2013 review of the advanced academic programs...beverly shaklee, ed.d. anastasia kitsantas, ph.d....

2013 REVIEW OF THE ADVANCED ACADEMIC

PROGRAMS

Lori C. Bland, Ph.D.

Beverly Shaklee, Ed.D.

Anastasia Kitsantas, Ph.D.

Angela Miller, Ph.D.

April Mattix, Ph.D.

For Fairfax County Public Schools Fairfax, VA

FCPS-AAP 2013 Program Review

2 | P a g e

Report for the

Advanced Academic Programs Program Review

Fairfax County Public Schools

Fairfax, VA

June, 2013

Lori C. Bland, Ph.D. Beverly Shaklee, Ed.D.

Anastasia Kitsantas, Ph.D. Angela Miller, Ph.D. April Mattix, Ph.D.


3 | P a g e

Visiting Scholar Researcher Dr. Bill Allen

Graduate Student Authors

Jennifer Appleyard Orit Arditi

Alexis Battista Missy Cochenour

Sydney Merz Erin Ramirez

Elizabeth Sumler

Graduate Student Researchers Kristina Solum

Graduate Student and Technical Support

Jori Beck Charvis V. Campbell

David Chirinos Mark Coletti

Charlotte Gnessin Cynthia Hall

Elizabeth Hall Ruth Jackson

Mhehvish Kahn Steven Parker, Jr. Maryam Saroughi

Corey Sell Peggy Stull

Daniel Evan Waxman Dorothy Zhang

Fairfax County Public Schools Survey and Data Support Team

Laura Robinson Oretha Chandler

Rebecca Tennelly

Amy Reznick

Kathy Oliver, Ph.D. Donna Everrett Margaret Alston


4 | P a g e

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Report

a. Purpose for Program Review i. Purpose ii. Board Requests iii. Scope of Study

b. Methods and Results by Guiding Question

i. Understanding Alignment: Program Review 1. Methods 2. Results 3. Recommendations

ii. Understanding Stakeholder Perceptions 1. Methods for Focus Groups and Interviews 2. Results for Focus Groups and Interviews 3. Recommendations from Focus Groups and Interviews 4. Methods for Surveys 5. Results for Surveys 6. Recommendations from Surveys

iii. Understanding Program Quality 1. Methods for Observation of Screening Procedures 2. Results from Observation of Screening Procedures 3. Recommendations from Observation of Screening Procedures 4. Methods for Observations of Classrooms 5. Results for Observations of Classrooms 6. Recommendations for Observations of Classrooms

c. Synthesis of Key Findings and Recommendations by Focus Area

i. Identification ii. Curriculum and Instruction iii. Teacher Preparation iv. Overall Program

d. Conclusions

e. References f. Appendices


5 | P a g e

Executive Summary

Of the

Report for the



Fairfax, VA


6 | P a g e

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) is the 11th largest school system in the United States. FCPS has 196 schools and centers serving over 181,536 students for 2012-2013. The student population is diverse with 10.4% African American, 0.2% American Indian, 19.3% Asian American, 22.1% Hispanic, 4.6% Multiracial, and 43.1% white students. About 26% of the students receive free- or reduced-price meals (FRL); 17.3% receive English for Speakers of Other Languages services (ESOL); and 13.8% receive Special Education services (FCPS, January 2013). The FCPS Advanced Academic Programs (FCPS-AAP) serves approximately 42.4% of the FCPS total population (FCPS-AAP, January 2013).

FCPS-AAP was recently nationally recognized at the National Association for

Gifted Children (NAGC) convention in November 2012. The president, Dr. Paula Olsweski-Kubilius, acknowledged FCPS-AAP and Dr. Carol Horn for the transitions that the program has made to embrace the current research-based best practices in the field. Dr. Olsweski-Kubilius stated:

A while ago, Fairfax County moved from a pull out model for small groups of gifted learners to a collaborative model… to provide a continuum of services. This change was a result of a very distinct shift in the district’s basic beliefs about the nature of giftedness—namely that giftedness was not a static trait of an individual but rather a dynamic, evolving potential with no limits that develops over time with the proper support and nurturance…. Fairfax County has constructed an exemplary array of gifted services for students. At the most fundamental level it embraces expanded beliefs about the nature of intelligence—that it is manifested in different ways and is malleable.” (Olsweski-Kubilius, 2012). Current models about the nature of intelligence as malleable are rooted within

research in neuroscience, the psychological and learning sciences, and supported by practitioner beliefs in gifted education (see for example chapters in, Howard-Jones, 2010 and Sternberg & Davidson, Eds., 2005; Neubauer & Fink, 2009; Nisbett et al., 2012; Schroth & Helfer, 2009). Out-of-date beliefs about conceptions of intelligence act as barriers to changing perceptions about archaic identification and programming practices which may often be entrenched within school systems and communities (Callahan, 2013). In contrast to out-of-date beliefs and archaic practices, FCPS culture is rooted within a continuous improvement paradigm. “Known for its innovative, cutting-edge, and research-based best practices, stakeholders are exceedingly proud of the Division’s reputation and the levels of academic achievement” (Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates, 2013, p. 3). FCPS-AAP has adopted updated conceptions of intelligence and corresponding innovative, research-based best practices to nurture talent and potential in academically advanced learners and all learners within FCPS.


7 | P a g e

PURPOSE FOR THE PROGRAM REVIEW

Given the increase in enrollment in FCPS-AAP and the potential expansion of

Middle School Centers, the FCPS School Board requested that FCPS-AAP be reviewed in four focus areas:

• Identification Procedures

• Curriculum and Instruction

• Teacher Certification and Professional Development

• Quality of Program Services

The guiding questions for each focus area included:

1. To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area aligned with best practices in the field of gifted education and comparable districts?

2. To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area perceived to be effective by relevant stakeholders?

3. What are the FCPS strengths and areas for improvement in the identified focus area? What are the recommendations for improvement and potential expansion? (FCPS Scope of Study, 2013)

RESULTS BY GUIDING QUESTION

Alignment with Best Practices

To determine alignment, we reviewed program documents and interviewed FCPS-AAP leadership and staff. Then, we examined FCPS practices utilizing the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Programming Standards (Johnsen, 2012), the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students (VDOE, 2012), and the practices of four school districts in Virginia (Loudoun, Prince William, Arlington, and Chesterfield public schools) and five school districts with comparable demographics and notable gifted programs from around the country (Montgomery County, MD; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Wake County, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro, NC; and Gwinnett County, GA public schools). The table following summarizes the results.


8 | P a g e

Summary of Results for Alignment with Best Practices Best Practices FCPS-AAP Overall Results Compliance with VDOE Regulations Meets or Exceeds all state regulations Alignment to NAGC Standards Meets or Exceeds all national standards Benchmark School District Practices Meets or Exceeds other similar districts

locally, in the state, and nationally Stakeholder Perceptions of Program Effectiveness

To gather stakeholder perceptions, we conducted focus groups with parents, students and teachers, and interviews with administrators in 4 local Level IV and Center Schools with two each at the elementary and middle school levels. (Note: These were the same schools that we used in the pilot implementation study described in the next section.) We also conducted web-based surveys with a random sample of parents (N=708), teachers (N=79) and administrators (N=27), and paper and pencil surveys with students (N=1752) across all program levels at 33 representative schools at the elementary and middle school levels across all 8 clusters. The student sample was matched to the parent sample and then to the teacher and administrator samples so that we could show perceptions for each group on survey items that were similar.

Overall, all stakeholders view the program positively as indicated by all of the

data gathered (focus groups, interviews, and surveys). The focus group data indicated that both parents and their children agreed that the curriculum is challenging and FCPS-AAP meets their needs. Teachers felt positively about the students in FCPS-AAP and the program in general. Administrators also indicated positive regard for the FCPS-AAP and the FCPS-AAP staff. Students, parents, teachers, and administrators agreed that teacher practices are integral to the success of FCPS-AAP. Two key focus areas for FCPS-AAP and the schools to increase efforts were identified from the focus groups and survey data: 1) improved differentiation of instruction, especially for Levels 2 and 3, and 2) more efforts at home-school communication especially during transition years, such as going to a Center for the first time or the transition from elementary to middle school. Program Quality

Quality of instruction can first be examined by studying fidelity of implementation (FOI). FOI is the degree to which classroom instruction is aligned with the intended curriculum (O’Donnell, 2008). We conducted classroom observations using a pilot protocol to examine FCPS-AAP curricula implementation across sites and content domains. Four schools were randomly selected to represent Level IV Center and Local Level IV FCPS-AAP Services at the elementary and middle schools; a total of twenty classrooms were randomly selected and observed for a full class in each core content area across grades 3-8. Data were coded for elements congruent with the Parallel


9 | P a g e

Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, 2009) and embedded within the FCPS-AAP curricular materials. (Note: The focus groups and interviews were conducted with students, parents, and teachers from the observed classrooms.)

Students were ready to learn in all observed classrooms. Classroom rules,

student work, motivating academic posters and school information were displayed. Teachers used robust content and context specific vocabularies. Teachers encouraged and challenged student thinking, especially by ‘pressing’ for reasoning. However, wide variability existed in other questioning strategies used, and in some classes student responses were ‘one word’ or ‘one sentence’. Elementary school classrooms used a wider variety of teaching strategies and activities, including “hands on” instruction and flexible grouping. More student engagement was observed when these two activities were used. There was variability in class size, ranging from 21-32 in elementary and 22-30 in middle school. It is important to note that with larger class sizes, teacher-student engagement declines (Blatchford, Bassett, & Brown, 2011). Two key focus areas for advancing the program quality included developing a scope and sequence of thinking skills K-8 and providing more training for all educators.

SYNTHESIS OF KEY FINDINGS BY FOCUS AREA

Strengths of Identification Procedures

Overall, the FCPS identification procedures represent the “industry standard” over the long-term for consistently and deliberately addressing the needs of all learners with gifts and talents across the FCPS population. Specifically,

• The Young Scholars program has consistently increased the numbers of students from historically underserved populations by focusing on developing talent so that the gifts and talents can be noticed by teachers and captured in work products for screening, allowing FCPS to meet or exceed comparisons.

• The screening process is run efficiently and multiple criteria are used, allowing FCPS to meet or exceed comparisons.

• Equal access is available for students because screening occurs for all elementary students in all schools in grades 1 and 2. After grade 2, all students are eligible to be screened via a referral process open to parents, teachers, administrators, community members, peers, and the students themselves; this process continues through grade 7 when all students have open access to Honors curricula, allowing FCPS to meet or exceed comparisons.

Considerations Related to Identification Procedures


10 | P a g e

External forces place great stressors on FCPS-AAP, especially related to over-identification. This concern arose throughout the study. In particular, parents and the community place great importance on entry into FCPS-AAP. Pressures related to community standing have contributed to a “cottage” test preparation industry and inflated use of external assessments apparently resulting in over-identification of some groups. Despite these external stressors, FCPS-AAP does not need to change its identification model for FCPS-AAP because this model aligns with best practices and current conceptions of intelligence within the field (e.g., Sternberg & Davis, Eds., 2005). Recommendations for Identification Procedures To continue to improve practice and address the identified considerations, we recommend that FCPS-AAP:

• Continue to seek ways to identify an FCPS-AAP population that is congruent with the general demographics of FCPS, increasing diversity of historically under-represented populations (African Americans, Hispanics, ESOL students, and students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch).

• Consider using one source for external testing.

• Consider using a secure, customized assessment for screening. Strengths of Curriculum and Instruction

Overall, FCPS-AAP is to be commended for its curricula and instruction. FCPS-AAP exceeds standards on:

• availability and use of a multiplicity of research-based curricula created by experts in the field.

• instruction of critical thinking skills using multiple strategies.

• measuring growth of gifted students, beyond the Standards of Learning tests.

• communicating growth information to parents. Considerations Related to Curriculum and Instruction

There were no critical concerns. Recommendations for this area should be considered as opportunities for continuing to strengthen an already strong program.


11 | P a g e

Recommendations for Curriculum and Instruction

To continue to improve practice, we recommend that FCPS-AAP:

• Develop a scope and sequence for the multiplicity of thinking skills infused throughout the FCPS-AAP curricula in grades K-8, specifically linked to the POS, and employed throughout FCPS.

• Devote strategic professional development to use of multiple questioning strategies across content disciplines.

• Focus on high intensity and sustained vocabulary instruction for robust

vocabulary development, across all levels, including support of learners from traditionally underserved populations.

• Provide students with opportunities to study topics of choice in depth.

• Ensure that FCPS-AAP teachers have common planning time.

• Consider using FCPS-AAP as a model for infusing systematically critical and creative thinking strategies throughout the POS

Strengths of Teacher Certification and Professional Development

Overall, all stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, and administrators) believed that teachers are effectively and successfully engaging students in the FCPS-AAP curriculum. All groups believed that critical and creative thinking skills and problem solving were areas of strength. Further, teachers and administrators were overwhelmingly positive about the professional development offerings and the support offered by FCPS-AAP staff. Considerations for Teacher Certification and Professional Development

The number of FCPS-AAP teachers who are endorsed range by building in elementary schools from 0-100% and in middle schools from 4-38%, with higher percentages in Local Level IV and Level IV Center programs. While this endorsement is not required by the state, the variability in percent of teachers endorsed who are teaching in FCPS-AAP in elementary schools and the low percentages of endorsed teachers who are teaching FCPS-AAP or Honors classes in the middle schools may affect program quality (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1999).


12 | P a g e

Recommendations for Teacher Certification and Professional Development

To continue to improve practice and address the identified considerations, we recommend that FCPS-AAP:

• Require FCPS-AAP VDOE/FCPS endorsement for all FCPS-AAP and Honors teachers within 5 years of teaching students receiving FCPS-AAP services.

• Support an increased variety of alternatives for endorsement and professional development courses so the courses are available, rather than filled.

• Build skills in the Parallel Curriculum Model to extend learning beyond the core curriculum.

• Focus on differentiation of instruction and assessment strategies for teachers in all program levels, especially Levels 2 and 3.

• Develop additional professional development offerings for teaching robust vocabulary and content specific questioning strategies.

• Augment content specific professional development to increase challenge in Science and Social Studies.

• Increase professional development offerings on the affective needs of students with gifts and talents.

• Expand professional development offerings to general education teachers. Strengths of Program Services

Overall, FCPS-AAP is to be commended for the multiplicity of options offered to students in the elementary and middle schools to meet the needs of a diverse population of learners. FCPS exceeds comparisons. This program has been recognized by experts in the field as an outstanding program, and is regularly visited as an exemplary model by personnel from local, state, national, and international gifted programs. Considerations for Program Services

There are no concerns about the FCPS-AAP identification model or program services. However, several issues have been raised that need to be addressed.

1. Critical Mass – What is the “critical number” of FCPS-AAP students in a building

needed to create a Center?


13 | P a g e

2. Expansion of Programs – What processes are necessary to expand programs (such as, Young Scholars or new Centers at elementary or middle schools?)

3. Evaluation Cycle – What procedures are needed for examining fidelity of

implementation? Recommendations for Expansion of Program Services

1. Critical Mass Requirements for Expansion of Program Services

To expand program services, whether it is Middle or Elementary School Center or the Young Scholars program, a critical mass of students is necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the program to be expanded. In addition to the figures listed for enrollment in the first bullet following, several other conditions must exist before expanding a program. Minimum requirements include:

• 15-25% of the total school enrollment

• a cadre of strong leaders and stakeholder advocates

• strong and supportive administrators

• a critical mass of qualified (endorsed) teachers

• at least 2 classes per grade level or subject area

• sufficient funding for transportation and other resource needs

2. Expansion Requirements, such as for Young Scholars or Middle or Elementary School Centers To expand the program, the following self-study should be conducted:

• Conduct a self-study to determine whether all of the critical mass

requirements have been met prior to opening a Center, with review by FCPS-AAP and/or other FCPS identified staff or experts in the field

• Continue the self-study through 3 years of implementation, with annual reviews by FCPS-AAP staff and/or other FCPS identified staff or experts in the field

• Examine fidelity of implementation of curricular and instructional strategies


14 | P a g e

• Examine transitional issues for students moving into the new program or Center for the first time

3. Evaluation Cycle for Fidelity of Implementation

An evaluation cycle consistently examining FOI, should be implemented to include, but not limited to, the following processes:

• Examine instructional planning and other artifacts

• Identify FCPS-AAP curricular use, appropriate pacing, and depth of instruction

• Observe implementation of instruction for specific strategies (such as teaching strategies, student activities and fidelity with FCPS-AAP curriculum model)

• Employ lesson study by trained observers

• Gather parent, teacher, student and administrator feedback

• Document student growth and performance

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REVIEW Three guiding questions were used to review FCPS-AAP. Results of the review indicate that FCPS is providing an exemplary program for students with gifts and talents. The results for each guiding question are summarized below:

1. To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area aligned with best

practices in the field of gifted education and comparable districts?

FCPS-AAP practice meets or exceeds all NAGC standards. FCPS-AAP meets or exceeds the requirements of the VDOE regulations. FCPS-AAP meets or exceeds comparable local, state and national programs.

2. To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area perceived to be

effective by relevant stakeholders?

Overwhelmingly, parents and students believe that FCPS-AAP is positive, important, and effective. In fact, the students would like more opportunities with FCPS-


15 | P a g e

AAP, such as more in-depth study. Teachers and administrators perceive FCPS-AAP to be an effective and positive experience for students, as well.

3. What are the FCPS strengths and areas for improvement in the identified

focus area? What are the recommendations for improvement and potential expansion?

FCPS-AAP has key strengths in each focus area. For Identification Procedures,

the Young Scholars program is a model program supporting talent development of students from historically underserved populations so that their potential may be uncovered, identified, and supported.

For Curriculum and Instruction, the plethora of research-based curricula

developed by experts in the field, the consistent focus on critical thinking in classrooms, and the multiplicity of instructional strategies to support critical and creative thinking are strengths of this program. Stakeholders were very positive about curriculum and instruction.

For Teacher Certification and Professional Development, parents, students, and administrators believe that teachers are effective and engaging students in critical thinking. In addition, the professional development courses are strong.

For Quality of Program Services, the multiplicity of options offered to students in the elementary and middle schools exceed all comparisons and all stakeholder groups are satisfied with the overall quality of the program. The areas for development or expansion that were identified are expected in a district the size and scope of FCPS.

Overall, FCPS-AAP is a highly successful program that benefits students and

families and serves as a national and global model for identifying and providing a multiplicity of services to learners with gifts and talents. FCPS is to be commended for this forward-thinking program, and deserves to be a source of pride for Fairfax County.

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

Lori C. Bland, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Assessment, Evaluation, and Data-Driven Decision-Making (DDDM) at George Mason University is an expert in program evaluation and educational assessment, gifted education, and data-driven decision-making. Her research interests focus on decision-making within multiple contexts and measuring growth of gifted learners. She also teaches masters and doctoral level courses in Program Evaluation and Educational Assessment. Dr. Bland has also taught graduate courses in gifted education for The University of Virginia and The College of William and Mary, including courses related to identifying gifted learners; curriculum for gifted learners; gifted program planning, design, and evaluation; and the social and emotional needs of gifted learners. Immediately prior to entering higher education, Dr.


16 | P a g e

Bland was the Director for Measurement and Test Development at Pearson/National Evaluation Systems (NES) for teacher certification and licensure examinations. She was the Supervisor of Testing in Prince William County Public Schools (PWCS) and a Research and Program Evaluation Specialist in the Office of Program Evaluation and Testing in Fairfax County Public Schools in the early ‘90s. Dr. Bland’s undergraduate degree is from George Washington University in Elementary Education. She received both of her graduate degrees from the University of Virginia in Educational Psychology, with a concentration in gifted education. She is currently on the Editorial Board for Gifted Child Quarterly and has served on the leadership team of the Professional Development Network for the National Association of Gifted Children. She has published articles on evaluating gifted programs, the social and emotional needs of gifted children, and curricula for gifted learners, was the editor for several volumes of early childhood science curricula for gifted learners, and was a co-author on several reports for the National Research on the Gifted and Talented on gifted identification and evaluation instruments. Beverly D. Shaklee, Ed.D., Professor and Director, Advanced Studies in Teacher Development and International Education at George Mason University, received her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Elementary and Educational Psychology (Gifted) from the University of Kansas. She received her doctorate in early childhood education from Mississippi State University. She has published and presented many papers on gifted child education, teacher education, assessment and international education. She has served as a board member for the National Association for Gifted Children and SENG (Social/Emotional Needs of Gifted Children) association. She co-authored the original standards in teacher education for NAGC. She currently serves on the Executive Board of the Alliance for International Education and the Association for the Advancement of International Education. Further, she serves on the Research and Development Committee for the Council of Overseas Schools. Her latest book, Internationalizing U.S. Teacher Education, was noted as making a significant contribution to the field by the Journal of Research in International Education. Anastasia Kitsantas, Ph.D., Professor and Director of the Division of Educational Psychology Research Methods and Education Policy at George Mason University, is an expert in self-regulated learning and student motivational beliefs. Over the last 20 years she has produced more than 100 publications of which more than 60 are refereed data-driven research articles. Her scholarship has appeared in the most visible journals in the field including the Journal of Educational Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Journal of Experimental Education, Computers and Education, Metacognition and Learning, and the Journal of Early Adolescence. She has served as the junior and senior co-chair of the Studying and Self-Regulated Learning Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association and is currently serving as a Member at Large of Division 15, Educational Psychology, of the American Psychological Association. She presently serves on 6 journal editorial boards including Contemporary Educational Psychology, Educational Technology: Research and Development, Metacognition and Learning, and others. She has expertise in experimental designs and structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses. She has


17 | P a g e

served as the Co-PI, lead researcher, internal and/or external evaluator of several grants. She is the recipient of a George Mason University Teaching Excellence Award. Angela Miller, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Research Methods and Educational Psychology at George Mason University. Her research interests are in classroom motivation, focusing on the influence of the learning context on student motivational outcomes and achievement as well as the methodological challenges associated with analyzing classroom data. Her expertise is in research design and applied quantitative data analyses including HLM and SEM methods. Her publications have appeared in the Journal of Educational Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Social Psychology of Education, and The Elementary School Journal. She is a former high school teacher in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program and has done consulting and program evaluation for multiple school districts. April A Mattix, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Education, College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University. Dr. Mattix teaches courses in international education and the International Baccalaureate. She is also the current co-editor of Focus on Elementary for the Association of Childhood Education International (ACEI). Dr. Mattix received her PhD in Language, Literacy and Culture from the University of Pittsburgh, her MAT in Elementary Education and Secondary Social Studies Education from Chatham University, her MA in International Affairs from the University of Pittsburgh, and her BA in History and Political Science from Saint Francis University. Professionally, Dr. Mattix taught middle and elementary school at The Ellis School in Pittsburgh, PA, Golden Door Charter School in Jersey City, NJ, The Anglo American School of Moscow, Russia, and The International School of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Dr. Bill Allen is a visiting scholar to George Mason University. He is the Deputy Associate Dean for International & Engagement (FoSHEE), the Deputy Academic Director for the International Projects Group, and a Senior Lecturer in Education at the School of Science & Education at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. His research focuses on curriculum and implementation of instruction.


18 | P a g e

Report for the



Fairfax, VA


19 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) is the 11th largest school system in the

United States. FCPS has 196 schools and centers serving over 181,536 students for

2012-2013. The student population is diverse with 10.4% African American, 0.2%

American Indian, 19.3% Asian American, 22.1% Hispanic, 4.6% Multiracial, and 43.1%

white students. About 26% of the students receive free- or reduced-price meals (FRL);

17.3% receive English for Speakers of Other Languages services (ESOL); and 13.8%

receive Special Education services (FCPS, January 2013). The FCPS Advanced

Academic Programs (FCPS-AAP) serves approximately 42.4% of the FCPS total

population (FCPS-AAP, January 2013).

FCPS-AAP was recently nationally recognized at the National Association for

Gifted Children (NAGC) convention in November 2012. The president, Dr. Paula

Olsweski-Kubilius, acknowledged FCPS-AAP and Dr. Carol Horn for the transitions that

the program has made to embrace the current research-based best practices in the

field. Dr. Olsweski-Kubilius stated:

A while ago, Fairfax County moved from a pull out model for small groups

of gifted learners to a collaborative model… to provide a continuum of

services. This change was a result of a very distinct shift in the district’s

basic beliefs about the nature of giftedness—namely that giftedness was

not a static trait of an individual but rather a dynamic, evolving potential

with no limits that develops over time with the proper support and

nurturance…. Fairfax County has constructed an exemplary array of gifted

services for students. At the most fundamental level it embraces

expanded beliefs about the nature of intelligence—that it is manifested in

different ways and is malleable” (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2012).

Current models about the nature of intelligence as malleable are rooted within

research in neuroscience, the psychological and learning sciences, and supported by

practitioner beliefs in gifted education (see for example chapters in, Howard-Jones,


20 | P a g e

2010 and Sternberg & Davidson, Eds., 2005; Neubauer & Fink, 2009; Nisbett et al.,

2012; Schroth & Helfer, 2009). Out-of-date beliefs about conceptions of intelligence act

as barriers to changing perceptions about archaic identification and programming

practices which may often be entrenched within school systems and communities

(Callahan, 2013). In contrast to out-of-date beliefs and archaic practices, FCPS culture

is rooted within a continuous improvement paradigm. “Known for its innovative, cutting-

edge, and research-based best practices, stakeholders are exceedingly proud of the

Division’s reputation and the levels of academic achievement” (Hazard, Young, Attea &

Associates, 2013, p. 3). FCPS-AAP has adopted updated conceptions of intelligence

and corresponding innovative, research-based best practices to nurture talent and

potential in academically advanced learners and all learners within FCPS.


21 | P a g e

PURPOSE FOR THE PROGRAM REVIEW

The purpose for the review of the FCPS-AAP was to provide information to the

FCPS School Board and the FCPS-AAP about program quality. The Board requests

arose from potential responses to over-crowding, such as expanding the Center-based

program to all Middle Schools and examining the increasing enrollment in FCPS.

Before proceeding with county-wide Middle School FCPS-AAP Center expansion, the

FCPS School Board determined that an examination of overall program quality was

necessary to help facilitate the decisions. The School Board crafted the following

requests in pursuit of examining program quality and other related factors.

Board Requests

Request 1: Historical account of the identification practices (including assessments)

that encompasses the significant increases in FCPS-AAP eligibility Request 2: Full spectrum of all levels of services, not just centers Request 3: Recommendations for examining consistency of implementation across all

schools Request 4: Examine FCPS-AAP delivery and its connection with IBMYP and middle

school honors Request 5: Critical mass analysis and connection to delivery methodology and quality

of staffing Request 6: Information on FCPS-AAP teacher certifications, both FCPS and best

practices, and number of staff certified Request 7: Information on APP services in neighborhood schools, including

transportation costs Request 8: Impact of Young Scholars program on eligibility, implementation of

advanced math across county, use of external assessments for eligibility and successful programs used in other jurisdictions

Request 9: Determination of alternative certification approaches Request 10: Use of surveys of stakeholders to help ground study


22 | P a g e

The Proposed Scope of Study (FCPS, 2013) organized the Board Requests into

four areas on which to focus the review of the FCPS-AAP. Listed below is each focus

area aligned to each Board Request. (Note: Some Board Requests were aligned with

multiple focus areas.)

• Identification Procedures

Board Request 1, 2, 3, 8, 10

• Curriculum and Instruction Board Request 2, 3, 4, 8, 10

• Teacher Certification and Professional Development

Board Request 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10

• Quality of Program Services Board Request 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

Guiding questions provided the framework for the review. The guiding questions

for each focus area included:






focus area? What are the recommendations for improvement and potential

expansion?

The Proposed Scope of Study (FCPS, 2013) and the Plan for the Program Review

(Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, & Miller, 2013) are included in Appendices A and B,

respectively.


23 | P a g e

Operationalizing the research for each guiding question was determined and

enacted in collaboration with FCPS leadership and staff from Communications and

Community Outreach, Facilities and Transportation, Human Resources, Information

Technology, Instructional Services, and Professional Learning and Accountability. This

report outlines the methods and results of the study, identifies strengths and

weaknesses, provides recommendations for continuous program improvement, and

addresses each Board Request for information.


24 | P a g e

METHODS FOR

GUIDING QUESTION 1:

ALIGNMENT TO BEST PRACTICES


25 | P a g e

UNDERSTANDING THE FCPS-AAP: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION



To answer the first guiding question and determine alignment to best practices in

the field of gifted education and comparable districts, we conducted four different

analyses. First, we reviewed program documents and interviewed FCPS-AAP

leadership and staff in order to ensure that we understood the program. Second, we

compared FCPS-AAP practices to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

Programming Standards (Johnsen, 2012), which are the recognized standards for the

field. Third, we examined the FCPS-AAP Local Plan for the Education of the Gifted,

2011-2016 (FCPS-AAP, 2011) comparing the plan to the Virginia Department of

Education (VDOE) Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students

(VDOE, 2012). Fourth, we identified the salient features of the FCPS-AAP and

compared each of these features to similar practices of four school districts in Virginia

(Loudoun, Prince William, Arlington, and Chesterfield public schools) and five school

districts with comparable demographics and notable gifted programs from around the

country (Montgomery County, MD; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Wake County, and Chapel

Hill-Carrboro, NC; and Gwinnett County, GA public schools). The methods for each

analysis are described in more detail in the following sections.

In order to aggregate the data available and to create the program description,

we organized the collection and aggregation of data for this report using five themes:

Program Goals and Services, Identification and Screening Process, Elementary School

Curriculum, Middle School Curriculum, and Professional Development. The themes are

described in more detail:


26 | P a g e

Theme I – Global Goals of the FCPS-AAP Program

o General Goals

o Purpose of the Continuum of Service

o Larger Contextual Influences

Theme II - Identification and Screening Process

o Level IV

o Level II & III

o Middle School Honors and IBMYP Program

Theme III - Elementary School Curriculum

o Levels I – IV

Actions/activities describing implementation

Assumptions and context of the program

o Young Scholars

Identification and Nurture Model

Actions/activities describing implementation

Assumptions and context of the program

Theme IV- Middle School Curriculum

o Level IV Middle School Centers

o Level II, III, & Full Honors

o IBMYP

o Advanced Math

Theme V- Professional Development

o Actions/activities describing implementation

o Assumptions and context of the program


27 | P a g e

Data Collection

A variety of data sources were aggregated to develop the program description,

and are listed below. Details regarding the assessment for each source are described

in further detail following.

FCPS-AAP web site (http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/index.shtml)

Program artifacts and documents

Interviews with FCPS-AAP employees, including the program officer and FCPS-

AAP staff

FCPS-AAP Website Inventory

We conducted an initial review of the FCPS-AAP Program website as a first step

to gain a basic understanding of the services. The website was selected because it is a

significant source of information that parents, school administrators, teachers and other

employees of FCPS use to access and learn about the services available. The initial

website inventory was conducted manually to generate an initial understanding of the

public face of the FCPS-AAP and included examination of content and intended

audience. This review served as the basis for the development of the themes listed

above. We generated the initial themes, which then supported a more detailed plan to

collect data from the website that could be used to plan for meetings with FCPS-AAP

employees, and serve as references for the program description. This audit also served

as the basis for the development of clarification questions posed during the face to face

interviews with FCPS-AAP employees.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/index.shtml


28 | P a g e

Website Audit Data Collection Methodology

Four major sources of data were available on the website including text available

in the tabs and links, PDF documents, PowerPoint presentations, and videos describing

the program or various aspects of the program. The links were tracked from their start

until their termination and relevant content that fell under one of the main themes listed

above was collected into an Excel document. Text available directly on a webpage that

offered description or elaboration related to the aforementioned themes were

highlighted and inserted into the Excel document. The same procedure was followed

for the collection of PDF documents, PowerPoints, and videos. The following

documents were located on the website, and the following table shows the list of videos

available on the website.

2011-2016 Local Plan

Gifted Behavioral Rating Scale

Parent/Guardian Questionnaire

FCPS-AAP School Based Services (Level II & III) Referral Form

FCPS-AAP Level IV Referral Form

Advanced Academics Program K-12

Creative and Critical Thinking Strategies at a Glance

Young Scholars News Letters ranging from Winter 2011 – Fall 2012

FCPS-AAP Updates Newsletters

Middle School Honors Classes Brochure

Pathways to Endorsement for Elementary Teachers

Pathways to Endorsement for Secondary Teachers


29 | P a g e

List of Videos Describing FCSP-AAP on the FCPS-AAP Website

Video Title Link Continuum of Advanced Academic Services

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/column/videos.shtml

Young Scholars Program http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/ys.shtml

Young Scholars Model http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/ys.shtml

Advanced Academics Middle and High School


The IB Middle Years Programme

http://www.ibo.org/myp/

Additional Program Artifacts & Documents

We collected program artifacts and documents related to the program which

describe, explain or relate to the program during our in-person meetings and included

them in our analysis plan. The list of program documents and artifacts that were

collected from the program officer or other FCPS-AAP central office employees are

listed in the Appendix.

Interviews with FCPS-AAP Employees

We met with the program officer and several members of the central office staff

on 12 different occasions. Each meeting represented a specific focus area, such as

identification, and lasted between 1 to 2 hours. A series of interview questions and logic

model (Taylor-Powell, Steele, & Douglah, 1996) were developed following the website

audit and evaluation of program documents and artifacts.

Interviews with FCPS Employees

The first meetings with FCPS employees focused on Themes I and II. Notes

collected from that meeting were then transcribed for general themes. From this a more

formal logic model outline was developed along with a draft program description. In

order to ensure that the program description was representative of the program from the


http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/ys.shtml

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/ys.shtml


http://www.ibo.org/myp/


30 | P a g e

perspective of the FCPS-AAP employees, a qualitative evaluation quality control check

called “member checking” was employed (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In member checking

a draft document representing researcher understanding is reviewed for accuracy and

feedback. A draft program description document was sent to the FCPS Program Officer

who distributed the document to the appropriate staff members for review and

comment.

Following review by FCPS-AAP employees, the Program Officer then returned

the document to the GMU team designee with comments and feedback indicated via

tracked changes in in the document. The GMU evaluation committee member then

incorporated the changes and clarification into the program description report. Further

explication of these changes and revisions were addressed during follow-up meetings

as needed, along with focusing on Themes III and IV. A similar review pattern was

implemented following the second meeting, and continued until consensus was met

regarding the program description to ensure accuracy in representing the context and

elements of the program. Triangulation of program documents was an additional check

on validity allowing the researchers to review for consistency across program

documents (Mathison, 1988). Finally, a program description was created.

Evaluating FCPS-AAP to Best Practices in the Field of Gifted Education

A second set of reviews were conducted to determine the degree to which

FCPS-AAP was aligned to best practices in the field of gifted education. A focused,

holistic rubric was developed to evaluate the degree to which FCPS-AAP practices met

best practice standards in the field of gifted education (Charles A. Dana Center, 2012).

Focused, holistic scoring examines work as a gestalt that accounts for multiple factors

inherent in the design of the work. Focused holistic scoring produces only one final

description assigned to represent the work as a whole. The rubric descriptions included

Does not Meet Standards, Approaching Standards, Meets Standards, and Exceeds

Standards. The rubric can be found in the Appendix. In addition, because focused,

holistic rubrics do not identify specific strengths or weaknesses within the rubric,


31 | P a g e

annotations about program strengths and weaknesses for each of the four focus areas

were identified for each of the standards as they were reviewed.

Three distinct reviews of best practice were conducted. First, VDOE regulations

were reviewed to ensure that the program plan was in compliance with state regulations

(VDOE, 2013). Second, research-based best practice was reviewed as represented by

the National Association for Gifted Children Programming Standards (Johnsen, 2012).

Third, the practices of four school districts in Virginia (Loudoun, Prince William,

Arlington, and Chesterfield public schools) and five school districts with comparable

demographics and notable gifted programs from around the country (Montgomery

County, MD; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Wake County, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro, NC; and

Gwinnett County, GA public schools). The program description, program documents,

and other program artifacts were reviewed to determine alignment against each of the

programming standards, VDOE regulations, and program components from the

benchmark school districts.

For each of the three reviews (NAGC, VDOE, Benchmark Districts), an iterative

rating process was employed. First, the program documents were rated. Two

independent ratings were collected: one each by the two lead principal investigators,

both of whom are experts in gifted education. Raters reviewed and discussed the rubric

to ensure common understanding of each of the score points. Then, each rater

independently rated the program for each review. When all of the ratings were

complete, the results were compared and areas where there was disagreement were

discussed so that 100% agreement was obtained on the degree to which FCPS-AAP

aligned with best practices according to the program documents. Second, the results of

the document review were presented to all of the other principal investigators on the

research team to ensure that the results aligned with results from stakeholder

perceptions and the examination of the fidelity of implementation (studies that were

used to address Guiding Questions 2 & 3). Document alignment results were refined

based on the triangulated data collected and analyzed by the other members of the

research team. The score point was obtained by all 100% agreement of all members of


32 | P a g e

the research team based on triangulated data from multiple sources (program

documents; focus groups, interviews, and surveys with parents, students, teachers, and

administrators; and observations of classrooms and screening practices).


33 | P a g e

RESULTS FOR

GUIDING QUESTION 1:

ALIGNMENT TO BEST PRACTICES


34 | P a g e

UNDERSTANDING THE FCPS-AAP: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION



Program Description

The program description is organized using themes to describe the program

more holistically and to ensure that the context and complexity of the program is

captured. The table presents the major themes.

Major FCPS-AAP Program Themes

Theme Sub-Components

FCPS-AAP Program Summary Program Overview FCPS-AAP Logic Model

Identification and Screening Process

Level IV Identification Level II and Level III Identification Middle School Open Enrollment

Curriculum and Instructional Strategies

Levels I – IV Young Scholars Program Advanced Mathematics Middle School Honors Courses International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program

Teacher Certification and Professional Development

Professional Development Academy

Program Services Levels I – IV Young Scholars Program Advanced Mathematics Middle School Honors Courses International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program


35 | P a g e

FCPS-AAP Program Rationale & Goals Summary

FCPS Program Summary

The FCPS-AAP program provides Fairfax County students with a continuum of

advanced academics services ranging from Kindergarten through the culmination of

high school. The FCPS-AAP program seeks to offer students challenging learning

experiences targeted to their unique and individual academic level in order to optimize

student potential and prepare students for work as they progress through their primary

and secondary education, and beyond (FCPS-AAP Website, 2013). The FCPS-AAP

central office provides support and curriculum for services that are then provided by

elementary, middle and high school levels with the assistance of Advanced Academic

Resource Teachers (AART). The schools exercise authority and control in terms of

oversight in implementation of FCPS-AAP. There are four levels of academic

programming ranging from Level I through Level IV. Level IV services provide the most

advanced and rigorous services for a critical mass of students in all core subjects areas

every day during the school year. Level IV services are offered in local schools and

through Centers at the elementary and middle school levels. In addition, AAP services

include the Young Scholars Model and Advanced Mathematics for students who are

developmentally ready for math acceleration. Middle schools offer Center services,

Honors courses, and the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program (IBMYP).

High School programs are not addressed in this report.

Levels I, II, and III are offered in all 135 elementary schools and 26 middle

schools. There are 24 Center Level IV elementary schools that serve 135 elementary

schools, and eleven Center Level IV middle schools that serve 26 middle schools, 70

Young Scholars programs, and three Middle Years IB Programs. The Advanced

Mathematics Program is offered at all primary and secondary schools. The following

figure depicts the logic model of the FCPS-AAP program that describes the activities,

actions, goals, assumptions and external influences of the program.


36 | P a g e

Logic Model for the Advanced Academic Programs

Students with academic potential are identified as early as possible.

Enrollment in the appropriate service level increases.

Students are prepared for higher education and beyond as creative producers to society.

Students are appropriately matched to their academic level, to develop student academic potential.

Success increases in Honors, IB, and AP, programs in middle and/or high school, Governors’ schools, dual enrollment, and for early college entrance.

Students develop critical and creative (21

st

Century) thinking skills as economic contributors to society.

Opportunities for students to work with their intellectual peers are created.

Students develop collaboration and communication (21

st

Century) skills.

Students develop as leaders and civic contributors to society.

Potential of students from under-represented populations is nurtured.

Service levels are representative of total school population.

More students are prepared for increased opportunities for the U.S. to remain a global leader

Inputs Expected Academic and Productive Outcomes

Short Term Mid-Term Long Term Outputs

Activities Participation

What we invest:

Employees Time Money Research Test Materials Curriculum Materials Technology

What we do: 1. Create processes for identification 2. Create programs for students 3. Develop and provide curriculum 4. Develop and provide professional development 5. Provide support to schools via AARTs

Who we Reach:

1. Students 2. Parents 3. Teachers 4. Building administrators, central administrators, community members 5. Organizational cultures (schools, pyramids, clusters)

External Factors Gifted Education: 1. AAP grounds program decisions in best practice. 2. The proportion of historically under-represented students in the program over the long term should

equal the proportion of those groups in the general school population. 3. Talent development is a model for developing expertise in learners with high potential. FCPS as a system: 4. AAP adheres to the FCPS philosophy of continuous improvement. 5. AAP program staff work collaboratively with schools. 6. Principals provide oversight for AAP implementation and teacher performance. Fairfax Community: 7. AAP high visibility places stressors on the system. 8. Standing in the community drives requests for identification and services, even if not appropriate. 9. A cottage industry has developed related to test preparation contributing to over-identification.

Assumptions Underlying Advanced Academic Program Services 1. High potential can be uncovered, observed, and developed in all populations. 2. Learners demonstrate high potential in diverse and multiple ways. 3. Identifying learners with gifts and talents requires multiple procedures and measures. 4. High potential is not static, but must be developed and nurtured throughout schooling. 5. Teaching learners with gifts and talents requires a multiplicity of programs and strategies. 6. Growth results from appropriate curricula and instruction delivered when learners are ready. 7. Curricula and instruction must be:

a. Designed to mine and polish multiple talents. b. Flexible to address diverse needs. c. Conceptual and discipline-based. d. Advanced beyond the core for rigor, complexity, depth, and level of abstraction.

8. Teachers play a critical role in the development and growth of high potential, and therefore need specific professional development in gifted education.

Overview of the Young Scholars Program

The Young Scholars model is one of the FCPS-AAP programs. Young Scholars

is intended to support the identification and talent development of students from

historically under-identified populations for advanced academic work. Under-identified

populations are defined as students of diverse ethnic, linguistic or cultural backgrounds,

twice-exceptional learners, and low socioeconomic status (FCPS-AAP Website). The

core assumption underlying this model is that students from under-identified populations

may lack additional opportunities at home or in their communities to expand upon

learning at school or may need additional support because of their unique learning

needs. Therefore, the purposes for the Young Scholars program are to:

1) identify gifted potential

2) nurture the development of talent.

These are distinguishing characteristics of the Young Scholars program (FCPS-

AAP Newsletter – Young Scholars Program). Early identification and nurturing is

accomplished through collaborative lessons offered by classroom teachers and AART’s

using Critical and Creative thinking lessons, inter-session lessons and summer camps.

The following figure depicts the theory of action of the YS model, including the

outcomes associated with improved self-efficacy.


38 | P a g e

Young Scholars Model Theory of Action

All AAP Levels become more representative

of general population

Increased enrollment in all

AAP Levels

Early Identification

Early Nurturing Talent

Development

Increased enrollment in

Honors, AP, and IB programs in

middle and high school.

Improved Self- Efficacy

Increased Motivation


39 | P a g e

The Middle School Program

All 26 middle schools in Fairfax County offer open enrollment Honors courses in

English, social studies, science, and mathematics with the exception of Algebra I

Honors in 7th grade (see below). The Honors course selection process occurs in the

spring of every year. Parents or guardians choose Honors classes for their child to best

meet the needs of their child. Parents may select 1 or more Honors classes (up to four)

for their child. The FCPS-AAP Level of Service is determined by the number of Honors

classes selected at the local middle school. Students who seek academic rigor,

demonstrate high achievement or potential, have interest or are motivated to excel in

one or more academic areas may benefit from Honors classes. The following table

depicts how the continuum of services is continued from the elementary school

programs through middle school.

Algebra I Honors in 7th Grade

Prerequisites exist for enrollment in this course. Students may enroll in Algebra I

Honors in 7th grade by meeting all of the following criteria:

1. Successfully completing Compacted Mathematics 6, OR a year-long

accelerated mathematics program.

2. Scoring at or above the 91st percentile on the Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test

(IAAT).

3. Scoring a pass advanced (500 or above) on the grade 7 mathematics

Standards of Learning (SOL) test.


40 | P a g e

Middle School Programs

Program Level Courses/Curricula Identification/Enrollment

Level I FCPS Core Curriculum

Or

1 Honors Course

Open Enrollment

Level II 2 Honors Courses Open Enrollment

Level III 3 Honors Courses Open Enrollment

Full Honors 4 Honors Courses Open Enrollment

Or

Level IV student who

chooses to attend local

middle school

Level IV 4 Honors Courses Center Middle School

International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program

The middle school International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program (IBMYP) is

intended to prepare middle school students to pursue the International Baccalaureate

diploma. IBMYP was originally offered in middle schools in which there were high

numbers of at-risk youth in order to provide them with knowledge and understanding of

a more “worldly” perspective. Two IBMPY sequences are implemented within four

pyramids:

1. Grades 6-10 (Glasgow/Stuart and Annandale/Poe/Holmes)

2. Grades 7-10 (South Lakes/Langston Hughes & Mt. Vernon/Whitman).

Within each pyramid, IBMYP continues into the high school as the International

Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP). Nine IB Middle Years Program schools

currently exist. Six additional middle and high schools have submitted applications for

MYP candidacy. These programs are authorized for Summer 2015: Robinson MS/HS,


41 | P a g e

Lee/Key & Edison/Twain. The IB MYP to DP provides greater access and support to

students in rigorous curriculum and enhances POS.

Meeting the Needs of AAP Students with Challenges

FCPS-AAP students, like general education students, facing challenges that may

impact their learning. The FCPS philosophy is FCPS-AAP students may face learning

or affective challenges, such as learning disabilities, Asperger’s, ADHD, Emotional

Disabilities, or underachievement. FCPS-AAP provides professional development to

teachers related to such challenges. FCPS-AAP teachers collaborate with special

education staff to provide each child with appropriate accommodations at all program

and school levels. For elementary schools, AARTs act as the contact person, and the

special education department has identified a liaison at each of the secondary schools.

In addition, FCPS-AAP in collaboration with the Office of Special Education Instruction

implemented an elementary executive functioning curriculum called Unstuck and On

Target and added a Curriculum Resource Teacher to train teachers in all schools on

High Functioning Autism. Strategies to support AAP learners who face challenges

across all levels of schooling include:

1. Revisiting Learning & Assessment Priorities – Gifted students with special

needs are especially encouraged to take honors courses upon entrance into

secondary school. Teacher teams examine how to remove barriers to student

success in the most challenging courses.

2. Intervention Support and Tutoring – Case managers help students monitor

progress, schedule use of intervention/remediation time during the school day,

set up tutoring programs, arrange mentoring groups, and offer assistance with

other strategies as needed.

3. Systematic Local Screening – Schools review interventions to successfully

identify twice exceptional (2E) students (students who may have been identified


42 | P a g e

first for AAP or students who may have been identified first for needing special

education services). Once identified, 504s and IEPs are aligned across programs

to maximize student learning potential.

4. Social Skills/Support – Schools use intervention time to deliver services to

individuals and small and large groups of students for those students who need

special education services, especially for speech or organization and study skills.

5. Assistive Technology – Schools use in-house and county resources, such as

the notebook poo, NEOs, live scribe software, SMART Pens, and other assistive

technologies to support classroom success.

Areas of Focus for the FCPS-AAP

The FCPS-AAP program focuses their efforts towards four major categories of

work including the development, administration and oversight of the screening process;

development of curriculum for future use in the classroom with direct support provided

by the AART; development and provision of professional development courses and

materials for other FCPS employees; program planning and development to meet the

VDOE Regulations.


43 | P a g e

Identification and Screening

The identification process is intended to be continuous throughout the students’

progression from Kindergarten through High School. This is based on the theory and

research in the field that ability is not a static state, but that students evolve and change.

Therefore multiple opportunities are provided for students to be referred for

consideration of FCPS-AAP services ranging from Level II – IV, and for Young

Scholars.

Screening Process

The FCPS-AAP office oversees the centralized process of selection for students

who may be eligible for Level IV services, and provides support for local schools to

screen and select students who are eligible for Level II, III, and Young Scholars. The

current centralized screening process was developed by the FCPS-AAP office in

collaboration with local screening committees by reviewing research in the field of gifted

education and previous data from the program in 1993. Prior to 1993, students were

screened for the Center program based on the use of a single test score. To meet the

best practices in the field of gifted education at the time, the screening process changed

to include multiple indices. The result is the creation of a case study portfolio

demonstrating a holistic picture of each child’s strengths and weaknesses (FCPS-AAP

Newsletter, Historical). The following table depicts how students may be referred for

screening for levels II- IV services:


44 | P a g e

Screening Alternatives

Process Summary

Development of the second grade pool between Kindergarten and Second Grade for Level IV Screening

1. K-2 Critical and Creative Thinking

Strategies: collection of at least 1 work

sample

2. Naglieri Non-verbal Abilities Test –

administered to all students in Grade 1

3. Cognitive Abilities Test – administered

to all students in Grade 2

4. Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale with

Commentary – completed by at least 1

teacher who has worked with the child

in grades K-2

3rd – 12th Teacher/Parent Referral Process

Represents continuous and ongoing

identification for Level IV Screening

Teacher/Parent Referral for Level II and Level III Services, and Young Scholars

Represents continuous and ongoing

identification locally for Level II and III

Screening.

Development of the Second Grade Pool

The FCPS-AAP assesses students for eligibility for services at both the local

school level and at the central office. Early identification begins in Kindergarten in order

to nurture student’s gifted potential. This is achieved through a collaborative effort

between the classroom teacher and the AART. The AART models Level I Critical and

Creative Thinking Strategies, which support the development of 21st Century thinking

skills. The Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies offer an opportunity for AARTs and

classroom teachers to observe and assess students’ application and use of these

strategies, and collect work samples of which one must be included in the case study


45 | P a g e

portfolio. Classroom teaching activities are intended to generate multiple opportunities

for classroom teachers and AARTs to identify gifted potential through teaching and

interaction with the students. During this period of time, students are also assessed

using group and individual level tests including the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test

(NNAT), and the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT).

The screening pool is only for second grade students who are potentially eligible

to receive Level IV services. The NNAT and CogAT scores are used to determine

which students are eligible to participate in the screening pool. For the 2nd grade

screening pool in the 2012-13 school year, the benchmark score was 132 or above on

the first grade NNAT. The benchmark score on the second grade CogAT was the 95th

percentile or above on the VQN score. Students are notified by the local school in

January of the school year that they are eligible for the screening pool. Students whose

NNAT and CogAT scores did not meet or exceed the benchmark scores for both tests

are still eligible to be referred Level IV services at the end of second grade. The pool of

Level IV candidates are screened by a central screening committee consisting of

educators across the county. A folder is created for each student that contains the

following:

1. Group and individual testing scores (e.g. Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, and

the CogAT , or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV)

2. Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale (GBRS) score

3. Samples of the students’ work from the classroom and home, or letters of

recommendation from other’s who know the child outside the school setting

4. An optional parent rating scale

This folder is intended to be a more holistic representation of the student, rather

than rely solely on single measures such as test scores and is sent by the local school

to the central screening office.


46 | P a g e

Development and Training of Screeners

The FCPS-AAP program oversees the development, training and scheduling of

screeners, and determines the deadlines and screening dates. The screening pool is

comprised of classroom teachers, AARTs, principals, other supporting teachers such as

ESOL teachers or Special Education teachers, librarians and other FCPS employees

from both the central office and local schools. FCPS employees who participate in the

screening process must undergo a four-hour training session developed and delivered

by the FCPS-AAP Central Office. During this session, screeners cover material

regarding the identification process and how to identify advanced academic potential in

a student file. Then, they also practice identification with a series of simulated files to

extend their understanding of how to apply the screening process. Many screeners who

participate in this process often report that the screening process also serves as a

professional development continuous learning opportunity by helping them appreciate

the many ways that advanced academic potential can manifested.

The screening process is conducted annually and can last up to three full days,

with as many as 50 -100 screeners present each day. The screening pool is different

each day. On the specified dates, qualified screeners review the materials in the file,

and indicate eligibility or not eligible by marking a card and placing it in the back of the

folder. In order for a student to be considered eligible for Level IV services, a student

file must receive four eligible votes. If a file receives four not-eligible votes the student

is not eligible this year. If a file receives 3 eligible and 3 ineligible votes, the file is

reviewed by screeners at another table until either four eligible or ineligible votes are

received. Following the screening process, the central FCPS-AAP office then performs

a second review of files by ranking NNAT, CogAT and GBRS scores to ensure that

there were no ineligible students who had characteristics of students that were

determined eligible. This second review serves as a quality control check of the

screening process.


47 | P a g e

Post Screening and the Appeals Process Following the screening process, parents and schools are notified of the results.

For students who were identified as eligible, parents/or guardians make the final

determination of student enrollment. Parents, guardians, and the students themselves

who were determined to be ineligible may appeal the decision. The file is reviewed

again, the determination made, and is considered final for the particular academic year.

However, parents or guardians, the student, peers, a community member or teacher

may refer that student the following year.

Identification for Other Service Levels

Following the creation of the second grade pool, FCPS employees at the local

level based on ongoing school assessments such as the SOL or observations of school

performance may refer potential candidates for screening for services delivered at the

local school. Students and peers, parents, and guardians, FCPS employees, or

community members may also submit a referral may submit a Level II/Level III referral

form to the local screening committee of the student’s school for consideration of

advanced academics. This file is screened by the local committee at a minimum of

every 90 days (Local Plan for the Gifted); however, the files may be reviewed more

often than this time period and is determined by the local school AART. The process is

intended to be cyclical and continuous, rather than a static one-time event. A detailed

diagram of the full screening process is depicted in the following figure.


48 | P a g e

Screening and Identification Process Diagram

Local Pool

Second Grade Pool

3rd – 12th Teacher/Parent Referral

Teacher/Parent Referral for Level II and Level III Services, and Young Scholars

Students who are geographically new to FCPS

Central Screening

Pool

Eligible (4+ yes)

Not Eligible (4+

No)

Notified

May Appeal

Eligible for Level IV

eligibility & notified

Central AAP Office Local Level

Local Level II or III

Appeals

AART Continuous Review

Ineligible referred for Local Level II or III

Ineligible students/parents can appeal decision.

Level II & III referrals screened


49 | P a g e

Accessing Advanced Academics in the Middle School

Students who enter secondary schooling who were previously attending a Level

IV Center are offered the opportunity to attend a Center Level IV school. Previous Level

IV students may also choose to attend their local middle school and take Honors

courses. Students who were previously identified in Level II, III and Young Scholars are

encouraged to take Honors courses. Accessing advanced academics in secondary

education emphasizes a model of choice via open enrollment, rather than screening to

register for Honors and International Baccalaureate programs in middle school. This

approach is intended to allow students and parents an opportunity to exercise choice in

the level of academics they pursue, and encourage students to pursue more rigorous

courses in areas of their interest. This approach was adopted because FCPS-AAP

noticed an hour glass effect between elementary, middle and high school programs.

Screening at the middle school level was constraining because there were many

student identified at the elementary level, and once in high school students could self-

select advanced academic courses such as Honors. However, this model resulted in

students who were not adequately prepared for advanced coursework. By allowing

students choice in middle school, there is more continuity in the continuum of advanced

academic services available, and students are able to develop the skills needed to be

more successful at the high school level.


50 | P a g e

Curriculum & Instructional Strategies Curriculum

FCPS-AAP uses and develops curricula to support students attainment of

advanced content and skills and offers students rigor, depth, and complexity. Curricula

are based on research in the field of gifted education. Additional units modeled after

many of the purchased units have been developed through a number of activities

including: reviewing the literature base on educating advanced learners, assessment of

data related to the FCPS-AAP program such as student demographics, or assessment

scores, and the collaboration with employees from the four core subject areas including

mathematics, science, language arts and social studies. FCPS employees produce

lesson plans and classroom instructional materials will be selected for use by AART’s

and classroom teachers. Curricular materials can be accessed via the FCPS

Blackboard (Bb) website. FCPS-AAP staff also create and offer resources for school

leadership in the form of resource manuals to assist in the implementation FCPS-AAP

services within their school. FCPS has developed curricular frameworks for grades K-8.

Elementary School Curricula

All students at the elementary school level receive the Program of Studies (POS)

core curricula which is determined by FCPS, and aligned to the Commonwealth of

Virginia Standards of Learning. All elementary grade students receive Level I services

from FCPS-AAP. This is accomplished by AARTs who work with schools at the local

community level to teach Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies to elicit higher level

thinking. There are a total of nine different strategies that can be taught, and integrated

in order to extend and enrich existing curriculum (FCPS Website – Grades K-6 Creative

and Critical Thinking Lessons). This approach is intended to help all learners become

critical and creative thinkers. The Level I Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies are

listed in the following table.


51 | P a g e

Level I Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies

Thinking Strategy Description Questioning Clarifying, exploring, challenging, &

assessing the understanding of ideas Fluency, Originality, Flexibility, & Elaboration

Producing many ideas, expressing new ideas, and recombining existing ideas

Visualization Forming mental images of something that is not present in the senses

Mindmapping Recording information using supporting ideas and branching out from the main idea

Point of View Analyzing how different people might look at the same idea or situation

Analogies Comparing two items to perceive similarities

Encapsulation Stating ideas in precise and concise form Decisions & Outcomes Understanding that choosing from

alternatives affects following events Plus, Minus, Interesting Framing the considerations of positive,

negative, and intriguing aspects of an idea into one picture


52 | P a g e

Advanced Math Advanced Mathematics is available to students beginning in third grade through

high school. This program enhances and extends the existing FCPS mathematics

curriculum by allowing students who demonstrate readiness to work with more complex

math concepts and opportunity to advance. Students’ who qualify receive extensions

on instruction at the current grade level, or at a grade level above. This is achieved

through differentiation in the classroom and instructional grouping, or in a dedicated

class (FCPS-AAP Document – Advanced Mathematics Students). This allows students

in elementary school the opportunity to complete the middle school curriculum by the

end of elementary school, qualify for Algebra I in the seventh grade, and continue to

take higher-level mathematics throughout middle and high school.

Middle School Curriculum The middle school curriculum furthers the continuum of services to students by

offering Level IV services, Honors courses, and the International Baccalaureate Middle

Years Program (IBMYP). All middle schools offer Honors courses, which are open to all

students who choose to work at a higher level of academic rigor. Enrollment into

IBMYP is also open to students who wish to participate. Rising middle school students

work with their sixth grade teachers and AARTs to select courses for middle school.

Students who have already engaged in differentiated services at Levels II, III or who

participate in the Young Scholars program are strongly encouraged to select Honors

courses. Students’ who are attending a Level IV program are eligible to continue on to

a Level IV Center middle school. They may also choose to attend their local middle

school and take all four honor courses in lieu of attending the middle school Center. Honors Curriculum

The middle school Honors classes are differentiated in a variety of ways by

extending, enriching, or accelerating the POS. Teachers use ongoing formative


53 | P a g e

assessments of students’ needs, abilities, and interests to determine how to extend the

lessons. FCPS-AAP has developed extensions to facilitate effective differentiation the

in 7th and 8th grade English/Language Arts, Social Studies, and Science Honors

classes. The extensions expand the essential understandings of the POS with greater

depth, breadth, and/or complexity. The Honors extensions are based on The Parallel

Curriculum Model ([PCM], Tomlinson, 2004). PCM has been endorsed by NAGC. PCM

is a set of four “parallel” curricular designs. Each curriculum can be used independently

and interdependently and include:

• Core Curriculum: focuses on the essential nature of a discipline and is

organized to allow for depth and complexity.

• Curriculum of Connections: focuses on the relationships among knowledge

and the connections between overarching concepts and principles within and

across disciplines.

• Curriculum of Practice: focuses on the applications of facts, concepts,

principles, skills, and methods of researchers, developers, or practitioners in the

field

• Curriculum of Identity: focuses on the knowledge and skills of practitioners and

how the skills relate to students goals, interests, development of expertise,

strength, values, and character

The Honors extensions have been carefully crafted to align with the four

parallels. The Honors curriculum is offered in all middle schools and is intended to

prepare students for future advanced work in high school and higher education and

extends the existing curriculum units, lessons, or instructional strategies through the use

of the Parallel Curriculum Model (PCM) (FCPS Website – Middle School Honors

Classes Overview). A core assumption of PCM is that all students come with different

needs at different times in their lives (Tomlinson, 2004). This approach is a critical

distinction to using an accelerated pace. Students are encouraged to make

connections across time, place and subject areas; perform as a practitioners or scholar

in a discipline; self-assess and reflect on their learning and learning process (FCPS-

AAP Presentation – What is the Parallel Curriculum Model?). As students advance


54 | P a g e

through PCM, cognitive demand increases to continue to challenge learners and

encourage the development of expertise. PCM encourages the use of critical and

creative thinking strategies, problem-based learning, concept based instruction,

research, and investigations. The following table shows examples of how the POS is

extended using PCM.

Examples of the Honors Extensions Subject Grade

Course Essential Understanding from the FCPS POS

Advanced Academic Extension Using PCM

English Language Arts

7 Determine a theme and analyze its development over the course of a text.

Generate other themes that pertain to the same concept. (Curriculum of Connections)

8 Identify the elements of narrative structure, including character(s), either static or dynamic.

Recognize that the complexity of characters often leads to duality in their personalities, such as good and evil and love and hate. (Curriculum of Connections)

Social Studies

U.S. History II

Identify the Allies and the Central Powers.

Analyze the military and economic influences that created alliances among the Allied and Central Powers. (Curriculum of Practice)

Civics Economics

The student will describe the impact of taxation, including an understanding of the reasons for the 16th Amendment, spending, and borrowing.

Connect government decisions regarding taxation to individual economic decision-making. (Curriculum of Identity)

Science Life Science

Differentiate among key processes in the water cycle and relate how organisms, from bacteria and fungi to third-order consumers, function to recycle matter in an ecosystem.

Investigate practices used by environmental scientists and others to conserve and maximize the use of water resources. (Curriculum of Practice)

Physical Science

Recognize the inverse relationship between frequency and wavelength.

Provide examples of inverse relationships within and outside the discipline of science and make generalizations about the relationships. (Connections)


55 | P a g e

IBMYP Curriculum

There are five core subjects in the MYP that must be taken each year

concurrently – Mathematics, Sciences, English, Humanities and world language(s)

The IBMYP curricula encourage students to become critical and reflective thinkers

through five areas of interaction including (FCPS-AAP Website – International

Baccalaureate – MYP):

1. Approaches to Learning – teaches students how to take responsibility for their

own learning.

2. Community and Service – helps build responsible citizens by requiring students

to become active in their community.

3. Human Ingenuity – explores the process of human creativity.

4. Environments – Helps students build awareness of their interdependence with

the environment.

5. Health and Social Education – Emphasizes social and emotional health.

Students who attend a middle school program that offers this program are required

to participate annually in community service projects, and complete a culminating

project in which they must plan and achieve a personal goal that is tied or related to one

of the five areas of interaction. This curriculum, like the Honors curriculum is a way in

which the FCPS core curriculum is extended. The FCPS POS and State SOLs are

supported by MYP subject objectives; the MYP provides additional focus and context for

bridging content and concepts. Additionally, students may be simultaneously enrolled in

both Honors courses and the IBMYP program. IBMYP schools master schedules’ have

been adjusted to accommodate the additional subjects and to integrate subjects.

IBMYP focuses on fostering skillful and conceptual learners, specifically skills related to

organization, communication, collaboration, information literacy, reflection, thinking, and

transfer. Additionally, students are encouraged to be principled, open-minded, caring,

risk-takers, balanced and reflective.


56 | P a g e

Teacher Certification and Professional Development Advanced Academic Resource Teacher

The AART plays a critical role in assisting schools implement their FCPS-AAP

programs. All schools within FCPS receive at least half-time assistance from their

designated AART; however, Principals have the option to purchase additional time from

the AART up to full time services. AART serves a variety of functions including

developing and choosing lessons for use in the classroom, modeling Critical and

Creative Thinking lessons in the classroom, assisting classroom teachers select lessons

for their classrooms to support Level II services, some oversee the Young Scholars

model in their school, provide direct instruction to Level II, and Level III learners, and

participation in the identification process both at the local and central level. Modeling of

lessons by the ARRT offers the secondary benefit of professional development for

classroom teachers, who can then apply modeled techniques to other lessons, thus

extending the application of Creative and Critical Thinking lessons.

FCPS-AAP also supports professional development of classroom teachers at the

elementary and middle school level. These services include both the development of

and delivery of courses offered through the Fairfax Academy either face-to-face or

online via caseNEX (FCPS-AAP Website, Pathways to Advanced Academic Programs

Endorsement Guidelines). Some examples of courses offered are:

Differentiating Instruction for Advanced Learners in Elementary School

Finding and Nurturing Advanced Academic Potential in Underrepresented

Populations

Introduction to Advanced Learners

The FCPS-AAP also offers an Advanced Academic Endorsement for both elementary

and secondary school teachers.


57 | P a g e

In addition to the use of these lessons, schools and classrooms utilize a variety

of strategies to group learners according to readiness and ability using flexible grouping,

vertical teaming (K-2), and looping or multi-aged classroom strategies. Each school

pre-determines which strategies they will use each year by working with the AART when

developing their annual School Agreement Form. The following table depicts how

Levels II, III, and IV are implemented, who is responsible and what instructional

strategies may be employed by schools.


58 | P a g e

Level II, III, and IV at the Elementary School Level Target

Audience Who Provides Instructions

What Instruction is Provided

Strategies used to Provided

Level I K through 6th Classroom Teacher supported by AART

Critical and Creative Thinking Skills are used to extend classroom curriculum

Instructional grouping

Level II Services

K though 8th Classroom Teacher supported by AART

Critical and Creative Thinking Skills are used to extend classroom curriculum in area of students identified strengths

Instructional grouping

Level III Services

3rd – 6th Graders AART Critical and Creative Thinking Skills are used to extend classroom curriculum in the four core subject areas (math, science, language arts and social studies)

Weekly pull out sessions.

Center-Based Level IV Services

3rd – 8th graders AART Critical and creative thinking, problem solving and decision- making strategies extend the core curriculum in all four core subjects.

Depth, breadth and pace

Local Level IV Services

3rd – 8th graders AART Critical and creative thinking, problem solving and decision making strategies extend the core curriculum in all four core subjects

Multi-age grouping


59 | P a g e

UNDERSTANDING THE FCPS-AAP: COMPARATIVE ANALYSES

Overview of Results for Comparative Analyses

Results are reported in this section from the comparative analyses of the FCPS-

AAP:

1. Local Plan for the Education of the Gifted, 2011-2016 (FCPS-AAP, 2011)

to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Regulations Governing

Educational Services for Gifted Students (VDOE, 2012).

2. Program to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

Programming Standards (Johnsen, 2012).

3. Identification Procedures and Program to the Identification Procedures

and Program to nine local, state, and national benchmark school districts.

Overall, FCPS compares very favorably in all three analyses. The table provides a summary. More detailed analyses follow for each comparison.

Summary of Results for Alignment with Best Practices Best Practices FCPS-AAP Overall Results Compliance with VDOE Regulations Meets or Exceeds all state regulations Alignment to NAGC Standards Meets or Exceeds all national standards Benchmark School District Practices Meets or Exceeds other similar districts

locally, in the state, and nationally


60 | P a g e

Compliance with VDOE Regulations School divisions in the state of Virginia are required to submit a local plan for the

gifted that typically spans a 5 year cycle that meet the requirements of the Regulations

Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students (VDOE, 2012). The FCPS-AAP

local plan describes how FCPS meets the regulations. The regulations govern many

items. For the overall program services, FCPS-AAP complies with the requirements of

the regulations. FCPS-AAP exceeds the requirements on curriculum and professional

development because of the multiplicity of options available for teachers and students

and the plans in place for delivery. There are no weaknesses in the overall program

plan or the identification procedures. However, FCPS-AAP received a “meets” rather

than “exceeds” in both areas because of the focus on one area of giftedness. While

FCPS-AAP serves students on both general intellectual ability and specific academic

aptitude, there are no identification measures to identify students on specific academic

aptitude. At the middle school and high school levels, students are not screened for

academic aptitudes. The state does not require the screening at the middle and high

school levels because the Honors and AP courses are open enrollment. However, the

field of gifted education is moving toward a talent development model in specific

academic domains. Instruments to help identify talented students beginning at the

middle school level across the core subject areas may be helpful for the district to

consider. The following table provides a summary of specific items in the regulation that

are required in the plan and whether FCPS is in compliance as organized by the four

focus areas.


61 | P a g e

FCPS-AAP Compliance to VDOE Regulations

Focus Area VDOE Regulation Requirement FCPS-AAP Compliance

Program A local plan has been developed and approved. Meets

Program philosophy and goals are stated.

At least one area of giftedness is identified and served.

Program components are aligned.

Continuity of services is provided K-12.

An advisory committee has been appointed.

A report is developed annually.

The school division provides assurances that the

regulations are met.

Information about the program is public.

Identification K-12 students are screened. Meets

Multiple identification criteria are collected.

Multiple sources may submit referrals, such as parents,

peers, self, community, teachers, etc.

Committees are formed for screening and identification.

A timeline is in place and is communicated to parents.

Notice is provided and parental consent is obtained.

Curriculum Curricula and instruction are delivered. Exceeds

Advanced courses are offered to students.

Growth is measured and reported to parents.

Prof. Dev. Professional development is provided to teachers. Exceeds


62 | P a g e

Alignment to National Standards Once we knew that the FCPS-AAP complied with the VDOE regulations, we

examined how well the FCPS-AAP aligned to the National Association for Gifted

Children (NAGC) Programming Standards (Johnsen, 2012). The NAGC programming

standards are the state-of-the-art in gifted education and represent high standards. We

examined each standard and components within each standard to determine the level

of alignment with the FCPS-AAP. FCPS-AAP meets are exceeds all of the standards.

While we were able to identify components on which FCPS-AAP could improve, the

program meets and in many case exceeded the intent of the standard.

Identification

The identification procedures meet standards for equal access to screening

because all students are screened in first and second grade and all students have

access to be screened or enroll in courses in subsequent grades. FCPS-AAP provides

a comprehensive identification system, employing multiple types of measures to

uncover ability and potential, including 2 ability measures (the NNAT and CogAT, a

teacher rating scale (GBRS), referrals by family, school staff, peers, self, or community

members, and work products). The work products allow students to show their unique

gifts and talents. Further the school division has made great strides to improve the

representation of students from historically under-served populations, such as African-

American and Hispanic students. For example, AAP growth in representation of ethnic

populations within the levels of service is positive. From 2001-2013 the Asian

population has increased by 393%; Hispanic by 862%; Black by 309%. These figures

represent a steady progression of inclusion and in the diversification of the AAP student

population to reflect the demographics of the school population as a whole which is

laudable. However, the representation of the diversity of the AAP students within each

school and across the division needs to mirror the general school and division

populations, and at the highest levels of services offered. Beyond the AAP program,


63 | P a g e

FCPS as a school division must continue to support the development of talent within all

of the diverse populations represented in the district.

Curriculum and Instruction FCPS-AAP exceeds all NAGC curriculum, instruction, and assessment

standards. In particular, FCPS measures and reports to parents gifted students’ growth

beyond the minimal competency standards of the VDOE Standards of Learning tests.

Further, FCPS-AAP supports the development of multiple talents within a content

domain that continues through high school equipping students to live in a diverse and

global society. Further, teachers and students have access to a plethora of resources

both as a part of the general curricula, as well as, via extra-curricular activities.

Independent investigations are offered throughout schooling. For example, enrichment

activities are offered across the district and represent numerous activities or events.

The enrichment activities range from chess club (47 clubs are available across the

district) to robotics (30) to foreign languages (25) to science (30) to dance (15) to art

(12) and only represent illustrative examples across multiple talent domains. The

enrichment activities appear to be well-distributed across schools, although not all

schools host all activities. However, as indicated in the student surveys and focus

groups, the AAP students want MORE of these types of activities. Further, in the

science classrooms, there was inconsistently related to whether teachers demonstrated

science experiments or allowed students to conduct the experiment. Implementation for

independent study in science needs to be more consistent with the curricula available

from William and Mary and as developed by FCPS-AAP staff. Despite these minor

issues, FCSP-AAP exceeds the NAGC curriculum standards.

Teacher Certification and Professional Development FCPS-AAP meets the standards for professional development. VDOE does not

require teachers of the gifted to have an endorsement. FCPS does not require a state

endorsement, though teachers are encouraged to get the endorsement. While FCPS


64 | P a g e

can offer courses that provide training to teachers, FCPS cannot grant the state

endorsement. FCPS moved to offering courses internally as a way to support teachers’

professional development in gifted education as tuition reimbursement has diminished

overtime for teachers. As indicated in the focus groups, this option has been beneficial

and the internal FCPS professional development AAP courses are well-received.

Because of the number of courses, the emphasis on life-long learning and ethical

practices, FCPS-AAP meets the standards. However, as a leader in the field in gifted

education, FCPS-AAP must consider requiring the endorsement. Very few states

(about 7) require an endorsement for teaching gifted learners, though most states

require an endorsement or license to teach students with special needs.

Program Services FCPS-AAP exceeds the standards for programming, specifically related to the

variety of programming options, coordinated services, comprehensiveness, funding,

policies and procedures, career pathways and collaboration. FCPS-AAP meets

learning environment and learning and development standards. FCPS-AAP exceeds

individual components of each of these groups of standards related to cognitive

development, leadership and personal competence, and communication. However,

meets the standards related to affective and social development and cultural

competence. Several concerns were raised during the focus groups related to students

being bullied or being treated differently (but not in a positive way) by their peers

because they were in the gifted program. Helping students address these issues is

necessary, including by teaching the students how to deal effectively in such situations.

Parents also raised concerns that cognitive growth was addressed, but that students’

affective needs were not always addressed, especially as students made transitions into

programs (such as into a Center or into a middle school from an elementary school).

Additional training and support needs to be offered in these areas. Finally, parents

requested more communication with teachers and with schools, especially during

transition periods.


65 | P a g e

Overall, FCPS-AAP exceeds the standards related to Curriculum, Instruction,

and Assessment and overall programming options and comprehensiveness. FCPS-

AAP meets standards related to identification, teacher certification and professional

development, and two sub-components of the programming standards. The table

following provides a summary of the alignment to the NAGC Standards.


66 | P a g e

FCPS-AAP Alignment with NAGC Programming Standards

Focus Area Standard Indicator Alignment Identification Procedures

Identification Equal Access Comprehensive Assessment Opportunity to demonstrate

unique gifts

Meets

Representation of Diversity To Improve Curriculum and Instruction

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Multiple curricula Measuring Growth Multiple Domains Multiple Skills Access to Resources

Exceeds

Independent Investigations To Improve Teacher Certification and Professional Development

Preparation Access to PD Life-long learning Ethical practices Available courses

Meets

All AAP teachers endorsed To Improve Program Services Programming Variety of options

Comprehensiveness Coordinated Services Collaboration Adequate support Policies and Procedures Career Pathways

Exceeds

Learning Environment

Personal, social, and cultural competence

Meets

Development Cognitive and Affective Growth Meets • More communication with

parents • More focus on students’

affective needs

To Improve


67 | P a g e

Comparison to Benchmark School Systems

The final step in the analysis was to determine how FCPS-AAP practices

compared to benchmark school districts. We examined the practices of four school

districts in Virginia:

• Loudoun County

• Prince William County

• Arlington County

• Chesterfield County

We also examined the practices of five school districts with comparable demographics

and notable gifted programs from around the country:

• Montgomery County, MD

• Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC

• Wake County, NC

• Chapel Hill-Carrboro, NC

• Gwinnett County, GA

Overall, FCPS-AAP compared favorably to all nine school systems, meeting or

exceeding similar practices. While many of the practices across these school systems

were slightly different than FCPS-AAP, the overall intention was similar. Therefore, we

considered the practices similar, unless the variation added significantly to the

effectiveness of that program in meeting the NAGC standards. Regarding identification,

all school districts had common practices of using multiple measures in accordance with

the standards in the field. We did not report out on differences in comparable ability

measures. However, we did note that three districts (Arlington, Prince William, and

Loudoun interview students as part of the identification process. We do not recommend

that FCPS adopt this procedure given the volume of applicants that are screened and

the number of students who are provided with services.


68 | P a g e

Chapel Hill-Carrboro, NC

The school district most comparable to FCPS-AAP was Chapel Hill-Carrboro, NC

for both the elementary and middle school programs, providing a similar range of

services as those provided by FCPS. There were two differences. FCPS compared

more favorably in that the consistency and continuum of multiple curricular options

provided. However, Chapel Hill offers a programming option for the top 1-2% of the

students because they have a high number of students who are advanced at the

elementary and middle schools. FCPS offers such an option at the high school via the

Governor’s School. We do not recommend offering such an option at the elementary

and middle school levels because students’ talents are still developing within a domain.

Montgomery County, MD

Montgomery County is also most similar to FCPS-AAP at the elementary level;

however, some of the additional options that FCPS-AAP offers at the middle school

level are not offered. A significant difference between FCPS and Montgomery County is

related to specific programming for gifted students who also need services for learning

disabilities. Montgomery County offers provides instruction to gifted students who have

learning disabilities in a separate class, as well as, provides a mentorship program to 25

of the identified students. The mentorship program allows students the option to

complete an independent study. FCPS has a different philosophy about providing

services to twice exceptional (2E) students that was explained in the curriculum section

of the program description. This philosophy focuses on AAP students who may have a

range of different learning needs, rather than on one type of learning need, which allows

more students to be served and more student needs to be met. We do not recommend

that FCPS adopt a program that is similar to Montgomery County’s.


69 | P a g e

Elementary Comparisons

At the elementary level, three school divisions in addition to FCPS (Chapel Hill,

Montgomery, and Loudoun) offer Young Scholars programs. All school divisions,

except for Charlotte and Chesterfield offer Level 1 type services. All school divisions

offer Level 2 (within class differentiation) and Level 3 (pull-out) services. Only four

school divisions (Chapel Hill, Montgomery County, Charlotte, and Chesterfield) offer

Level 4 services similar to FCPS, that is full day programming all year, for gifted

learners. FCPS offers the most consistent programming options with the highest level

of curricular options for students.

District Comparisons: Elementary School

Program/ Division

Young Scholars

L1 Strategies for All

L2 Differentiation

L3 Pull-out

L4 Full Day

2E

Fairfax, VA

* * * * * *

Chapel Hill, NC

* * * * * *

Mont. Co., MD

* * * * * *

Loudoun, VA

* * * *

Charlotte, NC

* * *

Chesterfield, VA

* * *

Arlington, VA

* * *

Prince William, VA

* * *

Wake, NC

* * *

Gwinnet, NC

* *


70 | P a g e

Middle School Comparisons

Only Chapel-Hill also offers a Young Scholars program at the middle school

level, similar to FCPS. Chesterfield, Chapel Hill and FCPS are the only school divisions

to continue Level IV programming through the middle school. Seven of the school

divisions offer the IB program at the middle school (Fairfax, Chapel Hill, Montgomery

County, Charlotte, Arlington, Prince William, and Wake). All of the school divisions offer

Honors courses. A full description of all of the school districts is included in the

Appendix. The tables provide a summary of the differences.

District Comparisons: Middle School

Program/ Division

Young Scholars

L1

L2 L3

L4

2E Honors IBMYP

Fairfax, VA

* * * * * * * *

Chapel Hill, NC

* * * * * * * *

Mont. Co., MD

* * *

Loudoun, VA

*

Charlotte, NC

* *

Chesterfield, VA

* *

Arlington, VA

* *

Prince William, VA

* *

Wake, NC

* *

Gwinnet, NC

*


71 | P a g e

Conclusions for Understanding the FCPS-AAP

Overall the FCPS-AAP is a very strong program offering a highly popular and

successful program to develop a broad range of talents in students across the diverse

populations represented within the school division. Across all comparisons, the

curricula and instructional strategies consistently exceeded all comparisons. The

program services are strong consistently offering more options to most of the

benchmark school districts. The identification procedures and teacher professional

development options are also strong. We do not recommend adopting programs or

procedures used by other systems, as FCPS has developed the procedures and

programs that best fit the FCPS community. The most important recommendations

from this study are to:

1. focus on continuing to improve the diversity in identification.

2. ensure that the affective needs of students are addressed, especially during

transitions.

3. require that all AAP teachers be endorsed within 5 years of beginning to teach

AAP students.


72 | P a g e

METHODS FOR

GUIDING QUESTION 2:

STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS


73 | P a g e

UNDERSTANDING THE STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS: FOCUS GROUPS, INTERVIEWS, AND SURVEYS



To answer the second guiding question and determine stakeholder perceptions

about the effectiveness of FCPS-AAP, we used a mixed methods approach to collect

and analyze data (Cresswell, 2009). First, we conducted focus groups and interviews

with identified stakeholder groups, including parents, students, teachers, and

administrators. Focus groups and interviews were held at the schools that participated

in the observations, as described in response to Guiding Question 3. Second, we

collected data from a large sample of stakeholders from across FCPS. By gathering

data using a smaller sample from focus groups and interviews, surveys, and

observations from all groups of stakeholders within the observed buildings, we were

able to triangulate the data and identify themes from across multiple data sources.

Triangulation provided credibility to the findings at the observed schools and allowed us

to draw generalizations from the larger sample of stakeholder surveys (Lincoln & Guba,

1986). More detail about each of the qualitative and quantitative studies follow in more

detail. Data from both studies are aggregated based on the four focus areas:

Identification Procedures, Curriculum and Instruction, Teacher Certification and

Professional Development, and Program Services.


74 | P a g e

Qualitative Methods for Focus Groups and Interviews Participants

Participants for this program review were students, teachers, parents, and school

administrators from 2 FCPS-AAP centers (1 middle and1 elementary) and 2 non-

centers level IV (1 elementary, 1 middle) schools. The participants were from the same

schools as were identified in the observation study conducted in response to Guiding

Question 3. The participant groups were linked to each other.

Students: A total of 49 elementary and middle school students participated in the

focus group interviews. Out of these students, 34 students were in elementary school

and 15 students were in middle school. The students in the focus groups were from

the observed classrooms in the observation study.

Parents: Parent focus groups were conducted with 19 participants, 8 middle

school and 11 elementary school parents. The parents invited to participate in the focus

groups were the parents of the focus group students.

Teachers: A total of 17 teachers representing elementary and middle school

participated in the focus group interviews. Of these 5 were elementary and 12 were

middle school teachers representing two elementary and two middle schools. The

teachers invited to participate in the focus groups were the teachers whose classrooms

were observed in the observation study.

Administrators: Four (N=4) administrators representing the target schools for the

pilot study of the fidelity of implementation were interviewed. The administrators who

were interviewed were those administrators whose schools participated in the

observation study.


75 | P a g e

Data Collection Instruments

The interview protocols for all participants were developed in collaboration with

senior FCPS-AAP management and the research team. Each survey went through an

iterative review process, and was revised prior to administration to ensure that

questions were grounded within the themes from the Proposed Scope of Study:

identification, curriculum, professional development and overall quality of the program.

Participants were asked to respond to about 8- 13 interview questions. See the

Appendix for all interview protocols.

Data Collection Procedures

The focus groups lasted approximately thirty minutes. Trained researchers

conducted all the interviews with all stakeholders within two weeks. All interviewers

were trained on the protocol prior to implementation. All focus groups were conducted

by two Mason team members: a faculty member and a doctoral student assisting on the

project. The faculty member ran the focus group sessions following a standard focus

group protocol developed for each specific focus group: teachers, parents, students,

and administrators. The sessions ran for 30 minutes, and the focus group participants

were invited to share their thoughts and opinions on each of the questions as the 30-

minute time period permitted. The doctoral student assisting with the focus groups

received training and practice on scripting prior to the start of the focus group sessions,

and was responsible for scripting the discussion in real time as it unfolded. Following

the focus group, both the faculty member and the doctoral student reviewed the script to

ensure that it captured the tenor, tone, and themes represented in the focus group¹s

session.

Coding and Analysis Procedures

To uncover new understandings of how the participants perceive FCPS-AAP,

emic analysis strategies, (i.e., open coding) were utilized (Creswell, 2009). Additionally,


76 | P a g e

etic analysis strategies were also utilized, primarily through the use of a priori coding

schemes which were formed around each of the specific focus areas (identification,

curriculum and instruction, teacher preparation, and program quality). Etic analyses

allowed for synthesis across participant responses in each focus area. Two individuals

coded the data separately. Inter-coder reliability was calculated across all focus groups

and interviews. Inter-coder reliability was acceptable and ranged from 95-100% across

each of the respondent groups (Cresswell, 2011).

Limitations

There were several limitations to this study. First, because of the qualitative

nature of the focus groups and interviews, the initial analyses were based on the

researchers own categories of meaning. Therefore, the results are prone to be

influenced by the personal biases of the researchers. Although efforts were made to

ensure agreement among coders, the categories themselves could have different

meanings for people with different backgrounds. Second, due to the low sample size

and specific context, these categories may be unique to this specific sample and may

not be transferable to other responses in other schools.


77 | P a g e

Quantitative Methods for Surveys of Stakeholders Sampling

In consultation with FCPS, it was determined that the most efficient method of

sampling would be to select representative schools from each of 8 clusters in the

district. A total of 33 schools (16 middle and 17 elementary) were selected; 4 of these

schools were those schools examined in depth in the observation portion of this

program review. Within each cluster, schools were stratified by both level (elementary

or middle) and also type of FCPS-AAP (center or local). From within each stratum

schools were randomly selected by staff from FCPS and demographic data was

examined to determine that criteria for FCPS-AAP district wide representation were

achieved. The sampling plan that was devised allowed for various demographic variable

representations in the FCPS-AAP across multiple schools. The following criteria were

considered in the selection of the sample: grade level, gender, ethnicity, and school-

wide socioeconomic status. Once the initial school list was identified, administrators and

teachers of FCPS-AAP students were invited to participate. Randomly selected

classrooms determined which students and parents were asked to participate.

Instrumentation

The surveys delivered to administrators, teachers, students and parents were

developed by FCPS in consultation with the research team. Survey items focused on

the four focus areas defined in the Proposed Scope of the Study. Surveys were

designed for each level of the FCPS-AAP including only items appropriate for that level

of services, school level, or stakeholder group. Administration time was a large

consideration in the development of the surveys; hence parsimony was of great

importance. Final approval of all surveys was determined by FCPS.


78 | P a g e

Data Collection Procedures

It was determined by FCPS that administrator, parent and teacher surveys would

be administered online for efficiency. FCPS personnel administered these surveys via

Survey Monkey and provided de-identified data files to the research team. Teacher

demographic data was also matched to teacher responses and included in the de-

identified file. Student surveys were printed to Scantron sheets by FCPS. Mason

graduate students who were invited to participate on the research team visited each

randomly selected classroom to administer surveys to student which took approximately

15-20 minutes to complete. A 4-digit code on the Scantron sheet allowed FCPS

personnel to match each student’s responses to demographic data and provide a file of

de-identified data to the research team for analysis.

Analysis Plan

FCPS requested percentage of agreement and disagreement of all quantitative

survey data. Each item from each survey (all FCPS-AAP levels of service and across

each stakeholder group) was analyzed using these descriptive methods and results are

provided in graphical and tabular format for ease of readability.

Limitations

Because of the limitations of the ratio of administrators to teachers and to

students in school, there is a rather small sample of administrators. Therefore, no direct

demographic information was linked to administrator responses to protect their identities

and to maintain confidentiality. Although it would have been optimal to survey all FCPS-

AAP associated teachers in the selected schools, FCPS elected invite those teachers

associated with the randomly selected classrooms to reduce teacher burden during

SOL preparation and administration. The response rate among these teachers was just

over 50%. These low response rates necessitate the cautious interpretation of both

teacher and administrator responses as being representative of the entire district. In


79 | P a g e

addition, 9 parents e-mailed FCPS-AAP staff to provide comments about the survey.

Comments addressed the following themes, the need: for open-ended responses

asking for suggestions for improvements, to include twice-exceptional children’s needs

in survey, for more time to fill out the survey, to provide responses across the range of

grades in which the child has received. In addition, two parents called a member of the

research team to indicate that they would like to have had an opportunity to discuss the

child’s problems with communication at a particular middle school and did not find an

opportunity to do so within the context of the survey. Another parent asked for

information about the survey construction. The research team member responded that

the information would be released within the full report to the School Board.


80 | P a g e

RESULTS FOR

GUIDING QUESTION 2:

STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS


81 | P a g e

Understanding Stakeholder Perceptions: Results of Focus Groups and Interviews

Identification Procedures

Students in both elementary and middle school programs responded that the

FCPS-AAP was a good fit for them. A few middle school children mentioned that the

math curriculum was very fast paced.

Parents did not seem to be concerned about placement but rather dealing with

busing their children to centers, and/or having children enrolled in different schools.

Teachers reported very strong sentiments about student placement across the

focus group members and differed slightly by grade level (elementary/middle).

Generally teachers indicated that between 10-15% of any class was not properly

placed. It was noted that even with using differentiated practices the gaps are so

extreme the students cannot ‘catch up’ to the others and it may (does) leave the low

achieving students with negative perceptions about their academic ability.

Administrators indicated that there are sometimes questions about screening and

placement at the middle school by teachers and were also concerned on the accuracy

of outside evaluations and ‘over-identification’.

Curriculum and Instruction

Students reported that the FCPS-AAP generally had more learning material than

general education classes and they perceived that the FCPS-AAP is more rigorous and

challenging than the general education program. Additionally, students also enjoyed the

more challenging curriculum and learning materials. Students clearly expressed the

need for a stronger physical education curriculum. Another theme that emerged among


82 | P a g e

middle school students was that students wanted to expand the curriculum and be

provided with more autonomy about choice in topics to be studied.

Parents stated that the curriculum was good. Additionally, parents noted that

there needs to be more communication across the teachers in the FCPS-AAP. Parents

were split on the level of challenge with some saying it was at an adequate level and

others feeling as though it was too difficult. A few parents explained that the curriculum

focused on quick pace instead of deep content which is an area of growth. In line with

the students, parents mentioned that their children have difficulties with projects

because of time management issues particularly in the middle school. Overall, the

parents seemed to like the projects.

Teachers acknowledged a variety of curriculum resources available through

FCPS-AAP, specifically noting the William & Mary curriculum units and other resources

provided for use in the classrooms.

Administrators strongly stated that the professional development provided by

FCPS was excellent. However, administrators stressed that teachers needed continued

professional development asking for more course offerings because the courses fill

quickly, more advanced offerings for FCPS-AAP teachers who have taught within the

program for several years, and more offerings for general education teachers.

Administrators also noted that teachers are required by the school (but not required by

the county or state) to finish the FCPS-AAP endorsement within the first five years of

working at their school. They noted a high level of success with this requirement

although they also noted that classes often fill up too fast or are not offered on a flexible

(enough) schedule.


Students at the middle school tended to express a range of opinions regarding

their FCPS-AAP teachers, in contrast to the elementary school students who liked their


83 | P a g e

teachers. In response to the overwhelming amount of homework all students felt that

they were being assigned, they suggested that their different teachers should

coordinate their projects and homework, so that timelines can be managed more easily

by the students. Concerns were also expressed by both elementary and middle school

students about social/emotional aspects of the curriculum. There were concerned about

being labeled as the “nerds”, general education students being jealous of the FCPS-

AAP students, and stereotypes.

Parents agreed that the teachers provided competent instruction to their children.

However, several parents cited poor communication between teachers and parents and

the school and parents as one of their biggest concerns with the program.

Teachers mentioned that they continue to engage in advanced professional

development (PD) offered by FCPS and FCPS-AAP office and made positive remarks

about the Institute series and the endorsement courses. Teachers requested more PD

on critical thinking, quality assessment, inquiry, questioning strategies, and media

literacy. Teachers also indicated that they needed more time to work with changes in

curriculum prior to teaching.

Administrators mentioned that the teachers tried their best to meet the needs of

the FCPS-AAP. They see their teachers of FCPS-AAP students as highly committed

and often collaborative but constrained by the demands on their time.

Overall Effectiveness of FCPS-AAP

Students believe that the FCPS-AAP is strong. Elementary and middle school

students were proud to be in the program and they seem to enjoy the more challenging

curriculum/learning materials. It should be noted however, that there was more

variability about the FCPS-AAP among middle school students, who also suggested

that FCPS-AAP at the middle school is not significantly different from general

education—just a heavier workload and slightly more challenging material.


84 | P a g e

Parents, in line with their children, expressed that students liked the program and

emphasized that students gained critical thinking and analytical skills. They also

mentioned that their children were not bored in school and that was their biggest

strength.

Teachers also indicated that FCPS-AAP is effective, despite some concerns with

over identification. Overall, they were pleased with the program.

Administrators indicated that the FCPS-AAP is a strong, “wonderful” program,

and outstanding, noting that the students “really need the program.” It is a critical need

for these children to “extend, challenge and enrich” and the spin off to other students

with a rich and extended curriculum is also positive.


85 | P a g e

Strengths and Opportunities to Improve: Focus Groups and Interviews

Strengths of FCPS-AAP

Students, overall, tended to agree that the FCPS-AAP is paced faster than

general education and the curriculum is strong. Middle school students also mentioned

that FCPS-AAP helped them build strong time management skills as it is rather difficult

to keep up with multiple projects.

Parents’ comments on the FCPS-AAP strengths focused on the critical thinking

and analytical skills and confidence gained, particularly during the elementary school

years.

Teachers mentioned that a strong component of the program is that they were

well-resourced including having professional development opportunities through online

courses, the Institutes sponsored by the FCPS-AAP office and the FCPS-AAP office

staff support provided to the teachers. Another strength of the program according to the

teachers was related to the opportunity to collaborate with other FCPS-AAP teachers

(where available) as well as with general education teachers on data based decision

making, curriculum, field trips and other school-wide initiatives.

Administrators indicated that having a dedicated staff specifically for FCPS-AAP

students as well as the support from Central office was beneficial and considered a

strength. In addition, the culture/vision established through the participation of FCPS-

AAP students in a school was considered highly beneficial to the overall school culture

– creating an environment where learning is “cool.” Finally, it was mentioned that the

addition of FCPS-AAP students to their school was value added to the school

community.


86 | P a g e

Opportunities to Improve

Students’ suggestions for curriculum improvement included more diverse social

studies content and more physical education classes. It was also noted that curriculum

in some subject areas is rather narrow and that the students were also assigned too

much homework. In addition, there were some concerns about the teachers’ teaching

styles being ineffective in terms of supporting learning and motivating students to excel.

Parents’ suggestions for areas of growth within the FCPS-AAP focused on

parent- teacher communication. More rigorous, time-sensitive, and consistent

communication between teachers and school leaders and parents is needed. Another

improvement parents articulated was the need for the curriculum to change in two

specific ways: 1) for the curriculum to move deeper instead of quicker and 2) for

humanities/languages to have a greater focus (e.g. more options to foreign languages).

Teachers’ suggestions focused on reducing class sizes, providing opportunities

for identification re-evaluation, constraining parental influence (as related to test

preparation in identification) and additional opportunities for peer collaboration were

areas for improvement. Teachers explained that the class sizes are too large because

of the depth of program activities, program-specific strategies and expectations for

students. They indicated that it has been very difficult to monitor and support

consistently the growth of all students due to the very large class sizes. They requested

that class size be reduced. Moreover, teachers raised concerns about the lack of re-

evaluation of students and that students are not gifted in every subject. Concerns were

also raised about parental influence on the at home work samples, purchasing coaching

sessions on the standardized identification instruments, and buying copies or sharing

copies of the standardized identification instruments so their children can practice the

test in order to be admitted into FCPS-AAP. Suggestions for alternative assessments,

greater influence of student in-class performances, higher cut-off scores, re-assessment

between elementary/middle school and teacher evaluations of students were noted as

options that could ‘right size’ the program offering. Finally, these teachers felt the need


87 | P a g e

for more time to master the FCPS-AAP curriculum and that when there was a

disproportionate number of classes/teachers of FCPS-AAP/GEN education someone

always felt ‘left out’.

Administrators also raised the issue of disproportionality during the interviews,

that is, the number of dedicated FCPS-AAP classes in comparison to the number of

general education classes needs to be better balanced. In addition, the number of

students within an FCPS-AAP class was viewed disproportionally large by comparison

to general education classes. Consistently, with the teachers’ reports, administrators

also mentioned that external testing (e.g. private providers) seems to result in

disproportionately higher scores for students than within FCPS testing for FCPS-AAP.

Discontinuing outside testing was seen as a solution. Also improvement in the

identification scheme was noted as a strong need, due to perceived ‘over-identification’.


88 | P a g e

Recommendations: Focus Groups and Interviews

Findings and recommendations are aggregated by each stakeholder group

across level of service (Local Level IV and Center), school level (elementary and

middle), and grade level to maintain confidentiality and protect the identities of the

participants. Findings represent themes across all of the groups.

Identification and Overall Program Quality

Students reported that the FCPS-AAP is strong! The current identification

system is very effective. With the exception of a few students who felt that the pace

particularly in math was too fast, the majority of the students indicated that the FCPS-

AAP was a good fit for them.

Parents indicated overall that FCPS-AAP was a good fit for their child(ren). They

provided no recommendations identification/ placement.

Teachers expressed concerns about ‘over identification.’ Further, teachers

expressed serious concerns about the need for re-assessments and re-evaluation of

students throughout their school career for appropriate placements in FCPS-AAP or

Honor’s classes. Reduced class size was also an additional recommendation.

Administrators expressed concerns about ‘over identification.’

Curriculum and Instruction

Students stated that challenge and rigor of the curriculum should be maintained

at its current levels. The curriculum should be expanded to include a variety of topics,

particularly with history lessons. Students clearly expressed their desire to learn more


89 | P a g e

and different topics such as in social studies and science, as well as, given more time to

engage in physical activities. Finally, centers should be balanced in terms of ethnic

background. Students expressed concerned about this issue.

Parents mentioned that there was a need for the curriculum to move deeper

instead of covering material at an accelerated pace and for humanities/languages to

have an expanded focus.

Teachers felt that the FCPS-AAP curricula are strong. FCPS-AAP teachers

desired common planning time with other AAP teachers.

Administrators suggested that they are interested in sharing experiences about

the assessment of FCPS-AAP student performance across the elementary and middle

school levels. They were also interested in being involved in developing common

planning times for FCPS-AAP, FCPS-AAP/General Education teams to discuss

curricular options, share strategies, and discuss means by which to scaffold student

success.


Students recommended that FCPS-AAP teachers increase communication with

one another about their different teaching strategies and share lessons that they felt

were particularly effective with students. This increased collaboration among teachers

would also encourage them to coordinate project and homework timelines.

Social/emotional issues should be addressed. Elementary school students, and to a

lesser degree, middle school students felt that being in the FCPS-AAP labeled them as

being different from the general education population particularly in level IV classes.

Specifically, students in local level IV classes felt more prone to being labeled/bullied

than the center students. Establishment of new centers in each school or having two or

more level IV classes in one school may be a possible solution to this concern where

AAP students are less likely to be identified as a different group.


90 | P a g e

Parents indicated that better communication is critical. In fact, one of the critical

suggestions for program improvement centered around more rigorous, time sensitive,

and consistent communication between teachers and school leaders and parents.

Teachers expressed the need for additional areas of professional development.

Administrators mentioned that expanding professional development offerings to

general education faculty may be helpful. A second recommendation was that more

opportunities to obtain an endorsement to teach FCPS-AAP students would be

beneficial, especially for new teachers.


91 | P a g e

Conclusions: Focus Groups and Interviews

Although there were some suggestions for improvement from all four

stakeholders, all agreed that the FCPS-AAP is strong and effective and were proud to

be a part of it. Specifically, teachers felt positively about the students in FCPS-AAP and

the program in general. Administrators also indicated positive regard for the FCPS-AAP

and the office staff. Finally, parents and their children agreed that the curriculum is

challenging and the program met their needs.


92 | P a g e

Understanding Stakeholder Perceptions:

Survey Results

Organization of Survey Results

Results are provided for each group of stakeholders in the following order:

students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Within each group’s results,

demographics of the group are presented followed by descriptive information for each

survey item, disaggregated by FCPS-AAP level. Survey items are grouped by the

Proposed Scope of the Study based on the four focus areas: Identification Procedures,

Curriculum, Teacher Certification and Professional Development, and Overall Program

Quality. In some groups (e.g. Curriculum) there are also subgroupings for clarity. Each

group section ends with a short summary including strengths, areas for growth, and

recommendations. A final section includes summary tables for comparison purposes

reporting percentage of agreement (strongly agree and agree) on items that were used

across survey groups.


93 | P a g e

Survey Results: Students

Demographics

Surveys were distributed to 1,932 FCPS-AAP students at the randomly sampled

schools. A total of 1,752 students agreed to participate in the FCPS-AAP survey across

all level. There were 1,041 elementary level students and 711 middle school students.

The sample was approximately evenly split on gender with 856 female students (48.9%)

and 895 male students (51.1%). Students were distributed approximately evenly across

grade level, FCPS-AAP level and district cluster.

Cluster Number 1 240 2 234 3 185 4 223 5 211 6 231 7 206 8 221

Level Number II 200 III 240 IV Local 333 IV Center 268 MS Center 322 MS Honors 389

Grade Number grade 3 240 grade 4 260 grade 5 297 grade 6 243 grade 7 374 grade 8 337


94 | P a g e

Other Demographic Information

Of the sample, there were 3.7% (n= 65) students with some type of disability, 2%

(n=33) were English Language Learners, 7.4% (n=129) were Young Scholars, and

9.3% (N=163) receive free and reduced lunch.

White 55%

Black 5%

Hispanic 9%

American Indian/Alaskan

0%

Asian 24%

Mixed Ethnicity 7%

Ethnicity


95 | P a g e

Identification Procedures Students across all levels strongly agreed that they knew why they were in FCPS-AAP. (Note: Level II questionnaires did not ask questions about identification so they are not included here.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

III IV Local IV Center MS Center MS Honors

Perc

enta

ge

I know why I am in AAP.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


96 | P a g e

Quality of Program Services Students across all levels strongly agreed that they liked being a part of FCPS-AAP. (Note: Level II questionnaires did not ask questions about identification so they are not included here.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ge

I like being a part of AAP.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


97 | P a g e

Overall, students across all levels strongly agreed that when they first started FCPS-AAP they wanted to be a part of the program. Additionally, across all levels students responded that they did not have a hard time with the work when they first started in the FCPS-AAP. (Note: Level II questionnaires did not ask questions about identification so they are not included in this analysis.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

When I first started AAP, I wanted to be a part of the program.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45


Perc

enta

ge

I had a hard time with the work when I first started in the AAP.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


98 | P a g e

Curriculum and Instruction Appropriate challenge: Across level II and III students believed that the things they were learning were not too difficult or easy. (Note: Level II questionnaires did not ask questions about identification so they are not included in this analysis.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

II III

Perc

enta

ge

The things I am learning are just right for me--not too hard and not too easy.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


99 | P a g e

Challenge by Subject: Overall students across all levels agreed that they have enough challenge in Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Language Arts and Mathematics had the highest agreement for level of challenge across all student groups, while the biggest disagreements about challenge occurred in FCPS-AAP Science and Social Studies. Additionally, MS honors students had the highest percentage of don’t know responses across subject areas in regards to challenge. (Note: Level II and III questionnaires did not ask questions about identification so they are not included in this analysis.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

IV Local IV Center MS Center MS Honors

Perc

enta

ge

I have enough challenge in AAP Language Arts.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50


Perc

enta

ge

I have enough challenge in AAP mathematics.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


100 | P a g e

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45


Perc

enta

ge

I have enouch challenge in AAP Science.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50


Perc

enta

ge

I have enough challeng in AAP Social Studies.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


101 | P a g e

In general, students across all levels strongly agreed that they are ready to learn more challenging things next year.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

II III IV Local IV Center MS Center MS Honors

Perc

enta

ge

I am ready to learn more challenging things next year.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


102 | P a g e

Teacher Certification and Professional Development Students’ Academic Strength and Interests: Overall students agreed that their teacher knows that they are good at. However, this question also had the largest percentage of uncertain responses from students, especially those in the level III program.

Generally students believe that their teacher knows the things they are interested in; however this agreement is only slightly larger than the disagreement at the MS center level. Also, students in the level III had a large percentage of students who did not know, with each of the other levels having some students who were uncertain.

0

10

20

30

40

50


Perc

enta

ge

In general, my teacher know what I am good at.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

In general, my teacher knows the things that I am intersted in.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


103 | P a g e

Instructional Planning: Across all levels students agreed that their teacher gives them the time they need to think about what they are learning and to complete their work.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

The teacher gives me the time I need to do my work.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50


Perc

enta

ge

My teacher gives me time to think about what I am learning.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


104 | P a g e

Choice, Goals, and Depth: Students across all levels believe that their teacher lets them make choices in showing their learning, encourages them to set goals, and to explore content in greater depth. MS center and honors students had the largest amount of disagreement over the amount of choice they received when demonstrating their learning.

0

10

20

30

40

50


Perc

enta

ge

My teachers lets me make choice about how I show my learning.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

My teacher encourages me to set goals for my learning.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


105 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

My teacher encourages me to explore things I am learning in greater depth.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


106 | P a g e

Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies: Overall students across all levels strongly agreed that they were learning critical, creative, and problem solving strategies at school.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

I am learning critical thinking strategies at school.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

My teacher teaches me how to solve problems.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


107 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

My teacher encourages me to show creativity at school.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


108 | P a g e

Grouping (level II only): Students in level II programs in general agree that their teacher lets them work with other students who like challenging work.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

II

Perc

enta

ge

My teacher lets me work with other students who like challenging work.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


109 | P a g e

FCPS-AAP Teacher Support: Overall, students across all levels agree that their teacher encourages them to ask questions and to work hard. Students across all levels but MS honors and center strongly agreed that their teacher encourages them to ask questions and work hard, with both MS center and honors students showing less strong of an agreement.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

My teacher encourages me to ask questions.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Perc

enta

ge

My teacher encourages me to work hard.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


110 | P a g e

Conclusions from Student Surveys

Overall, students across all levels understood why they are in FCPS-AAP, like

being a part of FCPS-AAP, had a smooth transition into the program and are ready to

learn more challenging things at the next level. Students felt like they were receiving

enough challenge in Language Arts and Mathematics; however reported that they were

not receiving enough challenge in Science and Social Studies. Also, students explained

that their teachers give them enough time to think and do work while encouraging them

to explore content in greater depth and set goals for continuous growth. Additionally,

students responded that their teachers allowed them to be creative and critical while

also learning how to solve problems. Students reported the most uncertainty over

whether their teachers knew what they were good at (academic strengths) and what

they liked (academic interests).


In general, students across all levels believed that they were given the

opportunity to work with students of similar academic level and that they were ready to

learn more challenging things at the next level of FCPS-AAP. Students mostly

responded that they believed their teacher gave them enough time to think and do work

while asking questions and encouraging them to work hard. Overall, students

understood why they were in FCPS-AAP, explained they had a smooth transition into

the program and enjoyed being a part of FCPS-AAP.

Opportunities for Improvement

Students were the most uncertain about their teacher’s ability to know what they

were good at (academic strengths) and what they liked (academic interests).

Additionally, in general students did not believe they were receiving enough challenge in

Science and Social Studies, nor were they given choice in how they demonstrate their


111 | P a g e

learning. Finally, students in MS center and honors programs reported that their teacher

does not encourage them to ask questions.

Recommendations

Science and Social Studies curriculum can be reviewed to ensure that students

of all levels are receiving adequate challenge within the curriculum. Additionally,

assessments can be more directly related towards students’ academic strengths and

interests. Finally, choice for demonstrating learning can be more evident within the MS

center and honors curriculum.


112 | P a g e

Survey Results: Parents

Demographic Information A total of 708 parents participated in the FCPS-AAP survey across all levels in elementary school and middle school. FCPS-AAP #

Participants % of Total Sample

Elementary School Level II 57 8% Elementary School Level III 87 12% Elementary School Level IV Local 197 28% Elementary School Level IV Center

132 19%

Middle School Level IV Center 151 21% Middle School Level IV Local 84 12% Age Of the FCPS-AAP parents that provided age information (n=704) 47% of parents were between the ages of 45-54. Ethnicity Parents self-identified as 70% White, 1% Hispanic/Latino, 20% Asian, 4% Black, and 5% Other races. These ethnic ratios were fairly consistent across all FCPS-AAP levels.


113 | P a g e

Employment The majority of FCPS-AAP parents reported professional employment, 75.2%. Other occupations reported were 16.2%, Managerial, 3.7% Office or clerical work, .6% Technician, 1% Sales, .3% Unskilled Laborer, .6% Skilled Crafts, and 1.9% Service. Thirteen percent of the sample did not answer this question.

Educational Level Most FCPS-AAP parents have a master’s degree (40.8%), with bachelor’s (34.9%) and doctorate (12.1%) following. Other highest degree reported were high school diploma (4.3%), post-doctorate (1.4%), associates (4%), and professional certification (2.4%). Less than 1% of the sample did not complete high school.

Professional

Managerial

Office/Clerical Technician Sales Employment


114 | P a g e

Household Income Level Twelve income level options were provided; however in the lowest 6 options (from lowest category of <5K to 45K-54.9K) there was less than 6% of the sample. About half (48.7%) of the parents surveyed reported household incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. Over one third (36.6%) reported household incomes greater than $200,000.


115 | P a g e

Identification Procedures Identification into a program such as FCPS-AAP is essential. Parents with students in the level IV schools overall strongly agreed that their children had been appropriately identified (58.9%, n=499) and agreed/strongly agreed that they were provided enough information to know what services their child would receive (43.1%). Parents of children in lower levels of FCPS-AAP (Level II and III) overall agreed that their child had been appropriately identified (48.5%,); however discrepancies occurred when parents reported that they had been provided enough information to know what services their child would receive. Parents of students in level II overall disagreed that they were given enough information (35.7%) and at level III parents agreed (43.5%) and disagreed (30.6%) that they were given enough information. Overall parents of students in all levels of FCPS-AAP agreed/strongly agreed that their child had been appropriately identified (43.15%) and also agreed/strongly agreed that they had been provided the information they needed about the identification process (40.3%). In response to the notion that they were provided enough information about the process for identifying students’ parents across all levels of FCPS-AAP agreed/strongly agreed (38.9%) and disagreed/strongly disagreed (11.1%). (Note: Middle School Honors did not ask questions about identification so they are not included in the analysis)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

II III IV Local IV Center MS Center

Perc

enta

ge

Identified my child for the appropriate level of service

SA

A

D

SD


116 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Provided enough information about the process for identifying students to receive services

SA

A

D

SD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Provided enough information so that I know what services the child receives

SA

A

D

SD


117 | P a g e

Quality of Program Services When asked the effectiveness of the FCPS-AAP program, parents across all levels responded favorably that the program was indeed effective as parents strong agreed (36.1%) and agreed (40.1%). The only level with any contention was elementary level III where parents tended to be more split as agreed/strongly agreed (24.7%), disagreed/strongly disagreed (15.53%) or did not know (19.5%) on the overall effectiveness of FCPS-AAP.

Overall parents agreed/strongly agreed about their child being prepared for the academic rigor of FCPS-AAP (46.1%) and that their child had a smooth transition between advanced and general classrooms (44.2%). Additionally, parents across all levels of services agreed that FCPS-AAP is preparing their child to take challenging coursework at the next level (48.3%). The only level in which parents were more closely split was in the elementary level III in which the respondents agreed (45.5%) and disagreed (27.3%) that their child was being prepared for the next level of challenging coursework. (Note: Elementary level II did not ask questions about rigor and transitions, so they are not included in the analysis)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

AAP is an effective program

SA

A

D

SD


118 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

The child was prepared for the academic rigor of AAP

SA

A

D

SD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Child had a smooth transition between the advanced services and the general education classroom

SA

A

D

SD


119 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Preparing child to take challenging coursework at the next level

SA

A

D

SD


120 | P a g e

Curriculum and Instruction Appropriate Challenge by Subject: Across the levels parents’ responses were mixed when asked about their child having enough challenge in Language Arts, with the biggest splits between elementary level II and level III. Parents of students in the level II program agreed (44.8%), disagree (27.6%), or didn’t know (8.6%) as to whether their child was getting enough challenge in Language Arts. For the level III parents the split was almost uniform with agreed (39.8%) and disagreed (38.6%) for level of challenge in Language Arts. Across the level IV and middle school programs parents overall agreed/strongly agreed (46.5%) that the level of challenge in Language Arts was enough for their child.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Child has enough challenge in Language Arts

SA

A

D

SD


121 | P a g e

Similarly to challenge in Language Arts, when asked about challenge in Mathematics elementary level II and III parents were the most divided and the level IV and MS parents were uniformly positive in their feedback. For elementary level II the majority of parents agreed (44.2%); however they strongly disagreed and strongly agreed equally (21.2%). At the elementary level III parents overall disagreed (39.8%) and agreed (36.1%) with the level of challenge in Mathematics. Parents across all level IV and MS programs agreed/strongly agreed (44.2%) that their child has enough challenge in Mathematics.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Child has enough challenge in Mathematics

SA

A

D

SD


122 | P a g e

Overall parents across all levels, except elementary level III, agreed (48.7%) that their child has enough challenge in Science. However, elementary level III parents again were split as respondents disagreed (39%) and agreed (37.8%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Child has enough challenge in Science

SA

A

D

SD


123 | P a g e

Again, parents in all levels, except for elementary level III, agreed (53.6%) with parents of students in the level IV center and MS center programs responding almost even between agree and strongly agree. In the elementary level III program, parents again were split and agreed (41.3%) and disagreed (33.8%) on whether their child has enough challenge in Social Studies.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ge

Child has enough challenge in Social Studies

SA

A

D

SD


124 | P a g e

Rigor of AAP: Parents across the local level IV and both center programs agreed/strongly agreed (44%) that their child’s classroom teacher provided rigorous academic experiences. Both the elementary level II and MS Honors programs had the majority of parents agree (45.2%), but both had parents who responded almost equally to strongly agree (26%) and disagree (24.4%). Finally, elementary level III parents were once again split and agreed (38%), and also disagreed (32.9%) on the rigorous academic experiences their child received. Additionally, when these same parents were asked if the AART challenges their child with rigorous academic experiences the majority agreed (36.8); however a large percentage responded that they did not know (26.4%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher provides rigorous academic experiences

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART challenges the child with rigorous academic experiences

SA

A

D

SD

DK


125 | P a g e

Teacher Beliefs of Challenge and Effort: Overall parents across all levels of programs agreed/strongly agreed (44.8%) that their child’s classroom teacher believes that challenge is a part of the learning process with the level IV center and MS center parents having the largest strongly agreed response rate (46%). Additionally, 77 parents responded that they did not know if their child’s classroom teacher believes that challenge is a part of the learning process. When elementary level III parents were asked if their child’s AART believes that challenge is part of the learning process the general consensus agreed (44.8%), but again a large percentage did not know (24.1%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher believes that challenge is a part of the learning process

SA

A

D

SD

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART believes that challenge is part of the learning process

SA

A

D

SD

DK


126 | P a g e

Overall parents agreed/strongly agreed that their child’s classroom teacher believes that effort is a part of the learning process (46%). When elementary level III parents were asked this same question about their child’s AART the majority agreed (40.2%), but again there was a large percentage of parents that did not know (24.1%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher believes that effort is a part of the learning process

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART believes that effort is part of the learning process

SA

A

D

SD

DK


127 | P a g e

Academic Strengths and Interests: Overall parents responded similarly to both questions regarding the child’s academic strengths and interests being considered in daily classroom instruction. Parents across all programs agreed (52.7%) their child’s academic strengths were being considered and agreed (50.8%) their child’s academic interests were being considered in daily instruction. Additionally, 110 parents responded that they were unsure if their child’s strengths were being considered and 127 parents did not know if their child’s academic interests were being considered. Similarly, the elementary level III parents equally agreed (36.8%) that their child’s AART considers both academic strengths and interests are considered in daily instruction. Also, for both questions 21 parents did not know (24.1%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

The child's academic strengths are considered in daily classroom instruction

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART considers child's academic strengths in instruction

SA

A

D

SD

DK


128 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

The child's academic interests are considered in daily classroom instruction

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART considers child's academic interests in instruction

SA

A

D

SD

DK


129 | P a g e

Complex Activities: In general parents agreed/strongly (38.4%) that the classroom teacher provides complex activities for the child with 110 of those parents who responded they did not know. Across the level IV local, center and MS Honors programs parents had the most agreement that the classroom teacher provides complex activities (40.8%). Elementary level III parents were most unlike the other groups as the majority of parents agreed (44.7%); however a large percentage also disagreed (35.5%). When these same parents were asked about their child’s AART providing complex activities for their child the majority agreed (35.6%), however a large percentage said they did not know (23%).

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher provides complex activities for the child

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART provides complex activities for the child

SA

A

D

SD

DK


130 | P a g e

Choice: Overall parents across all levels agreed that their child was provided choice in ways to demonstrate his or her learning (49.9%) and with 110 of the parents responding that they did not know the answer to this question. Additionally, when elementary level III parents were asked the same question about their child’s AART the majority of parents said they did not know (35.6%) or that they agreed (32.2%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

The child's provided choice in ways to demonstrate his or her learning

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART provides choice in demonstrating the child's learning

SA

A

D

SD

DK


131 | P a g e

Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies: Overall parents across all levels agreed (49.8%) that their child’s classroom teacher teaches their child to use critical thinking strategies and creative thinking strategies (48.4%). Parents of students in the elementary level IV local and level IV center had the highest agree/strongly agree percentage for critical thinking (45.2%) and creative thinking strategies (44.2%) across all levels. When elementary level III parents were asked the same questions about their child’s AART teacher the majority agreed (37.9%) that the teacher teaches critical thinking strategies, however a large percentage of parents did not know (23%). Similarly, when asked about the AART teaching their child to use creative thinking strategies, parents overall agreed (40.2%) but again had a fairly large percentage respond they did not know (19.5%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher teaches my child to use critical thinking strategies

SA

A

D


132 | P a g e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART teaches the child to use critical thinking strategies

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher teaches my child to use creative thinking strategies

SA

A

D

SD


133 | P a g e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART teaches the child to use creative thinking strategies

SA

A

D

SD

DK


134 | P a g e

Problem Solving and Inquiry: In general, parents across all levels agreed (48.7%) that their child’s classroom teacher engaged their child in problem solving activities as well as by using inquiry (49.5%). Parents of students in level elementary IV local and level IV center had the highest agree/strongly agree percentage for both problem solving (44.6%) and inquiry (45.4%) across all groups. Additionally, when parents of elementary level III students were asked if their child’s AART engaged the child in problem solving activities the majority agreed (36.8%), however a large number of parents said they did not know (19.5%). When asked whether the AART engaged the child by using inquiry, the majority of parents agreed (35.6%) but again a large percentage does not know (26.4%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher engages my child in problem solving activities

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART engages the child in problem solving activities

SA

A

D

SD

DK


135 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher engages my child by using inquiry

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART engages the child by using inquiry

SA

A

D

SD

DK


136 | P a g e

Depth and Goals: Overall parents across all levels agreed (39%) that their child’s teacher encourages the child to explore content in greater depth and to set goals for continuous growth (48.4%). Of the 740 parents who agreed that the teacher encourages the child to set goals for continuous growth, 95 parents said they did not know. The greatest area of disagreement between parents occurred at the various levels when they were asked about the teacher encouraging their child to explore content in greater depth. In response to this question the elementary level IV and center parents agreed/strongly agreed (42.4%), the MS local and center parents agreed (46.2%), and elementary level II and level III agreed (39.4 %), but also disagreed (27.4%). Also, when elementary level III parents were asked about these same questions about their child’s AART teacher overall they agreed (42.5%) that the teacher their child to explore content in greater depth, yet a large percentage of parents was uncertain (25.3%). Additionally, when asked about their child’s AART encouraging their child to set goals for continuous growth the majority of parents didn’t know (36.8%) or agreed (33.3%).

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Perc

enta

ge

Classrom teacher encourages child to explore content in greater depth

SA

A

D

SD


137 | P a g e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART encourages the child to explore content in greater depth

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher encourages child to set goals for continuous growth

SA

A

D

SD


138 | P a g e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART encourages the child to set goals for continous growth

SA

A

D

SD

DK


139 | P a g e

Reflection: Generally parents across all levels agreed (54.7%) that their child’s teacher encourages the child to reflect on his or her learning, with 103 parents saying they did not know. In addition, when elementary level III parents were asked this same question about their child’s AART the majority agreed (36.8%), with a large percentage responding that they did not know (29.9%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Classroom teacher encourages the child to reflect on his or her learning

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART encourages the child to reflect on his or her learning

SA

A

D

SD

DK


140 | P a g e

Grouping: Overall parents agreed (49.3%) that their child has the opportunity to work with students who need a similar level of academic challenge. Additionally, the parents of students in level IV local, level IV center, and MS center had the highest agree/strongly agree responses (47%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Child has the opportunity to work with students who need a similiar level of academic challenge

SA

A

D

SD


141 | P a g e

Teacher Certification and Professional Development Parents overall agreed/strongly agreed (42.3%) that their child’s FCPS-AAP teacher is well prepared to teach in FCPS-AAP, with the parents of elementary level IV local and center students strongly agreeing (48.1%) with this statement. (Note: Elementary level II and III did not ask questions about teacher preparedness, so they are not included in the analysis)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

AAP teacher is well prepared to teach in AAP

SA

A

D

SD


142 | P a g e

Academic Needs: Overall parents across all levels agreed/strongly agreed (43.8%) that their child’s FCPS-AAP teacher is well prepared to meet the academic needs of their child. Parents of students in elementary level IV local and center schools had the most favorable reaction and strongly agreed (45.9%) that their child’s teacher is well prepared to meet the academic needs of their child.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

AAP teacher is well prepared to meet the academic needs of the child

SA

A

D

SD


143 | P a g e

Social & Emotional Needs: When asked about their child’s FCPS-AAP teacher’s preparedness in meeting the social/emotional needs of their child, parents in general agreed/strongly agreed (41.5%), with parents of students in elementary level IV local and center schools having the highest agree/strongly agree percentage (43.45%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

AAP teacher is well prepared to meet the social/emotional needs of my child

SA

A

D

SD


144 | P a g e

Additional Challenge: Parents in general agreed/strongly agreed (39.5%) that their child’s FCPS-AAP teacher is well prepared to meet the needs of their child when he or she needs additional challenge. Additionally, parents of students in elementary level IV local and center had the greatest agree/strongly agree response (40.3%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

AAP teacher is well prepared to meet the needs of the child when he or she needs additional challenge

SA

A

D

SD


145 | P a g e

Differentiated Curriculum: Overall parents agreed/strongly agreed (41%) that their child’s teacher is well trained to provide their child with a differentiated curriculum that meets the needs of their child, with 98 of these parents said they were unsure. Parents of students in elementary level IV local and center schools had the most strongly agreed responses (46.7%). Additionally, when elementary level III parents were asked about their child’s AART being well trained to provide their child with a differentiated curriculum that meet their child’s needs the majority of parents agreed (36.8%) with some parents responding they did not know (13.8%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

Teacher well-trained to provide my child with a differentiated curriculum that meets his or her needs

SA

A

D

SD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

III

Perc

enta

ge

AART is well-trained to provide the child with a differentitated curriculum that meets his or her needs

SA

A

D

SD

DK


146 | P a g e

Conclusions from Parent Surveys

Overall parents across all levels believed that the FCPS-AAP is an effective

program, that their child was correctly identified, prepared for the rigor of FCPS-AAP,

and are with students of similar academic levels. Additionally, parents believed their

child’s FCPS-AAP teachers are well-trained in FCPS-AAP curriculum, differentiation,

and providing their child academic and socio/emotional support. Parents of students in

elementary level III expressed the greatest level of discontent with the program with the

majority disagreeing about statements in which all other parents agreed and expressing

complete uncertainty about what the AART does within the classroom environment.


In general, parents across all levels indicated that their child’s FCPS-AAP

teachers communicate that effort and challenge are a part of the learning process.

Parents believe the teachers utilize critical and creative thinking strategies with

students, while also encouraging students to reflect on their learning. Parents across all

levels also responded that their child’s FCPS-AAP teachers effectively utilize critical and

creative thinking strategies with their students while also engaging them in problem

solving and inquiry activities. Finally, parents across all levels agreed that their child’s

FCPS-AAP teacher is well-prepared to teach FCPS-AAP curriculum and to address

students’ academic and socio/emotional needs while also differentiated classroom

instruction. Opportunities for Improvement

Overall, parents expressed the desire to have more information provided about

what services the child would receive while in the FCPS-AAP. Also, some parents

disagreed that their child was being provided enough challenge in Language Arts,

Science, and Mathematics; the greatest disagreement coming from parents of level II

and level III students. Additionally, parents of students in levels II, III, and MS honors do


147 | P a g e

not think teachers are providing rigorous experiences or encouraging their child to

explore content in greater depth. Also, parents of students in level II, III, and MS center

disagree that teachers are providing students with complex activities within daily

instruction. Finally, parents of students in level III elementary expressed a level of

discontent with the FCPS-AAP overall, coupled with a lack of certainty over what the

AART does during daily instruction.

Recommendations

Parents overall need to have more communication over what resources and

services their child receives as part of the FCPS-AAP. In addition, parents of level III

students generally need more information about what the AART does during daily

instruction. Finally, the Language Arts, Science, and Mathematics curriculum could be

reviewed to assess whether students need more challenge within the subject areas.


148 | P a g e

Survey Results: Teachers

Participation Surveys were emailed to 140 FCPS-AAP teachers at the randomly sampled school. A total of 79 teachers elected to participate in the FCPS-AAP survey across all level. There we 65 elementary level teachers and only 14 middle school teachers. Demographic information was available for 65 of the 79 teachers who responded (n= 47 elementary and n=14 middle school). Of the 47 elementary teachers with demographic data, 45 were female and 2 were male. There were 13 female middle school teachers and 1 male responding to the survey.


149 | P a g e

Highest Degree Obtained: Of the 47 elementary school teachers, most held either a BA (n= 15) or MA (n= 28) degree; while at the middle school level, the 14 teachers were distributed across varying levels of BA plus additional graduate credits and 8 of the 14 hold MA degrees.

Gifted Teaching Endorsement: Of the demographic data available (n=61), only 5 teachers (3 elementary and 2 middle school) possessed a teaching endorsement in gifted education. National Board Certification: At the elementary level there was 1 nationally board certified teacher who responded. None of the 14 middle school teachers are nationally board certified. Teaching Experience: Of the 47 elementary school teachers with demographic data, the average years of teaching experience was 10yrs (SD = 7 yrs.), with an average of 7 yr. (SD=5 yrs.) of those years of experience within FCPS. For the 12 middle school teachers the average years of teaching experience was 11 yrs. (SD= 7 yrs.), with an average of 7.5 yrs.(SD= 5 yrs.) within FCPS.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

BA BA+15 BA+30 MA PhD

Perc

enta

ge

Highest Degree

ES

MS


150 | P a g e

Number of teachers by level: For all of the following descriptive analyses, the responses are reported by percentage of teachers and level of agreement for each item on the survey. For many levels the n is rather small and does not allow for generalization to the entire district. FCPS-AAP Level Number of Teachers Completing the

Survey Elementary School II 21 Elementary School III 24 Elementary School Local IV 12 Elementary School Center IV 8 Middle School Center IV 7 Middle School Honors 7


151 | P a g e

Identification Procedures Identification into a program such as FCPS-AAP is essential. Teachers overall agreed that they understand the process for identifying students for school-based services. However there are a few teachers who disagree (n=11) of this sample. While this is a small sample and may not be representative of the teacher knowledge of the entire district, 14% of the sample needs more information about how the identification process is carried out. (Note: Level IV questionnaires did not ask questions about identification so they are not included here.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

II III

Perc

enta

ge

Understanding of Process for Identifying Students for School-based Services (level II & III)

SA

A

D

SD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

II III

Perc

enta

ge

Understanding of the Process for Identifying students Level IV Services in grades 3-8

SA

A

D

SD


152 | P a g e

Communication of FCPS-AAP Program Features: Overall, teachers generally agree that they are prepared to communicate to parents and the community about the features of the FCPS-AAP. Again 11 teachers in this sample (14%) do not feel adequately prepared to communicate this information.

In elementary schools at level II and III, teachers responded about their opinions on the Advanced Academic Resource Teacher’s ability to provide information about the FCPS-AAP.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ges

I feel well prepared to communicate the features of the program to parents and the community

SA

A

D

SD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

II III

Perc

enta

ge

The AAR teacher(s) in my building is/are well-prepared to communicate the features of the program to parents and the

community.

SA

A

D

SD


153 | P a g e

In middle schools with local level IV programs, teachers provided their opinion on the school counselor’s ability to communication information about the FCPS-AAP.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MS Honors

Perc

enta

ge

The school counselor in my building is well-prepared to communicate the features of the program to parents and the

community.

SA

A

D

SD


154 | P a g e

Availability of Advanced Mathematics in Levels II & III: Teachers at level II & III in elementary schools were asked about the availability of advanced mathematics for students who are ready for this curriculum. In general, teachers felt that the availability of advanced mathematics was adequate for students’ needs.

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

II III

Perc

enta

ge

Advanced mathematics is available to students in this school for all students who are ready.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


155 | P a g e

Curriculum and Instruction Overall teachers agreed that students are being prepared to take challenging coursework at the next level, with teachers from level IV local and center with the highest levels of agreement. However, some MS honors teachers strongly disagree that their students are being adequately prepared for taking challenging coursework at the high school level.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ges

Preparing Student to Take Challenging Coursework at the Next Level

SA

A

D

SD


156 | P a g e

Appropriate challenge by subject: Teachers provided their opinions on if students are being provided with enough challenge in FCPS-AAP in the four core subject areas. Generally teachers feel the level of challenge is adequate at all levels in Language Arts and Mathematics; however there is some disagreement about adequate challenge for Science and Social Studies, especially at Levels II and III. (Note: Level IV Local program teachers were not provided with these items.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Perc

enta

ge

Language Arts

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Perc

enta

ge

Mathematics

SA

A

D

SD

DK


157 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Science

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ge

Social Studies

SA

A

D

SD

DK


158 | P a g e

In general, it appears as though teachers feel that students are working with other students on about the same level. However, about 10% (n=9) of the teachers surveyed disagree with this statement.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Perc

enta

ge

Students have the opportunity to work with students who need a similar level of academic challenge

SA

A

D

SD

DK


159 | P a g e

Students’ Academic Strength and Interests: Teachers responded with their opinions about how well students’ various academic strengths and interests are addressed by the FCPS-AAP curriculum. Generally teachers agree that these needs are met; however at the middle school local level there is some disagreement about academic strengths being met within honors classes. The teachers are less likely to agree that students’ interests are being met at level IV (both elementary and middle school).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ge

Students' academic strengths are considered in daily classroom instruction

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ge

Students' academic interests are considered in daily classroom instruction

SA

A

D

SD

DK


160 | P a g e

FCPS-AAP Curriculum and Instructional Strategies: Overall teachers across all programs agreed that their students are being provided choice in how they demonstrate their learning. Teachers from MS center schools had the highest level of strong agreement with this statement, while level IV center teachers had the highest level of disagreement.

Across all programs teachers believe that students are encouraged to reflect on their learning, with teachers from level IV center schools having a perfect agreement about this notion. Additionally, teachers across all levels agreed that students are encouraged to set goals for continuous growth.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ge

Students are provided choice in ways to demonstrate his or her learning

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Perc

enta

ge

Students are encouraged to reflect on their learning

SA

A

D

SD

DK


161 | P a g e

0

20

40

60

80

100


Perc

enta

ge

Students are encouraged to set goals for continuous growth.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


162 | P a g e

Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies: Overall teachers across all levels believe that the FCPS-AAP curriculum allows teacher to integrate both critical and creative thinking strategies into their instruction. Additionally, level IV center teachers had the strongest agreement across all levels of teachers. (Note: MS center and honors teachers were not asked about these questions and are not included in this analysis).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

II III IV Local IV Center

Perc

enta

ge

The AAP curriculum allows teachers to integrate critical thinking strategies into instruction.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

II III IV Local IV Center

Perc

enta

ge

The AAP curriculum allows teachers to integrate creative thinking strategies into instruction.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


163 | P a g e

FCPS-AAP Curriculum Rigor: Teachers across all levels believe that the FCPS-AAP curriculum gives students rigorous academic experiences, and teachers from level IV local, MS center, and MS honors programs having the strongest level of agreement with this statement.

Across all levels, teachers believe that students are being encouraged to explore content in greater depth and are engaging in problem solving activities and inquiry. Generally teachers from level IV local schools had the strongest agreement on each of these notions, and MS honors teachers having the strongest disagreement.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ge

Students receive rigorous academic experiences.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Perc

enta

ge

Students are encouraged to explore content in greater depth.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


164 | P a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge

Students are engaged in problem solving activities.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


165 | P a g e

Teacher Certification and Professional Development Teachers believe that they are well-trained to provide students with a differentiated curriculum that meets their needs. Across all levels teachers felt well-trained with level IV local, IV center, and MS center teachers feeling the most prepared.

Generally, all teachers from all levels agreed that it is easy to utilize instructional strategies that are appropriate for advanced learners; however there was some disagreement from level IV local, center, and MS honors teachers.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Perc

enta

ge

I am well-trained to provide the student with a differentiated curriculum that meets his or her needs.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Perc

enta

ge

I find it easy to utilize instructional strategies appropriate for advanced learners.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


166 | P a g e

Across all programs teachers generally felt that they are well prepared to meet the needs of children when they need additional challenge, however at the level II and IV center there was the most disagreement with the notion of preparedness for challenge .

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Perc

enta

ge

I am well prepared to meet the needs of the child when he or she needs additional

challenge.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


167 | P a g e

Teacher Beliefs: When asked about challenge and effort being a part of the learning process, teachers across all levels overwhelming agreed that effort and challenge are a part of the learning process. Additionally, teachers from level IV local, center, MS center, and MS honors all showed only positive agreement with the concept of challenge and learning being a part of the learning process.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Perc

enta

ge

I believe that challenge is a part of the learning process.

SA

A

D

SD

DK

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Perc

enta

ge

I believe that effort is part of the learning process.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


168 | P a g e

Teachers from level II and III programs believed that students could be eligible at a future date to receive a higher level of FCPS-AAP services if they are ready for a great academic challenge. However, teachers are level III programs showed more uncertainty towards this question. (Note: Teachers from level IV local, center, MS local, and center were not asked questions regarding eligibility and are not included in this analysis).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

II III

Perc

enta

ge

I believe that a student could be eligible at a future date to receive a higher level of AAP services, if he/she is

ready for a great academic challenge.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


169 | P a g e

Center Curriculum: Across both level IV center and MS center programs teachers strongly agreed that they understood the connections between the FCPS Program of Studies and the FCPS-AAP.

Level IV Curriculum: In general teachers found it easy to utilize curriculum from the FCPS-AAP framework, however teachers from level IV local, center and MS honors programs had the highest levels of disagreement.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

IV Center MS Center

Perc

enta

ge

I understand the connection between the FCPS Program of Studies and the AAP.

SA

A

D

SD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Perc

enta

ge

I find it easy to utilize curriculum from the AAP framework.

SA

A

D

SD

DK


170 | P a g e

Conclusions from Teacher Surveys

Conclusions

Overall teachers across all levels agreed that they understood the process for

identifying students for FCPS-AAP levels and found it easy to utilize curriculum from the

FCPS-AAP framework. Teachers agreed that the curriculum provided them the

opportunity to teach a differentiated curriculum that provides students with rigorous

academic experiences. Additionally, teachers stated their beliefs that effort and

challenge are a part of the learning process and that they consider student’s academic

strengths in daily instruction. Finally, teachers reported that students are given the

opportunity to work with students of similar academic levels and that they are receiving

adequate levels of challenge in Language Arts and Mathematics.


In general teachers believe that the FCPS-AAP curriculum allows them to

provide critical and creative thinking strategies, problem solving skills, and the use of

inquiry to all levels of learners. Also, the program allows students to explore content in

more depth, reflect on their learning, and set goals for themselves for continuous

growth.


Overall teachers expressed that they need more preparedness in how to

effectively communicate the features of the FCPS-AAP program to parents and the

community. Some teachers also reported that the curriculum does not allow for them to

provide additional challenge when students needed it, to consider students’ academic

interests in daily instruction, and to provide students choice when demonstrating

learning. Finally, while teachers believed that the level of challenge for Language Arts

and Mathematics was enough for students, they were in less agreement that Social


171 | P a g e

Studies provided enough challenge for students, and disagreed that students were

provided enough challenge in Science.

Recommendations

Teachers need more training in how to effectively communicate with parents and

the community about the features of the FCPS-AAP program. The Science curriculum

should be reexamined across elementary level II, III and level IV center programs.

Teachers either disagreed or did not know if the Science curriculum was providing

students with enough challenge.


172 | P a g e

Survey Results: Administrators

Number of administrators by level: For all of the following descriptive analyses, the responses are reported by percentage of administrators and level of agreement for each item on the survey. For all levels the n is extremely small and does not allow for generalization to the entire district. Additionally, graphs represent only the differences at the school level and not program level in order to maintain the confidentiality of the respondents due to the very low sample size.

FCPS-AAP Level Number of Administrators Completing the Survey Elementary School Non-Center 4 Elementary School Center 5 Middle School Non-Center 6 Middle School Center 4 Un-Identified 8


173 | P a g e

Identification Procedures Overall elementary school administrators across center and non-center schools agreed (71.4%) that the FCPS-AAP program adequately identifies students for the appropriate level of service and (14.3%) disagreed. (Note: Middle school administrators were not asked about identification and are not included in this analysis.)

For all of the following items agreement across all administrators was 93% or higher.

• I understand the process for identifying students for school-based AA services

(levels II-III services, K-6).

• I understand the process of identifying students for level IV services in grades 3-8.

• I believe that a child could be eligible at a future date to receive a higher level of

FCPS-AAP services, if he/she is ready for a greater academic challenge.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

ES

Perc

enta

ge

The AAP program adequately identifies students for the appropriate level of service

SA

A

D

SD


174 | P a g e

Quality of Program Services For all of the following items agreement across all administrators was 93% or higher. Connections:

• In general, I understand the connection between the FCPS Program of Studies and FCPS-AAP.

• My Advanced Academic teachers understand the connection between the FCPS

Program of Studies and FCPS-AAP. Challenge and Effort:

• As an administrator, I believe that challenge is part of the learning process.

• As an administrator, I believe that effort is part of the learning process.


175 | P a g e

Curriculum and Instruction Challenge by Grade Level: When asked about the FCPS-AAP program providing enough challenge for advanced learners in kindergarten, first grade and second grade all disagreement came from elementary center or un-identified administrators. (Note: Middle school administrators were not asked about identification and are not included in this analysis.)

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

ES

Perc

enta

ge

The AAP program overall, provides enough challenge for advanced learners at my school in kindergarten

SA

A

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ES

Perc

enta

ge

The AAP program overall, provides enough challenge for advanced learners at my school in first grade

SA

A

D


176 | P a g e

Inquiry: Overall elementary administrators agreed (57.1%) that the FCPS-AAP curriculum allows teachers to engage students in inquiry, with the middle school administrators agreeing slightly less (38.5%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ES

Perc

enta

ge

The AAP program overall, provides enough challenge for advanced learners at my school in second grade

SA

A

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

The AAP curriculum allows teachers to engage students in inquiry

SA

A

D


177 | P a g e

Goals: In general elementary administrators agreed (71.4%) that the FCPS-AAP curriculum allows teachers to encourage students to set goals for continuous growth, and the middle school administrators strongly agreed (46.8%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

The AAP curriculum allows teachers to encourage students to set goals for continous growth

SA

A

D


178 | P a g e

For all of the following items agreement across all administrators was 93% or higher. Challenge by Grade Level:

• Overall, provides enough challenge for advanced learners at your school in third grade.

• Overall, provides enough challenge for advanced learners at your school in fourth grade.

• Overall, provides enough challenge for advanced learners at your school in fifth grade.

• Overall, provides enough challenge for advanced learners at your school in sixth grade.

Challenge by Subject:

• Provides enough challenge for advanced learners at your school in Language Arts.

• Provides enough challenge for advanced learners at your school in Math.

• Provides enough challenge for advanced learners at your school in Science.

• Provides enough challenge for advanced learners at your school in Social Studies.

Preparedness for Next Level:

• Adequately prepares children to take challenging coursework for the next level (grade or school).

Similar Academic Challenge:

• Provides opportunities for students to work with other students who need a similar level of academic challenge.

Pacing Guide:

• The Elementary Mathematics Instructional Sequence and Pacing Guide are available to all students at my school (K-6) who are ready for advanced math.


179 | P a g e

Academic Strengths and Interests:

• Consider students’ academic strengths in daily classroom instruction.

• Consider students’ academic interests in daily classroom instruction. Choice and Reflection:

• Provide choice in ways to demonstrate learning.

• Encourage students to reflect on his/her learning.

Critical and Creative Thinking:

• Integrate critical thinking strategies into instruction.

• Integrate creative thinking strategies into instruction.

Rigorous Experiences:

• Challenge students with rigorous academic experiences.

• Encourage students to explore content in greater depth.

Critical, Creative, and Problem Solving:

• Teach students to use critical thinking strategies.

• Teach students to use creative thinking strategies.

• Engage students in problem solving activities.


180 | P a g e


Differentiation: In general, middle school administrators disagreed (53.8%) that their general education teachers regularly differentiated instruction in the class, while far less elementary administrators disagreed (28.6%).

Elementary administrators overall agreed (57.1%) that their general education teachers are well-trained to provide a differentiated curriculum for FCPS-AAP students. (Note: Middle school administrators were not asked about general education teachers training and are not included in this analysis.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general my general education teachers regularly differentiate instruction in the classroom

SA

A

D

SD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general, my general education teachers are well-trained to provide a differentiated curriculum for AAP students

SA

A

D

SD


181 | P a g e

Overall elementary administrators strongly agreed (50%) that the Advance academic teachers in their school are well-trained to provide a differentiated curriculum for FCPS-AAP students, and middle school administrators strongly agreed far less (33.3%).

Integration: Elementary administrators overall disagreed (50%) that their general education teachers understand how to integrate the 9 FCPS critical and creative thinking strategies into instruction. (Note: Middle school administrators were not asked about general education teachers and are not included in this analysis.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general, my Advanced Academic teachers are well-trained to provide a differentiated curriculum for AAP students

SA

A

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general, my general education teachers understand how to integrate the 9 FCPS critical and creative thinking strategies

into instruction

SA

A

D

SD


182 | P a g e

Instructional Strategies: When asked about their Advanced Academic teachers’ ability to utilize the FCPS-AAP instructional strategies appropriate for advanced learners, elementary educators agreed (64.3%), while middle school administers agreed slightly less (50%).

Additional Challenge: Overall elementary administrators (50%) and middle school administrators (41.7%) agreed that all of the teachers in schools are prepared to meet the needs of a child receiving FCPS-AAP services when he/she needs additional challenge.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general, my Advanced Academic teachers are able to utilize the AAP instructional strategies appropriate for

advanced learners

SA

A

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general, all of my teachers are prepared to meet the needs of a child receiving AAP services when he/she needs

additional challenge

SA

A

D

SD


183 | P a g e

Communication: When asked about the general teachers within schools being well-prepared to communicate the features of FCPS-AAP to parents and the community, elementary administrators agreed (57.1%) and middle school administrators agreed slightly less (38.5%).

The majority of elementary administrators agreed (64.3%) that other administrators in their building are well-prepared to communicate the features of FCPS-AAP to parents and the community, while a smaller percentage of middle school administrators agreed (30.8%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general teachers in my building are well-prepared to communicate the features of AAP to parents and the

community

SA

A

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general, other administrator(s) in the building is/are well-prepared to communicate the features of AAP to parents and

the community

SA

A

D


184 | P a g e

When asked if they felt well-prepared to communicate the features of FCPS-AAP to parents and the community the majority of elementary administrators (64.3%) and middle school administrators (46.2%) strongly agreed.

For all of the following items agreement across all administrators was 93% or higher. Utilizing Curriculum:

• My Advanced Academic teachers find it easy to utilize curriculum from the FCPS-AAP framework.

• In general, the FCPS-AAP/Honors teachers find it easy to implement the Honors extensions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MS ES

Perc

enta

ge

In general, I feel well-prepared to communicate the features of AAP to parents and the community

SA

A

D


185 | P a g e

Conclusions from the Administrator Surveys

Overall, administrators believe that the FCPS-AAP program is effective and the

curriculum allows teachers to utilize critical and creative thinking strategies with

students while allowing them to explore content in greater depth, reflect on their

learning, and set goals for continuous growth. Administrators also believe that the

curriculum provides enough challenge for students in grades 3-6 across all subject

areas. Additionally, administrators believed that teachers, other administrators, as well

as they themselves needed more training in regards to communicating the features of

the FCPS-AAP program with parents and the community.


All administrators articulated their understanding of the process of how students

are identified into the various levels of the FCPS-AAP program, and in general

administrators believed that the FCPS-AAP program correctly identifies students. In

general, administrators believed that the FCPS-AAP curriculum provides students with

rigorous experiences, the opportunity to work with students of similar academic levels,

and the preparedness to advance to the next academic level. Administrators also

reported that the curriculum provided teachers the opportunities to encourage growth

with students and the ability for general education teachers to differentiate curriculum

for FCPS-AAP students.


Elementary administrators reported that students in K-2 were not receiving

enough challenge within the FCPS-AAP curriculum. Also, elementary administrators

believed that their general teachers do not understand how to integrate the 9 FCPS

critical and creative thinking strategies into instruction. Middle school administrators

believed that general education and the Advanced Academic teachers were unable to

provide a differentiated curriculum to both general and FCPS-AAP students.


186 | P a g e

Additionally, MS administrators did not believe that students were provided enough use

of inquiry within the classroom. Finally, MS administrators believed that more training is

necessary for administrators and parents to effectively communicate the features of the

FCPS-AAP program to parents and the community.

Recommendations

Elementary teachers need more training in how to integrate the 9 FCPS critical

and creative thinking strategies into instruction and differentiation across levels of

students. Administrators and teachers across all levels need more training in how to

effectively communicate the features of the FCPS-AAP program to parents and the

community. Also, a curriculum review for grades K-2 may be conducted to assess that

students are being properly challenged.


187 | P a g e

Comparison Tables

The following tables provide comparative percentages of agreement (the total of

strongly agree and agree) across student, parent, teacher and administrators on those

items that were common to all surveys for students in Level IV and at Centers. Table 1

includes those items about the student’s experiences in FCPS-AAP and table 2 includes

those items related to teacher practice and curriculum.

Student Experience in FCPS-AAP for Level IV and Center Students Only

Item Student Parent Teacher Admin Enough Challenge in Language Arts 78.4% 77.7% 83.3% 100% Enough Challenge in Mathematics 73.3% 80.6% 83.3% 92.6% Enough Challenge in Science 67.5% 73.3% 62% 96.3% Enough Challenge in Social Studies 70.8% 80.9% 66.2% 96.3% Prepared for Challenging Coursework Next Year

86.9% 83.5% 87.4% 100%

Opportunity to Work with Students at a Similar Level

59.9% 86.8% 85.9% 92.6%

Academic Strengths are considered 68.4% 81.8% 88.2% 100% Academic Interests are considered 59.3% 76.6% 84.2% 100% Student is provided choice in ways to demonstrate learning

66.1% 74.2% 84.2% 100%

Student is encouraged to reflect 78.9% 81.5% 88.1% 96.2% Student is encouraged to set goals 81.1% 75% 81.5% 88.9% Conclusions

Overall, administrators, teachers and parents had the highest agreements that

students’ were having positive and beneficial experiences within the FCPS-AAP. While

students believed that they were being prepared for challenging coursework at the next

level, are encouraged to set goals and reflect, and were receiving enough challenge in

Language Arts and Social Studies. Across all subject students, parents, and teacher

were less happy with the level of challenge students were receiving in Science;

teachers also felt less agreement that students were being challenged in Social Studies


188 | P a g e

as well. Students also felt less agreement that they had the opportunity to work with

students at a similar level and that their academic strengths and interests are

considered in daily instruction.


Overall, across students, parents, teachers, and administrators agreed that the

FCPS-AAP is giving students positive experiences and the opportunity to have

challenging experiences across subject areas that is preparing them for the coursework

they will encounter next year. Additionally, across all groups, students are receiving

enough challenge in Language Arts, Mathematics, while being encouraged to reflect on

their learning and set goals.


Students and teachers felt that students were not receiving enough challenge in

Science and Social Studies, and that the level of challenge was less than they were

receiving in Language Arts and Mathematics. Students also felt less strongly that they

were given the opportunities to work with students at a similar level with their academic

strengths and interests needing to be considered more.

Recommendations

The Science and Social Studies curriculum should be reexamined to ensure that

students are being adequately challenged, while providing teacher opportunities to

consider students’ academic strengths and interests into daily instruction.


189 | P a g e

Table 2. Teacher Practice and Curriculum.

Item Student Parent Teacher Admin Teacher integrates Critical Thinking Strategies

79.6% 86.2% 88.7% 96.2%

Teacher integrates Creative Thinking Strategies

80.5% 82.6% 90.3% 96.2%

Teacher provides adequate rigor 78.3% 88.1% 100% Teacher encourages student to explore content in greater depth

74.8% 77.7% 90.7% 96.2%

Teacher engages student in problem solving activities

86.9% 84.1% 88% 92.3%

Teacher engages student by using inquiry n/a 84.4% 85.5% 88.8% Teacher is well-trained to provide the student with differentiated curriculum

n/a 81.9% 83.9% 76.9%

Teacher regularly differentiates instruction n/a n/a 90% 55.5% Teacher uses FCPS-AAP instructional strategies

n/a n/a 85.5% 80.8%

Teacher is well-trained to meet the academic needs of students

n/a 78.5% 88.1% 69.3%

Teacher can communicate the features of the FCPS-AAP

n/a 84.1% 74%

Teacher(admin.) believes that challenge is part of learning

n/a 89.7% 94.7% 100%

Teacher(admin.) believes that effort is part of learning process

n/a 91.6% 93.5% 96.3%

Conclusions

Students, parents, teachers, and administrators all agreed that teacher practices

are integral to the success of FCPS-AAP, with all groups believing that teacher

practices are indeed successful within the FCPS-AAP. Also, all groups believed that

teachers integrate critical and creative thinking strategies, problem solving, and rigorous

curricular experiences while encouraging students to explore content in greater depth.

Parents, teachers, and administrators also agreed that teachers use inquiry,

differentiation, FCPS-AAP strategies and are well-trained to meet the academic needs

of students. Finally, the only area where administrators agreed less was in regards to

the ability of teachers to regularly differentiate instruction and to communicate

adequately about FCPS-AAP.


190 | P a g e


Overall, students, parents, teachers, and administrators agreed that teachers are

effectively and successfully engaging students in the FCPS-AAP curriculum. All groups

believed that critical and creative thinking skills and problem solving were areas where

teachers integrated the most within the curriculum. Also, parents, teachers, and

administrators believed that differentiation was occurring in classrooms and that the

FCPS-AAP strategies were accurately being utilized within classrooms.


The only area where agreement was lower than average was when

administrators discussed teachers regularly differentiating instruction and

communicating features of the FCPS-AAP.

Recommendations

Professional development for differentiated instruction should be explored to

ensure that teachers are indeed providing students with differentiated instruction.


191 | P a g e

METHODS FOR

GUIDING QUESTION 3:

PROGRAM QUALITY


192 | P a g e

UNDERSTANDING THE QUALITY OF THE PROGRAM: FIDELITY OF IMPLMENTATION PILOT STUDY



expansion?

To answer the third guiding question about program quality (strengths and

weaknesses), we conducted a pilot study of Fidelity of Implementation (FOI). Broadly,

FOI is the degree to which program activities are aligned with the intent of the program,

and for classroom instruction the degree to which instruction is aligned to the intended

curriculum (O’Donnell, 2008). We engaged in two FOI activities. First, we observed the

screening process, and interviewed FCPS-AAP staff at the end of the observation.

Second, we conducted classroom observations using a pilot protocol to examine FCPS-

AAP curricula implementation across sites and content domains. Four schools were

randomly selected to represent Level IV Center and Local Level IV FCPS-AAP Services

at the elementary and middle schools. Twenty classrooms were randomly selected and

observed for a full class in each core content area across grades 3-8. Data were coded

for elements congruent with the Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, 2009) and

embedded within the FCPS-AAP curricular materials. The focus groups and interviews

were conducted with students, parents, and teachers from the observed classrooms.

By gathering data using a smaller sample of focus groups and interviews from all

stakeholder groups within the observed buildings, we were able to triangulate the data

and identify themes from across multiple data sources. Triangulation provided

credibility to the findings at the observed schools and allowed us to draw

generalizations from the larger sample of stakeholder surveys (Lincoln & Guba, 1986).

More detail about each of the FOI studies follow in more detail. Screening data

specifically addresses identification procedures. Classroom observation data are

aggregated based on the four focus areas: Identification Procedures, Curriculum and

Instruction, Teacher Certification and Professional Development, and Program

Services.


193 | P a g e

Program Quality:

Observation of the Level IV Screening Process

On April 5th, 2013 two faculty members from GMU visited the FCPS-AAP screening for

full inclusion services. The purpose of the screening was to examine and process and

propose suggestions for improvement.

Methods

Observers: Two highly skilled, educational psychology researchers were assigned to

conduct a review of the screening process.

Procedures: The two researchers met with the FCPS-AAP representative together and

then conducted a review of about 100 completed student application files of

which about 30 were split.

Data collection: Both researchers met with the FCPS-AAP representative which

provided an overview of the screening process and training and then reviewed

files independently and collected their own evidence.

Debriefing: Following the data collection, both researchers met and discuss their data

findings. There was 100% agreement on observations made. Two issues were

evident: Student tracking of student files and ESOL/low SES student applicants.

Data findings and report: The researchers met with the PI of the program evaluation and

orally reported their findings. Subsequently, the two researchers met to compose

the report.

Selection Committee Participants

The members were volunteers, mostly general education classroom teachers,

some subject area specialists, school counselors, and administrators. AART teachers


194 | P a g e

were required to attend, See Table 1. Each center was required to send one teacher. In

this cycle, they had 50-75 new members. There were 6 days of meetings where

different committee members evaluated student applications from different schools.

Selection Committee Training

We talked with a representative of the FCPS-AAP program about training of the

members of the selection committee. The selection committee members participate in

an orientation before reviewing student folders. The orientation includes a 45-minute

PowerPoint presentation. The presentation focused on definitions and examples of

student application files. Members of the screening committee were exposed to 2-hour

training where they view the PowerPoint and discussed in smaller groups the sample

student applications.

Student Files

The students’ files contained an FCPS-AAP level IV screening summary sheet

which included each student’s demographic information, academic records, and

standardized testing information. In addition, the GBR scale was included which was

completed by the classroom teacher, the testing reports, and two years of progress

reports. School work samples and parent work samples were included with the latter

being optional. Parental referral forms and recommendation letters were also included

in some of the files.

Screening process

The screening process took place in a large meeting room with multiple tables.

Each table included six committee members. The members seated together reviewed

the same files. A minimum of 4 members review the same file. Discrepancies were

resolved by having one or two additional members review the file. It should be noted

that a split file must have at least 3 votes in favor of placement. Committee members


195 | P a g e

reviewed and rated each file independently and with no discussion. The review process

could yield students who were eligible, ineligible, and split defined as three votes eligible

and three votes ineligible. Split files were sent to a new group of member for

reevaluation. Upon completion files were placed on a central table where FCPS-AAP

staff sorted them by school and sent for further processing such as distribution of

acceptance/rejection letters.

Composition of Screening Committee

Reviewers present during screening meeting that day

1. Advanced academic resource teacher Yes 2. Principal/administrator designee Yes 3. Classroom teacher Yes (majority) 4. A school counselor, Yes 5. Reading teacher Yes 6. ESOL teacher None that day 7. Other specialists Not sure

1. What types of work samples are submitted by parents?

PowerPoint slides, artifacts, photographs of student engaging in a variety of

activities, additional IQ testing documentation, letters of support from private instructors,

letters of support from other FCPS-AAP parents.

2. What types of work samples are submitted by teachers?

Classroom creative assignments, writing samples, detailed drawings with notes

3. Are there differences in the quality of teacher submitted work samples across

schools?

It is difficult to discern differences in teachers’ submitted work samples across

schools because of the small sample size but it is apparent that in low performing

schools parent submitted work was very limited.


196 | P a g e

4. How does the screening committee weight the above criteria?

They are instructed to score holistically, however there is no report related to

their decisions. Occasionally, there were notes justifying negative decisions usually

referring to standardized test scores (see the following table).

Criteria for FCPS-AAP student selection Present in File Importance Placed Based on

Reviewers’ Notes on files Work samples from Parent Yes Work samples from Teacher

Yes

CogAT Yes Appear to be important to the reviewers

NNAT Yes Appears to be important to the reviewers

Achievement test scores Yes The Gifted Behavior Rating Scale (completed by teacher)

Yes Appears to be very important to the reviewers

Progress reports Yes Parent/guardian input Yes


197 | P a g e

Program Quality: Classroom Observations

Purpose for the Classroom Observations

The purposes for the classroom observations were to 1) pilot test a method for

examining implementation of the FCPS-AAP curricula; 2) determine and code

instructional strategies implemented within the classroom sample to examine how the

degree of implementation could be investigated for a fidelity of implementation study

(FOI); 3) develop a protocol for examining FOI that can be used to determine the

degree to which the FCPS-AAP curricula is implemented across sites and content

domains.

Participating Classrooms

A random selection of schools for the pilot study were identified for observation;

two at the elementary (Center/Level IV) and two at middle school (Center/Level IV)

Twenty classrooms were observed. In each elementary school four classrooms were

observed in each grade from grades 3-6 for a total of eight classrooms. At the middle

school twelve classrooms were observed across each core content area (English,

Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies), eight classrooms for grade 7 and four

classrooms for grade 8.

Data Collection

Former classroom teachers without a connection to FCPS were trained to

conduct classroom observations. The preparation for observation was grounded in a

thorough review of the philosophy and components of the FCPS-AAP program including

the curricular resources and visiting the FCPS-AAP curriculum room. The protocol

consisted of: ensuring proper registration of class logistics, describing the physical

description of the class and classroom environment, scripting procedures, recording


198 | P a g e

questioning strategies, and chronicling grouping practices; for a complete timeline and

description of training, see the Appendix. Each classroom was observed by a trained

observer for one period of instruction. The observer remained in the classroom from

the beginning of the lesson through transition to the next period and/or lesson.

Observations ranged from forty-five minutes to approximately ninety minutes based on

the length of the class period. Each observer independently scripted each lesson. The

scripts included verbatim (exactly what is said during the lesson) teacher talk as well as

student responses and questions and other teacher-student or student-student

interactions (Jenks, 2011). Each observer also independently described the classroom

environment, number of students, readiness to learn, instructional strategies, student

activities and engagement in detailed notes as the lesson unfolded (Glockman, Gordon

& Ross-Gordon, 2004).

Coding Procedures

All written scripts were transcribed by the observer into Word format and these

transcripts were used for the next stages of data analysis. Three lead researchers read

each script twice before coding. Each transcript was coded according to a pre-

established format using the observation templates 1-3 (see the Appendix). After

coding each transcript, the coded data were then collapsed across classroom

observations to provide a “snapshot” of instructional practices across school and

program levels. Major areas for coding included: teacher talk moves, robust

vocabulary, questioning, student engagement, teaching strategies, student activities

and grouping (small, whole group, individual). For example, in the elementary

classrooms a greater range and number of activities were available to support student

learning. An analysis of the coded scripts revealed at least six different activities

including: hot potato; Socratic seminar; differentiated group activities; partner work;

presentations; and experiments in mathematics as specific examples. The remaining

transcripts were coded in a similar manner. Inter-rater agreement across scripts was

acceptable 85%.-95%


199 | P a g e

RESULTS FOR

GUIDING QUESTION 3:

PROGRAM QUALITY


200 | P a g e

Understanding Program Quality: Results of Observation of the Screening Process

Overview of the Screening Process The screening process was very smooth and ran efficiently. Members were

highly engaged and took the process very seriously. The staff was highly prepared,

organized, and responsive to committee members. We commend their FCPS-AAP team

for their work on this important task.

Recommendations

Our suggestion for the FCPS-AAP program is to screen applicants online using

an interactive approach. It will speed up the process and save considerable time.

Additionally, they should devise a system to track split files in terms of how many times

they are reviewed and the type of files that are getting reviewed. For example, it

appeared that students from low SES schools and with limited English proficiency were

appearing more frequently in the split category. In order to deal with this issue, we

suggest that these files be tracked and reviewed by ESOL specialists who are have

some training in gifted education, if possible. In addition, members of the screening

committee may need additional training in reviewing these types of files. Alternatively,

another selection committee with special training could be assigned to review split files.

Furthermore, more comments should be provided from committee members justifying

their vote beyond standardized scores. Reliance on standardized test scores has

consistently been considered to be an inadequate tool for identification of gifted and

talented students in general and particularly for ESOL students (Bernal, 2002; Callahan,

2005; Sarouphim, 2002). As stated in the literature, more authentic and dynamic

procedures should be employed for identifying gifted and talented ESOLs such as

classroom observations, teacher nominations, and interviews with parents and other

members in the community (Castellano, 1997; Johnsen, 1999; Sarouphim, 2002).

Finally, parents were less likely to provide support materials and advocate for their kids

therefore, parents of these children should be informed of the process.


201 | P a g e

Understanding Program Quality: Results of Classroom Observations

Overview of Classroom Observations

The overall results of the observations represent only ‘snapshots’ of teaching in a

specific time and place. The results of the observations cannot be transferred to any

other classroom, setting or school in FCPS. The scripted lessons revealed far more time

given to whole group sessions than to group work or individual work/activities therefore

the data is more heavily related to these whole group sessions rather than other types

of activities. Five areas will be discussed: features of elementary and middle school

observations; features described by subject matter; teacher-student interactions

including teacher talk moves; use of robust vocabulary, questioning and class

activities/strategies related to the principles of the FCPS-AAP curriculum.. This

conceptual framework was chosen because FCPS-AAP uses curricula rich with multiple

types of teaching strategies and thinking skills that may be common or different across

the various curricula, including: understanding multiple perspectives, the ability to

defend one’s ideas, and identify support for one’s reasoning. FCPS-AAP curricula also

focuses on development of rich vocabulary, including content rich vocabulary early in

the program, problem solving, problem-based learning, creative and critical thinking

skills.

General Features of Classrooms

General descriptive data was collected by the observer for each classroom.

These areas are important to understanding the results of the observations because

they can/may influence what a teacher is able accomplish. Class sizes at the

elementary level ranged from 21 to 32 students. Class sizes in middle school ranged

from 22 to 30 students present for the observation. Some classes had disproportionate

representation between males/female students. Observers noted that in all classes

observed students appeared ‘ready to learn,’ meaning that they had the necessary


202 | P a g e

tools, books, laptops available at the beginning of class. Teachers scaffolded entry into

the classroom by listing work on the board, providing worksheets on desks, or assigning

reading and other activities that students knew were appropriate prior to the lesson

beginning. All classrooms appeared to have an academic environment that included

classroom rules, student work, motivating academic posters and school information

displayed. The classrooms can be characterized as inviting student learning. Differences between Elementary and Middle School Instruction

Differences were observed between elementary and middle school instruction.

Middle school teachers made more use of technology however the majority of

technology usage was teacher directed instruction. Furthermore, elementary teachers

made more use of flexible grouping, and ’hands on’ learning opportunities during

instruction.

Student engagement (active and focused involvement in the lesson) was

characterized at the elementary level as generally high when flexible grouping and

‘hands on’ learning activities were being utilized. Student engagement at the middle

school level was mixed with some students actively focused and engaged and other

students (primarily in highly directed teacher lessons) engaged but participating only by

giving one word answers or short responses. While middle school students were

seated in groups, few teachers utilized flexible grouping during the observed instruction.

Furthermore, few middle school or elementary teachers utilized models for

lesson closure; in some instances simply assigning further homework or reminders of

what will happen the next time they meet. Closure is typically intended to have students

review major concepts/content learning and draw attention to authentic applications,

e.g. in the real world. To summarize, differences between middle school and

elementary school observations included use of technology; flexible grouping; ‘hands

on’ instruction and lesson closure.


203 | P a g e

Features of Elementary – Middle School Activities

A major feature that stands out and differentiates between elementary and

middle school instruction is that the elementary observations yielded more examples

and greater range of activities then those observed in the middle school. As noted

above a regular part of elementary instruction almost every lesson had some

meaningful activity that offered students the opportunity to display their high levels of

thinking and to respond to challenging problems or questions. The range of planned

activities in middle school classrooms was smaller and less varied. Nevertheless there

was evidence of rich student activity in some middle school classrooms. A focus during

the period of observations for middle school classrooms was the SOL preparation which

appeared to limit the range and variety of activities being employed. While elementary

school observations revealed a wider variety and more examples of different types of

instruction, middle school observations were more limited in range and variety.

Features of Subject Level Instruction

English classes showed a range of activities that gave students opportunities to

think at higher levels and to engage in thoughtful challenging activities either on their

own or in groups. Social Studies was more difficult to find common practices appearing

to be highly dependent on the individual instructor, overall practices ranged from high

student engagement to low student engagement with some teachers maximizing

group/independent learning opportunities for students while others led more teacher

directed activities. Science instruction was reliant on laboratory experiments, as

expected, for most of the observed classes. A variety of questioning strategies

including those that prompted student engagement were recorded. However, most

responses given by students were either one word or one sentence responses with no

follow up.

A common feature among mathematics classroom observations was a focus on

a problem solving approach with a common teaching model among the classes:


204 | P a g e

explanation/demonstration/imitation/practice in use. The result of this model appears to

be that these classes, especially in the middle school, often had very high ratios of

‘teacher-closed questions’ and ‘student one word answers’ for approximately 30% of all

observed interactions. In elementary classes there was a more varied approach in

mathematics including differentiated group activity and silent work. Higher order

questioning or tasks in mathematics were predominately missing from the observed

classes.

Teacher-Student Engagement Among the most evident of features from the observations was the

predominance of teachers closed questions and one-word, or one-sentence answers

from students in response to them. While there were stellar exceptions to this practice it

remains a dominant finding in the data. Analysis of the coded data indicated the lack of

probing responses or following up on student answers as evident patterns in the data.

Finally, lack of positive affirmation was also evident, e.g. replying in a positive manner to

a student response.

The questioning strategies observed are also closely linked to teacher talk moves

(Wolf, Crosson & Resnick, 2005), which support the use of ‘accountable’ talk and rich

classroom discourse, identified throughout the observed lessons. Prototypical teacher

talk moves include instances in which the teacher asks questions that 1) clarify and

verify information, 2) solicit additional viewpoints, 3) press for reasoning and evidence,

4) seek evidence that links ideas, or 5) challenge a student’s thinking. All elements are

appropriate in FCPS-AAP classroom practices. Often students who need services

provided by FCPS-AAP have the essential vocabulary to describe and discuss a

content area. This vocabulary should be extended through critical thinking skills that

require reasoning, use evidence to support thinking and are challenging thus,

expanding the cognitive abilities of FCPS-AAP students. After reviewing and coding all

classroom observations, we found that there were outstanding examples in which the

classroom discourse was rich with teacher talk moves that promoted student thinking


205 | P a g e

and engagement. However, the location and grade levels at which this occur was not

consistent – rather it was dependent upon the individual lesson.

The lessons consistently demonstrated examples of pressing for reasoning in the

discourse with students. The lessons lacked evidence of linking ideas, soliciting

additional viewpoints, or challenging student thinking in the classroom dialogue. There

were several classes at both the elementary and middle school level (center and non-

center) in which teacher talk moves were never used, or used only once in the entire

scripted lesson.

Use of Robust Vocabulary

The use of robust vocabulary in classrooms provides students with greater

authentic vocabularies, richer language, and a platform by which to build and support

linguistic development (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan (2013). Robust vocabulary consists

of three tiers of words: Tier 1 words represent basic vocabulary e.g., common nouns

and adjectives (dog, cat, orange…), Tier 2 words are high frequency and multiple

meaning vocabulary words that occur across a variety of domains e.g. measure,

benevolent, masterpiece, fortunate, industrious…, and Tier 3 words are low frequency,

context or content specific words that are tied to specific domains of knowledge e.g.

“surrender, isotope, cytoplasm, verdict, persecute.” Tier 2 level words are considered to

be the most important words for direct instruction as they are solid indicators of a

student’s (linguistic) progress and development. Tier 1 and Tier 2 vocabulary are

essential for understanding and comprehension of new content.

Much like the use of teacher talk moves, the use of robust vocabulary varied

greatly between individual classrooms. At both elementary and middle school level, tier

level vocabulary was rarely defined or explained. Rather, it was utilized in conversation

when it appeared with no additional scaffolding (granting that our observations were a

mere snapshot of the classroom activity and discourse). Most teachers, but not all,

utilized multiple Tier 3 level vocabulary words during the lessons, but a much smaller


206 | P a g e

CURRICULUM COMPONENT DEFINITION

CONTENT The knowledge, essential understandings, and skills students are to acquire

ASSESSMENT Tools used to deter mine the e xtent to w hich students have

acquired the content

INTRODUCTION A precursor or forward to a lesson or unit

TEACHINGSTRATEGIES Methods teachers use to introduce, explain, model, guide, or assess learning

LEARNING ACTIVITIES Cognitive experiences that help students acquire, rehearse,

stor e, transfer, and appl y new knowledge and skills

GROUPING FORMATS The arrangement of students

PRODUCTS Performances or work samples that constitute evidence of student learning

RESOURCES Materials that support learning and teaching

EXTENSIONACTIVITIES Enrichment experiences that emerge from representative topics and students’ interests

ASCENDING LEVELS OF INTELLECTUALDEMAND

Curriculum modifications that attend to students’ need for escalating levels of knowledge, skil ls , and understanding

Purcell, J., Burns, D. and Leppien (2002) The Parallel Curriculum Model: The Whole Story

percentage of the teachers utilized Tier 2 level words. Direct instruction of Tier 2 and 3

level words develops robust vocabulary and allows a stable platform for gifted students

to develop solid systems for deciphering and continually developing more and more

complex vocabularies.

Observation Data Related to Principles of FCPS-AAP Curriculum

Curricular documents from FCPS-AAP office stress the importance of breadth

and depth in the curriculum. The principle framework is the Parallel Curriculum

(Tomlinson et.al, 2009) with supporting resources from Critical & Creating Thinking,

Problem-Based Units, Socratic Seminar, STEM Focus Units and Renzulli Learning

among others. Curriculum components of the Parallel Curriculum Model are:

Figure X . The 10 key curriculum components

For the purposes of the observations teaching strategies, learning activities,

group formats and ascending levels of intellectual demand (through teacher talk, robust


207 | P a g e

vocabulary and questioning strategies) were used (Figure 1). Evidence from the

observations suggests that the primary focus from the PCM is on the Core Curriculum

and extending students through that means rather than employing additional areas of

the Parallel Model, connections, practice and identity. Furthermore, it appears that

breadth (the amount of content coverage) is prioritized over depth. Evidence from the

observations indicated this is more predominant in middle school instruction than in the

elementary school classrooms observed.

As noted earlier, teachers in elementary school gave students more and varied

choices (teaching strategies/learning activities) and teachers in the middle school noted

the close proximity of the SOL and the impact on teaching at the time of observation.

This could also be an indicator of the priority for content coverage in readiness for SOL

testing over depth of content examination in some observed classes. Finally, ascending

levels of intellectual demand as observed and coded through teacher talk moves, robust

vocabulary and questioning strategies was highly variable across observation sites.

Summary

In summary twenty classrooms were observed across Center and Level IV

instruction at both the elementary and middle school levels. The results of the

observation provide a snapshot in time regarding instruction in FCPS-AAP classrooms.

Major areas for coding included: teacher talk moves, robust vocabulary, questioning,

student engagement, teaching strategies, student activities and grouping (small, whole

group, individual).


208 | P a g e

Recommendations

a) FCPS-AAP should continue to offer professional development opportunities for

all teachers with a specific focus on the development of FCPS-AAP/Honor’s.

Furthermore, the Board may wish to consider moving from ‘recommended

endorsement’ to ‘required endorsement’ of all FCPS-AAP teachers within five

years of placement.

b) Strategic and differentiated professional development could play a positive role in

moving the FCPS-AAP classes forward. Generally teachers feel positively toward

the PD provided by FCPS-AAP and through FCPS. However, specific

opportunities for CLT time devoted to strategies such as self-study, lesson study

or peer observation on topics such as higher order thinking strategies in a

specific discipline, questioning strategies, using flexible grouping for teaching or

meaningful closure might provide strategic PD that would assist in moving the

FCPS-AAP program forward.

c) Affirming student responses, probing reasoning and asking for evidence to

support positions are all part of the strategies of critical and creative thinking as

well as embedded in the Parallel Curriculum model. However, as noted in the

focus group interviews with teachers this takes time. Class size and the time

devoted to a particular class session (45 minutes vs. 90 minutes) influence the

flow of instruction and the ability to engage all learners at an appropriate level.

Consideration should be given to lowering class size and to expanding

timeframes/lessons to give more opportunity for teachers and students to engage

deeply using critical and creative thinking strategies along with the PCM. This

recommendation is also supported by the focus group interviews with parents

and students.

d) Teacher talk and use of robust vocabulary are strategies that should be used in

all classes. Pre-assessing vocabulary at Tier 1 and Tier 2 could be a useful


209 | P a g e

strategy when introducing new content. The use of Tier 3 vocabulary was

evident however without knowing the vocabulary levels of students (1, 2, and 3)

gaps in learning and comprehension can be created causing students to struggle

with content most particularly in the upper grades. It is often assumed and is the

case that many gifted students have an excellent vocabulary however in some

cases that is more a matter of prior access than cognitive ability. Pre-

assessment and strategic introduction of robust vocabulary appears to be in

order.


210 | P a g e

SYNTHESIS OF KEY FINDINGS BY FOCUS AREA Overview of Key Findings and Recommendations Overall, FCPS-AAP is a very strong program and represents a model for school

districts around the nation and world. Stakeholders are very satisfied with the program,

including the level of challenge. The program is being well-implemented overall. As

with any school system with a continuous improvement goal using data-driven decision-

making, some data point to potential areas for growth. These growth areas are

consistent with the size and scope of a school system, such as FCPS, and are not

cause for alarm. Improvements fall into three categories those: 1) that would be

expected in any school system (such as improved communication); 2) necessary within

the field of gifted education across most school systems in the country (such as

requiring endorsements as most states do not require an endorsement; or 3) unique to

FCPS-AAP, such as building teachers’ skills within the context of the Parallel

Curriculum Model.

Strengths of Identification Procedures

Overall, the FCPS identification procedures represent the “industry standard”

over the long-term for consistently and deliberately addressing the needs of all learners

with gifts and talents across the FCPS population. Specifically, the Young Scholars

program has consistently increased the numbers of students from historically

underserved populations. Young Scholars focuses on developing talent so that the gifts

and talents can be noticed by teachers and captured in work products for screening.

The Young Scholars program allowed FCPS to meet or exceed comparisons. In

addition, the screening process is run efficiently and multiple criteria are used, allowing

FCPS to meet or exceed comparisons. Equal access is available for students because

screening occurs for all elementary students in all schools in grades 1 and 2. After

grade 2, all students are eligible to be screened via a referral process open to parents,

teachers, administrators, community members, peers, and the students themselves; this


211 | P a g e

process continues through grade 7 when all students have open access to Honors

curricula, allowing FCPS to meet or exceed comparisons.

Considerations Related to Identification Procedures

External forces place great stressors on FCPS-AAP, especially related to over-

identification. This concern arose throughout the study. In particular, parents and the

community place great importance on entry into FCPS-AAP. Pressures related to

community standing have contributed to a “cottage” test preparation industry and

inflated use of external assessments apparently resulting in over-identification of some

groups. Despite these external stressors, FCPS-AAP does not need to change its

identification model for FCPS-AAP because this model aligns with best practices and

current conceptions of intelligence within the field (e.g., Sternberg & Davis, Eds., 2005).

Recommendations for Identification Procedures

To continue to improve practice and address the identified considerations, we

recommend that FCPS-AAP:

1. Continue to seek ways to identify an FCPS-AAP population that is congruent with

the general demographics of FCPS, increasing diversity of historically under-

represented populations (African Americans, Hispanics, ESOL students, and

students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch).

2. Consider using one source for external testing.

3. Consider using a secure, customized assessment for screening.


212 | P a g e

Strengths of Curriculum and Instruction

Overall, FCPS-AAP is to be commended for its curricula and instruction. FCPS-

AAP exceeds standards on the availability and use of a multiplicity of research-based

curricula created by experts in the field. In addition, teachers were consistently

observed using critical thinking skills and stakeholders saw evidence of critical thinking.

FCPS-AAP exceeds standards related to measuring growth of gifted students, beyond

the Standards of Learning tests, and communicating growth information to parents

within the context of the report cards.

Considerations Related to Curriculum and Instruction

There were no critical concerns. Recommendations for this area should be

considered as opportunities for continuing to strengthen an already strong program.

Recommendations for Curriculum and Instruction

To continue to improve practice, we recommend that FCPS-AAP:

1. Develop a scope and sequence for the multiplicity of thinking skills infused

throughout the FCPS-AAP curricula in grades K-8, specifically linked to the POS,

and employed throughout FCPS.

2. Devote strategic professional development to use of multiple questioning

strategies across content disciplines.

3. Focus on high intensity and sustained vocabulary instruction for robust

vocabulary development, across all levels, including support of learners from

traditionally underserved populations.

4. Provide students with opportunities to study topics of choice in depth.


213 | P a g e

5. Ensure that FCPS-AAP teachers have common planning time.

6. Consider using FCPS-AAP as a model for infusing systematically critical and

creative thinking strategies throughout the POS.

Strengths of Teacher Certification and Professional Development

Overall, all stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, and administrators)

believed that teachers are effectively and successfully engaging students in the FCPS-

AAP curriculum. All groups believed that critical and creative thinking skills and problem

solving were areas of strength. Further, teachers and administrators were

overwhelmingly positive about the professional development offerings and the support

offered by FCPS-AAP staff.

Considerations for Teacher Certification and Professional Development

The number of FCPS-AAP teachers who are endorsed range by building in

elementary schools from 0-100% and in middle schools from 4-38%, with higher

percentages in Local Level IV and Level IV Center programs. While this endorsement

is not required by the state, the variability in percent of teachers endorsed who are

teaching in FCPS-AAP in elementary schools and the low percentages of endorsed

teachers who are teaching FCPS-AAP or Honors classes in the middle schools may

affect program quality (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1999).

Recommendations for Teacher Certification and Professional Development

To continue to improve practice and address the identified considerations, we

recommend that FCPS-AAP:


214 | P a g e

1. Require FCPS-AAP VDOE/FCPS endorsement for all FCPS-AAP and Honors

teachers within 5 years of teaching students receiving FCPS-AAP services.

2. Support an increased variety of alternatives for endorsement and professional

development courses so the courses are available, rather than filled.

3. Build skills in the Parallel Curriculum Model to extend learning beyond the core

curriculum.

4. Focus on differentiation of instruction and assessment strategies for teachers in

all program levels, especially Levels 2 and 3.

5. Develop additional professional development offerings for teaching robust

vocabulary and content specific questioning strategies.

6. Augment content specific professional development to increase challenge in

Science and Social Studies.

7. Increase professional development offerings on the affective needs of students

with gifts and talents.

8. Expand professional development offerings to general education teachers.

Strengths of Program Services

Overall, FCPS-AAP is to be commended for the multiplicity of options offered to

students in the elementary and middle schools to meet the needs of a diverse

population of learners. FCPS exceeds comparisons. This program has been

recognized by experts in the field as an outstanding program, and is regularly visited as

an exemplary model by personnel from local, state, national, and international gifted

programs.


215 | P a g e

Considerations for Program Services

There are no concerns about the FCPS-AAP identification model or program

services. However, several issues have been raised that need to be addressed.

1. Critical Mass – What is the “critical number” of FCPS-AAP students in a building

needed to create a Center?

2. Expansion of Programs – What processes are necessary to expand programs

(such as, Young Scholars or new Centers at elementary or middle schools?)

3. Evaluation Cycle – What procedures are needed for examining fidelity of

implementation? Recommendations for Expansion of Program Services 1. Critical Mass Requirements for Expansion of Program Services

To expand program services, whether it is a Local Level IV program, a Middle or

Elementary School Center, the Young Scholars program, etc., a critical mass of

students is necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the program to be expanded.

Critical mass must be understood as a critical mass of students coupled with a critical

number of teachers with sufficient expertise in gifted education, a critical group of

advocates who wish to see an expanded program in the school, a critical amount of

supporting resources, and a critical amount of time (i.e. all day) for students to receive

appropriate and intense instruction. In addition to the figures listed for enrollment in the

first bullet following, several other conditions must exist before expanding a program.

For example, considerations related to options are important. At the middle school 692

students opted out of the Center to stay in their local schools. Of this number, 72%


216 | P a g e

elected to take 4 honors courses. Only 29% reduced their honors course load. In

addition, considerations related to cost are important. To transport 1,330 students to

Centers, FCPS spent $1,369,985 for elementary students and $665,773 for middle

school students. Therefore cost requirements to open a new center are essential.

Dollars would be saved in transportation if more Local Level IV programs were

supported. Nonetheless, minimum requirements are listed include:

a. 15-25% of the total school enrollment

b. a cadre of strong leaders and stakeholder advocates

c. strong and supportive administrators

d. a critical mass of qualified (endorsed) teachers

e. at least 2 classes per grade level or subject area

f. sufficient funding for transportation and other resource needs

2. Expansion Requirements, such as for Young Scholars or Middle or Elementary School Centers

To expand the program, the following self-study should be conducted as follows.

The key components of the self-study focus on meeting the previously addressed

critical mass requirements and a study of fidelity of implementation and transitional

issues as these were a major concern of parents.

a. Conduct a self-study to determine whether all of the critical mass

requirements have been met prior to opening a Center, with review by

FCPS-AAP and/or other FCPS identified staff or experts in the field.


217 | P a g e

b. Continue the self-study through 3 years of implementation, with annual

reviews by FCPS-AAP staff and/or other FCPS identified staff or experts

in the field.

c. Examine fidelity of implementation of curricular and instructional

strategies.

d. Examine transitional issues for students moving into the new program or

Center for the first time.

3. Evaluation Cycle for Fidelity of Implementation

An evaluation cycle consistently examining FOI, stakeholder satisfaction and

perceptions of effectiveness, and student outcomes, should be implemented to include,

but not limited to, the following processes:

a. Examine instructional planning and other artifacts

b. Identify FCPS-AAP curricular use, appropriate pacing, and depth of

instruction

c. Observe implementation of instruction for specific strategies (such as

teaching strategies, student activities and fidelity with FCPS-AAP

curriculum model)

d. Employ lesson study by trained observers

e. Gather parent, teacher, student and administrator feedback

f. Document student growth and performance


218 | P a g e

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REVIEW

Three guiding questions were used to review FCPS-AAP. Results of the review

indicate that FCPS is providing an exemplary program for students with gifts and

talents. The results for each guiding question are summarized below:



FCPS-AAP practice meets or exceeds all NAGC standards. FCPS-AAP meets

or exceeds the requirements of the VDOE regulations. FCPS-AAP meets or exceeds

comparable local, state and national programs.



Overwhelmingly, parents and students believe that FCPS-AAP is positive,

important, and effective. In fact, the students would like more opportunities with FCPS-

AAP, such as more in-depth study. Teachers and administrators perceive FCPS-AAP

to be an effective and positive experience for students, as well.



expansion?

FCPS-AAP has key strengths in each focus area. For Identification Procedures,

the Young Scholars program is a model program supporting talent development of

students from historically underserved populations so that their potential may be

uncovered, identified, and supported.


219 | P a g e

For Curriculum and Instruction, the plethora of research-based curricula

developed by experts in the field, the consistent focus on critical thinking in classrooms,

and the multiplicity of instructional strategies to support critical and creative thinking are

strengths of this program. Stakeholders were very positive about curriculum and

instruction.

For Teacher Certification and Professional Development, parents, students, and

administrators believe that teachers are effective and engaging students in critical

thinking. In addition, the professional development courses are strong.

For Quality of Program Services, the multiplicity of options offered to students in

the elementary and middle schools exceed all comparisons and all stakeholder groups

are satisfied with the overall quality of the program. The areas for development or

expansion that were identified are expected in a district the size and scope of FCPS.

Overall, FCPS-AAP is a highly successful program that benefits students and

families and serves as a national and global model for identifying and providing a

multiplicity of services to learners with gifts and talents. FCPS is to be commended for

this forward-thinking program, and deserves to be a source of pride for Fairfax County.