I believe it is always wise to update the programs to best fit the current technologies/students in our schools, so it is absolutely approriate to do the proposed review.  A gifted program (that is well run) can help determine the future of our country.  Education is paramount to the health and wealth of our nation and further educating our best students by challenging these individuals is not a luxury.  All students, of course, deserve and need a great education, but the top ten percenters will be many of the ones  we will look to for the future's greatest acheivements.

    I fully support reviewing the existing regulations governing educational services for gifted students. I am pleased that a gifted student program is available in the Lexington City Schools and wish that there was increased funding for the program to enhance what is already being offered. Specifically, funding for additional staff/faculty would help immensely.

Thank your for soliciting comments from the public.

I am relieved to see this is finally underway. There has been great change in the field of Gifted Education since 1993. I need to know as a teacher of the gifted for the past 25 years that we are concerned about gifted students' needs ; we don't need to leave them behind in an effort to not leave any others behind. I am aware, painfully so, that SOL's in VA. have absorbed much of the funding for other programs; this is another reason to revitalize the expectations of the gifted program in our state. I appreciate the opportunity to say"Yes" to the state's scutiny of our gifted regulations.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the future of  The Gifted Eduction Program.  It is essential that this program continue to enrich our children and also inperative to review the program periodically, especially in terms of keeping up with the ever-changing technology.

Please increase funding for the provision of gifted services.  Current funding levels are woefully inadequate.  Despite the best efforts of the GS teachers/coordinators at the two schools with which I am familiar, there just aren't enough of them (GS teachers) to meet the needs of the many exceptional students. 

I recognize that other constituencies need funds, too, but it's the gifted kids who might one day -- if their potential is realized -- solve some of the problems the other constituencies have.  And failing to appropriately challenge kids who need it risks losing their interest in school altogether.

Virginia Association for the Gifted

Recommended Changes to Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students

Approved by the VAG Board of Directors on January 28, 2007

 

Areas of Giftedness to be Served. 8VAC20-40-20. Definitions.

·         Definition, identification and enrollment shall include students, elementary through graduation, in General Intellectual Abilities (GIA) or Specific Academic Abilities (SAA), as defined by mathematics, sciences, English/Language Arts, or history/social studies. 

·         Additional definition, identification, and programs serving visual/performing arts and/or technical/practical arts may occur at the local option.

 

Identification of the Selected Area of Service: 8VAC20-40-40. Identification and 8 VAC20-40-50.Criteria for Screening and Identification.

·         Where testing is used to identify students, norm referenced testing should be used.

·         Division-wide screening should occur in order to widen the pool of potential candidates for referral for services.

·         Multiple criteria are to be defined as compiling multiple sources of data for each student.

·         All students, including special education and English Language learners, should be screened for possible inclusion in the pool of potential candidates.

 

 

What I have observed over the years, as a parent as well as a member of the Advisory Committee, is the lack of sufficient funding and qualified staffing to provide the needed extra  gifted services.   This is especially apparent when compared to all the remedial services that are provided. 

Virginia Association for the Gifted

Recommended Changes to Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students

Approved by the VAG Board of Directors on January 28, 2007

 

Local Plan. 8VAC20-40-60. Local Plan.

·         The local school board and DOE, to serve as an assurance of compliance with the regulations, shall approve each school division’s local Plan for gifted education.

·         Modifications to local plans shall be submitted to DOE for reporting and approval.

·         Local plan shall provide goals for specific identification, delivery of services, curriculum/instruction, teacher preparation/on-going professional development, and parent/community involvement.

·         Service options shall include accelerative provisions at the classroom, school, and division levels for the purpose of having students learn at their own pace.

·         An add-on endorsement in gifted educations shall include a minimum of 12 hours of graduate coursework in gifted education; and shall include a practicum of at least 45 instructional hours. One year of successful full-time teaching experience in a public or accredited nonpublic school may be accepted in lieu of the practicum. A mentor with a valid license with an endorsement in gifted education must be assigned to the teacher.  Professional development in-service training shall be on going, comprehensive, and reflective of research-based best practices in the field of gifted education

This is our daughter's first year in GT and we are very pleased with the program at her 3rd grade level. However, I do not see this level of effort to address GT students needs at the middle school and high school level.  The middle school centers for GT education appear more scattered and seem to create long bus rides for the children.  The county might want to consider increasing the number of GT centers in its middle schools.  The county does not seem to have any high school level GT programs.  (Thomas Jefferson appears to only address the needs of those scientifically inclined exceptional students and is a state magnate school, not a county one.)  I would encourage the county to look carefully at the needs of students at all years K-12 and not just focus so heavily on elementary needs.  With the same breath, I praise the current program and all it is doing for our child in 3rd grade.

8VAC20-40-30 (Applicability) currently limits applicability to students in public elementary and secondary schools.  Rather, the regulation should remove the word public, to define the applicability to elementary and secondary school students.  All gifted students legally residing in a local school districts should be eligible for taxpayer-funded gifted student programs, whether they take advantage of regular publicly-funded education, choose to pay extra for private education or are taught at home.  This revision is consistent with 8VAC20-40-40. (Identification), which permits referrals from "parents or legal guardians, other persons of related expertise, peer referral and self-referral of those students believed to be gifted," as long as they would otherwise meet the qualitative procedures for identification and service in mathematics, science, and humanities.  Further, no student should be required to pay a premium price for participation in these programs simply by not attending public schools.

While it does not make a lot of sense to revise standards or policies every few years, it is a good idea to revisit and revise every ten years or so.  I applaud your efforts and thanks for allowing us, the parents, some input.

I hope that through this process you will be able to develop policies which offer consistency re. gifted education styles and formats throughout all the years.  We have experieced much better programs at the elementary level than we have at the middle school level, for instance, and have been disappointed in realizing that giftedness doesn't really mean anything at this level.

I support the revision of regulations for the gifted programs.  I agree with the other parents that it should be revised at least every 5-10 years, but not every year.   It is just as important to  take care of the gifted kids at school as it is to take care of the special needs kids.  After all, it is the gifted kids that will grow up to become the leaders of this country!

    I would like to see the rules  8VAC20-40-70. Funding modifed such that gifted funding is used exclusively for the gifted programs at each school.  NOT rolled in to the general budget or funds of the school district as has happened in the past.

    I would like to see sufficient funding that all qualified candidates for the Governor's Schools could attend, not just a small percentage of those qualified.

    Upon reading this VAC, it is clear that any update be more concise, to the point and absent the legalese that prevails in these codes.  It is apparent that many more people spend many more hours codifying than doing.

I believe it would be helpful for the regulations to address specific/detailed accountability procedures for delivery of services in the school divisions' local plans, especially for the differentiated instruction in a heterogeneous classroom model. Students receiving special education have specific goals in their IEP and regular education students have specific SOL's (lesson plans/tests); however there does not seem to be any specific plans or curriculum details for differentiated instruction for gifted learners in the heterogeneous classroom. The IEP and the SOL tests provide accountability of instruction for most students, but there seems to be a lack of accountability for the gifted. Local plans can speak of various methods to differentiate, but that does not ensure implementation. Some type of written differentiation plan is needed at the individual or classroom level. Current SOL test results and regular report cards do not reflect differentiated instruction or knowledge/skill development. Additional funding and accountability methods are needed to ensure the delivery of these services. If we do not nurture and support gifted students, our most valuable resource will be wasted. We need to be innovative and dynamic in re-structuring the classroom to met the needs of all students.

 

I welcome this effort as I see the need to address the gifted education in an appropriate manner. However, all regulations will not lead to anything if they are not accompanied by the proper education of the educators, and this education must be mandatory for teachers in charge. Teachers of gifted children must be well aware of their needs. In particular in heterogeneous classrooms, differentiation must be practised in an educated way.

Many of our teachers try to do their papers - personally I think that all of them do - but you cannot drive a race car when you only learned to drive in a street car in the city. (Yes, you cannot drive a truck or a utility vehicle as well.) Differentiated education for the kids means differentiated knowledge for the educator.

This will not be easy and may be challenging for the one or the other teacher at first, but if we want to apply the "Leave no kid behind!" act  in school, the diversity of kids requires the diversity of education, which requires an increased and improved education of the educators.

Schools divisions need specific definitions to terms described in the current document.  For example, the term "humanities" is used when describing areas of identification.  School divisions do not all interpret this word the same way.  Guidelines for developing local plans need improvement in staffing, settings, instructional approaches, and evaluation options.  The local guidelines should include standards and accountability for teaching and learning, pupil teacher ratios, and per pupil funding. The language related to the selection, evaluation, and training of gifted education teachers needs revision.  The teachers who work with the highest achievers should have an endorsement in gifted education.  I appreciate the opportunity to make a comment.