PLANNING PROFESSIONAL LEARNING TO IMPROVE GIFTED EDUCATION

Rutgers Gifted Education Conference 2015

Lenore Cortina, Ed.D.

What are your biggest challenges?

Why is professional learning in Gifted Education needed?

Research shows that trained educators:• Show more support for gifted programs and work harder to

differentiate for gifted learners (Davidson, 1996)

• Provide differentiated content rather than more of the same or requiring more (Davidson, 1996; Hansen & Feldhusen ,1994)

• Use more effective instructional strategies that engage students (Davidson, 1996; Van Tassel Baska, Feng, Brown, and Bracken (2008)

• Give students time to pursue interests (Davidson, 1996)

• Used concept-based approaches that allowed students to study topics in-depth, used more appropriate pacing, offered more diverse learning experiences, asked higher-level questions (Hansen & Feldhusen ,1994)

What is the research evidence?

Most gifted students are served in a heterogeneous classroom for a majority of time.

Limited differentiation of instruction or curriculum occur in general education classrooms (Archambault et al., 1993; Westberg & Daoust, 2003)

Limited/no access to professional learning

Most general education teachers have limited or no pre-service coursework in gifted education and few opportunities for professional learning during their teaching tenure.(Archambault, Westberg, Brown, Hallmark, Emmons, & Zhang, 1993; Blackman, 1958; Chamberlain & Moore, 2006; Macguire, 2008; Mendoza, 2006; Reis, Gubbins, Briggs, Schreiber, Richards, Jacobs, Eckert, Renzulli, & Alexander, 2003)

www.mccsc.edu

Unrealistic perceptions of capacity

Teachers believe they differentiate for gifted students more than they actually do, according to principals and students.(Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002; Macguire, 2008; Moon, Callahan & Tomlinson,1995)

pfl.grad.ncsu.edu

Unintended consequences of federal and state policies

• Administrators reported pressure from federal policies (NCLB) to focus on the needs of struggling students (Mendoza, 2006; Moon, Brighton, Jarvis & Hall, 2007; Reis et al., 2003)

• Teachers report feeling pressure from administrators to focus instruction on struggling students (Macguire, 2008; Mendoza, 2006; Valli & Buese, 2007)

• Teachers report that the pressure to focus on non-proficient students makes it difficult to implement learned differentiation practices for gifted students (Scot, Callahan, and Urquhart, 2009; Westberg et al., 1993)

http://americansocietytoday.blogspot.com/

No endorsement or specific professional learning requirements in New Jersey

No federal or state mandates exist for teacher preparation or professional learning in gifted education for general education OR gifted education teachers in New Jersey.

34%

Funding

• Lower socio-economic and smaller schools are at a disadvantage in funding of gifted education (Baker, 2001; Baker & McIntyre, 2002; Baker & Friedman-Nimz, 2004)

• Funding is local and influenced by community values (Baker, 2001)

• There is often a lack of funding for professional development in gifted education (Van Tassel-Baska, 2006)

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/

Administrative Priorities & Pressures

• Administrators’ decisions are influenced by the daily demands of the job and not by research findings, scholars or professional developers (Marshall, 1992; McGough, 2003)

• School administrators’ behavior may not be consistent with espoused beliefs about gifted education (Barstow, 1981; Dowies, 1989)

• Administrators hold values, expectations and assumptions that influence their curricular and instructional decisions and the priorities they set for student need (Leithwood & Stager, 1989; Marshall, 1992; McGough, 2003; Moon et al., 1995; Reis et al,. 1993)

drpfconsults.com

What gets measured, gets done.

There is little direct supervision of differentiation in classrooms. (Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002; Macguire, 2008; Moon, Callahan & Tomlinson1995)

www.schoolimprovement.com

Shared responsibility

GT Teacher

Gen Ed Teacher

Special Area Teachers

Admin

Where do these ideas fit with your thinking about professional learning in your school or district?

psychologybenefits.org

Scale of PD required depends on:

• Needs of students• Existing capacity of teachers• Availability of trained gifted education personnel

• A shared will to improve gifted education• How does gifted education align to broader school or district goals?

• State of curriculum • Organizational structures

Student Needs

• Do your gifted students spend most of their instructional time in a heterogeneous classroom?

• What type of gifted programming do you provide for your gifted students (replacement or enrichment)?

• Is your district providing differentiated content, process and product for students K-12?

Teacher Capacity

• How much professional education have your teachers had in meeting the needs of advanced learners?

• Do you have a gifted expert in the building or district? If so, are you using that person as effectively as possible?

teach.com

What content is necessary to build teacher capacity?

• Understanding the academic and social/emotional characteristics and needs of gifted learners

• Curriculum Modification• Pacing• Concept based curriculum – “big ideas”• Raising the level of intellectual demand in content, process

and product• Providing choice

• Differentiation of Instruction• Flexible grouping strategies • Instructional strategies to support differentiated processes • Assessment strategies to support differentiation including pre-

assessment – (curriculum compacting)

Curriculum

• Is your curriculum based on concepts or big ideas so it is rich enough to engage advanced learners?

• Do your curriculum documents include guidance for meaningful differentiation for teachers?

• Do your teachers understand how to modify district curriculum for advanced learners?

• Are trained gifted education teachers included in curriculum writing sessions for all grade levels?

Depth & Complexity Sandra Kaplan

Organizational structures

• Are schedules, teaching assignments and prep/faculty meeting time organized to support professional learning?

• Does the culture support collaboration and peer observation? • Do administrators understand the need for professional learning in gifted

education?• Is differentiation for advanced learners an indicator in observations?

Professional Learning Structures

• Lesson Study • Critical Friends Groups• Professional Learning Communities• Coaching• Study Groups• Action Research • Consultation & Collaboration

Job embedded professional learning

• Embedded in work day• Ongoing and continuous learning• Engaged in problems of practice in the classroom• Solve problems and learn authentically• Focused on improving student learning

www.clipartpanda.com

Example: Lesson Study with Cluster Teachers

• 2nd – 5th grade cluster teachers • Meet for initial full day session: Characteristics and needs

of gifted students• Lesson Study Session 1 - Tiered activity• Lesson Study Session 2 - Choice menus/differentiated

learning stations• Lesson Study Session 3 - learning simulation (RAFT)• Lesson Study Session 4/5 - Independent research• Meet to debrief, reflect and set goals for next year

Possible topics for Action Research or Study Groups

• Exemplary Gifted Education programs• Evaluation of current district/school program• Curriculum design• Curriculum modification• Instructional differentiation

• Flexible grouping, pacing, choice, etc.

• Characteristics & needs of advanced learners• Academic• Social Emotional

Consultation & Collaboration

Direct Services only Direct & Indirect Services

Cost and time efficiency

• Schedule common planning time for teachers• Commit time scheduled for faculty meetings for focused

professional learning – PLCS, study groups, critical friends

• Support consultation and collaboration rather than using gifted education specialists for direct instruction

• Make organizational decisions (e.g. cluster grouping) that decrease numbers of teachers needing training

Start a professional learning plan for your school or district.

dottedlinecomm.com

Supporting professional learning• Support collaborative and job embedded PD by facilitating

scheduling – common planning time is essential. Allow for time to observe/work in classrooms. Do not allow organizational issues to get in the way of professional learning.

• Provide opportunities for teams of curriculum writers that include gifted education personnel to learn about curriculum development for gifted learners

• Seek out professional learning opportunities for all faculty and staff related to gifted education.

• Celebrate products of collaborative professional efforts.• Include differentiation for gifted students in supervisory and

observation protocols.

Rutgers Gifted Education Certificate Program

• The Gifted Child• The Social & Emotional Development of

Gifted Children• Curriculum & Instruction • Gifted Program Development • Clinical Placement & Practicum

References

• Archambault, F.X., Jr., Westberg, K.L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B.W., Emmons, C.L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph 93102). Storrs, CT. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

• Baker, B. D. (2001). Gifted children in the current policy and fiscal context of public education: A national snapshot and state-level equity analysis of Texas. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 23, 3. 229-250.

• Baker, B. D. & McIntire, J. (2002) Evaluation state funding for gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 25, 4, 173-79.• Baker, B.D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004). State policies and equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 1. Retrieved from ProQuest

Education Journals. • Barstow, P. (1981). Attitudes of board members and superintendents toward gifted and talented education programs in the fifty largest school districts of Los Angeles County, California, 1980-

1981. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 8124774).• Blackman, L.S. (1958). A study of survey courses on the exceptional child. Exceptional Children, 24, 194-97.• Chamberlin, S.A. & Moore, A. D. (2006) Cognizance of gifted education among elementary education professors from MCREL member states. Roeper Review, 29,49-54.• Davison, J. (1996). Meeting state mandates for gifted and talented: Iowa teacher preparation programs. Roeper Review, 19, 41-43.• Dowies, Thelma Lou Avant (1989).  The influence of myths and other factors on the attitudes of Texas principals toward mandated gifted and talented programs. (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 9015489).• Gentry, M., Rizza, M., & Owen, S. (2002) Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted

students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 145-155.• Hansen, J., & Feldhusen, J. (1994) Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38,115-121. • Leithwood K. & Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in principals’ problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 2,126-161.• Maguire, K. (2008) Gifted education: In-class differentiation and acceleration in Pennsylvania schools. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No.

AAT 3348582)• Marshall, C. (1992). School Administrators’ values: a focus on atypicals. Educational Administration Quarterly. 28, 3, 368-386.• McGough, D. J. (2003). Leaders as learners: An inquiry into the formation and transformation of principals’ professional practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 25, 4, 449-472. • Mendoza, C. (2006). Inside today’s classrooms: Teacher voices on No Child Left Behind and the education of gifted children. Roeper Review. 29,1, 28-32.• Moon, T., Tomlinson, C.A., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers. (Research Monograph

95124). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. • Moon, T., Brighton, C., Jarvis, J., & Hall, C., (2007). State standardized testing programs: Their effects on teachers and students (Research Monograph). Storrs, CT: The National Research

Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.• Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hebert., T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J., Rogers, J.B., & Smist, J.M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The

curriculum compacting study. (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. • Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Briggs, C., Schreiber, F. J., Richards, S., Jacobs, S., Eckert, R.D., Renzulli, J. S., Alexander, M. (2003) Reading instruction for talented readers: Few opportunities for

continuous progress. (Research Monograph 03184). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. • Scot, T.P., Callahan, C.M., & Urquhart, J. (2009). Paint-by-number teachers and cookie-cutter students: The unintended effects of high-stakes testing on the education of gifted students. Roeper

Review, 31, 1, 40-53.• Valli, L. & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal. 44, 3, 519-559.• Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. The Gifted Child Quarterly. 50, 3, 199-

211.• Van Tassel-Baska, J.,Feng, A.X., Brown, E., & Bracken, B., et al. (2008). A study of differentiated instructional change over 3 years. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 4, 297-313.