aligning gifted programming and services with national and ... · chapter 1. aligning gifted...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Chapter 1
Aligning Gifted Programming and
Services With National and
State StandardsAlicia Cotabish, EdD, Debbie Dailey, EdD,
and Nykela Jackson, PhD
OVERVIEW OF THE PRE-K–GRADE 12 GIFTED PROGRAMMING STANDARDS
The NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards serve as an important benchmark for student outcomes and for describing effective educational practices for gifted students. Grounded in theory, cognitive and social science research, and practice, the design of the standards focuses on student outcomes, reflects an emphasis on diversity, and emphasizes a relationship between gifted education, general education, and special edu-cation (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], 2010). The most recent version of the standards is supported by the following principles: (a) giftedness is evolving and never static, (b) giftedness is found amongstudents from diverse backgrounds, (c) standards should focus on studentoutcomes rather than practices, (d) educators are responsible for the edu-cation of the gifted, and (e) services for gifted and talented students shouldreflect student abilities, needs, and interests (NAGC, 2010). As such, the
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
2 Designing services anD Programs for HigH-ability learners
NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards serve as an impor-tant foundation for programs and services for all gifted learners and pro-vide a basis for designing and developing educational and experiential options for gifted students. Specifically, the six gifted education program-ming standards focus on: (a) learning and development, (b) assessment, (c) curriculum and instruction, (d) learning environments, (e) program-ming, and (f) professional development. Furthermore, the standards should be used in the early stages of program planning, for internal analy-sis, and for defensibility of plans and programs (NAGC, 2010). They help document the program necessity, justify the approach to programming, and “identify program strengths and weaknesses, determine new direc-tions or components, and provide support to maintain current programs and services” (NAGC, 2010, p. 6).
In addition to the aforementioned uses, the standards often serve as indicators of progress in program development and delivery. The organi-zation of the programming standards into six broad categories allows them to serve as a mechanism to document gaps in program services, which can lead to the creation of program action plans (Cotabish & Krisel, 2012). Utilizing the standards as a framework for Pre-K–12 gifted pro-grams can assist gifted education personnel in evaluating current pro-gramming services, setting program goals, constructing a plan for strategically meeting those goals, and aligning curriculum, instruction, and programmatic components to multiple state and national standards (e.g., Achieve, Inc., 2014; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
The standards also send an important message to policy makers and the general public about the specialized needs of gifted learners. In recent years, a major objective of federal and state education policy has been to narrow K–12 achievement gaps. Unfortunately, the principal focus of leg-islation has been focused on minimum competency; therefore, it is of criti-cal importance that policy makers and the general public are made aware of the specialized needs of gifted learners. The NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards address this need.
RATIONALE
The NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards represent col-laboration between two advocacy organizations: the National Association for Gifted Children and The Association for the Gifted, a division of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC-TAG). Johnsen (2012) eloquently provided the following rationale for the development of standards:
Growing out of the need for more rigorous and measurable standards and higher expectations for academic performance, stan-dards have been developed for teacher preparation, programming, and specific content or discipline areas. These standards have
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
CHAPTER 1. aligning gifteD Programming anD services WitH national anD state stanDarDs 3
been used for the design of assessment-based accountability systems and the accreditation of both teacher preparation and K–12 programs. (p. ix)
Programming standards help define the comprehensiveness necessary in designing and developing options for gifted learners at the local level. Students who are performing at advanced levels require accommodations such as differentiated curriculum and instruction and specialized pro-gramming services. Although the implementation of the standards varies from district to district and state to state, the standards provide an impor-tant direction and focus for program development.
According to Cotabish and Krisel (2012), “accountability of districts has increasingly placed gifted educators in the position of having to prove their worth and demonstrate their impact on student achievement” (p. 231). With this in mind, the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards can serve as a guide to document the effects of gifted program-ming on student performance, particularly as it relates to higher levels of student engagement, critical and divergent thinking, and creativity.
It is not uncommon for the standards to be used to guide state depart-ment personnel in the development and evaluation of state standards for gifted programming. Furthermore, program coordinators typically use the standards to improve local plans, assist with curriculum planning and program development, and guide professional development activities. Notably, “the programming standards may also provide language, ratio-nale, and direction for effective advocacy for high-quality services for students with gifts and talents” (Cotabish & Krisel, 2012, p. 232). For example, the standards can serve as a guide for educators, parents, and policy makers who advocate for improved services for gifted and talented students.
Figure 1.1 depicts six common categories in which the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards are often used, specifically among state department personnel, gifted program coordinators, and classroom teachers. One can see that the utilization overlap primarily occurs in efforts focused on advocacy and professional development planning.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND ATTRIBUTES THAT DEFINE HIGH-QUALITY PROGRAMS
Program planning, design, development, implementation, and evaluation all work in concert and become the basis for high-quality gifted programs and services. Using the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Stand-ards, gifted education personnel can develop a process for assessing their gifted programs according to attributes that define high-quality programs. The key features of each (as outlined in the standards) can provide direc-tion to continuous improvement in gifted programming and can redirect poor programming and instructional practices. When done skillfully, the
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
4 Designing services anD Programs for HigH-ability learners
overall result is that programs should experience change in ways that improve the design, development, and delivery of gifted programming.
Developing Program Goals
To begin the process of program development and/or refinement, you must start with the end in mind. Typically, program goals are aligned with a larger school mission; therefore, it is important for goals to be feasible, which may require coordinated efforts between gifted education personnel and other school personnel. When considering program goals, less is more—regardless of whether the goal’s focus is on alignment to national standards, curriculum planning and development, or the identification of traditionally underrepresented groups. We recommend focusing more efforts on short-term, feasible goals that can be accomplished in an academic
State Departmentof Education
ProgramCoordinator
Teacher
Develop, improve, and evaluate state standards
Approve gifted plans and programs and monitorfor compliance with state regulations
Assess, evaluate, andimprove local plansand programming
Advocacy
ProfessionalDevelopment
CurriculumPlanning
Figure 1.1 Six Categories of Use
Source: Cotabish and Krisel (2012, p. 232). Reprinted with permission.
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
CHAPTER 1. aligning gifteD Programming anD services WitH national anD state stanDarDs 5
year. Longer-term overarching goals could possibly be accomplished over time by meeting a number of articulated shorter-term goals. It is also impor-tant to seek input from all involved with teaching and providing services to gifted children. For example, general classroom teachers can be of great assistance to gifted education personnel, particularly in the coordination phase of standard alignment—and ultimately, the delivery of aligned curriculum and instruction in the general education classroom.
Aligning the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards With National and State Standards
Given the current focus on education policy and resources, it is impor-tant for gifted educators to consider aligning curriculum and instructional practice to existing state and national standards. For example, as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (Achieve, Inc., 2014) have become more widely adopted, interest in how the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards connect to these standards has increased. Although there are a number of standards that lend themselves to alignment with the NAGC programming standards, Figure 1.2 on the next page depicts the student-centered expectations and relationships among the NGSS, CCSS, and the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards.
According to Adams, Cotabish, and Ricci (2014), overlap among the four sets of standards is found in the middle of the graphic with specific student expectations associated with each set of standards highlighted in separate boxes. The broad similarities among the standards can serve as the basis for curriculum planning and development. Be mindful that align-ing multiple standards does not provide a rationale to replace gifted edu-cation programming; rather, it provides a framework for strategic gifted education program planning. Regardless of aligned components, advanced learners require substantially differentiated curriculum and instructional services to meet their unique learning needs.
USING A PROGRAM ASSESSMENT TOOL ALIGNED TO THE PRE-K–GRADE 12 GIFTED PROGRAMMING STANDARDS TO GUIDE GIFTED PROGRAMMING AND SERVICES
Several programming standards tools have been developed by NAGC to assist gifted program coordinators, school administrators, and teachers of the gifted in assessing programmatic and professional development needs in relation to implementing the six national gifted programming stan-dards. The latest tool, featured in Self-Assess Your P–12 Practice or Program Using the NAGC Gifted Programming Standards (Cotabish, Shaunessy-Dedrick, Dailey, Keilty, & Pratt, 2015), provides an easy-to-use, self-study
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
6 Designing services anD Programs for HigH-ability learners
Figure 1.2 Relationships and Convergences Found in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts, and the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards
NGSS-Speci�cStudent Expectations
� Standard 1. Ask questions and design problems� Standard 3. Plan and carry out investigations� Standard 4. Analyze and interpret data� Standard 6. Construct explanations and design solutions
NAGC-Speci�cStudent Expectations
� Standard 3.1. Demonstrate growth commensurate with aptitude during the school year using a variety of evidence-based practices� Standard 3.2. Become more competent in multiple talent areas and across dimensions of learning� Standard 3.3. Develop their abilities in their domain of talent and/or area of interest� Standard 4.4. Develop cultural competence
Next GenerationScience Standards
NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12Gifted Programming
Standards
Common Core StateStandards for English
Language Arts
Common Core StateStandards forMathematics
CCSS Mathematics-Speci�c Expectations
� Standard 1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them� Standard 2. Reason abstractly and quantiatively� Standard 6. Attend to precision� Standard 7. Look for and make use of structure� Standard 8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
CCSS English LanguageArts-Speci�c Expections
� Standard 1. Demonstrate independence in reading complex texts, and writing and speaking about them� Standard 7 (and NAGC 4.4).
Become independent investigatorsUse technology and digital media
Build a strong base of knowledge through content-rich textRead, write, and speak grounded in evidence
Develop and apply competencies across dimension of learning
Come to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading, listening, and collaborations
Source: Adapted with permission from Cheuk (2012).
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
CHAPTER 1. aligning gifteD Programming anD services WitH national anD state stanDarDs 7
checklist for each of the six standards that can give the user a quick visual indication of priorities and needs when implementing the standards. The checklist is oriented around student outcomes and is relevant to those who serve as a teacher of the gifted, program coordinator, and/or in dual capacities, regardless of service delivery model. Completing a checklist entails a rating response to a set of four questions that directly relate to the programming standards. After rating each component, the user will add up the total number of points across each row. Once a Standards section is completed and the points have been added up, the user can use the total number of points to put program priorities in rank order (lower points indicate a higher priority). A snapshot of the self-study checklist for Standard 3 is provided in Figure 1.3 on the next page.
After using the self-study checklist to identify program priorities and alignment with standards-based practices, the next step is to explore gaps between current practices and those that have been shown to improve outcomes for gifted learners (Cotabish et al., 2015). A gap analysis chart is a strategic tool that can help an individual determine the steps needed to move from a current state of implementation or development to a future desired state. Typically, a gap analysis chart consists of a simple matrix in which data relevant to current practice and future goals are recorded and organized. (See Table 1.1 on page 9 for an example.)
The following example scenario and gap analysis chart (Table 1.1) refer-ence the specific evidence-based practices that are linked to the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. A full description of the NAGC evidence-based practices can be found in Appendix B, page 261.
EXAMPLE SCENARIO
The Trellis School District is a small urban school system with enrollment of approximately 30,000 students. A large percentage of students come from economically challenged families, whose economic statuses fall in the low-income to working-class range. Classrooms are comprised of more than 50% of children from immigrant families. The population is very diverse (30% White, 40% Black, 25% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 2% other), with a variety of ethnicities and racial groups. In contrast, most of the teachers’ backgrounds are quite different when compared to those of their students. The majority of the teachers are White, middle-class females who reside outside the community (suburban areas) in which they teach. Most of the teachers’ experiences have been in affluent suburban districts. Teacher evaluations and standardized test scores prove that the school has effective teachers who understand the mission of the school district and are making an impact on students’ lives.
Recently, the Office of Gifted Services conducted a trend analysis across the district to evaluate their programs and services. Data revealed extreme disparities between percentages of students from underrepresented minor-ity groups (URM) enrolled in the gifted program and Advanced Placement (AP) courses compared to White students. Even though there is a large
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
8
NA
GC
Sta
nd
ard
3:
Cu
rric
ulu
m P
lan
nin
g a
nd
Inst
ruct
ion
Qu
esti
on
1To
wh
at d
egre
e d
o I
add
ress
th
e st
ud
ent
ou
tco
me?
Qu
esti
on
2To
wh
at d
egre
e h
ave
curr
ent
pra
ctic
es
imp
rove
d t
his
st
ud
ent
ou
tco
me?
Qu
esti
on
3H
ow
hig
h o
f a
pri
ori
ty d
o I
pla
ce o
n
mee
tin
g t
his
st
and
ard
ele
men
t?
Qu
esti
on
4a
Is s
up
po
rt r
ead
ily
avai
lab
le in
my
dis
tric
t? (
Ch
eck
4b
to in
dic
ate
nee
d
to a
dd
ress
wit
h
coo
rdin
ato
r o
r o
ther
ad
min
istr
ato
r.)
4b
Tota
l P
oin
tsR
ank
Ord
er o
f P
rio
riti
es
to A
dd
ress
Not at all
To a great extent
Not at all
To a great extent
Low
High
Not at all
To a great extent
Stu
den
t O
utc
om
es1
23
41
23
41
23
41
23
4
3.1.
Cur
ricul
um P
lann
ing
. Stu
dent
s w
ith
gifts
and
tale
nts
dem
onst
rate
gro
wth
co
mm
ensu
rate
with
apt
itude
dur
ing
the
scho
ol y
ear.
3.2.
Tal
ent D
evel
opm
ent.
Stu
dent
s w
ith
gifts
and
tale
nts
beco
me
mor
e co
mpe
tent
in
mul
tiple
tale
nt a
reas
and
acr
oss
dim
ensi
ons
of le
arni
ng.
3.3.
Tal
ent D
evel
opm
ent.
Stu
dent
s w
ith
gifts
and
tale
nts
deve
lop
thei
r ab
ilitie
s in
thei
r do
mai
n of
tale
nt a
nd/o
r ar
ea o
f in
tere
st.
3.4.
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
ies.
Stu
dent
s w
ith g
ifts
and
tale
nts
beco
me
inde
pend
ent i
nves
tigat
ors.
3.5.
Cul
tura
lly R
elev
ant C
urric
ulum
. S
tude
nts
with
gift
s an
d ta
lent
s de
velo
p kn
owle
dge
and
skill
s fo
r liv
ing
and
bein
g pr
oduc
tive
in a
mul
ticul
tura
l, di
vers
e, a
nd
glob
al s
ocie
ty.
3.6.
Res
ourc
es. S
tude
nts
with
gift
s an
d ta
lent
s be
nefit
from
gift
ed e
duca
tion
prog
ram
min
g th
at p
rovi
des
a va
riety
of
high
-qua
lity
reso
urce
s an
d m
ater
ials
.
Figu
re 1
.3
Self
-Stu
dy
Che
cklis
t for
Sta
ndar
d 3
Sour
ce: C
otab
ish,
Sha
unes
sy-D
edri
ck, D
aile
y, K
eilt
y, a
nd P
ratt
(20
15, p
. 15)
. Rep
rint
ed w
ith
perm
issi
on.
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
9
Standard
Evi
den
ce-
Bas
ed
Pra
ctic
e
Wh
at W
e D
o to
S
up
por
t T
his
P
ract
ice
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
Wh
at E
vid
ence
Do
We
Hav
e T
hat
C
urr
ent
Pra
ctic
es A
re L
ead
ing
to
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
?
Wh
at A
dd
itio
nal
Evi
den
ce/
Info
rmat
ion
Do
We
Nee
d?
(Gap
s)
11.
2.1
Teac
hers
d
iffe
rent
iate
in
stru
ctio
n to
mat
ch
stud
ents
’ d
evel
opm
enta
l le
vels
.
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts
poss
ess
a d
evel
opm
enta
lly
appr
opri
ate
und
erst
and
ing
of
how
they
lear
n an
d g
row
; the
y re
cogn
ize
the
infl
uenc
es o
f th
eir
belie
fs, t
rad
itio
ns, a
nd v
alue
s on
le
arni
ng a
nd b
ehav
ior.
Acc
ord
ing
to s
tud
ent f
eed
back
(e.
g.,
exit
slip
s, r
efle
ctio
ns, d
iscu
ssio
n) a
nd
asse
ssm
ents
, ins
truc
tion
is b
eing
d
iffe
rent
iate
d b
ased
on
stud
ents
’ d
evel
opm
enta
l lev
els.
Ad
dit
iona
l evi
den
ce is
nee
ded
th
at e
nsur
es in
stru
ctio
nal
stra
tegi
es in
gif
ted
and
AP
clas
ses
valu
e st
uden
t div
ersi
ty a
nd
dif
fere
nces
in le
arni
ng.
11.
4.1
1.
4.2
Cur
rent
ly, w
e
neit
her
adeq
uate
ly
invo
lve
com
mun
ity
mem
bers
nor
uti
lize
com
mun
ity
reso
urce
s.
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts
acce
ss r
esou
rces
fro
m th
e co
mm
unit
y to
sup
port
cog
niti
ve
and
aff
ecti
ve n
eed
s, in
clud
ing
sam
e-ag
e pe
ers
and
men
tors
or
expe
rts.
The
re is
no
evid
ence
sup
port
ing
the
use
of r
ole
mod
els
or o
ut-o
f-sc
hool
le
arni
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
that
mat
ch
stud
ents
’ abi
litie
s or
inte
rest
s.
Ad
dit
iona
l inf
orm
atio
n is
nee
ded
on
how
the
com
mun
ity
can
prov
ide
reso
urce
s to
sup
port
co
gnit
ive
and
aff
ecti
ve n
eed
s of
st
uden
ts.
11.
5Pa
rent
s ar
e in
vite
d
to th
e pa
rent
-tea
cher
co
nfer
ence
s he
ld
each
fal
l and
spr
ing.
Stud
ents
’ fam
ilies
and
co
mm
unit
ies
und
erst
and
si
mila
riti
es a
nd d
iffe
renc
es w
ith
resp
ect t
o th
e d
evel
opm
ent a
nd
char
acte
rist
ics
of a
dva
nced
and
ty
pica
l lea
rner
s, a
nd th
ey
supp
ort t
he n
eed
s of
stu
den
ts
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts.
Part
icul
ar s
tud
ents
’ lea
rnin
g d
iffe
renc
es a
nd n
eed
s ar
e d
iscu
ssed
at
par
ent-
teac
her
conf
eren
ces
as
doc
umen
ted
by
a si
gn-i
n sh
eet.
Ad
dit
iona
l inf
orm
atio
n is
nee
ded
on
eff
orts
to b
ette
r co
mm
unic
ate
and
col
labo
rate
wit
h pa
rent
s an
d
com
mun
ity
mem
bers
.
22.
3Pa
rent
s an
d te
ache
rs
are
able
to n
omin
ate
stud
ents
for
the
gift
ed p
rogr
am.
Stud
ents
wit
h id
enti
fied
nee
ds
repr
esen
t div
erse
bac
kgro
und
s an
d r
efle
ct th
e to
tal s
tud
ent
popu
lati
on o
f th
e d
istr
ict.
The
re is
a la
ck o
f evi
den
ce s
uppo
rtin
g st
uden
t div
ersi
ty in
the
gift
ed
prog
ram
. Acc
ord
ing
to g
ifte
d
prog
ram
and
AP
stud
ent d
ata,
the
tota
l stu
den
t pop
ulat
ion
is n
ot
repr
esen
ted
in th
e gi
fted
pro
gram
or
AP
cour
ses.
Ad
dit
iona
l inf
orm
atio
n is
nee
ded
to
ens
ure
use
of n
onbi
ased
and
eq
uita
ble
appr
oach
es f
or
iden
tify
ing
stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts.
Evi
den
ce is
als
o ne
eded
that
par
ents
and
stu
den
ts
are
info
rmed
of
the
bene
fits
of
A
P co
urse
s.
(Con
tinu
ed)
Tab
le 1
.1
Gap
Ana
lysi
s C
hart Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
10
Standard
Evi
den
ce-
Bas
ed
Pra
ctic
e
Wh
at W
e D
o to
S
up
por
t T
his
P
ract
ice
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
Wh
at E
vid
ence
Do
We
Hav
e T
hat
C
urr
ent
Pra
ctic
es A
re L
ead
ing
to
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
?
Wh
at A
dd
itio
nal
Evi
den
ce/
Info
rmat
ion
Do
We
Nee
d?
(Gap
s)
33.
3.1
Teac
hers
inte
grat
e in
stru
ctio
nal
stra
tegi
es a
nd
acti
viti
es th
at
dif
fere
ntia
te f
or
cont
ent,
proc
ess,
an
d p
rod
uct.
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts
part
icip
ate
in m
ulti
ple
lear
ning
ex
peri
ence
s an
d a
ctiv
itie
s th
at
allo
w th
em to
dev
elop
and
ap
ply
know
led
ge in
way
s th
at
are
mea
ning
ful a
nd r
elev
ant.
Acc
ord
ing
to s
tud
ent f
eed
back
(e.
g.,
exit
slip
s, r
efle
ctio
ns, d
iscu
ssio
n) a
nd
asse
ssm
ents
, dif
fere
ntia
ted
in
stru
ctio
n is
eff
ecti
ve.
Ad
dit
iona
l evi
den
ce is
nee
ded
to
ens
ure
that
the
inst
ruct
iona
l st
rate
gies
use
d a
re c
ultu
rally
re
leva
nt a
nd a
ppro
pria
tely
re
spon
sive
.
33.
5.1
Min
imal
cul
tura
l as
pect
s ha
ve b
een
inte
grat
ed o
ther
th
an c
ontr
ibut
ions
re
late
d to
hol
iday
s an
d c
eleb
rati
ons.
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts
acti
vely
eng
age
in r
igor
ous,
cu
ltur
ally
sig
nifi
cant
lear
ning
ex
peri
ence
s.
Mul
ticu
ltur
al e
duc
atio
n is
inte
grat
ed
at a
bas
ic le
vel,
whi
ch y
ield
s ve
ry
littl
e ev
iden
ce.
Ad
dit
iona
l evi
den
ce is
not
re
quir
ed b
ecau
se th
ere
is a
re
cogn
ized
gap
.
33.
5.2
Few
opp
ortu
niti
es
are
prov
ided
for
st
uden
ts to
co
nstr
uct t
heir
ow
n kn
owle
dge
thro
ugh
the
curr
icul
um.
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts
part
icip
ate
in e
xplo
rato
ry
lear
ning
opp
ortu
niti
es th
at a
re
resp
onsi
ve a
nd r
elat
ed to
thei
r in
tere
sts.
Ver
y lit
tle
evid
ence
sin
ce s
tud
ent-
cent
ered
opp
ortu
niti
es a
re li
mit
ed.
Ad
dit
iona
l evi
den
ce is
not
re
quir
ed b
ecau
se th
ere
is a
re
cogn
ized
gap
.
33.
5.3
Not
hing
has
bee
n im
plem
ente
d to
su
ppor
t thi
s pr
acti
ce.
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts
use
pers
onal
and
mul
tipl
e pe
rspe
ctiv
es to
ana
lyze
and
re
flec
t on
cult
ural
issu
es,
inte
rest
s, a
nd c
halle
nges
.
No
evid
ence
.A
dd
itio
nal e
vid
ence
is n
ot
requ
ired
bec
ause
ther
e is
a
reco
gniz
ed g
ap.
Tab
le 1
.1
(Con
tinu
ed)Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
11
Standard
Evi
den
ce-
Bas
ed
Pra
ctic
e
Wh
at W
e D
o to
S
up
por
t T
his
P
ract
ice
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
Wh
at E
vid
ence
Do
We
Hav
e T
hat
C
urr
ent
Pra
ctic
es A
re L
ead
ing
to
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
?
Wh
at A
dd
itio
nal
Evi
den
ce/
Info
rmat
ion
Do
We
Nee
d?
(Gap
s)
55.
2.1
Min
imal
co
llabo
rati
ve
oppo
rtun
itie
s ha
ve
been
init
iate
d to
d
iscu
ss h
ow b
est t
o he
lp g
ifte
d s
tud
ents
.
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts
dem
onst
rate
ach
ieve
men
t as
resu
lt o
f col
labo
rati
ve e
ffor
ts a
nd
shar
ed v
isio
n am
ong
all s
choo
l d
ivis
ions
and
per
sonn
el.
Ver
y lit
tle
evid
ence
oth
er th
an th
e re
sult
s pr
esen
ted
fro
m th
e ne
eds
asse
ssm
ent a
t the
sch
ool s
ite
mee
ting
s.
Ad
dit
iona
l evi
den
ce is
not
re
quir
ed b
ecau
se th
ere
is a
re
cogn
ized
gap
.
55.
3.1
The
sch
ool
occa
sion
ally
invi
tes
pare
nts
and
co
mm
unit
y m
embe
rs to
hel
p w
ith
fund
rais
ers,
se
rve
on h
irin
g co
mm
itte
es, a
nd
com
e to
sch
ool
even
ts.
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
tale
nts
expe
rien
ce e
nric
hed
lear
ning
op
port
unit
ies
thro
ugh
te
am-b
ased
pla
nnin
g an
d
com
mun
icat
ion
amon
g co
mm
unit
y, p
aren
ts, a
nd
the
scho
ol.
Dat
a fr
om n
eed
s as
sess
men
t rev
eale
d
that
par
ents
/co
mm
unit
y fe
lt m
ore
of
an o
bser
ver
rela
tion
ship
wit
h th
e sc
hool
and
did
not
ful
ly u
nder
stan
d
how
the
gift
ed c
ours
es a
ffec
ted
pos
t-hi
gh-s
choo
l pla
ns.
Mor
e ev
iden
ce is
nee
ded
on
how
to
em
ploy
sch
ool a
nd c
omm
unit
y re
sour
ces
dir
ectl
y in
the
clas
sroo
m a
nd c
olla
bora
te w
ith
com
mun
ity
mem
bers
(e.
g.,
univ
ersi
ty, h
ealt
hcar
e fa
cilit
ies,
pa
rent
s, f
ield
-bas
ed
oppo
rtun
itie
s, lo
cal r
esou
rces
, m
ento
rs)
to e
nhan
ce le
arni
ng.
66.
1.1
6.
1.2
6.
1.3
Gif
ted
ed
ucat
ion
and
AP
teac
hers
are
re
quir
ed b
y th
e st
ate
to h
ave
60 h
ours
of
cont
inui
ng
educ
atio
n ea
ch y
ear.
Stud
ents
dev
elop
thei
r ta
lent
s an
d g
ifts
as
a re
sult
of
inte
ract
ing
wit
h ed
ucat
ors
who
m
eet t
he n
atio
nal t
each
er
prep
arat
ion
stan
dar
ds
in g
ifte
d
educ
atio
n.
Evi
den
ce f
rom
sta
ndar
diz
ed te
st
scor
es s
ugge
sts
teac
hers
are
eff
ecti
ve.
Ad
dit
iona
l evi
den
ce in
dic
ates
that
le
arni
ng m
ay n
ot b
e cu
ltur
ally
re
leva
nt to
all
stud
ents
.
Evi
den
ce is
nee
ded
that
en
cour
ages
cla
ssro
om, g
ifte
d
educ
atio
n, a
nd A
P te
ache
rs to
se
ek p
rofe
ssio
nal d
evel
opm
ent
oppo
rtun
itie
s th
at m
odel
how
to
dev
elop
env
iron
men
ts a
nd
inst
ruct
iona
l str
ateg
ies
that
su
ppor
t gif
ted
lear
ners
, inc
lud
ing
thos
e fr
om u
nder
repr
esen
ted
m
inor
ity
(UR
M)
grou
ps.
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
12 Designing services anD Programs for HigH-ability learners
population of URM students in the school district, this number is not reflected in the gifted program or AP courses. Currently, the percentage of URM students identified and served in the gifted program is less than 10%, well below their represented population in the district. Additionally, over the past 3 years, the percentage of URM students enrolled in high school AP courses decreased by 20%, although school enrollments remained sta-ble. To further investigate the lack of identification of URM gifted students and the retention and persistence of URM students in AP courses, a needs analysis survey was administered to teachers, community/parents, and URM students currently enrolled in gifted services as well as students who had withdrawn. This was followed by focus group interviews with all stakeholders. The surveys revealed that many teachers and parents were unaware of gifted program identification procedures. Parents did not real-ize they could request that their child be tested for identification into the gifted program. Furthermore, teacher responses indicated a limited knowl-edge of the diverse characteristics of URM gifted students. In the gifted and AP classrooms, data revealed that teachers planned effective differen-tiated lessons focused on content, process, and products that occasionally required students to use technology; however, the students were less than enthusiastic about the activities and readings. Former and current students felt that there was a divide because the teachers did not understand or value their cultural differences. Community members and parents divulged that there was not a reciprocal relationship with the school. Parents rarely received information from the school except through occasional newslet-ters, teacher calls and e-mails, and the twice-a-year parent-teacher confer-ences. As an example, parents were unaware of how an AP course would prepare their children any differently than a regular content course in the same area. Because state tests are based on the traditional content areas and are used as the standard for college and career readiness, many parents did not understand why their child should take a course with higher expecta-tions, increased homework, and more challenging assignments.
The Office of Gifted Services is convinced that to identify URM students for gifted services and increase enrollment in advanced classes, teachers and parents must be educated on the characteristics of URM gifted stu-dents, teachers must integrate more culturally relevant practices and utilize community resources to support learning, and the district office must do a better job at communicating the importance of gifted education and AP courses to parents and the community while at the same time advocating for their help. The district coordinator refers to the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards as a resource to help meet the students’ individual learning needs. To address areas of needed improvement in instruction and programming, the coordinator and teachers complete a self-evaluation using Cotabish and colleagues’ (2015) Self-Assess Your P–12 Practice or Program Using the NAGC Gifted Programming Standards. After completing the self-study checklist, school site meetings—followed by a district-wide meeting—are held to collaborate and complete a gap analysis chart (see Table 1.1) and finally create an action plan (see Table 1.2).
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
13
Standard
Evi
den
ce-
Bas
ed
Pra
ctic
e
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
Iden
tifi
ed G
aps
Info
rmat
ion
to
Be
Col
lect
ed/
Act
ion
to
Be
Car
ried
Ou
tP
erso
n(s
) R
esp
onsi
ble
Tim
elin
e
11.
2.1
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
ta
lent
s po
sses
s a
dev
elop
men
tally
ap
prop
riat
e un
der
stan
din
g of
how
they
lear
n an
d g
row
; th
ey r
ecog
nize
the
infl
uenc
es o
f th
eir
belie
fs,
trad
itio
ns, a
nd v
alue
s on
le
arni
ng a
nd b
ehav
ior.
Stud
ent d
iver
sity
and
d
iffe
renc
es in
lear
ning
are
no
t ad
dre
ssed
in g
ifte
d o
r A
P cl
assr
oom
s.
The
dis
tric
t will
see
k pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent
and
com
mun
ity
assi
stan
ce in
ef
fort
s to
ed
ucat
e te
ache
rs o
n cu
ltur
ally
res
pons
ive
inst
ruct
iona
l pra
ctic
es.
Dis
tric
t ad
min
istr
ator
sYe
arly
11.
4.1
1.
4.2
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
ta
lent
s ac
cess
res
ourc
es f
rom
th
e co
mm
unit
y to
sup
port
co
gnit
ive
and
aff
ecti
ve
need
s, in
clud
ing
sam
e-ag
e pe
ers
and
men
tors
or
expe
rts.
The
re is
no
evid
ence
su
ppor
ting
the
use
of r
ole
mod
els
or o
ut-o
f-sc
hool
le
arni
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
th
at m
atch
stu
den
ts’
abili
ties
or
inte
rest
s.
Gif
ted
and
AP
teac
hers
will
se
ek c
omm
unit
y an
d in
dus
try
mem
bers
to s
erve
as
men
tors
or
rol
e m
odel
s fo
r st
uden
ts.
Gif
ted
and
AP
teac
hers
Ong
oing
11.
5St
uden
ts’ f
amili
es a
nd
com
mun
itie
s un
der
stan
d
sim
ilari
ties
and
dif
fere
nces
w
ith
resp
ect t
o th
e d
evel
opm
ent a
nd
char
acte
rist
ics
of a
dva
nced
an
d ty
pica
l lea
rner
s an
d
supp
ort t
he n
eed
s of
st
uden
ts w
ith
gift
s an
d
tale
nts.
The
re is
min
imal
co
mm
unic
atio
n w
ith
pare
nts
rega
rdin
g st
uden
t le
arni
ng a
nd
prog
ram
min
g op
tion
s.
The
dis
tric
t will
est
ablis
h a
pare
ntal
invo
lvem
ent
com
mit
tee
to s
eek
add
itio
nal
aven
ues
for
com
mun
icat
ing
wit
h pa
rent
s. T
he p
aren
tal
invo
lvem
ent c
omm
itte
e w
ill
surv
ey p
aren
ts o
n th
eir
pref
erre
d m
ode
of
com
mun
icat
ion.
The
co
mm
unic
atio
n ef
fort
s w
ill b
e im
plem
ente
d in
the
follo
win
g ye
ar.
Pare
ntal
In
volv
emen
t C
omm
itte
e
Year
1 a
nd
then
ong
oing
Tab
le 1
.2
Act
ion
Plan
Cha
rt
(Con
tinu
ed)
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
14
Standard
Evi
den
ce-
Bas
ed
Pra
ctic
e
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
Iden
tifi
ed G
aps
Info
rmat
ion
to
Be
Col
lect
ed/
Act
ion
to
Be
Car
ried
Ou
tP
erso
n(s
) R
esp
onsi
ble
Tim
elin
e
22.
3St
uden
ts w
ith
iden
tifi
ed
need
s re
pres
ent d
iver
se
back
grou
nds
and
ref
lect
the
tota
l stu
den
t pop
ulat
ion
of
the
dis
tric
t.
Acc
ord
ing
to g
ifte
d
prog
ram
and
AP
stud
ent
dat
a, th
e to
tal s
tud
ent
popu
lati
on is
not
re
pres
ente
d in
the
gift
ed
prog
ram
or
AP
cour
ses.
Dis
tric
t ad
min
istr
ator
s,
clas
sroo
m te
ache
rs, g
ifte
d
educ
atio
n te
ache
rs, a
nd A
P te
ache
rs w
ill b
e pr
ovid
ed
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t ta
rget
ing
nonb
iase
d
appr
oach
es f
or id
enti
fyin
g st
uden
ts w
ith
gift
s an
d
tale
nts.
Par
ents
will
rec
eive
co
mm
unic
atio
n re
gard
ing
the
bene
fits
of A
P co
urse
s.
Dis
tric
t gif
ted
an
d A
P ad
min
istr
ator
s
Year
ly
55.
2.1
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
ta
lent
s d
emon
stra
te
achi
evem
ent a
s re
sult
of
colla
bora
tive
eff
orts
and
sh
ared
vis
ion
amon
g al
l sc
hool
div
isio
ns a
nd
pers
onne
l.
Mor
e ev
iden
ce is
nee
ded
to
ens
ure
that
all
educ
ator
s an
d
prof
essi
onal
sta
ff a
re
trai
ned
to im
plem
ent
cult
ural
ly r
espo
nsiv
e te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
, how
cu
ltur
al f
acto
rs in
flue
nce
posi
tive
and
neg
ativ
e be
havi
ors
in s
choo
l and
gi
fted
/ad
vanc
ed c
lass
es,
and
how
to a
dd
ress
the
soci
al a
nd e
mot
iona
l and
ps
ycho
logi
cal n
eed
s of
cu
ltur
ally
div
erse
gif
ted
st
uden
ts.
Con
duc
t an
inte
rnal
and
ex
tern
al e
valu
atio
n of
the
gift
ed s
ervi
ces
offe
red
in th
e d
istr
ict.
Exa
min
e d
ata
and
m
ake
info
rmed
inst
ruct
iona
l d
ecis
ions
to e
stab
lish
dee
per
awar
enes
s of
bes
t pra
ctic
es
for
cult
ural
ly d
iver
se g
ifte
d
stud
ents
.
Ad
min
istr
ator
s an
d c
oord
inat
ors
from
spe
cifi
c d
ivis
ions
, co
unse
lors
, in
stru
ctio
nal
faci
litat
ors,
and
te
ache
rs
Ong
oing
Tab
le 1
.2
(Con
tinu
ed) Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
15
Standard
Evi
den
ce-
Bas
ed
Pra
ctic
e
Des
ired
Stu
den
t O
utc
omes
Iden
tifi
ed G
aps
Info
rmat
ion
to
Be
Col
lect
ed/
Act
ion
to
Be
Car
ried
Ou
tP
erso
n(s
) R
esp
onsi
ble
Tim
elin
e
55.
3.1
Stud
ents
wit
h gi
fts
and
ta
lent
s ex
peri
ence
enr
iche
d
lear
ning
opp
ortu
niti
es
thro
ugh
team
-bas
ed
plan
ning
and
co
mm
unic
atio
n fr
om
com
mun
ity,
par
ents
, and
the
scho
ol.
A r
ecip
roca
l rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n sc
hool
and
st
akeh
old
ers
shou
ld b
e es
tabl
ishe
d.
Seek
out
par
ents
and
co
mm
unit
y m
embe
rs to
vo
lunt
eer
or g
et in
volv
ed
wit
h cu
rric
ulum
pla
nnin
g an
d to
hel
p re
late
con
tent
to
real
-wor
ld p
ract
ice.
Cre
ate
a liv
ing
doc
umen
t res
ourc
e gu
ide
wit
h a
com
pila
tion
of
reso
urce
peo
ple,
ed
ucat
iona
l ex
peri
ence
s, a
nd/
or p
lace
s to
vi
sit i
n th
e lo
cal a
nd
surr
ound
ing
com
mun
ity.
Cla
ssro
om
teac
her
wit
h as
sist
ance
fro
m
the
coun
selo
r, PT
O, s
tud
ents
, pa
rent
s, a
nd
com
mun
ity
mem
bers
Onc
e ev
ery
tw
o m
onth
s
66.
1.1
6.
1.2
6.
1.3
Stud
ents
dev
elop
thei
r ta
lent
s an
d g
ifts
as
a re
sult
of
inte
ract
ing
wit
h ed
ucat
ors
who
mee
t the
na
tion
al te
ache
r pr
epar
atio
n st
and
ard
s in
gif
ted
ed
ucat
ion.
The
re is
stu
den
t d
issa
tisf
acti
on w
ith
acti
viti
es a
nd r
ead
ings
in
gift
ed a
nd A
P cl
asse
s.
Gif
ted
ed
ucat
ion
and
AP
teac
hers
sho
uld
see
k pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent
oppo
rtun
itie
s th
at m
odel
how
to
dev
elop
env
iron
men
ts a
nd
inst
ruct
iona
l str
ateg
ies
that
su
ppor
t gif
ted
lear
ners
, in
clud
ing
thos
e fr
om U
RM
gr
oups
.
Dis
tric
t gif
ted
an
d A
P ad
min
istr
ator
s
Ong
oing
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
16 Designing services anD Programs for HigH-ability learners
NEXT STEPS
As indicated by the gap analysis chart (Table 1.1) and action plan (Table 1.2), Trellis School District has a strategy to make needed improvements to the gifted program across several standards. As outlined by the action plan, individuals are responsible for specific tasks to help improve the program and provide a better, more equitable education for all students. The sce-nario was fictional and many of the situations were not probabilistic; how-ever, many school districts face similar problems, especially with implementing culturally relevant and responsive teaching and the lack of diversity representation in gifted classrooms. By using the self-study checklist, school districts, gifted and AP programs, and teachers of the gifted can better recognize areas for improvement. After the Action Plan is implemented, school personnel should revisit the self-study checklist for continuous evaluation and program improvement.
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER
In conclusion, meeting the needs of students with gifts and talents takes a community effort. When addressing gifted programming, it is important for educators to consider the state and national standards, including the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards and content stan-dards such as the CCSS and the NGSS. Additionally, educators must be cognizant of students’ cultural differences. To make learning interesting and relevant for students, there needs to be a connection with their real world. To increase the relevancy of student learning, community resources need to be identified and utilized. Using guest speakers, providing field trips, and arranging professional mentoring opportunities allow students opportunities to view learning in the context of the real world. No longer should students ask, “How will I use this when I grow up?” Instead, we should show them how they will use the content when they grow up.
SUGGESTED RESOURCES
Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.). (2012). NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
This book offers a guide to planning and implementing high-quality services across the six standards addressing areas critical to effective teaching and learn-ing. Example assessments of student products and performances are provided.
Cotabish, A., Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., Dailey, D., Kielty, W., & Pratt, D. (2015). Self-assess your P–12 practice or program using the NAGC gifted programming stan-dards. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017
CHAPTER 1. aligning gifteD Programming anD services WitH national anD state stanDarDs 17
This NAGC publication is designed for teachers and gifted education coordi-nators to reflect on and improve their teaching practices and gifted education programs to support the student outcomes. Through this process, teachers and coordinators can identify areas of needed improvement and develop an action plan.
Johnsen, S. K., & Clarenbach, J. (Eds.). (2017). Using the national gifted education standards for prek–12 professional development. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
This book summarizes how to use the NAGC-CEC national teacher preparation standards in gifted education to guide teachers in professional development opportunities and to design and assess in-service training programs.
REFERENCES
Achieve, Inc. (2014). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: Author.Adams, C. M., Cotabish, A., & Ricci, M. K. (2014). Using the Next Generation Science
Standards with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Cheuk, T. (2012). Relationships and convergences found in Common Core State
Standards for Mathematics, Common Core State Standards for ELA/Literacy, and a Framework for K–12 Science Education. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Cotabish, A., & Krisel, S. (2012). Action plans: Bringing the program standards to life. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality ser-vices (pp. 231–253). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Cotabish, A., Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., Dailey, D., Kielty, W., & Pratt, D. (2015). Self-assess your P–12 practice or program using the NAGC Gifted Programming Standards. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Johnsen, S. K. (2012). Preface: Overview of the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services (pp. ix–xiii). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
Copyri
ght C
orwin
2017