As a gifted resource teacher in Virginia Beach I have had the opportunity to attend many conferences throughout the nation and network with educators of gifted students across our country.  As I speak with these teachers and curriculum specialists I have a sense of pride regarding the program for gifted education in place in Virginia Beach and Virginia.  We are clearly more advanced than many other school systems and states.  I am concerned that if the proposed Gifted Program Regulations are adopted our state will face a crisis in gifted ed and that our gifted students will suffer as a result.  These changes do not reflect the most recent trends and best practices for gifted education, nor do they take into account the needs of large school systems such as VBCPS.  I am particularly concerned with the following:

• Taking an IEP like approach to meet the needs of gifted learners is not the best approach for teaching high end learners.  I believe our current practice of embedding gifted education in the regular education curriculum not only benefits our gifted students, but our regular ed students as well.  Through high quality, rigorous curriculum and differentiation, the needs of all learners are consistenly met and our students are provided with an appropriate level of challenge.  I do not feel that an IEP approach makes best use of teaching practices or funds for gifted education.
• The expectation that a gifted referral will be processed in a 60 day time frame is also not feasible for a large school system.  This suggests that referrals can be made at any time and must be handled accordingly.  Our system provides several times throughout the school year to handle testing and eligibility.   This gives ample access to gifted identification without putting a burden on deminishing funds.
• I do not agree with the inclusion of a person on the eligibility committee who "knows the child" as this could become very costly for school systems.  I do feel that teacher and parent input are an important aspect of the identification process and there should be a plan in place that allows for that input but it is not necessary to have them serve on the eligibility committee.  I feel the use of an eligibility committee trained in the identification process will provide fair and consistent access to the gifted program for all.
• Our current method of using a 5 year local plan as opposed to an annual plan is much more in line with planning for and monitoring future growth.  A five year plan will better support development of a high quality gifted program.

In conclusion, we must ensure that our gifted students continue to receive high quality curriculum and instruction on a regular basis.  This can only be accomplished through ample funding that is adminstered by the DOE and that funding must support a systems approved plan for gifted education.  Please ensure that in a time where the focus is that no child get left behind that we don't forget our gifted learners.  It is important that during this time of high stakes testing and AYP that we don't lose this important group of students.