**Eligibility+Determinations

=Meeting April 28, 2015 at Mansfield; 2:00 - 4:30= *Barbara Weinstein wrote minutes of the meeting which are posted below the agenda, on this page - just scroll down - -**

__Meeting Agenda__

 * Review of NJDOE regulations
 * Best Practices
 * NAGC
 * Confratute – E. Jean Gubbins, Angela Housand
 * Other – Jim Delisle, Josephine Giaimo
 * Constructing evaluation systems
 * Objectivity
 * Balance
 * Flexibility
 * The question of reevaluation
 * Evaluation Tools
 * Teacher and/or Parent Rating Scales
 * Use of PARCC
 * Appropriateness?
 * Changes in state regulations
 * SAGES2
 * Letsgolearn
 * Insight pilot – info from webinar 4/23
 * OTHER? **//Please bring info and/or samples of tools you recommend or do NOT recommend//**

**__ WCCSE G&T Eligibility Determination Workshop __** ** Hosted by Kristin Baker, Mansfield ** ** Tuesday, April 28, 2015, 2:00 – 4:30 p.m. ** ** Identification/Eligibility Systems for Gifted Education ** **// …in the changing landscape of standardized testing //** NOTE: Boldface indicates taken from workshop handout. Attendees: Matt Eagleburger – Franklin, Barbara Weinstein – Franklin, Ian Denzer-Weiler – Oxford Central, Christine Drevitch –Washington Twp, Kim Reber – Knowlton, Caralee Gately – Belvidere, Clora Holyoak – Blairstown, Lianne Markus – Hope, Kristin Baker – Mansfield Before beginning, we went around the room and briefly described our program. There are a wide variety of program models in place, with no two districts the same, ranging from a twice-weekly afterschool program (Hope) or once a week recess program (Belvidere) to Washington’s and Mansfield’s more comprehensive programs that meet daily and include replacement classes based on need. Most of the teachers in attendance are new to their position, and are looking for guidance in eligibility determination as well as programming. Key points: * Overall, NJ’s regulations are broadly and vaguely defined; other states (such as PA) are much more explicit. * Identification should be in specific content areas, and related to the programs and services you are able to offer in the district; for example, a student may be gifted in foreign languages, but if you are not able to accommodate that talent, you should not be testing for it. Moreover, the testing should be specific to the content area, for example, math achievement scores for identification into a math program, and it must be developmentally appropriate. * Students are to be compared to their age-level peers within the district, not just by national (or even statewide) standards. * the identification must be __ongoing__, and must use multiple measures, such as grades, standardized test scores, teacher and/or parent recommendation, intelligence tests, etc., but the state does not set a “cutoff” or minimum criteria; leaving it to the district to determine based on local population. * Identification (__and programming__) must start in Kindergarten, but again, the state does not define programming other than by providing general guidelines: // “ ////Programs must address appropriate content, process, products, and learning environment.” // //(see ////http://gt-mtes.wikispaces.com/NJDOE+Requirements//// for full text) //
 * __ I. NJDOE regulations __** (see attached)


 * __ II. Best Practices __**
 * a. NAGC – Position paper ** (to read the complete statement, go to [] )

Implications for practice: * As in the state regulations, the identification process and assessment tools should align with the individual district’s program and definition of giftedness. * The types of assessments should be applied in a reasonable way that is not biased against a particular subgroup of students (VanTassel-Baska, 2007). They should also be valid (be research-based to show psychometric evidence). * Individuals administering assessments and programming should be trained and fully informed about best practices and the latest research. * The identification process should be periodically reevaluated (Mansfield= every 2 yrs.).

It is critical to have a district mission statement to clarify your aims and programs. It is not about content, programming, or the students, but defines the __purpose__ of your programming. It should address student outcomes, and identify specific aims, which can be used to construct programming. The Mansfield G&T mission statement builds on the mission statement of the school, so it starts by reiterating the parts of the school’s mission as they apply to G&T. For example, the school mission statement speaks to empowering students //“to reach their full potential;”// so the G&T mission statement adds //“requires challenges beyond those specified in the standards for general education.”// Then they enumerate the aims and student outcomes of the program, such as metacognition, critical thinking, and self-efficacy and empowerment. The Mission Statement fits into discussion of identification, because eligibility is determining which students are the appropriate participants for the program. If a school’s program is primarily intended as academic acceleration, then identification should be focused to identify potential for high achievement. If a school’s program is more about creativity and innovation, different measures may be more appropriate.
 * b. Mission Statement **

A week-long conference/institute at the University of Connecticut, Confratute is an opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds in the field of gifted education: Joe Renzulli, Sally Reis, E. Jean Gubbins, Sandra Kaplan, Del Siegle, and others. The Gifted Children Society of NJ offers fellowships for 10 NJ teachers every 2 yrs. (this is how Kristin, Bill, and Christine went); this is the year, so if interested, see the website (it may be full).
 * c. Confratute **

Talent Pool = identified-as-gifted students; they are eligible for all opportunities but opportunities are not limited only to this group
 * d. Other resources **
 * ** Renzulli: **[|**http://www.gigers.com/matthias/gifted/three_rings.html**]
 * // Gifted behavior occurs in certain people, at certain times, under certain circumstances. //**
 * Talent Pool plus open door for ALL students, via Schoolwide Enrichment model **


 * ** Jim Delisle: Giftedness as what you are, not what you do. **
 * //__ Dumbing Down America: The War on Our Nation’s Brightest Young Minds… __//**
 * ** Josephine Giaimo: High Achiever/Gifted Learner/Creative Thinker – see handout **
 * [|**http://www.bertiekingore.com/index.htm**]
 * ** Program design ~targeted population (see above on Mission Statement) **
 * ** Schools most frequently target high achievers **
 * It IS possible to target multiple groups with different program components
 * // It may be both more practical and more effective to have different components for different profiles than to expect all “eligible” kids to participate in all components even though some are a poor fit. //

We viewed this video; excellent resource for your staff, administration or board // “Creativity is the __process__ of having __original__ ideas that have __value__” // Understood in this way, creativity can apply in every discipline, and is //not// a flashing moment of inspiration – there is discipline and critical thinking involved.
 * ** Sir Ken Robinson: //Can Creativity be Taught?// (6-min video) YouTube **

Kristen shared Mansfield’s “Gifted and Talented Eligibility Profile,” a form with sections for Standardized Test Scores, Subjective Data and Qualifying Test Scores. For Mansfield, standardized test scores account for 37.5%, or a possible 30 pts (out of 80), subjective data is 25%, or a possible 20 pts, and qualifying test scores are 37.5%, or a possible 30 pts. Eligibility requires a candidate to gather 32 of the possible 80 points. Mansfield’s system is shown in the flow chart POSTED AS A DOWNLOADABLE FILE BELOW THESE NOTES. It begins with teacher and parent nominations, and review of standardized test scores of all students. NJASK will be replaced for this use by MAP. Nominated students take preliminary assessments in the spring, as teachers complete profile forms. Students who seem likely candidates will take qualifying tests in the fall, and parents will be asked to submit profile info as well. Different aspects of the screening are intended to spotlight different profiles (see Giaimo, above).
 * __ III. Constructing evaluation systems __**

Christine reminded the attendees that each district’s process will vary based on board policy and administration; for example, she sends home a permission slip to pull students out for G&T testing; others do it “automatically” or test the entire school as a screening tool.

In designing any eligibility determinations process, keep in mind these key points:
 * ** Objectivity **
 * ** Can you defend this? Parents will ask – be prepared ** Washington simply tells parents “your child would benefit from enrichment outside of their classroom,” or conversely, “we think your child will receive what they need in their class.”
 * ** We are not identifying giftedness – we are identifying those students most likely to benefit from our gifted program (Angela Housand, Confratute 2009). ** Remember, the definition of giftedness is not set in stone, and you want to __be very careful not to “label” a student as gifted__. “Gifted-identified” or “GT-eligible” can work - find the term you can use fluently. Some schools use their program name (“GATE kids”) or even the teacher’s name (Ms. Baker’s students).
 * ** Balance **
 * ** There IS a place for subjective information (Mary Sullivan; E. Jean Gubbins) **
 * ** Parent input is valuable **
 * ** Flexibility **


 * Don’t let the data blind you to the child. When there is doubt or ambiguity, consider what best serves the child’s opportunities to thrive. (That may not always be GT services – consider the possible outcome in both directions.)
 * BUT don’t let this ever seem like your own whim: use your committee or your administration to make the final decisions.
 * ** Remember that the system exists to serve the needs of the children, ** and you want to make sure you are testing for the needs you can provide (for ex, don’t test for musical aptitude if you are unable to provide music enrichment).
 * ** The question of reevaluation **
 * ** E. Jean Gubbins recommends NOT to reevaluate, citing potential lawsuits due to possibility of statistical error. **
 * ** MTES: //Students who have previously been found eligible for the Gifted and Talented Program do not need to be retested to maintain eligibility. Eligibility continues based on successful participation. Participation may be customized to meet student needs.// ** Some districts do test students every year, and may change their placement based on score results. Either way, be very careful about “dropping” students from the program. If your district is doing this, make sure the policy is crystal clear __before__ it is challenged.

Mansfield is currently using MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) as their preliminary standardized test for math and language arts. They use this in place of the ASK test. They like MAP because it is very specific to the child. It is taken online, and as the student successfully completes each question, the test adapts to their level and get harder until they have reached their highest level of proficiency. So unlike other tests where the high achievers are done very quickly, the longer it takes, the better the score. They use all three parts of **SAGES-II** for the qualifying tests in the fall, after candidates are filtered by preliminary screening. This test is a bit dated, and Kristin is beginning to consider alternatives. This is critical. In Mansfield, teachers complete profiles for all nominated students which include ratings scales for high achiever vs. gifted learner, creativity, behaviors associated with giftedness, and audio-sequential vs. visual-spatial learning style. For likely candidates, parents are given an “About My Child” packet (5pgs in gr4-6, 6pgs in grK-3) with checklists (creativity and behavior), narrative and fill-in questions. The questionnaires are assessed for these traits: * Developmental asynchronicity (are they out of sync with their age group?) * Self-teaching (and self-directed) * Task commitment and determination * Creativity and initiation * Preference for complexity and abstraction (adult type topics) Together, these checklists are worth 20 possible points; 32 points are required for eligibility.
 * __ IV. Evaluation Tools __**
 * ** Teacher and/or Parent Rating Scales **


 * ** Use of PARCC **
 * ** Appropriateness? ** In a word, no (see below).
 * ** Changes in state regulations **
 * //__ A-4190 __//****// Be It Enacted //****// by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:…During the 2015-2016 through 2017-2018 school years, the PARCC assessment __shall not be used__ in making a determination regarding a student's placement in a gifted and talented program… This act shall take effect immediately. //**
 * //__ A-3079 __//****// Be It Enacted …As used in this section, “commercially-developed standardized assessment” means an assessment that requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from a common bank of questions, in the same manner, and is developed and scored by an entity under a contract with a board of education. 1__A commercially-developed standardized assessment shall not include diagnostic and formative assessments used by teaching staff members to identify particular student learning needs or the need for special services, or to modify instructional strategies to improve individual student learning.__1 A board of education shall not administer any commercially-developed standardized assessment that is not required pursuant to State or federal law to a student enrolled in kindergarten through the second grade. … //**

The preliminary tests Mansfield uses are the DORA/DOMA series (Diagnostic Online Reading/Math Assessment) by LetsGoLearn.com (see website for details). This test is very easy to administer, because it is all online and gives instant scoring in grade level equivalency, which is a key component of the Mansfield’s requirements for identification.
 * ** Letsgolearn **

Mansfield has been talking to a new company—Insight, that has a test similar to the WISC-II, with an emphasis on non-verbal reasoning. The cost is similar to other assessments—if you participate in the pilot program (as Mansfield and several other schools are) the cost is $8/child; without the pilot it is $10/child. You can give the test to a small group or the whole class at one time. There is a DVD; the test is self-administering—you just proctor and send the paper booklets to Insight for scoring. If you are interested in joining the pilot program, or just want more information, contact Kristin. We wrapped by talking about G&T programs in general, and touched on programming. Kristen promised to have more info on these critical topics at the spring consortium meeting, and offered to host a separate meeting for those who would like to explore these topics in greater depth.
 * ** Insight pilot – info from webinar 4/23 **
 * __ V. Other __**

Here is a of the Eligibility Determinations Process at Mansfield.