Hetero vs Homogeneous Grouping

My grad class small group decided on a philosophy for our heterogenous vs homogenous grouping conversation.  

Pretty interesting seeing how all of the strategies and factors that work for gifted can basically be applied to all students to help them achieve.  Why can't we all be considered "gifted" or at least an individual when it comes to learning and then we do what's best for everyone.....  I understand yes there are some exceptionally gifted students, but they too just need individualized instruction.  

Anyway, I put away the soapbox......  here's our philosophy:

Philosophy:   Our goal is to meet the needs of every child.  All students benefit from a combination of grouping.  Homogenous grouping is best used for achievement and providing appropriately challenging material through flexible cluster groups that are re-organized at least every year. Organization of groups should take into account test scores, observational notes, student ability, student interest and pace of learning and strive to engage and challenge every student.  These groups should remain flexible, small and organized and meet for most, not all, of the day with an instructor that can meet the needs of individual students.  Groups should also have the opportunity to collaborate on larger projects and ideas.

Heterogenous grouping is beneficial for social and emotional growth; however, it can have a negative effect on academics and student motivation. 

Fake food vs. Real food with Sharpie Detail

Currently my students are working on a Pop Art artwork and we have incorporated the Real food vs. Fake food debate.  Of course, my kiddos are all about the skittles, but I enjoy hearing they *know* the apple is better (frowny face) but they still desire the skittles.  I can see a Health Class collab or even a Science collab with this kind of artwork.  A friend of mine was telling me about an article where they actually mashed up skittles and literally extracted plastic components.  How cool would that be if students did the Pop Art in art class, discussed the chemical reactions in health and science regarding these foods in the body and then extracted plastic from Skittles in Science!

I also like to show others the difference a little touch up can make in a simple artwork.  Below is one of my examples:

Skittles before sharpie

Skittles after sharpie

I know the difference is subtle in the pictures, but when you are in front of it, you can really tell a difference between the two, regarding which one looks finished.  I always encourage students to put the quality finishing touches on their artwork.

Teacher Models

My students always respect the fact that I do the assignments before them and with them.  They need to see a finished product to get a good idea of what I (the teacher) is asking of them.  They also appreciate the fact that I'm not just telling them what to do and then chillin'.  It helps me too because I can tell whether the material and medium is the right choice and I can chunk steps together for appropriate stop and checks and determine lesson length.

Evaluating GATE Programs

Three reasons to evaluate a program:

Evaluations should focus on providing data on the student’s strengths and weaknesses, supporting the development of student’s skills and promoting exploration and the excitement of learning.  Early in the school year, program standards and evaluation components should be aligned with clear objectives, program goals and overview.  Assessments should also be aligned early in the school year to validate and test the reliability of the program and specific components.  Components should be clearly identified and analyzed regularly throughout the year to measure effectiveness using multiple ways to measure.  Evaluation measures must have rubrics and smart goals.  More than student achievement, pertaining to grades, should be analyzed so that a one-test-fits-all mentality is not implemented during evaluation.  

One reason to evaluate a program is to collect data and information on what is working.  What methods or curriculum structures and strategies are successful.  Another reason for program evaluation is to collect data and information on what is not working, or needs improvement (Coleman).  There are multiple ways to collect this data and information.  A formative evaluation could include teachers, parents, and student surveys showing a reflection and improvement throughout the year.  Formative evaluation components must be done periodically and from day one so that it becomes common practice.  Evaluations, specifically student self-evaluations, can start the student on guiding their own learning experience, provide individual support and also take away social and grading anxiety.  This allows for better tracking of individual student growth regarding the child’s development and achievement.

Additional components that should be evaluated within a program include (Clark):

■ the philosophy, goals, and standards;

■ the procedures for identification;

■ the structure and range of options for delivering the services;

■ the models and curricular modifications being used and their implementation;

■ the resources available;

■ the amount of time that the students have differentiated services;

■ the effectiveness of the personnel; and

■ the involvement of the parents and the community.

A third reason to evaluate a program is the summative evaluation based on the data and information collected and then reflecting on the positive, what needs improvement, making a plan for this identified improvements and then sharing that information with the public, parents and community.  

In sum, a program evaluation is beneficial in order to determine what is working, what is not working and then to make a plan for improvement.

References

Clark, Barbara (2014-04-10). Growing Up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at School and at Home (8th Edition) (Page 376). Pearson. Kindle Edition.

Coleman, L., & Cross, T. (2005). Administrative Arrangements, Program Prototypes, and the Teacher. In Being Gifted in School (2nd ed., pp. 286-288). Waco: Prufrock Press.

Pre-determined steps of a GATE Program

Barbara Clark lists seven steps that are important when setting up a program of services for gifted learners.  These steps can be found in documents and standards from the National level, the State level and the District level.  These steps are introduced in a broad sense at the National level, become more defined at the State level regarding what the District will do, and eventually set to specific criteria within the District level.  Before categorizing which steps are pre-determined at the State versus District level, one must organize the common thread between National, State and District standards and determine which is predominantly defined.  

While many of the National standards, according to NAGC, discuss all six relevant steps, the criteria, specifics and definitions are very vague and left to State and District interpretation.  (I mention six instead of seven because item seven calls for standards for the program which are completed if the other six are followed, collectively decided upon and program goals are identified and measurable.) For example, in regards to the Identification Process and Categories Served, NAGC Standards criteria include “ongoing procedures, multiple assessments, non-biased and policies for equity” (NAGC).  Seems broad enough for State and District to have the freedom to select what is best for their population and meet these standards.  The State takes it a step further and reports “A district shall adopt policies and procedures…informal selection for Primary Talent Pool…formal identification for grades four through 12…based on individual needs, interests and abilities…combination of measures…continuous assessment”  (704 KAR).  The District then clarifies specifics including minimum of three evidence of assessments/supporting documentation, reviewed by a selected committee and specific ability measures with percentiles.  This trickle down effect of broad goals, to some policy specifics to detailed specifics are seen in four out the six steps identified by Clark.  

The least defined step from National standards and trickling downward is the plan for parent and community involvement.  The guidelines for this standard seem to be lost in translation or accountability, either due to lack of involvement or lack of ownership between the State and/or District.  Specifics within State and District documentation regarding parent and community involvement extend to parent/guardian permissions, questionnaires, and information regarding a child’s GSSP throughout the school year.  Community involvement only includes a definition of “Mentorship” and connecting the gifted child with a community member in order to extend learning opportunities for enrichment  (704 KAR).

In many sections, State documents say that “A local school District will….” and then provide not vague but not defined specifics.  

The only step defined by Clark that is more detailed and defined by the state than the district is the evaluation plan and process.  The state has pre-determined the components of the evaluation plan that must be annually submitted by the district, must then be reflected upon and applied to future planning as well as communicated home to parent/guardian(s) regarding it’s application and success to the child’s GSSP once per semester.  

In researching the steps defined by Clark, the District has the most freedom for detailed plans and program development.  The guidelines and criterion for resources, identification, curriculum models and staffing and support services are so universal that as long as the District abides by the policy and procedures set forth by the State and the broad goals set forth by the NAGC, they are liberated to conduct as they see fit.  This is consistent with her standards overview stating “these standards can be used as guides for district and school programs” (Clark, 2014).  

References

704 KAR 3:285. Programs for the gifted and talented. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2014.   

In text reference: (704 KAR)

National Association for Gifted Children. 2010 Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards.    In text reference: (NAGC)

Retrieved August 31, 2014.  http://www.nagc.org.442elmp01.blackmesh.com/sites/default/files/standards/K-12%20programming%20standards.pdf

Clark, Barbara (2014-04-10). Growing Up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at School and at Home (8th Edition) (Page 349). Pearson. Kindle Edition. 

New NCAS Standards Packet

My principal asked me to create a "packet" for an AH credit.  Basically, a checklist of what a student needed to complete in order to receive an AH credit.  So, I reviewed the National Core Art Standards and came up with the basic criteria.  As an artist, the standards fit really well into what is expected of  you in College courses and your basic "best practices" as an artist.  That's also what I kept in mind when constructing this packet checklist.  So here it is.....

page 1

This at least gives you an idea.....

With these standards in mind, you basically have 2 artworks, 1 research paper and 1 whole class activity to determine evaluation criteria.  The 2 artworks select from subject matter (a) social, cultural, political issue and (b) an extension of subject matter in another discipline.

The steps you take in order to create an artwork match the new standards, but also are exactly what you would be doing in a college class.  You sketch to generate ideas, you conduct an artistic investigation of subject matter, inspiration and media, you make an artwork, you clean up and respect the materials and environment, you have a mid crit with a peer/mentor, and you write an artist statement.  The research paper includes the responding to and connecting with an art exhibition criteria.  You do this process twice with different subject matter, and you have completed your HS credit for AH.  

So far, it's super easy to manage, students can work at their own pace, you can scaffold the student at whatever level they are on and students feel respected b/c you aren't talking at them, you are talking with them regarding something that they want to make.  So far, it works.  Of course this is for high school or independent study/individualized programs.  Elementary and Middle are a little more defined (especially in the current standards) but can also be detailed to the point where classes can pick an issue and a media they want to pursue, then you support them in their development and curiosity.  Something that also killed me in an art class was the teacher picks one media, one picture to make and then the students have to copy you.  That's not critical thinking, that's not 21st century, that's producing little robots.  And being an artist, is NOT being a robot!  We behead, paint the robot and then write an artist statement stating it's in the name Economic Crisis!