1. Overview of Gifted Implementation and Advanced Learning Program (ALP) 2012-13

2. Review Gifted Learning Team Process Met 6 times between January and April, 2012 – Read and discussed research articles regarding best practices in gifted education – Examined best practices in field guided by NAGC 2010 Gifted Programming Standards Explored definitions of gifted Examined conceptual framework models Crafted District 68 mission statement and developed core beliefs surrounding gifted and talented Studied characteristics of gifted and talented learners and how they combine into profiles Reviewed identifications tools; specifically tools for the screening and selection.

3. Facts about Gifted Education in Illinois School Code encourages, but does not require, the establishment of gifted education programs. There is no state or federal funding available for providing such programs.

4. Illinois Definition of Gifted and Talented Gifted and talented children means children and youth with outstanding talent who perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with other children and youth their age, experience, and environment. A child shall be considered gifted and talented in any area of aptitude, and specifically in language arts and mathematics, by performing in the top 5% locally in that area of aptitude. 105ILCS5/14A-20

5. Mission Statement District 68 believes academically gifted and talented children have unique characteristics and distinct learning needs. The Advanced Learning Program (ALP) is committed to providing students identified as academically gifted and talented with an appropriately challenging curriculum and instruction that meets their intellectual, social, and emotional needs.

6. Recommendations Recognize different learning needs. Recommend: – Programming options should provide students with a range of services such as differentiation, enrichment, flexible/cluster groupings, and acceleration Consistent standards are needed for participation in gifted programs: – Develop criteria for identification – Screening tools are needed for identification – Selection process should be developed to align with programming – Multiple measures implemented in the screening/selection process – Create a transparent process that is known to all stakeholders – Cultural awareness within selection process

7. Recommendations Programming elements should be appropriately challenging and able to meet intellectual, social, and emotional needs and include the following elements: – 21st century skills – Flexible delivery of services – Tiered learning opportunities – Differentiated learning in classrooms – Time for intellectual or like-minded peers

8. Identification Criteria established – Multiple measures within screening and selection – Cultural awareness considered through data from CogAT 7 – Selection aligned to programming 2012-13 cut scores identified : Reading scores – 95 th %tile on MAP (‘12-’13) *adding CogAT cut scores (’13-’14) Mathematics scores – 93 rd %tile on MAP *adding CogAT cut scores (’13-’14)

9. Screening and Selection to Align with Programming 1. Writing Assessment (6-8) 2. Screening – multiple measures: – Teacher Behavioral Characteristic Checklist – Achievement Test Scores (MAP) – Ability Test Scores from (CogAt 7) – Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment to confirm Guided Reading Level 3. Selection – multiple measures: – Ability = capacity for learning – Achievement = evidence of learning

10. Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 Administered to all students in grades 2 – 7 during Spring 2013 – Beyond 2013 – new students and at transition year (grades 2 and 5) CogAT 7 measures student’s learned reasoning abilities in three areas most closely related to school success: – verbal, nonverbal and quantitative CogAT 7 designed to ensure fairness to ELL students Ability Profile received on all students Scores used as one point within Identification Matrix

11. Spring 2012 – District Reading Upper Quartile (75-99 %tile Breakdown) Grade 2 (194) Grade 3 (183) Grade 4 (164) Grade 5 (175) Grade 6 (197) Grade 7 (198) Grade 8 (244) 75- 79%tile 813111713 16 80- 84%tile 913121371422 85- 89%tile 12 1418151319 90- 94%tile 13191312231417 95- 99%tile 71210 112314

12. Spring 2012 – District Mathematics Upper Quartile (75-99 %tile Breakdown) Grade 2 (194) Grade 3 (183) Grade 4 (164) Grade 5 (175) Grade 6 (197) Grade 7 (198) Grade 8 (244) 75- 79%tile 86131016810 80- 84%tile 221473152218 85- 89%tile 8675151223 90- 94%tile 6131110181719 95- 99%tile 6161210112119

13. Year Two Identification Revise process – Spring 2013 – Include CogAT cut scores Finalize Multiple Measure Matrix – convert standard scores (ss) to z scores Gifted Problem Solving Team to create grade-level lists of students for program consideration

14. Programming/Curriculum Delivery and Common Core Standards Common Core Standards (CCS) and Partnership for 21 st Century Skills (P21) Consulted: – K-5 Math in Focus heavily aligned to CCS Rigorous core curriculum Meets needs of all learners by curriculum design – Built in tiers of differentiation – 6-8 Math, once adopted, to align as well – K-8 Reading/Language Arts curriculum revision 2012-13

15. Programming/Curriculum Delivery K-5 R/LA Replacement: – Grades 4 and 5 = 240 minutes a week – Grade 3 = 90 minutes a week – K-2 = flexible delivery as schedule permits Developmentally appropriateness In class differentiation training Mathematics Replacement: – Grades 3-5 – 240 minutes a week – K-2 = flexible delivery as schedule permits Developmentally appropriateness Differentiation by design within Math in Focus

16. K-5 Curriculum Map and Resources Curriculum mapping aligned to CCS Caesar’s English Advanced Reader Response Notebooks William and Mary Curriculum for core reading instruction

17. Programming/Curriculum Delivery 6-8 6 th Grade-Replacement ILS Curriculum 7 th and 8 th Grade Replacement ILS or R/LA by Unit 6 th -8 th Grade- Project CARE (Pull from Science)

18. 6-8 Curriculum Map and Resources Curriculum Mapping aligned to CCS Advanced Reader Response Notebooks William and Mary Curriculum for core reading instruction

19. Tier 3 Individualized Learning Plans Highly selective participation Part One: Present Levels of Educational Performance Part Two: Academic Growth, and Social Emotional/Socialization Part Three: Learning Outcomes Part Four: Educational Plan/Specially designed Instruction

20. The Role of Differentiation Consultation with differentiation expert to plan teacher training over the next two years Goal: build capacity of staff to differentiation content, process, and product within the core curriculum – Gifted staff to serve as resource/coach Differentiation to target 75 to lower 90 th percentile 2012-13 R/LA core curriculum will be revised to align to higher expectations and rigor found within CCS

21. Communication Plan Gifted staff will conduct a staff meeting to share 2012-13 ALP presentation with staff After MAP scores and teacher recommendations have been reviewed, parents will receive a call from gifted teacher regarding placement in program. Parent Evening will be conducted in late September to share our process, findings, and program revisions based on recommendations of Learning and Implementation Team meetings.

22. What Questions Do You Have