Gifted Networking PP Oct 8 Inservices

Report
Gifted Education: Sharing,
Discovering, Programming
GIFTED EDUCATION 101
Welcome!
Chapter 16
How well do you know Chapter 16?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ECCJyJJzXYI/TG2TKfgBG9I/AAAAAAAAADo/pXwYHw
SorUQ/s320/quizzical_housewife_web.png
Debrief of Agree/Disagree
 A-ha’s – What information supported what you knew
about gifted education walking in the door, but the
Guidelines provided more clarity…explain.
 Uh-Oh’s – What information surprised you in the
guidelines and how might you work to raise the bar
in your district?
 Actionable Steps – Any ideas generated by the group
as a result of the discussion
Screening - Then
 How do we “find” children who may be in need….
Image courtesy of: http://blog.vendavo.com
Screening - Now
 Casting the net has become so much easier…
Image courtesy of: http://www.fishermensnet.org
Children have three ages…
 Chronological – based on birth
 Emotional – based on maturity
 Intellectual – based on the ability to apply
knowledge and skills
Screening and Evaluation
§16.21. (a)
 School Districts must adopt and use a
system for identifying all students within
the district who are thought to be gifted.
 Public awareness activities must be
designed to reach parents of students in
the public schools and the parents of
school-age children not enrolled in the
public schools.
Screening and Evaluation
(cont.)
§16.21. (a)
 Awareness activities shall be
conducted annually
 Information should be provided in
local newspapers, other media,
student handbooks, and on the school
district website
An Effective System…
 finds the child
 has an assessment plan that is prescriptive
 has defined targets
 has a clear link to curriculum and instruction
Assessment – It all begins here
 Four Types of Assessments:
 Summative
 Benchmark
 Diagnostic
 Formative
Types of Assessments
 Summative
 Assesses
what students have had an opportunity to
learn – after instruction
 Used to determine whether students have met the
lesson, unit, grade level, or course goals
 Used to set district and school-wide goals to
improve student outcomes
 Examples:
State Tests (PSSA, Keystone Exams)
 Mastery Tests
 Unit or Chapter Tests
 Final Exams

Types of Assessments
 Formative
 Assesses
what students have had an opportunity to
learn – during instruction
 Allows teachers to adjust teaching practices to
improve student learning
 Should not be used to evaluate or grade students but
can provide ongoing feedback
 Formal or Informal
 Examples:
Progress Monitoring Measures
 Quizzes
 Ticket out the Door, White boards, Thumbs Up/Down
 SAS Assessment Creator
 PSSA Sampler

Types of Assessments
 Benchmark Assessment
 Given
on student’s actual grade level
 Assesses end of grade level expectations
 Administered 3 or 4 times per year
 Compares student to same age peers
 Used to evaluate the core, discover trends, identify
at-risk students, identify advanced level students
 Examples:
DIBELS/AIMSWeb
 4Sight
 PVAAS Projections**

Types of Assessments
 Diagnostic
 Provides
insights into the student's strengths, needs,
knowledge and skills prior to further instruction
 Targeted for specific audience
 Examples:
WIAT
 DRA
 Woodcock Johnson III
 MAP (by NWEA)
 GRADE (Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation)
 WISC - IV
 Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT)

BREAK TIME
Universal (Screening) Process
 Current District Tools to Measure Intellectual
(Instructional) Age

Can we use tools that are already in place in our
districts?
DIBELS/AIMSweb Benchmark
 Math Probes Benchmark
 Common Assessments (that are already administered to
every child in a particular grade level or content area)
Summative
 PSSA Results - Summative
 PVAAS Reports - Summative
 Standards Based Report Card - Summative

Screening for Gifted
 Who – students who meet universal screening “cuts”
 When – no timeline, can happen anytime
throughout the year (after every benchmark, when new
summative Data is available)
 How – administering further screening tools and
obtaining teacher input
 Why – to determine who goes on to a full scale
evaluation
Gifted Screening Tools
 K-BIT2
 WASI
 WIATIII
 NNAT
 OLSAT
 CogAT
 SCAT
 STEP
 Woodcock-Johnson III
Cognitive Abilities
 GRS
 TTCT
Teacher Input
 Renzulli-Hartman Scales
 Chuska Scales
 Silverman Scales
 Jim Delisle and Teacher’s Gifted Student
Nomination Form
 GRS
 District Created
Evaluation for Gifted
 Who – students who meet gifted screening “cuts”
or referred by parents or teachers
 When – Within 60 calendar days from signed
Permission to Evaluate
 How: Through a systematic process that uses all
assessment types and includes input from the
GMDE Team
Intelligence Quotient Test
 Stanford-Binet
 WISC-IV
 RAVENS ***
 NNAT2
 Important link:
Neumann, Types of Assessments and Evaluations, NAGC, 2e
newsletter
GWR
 Parents contribute to the report
 Parents are part of the decision
 Chapter 16 does not explicitly state a “meeting”
must be held to review the GWR…but it must be
presented to the parents.


How do you get their input on the decisions?
Is “sending the report home without an
explanation” serving our parents and our students?
Multiple Criteria
 Achievement
test scores
 Acquisition and retention rates
 Demonstrated achievement, performance or
expertise in one or more academic areas
 Higher level thinking skills, academic
creativity, leadership skills, academic
interest areas, communication skills, foreign
language aptitude or technology expertise
GWR
(Gifted Written Report)

Achievement test scores 


Acquisition and retention rates



Goals - How quickly do they learn new information?
Goals/SDI - Does pace need to be adjusted?
Demonstrated achievement, performance or expertise in
one or more academic areas – Use this to determine where
the specially designed instruction will be needed.



Goal Areas - What level of instruction are they functioning at now
(mastery level).
Goal areas/STLO’s/SDI – Do they require acceleration, enrichment, or a
combination of both?
Goal Areas– Reading, Writing, Math, science?
Short Term Learning Outcomes – Incorporate Social Studies, Science,
Higher level thinking skills, academic creativity, leadership
skills, academic interest areas, communication skills,
foreign language aptitude or technology expertise

Alignment is in the Short Term Learning Outcomes and Specially
Designed Instruction
PLEPS
(Present Levels of Educational Performance)
 Academic/Cognitive Strengths
 Achievement Results
 Progress on Goals
 Aptitudes/interests/specialized skills/products
 Grades/Classroom Performance
Guiding Ideas
 Current (within last year)
 Indicate present mastery level
 Help us measure growth
 Establish strength areas
 Not a standard list
 Report progress on goals (maintenance)
Tanya Morret and Cheryl Everett PAGE 2011
GIEP Development and Planning
 PLEPS
 Invitation to Participate in Gifted Team Meeting
 GIEP
 Timelines
What are we really trying to do?
 Answer these questions….
 Does
this child need enrichment?
 Does this child need acceleration?
 Does this child need a combination of
both?
PLEP’s
 Academic/Cognitive Strengths
 How would you characterize this student as a learner and a
thinker?
 What have you observed in or out of the classroom that has
enhanced or prohibited this child’s learning?
 How to gather this information:
Anecdotal Teacher Report
 Anecdotal Student Report
 Anecdotal Parent Report
 Gifted Checklists/Scales


Narrative
PLEP’s
 Academic/Cognitive Strengths
 The student has a passion for any items topics, books, documentaries,
etc. related to the Civil War.

He is most successful when assignments are chunked with clear
intermediate deadlines. He is more likely to learn information from
visual or auditory means, rather than solely relying on text. He has a
keen short and long term memory and often requires only one or two
presentations of information before he is independently questioning and
expanding his understanding.

The student does well with graphic organizers. He likes to repeat
information out loud to assure he understands concepts. He prefers to
work independently, but will work in groups where he feels his
expertise/creativity is recognized and appreciated. He can easily
synthesize information across content areas and contexts.
PLEP’s
 Achievement Results
 Assessment results that indicate instructional levels to direct
curriculum placement and goal development
 PSSA and PVAAS data, Keystone Results, DIBELS,
BENCHMARK TESTS, CBA’s, end of unit tests, CDT’s
(classroom diagnostic tools), 4Sight, Star, AIMS web, MAP
(measure of academic progress), Study Island,
PLEP’s
 Achievement Results
 In the spring of third grade, _____took the PSSA assessments and scored
Advanced (1681) in Reading and Advanced (1487) in Math.

In the fall of fourth grade, ___read 170 words per minute on the DIBELs oral
reading fluency assessment. He read 169 words per minute on this assessment in
January. On the Star Reading assessment, ____scored 6.8 in September, 6.2 in
November, 6.8 in January and 8.8 in March as his instructional reading level. On
the district math assessments, ________scored Advanced (28) in the first
quarter and Proficient (26) in the second quarter.

Note to GIEP Team: I s this a red flag? Going from Advanced to Proficient….
 Additional Suggestions: Are there any end of the year or end of the
unit test scores available?
PLEP’s
 Progress on Goals
 Failure to make progress on previous goals may indicate
further investigation is needed to determine the underlying
cause. Here is where a GIEP team may refer an
underachieving student for a re-evaluation.
 If this is an initial GIEP, this section will not need to be
completed.

Matt succeeded in developing his writing to a proficient or higher level
using criteria from the 9th and 10th grade level PA ELA CCSS.
 1. Write an Argument – Averaged 98% (Advanced)
 2. Informative/ Explanatory Texts – Averaged 95% (Advanced)
 3. Draw evidence from literary/ informational texts –Averages 93%
(Proficient)
PLEP’s
 Aptitudes, interests, specialized skills, products and
evidence of effectiveness in other academic areas:


Content Competitions, Technology Skills, Portfolio reviews,
Extra-Curricular Activities
Samples of things that might fall into this category: America
Math Competition (AMC), MathCounts; Odyssey of Mind, FPS
(Future Problem Solving; Art, Music, Writing Awards;
Learning Style assessment; Multiple Intelligence tests;
Torrance Creativity Assessments; Creativity Assessment
Packet , TOMAGS
PLEP’s
 Aptitudes, interests, specialized skills, products and
evidence of effectiveness in other academic areas:

_______’s mother reported that _______is very friendly
and caring. He studies and loves to read. He enjoys learning
new information. In addition, he is creative and able to
advocate for himself. ______academic interests are reading,
social studies, and science. He enjoys art and attends classes
at GoggleWorks. He is interested in reptiles and likes being
outside. He plays tennis and swims. He is in band this year.
PLEP’s
 Grades/Classroom Performance
 The scale of evaluation should be included. We should be able
to understand where the child falls in the over-all evaluation
picture.
 The student earned an 85% average in Mathematics for the
last four marking periods. (please note, this may span more
than one academic school year)
 The student scored outstanding (highest rating out of three) in
math problem solving.
FAQ’s
What questions have
you asked or been
asked by parents?
Can you find it in
the FAQ?
State Developments
 Moved from Bureau of Planning to Bureau of






Teaching and Learning
PVAAS
Differentiated Lesson Plans
Gifted PLC in SAS
Revising Compliance Monitoring Manual
Development of Model GIEP
Teacher Evaluation Rubric with examples for Gifted
Support Teachers

similar documents