As the parent of two identified gifted students in Virginia and a member of our Local Gifted Advisory Committee, I appreciate the Board and the Department of Education’s attention to the needs of gifted students in Virginia public schools.  I have some concerns with the proposed revisions of the Virginia Regulations for Gifted Education.  My major concerns are stated in this comment.  My proposed changes are in bold and underlined.  I have included my rationale for each of my proposed changes.

1) My first concern is with the use of “and” versus “or” with regards to academic areas in specific academic aptitudes and visual/creative arts. 

8VAC20-40-20. Definitions.

Paragraph 4, Number 2: Specific Academic Aptitudes
Change from “ …selected academic areas that include English, history and social science, mathematics, and science.” to  “selected academic areas as defined by one or more of the following: English/ language arts, history and social science, mathematics, or science.”

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

Paragraph A, change to: “If the school division elects to identify students with specific academic aptitudes, it shall include procedures for identification and service in one or more of the following:

English/ language arts, history and social science, mathematics, or science.”

Paragraph A, change to: “School divisions may identify and serve gifted students in career and technical aptitude or visual or performing arts aptitude, or both, at their discretion.”

Paragraph D number 5, change to: “If a program is designed to address either the visual or performing arts or career and technical aptitude, a portfolio or other performance assessment measure in the specific aptitude area shall be included as part of the data reviewed by the identification and placement committee.”

8VAC20-40-60. Local plan, local advisory committee, and annual report

Paragraph A number 3, change from “…visual and performing arts” to  “…visual or performing arts”

Rationale:  The current regulations use the term “or” with regards to areas of specific academic aptitude.  Changing this to “and” without increased funding could mean drastic changes in the level of services and an actual decrease in services to identified students.  Please leave it as “or” and allow localities to determine local needs.  As for visual and/or performing arts services, the proposed regulations use “or” in the definitions section (8VAC20-40-20) but switch to “and” in several other sections.  Please remain consistent and use “or” for the same rationale. 

2) A second worry I have is with local school board approval of plans versus state DOE approved plans and annual plans versus long range, five year plans.

8VAC20-40-60. Local plan, local advisory committee, and annual report

Paragraph A, remove: “Each school board shall review and approve annually a comprehensive plan for the education of gifted…”  Reinstate: “Each school division shall submit to the Department of Education for approval a plan for the education of gifted students” and continue with “that includes the components identified in these regulations.”

Rationale:  School board members typically do not have the background and knowledge to evaluate gifted education programs.  Having state approved plans and peer reviews as is currently required increases the probability that students throughout Virginia are appropriately identified and served.  The Department of Education’s approval of gifted programs provides quality control and assurance that each locality is in compliance with the regulations for gifted.  The present system of peer-review provides a wonderful chance for collaboration and a sharing of ideas.

            Wording currently in effect (stricken in the proposal) included “Modifications to the plan shall be reported to the Department of Education on dates specified by the department.”  For the past several cycles, this has meant a five-year plan for the education of gifted students with local annual review and reports.  Please keep the five year planning cycle.  Annual plans create a committee of planners with little time to make long range plans; it creates additional work for administrators, teachers, and the local Gifted Advisory Board with little time to plan productive long term changes.  Five year plans allow long-range goals as well as annual goals and annual evaluation. 

3)  My third concern involves the use of “business” days versus “instructional” days.

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

Paragraph E, change to: “Within 60 instructional days of the receipt of a referral, the identification and placement committee shall determine the eligibility status of each student referred for the division’s gifted education program and notify the parent or guardian of its decision.”

8VAC20-40-55. Parental rights for notification, consent, and appeal.
Paragraph B, change “…within ten business days” to: “…within ten instructional days”.

Paragraph B, Number 1, change “…in writing within ten business days” to: “…in writing within ten instructional days”.

Rationale:  Schools operate on instructional days, not business days.  With these proposed regulations, what happens if a referral comes in just before a winter, spring, or summer break?  Does the state really intend to require gifted coordinators and gifted teachers and others that are part of the identification and placement process to work over those breaks?

4)  My final worry involves funding.

8VAC20-40-70. Funding.

Reinstate: “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.”

Rationale:  This document should be explicit in describing the use of gifted funding for gifted programs as approved by the Board of Education.  If this section is repealed as proposed, some school officials may interpret silence on funding in this document as giving them the ability to redirect resources away from gifted education.  Without including the statement that is in the current regulations, some parents, teachers, and even gifted coordinators may not even know that there is money earmarked for gifted programs.  Stating in these regulations that gifted money, as identified in the SOQs and other regulations, can only be used for gifted programs may be a restatement, but it is in the place where parents, school board members, teachers, administrators, gifted coordinators, and others will look for such a statement.  Leave the statement in the new gifted regulations.

Additionally, I agree with the suggested changes to the proposed regulations submitted by the Virginia Association for the Gifted (VAG) and the Virginia Consortium of Gifted Education Administrators (VCGEA).  The members of these organizations have hands-on knowledge of best practices for gifted education and practical knowledge of what is really possible to execute with given funding levels. 

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to comment on the proposed gifted regulations.