1. IGNITING AND NURTURING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN GIFTED AND GENERAL EDUCATION 2015 PAGE Conference Katherine Guyer Dover Area School District

2. squaretrapezoidrhombus parallelogramhexagon pentagonrectangle

3. Labels should inform decision-making, not pigeonhole students. Labels do not determine services; individual needs do.

4. nspiredbynicolle.wordpress.com whole

5.  Why is a partnership crucial?  How can it be ignited?  How can it be nurtured?

6. PURPOSE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION Public education prepares students for adult life by attending to their intellectual and developmental needs and challenging them to achieve at their highest level possible. In conjunction with families and other community institutions, public education prepares students to become self-directed, life-long learners and responsible, involved citizens. (22 Pa Code § 4.11(b)) Chapter 4

8. According the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee December 2013 report The Status of Special Education for Gifted Students in the Commonwealth  83% of gifted elementary students receive gifted services via pull-out programs  61% of gifted middle schoolers receive gifted services via special grouping or homogeneous classes  71% of gifted high school students receive gifted services via AP classes or IB programs

9. Effect sizes of service options Compacting.83 Pull-out with enrichment of the curriculum.65 Cluster grouping.62 Credit by examination.59 One-to-one mentoring/tutoring.57 Subject-based acceleration.57 Credit for prior learning.56 Full time ability grouping.49 Rogers, 2008

10. Gifted support teachers cannot be/are not experts in all content areas and grade levels.

11.  NOT an overnight success  Years of baby steps, pushing, pulling, and dragging  No one right way  Target continuously changes; need to adjust  Work in progress  Constantly seeking out support and learning from others

12.  Communication  Central office support  Collaboration  Professional development The Keys to Our Success

13.  Really listened to all stakeholders  Conducted and analyzed surveys  Asked questions of those with more knowledge  Became an active part of any academic decision-making teams  Expanded our Gifted Advisory Council

14.  Separated special education and gifted  Presented data with a focus on student learning  Presented facts based on Chapters 4 and 16  Came with solutions rather than problems  Did not ask for additional money  Initiated monthly meetings

15. Conferenced with authors Discussed as an administrative team Looked at building data Adjusted composition based on student needs

16. SUGGESTIONS:  Find out what time is given for learning support or other service providers and request the same  Combine efforts by pulling grade levels together (vertical teaming)  Look for opportunities to meet during assemblies or other schoolwide functions  Use technology (Skype, Google Docs, Schoology, etc.)

17.  Be creative with delivery: faculty meetings, data team/department meetings, web sites with archived presentations, newsletters  Take advantage of free PD via IU, SAS, PaTTAN, PAGE, and NAGC  Use PD to show interrelatedness among general and gifted education initiatives and issues  Provide PD to ALL stakeholders

18. Teachers need their own access to all student data points  PVAAS  Emetric  Computer-based assessments  Grading programs  District data warehouse

20. Align identification protocols with RtII/MTSS protocols out the RtII resources in the Gifted and Accelerated Learning Community

21. Keep teachers together for professional development www.brianrose.com

22. Communicate at least monthly, either face-to-face or electronically

23. Evaluate and re-evaluate what you are doing.

24. Focus on the need, not the label.

25. Coleman, M. & Johnsen, S. (Eds.) (2013). Implementing RtI with gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Johnsen, S. (Ed.) (2012). Gifted education programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Pennsylvania General Assembly. Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. The Status of Special Education for Gifted Students in the Commonwealth. (Pursuant to HR 2013- 139). 2013. Retrieved from http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/Resources/Documents/Reports/479.pdf http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/Resources/Documents/Reports/479.pdf. Plucker, J. & Callahan, C. (Eds.) (2008). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Purcell, J. & Eckert, R. (Eds.) (2006). Designing services and programs for high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Rogers, K. (2008). Beyond withdrawal programs: Research-based management options for gifted children [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/mlcSchool/karen-rogers. Rogers, K. (2002). Re-forming gifted education. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Treffinger, D., Young, G., Nassab, C., & Wittig, C. (2004). Enhancing and expanding gifted programs: The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Winebrenner, S. & Brulles, D. (2008). The cluster grouping handbook. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

26. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. kguyer@doversd.org