I have concerns regarding the budgetary implications of the proposed revisions to the regulations governing gifted education, discrepancies among the supporting documents, lack of “best practices”, and omission of ‘code of Virginia’ features that impact gifted education.  The Commonwealth cannot afford to alter regulations in a manner that will both increase spending and negatively impact our gifted population through reduction in services.  My strong preference is to table these regulations and begin fresh with input from key leaders in this field including educational leaders, academic leaders and advisors from the community at large.  I have heard many commendations of the 1996 Virginia Plan for the Gifted, but it contains many 'should’ recommendations that are not mandates (shall).  I had hoped that the  new regulations would have built on the strengths of the plan, changing the “should” to “shall”.  I had hoped that the new regulations would have promoted efficiency and strengthened gifted education in the Commonwealth.  I do not support the new regulations as they stand currently.  My specific areas of concern follow.

·       Section 8 VAC 20-40-60. Local plan.

Please reinstate the current practice of DOE approval every five years that includes peer review.  Per the Economic Impact Analysis produced by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget statement: “gifted education coordinators who participate in the reviews consistently state that the reviews are an excellent experience that provides useful information for themselves as well. Approximately 150 hours a year of staff time is spent on the reviews. The Department reimburses gifted education coordinators on average approximately $4,000 a year for lodging and travel. The Board proposes to repeal the language stating “Each school division shall submit to the Department of Education for approval a plan for the education of gifted students.” Consequently, plans would no longer be submitted for approval, and there would no longer be state-run peer reviews of plans for the education of gifted students. The Commonwealth would save approximately $4,000 a year in lodging and travel costs and about 150 hours a year of staff time. Significant though essentially unquantifiable benefits will be lost if Department and peer reviews no longer occur. School division coordinators will learn less about their peer’s experiences, and will thus be less likely to learn about improved methods of providing gifted services. Implementation of these improved methods could result in improved student learning. Parents will also no longer be able to check with the Department to see if their local school division’s plan for the education of gifted students officially complies with the state regulations. Estimating the value of the significant but uncertain potential of gifted education coordinators learning about improved methods of providing gifted services that could result in improved student learning, and parents’ ability to check with the Department to see if their local school divisions plan for the education of gifted students officially complies with the state regulations is inherently subjective. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the value exceeds $4,000 plus 150 hours of staff time. Thus, the ending of state and peer review of school divisions’ plan for the education of gifted students will likely produce a net cost for the Commonwealth.”  Although the DOE may realize a savings of $4000 plus 150 hours staff time, the added cost to each local school division for the change to creating annual plans rather than five year plans has not been included in this analysis.  Total cost to the Commonwealth will likely increase unless school divisions can accomplish the annual plan development for less than $30 per division and less than 1.3 hours per year.  Non-monetary losses include the loss of inherent benefit of peer review and ability to confirm compliance from a central source.  Questions of compliance with regulations will be vulnerable to challenge and interpretation. 

·       8VAC20-40-40. Screening, referral, identification, and placement.

Please change the language to read “shall include procedures for identification and service in one or more of the following: English OR, history and social science, OR mathematics, OR science”.  Per the Economic Impact statement:   “The current regulations specify that “If the school division elects to identify students with specific academic aptitudes, they shall include procedures for identification and service in mathematics, science, and humanities.” The board proposes to replace “humanities” with “English, history and social science.” According to the Department “humanities” has been interpreted differently by different school divisions. Not all school divisions have interpreted humanities to include English, history and social science and have thus not provided identification and service in all three of those disciplines. To the extent that school divisions that are not currently providing identification and service in English, history or social science choose to comply with this proposed change, there will be significant impact.1 Students who are capable of handling gifted level instruction in the newly introduced disciplines would likely benefit by receiving such instruction. On the other hand, by newly spending resources on identification and service in new disciplines the school divisions will necessarily reduce resource expenditure elsewhere or otherwise raise additional revenue. By having chosen to not provide identification and service in these disciplines previously, local decision makers have implicitly shown that they believe that the costs of providing these services exceed the benefits (if they must use their own resources).”

Achievement Testing:

Please include a requirement for achievement testing, once identified, for appropriate placement.  From the new definition “"Student outcomes" are specified expectations based on the assessment of student cognitive and affective needs. Such outcomes should articulate expectations for advanced levels of performance for gifted learners means the advanced achievement and performance expectations established for each gifted student, through the review of the student''s assessed learning needs and the goals of the program of study, that are reviewed and reported to parents or legal guardians.”  How can achievement expectations be established without knowledge of where the student is in their readiness at the beginning of a period that is required to show academic growth? 

Acceleration policy:

This is one option that can actually save money!  Please require all school divisions to have an acceleration policy, particularly exercising the Virginia administrative code introduced by HB 1196: "5. Establish a procedure to facilitate the acceleration of students that allows qualified students, with the recommendation of the division superintendent, without completing the 140-hour class, to obtain credit for such class upon demonstration of mastery of the course content and objectives. Having received credit for the course, the student shall be permitted to sit for the relevant Standards of Learning assessment and, upon receiving a passing score, shall earn a verified credit.” (from http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+22.1-253.13C4 ) 

Another portion of the code involves early entrance to kindergarten:  (A) The kindergarten program in each school division shall include a program suitable for children who will reach their fifth birthday on or before September 30 of the school year. (C)In those school divisions implementing [certain] programs, children whose fifth birthday occurs between October 1 and December 31 of the school year may be enrolled in kindergarten after an appropriate readiness evaluation has demonstrated that attendance in these programs will educationally benefit such children.( § 22.1-199. Kindergarten programs suitable for certain children.)” § 22.1-199. Kindergarten programs suitable for certain children.” With the advent of the early education program under development, I would expect this type of code to be reflected in the new regulations to accommodate those children who arrive in the early education setting with the needs of a gifted preschooler. 

A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students
Nicholas Colangelo, Susan G. Assouline, Miraca U. M. Gross, is a two volume summary of research that supports positively 18 forms of acceleration, yet Virginia has embraced few of these options, primarily in the secondary school environment.  I would like to see Virginia develop much more in terms of providing “Polices [misspelled, should be policies] and procedures that allow access to programs of study and advanced courses at a pace and sequence commensurate with their learning needs;”  I wonder how school divisions are to determine what a student’s learning needs are.

Measurement of Academic Growth:

I commend the introduction of the requirement “Parents and legal guardians shall receive assessment of each gifted student’s intellectual and academic growth;” however; I am deeply concerned that this will turn into an expanded report card rather than a nationaly normed assessment that will objectively and defensively justify the programming for that student and demonstrate academic progress.  Much has been written about the growth model.  I would like to propose that for any school division that uses growth data for AYP for any subgroup, that the entire gifted population be included as a subgroup with the same requirements of at least one year of growth, provided with out-of-level testing in the beginning of the period for appropriate placement and expectations.  This would be much more likely to yield programming that would be responsive to that student’s readiness and needs.  Although eventually I would prefer to see this available to all children, many districts are not yet capable or funded to provide this type of assessment. Per a letter authored by Thomas M. Jackson, Jr., President Virginia Board of Education, 2004: “Should the NCLB regulations permit it, in the alternative, the Virginia SEA would request to establish individual starting points in each reporting category which would be based upon actual data of student performance in each reporting category for the prior three years.”