1. SUBJECT:Minutes from October 8-9, 2002, Gifted Rule Workgroup
    2. Tallahassee, Florida
      1. Group 1
      2. Group 2
        1. Day 2
          1. Other

 
November 7, 2002
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
Gifted Rule Workgroup Participants
FROM:
Shan Goff
SUBJECT: Minutes from October 8-9, 2002, Gifted Rule Workgroup
Attached are the minutes from the Gifted Rule Workgroup meeting held in Tallahassee on
October 8-9, 2002. Your thoughtful comments and continued participation on the workgroup are
greatly appreciated.
Next steps include an analysis of the workgroup recommendations and further revision of the
rule concepts prior to drafting rule language. We will keep you informed as we progress towards
a revised gifted rule.
If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Iris Palazesi, Program Director, by telephone at
850/488-1106 or electronic mail at iris.palazesi@fldoe.org.
SG/ipm
Attachment
cc: ESE Directors
Student Services Directors
Gifted Coordinators

 
Florida Department of Education
Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services
Gifted Rule Meeting
1703 Turlington Building
Tallahassee, Florida
October 8-9, 2002
Meeting Minutes and Notes
Members Present: Norman Chachkin (Tuesday only), Maria de Armas (Tuesday only), Roosevelt
Johnson, Martha Kesler, Bambi Lockman, Peter Roos (Wednesday only), Barbara Slaga, Connie
Sorice
Members Absent: Ed Garcia, Joe Orr, Hazel Sellers, Terry Wilson
Bureau Staff: Shan Goff, Iris Palazesi, Michele Polland, Donnajo Smith
USF Consultants: George Batsche, Curtis Richardson
Observers: None
Shan Goff provided a welcome and reviewed parameters for the continued work on rule revision.
She stated that impact data must be collected. Finally, timelines for rule revision work will be
impacted by the upcoming legislative session.
Iris Palazesi identified recommendations that emerged from the July 29, 2002, meeting and
subsequent changes to the rule concept. These included
?
 
clarification of the preamble
?
 
inclusion and specification of information and training to parents and teachers
?
 
addition of a portfolio at the referral stage to document a student’s need for services
?
 
addition of evidence of characteristics of giftedness for referral
?
 
changing the timeline for general education interventions from six weeks to nine weeks
George Batsche shared information from the
Report of the Committee on Minority
Representation in Special Education and Gifted Education
from the National Research Council.

The report states that research in gifted education is lacking and notoriously poor. Furthermore,
research on minority students is almost nonexistent. While some programs have achieved
increases in minority representation, there are no patterns and inconsistent demographics that
makes replication of the efforts difficult or impossible.
Dr. Batsche stated that giftedness must be defined before identifying tools for assessment and
designing services. Determination of eligibility must be based on multiple criteria. Screening
holds the key to eliminating bias.
Some effective strategies to keep in mind included
?
 
looking beyond assessment to address disproportionality
?
 
focusing on early identification and opportunities to learn
?
 
focusing staff development on core attributes and behaviors of giftedness
?
 
using diverse screening procedures
?
 
remembering that parent referrals don’t work for most minority students
?
 
lowering the screening cutoff to 85% for minority students to increase the pool and identify
individuals who may need a closer look
?
 
considering teacher nominations based on classroom observations, student interviews,
classroom enrichment activities as an assessment process, portfolio assessment, and
performance assessment such as curriculum based measurement (CBM)
Important themes are
?
 
early identification
?
 
opportunities to learn
?
 
performance assessment
?
 
strategies for retaining minority students in gifted programs
?
 
alignment of the curriculum with the construct of giftedness and student need
The workgroup separated into two small groups to discuss and make further recommendations
regarding the concepts.
Prior to discussion of the concepts for eligibility criteria, Dr. Batsche shared information
regarding data collection strategies for assessment. These included
?
 
individual, standardized assessment
?
 
wide range of cognitive and achievement measures, but frequently the tests don’t match
the curriculum
?
 
developmental measures are available, but not all are good predictors of giftedness
?
 
standardized group assessment
?
 
like the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)

 
?
 
curriculum based assessment (CBA)
?
 
tremendous amount of research available
?
 
relatively free of bias
?
 
measures responsiveness to enriched learning activities
?
 
curriculum based measurement (CBM)
?
 
a type of CBA
?
 
sensitive to small gains
?
 
uses local norms
?
 
based on the school curriculum
?
 
measures rate of learning
?
 
DIBELS (Diagnostic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills)
?
 
developmental assessment
?
 
rates of development
?
 
some relate to predicting superior performance
?
 
observational assessment
?
 
looks at core indicators
?
 
may consider time on task, motivation, problem solving, and critical thinking
Day One
Group 1
Who are the students we are trying to find (high levels of IQ)?
?
 
Rate of learning beyond same age peers
?
 
Creative in the way they learn
?
 
Twice exceptional
?
 
Not just cognitive – need to match training and characteristics to definition (intersection of
creativity, intelligence, and motivation – where do they merge?
?
 
High levels of creativity should be indicated
Do the definitions reflect those students?
?
 
What about the underachievers?
?
 
Motivation?
?
 
Rate of learning?
?
 
Differentiation between high achievers and gifted – (middle & high school)

Are the requirements for training and information sufficient?
?
 
Training needed for portfolio assessment
?
 
No, need direction in terms of what the characteristics should look like – districts reflecting
state
?
 
Convey message to parents so they understand and are informed
?
 
Need state guidelines on “what a gifted child looks like”
?
 
Statewide screening like School Readiness Uniform Screening System (SRUSS)
?
 
Parents frequently re-test – what motivates parents to push?
?
 
Teachers need to be trained to work with high ability students
?
 
Observations of parent (my child at home)
What might be the impact on districts?
?
 
Parent pressure
?
 
Pressure on teachers to provide added services
?
 
New identification impacts identification which impacts programs
?
 
How do we fit it in?
?
 
Who’s going to do it?
?
 
When (time)? Can it be computer-scored? Given to a large group tied in with other
screening?
?
 
Increased numbers, same dollars
What screening requirements?
?
 
If parents want child tested they do it
?
 
“Screening in” vs. “screening out”
?
 
Need to bring in underrepresented populations that will bring in more overall
How do we document need for service?
?
 
Not based solely on IQ (although that would be easier over time)
?
 
Continued need
?
 
Multiple sources
?
 
Documentation of strategies
?
 
Gifted students perform better if kept at own school
?
 
Larger high schools may provide gifted services other than advanced courses
?
 
Gifted/Advance academics merge? Differentiate curriculum
If teacher in a gifted class is meeting the needs, is there a need for service?
“Task” vs. “Test”

Parents more interested in “Bright Futures” scholarships than gifted at upper grade levels.
Goal: unified eligibility criteria to encourage increasing numbers of underrepresented populations
A rubric to balance weight of criteria!
Are the proposed indicators (academic achievement and general intellectual functioning)
appropriate for identifying gifted students?
?
 
Teachers need training in identification
?
 
Same criteria for every student
?
 
“Meets one of the additional criteria”
?
 
IQ is likely not the best indicator for a program that is geared for other factors and criteria
What measures might be used for assessment?
?
 
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)
?
 
Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)
?
 
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI)
?
 
SAT-9
?
 
Woodcock – broader domains
?
 
District has to be ready to modify the program
?
 
Non-verbal given at K-12
?
 
Research from NE Regional Lab on motivation
?
 
Follow research to see if there is a need for further indicators
Mental ability [Woodcock, TONI, UNIT, Differential Abilities Scales (DAS)]
?
 
Stanford-Binet
?
 
Wechsler Intelligence Scale III (WISC III)
?
 
Other
Achievement (3 of the 4)
?
 
Stanford Achievement Test (SAT – 9)
?
 
Product Panel
?
 
Other: Standford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT)

Creativity (OK, IQ plus 2 of the other 3)
?
 
Renzulli – Hartman Scale
?
 
Group Inventory for Finding Creative Talent (GIFT) and Group Inventory for Finding
Interests (GIFFI)
?
 
Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
?
 
Product Panel
?
 
Other
Motivation
?
 
Renzulli – Hartman Scale
?
 
Grade Point Average (Grades 5-12)
?
 
Product Panel
?
 
Other
Multiple measures significant
What might be the implications for implementation?
?
 
Pilot will be significant
?
 
The teacher is the key
?
 
Insignificant percentage change
?
 
If there were a mass screening
a.
 
less parent pressure to identify
b.
 
less teacher pressure for identification
c.
 
would increase likelihood of identifying all populations
If creativity is added, how do we assess it? (see chart)
?
 
Document
?
 
Measure it
Stanford Binet or WISC will still be more valid for their intended purposes. Like the rubric.
Shared funding
?
 
Could underrepresented populations earn more dollars?
?
 
Districts might be thus encouraged to increase those numbers. As it is, if we increase
numbers, we decrease dollars.
?
 
Provide extra points if you are the first in the family to go to college, first time homeowner,
“appropriate assistance.”

 
Need to address limited English proficiency (LEP), low socioeconomic status (SES), and
academic improvement plans (AIP). Grade point average (GPA) is a good indicator of
motivation (factor for chart); teacher variety makes it too subjective.
Gifted Rating Scales standardized edition (Pfeifer and Jarosewich, 2001)
?
 
Intellectual ability
?
 
Academic ability
?
 
Creativity
?
 
Artistic Talent
?
 
Motivation
?
 
Leadership
Group 2
Who are the students we are trying to find?
?
 
Students with disabilities may not have high academic achievement in some areas
?
 
How to identify students who perform well on some tests
?
 
Use term “superior” not “very superior”
?
 
Ok with superior general cognitive functioning definition
?
 
Intellectual functioning – delete word “general”
?
 
Add definition of assessment – “judgment made on multiple courses of information”
?
 
General curriculum –some of this goes on daily for all students – is this definition okay?
?
 
First sentence/first paragraph add “in one or more areas”
Training /Information
?
 
Training needed on value/benefit of program and characteristics of gifted students
?
 
Training needed for both parents and educators
Screening
?
 
Need to look at impact of SRUSS – what predicts giftedness? FCAT?
?
 
Connected to curriculum – provide enriched experiences/activities [need technical assistance
(e.g. units of instruction)]
?
 
Districts should keep records of screening procedures used (to be evaluated by the
Department of Education)
?
 
Must be objective

Need for Program
?
 
Is there any way to identify students who come from poor homes but are successful in their
environments? (reason that teacher training is important)
?
 
Documentation – 3
rd
statement preferred and general curriculum “in one or more areas”
?
 
Resources/support to implement are important
?
 
Look at 300 schools receiving reading dollars – students in these schools will have expanded
opportunities to learn (compare Title I schools receiving dollars and those who don’t)
?
 
Look at list of instruments – (matrix)
a.
 
How to use to make decisions
b.
 
Which are good predictors of giftedness
Are the proposed indicators appropriate for identifying gifted students?
?
 
Superior
?
 
Add: in one or more core academic areas – mathematics/language arts
?
 
Guidance on appropriate assessments/instruments
?
 
Concerns regarding private evaluations
?
 
Assurance that process is not circumvented – referral and establishment of need
?
 
Need a level of differentiation that cannot be accomplished within the general curriculum
?
 
Must address culture of gifted as reward/badge – need for services
?
 
Attempts to meet needs – documentation of student’s response and results must be
curriculum-based strategies
Achievement
?
 
What are the authentic measures?
?
 
Standardized norm-referenced achievement tests such as FCAT and CBA
?
 
Look at all information about child vs. cut off score
?
 
Trust professional judgment
Determination of Eligibility
?
 
Classroom performance
?
 
Core indicators/behaviors – characteristics
?
 
Academic achievement
?
 
Intellectual functioning
?
 
Team has option of collecting additional data in the following areas if needed
Intellectual Functioning
?
 
Standardized, individual measure of intellectual functioning
?
 
IQ test – WISC, SBIV

 
?
 
Cognitive ability test – Woodcock-Johnson (W-J III), DAS, or ?
?
 
Rate of learning
?
 
No to creativity
Other Thoughts
?
 
Do we phase in new rule?
?
 
Work with Reading First office regarding data/reports
Day 2
Iris Palazesi welcomed the group. The workgroup commenced discussion of the remaining
issues.
Instructional Services
?
 
Bullet 1 – Criteria
?
 
Educational Plans (EP) should be developed
?
 
Address concerns related to IEPs and AIPs
?
 
One document – one plan
?
 
Add options. Educational Plans (EP) must be developed, then add options – IEPs, etc.
?
 
Include requirements “as per proposed draft rule 6A-6.030191, FAC” should address
educational needs of pupil
Bullet 2 & 3 – Combine questions or re-order
?
 
3 address district responsibilities
?
 
2 address meeting student’s need
Bullet 3 followed by “Such services (2)
?
 
3 – address the curriculum and all needs of the gifted student
?
 
4 – curriculum for the gifted student
School districts should promote options for service delivery. Services must address the
curriculum and social-emotional needs of the gifted student.
Blend IEP and LEP.
Integrated services – experience a child has during the day; not a program, a place, or a person.

Technical assistance should provide ideas for options
?
 
Acceleration/subject
?
 
Virtual High School – distance learning
?
 
Multi-age
?
 
Looping
Could there be an on-line course to address needs of the gifted child?
?
 
Teachers/principals with large populations of gifted could be directed to the course
?
 
Working on Gifted Issues (WOGI) focus – CD (developed by State? District?)
?
 
Endorsement test as for certification with practicum hours
?
 
Administrators need to be supportive
?
 
Outcome statement
?
 
Look at outcomes to make decisions
?
 
Districts will develop an evaluation plan for assessment of outcome of gifted services, which
could be a part of existing requirements
?
 
Social outcomes need to be considered above a progress report for annual goals and
objectives
Triggers for assessing whether expectations have been met
?
 
Disproportionate
?
 
Does anyone outside of monitoring teams look at this?
?
 
Has it been made public?
?
 
For gifted student the progress is individualized
?
 
How would that affect outcome assessment (“achieved goals of EP”)
?
 
Is the intent to move kids into a program based upon need after defining by characteristics?
?
 
Is the intent of the shift met?
Continuous monitoring accomplishes the assessment.
Indicate LEP information on EP.
Strengths vs. Needs
?
 
EP must (should) address student strengths
?
 
Weaknesses may be addressed
?
 
Build upon the strengths or “based on”… would the rule specify strengths?
?
 
EP for students identified solely as gifted
?
 
“Continuum of service” changed to “options”

 
Dismissal
?
 
If curriculum is inappropriate
?
 
Team evaluates the degree to which the program is inappropriate. Consider continued needs
& eligibility. Review process may indicate…
?
 
How will LEP be addressed on the EP? Should be required component (logistics
accommodations)
?
 
TA needed – what is working well and successfully meets the needs of the child?
?
 
Program quality issues
Best Practices for Program Quality (mirror federal regulations)
?
 
What is working?
?
 
Technical assistance would provide example of what has proven successful
Creativity – an issue
?
 
Need in addition to mental ability
?
 
Is there a good measure or is it a factor to consider and should it be emphasized in checklists?
?
 
Is it part of the referral process?
?
 
Focus has been on academics and IQ. When you look at other characteristics, will they be
considered? Needs to be reflected
?
 
Creativity correlates highly (.85) with intelligence so one measure will be indicative with
another
Other
?
 
We want individuals on the team to look at broader areas than intellectual functioning
?
 
The team would need to look at a variety of information
?
 
Referral data must be considered in considering eligibility
?
 
Not necessary for a cut-off but there is a need
?
 
“Professional judgment” elements of eligibility, is often insufficient
?
 
Need for guidelines that will pull all pieces together
?
 
The intent is to change completely the way students are identified, which will impact the
program
?
 
How do we get consistent implementation?
?
 
Decision tree (e.g. Is there a need? yes/no Is educational? yes/no Program suitable? yes/no)
?
 
Probationary period – is it something to consider? Need to be looked, reviewed
?
 
Classroom evidence needs to be considered and may be key
?
 
Classroom evidence relies on teacher knowledge (impartial observation may be considered
significant)

?
 
Before formal pilot, look at record reviews
?
 
St. Lucie, Volusia, DeSoto Santa Rosa would like to pre-pilot
Meeting adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

Back to top