USVI Public Records

Document text

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 373 459 EC 303 227 TITLE State of the States Gifted and Talented Education Report, 1994. INSTITUTION Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. PUB DATE 94 NOTE 139p. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Tests/Evaluation Instruments (160) EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS ABSTRACT MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. Delivery Systems; *Educational Change; *Educational Legislation; *Educational Policy; Elementary Secondary Education; *Gifted; Middle Schools; National Surveys; School Based Management; School Restructuring; State Aid; State Departments of Education; *State Legislation; *State Programs This report on gifted education is based on surveys returned by central education agencies in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The first section contains informational charts which provide a broad overview of state level services for gifted students. Included are data on the level of personnel support for the program, whether or not the state has a mandate and what the mandate requires, the number of students served by the program, and the level of financial support for these services. The second part of the report contains narrative information from state and trust territories on topics related to school reform. This section shows the impact that issues such as middle grade reform, site-based decisionmaking, and state education agency reorganization have had and are having on services to gifted students. Finally, the third section contains the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of contact persons at state education agencies and state associations. (DB) ******i.:,A**********;.AA:,******::********i,AA***AAA**ii"* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** IJ.5. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (Mice of Educational Research and improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) .Vrils document has been reproduced as recessed (torn the person or organszahon ottgmahng St Mtnor changes have been made to Improve reproduthon Quality Points of slew or opinion:, Staled in thls docu. meni do not necessarily fergese, onical OE RI posmon or pottcy i it,_ ffr -,/ , -/ - 4 ;7. r, ), ,.. 01-..7.j.. ,- --- .... r7: , . .-..,...t., . ill a NI : ik iliS, , . ill 0 'II ? %- .:1---- 74:-..1-:11-: , I i ,,, 4 "r / , - .16- _,,,, .--'%_, - , .... f / fc 1-"... k. -.77- -% ...- --; cf<1-. ,, \ : 4.-'' \ . . - i" .." i --)- ."-- .5' 7,1- , . ,.. 5::-....- -1 1 ---51 _)-ss , i I .. _., 5,' :\ 'S.- t .. ..i".ICir---4'...7 '-'`.---7 t \ ) ..r- - ,_ : .,....4/.. I r--41 ,- r A "ItI -.:r; 7 - 41-7, I, -5 - -`-- %= ::: 4 --"..., It - c_, , -- ''- -t, >4.71......', 2ira,--" .7....., ( cs. '7,'-: . ...- .............- k ./..: I.....2% ,Cze .- 4.. ,-...,,,,, ,7'. --': . ...-' .1c..... (- ..:\;.- ...- I -c , 1) - - ' ..- . ..,, .... t'" t' ,.... ..../. 1 ... , 0 . t''' ... ,..- .. . ..1 --e= N- _ ..-...., 5:...5- 1-... . ( -> . . . . . .- f r - -... / 77). f S N... .--.7- (7'."".. . --. I -- 44_ ( t. 1... A v- ' . S.. f ,, '.-- s, ---,-- - ,_-- ' .- ...L.c. k \ ,^_-, ( .2' 9 .. ' ..: ..t; ". ?... .... C.. .... .-./ j .-.(... .7.. 5, 4 55 -.,, 15 -' -,..7. ...-- 4.- 7 "'",:s. - --S--r" 4-T.' ---'? 1 ' ' j",71 r---" ., .:Z.,..".. ..-- 14. ;- r?, *S...? I/ i --',.. t-7/ -t----:-. 7..P.'7, 1.,.....!._, ,,, .....- -... ) - - -.07- ' e,./.. ; % A V( ;":....1"; 53-7- :-' 775(::1 .r. -'- Nt- .- 5,,/,.`-1 r.-- -,t,,,,,,f,, (N. 3:..1 . ' ..- a. e- - 2.'s -0, C..... 0 e' I ,....:1 :'" X -1,:,- / .."-, ... ::- ,. . . -; "3- %:- ......? . ' Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted Officers Evelyn Levsky Hiatt, Texas, President Patricia Stafford, Indiana, Vice President Sylvia Lewis, North Carolina, Secretary Nancy Hamant, Ohio, Treasurer Board of Directors Martha Bass, Arkansas, Delegate at Large Conrad Castle, Mississippi, Delegate at Large David Irvine, New York, Delegate at Large Copyright 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 OVERVIEW 2 INFORMATIONAL CHARTS 3 CHART 1: STATE SUPPORT 7 CHART II: STATE FUNDING 11 CHART III: STATE MANDATES AND REGULATIONS 17 CHART IV: STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES 21 CHART V: PROGRAM POPULATION 27 STATE AND TRUST TERRITORY INFORMATION 31 STATE CONTACTS 119 4 Introduction The 1994 State of the States Report on Gifted Education (SOS) is the fourth such report published by the Council of State Directcrs of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG). It is based upon surveys sent to the central education agency in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and seven trust territoft3s. Compilation of the SOS Report addresses one of the goals of the CSDPG: to disseminate timely information about current services for gifted and talented students in the United States. Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands returned a survey or provided information in a telephone interview. This report of the survey results is divided into three sections. The first contains informational charts that provide a broad overview of state level services for gifted students. It includes data on the level of personnel support for the program, whether or not the state has a mandate and what that mandate requires, the number of students served by the program, and the level of financial support for these services. The second part of the report contains narrative information from state and trust territories on a variety of topics related to school reform. This section provides an impression of the impact issues such as middle grade reform, site-based decision making, and state education agency reorganization have had--and are having- - on services to gifted students. While all responding states completed most of the survey, some did not answer the narrative questions. These states are not included in Section Two. Finally, the third component of the report contains the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of contact persons at state education agencies and state associations. Special thanks goes to several of the state directors who assisted by reviewing both the original survey and the reported results. Frank Rainey, Cindy Brown, Martha Bass, and Michael Hall assisted in the development of the survey and the time and effort they spent on it was greatly appreciated. Donnell Bilsky edited and compiled information from the states and her assistance was invaluable. Evelyn Levsky Hiatt President, Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted 5 Overview The CSDPG's survey typically contains detailed questions about state policies and procedures regarding the assessment of and services for gifted students The 1990 version, the last one to be published, contained a wealth of informa on about all aspects of state programs and programs in the local districts. However, it was just at that time that it was getting mure and more difficult, even for state program directors, to provide definitive responses to multiple choice surveys. The intervening years have not made it easier. Deregulation makes it harder and harder to accurately assess what services are taking place in districts. State governments are organizing and reorganizing in an effort to conform to reform. Indeed, the various movements that make up educational reform cause many in gifted education to reassess their programs. The thoroughness of the 1990 SOS made it possible for the council to rethink its survey. The council decided that the 1993 survey, which serves as the basis of this report, would focus on the bare necessities in terms of state data on gifted education. Many of these issues will be addressed in greater detail in later reports by the council. Instead of that, the council chose to develop a baseline report of how educational reform is impacting services to gifted students. There is broad consensus that services for gifted students are in serious jeopardy throughout the country. While this is no doubt true in various locations, there is also a tremendous vitality in the field. The state directors find themselves actively working with other educators on the issues of site-based decision making, middle school reform, tracking and grouping policies, and state department restructuring. All of these efforts affect services to talented students; however, it is not a given that all of the impact is negative. it is clear from the responses of state consultants that more collaborations are being formed, that more communication is taking place, and that gifted education is a hotly debated issue. It's almost a case of "Be careful what you wish for." For years, leaders in the field of gifted education were left out of reform discussions--now they find themselves in the center of many of those conversations. Even though this survey focuses on educational reform, it is only a baseline report. Many states are actively at work on a variety of issues that have yet to reach the final stages. It is very evident, however, that gifted education is not on the sidelines, but rather is a partner, in educational reform. Joanne Rand Whitmore says that the basis of a partnership is the equal status of the parties. As we advocate for many of the educational reform issues, we also are gaining advocates for challenging and appropriate services for all students in our schools. Should you wish to recommend future studies for the council, please feel free to contact us with your suggestions. 2 Informational Charts There are five charts in the following section of the report. A brief description of the information included in each of the charts is included below, as well as a brief summary of the major findings. The numbers of respondents for each section is provided, but it is important to remember that not all state directors answered each question in the section. Chart 1: State Support (Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and two trust territories responding) Although only three states (Maryland, Nevada, and Vermont) report having no person with assigned responsibilities in the area of gifted education, 13 other states report having less than .5 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) devoted to gifted education. Of the 52 respondents to the survey, comparisons between the 1990 survey and the 1993 survey can be made in 45 cases. Of those, 30 states reported having fewer FTEs assigned to gifted education than they did in the 1990 SOS Report. No state reports an increase in personnel since 1990 and 15 report no change. While the decline in personnel reflects a disturbing pattern, it also must be remembered that education agencies have lost employees in most areas as state governments decrease the total number of their workforce. Directors were asked to tell where gifted education was placed within the state department. Seventeen states house their services for gifted students in special education, nine in elementary/middle/high school divisions, and 21 in curriculum and instruction. Other organizational options included, as examples, Special Populations, Equity and Special Programs, Professional Development, and School Improvement. However, as indicated in Question One of the narrative summaries, reorganization of central education agencies is ongoing and several directors indicated that changes were being planned. Chart II: State Funding (Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and two trust territories responding) Information provided in this section explains the level of state funding for local district programs--states said they had funds allocated specifically for gifted/talented education. Some directors indicated that there were funds available through weighted pupil formulae , In 1990, 37 states reported that $394,874,326 had been expended on gifted/tc anted programs. In 1993, 32 states reported that they spent $496,270,185. Two states, Florida and Texas, account for $181,151,486--over 3 7 one-third of the total amount. A total of 16 states spend $10 million or more. While this increase seems significant, when one considers the increase in students identified for services, the per pupil allotment actually is less than in 1990. Fourteen states reported an approximate per pupil amount for state expenditures. Amounts varied from $55 per student of total ADM (Arizona) to $6,000 In the Virgin Islands. Twelve states limit funding to a certain percentage of the school population. In half the cases, the funding limit is five percent of the total population; the Pennsylvania limit is the highest at 15 percent. Chart Ill: State Mandates and Regulations (Forty nine states, the District of Columbia, and two trust territories responding) Considering the concerns voiced about the future of gifted education, perhaps the most astonishing fact discovered through this survey was the increase in the number of states mandating either identification of or services for gifted students. While 26 states reported mandated services for gifted/talented students in 1990, 33 reported having such a mandate three years later. Five states mandate identification of gifted students, but did not have an accompanying requirement for services. One state - -New Hampshire--mandates services, but not identification. Not all states with a mandate for services provide state funding to support those services. Twelve states with mandates report no specific funding for gifted students; however, eight states without a :.nandate have funding for services related to gifted education. Of the five states (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Ohio) that have a mandate to identify, but not serve, students, only New York and Ohio provide funding for gifted education. Chart IV: State Policies and Practices (49 states and two trust territories responding) This chart explains where services for gifted students are mandated and whether or not a teacher endorsement is required. Thirty-one of 33 states with mandates responded to a question regarding the grade level at which services must be provided. Five states begin their services for gifted students at the pre- kindergarten level; 18 begin in kindergarten, and three begin in first grade. Five states have other alternatives. South Carolina, for example, mandates its program in grades 3-12, Mississippi in grades 2-6. Eleven states have a required number of minutes that services must occur each week. An those states, amounts of required time vary from 150 minutes per week to self contained classrooms in the Virgin Islands. Seventeen states have an endorsement in gifted education for teachers. Three states with no mandate for services--Delaware, North Dakota, and Ohio--are Numbers included in the narrative information on the charts may not add up to the total number of respondents. Not all surveys included answers to every question. 4 included in that number, while sixteen states with mandates do not require an endorsement. Two states, Texas and Virginia, have an optional endorsement. Chart V: Program Population (48 states, the District of Columbia, two trust territories responding) Thirty-three states provided student number counts for the population of their gifted program. While 35 states reported identifying 1,803,280 students in 1990, the 33 states reporting in 1993 identify 2,375,922. Forty-three states provided the percentage of students from the total population and one state, Delaware, reported the percentage for grades 2-6. Of the 44 states that provided information on the percentage of students served in gifted programs, less than half could report the ethnic composition of those programs. Twenty states, five more than in 1990, provided breakdowns of their student population. Numbers included in the narrative information on the charts may not add up to the total number of respondents. Not all surveys included answers to every question. I. STATE SUPPORT Jo I. STATE SUPPORT STATE FTE positions in SEA assigned to G/T SEA includes gifted/talented education under its department of: Special Education Elem./ Middle/High School Education Special Populations/ Programs Curriculum and Instruction Other Alabama .50 Yes Alaska .10 Yes Arizona 1.80 Yes Arkansas 3.00 Yes California .50 Yes Yes Colorado .80 Yes Connecticut 1.50 Yes Delaware .05 Equity & Special Programs District of Columbia 7.00 Yes Yes Florida 1.00 Yes Georgia 3.00 Yes Guam 34,30 Yes Hawaii 2.00 Yes Idaho 1,00 Yes Illinois .25 Yes Indiana 3.00 Center for School Improvement & Performance Iowa .35 Yes Kansas .05 Yes Kentucky 1.00 (Statutorily) Professional Development Louisiana 1.00 Yes Maine 1.00 Division of Special Services Maryland 0 Yes Massachusetts .25 Yes Michigan 1.00 Yes Minnesota .20 Graduation Standards Team 8 11 I. State Support (continued) STATE FTE positions SEA includes gifted/talented education under its department of: in SEA assigned to GfT Special Education Elem./ Middle/High School Education Special Populations/ Programs Curriculum and instruction Other Mississippi 2.00 Special Projects Missouri 2.00 Yes Montana 1.00 Yes Nebraska .20 Yes Nevada 0 Yes New Hampshire .10 Yes Yes New Jersey; .50 ees New Mexico New York 1.00 Yes Yes North Carolina 1,00 Yes North Dakota .75 Yes Ohio 2.00 Yes Oklahoma 1.90 Yes Oregon .15 Yes Pennsyl% ania .95 Yes Puerto Rico Rhode Island .30 Integrated Social Services Saipan South Carolina 1.00 Yes South Dakota 1.00 Yes Tennessee .60 Yes .. Texas 2.00 Yes Utah .30 Yes Yes Vermont 0 Virgin Islands 1.00 Yes Yes Virginia 2.00 Yes Washington .50 Yes West Virginia 1.00 Yes Wisconsin 1.00 School Improvement Wyoming .10 Yes 9 12 II. STATE FUNDING 13 II. STATE FUNDING STATE State funds are allocated specifically for services for gifted/talented students Amount of state funds disseminated for services to gifted students r Funding is provided: Approximate per pupil amount for each identified student State limits funding to a specific percentage of students Percent- age 1991-92 1992-93 For all districts by mandate Through discretionary funding, based on application Through other sources Alabama No Not available Not available Allocation of state funded teach'r units based on child count No Alaska Yes $9,132,000 $9,352,000 Yes $1,500.00 No Arizona Yes $100,000 t $100,000 Yes Yes 3% of ADM when application re- quirements are met $55 per student of total ADM No Arkansas No $8,080,033 $8,107,122 Yes Yes 5% California $32,000,000 $31,000,000 Yes $100.00 No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No Academic Block No Grant District of Columbia Florida Yes $120,768,186 $130,551,486 Yes Yes $4,604.43 per FTE No Georgia No $29,839,210 $35,763,301 I FTE formula No Guam No Yes Yes DOD, Chapter 2 No Hawaii No $214,353 $249,811 Yes No Idaho Yes Ancillary positions only $200,000 Yes Ancillary staff reimbursed at 80% No Illinois Yes $10,059,600 $10,059,600 I Yes $117.61 Yes 5% 4 15 II. State Funding (continued) STATE State funds are allocated specifically for services for gifted/talented students Amount of state funds disseminated for services to gifted students Funding is provided: Approximate per pupil amount for each identified student State limits funding to a specific percentage of students Percent- age 1991-92 1992-93 For all districts by mandate Through discretionary funding, based on application Through other sources Indiana Yes $5,903,741 5,903,741 Grant application for planning; 1st year implementation or continuation of program Ranges depending on size of district No Iowa No Local property tax with approval from state department of education No Kansas Yes $6,820,954 $8,065,040 Yes No Kentucky Yes $6.0 million $5.9 million Yes Yes .5% Louisiana Yes No set appropriation- -only MFP formula for No teachers salaries special education teacher salaries Maine No Local No, approved program costs Funding is through for- mule Nairn- bursement o; approved rogram cost- Approved programs may serve up to 5% in - cademics, 5% in Arts Maryland Yes $1.6 million $1.4 million Yes Chapter 2 No Massachusetts No $400,000 For an academy for high school student - in math/science Michigan Yes $9,128,100 $9,128,100 Yes $88.00 Yes 5% Minnasota No Local and state funding can be applied to services for the gifted but is not rewired No 17 II. State Funding (continued) STATE State funds are allocated specifically for services for gifted/talented students Amount of state funds disseminated for services to gifted students Funding is provided: Approximate per pupil amount for each identified student State limits funding to a specific percentage of students Percent- age 1991-92 1992-93 For all districts by mandate Through discretionary funding, based on application Through other sources Msissippi Missouri Mr,ntana Nebraska Nevada Yes Yes No No No $16.8 million $16 million $276,000 Not available $16.8 milik.n $16 million $276,000 $9,307,517 Yes Yes Teacher units based upon number of identified students May use special education unit funds for GT positions No Yes No No 5% academic; 2% Rita arts New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina No No Yes Yes $13.3 million $25.8 million $13.3 million $26.5 million Yes Formula LEAs may choose to provide additional funds $630.63 No No Yes 3.9% II. State Funding (continued) c- ..........-: STATE State funds are allocated specifically for services for gifted/talented students Amount of state funds disseminated for services to gifted students Funding is provided: Approximate per pupil amount for each identified student State limits funding to a specific percentage of students Percent- age 1991-92 1992-93 For all districts by mandate Through discretionary funding, based on a..lication Through other sources North Dakota No $;49,375 $180,233 Yes No No Ohio Yes $18,188,447 $18,396,506 Yes No Oklahoma No-weighted formula $32.9 million $39.8 million Yes $735.00 No Oregon No No Pennsylvania No Yes--special base Yes 15% Puerto Rico Rhode Island No $622,500 $300,000 Not funded in '93-94 No Saipan South Carolina Yes $22 million $22 million Yes $475.50 No South Dakota Yes $1,150,000 $1,135,000 Yes No Tennessee No State special education funds based on amount of time served No Texas Yes $45.1 million $50.6 million Yes--$5oo,000 set-aside for technical assistance/ professional development activities $325.00 Yes 5% Utah Yes $1,132,000 $1,200,000 Yes No Vermont No Virgin Islands No Yes $6,000.00 No 24) II. State Funding (continued) STATE State funds are allocated specifically for services for gifted/talented students Amount of state funds disseminated for services to gifted students Funding is provided: Approximate per pupil amount for each identified student State limits funding to a specific percentage of students Percent - age 1991-92 1992-93 For all districts by mandate Through discretionary funding, basod on application Through other sources Virginia Yes $19,487,000 $20,046,000 Yes Governors School Program $30,00 per pupil for the total district enrollment No Washington Yes $5,067,272 $4,898,728 By application $380.18 Yes 3% West Virginia No Yes Yes 4% in Grades 1- 8; 6% in 9-12 Wisconsin No Competitive grant No Wyoming Yes $350,000 $35Q000 Yes $150.00 Yes I 3% III. STATE MANDATES AND REGULATIONS III. STATE MANDATES AND REGULATIONS STATE Mandate requiring identfication of gifted/talented students Mandate requiring services for gifted/talented students Mandate is required through: State law Admini- strative rule SEA guide- lines Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Standards for Accreditation Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Georgia Guam Hawai Idaho Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Yes No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 18 25 III. State Mandates and Regulations (continued) STATE Mandate requiring identfication of gifted/talented students Mandate requiring services for gifted/talented students Mandate is required through: State law Admini- strative rule SEA guide- lines Other New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Puerto Rico Rhode Island Saipan South Carolina South Dakota No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin W omin I Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes IV. STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES 27 IV. STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES STATE Grades at which services are required State requires students to be served a minimum period of time per week Amount of time required State requires an endorsement in gifted education for teachers All grades, beginning with pre-k All grades, beginning with kindergarten All grades, beginning with first grade Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes 150 minutes 200 minutes Yes No Yes Yes No Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes As resources are available Yes Yes, but board policy, not law No No No 5 segments (one segment = 50 minutes) 3 hour minimum Yes No No No Yes 2 ". ...vianelow!Norreme-- IV. State Policies and Practices (continued) ,uilor....diatsb, STATE Grades at which services are required State requires students to be served a minimum period of time per week Amount of time required State requires an endorsement in gifted education for teachers All grades, beginning with pre-k All grades, beginning with kindergarten All grades, beginning with first grade Other Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Yes (ages 3-21) Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes 225 minutes 2-1/2 hours, resource No No (but will take effect 10/1/95) Yes Yes Yes Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Due to fiscal crisis, Yes full implementation postponed from 1991-92 to1995-96. No No No No No No No No No No Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Yes Grades 2-6 Yes Yes No No No 5 hours 3 hours Nevada Administrative Code recommends 150 minutes Yes No No No No 31 IV. State Policies and Practices (continued) STATE Grades at which services are required State reauires students to be served a minimum period of time per week Amount of time required State requires an endorsement in gilled education for teachers All grades, beginning with pre-k All grades, beginning with kindergarten All grades, beginning with first grade Other New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Resource Room, 5 hours; self contained, full week Yes Yes No No No Puerto Rico Rhode Island Saipan South Carolina South Dakota Yes Grades 3-12 No Yes No Yes Grade 3, 125 min./ week; grades 4-8, 200 min./week; grades 9-12, 250 min./week No No Yes cri IV. State Policies and Practices (continued) STATE Grades at which services are required State requires students to be served a minimum period of time per week Amount of time required State requires an endorsement in gifted education for teachers All grades, beginning with pre-k All grades, beginning with kindergarten All grades, beginning with first grade Other Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin islands Yes Yes Yes Grades 4.12 No No No No classes No Optional Yes No No Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Yes Yes Grades 1-8; Grades 9-12 exceptional gifted No No No No Optional No Yes No V. PROGRAM POPULATION co V. PROGRAM POPULATION STATE Total number of students identfied and served in gifted/talented programs Total percentage of state's stu- dent population identified as gifted Percent of students by ethnic group African American All G/T As'an All G/T Hispanic All j G/T Native American All G/T White All G/T Alabama 16,552 2.38 35.59 .15 .57 1.53 .32 .28 .85 .09 62.67 1.1 Alaska 4,696 4.0 Arizona 39,200 4 2 25 7 62 Arkansas 34,710 8.0 24 13 All other minorities: All students = 1%; i G/T students = 1% 75 86 California 290 000 5.0 . Colorado Not available Not available * . Connecticut 16,871 3.5 All minorities: All students = 26%; G/T students = 15% 74 85 Delaware Not available 5.0 (grades 2-6) District of Not available 9.0 Columbia Florida 74,572 3.54 24.49 6.21 1.66 2.91 13.65 5.36 .18 .15 60.02 85.38 Georgia 5.0 Guam 2,500 10.0-15.0 ' Hawaii 18,000 11.0 2.6 38.2 2.3 .3 ' 22.7 Idaho Not available 1.3 .5 .2 .98 1.49 7.21 .6 1.31 .06 90.0 97.0 Illinois 166,234 (91-92) 1-.0 21.5 12.3 2.8 5.9 10.4 4.2 .1 .1 65.2 77.6 Indiana 85,192 8.9 10.9 4 1 1 2 1 .1 1 86 93 Iowa 4.0 Kansas Not available 3.1 7.9 2.36 1.6 2.54 4.4 1.35 .7 .51 85 93 Kentucky 52,600 5.0 " Louisiana 24,000 3.21 44.46 16.66 1.13 2.44 1.03 .95 .44 .26 52.9 79.68 3 7' *Data not collected. 3 8 Data %tot collected. N V. Program Population (continuc..1) 10, t..1011P STATE Total number of students identfied and served in gifted/talented Total percentage of state'4 stu- dent population identified as gifted Percent of students by ethnic group African American All G,T As'an All Gil- Hispanic All CHIT Native American All Gil White All Gil ....., Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota ......programs 10,100 90,222 Not available 225,154 55,467 5.0 12.0 Not available 14.0 7.23 .62 33.6 ' 17 4 ' ' ' 9.9 4 .74 3.7 1.2 3 11 6 .35 2.7 2.3 1 ' 5.2 1 .49 .3 . 1.0 2 7.9 0 97.80 59.8 ' 78.4 88 ' 66 88 Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada 21,678 24,877 Not available 18,600 8,343 4.3 5.0 Not available 10.0 2.0 ' * .4 ' ' ' ' 3.7 ' ' .7 a ' ' 5.8 ' 1.3 ' ' ' * 3.9 ' 9.2 * * ' .6 ' 88.4 ' ' 85.9 New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Not available 135,000 88,450 Not available 6.0 8.0 . . 19.8 30.24 . ' ' 8.06 . 4.3 1.04 * 1.77 . ' 15.3 1.10 . ' ' .34 * a .2 1.56 a .63 . .' 60.4 66.06 ' 89.2 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania 1,107 244,670 61,082 Not available 79,756 1.0 12.96 10.0 8.45 4.61 1 10 2.4 13.42 4.7 1.6 1.32 1 ' 1.2 3.0 1.70 1.8 3.1 5.75 1 ' 3.1 5.3 3.04 1.5 1.2 .97 6 ' 13 1.B .09 8.2 .05 9.20 86 72.6 87.5 81.73 83.7 93.7 5.25 r") *Data not obilected. 4 0 0 V. Program Population (continued) STATE Total number of students identfied and served in gifted/talented programs Total percentage of state's stu- dent population identified as gifted Percent of students by ethnic group African American All G/T As All an Cif Hispanic All GiT Native American All G/T White All G/T Puerto Rico Rhode Island Saipan South Carolina South Dakota Not available * 52,000 6,515 Not available 3.5-5.0 10.0 4.4 6.5 41.6 .7 * .2 3.0 .7 .6 . . .9 ' 8.0 .6 .6 .3 .3 .2 13 5 82.1 56.3 85 94 Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands 18,626 248,769 Not available Not available Not available 2.0 7.0 Not all districts identify a 3.0 14.30 ' . . 8.11 . a - * 2.17 . . 4.1 0 ' 34.94 * a . 19.23 . 0 .24 0 .15 ' 48.35 0 68.37 * Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 121,598 38,781 Not available Not available Not available 9.2 1.5 3.5 15.0 3.0 25.5 4 8.9 1 11.1 1.4 ' 3.3 7 2.1 1 5.1 5.2 a 2.5 3 ' 2.6 6 1.3 2 ' .2 2.5 1.3 3 1 1 . 68.5 84 ' 85.1 89 77.7 90 ' ' ' Data not collected 42 STATE AND TRUST TERRITORY INFORMATION Alabama 1 . Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No, reorganization is just beginning. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased. Yes. We have two IB programs, one in each of the two largest local education agencies. Advanced Placement courses are offered statewide. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Building Based State Support Team training is offered by the State Department of Education. It is encouraged but not required. I have no way to document its affect on gifted students. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery (example: basic mastery, advanced master) been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? The mandate. Teacher certification requirement. Parent and student rights. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Additional State Department of Education personnel to review programs and provide technical assistance. Certified gifted teachers in every local education agency. Increased funding. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? I am not familiar with this report. 33 44 Alaska 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the mow affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. We have been reorganized, but, outside of a cut in the amount of time I spend on gifted education, there has been no obvious change. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? No change. 5 . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to at;opt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No official policy although site-based management is catching on. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? We are in the process of developing standards for "a world class education." 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? It is mandated. Lots of parent support. 8 . What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? An end to enrichment clams of any sort. A mandate to provide acceleration, only. Staff development. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Probably not. The reform movement has its own momentum and direction and gifted education is not on its agenda except to minimize or eliminate it to the extent that it is perceived as elitist or segregationist. 34 Arizona 1. Has your state department of education been reo gar : .2c1 wring lite past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role (;.f the state in ,,upporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If sr,, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Yes, very little impact on gifted students. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors class s increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Remained about the same. Yes, they are frequently used. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? It encourages some form of site-based management. In some cases it allows for more options for gifted students. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Yes. We are just collecting data from our rust year of performance assessments. The data on gifted students in being evaluated now. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Our mandate. Teacher endorsement. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Additional funding. Additional personnel at the district level. Personnel to travel to districts for assistance on site. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? No. 35 4G I Arkansas 1. Has your state department of education b'en reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes, but no reorganization has taken place in Special Education, of which we are a part. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No official policy adopted. Several middle schools have Carnegie grants through the Arkansas Department of Education. For the most part, they work closely with our office to implement middle level philosophical principles but provide special services to gifted students. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No official policy adopted. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or 'lonors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increase in College Board Advanced Placement courses, which are frequently used as a method of serving high school gifted students. 5 . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Site-based decision making is encouraged. So far I have seen no effect on gifteditalented programs. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Yes, levels of mastery not established. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Flexible standards so that programs can be designed to fit the needs of the local district. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding which would make possible: Further staff development for administrators. Further staff development for regular education staff. Larger numbers of specialists in gifted education in local districts. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? No response. 36 47 California I. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. The California Department of Education has been reorganized several times over the past two years; usually because of a cut in state general fund support. Each time, the number of state staff have been cut, drastically reducing the amount of service we can provide to the field. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted student. Yes. The emphasis on heterogeneous grouping at the middle school level has been misinterpreted to mean that schools should not offer advanced learning opportunities. The result has been that education in general for middle school GATE students has become less challenging than in the past. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. Yes, however, the state and national push towards heterogeneous grouping has resulted in fewer advanced learning opportunities at all levels, in spite of the policy. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? IB courses have increased, but we are unable to give the statistics on AP courses at this time. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Site-based decision making is of great interest, but there is no official policy. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No. We are working on student outcomes and competencies. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Tireless dedication of teachers and district administrators. Strong California Association for the Gifted. State funding. Adequate state law and regulations. 8 . What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? National policy on importance of educating gifted youth. Increased funding. Staff development for teachers. California (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Depends on the report, at this time we have not seen it. 38 49 Colorado I Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased. Yes. 5. Does Jur state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Yes. In a number of cases, site-based decision making has led to the elimination of district-level gifted/talented coordination; has also led to elimination or decrease of gifted/talented programs at the site level due to budget and/or program priority setting. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? In process of doing so now. Will be in the form of state model content standards and assessments. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Support of State Board of Education and State Department of Education. Strong State Advisory Committee for G/T Education. Presence of nationally recognized experts in gifted education in state. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Preservice teacher education/staff development. State funding, including funds for administrative services at SEA. Endorsement for teachers. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Unknown. 39 50 Connecticut 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes. New commissioner, hierarchy was somewhat flattened; bureaus were reshuffled under different associate commissioners. Little effect under new organization. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3 Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how tli policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No general policy has been articulated yet, but the State Board of Education has recently adopted position statements in two areas of special education, both of which have implications for grouping. The statement on students with disabilities advocates inclusion "to the maximum extent appropriate." The statement on gifted students is considerably more "centrist" It views the regular classroom and specialized groupings as complementary settings, with neither being a substitute for the other. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Advanced Placement (AP) courses have increased over the years. In the past two years they have leveled off, with 75% of high schools participating- -the highest rate in the country. AP is used as a "regular education" modification for gifted students. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No official policy- -yet 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Competencies are being revised, as are mastery levels. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? The greatest strengths are: Excellent quality of teachers of the gifted and talented. Variety and sophistication of program models. Flexibility to conduct programs which meet local needs. Several districts have been very resourceful in reconfiguring their programs in response to dwindling funds and trends in education reform. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 40 5 Connecticut (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. Mandate to serve gifted students. Endorsement for teachers. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so. what changes to you anticipate? Hopefully it will have a positive impact, bolstering our recently adopted position statement on education of the gifted and talented. Delaware 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. The department was reorganized into teams such as Equity and Special Programs, Assessment, and Curriculum. I am assigned to Equity and Special Programs, but serve on four of the teams. When the reorganization took place, I was working about half time on gifted and that has dropped to about five percent. Also, the legislature eliminated many of the line item categories, such as gifted education, ESC, and counseling, and folded all of the money into an Academic Block Grant. Districts can use this money for any of the purposes of the original line item categories. Some of the districts do still use some of their grant for gifted programs. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Delaware does not have a middle school report, but the Carnegie Report, Turning Points, has been widely disseminated. Many districts have focused on the recommendation relating to heterogeneous grouping and most middle school programs that served gifted students have been eliminated. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. There is no official policy on grouping, but districts are encouraged to use heterogeneous grouping when possible. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? About one-half of the high schools offer Advanced Placement courses and there are some honors courses for advanced students. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No official policy. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? We currently are working on standards and curriculum frameworks. There will be levels of mastery. Those currently being proposed are, "meets or exceeds standards," "approaches standard," "below standard." 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? The ability to use meager resources creatively. Very dedicated teachers. 42 53 Delaware (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Grouping for instruction. State funding. State mandate. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? I think the national report will be very helpful. Right ,,ow, I am determining how I think it could be used most effectively. District of Columbia 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. State department of education has reorganized. The reduction of personnel assigned to the Gil program will decrease to some degree the amount of technical assistance provided to each local school program and the scope of the special G/T projects available to all students. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Yes. Increased services are available to middle schools. These restructured middle schools will incorporate a specialized focus, i.e., math/science, humanities, etc. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No state policy. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? The number of high school students participating in advanced and honors classes increases each year. These are course options that the majority of G/T students select for participation. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Site-based management is an established policy. Support to the gifted programs at the local school level has increased. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Completion of the outcome-based curriculum is in progress. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted studentf? Identification process based on multi-criteria and local school norms allows for inclusiveness. Deccntrzlized program design and accountability based on individualized needs. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. Licensure for teachers of the gifted. Local school Ga program coordinator (100%). 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Somewhat. 44 Florida 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Not applicable. The state department has not been reorganized. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. The state department has not issued a policy statement or report on middle school education. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. This question is not applicable to gifted programming in Florida due to the state statutes for funding for gifted and the State Board Rule 6A-6.03019. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? As to the exact increase or decrease in the College Board of Advanced Placement courses or IB programs, I cannot comment. At times these programs are used as a method for serving gifted students. However, high schools may still have the option to offer gifted programming courses as such for gifted students. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Although school districts in Florida use site-based decision making, programming for gifted is still based on State Board of Education mandates and related to funding for gifted students. Site-based decision making has not affected gifted programming at this point in time. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Currently the Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Education for Exceptional Students has challenge grants for gifted students in process which will address outcomes, assessments, and benchmarks for students who are gifted in grades K-12. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Florida statutes including gifted as part of exceptional student education. State Board of Education rules pertaining to gifted. Funding for gifted. Parent advocacy groups. State Program Specialist for Gifted to coordinate services. 45 56 Florida (continued) S. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Florida already has increased finding, a state mandate, and endorsement for teachers. Services could always be improved by providing education about gifted students to parents, administrators, and other teachers, especially regarding identification of these students. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Not applicable at this time. 46 S! Georgia 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. During the past two years there have been two reorganizations of the Georgia Department of Education. These have resulted in one professional staff member of the Gifted Education Unit being transferred to the School Support Teams Unit and one secretarial position was transferred to another Unit. Unit staff has thereby been reduced from four professionals and two secretaries to three professionals and one secretary. Staff responsibilities, however, not only still include in-school gifted education (P-12), the Governor's Honors Program (GHP), and four scholarship programs, but additional duties have been added. Loss of this personnel reduces ability of the gifted education unit to devote the same amount of time to programs for the gifted. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? ff so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Linking Services for Georgia's Young Adolescents (1993), Georgia Board of Education, is a report providing a comprehensive picture of the state of young adolescents, their public school education, and their overall well- being. Produced with funds from a grant by the Carnegie Corporation of New York as part of the Middle Grades School State Policy Initiative, the project director was Alit, arc tlt, Georgia Department of Education Consulant for Middle School Incentive Grants. Discussions with I Unit staff have resulted hi Ms. Smith endorsing the concept of having a gifted education teacher represented on every middle school interdisciplinary team. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. Georgia Department of Education Regulations and Procedures for Gifted Students, (Code IDDD, section 6, outlines the instructional delivery models (student grouping patterns) available to local units of instruction (LUAs). All 182 LUAs submit information on which instructional delivery models ^re used at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? The number of Georgia high schools in which Advanced Placement (AP) courses were taught has increased from 276 during the 1992-93 school year (SY) to 307 for the 1993-94 SY.* There is currently only one International Baccalaureate (IB) program operating in Georgia. Criteria for high school classes designed as honors classes varies from LUA to LUA; therefore, the lack of standardization prevents classes with this label automatically qualifying as an acceptable delivery model for state funding. Identified gifted students may be served in these classes and qualify for state funding at the gifted weighted factor if the requirements of Code IDDD, section 6 are met. *This 11% increase includes both public and private funds. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Georgia does not have an official State Board of Education policy that deals with SBDM. 47 Georgia (continued) 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Georgia state education law (the Quality Basic Education Act), requires a statewide uniformly sequenced core curriculum be developed and quadrennially updated by the Georgia Board of Education (GBOE). The Georgia Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) must be included in the curriculum in each LUA, which may expand or enrich as it sees fit The GBOE approved Rule 160-4-2-.01 establishing 76 student competencies that each student shall be provided opportunities to master. No levels of mastery have been established for the QCC or the 76 student competencies. Gifted curricula shall incorporate the 76 student competencies and State Board of Education-approved curriculum, resource guides, and courses. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Three professionals and one support staff at 100% FTE at State Department of Education. Mandate embodied in state statute. Funding available in all 182 LUAs. Funding available for production of curriculum guides and teacher resource manuals. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Appropriately differentiated curriculum - Curriculum guides and teacher resource manuals are being developed as appropriate examples for curricular development, not as mandated curriculum. Program evaluation - Evaluation of programs is necessary for improvement and continued development of gifted education; systematic evaluation will provide data for continued program development, staff development, and exemplary models. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? The USDE report will have no impact on Georgia's gifted education. 48 59 Guam I . Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased. These options are not frequently used. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? There is a movement toward doing so. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Yes, basic mastery level. The outcomes have no affect on services to gifted students. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Teacher dedication. Parent support. Cultural diversity. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Adequate classroom space. Staff development opportunities. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? No. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 49 60 Hawaii 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Schools have more flexibility in use of funds under lump sum budgeting. State is moving toward weighted funding for gifted and talented. But once the school receives the funds, it can use it for any program it wishes. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, andlor honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Yes, yes. 5 . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? State has an official policy that expects all schools to move into school/community -based decision making by the year 2000. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Task force has been commissioned by the Legislature to come up with performance standards. Report is due March, 1994. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Schools are attempting to identify in all seven intelligences and looking at our minority student population. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Weighted funding. Endorsement for teachers. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gibed students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? May help advocacy groups at school sites. 50 61 Idaho 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. Only to the extent that a new state consultant position for Gifted and Talented was created this year. This should provide a network for disseminating information, improve the quality of inservice to teachers, and increase the awareness in the public eye of the necessity of providing for the special needs of gifted children. 2. Has your state department of education Issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Yes, the following sections can affect the delivery of services to gifted students at the middle school level. Program...is characterized by flexibility. Provisions are made for individual differences and program Lianges as students, teachers, and other staff members see the need; ...provides for common and individual needs of students; ...uses all resource people available. Course offerings...shall be offered...special courses for the accelerated, learning disabled, and handicapped. Pupil personnel services...analysis of individual differences, including a planned and comprehensive testing program. Quality and Improvement of Education Programs...The efficiency of instruction may be assessed by...evaluations, goal setting, and accountability...to the degree to which the individual needs of students are being met. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Unknown at this time. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? State consultant for G/T education. Funding for approximately 1/2 of state's districts through Special Education Ancillary reimbursement. District's flexibility in program design. 51 62 Idaho "continued) S. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. Classroom teacher inservice. Endorsement at state level. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Unsure. 52 6'.) Indiana 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Yes, it has caused confusion and concern surrounding the grouping issue and appropriate services for gifted/talented students exists. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Use has increased, particularly with AP, since training for teachers is financed by the state. These options are frequently used, particularly AP and honors; IB is still in the neophyte stage. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Indiana encourages site based management, referred to as extended management, through a legislative provision that allows schools to waive any State Board rule or statute, in the area of curriculum or textbook selection, that, in the opinion of the districts, is a barrier to change. Program is in early stages; too early to assess impact on services to gifted students. 6. 9as your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Indiana has developed "Essential Skills for All Students." Content standards were adopted at the July, 1993 State Board meeting. Performance standards have not yet been developed. Development of such standards has been mandated for grade 10, by July 1, 1995. It is anticipated that these agreed upon essential skills will become the bunching pad for differentiated curriculum and will provide a clearer focus on services to students. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? - Four state operated Gir resource libraries. Strong network of Gil' advocates. Wide variety of state resources. Willingness of model site, personnel, and other educational leaders to extend their experiences and knowledge base to local school personnel throughout the state. Indiana (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? A formal recognition of the needs of the most able, and an expectation that those needs are addressed, whether through a legislative mandate or some other means. Increased funding. Increased staff development opportunities that are not only qualitatively different, but interface with a local plan that embraces change. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Yes, the report will impact our state G/T program in a positive manner through a formal recognition, and therefore validation, of gifted programming efforts. Anticipated changes include improved dialogue regarding integration of services and increased opportunities for collaborative efforts. 54 65 Iowa I. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes. The effect was minimal. What has really cut into my time has been the addition of two other responsibilities: home schooling and strategic planning. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No, but I'm on a committee to draft a position paper on the issuethe agency does discourage tracking, but the paper will distinguish tracking from instructional grouping. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Small increase in AP, no LB anywhere that I know of. Honors classes have stayed about the same, which is to say they appear to be the most often cited service method after competitions and extra-curricular activities. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No official policy that I know of. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? We tried to develop student outcomes. The effort was abandoned after two years work. We do not encourage schools to develop their own. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? It has lots of variety across the state. It is not state funded, so the money cannot be taken away. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? A willingness on the part of teachers and administrators to believe that gifted students have needs that schools should address. Reduction in turnover among teachers of the gifted. Law changes allowing closer department of education scrutiny of spending. Iowa (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? I hope so. It may reinforce the efforts of people working in gifted education. Right now, we feel like the proverbial kid with his finger* in the dike. 56 *and toes, nose... Kansas 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. We are in the process of reorganization and moving toward Quality Performance Accreditation; Outcome Based; Collaboration of Special Education/General Education. This has been a positive move for the most pan, but all the votes are not in yet. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. Work is underway. 3. Does your Etate department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain bow the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. The existing policy relating to gifted education remains the same in writing, but districts have been allowed some latitude to try innovative practices. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased, yes. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? State is moving toward site-based management. Services are becoming more diverse. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Outcomes are not specific to gifted education. It is considered that outcomes are intended to meet the needs of all students. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? There is a move toward more flexibility in identifying eligibility beyond a set of test scores; however, this is a bandaid on an elephant's behind. Curriculum based assessment is a plus. There is also a move toward class within class and collaborative teaming. This helps borderline gifted, but questionable for highly gifted students. We have teachers who care, and some administrators who understand and care. S. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Greater appreciation of the special needs of highly gifted students. Improved teacher education to get us to really considering meeting needs one on one (individual goals and objectives). Funding, of course, but the real strength for the rest of special education is through the federal government. 57 68 Kansas (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? if so, what changes to you anticipate? Very little, if any, at this time (because of a mind-set). 58 69 Kentucky 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes, gifted education moved from the Special Education Division to the Division of Professional Development. A majority of the tasks which are ahead of us involve a great deal of professional development. Statutorally, gifted education remains in Special Education, which gives us the best of both worlds given the Reform Act and its ramifications. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Department of Education has co-sponsored or endorsed one publication which was the result of a Carnegie grant. Publication title: Middlemorphosis. Impact: Negative impact growing out of the confusion associated with not clarifying: (1) the difference between tracking and ability grouping, and (2) the distinctly different needs of gifted, and for that matter, all special needs children. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. The Kentucky Department of Education does not favor tracking as an instructional strategy at any level. KDE. has trouble accepting ability grouping when it is overt--"instructional grouping based on needs, interests, and ability" is generally accepted as long as it is not a permanent arrangement. Advanced Placement programs take a little heat ever/ once in a while, but is here to stay. KDE generally leaves it up to the individual districts to make the determination as to what is acceptable and what is not. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased somewhat. Yes, AP is a frequent service delivery method employed at high school. 5 . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? It is mandated for every school to have a site-based council by 1995. The gifted child/program can be very vulnerable if the chemistry of the council is anti-gifted. Luckily there is the mandate. Also, councils would like to get at the G/T dollars but cannot since G/1- is a categorical budget item, and as such, only to be used for a specific population, etc. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No response. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? The mandate, supporting guidelines, and the state funding. (And last, but certainly NOT least, a politically astute state parent group--the Kentucky Association for the Gifted.) 59 7 0 Kentucky (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding, an extra professional staff member (or two), and a realization that certain minority leaders that demand entitlement (i.e., the numbers/demographics argument) are selling their communities downstream. Urging the pursuit of excellence in any community beats demanding entitlement anytime...this is my personal opinion regarding what is going on in our largest population center, (and I'm sure in other communities in other states). Again, this is an opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with KDE. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Uncertain. 60 7 1 Louisiana 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No reorganization since 1977. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No affect reported. Louisiana's gifted students are in Special Education. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No policy on grouping. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Cannot be substituted for gifted special education courses. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? We are under Special Education and state laws and regulations which all local education agencies must abide by. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Special education has not. Regular education has basic mastery levels, but gifted students usually easily meet these. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? A state mandate with legislative support since 1977 under the umbrella of Special Education. Services provided for students ages 3-21. Law provides for coordinators, as well as certified gifted/talented program teachers. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding We need a federal mandate, and federal and state laws. Teacher training - Regular education as well as special education on needs of gifted/talented students. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Difficult to assess at this point. Hope for creation of a new awareness of the needs of these children. 61 72 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Maine 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. The Department of Education has not been formally restructured. The Department has been reorganized to accommodate a reduction in staff and the elimination of somepositions. The Division of Special Education, which includes gifted and talented programs, has merged with Chapter 1 and Migrant Education and become the Division of Special Services. Cross-program and cross-division collaboration is pursued by the consultant for gifted education to link gifted education with restructuring initiatives. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. The Report of the Middle Level Task Force was issued by the De.. 1-'meat of Education in June 1988. Many school districts adopted the middle school philosophy and reorgar. I junior high schools in varying degrees around the middle school concept. The report recognized the need to individualize instruction to address individual abilities and learning styles and stated many principles shared by gifted education. The implementation of cooperative learning practices and the elimin-tion of ability grouping in middle school, however, seems to have limited opportunities for advanced learners. Increased communication about shared beliefs and the sharing of instructional strategies between middle school proponents and advocates of gifted education could serve to enhance middle school initiatives and assure that the needs of gifted students are met. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. Maine's Common Core of Learning document, issued in July 1990, discusses the adverse effect of tracking and grouping practices in the traditional education system and expresses the concern that we underserve about half the student population. Heterogeneous grouping K-8 is widely practiced and is emerging and the secondary level as well. The document also recognizes that students learn at different rates and in various styles and states that students should be allowed "to arrive at the Common Core through uncommon means and in varying times." The challenge is in personalizing and individualizing instruction for all students in heterogeneous classrooms and schools in ways that meet particular needs of all students including the gifted. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? The use of College Board Advanced Placement courses has increased in the past two years. This is an option frequently used as a method of sewing gifted students at the high school level. Traditional honors classes are being eliminated in a few districts which are moving toward heterogeneous grouping in grades 9-12 leaving Advanced Placement courses as the formal mechanism to serve advanced learners at the secondary level. 5 . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Site-based management is gaining some favor at the local level. Impact on services to gifted students has not been detemined. Maine (continued) 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Maine's Common Core of Learning generally describes the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (outcomes) that students should be able to demonstrate by the time they leave school. The Maine Educational Assessment Program is exploring the develoment of state performance standards (novice, proficient, advanced, distinguished). The State Board's Task Force on Learning Results will be recommending state standards for student achievement and school performance based on the Common Core. The task force envisions a learner- centered system with the promise that outcomes and assessments will be appropriate for all students. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? The state's program for gifted students provides a framework that supports diversity in programs/services based on individual student needs and local context.. The guidelines and rules have in many ways anticipated concepts promoted by the restructuring movement (alternative assessments, personalized teaching-learning strategies, flexible pacing, etc.) There is on-going dialogue between the local and state level around reconfiguration and reconceptualizing of gifted education practice in the context of restructuring schools. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Three things that would improve services to gifted students would be the reinstatement of the postponed mandate; comprehensive professional development for regular educators, and discretionary funding to support innovation in programs/services for the gifted linked to restructuring efforts. A recognition of student diversity (of all kinds) in the reform conversation and a belief that all means all are fundamental to success. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? The USDE report can support and inform key restructuring initiatives that in turn can help us meet the recommendations in the report. The Maine Educational Assessment program is increasingly performance- based, is moving toward including more open-ended questions, and will be developing multiple performance levelsnovice, proficient, advanced, distinguished. State standards for student achievement based on Maine's Common Core of Learning and school performance standards will be developed over the next two years. This offers the opportunity to articulate how the needs of advanced learners must be met in a unified system that assures success for all students. The current rules governing gifted and talented programs, identification and services are generally in line with the recommendations of the report. Collaboration and shared responsibility of regular educators and gifted education specialist are essential if we are to fmd, develop, and serve talent in meaningful ways as the report suggests. 63 Maryland 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. The Maryland State Department of Education continues to restructure service delivery based on school-based school improvement initiatives undertaken to improve students and school performance. The Department's 10 goals, the Maryland School Performance Program, an assessment, performance reporting and school-based planning initiative, and Maryland Learning Outcomes from service delivery to local education agencies and schools. Gifted education is a part of the comprehensive school-based school improvement planning. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. The Maryland Task Force on the Middle Learning Years issued "What Matters in the Middle Grades" (1989) with specific recommendations. The section on "Tracking and Grouping" is perceived by some as impacting gifted programs. The report calls for flexible grouping to meet specific needs rather than growing by ability as indicated on standardized measures. Additionally, department support of school-based school improvement initiatives has emphasized success for all students based on developmentally appropriate expectancies. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Yes, yes. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? The Maryland School Performance Program, is a multifaceted initiative of assessment, data-base reporting, and student and school performance standards. School-based school improvement plans are to be developed by each Maryland school based on the state expectancy for site-based collaborative planning, using the analysis of data from multiple sources. This comprehensive school-based plan is expected to address the needs of all learners, including the gifted. School-Based Instructional Decision-Making based on analyses of data from multiple sources, along with priority and strategic planning are components of School Improvement Leadership Training at the Middle Learning Years. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Maryland Learning Outcomes have been adopted by the State Board of Education in science, mathematics, social studies, reading, and technology. Additional areas are up for adoption. The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program is a statewide criterion-referenced performance assessment program based on these learning outcomes. Five proficiency levels are established for each outcome of the content integrated assessments. 64 75 Maryland (continued) 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Maryland, as a non-mandate state, has benefited from the establishment of multiple state and local programs and a large (12%) identified population receiving services. This has flexibility and encourages innovative programming based on students' needs and available resources. Additionally, gubernatorial support has advanced local programs in mathematics and science. The Maryland Summer Center for International Studies spawned the Governor's International Education Initiative, a professional development program to train teachers for the academic year replication of the center model. Additionally, LEAs have adopted the Summer Center models, programs, and instructional strategies for replication or adaptation in academic year programs for the gifted. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased gubernatorial, state board and parent support has been indicated in Maryland in recent years. A State Task Force may be appointed by the State Superintendent to chart directions for the corning years. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? The USDE report will serve as a critical resource if a state task force is appointed. Massachusetts 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Department reorganization did not affect gifted education, but the education reform did establish an advisory council to State Board which encourages districts to provide programs for gifted students. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No policy statement. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No response. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? No response. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No response. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No response. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Seventy-six districts have programs they fund on their own. This commitment is crucial to programs. S. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? It already has started to impact our state's program for gifted students. We presented it to State Board in December, 1993. Michigan 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. A reorganization of the Department was necessitated by a significant budget reduction; major service areas were consolidated and streamlined. The Office of Gifted Education remained with the Curriculum Development Program. This was beneficial, as this service area is responsible for the Model Core Curriculum Outcomes and is assisting in the development of a high school proficiency test. Being a part of this program area facilitates the needed communications to assure that the needs of high ability students are being addressed within the realm of major reform activities. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No such policy issued - -local district decision. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No such policy - -local district decision. However, phone calls indicate that many districts are implementing heterogeneous grouping and parents feel that the needs of their gifted/talented children are no longer being met. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your states high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Phone calls indicate that some districts are eliminating honors and AP courses in an effort to group heterogeneously, "untrack" the high school curriculum, and meet new core curriculum legislation. Exact numbers are not available. Indeed, these options are frequently used as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level. 5 . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Although SBDM is a local district decision, legislation does state that school districts must have a school improvement process and that individual buildings must have a school improvement plan. Advocates for gifted education are encouraged to become members of school improvement teams, to assure that the needs of gifted/talented students are addressed. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? In 1991, the Michigan State Board of Education approved a State Core Curriculum and Model Core Curriculum Outcomes. Outcomes are set for each level of schooling (elementary, middle/junior high, high school). The core outcomes reflect standards that are high, clear, and comprehensive. Unfortunately, the tight timelines established for implementation by local districts has resulted in minimal compliance. Michigan (continued) 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Focus on comprehensive programming. Flexibility in setting local district standards. Summer Institutes for the Arts, Sciences, and Technology at 10 locations. Network of intermediate school district consultants (in all 57 ISD's) providing support to local districts. State level study committees addressing specific issues--gifted students with handicaps, social and emotional needs of the gifted, and gifted/talented students in vocational education. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Commitment on the part of legislators, school boards, administrators, and teachers to address the needs of gifted learners. A better relationship with current reform efforts to ensure that the needs of gifted/talented students will be met within the entire school program. Continued and increased funding. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Many of Michigan's school districts have eliminated or decreased programming for Ofted/talented students due to budget restraints. The USDE report will be used to educate local boards of education as to why such programming must continue. It will also be shared with legislative committees responsible for funding gifted education. Hopefully, it will help to ensure continued funding. 68 79 Minnesota 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years.? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes, Minnesota Department of Education has undergone extensive reorganization. Most specialists, including the gifted specialist, were placed on either 1) service teams (provide services to customers in geographic region of the State) or 2) resource teams (provide research and development). The gifted specialist (one) was put on the resource team responsible for developing and implementing a new results oriented graduation rule. I was named acting Director of Graduation Standards and Amassment because the Commissioner of Education believes the new graduation rule should be appropriately challenging for all, even the most gifted learners. Gifted education throughout Minnesota will be positively affected by these changes, I think. A new specialist in gifted education will be hired to replace the vacancy left by my promotion. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. A report, as such, hasn't been issued. However, many MDE staff specialists have been helping districts to implement middle school reforms. In some places, this has resulted in the elimination of ability groups, honors courses, etc.--a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach. To combat this, the MDE and the Minnesota Association of Middle Level Educators (MAMLE) are cosponsoring a symposium next fall for over 200 administrators and teachers on "Middle Schools and Meeting the Needs of Gifted Learners." Jim Gallagher will help administrators in strategic planning and Mary Ruth Coleman will help teachers use instructional strategies in interdisciplinary teams. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. Yes. The report (not a policy, actually) was written by the gifted specialist and school improvement specialist and represents a compromise approach, which has served gifted education and regular education quite well, I think. OBE, as presented by MDE, encouraged the use of flexible grouping and other grouping options as required by the needs of learners (see Success For Every Learner: Weed Learners and Outcome Based Education, publication by MDE, 1992). 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased. We have state legislation that encourages the expansion of AP and IB with supportive funding for staff development, reduced exam fees, and so on. Yes, among other options. . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Yes. SEAM has hurt gifted services in some districts and benefited gifted learners in other districts. New legislation requires all staff development plans written by the district or the site-based teams to include strategies for helping teachers to develop and implement "more challenging instructional activities." Minnesota (continued) 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Yes. We have comprehensive outcomes (exit outcomes like "thinks purposefully") and content outcomes that encompass the academic disciplines. No. Minority interest groups felt this would ultimately limit low SES or racial minorities from achieving "advanced mastery" because opportunities might not be provided for them to achieve the highest level. Instead, we have first created an assessment model which provides for two additional levels beyond the level required for graduation (Level 4 - graduation). Advanced learners, therefore, can achieve a "Level 5" (in-depth knowledge and thought processes) in any comprehensive or content outcome. Some may achieve a "Level 6" (original, significant, contribution to the field as assessed by appropriate experts in the field). 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? A shift is occurring from gifted education programs to a continuum of gifted services, which is flexible to varying developmental needs of learners. I believe Minnesota will be the first state to build advanced learning into a model of assessment, as well as its system of outcomes and standards. The new graduation rules provides for continuous progress. So, major gains will be happening because of the statewide initiative of the "results-oriented graduation rule" (to start in 1996). Many other traditional services for G/T learners exist, but I think the graduation rule should receive the focus as bringing the best, most far-reaching positive results for gifted learners. 8 . What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding for gifted services. Staff development on how to create challenging learning. Elimination of the belief in Minnesota that schools have always served G/T learners well. (Over 400 mandates were repealed by our legislature last year. Minnesota is an anti-mandate state). 9 . Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? This report will be effective PR that I can use to promote our need to have the new graduation rule be appropriately challenging for all learners, including the gifted. The State Board of Education has requested an analysis of how the graduation rule will affect G/T learners and the issues that need to be addressed. This USDE report will help me in that regard. Mississippi 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? IC so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Reorganized in February 1993; Gifted Education Programs is no longer locat....d under Special Education. It is far too soon to be able to tell what effects this may have, but it is anticipated that the change will be positive. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. There is no such policy. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. There is no such policy. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? The use of College Board Advanced Placement courses has been increasing for the past five years. This is one option available for serving academically gifted students at the secondary level, but many of the courses have no identified gifted students on that class roll. S. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Districts are encouraged to adopt some form of site-based decision making process. It has not had a noticeable impact on services to gifted students, although I feel quite certain there has been an impact at the local level. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Yes, but the level of competencies is basic or minimal. Some districts are allowing curriculum compacting as an option for gifted students, thus freeing additional time for independent projects or vertical enrichment. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Local district flexibility in determining assessment measures and programming. Parental involvement in program development. Growing involvement of districts with projects through NBC-WT. Strong desire on teachers part for increasing knowledge in gifted education. Increasing commitment by local administrators for appropriate programs. Increasing efforts in some districts to make the gifted program an integral part of the total education program. 71 82 Mississippi (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increase in funds to provide more staff development workshops on gifted education. Development of a series of resource manuals for districts. Dissemination of research and best practices data to local districts through periodic publications. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? This report will not have an immediate impact. State regulations are based upon the Mississippi Gifted Education Act of 1989, thereby requiring a change in law before any major changes would be considered for regulations. 72 8. 3 Missouri 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No response. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting fecal district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? It is used as a method of serving high school gifted students. S. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No response. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? We have been in the process of becoming an outcome based state. The legislature has appropriated funds to form the New Standards Project 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? The teachers and support from the gifted association. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? State mandate. Increased funding. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? No. 73 8 4 Montana 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. The Montana Office of Public Instruction has been reorganized in the last two years. During the reorganization, the location of the gifted and talented education program was discussed. In Montana, gifted education services are defined as a part of the "basic" education for gifted students. This fact and the absence of federal requirements or funding resulted in the program being r' aced in the basic education division under curriculum services. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle stilooi education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state departmc it have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? International Baccalaureate programs are not used in Montana. Honors classes are utilized but no reporting is required. Some Montana school districts are feeling pressure from outside groups to eliminate or reduce the honor class offerings while others are slowly increasing their offerings. Some Advanced Placement classes are offered in 22 percent of Montana's one hundred and seventy high schools (1991 data). That is an increase of 5 percent from the previous year (1990). 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adept some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Montana does not have state required student outcomes but does require district write locally developed learner goals. The state accreditation standards provide model learner goals that the districts may adapt or adopt as r.ppropriate. The model goals are benchmarked for primary, intermediate, and secondary levels. Dish-Lt goals, while mandated, are not required to benchmark these levels. 74 Montana (continued) #6. (continued) Ideally, learner goals would be written for each student in a gifted and talented education program which could then be assessed. However, the reality is that most programs are operating at or below basic service levels. Parents, program coordinators, and teachers are concerned that students are challenged appropriately. Active use of learner goals would help ensure that the level of challenge was appropriate. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Three strength areas are vitally important for the past and present success of the gifted education programs in Montana. There is a high level of individual commitment to the needs of gifted learners on the part of many Montana educators. Educators do riot have regularly available classes on gifted education, budgets are very tight, and distances are great. Most teachers pay their own way to the state convention and to special summer classes that are offered to extend their skills in working with gifted and talented youth. In their programs and classrooms, these teachers are working to make appropriate modifications to challenge students learning. The Montana Association of Gifted and Talented Education (Montana AGATE) has a strong membership of nearly 700 parents, teachers, and administrators. In a state with a low population, that membership indicates a strong desire to improve the offerings to able youth. AGATE provides student and parent scholarships, publishes newsletters and other documents on gifted education, and cooperates with other state curriculum groups to provide information and services. Project EDGE (Excellence in the Dissemination of Gifted Education) was a federally funded (Javits) program which selected forty teachers statewide to receive college training. These teachers attended summer school for two summers. Intensive education and training was provided. The participants (EDGE Scholars) then provided free inservice training to districts statewide during the two year duration of the grant. As a result 21.9 percent of all elementary and middle school teachers in the state received some training in gifted education., Forty five percent of the state's elementary districts were involved in the training sessions. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Funding - Currently only $149,250 per year is available to assist Montana's schools in gifted education. With 514 school districts, the funding does not go far. Fifteen percent of the school districts receive some state assistance for their program. Due to the limited funds, requests are capped at $5,000 per district for all but six of the state's largest districts. These districts may apply for up to $10,000 (based upon at least an equal match from local funds). Funds are pro-rated to give all districts an equal share. Currently, districts are receiving less than fifty percent of their requested amounts. Teacher Training - Montana has eight four-year colleges that train new teachers and graduate nearly 700 teachers each year. At those colleges, no professor has a degree in gifted education; only four professors are noted as having expressed a strong interest in gifted education and there is not a single regular session gifted education class taught. Course work in gifted education occurs as special session classes during the summer which are taught by local practitioners (Talents Unlimited, Project Success Enrichment, etc.) or by out-of-state professionals in the field. Subsequently, teachers with a strong interest are able to take some summer training (primarily at one institution) and attend the AGATE convention to educate themselves about the needs of high ability learners. Montana (continued) #8. (continued) Parent Advocacy - Parents in Montana have been active in AGATE and their home districts for the past decade. Recently, there has been an increase in the local parent advocacy as programs are eliminated, reduced, or threatened (despite the mandate for services) due to funding problems. Parents need to take a much more active role to ensure that their children receive appropriate services. Despite the active role that AGATE has taken and the state level advocacy, parents hold the key to influencing local districts and legislatures for future positive growth. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? The federal report will focus upon the lack of challenge and ultimate failures in the education of gifted children in the United States. This will impact Montana by drawing the attention nationally to the expectation levels, and hopefully funding required to provide the challenging educational services required for our children to compete in the global world. Montana can then examine the report and set goals for the education of gifted students to increase the level of challenge and match the educational services to the level of need. Funding ultimately is the critical issue. The current state economy is not encouraging. Nebraska 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes. Curriculum and vocational education are now on the same team. State funding for schools has been equalized, so eqtmlization aid dollars that had been available for gifted students is no longer available. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Don't know. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Yes, definitely. Don't know. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No, but working on it at the local level and soon, at state level, too. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Greatest strength is the local districts' commitment to serve all studentsincluding gifted. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Funding. - State mandate. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Not necessarily. 77 33 Nevada 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Basic Education Branch has been divided into two branches: (1) Elementary and Secondary Education and (2) Federal Programs. The G/T consultant position was not filled after a vacancy occurred Budget cuts affected the discontinuation of this position. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classe- increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Yes. These options are often used at the secondary level to serve gifted and/or high ability students by a majority of school districts. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? No. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Competencies have been established in major subject areas. All students must meet these competencies. At present these competencies have not affected services to gifted students. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? G/T teaching endorsement (September 1995). Networking among Gil' coordinators and teachers. Nevada (continued) 8. What three things would most improve service" to gifted students in your state? State mandate with funding. Expand districts' Gil programs to include all grate levels. At present most school districts primarily focus on instruction at the elementary level. Expand district's program to address GP' areas such as visual and performing arts, leadership, and creative thinking. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? if so, what changes to you anticipate? Not availztile. New Hampshire 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes, in process. I have no idea how services will be affected. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at Cue high school level? Increased, yes. S . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Yes. No data on how it has affected services to gifted students. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Local control. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. 9 . Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Probably not; we have a mandate/fund rule that has virtually shut down any ct-ange that has money connected. Even our domestic violence services are from a surcharge on marriage licenses. 80 New Jersey 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. The appointment of a new commissioner created changes in administrative posts. The new leadership has put the state survey on hold. An ad hoc committee of superintendents was appointed to develop statewide initiatives, recommend code revisions, identify effective program prototypes, and create a "white paper." This has placed a hold on the revision of the state plan and state guidelines. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. Traditionally local school districts determine the nature of programs and policies. There are over 6(X) school districts. Consequently, there is a great diversity of programs, from magnet to enrichment for all. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? From 1991 to 1992, there was an increase of 1,000 students taking AP courses and a slight increase in the state's average score on the exams. Yes, these options are used as a method of serving gifted students. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? SBDM is encouraged. It's impact on G/T has not been assessed but it is likely it has gone both ways. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Yes, for coursework, not necessarily G/T. Mastery levels are by grade levels. These standards have not yet been fully adopted. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? County consortia sharing programs/resources. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Funding. A mandate with "teeth." 31 92 New Jersey (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? No. 82 93 New York 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. During the 1992-93 school year, the department was reorganized into interdisciplinary teams to replace the old structure of specialized bureaus and divisions. There are 24 regional field teams and 16 internal teams. The department's gifted specialist is on an internal team designated "Instruction and Program Development." Effect: In the past, requests for information or assistance would come from school personnel or private citizens directly to the gifted specialist, who would respond directly. Under the reorganization, a request comes to a team, which then consults with the specialist about how to respond. The result has been to delay responses and to reduce the possibility of follow-up questions or dialogue. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Yes. Some statements in the middle school policy paper have been used by a few schools to justify doing away with gifted programs, honors sections, and other provisions for advanced learners. For example, schools are advised to "use student grouping strategies that maintain heterogeneous classes but group for specific purposes and for brief periods." Often overlooked are recommendations to recognize the importance of the individual, vary activities, use a variety of teaching strategies, and have schedules that permit flexible time assignments. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? The use of Advanced Placement courses has increased, both in the number of high schools and in the number of students participating. They frequently are used to serve gifted students. There has been a decrease in the International Baccalaureate from a high of 13 participating schools in the mid 1980's to 8 participating schools in 1992. However, LB officials feel that there is some renewed interest for the 1993-94 school year. Not frequently used. Figures on the number of honors classes are not available. However, I have received reports that indicate that some schools are doing away with them. Frequently used. S . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Yes. New York State requires each district to develop, by February 1, 1994, a plan for school-based planning and shared decision making. It is too early to know how this affects services to gifted students. 83 94 New York (continued) 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? New York State is in the process of developing student outcomes. There are ongoing discussions about different levels of mastery, but a final decision has not been made. . What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Personnel: The leadership provided by coordinators of gifted programs in the cities and regional education agencies; the commitment of teachers of the gifted. A state association that provides strong advocacy, supports local parent groups, and conducts an outstanding conference each year. Summer Institutes in Math and Science and the Summer School for the Arts. S. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? A more widespread understanding that ta.'ent development and equity are not incompatible. Endorsement for teachers of the gifted, since there is no separate certification for teachers of the gifted in New York State. Increased state funding. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? The USDE report will probably have the most impact if it emphasizes the need for services that target gifted students within the broad education reform effort_ However, the emphasis must go beyond current reform language that implies that "raising the floor for everyone" is sufficient for gifted students. 84 95 North Carolina 1 . Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Gifted education remained in Exceptional Children (as part of a support team for K-12). 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased, yes. S . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SFIDM affected services to gifted students? Encourages site-based decision making. Does not affect thus far as gifted education is mandated by state law. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery (example: basic mastery, advanced master) been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Not yet; in progress. 7 . What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Strong support Lion: I.);.:parinic....-tt of Public: Instruction for gifted eAltication. The develipment of a curriculum framework based on North Carolina SCs and collaborative efforts in progress w 1th general education. Mandate for services. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? A total restructuring to provide a more comprehensive plan to improve quality of service (identification, services, evaluation, learner outcomes). Teacher training for general education teachers for collaboration efforts. Increased funding. 85 0 North Carolina (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? if so, what changes to you anticipate? Yes. A more subjective, broader view of giftedness and more collaborative efforts with general education. 86 97 North Dakota 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Yes. No information available as to how the report affected local district services to gifted students. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Remained the same. Yes. S. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Yes. No information available as to how site -based decision making affected services to gifted students. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are:: these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Student performance standards have been developed Levels of mastery have not been established. No information available as to how the standards have affected service4 to gifted students. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? New state guidelines and the availability of regional facilitators. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. Change in teacher endorsement. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Do not know at this time whether the report will impact the states program for gifted students. 87 90 Ohio 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. The SEA has been reorganized in the past year. The Division of Special Education and all other departments and/or divisions that impact direct services to students have been moved to the School Improvement Unit (S[U). 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain bow the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Advanced Placement services are widely available in Ohio and continue to increase at a slow rate. International Baccalaureate classes are available in a few Ohio high schools. Honors classes are being maintained at high school level but are decreasing at middle school/junior high school level. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Site-based decision making is utilized by an increasing number of Ohio school districts via the district's choice. Result in some districts has been the reduction of central office staff who have responsibility for gifted education and reallocation of those persons/resources as purchased "materials" for regular classroom use. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or coopetencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? The state is in the process of revising all rules and regulations that govern the education of elementary/secondary students. The rules and policies for gifted education are part of that revision. Performancebased education is the overriding process of the revision. Target year for district implementation of the revised rules is 1994-95. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Multifactored identification process. Funded coordinators with the responsibility to direct educational services for gifted children, K-12. 88 99 Ohio (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Assuring that parents are informed when their children have been identified as gifted. Provision of a continuum of services (preschool-commencement and regular classroom-multiple/flexible options). Appropriate services provided to each gifted child based on assessed needs. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? USDE report is critical for: Rules revision. Supporting better identification/services to underrepresented/underserved gifted populations. Attention to appropriate se-vices to young gifted children as well as all gifted students. 89 100 Oklahoma 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Somewhat. It has had no effect on the work of the Gifted Section. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, exy!ain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Advanced Placement courses and Honors classes have increased to a small degree. These options are often used as a major part of gifted programming at the high school level. S. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Site-based decision making was encouraged by our Reform Bill. Little difference has been noted so far. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting se -,,ices to gifted students? Oklahoma does have Priority Academic Student Skills. Levels of mastery have not been set. It is unclear how this will affect services. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Flexibility (This is also a weaknesses). 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Funding accountability. Program monitoring. Better preservice preparation for teachers. 90 101 Oklahoma (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? It is too early to tell; any change will be slow in coming. 91 11-12 Oregon 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Department of Education organized new divisions, 21st Century Schools, to support school reform. Also, standards group/division reorganized as "School Improvement" and is technical assistance rather than compliance oriented. Both of these moves included efforts towards GA' with coordinated technical assistance and enforcement with special education division. Actually improved visability and impact of mandate. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Yes. Generally the hetero and interdisciplinary curriculum changes to LEAs, but includes developmentally appropriate language. This is actually set up cognitive dissonance in LEAs because they are not seeing ways to reconcile what they see as conflicting messages. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. Not yet, but legislature has a bill that encourages heterogeneous grouping. Again, this may cause the effect stated in #2 above. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Decrease. Yes, it is viewed as an option. Decrease due to financial constraints in the state resulting from property tax limitation at LEA level and state inability to pick up difference in state funds. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Yes. Effect unknown as yet, but encouraging, though limited, effect in a few places. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Yes. Both basic and advanced. Unknown. Curriculum frameworks not done yet. In theory, this should not affect G/T students -just change the road map. 7. What are the greatta strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Mandates. Focus on [rate and level] instruction. Parental rights. 92 103 Oregon (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Wide scale teacher development/training. Weighted formula for G/I. in school support fund. Full review of current regulations. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Yes. We will undergo full review of all Cll' regulations and guidelines in 1993-95. The report will be critical information for those involved. 93 104 Pennsylvania 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. Yes, when in special education classes, there is no policy for basic education but heterogeneous grouping is very popular. It is devastating for the gifted in that it imprisons them in age/grade academics; they become teacher surrogates in cooperative learning groups; opportunities for appropriate learning at their depth and pace are greatly diminished; boredom and dislike for the low reading levels and poor content in such programs as "whole language" promotes lack of interest in school. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's hie schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Decreased. Yes. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Yes. In some cases, it has focused programs and services and provided a stronger support team for both gifted students and teachers. In most cases, site-based management has turned into a principal dictatorship with such educational goals as "making all kids equal" and rigid rules. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes tr competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Outcome based education has just begun in Pennsylvania. Local districts will determine standards to achieve outcomes. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? It is mandated in Special Education. It includes both the need for acceleration and enrichment. It provides procedural safeguards for students and parents. It provides some state funding in the formula for special education. A strong active parent group is involved statewide (PAGE). 94 105 Pennsylvania (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Endorsement. for teachers. A strong public relations image, nationally. More and varied federal funding sources. 9. Will the USUE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Yes. Districts will strive harder to provide appropriately for their gifted if they perceive it as a national concern with rational directives. 95 106 Rhode Island 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Role remained the same and program responsibilities were maintained following reorganization. 2. Has your state department of education issue,I. a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. The Board of Regents supports the work of the Rhode Island Middle Level Educators (RIMLE) which includes both certification proposal and the development of a model middle school (8/13/92). The effect of this work on gifted students has not been studied. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No policy at this time. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? The Department of Education maintains information on AP courses only. From informal discussions with local G/T director, it would appear that AP and honors courses are used to serve gifted students. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? The Board of Regents has adopted basic guidelines regarding the decentralization of school governance (5/4/92). 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? A committee of local and state educators is developing a common core of learning which will be produced in draft form by mid-1994. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? A core group of committed and trained teachers. Funding appropriate to the needs of all identified students. Statewide identification measures. 1 07 96 Rhode Island (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? - Inclusion in all aspects of the education agenda at both local and state levels. Funding appropriate to the needs of all identified students. Statewide identification measures. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Increased visibility of program concerns. 108 97 South Carolina 1. Itas your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes, gifted and talented programming has been moved from the Office of Curriculum Design to the Office of Programs for Exceptional Children. Effect has been minimal. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No, not specifically. The state department of education does, however, support inclusion practices and no longer encourages pull-out models. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Advanced Placement remains a very strong program. Although not funded under the gifted and talented program, it is considered a service to these students. The trend toward heterogeneous classrooms has resulted in fewer honors level classes. International Baccalaureate is only offered in one high school. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Site-based decision making appears to be the norm. As a results, district coordinators have less input into models and curriculum being used Appropriate staff development for all teachers and principals is even more critical than ever. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Our mandate. The funding. Our arts component Our increased efforts to serve minority students. 98 los South Carolina (continued) 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? A closer tie between identified student talent and service offered. Increased staff development in gifted education for all teachers. Teacher endorsement. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Yes, it will highlight the continued needs of gifted students and help those of us who are responsible for gifted programming to strengthen efforts to raise standards for all students (to raise the floor and the ceiling). South Dakota 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education: If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Remained about the same. Used in some larger schools. S . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Many schools are studying site-based management_ We have "local control" with gifted education in compliance with the state mandate. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Benchmarks in math and science are presently being developed - -not in levels. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? There are many truly dedicated gifted instructors. Active gifted association. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. More administrative support. Community understanding. 100 111 South Dakota (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? We nearly lost our line-item state funding for gifted education during the last legislative session. Tennessee 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. There is no official policy, but services at middle school are decreasing. 3. Does your stare department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. There's no official policy, but "best practices" do recommend heterogeneous grouping. This has had more impact than any legislation could have. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted studeroc at the high school level? These options have greatly increased, but these services are considered a form of tracking and therefore not reflective of best practices. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? It depends. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Yes, we are developing an outcome based, value added system. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Due process right. 8. What three things would most hnorove services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? The report will make a big difference. I am already giving presentations to local boards, etc. on it. However, the National Research Center also has had a great impact, particularly in providing me with up-to-date research on critical issues. 102 113 Texas 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Our state department has been reorganized several times in the past two years. The Division for Gifted/Talented Education moved from Special Programs to Curriculum, Assessment and Professional Development. The move was positive--we are not viewed as an add-on anymore. 2 . Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has af:ected local district services to gifted students. The policy statement for middle grade education could have hurt gifted education. However the director of middle school services is a strong supporter and our two divisions share a Chapter 2/Carnegie grant on serving gifted learners at the middle school level. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No official policy - -in fact we stress that grouping is a local matter. However, most districts think we have a policy. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? No dramatic increases yet, but legislation on AP just passed legislature and IB is gaining in support. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? All campuses must have a site-based decision making committee. Generally, this is hurting services because teacher training is less comprehensive and, if no overwhelming parental support, the cuts are easy to make. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have revels mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Work in progress. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? The inandats. Strong state association with 7,506 members. Dedicated program staff in districts. Interest at state agency level. / 1 4 103 8 LST COPY AVAILARLE Texas (continued) 8 . What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? The National Report. Improved services cor all students. Comprehensive professional development programs. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? The report has piqued interest in gifted education - -more people are talking about it and serious about it than ever before. 104 115 Utah 1 . Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. The state office has been recently reorganized. The time spent by the G/1 specialist was cut from 50% to 30%. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain bow the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating te the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district s' vices to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased. Yes. 5 . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? Site-based management is encouraged. The impact on Gil' programs is barely noticeable, but probably in a positive direction. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Currently being developed. 7. What are the grzatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Districts have a high degree of autonomy. Districts who value Gil have exceptional programs. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students your state? Increased funding. State mandate enforcement Increased levels of endorsement. 105 116 Utah (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? No response. 106 Virgin Islands 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No policy or report on middle school education has been issued. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Honors classes have increased in the past two years, and they are used as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level. S . Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SUM affected services to gifted students? There is a school based management team at each school; however, gifted and talented education is not represented. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? Student outcomes or competencies have been developed for each subject area. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Self-contained classes. Average of 18 to 1 student-teacher ratio. Classes meet five days per week. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding on local school district level. Endorsement for teachers. Funding for staff development for gifted education teachers. 107 'is Virgin Islands (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Increased awareness of the need for gifted education in the schools to serve the special needs of students who are above average in ability. 108 119 Virginia 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes, reorganized in 1991. Little effect on the role of the state in support of gifted education. New superintendent who is supportive of programs for the gifted. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain bow the report has affected local district services to gifted students. Yes. Has helped keep gifted classes and cluster grouping alive and intact in the middle school. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No policyonly recommendations that are helping supporters of gifted education maintain appropriau . instructional grouping practices for gifted students. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Yes, and yes. S. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? State is moving strongly towards site based decision making. Gifted programs are strong when there is active parent involvement and supportive local administration, and not as strong where local support is lacking. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? In process. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Funding and regulations. Local advisory committees. 8 . What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Greater LEA administrative support. Greater LEA parent involvement. Increased funding. 109 120 Virginia (continued) 9. Will the USIDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Yes. To assist LEA parents and professionals improve scrdices to students. 110 12 Washington 1 . Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes, moved supervisor from special education to curriculum. We are now in the process of another reorganization and I am not sure where gifted will be. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Has stayed about the same. These options are used in the state but generally are not just for "identified" gifted students. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, bow has SBDM affected services to gifted students? As of this year, there is a new reform bill in Washington which awards grants to districts using site-based decision making. They are still too new to see the effect. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? We are just beginning the process. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? NWGCA/WAEGT. The teacher and parents who support and provide programs for gifted/talented students. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increased funding. - State mandate. Endorsement for teachers. 122 111 Washington (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students in,,act your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? At this time, I am not sure. 112 23 West Virginia 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. No. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Increased by state law and special funding. Yes, they are considered an expansion of gifted but they are not part of the administration through gifted education. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some foi m of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? In process. b. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? No. 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Mandate under special education. IEPs. Due Process/compliance/monitoring procedures. Certification for teachers. . What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Increase in number of LEA gifted administrators. Training money for teachers. 113 4 West Virginia (continued) 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? if so, what changes to you anticipate? Absolutely. This is the type of information that we need to justify services and create an awareness. We have nothing of this magnitude since the Marland Report. 114 125 a Wisconsin 1 . Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. We are beginning our reorganization now, with the election of a new state superintendent, John Benson, who was inaugurated July 6, 1993. 2. Has your state department -f education issued a policy statement or report on middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected local district services to gifted students. No. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? if so, explain how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. We have only suggestions in this area; local school districts decide their own policies. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate, and/or honors classes increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of serving gifted students at the high school level? Advanced Placement courses have increased due in part of the reporting of the number of students taking AP courses and AP exams being included in our new statewide education report. Honors classes appear, however, to be diminishing in number. 5. Does your state have an official policy, or does it encourage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has SBDM affected services to gifted students? We have a law requiring all districts to consider looking at their school structure for decision-making, via a committee process. There is no requirement to force LEAs to be site-based. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencies? If yes, have levels of mastery been included and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? We have developed statewide educational goals in three categories: learner goals, instructional support goals, and societal support goals. We are in the process of creating outcomes and competencies. It is too early in the process to gauge effect on services to gifted students. 115 126 Wisconsin (continued) 7. What are the greatest strengths in your state's program for gifted students? Sometimes, I think, our greatest strengths can also be our greatest weaknesses. Nevertheless, here are our strengths: An ambiguous mandate, encouraging schools to take innovative and unique approLe:hes to meeting the needs of our gifted students. An on-site state audit process to determine school districts' effectiveness in meeting this mandate as well as 17 other mandates. 8. What three things would most improve services to gifted students in your state? Funding, if (I believe) it were in the form of grants which are non-competitive (entitlement-based). Provisions for more staff development for all teachers. Better pre-service education for all teachers in the area of gifted and talented, as well as for school administrators. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's program for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? Yes. I believe that one way in which it will have an impact is to show that gifted students needs exist and are not being met by the current educational system. It will point out some avenues for growth in our state in areas such as funding and staff development. 116 1?7 4 1 Wyoming 1. Has your state department of education been reorganized during the past two years? If so, explain how the move affected the role of the state in supporting services to gifted students. Yes, as staff is cut services are diminished to where technical assistance and fiscal management of the state allocation arc virtually the only services now available. 2. Has your state department of education issued a policy statement or report en middle school education? If so, explain how the report has affected lecs.1 district szrvices to gifted students. No. Our state department operates in a local control state where policies at the state level air minimal and such decisions are made by local school boards. 3. Does your state department have a policy relating to the grouping of students? If so, exptelm how the policy is affecting local district services to gifted students. No. 4. Has the use of College Board Advanced Placement courses, international Baccalaureate, and/or honors clatles increased or decreased in your state's high schools in the past two years? Are these options used frequently as a method of ser;ng gifted students at the high school level? Al' classes lave increased and are frequently part of a school district plan 'o serve gifted stdents at the high school level. 5. Does your sysite ha 'a official policy, or does it enck,urage, districts to adopt some form of site-based decision making? If so, how has ('BI3M affected services to gifted students? No official policy- orcisior.s .c) participate and how to identify aild serve G/T populations have always been a local decision. 6. Has your state developed student outcomes or competencie...? If yes, have levels of mastery been iuch.ded and if so, what are those levels? How are these outcomes affecting services to gifted students? In the process, midway through a seven year process; 1.evels if mastery are determined at the LEA level as is their impact on services to Gil students. 7 . What are the greatest strengths in your state's p..ogram for gifted students? The dedication of teachers u; provide serf!' es in times of program and budget cuts. The diversity o1 ser.tices offered, particularly as the; re' e to our unique environment The interest university pei3onnel in offering support Continued legislative support. 1 28 117 Wyoming (continued) 8. What three things woulci most improve services to gifted students in your state? Greater legislative support through increa.--.4 funding and direction. More visibility in the outcomes development pocess. Staff development for all staff in identification ^.-.4 location/development of services. 9. Will the USDE report on assessing and serving gifted students impact your state's progratu for gifted students? If so, what changes to you anticipate? I'd anticipate little impact. 118 t 2 9 STATE CONTACTS 130 State Contacts STATE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION Alabama Linda W. Evans Education Specialist Special Education Services 50 North Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130-2101 (205) 242-8114 ALA-TAG Dr. Brian Reid, President Department of Special Education The University of Alabama at Birmingham University Station Birmingham, Alabama 35294 Alaska Richard Smiley Alaska Department of Education 801 West 10th Street Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894 (907) 465-8702 No state association Arizona Dr. Nancy Stahl Arizona Department of Education 1535 West Jefferson Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-3052 Arizona Association for Gifted and Talented P.O. Box 26415 Tempe, Arizona 85285 Arkansas Martha Bass Room 105C, Education Building 4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-4224 Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education (AGATE) P.O. Box 250754 Little Rock, Arkansas 72225 California Catherine Bartel/ GATE Director California Department of Education, Room 544 721 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 657-3047 California Association for the Gifted (CAG) 426 Escuela, Suite 19 Mountain View, California 94040 Colorado Connecticut Frank Rainey State Consultant Gifted and Talented Education Colorado Department of Education 201 East Colfax Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-6849 Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented P.O. Box 100845 Denver, Colorado 80250 Dr. Alan J. White Consultant for Gifted and Talented Education Connecticut State Department of Education 25 Industrial Park Road Middletown, Connecticut 06457 (203) 638-4247 Connecticut Association for the Gifted clo Ms. Noel Croce, President 155 Sycamore Drive Torrington, Connecticut 06790 Connecticut Educators' Network for the Talented and Gifted ao Ms. Nancy Wade 942 Main Street, #419 Hartford, Connecticut 06103 120 131 State Contacts (continued) STATE j STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION Delaware Peggy Dee Delaware Department of Instruction Gifted/Talented Programs P.O. Box 1402 Townsend Building Dover, Delaware 19903 (302) 739-4667 No state association District of Columbia Thirza G. Neal Gifted/Talented Education Program Nal le Administrative Unit 50th & C Streets, SE Washington, DC 20019 (202) 722-4275 No state association Florida Dr. Mary F. Toll Program Specialist Programs for the Gifted Bureau of Education for Exceptional Students 614 Florida Education Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (904) 488-1106 Florida Association of the Gifted (FLAG) Mary Anne Handley, President 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940-6699 Zeorgia Lonnie Love, Administrator Chris Nelson, Coordinator Programs for the Gifted Division of Curriculum and Instruction Georgia Department of Education 2054 Twin Towers East Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9330 (404) 656-5812 (404) 656-5969 President Georgia Supporters for the Gifted 4065 Maxey Hill Drive Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 Director The Torrance Center for Creative Studies The University of Georgia 323 Aderhold Hall Athens, Georgia 30602 President Georgia Business Forum 84 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 404 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Guam Cheri Stock / 10 W. O'Brien, #3-200E Agana, Guam 96910 (671) 647-4545 No association Hawaii Betsy A. Moneymaker 189 Lunalilo Home Road, 2nd Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96825 (808) 396-2539 Hawaii Association of Gifted Children P.O. Box 22878 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 121 n I 3 4 State Contacts (continued) STATE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION Idaho M. Jewel Hoopes Consultant, GIT Education Idaho State Department of Education Len B. Jordan Office Building Boise, Idaho 83720 (208) 334-3940 . ITAG (Idaho's Talented and Gifted) Rita Hoffman, President Rt. 1, Box 815 Mountain Home, Idaho 83647 SAGES (State Advocates for Gifted Students) Robert Knoespcl 745 Curtis Blackfoot, Idaho 83221 Illinois Susan Morrison Gifted Education Coordinator Curriculum and Improvement Section Illinois Department of Education 100 N. First Street Springfield, Illinois 62777 (217) 782-2826 Indiana Patricia B. Stafford Program Manager Gifted/Talented Education Unit Indiana Department of Education State House, Room 229 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 232-9163 Indiana Association for the Gifted Mrs. Lyn LaVigne, President 3010 Rolling Springs Drive Cannel, Indiana 46032 Iowa Dr. Leland Wolf Iowa Department of Education Grimes State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0146 (515) 281-3198 Iowa Talented and Gifted Association P.O. Box 2222 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404 Kansas Joan R. Miller Kansas State Board of Education 120 S.E. 10th Street Topeka, Kansas 66612 (913) 296-4943 Kansas Parent Information Network (K- PIN) Donna Heuse 424 Oli vette McPherson, Kansas 67460 Kansas Association for Gifted, Talented, and Creative (KGTC) P.O. Box 25281 Overland Park, Kansas 66225 Kentucky Charles E. Whaley Kentucky Department of Education Capital Plaza Tower, Room 1718 500 Mew Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 564-2672 The Kentucky Association for Gifted Children P.O. Box 9610 Bowling Green, Kentucky 42102-9610 122 1 33 State Contacts (continued) STATE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION Louisiana Ms. Pat Clay Dial Supervisor, Gifted and Talented Programs P.O. Box 94064 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (504) 342-6118 Louisiana Association for Gifted and Talented Students Northwestern University Natchitaches, Louisiana 71457 Maine Valerie Seaberg Department of Education Office of Gifted and Talented Education State House Station 23 Augusta, Maine 04333 (207) 287-5950 Dr. James A. Curry Gifted Child Education University of Southern Maine 407 Bally Hall Gorham, Maine 04038 Kathleen Legett Maine Educators of the Gifted and Talented Hilltop Elementary School 11 Marshall Avenue Caribou, Maine 04736 Brenda and Jim Wilson Maine Parents for Gifted and Talented Youth Post Office Box 539 Standish, Maine 04084 Marcia Gre,ason and Lew Krainen Hollingworth Center for Highly Gifted Children Post Office Box 464 South Casco, Maine 04077 Maryland Dr. Antoinette Favazza, Chief Student Achievement and Program Enrichment Branch Maryland State Department of Education 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 333-2357 Maryland Coalition for Gifted and Talented Education P.O. Box 546 Riva, Maryland 21140 Massachusetts Barbara Libby Massachusetts Department of Education 350 Main Street Maldin, Massachusetts 02148 (617) 388-3300 President . MA/AIP P. O. Box 65 Milton Village, Massachusetts 02187 Michigan Maly Bailey-Hengesh Consultant for Gifted Education Michigan Department of Education School Program Quality, Curriculum Development Program P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, Michigan 48909 (517) 373-2551 Marcia Gentry, President Michigan Alliance for Gifted Education P.O. Box 1732 Warren, Michigan 48090-1732 123 134 State Contacts (continued) STATE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION Minnesota Beth Aune Assistant Director of Standards Minnesota Department of Education 731 Capitol Square 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296-4072 Minnesota Council for the Gifted and Talented (MCGT) Minnesota Educators of the Gifted and Talented (MEGT) Edina Community Center 5701 Normandale Road Minneapolis, Minnesota 55424 Minnesota MENSA Mississippi Dr. Conrad Castle, Consultant Ms. Daphne Buckley, Consultant Gifted Education Programs Mississippi State Department of Education P.O. Box 771 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 (601) 359-3501 Mississippi Association for Gifted Children (MAGC) Ms. Linda Mucha, President 14 Cedarwood Lane Gulfport, Mississippi 39503 Missouri David Welch, Director Gifted Education Programs Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education P.O. Box 480 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (314) 751-2453 Mary Kay Farrou, President Gifted Association of Missouri 6017 Walnut Kansas City, Missouri 64113 Montana Michael Hall, Specialist Gifted and Talented Education Office of Public Instruction P.O. Box 202501 Helena, Montana 59620-2501 (406) 444-4422 Montana AGATE 3091 South Daffodil Billings, Montana 59102 Joeue Speake, 1993-94 President Cheryl Mai lia-McCall, President Elect Nebraska Sherri Nowak 301 Centennial Mall South Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 (402) 471-4337 Nebraska Association for Gifted Tim Burble, President ESU #11, P.O. Box 858 Holdreye, Nebraska 68949 Nevada Frank South, Director Nevada Department of Education 400 West King Street Carson City, Nevada 89710 (702) 267-3267 Nevada Association for Gifted & Talented do Ellen Sloane, President Clark County School District 2625 East St. Louis Ave. Las Vegas, Nevada 89710 124 35 State Contacts (continued) STATE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION New Hampshire Rachel Hopkins New Hampshire Department of Education 101 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 271-2632 New Hampshire Association for Gifted Education P.O. Box 1104 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 New Hampshire Gifted Education Resource Center Hollis Elementary School 36 Silver Lake Road Hollis, New Hampshire 03034 New Jersey Roberta Carol New Jersey Department of Education CN 500 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0500 (609) 984-6308 New Jersey Association for Gifted Children Barbara Swicord, President 715 Park Avenue East Orange, New Jersey 07017-1004 New Mexico Roberta Knox New Mexico Department of Education Education Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-2786 (505) 827-6541 New York David J. Irvine, Coordinator Gifted Education Room 212 EB New York State Education Department Albany, New York 12234 (518) 474-5966 Joyce McDermott, President AGATE (Advocacy for Gifted and Talented Education in New York State, Inc.) 4790 Burrstone Road Syracuse, New York 13215 North arolina Sylvia Lewis, Consultant Gifted Education Department of Public Instruction 301 North Wilmington Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825 (919) 715-1999 North Carolina Association for Gifted and Talented (NCAGT) Dr. Linda W. Morris, Executive Director P.O. Box 5394 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27113- 5394 North Dakota Ann T. Clapper Coordinator of Gifted Education Department of Public Instruction 600 East Boulevard Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0440 (701) 224-2277 Pat Swanson Gifted Education Network Minot State University Minot, North Dakota 58701 136 125 State Contacts (continued) STATE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION Ohio Nancy B. Hamant Ohio Department of Education Programs for the Gifted & Talented 933 High Street Worthington, Ohio 43085-4087 (614) 466-2650 Rose Baublitz, President Consortium of Ohio Coordinators for the Gifted Crawford County Schools Third Floor-Court House Bucyrus, Ohio Rhea Gaunt, Vice President Ohio Association for Gifted Children North Olmsted City Schools 24100 Palm Drive North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 Oklahoma Cindy Brown Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 N. Lincoln Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 731015-4599 (405) 521-4287 Oklahoma Association for Gifted, Creative and Talented P.O. Box 60448, NW Station Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73146-0448 Oregon Bob Siewert, Specialist Oregon Department of Education 700 Pringle Parkway SE Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 378-3598 Oregon Association for Talented and Gifted Education Pennsylvania T. Noretta Bingaman Pennsylvania Department of Education 333 Market Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126-0333 (717) 783-6913 The Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Education (PAGE) 3026 Potshop Road Norristown, Pennsylvania 19403 Help line: (717) 774-0476 Puerto Rico Blanca Aponte Gifted/talented Programs Office of External Resources Department of Education Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 99024 (809) 765-1475 Rhode Island 87Hot Cdi---CTlinT Dr. John J. Wilkinson Rhode Island Department of Education 22 Hayes Street Providence, Rhode Island 02908 (401) 277-3037 State Advocates for Gifted Education P.O. Box 302 North Kingstown, Rhode Island 02852 Rhode Island Future Problem Solving Program 14 Sunnyside Drive Cumberland, Rhode Island 02864 Dr. Anne H. Elam Education Associate 503 Rutledge Bldg. Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 734-8386 South Carolina Consortium for Gifted FrInc2tion P.O. Box 5454 Anderson, South Carolina 29623-5054 126 137 State Contacts (continued) STATE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION South Dakota Shirlie Moysis Gifted Education 700 Governor's Drive Pierre, South Dakota 57501-2291 (605) 773-4662 South Dakota Association for Gifted Children Debra Winbum, President Box 187 Houghton, South Dakota 57449 Tennessee Janice Cobb Gifted/Talented Education Tennessee Department of Education 132-A Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 (615) 741-2851 Becky Sudowsky, President Tennessee Association for Gifted 8955 Claire Douwie Cove Memphis, TN 38133 Texas Evelyn Levsky Hiatt, Director Texas Education Agency Division of Giftedfralented Education 1701 North Congress Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 463-9455 Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented Connie McLendon, Executive Director 406 East 11th, Suite 310 Austin, Texas 78701 Utah Linda H. Alder Utah State Office of Education 250 East 500 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 538-7884 Utah Association for Gifted Children Phyllis Embley 9361 South 300 East Sandy, Utah 84070 Vermont Gifted Education Consultant Vermont Department of Education Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (802) 828-3111 Virgin Islands Mary L. Harley Coordinator/Gifted and Talented Education St. Thomas/St. John School District #44-46 Kongens Gade St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 (809) 774-3725 No association 138 127 State Contacts (continued) STATE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT STATE ASSOCIATION Virginia Dr. Janie Craig Principal Specialist Programs for the Gifted Department of Education P.O. Box 2120 Richmond, Virginia 23216-2120 (804) 371-6880 VAEG Carolyn Krempl South Boston City Schools 601 Marshall Avenue South Boxton, Virginia 24592 Consortium Sydna Gong Shenandoah County Schools P.O. Box 488 Woodstock, Virginia 22664 State Advisory Committee Dr. Carol Tomlinson University of Virginia 287 Ruffner Hall 405 Emmet Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Washington Gayle Pau ley Washington Department of Education P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, Washington 98504-7200 (206) 753-2858 WAETAG Jodie Hess, President Tacoma School District Box 1357 Tacoma, Washington 98401 NWGCA Daryl Johnsen 3922 SW 28th Place Federal Way, Washington 98023 West Virginia Dr. Virginia Simmons West Virginia Department of Education Building 4, Room 304 Capitol Complex Charleston, West Virginia 25305 (304) 558-0600 WVAGT Molly Straight, President 39 College Avenue Buckhannon, West Virginia 26201 Wisconsin Weida Swed Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 125 S. Webster Street P.O. Box 7841 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7841 WATG (Wisconsin Association for Talented and Gifted) 5912 Schumann Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53711-5103 Wyoming Nancy Leinium Gifted/Talented Consultant WDE Hathaway Bldg., 2nd Floor Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (307) 777-6226 Wyoming Association for Gifted Education (WAGE) ao WDE Hathaway Bldg., 2nd Floor Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 128 139