1. Program Evaluationin Gifted Education Rebecca Mann EDPS 540

2. Underlying Assumptions • NAGC Standards for Programs for the Gifted and Talented • viable set of guidelines • Goals for evaluation process • School corporation should be instrumental in setting • Multiple perspectives • Expertise of a team of professionals needed • Credibility • Use multiple sources of data

3. Standards – Curriculum and Instruction • Need differentiated curriculum PreK-12 • Must have subject and grade skipping options • Continuum of curriculum options and instructional approaches • Flexible instructional pace

4. Standards – Program Administration • Qualified personnel to direct services • Integrated into general education program • Must include positive working relationships with constituency and advocacy groups • Necessary resources and materials must be provided

5. Standards – Program Design • Not a single program, but a continuum of services • Gifted must be equally funded • Flexible grouping to facilitate differentiated instruction • Must be able to adapt program

6. Standards - Evaluation • Must be purposeful • Must be efficient & economic • Must be conducted competently and ethically • Must result in written report

7. Standards – Social & Emotional • Must provide differentiated guidance efforts • Must provide career guidance services designed for unique needs • Must be provided affective curriculum • Underachieving GT must be served, not omitted

8. Standards – Professional Development • Must provide comprehensive staff development • Only qualified personnel should be involved in education of gifted • School personnel need support for efforts related to education of gifted • Educational staff must be given time and support to prepare and develop differentiated educational plans

9. Standards – Student ID • Comprehensive student nomination process • Instruments used must measure diverse abilities, strengths, talents, and needs • Must develop student assessment profile to help plan appropriate intervention • Must have provisions for informed consent, student retention, reassessment, exiting, and appeals

10. Evaluation Process • Identify significant audiences and interest groups • Collect data • Curriculum guides • Program brochures and documents • Evaluation questions • Existing identification and achievement data • Lesson plans • Review data

11. EvaluationProcess • School visits • Classroom observations • QUestionnaires • Interviews – with protocal • Parents • Students • Teachers • Administrators – building and district level • School Board

12. Evaluation Process • Data analysis • Report • Commendations • Issues, Concerns, and Problems • Recommendations

13. Common Pitfalls - Philosophy • Unclear, ambiguous • Based on outdated literature • Poorly written • Lack of community consensus on definition • Over-reliance on program’s history – protection of status quo

14. Common Pitfalls - Curriculum • Absence of curricular framework • Inconsistencies across grade levels • No scope and sequence within or across • Inconsistencies between program philosophy, definitions, and services • Lack of consistent challenge • Mismatch between written curricular framework and actual classroom practice

15. Common Pitfalls - Curriculum • Lack of trained teachers • No clear standards for assessment of student work • Expectations too low • Unrealistic expectation for products without instruction that leads to expected quality

16. Common Pitfalls – Program Design • Program design used to segregate or separate students • Design inconsistent with community values, beliefs, and attitudes about giftedness • Teachers and other stakeholders not fully educated about key components of program model and design

17. Common Pitfalls – Social & Emotional • Counseling perceived as remedial • Isolation of departments and administrators • Teachers expected to take on counselor role

18. Common Pitfalls - Identification • ID based on application process • Placement based on “available openings” rather than “needs basis” • Instruments not aligned with criteria for placement • Use of scores from tests without reliability and validity • Lack year-to-year consistency in ID process • Lack of management of data