Chapter 16 Roundtable Discussion Notes
October 3, 2018
30+ people in attendance (27 speakers, 16 observers, 6 State Committee Members)
6 State Reps – James Agras (State Board of Higher Ed), Kirk Hallett (Harrisburg non-profit for at-risk students), Maureen Lally-Green (Committee Chair), Carol Aichele (member, PA State Board of Ed, from Chester County, Secretary of State under Corbett), Karen Molchanow (State Board of Education), Karen Farmer White (Chair of State Board of Ed)
- The roundtable happens every 4 years, to review regulations.
- The goal is how the Commonwealth will maintain the obligations of gifted students, already identified and not yet identified.
- They are reviewing evaluation, elements of a GIEP, criteria for educational placement, due process procedures.
- State board is not proposing any changes at this point. Only fact-finding how our regulations impact gifted in the state; their opinion will be formed by those who are responsible for delivering services.
- This is the 1st of 3 roundtables.
- Each roundtable site quickly met capacity.
- Will accept letters with comments. They will provide what happened to PDE.
- They will provide feedback and answer questions if they can
Below is a brief list of topics covered at the 10/3/18 Meeting.
- There is no follow thru from the state after a monitoring. How does the state plan to follow up to progress monitoring?
- Caseload is too high for gifted teachers and they can’t deliver quality for their students.
- Professional Development needs to be required within the first 5 years for new teachers or teachers new to Gifted.
- Teachers and Admins are not trained to work with our gifted students. When administrators don’t know requirements, they cannot enforce it.
- Identification needs to be unified across the commonwealth.
- Every district should have a policy on acceleration, including a policy on the early entrance to kindergarten.
- Needs to be consistent testing and interpretation across the state.
- Universal Screening needs to happen statewide.
- There is no oversight from the state. If a school doesn’t do what they are supposed to, what are the repercussions?
- GIEPs don’t address the social/emotional needs of gifted learners. GIEP’s are strength based, so it doesn’t help kids with social issues.
- Lack of funding causes Gifted Education to be the lowest priority for the school districts.
- Push-in vs. Pull-out Method, which is the best and what does the state recommend?
- Teachers with no gifted experience are being put into gifted positions and not given any instruction.
- Request to use the same language in Chapter 16 that NAGC uses.
- Questions about the Identification Process.
- The matrix is made by each district, so if a district doesn’t want more gifted children, they can make their matrix more difficult. This needs to be the same across the state in all districts.
- Monitoring needs to be more serious with action steps required and follow up on those action steps.
- Caseload Managers should be in place for districts that have many identified students.