Microsoft Word - Evaluation-Gifted-Services-Summary.docx

An Evaluation of the

Gifted Education Services Program

Fall 2016 - Winter 2017

Executive Summary of Results

for presentation to the LMSD Board of School Directors and Lower Merion Community

January 8, 2018

Prepared by

Kristina Ayers Paul, Ph.D.

Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Program Evaluation

Lower Merion School District | www.lmsd.org/departments/program-evaluation | paul[email protected]

Note: This document is an update to the “working copy” provided to District Administration and the Curriculum Committee of the Board of

School Directors on December 4, 2017.

DISCLAIMER

This report is disseminated in the interest of organizational learning. The findings and conclusions presented are

those of the author, who is responsible for the accuracy of the information presented herein, and do not

necessarily represent the views of the Lower Merion School District or the department responsible for the

program that is the subject of this evaluation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About this Study .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

About the LMSD Gifted Education Program ....................................................................................................................... 2

Commendations .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Key Feature 1: Philosophy, Goals, & Objectives ............................................................................................................ 7

Key Feature 2: Service Delivery Model ........................................................................................................................... 8

Key Feature 3: Screening, Identification, & Assessment ................................................................................................ 9

Key Feature 4: Professional Development ................................................................................................................... 11

Key Feature 5: Family & Community Collaboration ...................................................................................................... 12

Key Feature 6: Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Sources ............................................................................................................................................................................. 15

About the LMSD Office of Program Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 16

ABOUT THIS STUDY

The purpose of this program review was to determine ways to enhance the services provided to gifted students

by the Lower Merion School District in ways that both comply with Pennsylvania’s mandate for gifted student

identification and align with the standards of programming quality promoted by the National Association for

Gifted Children.

The study was structured around the examination of six key features of gifted programing: (1) programming

philosophy, goal, and objectives, (2) service delivery model, (3) screening, identification, and assessment, (4)

professional learning, (5) family and community collaboration, and (6) program operations.

The frameworks around which evaluative judgements were made and recommendations were developed

included:

• Pennsylvania School Code Chapter 16

• Pennsylvania Department of Education Gifted Guidelines

• National Association for Gifted Children PreK-12 Gifted Programming Standards; and

• research and best practice literature from the field of gifted education and talent development.

From Fall 2016 through Fall 2017, data from interviews, focus groups, classroom observations, and surveys were

collected from a range of stakeholders representing students, parents, educators, clinical and professional staff

(e.g. school psychologists, counselors), building and District administrators, and support staff who have been

involved with the gifted program. Additionally, program documents, screening data, and student

demographic and participation data informed the evaluation.

This document is a high-level overview of the findings and recommendations from the study. It is intended to

provide District and Building administrators, members of the Board of School Directors, parents and other

members of the community with a summary of the results for informational purposes. Additional levels of

technical detail will be provided to the Evaluation Use Committee, a representative group of gifted program

stakeholders, who are charged with acting on these findings and recommendations. See the Next Steps

section on for more details.

ABOUT THE LMSD GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM

Mission Statement

As stated on the Staff Portal of the Lower Merion School District website, “Lower Merion School District seeks to

ensure that all students develop their ability to think critically and creatively to the greatest extent possible, that

they value themselves and the diversity of others, and that they become knowledgeable, contributing citizens

capable of excelling in a rapidly changing world. Rooted in this mission, gifted education services identify,

nurture, and motivate K-12 gifted students. We achieve this by enacting evidence-based practices for

screening and evaluation, individualized education planning, and specially designed instruction. Our flexible

range of services is personalized and coordinated across the school day, so that students are actively engaged

and develop depth and breadth in their academic skills: high-level critical thinking; creativity, problem-solving,

and positive risk-taking communication, collaboration and leadership. In making connections across different

academic disciplines, providing students with choice, and encouraging exploration, we help students

experience meaningful academic and social-emotional growth. We challenge them with complexity, ignite

their curiosity, and instill within them a greater sense of agency” (Source: www.lmsd.org/staff/student-

services/gifted).

Screening and Identification

Ongoing, General Screening

Screening for gifted services is available by parent or teacher request at any time, grades K-12. The purpose of

screening is to determine if the student is eligible for evaluation for gifted services by a school psychologist, who

performs a more comprehensive review of student eligibility for gifted support services. Screening is conducted

by each school’s achievement team, which is charged with reviewing the student’s performance in the

classroom, on District assessments, and on a brief measure of cognitive abilities, typically the Naglieri Nonverbal

Assessment (NNAT-2), the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT-8), or the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). If the

evidence suggests gifted potential, the achievement team recommends that the student be evaluated for

gifted services.

In cases where parents or guardians request screening for their kindergarten, first, or second grade child,

parents are typically encouraged to wait until the Universal Screening is performed in Spring of First and Second

Grade. See below for a description of the Universal Screening process.

Universal Screening

The District adopted a universal screening procedure in Spring 2015 for first grade and Spring 2016 for second

grade. The intended purpose of introducing the universal screening was to provide all students in first and

second grade with an opportunity to demonstrate their cognitive abilities on a valid, reliable test, regardless of

whether their parent, guardian, or teacher has observed advanced cognitive abilities in their daily interactions.

Parents and guardians have been given an opportunity to opt out of the test.

For all First- and Second-grade students who participate in Universal Screening, they are administered a brief

test of cognitive abilities by their classroom teachers. First graders are given the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test

ed.) and Second graders are administered the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (8

edition). Student

response sheets are submitted to the publisher, Pearson, Inc., for scoring, and results are provided to the District

in late April or early May. The central office coordinates the distribution of student results to the principal of

each elementary building, who in turn reviews the results with the school’s achievement team.

Student Evaluation for Gifted Services

Students who pass through the initial screening are, with parental permission, evaluated individually by a school

psychologist to determine eligibility for gifted services. Multiple sources of cognitive and academic

performance data are gathered through tests and teacher feedback, and the results are reported in a Gifted

Written Report, which is written by the school psychologist. If the student is found eligible for gifted support, a

Gifted Individualized Education Plan (GIEP) is written by the gifted education teacher who will be serving as the

student’s case manager and/or teaching the student in their enrichment class. The GIEP is a legal document

that describes the plan for providing gifted support services. The GIEP is updated on an annual basis and is

bound by parameters and timelines as set forth in Chapter 16.

Gifted Education Services

Case Management

Students who are identified to receive gifted support services are assigned a case manager who is, in most

cases, the gifted support teacher who teaches the Challenge/Seminar class in which the student will

participate. The case manager is responsible for developing students’ GIEPs and coordinating GIEP meetings.

Enrichment Classes

Dedicated time for enrichment instruction in a homogenously-grouped learning environment is the primary

service provided to gifted students in LMSD. This dedicated enrichment time is called “Challenge” at the

elementary, “Challenge” or “Seminar” at the middle schools, and “Academic Seminar” at the high schools. The

classes are focused on exploring enrichment topics and independent studies in an ungraded learning

environment alongside other students who have been identified for gifted services within their grade level.

Curriculum

While a handful of themes and instructional materials are consistently provided across the District (e.g.

the Phineas Gage/neuroscience unit in 5

grade, Lego Robotics in 6

grade, Philosophy in 7

grade),

there are no specific parameters or guidelines for the types of enrichment experiences that are

designed and delivered. The teaching staff has the liberty to change, modify, adapt, or adopt learning

units and experiences based on their own professional judgements. The curricula used by teachers has

evolved organically over time – either by individual teachers or as part of an effort to coordinate

experiences across buildings – and has been influenced by several gifted education curricular models,

such as Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model, Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity Model, VanTassel-Baska’s

Integrated Curriculum Model, Tomlinson’s Principles of Differentiated Curriculum, Passow’s guiding

principles for enrichment, and general principles of the Socratic method;

Elementary School “Challenge”

Elementary students with a GIEP in grades K-2 participate in two 30-minute blocks of enrichment outside

of their regular classroom per week, with some variation due to individual circumstances. Third-, Fourth-,

and Fifth-grade students with a GIEP participate in two 60-minute blocks of time per week, with some

variation in the length of the time block depending on the teacher’s scheduling constraints, for a total

of 120 minutes of enrichment instruction outside of the regular classroom. For most, the enrichment

instruction takes place in a dedicated classroom space with other grade-level peers who also have a

GIEP. Some of the younger students in grades K-2 may be the only one, or one of a very small group,

who have a GIEP at that point in time, so their instruction is sometimes delivered in swing space or the

hallway.

Middle School “Challenge/Seminar”

Middle school students with GIEPs are offered an enrichment class that replaces in part or in whole a

non-core academic course, such as art or health. During the 2016-2017 academic year, Challenge

classes were available to students two class periods out of a 6-day cycle. The new middle school

schedule adopted for the 2017-2018 school year provides students with either one or two 45-minute

class periods per four-day cycle.

High School “Academic Seminar”

High school students who retain their GIEPs are scheduled into Academic Seminar. Many students elect

not to include Academic Seminar in their schedule for the sake of adding an additional course or

maintaining a “free” period within a high-rigor schedule. Flexible arrangements are made for students

who do not include Academic Seminar but wish to pursue an independent project or investigation with

guidance from their case manager.

Differentiated Core Curriculum

Classroom teachers are expected to offer differentiated learning experiences within the core curriculum. Some

gifted support teachers have worked collaboratively with classroom teachers to provide resources, materials,

and/or ideas for successfully implementing differentiated experiences; However, opportunities for these types

of collaborations are highly dependent on the gifted support teacher’s schedule and case load, as well as the

skills, personalities, and philosophies of the receiving classroom teachers. The frequency and nature of

differentiated learning experiences within the core curriculum is highly variable.

Acceleration

The District has guidelines for determining elementary students’ needs for subject- or grade-based

acceleration, which were developed and implemented in the 2015-2016 academic year. The District is

presently working on a similar set of guidelines to make facilitate decisions about acceleration at the

secondary level.

Participation

Participation in gifted services typically begins during the 2

or 3

grade year for most students, continues

through middle school, and then wanes during the high school experience. Table 1 provides summary statistics

for student participants and non-participants.

Table 1. Eligibility and Participation in the Gifted Program

Grade

Total

Students

Eligible Students

Participants

Participation

Rate of Eligible

Students

439

0.5%

100%

620

0.2%

100%

692

1.7%

100%

705

12.9%

100%

671

129

19.2%

129

19.2%

100%

715

141

19.7%

141

19.7%

100%

703

144

20.5%

143

20.3%

99%

718

165

23.0%

163

22.7%

99%

637

154

24.2%

154

24.2%

100%

646

116

18.0%

14.2%

79%

679

117

17.2%

11.5%

67%

705

131

18.6%

8.1%

44%

658

110

16.7%

6.2%

37%

Totals

8,588

1,313

15.3%

1,104

12.9%

*Source: PIMS October 2017 Student Snapshot

**Source: IEP Writer as of October 10, 2017

Staffing

The teaching staff for Challenge/Seminar classes consists of 24 full and part-time positions across the six-

elementary school (6 full-time and 5 part-time or split positions), two middle schools (six full-time and two part-

time positions), and two high schools (4 full-time and 1 part-time position) in the District. The number of full and

part-time positions at each building fluctuates depending on the number of students identified for services at

each school. Gifted student caseload size for teachers shall not exceed 65, as per PA Chapter 16 mandate,

and the class size for gifted education classes is not to exceed 20 students, as per PA Chapter 16 mandate.

COMMENDATIONS

The core group of gifted education teachers is a resilient, hard-working, and dedicated set of professionals that

collectively possess the knowledge, skills, and expertise that are critical for designing challenging and engaging

learning experiences for students with advanced learning needs. Together they have weathered multiple

transitions in departmental leadership and have served as the backbone of consistency for the program over

the years.

Many students and parents have offered their praise their Challenge/Seminar teachers, expressing their

gratitude for the learning environments and experiences these teachers have offered. As an example of the

sentiment shared by many, one parent stated, “We have very much appreciated all the Challenge teachers

with whom our kids have had the privilege to work. Their intellectual engagement is infectious and we are

grateful for the energy and dedication they bring to enhancing the general educational experience.”

The District should also be commended for its efforts in introducing a universal screening procedure over the

past three years, which is a positive indication of a desire to provide more equitable access to gifted education

services. Although the screening system needs adjustments, the positive momentum around this initiative is

tangible evidence of a desire for continuous program improvement

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the pages that follow is a summary of the findings and recommendations for bringing the gifted education

services program into closer alignment with policy, standards, research, and best practices in gifted education.

These findings and recommendations are grouped according to each of the six key program features that

were the focus of this study, although there is intersectionality among and between them. This document is

intended to be a high-level summary of the overall findings and recommendations.

Key Feature 1: Philosophy, Goals, & Objectives

Evaluation Findings

Finding 1.1. There is no consistent understanding among stakeholders (educators, parents, students) of the

purpose for gifted education in the Lower Merion School District. In fact, very few stakeholders are aware

that a mission statement exists.

Finding 1.2 The content of the mission statement is misaligned with the structure of the service delivery

model. “Our flexible range of services is personalized and coordinated across the school day” (paragraph

2, sentence 3) is in conflict with the current service delivery model, which focuses on an enrichment

curriculum provided in a separate classroom from the regular education program and relies heavily on

regular education teachers to design and implement differentiated instruction.

Finding 1.3. The mission statement outlines academic skills, learning dispositions, and goals for academic

and social-emotional growth that, while attended to at the discretion of the individual teachers who serve

as instructors in the gifted education program, are not articulated through a documented set of program

goals and objectives, nor through a comprehensive, documented scope-and-sequence/curricular plan.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1.A. Collaboratively design an actionable vision for gifted education that honors both

the individual and group-level needs of gifted students within the Lower Merion School District.

Recommendation 1.B. Ensure that the vision for gifted education attends to the academic AND affective

needs of gifted students.

Recommendation 1.C. Establish a multi-faceted communications strategy to facilitate shared

understanding of the purpose for gifted education services within the Lower Merion School District and the

structures that are in place for fulfilling that purpose.

Key Feature 2: Service Delivery Model

Evaluation Findings

Finding 2.1. The current design of the program is structured to provide a pull-out enrichment experience as

the primary means of delivering specially designed instruction (SDI). Appropriate differentiation of the

general curriculum – whether through enrichment, extension, or acceleration – is mostly dependent on the

skills of and resources available to classroom teachers.

Finding 2.2. The current schedule and design of the program challenges case managers’ ability to facilitate

differentiated learning experiences outside of the Challenge/Seminar Classroom.

Finding 2.3. Within the Challenge/Seminar settings, there is not a consistent framework for how enrichment

experiences are designed or implemented, and the types of enrichment experiences that gifted students

are involved in during Challenge/Seminar are dependent on the teacher they have and/or the school they

attend.

Recommendations

Recommendation 2.A. Redesign the service delivery model, or adopt a new one, that is directly related to

the mission, goals, and objectives for gifted education in the Lower Merion School District. Ensure that the

service delivery model includes a continuum of services – including but not limited to a pull-out enrichment

option – from which service options and educational strategies can be selected to meet the unique needs

of each student who qualifies for gifted services.

Recommendation 2.B. Consider redesigning the schedule and/or responsibilities of gifted education staff to

create new possibilities for more closely monitoring and supporting students’ individual learning needs for

enrichment, extension, and acceleration across their schooling experience.

Recommendation 2.C. Provide professional development for ALL teachers to build capacity for

differentiating curriculum and instruction in ways that specifically address the needs of gifted and high-

ability students. Topics may include, for example: curriculum compacting, tiered assignments, learning

extension menus, models for independent study, and strategies for adding depth and complexity to the

core curriculum.

Recommendation 2.D. Establish guidelines and expectations for the structure and types of enrichment

experiences that students should have while participating in Challenge/Seminar classes. These experiences

should be tied directly to the program mission, goals, and objectives and should be documented in a way

that can be easily accessed by all gifted education teachers.

Key Feature 3: Screening, Identification, & Assessment

Evaluation Findings

Finding 3.1. Demographic Composition of Gifted Program Participants. The racial/ethnic composition,

gender composition, and socioeconomic composition of the gifted program participant group does not

reflect the student body as a whole. Asian students are generally overrepresented in the gifted program by

about half, while Black/African American and Hispanic students are generally underrepresented by about

half. In the grades that represent the cohorts who have gone through the universal screening procedure,

male students are overrepresented. Proportional representation of students coming from economically

disadvantaged backgrounds is also problematic.

Findings 3.2. Universal Screening. While the introduction of the universal screening should be seen as a

positive move toward providing fair access to screening (i.e. “casting a wide net”), an overreliance on the

current process and tools has led to several unintended consequences:

Finding 3.2.1. Young students whose advanced abilities and giftedness is evident from the start of school

are not recommended for evaluation for gifted services until after the universal screening is conducted

in the Spring of their first-grade year, which, in effect, means that services will not begin for that student

until the start of, or mid-way through, their second-grade year.

Finding 3.2.2. The timing of the tests, which are given at the same time for both first and second grade

students in the spring of each year, and the subsequent receipt of results has led to a processing

bottleneck in terms of the individual student evaluations that need to be performed by school

psychologists within the timeframe designated by Chapter 16.

Finding 3.2.3. It is rumored that parents have formed study groups to help prepare their first- and

second-grade children for the universal screening tests, which unfairly advantages some students over

others who have not had prior experience with the test formats. Whether or not this is true, the undue

emphasis on the universal screening test as THE sole gateway to gifted services lead to a high-stakes

testing culture and restricts, rather than opens, access to identification.

Finding 3.3. Student Evaluation for Gifted Services. The systems for evaluating students for gifted services

should be examined more closely to reduce inefficiencies and to shift the emphasis toward team-based,

student-centered identification of gifts and talents that can be tied more directly to individualized student

goals.

Finding 3.3.1. The length of time that it takes for students to be screened and evaluated for gifted

services has led some parents to seek private testing as a means of expediting their child’s access to

services.

Finding 3.3.2. The current process relies too heavily on the school psychologist as the decision-maker for

whether a student should is in need of gifted education services without the benefit of clear criteria

and, in some cases, a strong understanding of the nature and needs of gifted students within the

context of the Lower Merion School District.

Finding 3.4. Assessment of Student Growth as a Result of Gifted Services. There is currently no system, or

expectation, for monitoring student growth as a result of their participation in gifted services.

Recommendations for Screening, Identification, and Evaluation

Recommendation 3.A. Consider hiring a consultant with expertise in the screening and identification of

gifted students who can redesign the universal screening, general screening, and student evaluation

process to (1) reduce racial, gender, and socio-economic bias, (2) introduce more holistic methods for

identifying gifted behaviors, especially in younger students, and (3) help Gifted Multidisciplinary Teams

(GMDTs) make explicit connections among present levels of educational performance, individualized

learning goals based on students’ gifts and talents, and educational interventions and experiences that are

likely to yield meaningful growth for gifted students.

Recommendation 3.B. Establish expectations and procedures for measuring and monitoring student growth

in their individualized areas of gifts and talents (i.e. goals on their GIEPs or IEPs) as a result of their

involvement in gifted education services.

Key Feature 4: Professional Development

Evaluation Findings

Finding 4.1. The professional learning needs of the gifted education staff have not been satisfied through

the routine professional development offerings that have typically been offered to staff.

Finding 4.2. Professional collaboration time as a gifted education department has become increasingly

scarce, which has compromised the District’s efforts to provide more consistent pull-out enrichment

curriculum in the Challenge, Seminar, and Academic Seminar programs across the buildings.

Finding 4.3. The staff members who are part of the gifted education faculty have various levels of

advanced training in gifted education, from doctoral dissertations focused on gifted education and

master’s degrees from top universities in the field of gifted education to teachers with no formal training in

gifted education.

Recommendations for Professional Development

Recommendation 4.A. Provide gifted education staff with leadership, regular time and space, and

resources to support their growth as a professional learning community.

Recommendation 4.B. Provide gifted education staff with professional learning resources – such as

subscriptions to Gifted Child Today, memberships to the National Association for Gifted Children, and

libraries of key research and best practice resources – so that they may have access to high-quality

professional materials focused specifically on the needs of gifted education specialists.

Recommendation 4.C. Ensure that all gifted education staff members have or are working toward, at a

minimum, an endorsement in gifted education or comparable graduate-level certificate aligned with the

National Association for Gifted Children/Council for Exceptional Children’s National Gifted Education

Standards for PreK-12 Professional Development.

Cross reference to Recommendation 2.3. Provide professional development for ALL teachers to build

capacity for differentiating curriculum and instruction in ways that specifically address the needs of gifted

and high-ability students. Topics may include, for example: curriculum compacting, tiered assignments,

learning extension menus, models for independent study, and strategies for adding depth and complexity

to the core curriculum (e.g. The Kaplan Depth and Complexity Model).

Key Feature 5: Family & Community Collaboration

Evaluation Findings

Findings 5.1. There is a general paucity of publically-available information about the program, which may

be leading to one or more unintentional outcomes, such as the belief that the program is purposefully

“hidden” or a “secret program,” confusion about how parents can and should address their concerns over

their child’s potential needs as an advanced learner with teachers, and misunderstanding of the purpose

for gifted education in the District.

Finding 5.2 Most parents would like to receive more frequent information from gifted education teachers

about what their child is doing while in Challenge/Seminar, as well as feedback and information about their

progress.

Recommendations for Family & Community Collaboration

Recommendation 5.A. Provide comprehensive information about gifted education and the services

available for gifted students within the District. Continue to develop and update the gifted services website,

provide a program booklet that teachers and schools can share with parents at parent/teacher

conferences and other building-based meetings, and consider providing community workshops to teach

families about giftedness, gifted education, and the services and resources available within LMSD as well as

more generally (e.g. National Association for Gifted Children, Pennsylvania Association for Gifted

Education).

Recommendation 5.B. Strengthen lines of communication between gifted education teachers and families

to enhance talent development opportunities both inside and outside of school. Provide suggestions or

expectations for how gifted education teachers can and should be communicating with parents at each

level (elementary school, middle school, high school).

Key Feature 6: Operations

Evaluation Findings

Finding 6.1. Gifted education in Lower Merion has experienced much transition in leaders over the past

several years. The gifted education teachers have supported one another through the transitions and have

provided peer-to-peer leadership for new teachers, but the department has suffered from a lack of

consistent leadership.

Finding 6.2. Data regarding students’ gifted status and their history of screening and evaluation is

inconsistent and/or unavailable within the student information systems used throughout the District, which

has been challenging for gifted education staff, achievement team members, school psychologists, and

central office administrators who need to access student data for making student- and program-based

decisions.

Finding 6.3. Gifted education teachers spend a great deal of time on administrative tasks related to

scheduling, gathering teacher input, and preparing/distributing/filing paperwork for annual GIEP meetings.

Although many of them see this as an important part of building relationships with families and colleagues,

some of the practices and procedures they use could be more efficient.

Recommendations for Operations

Recommendation 6.A. Provide consistent, strong leadership for gifted education in Lower Merion that can

address both the need for procedural supervision AND the need for leadership around appropriate

curriculum and instruction for advanced learners. Consider establishing stronger connections with the

Curriculum and Instruction department to leverage their expertise and resources, and to work

collaboratively on systematic, District-wide efforts to better serve our advanced learners.

Recommendation 6.B. Look for ways to streamline and/or reduce the amount of time gifted program staff is

spending on the administrative tasks associated with coordinating GIEP team meetings, whether through a

reconceptualization of the tasks or the adoption of technology-based solutions that can ease the burden

of time spent on these tasks, or both.

Recommendation 6.C. Identify ways to streamline the synchronization of data across multiple student

information system platforms, as well as case managers’ access to the data.

Next Steps

An Evaluation Use Committee (EUC) has been established to determine what actions will be taken in light of

these evaluation findings and recommendations. The EUC is comprised of representatives of key stakeholder

groups and is co-led by Ms. Kimberly Fraser, LMSD Director of Student Services and Special Education, and the

Lead Supervisor of Clinical Services and Gifted Education, previously Dr. Percell Whittaker from Summer 2016

through November 2017 and now, as of December 18, 2017, Dr. Adil Nure. Committee membership was

established in July 2017 and may be modified or expanded at the discretion of Ms. Fraser and Dr. Nure.

The EUC is charged with considering and responding to the findings and recommendations of the program

evaluation by creating a 5-year action plan. The committee will be provided with the key documents that were

the basis for making evaluative judgements (see “References and Resources”), as well as an expanded report

of findings and recommendations that contains evidence and basis for findings and recommendations in this

report. The committee may also request additional information that may be useful for fulfilling their charge. For

example, it may be useful for the committee to have additional data displays from the universal screening,

summaries of the elementary student focus group conversations, or the responses to open-ended survey items

on the parent survey. Upon request, these data will be provided in a format and manner that will protect the

confidentiality of the participants involved (teachers, students, parents, etc.).

REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

Key Policies and Standards used in this Evaluation

Pennsylvania School Code Chapter 16. Special Education for Gifted Students (December 2000)

www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter16/chap16toc.html

Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Gifted Education Guidelines (May 2014)

www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K-12/Gifted%20Education/Gifted%20Program%20Guidelines.pdf

National Association for Gifted Education’s PreK-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards (2010)

www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12

Research and Best Practice Literature for Gifted Education

Dai, D.Y., & Chen, F. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Waco,

TX: Prufrock Press.

Eckert, R.D., & Robins, J. H. (Eds.) (2017). Designing services and programs for high-ability learners: A guidebook for

gifted education (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press in collaboration with the National Association for Gifted

Children.

Plucker, J.A., Rinn, A. N., & Makel, M. C. (Eds.) (2017). From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice.

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd

Ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Recommended Peer-Reviewed Journals for Gifted Education

Gifted Child Today: “Offers timely information about teaching and parenting gifted and talented children.”

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/gct

Gifted Child Quarterly: “The premier scholarly journal of the National Association for Gifted Children.”

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/gcq

Journal for the Education of the Gifted: “The official publication of The Association for the Gifted (TAG), a division of

the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC).” http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jeg

Journal of Advanced Academics: “A quarterly journal that focuses on research that supports and enhances advanced

academic achievement for students of all ages.” http://journals.sagepub.com/home/joa

ABOUT THE LMSD OFFICE OF PROGRAM EVALUATION

The Office of Program Evaluation (OPE) is a department within the Lower Merion School District responsible for

conducting program evaluations and coordinating research activities for the District. The LMSD OPE was

established by the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Robert Copeland, in the Spring of 2016, to perform the

following services for the District:

• Design and conduct evaluations of K-12 programs, services, and practices collaboratively with program

personnel, independently within the district, or in partnership with external evaluators.

• Assist the LMSD education community in finding and reviewing the best available evidence for informing

programmatic, curricular, and instructional decisions;

• Facilitate the review of research requests submitted to the district, and monitor approved studies.

• Provide support, consultations, and professional learning opportunities for topics related to educational

research, program evaluation, and data analysis; and

The Office of Program Evaluation is guided by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation's

Program Evaluation Standards and the American Evaluation Association's Guiding Principles for Evaluators.

Kristina Ayers Paul, Ph.D., is the Lower Merion School District’s Special Assistant to the Superintendent for

Program Evaluation. She can be contacted by email at [email protected].