Now for CHCCS: As we train more teachers to learn the behaviors of gifted students, we can hope to towards closing the opportunity gap for CHCCS’ Historically Underrepresented Gifted Student (HUGS). We’re already testing all students for AIG programs in third grade but we can do so much more. Let’s have student portfolio assessments and pilot a group like Montgomery County Schools in Maryland. As we continue expanding the Elon Cohort, which I am in currently, is helping the quintessential combination of our Leap (Team C) students and our AVID Learners bridge the opportunity gap, so we can really empower and allow all families the same kind of opportunities you’ve had for your kids.”
Want to know More? Read a recent assignment about our AVID Site Team's suggestion to the current AIG Plan below.
An Investigation of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools AIG Plan
Reviewed by Anthony Davis and Eric Ziegler
May 2019
INTRODUCTION
The collection and organization of the North Carolina Academically and Intellectually Gifted Program Standards is intentional. Its symbol is a tree. Its roots are deep and spread out in every direction, and its branches reach high and outwards in every direction. Its encircled by the words: “Student identification,” “Differentiated curriculum,” “Comprehensive programming within a total school community,” “Partnerships,” and “Personal and professional development.” In large letters, on the the rungs of an inner circle are the words, “All Day, Every Day”. We get chills because, as two teachers who are undertaking the task of teaching gifted students, it is an intentional task that has to begin and end - all day and every day.
PART ONE: The Current AIG Standards and the Significance of Each
Standard 1:
Student Identification
The LEA’s student identification procedures for AIG are clear, equitable, and comprehensive and lead towards appropriate educational services.
Lilia Z. Acero, one of our esteemed Elon Cohort colleagues, wrote an open letter to Secretary Betsy DeVos. In it, she stated:
The fact that these [gifted] programs include a high level of academically and intellectually gifted students, whom to my professional understanding about the education system in this country, are not receiving the appropriate attention in order for them to fully develop the vast potential they already possess or could develop only if they had the appropriate attention.
In short, this means that the CHCCS District is not currently providing general education teachers with tuition and other incentives for acquiring AIG licensure. Therefore, there are little to no expectations for increases in the number of AIG licensed teachers. This begs the question: How can we make the selection process more equitable, when many of the indicators are still unclear to the general education teacher? We have started the second Elon Cohort and we’re starting to address the identification process, with our suggestions-based approach - backed by our research. It is now becoming clear that the identification process within the CHCCS School District is far from equitable.
Another Elon Cohort colleague, Jill Greason, wrote:
In my first grade class, no students are identified as gifted because that process isn’t offered until end of third grade. We have quite a range of skill in reading and writing, however, and we work to differentiate in ways that are flexible so all students can access challenging material as their skills develop.
To us, this means that “differentiation” is a word often overused - to cover up an educator’s lack of comprehensive understanding of the appropriate educational services. This seems especially true at the elementary level, since there currently is not a process to address the K-2 needs of the AIG child.
Moving forward, we will want to include, in the student identification section, information about the importance of having a procedure that uses unbiased assessments - equitably, and amongst all grade levels.
According to Susan G Assouline from The University of Iowa, standardized testing is “one of four components of an educational and/or psychological assessment” (Assouline, 2003). The other components include both structured and unstructured observation, student interviews, and the student’s classroom performance. This data not only helps identify gifted learners, but also assists teachers in developing appropriate curriculum for these students (Assouline, 2003). All of these components are necessary in order to gain a holistic perspective of a student’s learning abilities.
We must be more intentional and consistent with our District’s established process and the criteria. This may include “both qualitative and quantitative data, in order to develop a comprehensive learner profile, for all students” - per a conversation we had with a current school board member. If we are all clear with our understandings of our districts direction in its selection process, then we are helping everyone move toward appropriate educational services for our AIG students.
PART ONE: The Current AIG Standards and the Significance of Each
Standard 2:
Differentiated Curriculum
The LEA employs challenging, rigorous, and relevant curriculum and instruction K-12 to accommodate a range of academic, intellectual, social, and emotional needs of gifted learners.
This standard is important in order to foster the development of future-ready soft skills, including: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, and leadership. Theoretically, all of these skills are being taught within each school’s AVID program. There are also four other pathways in which students can be identified: Emerging Talent, LEAP/AIG, and students who attained a 5 for their End-of-Grade (EOG) Tests. Although research shows that students benefit when given opportunities to reflect on assignments, exams, and activities, all of these four “pathways” go about it differently.
With consistency, learning outcomes improve when instructors help students think about how they drew connections, digested content, and arrived at conclusions (Kaplan, et. al, 2013). This can allow us to further accommodate the range of academic, intellectual, social, and emotional needs of gifted learners. There must be common ground of rigor within these five Pathways, and we think we have a solution for our CHCCS District, which will be presented at the end of this report.
In our current Elon Cohort, we read an article titled “A Case Study of Teachers of Gifted Learners: Moving From Prescribed Practice to Described Practitioners,” written by Ben Graffam (2006). The four main takeaways are:
Lauren Smith, another Elon classmate, addresses Standard 2 by stating,
I teach 8th Grade Language Arts and one of the methods I have found successful in teaching gifted students is the use of Paideia Seminar... I have seen gifted students lead and elevate the discussion surrounding the text. Being more comfortable or readily able to take an abstract approach and develop critical questions, they often direct the discussion.
She points out then when we are using both reflection and metacognition in our curriculum, it employs a means where students take the instructional lead to enhance their own learning.
It is important to foster the development of future-ready skills, including critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, and leadership. Students benefit when given opportunities to reflect on assignments, exams, and activities, and learning outcomes improve when instructors help students think about how they drew connections, digested content, and arrived at conclusions (Kaplan, et. al, 2013). This is especially relevant when students are able to take ownership and able to control the levels of rigor at their own pace.
PART ONE: The Current AIG Standards and the Significance of Each
Standard 4:
Comprehensive Programming
The LEA provides an array of K-12 programs and services by the total school community to meet the diverse academic, intellectual, social, and emotional needs of gifted learners.
Our instruction as teachers must be intentional and individualized, so that it delivers an AIG program with comprehensive services, addressing the needs of gifted learners across all grade levels and learning environments. These services are aligned to a student’s AIG identification.
For example, instructors can help students understand the difference between studying styles and learning processes. Students will develop their own preferences for reviewing content, but these practices differ from deeper cognitive processes like “chunking,” building on prior knowledge, making conceptual connections, and transferring knowledge. Ambrose, et. al (2010) and the National Research Council (2000) offer excellent overviews of these deeper processes and explain why multiple modes of instruction assist all students. Our goal and vision at CHCCS is to meet the needs of every teacher, so that they are well-trained and engaged in the implementation of the policies, practices, and procedures required to achieve equity and excellence.
Recently, at Smith Middle School, an 8th Grade English Language Arts educator was wrestling with this standard and wanted to address it - for both his class and the school community. He thought of “book speed-dating” as the solution. It was a risk, but he thought it would put the responsibility and autonomy of choosing Literature Circles books into the hands of the students.
Therefore, he designed his “Social Justice” Novel Study Unit in this manner, and students analyzed and discussed several current hot-button topics, including: “LGBTQIA+ Issues,” “Mental Health and Disabilities,” “Racism and Discrimination,” “Immigrant/Migrant Experience,” “War and Revolution,” and “Gender and Sexuality Issues” - employing the differentiated technique of Literature Circles. Students were given a list of over 50 different books (categorized in one of the six above topics) to choose from, “speed-dated” each book, then selected their top three picks. Students were able to find books that spoke to their individual and emotional needs. He observed heightened student engagement, which created a more open community of learners. If we can adopt this type of approach, we will further meet the diverse needs of our AIG students - per Standard 4.
PART ONE: The Current AIG Standards and the Significance of Each
Standard 5:
Partnerships
The LEA ensures on-going and meaningful participation of stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the local AIG program to develop strong partnerships.
In order to establish and utilize an advisory group to develop, implement, and monitor the local AIG program and plan, we need an informed advisory group - that is representative of the diverse populations of the district. Currently, it is comprised of community members, AIG parents and families, AIG teachers, and other instructional and support staff.
In her chapter on teachers of gifted learners, Croft (2003) writes:
Isolating the characteristics and competencies unique to effective teachers of the gifted is a challenge. Many of the attributes delineated in research in gifted education correspond to characteristics necessary for any teaching success.
Croft rightfully tells us that teachers of gifted learners need to develop skill areas that teachers in general education do not require. She reports research (e.g., see Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994) that demonstrates how specific preparation for teaching gifted learners is essential to success in those classrooms. This point is so important and we are almost ashamed to be just learning about this. So we have decided to become proactive, rather than reactive. Signing up for this Elon Cohort was “Step One.” Implementing what we are learning at our schools is “Step Two.”
Finally, for “Step Three,” we must Inform parents, families, and community stakeholders of the opportunities available to them within the AIG program. Some of these opportunities may include internships, academic competitions, STEM/STEAM camps, funding/fundraising, and higher education partnerships for the educator and the AIG students.
Another Elon Cohort member, Paula Dey, wrote,
In my high school chemistry class, students who are gifted in chemistry have the option of completing an independent research study (and paper write-up), rather than completing unit review guides and unit review problems, which are otherwise required before every test.
Dr. Bryan responded with the following comment, “The student-selected research gives the students an authentic task and opportunity to explore areas of interest. No one will ask "Why do I need to know this?"
To us, this means there must be a strong learning connection in both our general education classrooms and in our AIG program. We think that this same intentional effort can be made to our community stakeholders. A clear partnership with the institutions of higher education, local businesses and industry partners, the Town of Chapel Hill, our PTSA groups, and other community organizations can greatly enhance support for the AIG program and services. When collaborative and cohesive partnerships are implemented, we can better succeed accomplishing the task of intentionally teaching gifted students, all day and every day.
PART TWO: A Critique of the Current CHCCS AIG Plan
District: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)
Critics: Anthony Davis and Eric Zeigler, Teachers at Smith Middle School
2018 Standards
How is this standard addressed in the current plan?
Rating
Rationale for Rating
Standard 1:
Student Identification
Within our school and [seemingly] throughout our district, there seems to be confusion on who should be identified as AIG, what programs should be implemented, and who should make these decisions. We have had conversations with concerned parents that - in short - don’t even know that their students are identified as gifted. We believe that our district seeks to communicate effectively with parents about the AIG Plan, but too often falls short. On a positive note, however, we have several trained experts that are willing and available to help us implement a gifted curriculum within our classrooms.
Standard 2: Differentiation Curriculum
There is a large and frequent dialogue at CHCCS, regarding the AIG program and how to improve it. We have several resources available to us - not only within our school, but also throughout the district. Frequent opportunities for professional development and collaboration exist, and the AIG identification process begins at an early age for our students. We are firm believers that awareness is a large part of the “battle” on the metaphorical AIG Front, and our colleagues are very aware of its importance. Where we fall short, however, is in applying data to our practices and issuing surveys to students, as a gauge of how to reach them. We are also in need of more trained AIG professionals - in order to aid our regular education teachers, disaggregate data, and better serve our students.
Standard 4:
Comprehensive Programming
This rating is best summarized by a direct quote from the AIG Plan: “The district is not currently supporting general education teachers with tuition or other incentives for acquiring AIG licensure, so there are no expectations for great increases in the number of AIG licensed teachers.” This is an alarming statement, being that a major step in increasing rigor and services to our gifted population is to have gifted specialists at our disposal. Following this, the district does lay out a succinct “Plan Cycle” to remedy the situation, but it just feels like it’s too little, too late.
Standard 5:
Partnerships
This rating is rooted in the fact that the district is aware of an issue/discrepancy, but doesn’t necessarily address it effectively.There is a stark racial divide amongst our students - which exists in the general classrooms and the gifted populations alike. Our equity programs work to close this gap, but their efforts seem to fall short, and our racial inequities do not seem to diminish.
PART THREE: A Suggestion to Enhance the Current Plan
We are creating this document to help develop the policies and procedures for a variety of acceleration opportunities. Some of these opportunities include compacted content, Credit by Demonstrated Mastery, subject and/or grade acceleration, and advanced learning opportunities for underrepresented AIG populations. Targeted underrepresented populations include culturally/ethnically diverse, socially- and economically-disadvantaged, English Language-Learners, highly-gifted, and twice-exceptional students.
There are four “pathways” currently identified as possible routes to being placed in an advanced ELA course; they are described in the “Middle School Advanced ELA Class” Chart below. The pathways are: AVID students, Emerging Talent students, LEAP/AIG students, and students who consecutively attained a “5” for their End-of-Grade (EOG) Tests scores (in ELA). These advanced classes already exist at the high school-level, and we already have different math placements for students at the middle school level.
That said, our suggestion is for an Advanced Middle School Level English Language Arts class - that’s inclusive and taught to of all four pathways. Evidence showing the need for this course is present in the charts below, as well as in the primary research (interviews, conversations, etc.) that we’ve performed.
Dr. Bev Schieman, a Smith Middle School educator, has utilized AVID best practices to develop a rising 9th grade Honors Preparatory course for our 8th grade ELA students. Although the class is not restricted to underrepresented populations, there was a specific focus on HUGS and English Language-Learners. She is seeing major success with her advanced curriculum, and spoke to us about the need to expand her current program.
Other extra-curricular programs at Smith, and throughout the District, are Science Olympiad, Math Counts, Odyssey of the Mind, and Genius Hour. They set out to enhance and further develop the needs and interests of AIG students - showing that the District is addressing the diverse academic, intellectual, social, and emotional needs of gifted learners. However, a consistent Middle School Advanced ELA course does not exist at our school, nor in any of the CHCCS middle schools.
We have spoken with individuals and groups from the community, many of which are willing to help the AIG program, and want to know what they can do. For example, during the Next Tech Conference, students created projects that involved virtual reality, computer games, and the like. At the conference, we spoke with The Town of Chapel Hill’s Tech Division. They were so impressed with Smith’s AVID group - the only middle schoolers presenting with the CHCCS high school students - that they expressed interest in sitting down to discuss what they can do to enhance the AIG program.
Erin Kellas, a current LEAP teacher and District AIG member, worked with us, as we had 15 LEAP students and 15 AVID students engage in a two-day Paideia Seminar. Three of the [several] questions that students came up prior to the Racially Literate Discussion were:
In order to keep this discussion open, we contacted Lee Williams, the Equity Director for our District. Mr. Williams assisted us in facilitating a Twitter Group Chat between our students and interested staff members.
By creating an Advanced Middle School ELA course, there will more opportunities for these types of student-driven, equitable conversations to take place (details in “Racial Equity Impact Assessment” Chart below). We utilized our findings from this Elon Cohort in order to make this suggestion for a similar acceleration pathway in middle school Reading and ELA - which already exists for acceleration in math. This is the direction that our district is heading towards “in the pursuit of equity,” and this course can address the opportunity gap (See “Closing the Opportunity Gap” Chart below.), while creating consistency across the district.
AIG is in an exciting place right now, and we have a tremendous opportunity to enhance it. However, we must make intentional efforts to collaborate with potential partners and stakeholders. Our goal is to get decision-makers to say, “How can we help?” rather than “Why should we help?”
REFERENCES
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., Lovett, M., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M (2010). How Learning Works: 7 Research – Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Assouline, S. G. (2003). Psychological and Educational Assessment of Gifted Children. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Authors), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 124-145). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Blackboard, Inc. (August 1, 2018). AVID: Proven Achievement, Lifelong Advantage. Retrieved May 1, 2019, from https://www.avid.org/.
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) AIG Plan, 2016-2019. Retrieved May 1, 2019, from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cyJGWc2w9_xGbUb2l8TX6KO3tzB1tkhVxxSr1tVBtaQ/edit.
CHCCS Academically/Intellectually Gifted Plan Revision Process: BOE Update, Enhancing Middle School AIG Services (March 7, 2019). Retrieved May 1, 2019, from https://chccs.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=321&meta_id=23440.
Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the Gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 558–571). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Graffam, Ben (2006). A Case Study of Teachers of Gifted Learners: Moving From Prescribed Practice to Described Practitioners. In Gifted Child Quarterly (Vol. 50, # 2, pp. 119-131).
Hansen J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly (Vol. 38, pp. 115–121).
Kaplan, M., Silver, N., Lavaque-Manty, D., and Meizlish, D., eds. (2013). Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Kellas, Erin. (2018, December). Email/text/personal interview.
LEAP Program Overview. (January 19, 2016). Retrieved May 1, 2019, from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vmcED8VJYm9fdy_m1jgClTFalvCaKMAz8yiwDGnC2oU/edit.
National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Schiemann, Bev, PhD. (2018, May). Personal interview.
Williams, Lee. (2019, May). Email/text/personal interview.