Carefully consider the possible unintended consequences of the proposed revisions.
“Their ("gifted students") aptitudes and potential for accomplishment are so outstanding that they require special programs to meet their educational needs.“
8 VAC20-40-20. Definitions.
This does not proclaim that gifted students would like or deserve to have special programs; it states a simple truth. Gifted students REQUIRE services that match their unique educational needs. In order to ensure equitable access to essential educational services for the Commonwealth’s gifted children it is imperative that the Virginia Board of Education continues to promote and maintain exemplary standards. The process of revising the current Regulations Governing Educational Services for Gifted Students is being carefully implemented to be inclusive of a variety of stakeholders and the resulting document has the potential to be a powerful tool for the ongoing improvement of gifted services in Virginia
There are three sections in the proposed revisions that should be examined carefully, regulatory oversight, plan development, and funding. The proposed changes in these sections could have unintended, detrimental consequences for local school divisions and for gifted students.
·The proposed revisions eliminate the requirement for school divisions to submit a local gifted plan to the Department of Education, requiring instead that a plan be reviewed and approved only by the local school board. The current regulations call for peer review, local school board approval, and approval by the Department of Education. The current model is excellent because it draws on the expertise of gifted educators trained both in the identification of gifted students and in the delivery of services, the expertise of school board members responsible for local implementation of services and the expertise of the Department of Education in determining adherence to regulations. Utilizing the contribution of each of these groups results in a research based, implementable local plan that follows state regulations.
·For approximately ten years, local plans have been developed on five year cycles. The proposed revisions call for local plans to be developed annually. The five year cycle is effective because it insures the development of short and long range goals that can be evaluated annually and revised as necessary. In recent years there have been frequent staffing changes among local gifted coordinators throughout the state. The five year plan sets a standard for gifted program services within a division that is not affected by changes in personnel. Furthermore, the proposed revisions call for local advisory boards to be appointed by local school boards. Current advisory committees are approved by local school boards. The purposes of the advisory committees are primarily to review the local plan and to determine the extent to which the plan has been implemented. These committees also work cooperatively with local coordinators to identify gifted service needs. The current process is free from political influence when a committee that is comprised of interested parents, school personnel, and other community members is approved by a school board instead of being appointed.
· Section 8VAC20-40-70, Funding, needs to remain in the regulations. Each school board struggles with appropriating funds to worthwhile programs. There is a popular erroneous assumption that gifted students will “get it anyway” and therefore financial resources should be appropriated elsewhere. Maintaining this statement in the regulations, “State funds administered by the Department of Education for the education of gifted students shall be used to support only those activities identified in the school division’s plan as approved by the Board of Education.” guarantees fiscal oversight to designated gifted service funds and eliminates the possibility of these funds being spent in other areas.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has long been a leader in the effort to provide necessary services for gifted students. There must be careful consideration of the consequences that could arise from the proposed regulatory, organizational, and fiscal changes to the existing regulations.
