program models that work one study s findings l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Program Models that Work: One study’s findings PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Program Models that Work: One study’s findings

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Program Models that Work: One study’s findings - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Program Models that Work: One study’s findings. Co-Principal Investigators: Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Ed.D. Elissa Brown, Ph.D. College of William and Mary Eric Calvert Ohio Department of Education SCCGE Conference November 29, 2006. Reasons for Ohio Department of Education to Request Study:.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Program Models that Work: One study’s findings' - jana

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
program models that work one study s findings

Program Models that Work: One study’s findings

Co-Principal Investigators:

Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Ed.D.

Elissa Brown, Ph.D.

College of William and Mary

Eric Calvert

Ohio Department of Education

SCCGE Conference

November 29, 2006

NAGC, 2006

reasons for ohio department of education to request study
Reasons for Ohio Department of Education to Request Study:
  • Are services for gifted students matched to their specific learning needs, or “one size fits all?”
  • Are services for gifted students disjointed or articulated from grade level to grade level?
  • Do services for gifted students build on the core curriculum and connect with other services, or are they isolated and disconnected?
  • What factors contribute to inequity in the availability of gifted services from district to district, building to building, and grade to grade?

NAGC, 2006

purposes of the study
Purposes of the Study
  • To conduct a review and analysis of national research and school district policies and practices related to providing a comprehensive continuum of services for gifted students
  • To develop a “toolkit” for educators that includes a summary of the analysis and research as well as model policies and practical recommendations for school districts
  • To evaluate the availability and comprehensiveness of gifted services available in Ohio schools
  • To document Ohio best practices and recommendations for Ohio school districts regarding service settings
  • To provide recommendations for the Ohio Department of Education regarding policy development and resources needed to implement comprehensive K-12 services in Ohio schools.

NAGC, 2006

research questions
Research Questions
  • To what extent are appropriate instruction and services available to K-12 gifted students in Ohio?
  • To what extent do instruction and service settings employed by Ohio schools match research-based best practices?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of popular service settings employed by Ohio schools?
  • What barriers prevent the provision of a comprehensive continuum of services for gifted students?
  • What policies, activities, and resources are needed for ODE and school districts to improve the availability of comprehensive continua of services for gifted students?
  • How can school districts use available resources most effectively to serve gifted students?

NAGC, 2006

data sources
Case studies with partnering districts:

Antwerp Local

Cambridge City

Maumee City

Salem City

Pickerington Local

Coordinator Statewide Survey Results

Analysis of EMIS ODE self-report data

Literature Review


Data Sources

NAGC, 2006


January 24, 2005 to June 30, 2005

  • January/February:
    • Literature Review
    • Development of instrumentation protocols
      • Statewide survey, case study focus group and interview protocols, document analysis protocol
  • March/April
    • Data collection: submission of statewide survey, case study on-site visits to 5 participating schools, EMIS data, document review
  • May/June
    • Data analysis and triangulation: literature review, case study, state and local documents, EMIS data
    • Toolkit development
    • Formation of recommendations

NAGC, 2006

model for study research based practice
Model for StudyResearch-based Practice





Case Studies

(focus groups,

interview, document


Literature Review

& Toolkit

NAGC, 2006

literature review
Literature Review
  • Curriculum and Instruction and Organizational Arrangements
    • Strong support for grouping with differentiation and accelerative options as enhancing student achievement (Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1998; Swiatek, 2000; Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Gentry, 1999; Gentry & Owen, 1999)
    • Teachers may be able to eliminate half of the content for gifted students within a school year and substitute interest or accelerative opportunities without negatively impacting achievement gains (Reis & Westberg, 1994; Reis et al, 1998)
    • Acceleration options including grade skipping, early entrance, and subject acceleration provide positive gains in achievement for gifted students. Furthermore, the majority of accelerated students and parents found it to be positive and beneficial (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Rimm, 1992; Swiatek, 2000; Southern & Jones, 1991).

NAGC, 2006

literature review cont
Literature Review (cont.)
  • Curriculum and Instruction and Organizational Arrangements (cont.)
    • Pull-out options provide the greatest achievement gains in students when tied to specific content areas (Rogers, 1998).
    • The combination of advanced content, process-product, and connections to a conceptual framework in language provides significant student achievement gains in language arts (VanTassel-Baska, Avery, Little, & Hughes, 2000; VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, Johnosn, Hughes, & Boyce, 1996; VanTassel-Baska, Zuo, Avery, & Little, 2002).

NAGC, 2006

literature review cont10
Literature Review (cont.)
  • Student Performance and Program Evaluation
    • Students who score in the upper 20% on standardized assessments make the least amount of learning gains when compared to students in the middle and lower quintiles (Sanders & Horn, 1998).
    • Performance-based assessments increase the numbers of disadvantaged students identified in gifted programs when compared to traditional measures (VanTassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002). Disadvantaged students with moderate standardized achievement test scores who are provided academic programming to enhance math and language arts have an increased likelihood of qualifying for academically gifted programs (Mills, Stork, & Krug, 1992).
    • There is a paucity of data on gifted student performance, staff development, and parent involvement in gifted education (Avery & VanTassel-Baska, 2001; Westberg et al, 2004).

NAGC, 2006

literature review cont11
Literature Review (cont.)
  • Administrative Change
    • Few teachers differentiate instruction consistently. Targeted professional development including modeling and the provision of resources is essential to transfer of differentiation in the regular classroom (Westberg et al, 2004; Joyce & Showers, 1988)
    • The leadership skills required to lead gifted programs include building capacity, establishing vision and moral concern, celebrating small successes, and providing systemic frameworks such as a scope and sequence, policies related to gifted education, and a match between student outcomes and assessment (Fullan, 1999; VanTassel-Baska, 2001; 2004; Callahan, 2005; Avery & VanTassel-Baska, 2001).

NAGC, 2006

findings by source
Findings by Source
  • Case Study
    • Parents are supportive of the local gifted program.
    • There is a lack of systemic evidence collected and analyzed to support program effectiveness.
    • Some teachers and administrators are resistant to gifted students and the gifted program.
    • There is a lack of contact time.
    • There is a lack of focused, rigorous curriculum tied to student identification, needs, and content standards.
    • Communication among the gifted personnel and stakeholders is problematic.
    • Additional resources are needed to maintain status quo in gifted programs.
    • Program services are non-systemic and teacher-of-gifted dependent.

NAGC, 2006

findings by source13
Findings by Source
  • Survey and EMIS data
    • 64% return rate on survey
    • 82.7% of those completing the survey had gifted validation or endorsement
    • The majority of districts used teacher-developed curriculum units of study; critical/creative thinking skill materials; and individual projects. High schools cited AP texts as the curriculum followed by regular text books and then advanced textbooks.

NAGC, 2006

findings by source14
Findings by Source
  • Survey and EMIS data (cont.)
    • Top five goals of districts for curriculum and instruction include:
      • To enrich and extend the curriculum
      • To develop productive, complex, abstract, and/or higher level thinking skills
      • To integrate basic and higher level thinking skills into the core curriculum
      • To encourage the development of self understanding
      • To develop research skills and methods (Top goals at middle and high school level)

NAGC, 2006

findings by source15
Findings by Source
  • Survey and EMIS data (cont.)

- Tutoring is the main accommodation strategy for the service of

special populations.

- Ability grouping is defined as the major organizational arrangement

across all grade levels but less than half of most grade levels group

by ability (hs = 56.7%).

- Less than 30% of districts had an acceleration policy and few

districts employ acceleration options (most common were content

acceleration and curriculum compacting with a range from 9-36% of

districts utilizing it in a specific grade level. Most employed at

middle school.)

- Approximately half of districts have aligned gifted and state


- Slightly over 1/3 of districts had a K-12 curriculum framework or

menu of service options for each grade level.

NAGC, 2006

findings by source16
Findings by Source
  • Survey and EMIS data (cont.)

- Statewide testing data (78%) are the most widely

utilized assessment with gifted students followed by

standardized assessments across grade levels (65%) and

performance based assessments (55%).

- The top three positive sources of change perceived

include: gifted unit funding, gifted rules and

regulations, and gifted identification money.

- The top three negative sources of change perceived

include: NCLB, state testing requirements, and gifted

unit funding.

NAGC, 2006

findings by source17
Findings by Source
  • Survey and EMIS Data (cont.)

- The most commonly cited areas for improvement include: funding for programming, professional training for genera education teachers that provide gifted instruction, expanded services to more grade levels, beliefs and values of educators and administrators, and a linkage of gifted education services to more grade levels.

- Approximately to 2/3 of districts have a written policy on gifted.

- Approximately 2/3 of districts report services to remain similar to last year

- The perceived strength of identification for special populations is focused primarily on economically disadvantaged students (60%) and students with disabilities (30%).

NAGC, 2006

findings across data sources
Findings Across Data Sources
  • Lack of mandated services with commensurate funding thwarts program service delivery.
  • Most districts lack sufficient infrastructure to carry out gifted program development tasks at an adequate level.
  • Specific program development areas of need across districts appear to be differentiated goals and outcomes for gifted learners, program evaluation, gifted student assessment, the rigor of curriculum for gifted students and the unevenness of curriculum implementation, differentiation in the regular classroom, and the use of acceleration with gaps in documents and services.
  • While the majority of districts have clearly benefited from Ohio funding and regulations, most appear to be in a “maintenance mode” or are facing reduction of staff and consequently services.

NAGC, 2006

findings across data sources19
Findings Across Data Sources
  • Curriculum differentiation is tied to teacher-developed units or texts that are not tested or aligned with indicators or benchmarks and are research-based for use with gifted learners. Differentiation strategies are more prevalent at elementary level.
  • Service to underrepresented groups appears to be limited but favors Learning Disabled (LD) students.
  • Limited options prevail at each grade level coupled with limited contact time.
  • Stakeholder perceptions favor an in-school model yet specialists’ time is stretched too thin for delivery purposes.
  • There is a need for professional development for teachers who have gifted students the majority of time in school.

NAGC, 2006

findings across data sources20
Findings Across Data Sources
  • Even where service delivery is provided, it appears often not to be matched to students’ identified abilities. Rather, it becomes one program model for all identified gifted learners.
  • There is a great need for the three C’s of: communication, comprehensiveness of program and curricula (e.g. WEP’s group vs. individual), and coherence in service options & delivery.
  • Fewer students are serviced within school districts because of inequitable application of identifiable criteria.
  • Gifted service is a “stand-alone service” not linked to other programs, services, or content standards.
  • Gaps in service delivery (i.e. grade level, content area, and relevant domain) are highly evident in case study districts.

NAGC, 2006

findings across data sources21
Findings Across Data Sources
  • Strengths of programs appear to lie in the quality of the personnel and the quality & extent of in-school & out-of-school options provided. Yet, the strengths of individual teachers affect program emphasis in ways that may limit program development.
  • Stakeholder groups of parents, students, teachers, and administrators view their own district programs in a positive to very positive light, especially in comparison to other districts.
  • Services at specific grade levels, and in specific ability domains are limited and fragmented across the districts.
  • State assessments are used as the predominant tool for assessing gifted student learning and gifted program effectiveness. Yet, these data do not drive program improvement. In some districts, performance-based assessment tools and portfolios are employed, yet not utilized for program decision-making.

NAGC, 2006

findings across data sources22
Findings Across Data Sources
  • The literature review and toolkit suggest the need for:
    • Research-based practices being employed in all gifted programs including:
    • Acceleration (e.g, compacting, diagnostic–prescriptive approaches)
    • Grouping (cluster, pullout, self-contained)
    • The use of differentiated curriculum already developed and used with gifted populations
    • Targeted instructional strategies for gifted learners that can be used in all classrooms (e.g. inquiry, question-asking, problem-based learning)
    • Professional development and training in gifted education for teachers and administrators.
  • Lack of research support for interdisciplinary and independent study options
  • Gap between research and several practice recommendations

NAGC, 2006

recommendations implications
  • Mandate services & develop a plan for funding.
  • Create relevant policies to support mandated services.
  • Tighten regulations regarding equity & match in identification & service delivery.
  • Promote the use of research-based practice.
  • Develop model program policies including acceleration, grouping and identifying and servicing special populations of gifted learners, including low-income minority, and disabled.

NAGC, 2006

recommendations implications24
  • Address contact time issue.
  • Monitor districts on site for evidence of implementing curriculum and effectiveness of a continuum of services by grade level, by subject, and by area of giftedness.
  • Engage superintendents & principals in dialogue on the need for gifted services.
  • Showcase/communicate what works in Ohio (e.g. Midwest Talent Search/Advanced Placement).
  • Utilize existing local and state resources to augment and supplement gifted service options.

NAGC, 2006

ode policy responses to study findings
ODE Policy Responses to Study Findings
  • New academic acceleration policies for districts are required.
  • ODE is piloting professional development modules across the state for teachers and administrators in gifted education.
  • Individual “Written Education Plans”(WEPs) are required for all students receiving gifted services.
  • Early entrance and academic acceleration policies for districts are required.

NAGC, 2006

ode policy responses to study findings26
ODE Policy Responses to Study Findings
  • The State Board of Education has recommended to the Governor:

- A 60% increase in district subsidies for

employing gifted education specialists.

- $5 million in new funding for Advanced

Placement programs.

- A $5.8 million increase in funding for “dual

enrollment” programs for high school students

to attend college part-time.

NAGC, 2006

toolkit contents overview
Toolkit Contents Overview
  • Overview of Placement and Service Models and Instructional Strategies
  • Research Citations and Annotated Bibliography (with effectiveness data)
  • Practice-Based Resource Listing
  • Level of Preparation Required
  • Staff Expertise

NAGC, 2006

closing thoughts
Closing Thoughts
  • The most important outcome of education is to help students become independent of formal education.
  • -- Paul E. Gray

NAGC, 2006