Review of the Advanced Academic Program Fairfax County Public Schools - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lori C. Bland, Ph.D. Beverly Shaklee, Ed.D. Anastasia Kitsantas, Ph.D. Angela Miller, Ph.D. April Mattix, Ph.D. George Mason University Consultants June 27, 2013

Review of the Advanced Academic Program Fairfax County Public Schools 2012‐2013

Research Questions & Assumptions

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

2

FCPS Scope of Study

Three Guiding Questions:

1.

To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area aligned with best practices in the field of gifted education?

2.

To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area perceived to be effective by relevant stakeholders?

3.

What are the FCPS strengths and areas for improvement in the identified focus area? What are the recommendations for improvement and potential expansion?

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

3

FCPS Scope of Study

Four Areas of Focus:

Identification Procedures:

Board Request 1, 2, 3, 8, 10

Curriculum and Instruction:

Board Request 2, 3, 4, 8, 10

Teacher Certification and Professional Development:

Board Request 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10

Quality of Program Services:

Board Request 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

4

Methods and Results for Each Guiding Question

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

5

Methods

• 1. How does AAP compare nationally to best

practices?

Descriptive Program Analysis

• 2. How is the program viewed by stakeholders?

Interviews, Focus Groups, and Surveys

• 3. How can we assess implementation across

settings?

Pilot Study for Fidelity of Implementation (FOI)

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

6

How does AAP compare nationally to best practices?

Best Practices/Expectations AAP Overall Results

1.

Compliance with VDOE Regulations:

2.

Alignment to NAGC (National Standards)

3.

Benchmark School District Comparisons

1.

Meets or exceeds all required regulations.

• 2. Meets or exceeds all

national standards.

3.

Meets or exceeds all comparison districts.

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

7

Alignment with NAGC Standards

Focus Area Standard Indicator Alignment

Identification Identification Overall: Equal Access, Show Gifts, Comprehensive Meets Representation of diversity To improve Curriculum Curric., Instr., Assessment Measures Growth, Multiple Domains, Skills and Access to Resources Exceeds Independent Investigations (Depth esp. in Soc. Studies & Science) To improve Teacher Cert. & Prof. Dev. Preparation Access to PD, Life‐long Learning, Ethical Practices, FCPS Courses for Preparation Meets Endorsement – should be required, not

• ptional;

To improve Program Programming Variety of options, comprehensiveness Exceeds Environment Personal, Social, Cultural Competences Meets Development Cognitive and Affective Growth Meets

• More communication
• More focus on students’ affective needs

To improve

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

8

District Comparisons: Elementary

Program/ District Young Scholars L1 (All) L2 (Diff.) L3 (P/O) L4 (Full Day) 2E

Fairfax

* * * * * *

Chapel‐Hill, NC

* * * * * *

• Mont. Co., MD

* * * * * * Loudoun, VA * * * *

Charlotte, NC

* * *

Chesterfield,VA

* * *

Arlington, VA

* * *

• Pr. William, VA

* * *

Wake, NC

* * *

Gwinnett, GA

* *

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

9

District Comparisons: Middle

Program/ District Young Scholars L1 L2 L3 L4 2E Honors IBMPY

Fairfax

* * * * * * * *

Chapel‐Hill, NC

* * * * * * * *

• Mont. Co., MD

* * * Loudoun, VA *

Charlotte, NC

* *

Chesterfield,VA

* *

Arlington, VA

* *

• Pr. William, VA

* *

Wake, NC

* *

Gwinnett, GA

*

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

10

Comparison Districts

Differences:

Differentiated Educational Plans – Chapel Hill Wings Mentorship for 25 twice exceptional

students – Montgomery County

Individual interviews for identification – other

VA districts

No recommendations to adopt practices

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

11

Methods: Interviews, Focus Groups, and Surveys

Qualitative Data

Interviews with:

 ISD Leadership, AAP Leadership & Staff

Focus Groups and Interviews

in Observed Buildings

 Focus Groups –Parents‐ Students‐Teachers  Interviews –Building Administrators  Observations in 20 classrooms

Quantitative Data

Collected surveys from

stakeholder groups

 Parents N=708  Students N=1,752  Teachers N=79  Administrators N=27

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

12

How is the program viewed by stakeholders overall?

Very positive view More AAP – from all stakeholder groups Few areas identified as opportunities for

growth

Consistent with a district of this size and scope Addressable

Parents wanted more communication and

help for students making transitions

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

13

Views of Student Experience in AAP Level IV/Center: All Stakeholders

Item Student Parent Teacher Admin Enough Challenge in Language Arts 78.4% 77.7% 83.3% 100% Enough Challenge in Mathematics 73.3% 80.6% 83.3% 92.6% Enough Challenge in Social Studies 70.8% 80.9% 66.2% 96.3% Prepared for Challenging Coursework Next Year 86.9% 83.5% 87.4% 100% Student is encouraged to reflect 78.9% 81.5% 88.1% 96.2% Student is encouraged to set goals 81.1% 75% 81.5% 88.9%

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

14

Views of Student Experience in AAP Level IV/Center: All Stakeholders

Item Student Parent Teacher Admin Enough Challenge in Science 67.5% 73.3% 62% 96.3% Opportunity to Work with Students at a Similar Level 59.9% 86.8% 85.9% 92.6% Academic Strengths are considered 68.4% 81.8% 88.2% 100% Academic Interests are considered 59.3% 76.6% 84.2% 100% Student is provided choice in ways to demonstrate learning 66.1% 74.2% 84.2% 100%

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

15

How can we assess implementation across settings?

Pilot Study for FOI

Piloted procedures and tools Conducted Observation of Screening Procedures Conducted Observation of Classroom Instruction

2 Local Level and Center Schools 2 Elementary and Middle Schools 20 classrooms ‐ 1 full instructional period Grades 3‐8 4 Core Subject Areas in Middle School

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

16

Results of Observations

Elementary classrooms

Wide variety of activities

 Multiple opportunities for “hands on” learning which showed greater student engagement  Multiple flexible grouping options used during instruction which positively influenced student engagement

Use of multiple teaching strategies

 Evidence for use of Socratic Method  Few instances of one word or one sentence responses from students

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

17

Results of Observations

Middle School

Preparation for SOL’s influenced observations at

the middle school

Some strong examples of questioning and use of

robust vocabulary

Some strong examples of flexible grouping and

‘hands on’ learning for instructional purposes

Student responses often one word or one

sentence with few probes

Inconsistent implementation across observations

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

18

Synthesis of Key Findings & Recommendations by Focus Area

Identification Curriculum & Instruction Teacher Certification & Professional Development Quality of Program Services

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

19

Identification – AAP meets or exceeds national/state standards

Meeting/Exceeding Standards

• 1. FCPS uses multiple criteria
• 2. Young Scholars to ensure identified

population reflects population of school division

• 3. Insures equal access by screening at

every school through Grade 2, and with referral in Grades 3‐7

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

20

Identification: Processes

Over‐Identification – there is nothing wrong with

the AAP Identification model

Raised in multiple settings and there appears

to be a pattern of:  Influence of ‘cottage’ test preparation industry in the area along with,  Inflated use of external assessments creating an opportunity gap and,  The importance that parents place on identification for AAP

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

21

Identification: Recommendations

* FCPS‐AAP should continue to seek ways to

identify a population that is congruent with the demographics of FCPS increasing diversity within AAP (NAGC Standards)

FCPS‐AAP should continue to study access issues for

students from underserved populations including underrepresented populations (culturally and linguistically diverse learners, twice exceptional…)

FCPS‐AAP should consider using one source for

external testing

FCPS‐AAP should use secure customized

assessments for identification purposes

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

22

Curriculum and Instruction – AAP

provides a rigorous, challenging and varied curriculum to AAP learners

Use of research‐based curriculum created by

experts in the field

Surpasses measuring growth of students Surpasses comparisons on instruction for use

• f multiple critical thinking strategies

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

23

Curriculum & Instruction: Recommendations

Develop a scope and sequence for multiple types of

thinking skills, K‐8

Clarify specific linkages from POS to AAP curricula

for all content areas and grade levels

Devote strategic PD time to questioning strategies

across content disciplines

Give teachers more CLT and explicit planning time

devoted to POS/AAP curriculum frameworks

Consider high intensity and sustained vocabulary

instruction for robust vocabulary development across all levels

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

24

Teacher Preparation – AAP provides a

strong Professional Development program

Teachers indicated concerns about getting access to

limited number of courses that fill quickly

Administrators had concern about new teachers and

ability to differentiate

Higher percentage of elementary Center and Level

IV teachers hold endorsement for teaching AAP learners

Endorsed teachers range by building:

Elementary 0‐100% Middle School 4% ‐ 38%

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

25

FCPS Center & Level IV Teacher Endorsement 2013*

Level Total # State FCPS Not Yet Elementary 490 25% 16% 59% Level IV 217 19% 19% 62% Center 273 30% 14% 56% Middle School 770 9% 3% 88% Center 365 13% 4% 88% Honors 405 6% 2% 92% *VDOE does not require the endorsement in gifted education.

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

26

Teacher Preparation : Recommendations

Continue to provide a variety of alternatives for PD Expand number and type of offerings Require VDOE/FCPS endorsement within 5 years Build skills in PCM, beyond the Core Curriculum Build targeted skills in

Understanding diverse populations Teaching for robust vocabulary Teaching for depth of conceptual understanding

Continue to focus on:

Questioning/probing, and multiple thinking skills Differentiation and Assessment strategies Affective needs of students

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

27

Program Services – AAP is strong with

a multiplicity of options for students

Critical Mass – what is the ‘critical number’ of AAP

students in a building to create a new Center?

Estimates in the literature range from 15% ‐ 25% Student enrollment is insufficient to make the decision

also need:

 Cadre of strong teacher advocates and leaders  Critical mass of qualified teachers (endorsed)  Paired classes per grade/content level  Strong administrative and resource support  Documented effect on financial implications (transportation and resource needs)

 (Callahan, 2010; Cross, 2013; Renzulli, 1979; Rogers, 2003)

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

28

Program Services : Recommendations

Keep and expand the current models

Young Scholars Elementary Levels 2, 3, 4 and Centers Middle School Centers and Honors Open Enrollment 8‐12

Make explicit the Talent Development

component at Middle Schools

Consider forms of assessment to show specific

academic strengths

Enhance communication to all stakeholders on

• ptions and selection decisions

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

29

Opportunities for Advancing AAP

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

30

Program Services

Model for Expansion: Young Scholars and Centers

Self‐study Self‐study report is reviewed and approved Documentation Process:

 Strong stakeholder, administrative and resource support  Critical mass of qualified teachers (endorsed)  Paired classes per grade/content level  Implementation of curricula and instructional strategies (instructional artifacts)  Observe classes (e.g. Teaching Strategies, Student Activities and AAP Curriculum Fidelity)  Gather parent, teachers, student and administrator feedback  Document student growth and performance

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

31

Program Services

Elementary Programs

Examine differentiation practices for Level 2 & Level 3 Examine student choices in content areas – Social Studies,

Mathematics

Examine depth vs. breadth

Expand professional development offerings to

general education teachers

Employ a regular cycle of evaluation for each level of

the program

Consider using AAP as a model for infusing

systematically critical and creative thinking strategies throughout POS

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

32

In Summary

To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified

focus area aligned with best practices in the field

• f gifted education?

AAP is aligned with best practices in the field To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified

focus area perceived to be effective by relevant stakeholders?

Selected stakeholders perceived AAP to be

successful and a positive experience for students

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

33

In Summary

What are the FCPS strengths and areas for

improvement in the identified focus area? What are the recommendations for improvement and potential expansion?

Areas of development, expansion and

recommendations were identified – all are expected in a district of the size and scope of FCPS and all should be monitored.

AAP is a highly successful program that

benefits the students and families in the District.

Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

34