appeal panel are final. 11

12 Program Model/Service Delivery As the committee discussed program/service delivery options, we highlighted some guiding statements from research and best practices: All students need learning partners with whom they can interact in meaningful ways; gifted students who are in heterogeneous classrooms seldom have this chance. (Fiedler) Differentiation of curriculum and instruction has been shown to be quite helpful for all students, but is not sufficient for meeting the educational needs of gifted students. (Fiedler) Gifted learners need some form of grouping by ability to effectively and efficiently accomplish several educational goals, including appropriately broadened, extended and accelerated curricula. (Rogers) The pacing of instruction, the depth of content, and advancement in knowledge fields, which these students must have, cannot be effectively facilitated without a variety of ability-grouped arrangements. (Rogers) Gifted learners are the one group for whom instructional expectations would likely fall in heterogeneous settings (Tomlinson) The most economical, efficient, and beneficial placement of gifted children in our schools is with intellectual peers who will both enrich and challenge them. (Delisle) The curriculum in a pull-out model allows for consistent, daily challenge in talent area. (Rogers) Slavin s research provides substantial support for regrouping for specific instruction when students are appropriately matched to the level of the curriculum being offered in the regrouped classes. (Rogers) The optimal numbers [of students in a gifted classroom] are 8-15, and that's been my experience in working with pull-out groups. Too few lack the synergy that a few more provide; too many prevents the kinds of more intense interactions that pull-out groups are designed to provide and interferes with adequate assessment of and response to the specific needs of the students who most need pull-out (and pushes the introverted gifted students further into the background, as the more extroverted members of the group dominate the discussions, etc.) (Fiedler) The work on group size is still summed up by smaller numbers (15) are more effective than larger numbers (22) (Kane) The committee considered several program options, with a focus on those that have been shown by research to be effective for exceptionally bright students and grouping configurations that have been supported as having a significant academic effect for gifted students. Working from this list of options the committee considered, by level (primary, intermediate and middle) each option and recommended the option (s) that best matched the needs of the students and the structure of the school day. The options considered included: ability grouping by subject cross grade, ability grouping by subject in class, full-time gifted program for all subjects across all grades, full-time gifted program for all subjects within a grade, pull-out for subject matter, pull-out for thinking skills, content-based acceleration, grade-skipping, clustering during class building, ability grouping full-time in multiage setting, IEP/GEP (special ed type) model, magnet school, pull-out by unit for compacting, outside of school options (mentorship), independent study, online classes, extracurricular activities, extended day program, early admission/entrance, extended year program. The options the committee supported with the highest academic effect for gifted students are enrichment pull-out and ability grouping for specific subject matter instruction (Rogers). 12

13 Throughout our discussions about service delivery, the committee maintained a focus on providing a flexible model of support for students, while also creating a program that will be implemented consistently across buildings. The National Association for Gifted Children stresses the importance of a flexible support system for students. The committee s recommendation, while a single tier of pull-out service for an identified population of students, maintains a flexible approach through recommendations for clustering high achieving readers, enrichment support during intervention times and differentiation support for classroom teachers across content areas for the skills of reading and language arts. Additionally, as stated in our belief statement, delivery of services for gifted students should be flexible in curriculum and strategies. While our recommendation does not include a class cap on gifted classes, we do want to highlight that the best practice information indicates that ideal grouping size for gifted instruction is less than 15 students. Primary Program/Service Delivery Model: The recommended Enrichment Program option at the primary level is through ability grouping for literacy instruction for all students (guided reading within the classroom) and pull-out for Reading/LA and related thinking skills enrichment for a small group of students. The classroom and the enrichment teacher will share responsibilities for providing a balanced literacy experience for students. Students will be seen by the enrichment teacher on a consistent basis, ideally daily, but no less than twice per week. In addition to direct service to students, the enrichment teacher will provide classroom teachers with support in differentiation of reading and language arts skills. To best support students through an enrichment model, high achieving readers should be clustered during class building so that 3-5 high ability readers are in the same classroom. Intermediate Program/Service Delivery Model: The recommended Gifted Program option at the intermediate level is a combination of ability grouping for literacy instruction for all students (guided reading within the classroom) and pull-out for Reading/LA and related thinking skills for a small group of identified students. The gifted teacher will be responsible for reading block instruction for identified students. The classroom and the gifted teacher will share responsibilities for providing a balanced literacy experience for students that includes shared reading, guided reading, independent reading, word work and writing to ensure that all students receive each component of balanced literacy instruction without duplication. Identified students will be seen by the gifted teacher on a daily basis for the reading block. In addition to direct service to students, the enrichment teacher will provide classroom teachers with support in differentiation of reading and language arts skills across all content areas. To best support students through an enrichment model, high achieving readers should be clustered during class building so that 3-5 high achieving readers and identified students are in the same classroom. Middle School Program/Service Delivery Model: The recommended Gifted Program option at the middle school level is replacement Reading/LA and related thinking skills for a small group of identified students. In addition to direct service to students, the enrichment teacher will provide classroom teachers with support in differentiation of reading and language arts skills across all content areas. 13

14 Next Steps The committee identified three key areas for continued work: communication, resources and implementation. COMMUNICATION o Communication to parents/community about our identification, program, and appeal process o Parent letter o Update website o School Look o PTA Council o Open House o Naming of the intermediate and middle school programs o Communication to parents of currently identified students about new entry point prior to 6 th grade o Parent letter o Open House o Communication to staff about our identification, program, and appeal process o UTTM o Building Council Presentation o Communication to students about process to screen & select prior to middle school o Gifted teacher and social worker RESOURCES o New assessment materials o Curriculum o Summer project to complete curriculum map for middle school using learning targets drafted last year and completed R/LA curriculum map o Leveled readers that meet students reading levels in a pull-out model IMPLEMENTATION o Testing this spring o 2 nd grade CogAt (screening, all students) o 5 th grade CogAt (screening, all students) o 5 th grade ITBS (selection, some students) o 5 th grade TTCT (selection, some students) o Individual Ability tests o Teacher and parent input data collection o 2 nd grade (screening, all students) o 5 th grade (screening, all students) o Subs for primary teachers in fall & winter for IRI administration o Assessing our success o Parent, staff, student survey spring 2011 o Evaluation of NWEA performance Highest performing students have little room for growth, resulting in limits to this data analysis o Common benchmark assessment performance G/E teachers identify curriculum-based assessments that match students levels of performance o Professional Development o Mini sessions developed this summer for presentation by G/E teachers at the building level 14

15 Cost Analysis To implement the recommendations set forth by the committee, the following costs would be incurred: Staffing While the committee feels that it would be ideal for each primary building to have 1.0 FTE dedicated to enrichment support, the committee understands the limits on the budgets of school districts across the state of Illinois. Without an increase in the staffing allocation, the committee recommends that the current allocation of.5 FTE Enrichment &.5 FTE Reading Specialists be honored. The current reality for the staff in these positions is that significantly more than 50% of their time is dedicated to the support of students as Reading Specialist, which results in significantly less than 50% of their time being available to support enrichment in their building. There are no recommendations to increase staffing at the intermediate level. Although 3 rd grade students are not currently formally identified, the Gifted/Enrichment teacher at the intermediate level currently supports 3 rd grade students through a flexible delivery model. It has been the practice at the intermediate level to add 4-15% students to 3% students for service rather than seeing them at an additional time, so moving to a single tier of pull-out does not impact the amount of time dedicated to identified student pull-out instruction for the teacher. There are no recommendations to increase staffing at the middle school level. The changes approved last spring to the middle school gifted program, including the additional staff will continue to meet the needs of students in the proposed program. Staff will continue to provide 100% replacement Reading/Language Arts for students on two teams. The committee recommends that in situations when the caseload at a given grade level is significantly higher than other grade levels, such as the 6 th grade caseload at Springman this year, that the Gifted teachers in collaboration with the building principal identify opportunities for the Gifted Teachers to work as a team to support students outside of their identified caseload. For example, a teacher could support enrichment for an additional grade level if s/he had a smaller case load than a colleague. Screening & Selection Assessment Screening or Selection Materialsone time Materialsconsumable Scoring CogAt 2nd Screening $2,400 $4,264 CogAt 5th Screening $600 $3,068 SRBCSS Screening $500 $0 ITBS-2nd Selection $18,500 $649 ITBS-5th Selection $16,350 $200 $649 TTCT-Verbal Selection $600 $902 TOTAL $16,350 $22,800 $9,532 ANNUALLY ANNUALLY WASI Administration Spring 2010 Spring 2010 Fall 2011 Spring 2011 Fall 2012 Grade Level 3rd 5th 3rd 5th 3rd # Cost $8,250 $3,750 $8,250 $3,750 $8,250 *Highlighted items represent new costs 15

16 Appendix A Quantitative Measures/Traditional Intellectual Ability tests: Individual IQ tests o Individual testing by professional examiner who is typically a psychologist; measures general cognitive ability o (Examples: Wechsler Intelligence Scales, Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales) Ability tests: Group o Group testing by gifted coordinator/teacher; measures general cognitive ability o (Examples: Cognitive Abilities Test [CogAT], Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test, Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test) Academic Achievement tests: Group o Group assessment of the same test regardless of location; measures functioning in broad academic areas o (Examples: Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Stanford Achievement Test, Metropolitan Achievement Test) Achievement tests: Individual o Individual assessment measuring functioning in broad academic areas o (Examples: Measures of Academic Progress) Generic Qualitative Measure Portfolio/Performance-based assessments o Measures high levels of ability in originality, performance or production in an area of the arts o (Examples: Writing samples, art, audition, journals, projects, etc.) Nomination forms o Checklist of observed behaviors that are congruent with characteristics of gifted individuals o (Examples: Collected from teacher, parent, peer, self nomination) Biographical information (self-nomination) o Essay provided by individual to support eligibility for gifted services o (Example: Student essay) Transcripts/student work and achievements o Provided by teachers and should include academic and extracurricular activities o (Examples: Grade report, anecdotal report, artifacts) Student inventories o Provided by student as supporting information o (Examples: Interest inventory, self-concept, learning styles inventory) Teacher reports of student functioning (intellectual, physical, social, and emotional) o Provided by teachers based on personal observation of intellectual, physical, social, and emotional functioning, learning styles, motivation o (Examples: Anecdotal information) 16

17 Appendix B 17