This is a professional development blog for Nottingham Elementary. We'll be discussing books we have read as a group. Our discussions will be focused on gifted children.
One important implication of the 1999 Policy changes for South Carolina was the performance- based assessments discussed on pages 251-252. For example, STAR- Student Tasks and Rubrics, assessments were introduces to elementary- level students, in which little " previous work was done." It includes, " separate assessment forms for nonverbal and verbal domains and manipulative for hands-on, concrete learning."
Responding to Sarah, I also noticed that they were instructed now to preteach experiences that engage the student prior to his responding to an assessment prompt of similar nature. It reminded me of the GT Planned experiences we have in the fall.
I agree. The test is more diverse and hits more learning types. It allows different learning types to succeed.
I agree with Sarah. One important implication of the policy changes for South Carolina posed the funding (252). It always boils down to the funding. It cost a lot to produce the assessments and manipulatives.
An implication from the 1999 Policy changes is how it will be funded. Page 252 states the cost of producing the consumables and scoring the results, etc., etc., had not been considered. I think many issues with meeting the needs of diverse learners concern limited finances.
I agree with Melanie. Funding is always an issue when meeting the needs of diverse learners. There is just never enough money or not enough money is set aside for GT students.
One implication from the 1999 Policy changes is curriculum concerns (pg.254-255). The South Carolina Consortium for Gifted Education created a Best Practices Manual to clarify the new regulations, to provide districts with research-based best practices in gifted education, and to identify resources that would support implementation of the new policy. Professional development was also provided to teachers.
Responding to Jchoy on June 12: Using a Best Practices Manual might be the key to creating common language among educators and elevate the standards. Best Practices could be left open to interpretation. I like that they have that resource for teachers.
I agree with A Mitch in where Spring Branch is going in the right direction, but more work needs to be done. The Best Practice Manual would definitely put all educators on the same page instead of constantly wondering what are the correct standards and how to teach them
Yes, I would like to read the manual to find out what resources were suggested to help implement policy. Also, I plan to try and locate the " The Gifted Students, Who are They? presentation mentioned on p. 253. I want to know what was said about the characteristics of these gifted students.
One important implication of the 1999 Policy changes for South Carolina is census testing (page 253). Even though it may be costly, South Carolina will be able to test and identify more students at a younger age (second grade). I feel as though Spring Branch is attempting this with our district-wide norm referencing testing. We are not able to access every child for screening for gifted services just by recommendation alone. Testing all students is ideal. Instead of just identifying students that demonstrate potential for high academic performance, the testing of all students may "catch" those sub-populations that might be over looked. Here is the actual Best Practices Manual if you would like to read it. I liked that they have goals for the Gifted Program.https://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/123/documents/SCGiftedandTalentedBestPracticesManual.pdf
Agree with you Annie! Even though it's costly, its crucial to be able to test and verify students early on. It's important to catch those sub-populations that can easily be overlooked!
I agree with Annie. page 253 discusses the cost. We need to test these students early so that they are not overlooked.
I agree with with A Mitch's comment ( Annie) on June 13th that testing all students is ideal. It's important to test all to catch the 'sub-populations' that were overlooked. The book spends some time discussing the Urban and Rural identification process and how we need to factor in relevance of their culture as well.
The Rural identification process was a new learning for me.
On page 254 I found it interesting that it was up to the teacher to do the curricula and it was based on their minds and knowledge. The teacher had full range of the lesson and how it was taught. There were no guidelines. It was changed and how has to follow the state academic standards, which calls for a blend of acceleration and enrichment. I find it interesting it got mixed results. Teachers didn't want to change or give up lessons they were comfortable with. Teachers were also complaining the students weren't as "smart" as they were the year before and weren't really gifted. I think that tends to be the response a lot of times. These students aren't always going to get a lesson or a concept. It is our job to differentiate lessons and give them different ways to learn.
Responding to Mrs. Breidenthal on June 28: the guidelines for teachers is in the Best Practices Manual. Here is the actual Best Practices Manual if you would like to read it.https://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/123/documents/SCGiftedandTalentedBestPracticesManual.pdf
I agree there has to be a willingness to change and meet the needs of students. To blame the students was not "smart" on their part. Change can be difficult but you have to keep things in perspective.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I thought an important implication of the 1999 Policy changes was the curriculum concerns section (pg.254-255). The Best Practices Manual was created to clarify the new regulations, to provide districts with research-based best practices in gifted education, and to identify resources that would support implementation of the new policy. I liked that teachers are able to use this manual to guide their teaching instead of a "framework".Reply Delete
One important implication of the 1999 Policy changes for S. Carolina posed on pages 251 - 252 is funding. Funding is critical! It states on page 252 the cost of producing the consumable assessments, creating manipulatives and scoring the results, etc.etc. had not been considered. Yikes! Might be a good idea to get that nailed down first.
An important implication of the policy that caught my attention was curriculum-- pg. 254. It was interesting to read that teachers who were providing "enrichment" or activities that did not necessarily meet state standards, intimating that the newly identified students were not really gifted p. 254. The reality was that what they had been doing for years did not meet the needs of these new students. The author confirms this by stating "the curriculum did not match the domain strengths of the "new" learners." One can also surmise that the activities must have been largely verbal as the newly admitted qualified based on their non-verbal scores.
One important implication of the policy changes for South Carolina posed the funding (252). It always boils down to the funding. It cost a lot for producing the assessments and manipulatives.