Review of the Advanced Academic Program Fairfax County Public Schools - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Review of the Advanced Academic Program Fairfax County Public Schools 2012 ‐ 2013 Lori C. Bland, Ph.D. Beverly Shaklee, Ed.D. Anastasia Kitsantas, Ph.D. Angela Miller, Ph.D. April Mattix, Ph.D. George Mason University Consultants June 27, 2013

Research Questions & Assumptions 2 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

FCPS Scope of Study Three Guiding Questions: To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified 1. focus area aligned with best practices in the field of gifted education? 2. To what extent is FCPS practice in the identified focus area perceived to be effective by relevant stakeholders? What are the FCPS strengths and areas for 3. improvement in the identified focus area? What are the recommendations for improvement and potential expansion? 3 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

FCPS Scope of Study Four Areas of Focus: � Identification Procedures: � Board Request 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 � Curriculum and Instruction: � Board Request 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 � Teacher Certification and Professional Development: � Board Request 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 � Quality of Program Services: � Board Request 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 4 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Methods and Results for Each Guiding Question 5 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Methods 1. How does AAP compare nationally to best practices? � Descriptive Program Analysis 2. How is the program viewed by stakeholders? � Interviews, Focus Groups, and Surveys 3. How can we assess implementation across settings? � Pilot Study for Fidelity of Implementation (FOI) 6 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

How does AAP compare nationally to best practices? Best Practices/Expectations AAP Overall Results Compliance with VDOE Meets or exceeds all 1. 1. Regulations: required regulations. 2. Alignment to NAGC 2. Meets or exceeds all (National Standards) national standards. Benchmark School Meets or exceeds all 3. 3. District Comparisons comparison districts. 7 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Alignment with NAGC Standards Focus Area Standard Indicator Alignment Identification Identification Overall: Meets Equal Access, Show Gifts, Comprehensive Representation of diversity To improve Curriculum Curric., Instr., Measures Growth, Multiple Domains, Skills Exceeds Assessment and Access to Resources Independent Investigations (Depth esp. in Soc. To improve Studies & Science) Teacher Cert. Preparation Access to PD, Life ‐ long Learning, Ethical Meets & Prof. Dev. Practices, FCPS Courses for Preparation Endorsement – should be required, not To improve optional; Program Programming Variety of options, comprehensiveness Exceeds Environment Personal, Social, Cultural Competences Meets Development Cognitive and Affective Growth Meets • More communication To improve • More focus on students’ affective needs 8 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

District Comparisons: Elementary Program/ L4 Young L1 L2 L3 2E District (Full Scholars (All) (Diff.) (P/O) Day) Fairfax * * * * * * Chapel ‐ Hill, NC * * * * * * Mont. Co., MD * * * * * * Loudoun, VA * * * * Charlotte, NC * * * Chesterfield,VA * * * Arlington, VA * * * Pr. William, VA * * * Wake, NC * * * Gwinnett, GA * * 9 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

District Comparisons: Middle Program/ Young L1 L2 L3 L4 2E Honors IBMPY District Scholars Fairfax * * * * * * * * Chapel ‐ Hill, NC * * * * * * * * Mont. Co., MD * * * Loudoun, VA * Charlotte, NC * * Chesterfield,VA * * Arlington, VA * * Pr. William, VA * * Wake, NC * * Gwinnett, GA * 10 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Comparison Districts Differences: � Differentiated Educational Plans – Chapel Hill � Wings Mentorship for 25 twice exceptional students – Montgomery County � Individual interviews for identification – other VA districts � No recommendations to adopt practices 11 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Methods: Interviews, Focus Groups, and Surveys Qualitative Data Quantitative Data � Interviews with: � Collected surveys from  ISD Leadership, AAP stakeholder groups Leadership & Staff  Parents N= 708 � Focus Groups and Interviews  Students N=1,752 in Observed Buildings  Teachers N=79  Focus Groups –Parents ‐  Administrators N=27 Students ‐ Teachers  Interviews –Building Administrators  Observations in 20 classrooms 12 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

How is the program viewed by stakeholders overall? � Very positive view � More AAP – from all stakeholder groups � Few areas identified as opportunities for growth � Consistent with a district of this size and scope � Addressable � Parents wanted more communication and help for students making transitions 13 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Views of Student Experience in AAP Level IV/Center: All Stakeholders Item Student Parent Teacher Admin Enough Challenge in Language Arts 78.4% 77.7% 83.3% 100% Enough Challenge in Mathematics 73.3% 80.6% 83.3% 92.6% Enough Challenge in Social Studies 70.8% 80.9% 66.2% 96.3% Prepared for Challenging 86.9% 83.5% 87.4% 100% Coursework Next Year Student is encouraged to reflect 78.9% 81.5% 88.1% 96.2% Student is encouraged to set goals 81.1% 75% 81.5% 88.9% 14 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Views of Student Experience in AAP Level IV/Center: All Stakeholders Item Student Parent Teacher Admin Enough Challenge in Science 67.5% 73.3% 62% 96.3% Opportunity to Work with Students 59.9% 86.8% 85.9% 92.6% at a Similar Level Academic Strengths are considered 68.4% 81.8% 88.2% 100% Academic Interests are considered 59.3% 76.6% 84.2% 100% Student is provided choice in ways 66.1% 74.2% 84.2% 100% to demonstrate learning 15 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

How can we assess implementation across settings? Pilot Study for FOI � Piloted procedures and tools � Conducted Observation of Screening Procedures � Conducted Observation of Classroom Instruction � 2 Local Level and Center Schools � 2 Elementary and Middle Schools � 20 classrooms ‐ 1 full instructional period � Grades 3 ‐ 8 � 4 Core Subject Areas in Middle School 16 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Results of Observations � Elementary classrooms � Wide variety of activities  Multiple opportunities for “hands on” learning which showed greater student engagement  Multiple flexible grouping options used during instruction which positively influenced student engagement � Use of multiple teaching strategies  Evidence for use of Socratic Method  Few instances of one word or one sentence responses from students 17 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Results of Observations � Middle School � Preparation for SOL’s influenced observations at the middle school � Some strong examples of questioning and use of robust vocabulary � Some strong examples of flexible grouping and ‘hands on’ learning for instructional purposes � Student responses often one word or one sentence with few probes � Inconsistent implementation across observations 18 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Synthesis of Key Findings & Recommendations by Focus Area � Identification � Curriculum & Instruction � Teacher Certification & Professional Development � Quality of Program Services 19 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Identification – AAP meets or exceeds national/state standards � Meeting/Exceeding Standards 1. FCPS uses multiple criteria 2. Young Scholars to ensure identified population reflects population of school division 3. Insures equal access by screening at every school through Grade 2, and with referral in Grades 3 ‐ 7 20 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Identification: Processes � Over ‐ Identification – there is nothing wrong with the AAP Identification model � Raised in multiple settings and there appears to be a pattern of:  Influence of ‘cottage’ test preparation industry in the area along with,  Inflated use of external assessments creating an opportunity gap and,  The importance that parents place on identification for AAP 21 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Identification: Recommendations � * FCPS ‐ AAP should continue to seek ways to identify a population that is congruent with the demographics of FCPS increasing diversity within AAP (NAGC Standards) � FCPS ‐ AAP should continue to study access issues for students from underserved populations including underrepresented populations (culturally and linguistically diverse learners, twice exceptional…) � FCPS ‐ AAP should consider using one source for external testing � FCPS ‐ AAP should use secure customized assessments for identification purposes 22 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)

Curriculum and Instruction – AAP provides a rigorous, challenging and varied curriculum to AAP learners � Use of research ‐ based curriculum created by experts in the field � Surpasses measuring growth of students � Surpasses comparisons on instruction for use of multiple critical thinking strategies 23 Bland, Shaklee, Kitsantas, Miller, Mattix (2013)