1. A N A UDIT OF THE C ABOT P UBLIC S CHOOL D ISTRICT G IFTED AND T ALENTED P ROGRAM Aaron M. Randolph EDAS 8308 University of Arkansas at Little Rock

2. O VERVIEW OF P RESENTATION Purpose of the Audit Data Sources School District Summary Findings Recommendations Conclusion

3. P URPOSE OF THE A UDIT Evaluate the curriculum of the CSD G/T Program Use the standards of the Curriculum Management Systems, Inc. Sufficient quality in direction for teaching and learning. Consistency and equity in schools and program implementation. Effectiveness of program, process monitoring, and assessment.

4. D ATA S OURCES Documents Various Interviews 4 Stakeholders Site Visits 2 Elementary Schools 1 Central Administrative Office

5. D ISTRICT S UMMARY 7A school (largest classification in AR) 1,390 Staff Members 10,084 Students in K-12 and 339 Pre-K 17 Schools 9 Elementary (P-4) 2 Middle (5-6) 2 Junior High (7-8) 1 Freshman Academy (9) 1 High School (10-12_ 1 Conversion Charter (7-12) 1 ALE (K-12)

6. D ISTRICT S UMMARY CONT. G/T Program According to the CSD Gifted and Talented Policy Handbook (2015) Our goal is to provide varied types of opportunities appropriate to meet gifted students’ cognitive and affective needs within the school. In order to achieve this goal, we will Provide opportunities for students to pursue individual interests and develop talents. Provide for the cognitive needs of gifted students through challenging instruction that differs in content, process, product, and pace from the traditional classroom. Provide for the social-emotional needs of gifted students through peer discussions and activities designed to develop self-awareness, a healthy self-concept, and an understanding of strengths, weaknesses, and potentials. Provide opportunities for students to utilize a variety of technologies as appropriate (p. 6)

7. F INDINGS 1.1 Sufficient quality in direction for teaching and learning. Finding 1.1 - The Gifted & Talented (G/T) program at CSD created and currently uses one unique curriculum unit for each grade level in grades 2-6 2 nd – National Park 3 rd – Go Green 4 th – Get Connected or ComArts Academy ISP Research Write Present Math Khan Academy CS

8. F INDINGS 1.2 Sufficient quality in direction for teaching and learning. Finding 1.2 – Stakeholders overwhelmingly support this program and its curriculum. Stakeholder Interviews Annual Questionnaire results

9. F INDINGS 2.1 Consistency and equity in schools and program implementation. Finding 2.1 - CPS’ financial expenditures on the district G/T program created and continually support an equitable program across the district, which is well above what is required. A.C.A. § 6-20-208 ADE Commissioner’s Memo FIN-16-014 CSD Budget Summary Distribution of staff 9: K-4 2: 5-6 with 2 paraprofessionals 1: 7-9 2: 10-12 1: Secondary Coordinator 1: District Director with 1 administrative assistant

10. F INDINGS 2.2 Consistency and equity in schools and program implementation. Finding 2.2 - The G/T staff alignment and distribution allows for equitable services to students across the district. Required 150 minutes weekly – provided 180 Distribution of staff 9: K-4 2: 5-6 with 2 paraprofessionals 1: 7-9 2: 10-12 1: Secondary Coordinator 1: District Director with 1 administrative assistant Challenge – discrepancy in demographic %

11. F INDING 3.1 Effectiveness of program, process monitoring, and assessment. Finding 3.1 - District G/T curriculum meets state standards for gifted education and stakeholders approve of it Financial expenditures Annual ADE Program Approval

12. F INDING 3.2 Effectiveness of program, process monitoring, and assessment. Finding 3.2 - An overwhelming majority of students in the G/T program performed at an advanced level on state-wide assessments, as well as scoring well above their grade-level peers ACTAAP Benchmark Data 2012-2013 2013-2014 no major statistical variance between the various demographics of identified gifted students.

13. R ECOMMENDATION 1 Continue to evaluate program effectiveness via new statewide assessment and seeking feedback from stakeholders. Davis, Rimm, and Siegle (2011) cautioned in their work, Education of the Gifted and Talented, “although gifted programs are more difficult to evaluate than other programs, evaluation is vital” (p. 481).

14. R ECOMMENDATION 2 Make adjustments to G/T identification process Account for discrepancies in the demographics of the IDed population Screen entire 1 st grade population of CSD using the Naglieri Nonverbal Aptitude Test – 2 nd edition

15. R ECOMMENDATION 3 Adjust G/T Administrative responsibilities to allow more time for administrators to be in the classrooms with G/T staff

16. R EFERENCES Arkansas Department of Education. (2009). Program Approval Standards for Gifted and Talented Education. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Gif ted%20and%20Talented/2009_GT_Revised_Program_Approval_St andards.pdf Arkansas Department of Education. (2015). Commissioner’s Memo on G/T Expenditures, FIN-16-014. Retrieved October 25, 2015, from http://adecm.arkansas.gov/ViewApprovedMemo.aspx?Id=1640 Arkansas State Code (2015). A.C.A. §6-20-2208, (2015). Callahan, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory into Practice, 44 (2), 98-104. Retrieved from http://74.217.196.173/docview/218842507?accountid=14482

17. R EFERENCES CONT. Cabot Public School District. (2015). 2014-2015 Financial Summary and 2015-2016 Budget Summary. Retrieved, October 12, 2015 from http://www.cabotschools.org/public/userfiles/Accounting/School_Distri ct_Budget/2015-16_Budget.pdf Cabot Public School District. (2015). Gifted and Talented Policy Handbook. Retrieved, October 12, 2015 from http://www.cabotschools.org/public/userfiles/Gift_and_Talented/20152 016/GT_Policy_Handbook_2015-2016.pdf Cabot Public School District (2013). [Annual Stakeholder Questionnaire]. Unpublished raw data. Cabot Public School District (2014). [Annual Stakeholder Questionnaire]. Unpublished raw data.

18. R EFERENCES CONT. Davis, G., Rimm, S., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Heck, R. H., & Mahoe, R. (2010). Student course taking and teacher quality: Their effects on achievement and growth. The International Journal of Educational Management, 24 (1), 56-72. doi:http://0-dx.doi.org.iii- server.ualr.edu/10.1108/09513541011013051 Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children's participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to lohman. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49 (1), 29-36. Retrieved from http://74.217.196.173/docview/212103662?accountid=14482 Robinson, A., Cotabish, A., Wood, B. K., & O'Tuel, F.,S. (2014). The effects of a statewide evaluation initiative in gifted education on practitioner knowledge, concerns, and program documentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25 (4), 349-383. Retrieved from http://74.217.196.173/docview/1627084294?accountid=14482