1 / 24

The Problem…

The Problem…. The Global Picture: PISA Scores. According to Analysis by Harvard University & OECD:. Reading: USA is 14 th Place; behind 2/3 tested regions of China. Science: USA is 20 th Place; behind all tested regions of China.

hinto
Download Presentation

The Problem…

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Problem…

  2. The Global Picture: PISA Scores According to Analysis by Harvard University & OECD: Reading: USA is 14th Place; behind 2/3 tested regions of China Science: USA is 20th Place; behind all tested regions of China Math: USA is 28th Place; behind average score and all tested regions of China Harvard Kennedy School of Government: U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective, 2010; and Oganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

  3. Our National Problem: Stagnant Math & Reading Performance Fordham Institute: High-Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind, June 2008

  4. Few U.S. Students Reaching the Top The U.S. placed 31 of 56 countries in the percentage of students achieving at the advanced level (levels 5 & 6) in math on the recent PISA exam. Percentage of Students Reaching Highest Level on PISA: 10 % of students in the U.S. 25.6% of students in Korea 20% of students in Switzerland, Finland, Japan and Belgium 35.6% of students in Singapore reached the highest levels. The average was 12.7%. And on the NAEP exam Only 2.26 % of U.S. students reached the advanced level on the NAEP 8th grade math exam in 2007.

  5. A Widening Excellence Gap Excellence Gap: Differences between subgroups of students performing at the highest levels of achievement. Excellence gaps exist in reading and math on NAEP and state assessments; majority of states have experienced worsening excellence gaps. Indiana University Center for Evaluation & Education Policy: Mind the (Other) Gap, February 2010

  6. Closing the Excellence Gap Between Top Students in Subgroups At the current pace of achievement: • It would take 72 years to close the gap between Whites and Hispanics in grade four mathematics. • It would take 31 years to close the gap between Whites and African Americans. • 128 years to close the gap between grade four English Language Learners (ELL) and non-ELL students. Indiana University Center for Evaluation & Education Policy: Mind the (Other) Gap, February 2010

  7. Minority Underrepresentation in G&T Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education (2006) • African American and Hispanic students are underrepresented in gifted education programs 68% 56% 17% 20% 13% 9%

  8. Leaving Talent on the Table • High-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds, when compared to their more advantaged peers are: • twice as likely to drop out of school; • Less likely to attend or graduate from college; • 44% of high-achieving students are no longerhigh achieving by 5th grade • 45% of academically gifted students who are underachieving in grade 7 continue underachieving through high school. Jack Kent Cooke Foundation: The Achievement Trap: How America is Failing Millions of High-Achieving Students from Lower Income Families

  9. A Day in the life…. "First grade would be all right if it weren't for the 11 sequels."

  10. Federal & State Support

  11. Minimal Federal Support • Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act (PL 107-110; Title V, Part D, Subpart 6) • Established in 1989 • National research center and grants to identify best practices in gifted education (approximately $7.5 - 11 million each year) • Focus on underserved gifted populations • De-funded in fiscal year 2011 • No federal data collected on the condition of education for these students.

  12. A Patchwork Quilt of State Support • 13 States provide $0 in state funds for high-ability students. • 17 states do not require services for high-ability students. Of the states that do, only 5 fully fund them. • Only 5 states require all teachers to have pre-service training in gifted and talented education. • Only 5 states require professional learning for teachers in gifted and talented programs. • 18 states collect no data on students enrolled in gifted and talented programs. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted State of the States in Gifted Education, 2009

  13. Consequences of the Lack of Support • Academically talented students already know 40%-50% of traditional course content at the beginning of the school year and would benefit from moving on to new material. However, most classroom teachers do not have the skills needed to make the necessary modifications to the curriculum. • Only 59% of high-achieving lower-income students that graduate high school obtain some form of postsecondary degree.

  14. What Javits Research Has Taught Us… • We now have numerous strategies and assessments that can be used to increase the participation of minority, ELL, low-income, and children with disabilities in gifted education programs.

  15. What Javits Research Has Taught Us… • High ability low-income, minority, ELL, and students with disabilities are able to achieve at high levels with challenging curriculum and appropriate supports. Otherwise, the students underachieve. • In a large urban high school, 50% of students identified as academically gifted were underachieving by the end of 4 years. Many failed every subject, some dropped out, and others became pregnant, or joined gangs.

  16. What Javits Research Has Taught Us… • Numerous gifted education strategies and interventions can be used to improve achievement for all the students in the class.

  17. The TALENT Solution S.857

  18. The TALENT Act: Increase In Professional Development • Title II, Part A Grants: Include description of the comprehensive strategy a state will use to improve the knowledge and skills of school personnel identifying and serving students with gifts and talents. • Professional Development and Best Practices Grant Program, a targeted, competitive grant program that will conduct school-wide and classroom-based research to develop innovative instructional practices and provide high quality professional development in gifted education. • Enhances the Rural Education Achievement Program to include gifted education as an allowable professional learning topic.

  19. The TALENT Act: Changes to Assessment & Accountability Systems • Require state assessments are vertically aligned and able to measure student knowledge of standards above their grade level; • Require that states, districts, and schools report learning growth for their most advanced students on state report cards. • Require that states and districts include description of how they will address the needs of high-ability students in their Title I reports.

  20. The TALENT Act: Emphasis on Developing & Disseminating Best Practices • Enhance the U.S. Department of Education research initiatives • Professional Development & Best Practices Competitive Grant Program focuses on school-based research to develop innovative, best practices in identifying & serving high-ability students. • Emphasize efficient dissemination of effective strategies into the classroom to immediately help students and teachers. • Use existing network of national content and technical assistance centers under ESEA and IDEA.

  21. Closing “A coherent, proactive, sustained effort to identify and develop our Nation’s future innovators will help drive future economic prosperity, improve the quality of life for all, and ensure both equity and excellence in education.” National Science Board, Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing Our Nation’s Human Capital, 2010

  22. Contacts Dr. Sally M. Reis Dr. Julia Roberts University of Connecticut Western Kentucky University sally.reis@uconn.eduJulia.roberts@wku.edu Jane Clarenbach, J.D. Kim Hymes Director, Public Education Director, Policy & Advocacy National Association for Gifted Council for Exceptional Children Children 202-785-4268 703-264-9441 janec@nagc.orgkimh@cec.sped.org

More Related