Four Years Research Results from the NCRGE www.ncrge.uconn.edu Del - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Four Years’ Research Results from the NCRGE www.ncrge.uconn.edu Del Siegle, D. Betsy McCoach Carolyn Callahan & E. Jean Gubbins Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education PR/Award # R305C140018

Our current team…. Dr. Del Siegle . Director Dr. E. Jean Gubbins , Associate Director Dr. Carolyn Callahan , Qualitative Research Coordinator Dr. D. Betsy McCoach , Quantitative Research Coordinator Dr. Daniel Long , Research Scientist Dr. Vonna Hemmler , Post Doctoral Fellow Dr. Allison Kenney , Post Doctoral Fellow Shannon Holder , Graduate Research Assistant Susan Dulong Langley , Graduate Research Assistant Visit our website ncrge.uconn.edu Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education PR/Award # R305C140018

Correlation = Causation

problem is universal

Data Collected by NCRGE in Phase 1 362,254 Current 10 th -Grade 133 Variables for 293 State District Students’ Math and Reading Gifted Plans Achievement in Grades 3, 4, and 5 2 Comprehensive Literature 332 District 202 Interview Reviews Survey Transcripts Responses (78%-90% 2419 School Survey Response) Responses (53% [45-68%] Response - 80% Title 1) 5

Take home message… Educators are concerned about under- identification of some groups of students.

80% of states indicate underrepresentation is an important or very important issue

State Context - Within Group Percent nt o of Sub-po popu pula latio ions I Identifie ied a d as Gifted State 1 State 2 State 3 State ( (and nd overall % % gifte ted) (17.4%) (10.5%) (10.5%) % of FRPL PL-elig ligib ible le I Identif ifie ied 8.2% 6.2% 6.6% % of African A n American I n Ident ntified 6.5% 5.6% 4.2% % of His ispa panic ic Identif ifie ied 8.0% 6.5% 9.1% % of EL Ident ntified 5.5% 7.4% 6.3% % of f Wh White e Iden entified 24.6% 12.8% 13.8% % of Asi sian an Identified 36.7% 16.7% 24.9% This research from the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE – http://ncrge.uconn.edu) was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education PR/Award # R305C140018 8

Representation Index RI: Actual proportion of the group being identified in the school divided by the expected proportion of that subpopulation, given the proportion of gifted students and the subpopulation in the school. 1 underrepresented overrepresented This research from the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE – http://ncrge.uconn.edu) was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education PR/Award # R305C140018 9

Take home message… Underserved populations are not being identified at the same rates even after controlling for student achievement.

Probability of i identification as g gifted f for r reference s students a and students who a are EL EL, F Free a and R Reduce ced Lunch ch, and U Underserved after controlling f for R Reading a and Math scores a and s sch chool SES a and s sch chool perce centage o of g gifted students Probability of Being Identified as Gifted 1 0.9 0.8 0.7  NOT EL, NOT FRL, and NOT Under 0.6 0.5  EL, FRL, and Under 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Units Above the Mean on State Test

Take home message… Student identification by subgroups is not distributed equally across schools within districts.

as much variance within districts as between districts • Percentage of Gifted Students • Percentage of Free and Reduced Price Lunch Students • Average Reading • Average Math

Gifted services are not equally distributed across schools within districts and poverty appears to be a key factor. State Number of Schools Number of Schools Number of Schools with No Gifted with No Free and Students in Our Reduced Lunch Cohort Gifted Students State 1 1,177 39 86 State 2 573 141 261 State 3 1,495 343 201

What is the -.31 .31 relationship between the % of free and -.56 .56 reduced lunch students in a school -.64 .64 and the % of students identified as gifted? This research from the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE – http://ncrge.uconn.edu) was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education PR/Award # R305C140018

Take home message… Very few districts reassess students.

Only slightly more than half of the districts reassess nonidentified students at regular intervals. State 1 State 2 State 3 Non-identified students are reassessed at 60% 54% 16% regular intervals Non-identified students are reassessed upon 47% 54% 84% request Identified students are reassessed at regular 10% 31% 2% intervals Identified students are reassessed upon 10% 11% 4% request

Over 50 % of schools f irst identify in Grade 3 19

Take home message… Extensive use of cognitive tests to identify students.

State State State 1 2 3 Tools for Identification Parents can nominate 77% 89% 88% Teachers can nominate 91% 95% 96% Use cognitive tests 95% 94% 90% Use non-verbal tests 45% 68% 41% Use creativity tests 4% 44% 10%

State State State 1 2 3 Decision process for identification Committee of teachers and 64% 74% 31% administrators decide Use a matrix to decide 51% 23% 35% Use cut scores to decide 57% 54% 86%

Take home message… Third grade achievement is directly related to identification gaps.

Amount 3 rd Grade Academic Achievement Accounts for Under Identification Gaps State 1 State 2 State3 FRPL (compared to non- FRPL) 47% 100% 100% EL (compared to non-EL) 78% n/a 56% Black (compared to White) 66% 100% 56% Hispanic (compared to White) 43% 100% 27%

Take home message… Practices such as universal screening and nonverbal tests do not appear to be panaceas.

State 1 State 2 State 3 Structure of Identification Universal screening 81% 94% 22% Modify identification for 26% 23% 65% underrepresented groups Program to identify 39% 32% 16% underrepresented groups

19.3% use Universal Screening. With Universal Screening, they most often use • Group Cognitive – 77.7% • Non-verbal – 37.5% • Achievement – 22.3% • Teacher Rating Scale – 11.7% 27

Take home message… Identification gap for high achieving FRPL vs. non-FRPL almost disappears when universal screening is combined with modifications in State 3.

46% modify the identification for underserved populations with… • 33.9% Native Language • 50.3% Non-Verbal Test • 62% More Flexible Score • 23.9% Different Weighting of Criteria • 49.4% Different Criteria or Cutoff 29

Take home message… Majority of schools use pull-out classes for gifted instruction.

≈ ¾ pullout Service Delivery… ≈ ½ cluster group ≈ ½ homogenous group ≈ ⅓ push-in 31

Acceleration Practices… • 29% do not accelerate • 35% subject accelerate • 26% whole grade accelerate 32

Take home message… Greater focus on critical thinking and creative thinking than Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics acceleration.

Focus of Program Services Using the slider, indicate the degree to which the gifted programming at your school focuses on the following goals and/or activities (0=Not a focus, 100=Complete focus). 34

35

Take home message… Schools report teachers of the gifted have autonomy.

How much autonomy do your school's teachers of the gifted have in choosing the content to deliver? Complete Some A Lot 37

Take home message… Gifted programs seldom focus on core curriculum such as advanced math and reading.

Classification of Gifted Students Stude udent nts Classified as Gifted in Re Reading/EL ELA State 1 State 2 State 3 Total 10 33 49 92 Frequency No No 9.7 22.8 100.0 31.0 Percentage 93 112 0 205 Frequency Ye Yes 90.3 77.2 0.0 69.0 Percentage 103 145 49 297 Frequency To Total 100 100 100 100 Percentage Stu Students Cl Classified as as Gi Gifte ted in n Math ath State 1 State 2 State 3 Total 15 36 49 100 Frequency No No 14.56 24.83 100 33.67 Percentage 88 109 0 197 Frequency Ye Yes 85.4 75.2 0.0 66.3 Percentage 103 145 49 297 Frequency To Total 100 100 100 100 Percentage This research from the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE – http://ncrge.uconn.edu) was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education PR/Award # R305C140018 39