K-8 Gifted Program Quality Review - Pennsbury School District

K-8 Gifted Program
Quality Review
February 6, 7 and 8, 2013
Facilitated by:

To the Pennsbury School District:
March 2013
The K-8 Gifted Program Quality Review Team would like to thank and commend those who
participated in the Pennsbury School District review process. We greatly appreciate the positive
and professional attitude displayed by school staff and administration.
The visiting team found the administration, teachers, staff, students and parents to be most
cooperative and willing to discuss all aspects of Pennsbury’s gifted programs. Graciousness,
openness and hospitality were evident throughout the three-day visit, making our jobs much
easier and allowing us to collect useful information.
Over the course of one hundred and nineteen individual and group interviews and classroom
observations, the team collected information in a variety of areas and provided detailed answers
to specific questions, along with overall program strengths, needs and recommendations. Team
members identified program needs and made practical recommendations by applying their
experience in the field to the information available, realizing that local conditions will determine
local action.
Team members were pleased to have had the experiences offered by this process. We wish you
continued success in what is probably the most significant activity for today and tomorrow –
educating our children.
The Evaluation Team
2

Introduction
Overall Impressions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
K-8 Gifted Program Quality Review Report
Question 1: Screening and Identification of Gifted Students
Questions and Findings
Strengths, Needs and Recommendations
Question 2: Meeting the Individual Needs of Gifted Students
Questions and Findings
Strengths, Needs and Recommendations
Question 3: Staff Development
Questions and Findings
Strengths, Needs and Recommendations
Question 4: Best Practices, Technology and Resources
Questions and Findings
Strengths, Needs and Recommendations
Question 5: Goals Objectives, Philosophy and Vision
Questions and Findings
Strengths, Needs and Recommendations
Question 6: Coordination and Communication
Questions and Findings
Strengths, Needs and Recommendations
Page
3

Pennsbury School District
K-8 Gifted Program Quality Review
February 6, 7 and 8, 2013
Prepared by the Bucks County Schools Intermediate Unit #22
The Intermediate Unit Quality Review Process provides a thorough examination of school
programs and services by an experienced team of educators and specialists. Through this
process, the Intermediate Unit and Bucks County school districts provide continuity and
direction for each review. The participating districts currently support the process through
released time of their staff to participate. The Bucks County Programs and Services Advisory
Council has been vital in scheduling and providing leadership for this process. Additional
information is available from the Programs and Services Division of the Bucks County
Intermediate Unit.
This final report is submitted by:
Lauren Almlof Bucks County Technical High School
Mel Benson Council Rock School District
Linda Block-Love Gifted Consultant
Allison Byruch Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22
Elizabeth Glaum-Lathbury Morrisville School District
Geeta Heble Neshaminy School District
Andrea Hiralall Bensalem School District
Daneyelle Jordan Council Rock School District
Eve LaPier Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22
*James LoGiudice Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22
*Michael Masko Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22
John Nolen Unionville-Chadds Ford School District
Michael Scancella Centennial School District
Margaret Simpson Council Rock School District
Lorraine Stieber Centennial School District
*Co-Chairpersons
4

Bucks County Intermediate Unit
Pennsbury Gifted Program Quality Review
February 6, 7 and 8, 2013
Overall Strengths
• The Pennsbury School District leadership team deserves praise for initiating and participating
in a comprehensive review of gifted education, K-8. This comprehensive review is
recognized as a key and important step toward continued programing improvement for
students who are gifted, and for district compliance with Chapter 16 of the Pennsylvania
School Code.
• From our many interviews with teachers, administrators, other staff, and students, and from
our observations of instruction in each of the elementary and middle schools, it is clearly
evident that the Pennsbury School District strives to make real the high standards set by the
school district mission statement.
• The teachers of the gifted deserve special recognition for the high level of academic and
creative instructional activities they use to challenge students. Their dedication, and
enthusiasm and skills for engaging students, evidence a rich professional understanding about
the needs of the gifted. Their advocacy for their students is apparent across all schools.
• The Pennsbury School District board and administration are commended for staffing each
school with gifted resource teachers. Class size in each school is in compliance with Chapter
16 regulations.
• Middle school mathematics and language arts classes provide rigor and challenge at an
advanced level.
• Project-centered learning in the elementary Mentally Gifted program and the middle school
Seminar provides students with a variety of ways to apply their learning and develop their
creative, collaborative, and social skills.
• Parents are invested and committed to quality education for the gifted. They value many of
the school district’s existing learning provisions for challenging their children, and are
supportive of increased efforts to differentiate instruction.
• The Talent Pool classes provide the opportunity and significant time for both gifted and
advanced students to learn and collaborate with their peers.
• The Seminar Program provides gifted students with a chance to learn and collaborate with
their peers. Contact, in many instances, with the same seminar teacher in grades 6, 7, and 8
allows teachers to develop greater insight about their students, and to use this knowledge to
plan more effectively for instruction.
5

Question #1: Screening and Identification of Gifted Students
To what extent are screening, identification and placement procedures for the gifted
adhering to Chapter 16 Regulations and requirements?
Narrative Findings
In light of PDE Chapter 16 revisions and the changing requirements for screening and
identification of gifted students, the Pennsbury School District has taken steps over the past years,
to bring its procedures in compliance with these regulations. At present, there is an updated
elementary level Gifted Multiple Criteria Assessment matrix in place, the GMCA. This matrix
assesses all elementary students, as a first step, for screening and identifying potentially gifted
students by using standardized achievement data from two tests: CogAT and the ITBS. These
tests are administered at the end of 2 nd grade. The review committee found no universal
screening procedure or assessment in place for locating K-2 nd grade gifted students.
The evaluation team found some inconsistency among the elementary schools in the use of
criteria for selection of students to be screened. In addition, the agreed on total points of the
matrix set as the prerequisite for eligibility as a mentally gifted student are not consistently
followed. These decisions or exceptions do not appear to be ordinarily made by the Gifted
Multidisciplinary Team [GMDT].
For the next phase of the screening and identification process, the School District uses several
assessments, screening instruments, teacher and parent rating forms, an abbreviated version of
the Chuska Rates of Acquisition and Retention form, and the WISC-IV. The five multiple
criteria, other than I.Q., as described and required in Chapter 16, do not seem to play a large role
towards enlarging the scope of eligible students in need of a Gifted Individualized Education
Plan (GIEP). Such focus would enhance the likelihood of reducing the disparity of numbers of
students identified as gifted between schools with different socio-economic populations.
Teachers and other staff are not always clear or conversant with the District screening and
identification procedures. They are unsure about what to tell parents regarding how to initiate a
request for gifted education placement, or what role parents play in this process. In many cases,
classroom teachers do not appear to have a firm understanding of what characterizes academic
giftedness and its learning implications. Teachers and principals expressed interest in learning
more about the gifted child’s social, emotional, and intellectual behaviors, and how to meet these
student’s unique needs in their classrooms.
Parents voice concern, and note lack of communication about the District’s procedures and
requirements for screening, identification, and decision criteria for determining final placement.
They are confused about the GIEP process; their role in student placement; and to what extent
student assessment data is considered or used for instruction across content areas. Also, of note
from parents’ comments, is that parents and their children are not always informed beforehand
regarding the day or time the WISC-IV assessment will be administered.
6

Need #1:
To improve the screening, identification, and placement procedures to align with Chapter
16 requirements.
Recommendations:
1. Educate regular classroom teachers in all schools about the characteristics of gifted
learners, and procedures for referral and evaluation for student placement.
2. Develop information for a pamphlet, brochure, and/or location on the district website,
that clearly describes the screening and identification process. Once such a document has
been developed, it is important that it be distributed to regular education teachers, gifted
support teachers, building administrators, guidance counselors, psychologists, and parents.
3. Take steps to improve and assure that the Chapter 16 regulations for identification for
mentally gifted students are being met as prescribed in these regulations and as explained
in more detail in the PDE Guidelines. (Chapter §16.21, 16.22, 16.23)
4. Review various universal screening instruments and assessments that can be used at K-2
grade levels to assist with student identification and placement in programs for the gifted
as early a kindergarten, and before entering third grade.
5. Select an alternative screening measure(s) (e.g., KBIT-2) to ensure that students can be
screened kindergarten through 12 th grade, as set forth by Chapter 16.
6. Increase the scope of the Gifted Multidisciplinary Team to include data and planning
information from parents, one or more of the student’s current teachers, the gifted support
teacher, and the school psychologist. Use the GMDT process and information to assure
that comprehensive data has been collected about the student. This provides a wide range
of useful data to indicate academic instructional levels and will help to develop
comprehensive, rather than one-size-fits-all GIEPs.
7. As a first step in moving in the direction of identifying and placing students before the
beginning of or during the 3 rd grade, administer the CogAT early in the 2 nd grade and
develop a Gifted Written Report (GWR) in a more timely fashion.
8. Give consideration to use of an individually administered standardized achievement test
(e.g., WIAT-III, WJ-III NU ACH) in the areas of reading, mathematics, and written
language as part of the screening/evaluation process. This will assist in cases in which
CogAT data is not available or is outdated.
9. Elicit an array of data from professionals working with students being screened and
evaluated. This data should include, but not be limited to, evidence-based anecdotal
observations and assessment findings.
7

10. As part of the Gifted Multidisciplinary Evaluation process, and the Child Study meeting,
put in place procedures to increase attention on finding eligible students whose gifted
abilities may be masked by hidden factors. Refer to Chapter 16 Multiple Criteria
Identification Criteria other than achievement rate and I.Q. score. Refer specifically to
Multiple Criteria (e)(5), Intervening Factors Masking Giftedness:
Documented, observed, validated or assessed evidence that
intervening factors such as English as a second language, learning
disability, physical impairment, emotional disability, gender or
race bias, or socio/cultural deprivation are masking gifted abilities.
Need #2:
To improve and increase the use of screening and assessment data for GIEP development
and instructional delivery.
Recommendations:
1. Identify and specify educational strengths, needs and recommendations based on student
data in each Gifted Written Report [GWR] to drive gifted programming.
2. Include English Language Learners [ELLs] and low Socio-Economic Status [SES]
variables in GMDT (i.e. Child Study) reviews of students eligible for screening and
evaluation.
3. On a case by case basis, and when other evidence indicates that the child may be gifted,
consider modifying the points required for gifted identification in schools that have lower
populations of gifted students due to ELLs or low SES.
4. Take steps to ensure that the GIEP of each student reflects individual needs and strengths,
and that the Present Levels of Educational Performance [PLEP] to determine the needs
are based on multiple measures of assessment and other profile data. Other data should
include individual achievement scores, grades, curriculum based assessment results,
interest surveys, evidence of student work, and the results from I.Q. psychologist reports.
The goals and outcomes from these measures and assessments must be ongoing, kept
current, and be the basis for the GIEP annual goals and short-term outcomes. The
specially designed instruction that flows from this data includes modification to the
general curriculum, and must be delivered through both acceleration and enrichment.
8

Question #2: Meeting the Individual Needs of Gifted Students
To what extent does the GIEP, and the district’s instruction and programming
meet the identified needs of each gifted student?
Narrative Findings: GIEP
Through an extensive review of current student GIEPs from all elementary and middle schools,
conducting several parent, student, staff interviews, and from visits to all elementary and middle
schools, the program review team notes the following regarding the extent to which instruction
meets the needs of each identified gifted student:
• GIEPs are frequently generic; they describe what is offered by the MG Program, rather
than the identified needs of the individual students.
• Required individuals are frequently absent from GIEP team meetings (e.g., regular
education teachers, LEA representative, school psychologist).
• PLEPs are not sufficient to inform the identification of individual academic
strengths/needs and the specially designed instruction necessary for meaningful
educational benefit. It was noted, in particular, that present instructional levels for major
academic areas are not assessed.
• The GIEPs often fail to include current levels of achievement and mastery, what students
already know, and how this vital information can be used to differentiate and accelerate
instruction in both the MG program and through the general education curriculum.
• The Annual Goals and Short-Term Learning Outcomes, with their associated objective
criteria and assessment procedures, are general and insufficient to guide either the
development of specially designed instruction or the assessment of student progress.
Specific goals related to academic content or skills beyond those listed as the targets of
the “Mentally Gifted Program” are notably missing. Furthermore, the Annual
Goals/Short-Term Learning Outcomes are generally not measurable. The objective
criteria and assessment procedures associated with these targets are typically vague
and/or subjective.
• The Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) section listed in the vast majority of GIEPs
reviewed does not include specially designed instruction or modifications/adaptations of
the regular education curriculum. Examples of typical SDI from the District’s GIEPs
include: “Encouraged to establish personal goals and work towards them,” “Encouraged
to self-extend,” and “Will be encouraged to use problem-solving strategies and decisionmaking
skills to help his group.”
• General education teachers report that, although they have identified students in their
classes, they are not aware of what is included in the GIEP, nor have they been included
in GIEP development.
9

Narrative Findings: Design and Delivery of Instruction
• In the elementary schools, MG programming is scheduled exclusively during the “writing
block;” many students, parents, and educators believe this is extremely limiting. Some of
the teachers of the gifted, however, were able and willing to describe how they believe
writing can be an entry point for learning about many subjects, and for all student
acquiring both basic and advanced thinking skills. However, many general education
teachers, students, and parents expressed concern that not all students benefit from the
focus in this area and miss opportunities for extended learning in other subjects.
• Cluster grouping of gifted students does not occur at the elementary level. Both MG
Teachers and math specialists report that if this were to happen they could more readily
push-in to meet the students’ needs.
• Many students and parents reported that the elimination of the elementary school
Advanced Math Program (AMP) has resulted in students’ math needs not being met.
Many students have stated that the current delivery of math instruction is “too repetitive.”
• A significant proportion of elementary MG students report that there is quite a bit of
repetition in subjects beyond math, either due to the fact that they “learn quickly” or
because they have been exposed to material on that topic in MG class, or outside of
school.
• While many elementary general education teachers and administrators report that
differentiation occurs consistently in the classrooms, comments from students, parents,
and a number of classroom observations during this evaluation, indicate that this is not
happening as frequently as supposed. Many elementary school students report being
unchallenged across the content areas; in middle school this applies primarily to science
and social studies classes.
• In the middle schools, delivery of targeted gifted services is through “Seminar,” which is
offered to each student for forty-five days during the school year. Gifted students also
participate in full-year “Talent Pool” English classes, which include both identified gifted
and high-potential students. No gifted or honors programming in Science or Social
Studies is offered.
• It was reported that in the past gifted support teachers would assist general education
content instructors in compacting the Science and Social Studies curricula. Since this
support no longer occurs, compacting is now done infrequently and not as often as
needed for the benefit of some students.
10

Need #1:
To bring GIEPs into compliance with Chapter 16.
Recommendations:
1. Provide training in Chapter 16 requirements and the crafting of actionable, meaningful
GIEPs for all involved in the development of GIEPs, including teachers of the gifted,
school and district leaders, and regular education teachers, where appropriate.
2. Ensure that the present education levels (PLEP) section of each GIEP is sufficiently
detailed to guide creation of the subsequent sections of the GIEP. Develop a districtwide
protocol or structure that allows student assessment and achievement level data to
be the foundation for differentiating instruction in all core academic areas.
3. As new GIEPs are developed, and as current GIEPs are revised, include Annual
Goals/Short-term Learning Outcomes that are specific, measurable, identify targets in
academic areas as needed, and that flow from students’ individual areas of strength.
4. Increase the amount and extent of specially designed instruction taking place in the
regular education curriculum, either through enrichment or acceleration. To accomplish
this, bring gifted support and general education teachers together to develop a range of
options for SDI that can apply to various subject areas.
Need #2:
To challenge students in all their classes and in all academic areas.
Recommendations:
1. Review and reconsider the effectiveness of the present elementary level MG
program as offered during the “writing block.” What are the most flexible options
for meeting a variety of GIEP needs? Explore the option of delivery of the MG
program through the reading skills block. A literature and reading focus would
broaden the scope of content, concepts, topics and special interests that could be
explored and used for in-­‐depth investigation. This type of extended “humanities”
focus lends itself to substantial inter-­‐disciplinary exploration and realization of a
broad range of GIEP outcomes.
2. Explore how to increase the time and levels of support the teachers of the gifted at
all grade levels could provide to regular education teachers. This initiative should
include steps that allow the gifted support teacher to collaborate with other
teachers in teams, to frame high-­‐level instruction, to coordinate GIEP
implementation, and even demonstrate exemplary instructional techniques that
model challenging learning for the gifted. Rely on the support of the teachers of the
gifted to prepare for the significant implications that the adoption of the Common
11

Core State Standards (CCSS) will have for all teachers and in every classroom. The
CCSS call for general education teachers to recognize and address student learning
differences, and incorporate rigorous content and application of knowledge through
higher-­‐order thinking skills.
3. Review district procedures and practices regarding cluster grouping of gifted
students in the elementary schools. Cluster grouping will increase the likelihood of
a teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction for these students. The path to success
for implementing this model assumes the clarification and definition of the roles of
both the cluster classroom teacher and those of the gifted support teacher. This
also involves making explicit the instructional skills these teachers should possess,
and also enacting a plan to develop teacher expertise in these skills, where needed.
4. Continue to examine, and then take steps to increase, the level of mathematics
challenge for gifted and advanced students at the elementary grade levels. Chapter
16 requires the school district to provide both the options of acceleration and
enrichment for students whose math achievement and performance levels are
beyond present course or grade level. The district should consider or re-­‐consider a
range of mathematics program options, including ones where students who have
mastered mathematics skills and concepts are grouped together to learn at a faster
pace and in more depth.
5. Investigate student scheduling designs that might extend the current middle school
MG seminar beyond its current 45 day cycle, so that students are grouped with
intellectual peers for a significant part of the instructional day throughout the entire
school year. Also take steps to determine if students can participate in the MG
seminar without forfeiting participation in elective programs that are available to
other students.
12

Question 3: Staff Development
Narrative Findings
How is staff oriented to the nature of gifted students
and appropriate instructional strategies?
Teachers and school leaders indicated that there have not been recent staff development offerings
or support related to meeting the needs of the gifted and how to increase challenge and
differentiation for these students in the classroom. Staff development, as it relates to gifted
services, has not been a school district priority. At elementary, middle, and high school levels,
newly appointed special education supervisors stated they did not have sufficient knowledge of
Chapter 16 regulations for gifted education. Regular education and gifted support teachers
reported that they had little or no training in writing, reading and implementing GIEPs.
Additionally, teachers expressed the following concerns: a lack of knowledge of guidelines for
conducting GIEP meetings, and of the Chapter 16 compliance details. There are few or no
opportunities for collaboration among teachers and support about how to implement
differentiation practices for gifted students. Many students reported feeling bored and neglected
in regular education classes. One student said, “I am invisible in my regular class.”
Need 1:
To develop expertise among all professional staff on a regular and ongoing basis in
Chapter 16 regulations, the GIEP process, the learning needs of the gifted, what
characterizes their intellectual behavior, and how to meet the instructional needs of the
gifted.
Recommendations:
1. Plan for professional development about the Chapter 16 Gifted Education PDE
regulations and Chapter 4 Guidelines, as the school district reviews its present staff
development offerings and plans for increased professional development and support.
Chapter 16 regulations require that each school district provide in-service training to
gifted support and regular classroom teachers, principals, administrators and support staff
persons responsible for gifted education. Chapter 4 Strategic Planning Guidelines specify
that school districts “must include a description of their efforts for professional
development and continuing education of all school district staff, which would include
teachers of mentally gifted.” (PDE Guidelines, 2010)
2. Identify and select trainers who are knowledgeable and have a high level of expertise.
3. Provide staff development to all teachers about the characteristics of the gifted student,
their unique learning styles, understandings about the myths and realities of theses
students, and a brief overview of examples of high level differentiation instruction.
13

4. Provide support and detail to staff about the collaborative process of GIEP development
and implementation.
5. Examine how to use the talents and know-how of Pennsbury’s experienced teachers of
the gifted as resource persons for in-service workshops, such as the learning styles and
needs of the gifted child; implementing GIEPs collaboratively in regular classrooms; and
how to differentiate instruction related to core content and standards. These experienced
and knowledgeable teachers of the gifted should also be called on to model lessons that
address both enrichment and acceleration. Provide time for them to plan and deliver these
lessons with other teachers as a team effort.
6. Use Faculty Meetings as one of several opportunities to provide targeted and meaningful
staff development on gifted education. A noteworthy first step in staff development for
all regular education teachers is an introductory session (perhaps during a monthly
faculty meeting) about “Who are the Gifted: Myths and Realities.”
7. Rely on established and successful frameworks and resources for staff development and
best practices, including those available from the National Association for Gifted
Children (NAGC), the Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Education (PAGE), the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Learning Forward
(the international nonprofit association of learning educators), and Understanding by
Design (UBD).
8. Develop and implement a module in the new teacher induction program that provides a
common foundation for new teachers to support and contribute to gifted education in
their schools.
Need 2:
To provide leadership, training and mentoring to gifted support teachers
Recommendations:
1. Identify (an) individual(s) who will develop and conduct training for gifted support
teachers.
2. Develop a professional growth program to help gifted support teachers implement
Chapter 16 regulations and the GIEP process.
3. Provide time for the gifted support teachers to collaborate district-wide on an ongoing,
regular basis.
14

Narrative Findings
Question 4: Best Practices, Technology and Resources
To what extent does instruction of the gifted include the use of:
differentiated instruction, varied resources, and technology?
“We have the same perspective, the same way of thinking,” said students when discussing being
grouped with like-minded kids. Parents and students alike praise many of the best practices used
in the program for the gifted at Pennsbury School District. Consistency throughout elementary
and middle school proved to be an important factor in regards to student case management.
Students report feeling more secure and being allowed to “think out of the box” in small classes
with their peers. In schools with few identified gifted students, the Talent Pool enhances the
program. Some gifted students at the elementary level report that the use of yearlong themes
determined by the school allows for high interest projects and activities. Students also report
being challenged with project-based work within the regular education classrooms.
On the other hand, parents, students, and teachers report disappointment with a lack of a
challenging elementary level math curriculum for gifted students. Parents believe teachers
should use strategies based on multiple intelligences. They view the existing pull out approach
as a model where knowledgeable teachers meet the needs of the gifted, at least during part of the
school day. Students reported a lack of challenge in the science and social studies classes at the
middle school level.
Parents and students expressed disappointment in the availability of technology as a whole.
Incompatibility of home versus school programs and equipment causes frustration and hinders
excellence in work. The inability to consistently access technology impedes the students’ ability
to complete tasks. Students also report a lack of reference materials in the classroom.
Technology applications and hardware are inconsistent throughout the district due to disparities
in funding. At the elementary level, PTO funding supplements district budgeting for technology.
Therefore, schools with less PTO funding do not receive new and updated equipment. Middle
school technology is reportedly antiquated. As an equity issue, teachers show frustration that
iPads are available for Special Education students, but not for the gifted students.
Teachers report frustration with technology availability. Research into new programs must be
done on their own time, often using personal resources, time, and money. District officials
report that once a program is identified, teachers can request these programs to be supplied by
the district. The district then looks into the request and complies if possible.
15

Need #1
To provide increased challenge and pacing opportunities in the area of mathematics for the
gifted students at the elementary level.
Recommendation:
Investigate options that provide opportunities for higher-level mathematics for gifted
students at the elementary level. For example, accelerated, compacted, or pull-out
programs. Please refer to Question 2, Need 2, Recommendation 4, on p. 9.
Need #2
To challenge gifted students in all content areas throughout the school year in the
middle school setting.
Recommendations:
1. Review the role and responsibilities of the gifted support seminar teachers in the
middle schools in order for these knowledgeable resource people to collaborate with
other teachers and teams to develop model and tiered lessons, demonstrate high level
and creative problem solving activities, and arrange for flexible grouping of both
gifted and advanced level students. This assumes they will have increased time to do
this planning and to find the resources needed to assist subject area teachers to
differentiate and extend learning beyond prescribed curriculum.
2. Investigate options that provide enrichment opportunities for higher level science and
social studies for gifted students at the middle school level, similar to those taking
place at present in the math and language arts areas.
3. In an attempt to assess the level of academic rigor and challenge in all of the core
middle school content areas, individual teachers, grade level teams, and school
leaders should examine to what extent the following are happening in classrooms:
• Are the content and curriculum substantive, presented in a conceptual, rather
than a strictly factual manner, and allow for rich extensions and connections to
other learning and skills?
• Are students asked to demonstrate their learning through intellectually
demanding assessments and performances, ones that call for complex, creative
thinking and problem solving – not simply fill in the bubble or blank tests?
• Do instruction and assignments provide for students of high ability, or those who
have already mastered course content understandings, to move at a faster and
different pace, and allow for in-depth topic examination and projects?
• To what extent is classroom instruction mainly or only teacher-centered, where
little or minimal high-level student-directed and small group engagement is
taking place?
16

Need #3
To use technology to support and enhance delivery of services to gifted students.
Recommendations:
1. Explore how technology can be used to document student growth through electronic
portfolios. A portfolio of a student’s growth across time can provide an invaluable record
of a student’s current skills and as a reflective means for both formative and summative
assessment. Moreover, such a record could be part of determining changing present
education levels for GIEP implementation as the student moves through different content
and grade levels.
2. Make greater use of the Internet to provide a basis for other types of learning and
productivity, ones that are most useful and appropriate for gifted students. The Internet
provides at least five categories for challenging learning. These are as a: mentoring
resource; interactive learning tool; publishing and communication tool; mentoring
provider; and online class support and extension platform. Using this technology to its
fullest extent is an excellent way to develop significant and creative instructional
differentiation.
3. Make available to both the gifted support and general classroom teachers the necessary
computer hardware and software to implement extensive technology-based learning.
Such implementation also requires ongoing staff development and technical support.
Need #4
To provide a minimum level of instructional technology resources district-wide.
Recommendations:
1. Define a baseline of equitable and acceptable technology at all schools.
2. Establish a common database of resources, preferably online, available to all staff and
parents.
3. Assess inventory and develop a calendar for updating the inventory of instructional
hardware and software.
17

Narrative Findings
Question #5: Goals, Objectives, Philosophy and Vision
What is the nature of the gifted program?
What are the plan, goals, objectives, philosophy and vision?
The School District has developed a Gifted Program Philosophy Statement as part of its
elementary gifted program overview and curriculum. This statement is clearly connected to both
the research about effective programming for the gifted and PDE Chapter 16 Regulations. In part
it states:
…Students identified as Gifted need to participate in differentiated
programs that provide a number of specific features: a specific block
of time when students are together to interact with others at a
comparable level; an opportunity to delve in-depth into questions,
subjects, and issues; and a flexible environment to accommodate
high intellectual ability levels and affective needs.
In 2006 the Pennsbury School District also developed five Gifted Program General Goals. These
are broad in their scope, reflect the best in current practice for gifted education instruction and
curriculum development, and, most importantly, provide the basis for a range of programming
and GIEP implementation options. These are:
• Develop higher order thinking skills.
• Promote within each student an awareness of his or her unique abilities.
• Increase the variety and quality of student products.
• Encourage greater student responsibility and involvement in the school and community.
• Provide students with higher level and specially designed instruction based on the
assessed needs and abilities of individual students.
Student learning goals for the middle school seminar include:
• Acquire a broad base of knowledge.
• Evolve as complex thinkers.
• Become self-directed learners.
• Communicate effectively.
• Be informed and responsible citizens.
• Work collaboratively.
• Produce quality products.
However, when speaking to gifted support teachers, curriculum directors, principals, classroom
teachers, parents, and others, it is apparent that there is little or no awareness of these mission
and goal statements, and their documentation. The value of these statements certainly lies in
18

their words and intentions, but they evidently do not serve as the driving force for best defining
and framing Pennsbury’s gifted education program.
Within the schools, the evaluation team witnessed the work of and interviewed teachers of the
gifted, Math Specialists, and Reading Specialists who work closely with gifted students and with
the regular education teachers to support students. Despite the enthusiasm and collegiality of the
staff, there seemed to be a lack of dissemination and common understanding of the philosophy,
goals, and vision of the gifted program. When speaking to gifted support teachers, coordinators,
specialists, and classroom teachers, there is limited or no awareness of the underlying principles
or expectations that should drive or characterize challenging instruction and learning for the
gifted. In general parents, staff, and students interviewed expressed frustration at the lack of
communication of a common, overarching vision and plan.
At the moment there is great interest in and receptivity to improving the quality of the District’s
programming for the gifted. Administrators, curriculum leaders, gifted support staff, many
regular classroom teachers, and, most certainly parents, voice readiness to attend to the needs of
the gifted, their desire for overall program direction and leadership, and agreement that focus and
purpose for this program be made clear, K-12.
The district’s Gifted Program Mission Statement is an excellent and encompassing one, and
captures the essence of what a school district’s philosophy and vision should be for challenging
its gifted students. It says:
Our mission is to provide differentiated educational opportunities
that support and challenge the unique abilities and intellectual
potential of students as identified as intellectually gifted, in
accordance with PDE Chapter 16 requirements.
What a useful and rich expression of what the District will do for its gifted students! These
words should be used as the touchstone for further development of overarching goals, objectives,
philosophy, and vision.
Need #1
To review and revise the goals, objectives, philosophy, and vision of the Gifted Program
and share it with administration, staff, parents, and students.
Recommendations:
1. Convene a committee of stakeholders, including parents, whose purpose is to revisit the
existing philosophy and goals of the district, and in so doing, reaffirm or identify a vision
and underlying set of agreed upon goals and expectations.
2. Once the vision, goals, and objectives of the program have been defined, communicate
them to all administration, teaching and support staff, and the community. The roles and
19

esponsibilities of all involved in the dissemination and implementation of the program
should be clearly delineated.
3. Ensure that there is vertical articulation of curriculum, program objectives, and the GIEP
outcomes. These need to be directly related to the District’s gifted program plan and
goals, and serve as integral parts of both curriculum development and challenging
instructional implementation.
Need #2:
To provide district-wide leadership and coordination for all aspects of programming for
the gifted.
Recommendations:
1. Consider designating a gifted leadership position at the district level dedicated to
directing and overseeing the gifted program, its staff, and its functions. This position
would establish methods and procedures for continued review and renewal of the
program, use and implementation of the plan vertically and horizontally, and ensure
coordination through curriculum, instruction, and evaluation. The person in the
leadership role for programming for gifted should be knowledgeable about
curriculum and instruction for the gifted, have interpersonal and leadership skills,
be informed about special and regular education curriculum and instruction
initiatives, and know how to hold both teachers and students accountable.
This person should be responsible for:
• Developing criteria for selecting and employing teachers of the gifted.
• Developing gifted support teacher job responsibilities. These descriptions should state
the role and responsibilities for gifted support teachers at each of the different grade
or building levels. These expectations will not only assist when selecting and hiring
teachers of the gifted, but will also be invaluable when letting regular education
teachers know the role these support people play, vis-à-vis regular education and
differentiation for the gifted. In addition, once the role and responsibilities of the
gifted support teachers are defined, they, supervisors, and principals will have some
standards for accountability.
• Overseeing an articulated K-12 gifted program with a clear mission statement, goals,
and objectives; ensuring the continued program review and revision over time;
working with regular and gifted education staff to assure delivery of differentiated
instruction.
• Planning, organizing, directing and evaluating staff development opportunities for all
staff involved in gifted education.
20

• Monitoring procedures for screening, identification and GIEP development and
implementation.
• Keeping abreast of legislative and Chapter 16 legal issues relevant to gifted education.
• Increasing supervisory efforts, and assessing gifted program implementation at the
classroom, school, and district levels.
• Maintaining communication about the gifted program with parents and staff on a
regular basis through newsletters, web pages, parent meetings, board meetings, and
timely program updates.
2. Convene an advisory committee of parents, administrators, coordinators, and teachers of
the Gifted to meet on an on-going, regular basis to ensure the continued improvement,
implementation, and dissemination of the gifted program framework.
Need #3:
To ensure a common understanding of PDE Chapter 16 and state regulations regarding the
education of the Gifted.
Recommendation:
Use Chapter 16 as a reference and guide in developing the gifted program’s goals and
objectives. In doing this make sure that newsletters, staff development, and team
meetings serve to make stakeholders aware of the implications of Chapter 16.
21

Narrative Findings
Question #6: Coordination and Communication
To what extent is there coordination and communication
within and about the gifted program?
Throughout the series of observations and interviews the evaluation team found that the teachers
of the gifted are passionate about their roles and about supporting the goals of the gifted
educational program. These teachers foster close, personal connections with their students and
are creative in their implementation of the vision of the gifted program. However, regular
education teachers and other staff expressed that they were unaware of the vision, philosophy,
goals, and student learning objectives of the gifted education program. Administrators of the
gifted program expressed concern that there was limited time available to prepare and train
themselves and staff specifically in relation to Chapter 16 and gifted programming. The
evaluation team did not find evidence of a systematic plan for the coordination and
communication of the gifted program vision, philosophy, and objectives.
General education teachers indicated that the students in their classrooms who need acceleration
are those who complete the most work, stay on task, and show good work ethic. These classroom
teachers did not demonstrate a complete understanding of the characteristics of gifted students or
how to identify these students in their classrooms. In addition, very few teacher-driven referrals
for gifted screening are initiated beyond 2 nd grade, which could be causing an underidentification
of gifted students in later grades. Sometimes, it was evident that teachers were
frustrated with the lack of resources in terms of time and staff to appropriately differentiate
instruction for and challenge gifted students. As a consequence, teachers provide these students
with extra work rather than depth of work. Therefore, a better understanding of what constitutes
giftedness may help to inform differentiation of instruction.
In our observations and interviews, teachers of the gifted expressed concern about a lack of
oversight and supervision regarding the implementation of the gifted program. Specific concerns
included the lack of centralized structure responsible for oversight, clarification, coordination,
effective communication and implementation of the program. The minimal opportunities for
interaction between teachers of the gifted across buildings and levels are another concern.
Provision of time and opportunity for these interactions would allow teachers of the gifted to
share ideas regarding instruction and curriculum, provide time for mentoring and coaching for
new teachers, and possibly include training in writing GIEPs.
Observations indicated that there was ample informal communication between teachers of the
gifted and regular education teachers regarding the progress and performance of gifted students.
However, there was no evidence of a formal system of communication between these teachers.
Teachers of the gifted do not have the time in their schedules to attend professional learning
community or grade level team meetings to exchange information and assessment data on
students. In addition, there is little written input from regular education teachers in the GIEP.
Most GIEP goals seemed to be developed in isolation and appeared unrelated to classroom
22

performance and expectations. Along with this, it was apparent that in many instances regular
education teachers did not attend GIEP meetings. Teachers of gifted also noted that there is a
lack of formal progress monitoring of the GIEP goals.
Parents in large numbers attended three focus group interview meetings, whose purpose was to
gather information about their gifted education concerns, hear praise for what is working well,
and listen to a wide range of suggestions for change and improvement. The review team leaders
also received emails from parents who took time to respond to the six program review questions.
Parent comment and feedback include the following:
• Praise for the gifted support team teachers at the elementary and middle school levels,
and the enthusiasm and excitement their children have for the classes these teachers offer.
• Students are not receiving adequate challenge and differentiated instruction in the regular
classroom and several content areas. The pace in these classes is repetitive, and students
are often spending time on learning and skills they already have mastered.
• There appears to be little or no communication and sharing of information about the
activities taking place in the gifted support classes and instruction in the general
classroom.
• Regular classroom teachers are usually not included in the GIEP development and
implementation. Many times, parents claimed, the teachers are not aware of those
students who have GIEPs, and of what role they play or should play for differentiation of
instruction.
• In general, more attention and focus should be given to helping gifted kids with their
social and emotional needs, and to knowing what the label “gifted” means in terms of
self-understanding and leadership.
• Parents desire improved communication and continuity about transition of students from
the elementary to the middle school, and wish to be included in this process.
• Information about assessments and testing dates for identification of students is not
always provided to parents before hand or in a timely fashion. They sometimes learn
about the testing the day before or after the fact.
• Parents voiced an overwhelming desire to have more information about: Chapter 16
regulations; resources and information to better understand their child; the goals,
objectives, and mission of the program for the gifted in the District; details of the
programs at all grade levels; and what role they can play in supporting academic
challenge and out of school enrichment.
• At the elementary level, math challenge is not consistently provided across grades and
buildings. There needs to be an accelerated and enriched math program where students
23

are grouped together and can move at a faster pace. The need for a program such as AMP
is acute, and this need was expressed several times at all three parent focus sessions.
Need #1:
To distribute, use, and implement the currently available written guidelines for gifted
programming and Chapter 16 to all administrators and teaching staff.
Recommendation:
Provide mandatory staff development in Chapter 16 regulations and the District’s policies
and procedures regarding gifted programming. This could be accomplished during an
established professional development day during the summer prior to the start of the
school year or during designated Act 80 days. Staff development could be delivered by
any qualified personnel within the district familiar with the implementation of
Chapter 16. Experts or speakers external to the school district are not necessarily
required.
Need #2:
To increase the understanding of characteristics of giftedness in students, as well as raising
awareness of factors that may mask gifted abilities.
Recommendations:
1. Provide written materials to regular education teachers that illustrate the difference
between bright, hardworking students and gifted students. This could be in the form a
compare and contrast checklist, or pamphlet. Training in this area could also be
accomplished during the staff development day devoted to Chapter 16 as previously
described.
2. Modify the identification process to reflect those factors that mask gifted abilities.
Adherence to use of a Full Scale IQ cutoff should be revisited by the assessment
professionals when determining eligibility for giftedness. Assessments should be
included that specifically address issues of linguistic and cultural deprivation.
Need #3:
To improve consistency in coordination, communication, training, and implementation of
the gifted program
Recommendations:
1. Establish centralized leadership to address the multiple and interrelated issues
encountered throughout the program for the gifted within the District. Among these
issues are the coordination and communication of the program; challenges encountered in
24

the transition of gifted students between elementary, middle, and high school; and
ensuring a common understanding of the goals and philosophy of the program.
2. Conduct ongoing and regularly scheduled meetings of the teachers of the gifted with the
administrator to provide mentorship and coaching, observe performance of the teachers
of the gifted, and provide formalized training in the writing and implementation of
GIEP’s. The district should explore how this could be accomplished during the
contracted teacher day so all will be able to attend.
Need #4:
To formalize communication between teachers of the gifted and regular education teachers
regarding present education levels, input to the GIEP, and progress monitoring.
Recommendations:
1. In an effort to increase communication, collaboration, and planning between regular
education teachers and teachers of the gifted, give consideration to scheduling time where
gifted support teachers can attend and participate regularly in grade level team and
department meetings. This time is essential to facilitate integration of the curriculum and
will allow for opportunities to examine individual GIEP goals, student progress toward
these goals, and student academic, social, and emotional development.
2. Develop a rubric or checklist for teachers to assess the gifted student’s performance in the
general education curriculum and gifted classes in those areas identified as goals in the
GIEP. This could also serve the dual purpose of a progress-monitoring tool.
3. Chapter 16 states that the GIEP team must include “one or more of the student’s current
teachers” as well as a teacher of the gifted. Revisit current GIEP team structuring to
ensure that this requirement is met.
4. Provide Teachers of the gifted with reliable and valid assessment materials that allow for
out of level testing, and evaluation of higher level thinking skills to help with establishing
PLEP’s.
5. Elicit student input through the use of surveys and interest inventories to determine more
specific needs for acceleration and enrichment.
Need #5:
To increase parent involvement and understanding about the District’s gifted education
program and their child’s needs.
25

Recommendations:
1. Offer parent workshops that are coordinated with other school events. The District might
want to think about the possibility of annual or bi-annual information and discussion
forums for parents of non-identified and identified gifted students as another attempt to
educate parents about the characteristics of giftedness, program options within the school
settings, and how they can better play a role at home to address and support the needs of
their gifted children. By offering such forums and workshops the District can further
strengthen its partnership between home and school.
2. Consider the use of newsletters, web pages, parent meetings, board meetings, and timely
program updates as a means of maintaining communication about the gifted program
with parents.
3. Consider enlarging the scope of parent involvement, understanding, and support in a
structured and more formal manner. This could be accomplished through an advisory
council or even an ad-hoc committee that meets with district leadership in a scheduled
timetable (2 to 4 times a year), and deals with agenda items of concern to both
administrators and parents. It is important to make known and recognize that such a
council or forum role is advisory and consultative only.
26