The Gifted Coordinator Toolkit featuring CogAT

Job-Embedded Professional Learning & Development (JPED)

In education, everything is important. That’s how it feels especially at the beginning of the year. Teachers return excited to meet their students and they are met with a long list of requirements and expectations. In fairness, many of the requirements are the result of legislative mandates; however, sometimes they are to support district initiatives and goals. Regardless, the expectations are a reality and they can feel like simply a list of tasks for compliance. While many things are required for compliance, professional learning should never be administered solely to meet regulations.

Professional learning should be relevant, timely, and practical. A teacher should be able to leave the learning and apply it immediately in her instruction. Also, the teacher should have time to reflect on the learning and implementation to inform next steps.

Likely, you are nodding in agreement but wondering how this can work in your school or district. That is where job-embedded professional learning comes in. “Job-embedded professional development (JEPD) refers to teacher learning that is grounded in day-to-day teaching practice and is designed to enhance teachers’ content-specific instructional practices with the intent of improving student learning” (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Hirsh, 2009). Using this format for professional learning respects the teacher as a professional and has a high impact on student learning. The following guiding questions support implementation and increase buy-in for JEPD so it does not feel like one more thing on the teachers’ overflowing plate.

Guiding Questions:

What model of professional learning do we currently provide? First, determine what model of professional learning drives the offerings and requirements in your district. Do they require all learning to be face-to-face or can you use hybrid and online learning platforms? Clearly understand the parameters to integrate gifted and advanced learning pedagogy.
What are the state-mandated gifted and/or advanced learning requirements? Gifted professional learning often does not exist or does not receive priority in a state. If your state has gifted training mandates, those can be leveraged with the professional learning department to ensure teachers have the opportunity to be trained in gifted pedagogy.
How are teachers and leaders in the district provided training in recognizing and nurturing advanced learning needs? If your teachers already receive professional learning in the instructional and affective needs of your most able or gifted learners, how is that provided? Who provides it? How often are teachers required to receive training? Is it stand-alone or is it integrated into other learning required of them?
Who will deliver the training? When will it be delivered? Where? How often? Making these decisions requires a knowledge of your district’s expectations and your state’s requirements for compliance. Earlier you thought through both of those items. If you have requirements, use them to plan the professional learning opportunities. Otherwise, these questions could become sticking points. Professional learning takes time and resources. JEPD does lighten the resource load since the learning can be embedded into planning and PLC time. Consider using videos, online platforms, and other approaches that can be scaled to your need efficiently.
How are the instructional impacts of CogAT incorporated into the professional learning opportunities? For decades, CogAT has been viewed as the “gifted test” which does not provide full realization of the instructional implications from this assessment. Providing teachers the “why” of using the CogAT data and student profiles will lead to teacher buy-in and a desire for more professional learning in how to use those resources.
What impact might job-embedded professional development (JEPD) have on the long-term impacts of instruction for advanced learners? Now it is time to dream a little about what could be especially if you are faced with resistance to including gifted training in annual professional learning requirements. It is crucial to convey that training about meeting the needs of the most able learners is not “one more thing” and instead it is part of the whole picture of preparing for instruction. JEPD, by embedding the learning in what the teacher is already doing, ensures the instructor feels his or her time is respected.
Who are the early adopters (campus/team/grade level/subject area) who have the capacity to embrace JEPD with fidelity? Who will identify them? How will this opportunity be communicated and by whom? Change requires time and in most districts change cannot happen for all at the same time. Think about one campus leader who is open to innovative approaches. Consider narrowing it down further to one grade level or subject area. Start there. You will be able to engage more deeply in the JEPD process and document the successes. How does JEPD fit into the current professional learning model? Before taking your plan to the professional learning department, revisit your district’s model for providing it. How can you integrate JEPD into that model so it is not completely new? How can it support what is already in place? Work with your professional learning team to revise your proposal to be a joint effort resulting in joint ownership.
What challenges will you face in implementing JEPD? How will you overcome/mitigate them? What is going to hold you back? Funding? Personnel? Other resources? A specific individual? Identify those entities up front so you can plan for them adequately. Don’t wait for anyone to raise concerns; raise them yourself along with a positive rationale or solution.
What frontloading do you need to provide to optimize success? Increase your chance of adoption by identifying what data and research articles need to be shared to stakeholders in advance. How do they need to be shared? How will efficacy be determined? What are the success metrics? How will you know JEPD has resulted in positive change? You start with determining your success metrics (i.e., reduced numbers of students scoring high achieving/low growth on your achievement test, or increased number of referrals for students underrepresented in gifted services). Your success metrics must be directly tied to the content of the professional learning outcomes. Once you have the success metrics identified, create a measurement tool for tracking the evidence. Will your evidence be quantitative or qualitative? Who will collect it and when? Be prepared to receive feedback from the participants during the year so you can be responsive to their needs.
How might JEPD fit into the Multi-Tier System of Support (MTSS) framework? Another benefit for JEPD is the relationship between it and your MTSS framework. Your MTSS framework should include procedures for any student needing intervention including those who are high achieving/low growth. Consider joining with this department to identify strategies that yield growth in all students such as Depth and Complexity. Also, consider how you can influence curriculum writing to include tasks already scaffolded for each band of learner in the class. Providing exemplars results in replication of the strategy by the teacher.

Although not a new professional learning model, JEPD is not widely used. If your district uses this model, use it to advance training for gifted learners. If your district does not use it, the power of its potential is well worth implementing.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/D_niGkttdWQ

Throw in all the “education speak” that varies from state to state, district to district, campus to campus, or even classroom to classroom. Now imagine a word like intervention. Most educators think about students who are struggling in school. However, intervention means to have an effect on something to yield an outcome. It’s NOT just for remediation.

Without clear and agreed-upon definitions, individuals cannot reach fidelity of communication. People naturally bring their own experiences and understandings to anything they read or hear. Lack of common understanding leads to confusion and lack of progress. Also, without intentionally considering the words we use, implicit bias can negatively impact communication with colleagues, families, and the community. Additionally, linguistic prejudice adds layers of our own personal beliefs about words, accents, and even the pitch of the voice.

Guiding Questions:

Does your district currently have a glossary of shared terms? If you do, you are ahead of the game. The next question is how consistently is it used. Resources like this need to be used consistently to make a positive impact. If it is not used consistently, consider reestablishing expectations about its use.What words are found often in our professional discussions? (ie. enrichment, intervention, strategy, nomination, congratulations, program, etc…) Make a list of words that you use in your district that are misused, underused, or overused. Note how each is used incorrectly and then how it should be used. It helps you to prepare this in advance so you can drive the conversation and the next steps.
Where are there differences in definitions? What terms are most often misunderstood? What are the instructional and cultural implications of those misunderstandings? (campus-to-campus, central-to-campus, department-to-department, etc…) For each word you listed above, determine how it’s misused. For example, does special education define intervention more narrowly than you? Does the instructional technology department define differentiation only from a technology perspective? Do campuses use enrichment broadly to mean any task outside the Tier 1 assignment? You must identify these relationships so they can be addressed intentionally and with specificity.
Do we have an equity policy that addresses implicit bias, explicit bias, and/or linguistic prejudice? Although under fire in some states, ensuring each student receives an equitable opportunity to learn and grow is the work of education. What terms are dictated by state law and which are negotiable? Are there terms your district already embraces in this area? If so, using them will help you avoid controversial topics and conversations.
What student groups might feel the impacts of language biases? What are common linguistic biases that may exist in your district? What might one associate negatively with these linguistic features? Any student group whose first or home language is not English is impacted by language biases and linguistic prejudice. Additionally, anyone with an accent, even within the United States, can feel this, too. For example, it is common for individuals with a Southern accent to be considered less intelligent. Student groups such as African Americans code switch to avoid standing out. What other groups do you have in your district who may experience language bias and linguistic prejudice? Ensure your glossary of common terms includes these student groups’ perspectives. Pay particular attention to accents, pronunciations, and grammatical structures. These language characteristics are associated with lower intelligence, lack of honesty, low work ethic, low motivation, lack of education, and unattractiveness which are dangerous to the emotional well-being and ultimate success of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students.
What departments or which individuals need to be involved in the creation or editing of a common glossary? Special education, Section 503, MTSS, curriculum, multilingual, after-school programming, fine arts, data, counseling, and professional learning should be included in the conversations. Other departments or groups specific to your district may need to be involved, too. Err on the side of inclusion so every person who interacts with students communicates respectfully and with fidelity.
Is there a designated time in the year to address documents such as a glossary or can it be done at any time? An optimum time to include a common language document is in the annual review of district documents. Remember, that the new terms must be included in all district documents from newsletters to curriculum to websites. Families need to be informed of the terms and their agreed-upon definitions, too.
Who needs to approve the creation of the glossary and/or language expectations? It may be the superintendent, deputy superintendent, director for communication, or a committee. Each district will have a different method of approving something like a common glossary. Regardless, ensure you follow the appropriate protocols so the launch is approved without unnecessary delay.

In college, I vividly remember employing linguistic prejudice and making assumptions about a classmate’s intelligence based on her accent. Her astute observation could have been lost on me had I not listened in spite of my thoughts. Having a common vocabulary and acknowledging our biases are powerful first steps to improved communication and ultimately student growth.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/kZXoc3fBVFM

Leveraging Conversations

Because of competing priorities, district administrators who oversee gifted and advanced learning services must find connections between their work and the goals of the campus or district, state regulations, and other departments’ work. Some of these connections may be surprising but they can be fruitful and affirming when approached with the spirit of common goals. These guiding questions are full of tips to maximize your opportunities during important conversations.

Guiding Questions:

What are the goals of the district and/or campus? Is funding tied to any of the goals? You must identify what the district as a whole is focused on achieving. Regardless of your role in the district, the Board of Trustees sets the vision and outlines their desired outcomes. Your role is to support that goal in whatever capacity is appropriate. Their goal may not be what you would prefer or it may align well with your department’s current priorities. Make their goals the focus of your work by finding your points of leverage.
What are the top three priorities of the campus? Do they include student growth? How do your priorities align with or support theirs? Campuses should take the district goals and build their priorities around them.
Are you a PLC district? If so, how can you increase access to the PLC meetings to support question 4? For a deeper look at this opportunity, please review the PLC Module.
Do you use an achievement assessment like MAP? If so, how can you increase support for the high achieving/low growth domain? Students who score in the High Achieving/Low Growth quadrant are challenging to grow. Teachers often prioritize the interventions for the low achieving students. Having a conversation about how you and your team can help teachers support both high-achieving / low growth and low achieving students will ensure that all students maximize their academic growth.
How is advanced learning like other special populations? If you look at a Bell Curve, you will notice that your highest ability learners are just as far away from average as your learners with cognitive disabilities. Read that again. GT students should be considered a special-needs population and interventions provided as such.
What other departments should be involved in the planning and implementation? How do you connect with each one? Almost every department is a potential collaborator for advanced learning.
- Section 504 and Special Education: Consider sharing your ability data with them. They can use it to identify students with unexpected results like lower achievement scores than one would expect versus their ability scores. Work with them to help identify twice-exceptional students.
- Finance: If you receive GT funding, what are the state regulations? Are you in compliance? Is the money spent effectively?
- Facilities: If you need to host an event, this department can help. If campuses have limited space, your GT teachers may be asked to teach in undesirable spaces. Your facilities team knows the capacity and usage of each building and they may be able to help you find appropriate classroom spaces.
- Professional Learning: Effectively teaching advanced learning takes training. Find ways to incorporate your training components into their required options.
- Counseling: We know students, including GT students, have affective needs. Even if you must avoid the term social-emotional learning, the need for it exists. How can you partner with the counseling department to first ensure they understand your unique learners and second learn from them strategies to provide support within your own team.
- Curriculum: Remember, you’re the topping on the ice cream. Curriculum is the ice cream. How can you work with them to include the high-impact strategies in their curriculum documents and their training options?
- Emerging Bilingual: Review this post for a deeper dive.
How can your support be communicated as value-added? If tier 1 instruction is the ice cream, departments of support are the sprinkles, whipped cream, and caramel topping. We enhance the foundational instruction to increase engagement for advanced learners. For some students, the ice cream is enough. Others need differentiation. We sprinkle on depth, complexity, and rigor. We top it with challenge. We drizzle it with problem solving. This analogy affirms the campus leaders and teachers that what they already do isn’t wrong. In fact, it is crucial. We are their partners to help make it even better when it is needed.
How do you determine which type of interaction to use each time? With so many ways to communicate, how do you determine which way is best? Because many do not recognize the need for advanced learning support, start with face-to-face on their turf. Go to them at their campus or office. Campus administrators may not get a real lunch break so consider bringing a Sonic drink and a meal bar. Then just ask what they are focused on and what they need. Just listen. Until you have a relationship and trust built, you should not jump to what you would like to do for them.

Advanced learning teams have goals and requirements, but as I always heard growing up, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In this case, you gain more momentum with a Route 44 drink than a request. The last time I brought Route 44 drinks to a campus administration team, I saw tears. It had been one of those days. We closed the door and had a great conversation and we all felt like winners that day.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/_o0L3SGhwXY

On the surface, designing gifted services may seem like choosing a test, setting a score threshold, and then providing some enrichment for the students. However, the creation phase includes a variety of decisions with nuances and potential pitfalls. Following through these guiding questions can help ensure the outcomes are intentionally and strategically developed to maximize impact and minimize difficulties in implementation.

Guiding Questions:

What is our current gifted identification and service model? Before beginning, it’s important to know where you currently have services. Find out the history behind any services you have now or have had in the past. Who was involved in the decisions at that time and are any of them still in the district or school? Legacy practices, those that persist without adjusting to changing needs, present a challenge best addressed early on in the process. If the practices have changed over time, what drove those changes? It could be legislative changes, changes in demographics, changes in priorities, or simply a desire to refresh the services.
Are our gifted identified demographics representative of our district as a whole? If not, where is the gap? Equitable identification means the demographics of the students identified for gifted services mirrors that of the whole campus or district. Ability is found in all student groups; however, identifying equitably is a challenge for most districts. Analyze your data using both district and campus numbers as well as all student groups. Use the Equity Index to determine if you are within the acceptable ranges. This document provides an easy-to-understand explanation with instructions along with citations. Do not apply this methodology to student groups with small numbers as they are not statistically significant- enough. Also, consider implementing universal screening in at least one grade level and use that data to establish localized norms allowing you to identify students in comparison to others of the same age, experience, and environment.
Do we already offer any specialized programming such as STEM or STEAM? If you do not have gifted services and STEM or STEAM is a priority in your district, although not designed for gifted services, they could be palatable for implementation. With appropriate differentiation, STEM and STEAM curriculum could be used to activate and grow the critical and creative thinking of the gifted learner.
What are the district academic priorities? As already mentioned, knowing and leveraging these priorities can give traction for advanced learning instruction and programming. For example, districts with a goal for growth need programming that will ensure the highest achieving learners continue to progress. A district with a graduate profile must engage all learners to achieve those characteristics and advanced learners should be on the leading edge.
How is CogAT data used for gifted identification? How is it used to inform instructional decisions? How are CogAT and achievement data correlated to drive decisions about gifted services and instruction for all students? While commonly used to identify students for gifted services, CogAT data is powerful for much more than that. Explore multiple pathways in Local Norms and Equitable Identification. Again, consider implementing universal screening and a localized norming process.
What do our most advanced or high-achieving learners excel in? Do we have specialized programming for that area? What challenges exist between instructional need and delivery? Gifted services should be aligned to the needs of the students. Also, they should provide something the students cannot get in the general education classroom. Therefore, when identifying students for gifted services, consider what programming already exists for advanced learners and where there is a need for more rigor. There you will find your optimum opportunity for gifted services.
What assessments do we already use? Do any of them align with the needed services? If not, what assessment would align? Does the chosen assessment provide instructional information? Education always lacks needed funding so when you can utilize the data from assessments the district already uses to identify students for gifted services, you do not have to ask for more funding for tests. If the tests do not align with the needed services, ensure the added assessment meets at least these three criteria:
- Is valid and reliable for your student population and groups;
- Does not benefit nor disadvantage any specific group of students (no gatekeeper tests); and,
- The data can be used to make instructional decisions for any tested student.
How can we create a continuum of services that builds on itself through the grades? Connected services that build on themselves year-to-year are important for the students to realize their growth. Much like any content area, one year prepares them for the next year. Elementary gifted services should be aligned with and preparation for secondary services. Imagine if elementary services focused on math and secondary services focused on Humanities. You would identify students advanced in math in elementary; however, in secondary that identification model would be misaligned. Consistency is crucial for the efficacy of the services.
How does our system of identification and services support required accountability systems? Consider your state’s requirements for accountability. Sometimes those include measures of growth from year to year. Gifted services and any supports for advanced learners should be supportive of those requirements.
How does our system of identification and services support Board goals? Similarly, gifted services should support any goals presented by the school board. Their goals are their commitment to the community and all programming should be aligned to support them.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/kiSlJgLlE20

Universal Screening and Norming Practices

Recommendations for equitable gifted identification and services include universal screening and localized norms. Universal screening provides an assessment to all students in a group which could be a school, grade, or district. The results from a universal screening provide the data needed to determine the local norms for any specific group giving the opportunity for every student, regardless of background or level of access to preparation and home support, to demonstrate their capabilities and abilities.

There are challenges to both of these practices, though. Gaining support for universal screening as well as communicating the defensibility of localized norming may be difficult and require time; however, as you work through these questions, you will realize they are feasible, appropriate, and definitely worth the effort.

Guiding Questions:

What are the gifted representation indices for our district’s student groups? Where are we not identifying and servicing gifted or advanced students in a way that mirrors the district population? If you do not have a data department to help you identify these numbers, you may have to do some calculations yourself; however, it is worth the time and effort. Consider setting up an Excel worksheet that will calculate these figures for you. It will take extra time up front but save you time for years to come. Ensure you are looking at all student groups reported to the state and take special care to note emerging bilingual and economically disadvantaged. Remember, you cannot use alternate norming practices based on race or ethnicity. According to the Office of Civil Rights and Dr. Donna Ford, you can do so based on language and economic status. When you are looking at this data, you can use the Equity Index as in this document.
How do we serve all advanced learners? Review the services provided for gifted students. Also, note what is available for students who do not qualify for gifted services but who have high achievement in one or more areas of instruction. For example, do you provide opportunities for acceleration to all students or just those who are identified as gifted?
In what grades would universal screening be appropriate and provide the most useful CogAT data? Even if you use universal screening in one or more grade levels, do not be tempted to skip this step. You may find more benefits in another grade level. For example, second grade is the last year of the untimed CogAT. Why is that important? First, the pressures of a timed test may impact the fluency of some students, especially those whose first language is not English. Processing in English to a home language and back takes more time than if the transition of languages was not needed. Also, by second grade, students who did not benefit from high-quality preschool have had the time to learn how to “do school,” the experiences of multiple assessments, and the exposure to instruction.
How will the assessments be funded? This question is a challenge. Can you allocate or redistribute your current budget to absorb the cost of universal screening? If you do not have a budget for assessments and you suspect getting the funds will be an obstacle, build a proposal that includes a multi-year implementation so costs can be scaled up each year. Have multiple options ready to suggest during your meeting with the individuals who can provide approval. It can be difficult to get meetings with individuals in your district so you want to maximize the opportunity you are given.
When will we administer the tests? Who will administer them? How will we administer them? In some districts, the assessment department administers all tests. In others, the campuses must facilitate their own testing. Some assessments are coordinated by the advanced learning team. How will you build the schedule? How will you build the schedule around non-negotiable blocks of the day? Will you test in the morning and afternoon? Will you use paper and pencil or online testing? If you use paper and pencil and you plan to grade them in house, remember that human error occurs in the best of circumstances and the expense to pay someone to score and norm the tests may be better spent on online testing. If you opt to use online testing, how can you partner with the technology department to minimize bandwidth and other technology issues?
What methodology is best for determining localized norms? Will you norm by campus? District? Student group? Consider using an array of norming options. For example, begin with national norms for the whole district, perhaps top 5%. Then calculate campus norms at the same level, top 5%. Next, calculate norms for student groups such as multilingual and economically disadvantaged at top 5%. You may wonder if the campus norms will exacerbate overidentification at some of your more resourced campuses. Not if you are consistent. For example, if you identify the district at top 5%, then on a campus that is highly identified, their top 5% norm could be 97%ile. Therefore, no additional students would be identified from this pass through the data. However, multilingual and/or economically disadvantaged students who attend that campus will be found during the last passes.
What challenges may we face in communicating this system to our community? Norms are not easy for families to understand and that can lead to perceptions of inequity when it is really inequality they are noticing. Equity means everyone gets what they need. Equality means everyone gets the same thing. Be prepared with concrete examples to help your community understand why the varying norming processes are needed and wholly appropriate. For example, show them a picture of various sizes of shoes. Not everyone grows into the same size at the same time. The same can be said for clothes, someone’s height, or their need for glasses. Whatever tangible example will help them
Does the universal assessment tool align with advanced learning services? Does it measure the abilities you will address in the gifted services? In other words, if you are going to provide advanced math services, you should use a quantitative ability and/or math test.
How can the assessment be used for instructional decision making for all students? Remember the discussion above about funding? You can increase the odds for funding when the assessment can do more than one thing. If the assessment can inform instruction, the return on the investment is higher than if it does not. Consider the CogAT. You can use the student ability profiles and the data itself to make student groups, assign students to classes, and utilize specific instructional strategies. Not all assessments, especially those for ability, can do that.

Even after working through the questions, you may feel these practices are beyond the scope of your, or your team’s, resources or power. That is possible. This is the time you reach out to those who have made this transition. I have mentored quite a few through this process because I was mentored well myself. Don’t hesitate to reach out for support. Remember, we are all in this together.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/OO937FnFQSI

Guiding Questions:

How do we identify for gifted or advanced learning services? Does it include multiple measures, both quantitative and qualitative? Always start with your current state of options. Do you have gifted services? If you do, how are you identifying students? Do you consider multiple data points including quantitative and qualitative measures? If you use qualitative data, ensure you are not converting that information to numerical data (which would turn it into quantitative data).
What is our gifted service model? What are our current interventions for frequency, intensity, and/or duration of the services? If in the first question you established you do have gifted services, what is the model? Is it only pullout? Only enrichment? Only academic? Only in one subject? If you answer yes to any of these, you may not have a continuum of differentiated services. You may have a unidimensional model which is one-size-fits-all. How often do your identified students receive the services? If it is once a week, how are their needs met the rest of the time? Are they receiving services commensurate with their abilities? In other words, does the intensity or rigor match their needs? Even services with a daily frequency in all core content areas may lack the intensity and duration necessary for the highest-ability learners. Map out all of these considerations to see where you fall as each offers an opportunity to differentiate.
Have we ensured the assessments do not function as gatekeepers to any student groups? Do you use achievement data as your first round of identification? If so, it may serve as a gatekeeper to our most underrepresented student groups. CLED students often have not had the same opportunities to learn as more resourced students. Opportunity equals access which yields achievement. Consider using ability data, like the CogAT, which opens the gates for all students to demonstrate a need for advanced learning opportunities. To create equitable opportunities for more student groups, consider using the “or” rule and provide Multiple Pathways for identification.
Do all who qualify receive the same intervention/treatment or is it differentiated by instructional need? This is another example of one-size-fits-all. Do all students need the same glasses? Shoe size? Number of math problems to demonstrate mastery? No. The same can be said for advanced and gifted services. Approaching the intervention or treatment as a continuum designed to meet the student where he is and provide opportunities for growth in areas of relative strength moves toward personalized learning and positive outcomes for students.
How can each pathway to identification be matched with aligned services? This process can be applied in several ways. For example, perhaps you provide multiple pathways that include individual subject areas. One pathway may use verbal ability data to identify students for a Reading Language Arts service while another pathway uses quantitative ability data to identify students for a Mathematics service. Another method is to use data profiles to determine the frequency and intensity of the service. For example, students who meet criteria from localized norms may need to be clustered together for daily, core content differentiation and/or acceleration. Other students identified through national norms may need some pullout time with a GT teacher in addition to the above services. In addition to that, students with exceptionally high ability scores and achievement scores may need to be sheltered together in a more intensive, accelerated classroom.
Will the services be isolated or build on one another? Some services are stand-alone meaning each year or course does not depend on prerequisite experiences. Others are a vertical alignment of topics and skills so students grow over time. If possible, choose the latter model so students have multiple years of growth built on itself. Consider onramps for students who are identified for the services in the middle of the continuum. What will they need to be successful?
How will the interventions be differentiated? Frequency, intensity, and/or duration? Will you differentiate pace? Content? Processing? Products? Strategies? Clearly communicate exactly what differentiation will mean for your district or campus. Differentiation has various connotations depending on who you ask. Teachers may not have an understanding of differentiation but they are expected to provide it. Create exemplars of your expectations. Embed them in your pacing tools or scope and sequence…wherever teachers go to get resources. When you have determined your interventions, decide on how often they should occur. While we know daily as needed is the best practice, it will take time to build both the capacity and habits of the teachers to do so. Utilize Job-Embedded Professional Development to share an expectation with exemplars, allow the teachers to try it out, and provide time for them to reflect on the experience with you.
What strategies for differentiation will be the focus to ensure teacher efficacy? Consider selecting one or two strategies for teachers to master. Depth and Complexity icons are powerful tools with embedded strategies that grow teacher capacity and student agency in the learning. Dr. Richard Cash uses the term “Differentiating UP” to describe a strategy providing enrichment, extension, and enhancement of a learning standard along a continuum of complexity needed by each student. By selecting just one or two strategies, you can focus your time and resources on developing strong professional learning modules as well as exemplars and other supports which will yield more consistent teacher mastery.

Remember as you go through this process, just as there is no one-size-fits-all identification method or service design that will meet the needs of each and every learner, there is no one-size-fits-all for how you approach differentiated services. Let your guiding principle be what your students need. You cannot go wrong with that!

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/YL-c5P7LFeo

The Power of GT in the PLC

Districts and campuses rely on collaborative planning to increase teacher efficacy. One model for that collaboration is the Professional Learning Community (PLC) which asks these four questions: What do we want students to learn, how will we know when they’ve learned it, what will we do when they do not learn it, and what will we do when they already know it. Unfortunately, teachers often do not address question 4, what will we do when they already know it. With a strength-based, advanced learning focus on instruction, teachers can shift the PLC time to first address the most desirable outcome, more students requiring question 4, and then use question 3 to scaffold the learning.

Flipping questions 3 and 4 in the PLC meeting is quite intuitive once tried. Thinking about what students should do after mastery can be incorporated into question 1 when teachers are unpacking the standards initially. But how can this happen when the GT expertise is not in the PLC room? Use the guiding questions to identify ways to bring that voice into that space.

Guiding Questions:

Who currently is required to attend our PLCs? Do you have any documents that guide the PLC process? Perhaps your district has an MTSS handbook with an outline of the PLC expectations. If not, ask your campus administrators who they include. It may be consistent across campuses or it may be determined by campus leadership. Regardless, the GT teacher or voice usually is not included. If she is, you are in a solid place for amplifying the needs of your learners.
How do campus administrators view the role of the GT teacher? The role of the GT teacher varies widely from an individual who provides gifted services only to an integrated part of the instructional leadership team providing professional learning and classroom teacher support in addition to serving the identified GT students. In some districts, the campus leaders select their GT teachers and then assign them duties. In others, the services are administered centrally. In each case, the campus administrator may view the GT teacher as just one of many allocations with flexible duties to a highly-skilled specialist. Knowing this information in advance can help you craft your talking points for better advanced learning PLC integration.
What data do teachers use to inform decisions made in the PLC? Most commonly, teachers use achievement data ranging from unit assessments to a more standardized achievement battery such as MAP. However, other data points can be powerful indicators of instructional needs. Consider using your CogAT data to inform strategies, grouping, and even special needs referrals.
How do GT teachers currently support the PLC process? Mostly likely the answer is they don’t. However, they should be included. They are the experts on strategies that grow the highest achieving learners as well as those who may struggle.
What challenges exist that prevent the GT teacher from better supporting the PLC and general education teachers better? Your challenges may include the GT teachers having time in their schedule to attend the PLC. Other challenges may include classroom teacher resistance to help or a view that it is “one more thing” they will have to do. The GT teacher may not feel comfortable filling a role outside of classroom instruction. It is important to note the challenges and prepare solutions prior to your implementation to both acknowledge feelings as well as present support.
What would the ideal PLC process look like in your district? Dream a little here. This question is for you. Who would you include? How will the GT teacher be integrated into the PLC framework? What role will s/he play? Think through this ideal situation prior to implementation when you will run into roadblocks so you will have a vision to share.
Which campus(es) can support the flipped PLC questions 3 and 4 framework? Where do you start? Identify one or two pioneer campuses who are fluent in the PLC process as well as strong in instructional development. They will be equipped to implement the flipped questions more easily and give solid feedback before you expand the process to all campuses.
What do the PLC participants need to know and understand to make that change? How will you provide that information and training? You will need to prepare professional learning to equip and empower all of the PLC participants to integrate the advanced learning mindset into their process. What is your why and how will you explain it to teachers and campus administrators so it becomes or supports their why? When will you provide the training? Can you do it before school starts or would it be better to embed it within the PLC itself?
What strategies will you choose to focus on to ensure differentiation? (no more than 2) In the previous module, we reviewed Depth and Complexity and the Differentiating UP strategies. Would one of those support your advanced learners? Do you have the capacity to develop professional learning and exemplars for them? Does your district already use a good strategy for differentiating? How can it be scaled for the most able learners? When teachers have too many options, they may opt to do nothing because they are overwhelmed. You should narrow your focus to one or two strategies so you can build to teacher mastery of them.
Who will support the training and implementation of these strategies? This may be your GT teachers, your professional learning department, campus professionals such as the instructional coach, or even you. Knowing in advance allows you to coordinate the efforts. Consider using the Job-Embedded Professional Development model to address the feeling of “one more thing” with teachers.
What are your success metrics? Any good plan has a desired outcome or success metrics. How will you know you have been successful? You can choose a number of times the GT teacher is in the PLC, the number of times a new strategy is implemented throughout the year, or something else. Go back to your answer for your ideal PLC. How can that inform your success metrics? Integrate some of that dreaming here to avoid putting the goal too low.
How will you expand the flipped PLC questions to other campuses? Always plan for the next step. Once you have launched the GT teacher in the PLC as well as flipping PLC questions 3 and 4, how will you scale that to the other campuses? Will it look the same at elementary as secondary? Who will give you permission to proceed? Will you need more funding? Professional learning? How can it support district goals that are beyond the campus goals?

A successful PLC requires a tremendous amount of collaboration and cooperation among individuals with different roles. Although the advanced learner has traditionally been overlooked, including the GT teacher in the PLC process along with flipping questions 3 and 4 will lead to higher teacher satisfaction knowing they are reaching all their students and it will improve student growth.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/bYnXe9QeWII

Clustering and Flexible Grouping

Elementary students spend the majority of their time in heterogeneous classroom settings in which the teacher is expected to meet the instructional needs of a wide range of learners. Clustering gifted and high-achieving learners together enables the teacher to more easily provide the appropriate differentiation and acceleration these learners need especially when coupled with the Professional Learning Community (PLC) process. Additionally, utilizing flexible grouping during instructional units honors accelerated learning and early mastery of discrete skills and concepts by students even if they have not been identified for gifted services.

Although effective strategies, clustering and flexible grouping often are not employed because they can get messy or there is a fear of them being viewed as tracking. Clustering models are not tracking as the groupings change each year based on current data. Yes, flexible grouping can get messy as it can change daily and even by subject; however, systems can be developed to ease some of the challenge. The guiding questions will help you identify areas where you can improve your grouping practices.

Guiding Questions:

How are elementary students placed in classes each year? Do you use a cluster model? What characteristics and learning needs are considered? Some schools use the “pink and blue” cards to assign elementary students to classes. Others assign students by parent request. Consider using the Total School Cluster Grouping Model. It is supported by years of research and it provides consideration for each student to be placed for optimum growth and success. This model takes the “pink and blue” system to a level that factors in all the considerations that should go into class placement. It eases the teacher burden by narrowing the ranges of student readiness in the class and provides each student group with a cohort of like-ability learners.
How are master schedules created in secondary schools? How are gifted and advanced learners grouped in advanced courses? Do you have Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, OnRamps (TX only), or some other college-credit bearing courses? Providing them offers students a way to earn college credit for little or no cost, a way to accelerate for their advanced learning needs, and a way to be grouped in cohorts of like-achieving students. Some states have CCMR (College, Career, Military Readiness) requirements which these courses help students and districts meet. Do you utilize sheltered or clustered classes for GT students? Providing a GT section of advanced courses serves the GT students within the scope of the college-credit bearing pathways. Master schedules are complicated. Can your schedules be created so students can fit their needed courses into their day? Does the schedule provide for acceleration? Consider meeting with the master schedule builders to collaborate on how to ensure advanced learners can take the courses they need.
How would cluster grouping impact teacher efficacy and student growth? Because clustering reduces the number of bands of learners in a classroom, the teacher has fewer levels of learning needs for which to plan. She more easily can focus on small-group instruction providing scaffolds and extensions in collaborative settings. All of these outcomes result in increased teacher efficacy.
What are state mandates for grouping or clustering identified gifted students? Because some states GT-identified students to be grouped in specific ways for their daily instruction, review these requirements to ensure your cluster grouping practices comply with the GT specifications. Avoid removing the cluster model if the GT requirements do not seem to be in alignment. Most times you can devise a solution that honors both practices.
What challenges will small campuses face and how will they be addressed? When using any cluster model, small campuses with few sections in each grade level will have fewer options for moving students around. Although some may perceive this as not providing enough student variety each year, using flexible grouping on top of clustering both honors the cluster model and ensures all students receive instruction at their readiness level with each body of content.
What misconceptions may the families have that will need to be addressed? When and how will that occur? Tracking is addressed above, but it warrants review. Clustering is not tracking because it changes each year based on timely data. Other misconceptions may include there being a “smart class” that they desire their student to be in even if it is not instructionally appropriate. Students who are required to be together each year, like GT-identified may grow tired of being with the same students. Address these concerns before they arise by publishing a newsletter or handbook with references to the research. Share that their concerns are valid and how you will accommodate for them with strategies such as flexible grouping or joint specials time. If there are state mandates, explain them so families understand some decisions are based in law. Getting in front of the concerns will help you avoid conflicts later on.
How will other clustering factors be considered? (sped, dyslexia) Special education services and other services such as for dyslexia have mandates that drive many schedules. Working around them to make your clustered classrooms can be an extra challenge. Work with the leads for these services so you know when those services must occur. How must those students be grouped? Do those groups fit into the cluster groups? If so, there are no issues. If they do not, how can the cluster groups be adjusted? The link to the book in the references addresses many scenarios you may encounter.
What will be the timeline for training and implementation? Will you start with pioneer campuses or with full implementation? Consider starting at one campus with open-minded and flexible leaders. Also, develop professional learning resources for each step of the process including what is open for flexibility and what is tight. Provide professional learning through the year so the teachers receive what they need when they need it. For example, provide cluster grouping why and how to make initial classes in the spring. Provide direction on adjusting classes in August. Based on whatever needs arise, whether it is behavior or academic, schedule a training after the students have been in school about a month to help the teachers address challenges. Continue this rhythm throughout the year.
What are the success metrics? How will they be measured? How will you know you were successful in creating and supporting your clusters? What data might you use? How will you report it? What changes are you willing to make based on the progress? What changes are non-negotiable going into the next year. Sadly, educators see changes come and go without time for reflection and then success. They may not be accustomed to that part of the process which presents another growth opportunity for them.

Teachers have so many competing priorities. Why would we not use strategies that grow students and ease some of the planning burden from teachers? The misconceptions can be overcome, or preferably, prevented with planning and proactive communication. The combination of cluster grouping and flexible grouping can transform each classroom into a space for optimized student growth.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/TTb-wZTzdjw

Student Goal-Setting Plans

Student agency increases learning by providing the students with some voice and choice in the learning process. Otherwise, students are simply attempting to be compliant and/or guess what they need to know and do to be successful. One step in that process is goal setting, in particular goals based on strengths, which empower the most able learners to grow academically and personally. If you are ready to implement this practice, use the guiding questions to develop your plan.

Guiding Questions:

Do students currently set and monitor goals themselves? Sadly, most students do not participate in goal setting exercises. If they do, it may be a district expectation or a campus practice. Determine where each of your campuses is on this continuum.
If so, what is the focus of the goals? (academic, grades, assessment, growth, affective) If students do set goals, the most common is academic tied to some kind of data point. For GT-identified students, that misses the opportunity to support their affective needs. The same can be said for other students who need to work on executive function or social-emotional skills. For the academic goals, do they set a specific score goal or a growth goal? Since students begin at different places and progress at different rates, consider using growth measures to determine if a student has met a goal.
What ownership/agency should your students have in the goal-setting and attainment process? If you ask a student where they are in their learning, they either will not know or they will give a date or page number. What if students could articulate they are 30% of the way to mastery or they have completed 60% of the unit requirements? Even better, what if they could articulate the standard and what they could actually do toward it? For example, if the standard is to multiply two digits by two digits, as a student I would be able to say the standard, explain what it means, share my own success metrics, and show how I know I have mastered it. What incredible ownership we can give students.
Is there a teacher or team already using student-led goal-setting and student-led conferences? If you have an early adopter, consider learning what has worked and what has not from her. Save yourself some time and angst so you can then focus on how to deepen that practice and scale it to the other classes and schools.
If not, what teacher or team with an equipped administrator is ready to do so? If you do not have anyone who has implemented this practice, who is ready? You can start with just one teacher during one window of the year, perhaps a grading cycle, to experiment on systems and practices that worked for the students and teacher. What would need to be changed for older or younger students? What resources are needed for the students and teacher? Be sure to include the campus administrator in the process so they feel some ownership, too.
What goal-setting model will you use? The most common model for goals in the SMART goal. While a good model, younger students will struggle with some of the requirements. Consider providing pre-written goals for your youngest students, goal stems for your middle students, and narrowed areas for your older students. Doing this also helps the teacher focus her support to the areas chosen. Students still have choice, but they won’t get bogged down in the minutia of writing the actual goal.
What data will the students use to set goals? While some goals should not be tied to data, we are in schools so a data goal is imperative, too. For an academic goal, consider using your MAP data which has a report for what growth is expected in each area for each student. If you do not use MAP, avoid goals that compare scores for multiple units which may not have the same content. For example, I would not want to compare my data from the geometry and measurement unit with my data from the fractions unit. The assessments should be measuring different content so the scores are not related.
How will success metrics be identified? In other words, how will you know when the goal is achieved? Strong goals with vague or ambiguous success metrics will lack the specificity to drive progress. Students must know what it looks and sounds like when they have achieved their goal. Consider providing examples of these to students. You may need to have teachers go through this entire process before having them implement it with students so they understand it and can provide appropriate support for students who struggle with it.
How will we scaffold for younger or less able students? In addition to the suggestions above, consider first explicitly teaching about goals and the goal-setting process with a concrete example. Have students see how far they can jump, decide what actions they should take to jump farther, have them complete the actions for a couple of weeks, and then check their distance again. Not all students will jump farther but all will have a better understanding of the process.
How will we communicate this process to families? Grades are the most common form of performance communicated to families. Also, they often expect everything to be graded. Moving to use goals to measure progress will be new for them and they may not know how to use the information. Consider providing a short video that explains the process and desired outcomes. Be proactive in addressing what will be graded and what is for practice and growth. Explain the why. A live meeting may be in order; however, if you have GT teachers on the campuses, consider empowering them and the administrator to handle the communication. They have the relationships with the families and they will know how to best communicate this change.
What training will teachers need? When and how will it be provided? By whom? This is another opportunity for Job-Embedded Professional Development. Consider embedding their role in the PLC process while they are examining data anyway. Help them plan out the goal-setting process as part of the lesson design so it is seamless. The students will accept it as part of the learning process and not feel so overwhelmed.
How will resistance be addressed? It is inevitable. Each person will approach this process with a different set of experiences. Provide an opportunity for concerns to be shared in a safe environment with ample time to address them prior to implementation. Have them share times they have set goals and how they felt when they saw their own growth. That builds a desire for their students to feel the same way. Many times, when people feel heard, they feel much more confident about moving forward.
How will we celebrate successes which may include progress in the process or goal attainment? Celebrations should happen often. Be cautious about what you celebrate, though. You may want to celebrate those who reach their goals and you should. Consider celebrating progress, though. Think about the students for whom learning is more difficult. How can you help them set attainable goals that inspire and motivate them to persevere? Any growth is worthy of celebration.

Once you initiate the goal-setting process and students taste the successes of knowing and being able to communicate their growth, you will have momentum on your side. Goals as part of a student’s personalized learning plan, a topic gaining traction in the GT community, should definitely be explored more deeply.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/dhtZHIUjsjE

Using the guiding questions will help you identify ways your district or campus can better use all the data available.

Guiding Questions:

What are the state and/or federal achievement requirements? What achievement data do we currently use? You usually will find multiple forms of achievement data used at any time. Schools use content assessment and performance data throughout the year. States require students to perform at certain levels on mandated assessments. A growing trend is for district to use growth assessments such as MAP at predetermined times in the year. Some students will have data generated during a special education referral and other data from GT referrals. Each of those data points is useful to use depending on what you are measuring.
What other growth measures do we value in this district? The use of the word “value” is intentional. Districts must comply with requirements; however, they also may employ other data that they and their community have deemed important to the full development of the students. Does your district use a suicide prevention screener or another social-emotional assessment? Do you use performance assessments as part of the students’ mastery checks? In other words, are students required to complete a task where they demonstrate they can apply their learning in addition to knowing the content?
Which students have CogAT data available within the last two years? Is CogAT only used for gifted referrals or as a universal screener for whole grade levels or other groups of students?
Who has access to the CogAT data? Is it housed in a place where it can be considered with other assessment data? Many times CogAT lives alone in DataManager or in an electronic file in the advanced learning department. CogAT was not designed just for gifted testing and it should be located where anyone who makes decisions for a student can access it.
How is CogAT data currently used? Is it included in making instructional decisions? If it is not, it is underutilized. It cannot be emphasized enough that CogAT was not and is not intended for gifted identification only. It has impactful instructional implications and tapping into them alongside the achievement data is informative. For example, if a student performs above average in the verbal domain but is regularly struggling in reading, what is causing the disconnect between ability and performance? Is there an underlying learning issue that should be addressed? The new score profiles are designed to make finding and using high-impact strategies easier for teachers.
What teachers or teams are capable of integrating CogAT data into their instructional decision making? Do they have campus administrator support? The ideal place is the PLC room. If you do not have PLC time, identify a campus administrator with a strong instructional design background. They will have the expertise to recognize the need for incorporating the CogAT data into their discussions.
What training will campus administrators and teachers need to appropriately use CogAT with achievement data for instructional decisions? Teachers and administrators are not data experts. They may have a basic understanding of how their data works but little or no background in using data that assessments like CogAT provide. Terms like Student Age Score (SAS), percentile, norm, or ability may need clarification for an agreed-up meaning. After they understand the foundational pieces, they will need training in how to interpret the data, especially when considering multiple data points at one time. Who can work with you on creating and delivering this training? Consider providing data worksheets that guide them through the thinking process to apply the data appropriately to the instructional planning.
What are the desired outcomes for using CogAT + achievement data together for instructional decisions? The application of the data can be used for decisions about student groups, instructional strategies, preventing pitfalls in learning, leveraging areas of relative strength to improve on areas of relative weakness, and identifying unexpected results that could be indications of a learning disability. What are your desired outcomes? Will you start with all of them or just a couple to build capacity? How will you prioritize them? What other departments should be included in this process and the decisions?
What are the success metrics? How will you know you successfully implemented and supported this process? When you identify areas that need more support, how will you provide it?
Where will the instructional support resources be housed? Who will have access? The goal of using data is to inform instruction. Consider creating instructional resources as exemplars for teachers to use and then replicate. They should be located where teachers can easily access them along with other intervention resources. The fewer clicks to get to it, the better.
How can the instructional expectations be included in the formal observation evaluation and instrument? One way to reduce the feeling of “one more thing” is to correlate the data analysis and subsequent instructional expectations with the required teacher evaluation process. Where are the points of intersection? Communicate that the process and resources provide tools to bring the expectations to life in the classroom.

Every teacher became a teacher to grow their students. When teachers understand the relationship between data analysis, especially correlating CogAT and achievement data, and the impact on their students’ learning, they embrace the opportunity to improve their practice.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/szk6zotEP7I

GT in MTSS

An intervention is something that disrupts the status quo. While interventions in the Multi-tiered System of Support are usually associated with struggling students performing below grade level, gifted and advanced learners should not be forgotten. First, some gifted learners also have another exceptionality requiring support. However, their advanced capabilities cannot be overlooked. Second, gifted learners are not all alike and some need more advanced learning support than others. Just as students with disabilities require a continuum of options for support, so do the advanced learners. Explore ways to tap into the power of the MTSS framework using these guiding questions.

Guiding Questions:

What national, state, and local policies guide RtI (Response to Intervention) and MTSS (Multi-Tiered Systems of Support)? Does your state have mandates on what and how to use RtI and MTSS? What are they and where are they located? How are they implemented within your district?
Are advanced learning needs addressed in the RtI or MTSS plans? Most likely there is nothing included in these mandates that require the consideration of advanced learning needs, but it is important to collect this information and verify it.
What existing protocols and practices can be cross-applied to advanced learners? Where are opportunities for advanced learners to be included in your current practices? What systems for intervention could be used for advanced learners? In other words, how can you use what you have to get what you need.
How are the needs of twice-exceptional (2E) learners addressed in policy and/or protocols? Twice-exceptional learners are discussed frequently in the gifted circles but not as much in special education. Begin with a conversation with those departments to learn how they view and address 2E students. If provisions for these unique learners are not written into district protocol documents, collaborate to have them included. Once included there, you will find it much easier to have supports included, too.
What correlation can we draw between struggling learners’ and advanced learners' instructional needs? We in education are usually equipped for the former but not for the latter. Maybe you thought of how each needed something different to ensure they grew as learners. Often the advanced learner receives more instead of different, though. Perhaps you see a correlation in how they respond when they do not receive the interventions they need. In both situations, off-task and inappropriate behavior can be the result. Whatever connection you can make between the two groups of learners helps make more relatable how the advanced learners’ needs should be viewed.
What resources do we currently have to address the needs of advanced learners? What barriers exist for teachers to access and utilize these resources? It is likely there are a variety of options to provide scaffolding for struggling students, but what do you have for students who are advanced? Acceleration is not the only option. Identify one or two high-yield strategies like Depth and Complexity or Differentiating UP to offer in the MTSS discussions. Use CogAT data to group students by relative strength for better collaboration. Focus on one or two and ensure teachers get really masterful at using them and the MTSS team becomes fluent in identifying opportunities for their use.
What professional learning opportunities exist for differentiated instructional strategies and resources? What gaps exist in the professional learning opportunities? How do we fill them? Professional learning is always needed. This is another opportunity to use Job-Embedded Professional Development. Do you already offer professional learning in the needs of advanced learners? Can you partner with the core content curriculum department to add your strategies to enhance their existing instructional components?

Addressing the needs of advanced learners should be an integral part of any successful MTSS process. Whether it is to ensure the needs of 2E learners are met or to offer strategies that better engage all learners, alignment and integration will improve the efficacy of the teacher.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/C2KKjR_ptqc

To orient yourself with this topic, consider reading this blog first and then address any concerns with these guiding questions.

Guiding Questions:

How do we serve Emerging Bilingual students? Start with where you are. How are Emerging Bilingual students served in your district? Do you have dual language programming? What assessments are used to determine their language acquisition level? Does that assessment provide any data usable to determine a need for advanced learning services?
What professional learning is currently provided to classroom teachers in using appropriate instructional strategies for emerging bilingual students? What joint professional learning opportunities can we plan along with others who work with emerging bilingual students? What will be the focus of professional learning? Does it include characteristics of advanced or GT learners? How can we partner together to provide professional learning that addresses the needs of advanced emerging bilingual students? Can it be included in the current professional learning opportunities or will it be developed as a stand-alone offering? Can both departments be part of each presentation?
What is our equity index for emerging bilingual students? Use the guidance in this document to find your equity index. If you are below .8, you are not identifying enough students. If you are above 1.2, you are overidentifying students.
How do we identify emerging bilingual students for gifted services? How do we provide gifted services for emerging bilingual students? Is it the same identification and service model for all students? What considerations should be included for emerging bilingual students? How do we factor in the need for language processing time on timed assessments? Do the GT teachers use the emerging bilingual strategies for their students?
What strategy will we focus on in the first year? Where will we focus this strategy? It is tempting to go all in, but as mentioned in other modules, teachers have limited time and many competing priorities. Can you select a strategy that will accomplish multiple goals? The Depth and Complexity icons have a unique resource called Talk Cards which utilize sentence stems for student responses to questions using the icons. Using the icons means you have a built-in scaffold tool.
What individuals or departments can we partner with to increase efficiency and efficacy of our efforts? Consider partnering with the department that identifies and serves emerging bilingual students. Provide professional learning together and include strategies that are good for all students like the Depth and Complexity framework. Ensure the teachers for the emerging bilingual students are trained in how to spot students who may need gifted or advanced learning services.
What are the success metrics? When and how will they be measured? How do we know our new collaboration and subsequent strategies have yielded positive results? Will they be quantitative based on data such as the MAP Growth data or will it be based on something locally developed? Can we look for the reduction in attrition for emerging bilingual students over five or more years?
What other student groups would benefit from the instructional strategies? Most strategies that are needed by our emerging bilingual students are good for all students. Any student with a language processing challenge or lagging academic language also needs these scaffolds.

While advanced learning, particularly the GT portion of it, can be a siloed department, an opportunity for collaboration is easily available and often desired with those who serve our emerging bilingual students.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/_tEdHGY_TpE

Unfortunately, there is resistance to acceleration. The benefits are not understood and the potential challenges are overestimated. Schedules must be adjusted, especially in elementary schools, to accommodate these learners. Also, “red shirting” or holding students out of school an extra year before kindergarten, is prevalent in some communities.

However, acceleration is a powerful strategy to address advanced learning needs. Use these guiding questions to plan your implementation.

Guiding Questions:

What are the state laws or policies informing acceleration? Some states, like Texas, require schools to allow testing for acceleration as well as acceleration based on identified-GT needs. When those laws exist, they are helpful in implementation as compliance removes the barriers from resistance.
What does the data indicate about the need for acceleration? Decades of research fully supports acceleration as a way to meet the needs of gifted-identified and advanced learners when implemented with a thorough understanding of the student’s instructional needs. Acceleration is not the right strategy for every advanced learner, but it should be considered in the continuum of services. For a deep dive into the research and other resources, visit the Acceleration Institute at the Belin-Blank Center.
How can accelerated students’ schedules accommodate this instructional need? Potentially, the most complex schedules are those in elementary. If the sending and receiving grade-level courses are not aligned, the student may end up with an entirely unique schedule. For example, if a student in third grade needs to be in fourth-grade math but those classes are not at the same time, he may be in lunch, specials, other subjects, and recess at times without his grade peers. Some students do not mind but others may feel isolated. Consider building a master schedule with the accelerated students’ needs in mind. Can you align those subjects across grades? If there are multiple students needing the same schedule accommodations, can they be clustered in the same homeroom? For secondary classes, the accommodations are much easier. The student simply builds the schedule based on which courses are needed. One complication arises when a student needs a course not offered on his campus. If a student in 8th grade needs Algebra II which is only offered at the high school, schedule adjustments may include attending the high school in person or providing a virtual (synchronous or asynchronous) course online. If the student will attend the other campus, who will provide the transportation…the parent or the district? If a virtual option is offered, who will teach it? Will it be live or recorded? Can the student take the course through another online option? Can the student test out of the course instead? Be sure to check your local or state mandates about course credits. Some states do not allow high school credits in middle school or junior high which may complicate the situation further.
What assessment data will inform acceleration decisions What scores or score combinations will qualify students for acceleration? The most common type of assessment for acceleration is achievement. However, because acceleration has long-term implications and requirements, consider also using ability data like the CogAT. What score profile will you use to make this placement? The Acceleration Institute at the Belin-Blank Center published this guidebook to help educators create policies and processes for acceleration. Consider using the guide to create your own. It provides a framework to consider the whole child the context of their family, motivation, and goals.
Will we utilize a placement committee to make final acceleration decisions? No one person should be responsible for placement decisions for acceleration or other services. Contributors to the profile of the student should include former teachers, current teachers, GT teacher, someone with acceleration expertise, adults in the home, and the child. The placement committee should include someone with acceleration expertise, a campus representative, and someone with gifted or advanced learning expertise. The family can choose to accept or decline the acceleration opportunity.
How will families learn about acceleration opportunities and procedures? Will you publish the opportunity on your website? Send home a newsletter during a window to request consideration or testing? Some states require wide advertisement. While equitable opportunity requires both wide advertisement so families can request consideration and child find practices for students whose families are not familiar with acceleration needs, the first can lead to an abundance of testing that is not appropriate for the child and the latter requires classroom teachers to recognize the need and advocate for acceleration. Consider a combination of ways for students to be considered within your state requirements.
How will acceleration be explained to students and how will they be supported during the transition? Ultimately, the student is the one who will experience the acceleration and, depending on age and maturation level, may or may not understand why this is happening. They may not want to leave their friends or be seen as different. Use concrete examples for the younger students. For example, explain that some students grow faster so they need to buy bigger clothes when they do, which is the same as learning math faster and needing a math class that fits. Older students will understand that they are not learning and growing where they are currently placed. Ensure you have a transition plan with periodic checkpoints for the first six months or even longer. Check grades, teacher perception, and student perception at each checkpoint to verify the placement is yielding positive results. If the student is struggling socially, provide opportunities to meet with an advanced learning teacher an/or a counselor to talk through the challenges.
How will teachers for accelerated sections of courses be selected? Sometimes this is determined by the schedule, but when you can, select a teacher who will understand the unique nature of the accelerated student who will be younger and in an unfamiliar group of students. The younger the student, the more important this is.

Creating an acceleration policy and implementing the strategy can seem overwhelming, but the outcomes far outweigh the challenges. Trust the research and the process and witness the beauty that comes from a student who has found her niche.

Download the worksheet and watch the related video:

Alternate video link: https://youtu.be/W2a0l55Dlg8

MODULE 1	Job-Embedded Professional Learning & Development (JPED)
MODULE 2	Language Matters
MODULE 3	Leveraging Conversations
MODULE 4	District Gifted Identification and Service Model Decision-Making
MODULE 5	Universal Screening and Norming Practices
MODULE 6	Multiple Pathways and Differentiated Services
MODULE 7	The Power of GT in the PLC
MODULE 8	Clustering and Flexible Grouping
MODULE 9	Student Goal-Setting Plans
MODULE 10	CogAT + Achievement Data = Growth
MODULE 11	GT in MTSS
MODULE 12	GT and Emerging Bilingual
MODULE 13	Acceleration

The Gifted Coordinator Toolkit

Connect With Your Local Assessment Consultant