Florida Department of Education
Division of Public Schools and Community Education
Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services
Gifted Rule Meeting
1707 Turlington Building
Tallahassee, Florida
July 29, 2002
Meeting Minutes and Notes
Participants: Sandy Akre for Barbara Slaga, Maria de Armas, Roosevelt Johnson, Martha
Kesler, Joe Orr, Peter Roos, Connie Sorice
Bureau Staff: Shan Goff, Iris Palazesi, Michele Polland, Donnajo Smith
USF Consultants: George Batsche, Curtis Richardson
Observers: Susan Barnes, Bernardo Garcia, Connie Tzovarras
S. Goff provided a welcome, reviewed rule activities since the last meeting on April 30,
2002, including the rule revision that eliminated race as a consideration in Plan B, and
identified parameters for the continued work on rule revision.
Parameters:
•
Gifted is part of Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which means that there
are protections and requirements
•
Federal regulations re: selection of instruments
•
Individual planning
•
Procedural safeguards
o
Complaint
o
Due process
o
Replicable decisions
•
Designed for children in need of services to benefit from education
•
Gifted not talented
•
Weighted funding
o
ESE guaranteed allocation
•
4.0-4.3% statewide gifted population
I. Palazesi identified recommendations that emerged from the April 30, 2002 meeting.
All evaluations must:
•
Be reliable and valid
•
Be unbiased
•
Be applicable to all students
1
•
Be appropriate for students from underrepresented populations
•
Include multiple sources of data
•
Allow district flexibility
I. Palazesi presented current rule concepts based on the feedback from the spring regional
rule workshops and April 30, 2002, rule workgroup meeting. This included ideas
regarding
•
Definitions
•
School district obligations including teacher training, parent information, and
student screening
•
Documentation required for referral including evidence of need and mastery
of age appropriate grade level state standards
•
Criteria for eligibility based on a student’s need for services and demonstrated
abilities in academic achievement and general intellectual functioning
•
Instructional services
Following the presentation, the workgroup identified concerns.
•
Emphasis on replicability
•
Superior intellectual functioning and academics
•
Multiple professionals and multiple tests
•
Heavy reliance on testing
•
Standardization of assessment procedures
•
What is the intent?
o
How do we assure that we are meeting the needs of the students who
have been identified? How do we document the need?
•
List the assets!
o
How do we identify underachievers if we are identifying by standard
of achievement?
•
Definition must address who the program is intended to serve
•
Can’t ignore the highly gifted
•
Twice exceptional?
•
Patterns of achievement and accomplishment are note-worthy
•
A valid process by which we identify giftedness as a disability
The workgroup separated into two small groups to discuss and make recommendations
regarding the concepts.
Group 1
•
Purpose – Issues
o
Some students demonstrate need beyond general education program; very
superior cognitive functioning
o
An efficiency issue to use IQ tests
o
There are students who don’t test well; others only do well on the tests
2
o
Removing language relating to IQ may have impact on some students
(who would otherwise not be identified)
o
If we would look at talent development, more resources are needed
o
Student should have need for the program
How do we define need?
o
To enhance academic performance and how do we measure it?
o
How to change mindset that high IQ does not equal need?
o
Student progress – should it be measured to ensure that students are
benefiting and continue to need the program?
o
Any way to avoid the use of IQ tests?
o
Two groups:
Students who are not performing at the expected level
(underachieving students)
Those students who have high performance (who have traditionally
been served in the program)
o
Need for the program is critical
Gifted program would meet the need better than any other program
o
Underachievement – need criteria on underachieving (then should
monitor)
o
Rate of learning is important to consider
•
Purpose
o
To provide specially designed instruction for students who demonstrate a
need for differentiated experiences, beyond what is provided in the general
curriculum, in order to progress at levels commensurate with their superior
abilities
•
School district obligations
o
Provide “comprehensive” information with information so that parents
understand their rights
o
Be more specific about training and screening
o
Screening – purpose is to ensure that students who would not be obvious
are screened
o
Gifted plan modeled on LEP plan
o
Specific mandates that school districts must do to reach out to minorities –
include training on characteristics of minority kids
o
More clarity of screening for all students with emphasis on minority
students
o
Look for ways to “screen-in” not “screen-out”
o
Language related to screening – students have equal access to an unbiased
evaluation process
o
Consider requiring screening at or by specific grade level (s) (e.g. – all
children at 2
nd
grade level) – to look for giftedness with an instrument that
is sensitive to the ways that students from different groups show
giftedness
o
Be more specific re: training (more specific than on last draft)
o
Provide parents with information and training so that parents understand
their rights, including how to access services for gifted students
3
o
Additional resources are needed so that fair screening and assessment
occur – if there are no new funds, reallocate the current funding to ensure
this happens
o
Early identification – there are issues related to environment and early
development – need to be careful about predictive power of students
entering kindergarten identified as gifted
o
Does uniform kindergarten screening provide information that can be
used? Investigate utility of data from screening for gifted screening
o
Concerns about screening – who, when, how
o
Ensure there are numerous opportunities for screening – address issue
related to mobility
o
Screening should be sensitive to students from diverse backgroups – plans
should address aggressive outreach in the community
o
Primary screeners are parents and classroom teachers (training should
focus on these people)
•
Referral:
o
Clarify difference between screening and referral
o
Is referral section needed? Referral is important to document that child
needs special services
o
If child is referred, will the child be evaluated?
o
Clarify the purpose of the screening process (i.e. to gather more
information)
•
Need section on evaluation procedures (vs. criteria)
o
Need will be addressed during the evaluation process
•
Criteria for eligibility
o
Use professional judgment that student has need for the program based on
intellectual potential – would require well-trained personnel
o
Develop rubrics or matrix (criteria and levels of performance)
o
Clearly articulated need
o
Differentiated services to meet the need can be identified
o
Student demonstrates superior or potential for superior cognitive
performance
o
Demonstrates superior or potential for superior rates of learning
o
Not limited to academic achievement
Group Two
•
Purpose
o
Should we state the purpose for gifted services?
o
What do other programs do?
o
No other ESE program states a purpose
Agreed – not necessary
o
Consistency: superior / very superior
96% or 98% - if we go to 96% will we double the numbers?
o
P.B. – low SES whites were more often identified than other groups [with
Plan B]
•
Need
4
o
What has the regular education teacher done to meet the needs of this
student?
o
What issues have already been addressed?
o
Strategies used?
o
Requirement is to meet academic needs (FCAT focus) – What does that
mean for enrichment programs?
o
When the need is not addressed the students drop out or become discipline
problems. There is a need for an academic challenge.
o
What changes do we need?
Need clarification of “academic achievement” – grade level?
Academic AND intellectual abilities
o
Will that cut out underrepresented populations in particular?
In particular LEPs?
o
The challenge provided may vary from one school or class to another so
significant to look at how needs are currently met.
o
Should academic achievement be excluded from the definition or be used
as evidence of need?
o
What measures should be used?
•
Screening
o
Purpose of screening –
Do we need an assertive way of looking at students to identify
signs of giftedness (ex: Alachua’s)
Identify intellectual ability
Screening needed to narrow the field
Heighten staff awareness of who may need the program and
heighten awareness of characteristics
Need to look at all students
Should there be formal and informal screening
o
Similar to child find
S
earching
W
idely
For }Gifted SWEEP
E
xceptional
E
ducational
P
otential
o
We need to get past the biases
Needs to be written in the rule to have a mandatory screening –
mandate screening
•
Should it be done by state or district?
•
Every year? How often?
•
Districts could determine what to use – Mandate training so
teachers know what to look for
Primary, Intermediate, Middle } Minimums, once at each level,
mandated at elementary (at least a couple of times)
Consensus
5
•
Agreed – How do we address a high test score when there
is no demonstrated need for program?
•
Eligibility
o
Private testing will be considered
Important to have other factors
Important to have teachers trained for identification
o
How can we document the needs of the children?
o
6 or 9 weeks grading period
o
Professional judgment (not in any other ESE category)
“Very rare cases “ – problematic
•
define “very rare cases”
o
in cases of low SES disabilities, LEP
o
such as the TAP on partial scores
use these descriptors rather than saying “very rare cases”
o
Teacher recommendation should be a strong indicator [Bias may not be a
factor]
o
Foundation needs to be “need for program”
o
We document failure: document accomplishments
o
How do we get into the program those kids who otherwise would not?
o
Characteristics should be part of the screening mechanism
What should be required for screening?
o
What about the child who is tested privately?
o
Private testing MAY be considered.
o
How do we document need from home school or transfer?
o
Academics (portfolio, clarify what will be in it – important to be
consistent – achievement tests, parent interviews …need a list), writing
prompt, leadership, motivation, creativity [student product portfolio]
o
A centralized area team for assessment of the portfolio can help in
stabilizing overview
o
A rubric for portfolio assessment helps
o
Needs to be standardized
o
Potential measures
Academic achievement
•
Standardized testing (including FCAT)
o
GPA may be a measure of motivation, not a
measure of achievement
•
Rate of learning
•
CBM
•
K-2 individual achievement
•
3-12 individual achievement
•
High achievement by second language learners
Intellectual functioning
•
Woodcock – Johnson
•
Weschler
•
Stanford-Binet
•
DAS
6
7
•
Nonverbal – Unit, Naglieri, Leiter
o
Problem solving?
TOPS – language based
o
What is the evidence of need?
Statement from teacher
•
Teacher documents attempts to meet needs
Sometimes can be assessed by parent
Multiple sources
Self perception/ interview/ questionnaire
Observations
Assess strengths / weaknesses
High academic achievement
Screening indicators
Academic underachievement
The workgroup will reconvene for two meetings in October. Dates to be determined.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.