Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented Program Evaluation · program evaluation for the Advanced...

Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented

Program Evaluation

2009-2010 to 2013-14

Office of Assessment and Evaluation

Clear Creek Independent School District

Office of Assessment and Evaluation

Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented Program Evaluation

Presented to Board of Trustees on November 10, 2014

Dr. Jo Beth Brizendine:

Signature Date

Dr. Robert Bayard:

Signature Date

Dr. Steven Ebell:

Signature Date

Dr. Gregory Smith:

Signature Date

2013-2014 Board of Trustees Program Evaluation Team Win Weber, President Laura DuPont, Ph.D., Vice President Ken Baliker, Secretary Ann Hammond, Member Charles Pond, Member Page Rander, Member Dee Scott, Member Greg Smith, Ph.D., Superintendent

Steven Ebell, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum & Instruction Jo Beth Brizendine, Ed.D., Director, Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented Robert Bayard, Ed.D., Director, Assessment and Evaluation Laura Gaffey, Data Analyst, Assessment and Evaluation Pat McKenna, Data Analyst, Assessment and Evaluation

Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented Evaluation 2009-10 to 2013-14

Page | 1

Executive Summary

As part of CCISD’s program evaluation process, the Office of Assessment and Evaluation has completed a

program evaluation for the Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented program encompassing the five-

year period from the 2009-10 school year through the 2013-14 school year. The Advanced Academics

and Gifted & Talented program offers a range of opportunities to students in areas including: Advanced

Placement (AP), Pre-AP, WAVE, Science Magnet, Clear Horizons Early College High School, Independent

Study Mentorship (ISM), Credit by Exam (CBE), and Dual Credit.

Previous program evaluation have been completed in five areas: Pre-AP/AP (2005-06 to 2009-10), Dual

Credit (2005-06 to 2009-10), CHECHS (2007-08 to 2010-11), WAVE (2006-07 to 2010-11) and Science

Magnet (2006-07 to 2010-11). Summaries of previous evaluations and updates on Superintendents’

Recommendations are included in this evaluation (p. 3-4 and p. 5-7, respectively).

Gifted and Talented Background:

The National Association for Gifted Children Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards

(2010) has identified seven program goals for a Gifted and Talented program. These include:

Learning and Development,

Assessment,

Curriculum Planning and Instruction,

Learning Environments,

Programming, and

Professional Development.

The identification measures used in CCISD are comprised from six areas: classroom performance, authentic assessments, portfolio data, performance on qualitative and quantitative screening instruments, teacher recommendations, and cumulative records. The GT program begins with a process for identification of students using varied assessments. Students who are identified as GT receive general GT services in grades K-3, participate in the Alpha program in grades 4-5, then receive GT services through Pre-AP/AP in grades 6-12.

Identification – Referrals for GT testing are submitted yearly by October 1 for students in grades 1-12. All kindergarten students are screened each fall semester.

Assessment – An array of assessments are available, such as: COGAT (Cognitive Abilities Test), Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test, and Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test; classroom performance; professional recommendation; and student portfolios.

Alpha –Students in grades 4 and 5 receive differentiated instruction in the regular classroom, attend sessions on campus one semester, and attend an off-campus mini-course the other semester.

Omega – The Omega program originated as a home campus GT program for intermediate students, but has evolved and is now integrated into the Pre-AP program. The integrated redesign will be finalized for all intermediate students beginning fall 2015.

During the five year period of this program evaluation, between 2.3% and 3.5% of GT students were LEP, and between 1.2% and 1.4% received Special Education services (twice-exceptional). The Advanced Academics program gives careful consideration to English Language Learners (ELL) and twice exceptional students in the identification and assessment process.


Page | 2

The Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented students provides requirements for and guidance to districts (TEA, 2009). The Director of Advanced Academics/GT, along with a committee of Advanced Academics Specialists, conducted an internal review of the state GT plan in the fall of 2014.

The internal review determined that CCISD is in Compliance in 100% of 30 indicators from the five sections. CCISD is at Recommended in 72% of 50 indicators, and CCISD is at Exemplary in 52% of 31 indicators. The Advanced Academics/Gifted and Talented program was evaluated through eight questions: 1. What is the annual number of students who qualify for GT and are retained in Advanced

Academics? Electronic tracking of elementary students who were tested for GT identification began in 2012-13. An average of 31.8% out of 1,709 students and 33.4% out of 1,796 students qualified in 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively. The retention rate from 2009-2010 through 2013-2014 for all GT students who remained enrolled in CCISD during the five years of this evaluation was 98.5%. The retention rate from one year to the next during that same five year period ranged from 98.5% to 99.8%. Pre-AP and AP course enrollment in mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies increased over the five year period of the evaluation in all secondary grade levels. The retention rate in the WAVE program remained approximately equal to the retention from the 2012 evaluation, at approximately 91% to 93% after three years. The retention rate in Science Magnet increased from the 2012 evaluation, from between 88%-94% to 94%-96% after three years.

2. How do the demographics of Advanced Academics and GT compare to district demographics?

At the elementary level, an average of 6.0% of students in grade 1 participate in the GT program, up to a high of 10.6% of students in grade 5. At the secondary level, enrollment in Advanced Academics (which encompass GT and Pre-AP/AP) begin at an average of 61.0% in grade 6, peak at 65.2% in grade 8, then fall to a low of 53.7% in grade 11. Overall, participation levels in Advanced Academics have increased in all grade levels throughout the five years of the evaluation. Participation rates as compared to eligibility for participation has increased the most in Pre-AP (5.9%) and in AP (6.3%) over the five year period. Science magnet participation rates have been virtually unchanged, due to a fixed number of available seats in the program. Independent Study Mentorship (ISM) rates have declined; however, this program is available as an opportunity to students as space allows within individual student’s schedule. In the GT program, including Alpha and WAVE, the percentages of African American, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged students are lower in the GT program than the corresponding percentages in the district, while the percentage of Asian students is higher in the GT program than overall in the district. In Pre-AP, AP, and Dual Credit, the percentage of Hispanic students, while lower than the district, has increased over the five-year period.


Page | 3

3. How have programs evolved since their last evaluation? The percentage of students enrolling in Dual Credit courses in high school fluctuated during the five years in the evaluation and ranged between 20.1% and 25.3%.

Between 2009-10 and 2013-14, the percentage of students taking one or more high school courses in grades 6-8 increased by 16.2%.

The percentage of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course increased in all secondary grade levels over the five-year period, at an average of 5.8%, with the greatest increases in grades 7, 9, and 10. The percentage of students enrolled in at least one AP course increased in each of grades 9-12, at an average of 6.3%, with the greatest increases in grades 9 and 10. The percentage of students who took at least one AP exam also increased in each of grades 9-12, with an average increase of 4.2%.

Out of 32 AP exams taken by CCISD students, 14 had increases in participation rates. Out of 14 exams with an increase in participation rate, 57% (8/14) also had increases in performance rates. Out of the 16 AP exams without higher participation rates, 94% (15/16) had increases in performance rates.

Students at WAVE continued to outperform their non-WAVE peers in 2012-2014 on state assessments at Advanced levels in reading, mathematics, writing, science, and social studies. Students at Science Magnet outperformed their non-Science Magnet peers in 2012-2014 on state assessments at Advanced levels in all subjects except for grade 7 writing in 2013.

4. What structures are in place to support Advanced Academics and GT students? A range of support structures are in place for students in Advanced Academics and GT programs. The support structures include: advanced academics specialists to support GT students at the elementary level; a Pre-AP summer camp for the recruitment and retention of students in advanced academics in grades 6 and 9; a WAVE liaison, a WAVE basics preparation course for students in grade 6, and a WAVE summer camp; and tutorials and Saturday camp for students in AP courses.

5. What processes are in place to ensure equity? A number of processes exist to ensure equity in Advanced Academics and GT, including: varied assessments for the identification of underrepresented student groups (cognitive ability assessments with non-verbal components); elimination of mandatory summer reading for Pre-AP ELA courses; elimination of mandatory participation in the Science Fair for Pre-AP Science courses; and a Post-Secondary Test Preparation Day for students in grades 9-11. Within the GT program, a gap continues to exist with an underrepresentation of African American and Economically Disadvantaged students. Analysis of AP Potential from the College Board revealed that African American and Hispanic students with potential for success in AP classes are not participating in at least one AP exam.

6. What is the scope of the professional learning process for Advanced Academics and GT staff? Teachers of students in Advanced Academics and GT receive a variety of professional learning, including mandatory requirements. Teachers of GT students must complete 30 hours of foundational training and six hours for an annual update. Teachers of Pre-AP and AP classes are required to receive updated College Board training every three years.


Page | 4

7. What is the parent/student satisfaction level in the Advanced Academics and GT program? There were three different surveys conducted: a survey for the parents of elementary GT students; a survey for the parents of secondary Advanced Academics students; and a survey for Advanced Academics students.

Parents of elementary GT students responded with an average Likert score for questions 5-15 ranging from 2.89 to 3.89. The overall average Likert score was 3.63. In general, parents of Gifted and Talented students felt that there are good processes for the identification of gifted students; the elementary GT program provides challenging and/or difficult materials and a higher level of thinking for gifted students; and, they are pleased with the pullout program for elementary GT students.

Parents of Advanced Academics students responded with an average Likert score for questions 4-23 ranging from 2.98 to 3.96. The overall average Likert score was 3.59. In general, parents of Advanced Academics students felt that CCISD provides sufficient academic options and resources such as Advanced Placement, dual credit, and career concentrations for college and career transitions; classwork in advanced academics/GT courses includes challenging and/or difficult materials and higher level thinking; and as students progress from grade to grade and campus to campus, they feel prepared and confident that they are ready for the work at the next level.

Students in Advanced Academics and GT responded with an average Likert score for questions 4-23 ranging from 2.92 to 4.24. The overall average Likert score was 3.63. In general, Advanced Academic students felt that as they progress from grade to grade and campus to campus, they are prepared and confident that they are ready for the work at the next level; classwork in advanced academics/GT courses includes challenging and/or difficult materials and higher level thinking; and they participate in a variety of activities that engage them in learning in advanced academics/GT classes.

8. What is the average annual cost per student?

Based on data provided by CCISD’s Finance Department, the average cost to CCISD per student for participation in Advanced Academics and GT has ranged from $61 to $78 per student during the five year period of this study. Advanced Academics and GT expenditures include salaries for campus and district staff, supplies, and travel. When AP Incentive funds are included, the average cost per student for participation in Advanced Academics and GT ranged from $61 to $82 per student during the five year period of this study.


Page | 5

Background Information on Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented

The purpose of program evaluations in the Clear Creek Independent School District (CCISD) is multi-faceted and shall result in findings, recommendations, and/or conclusions that:

Ensure program alignment with District goals and vision;

Assess strengths and weaknesses of the program;

Measure the success of the program in meeting its expressed goals; and/or

Result in improvements in, revisions to, or discontinuation of the program.

As part of CCISD’s program evaluation process, the Office of Assessment and Evaluation has

completed a program evaluation for the Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented program

encompassing the five-year period from the 2009-10 school year through the 2013-14 school year.

The Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented program offers wide-ranging educational offerings

across the district. Students may select from a range of opportunities in the area of Advanced

Academics, such as: Pre-Advanced Placement (Pre-AP), Alpha, Advanced Placement (AP), Webster

Academy of Visions in Education (WAVE), Science Magnet, Clear Horizons Early College High School

(CHECHS), Independent Study Mentorship (ISM), Credit by Examination (CBE) without prior

instruction, and Dual Credit, to name a few. Elementary schools offer services for gifted students

through differentiation in cluster classes as well as pull out instruction and acceleration.

Advanced academic students receive services through enrichment clusters, subject area enrichment and acceleration. Gifted and Talented (GT) students in grades 4 and 5 receive differentiated instruction in the regular classroom, attend classes on campus one semester, and attend their chosen off campus mini-course the alternate semester.

Program evaluations have been completed in the past three years on several related programs: Pre-

AP/AP (2005-06 to 2009-10), Dual Credit (2005-06 to 2009-10), CHECHS (2007-08 to 2010-11), WAVE

(2006-07 to 2010-11), and Science Magnet (2006-07 to 2010-11). These previous evaluations have

been updated through 2013-14, which are summarized in this evaluation. The GT program will be

investigated more thoroughly within this evaluation.


Page | 6

Summary of Previous Advanced Academics Program Evaluations

Pre-AP/AP In August 2011, the Pre-AP/AP program evaluation was presented to the Clear Creek ISD Board of Trustees. In summary, the demographics of the students taking a Pre-AP/AP course did not reflect the demographics of the general CCISD student population. The demographics of the students taking an AP exam did not reflect the demographics of the general CCISD student population. The percentage students taking at least one Pre-AP/AP course did increase over the period of the study at both the campus and district level. The percent of students taking at least one AP exam did increase during the time of the study at both the campus and district level.

The percentage of 11th and 12th grade students passing (as defined by a score of 3 or better) an AP exam was overall higher than seventy-five percent of the forty comparable schools at each campus. Overall, about fifty percent of the students taking an AP course took the corresponding AP exam at both the campus and district level.

Not all AP teachers attended AP training in their content area before they began teaching the course.

Overall, students were satisfied with the Pre-AP/AP program in CCISD.

WAVE In April 2012, the WAVE program evaluation was presented to the Clear Creek ISD Board of Trustees. On average, more than 94% of the sixth grade students who enrolled at WAVE, and remained in CCISD, remained continuously enrolled at WAVE through eighth grade for the time period of the study.

WAVE students consistently outperformed the district on TAKS Commended performance in all areas for each year of the study. WAVE students outperformed non-WAVE GT students on TAKS Commended performance the majority of the time in Reading, Writing, Social Studies, and Science. Seventh grade non-WAVE GT students outperformed seventh grade WAVE students on TAKS Commended performance in Mathematics for four of the five years of the study.

WAVE students took a higher percentage of high school advanced academic courses than non-WAVE GT students in the majority of instances during the time period of the study. The average number of such courses taken by WAVE students was higher in all instances for each year of the study.

Duke TIP performance of seventh grade WAVE students, as well as PSAT and AP exam performance of former WAVE students, is consistently higher than the performance of non-WAVE GT students and the district. The majority of the differences in performance are statistically significant.

The majority of WAVE teachers during the time period of the study obtained a GT certification prior to their second year teaching in WAVE. Annual professional development provided for WAVE teachers ensures that WAVE teachers receive the required six hours of GT professional development each year. Inconsistencies in data collected on GT professional development, however, made it impossible to determine when WAVE staff completed each of the GT professional development requirements of TAC §89.2.

The WAVE students and teachers who were surveyed during the time of the study, felt that WAVE was beneficial for students and were satisfied with the program.


Page | 7

Summary of Previous Advanced Academics Program Evaluations

WAVE Continued

The average annual cost per student at WAVE decreased from $446 per student to $349 per student over the time period of the study. Transportation expenditures were not included in the cost per student; however, for 2010-11 and 2011-12, estimated transportation expenditures were $105,804 and $111,698, respectively.

Science Magnet On average, more than 91% of the sixth grade students who enrolled in the Science Magnet, and remained in CCISD, remained continuously enrolled in the Science Magnet through eighth grade for the time period of the study.

The Science Magnet students consistently outperformed the district on TAKS Commended performance in all areas for each year of the study.

The eighth grade Science Magnet students took a higher percentage of high school advanced academic courses than non-Science Magnet students while attending intermediate school. Former Science Magnet students have typically taken more advanced academic mathematics and science related courses once they entered high school compared to non-Science magnet students during the time of this study.

The Science course requirements for grades 6-8 are different for the Science Magnet students compared to the non-Science Magnet students. Science Magnet students have many opportunities to participate in science related activities during and outside of the school day.

Current Science Magnet students and teachers felt that the Science Magnet was beneficial for students and were satisfied with the program.

The average annual cost per student in the Science Magnet decreased from $272 to $260 over the time period of the study.

Dual Credit

In April 2011, the Dual Credit program evaluation was presented to the Clear Creek ISD Board of Trustees. In summary, the average course grade in each dual credit course offered was at least as high as its corresponding high school course at both the campus and district level. The percentage of students obtaining at least one dual credit before graduation did increase during the time period of the study. Overall teachers and students were satisfied with the Dual Credit program. The demographic breakdown of students in participating in the Dual Credit program did not reflect the demographics of the general CCISD student population.


Page | 8

Advanced Academics Previous Program Evaluation Superintendent Recommendations

Pre-AP/AP

1. By May 2013, develop a plan to ensure that 100% of the AP Teachers have received College Board training by the end of the 2012-13 school year.

Complete. A professional learning plan was developed for AP teachers, utilizing federal and local funds to train Advanced Placement teachers at College Board institutes.

2. By May 2013, develop a plan to train all Pre-AP teachers through the College Board by the end of the 2013-14 school year.

Complete. A professional learning plan was developed for Pre-AP teachers which has two components: to include in-district training (1 and 2 day workshops led by CCISD teacher leaders) and College Board Institutes.

3. By May 2013, provide College Board update training for all Pre-AP/AP teachers by the end of the 2013-14 school year.

Complete. A professional learning plan was developed for update training which includes College Board Institutes, College Board SpringBoard training for Pre-AP ELA teachers and in-district workshops.

4. By May 2013, develop a succession plan at each secondary school for Pre-AP/AP teachers.

Complete. The succession plan allows for each campus to design their master schedule to include teaching assignments that provide replication and succession in Pre-AP and AP staffing.

5. By May 2013, examine area and national practices to determine success of voluntary/mandatory AP testing for all students completing the coursework.

Complete. After review, CCISD determined that mandatory AP testing for all students is not advisable for several reasons. First, the mandatory test may discourage registration for the classes and undermine recruitment efforts. Second, some students may not be able to utilize the specific AP test, depending on their college choice. Third, such a requirement would impose a financial requirement and potential burden on some students. Districts that have mandatory AP testing generally pay for the tests, at a significant cost to the district.

6. By May 2013, develop a plan to increase participation of student groups that are underrepresented in AP coursework and testing.

Participation in AP Testing

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5 Year

Change

AS 24.8% 24.0% 22.6% 22.4% 23.0% -1.8%

BL 3.7% 4.1% 3.6% 3.0% 3.6% -0.1%

HI 11.6% 14.1% 12.8% 14.6% 14.7% 3.0%

WH 57.5% 55.4% 58.2% 56.7% 55.4% -2.0%

ECO 7.1% 8.4% 8.8% 10.1% 8.2% 1.1% AS- Asian, BL –Black/African American, HI – Hispanic, WH- White, ECO – Economically Disadvantaged


Page | 9


Pre-AP/AP Continued

Complete. A plan was developed and implemented. During the five year period of this study, there has been a 3.0% increase in the number of Hispanic students who have participated in the AP testing. This is reflective of the overall demographics of the students enrolled in AP courses. (see page 25)

7. By May 2013, develop a plan to increase passing scores (3, 4, or 5) of student groups that are underrepresented.

Percentage of Students Who Have Scored 3, 4, or 5 on AP Exams

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5 Year

Change

AS 74.2% 73.9% 76.6% 72.4% 75.3% 1.2%

BL 57.6% 48.0% 43.3% 41.9% 50.4% -7.2%

HI 54.9% 61.0% 61.9% 56.1% 66.0% 11.1%

WH 73.5% 74.0% 74.1% 70.5% 74.3% 0.8%

ECO 52.5% 55.6% 57.1% 52.4% 59.4% 6.9% AS- Asian, BL –Black/African American, HI – Hispanic, WH- White, ECO – Economically Disadvantaged

Complete. A plan was developed and implemented. During the five year period of this study, there has been an increase in the percentage of Asian, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged students who have scored a 3, 4, or 5 on their AP exams.

WAVE

1. By December 2012, develop a plan to enhance identification of GT students so WAVE enrollment is representative of the student population.

Complete. CCISD continues to put forth a concerted effort to identify diverse populations at the elementary level.

2. By December 2012, complete action plans as appropriate by the WAVE Expansion Committee and communicate the progress to stakeholders.

Complete. A presentation was made to the Board in December 2012 by the WAVE Liaisons indicating that the targets recommended by the WAVE Expansion Committee had been met and exceeded.

3. By August 2013, provide the Board of Trustees with six and twelve month updates of both WAVE campuses during the 2012-13 school year.

Complete. An update report was provided to the Board.

4. By December 2012, develop a plan to ensure that all WAVE teachers are GT certified and receive periodic GT professional development updates.

Complete. A plan was developed to ensure GT certification is required for all WAVE staff.


Page | 10


WAVE Continued

5. By August 2013, determine the number of former WAVE students who are four-year Superintendent Scholars.

Year 4 Year Superintendent

Scholars WAVE Students

2010-2011 30 33.3%

2011-2012 47 25.5%

2012-2013 71 42.3%

2013-2014 115 49.6%

Complete.

Science Magnet

1. By May 2013, formulate a committee of stakeholders to review a cost effective and efficient way to expand the program at the current site or in another part of the district without losing the quality control measures that currently exist.

Complete. Meetings were conducted throughout the 2012-2013 school year to review a way to expand the Science Magnet program. It was determined under the district budget constraints there was not a viable way to cost effectively or efficiently expand the program.

2. By May 2013, review the application process to determine if this process can or should be modified so the population of the Science Magnet program reflects the student population in CCISD.

Complete. During the 2012-13 school year, a comprehensive plan was developed and implemented to target students from all elementary campuses who are from the underrepresented populations in the Science Magnet Program. Additional modifications were implemented for the 2013-2014 school year to target students at Stewart and McWhirter elementary schools.

3. By May 2013, develop a plan to continue to explore grants to offset the costs associated with Science Magnet equipment.

Complete. Campus administrators and Science Magnet teachers continue to seek grants or other funding sources to offset the costs associated with the program.


Page | 11


Dual Credit

1. By May 2013, share the results of the program evaluation with our two impacted community colleges.

Complete. Meetings were conducted during the 2011-2012 school year with the two impacted community colleges to share the results of the survey.

2. By May 2013, develop an action plan to close the participation gap between student groups.

Complete. A plan was developed to target all students in grades 10 and 11 during course registration.

3. By May 2013, review and consider a reduction or elimination of student transportation for a savings of $60,000.

Complete. A committee was formed to review this recommendation. The committee determined it was not beneficial to students to eliminate transportation provided by CCISD.

4. By May 2013, develop a plan to increase participation of dual credit programs to reduce the cost of CCISD teaching staff.

Complete. The availability of Dual Credit courses is publicized on the CCISD website to increase awareness of different credit options. Campuses publicize the opportunities students have to participate in Dual Credit courses.

5. By May 2015, develop a plan to partner with UHCL and their downward expansion for dual credit opportunities.

In progress. In the fall of 2012 leaders from both institutions met to discuss the development of a plan for Dual Credit opportunities. Due to UHCL’s commitment to developing their downward expansion it was decided to not offer Dual Credit until sometime after the downward expansion.


Page | 12

Gifted and Talented Program

The National Association for Gifted Children Pre-K- Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards has identified six program goals for a Gifted and Talented program. These include:

Learning and Development To promote ongoing self-understanding, awareness of their needs, and cognitive and affective growth of these students in school, home, and community settings in recognizing the learning and developmental differences of students with gifts and talents.

Assessment To utilize assessments which provide information about identification, learning progress and outcomes, and evaluation of programming for students with gifts and talents in all domains.

Curriculum Planning and Instruction To apply pertinent theory and research-based models of curriculum and instruction related to students with gifts and talents and respond to their needs by planning, selecting, adapting, and creating culturally relevant curriculum and by using a variety of evidence-based instructional strategies.

Learning Environments To foster personal and social responsibility, multicultural competence and interpersonal and technical communication skills for leadership in the 21st century in appropriate learning environments.

Programming Through adequate funding and resources, to systematically and collaboratively develop, implement, and effectively manage comprehensive services, policies and procedures for students with a variety of gifts and talents.

Professional Development To formally assess professional learning needs, systematically engage in training to meet those identified needs, and demonstrate mastery of such professional learning. To access resources to provide for release time, substitute support and funding for continuing education.

The Gifted and Talented Program

The following topics will be addressed in this program evaluation with respect to the Gifted and Talented (GT) program:

1. Demographics

2. Criteria

3. Identification

4. Assessment

5. Retention


Page | 13


Criteria According to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), “gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding level [of] aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g., mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills (e.g., painting, dance, sports)” (2010).

NAGC’s position is students with giftedness develop their ability or talent over the period of their lifetime. Students may perform exceptionally on tests or other measures of ability or have a rapid rate for learning as compared to other students of the same age. As students mature, their achievement and high level of motivation in their field of interest become the foremost characteristics of their giftedness.

CCISD’s definition for Gifted and Talented students follows the federal definition which is taken from the Javits Act, “the term gifted and talented student means children and youths who give evidence of higher performance capability in such areas as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools in order to develop such capabilities” (NAGC, 2010).

The identification measures used in CCISD are comprised from six areas: classroom performance, authentic assessments, portfolio data, performance on qualitative and quantitative screening instruments, teacher recommendations, and cumulative records. The GT program begins with a process for identification of students using varied assessments. Students who are identified as GT receive general GT services in grades K-3, participate in the Alpha program in grades 4-5, then receive GT services through Pre-AP/AP in grades 6-12.

Identification All kindergarten students are screened during the fall semester. Advanced Academic Specialists visit every kindergarten classroom and conduct lessons with the kindergarten students. Teachers and parents may refer kindergarten students for testing. The deadline for referrals is December 1. Kindergarten students who have been referred for GT testing are tested in January. Qualifying students are placed in the GT program by March 1 of their kindergarten year. Students may be tested two times during grades K-5. Non-English speaking students are assessed using a nonverbal based test.

For students in grades 1-12, referrals should be submitted to the campus by October 1. Anyone—parent, teacher, student—may refer a student for GT testing. Students who have been referred are tested on their campus sometime during October-November. Once a student qualifies for candidacy to the GT program based upon the assessment (quantitative data) and classroom performance, professional recommendation, and/or student portfolio (qualitative data), a selection committee consisting of at least three Advanced Academics Specialists will examine the qualifications of each candidate and recommend appropriate placement. Qualifying students are placed in the GT program by January. Students may be tested two times during grades 6-12. Non-English speaking students are assessed using a nonverbal based test.


Page | 14


Assessment An array of assessments may be used as part of the identification of GT students which may include the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test, Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test, or other similar cognitive assessments. In general, qualifying scores are performance at or above the 97th percentile nationally in more than one intellectual area.

Alpha In grades 4 and 5, gifted students receive differentiated instruction in the regular classroom, attend sessions on campus one semester, and attend their chosen off campus GT mini-course the other semester.

Omega The Omega program, originally designed to be a home campus GT program, is now integrated into the Pre-AP program at all intermediate campuses. Omega/Pre-AP classes in English/Language Arts and Social Studies are now offered as one rigorous program with open enrollment, designed as part of a vertical Pre-AP and AP district program. Starting with the interdisciplinary focus of the original Omega curriculum, the curriculum department and district teachers have redesigned the Omega ELA and Social Studies curriculum. Professional development in the use of Springboard materials by College Board (Pre-AP ELA adoption) has supplemented the internal curriculum design process, along with professional development in the nature and needs of gifted students.

The application process has been eliminated, and counselors encourage families considering Omega/ Pre-AP enrollment to keep in mind such factors as student work ethic, previous academic performance, teacher input and attitude toward challenging coursework.

Omega/Pre-AP redesign and open enrollment are complete for grade 6 in 2013-14, grade 7 in 2014-15, and redesign for grade 8 will occur in 2014-15 with open enrollment in 2015-16.

The Omega/Pre-AP program change is being monitored through student performance data; retention data; teacher, parent, and student input; as well as classroom observations.


Page | 15


Percentage of GT Students Who Are Limited English Proficient and/or Who Receive Special Educational Services

N* LEP SPED

2009-10 2,837 2.3% 1.2%

2010-11 2,984 2.4% 1.4%

2011-12 3,074 3.1% 1.3%

2012-13 3,334 3.5% 1.3%

2013-14 3,565 2.7% 1.4% *N is the number of identified GT students

Diversity, Including ELL and Twice Exceptional

The growing diversity in CCISD and the greater community establishes a need for identification of and appropriate services for high-ability and gifted English language learners. Several procedures have been implemented in CCISD to address gifted ELL students. During the identification procedures for gifted programming, specific assessments (CogAT and Naglieri) are used. Consideration of language limitations are used in establishing the matric for consideration. All specialists are trained in the use of and application of these assessments. Additionally, English learners are targeted for talent development in challenge and enrichment classes. At the secondary level, CCISD offers a limited number of ESL AP classes as well.

Twice-Exceptional Students

Children who are both gifted and learning-disabled are often called twice-exceptional (or 2e) because their abilities lie outside the norms at both ends of the bell curve. These 2e children are immensely diverse. The difficulties a 2e child faces largely depend on their own combination of strengths and weaknesses; still, the divergence between strengths and weaknesses produce numerous challenges. Gifted children can also face challenges from specific learning problems or encounter social, emotional, and psychological difficulties; learning difficulties; social and emotional problems; “difficult” gifted character traits, such as over-excitabilities and perfectionism; existential depression; anorexia nervosa; ADHD; and autistic diagnoses.

Failure to treat a 2e child’s weakness will keep him/her from learning to his/her full potential. Weaknesses should be identified using individual norms, not age or grade norms. Failure to address a gifted child’s weaknesses inevitably holds back progress in areas of strength.

With early remediation, compensation, and accommodations, 2e students can be helped to expand their strengths as well as overcome their weaknesses (Eide & Eide, 2007).

CCISD adheres to the suggestions published in the National Education Association (2006, p.11), which addresses the 2e dilemma, including but not limited to, the following areas:

“Gathering information to identify student needs and strengths,”

“Developing and implementing Individualized Education Program (IEP),”

“Collaboration with other professionals in the district to better serve twice-exceptional students,” and

“Exploring avenues to meet individual student needs.”


Page | 16


The Texas Education Agency has developed a plan specifically for gifted and talented students (TEA, 2009). This plan is designed as a guide for school districts to form and improve services for students identified as gifted and talented.

The plan addresses the areas for: student assessment, service design, curriculum and instruction, professional development, and family-community involvement. For each of these areas the plan is divided into three categories: In Compliance, Recommended, and Exemplary. This provides school districts with the flexibility to develop their own plan and policies to determine the targeted standard level the district is aiming to achieve.

Five sections of services are divided into three standards: Compliance, Recommended, and Exemplary. The Recommended and Exemplary standards are included in the plan as targets for which districts may strive to achieve. The Director of Advanced Academics and GT, along with a committee of Advanced Academics Specialists, conducted an internal review of the State GT plan in the fall of 2014. Below is a summary of how CCISD currently measures against the standards in each of the five sections:

Section 1 - Student Assessment: Assessment instruments and gifted/talented identification procedures provide students an opportunity to demonstrate their diverse talents and abilities.

In Compliance: 12 out of 12 Recommended: 12 out of 15 Exemplary: 4 out of 9

Section 2 - Service Design: Assessment instruments and gifted/talented identification procedures provide students an opportunity to demonstrate their diverse talents and abilities.


Section 3 - Curriculum and Instruction: Districts meet the needs of gifted/talented students by modifying the depth, complexity, and pacing of the curriculum and instruction ordinarily provided by the school.


Section 4 - Professional Development: All personnel involved in the planning, creation, and delivery of services to gifted/talented students possess the knowledge required to develop and provide appropriate options and differentiated curricula.


Section 5 - Family/Community Involvement: The district involves family and community members in services designed for gifted/talented students throughout the school year.


In Compliance Recommended Exemplary

100% 72% 52%


Page | 17

Program Evaluation Questions

The following questions were determined by this program evaluation team to evaluate Advanced Academics and Gifted and Talented:

1. What is the annual number of students who qualify for GT and are retained in Advanced Academics?

2. How do the demographics of Advanced Academics and GT compare to District demographics?

3. How have programs evolved since the last evaluation?

4. What structures are in place to support Advanced Academic and GT students?

5. What processes are in place to ensure equity?

6. What is the scope of the professional learning process for Advanced Academic and GT staff?

7. What is the parent/student satisfaction level in the Advanced Academic and GT program?



Page | 18


Number of Students Grades K-5 Who Met GT Criteria in 2012-13

Grade Level Total Number Qualified Did Not Qualify

Kinder 496 38.9% 61.1%

1 177 24.9% 75.1%

2 260 21.5% 78.5%

3 290 24.1% 75.9%

4 262 36.3% 63.7%

5 224 37.9% 62.1%

Totals 1,709 31.8% 68.2% Data provided by GT Staff

Number of Students Grades K-5 Who Met GT Criteria in 2013-14

Grade Level Total Number Qualified Did Not Qualify

Kinder 495 41.6% 57.4%

1 191 29.3% 69.6%

2 265 23.4% 75.5%

3 286 30.1% 69.2%

4 299 33.1% 64.9%

5 260 35.0% 64.2%

Totals 1,796 33.4% 65.6% Data provided by GT Staff

There were a total of 1,709 students in kindergarten through grade 5 who were tested during the 2012-13 school year as one component for qualifying for GT services. Of the 1,709, 31.8% qualified for GT services, while 68.8% did not qualify.

There were a total of 1,796 students in kindergarten through grade 5 who were tested during the 2013-14 school year as one component for qualifying for GT services. Of the 1,796, 33.4% qualified for GT services, while 65.6% did not qualify.

Retention Retention in the GT program is based upon a student’s academic performance. If a student fails a core academic course (class), he/she is placed on probation for one grading period (9 weeks). If the student continues to perform unsatisfactorily, he/she may be furloughed from the GT program, or probation may continue. Each student is considered on a case by case basis. Students who fail a course for the semester or the school year are furloughed from the GT program. Students who fail any portion of the state-mandated assessments are also placed on furlough for one school year until they are re-assessed and meet satisfactory levels of performance.

The retention rate from 2009-2010 through 2013-2014 for all GT students who remained enrolled in CCISD during the five years of this evaluation was 98.5%. The retention rate from one year to the next during that same five year period ranged from 98.5% to 99.8%.


Page | 19


Distribution of GT Students by Grade Level

Grade Level

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1 4.9% 5.6% 5.8% 6.9% 6.5%

2 5.1% 5.9% 6.4% 7.3% 7.7%

3 6.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.8% 8.6%

4 8.3% 8.1% 8.4% 9.1% 9.4%

5 8.6% 10.9% 10.0% 11.1% 12.2%

6 10.4% 10.3% 13.2% 12.2% 13.1%

7 9.8% 10.8% 9.9% 12.8% 12.0%

8 10.8% 9.5% 10.2% 9.6% 12.5%

9 7.5% 9.5% 8.4% 9.1% 8.6%

10 7.7% 7.9% 9.8% 8.8% 9.4%

11 9.9% 7.8% 7.5% 9.7% 8.8%

12 8.8% 10.2% 7.6% 7.8% 10.2% Data based on Snapshot day

There has been an increase in the number of students who have been identified as GT from 2837 in 2009-2010 to 3565 in 2013-2014. The distribution by grade level reveals the majority of those identified each year fall within grades 5 through 9, with a high of 13.2% of the GT students identified in 2011-2012 were in grade 6.

The largest percentage of students in GT occurs when students are in grades 6-8. As a cohort of students, a maximum percentage of GT occurs usually by grade 6.


Page | 20


Pre-AP/AP Course Enrollment by Grade Level

Curriculum Area

Grade 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 5 Year

Enrollment Change

5 YR Change

Mathematics

5 1 3

6 1282 1379 1339 1320 1359 0.8% 5.7%

7 1326 1377 1494 1421 1428 2.4% 7.1%

8 1405 1498 1451 1552 1473 5.2% 4.6%

9 1163 1288 1347 1357 1424 6.4% 18.3%

10 1182 1089 1294 1469 1367 3.7% 13.5%

11 996 872 960 1128 1228 13.4% 18.9%

12 788 760 780 941 1019 8.4% 22.7%

Language Arts

6 1193 1317 1318 1488 1453 0.8% 17.9%

7 1308 1312 1440 1650 1757 2.4% 25.6%

8 1345 1410 1356 1393 1514 5.2% 11.2%

9 926 1040 1187 1318 1308 6.4% 29.2%

10 868 834 1060 1254 1245 3.7% 30.3%

11 575 594 625 862 904 13.4% 36.4%

12 369 449 426 449 497 8.4% 25.8%

Science

6 1168 1274 1247 1284 1448 0.8% 19.3%

7 1239 1175 1274 1286 1452 2.4% 14.7%

8 1410 1391 1360 1465 1692 5.2% 16.7%

9 986 1147 1251 1277 1410 6.4% 30.1%

10 819 797 1014 1222 1218 3.7% 32.8%

11 790 817 811 988 1117 13.4% 29.3%

12 459 635 566 756 653 8.4% 29.7%

Social Studies

6 1145 1241 1271 1310 1458 0.8% 21.5%

7 1355 1326 1418 1404 1559 2.4% 13.1%

8 1368 1440 1376 1484 1491 5.2% 8.2%

9 1232 1395 1542 1481 1535 6.4% 19.7%

10 1275 1253 1513 1616 1489 3.7% 14.4%

11 800 754 886 970 965 13.4% 17.1%

12 904 873 1038 1066 1195 8.4% 24.4% Data based on Snapshot day


Page | 21


Pre-AP/AP Course Enrollment by Grade Level

Curriculum Area

Grade 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 5 Year

Enrollment Change

5 YR Change

LOTE

7 52 57 41 68 77 2.4% 32.5%

8 220 390 382 379 340 5.2% 35.3%

9 416 594 582 787 784 6.4% 46.9%

10 504 547 434 953 908 3.7% 44.5%

11 457 405 184 596 548 13.4% 16.6%

12 153 164 107 161 175 8.4% 12.6%

Visual Arts

7 6 12 53 29 16 2.4% 62.5%

8 110 96 128 137 136 5.2% 19.1%

9 40 51 51 57 79 6.4% 49.4%

10 8 24 31 41 61 3.7% 86.9%

11 44 48 49 72 86 13.4% 48.8%

12 74 74 61 90 87 8.4% 14.9% Data based on Snapshot day

An analysis was conducted based on the number of students in grades 6-12 who enroll in a Pre-AP and/or AP course. Over the five year period of this study, each content area and grade level has seen an increase in the percentage of students who enroll in a Pre-AP and/or AP course. Some grade levels have had a decrease in the percentage of students enrolled in a Pre-AP and/or AP course in a three year period.

Pre-AP and `AP courses are subject to open enrollment for all students.


Page | 22


An analysis of sixth grade students enrolling at the WAVE through eighth grade was conducted. Students who were enrolled on the annual PEIMS Snapshot date were compared across grades 6-8 to determine who remained enrolled in the WAVE program.

In 2009-10, 241 sixth grade students enrolled at the WAVE. Of the students remaining continuously enrolled in CCISD each year, 94% remained enrolled at the WAVE through 2010-11 and 91% through 2011-12.

In 2010-11, 229 sixth grade students enrolled at the WAVE. Of the students remaining continuously enrolled in CCISD each year, 97% remained enrolled at the WAVE through 2011-12 and 91% through 2012-13.

In 2011-12, 304 sixth grade students enrolled at the WAVE. Of the students remaining continuously enrolled in CCISD each year, 95% remained enrolled at the WAVE through 2012-13and 93% through 2013-14.

In 2012-13, 272 sixth grade students enrolled at the WAVE. Of the students remaining continuously enrolled in CCISD each year, 97% remained enrolled at the WAVE through 2013-14.

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

100% 94% 91%

2009-10 Grade 6 Cohort Remaining at WAVE

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

100% 97% 91%


70%

80%

90%

100%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

100% 95% 93%


70%

80%

90%

100%

2012-13 2013-14

100% 97%



Page | 23


An analysis of sixth grade students enrolling at the Science Magnet through eighth grade was conducted. Students who were enrolled on the annual PEIMS Snapshot date were compared across grades 6-8 to determine who remained enrolled in the Science Magnet program.

In 2009-10, 99 sixth grade students enrolled at the Science Magnet. Of the students remaining continuously enrolled in CCISD each year, 92% remained enrolled at the Science Magnet through 2010-11 and 91% through 2011-12.

In 2010-11, 120 sixth grade students enrolled at the Science Magnet. Of the students remaining continuously enrolled in CCISD each year, 96% remained enrolled at the Science Magnet through 2011-12 and 96% through 2012-13.

In 2011-12, 123 sixth grade students enrolled at the Science Magnet. Of the students remaining continuously enrolled in CCISD each year, 97% remained enrolled at the Science Magnet through 2012-13and 94% through 2013-14.

In 2012-13, 101 sixth grade students enrolled at the Science Magnet. Of the students remaining continuously enrolled in CCISD each year, 97% remained enrolled at the Science Magnet through 2013-14.

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

100%92% 91%

2009-10 Grade 6 Cohort Remaining at Science Magnet

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

100% 96% 96%


70%

80%

90%

100%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

100% 97% 94%


70%

80%

90%

100%

2012-13 2013-14

100% 97%



Page | 24


The chart below displays the distribution of the percentage of students who have participated in at least one Advanced Academic program over the five year period of this study. The chart displays low percentages during the elementary years, however, the percentage of students participating in Advanced Academic programs increases during the secondary years due to more opportunities for participating. At grades 1-5, students can be identified as GT. GT Students in grades 4 and 5 participate in the Alpha program. GT students in grades 6-12 are integrated in an overall advanced academics program through Pre-AP and AP courses.

Grade Level Distribution of Students Who Participated in Advanced Academics and GT

Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Average 5 Year

Change

1 5.0% 5.6% 5.8% 6.9% 6.6% 6.0% 1.6%

2 5.2% 5.9% 6.4% 7.3% 7.7% 6.5% 2.5%

3 6.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.8% 8.6% 7.3% 1.9%

4 8.4% 8.1% 8.4% 9.1% 9.4% 8.7% 1.1%

5 8.7% 11.0% 10.0% 11.1% 12.2% 10.6% 3.6%

6 56.5% 60.9% 60.6% 63.8% 63.3% 61.0% 6.9%

7 60.6% 60.6% 64.1% 68.1% 69.2% 64.5% 8.6%

8 64.7% 64.4% 64.0% 66.1% 66.9% 65.2% 2.2%

9 49.4% 53.6% 55.8% 57.5% 57.6% 54.8% 8.3%

10 50.8% 50.2% 56.1% 60.8% 58.4% 55.4% 7.7%

11 53.9% 50.7% 51.0% 56.6% 56.0% 53.7% 2.1%

12 55.2% 67.5% 54.6% 53.1% 56.7% 57.4% 1.5% Data based on Snapshot day *Unique students for each program from 2012-13 through 2013-14 for GT, Alpha, WAVE, Science Magnet, PAP, AP, Dual Credit, ISM, and CHECHS

Students in the district’s Elementary Gifted and Talented Program, grades K-5, are cluster-grouped and receive differentiated instruction in the core content areas with a classroom teacher who has at least 30 hours of gifted awareness training, plus the required 6-hour annual update.

In grades K-3, gifted students participate with an Advanced Academics/GT Specialist in a program on their campus that is designed to provide challenging activities in seven strands: creativity, problem solving, research, communication, thinking skills, affective thinking, and leadership training.

In grades 4 and 5, gifted students receive differentiated instruction in the regular classroom, attend sessions on campus one semester, and attend their chosen off-campus GT mini-course the other semester.

Advanced Academics/GT Specialists work with students in grades K-5 as well as with GT Cluster teachers in meeting the needs of the gifted learners on each campus.


Page | 25


Participation Rate by Year as Compared to Peer Group

Program* Peer

Group 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

5 Year Change

GT Gr 1-12 7.6% 7.8% 7.8% 8.4% 8.9% 1.3%

Alpha Gr 4-5 8.5% 9.5% 9.2% 10.1% 10.9% 2.3%

PAP Gr 6-12 46.5% 46.2% 48.6% 52.1% 52.4% 5.9%

WAVE Gr 6-8 7.5% 7.4% 8.2% 8.4% 9.5% 2.0%

Sci Magnet Gr 6-8 3.9% 3.8% 3.7% 3.5% 3.3% -0.6%

AP Gr 9-12 23.1% 24.7% 26.7% 29.6% 29.5% 6.3%

Dual Credit Gr 9-12 8.7% 9.9% 9.6% 8.7% 9.2% 0.5%

ISM Gr 9-12 5.5% 5.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.3% -1.1%

CHECHS Gr 9-12 2.8% 3.1% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% 0.6% Data Based on attendance on Snapshot day *Unique students in each program from 2009-10 through 2013-2014

An analysis was conducted to compare how many students participated in each program as compared to their peer group. For example, students in grades 4 and 5 could participate in the Alpha program; therefore, in 2009-2010 there were 8.5% of the students in grades 4 and 5 who were in the Alpha program.


Page | 26


Data based on Snapshot day Demographics based on AEIS, TAPR, and CCISD student information system

Clear Creek ISD demographics have had little change with regard to gender, Asian, and Black populations. Economically disadvantaged has increased through 2012-2013 with a slight decrease in 2013-2014. The Hispanic population has increased by 6.7% from 2009-2010 through 2013-2014. The White population has declined by 7.7% from 2009-2010 through 2013-2014.

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%

F E M A L E M A L E E C O D I S A S I A N B L A C K H I S P A N I C W H I T E

DISTRICT DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 27


Data based on Snapshot day

The Gifted and Talented program is predominantly comprised of male students. Asian and White students make up a higher percentage of the Gifted and Talented population than is reflected in the overall CCISD population.


45

.9% 5

4.1

%

6.5

%

20

.6%

2.3

%

9.2

%

64

.6%

45

.9% 5

4.1

%

7.7

%

21

.2%

2.8

%

10

.7%

61

.4%

46

.0% 5

4.0

%

8.3

%

21

.2%

2.6

%

11

.3%

60

.9%

46

.9% 53

.1%

9.1

%

20

.8%

2.5

%

11

.9%

60

.5%

47

.2% 52

.8%

8.5

%

20

.7%

2.5

%

12

.7%

59

.8%

F E M A L E M A L E E C O A S B L H I W H

GT DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 28



The Alpha program demographics mirror that of the overarching Gifted and Talented program. There is a higher percentage of Asian and White students as compared to the overall demographics of the district.


47

.2% 52

.8%

9.7

%

22

.5%

2.1

%

11

.2%

60

.8%

48

.4%

51

.6%

9.6

%

23

.4%

3.2

%

11

.9%

56

.7%

45

.4% 5

4.6

%

9.3

%

20

.7%

2.1

%

11

.0%

61

.2%

46

.6% 53

.4%

11

.4% 17

.4%

2.9

%

13

.1%

63

.6%

47

.9%

52

.1%

9.5

%

19

.9%

2.6

%

12

.8%

61

.7%

F E M A L E M A L E E C O A S B L H I W H

ALPHA DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 29



During the five year period of this study, more females than males have participated in Pre-AP courses. There has been an increase in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students as well as an increase in the percentage of Black and Hispanic students in Pre-AP courses. In order for students to be successful in AP courses, they need to complete Pre-AP coursework to ensure they are prepared for the rigor of the AP course(s).


51

.5%

48

.5%

9.2

% 13

.8%

5.6

%

15

.5%

62

.2%

51

.5%

48

.5%

11

.9%

14

.1%

5.7

%

17

.3%

59

.6%

51

.5%

48

.5%

13

.4%

13

.7%

5.9

%

17

.9%

58

.9%

52

.8%

47

.2%

14

.7%

14

.3%

6.3

%

19

.9%

59

.5%

52

.2%

47

.8%

13

.7%

14

.3%

6.4

%

21

.1%

58

.3%


PRE-AP DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 30



During the five year period of this study, there has been an increase in the number of economically disadvantaged students as well as an increase in the percentage of Hispanics participating in the AP program. This may be attributed to the findings of the first program evaluation conducted for Pre-AP/AP and the Superintendent’s recommendation to develop a plan to increase participation of student groups that are underrepresented in AP coursework and testing.


52

.9%

47

.2%

5.9

%

21

.7%

5.0

%

13

.4%

57

.5%

53

.7%

46

.3%

9.6

%

21

.0%

4.6

%

15

.3%

56

.4%

53

.0%

47

.0%

10

.9%

20

.2%

4.2

%

15

.4%

57

.4%

53

.2%

46

.8%

11

.1%

20

.0%

4.7

%

17

.1%

58

.2%

52

.7%

47

.3%

10

.5%

20

.4%

5.2

%

18

.5%

56

.0%


AP DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 31



Over the five year period of this study, there has been an increase in the percentage of females and Hispanic students participating in the WAVE program. The economically disadvantaged population in WAVE has increased during the five year period. All students in the WAVE program are identified as GT.


45

.7% 5

4.3

%

4.9

%

26

.7%

2.9

% 7.5

%

62

.5%

47

.9%

52

.1%

6.2

%

26

.4%

3.5

% 9.5

%

55

.4%

49

.5%

50

.5%

6.2

%

26

.8%

4.5

% 10

.7%

52

.6%

48

.4%

51

.6%

6.8

%

31

.4%

2.9

%

10

.6%

55

.2%

47

.4%

52

.7%

5.7

%

29

.6%

2.9

%

12

.9%

55

.4%


WAVE DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 32



Over the five year period of this study, there has been an increase in the percentage of females, economically disadvantaged students, and Hispanic students in the Science Magnet program. This appears to be the direct result of the implementation of the changes in the application and selection process of students in grade 5.


60

.6%

39

.4%

2.6

%

11

.3%

2.0

%

14

.6%

72

.2%

53

.1%

46

.9%

6.1

% 9.1

%

2.6

%

17

.5%

65

.7%

51

.3%

48

.7%

6.9

% 9.9

%

1.8

%

17

.0%

66

.9%

49

.8%

50

.2%

7.5

% 11

.0%

2.5

%

16

.6%

66

.8%

55

.7%

44

.3%

6.7

% 11

.0%

3.0

%

19

.3%

62

.3%


SCIENCE MAGNET DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 33


Data based on Snapshot day Includes CHECHS students

Over the five year period of this study, there has been an increase in the percentage of females, economically disadvantaged students, and Hispanic students in the Dual Credit program.


50

.8%

49

.2%

10

.9%

12

.5%

5.2

%

15

.5%

64

.4%

52

.6%

47

.4%

10

.5%

13

.8%

5.1

%

16

.9%

61

.0%

52

.7%

47

.3%

13

.9%

13

.6%

4.9

%

20

.0%

59

.0%

53

.5%

46

.5%

16

.7%

15

.1%

5.8

%

21

.8%

55

.2%

53

.0%

47

.0%

13

.1%

15

.9%

5.9

%

21

.7%

54

.1%


DUAL CREDIT DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 34



Over the five year period of this study, there have been more females and white students who have participated in the Independent Study Mentorship program. There has been some variation in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students as well as Hispanic students. There has been an increase in the percentage of Asian students participating in the ISM program.


56

.7%

43

.3%

9.3

% 12

.6%

5.7

%

16

.8%

62

.7%

53

.0%

47

.0%

11

.6%

12

.6%

7.9

%

18

.7%

56

.9%

59

.2%

47

.8%

13

.1%

21

.5%

3.5

%

20

.3%

51

.2%

59

.1%

40

.9%

9.5

%

23

.4%

3.2

%

16

.8%

56

.6%

55

.2%

44

.8%

7.7

%

25

.3%

3.8

%

17

.1%

53

.8%


ISM DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 35

2. How do the Demographics of Advanced Academics and GT compare to District demographics?

Data based on Snapshot day Data included in Dual Credit

Over the five year period of this study, there has been a decline in the percentage of White students who have enrolled at CHECHS. There has been some variation in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students during those same five years.


55

.7%

44

.3%

25

.2%

21

.5%

5.5

%

24

.0%

48

.6%

56

.2%

43

.7%

21

.1%

21

.4%

5.3

%

23

.0%

45

.7%

56

.9%

43

.1%

29

.0%

23

.2%

5.3

%

26

.6%

40

.2%

56

.0%

44

.0%

29

.2%

23

.3%

7.3

%

30

.4%

39

.0%

56

.2%

43

.8%

23

.5%

26

.4%

7.7

%

28

.7%

37

.2%


CHECHS DEMOGRAPHICS

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

48

.4%

51

.6%

22

.7%

10

.4%

9.2

%

21

.3%

58

.8%

48

.6%

51

.4%

25

.3%

9.8

%

10

.0%

25

.1%

53

.8%

48

.7%

51

.3%

28

.1%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.0%

52

.3%

48

.8%

51

.2%

28

.0%

9.8

%

8.3

%

26

.9%

51

.3%

48

.9%

51

.1%

27

.4%

9.8

%

8.2

%

28

.0%

50

.1%



2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Page | 36


High School Courses Taken by Students in Grade 6-8

Grade Level

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 5 Year

Change

N % N % N % N % N % %

6 2959 0.0% 2968 0.2% 2945 0.2% 2967 0.2% 2978 0.1% 0.1%

7 3003 5.8% 2994 12.3% 3071 18.5% 2996 17.7% 3069 18.9% 13.1%

8 2896 40.3% 3072 58.5% 3024 59.7% 3109 57.6% 3047 56.5% 16.2%

Total 8858 15.2% 9034 24.0% 9040 26.3% 9072 25.7% 9094 25.3% 10.1% N is the number of students enrolled in the grade level Data based on Snapshot day Data includes all high school level courses which intermediate students are enrolled

An analysis of high school courses taken by students in grades 6-8 was conducted. The percentage of students taking a high school course was calculated as well as the average number of high school courses taken per student. High school courses taken most often by students in grades 6-8 include Algebra 1, Biology, 21st Century Learning, and Spanish 1.

Over the course of this study, the percentage of students in grades 6-8 taking a high school course has increased from 15.2% to 25.3%, with a five year change of 10.1%.


Page | 37


Percentage of Students Enrolled in at Least One Pre-AP Course

Grade Level 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 5 Year

Change

6 53.1% 56.9% 56.4% 60.3% 59.8% 6.8%

7 57.2% 57.3% 60.3% 64.4% 65.9% 8.7%

8 61.0% 61.4% 60.8% 62.5% 63.6% 2.6%

9 49.0% 53.2% 55.3% 57.3% 57.3% 8.3%

10 50.2% 49.6% 55.3% 60.5% 57.8% 7.6%

11 40.2% 34.4% 36.4% 44.3% 43.9% 3.7%

12 9.4% 4.1% 10.9% 10.8% 14.3% 4.9%

Total 46.5% 46.1% 48.6% 52.0% 52.4% 5.8% Data based on Snapshot day Data includes high school level courses which intermediate students are enrolled.

Over the five year period of this study, there has been an increase in the percentage of students who have participated in the Pre-AP program at each grade level, with the greatest increases in grades 7, 9, and 10. There was an overall average increase of 5.8% over all grade levels.


Page | 38


Percentage of Students Enrolled in at Least One AP Course

Grade Level

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 5 Year

Change

9 10.7% 15.3% 15.8% 17.3% 17.3% 6.7%

10 13.6% 14.1% 19.8% 21.0% 20.2% 6.5%

11 35.3% 32.5% 35.2% 40.5% 40.6% 5.3%

12 36.5% 39.6% 38.5% 42.1% 42.1% 5.6%

Total 23.1% 24.7% 26.7% 29.6% 29.5% 6.3% Data based on Snapshot day *Unique students for each program

Over the five year period of this study, there has been an increase in the percentage of students who have enrolled in an AP course with an increase occurring at each grade level. The greatest increases occurred in grades 9 and 10. There was an overall increase of 6.3% over all grade levels.

Percentage of Students Enrolled in at Least One Pre-AP and/or AP Course

Grade Level

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 5 Year

Change

6 53.1% 56.9% 56.4% 60.3% 59.8% 6.8%

7 57.2% 57.3% 60.3% 64.4% 65.9% 8.7%

8 61.0% 61.4% 60.8% 62.5% 63.6% 2.6%

9 49.2% 53.5% 55.7% 57.4% 57.5% 8.3%

10 50.6% 49.9% 56.0% 60.7% 58.3% 7.7%

11 48.3% 44.0% 46.8% 52.9% 52.5% 4.2%

12 39.2% 40.9% 43.2% 44.6% 45.8% 6.5%

Total 51.5% 52.3% 54.4% 57.7% 57.8% 6.3% Data based on Snapshot day *Unique students for each program

Over the five year period of this study, there has been an increase in the percentage of students enrolled in a Pre-AP or AP course, or in both a Pre-AP and AP course. The greatest increases occurred in grades 7 and 9. There was an overall increase of 6.3% over all grade levels.


Page | 39


Percentage of Students Who Take at Least One AP Exam

Grade Level 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5 Year Change

9 8.1% 11.6% 12.4% 13.8% 12.8% 4.6%

10 11.4% 12.0% 16.1% 15.7% 15.6% 4.2%

11 26.7% 25.5% 27.8% 32.1% 31.3% 4.6%

12 24.4% 26.2% 26.7% 25.6% 26.9% 2.5%

Total 17.1% 18.4% 20.3% 21.4% 21.3% 4.2% Data based on enrollment on Snapshot day Data Source: College Board Reports, Student information system, AEIS, TAPR

The percentage of students who take at least one AP exam while attending high school has increased from 17.1% to 21.3% over the period of this study with an overall average of 19.7% of high school students take at least one AP exam.


Page | 40


Clear Creek ISD Average AP Exam Score Comparison

AP Exams 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Art History 2.63 2.46 2.73 3.46 3.38 2.93

Tested 24 13 15 26 8 86

State Average 2.66 2.69 2.69 2.70 2.69

Global Average 2.89 2.85 2.86 2.85 2.82

Music Theory 2.97 2.81 3.63 3.37 3.22 3.20

Tested 37 31 30 38 27 163

State Average 2.89 2.70 2.87 2.89 2.96

Global Average 3.04 2.98 3.04 3.01 3.07

Studio Art: 2-D Design Portfolio

3.31 3.44 3.43 3.62 3.63 3.49

Tested 32 25 23 26 30 136

State Average 3.12 3.17 3.27 3.33 3.24

Global Average 3.15 3.18 3.28 3.34 3.33

Studio Art: 3-D Design Portfolio

3.57 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.25 3.16

Tested 7 * 6 6 12 33

State Average 2.9 2.82 3.06 2.90 3.01

Global Average 2.93 2.93 3.00 3.03 3.04

Studio Art: Drawing Portfolio

3.83 3.68 3.71 3.70 4.13 3.81

Tested 23 22 21 10 16 92

State Average 3.15 3.12 3.12 3.15 3.22

Global Average 3.16 3.09 3.18 3.27 3.27

English Language and Composition

3.48 3.45 3.42 3.23 3.31 3.38

Tested 511 518 536 686 744 2,995

State Average 2.59 2.55 2.56 2.43 2.47

Global Average 2.91 2.92 2.90 2.77 2.79

English Literature and Composition

3.39 3.19 3.50 3.32 3.44 3.37

Tested 298 324 326 320 352 1,620

State Average 2.58 2.52 2.54 2.57 2.52

Global Average 2.83 2.81 2.8 2.81 2.76

European History 2.95 3.12 3.70 3.11 3.72 3.32

Tested 56 52 47 45 25 225

State Average 3.05 3.07 3.30 2.99 2.83

Global Average 2.86 2.81 2.83 2.78 2.65


Page | 41



AP Exams

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Human Geography 3.14 3.28 3.39 3.12 3.27 3.24

Tested 313 431 446 473 438 2,101

State Average 2.45 2.45 2.64 2.65 2.61

Global Average 2.47 2.61 2.67 2.69 2.64

Macroeconomics 2.78 2.81 3.14 2.75 3.09 2.92

Tested 128 177 152 207 266 930

State Average 2.35 2.24 2.24 2.21 2.32

Global Average 2.82 2.76 2.81 2.80 2.89

Microeconomics 3.33 4.00 3.50 3.60 4.40 3.77

Tested * * * * * 21

State Average 2.33 2.34 2.54 2.65 2.43

Global Average 3.02 3.01 3.09 3.13 3.07

Psychology 2.99 2.77 2.52 3.15 3.23 2.93

Tested 158 124 138 175 211 806

State Average 2.65 2.74 2.78 2.90 2.77

Global Average 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.17 3.09

United States Government and Politics

3.02 3.21 3.09 2.68 3.02 3.00

Tested 189 215 260 291 352 1,307

State Average 2.27 2.24 2.22 2.18 2.19

Global Average 2.65 2.67 2.69 2.65 2.62

United States History 3.21 3.29 3.05 3.08 3.16 3.16

Tested 525 495 591 639 590 2,840

State Average 2.26 2.25 2.33 2.34 2.34

Global Average 2.72 2.75 2.80 2.77 2.76

World History 3.23 3.38 3.24 3.01 3.12 3.19

Tested 327 347 460 453 443 2,030

State Average 2.26 2.26 2.38 2.30 2.4

Global Average 2.57 2.57 2.65 2.53 2.66

Calculus AB 3.34 3.21 3.48 3.33 3.75 3.42

Tested 323 292 300 215 293 1,423

State Average 2.44 2.39 2.54 2.57 2.95

Global Average 2.81 2.82 2.97 2.96 2.94


Page | 42



AP Exams

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Calculus BC 4.04 4.10 4.66 4.26 4.20 4.25

Tested 57 73 56 62 51 299

State Average 3.57 3.39 3.61 3.50 3.55

Global Average 3.86 3.78 3.87 3.73 3.81

Computer Science A 3.05 2.90 2.88 3.01 3.18 3.01

Tested 94 61 69 86 40 350

State Average 2.9 2.74 2.85 2.99 2.77

Global Average 3.15 3.1 3.06 3.21 2.96

Statistics 3.49 3.38 3.28 2.63 3.24 3.20

Tested 213 212 163 225 173 986

State Average 2.63 2.61 2.69 2.58 2.69

Global Average 2.84 2.82 2.83 2.80 2.86

Biology 2.97 2.91 3.05 3.14 3.15 3.04

Tested 117 175 161 182 166 801

State Average 2.30 2.18 2.3 2.62 2.62

Global Average 2.89 2.70 2.73 2.88 2.91

Chemistry 2.93 3.29 3.13 3.41 2.50 3.05

Tested 69 84 143 141 115 552

State Average 2.34 2.42 2.44 2.62 2.40

Global Average 2.76 2.77 2.79 2.92 2.68

Environmental Science 2.90 2.91 3.50 2.95 3.21 3.09

Tested 108 118 117 145 112 600

State Average 2.38 2.36 2.51 2.49 2.43

Global Average 2.61 2.66 2.68 2.61 2.60

Physics B 3.21 3.73 3.63 3.86 3.84 3.66

Tested 43 60 38 80 91 312

State Average 2.33 2.35 2.40 2.43 2.43

Global Average 2.86 2.92 2.93 2.95 2.89

Physics C: Electricity and Magnetism

3.12 2.97 3.83 3.40 3.51 3.37

Tested 42 39 23 25 77 206

State Average 3.11 2.99 3.11 3.05 3.13

Global Average 3.47 3.47 3.57 3.45 3.51


Page | 43



AP Exams

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Physics C: Mechanics 3.42 3.66 4.31 3.65 3.85 3.78

Tested 43 35 26 26 73 203

State Average 3.06 2.93 3.25 3.11 3.21

Global Average 3.39 3.38 3.58 3.46 3.56

Chinese Language and Culture

4.94 4.56 4.82 4.67 4.60 4.72

Tested 17 18 11 15 15 76

State Average 4.60 4.43 4.42 4.46 4.43

Global Average 4.61 4.51 4.48 4.46 4.43

French Language and Culture

2.04 2.50 2.25 3.14 3.30 2.65

Tested 23 18 * 7 10 62

State Average 2.12 2.23 2.86 2.92 2.93

Global Average 2.70 2.80 3.35 3.37 3.36

German Language and Culture

3.78 3.25 4.80 4.60 3.78 4.04

Tested 9 8 * * 9 36

State Average 2.73 2.74 2.94 2.90 2.74

Global Average 3.24 3.19 3.51 3.47 3.34

Japanese Language and Culture

5.00 5.00 5.00 4.83 3.97

Tested * * * 6 10

State Average 3.09 3.13 3.11 2.89

Global Average 3.59 3.64 3.60 3.56

Latin 3.00 3.11 3.00 3.40 3.75 3.25

Tested 9 9 7 * 8 38

State Average 2.84 2.59 2.81 2.88 2.81

Global Average 3.04 3.05 3.04 3.05 3.05

Spanish Language 3.28 3.37 3.02 3.13 3.61 3.28

Tested 74 92 66 69 61 362

State Average 3.32 3.04 3.21 3.18 3.52

Global Average 3.39 3.25 3.35 3.32 3.72


Page | 44



AP Exams

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Average Score

Spanish Literature and Culture

3.15 3.58 3.55 3.50 3.50 3.46

Tested 20 12 11 * * 49

State Average 2.50 2.46 2.57 3.09 2.94

Global Average 2.82 2.82 2.85 3.21 3.14

District Average 3.24 3.25 3.29 3.13 3.29 3.24

Number of Students 2,063 2,272 2,437 2,590 2,600 11,962

Tests 3,893 4,087 4,256 4,692 4,824 21,751

State Average 2.54 2.48 2.56 2.56 2.58 2.54

Global Average 2.86 2.86 2.91 2.89 2.89 2.88 Data Source: College Board *5 or fewer students

AP exams are scored on a 1 to 5 scale, with passing defined as a score of 3 or higher. Average exam scores at the state and global level are provided for comparison. The district average score on 21,751 tests on 32 different exams outperformed the state and global averages. With an overall district average of 3.24 as compared to a state average of 2.54 and a global average of 2.88. The district annual average on all AP exams increased from 3.24 to 3.29 during the time of this study with an overall average of 3.24. The number of students testing increased by 537 students. The number of exams increased from 3,893 in 2010 to 4,824 in 2014.


Page | 45


Percent of Students Enrolled in an AP Course Taking the Corresponding AP Exam

Course 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Avg Per

Test* 5 Year

Change

2-D Design 73.0% 37.2% 37.9% 63.2% 65.0% 23.0 -8.0%

3-D Design 100.0% 25.0% 45.5% 0.0% 66.7% 6.5 -33.3%

Art History 71.0% 72.2% 65.2% 76.5% 66.7% 16.8 -4.3%

Biology 87.2% 78.0% 67.7% 75.7% 64.9% 159.0 -22.3%

Calculus AB 89.7% 85.6% 76.7% 72.6% 72.5% 290.0 -17.2%

Calculus BC 96.5% 92.4% 79.4% 68.9% 77.2% 57.6 -19.3%

Chemistry 81.9% 75.2% 84.5% 76.9% 72.6% 108.2 -9.3%

Chinese 50.0% 46.7% 60.0% 42.9% 85.7% 4.6 35.7%

Comp Science A 75.8% 55.4% 52.0% 53.5% 41.9% 67.4 -33.9%

Drawing 57.9% 38.0% 53.1% 30.3% 35.1% 16.2 -22.8%

Economics - Macro 34.5% 48.4% 39.0% 45.6% 51.4% 183.4 16.9%

Economics - Micro

English Lang and Comp 86.8% 86.6% 85.1% 76.1% 80.3% 585.8 -6.5%

English Lit and Comp 80.1% 72.1% 76.5% 59.2% 68.7% 309.6 -11.4%

Environmental Science 52.9% 39.7% 58.7% 36.4% 49.8% 118.8 -3.1%

European History 48.3% 62.1% 32.9% 56.2% 44.6% 44.2 -3.7%

French 55.3% 44.8% 10.5% 36.0% 33.3% 11.0 -22.0%

German 64.3% 58.3% 33.3% 40.0% 80.0% 6.4 15.7%

Government 60.9% 67.3% 67.8% 61.4% 66.2% 253.2 5.3%

Human Geography 79.6% 79.3% 77.5% 78.8% 71.8% 417.8 -7.8%

Italian

Japanese

Latin 56.3% 90.0% 41.2% 35.7% 47.1% 7.6 -9.2%

Music Theory 51.5% 45.2% 53.9% 60.7% 38.6% 30.8 -12.9%

Physics B 77.4% 70.7% 71.2% 74.5% 71.7% 59.0 -5.7%

Physics C: Elect & Mag. 19.3% 22.0% 42.5% 53.9% 38.7% 43.6 19.4%

Physics C: Mechanics 21.2% 30.0% 37.5% 50.0% 42.0% 43.6 20.8%

Psychology 58.4% 49.8% 50.4% 61.1% 60.8% 151.2 2.4%

Spanish Language 84.2% 82.1% 79.7% 65.1% 67.1% 56.8 -17.1%

Spanish Literature 76.0% 61.1% 50.0% 100.0% 42.9% 9.0 -33.1%

Statistics 74.4% 80.1% 70.9% 55.8% 46.3% 196.4 -28.1%

US History 87.0% 88.9% 84.2% 80.9% 78.2% 557.0 -8.8%

World History 87.7% 85.6% 81.9% 71.3% 71.7% 391.8 -16.0% *Average number of students who took the exam who were enrolled in the course Data based on total course enrollment Data Source: Student information system, College Board


Page | 46


According to a report by Hanover Research (2012, p.6-7), seven recommendations for the AP program were recommended by the College Board. These include:

1. “Announce a major commitment to equity in AP: Launch high-profile public campaigns to increase student access to and success in AP courses.” There is no high- profile campaign; however, AP opportunities are publicized on the district’s website and at the campus level.

2. “Conduct an inventory of current AP offerings and capacity: Determine extent and rigor of AP offerings in high schools as well as effectiveness of teacher training for Pre-AP and AP courses.” CCISD has comprehensive data on course offerings and teacher training. Vertical training in

the core areas is being prioritized as the next phase of teacher AP professional learning focus.

3. “Support teacher professional development for AP and Pre-AP teachers: offer year-round training for AP and pre-AP teachers and hands-on professional development for school and district leaders.” Comprehensive training is available to AP and Pre-AP teachers.

4. “Align middle and high school curricula: Incorporate state, local, and College Board standards

to ensure that students have the opportunity to be prepared for success in an AP course through their previous course work.” Alignment will be addressed through vertical PreAP training. SpringBoard materials and

training are being used as part of the ELA alignment.

5. “Use AP Potential to identify prospective AP students: Administer the PSAT/NMSQT to all 10th

and 11th graders; use the free AP Potential program to identify those students likely to succeed on AP exams based on these scores.” AP Potential is one tool utilized through the Counseling Department and serves as a starting

place for teachers and staff to recruit AP candidates.

6. “Mandate AP course offerings: Require all high schools to offer AP courses in at least the four

core areas of mathematics, science, English, and social studies.” All CCISD high schools offer AP courses in all four core areas as well as LOTE and Fine Arts.

7. “Offset the AP exam fee for low-income students: Combine federal funds and College Board

AP Fee Reduction to make the AP exams fee for all student from low-income families.” CCISD offers support for all students in financial need during AP test administration. The campus counseling center serves as a clearinghouse for that financial support.


Page | 47


Grade 6 WAVE students have performed better on STAAR Reading as compared to Non-WAVE students. In 2012, 74% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 32% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 68% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 28% of Non-WAVE students.

Grade 6 WAVE students have performed better on STAAR Mathematics as compared to Non-WAVE students. In 2012, 83% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 33% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 79% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 31% of Non-WAVE students.

32%37%

28%

74% 76%68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 6 Reading Advanced STAAR Percentages for WAVE

and Non-WAVE Students

Non-WAVE WAVE

33%27%

31%

83%

72%79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 6 Mathematics Advanced STAAR Percentages for WAVE

and Non-WAVE Students

Non-WAVE WAVE


Page | 48

35%29%

35%

72% 69%

80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 7 Reading Advanced STAAR Percentages for WAVE and

Non-WAVE Students

Non-WAVE WAVE


Grade 7 WAVE students have performed better on STAAR Mathematics, Reading, and Writing as compared to Non-WAVE students. In 2012, 72% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Reading as compared to 35% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 80% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Reading as compared to 35% of Non-WAVE students.

In 2012, 75% of grade 7 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Mathematics as compared to 28% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 61% of grade 7 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Mathematics as compared to 25% of Non-WAVE students.

In 2012, 58% of grade 7 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Writing as compared to 15% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 52% of grade 7 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Writing as compared to 11% of Non-WAVE students.

28%23% 25%

75%64% 61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 7 Mathematics Advanced STAAR

Percentages for WAVE and Non-WAVE Students

Non-WAVE WAVE

15%7% 11%

58%48% 52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 7 Writing Advanced STAAR Percentages

for WAVE and Non-WAVE Students

Non-WAVE WAVE


Page | 49


In 2012, 81% of grade 8 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Reading as compared to 37% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 87% of grade 8 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Reading as compared to 44% of Non-WAVE students.

In 2012, 24% of grade 8 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Mathematics as compared to 9% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 31% of grade 8 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Mathematics as compared to 14% of Non-WAVE students.

In 2012, 55% of grade 8 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Science as compared to 22% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 76% of grade 8 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Science as compared to 34% of Non-WAVE students.

37%45% 44%

81%86% 87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Reading Advanced STAAR Percentages for WAVE and

Non-WAVE Students

Non-WAVE WAVE

9% 11% 14%24% 22%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014



Non-WAVE WAVE

22%32% 34%

55%

71%76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Science Advanced STAAR Percentages


Non-WAVE WAVE

24%29% 26%

54%

65% 66%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Social Studies Advanced STAAR


Non-WAVE WAVE


Page | 50


In 2012, 54% of grade 8 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Social Studies as compared to 24% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 66% of grade 8 WAVE students earned an Advanced score in Social Studies as compared to 26% of Non-WAVE students.

Grade 7 WAVE students have performed better on STAAR Algebra 1 test as compared to Non-WAVE students. In 2012, 100% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 71% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 98% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 90% of Non-WAVE students.

Grade 8 WAVE students have performed better on STAAR Algebra 1 test as compared to Non-WAVE students. In 2012, 83% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 67% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 87% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 79% of Non-WAVE students.

Grade 8 WAVE students have performed better on STAAR Biology test as compared to Non-WAVE students. In 2012, 82% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 59% of Non-WAVE students. In 2014, 72% of WAVE students earned an Advanced score as compared to 71% of Non-WAVE students.

71%

33%

90%100%

93% 98%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 7 Algebra Advanced STAAR


Non-WAVE WAVE

67% 67%

79%83%91% 87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Algebra Advanced STAAR


Non-WAVE WAVE

59%

73% 71%82% 84%

72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Biology Advanced STAAR Percentages


Non-WAVE WAVE


Page | 51


Grade 6 Science Magnet students have performed better on STAAR Reading as compared to Non- Science Magnet students. In 2012, 50% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score as compared to 37% of Non- Science Magnet students. In 2014, 56% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score as compared to 34% of Non-Science Magnet students.

Grade 6 Science Magnet students have performed better on STAAR Mathematics as compared to Non- Science Magnet students. In 2012, 50% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score as compared to 39% of Non-Science Magnet students. In 2014, 55% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score as compared to 38% of Non-Science Magnet students.

37% 41%34%

50%

67%56%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 6 Reading Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science Magnet and Non-Science

Magnet Students

Non-Science Magnet Science Magnet

39%31%

38%

50%58% 55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 6 Mathematics Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science Magnet and Non-Science

Magnet Students



Page | 52


Grade 7 Science Magnet students have performed better on STAAR Mathematics, Reading, and Writing as compared to Non-Science Magnet students. In 2012, 52% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Reading as compared to 38% of Non-Science Magnet students. In 2014, 70% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Reading as compared to 40% of Non-Science Magnet students.

In 2012, 48% of grade 7 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Mathematics as compared to 32% of Non-Science Magnet students. In 2014, 58% of grade 7 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Mathematics as compared to 28% of Non-Science Magnet students.

In 2012, 27% of grade 7 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Writing as compared to 19% of Non-Science Magnet students. In 2014, 34% of grade 7 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Writing as compared to 15% of Non-Science Magnet students.

38% 33%40%

52% 56%

70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 7 Reading Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science

Magnet and Non-Science Magnet Students


32%27% 28%

48%55% 58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014


Percentages for Science Magnet and Non-Science

Magnet Students


19%13% 15%

27%

10%

34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 7 Writing Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science Magnet and Non-

Science Magnet Students



Page | 53


In 2012, 66% of grade 8 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Reading as compared to 40% of Non-Science Magnet students. In 2014, 69% of grade 8 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Reading as compared to 49% of Non-Science Magnet students.

In 2012, 33% of grade 8 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Mathematics as compared to 9% of Non-Science Magnet students. In 2014, 24% of grade 8 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Mathematics as compared to 15% of Non-Science Magnet students.

40%48% 49%

66% 65% 69%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Reading Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science



9% 11% 15%

33%

18%24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014


Percentages for Science Magnet and Non-Science

Magnet Students


24%35% 39%

49% 52%43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Science Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science Magnet and Non-



26% 31% 31%

47%57%

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Social Studies Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science




Page | 54


In 2012, 49% of grade 8 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Science as compared to 24% of Non-Science Magnet students. In 2014, 43% of grade 8 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Science as compared to 39% of Non-Science Magnet students.

In 2012, 4% of grade 8 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Social Studies as compared to 26% of Non-Science Magnet students. In 2014, 50% of grade 8 Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score in Social Studies as compared to 31% of Non-Science Magnet students.

Grade 8 Science Magnet students have performed better on STAAR Algebra 1 test as compared to Non- Science Magnet students. In 2012, 84% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score as compared to 68% of Non- Science Magnet students. In 2014, 86% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score as compared to 81% of Non- Science Magnet students.

Grade 8 Science Magnet students have performed better on STAAR Biology test as compared to Non- Science Magnet students. In 2012, 72% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score as compared to 62% of Non- Science Magnet students. In 2014, 73% of Science Magnet students earned an Advanced score as compared to 71% of Non- Science Magnet students.

68% 70%81%84%

78%86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Algebra Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science



62%70% 71%72%

92%

73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Comparison of Grade 8 Biology Advanced STAAR Percentages for Science Magnet and Non-




Page | 55


Percentage of Seniors Who Take at Least One Dual Credit Course in High School

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Total Seniors* 2542 2623 2709 2795 2751

Dual Credit Students 531 624 685 561 585

% Dual Credit 20.9% 23.8% 25.3% 20.1% 21.3% Includes CHECHS students who have taken one SJC course *Snapshot seniors

The percentage of seniors who take at least one Dual Credit course while in high school has shown some fluctuations throughout the time frame of this study. It reached a high of 25.3% in 2011-2012 and a low of 20.1% in 2012-2013.


Page | 56

4. What structures are in place to support Advanced Academics and GT students?

A range of support structures are in place for students in Advanced Academics and GT programming:

GT Students The primary support for GT elementary students is the campus-based advanced academics specialist, who has extensive training in social and emotional needs of gifted children. Additional support at the elementary level for GT students includes campus counselors. There are between 17 and 18 elementary GT specialist who support all 26 elementary campuses.

Parents of gifted students have the opportunity to attend parent workshops provided by CCISD counselors. CASE (Communicate Advocate Support Educate) is an independent entity, but students and parents benefit from their support in terms of awareness, education, and financial help. For example, CASE gave $4,000 in scholarships for CCISD teachers to attend the Texas Association of Gifted and Talented conference in 2013, when it was held in Houston.

Pre-Advanced Placement Students As part of the district’s stated and consistent goal of recruitment and retention of student into advanced academics, CCISD offers a Pre-AP Summer Camp. The attendees are invited for a week-long camp designed to motivate and prepare students for their first venture into advanced academics.

The instructors for the Pre-AP summer camp serve as mentors throughout the upcoming school year for these students as well.

WAVE Each WAVE campus has an assigned WAVE liaison, whose sole responsibility is to oversee programming and support gifted students in the magnet.

WAVE summer camp offers targeted students the opportunity for extra academics preparation and motivation with teachers from their respective campuses.

WAVE Basics, a required 6th grade course, provides each incoming WAVE 6th grader with a semester-long preparation for the rigor required in the magnet program. WAVE Basics teachers are highly trained in social and emotional needs of gifted students and serve as a mentor to students throughout their intermediate years.

Advanced Placement Students Each AP teacher designs tutorials and extra support for students as needed, gearing up in the spring as test registration and testing dates loom near.

In April, CCISD sponsors a district-wide AP Saturday camp staffed by district AP teachers. Saturday Camp, offered in multiple subject areas for 3 hour sessions, affords an extra boost in the weeks before AP testing. For test registration, financial aid is available for economically disadvantaged students and students who need assistance with test fees.


Page | 57

5. What processes are in place to ensure equity?

Processes To Ensure Equity Within the Advanced Academics and GT Program

GT CCISD has a focused effort to remedy the underrepresentation of subpopulations in the gifted and talented program. This effort relies on the use of cognitive abilities assessments with non-verbal components, including the Naglieri and the most recent form of the CogAT. Additionally, supplementary support may be needed for continued growth within advanced academics programming.

Pre-AP/AP Based on the Pre-AP/AP program evaluation conducted in August 2011, one of the Superintendent’s recommendations was to develop a plan to increase participation of student groups that are underrepresented in Pre-AP/AP coursework and testing. A committee was formed comprising of intermediate and high school principals, deans, and teachers to define expectations for summer reading. Based on the committee meetings, a survey was sent to students and teachers with one result that the summer reading requirement served as a barrier to the underrepresented student groups. The committee removed the requirement for summer reading from Pre-AP classes. Instead, students can earn extra credit for participating. In addition, students were given more choice in selecting books which appealed to them. This affected students in grades 6-10. Students in AP courses still have required summer reading.

In addition to the removal of summer reading for Pre-AP ELA courses, it is no longer a requirement that students enrolled in Pre-AP science courses have to participate in the Science Fair.

Based on the 2014 College Board report entitled A Right to Rigor: Fulfilling Student Potential provided to Clear Creek ISD, of the graduating class of 2013, 44% of students with potential did not participate in at least one matched AP exam. This data is based on students who took the PSAT exam as sophomores or juniors who showed potential to be enrolled in at least one AP course. The Black and Hispanic student groups had the largest gap with 61% and 53%, respectively, of students who did not take an AP exam and who showed AP potential based on their PSAT score.

Post-Secondary Test Prep Day In an effort to assist all students to be better prepared for taking post-secondary exams (PSAT, SAT, and ACT), CCISD began a Post-Secondary Test Prep Day in conjunction with the administration of College Board National PSAT day. Campuses would administer and score the exams providing student, parents, and teachers with feedback on areas of strengths and weaknesses as student prepare for post-secondary exams.

In 2013, seniors took a practice SAT, juniors who were not taking the NMSQT took a practice ACT, and those freshman not taking the PSAT, took the ACT Plan.

In 2014, campuses were given the option of how they would work with seniors; juniors who were not taking the NMSQT took a practice ACT, and those freshman not taking the PSAT, took a practice PSAT.


Page | 58

6. What is the scope of the professional learning process for Advanced Academics and GT staff?

GT Training The state of Texas requires two levels of gifted and talented training. For initial qualifications, each teacher with gifted students in class must complete 30 hours of foundational training as follows: 6 hours of Identification and Assessment of gifted students, 6 hours of Nature and Needs of gifted students, 6 hours of Creativity, 6 hours of Curriculum design, 6 hours of social and emotional needs for gifted students. Additionally, after initial training, each teacher is required to complete a 6 hour annual GT update. This update requirement can be met in a variety of manners. Advanced academics specialists provide a 6 hour annual update for elementary campuses, and other updates are offered district-wide. Additionally, advanced academics workshops, both inside and outside the district, offer teachers flexibility in meeting this requirement (and can also overlap with Pre-AP and AP training.)

Pre-AP and AP Professional Learning Opportunities Each teacher who is assigned to a Pre-AP and/or AP course is required to have updated training every three years. This training can be conducted by the College Board for AP courses or locally for Pre-AP courses. The length of College Board training may be as long as one week or as short as two days. Clear Creek ISD Pre-AP training is cross-curricular in-district for Pre-AP teachers. In 2014-15, all new Pre-AP English teachers will receive content specific Pre-AP ELA training.

In 2012, about 300 teachers participated in the local Pre-AP workshops in the core content areas. In 2013, about 100 teachers were trained in the local Pre-AP workshops; additionally, all Pre-AP ELA teachers (over 100) attended Springboard training from the College Board presenters. In the summer of 2014, five separate Pre-AP workshops were conducted locally.

CCISD Requirements for AP teachers All Advanced placement teachers must receive updated training every three years in their Advanced Placement coursework area in order to maintain eligibility to teach AP courses. Generally, the preferred training is a week-long College Board Institute, held on various university campuses, such as Rice. Other acceptable trainings include serving as a grader for the AP exam and two day AP workshops.

For accountability purposes, campus principals communicate their AP rosters to the Advanced Academics department which monitors training requirements.

In the summer of 2014, 43 high school teachers attended College Board Institutes for Advanced Placement training. According to a Hanover Research report (2014), teachers who participate in AP Summer Institutes are common among most AP teachers and they find these professional development opportunities beneficial.

As of June 2014, 93% of 109 CCISD AP teachers have attended updated training. As teachers are assigned to teach AP courses, initial AP training is expected to be completed within a year.

CCISD Requirements for Pre-AP teachers All Pre-AP teachers must attend updated training every three years to stay eligible to teach Pre-AP classes. For accountability purposes, campus principals communicate their Pre-AP rosters to the Advanced Academics department which monitors training requirements.

CCISD has offered a general Pre-AP workshop from 2011-2014. This workshop, attended by over 400 teachers, is a general overview of CCISD data, instructional strategies and College Board overview.


Page | 59

6. What is the scope of the professional learning process for Advanced Academics and GT staff?

Additionally, the English/language arts department offered SpringBoard training, presented by College Board trainers, to all Pre-AP English teachers in 2012 and 2013. Over 100 teachers have received this training. In 2014, the English/language arts curriculum department provided Pre-AP English/language arts training for new and current Pre-AP teachers, presented by CCISD AP English teachers.

After 2014, CCISD will expand to include core content Pre-AP training, such as the Pre-AP ELA training, with the goal of enhanced and purposeful vertical teaming in the Pre-AP areas. Hanover Research (2014, p.3) states “by establishing AP Vertical Teams, districts ensure that pre-AP and AP teachers collaborate to create unified course materials that prepare students for subsequent challenges, and, ultimately, for AP courses.”

As of June 2014, 88% of 373 teachers have updated training. As teachers are assigned to teach Pre-AP courses, initial Pre-AP training is expected to be completed within a year.


Page | 60

7. What is the parent/student satisfaction level in the Advanced Academics and GT program?

Elementary GT Parent Survey (N – 104 out of 643 emails, 17.2% response rate)

Grade 4 Grade 5

1. Current grade level 41.3% 58.7%

ABE Bauerschlag Bay Brookwood

2. Campus 5.8% 3.8% 1.9% 11.5%

CLCE FPE Ferguson Gilmore

3.8% 4.8% 4.8% 9.6%

Goforth Greene Hall Hyde

2.9% 1.9% 1.9% 4.8%

Landolt LCE McWhirter Mossman

1.0% 1.0% 2.9% 2.9%

NPE Parr Robinson Ross

3.8% 5.8% 8.7% 2.9%

Stewart Ward Weber Whitcomb

1.9% 3.8% 2.9% 2.9%

White

1.9%

Male Female

3. Gender 51.9% 48.1%

Use the following statement to complete the following questions:

The CCISD elementary GT program provides appropriate and adequate…:

Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean Score

4. communication to parents regarding gifted programming.

2.9% 10.6% 21.2% 48.1% 17.3% 3.66

5. daily classroom instruction for gifted students.

13.5% 26.9% 26.9% 22.1% 13.5% 2.89

6. pull out program for gifted students.

5.8% 5.8% 12.5% 46.2% 29.8% 3.88

7.

unique social and emotional needs of gifted students addressed.

2.9% 11.5% 17.3% 45.2% 23.1% 3.74

8. acceleration opportunities for gifted students.

12.5% 13.5% 27.9% 30.8% 15.4% 3.23

9.

opportunities for gifted students to develop their creativity.

3.8% 14.4% 18.3% 37.5% 26.0% 3.67


Page | 61


Elementary GT Parent Survey

The CCISD elementary GT program provides appropriate and adequate…:

Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean Score

10. research opportunities for gifted students.

1.0% 10.6% 19.2% 44.2% 25.0% 3.82

11.

opportunities for gifted students to pursue individual interests and passions.

4.8% 11.5 19.2% 42.3% 22.1% 3.65

12.

challenging and/or difficult materials and a higher level of thinking for gifted students.

1.9% 12.5% 12.5% 47.1% 26.0% 3.83

13. processes for identification of gifted students.

1.0% 6.7% 16.3% 53.8% 22.1% 3.89

Mean Score 3.63

Current parents of Gifted and Talented students completed a GT parent survey. Questions 5-13 were measured with a Likert scale of 1-5 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree.” For questions 5-13, Likert score were averaged to determine average score per question and the overall score for the survey. In addition, the percentage of parents who selected each score was calculated.

Average Likert scores for question 5-13 ranged from 2.89 to 3.89. The overall average Likert score was 3.63. In general, parents of Gifted and Talented students felt there are good processes for the identification of gifted students, the elementary GT program provides challenging and/or difficult materials and a higher level of thinking for gifted students, and are pleased with the pullout program for elementary GT students.


Page | 62


Advanced Academics Parent Survey (N – 899 out of 12,802 emails, 7.0% response rate)

6th 7th 8th 9th

1. Current grade level 16.5% 14.2% 15.4% 13.6%

10th 11th 12th

14.5% 13.2% 12.7%

Bayside BIS CCIS CLIS

2. Campus 3.3% 1.8% 2.8% 2.4%

CIS LCIS SIS SCIS

2.8% 10.8% 6.6% 2.8%

VLIS WIS CBHS CCHS

4.2% 9.6% 7.1% 6.9%

CFHS CHECHS CLHS CSHS

13.3% 4.4% 12.3% 8.8%

Male Female

3. Gender 45.6% 54.4%

Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean Score

4.

As students progress from grade to grade and campus to campus, they feel prepared and confident that they are ready for the work at the next level.

3.8% 7.3% 10.2% 49.9% 28.7% 3.92

5.

In advanced academics/GT classes, students participate in a variety of activities that engage them in learning.

3.2% 8.3% 14.7% 49.7% 24.0% 3.83

6.

Teachers in advanced academics/GT classes inspire students to learn.

4.2% 10.1% 21.2% 44.9% 19.5% 3.65

7.

Teachers in advanced academics/GT classes are extremely knowledgeable in their subject area.

1.7% 7.2% 20.2% 48.5% 22.4% 3.83


Page | 63


Advanced Academics Parent Survey

Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean Score

8.

Teachers in advanced academics/GT classes understand and address the social and emotional uniqueness of their students.

7.6% 15.1% 32.0% 32.9% 12.3% 3.27

9.

Classwork in advanced academics/GT courses includes challenging and/or difficult materials and higher level thinking.

2.9% 6.6% 12.8% 48.4% 29.4% 3.95

10.

Classwork in advanced academics/GT classes encourages students to use their creativity.

3.0% 12.7% 18.5% 44.5% 21.4% 3.69

11.

Classwork and homework in advanced academics/GT classes help students develop independent research skills.

3.1% 12.5% 15.0% 47.8% 21.6% 3.72

12.

The homework in advanced academics/GT classes is an appropriate and fair workload.

8.1% 19.5% 19.2% 42.8% 10.3% 3.28

13.

The homework in advanced academics/GT classes supports student learning.

4.0% 12.0% 19.4% 50.8% 13.8% 3.58

14.

The homework in advanced academics/GT classes helps prepare students for future learning.

4.2% 10.5% 20.8% 48.4% 16.1% 3.62


Page | 64



Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean Score

15.

The grades in advanced academics/GT classes are a fair representation of student learning.

3.3% 12.6% 19.1% 51.2% 13.8% 3.60

16.

When students struggle in advanced academics, teachers identify the source of those struggles and support extra efforts.

11.2% 20.7% 34.5% 26.1% 7.5% 2.98

17.

I believe that outside support/expenditures may be necessary for success in advanced academics.

3.1% 14.1% 23.0% 40.2% 19.6% 3.59

18.

Students in advanced academics/GT classes take advantage of free resources, such as campus tutoring and study sessions.

2.2% 11.8% 25.5% 45.3% 15.2% 3.60

19.

Faculty and counselors strongly encourage students to enroll and stay enrolled in advanced academics/GT classes.

4.0% 10.1% 25.8% 41.8% 18.2% 3.60

20.

I see a clear connection between advanced academics/GT coursework and college readiness.

3.9% 8.7% 17.7% 38.3% 31.5% 3.85

21.

The GT selection process is fair and in the best interest of the student.

7.7% 15.4% 33.5% 32.4% 11.1% 3.24


Page | 65



Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean Score

22.

The GT selection process is broad enough to capture students with different areas of giftedness.

11.6% 18.9% 34.1% 27.1% 8.2% 3.02

23.

CCISD provides sufficient academic options and resources such as Advanced Placement, dual credit, and career concentrations for college and career transitions.

2.1% 5.0% 14.3% 51.5% 27.0% 3.96

Mean Score 3.59

Current parents of Advanced Academics students completed an Advanced Academics parent survey. Questions 4-23 were measured with a Likert scale of 1-5 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree.” For questions 4-23, Likert score were averaged to determine average score per question and the overall score for the survey. In addition, the percentage of parents who selected each score was calculated.

Of the 899 responses, 26.0% said their student participated in Pre-AP courses; 9.0% participated in Pre-AP courses and AP courses; 5.1% said WAVE; 4.4% stated GT, Pre-AP courses, AP courses, and WAVE; 4.0% stated GT and Pre-AP courses; 3.9% stated GT, Pre-AP courses, and WAVE; 3.4% stated GT, Alpha, Pre-AP courses, AP courses, and WAVE.

Average Likert scores for question 4-23 ranged from 2.98 to 3.96. The overall average Likert score was 3.59. In general, parents of Advanced Academics students felt CCISD provides sufficient academic options and resources such as Advanced Placement, dual credit, and career concentrations for college and career transitions, classwork in advanced academics/GT courses includes challenging and/or difficult materials and higher level thinking, and as students progress from grade to grade and campus to campus, they feel prepared and confident that they are ready for the work at the next level.


Page | 66


Advanced Academic Student Survey (N – 2739 out of 10,633 emails, 25.8% response rate)

6th 7th 8th 9th

1. Current grade level 0.1% 15.9% 26.8% 21.7%

10th 11th 12th

17.3% 9.9% 8.4%

Bayside BIS CCIS CLIS

2. Campus 0.8% 6.2% 1.9% 4.5%

CIS LCIS SIS SCIS

1.7% 10.0% 2.1% 2.2%

VLIS WIS CBHS CCHS

3.2% 10.3% 17.3% 3.3%

CFHS CHECHS CLHS CSHS

9.2% 3.8% 4.8% 18.4%

Male Female

3. Gender 42.5% 57.5%

Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Significant Difference

Mean Score

4.

As I progress from grade to grade and campus to campus, I feel prepared and confident that I am ready for the work at the next level.

1.4% 3.0% 18.6% 51.7% 25.3%

Yes

(GT: 4.07 NonGT: 3.85)

3.97

5.

In advanced academics/GT classes, I participate in a variety of activities that engage me in learning.

1.4% 4.3% 21.3% 49.3% 23.7%

Yes

(GT: 4.04 NonGT: 3.73)

3.90

6. Teachers in advanced academics/GT classes inspire me to learn.

3.4% 6.6% 34.3% 36.8% 18.9% Yes

(GT: 3.71 NonGT: 3.50)

3.61

7.

Teachers in advanced academics/GT classes are extremely knowledgeable in their subject area.

1.4% 3.6% 18.5% 43.4% 33.0% No 4.03

8.

Teachers in advanced academics/GT classes understand and address my social and emotional uniqueness.

7.6% 16.9% 37.3% 27.3% 10.9%

Yes

(GT: 3.27 NonGT: 3.05)

3.17


Page | 67


Advanced Academic Student Survey

Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)


Mean Score

9.

Classwork in advanced academics/GT courses includes challenging and/or difficult materials and higher level thinking.

1.2% 2.7% 10.5% 42.8% 42.9% No 4.24

10.

Classwork in advanced academics/GT classes encourages me to use my creativity.

3.7% 11.1% 26.0% 39.6% 19.6%

Yes

(GT: 3.71 NonGT: 3.49)

3.60

11.

Classwork and homework in advanced academics/GT classes help me to develop independent research skills.

3.0% 8.9% 23.9% 43.6% 20.6%

Yes

(GT: 3.76 NonGT: 3.63)

3.70

12.

The homework in advanced academics/GT classes is an appropriate and fair workload.

15.3% 21.3% 28.7% 25.7% 9.0%

Yes

(GT: 2.86 NonGT: 2.98)

2.92

13. The homework in advanced academics/GT classes supports my learning.

3.0% 7.6% 29.4% 45.7% 14.4% No 3.61

14.

The homework in advanced academics/GT classes helps prepare me for future learning.

3.8% 7.2% 25.6% 42.8% 20.7%

Yes

(GT: 3.76 NonGT: 3.62)

3.69

15.

The grades in advanced academics/GT classes are a fair representation of my learning.

5.1% 11.9% 29.3% 39.5% 14.2% No 3.46

16.

When I struggle in advanced academics, teachers identify the source of those struggles and support extra efforts.

8.8% 18.1% 31.9% 29.5% 11.7% No 3.17

17.

I believe that outside support/expenditures may be necessary for success in advanced academics.

3.2% 9.2% 27.5% 39.8% 20.3% No 3.65


Page | 68


Advanced Academic Student Survey

Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree

(2) Neutral

(3) Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5)


Mean Score

18. I take advantage of free resources, such as campus tutoring and study sessions.

4.1% 12.1% 29.9% 35.5% 18.5%

Yes

(GT: 3.45 NonGT: 3.60)

3.52

19.

Faculty and counselors strongly encourage me to enroll and stay enrolled in advanced academics/GT classes.

3.7% 9.1% 26.0% 36.1% 25.0%

Yes

(GT: 3.80 NonGT: 3.58)

3.70

20.

I see a clear connection between advanced academics/GT coursework and college readiness.

2.7% 7.3% 27.7% 40.6% 21.7%

Yes

(GT: 3.80 NonGT: 3.61)

3.71

21. The GT selection process is fair and in my best interest.

4.7% 6.9% 36.4% 35.6% 16.5%

Yes

(GT: 3.75 NonGT: 3.27)

3.52

22. The GT selection process is broad enough to capture my different areas of giftedness.

4.2% 9.6% 36.1% 35.0% 15.0%

Yes

(GT: 3.65 NonGT: 3.27)

3.47

23.

CCISD provides sufficient academic options and resources such as Advanced Placement, dual credit, and career concentrations for college and career transitions.

2.0% 2.0% 19.4% 49.2% 27.4% No 3.98

Mean Score 3.63

Current Advanced Academic students completed an Advanced Academic student survey. Questions 4-23 were measured with a Likert scale of 1-5 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree.” For questions 4-23, Likert score were averaged to determine average score per question and the overall score for the survey. In addition, the percentage of parents who selected each score was calculated.

When asked which programs the student has participated in, 27.1% stated Pre-AP courses; 11.5% said Pre-AP and AP courses; 10.4% said GT and Pre-AP courses; 9.2% participated in GT, Pre-AP courses, Alpha, AP courses, and WAVE.


Page | 69


Average Likert scores for question 4-23 ranged from 2.92 to 4.24. The overall average Likert score was 3.63. In general, Advanced Academic students feel they are prepared and confident that they are ready for the work at the next level as they progress from grade to grade and campus to campus, classwork in advanced academics/GT courses includes challenging and/or difficult materials and higher level thinking, and they participate in a variety of activities that engage them in learning in advanced academics/GT classes.

Using an ANOVA statistical analysis between students who have/had participated in the GT program versus students who had not been in the GT program, there was a significant difference in 13 of the 20 Likert Scale question between the two groups. On 19 of the 20 questions, GT students had higher Likert scores. The one exception was question 18 where non-GT students stated they took advantage of the free resources.

24. Why did you choose to enroll in Advanced Academics course?

Challenge and rigor of the course(s)

Preparation for college (college readiness)

Opportunity to increase GPA

25. What aspects of Advanced Academics do you like best? Briefly explain your response.

Opportunity to learn more

Different courses/classes

Projects

The teachers (they are engaging, they care, they offer assistance)

26. What aspects of Advanced Academics do you like to see improved? Briefly explain your response.

The amount of homework

The teachers (they assign busy work, they are not engaging, they care more about performance than their students)

The heavy workload

An informal survey was conducted with Advanced Academics focus groups in 2013 on the five comprehensive high school campuses comprised of seven or eight students from each campus. Highlights from the informal sessions are:

WAVE offered creativity and self-expression in a way that high school does not;

Extracurricular activities offer leadership development;

There is rigor in AP courses, particularly science; and

The teachers make the biggest difference in whether students are engaged in the course.


Page | 70


Annual Advanced Academics and GT Expenditures

Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

N 19,288 20,465 21,135 22,709 23,442

Total Salaries $1,315,770 $1,329,051 $1,311,697 $1,269,527 $1,275,734

GT Supplies, Travel, Training, etc

$156,149 $141,632 $110,131 $128,389 $129,763

AP Supplies, Travel, Training, etc

$30,136 $26,138 $33,695 $15,727 $20,926

District Expenditures $1,502,055 $1,496,822 $1,455,524 $1,413,644 $1,426,422

District Cost Per Student

$78 $73 $69 $62 $61

AP Incentive $84,208 $48,481 $28,417 $1,105 $733

Total Expenditures $1,586,262 $1,545,303 $1,483,940 $1,414,749 $1,427,155

Cost Per Student $82 $76 $70 $62 $61 Financial data provided by CCISD Finance Department Salaries include Campus GT Specialists, WAVE Liaisons, GT Director and supporting staff

Based on data provided by CCISD’s Finance Department, the average cost to CCISD per student for participation in Advanced Academics and GT has ranged from $61 per student to $78 per student during the five year period of this study. Advanced Academics and GT expenditures include salaries for campus and district staff, supplies, and travel. When AP Incentive funds are included, the average cost per student for participation in Advanced Academics and GT ranged from $61 to $82 per student during the five year period of this study.

Not included in the Advanced Academics and GT expenditures are transportation costs for students for WAVE, Science Magnet, or Dual Credit courses. Transportation is provided to WAVE, Science Magnet, and Dual Credit students from their home campus to either Westbrook, League City, or Seabrook Intermediate Campuses. Dual Credit students are provided transportation from their home campus to San Jacinto or College of the Mainland.


Page | 71

Superintendent’s Recommendations

1. We will enhance identification processes of Gifted & Talented students by August 2019.

2. We will increase the number of Advanced Academics students so that program enrollment is

more closely representative of the student population by August 2019.

3. We will increase the number of items, as appropriate, in the Recommended and Exemplary

standards of the Gifted & Talented State Plan by August 2016.


Page | 72

Acronyms

ACT – American College Test

AP – Advanced Placement

Alpha – a CCISD GT program for students in grades 4-5

CASE – (Communicate, Advocate, Support, Educate) an organization for parents and guardians of GT students

CHECHS – Clear Horizons Early College High School

ELL – English Language Learner

GT – Gifted and Talented

ISM – Independent Study Mentorship

Pre-AP or PAP – CCISD Pre Advanced Placement course

Omega – A CCISD program for GT and Pre-AP students in grades 6-8

SAT – Scholastic Assessment Test

Science Magnet – CCISD Science program for students in grades 6-8

WAVE - Webster Academy – Visions in Education, a CCISD program for GT students in grades 6-8


Page | 73

References

Eide, B., Eide, F. (2007). The mislabeled child: Looking beyond behavior to find the true sources and solutions for children’s learning challenges. New York, NY: Hyperion Press.

Hanover Research (2012). Improving AP student performance, 1-25. Retrieved from

www.hanoverresearch.com Hanover Research (2014). Best Practice for AP Programs, 1-26. . Retrieved from

www.hanoverresearch.com National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the

paradigm. Retrieved from www.nagc.org. National Education Association. (2006). The twice-exceptional dilemma. Retrieved from www.nea.org. Texas state plan for the education of Gifted/talented students (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6420

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/

http://www.nagc.org/

http://www.nea.org/

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6420

TEXAS S TATE P LAN FOR THE EDUC ATION

OF GIFTED/TALENTED S TUDENTS

SECTION 1 STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Assessment instruments and gifted/talented identification procedures provide students an opportunity to demonstrate their diverse talents and abilities.

IN COMPLIANCE RECOMMENDED EXEMPLARY

1.1C

Written policies on student identification for gifted/talented services are approved by the district board of trustees and disseminated to all parents (19 TAC §89.1).

1.1.1R

Nomination/referral procedures for assessment of gifted/talented students are communicated to families in a language and form that the families understand or a translator or interpreter is provided.

1.1.2R

Nomination/referral forms for assessment of gifted/talented students are provided to families in a language and form that the families understand, or a translator or interpreter is provided.

1.1.3R

Families and staff are informed of student assessment results and placement decisions as well as given opportunities to schedule conferences to discuss assessment data.

1.1.1E

Board-approved policies are reviewed at least once every three years and modified as needed.

1.1.2E

An awareness session providing an overview of the assessment procedures and services for gifted/talented students is offered for families by the district and/or campus prior to the nomination/referral period.

1.1.3E

All family meetings are offered in a language families can understand or a translator or interpreter is provided.

1.2C

Provisions regarding transfer students, furloughs, reassessment, exiting of students from program services, and appeals of district decisions regarding program placement are included in board-approved policy (19 TAC §89.1(5)).

1.2.1R

Policy ensuring that transfer students are properly assessed and appropriately placed within six weeks of enrollment in the district is included in board-approved policy. Transfers from campus to campus within the district are also addressed in board-approved policy.

1.2E

Equitable access to gifted/talented services for transfer students is provided through board-approved policy that is developed in consideration of current best- practice recommendations.

The board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school has primary responsibility for ensuring that the district or school complies with all applicable requirements of state

educational programs (TEC §7.028).

SECTION 1 (continued) STUDENT ASSESSMENT





1.2.2R

When a gifted/talented student transfers to another district either in or out of Texas, that district is provided with the student’s assessment data by the sending district.

1.2.3R

Policy is adopted allowing student furlough (the opportunity for students to have a leave of absence from gifted/talented program services) for specified reasons and for a certain period of time without being exited.

1.2.4R

Policy related to reassessment of gifted/talented students is based on performance in response to gifted/talented services and if reassessment occurs at all, it is no more than once in elementary grades, once in middle school grades, and once in high school.

1.2.5R

Policy related to exiting of students from gifted/talented services is based on multiple criteria including student performance in response to services. Exiting of a student is finalized by committee decision after consultation with parents and student regarding the student’s educational needs.






1.2.6R

Policy related to appeals allows parents, students, and educators to appeal assessment decisions in a timely manner and to present new data, if appropriate.

1.3.1C

Provisions for ongoing identification of students who perform or show potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment in each area of giftedness served by the district are included in board- approved policy (19 TAC §89.1(1)).

1.3.2C

Assessment opportunities for gifted/talented identification are made available to students at least once per school year.

1.3R

Assessment opportunities for gifted/talented identification are made available to students at least once a year at the elementary grades and once a semester at the secondary level.

1.3E

The identification process for gifted/talented services is ongoing, and assessment of students occurs at any time the need arises.

1.4C

Students in grades K-12 shall be assessed and, if identified, provided gifted/talented services (TEC §29.122 and 19 TAC §89.1(3)).

1.4E

Students in grades K-12 are assessed and served in all areas of giftedness included in TEC §29.121.

1.5.1C

Data collected from multiple sources for each area of giftedness served by the district are included in the assessment process for gifted/talented services (19 TAC §89.1(2)).

1.5.1R

Based on a review of information gathered during the assessment process, students whose data reflect that gifted/talented services will be the most effective way to meet their identified educational needs are recommended by the selection committee for gifted/talented services.






1.5.2C

Students are assessed in languages they understand or with nonverbal assessments.

1.5.3C

At the kindergarten level, as many criteria as possible, and at least three (3), are used to assess students who perform at remarkably high levels of accomplishment relative to age peers.

1.5.4C

In grades 1 – 12, qualitative and quantitative data are collected through three (3) or more measures and used to determine whether or not a student needs gifted/talented services.

1.5.5C

If services are available in leadership, artistic areas, and creativity, a minimum of three (3) criteria are used for assessment.

1.5.2R

All kindergarten students are automatically considered for gifted/talented and other advanced level services.

1.6C

Access to assessment and, if needed, gifted/talented services is available to all populations of the district (19 TAC §89.1(3)).

1.6R

Over the past two (2) years, the population of the gifted/talented services program has become more closely reflective of the population of the total district.

1.6E

The population of the total district is reflected in the population of the gifted/talented services program or has been for two (2) of the past three (3) years.






1.7C

Final determination of students’ need for gifted/talented services is made by a committee of at least three (3) local district or campus educators who have received training in the nature and needs of gifted/talented students and who have met and reviewed the individual student data (19 TAC §89.1(4)).

1.7.1R

The selection committee is formed of a majority of members who have completed thirty (30) hours of training as delineated in 19 TAC §89.2(1).

1.7.2R

A balanced examination of all assessment data collected through the district’s gifted/talented assessment process is conducted and used by the selection committee in making identification decisions.

1.7.1E

The selection committee is formed of a majority of members who have completed thirty (30) hours of training and are current with the six-hour training update as required by 19 TAC §89.2(2).

1.7.2E

Additional data beyond that collected through the district's standard gifted/talented assessment process are considered, as needed, by the selection committee in making identification decisions in order to make the most appropriate placement.

SECTION 2 SERVICE DESIGN

A flexible system of viable service options provides a research-based learning continuum that is developed and consistently implemented throughout the district to meet the needs and reinforce the

strengths and interests of gifted/talented students.




2.1C

Identified gifted/talented students are assured an array of learning opportunities that are commensurate with their abilities and that emphasize content in the four (4) foundation curricular areas. Services are available during the school day as well as the entire school year. Parents are informed of these options (19 TAC §89.3(3)).

2.1.1R

Information concerning special opportunities (contests, academic recognition, summer camps, community programs, volunteer opportunities, etc.) is available and disseminated to parents and community members.

2.1.2R

Specialists and advocates for gifted/talented students are consulted in the development of program policies and options.

2.1E

Services for gifted/talented students are comprehensive, structured, sequenced, and appropriately challenging, including options in the four (4) foundation curricular areas, arts, leadership, and creativity.

2.2C

Gifted/talented students are ensured opportunities to work together as a group, work with other students, and work independently during the school day as well as the entire school year as a direct result of gifted/talented service options (19 TAC §89.3(1)).

2.2R

Flexible grouping patterns and independent investigations are employed in the four (4) foundation curricular areas.

2.3C

Out-of-school options relevant to the students’ areas of strength are provided by school districts whenever possible (19 TAC §89.3(3)).

2.3R

Options that meet the needs of gifted/talented students are available on a continuous basis outside the regular school day.



SECTION 2 (continued) SERVICE DESIGN




2.4C

Local board policies are developed that are consistent with State Board of Education rules on credit by examination (19 TAC §74.24) and early high school graduation opportunities (TEC §56.203).

2.4.1R

Flexible pacing is employed, allowing students to learn at the pace and level appropriate for their abilities and skills.

2.4.2R

Local board policies are developed that enable students to participate in dual/concurrent enrollment, correspondence courses, distance learning opportunities, accelerated summer programs, and/or the Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP).

2.4E

Acceleration options are actively facilitated by district administrators, counselors, and teachers.

2.5C

No more than 45% of state funds allocated for gifted/talented education is spent on indirect costs as defined in the Financial Accounting and Reporting Module (Financial Accountability Resource Guide). At least 55% of the funds allocated to gifted/talented education is spent on assessment and services for gifted students (19 TAC §105.11).

2.5R

Local funding for gifted/talented education programs is used to supplement the state funding.

2.5E

Additional funding from business partnerships, scholarships, parent group fundraisers, etc. is used to supplement the state and local funding.

2.6C

Student assessment and services are in compliance with the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students (19 TAC §89.5).

2.6.1R

Annual evaluation activities are conducted for the purpose of continued service development.

2.6E

Ongoing formative and summative evaluation strategies, based on quantitative and qualitative data, are reviewed by the school board and used for substantive program improvement and development.

SECTION 2 (continued) SERVICE DESIGN






2.6.2R

Long-range evaluation of services is based on evidence obtained through gifted/talented- appropriate performance measures such as those provided through the Texas Performance Standards Project (TPSP).

2.6.3R

Gifted/talented education policies and procedures are reviewed and recommendations for improvement are made by an advisory group of community members, parents of gifted/talented students, school staff, and gifted/talented education staff which meets regularly for that purpose.

2.7R

A person who has thirty (30) hours of professional development in gifted/talented education as required in 19 TAC §89.2(1) is assigned to coordinate district level services for gifted/talented students in grades K - 12.

2.7E

A person or persons with a gifted/talented endorsement, supplementary certification, or advanced degree in gifted/talented education are assigned to coordinate the district’s K-12 gifted/talented education services.



SECTION 3 CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Districts meet the needs of gifted/talented students by modifying the depth, complexity, and pacing of the curriculum and instruction ordinarily provided by the school.

IN COMPLIANCE

RECOMMENDED

EXEMPLARY

3.1C

An array of appropriately challenging learning experiences in each of the four (4) foundation curricular areas is provided for gifted/talented students in grades K-12, and parents are informed of the opportunities (19 TAC §89.3).

3.1.1R

Opportunities are provided for students to pursue areas of interest in selected disciplines through guided and independent research.

3.1.2R

A comprehensive manual or program guide is provided describing all programs and services for gifted/talented students in grades K-12.

3.1.3R

Opportunities are provided for career and leadership assessment and training in areas of student strength.

3.1E

Curriculum options in intellectual, creative and/or artistic areas; leadership; and specific academic fields are provided for gifted/talented students.

3.2C

A continuum of learning experiences is provided that leads to the development of advanced- level products and/or performances such as those provided through the Texas Performance Standards Project (TPSP) (19 TAC §89.3(2)).

3.2R

Participation in the Texas Performance Standards Project (TPSP), or other experiences that result in the development of sophisticated products and/or performances that are targeted to an audience outside the classroom, is available through gifted/talented curricula.

3.2E

The opportunity for students who have been served in a gifted program for one or more years to develop sophisticated products and/or performances assessed by external evaluators who are knowledgeable in the field that is the focus of the product is available through gifted/talented curricula.

3.3C

Opportunities are provided to accelerate in areas of student strengths (19 TAC §89.3(4)).

3.3R

Flexible pacing is employed, allowing students to learn at the pace and level appropriate to their abilities and skills.

3.3E

Scheduling modifications are implemented in order to meet the needs of individual students.

SECTION 3 (continued) CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Districts meet the needs of gifted/talented students by modifying the depth, complexity, and pacing of the curriculum and instruction ordinarily provided by the school.




3.4C

Provisions to improve services to gifted/talented students are included in district and campus improvement plans (TEC §§11.251-11.253).

3.4.1R

Curriculum for gifted/talented students is modified based on annual evaluations.

3.4.2R

Resources and release time for staff are provided for curriculum development for gifted/talented services.

3.4.3R

District guidelines for evaluation of resources used to serve gifted/talented students are established and used in selecting materials that are appropriate for differentiated learning.

3.4.1E

Gifted/talented curriculum is designed and evaluated through collaboration by specialists in content areas, instructional techniques, and gifted/talented education.

3.4.2E

The development and delivery of curriculum for gifted/talented students is monitored regularly by trained administrators.

3.5R

Release time and/or extended contracts are provided to enable teachers at all levels to form vertical teams that coordinate gifted/talented services in the district.

3.6R

Student progress/performance in response to gifted/talented services is periodically assessed and results are communicated to parents or guardians.

3.6E

Student progress/performance in response to gifted/talented services is periodically assessed using standards developed by experts in the areas served. Results are communicated to parents or guardians.



SECTION 4 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

All personnel involved in the planning, creation, and delivery of services to gifted/talented students possess the knowledge required to develop and provide appropriate options and differentiated

curricula.


4.1.1C

A minimum of thirty (30) clock hours of professional development that includes nature and needs of gifted/talented students, identification and assessment of gifted/talented students’ needs, and curriculum and instruction for gifted/talented students is required for teachers who provide instruction and services that are a part of the district’s defined gifted/talented services. Teachers are required to have completed the thirty (30) hours of professional development prior to their assignment to the district’s gifted/talented services (19 TAC §89.2(1)).

4.1.2C

Teachers without required training who are assigned to provide instruction and services that are part of the district’s defined gifted/talented services are required to complete the thirty (30) hour training within one semester (19 TAC §89.2(2)).

4.1.1R

Teachers are encouraged to pursue advanced degrees or obtain additional professional development in their teaching discipline and/or in gifted/talented education.

4.1.2R

Release time is provided for teachers and administrators to visit campuses or districts that have model services for gifted/talented students.

4.1.3R

A written plan for professional development in the area of gifted/talented education that is based on identified needs is implemented and updated annually.

4.1E

District support in the form of release time or tuition assistance is available for graduate studies in gifted/talented education for teachers who provide services to gifted/talented students.



SECTION 4 (continued) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT


curricula.


4.2C

Teachers who provide instruction and services that are a part of the district’s defined gifted/talented services receive a minimum of six (6) hours annually of professional development in gifted/talented education that is related to state teacher education standards (19 TAC §89.2(3) and TAC §233.1).

4.2.1R

All staff receive an orientation to the district’s gifted/talented identification processes and gifted/talented services provided by the district or campus, along with training on the nature and needs of the gifted/talented.

4.2.2R

Annually, each teacher new to the district receives an orientation to the district’s gifted/talented identification processes and the district’s services for gifted/talented students.

4.2E

Mentors and others who offer specialized instruction for gifted/talented students are provided training to increase their understanding of the nature and needs of these students and the district goals for the students, including the state goal for gifted/talented students.

4.3C

Administrators and counselors who have authority for service decisions are required to complete a minimum of six (6) hours of professional development that includes nature and needs of gifted/talented students and service options for gifted/talented students (19 TAC §89.2(4)).

4.3R

Local district boards of trustees are encouraged to pursue professional development on the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students.

4.3E

Administrators and counselors who have authority for gifted/talented service decisions receive a minimum of six (6) hours annually of professional development in gifted/talented education.

4.4C

Evaluation of professional development activities for gifted/talented education is ongoing and related to state teacher education standards, and the results of the evaluation are used in making decisions regarding future staff development plans (19 TAC §89.5 and TAC §233.1).

4.4R

Opportunities for professional development in the area of gifted/talented education are provided on a regular basis, and information on them is disseminated to professionals in the district.

4.4.1E

A long-range plan for professional development that culminates in graduate studies in gifted/talented education, supplemental gifted/talented certification, and/or advanced degrees in gifted/talented education and/or their teaching discipline is pursued by a majority of the teachers who provide advanced-level and/or gifted/talented services.



SECTION 4 (continued) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT


curricula.


4.4.2E

Gifted/talented services staff are involved in planning and conducting the district’s gifted/talented training.



SECTION 5 FAMILY/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The district involves family and community members in services designed for gifted/talented students throughout the school year.


5.1C

Written policies are developed on gifted/talented student identification, approved by the local board of trustees and disseminated to parents (19 TAC §89.1).

5.1.1R

Input from family and community representatives on gifted/talented identification and assessment procedures is invited annually.

5.1.2R

Information is shared or meetings are held annually requesting parent and community recommendations regarding students who may need gifted/talented services.

5.1.1E

Information is shared and meetings are held annually requesting parent and community recommendations regarding students who may need gifted/talented services.

5.1.2E

The opportunity to participate in a parent association for the gifted/talented is provided to parents.

5.2C

An array of learning opportunities is provided for gifted/talented students in grades K - 12, and parents are informed of all gifted/talented services and opportunities (19 TAC §89.3).

5.2.1R

Orientation and periodic updates are provided for parents of students identified for and provided gifted/talented services.

5.2.2R

Support and assistance is provided to the district in gifted/talented service planning and improvement by a parent/community advisory committee.

5.2.3R

Products and achievements of gifted/talented students are shared with the community.

5.2.1E

Community volunteers are organized and provided an orientation about working with gifted/talented students.

5.2.2E

Liaisons with business and community organizations are established, and the use of community resources (retired community members, foundations, universities, etc.) is evident in the service options available for gifted/talented students.

5.2.3E

Professional development opportunities are offered by the gifted/talented coordinator in collaboration with the parent advisory committee to staff, parents, and community members.



SECTION 5 (continued) FAMILY/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The district involves family and community members in services designed for gifted/talented students throughout the school year.


5.2.4R

Presentations are given to community groups and organizations to solicit their involvement in services for gifted/talented students.

5.2.5R

A data bank of community resources is compiled for use by gifted/talented students, their teachers, and their parents.

5.2.4E

Support for mentorship and independent study programs in the district is solicited by the parent/community advisory committee.

5.3C

The effectiveness of gifted/talented services is evaluated annually, and the data is used to modify and update district and campus improvement plans. Parents are included in the evaluation process (TEC §§11.251-11.253).

Clear Creek Independent School District Mission Statement The mission of the Clear Creek Independent School District, a diverse community unified by a spirit of exploration and

excellence, is to develop students who will lead the way to the future by educating and equipping them with the skills necessary to excel in the 21st century through a system characterized by meaningful community relationships and a comprehensive

curriculum facilitated by a highly qualified team committed to Courage, Collaboration, Innovation, and Self-Direction.

2425 East Main Street League City, Texas 77573

(281) 284-0000 www.ccisd.net

Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented Program Evaluation · program evaluation for the Advanced...

Documents

Transcript of Advanced Academics and Gifted & Talented Program Evaluation · program evaluation for the Advanced...