GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM K-12: YEAR-THREE EVALUATION

Transcription

1 GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM K-12: YEAR-THREE EVALUATION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of Educational Leadership and Assessment Office of Research and Evaluation 2512 George Mason Drive Virginia Beach, VA November All Rights Reserved

2 GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM K-12: YEAR-THREE EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORS: Heidi L. Janicki, Ph.D., Coordinator of Research and Evaluation Paul R. Evans, Educational Data Specialist Department of Educational Leadership and Assessment OTHER CONTACT PERSON: Donald E. Robertson, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent Department of Educational Leadership and Assessment On November 17, 2009, the School Board approved the Gifted Education Program K-12: Evaluation Readiness Report including the program goals and objectives, the three-year evaluation plan, and the recommendations concerning the evaluation of the program. As recommended, a year-one process evaluation was completed during and a year-two process evaluation was completed in both focusing on the process-oriented goals and objectives regarding how the program operates. This year-three evaluation during addressed four areas including the actions that occurred during related to the recommendations from the year-two evaluation that were approved by the School Board on December 6, 2011, the changes to the Gifted Education Program in , perceptions of the continued transition of the high school program from a resource model to a resource/cluster model based on three years of survey data, and the extent to which the student outcome-oriented goals and objectives were met based on three years of student academic and other performance data. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS Actions Taken Regarding Recommendations Multiple initiatives and activities occurred during in response to the recommendations from the year-two evaluation of the Gifted Education Program. One of the recommendations from the year-two evaluation was to continue to address the 15 recommendations that were approved by the School Board following the year-one evaluation in Based on the year-one evaluation in , 15 recommendations were made regarding the following areas: program models and services, referral and identification processes, staff development, parent workshops, data collection and storage, and program goals and continued evaluation. Recommendations related to program models and services focused on strengthening the middle school resource/cluster and high school resource models, aligning gifted services with other programs in which gifted students participate, and providing additional information to ii

3 schools regarding the VBCPS guidelines and recommendations for the creation of cluster classes in the resource/cluster model. Several actions that addressed these recommendations in included the following: o A summer 2011 professional learning course focused on examining data from the year-one evaluation and determining next steps regarding the Gifted Education Five-Year Plan. o The implementation of high school parent and teacher modules and middle school cluster teacher training modules continued based on teacher and school needs. o The revised high school program handbook was distributed to principals and gifted resource teachers (GRTs) in fall o Work continued at all levels with the Data-Driven Improvement Planning Process with a focus on gifted pedagogy and gifted curriculum benchmark language. o Gifted resource teachers, cluster teachers, and specialists collaborated to create performance tasks and rubrics for use during at the middle and high school levels. o Middle and high school GRTs and the Office of Technical and Career Education (TCE) collaborated to promote gifted student participation in TCE programs. o The Office of Gifted Education and the Office of Guidance Services collaborated to provide an overview of the gifted cluster program to all secondary guidance directors. o Curriculum for high school gifted courses (i.e., SPARKS and Think Tank) was revised or created by GRTs and approved by the Office of Gifted Education for use during o Middle school GRTs participated in professional learning opportunities related to differentiation strategies. o Site visits were conducted at each high school to observe collaboration efforts along with discussion and debriefing, as well as site visits at selected middle and high schools regarding underachievement of gifted students. Site visits were also conducted at all levels to observe career lessons presented by school counselors. o Collaboration efforts between the Middle Years Program (MYP) and gifted program staff continued, and high school GRTs worked with teachers of academy classes which were to be considered as a cluster group. o High school GRTs were charged with offering Advanced Placement (AP) teachers assistance with differentiation for students. o Guidance and assistance with the clustering of gifted students were provided, and the clustering process at the high school level was monitored. Recommendations related to referral and identification processes focused on continuing to determine and implement strategies for increasing the representativeness of the division s students identified as gifted; strengthening training regarding the importance of teacher narratives in the referral process; and providing notification to parents that upon acceptance into the Governor s School for the Arts (GSA), students are identified as artistically gifted in VBCPS. Several actions that addressed these recommendations in included the following: iii

4 o Principals, GRTs, and guidance counselors from non-title I schools attended a two-day training on bridging the achievement gap among all populations of students by recognizing and responding to their characteristics and needs, and follow-up training was provided for Title I schools. o Principals, GRTs, and guidance counselors at middle and high schools attended training on bridging the achievement gap by responding to students needs. o All instructional staff was required to view a web-based video focused on finding and identifying students from underrepresented populations. The training video Gifts, Talents, and Opportunities also included an increased emphasis on the importance of teacher comments on the teacher referral form. o Training was provided to GRTs at Title I schools for the purpose of increasing the quality of anecdotal records used in the referral and identification process. o Training modules for parents and staff on the Dance Education Program and the Gifted Visual Arts Program referral and identification processes were refined and published. They were available for use in fall o The identification process for the Dance Education Program was refined. o The additional divisionwide screening at fifth grade was implemented in fall o Gifted assessment specialists conducted on-site workshops on the gifted referral and identification process, including an examination of quality teacher recommendation narratives. o The acceptance mailing from the GSA includes a statement indicating that admittance to the GSA program identifies the student as gifted in the arts in VBCPS. Recommendations related to staff development focused on building awareness of twice-exceptional learners, improving and increasing staff development for staff in the high school resource model, and ensuring that verification is readily available for the required Office for Civil Rights training that is offered in VBCPS on the identification and characteristics of gifted learners. Several actions taken to address these recommendations in included the following: o The Office of Gifted Education, in collaboration with the Office of Programs for Exceptional Children, presented training open to parents of special education students on the twice-exceptional learner. o The Office of Gifted Education initiated contact with the Office of Programs for Exceptional Children to develop a plan for collaboration between classroom teachers, GRTs, and special education teachers. o All instructional staff was required to view web-based training that contained information on the twice-exceptional learner. o Collaborative Learning Culture (CLC) groups were created with middle and high school GRTs to improve collaboration and program articulation from middle to high school. o High school GRTs participated in staff development regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment. o Staff in the Office of Gifted Education provided high school GRTs and administrators on-site support focused on improving the quality of gifted services at the high school level. iv

5 o An online training delivery system, which verifies those who complete training, was used to deliver the Office for Civil Rights required training to all instructional staff in fall The recommendation related to parent workshops focused on determining workshops that are of value for parents with students in the programs for the artistically gifted, the high school resource model, and the middle school resource/cluster model and providing additional workshops at convenient times. Several actions taken to address this recommendation in included the following: o Parent workshop modules were developed for GRTs at all levels focusing on the brain s executive functions and communication in the 21 st century. The presentations were given positive ratings by parents. Other parent workshops focused on different clusters of executive functions. o Training modules for parents and staff were refined and published on the visual arts and dance referral and identification processes for use in o The Parent Institute Committee met with staff from the Office of Gifted Education to identify potential topics of interest for sessions that were presented at the 2012 Parent Connection Conference. Recommendations related to data collection and storage focused on reviewing the use of separately managed databases, recording additional information in the official VBCPS database, and developing a schedule and procedure to verify key data elements have been entered into the official database. Actions taken to address these recommendations in included the following: o Several meetings with gifted testing staff from the Office of Gifted Education and the Department of Technology (DOT) were held to review the gifted data that would be moved from the existing databases to the official VBCPS database. o The Office of Gifted Education staff provided information to DOT about the existing test data and other existing data that they wanted moved to Synergy. Following the importing of existing data into Synergy, data entry for new information will occur in Synergy. o The Office of Gifted Education requested that additional descriptive options be added to Synergy to identify the specific gifted area for which a student is referred (i.e., intellectually gifted, gifted in dance, gifted in visual arts), to identify students who are referred based on the fifth-grade screening, and to identify students who are selected to attend ODC or KLMS by the selection committee. o A schedule for verifying the entry of data elements was developed and uploaded to the Office of Gifted Education SharePoint site for easy access and reference by all gifted staff in and continues to be implemented. o Additional data collection efforts have focused on the underachievement of gifted students. The recommendations related to program goals and continued evaluation focused on determining if modifications were needed and communicating goals to all schools prior to , along with continuing the evaluation during as planned. Actions taken to address these recommendations in included the following: v

6 o Gifted Program goals outlined in resource/cluster program handbooks were revised to reflect School Board Policy The documents in each handbook that articulate these goals are being updated by gifted resource teachers at each academic level. o The evaluation continued as planned with the completion of the year-three evaluation during As recommended after the year-two evaluation, the year-three evaluation focused on student outcomes based on academic or other performance data as well as the continued transition of the high school resource program to a resource/cluster model. Program Changes or Modifications During During , substantive changes were made to the Gifted Education Program with regard to the process of screening students for gifted services. Prior to the school year, divisionwide screening for gifted services occurred only at the first-grade level. However, a divisionwide fifth-grade screening was added in fall 2011 using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, 2 nd Edition (NNAT2). The fifth-grade screening occurred during September or October with students screened using the assessment in their classrooms. Students not currently identified for gifted services who scored at or above the 90 th percentile were referred for additional testing to determine eligibility for gifted services. Gifted referrals for fifth-grade students were processed in February through March. In addition to the divisionwide fifth-grade screening, all parents are now notified by mail of the results of the divisionwide screenings at first and fifth grades. Each mailing includes information about the option of referring students for gifted program services regardless of the students scores. Of the students referred for any gifted services, 90 percent of the students were elementary school students in The total number of referred elementary students in was 279 more students compared to , representing an 8 percent increase. At the fifth-grade level, where the additional screening was added in fall 2011, the number of students who were referred for gifted services increased by 164 students, representing a 46 percent increase from At the elementary school level, which accounted for approximately 89 to 90 percent of referrals for any gifted services in and , the pattern of results each year showed that the percentages of referred students who were African American and who were economically disadvantaged were noticeably less than the percentages of these two groups in the overall VBCPS grades one through five population. However, the gap between the percentage of referred students who were African American and who were economically disadvantaged compared to the percentages in the VBCPS population decreased slightly in compared to (1% and 2.1%, respectively.) vi

7 Data were collected to determine the number of grade five students who were newly identified as intellectually gifted in compared to prior to the addition of the grade five screening. In prior to the fifth-grade screening, 87 students, or 1.74 percent of non-identified fifth graders, were identified as intellectually gifted for the first time during their fifth-grade school year. In , after the addition of the fifth-grade screening, this increased to 121 students, or 2.28 percent of fifth graders, who had not been previously identified as intellectually gifted. This represented a 39 percent increase in new identifications at grade five. After the addition of the fifth-grade screening in , higher percentages of the newly identified students were female, Asian, multiracial, or special education students compared to newly identified intellectually gifted students. While it is not possible to determine with only one year s of data whether the fifth-grade screening directly impacted the identification of students in these demographic categories, the screening did provide an additional opportunity for all fifth graders to be assessed and to continue in the identification process where they might otherwise not have been referred for gifted services. Perceptions of the Continued Transition of the High School Program From a Resource Model to a Resource/Cluster Model Transition to a High School Resource/Cluster Model During the first year of the evaluation period in , two high schools began to cluster gifted students in classes, but the school division s program at the high school level was primarily a resource program. During , six high schools were engaged in the practice of clustering gifted students in some classes. During , the practice of clustering gifted students was more prevalent among the schools and grade levels, and the transition from a high school resource model to a high school resource/cluster model progressed. During summer 2011, the high school gifted program handbook was revised to communicate the revisions that had been made to the high school gifted program. Revisions were made in order to enhance the GRT s role in professional development; differentiation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; collaboration with classroom teachers; cluster grouping; support of students; and collaboration and support of parents. At the beginning of the school year, the information on the school division s internet website was also updated to reflect the change from a resource program to a resource/cluster program. Perceptions of High School Resource/Cluster Model Implementation Each year of the evaluation from to , perception data were collected on staff surveys (i.e., building administrators, cluster teachers, gifted resource teachers) and student surveys that focused on the clustering process at high schools and perceptions of the high school program. vii

8 Each year of the three-year evaluation period, at least 80 percent of staff members overall agreed that cluster grouping assists teachers in the differentiation of curriculum and instruction, clustering provides a range of learners in the classroom that is manageable for the teacher, building administrators sought feedback from the GRT when assigning students to cluster classes, and students who were twice-exceptional were typically placed in the cluster class. On 71 percent of the survey items assessing the implementation of the high school resource/cluster model, overall agreement levels from staff were higher in than they were during the first year of the evaluation in When staff members were asked various survey items regarding the selection of cluster teachers for the resource/cluster model, there were high levels of overall agreement for those schools implementing purposeful clustering each year (89% to 97%). These results suggested that the selection of cluster teachers followed guidelines. Based on survey responses from GRTs, they provided multiple staff development opportunities and assistance to classroom teachers as part of the delivery of the gifted program, with the exception of team teaching with classroom teachers. However, the percent of GRTs who indicated that they team taught with classroom teachers increased substantially from 70 percent in the first year of the evaluation to 90 percent in the third year, and this pattern of results was corroborated by results from classroom teachers as well. Overall, high school teachers were more likely to agree that GRTs were involved in multiple activities in year three of the evaluation period compared to year one, demonstrating positive improvements in the implementation of the high school program. High levels of building administrators agreed that they received effective support from the Office of Gifted Education each year (92% to 100%). During each year of the evaluation, students were asked on a survey to indicate whether they worked with the GRT at their school during the school year. Over the three-year evaluation period, there was a noticeable increase in the percentage of students who indicated that the GRT came to their classes, from 12 to 32 percent. Further, there was a decline in the percentage of high school students who indicated that they did not work with their school s GRT during the year from 54 percent in year one to 41 percent in year three. Perceptions of Opportunities for Differentiated Instruction Survey data were collected throughout the three-year evaluation period to monitor perceptions of elements of the gifted program that are related to providing a differentiated learning experience. The evidence of differentiation was organized around 1) matching learning experiences to students needs based on readiness, interest, and learning profile; 2) flexible grouping characterized by whole-group, small-group, and independent work opportunities; and 3) ongoing assessment. viii

9 In , 72 percent of building administrators, 77 percent of classroom teachers, 70 percent of GRTs, and 61 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that gifted students are provided opportunities for instruction at a faster pace. Classroom teachers were the only group to have higher agreement levels in the third year of the evaluation compared to the first year (68%). In , 94 percent of classroom teachers, 100 percent of GRTs, and 71 percent of students agreed that teachers include information in their lessons that is related to real-life experiences that are meaningful to gifted students. Agreement levels for teachers and students increased from the first year of the evaluation period. In , 77 percent of students agreed that teachers encouraged gifted students to apply knowledge to real-life situations, along with 95 percent of classroom teachers and 90 percent of GRTs. Classroom teacher agreement increased, while GRT and student agreement decreased somewhat from the first year of the evaluation period. Teachers and building administrators were asked specifically about differentiated instruction each year of the evaluation. Of classroom teachers, 92 percent agreed that teachers of gifted students differentiated instruction through a variety of strategies in the third year of the evaluation, which was an increase from 89 percent in the first year of the evaluation. However, lower percentages of GRTs and building administrators agreed that differentiation through a variety of strategies occurred in compared to When asked about the concept of flexible grouping, another component of differentiated instruction, staff and students showed high levels of agreement that gifted students were provided opportunities to learn with the whole class, in small groups, and on their own. At least 95 percent of each respondent group in agreed that there were opportunities to learn in different grouping configurations. Even though agreement levels were relatively high in the first year of the evaluation, they increased further for each group in the third year of the evaluation, demonstrating improvements to the implementation of the model. When staff and students were asked about whether gifted students were provided learning opportunities that met their learning needs, agreement levels were high for each respondent group each year of the evaluation. In , 91 percent of classroom teachers, 90 percent of GRTs, 96 percent of building administrators, and 88 percent of students agreed that the learning opportunities met students needs. With classroom assessment being a central element of differentiated instruction, one focus area for the gifted program is on the use of a variety of assessment methods to promote student demonstration of their understanding, knowledge, and individual strengths. In , 70 percent of classroom teachers agreed that teachers determine what gifted students already know before teaching, 95 percent agreed that there was evidence of their use of formative assessments in each unit of study, and 96 percent agreed there was evidence of their use of summative assessments in each unit of study. These percentages increased from the first year of the evaluation (59%, 90%, and 92%, respectively). ix

10 In , lower percentages of GRTs agreed that teachers determine what gifted students already know (40%) and that there was evidence of the use of formative (90%) and summative (90%) assessments compared to the first year of the evaluation (71%, 100%, and 100%, respectively). In , 68 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that teachers determined what they already knew before teaching them information and skills. In addition, 95 percent agreed that the assessments in their classes allowed them to show what information they knew, and 91 percent agreed they allowed students to show what they were able to do. These percentages were relatively stable throughout the three-year evaluation period. Perceptions of Collaborative Work Among Teachers Another focus area of the Gifted Education Program is that all teachers and GRTs work collaboratively to differentiate curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of gifted learners. From 77 to 85 percent of all high school teacher respondents (including GRTs) agreed that collaboration among the GRT and classroom teachers provided ongoing education, guided practice, feedback for teachers, and support for teachers in For each survey item, agreement levels were higher in year three of the evaluation period compared to the agreement levels in year one (66% to 76%) and year two (74% to 79%). For teachers overall in , 75 to 78 percent agreed that in collaborative planning, GRTs and teachers use assessment data to plan for differentiation, that the GRT collaborates with teachers to develop specific curriculum units and lessons, and that the GRT and teachers work collaboratively to effectively communicate the program to stakeholders. Overall, agreement levels were higher in than in year one (65% to 67%) and year two (67% to 71%), but this was based on increased agreement levels among classroom teachers rather than GRTs. Teachers of gifted students and GRTs were asked to rate the extent to which special education teachers planned collaboratively for instruction when students were identified as twice-exceptional. In , 29 percent of teachers indicated that collaborative planning occurred almost always or often, which was an increase compared to prior years. However, the percentage remains relatively low given the program s aim of increasing collaboration regarding twice-exceptional students. Based on combined survey responses from teachers of gifted students, GRTs, and specialists (i.e., reading, computer resource, library media), results showed that GRTs were most likely to be included in collaborative planning efforts almost always or often (48%) compared to other specialists. However, percentages increased for each group compared to prior years of the evaluation, demonstrating improvement in collaboration efforts with GRTs and reading, computer, and library media specialists. Teachers and GRTs were asked about several expected outcomes of collaborative planning with the GRT. In , 86 percent of all teachers (including GRTs) agreed that collaborative planning equipped teachers with the knowledge, understanding, and skills to x

11 differentiate instruction on their own for their gifted learners, 84 percent agreed that collaborative planning equipped teachers with the confidence to differentiate instruction, 82 percent agreed that teachers of gifted students demonstrated high levels of self-efficacy with regards to teaching, and 84 percent agreed that teachers of gifted students continuously strive to improve their practice. All agreement levels were higher in than in prior years of the evaluation (72% to 80%). Perceptions of Staff Development According to combined survey results from administrators, teachers, and GRTs working in the program, the largest percentage of survey respondents each year indicated that the GRT provided staff development opportunities through workshops (50% to 60%). The percentage of respondents indicating that staff development was provided through coaching, coteaching, and modeling increased in compared to prior years of the evaluation. In , 72 percent of all building administrators agreed that the Office of Gifted Education provided building administrators with effective staff development opportunities. This was an increase from the second year of the evaluation (68%), but was a decrease from the first year (87%). Based on combined responses from building administrators, teachers of gifted students, and GRTs, high school survey respondents indicated that the Gifted Education Program s staff development was very effective at providing information about the following areas in : characteristics of gifted learners (52%); the referral process (48%), identification of gifted learners (46%); differentiation principles and practices (43%); curriculum, instruction, and assessment (43%); academic needs of gifted learners (42%); social/emotional needs of gifted learners (39%); and building awareness of twice-exceptional learners (28%). Most other respondents indicated that the professional development was somewhat effective. The percentage of high school staff who indicated that training was very effective increased from the first year of the evaluation to the third year for 75 percent of the topic areas. The percentages indicating that professional development was very effective decreased somewhat for topics related to referral and identification. In , 84 percent of teachers (including GRTs) and 96 percent of building administrators agreed that professional development for GRTs developed their capacity to provide leadership to other staff involved in the instruction of gifted students. In addition, for , 89 percent of teachers (including GRTs) and 88 percent of building administrators agreed that the GRT was a visible and reliable source of information on the needs of gifted learners. For both groups, agreement levels were higher than in prior years of the evaluation, suggesting increased visibility of the GRT at the high school level. xi

12 Perceptions of Parent Involvement and Participation Staff was asked about opportunities for parents to become involved with their gifted child s education. In , 89 percent of teachers (including GRTs) agreed that parents had opportunities to become involved in their gifted child s education, 92 percent agreed that a variety of communication tools were used to maintain communication with parents, 88 percent agreed that communication efforts between the school and parents were effective at providing parents with relevant information about the gifted program, and 91 percent of teachers of gifted students (including GRTs) agreed that communication efforts between the school and parents were effective at keeping parents informed about their gifted child s education. While agreement percentages in were relatively high, there were decreased agreement levels for three of the four parent involvement and participation survey items compared to the first year of the evaluation. Perceptions Regarding the Program Meeting High School Students Cognitive, Emotional, and Social Needs Attending to students cognitive needs was assessed based on perceptions of challenging schoolwork, students confidence in their abilities, the development of students potential, and support being provided when needed. In , 79 to 92 percent of high school intellectually gifted students who participated in the gifted program agreed that their schoolwork in each core subject area was challenging. Agreement percentages increased from prior years of the evaluation period for perceptions of work in English and social studies/history. At least 70 percent of intellectually gifted students each year agreed that teachers helped them feel confident about their abilities, with agreement levels higher in (79%) than in (70%). At least 81 percent of students each year agreed that teachers helped them to develop their potential, but agreement levels for high school students declined from 85 percent in year one of the evaluation to 81 percent in year three. In addition, at least 81 percent of students each year agreed that teachers provided support where needed, but agreement levels for high school students declined from nearly 88 percent in year one of the evaluation to 82 percent in year three. Attending to students emotional needs was assessed based on perceptions of the teachers understanding of gifted students as individuals and helping gifted students deal with stress if needed. At least 70 percent of intellectually gifted students who participated in the gifted program agreed that teachers understood them as an individual each year, but agreement declined from nearly 78 percent in year one to 70 percent in year three of the evaluation. xii

13 Each year, a majority of intellectually gifted students agreed that if necessary, teachers helped them deal with stress or anxiety about school. However, agreement levels declined from nearly 62 percent in year one to 52 percent in year three of the evaluation. Attending to students social needs was also assessed based on perceptions of whether gifted students were provided opportunities to learn and interact with others who had similar interests and abilities. At least 83 percent of intellectually gifted students who participated in the gifted program agreed that they were provided opportunities each year to interact with similar students. Agreement levels increased from 83 percent in year one to 85 percent in year three of the evaluation. One aspect of meeting gifted students needs overall is facilitating the development of self-efficacy by consistently providing students feedback that is skill-oriented, specific, and recognizes gifted students efforts. In , 75 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that they were provided with specific feedback about their knowledge, understanding, and skills, and 80 percent agreed that they were provided with feedback that recognizes the effort they put into their work. These agreement levels were higher than in prior years of the evaluation. In , 79 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that teachers, 78 percent agreed that GRTs, and 77 percent agreed that guidance counselors supported and promoted their interests. Agreement levels increased over the evaluation period for perceptions of GRTs and guidance counselors support, while they declined when asked about teachers support (85% to 79%). Staff members were also asked their perceptions of the advocacy for gifted students as well as for the Gifted Education Program as a whole. Over the three-year evaluation period, 94 to 96 percent of staff overall agreed that GRTs supported and promoted the interests of gifted students, 91 to 95 percent agreed that teachers supported and promoted students interests, and 81 to 83 percent agreed that guidance counselors supported and promoted students interests. Perceptions Regarding High School Student Outcomes Intellectually gifted high school students and high school teachers perceptions of the outcomes of the Gifted Education Program over the three-year evaluation period were assessed as the high school model transitioned from a resource to a resource/cluster model. Students perceptions of challenge and engagement in the gifted program were assessed based on survey items. In , 79 percent of intellectually gifted high school students indicated that their work was challenging, but they understood if they tried. This percentage declined somewhat from the first year of the evaluation when it was nearly 83 percent. In addition, the percentage of students who indicated that their work was too easy was 17 percent in xiii

14 In , 79 percent of intellectually gifted students indicated that the pace of instruction was just about right and was similar to prior years of the evaluation. However, approximately 13 percent of high school students indicated the pace was too slow. In , 91 percent of teachers of gifted students (including GRTs) agreed that students were engaged, and 90 percent agreed class lessons were interesting and kept gifted students attention. Percentages were similar to While the percentage of high school students who agreed that they were engaged was high at approximately 90 percent in , this percentage declined over the three-year evaluation period from 93 percent. In addition, each year lower percentages of students agreed that class lessons were interesting and kept their attention (67% in ). In , 91 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that the services offered in the program met their academic needs. Agreement levels have increased each year of the evaluation from 85 percent in year one and 90 percent in year two. Another student outcome focused on gifted students showing evidence of scholarship and leadership. One aspect of scholarship was whether students challenged themselves to learn more about topics. In , 76 percent of teachers (including GRTs) and 89 percent of high school intellectually gifted students agreed that gifted students challenged themselves to learn more about topics of interest to them by researching, asking questions, and seeking answers. Agreement levels from teachers increased somewhat from the first year of the evaluation, while students agreement levels were similar each year. In , 79 percent of teachers (including GRTs) agreed that gifted students showed evidence of leadership. Agreement levels increased compared to prior years of the evaluation (69% to 75%). In , 44 percent of intellectually gifted students indicated that they participated in academic extracurricular activities which was the highest percentage over the three-year evaluation period. In addition, 45 percent of student respondents in indicated that they participated in leadership roles, although this percentage declined over the three-year evaluation period. Further, 85 percent of intellectually gifted students indicated that they participated in activities that contributed to their community which was somewhat lower than previous years of the evaluation. Other student outcomes focused on gifted students development and demonstration of high levels of self-efficacy and self-regulation with motivation to perform at levels of excellence. In , 90 to 98 percent of high school intellectually gifted students expressed agreement with survey items that indicated that they had high levels of self-efficacy with the belief that their performance was based on skill development and effort. Percentages were relatively similar across the three-year evaluation period. Self-regulation was assessed based on three elements including the ability to concentrate, control one s thoughts, and refocus ones concentration after interruption. In , 74 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that they had the ability to concentrate, and 73 xiv

15 percent agreed that they could refocus their concentration on a task after an interruption. Lower percentages of students agreed that they had the ability to control their thoughts from distracting them from an immediate task (65% agreed in ). Overall, results were relatively similar across the three-year evaluation period. Approximately 90 percent of intellectually gifted high school students in agreed that they were committed to doing the best they could do in whatever they did. High school students agreement levels increased each year of the evaluation period. In , 85 percent of all teachers of gifted students (including GRTs) agreed with statements indicating that gifted students were developing metacognitive skills, such as developing an awareness of how they learn and developing skills to control their learning and thinking processes. In , 93 percent of intellectually gifted high school students agreed that they developed skills that involved an awareness of how they learn, and 91 percent agreed that they developed skills that helped them control their thinking and learning process. Students agreement levels were relatively high throughout the evaluation period (88% to 93%). Student outcomes also included the acquisition of understanding, knowledge, and skills, including 21 st century skills. In , 95 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that during instruction, they had opportunities to work as a team with their classmates. This was higher than the first year of the evaluation (88%). In , at least 84 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that they developed a deep level of knowledge in each core class (i.e., English/language arts, mathematics, social studies/history, or science). Agreement levels increased over the three-year evaluation period for English and social studies, while they declined for mathematics (98% in year one to 84% in year three). In , at least 82 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that they developed a high level of understanding of the information presented in each core class (i.e., English/language arts, mathematics, social studies/history, or science). Agreement levels increased over the three-year evaluation period for English and social studies, while they declined slightly for mathematics (83% to 82%) and science (93% to 88%). Related to the acquisition of knowledge and understanding is the ability to use that knowledge and understanding to create new knowledge or products. In , 83 percent of intellectually gifted students agreed that they were able to take what they learned and create new knowledge or products. However, this percentage declined over the three-year evaluation period from 90 percent in year one. In , 76 percent of students agreed that the instruction within the gifted program encouraged the development of innovative ideas, with relatively similar agreement levels across the three-year evaluation period. xv

16 Postgraduation Survey: Outcomes After High School Graduation A postgraduation survey was mailed to all identified intellectually or artistically gifted graduates from the school year to assess students outcomes after high school graduation. Students who participated in the gifted program during their enrollment in VBCPS and who attended college during the year after high school graduation were asked to report their cumulative grade-point average (GPA) in college. On the survey, 88 percent of intellectually gifted students reported earning a college GPA of 3.0 or higher, while 83 percent of artistically gifted students reported earning a college GPA of 3.0 or higher. Overall for all gifted students who participated in the gifted program in VBCPS, 86 percent reported a college GPA of 3.0 or higher. On the postgraduation survey, 73 percent of intellectually gifted students and 71 percent of artistically gifted students who attended college after high school agreed that their experience in the VBCPS Gifted Education Program prepared them to be successful in college (71% across all gifted students). Agreement levels for all groups of students were higher when asked about their high school experience preparing them to be successful in college compared to the Gifted Education Program specifically (80% to 84%). Students who participated in the gifted program during their enrollment in VBCPS and who attended college during the year after high school graduation were asked to indicate how prepared they were for college relative to their peers. Results showed that 66 percent of intellectually gifted students indicated they were better prepared for college than their peers, along with 69 percent of artistically gifted students (66% across all gifted students). On the postgraduation survey, 46 percent of intellectually gifted students and 69 percent of artistically gifted students who were employed after high school agreed that their experience in the VBCPS Gifted Education Program prepared them to be successful in their job (46% across all gifted students). Agreement levels for all groups of students were higher when asked about their high school experience preparing them to be successful in their job compared to the Gifted Education Program specifically (63% to 71%). Approximately 81 percent of intellectually gifted students who participated in the gifted program in VBCPS agreed one year after high school that the program provided a rigorous course of study, and 79 percent agreed that it provided them a solid foundation. Lower percentages of intellectually gifted students agreed that their experience in the program helped them to make decisions about their educational (75%) and career (61%) paths. Higher percentages of artistically gifted students agreed with the survey items. Approximately 84 percent of artistically gifted students who participated in the gifted program in VBCPS agreed one year after high school that the program provided a rigorous course of study and that it provided them a solid foundation. In addition, 81 percent of artistically gifted students agreed that their experience in the program helped them to make xvi

17 decisions about their educational path, and 84 percent agreed it helped them make decisions about their career path. Perceptions of Overall Satisfaction With High School Gifted Education Program In , 86 percent of all high school staff indicated that they were satisfied with the options for gifted students at their school, and this percentage was the highest of the three years of evaluation data. In , 76 percent of all high school intellectually gifted respondents were satisfied with the Gifted Education Program, and this percentage decreased each of the three years of the evaluation from 83 percent in and 78 percent in When responses were based on students who indicated that they received gifted services during the specified school year, agreement levels were higher each year. In , 89 percent of intellectually gifted students receiving gifted services indicated that they were satisfied, which remained relatively high throughout the evaluation period (89% to 93%). When students who received gifted services were asked if they benefited from participating in the gifted program, agreement levels were high each year ranging from 91 to 93 percent. Summary of Survey Comments Regarding Positive Elements and Areas for Improvement The themes most commonly mentioned by staff who responded to an open-ended survey item regarding the elements of the gifted program that are working well included the following: clustering (18%), the GRT specifically (18%), opportunities available for gifted students including individual classes or instruction (16%), training and professional development opportunities (15%), collaboration between teachers and GRTs (14%), and identification of gifted students (9%). When students were asked an open-ended survey item regarding the benefits of the program, the largest percentage indicated that they did not receive any benefits, did not know that they received any benefits, or did not receive gifted services (31%). The next largest percentage of students indicated that the advanced courses and challenging course work was a benefit of the gifted program (26%) followed by students mentioning the guidance, help, or support they received from staff involved with the gifted program (16%). The themes most commonly mentioned by high school staff when asked about improvements for the gifted program included improving communication (17%) regarding the gifted program as a whole as well as about students who are gifted, improving collaboration between teachers and the GRT (16%), staff development (16%) including information regarding gifted students and clustering, improvements related to the process of clustering gifted students (14%), and improvements regarding the differentiation of instruction (8%). When students were asked about improvements for the gifted program, the largest percentage (34%) indicated in their comments the need for more involvement and more interaction with xvii

18 the gifted students (e.g., coming into the classroom more, GRT working more with gifted students). Other students mentioned themes that were similar such as providing more opportunities for gifted students including expanding classes and offering more activities (10%). Other students noted the need for better communication about the program to increase awareness of the program and services that are available to them (9%). Student Outcomes Based on Academic and Other Performance Data One of the student outcome goals was that students in the Gifted Education Program would become scholars and leaders. Performance measures related to this goal over the three-year evaluation period ( to ) included the percent of gifted seniors offered scholarships and the percent of gifted graduates who enrolled in college. Overall for all gifted seniors, 36 percent were offered a scholarship in , 33 percent were offered a scholarship in , and 36 were offered a scholarship in Students who were both intellectually and artistically gifted were most likely to be offered a scholarship (42% to 49%). In , 78 percent of VBCPS graduates who were identified as gifted (intellectually or artistically) enrolled in college during the fall after their graduation from high school, and 77 percent of all gifted graduates enrolled in college. Students who were intellectually gifted were somewhat more likely to enroll in college compared to students who were artistically gifted (78%-79% compared to 73%-78%, respectively). Another student outcome goal was that students in the gifted program develop and demonstrate high levels of self-efficacy and self-regulation. Performance measures over the three-year evaluation period for this goal included the percent of intellectually gifted students who enrolled in advanced courses, the percent of elementary gifted students who earned satisfactory or outstanding citizenship and work habits grades, and the percent of secondary gifted students who had no disciplinary referrals. Based on an analysis of course enrollment patterns for intellectually gifted students at the middle and high school levels, 98 percent of intellectually gifted middle school students and 94 percent of intellectually gifted high school students were enrolled in advanced or honors courses during the school year. Overall, high percentages of gifted elementary students earned satisfactory or outstanding grades in citizenship demonstrating evidence of self-regulation. At least 94 percent of all gifted students earned satisfactory or outstanding citizenship grades each quarter in , at least 98 percent earned those grades each quarter in , and at least 98 percent earned those grades in Overall, high percentages of gifted elementary students earned satisfactory or outstanding grades in work habits demonstrating evidence of self-regulation. At least 90 percent of gifted xviii